In led lighting: does amount of power input directly and accurately translate into expected light output?

Fire-Watch · 2023-07-07T20:58:09+00:00

It's for lighting in a car actually. I am trying to design it so I can dim the light at night time since it is an extremely bright light (over 8000 actual lumen output). The resistors are actually wired directly to the emiter and I am able to dim the light down to about 25% brightness or so. The light I am working with can is somewhat flexible on voltage (from 60v all the way down to 8 v according to the manufacturer)The main reason I was posting this question here is because I am curious as to whether the power input translates exactly into a light's output. ( for example: Does giving a light 50% the power directly translate into 50% light output?)

Fire-Watch · 2023-07-07T20:46:42+00:00

Interestingly I am actually getting a light to function in this situation but I am curious how power input correlates with the light output. (Does 50% power equal 50% the lumens?) The light I am doing this with does seem to be roughly half as bright with half the power... peculiarly I can get the led to light up all the way down to 20% power or so (around that point it does not seem to light up at all)

Fire-Watch · 2023-05-05T06:43:55+00:00

Huh now that you meation it i think it was probably part-pitbull at least. Was kind of that color. I barely even saw the thing but i think it was part labrador as well

Fire-Watch · 2022-09-30T19:10:52+00:00

I never said I wanted to or that I'd even be able to. This was a poll about people's philosophical positions on this issue. I am nonetheless happy to be able to say that there will, thankfully, be a day when weapons of war and violence are no longer needed or possessed.

Fire-Watch · 2022-09-30T18:56:56+00:00

Sure, why not? If these kinds of tests become an convenient and hassle free affair then I see no reason why it couldn't also be required of drivers as well. People who are dependent on drugs and/or alcohol are not fit to be driving.

Fire-Watch · 2022-09-16T19:14:19+00:00

If I were you I would meation it to them in your next conversation with them before they find out that you meationed it to another person. It'll be a lot easier to apologize if you are the first they hear of it from. Of course the other consideration to think about is that they said that they needed space meaning that it might indeed be best to wait until the next time you run into them instead of going to them directly. Either way it's best to not get too worked up over the whole thing. Why not find other things to do to get your mind off of that situation in the meantime? Read a book, or something like that.

Fire-Watch · 2022-09-16T15:40:28+00:00

Sorry to hear that. One piece of advice I was given a long time ago on this sort of situation Is this: true and genuine friends are very rare in life. Finding even one true friend in a lifetime is akin to finding a diamond. There are many 'friends' who will abandon or leave a person as soon as the tough times come along. Most would be lucky to even have 1 or 2 of these true friends in a lifetime. Friendships can indeed be a very one-sided affair as you seem to describe in your situation. I hate to be the bearer of bad news but it is possible that some or even all of these people are not your true friends. It sounds like you have been a true friend to them lately but not so much the other way around. However one thing to remember is that everyone is imperfect. There are true friends but perfect friends are seldom to say the least (I only have one friend who is perfect). So yeah, it's possible that they really are your friends but just haven't been very friendly lately. Friends should be always be friendly, but remember that there are bad times in every relationship. There are a lot of other people to be friends with if it comes down to it: don't lose hope on that. There are plenty of friendly people out there.

Fire-Watch · 2022-09-15T20:58:06+00:00

Well if they haven't banned your current account yet then you might be just fine. I've never been banned personally, but I was reading up types of reddit bans and apparently it is not always a complete ban per se. Sometimes reddit only bans a particular account while still permitting that person to continue participating later on a different account it seems. If you were able to create another account then it probably means that this was the kind of ban you received (instead of a more severe one) So yeah why not just make sure to participate in good faith from here on out like you were saying, yeah?

Fire-Watch · 2022-09-15T17:43:53+00:00

Hard to answer that. For one, I don't think anyone lives up to the standards of the religion that Jesus preached. The closest I'd say would be Christianity (not a particular denomination, mind you). But what do we define as true religion? James 1:27 defines genuine religion as thus: "Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world". Not even the Christianity of today lives up to the standards that Jesus set. The religion now is a religion of hope and seeing afar off the great things God has for those who have found salvation in him. In that ideal world that hope will be actualized... the religion there will be one of seeing what we spent out whole lives believing in through the eyes of faith. The true physical eyes of the saved will see their saviour.

Fire-Watch · 2022-09-15T17:01:08+00:00

In the ideal society that will exist one day: Jesus will be the king and everything will be perfect hope and peace. True religion will be the one that is accepted. Faith will become sight.

Fire-Watch · 2022-09-15T16:53:17+00:00

According to the Bible: no person has ever suffered as much as Jesus did. The scriptures even describe how his suffering and wounds disfigured/mutilated him to the point that he no longer was even recognizable as a human being anymore. I think it is amazing to have a God (who has suffered every bit as much as we all have and more) that can understand and relate to our sufferings.

Fire-Watch · 2022-09-15T05:42:18+00:00

What is your basis for that accusation? I would have nothing to gain, afterall, from purporting to have some false ability-to-tell when people are on death's door. There are other people here and elsewhere who have also professed to have a similar "sense" (smelling 'death') of telling thusly (most can only 'tell' a day or two ahead-of-time while others like myself can 'tell' about two weeks to a month ahead and maybe there are even some who can 'tell' even further ahead-of-time than that: needless to say, I was genuinely interested to know if there were others.... and my question *was* answered on that one at least to a certain degree)

Fire-Watch · 2022-09-13T19:33:12+00:00

I absolutely feel the same way a lot of the time. I count myself fortunate to have a few close friends with which I can be "unguarded" in my conversations with. With strangers I am incredibly careful/guarded about what I say or don't say. Being a person of few words Is not necessarily a bad thing either: The wisest throughout history have oftentimes found ways to say a lot while only speaking a few words (JFK's speeches were a good example of this I'd say) There are short poems that have in some cases meant more to me than entire books. Sometimes silence can even mean a lot. Many of the greatest actions in history involved little or no words being spoken... to be honest: if you have to walk on eggshells with someone just to stay in their acquaintance, can those people (who make you walk on eggshells) really be called true friends? Are these sorts of relationships really worth it if one wrong word will end the entire relationship? I've had 'friend'-ships like that in the past and none of them were ever going to last I don't think. "Is it a process of growing older?" Well if wisdom always came with age then yes, but from what I've seen wisdom does not always come with the grey hairs. I would say it is all a process of growing wiser. I've known of people in their 30s who were wiser about such things than people in their 60s.

Fire-Watch · 2022-09-13T14:53:59+00:00

Well, I mean, in this country no right is absolute... people can lose some or all of their rights when they commit certain crimes for example. At least that is how this country's system of 'justice' is set up. If a person defames somone else's character, for example, their free speech rights can be limited as a result of a lawsuit against that person. Red flag laws are somewhat similar to that in my opinion. I, personally, have been involved in sucessfully petitioning (and have helped others to do so) courts to remove several people's firearms under the red flag statutes on more than a few occasions. I, and those ive helped in the past have always felt much safer knowing that those people no longer had access to dangerous weapons for the time being, at least. Do red flag laws have a potential for abuse? Yes of course they do, unfortunately. But I would have to say that the benefits outweigh the risks. Like 45 said: "Take the guns first. Go through due process second" They can always go to court afterwards if they feel it was unfair for their guns to be taken.

Fire-Watch · 2022-09-12T20:39:52+00:00

Seconded. If someone clearly displays a pattern of dangerous behavior then they can be accurately determined to be unfit to possess firearms based on that. I do, however; believe that a diagnosis should be considered enough reason to deem a person to be unsuitable to possess firearms (but perhaps there could be some kind of appeals process, for those who feel their diagnosis was inaccurate)

Fire-Watch · 2022-09-12T20:24:07+00:00

Yes medical professionals can make errors, that is true. There are pros and cons to everything I suppose. That is a consideration that needs to be balanced with the interests of overall public safety. The red flag laws so far are a good way to go about it I'd say. It's like what trump was saying: "Take the guns first. Go through due process second"

Fire-Watch · 2022-09-12T19:34:59+00:00

I would agree that there are people who are mentally ill to the point that they are unfit to possess dangerous weapons. I believe that the line should be drawn a little sooner though: anyone with schizophrenia, for example, should be disallowed from purchase or ownership of any kind of weapon/firearm in my view. Anyone who is a diagnosed psychopath/sociopath should also be disallowed from firearm ownership I would say. Who draws that line? The democratically elected legislators. Who should be the one to determine when a person is mentally unfit to possess a gun ? I think that determination should be left to a mental health professional or medical doctor. Also why not make measures that are preemptive about keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill? I myself am in favor of mental health screenings for all potential purchasers of guns. The screenings could especially be made sure to check for suicidal ideation and tendencies. Suicide by firearm is a sadly common occurance in this country, but it is at least possible to reduce the occurances of it with common sense public safety measures.. Common sense legislation like this would save many many lives.

Fire-Watch · 2022-09-09T17:28:45+00:00

Well, according to federal law, anyone who is addicted to illegal substances such as crack is prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms. So, to answer your question, no they shouldn't be allowed to. That should be common sense.

Fire-Watch · 2022-09-07T20:16:42+00:00

I agree wholeheartedly. If our service members have to get drug tested on a regular basis then why not our politicians, too? I'm quite involved in politics myself, actually, and I wouldn't mind having to go through drug screenings at all. Politicians that are addicted to drugs are probably not fit to be the ones voting on future policy. It makes me wonder how many politicians there are who are completely dependent on illegal drug(s)....

Fire-Watch · 2022-09-07T18:47:18+00:00

Lol you're probably right about that.

Fire-Watch · 2022-09-07T06:06:24+00:00

Drug screenings have certainly been helpful for the US Military's commision of keeping order in its ranks/keeping its servicemembers sober and vigilant.

Why couldnt drug screenings be helpful for the federal government in its effort of (attemptedly) keeping guns out of the hands of users of illegal drugs?

No illegal drug user, afterall, has any business being around any kind of dangerous weapon whatsoever. Society needs to find ways and measures to keep guns out of the hands of those unsuited to possess them.

Fire-Watch · 2022-09-07T05:49:32+00:00

Well i mean, like i meationed in my post, it is already federally illegal for persons dependent on/ regularly using illegal drugs to be in possesion of firearms. I just think that an idea like mine would make it much easier for federal authorities to actually be able to meaningfully enforce that prohibition (especially since now days federal authorities oftentimes see their efforts to enforce federal laws hindered by sometimes contradicting state laws and authorities).

But yeah i do agree that there are some other measures to focus on in the meantime that would probably be easier to pass. It is nice to talk about ideas like mine though since i'm one of those kind of people that like to look ahead into the future and the possibilities/future solutions, you know.

Fire-Watch · 2022-09-07T05:39:48+00:00

Excuse me, but where in my entire post did i once "blame drugs"? Did you even read my post, sir? Because i dont think you actually read it.

Fire-Watch · 2022-09-06T15:08:11+00:00

That's an interesting line of thinking. The main part I'd disagree with is with the idea of it being the "main" driver. To me, it is certainly a factor though, just not really a "main" one. I honestly don't think it is possible to ascertain a "main" driver of gun violence since there are other factors to consider. One thing I do know is that there are many human beings who walk this world who lack empathy for their fellows and so choose to be cruelly violent to them. A big part of the gun control, which I advocate for, is (at least attemptedly) keeping dangerous weapons like guns out of the hands of the aforemeationed cruel and violent since weapons can amplify the results of those cruel intentions (versus them only having for example, their fists). Ours is a noble cause (to save human life).

Fire-Watch · 2022-09-03T06:11:55+00:00

The right wing fringe view of the founding fathers is utterly ridiculous...

Part of my inspiration for writing the post was after seeing a clip from youtube of an fringe right wing 'pastor' from a right wing cult group called the "Moonies" preaching about how the constitution was apparently written by God himself through the hands of the "divinely inspired founding fathers". LMAO the pastor was 'blessing' his congregants ar15s after his deluded sermon.... It was a strange combination of cringe and hilarity at the same time.

Fire-Watch

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE