[rescue] SGI Challenge L systems available in Denver

[Charles Shannon Hendrix]

Mon, 20 Sep 2004 @ 13:07 -0400, velociraptor said:

> On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 12:19:00 -0400, Charles Shannon Hendrix
> <shannon at widomaker.com> wrote:
> > Fri, 17 Sep 2004 @ 10:39 -0400, velociraptor said:
> > 
> > > There getting quite popular on motorcycles which generally
> > > have issues with their electrical systems and the load placed
> > > upon them.  Having white LED "headlight" arrays for a
> > > reasonable cost would be very helpful.
> > 
> > LED lights don't have enough penetration to be used as headlines.
> > 
> > Even with focusing lenses, they still don't really do the job that an
> > incandescent does.
> > 
> > Of course, LEDs are improving continuously.
> 
> I would disagree--you could build excellent LED headlights which would
> produce much better, whiter light than incandescent headlights, but it
> would require coughing up high dollars to get them.

You could also build a candleabra that would do the job if you had
enough money to throw at it.

I stand by what I said: current LED systems don't penetrate enough.

My "hi power" LED flashlight has to use a focusing lense to get
penetration, and it my Maglight still outperforms it.

Of course, the batteries in the LED last a lot longer, so I still use it
when I don't need the distance of the Mag.

> Here is a link to an article on a "matched" LED array headlamp that
> began production in 1999 (they are now on their third generation). 
> The photos of LED output vs. halogen light output are pretty telling.

> <http://www.hdssystems.com/Obsolete/XActionLightTechnology.html>

First of all: I'm a big fan of LED lights and other improved light
technology.  However, this article is typical infomercial type writing,
and doesn't at all disprove what I orginally said.  It's talking about a
flashlight, not a car's headlight.

The article is also blatantly dishonest.

The images they have of "typical" flashlights look like lights with
failing batteries to me.  Even my old Maglight doesn't have the problems
they talk about.

I have several incandescent lights that look as good as the images of
their "Action Light".

They say that electric lights (LEDs are electric lights) are bad
because they use parabolic reflectors to send out an image of a glowing
filament, in a narrow, focused beam.

I've had a number of incandescent lights that don't have those problems
except for two: they burn out, and they use a lot of power.  We know
about that, the rest is FUD.

They also fail to mention that most incadescent bulbs are made as
cheaply as absolutely possible.  Good ones like I have don't fail when
dropped, and burn quite a long time before burning out.  I can garantee
you that cheap LED lights fail, it's just a different kind of failure.
Mostly LED lights fail because of cheap circuit boards and damage to
same.

Sufficient brightness, multiple coils, or even simple filters can
remove the filament image problem too.  Not all incandescent lights are
parabolic reflectors either, and if you need local dispersal and a wider
beam you can get that too.  This has all been available for decades, but
this article would have you believe you can't have it.

It's comparing latest technology LED Action Light to the base-line
Eveready flashlight of the 1940s.

The primary advantages of LED lights right now are power consumption and
bulb life.


-- 
shannon "AT" widomaker.com -- ["The trade of governing has always been
monopolized by the most ignorant and the most rascally individuals of
mankind.  -- Thomas Paine"]