If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
> wrote in message ... > 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? > > > > On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 00:09:32 -0400, "Daniel J. Stern" > > wrote: > >>On Sat, 30 Oct 2004, Shep wrote: >> >>> Amen on the short lived Silstar, went thru a set in 7 months on my chev. >>> trailblazer, bitched to them, got another set on warranty, 7 months >>> later, >>> one right after another. It's a shame because they were good, and the >>> stockers stink. >> >>The Sylvania Silverstars make your headlamps put out *less* light. The >>impression you got that they're "brighter" is nothing more than an optical >>illusion. >> >>So no, it's not a shame. > 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". Richard. |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 1 Nov 2004, Jim wrote:
> Well.. lets not forget buff/polish the plastic lenses every few weeks to > remove the haze.. *nice* job Chrysler.. 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!) > > There is exactly one dual-function fog/driving lamp worth a damn. It is > > enormous (8-3/4" diameter) and works well on very large vehicles used off > > road. For on-road use, a low-mounted driving lamp is only slightly less > > useless than a high-mounted fog lamp. > > Lets hear it for Oscar the Super?.. I considered them before I > realized that they would require the 'saws-all' install method. Yep, that's the one. > Appreciate the answers.. one more question. At what voltage drop do > you consider re-wiring the headlight circuit?.. Well, remember, light output drops exponentially, not linearly, with voltage drop. Small voltage drops = large light losses. The formula for determining the change in light output with a change in voltage is: lumens @old volts x [(new volts /old volts) ^3.4] = lumens @new volts So for simplicity's sake, let's take a 9007 low beam rated 1000 lumens at 12.8 Volts and plug in different voltages: 10.5V : 510 lumens 11.0V : 597 lumens 11.5V : 695 lumens 12.0V : 803 lumens 12.5V : 923 lumens 12.8V : 1000 lumens <--Rated output voltage 13.0V : 1054 lumens 13.5V : 1198 lumens 14.0V : 1356 lumens <--Rated life voltage 14.5V : 1528 lumens Voltage drop test conditions: ALL headlamps connected - you may have to backprobe the sockets, but removing the socket from the headlamp invalidates the test. Engine off, circuit to be tested (low or high beam) energized First, connect your voltmeter across the battery + and - terminals. Record the voltage reading, this is the battery voltage. Connect your voltmeter positive lead to the battery (+) and the voltmeter negative lead to the + terminal of whichever headlamp beam you're testing -- use the bulb farthest away from the battery. With the lamps on, your voltmeter will give a direct reading of the voltage drop. Write it down. Then connect the positive voltmeter lead to the ground terminal of the headlamp bulb, and the negative voltmeter lead to the (-) terminal of the battery. With the lamps on, your voltmeter will again give a direct reading of the voltage drop. Write it down. Add the two voltage drop figures obtained, and this is the total circuit drop. Subtract the total circuit drop from the battery voltage to find the voltage at which your bulbs are operating. DS |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 1 Nov 2004, Jim wrote:
> Well.. lets not forget buff/polish the plastic lenses every few weeks to > remove the haze.. *nice* job Chrysler.. 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!) > > There is exactly one dual-function fog/driving lamp worth a damn. It is > > enormous (8-3/4" diameter) and works well on very large vehicles used off > > road. For on-road use, a low-mounted driving lamp is only slightly less > > useless than a high-mounted fog lamp. > > Lets hear it for Oscar the Super?.. I considered them before I > realized that they would require the 'saws-all' install method. Yep, that's the one. > Appreciate the answers.. one more question. At what voltage drop do > you consider re-wiring the headlight circuit?.. Well, remember, light output drops exponentially, not linearly, with voltage drop. Small voltage drops = large light losses. The formula for determining the change in light output with a change in voltage is: lumens @old volts x [(new volts /old volts) ^3.4] = lumens @new volts So for simplicity's sake, let's take a 9007 low beam rated 1000 lumens at 12.8 Volts and plug in different voltages: 10.5V : 510 lumens 11.0V : 597 lumens 11.5V : 695 lumens 12.0V : 803 lumens 12.5V : 923 lumens 12.8V : 1000 lumens <--Rated output voltage 13.0V : 1054 lumens 13.5V : 1198 lumens 14.0V : 1356 lumens <--Rated life voltage 14.5V : 1528 lumens Voltage drop test conditions: ALL headlamps connected - you may have to backprobe the sockets, but removing the socket from the headlamp invalidates the test. Engine off, circuit to be tested (low or high beam) energized First, connect your voltmeter across the battery + and - terminals. Record the voltage reading, this is the battery voltage. Connect your voltmeter positive lead to the battery (+) and the voltmeter negative lead to the + terminal of whichever headlamp beam you're testing -- use the bulb farthest away from the battery. With the lamps on, your voltmeter will give a direct reading of the voltage drop. Write it down. Then connect the positive voltmeter lead to the ground terminal of the headlamp bulb, and the negative voltmeter lead to the (-) terminal of the battery. With the lamps on, your voltmeter will again give a direct reading of the voltage drop. Write it down. Add the two voltage drop figures obtained, and this is the total circuit drop. Subtract the total circuit drop from the battery voltage to find the voltage at which your bulbs are operating. DS |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
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!") |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
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!") |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Nov 2004, Jim wrote: > > >>Well.. lets not forget buff/polish the plastic lenses every few weeks to >>remove the haze.. *nice* job Chrysler.. > > > 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? nate -- replace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Nov 2004, Jim wrote: > > >>Well.. lets not forget buff/polish the plastic lenses every few weeks to >>remove the haze.. *nice* job Chrysler.. > > > 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? nate -- replace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
ATTN: Daniel Stern... Question... | Cory Dunkle | Driving | 22 | January 13th 05 06:40 PM |
Chevy Blazer Broken/Stuck Bulb in Rear Right Tail Light | Spiderman | 4x4 | 10 | November 30th 04 01:03 AM |
How to change light bulb on auto gearbox? | [email protected] | Audi | 0 | September 29th 04 09:22 AM |
Newbie question. A4 warning light. | Moike | Audi | 1 | May 20th 04 10:00 PM |