50W halogen with Lumicycle?



P

Pete Biggs

Guest
Might be a laugh to try a 50 watt bulb, or two!......

1. Could a Lumicycle halogen lamp unit and wiring, etc take the heat?

2. Could the Li-ion battery take the drain without damage?

(Nevermind about run time, this wouldn't be for serious use).

~PB
 
On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 00:33:38 -0000, "Pete Biggs"
<pblackcherry{remove_fruit}@biggs.tc> wrote:

>Might be a laugh to try a 50 watt bulb, or two!......
>
>1. Could a Lumicycle halogen lamp unit and wiring, etc take the heat?

http://nordicgroup.us/s78/#Watts Versus Lumens in the section
titled MR16 Lamp Based Headlamps

Some of these lamps won't need your existing casing ... but they are
pricey!
--
Warning: This user suffers from narcolepppppppppp
ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp
ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp
 
"Richard Goodman" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:


> Hmm.. interesting site. I especially liked the picture of the bike
> with a reflector bracket attached to the seatpost, about a third of
> the way down the page ;)
>
> Rich
>
>

And there's more!

Interesting site none the less, despite the distractions...


--
Brian
 
"Pete Biggs" <pblackcherry{remove_fruit}@biggs.tc> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Might be a laugh to try a 50 watt bulb, or two!......
>
> 1. Could a Lumicycle halogen lamp unit and wiring, etc take the heat?

The lamp unit would get seriously hot. I would hazard a guess that it
may get hot enough to melt the solder contacts on the switches. You
may be ok if it's a particularly cold day and you ride fast enough for
plenty of windchill!
>
> 2. Could the Li-ion battery take the drain without damage?

Shouldn't be a problem but you might be best checking specs from
Lumicycle.
>
> (Nevermind about run time, this wouldn't be for serious use).
>
> ~PB

But I think the question really is why do you need 50W? It'd really
just be less runtime for no practical advantage. I suppose it would
warm your hands on cold days.

Spence
 
Spencer Rook wrote:
> "Pete Biggs" <pblackcherry{remove_fruit}@biggs.tc> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
>> Might be a laugh to try a 50 watt bulb, or two!......
>>
>> 1. Could a Lumicycle halogen lamp unit and wiring, etc take the
>> heat?
>
> The lamp unit would get seriously hot. I would hazard a guess that it
> may get hot enough to melt the solder contacts on the switches. You
> may be ok if it's a particularly cold day and you ride fast enough for
> plenty of windchill!
>>
>> 2. Could the Li-ion battery take the drain without damage?
>
> Shouldn't be a problem but you might be best checking specs from
> Lumicycle.
>>
>> (Nevermind about run time, this wouldn't be for serious use).

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

> But I think the question really is why do you need 50W? It'd really
> just be less runtime for no practical advantage. I suppose it would
> warm your hands on cold days.

I thought I'd make it clear that I don't *need* 50W. I think it'd be fun
to see what it's like, that's all, and they only cost two quid. However,
I do need powerful lights for riding down unlit roads at high speed: 35W
would probably be the maximum I'd use for regular use, though.

Thanks for the opinions anyway.

cheers
~PB
 
On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 11:57:05 +0000, Vincent Wilcox <[email protected]> wrote:

>Simonb wrote:
>> Richard Bates wrote:
>>
>>
>>>http://nordicgroup.us/s78/#Watts Versus Lumens in the section
>>>titled MR16 Lamp Based Headlamps
>>
>>
>> Apparently, this bicycle has a reflector bracket attached to the seat post:
>>
>> http://www.nordicgroup.us/s78/images/seatpostbracket.jpg
>>
>>
>
>What kind of saddle is that? I've never seen one with the springs at the
>front?

It's what may get caught in the springs that concerns me.
 
"Brian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Richard Goodman" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>
>> Hmm.. interesting site. I especially liked the picture of the bike
>> with a reflector bracket attached to the seatpost, about a third of
>> the way down the page ;)
>>
>> Rich

>
> And there's more!
>

Mmm.. oh yes, so there is! I didn't have time to scroll that far down this
morning :)


Rich
 
On 3 Nov 2004 05:39:31 -0800, Spencer Rook <> wrote:
> "Pete Biggs" <pblackcherry{remove_fruit}@biggs.tc> wrote...
> > Might be a laugh to try a 50 watt bulb, or two!......
> >
> > 1. Could a Lumicycle halogen lamp unit and wiring, etc take the heat?
>
> The lamp unit would get seriously hot. I would hazard a guess that it
> may get hot enough to melt the solder contacts on the switches. You
> may be ok if it's a particularly cold day and you ride fast enough for
> plenty of windchill!

I doubt it wll get that far - the thermal path to the switch is along
the wires (in which case you'll be melting the insulation and more at
risk of shorts), or along the reflector, then back along teh case (a
long and tortuous path, with a particularly high SA/V ratio.

> > 2. Could the Li-ion battery take the drain without damage?

4A? Some Li-ions can certainly take it. You'd need to find out the
specs of the lumi battery. You could put two in parallel (which is
what you do if you're running high power motors from li-ion
batteries).

Assuming you find that the battery can take it, try it and see. The
rest of teh components are cheap and relatively easy to replace, or
likley to make much smoke or pong before becoming irreparably damaged.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
 
Ian Smith wrote:

>>> 1. Could a Lumicycle halogen lamp unit and wiring, etc take the
>>> heat?
>>
>> The lamp unit would get seriously hot. I would hazard a guess that
>> it may get hot enough to melt the solder contacts on the switches.
>> You may be ok if it's a particularly cold day and you ride fast
>> enough for plenty of windchill!
>
> I doubt it wll get that far - the thermal path to the switch is along
> the wires (in which case you'll be melting the insulation and more at
> risk of shorts), or along the reflector, then back along teh case (a
> long and tortuous path, with a particularly high SA/V ratio.
>
>>> 2. Could the Li-ion battery take the drain without damage?
>
> 4A? Some Li-ions can certainly take it. You'd need to find out the
> specs of the lumi battery. You could put two in parallel (which is
> what you do if you're running high power motors from li-ion
> batteries).

Actually, Lumicycle mention using two 35W lamps so I suppose one 50W would
be ok for the battery (4.4Ah).

> Assuming you find that the battery can take it, try it and see. The
> rest of teh components are cheap and relatively easy to replace, or
> likley to make much smoke or pong before becoming irreparably damaged.

Thanks Ian.

~PB
 
in message <[email protected]>, Pete Biggs
('pblackcherry{remove_fruit}@biggs.tc') wrote:

> Spencer Rook wrote:
>> But I think the question really is why do you need 50W? It'd really
>> just be less runtime for no practical advantage. I suppose it would
>> warm your hands on cold days.
>
> I thought I'd make it clear that I don't *need* 50W. I think it'd be
> fun
> to see what it's like, that's all, and they only cost two quid.
> However, I do need powerful lights for riding down unlit roads at high
> speed: 35W would probably be the maximum I'd use for regular use,
> though.

What is going on here? I've seen several similar opinions on this group
in the past few days. I used to use a dynamo with a bulb of some 3 or
so watts; it was fine for high speed road use. Last night I was up in
the forest with my lumicycles, and without really thinking about it,
whenever we came off a single track section onto fire road, I was
flipping my 20 watt light off - because frankly on unlit, unmetalled
fire-road at speeds up to about thirty miles per hour 10 watts is fine,
for my eyes anyway. And my eyes aren't anything like as good as they
were 40 years ago.

Is it simply because younger people and/or urban people are so used to
so much light pollution that they can't see in the dark?

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
"This young man has not the faintest idea how socialists think and does
not begin to understand the mentality of the party he has been elected
to lead. He is quite simply a liberal"
-- Ken Coates MEP (Lab) of Tony Blair
 
Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:

: fire-road at speeds up to about thirty miles per hour 10 watts is fine,
: for my eyes anyway. And my eyes aren't anything like as good as they
: were 40 years ago.

Doubt it. 12W works fine for me for road riding on unlight lanes
(averaging 18-19mph or so).

The 35W thing isn't that people's sight has got worse, it's just that
now one can have a light that will let one descend at daylight speeds
while before one would have reduced the speed.

I used to use a simple 2.4W halogen on dark lanes. It worked, but

a) I was a lot slower then
b) Cars didn't dip their lights like they do with brighter lights
c) My expectations of what I can do at night in terms of speed have
increased

c) is the key.

Arthur

--
Arthur Clune PGP/GPG Key: http://www.clune.org/pubkey.txt
"Blogs are neither necessary nor sufficient for evil to triumph.
They're just what we call an enabling technology" - Danny O'Brien
 
Simon Brooke wrote:

>> I thought I'd make it clear that I don't *need* 50W. I think it'd be
>> fun
>> to see what it's like, that's all, and they only cost two quid.
>> However, I do need powerful lights for riding down unlit roads at
>> high speed: 35W would probably be the maximum I'd use for regular
>> use, though.
>
> What is going on here? I've seen several similar opinions on this
> group in the past few days. I used to use a dynamo with a bulb of
> some 3 or so watts; it was fine for high speed road use.

This is like the argument against 9-speed cassettes: "3 gears were more
than enough when I was a boy", etc. It's missing the point.....

> Last night I
> was up in the forest with my lumicycles, and without really thinking
> about it, whenever we came off a single track section onto fire road,
> I was flipping my 20 watt light off - because frankly on unlit,
> unmetalled fire-road at speeds up to about thirty miles per hour 10
> watts is fine, for my eyes anyway. And my eyes aren't anything like
> as good as they were 40 years ago.
>
> Is it simply because younger people and/or urban people are so used to
> so much light pollution that they can't see in the dark?

At risk of being pedantic, no-one can see in the dark. I /can/ see with
less than 5W at 30 mph but I want more power to enjoy unfamiliar narrow
twisty unlit lanes at 20-40mph, even more, with increased safety. I need
to be able see the corners in good time and I need to see the road surface
clearly, in good time. A pothole could finish me off. It's a simple case
of : the more power, the better (until run time is compromised too much).

Also, bright lights are useful in London to illuminate the **** road
surface at high speed: something that the street lamps don't always
manage.

Perhaps you are happy seeing only a short distance ahead or your eyes are
sharper than mine. I think my eyesight is average but I like to have lots
of reaction time. The further forwards I can have a spot pointed, the
happier I am -- that requires lots of power.

So far I'm doing pretty well with just 5 and 12W spots, but fancy treating
myself to more wattage for the novelty, as much as anything else. It took
me many years to get round to buying these kind of lights, so now I
eventually have them, I'll have some fun! I might not bother with the 50W
afterall but I am ordering various other bulbs (cheaply) to try. Keep an
eye on eBay for the surplus.

~PB
 
in message <[email protected]>, Arthur Clune
('[email protected]') wrote:

> Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> : fire-road at speeds up to about thirty miles per hour 10 watts is
> : fine, for my eyes anyway. And my eyes aren't anything like as good
> : as they were 40 years ago.
>
> Doubt it. 12W works fine for me for road riding on unlight lanes
> (averaging 18-19mph or so).
>
> The 35W thing isn't that people's sight has got worse, it's just that
> now one can have a light that will let one descend at daylight speeds
> while before one would have reduced the speed.
>
> I used to use a simple 2.4W halogen on dark lanes. It worked, but
>
> a) I was a lot slower then
> b) Cars didn't dip their lights like they do with brighter lights
> c) My expectations of what I can do at night in terms of speed have
> increased
>
> c) is the key.

Well, it may be for you. I don't believe I've ever reduced speed at
night for lack of light, and I certainly wasn't last night.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
Das Internet is nicht fuer gefingerclicken und giffengrabben... Ist
nicht fuer gewerken bei das dumpkopfen. Das mausklicken sichtseeren
keepen das bandwit-spewin hans in das pockets muss; relaxen und
watchen das cursorblinken. -- quoted from the jargon file
 
Simon Brooke wrote:
> in message <[email protected]>, Arthur Clune
> ('[email protected]') wrote:
>
>> Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> fire-road at speeds up to about thirty miles per hour 10 watts is
>>> fine, for my eyes anyway. And my eyes aren't anything like as good
>>> as they were 40 years ago.
>>
>> Doubt it. 12W works fine for me for road riding on unlight lanes
>> (averaging 18-19mph or so).
>>
>> The 35W thing isn't that people's sight has got worse, it's just that
>> now one can have a light that will let one descend at daylight speeds
>> while before one would have reduced the speed.
>>
>> I used to use a simple 2.4W halogen on dark lanes. It worked, but
>>
>> a) I was a lot slower then
>> b) Cars didn't dip their lights like they do with brighter lights
>> c) My expectations of what I can do at night in terms of speed have
>> increased
>>
>> c) is the key.
>
> Well, it may be for you. I don't believe I've ever reduced speed at
> night for lack of light, and I certainly wasn't last night.

Good for you. I doubt every one else has such sharp eyes/brain or
bravery.

~PB
 
Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:

: Well, it may be for you. I don't believe I've ever reduced speed at
: night for lack of light, and I certainly wasn't last night.

You said you found 10W fine for "up to 30mph". I do a lot more than
that downhill in daylight (I do just under 50 on a regular basis).
I couldn't do that on 10W. Mind, I adjust my routes so that my 12W
is fine, but I can see that if I lived where that wasn't possible
(steep hills) I'd have more fun with a really big light that would
let me decend at speed.

Arthur


--
Arthur Clune PGP/GPG Key: http://www.clune.org/pubkey.txt
"Blogs are neither necessary nor sufficient for evil to triumph.
They're just what we call an enabling technology" - Danny O'Brien
 
in message <[email protected]>, Pete Biggs
('pblackcherry{remove_fruit}@biggs.tc') wrote:

> Simon Brooke wrote:
>
>> What is going on here? I've seen several similar opinions on this
>> group in the past few days. I used to use a dynamo with a bulb of
>> some 3 or so watts; it was fine for high speed road use.
>
> This is like the argument against 9-speed cassettes: "3 gears were
> more
> than enough when I was a boy", etc. It's missing the point.....
>
>> Last night I
>> was up in the forest with my lumicycles, and without really thinking
>> about it, whenever we came off a single track section onto fire road,
>> I was flipping my 20 watt light off - because frankly on unlit,
>> unmetalled fire-road at speeds up to about thirty miles per hour 10
>> watts is fine, for my eyes anyway. And my eyes aren't anything like
>> as good as they were 40 years ago.
>>
>> Is it simply because younger people and/or urban people are so used
>> to so much light pollution that they can't see in the dark?
>
> At risk of being pedantic, no-one can see in the dark.

At risk of being pedantic, it's never dark out of doors. Even on the
cloudiest night there's some light around; in any case in most parts of
the United Kingdom there's huge amounts of light pollution. Human eyes
react quite slowly to very poor light conditions, but they do react.

> I /can/ see
> with less than 5W at 30 mph but I want more power to enjoy unfamiliar
> narrow
> twisty unlit lanes at 20-40mph, even more, with increased safety. I
> need to be able see the corners in good time and I need to see the
> road surface
> clearly, in good time. A pothole could finish me off. It's a simple
> case of : the more power, the better (until run time is compromised
> too much).

I actually don't agree. Lighting of vehicles (including pedal cycles) is
currently an arms race and everyone will lose. We damage each others'
night vision with dazzle, and that is at least part of why we're having
these problems. In the meantime we have so many bright lights burning
at night, so much stray light and scatter, that many children have
never seen the Milky Way.

The real answer is the less power, used effectively, the better.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

[ This .sig intentionally left blank ]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
Lights: LED vrs. Halogen?
Replies
30
Views
780
UK and Europe
Alan Braggins
A
J
Front light bulbs - LED vs. halogen vs. krypton vs. xenon...
Replies
45
Views
3K
UK and Europe
Anthony Jones
A
P
Plug for powerful halogen lamp
Replies
8
Views
408
UK and Europe
Pete Biggs
P
D
Eurolight Twin Rechargeable Halogen Lights
Replies
24
Views
1K
UK and Europe
Richard Stamper
R
D
Lupine Edison or Lumicycle HID?
Replies
8
Views
555
UK and Europe
Ian Smith
I
Top Bottom Back