On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 11:37:47 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote:
I suspect you still don't know what I am talking about.
Logic chips are a far cry from EM emissions, much less antennas.

Cecil Moore wrote:
David G. Nagel wrote:

Yes I have seen these taillights. According to a news article about
them there is a significant difference in how fast the new lights work
compared to the older conventional lamps. One time I was following a
truck that had diode lights on its trailer and conventional lamps on
the tractor. There was a very noticeable difference in the two tail
lights. The diode lamps were full on while the conventional lamps were
still thinking about glowing. Supposedly this converts to about 17
feet difference at 55-65 miles per hour on the highway.


Hi David, I'm not talking about conventional LED taillights. I'm
talking about LED taillights that are pulsed and maybe pulse-width
modulated between the taillight function and the brakelight function.
This seems to be something new on maybe one manufacturer's 2005
models. They may have a 1/3 duty cycle for taillights and a 2/3
duty cycle for brakelights, or something akin to that. It's a
mystery to me that I am trying to solve.

Some lights on towers and some roadside warning lights are pulsed on
and off at a ballpark rate of 100 Hz. If you sweep your eyes from
side to side, these pulsed lights appear as a dotted line in your
vision. That's the kind of taillights I am talking about. If you
sweep your eyes from side to side, the trail they leave on your
retina looks something like this:

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____

Thanks for your response. No, I have not seen the lights you describe. I
can see how they would work though. I'll keep my eyes out for them.

Dave

Richard Clark wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
I suspect you still don't know what I am talking about.

Logic chips are a far cry from EM emissions, much less antennas.

Assuming the auto LEDs have three states, off, taillight, and
brakelight, that is taking data from three different input
sources and combining them into one time-shared output. That,
my friend, meets the definition of multiplexing even if only
trivially.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp


----== 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 Sun, 09 Jan 2005 23:33:59 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote:
Assuming the auto LEDs have three states ... That,
my friend, meets the definition of multiplexing even if only
trivially.
OK, a trivial sidebar of unrelated trinary logic: Yes/No/Maybe
Wasn't this Galileo's plea before the Holy See?

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
SNIP
Wasn't this Galileo's plea before the Holy See?

Nah. The Holy See wanted proof, which Galileo didn't have. WTHDTSHTDW
r.r.a.a.?

David J Windisch wrote:
"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
SNIP

Wasn't this Galileo's plea before the Holy See?


Nah. The Holy See wanted proof, which Galileo didn't have. WTHDTSHTDW
r.r.a.a.?


Actually the Holy See didn't want proof, Which Galileo DID have.

Dave N.

Cecil Moore wrote:
Slightly off topic - I've seen a couple of new automobiles with
time-multiplexed LED taillights. What would be the advantage of such a
design in an automobile?
--
73, Cecil, W5DXP

Aside from longer life of the LED's, nothing that I can see.

I've seen, in two Semi trucks, alot of RF coming from the
taillights/brake lights/turn signals/reverse lights... a .01uF cap from
the positive lead to ground has solved the problems on more than one
occasion in both my Ford and my Peterbilt.

-C

Actually, Dave, what I should have written, is that Isaac Newton later
provided the proof Galileo needed to support his hypothesis.

Further, it was to the Holy Office, at Rome, not to the Holy See, that
Galileo presented himself.

Now, what is that proof of which you write?

73, Dave, N3HE

"David G. Nagel" wrote in message
...
SNIP
Actually the Holy See didn't want proof, Which Galileo DID have.

Dave N.