XPost: uk.rec.driving
From: no@spam.com
On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 11:36:27 +0100, DavidR wrote:
> wrote in message news:kl5ibr$qiu$1@speranza.aioe.org...
>> On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 19:44:38 +0100
>> "Major Scott" wrote:
>>> Surely they can design LED lights on cars to have a higher frequency PWM=
>>> ? Even =A3100K cars flicker dramatically, especially when filmed. It m=
>>> akes them look really cheap. All it would take is a higher frequency PW=
>>> M, or a smoothing capacitor?
>>
>> They flicker for a reason. If they smoothed the current they might just as
>> well use DC direct from the battery. I don't know the technical reasons
>> why but
>
> The effect relies on the persistance of the eyes to make it appear that the
> average brightness is higher.
Easy enough to double the frequency of the flicker, then you wouldn't notice
it. Remember 50Hz CRT monitors?
> Smoothing at source would be less energy efficient.
I don't believe you. Switched mode power supplies are very cheap nowadays,
especially compared with the cost of a car, especially a £100K car which has
the same problem.
You can get a very smooth DC voltage of any level out of one - just look at
your PC power supply then think of a smaller version of it. There are in fact
smaller versions of it on your motherboard changing 12 volts to the CPU
voltage (which is in fact
variable).
> Agreed the effect is not pleasant. It would help if they could introduce
> softer start for indicators
I prefer them to go on and off suddenly. The only problem I have is flickery
tail lights.
> and brake light dimming when conditions suggest a slow moving queue.
I don't agree with different brightnesses of brakes. We already have two
brightnesses of red - tail and brake. Adding more would just lead to
confusion, you would wonder if it was a tail or a brake.
--
"It is generally inadvisable to eject directly over the area you just bombed."
- U.S. Air Force Pilot training manual
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
