Light bulb question -- Daniel Stern?

"Daniel J. Stern" > writes:

> On Mon, 1 Nov 2004, it was written:
>
> > > Daniel, I don't understand. I have Silver Stars in my 97 Cherokee
> > > Sport and My 96 Plymouth Grand Voyager. They are definitely a big
> > > improvement over stock. Why do you say they put out less light and
> > > it's only an illusion that they are brighter?
>
> > They start out putting out more light (this is why they don't last too
> > long), but then Sylvania puts a coating on the bulb to make it look a bit
> > blue. This may make you think it "looks" brighter, but tests confirm that
> > the coating significantly reduces the bulbs output. Some coatings (most
> > coatings) cut light output in half. "Believe it or don't".
>
> Exactly. This "Definitely a big improvement!" stuff is nothing more than
> the Slick-50 effect. ("Of course I can see better! No, really, I can, it's
> a vast improvement! Huge! Whaddya mean it's an illusion? Shut up, it is
> not! I just spent $45 on these light bulbs; of COURSE I can see better!")

There's likely to be more going on than the Slick-50 effect: first,
our eyes are really good at seeing at various light levels; that's why
learning to take pictures with manually-operated cameras requires some
learning. We can easily be fooled into thinking things that are much
brighter are actually dimmer and vice versa.

Quick digression: for last year's State Science Fair, one of the
competitors studied the effects of tinted shooting glasses on
accuracy. He had a dozen or so participants, ranging from people
who'd never fired a pistol before to a member of the Albuqurque SWAT
team. *Everybody* was convince that they saw the target more clearly
with yellow tinted lenses. *Nobody* actually shot better with yellow
lenses, and most shot better with clear lenses. Moral: everything
you think you know about how well you see, and under what conditions,
is wrong.

I'm going to hazard a guess that the Silverstar lights have a
narrower spectrum than stock or Xtravision (which is what I would
expect, since I'm under the impression that they're just a standard
halogen bulb with a blue filter), and that this provides the illusion
of greater brightness and visibility. That and the Slick-50 Effect,
of course.
--
Joseph J. Pfeiffer, Jr., Ph.D. Phone -- (505) 646-1605
Department of Computer Science FAX -- (505) 646-1002
New Mexico State University http://www.cs.nmsu.edu/~pfeiffer

On Mon, 1 Nov 2004, Nate Nagel wrote:

> > Yeah...if you're having to buff them every few weeks, it's time for
> > new headlamps. What initially hazes over is the hardcoat on the lens.
> > When you polish that away, the polycarbonate lens is no longer
> > protected from UV and abrasives, and the haze comes back faster and
> > worse every time. (Here all this time you thought you owned a
> > Chrysler; turns out you've got a cataract!)

> This seems to be such a common problem, is there any way to restore the
> UV protective coating once you've got the lenses buffed up? Bribe you
> local eyeglass emporium?

Nothing that's worth the effort and available to a DIYer, no. The original
hardcoat is applied and UV-cured under cleanroom conditions; there's
nothing in an aerosol can that'll even dream of coming close.

On Mon, 1 Nov 2004, Nate Nagel wrote:

> > Yeah...if you're having to buff them every few weeks, it's time for
> > new headlamps. What initially hazes over is the hardcoat on the lens.
> > When you polish that away, the polycarbonate lens is no longer
> > protected from UV and abrasives, and the haze comes back faster and
> > worse every time. (Here all this time you thought you owned a
> > Chrysler; turns out you've got a cataract!)

> This seems to be such a common problem, is there any way to restore the
> UV protective coating once you've got the lenses buffed up? Bribe you
> local eyeglass emporium?

Nothing that's worth the effort and available to a DIYer, no. The original
hardcoat is applied and UV-cured under cleanroom conditions; there's
nothing in an aerosol can that'll even dream of coming close.

Daniel J. Stern wrote:

> On Mon, 1 Nov 2004, Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>
>>>Yeah...if you're having to buff them every few weeks, it's time for
>>>new headlamps. What initially hazes over is the hardcoat on the lens.
>>>When you polish that away, the polycarbonate lens is no longer
>>>protected from UV and abrasives, and the haze comes back faster and
>>>worse every time. (Here all this time you thought you owned a
>>>Chrysler; turns out you've got a cataract!)
>
>
>>This seems to be such a common problem, is there any way to restore the
>>UV protective coating once you've got the lenses buffed up? Bribe you
>>local eyeglass emporium?
>
>
> Nothing that's worth the effort and available to a DIYer, no. The original
> hardcoat is applied and UV-cured under cleanroom conditions; there's
> nothing in an aerosol can that'll even dream of coming close.

ISTM that this is a wonderful opportunity for an aftermarket product.
Probably of the type that would only be sold to paint shops etc. but
still...

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

Daniel J. Stern wrote:

> On Mon, 1 Nov 2004, Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>
>>>Yeah...if you're having to buff them every few weeks, it's time for
>>>new headlamps. What initially hazes over is the hardcoat on the lens.
>>>When you polish that away, the polycarbonate lens is no longer
>>>protected from UV and abrasives, and the haze comes back faster and
>>>worse every time. (Here all this time you thought you owned a
>>>Chrysler; turns out you've got a cataract!)
>
>
>>This seems to be such a common problem, is there any way to restore the
>>UV protective coating once you've got the lenses buffed up? Bribe you
>>local eyeglass emporium?
>
>
> Nothing that's worth the effort and available to a DIYer, no. The original
> hardcoat is applied and UV-cured under cleanroom conditions; there's
> nothing in an aerosol can that'll even dream of coming close.

ISTM that this is a wonderful opportunity for an aftermarket product.
Probably of the type that would only be sold to paint shops etc. but
still...

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

Nate Nagel wrote:
> Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 1 Nov 2004, Nate Nagel wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> Yeah...if you're having to buff them every few weeks, it's time for
>>>> new headlamps. What initially hazes over is the hardcoat on the lens.
>>>> When you polish that away, the polycarbonate lens is no longer
>>>> protected from UV and abrasives, and the haze comes back faster and
>>>> worse every time. (Here all this time you thought you owned a
>>>> Chrysler; turns out you've got a cataract!)
>>
>>
>>
>>> This seems to be such a common problem, is there any way to restore the
>>> UV protective coating once you've got the lenses buffed up? Bribe you
>>> local eyeglass emporium?
>>
>>
>>
>> Nothing that's worth the effort and available to a DIYer, no. The
>> original
>> hardcoat is applied and UV-cured under cleanroom conditions; there's
>> nothing in an aerosol can that'll even dream of coming close.
>
>
> ISTM that this is a wonderful opportunity for an aftermarket product.
> Probably of the type that would only be sold to paint shops etc. but
> still...
>
> nate

Here's what some people use:
http://www.autosportcatalog.com/index.cfm?fa=p&pid=332

Not sure if they have the Dr. Stern stamp of approval, but they
definitely prevent abrasion, give some (claimed but of course
unquantified) UV blocking, and give the added benefit of protecting
against breakage or chips from stones.

Probably it would be best to apply over new headlight assemblies rather
than put over buffed-out old units, but that also could be done if $$ is
tight (if the buffed out old ones will keep their water-clear clarity
due to the added protection of the covers, which is questionable - I
know that without covers, buffed out ones need to be polished every few
weeks as was aready pointed out).

Obviously anything you put in front of the headlight is going to block
some light no matter how clear, but I would think the attenuation is
small, and as a new headlight without them ages, at some point in time,
the headlight with them that was replaced at the same time will be
brighter for the remainder of its life - I would think the crossover
point would come within a few months of sun and blast exposure (and if
the cover starts clouding or yellowing, which may happen after, say, 2
to 4 years depending on geographic location, you can always replace the
covers for another $45 - cheaper than new headlight assys.).

Something to consider.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
adddress with the letter 'x')


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Nate Nagel wrote:
> Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 1 Nov 2004, Nate Nagel wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> Yeah...if you're having to buff them every few weeks, it's time for
>>>> new headlamps. What initially hazes over is the hardcoat on the lens.
>>>> When you polish that away, the polycarbonate lens is no longer
>>>> protected from UV and abrasives, and the haze comes back faster and
>>>> worse every time. (Here all this time you thought you owned a
>>>> Chrysler; turns out you've got a cataract!)
>>
>>
>>
>>> This seems to be such a common problem, is there any way to restore the
>>> UV protective coating once you've got the lenses buffed up? Bribe you
>>> local eyeglass emporium?
>>
>>
>>
>> Nothing that's worth the effort and available to a DIYer, no. The
>> original
>> hardcoat is applied and UV-cured under cleanroom conditions; there's
>> nothing in an aerosol can that'll even dream of coming close.
>
>
> ISTM that this is a wonderful opportunity for an aftermarket product.
> Probably of the type that would only be sold to paint shops etc. but
> still...
>
> nate

Here's what some people use:
http://www.autosportcatalog.com/index.cfm?fa=p&pid=332

Not sure if they have the Dr. Stern stamp of approval, but they
definitely prevent abrasion, give some (claimed but of course
unquantified) UV blocking, and give the added benefit of protecting
against breakage or chips from stones.

Probably it would be best to apply over new headlight assemblies rather
than put over buffed-out old units, but that also could be done if $$ is
tight (if the buffed out old ones will keep their water-clear clarity
due to the added protection of the covers, which is questionable - I
know that without covers, buffed out ones need to be polished every few
weeks as was aready pointed out).

Obviously anything you put in front of the headlight is going to block
some light no matter how clear, but I would think the attenuation is
small, and as a new headlight without them ages, at some point in time,
the headlight with them that was replaced at the same time will be
brighter for the remainder of its life - I would think the crossover
point would come within a few months of sun and blast exposure (and if
the cover starts clouding or yellowing, which may happen after, say, 2
to 4 years depending on geographic location, you can always replace the
covers for another $45 - cheaper than new headlight assys.).

Something to consider.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
adddress with the letter 'x')


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

On Mon, 1 Nov 2004, Bill Putney wrote:

> Here's what some people use:
> http://www.autosportcatalog.com/index.cfm?fa=p&pid=332

....and here's the source: www.xpel.com

> Not sure if they have the Dr. Stern stamp of approval,

Your attempt to give me a heart attack so I can't go cancel-out your vote
with my vote is unsuccessful; to have achieved success, you'd've had to
have recommended "Stongard". ;-)

(Besides, I already voted.)

> but they definitely prevent abrasion, give some (claimed but of course
> unquantified) UV blocking, and give the added benefit of protecting
> against breakage or chips from stones.

Well...kinda. They prevent sandblasting, but if a large enough road rock
has your headlamp's name on it, it's going to break the headlamp with or
without film. Also, you have to be careful on smaller lamps; these kinds
of films can trap significantly more heat inside the lamp, degrading the
lens from the inside rather than from the outside.

All in all I have much less argument with Xpel than with the other.

On Mon, 1 Nov 2004, Bill Putney wrote:

> Here's what some people use:
> http://www.autosportcatalog.com/index.cfm?fa=p&pid=332

....and here's the source: www.xpel.com

> Not sure if they have the Dr. Stern stamp of approval,

Your attempt to give me a heart attack so I can't go cancel-out your vote
with my vote is unsuccessful; to have achieved success, you'd've had to
have recommended "Stongard". ;-)

(Besides, I already voted.)

> but they definitely prevent abrasion, give some (claimed but of course
> unquantified) UV blocking, and give the added benefit of protecting
> against breakage or chips from stones.

Well...kinda. They prevent sandblasting, but if a large enough road rock
has your headlamp's name on it, it's going to break the headlamp with or
without film. Also, you have to be careful on smaller lamps; these kinds
of films can trap significantly more heat inside the lamp, degrading the
lens from the inside rather than from the outside.

All in all I have much less argument with Xpel than with the other.

"Bill Putney" > wrote in message ...
> Nate Nagel wrote:
>> Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 1 Nov 2004, Nate Nagel wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Yeah...if you're having to buff them every few weeks, it's time for
>>>>> new headlamps. What initially hazes over is the hardcoat on the lens.
>>>>> When you polish that away, the polycarbonate lens is no longer
>>>>> protected from UV and abrasives, and the haze comes back faster and
>>>>> worse every time. (Here all this time you thought you owned a
>>>>> Chrysler; turns out you've got a cataract!)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> This seems to be such a common problem, is there any way to restore the
>>>> UV protective coating once you've got the lenses buffed up? Bribe you
>>>> local eyeglass emporium?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Nothing that's worth the effort and available to a DIYer, no. The
>>> original
>>> hardcoat is applied and UV-cured under cleanroom conditions; there's
>>> nothing in an aerosol can that'll even dream of coming close.
>>
>>
>> ISTM that this is a wonderful opportunity for an aftermarket product.
>> Probably of the type that would only be sold to paint shops etc. but
>> still...
>>
>> nate
>
> Here's what some people use:
> http://www.autosportcatalog.com/index.cfm?fa=p&pid=332
>
> Not sure if they have the Dr. Stern stamp of approval, but they definitely
> prevent abrasion, give some (claimed but of course unquantified) UV
> blocking, and give the added benefit of protecting against breakage or
> chips from stones.
>
> Probably it would be best to apply over new headlight assemblies rather
> than put over buffed-out old units, but that also could be done if $$ is
> tight (if the buffed out old ones will keep their water-clear clarity due
> to the added protection of the covers, which is questionable - I know that
> without covers, buffed out ones need to be polished every few weeks as was
> aready pointed out).
>
> Obviously anything you put in front of the headlight is going to block
> some light no matter how clear, but I would think the attenuation is
> small, and as a new headlight without them ages, at some point in time,
> the headlight with them that was replaced at the same time will be
> brighter for the remainder of its life - I would think the crossover point
> would come within a few months of sun and blast exposure (and if the cover
> starts clouding or yellowing, which may happen after, say, 2 to 4 years
> depending on geographic location, you can always replace the covers for
> another $45 - cheaper than new headlight assys.).
>
> Something to consider.
>
> Bill Putney
> (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
> adddress with the letter 'x')
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
> News==----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000
> Newsgroups
> ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

You can't merely change the covers on a DOT approved assembly, they are
glued shut to prevent brain dead American's from putting on the wrong cover.
Apparently people in Europe, OZ, India, Africa and Asia are not assumed to
be so dumb by their government regulators.

Richard.