Cateye Micro Halogen Headlights HL-500II vs. MC-200?

Discussion in 'Road Cycling' started by Steve Sr., Feb 19, 2006.

  1. Steve Sr.

    Steve Sr. Guest

    Lighting Gurus,

    Do any of you have any opinions of Cateye's halogen battery operated
    headlights?

    I believe that the MC-200 is the original Cateye Micro which is a 2.4W
    4 AA light. These are supposedly bright enough to see by and I think
    they are popular with commuters and shorter brevet riders. This light
    appears to have been discontinued as there is no information except
    for parts on the Cateye web site.

    It looks like the replacement for the MC-200 is the HL-500II (Micro
    II?) It has the same battery and bulb arrangement as the MC-200. I was
    wondering if the optics and the overall light is better or worse than
    its predecessor. It does look like the reflector diameter is smaller
    on this one.

    It appears that these both use a proprietary over driven halogen bulb.
    Are these bulbs only available from Cateye? It looks like Cateye is
    really trying to push towards LED technology so am wondering how long
    bulbs for their halogen lights will be available.

    Thanks for your thoughts.

    Steve
     
    Tags:


  2. Bill Baka

    Bill Baka Guest

    Steve Sr. wrote:
    > Lighting Gurus,
    >
    > Do any of you have any opinions of Cateye's halogen battery operated
    > headlights?
    >
    > I believe that the MC-200 is the original Cateye Micro which is a 2.4W
    > 4 AA light. These are supposedly bright enough to see by and I think
    > they are popular with commuters and shorter brevet riders. This light
    > appears to have been discontinued as there is no information except
    > for parts on the Cateye web site.
    >
    > It looks like the replacement for the MC-200 is the HL-500II (Micro
    > II?) It has the same battery and bulb arrangement as the MC-200. I was
    > wondering if the optics and the overall light is better or worse than
    > its predecessor. It does look like the reflector diameter is smaller
    > on this one.
    >
    > It appears that these both use a proprietary over driven halogen bulb.
    > Are these bulbs only available from Cateye? It looks like Cateye is
    > really trying to push towards LED technology so am wondering how long
    > bulbs for their halogen lights will be available.
    >
    > Thanks for your thoughts.
    >
    > Steve

    The Cateye 5 LED is much more efficient since the is a direct electric
    to light conversion and no heat wasted. Go to their web site and you
    will see the difference. The halogen may be brighter but eats batteries
    faster and I like to get at least 2 rides out of a charge of my NIMH
    triple As.
    Bill
     
  3. Bill Baka wrote:
    > Steve Sr. wrote:
    > > Lighting Gurus,
    > >
    > > Do any of you have any opinions of Cateye's halogen battery operated
    > > headlights?
    > >
    > > I believe that the MC-200 is the original Cateye Micro which is a 2.4W
    > > 4 AA light. These are supposedly bright enough to see by and I think
    > > they are popular with commuters and shorter brevet riders. This light
    > > appears to have been discontinued as there is no information except
    > > for parts on the Cateye web site.
    > >
    > > It looks like the replacement for the MC-200 is the HL-500II (Micro
    > > II?) It has the same battery and bulb arrangement as the MC-200. I was
    > > wondering if the optics and the overall light is better or worse than
    > > its predecessor. It does look like the reflector diameter is smaller
    > > on this one.
    > >
    > > It appears that these both use a proprietary over driven halogen bulb.
    > > Are these bulbs only available from Cateye? It looks like Cateye is
    > > really trying to push towards LED technology so am wondering how long
    > > bulbs for their halogen lights will be available.
    > >
    > > Thanks for your thoughts.
    > >
    > > Steve

    > The Cateye 5 LED is much more efficient since the is a direct electric
    > to light conversion and no heat wasted. Go to their web site and you
    > will see the difference.


    ??

    Do you have a specific URL? I looked around their website a bit and
    didn't find anything relevant to that point. There is a comparison
    chart, but it doesn't list brightness measurements.

    - Frank Krygowski


    The halogen may be brighter but eats batteries
    > faster and I like to get at least 2 rides out of a charge of my NIMH
    > triple As.
    > Bill
     
  4. Bill Baka

    Bill Baka Guest

    [email protected] wrote:
    > Bill Baka wrote:
    >
    >>Steve Sr. wrote:
    >>
    >>>Lighting Gurus,
    >>>
    >>>Do any of you have any opinions of Cateye's halogen battery operated
    >>>headlights?
    >>>
    >>>I believe that the MC-200 is the original Cateye Micro which is a 2.4W
    >>>4 AA light. These are supposedly bright enough to see by and I think
    >>>they are popular with commuters and shorter brevet riders. This light
    >>>appears to have been discontinued as there is no information except
    >>>for parts on the Cateye web site.
    >>>
    >>>It looks like the replacement for the MC-200 is the HL-500II (Micro
    >>>II?) It has the same battery and bulb arrangement as the MC-200. I was
    >>>wondering if the optics and the overall light is better or worse than
    >>>its predecessor. It does look like the reflector diameter is smaller
    >>>on this one.
    >>>
    >>>It appears that these both use a proprietary over driven halogen bulb.
    >>>Are these bulbs only available from Cateye? It looks like Cateye is
    >>>really trying to push towards LED technology so am wondering how long
    >>>bulbs for their halogen lights will be available.
    >>>
    >>>Thanks for your thoughts.
    >>>
    >>>Steve

    >>
    >>The Cateye 5 LED is much more efficient since the is a direct electric
    >>to light conversion and no heat wasted. Go to their web site and you
    >>will see the difference.

    >
    >
    > ??
    >
    > Do you have a specific URL? I looked around their website a bit and
    > didn't find anything relevant to that point. There is a comparison
    > chart, but it doesn't list brightness measurements.
    >
    > - Frank Krygowski
    >
    >
    > The halogen may be brighter but eats batteries
    >
    >>faster and I like to get at least 2 rides out of a charge of my NIMH
    >>triple As.
    >>Bill

    >
    >

    I jsut bought the light 2 months ago.
    Bill
     
  5. Steve Sr. wrote:

    > It looks like the replacement for the MC-200 is the HL-500II
    > ...
    > It appears that these both use a proprietary over driven
    > halogen bulb. Are these bulbs only available from Cateye?


    Replacement bulbs are available from Reflectalite [URL below], see part
    code GH158:

    http://www.reflectalite.com/halogenpage.html

    --
    "Bicycling is a healthy and manly pursuit with much
    to recommend it, and, unlike other foolish crazes,
    it has not died out." -- The Daily Telegraph (1877)
     
  6. Sorni

    Sorni Guest

    Bill Baka wrote:
    > [email protected] wrote:
    >> Bill Baka wrote:


    >>> The Cateye 5 LED is much more efficient since the is a direct
    >>> electric to light conversion and no heat wasted. Go to their web
    >>> site and you will see the difference.


    >> ??
    >>
    >> Do you have a specific URL? I looked around their website a bit and
    >> didn't find anything relevant to that point. There is a comparison
    >> chart, but it doesn't list brightness measurements.


    > I jsut bought the light 2 months ago.
    > Bill


    What does that have to do with answering Frank's question?

    Bill "and we're off!" S.
     
  7. Rich

    Rich Guest

    [email protected] wrote:
    > Bill Baka wrote:


    >>The Cateye 5 LED is much more efficient since the is a direct electric
    >>to light conversion and no heat wasted. Go to their web site and you
    >>will see the difference.

    > ??
    >
    > Do you have a specific URL? I looked around their website a bit and
    > didn't find anything relevant to that point. There is a comparison
    > chart, but it doesn't list brightness measurements.
    >
    > - Frank Krygowski


    I hate to agree with Iron Bill, but LEDs are much more effecient at
    converting electricity into light than incandencent bulbs, as all
    incandecent bulbs convert a significant portion of the electricty they
    use into heat.

    Although perhaps you knew tha and were only questining that that info
    being on the website. This is Iron Bill your dealing with so you have
    to expect at least a part of his post to be made up.

    Rich
     
  8. peter

    peter Guest

    Bill Baka wrote:
    > The Cateye 5 LED is much more efficient since the is a direct electric
    > to light conversion and no heat wasted.


    I like the LED lights too, but the efficiency isn't yet all that much
    higher than halogen lights. Current production white LEDs produce
    around 30 lumens/Watt compared with around 20 lumens/Watt for halogen
    bulbs operated at their nominal voltage. Overdriving the halogens at
    higher voltage further improves their efficiency at the expense of much
    shorter bulb life which brings them into the same range as LEDs.

    Much higher LED efficiencies have been announced for lab prototypes
    (over 100 lumens/Watt was cited by Nichia), but the LEDs in current
    bike lights don't come close to that.

    The big advantage of LEDs currently is that they have much greater life
    and they still produce usable, albeit reduced, light when the battery
    voltage starts to drop. Whereas halogen bulbs will start to rapidly
    drop in efficiency and produce only a faint orange glow at low battery
    voltage, the LED will still put out white light that's usable just
    dimmer.

    > Go to their web site and you will see the difference.


    Didn't see much there on actual bulb efficiency.
     
  9. Tom Schmitz

    Tom Schmitz Guest

    peter wrote:
    > Bill Baka wrote:
    >
    >>The Cateye 5 LED is much more efficient since the is a direct electric
    >>to light conversion and no heat wasted.

    (I'm not sure that is precisely true - LED junction temperatures can get
    pretty high - but I digress before I start)
    >
    >
    > I like the LED lights too,


    So do I, but you have confused me as follows:

    >but the efficiency isn't yet all that much
    > higher than halogen lights. Current production white LEDs produce
    > around 30 lumens/Watt compared with around 20 lumens/Watt for halogen


    I'll take you at your word. But a 50% increase in lumens/watt seems more
    than "isn't yet all that much higher than halogen lights". In fact, that
    seems a pretty significant increase.

    > bulbs operated at their nominal voltage. Overdriving the halogens at
    > higher voltage further improves their efficiency at the expense of much
    > shorter bulb life which brings them into the same range as LEDs.


    How does a life measured in 10s of hours compare favorably with a life
    measured in 1000s of hours? Bringing the halogen bulb to nearly the
    lumens/watt rating of an LED while seriously reducing its life doesn't
    seem to be bringing them into the same range as LEDs.
    >
    > Much higher LED efficiencies have been announced for lab prototypes
    > (over 100 lumens/Watt was cited by Nichia), but the LEDs in current
    > bike lights don't come close to that.
    >
    > The big advantage of LEDs currently is that they have much greater life
    > and they still produce usable, albeit reduced, light when the battery
    > voltage starts to drop. Whereas halogen bulbs will start to rapidly
    > drop in efficiency and produce only a faint orange glow at low battery
    > voltage, the LED will still put out white light that's usable just
    > dimmer.


    I'm not meaning to bust your chops here. As I said, I like LED lights,
    too. I have used a Nite Hawk (perhaps not the best example of the genre)
    with a Luxeon 1W emitter in it and was favorably impressed with the
    light output and battery life.

    In my mind the biggest drawback to the vast majority of commercial
    lights today is the lack of prismatic optics at the aperture of the
    lamp. Give me an LED lamp with the optics of my BiSy and I'll be happy.
    I'm looking into whether or not one of those LED lamps will mimic the
    characteristics of an HPR64 sufficiently well enough to use in that lamp.

    I'm about to start shooting at the wankers with the 10+ watt halogen
    bulbs that are engineered to be general light sources who can't seem to
    aim them properly and blind me as they ride by. That may be an oxymoron.
    You can't aim that junk...

    Tom
     
  10. Bill Baka

    Bill Baka Guest

    Rich wrote:
    > [email protected] wrote:
    >
    >> Bill Baka wrote:

    >
    >
    >>> The Cateye 5 LED is much more efficient since the is a direct electric
    >>> to light conversion and no heat wasted. Go to their web site and you
    >>> will see the difference.

    >>
    >> ??
    >>
    >> Do you have a specific URL? I looked around their website a bit and
    >> didn't find anything relevant to that point. There is a comparison
    >> chart, but it doesn't list brightness measurements.
    >>
    >> - Frank Krygowski

    >
    >
    > I hate to agree with Iron Bill, but LEDs are much more effecient at
    > converting electricity into light than incandencent bulbs, as all
    > incandecent bulbs convert a significant portion of the electricty they
    > use into heat.
    >
    > Although perhaps you knew tha and were only questining that that info
    > being on the website. This is Iron Bill your dealing with so you have
    > to expect at least a part of his post to be made up.
    >
    > Rich


    It wasn't made up. I am an electronics engineer by trade and the quantum
    physics are there for anyone to look up if they can understand them. The
    only heat loss is in the resistors used to limit the current to the LEDs
    so they don't get too much current and burn out. It is a simple circuit,
    batteries, resistors, and LEDs. I get less light from NiMH at 1.2 volts
    times 4 than from alkaline at 1.5 volts times 4 but the alkalines go
    down with time and the NiMH hold at 1.2 volts until almost dead and I
    always carry a spare pair. Like I said before I am not racing and only
    average 12-14 MPH on my meandering trips, B.S. stops included. I can
    pedal over 20+ MPH when I want to, but I am also not training for
    anything serious unless it is the seniors (57) competition. I ride to
    get where neither car nor motorcycle can get to, legally at least, and
    only for fun and relaxation, if 70 mile days count as relaxing once or
    twice a month.
    Bill
    P.S. My light is a Cateye Opticube HL-EL300 so you should be able to
    find a listing. I even bought it from my LBS, like a good cyclist.
    No Wal-Mart crap.
     
  11. Bill Baka

    Bill Baka Guest

    peter wrote:
    > Bill Baka wrote:
    >
    >>The Cateye 5 LED is much more efficient since the is a direct electric
    >>to light conversion and no heat wasted.

    >
    >
    > I like the LED lights too, but the efficiency isn't yet all that much
    > higher than halogen lights. Current production white LEDs produce
    > around 30 lumens/Watt compared with around 20 lumens/Watt for halogen
    > bulbs operated at their nominal voltage. Overdriving the halogens at
    > higher voltage further improves their efficiency at the expense of much
    > shorter bulb life which brings them into the same range as LEDs.
    >
    > Much higher LED efficiencies have been announced for lab prototypes
    > (over 100 lumens/Watt was cited by Nichia), but the LEDs in current
    > bike lights don't come close to that.
    >
    > The big advantage of LEDs currently is that they have much greater life
    > and they still produce usable, albeit reduced, light when the battery
    > voltage starts to drop. Whereas halogen bulbs will start to rapidly
    > drop in efficiency and produce only a faint orange glow at low battery
    > voltage, the LED will still put out white light that's usable just
    > dimmer.
    >
    >
    >>Go to their web site and you will see the difference.

    >
    >
    > Didn't see much there on actual bulb efficiency.
    >

    I tried Halogen once at night on a rough road and the filaments break
    under the stress of bouncing. The same thing happened on my cars on off
    road excursions or when I hit potholes. LEDs don't break just when you
    need them. The LEDs do put out a blueish tint light that while I can see
    just fine with takes a little getting used to.
    Bill
     
  12. Peter Cole

    Peter Cole Guest

    Steve Sr. wrote:
    > Lighting Gurus,
    >
    > Do any of you have any opinions of Cateye's halogen battery operated
    > headlights?
    >
    > I believe that the MC-200 is the original Cateye Micro which is a 2.4W
    > 4 AA light. These are supposedly bright enough to see by and I think
    > they are popular with commuters and shorter brevet riders. This light
    > appears to have been discontinued as there is no information except
    > for parts on the Cateye web site.
    >
    > It looks like the replacement for the MC-200 is the HL-500II (Micro
    > II?) It has the same battery and bulb arrangement as the MC-200. I was
    > wondering if the optics and the overall light is better or worse than
    > its predecessor. It does look like the reflector diameter is smaller
    > on this one.
    >
    > It appears that these both use a proprietary over driven halogen bulb.
    > Are these bulbs only available from Cateye? It looks like Cateye is
    > really trying to push towards LED technology so am wondering how long
    > bulbs for their halogen lights will be available.


    The MC-200 is a cheaper version of the HL-500II. The HL-500II has been
    around for at least 10 years and has been very popular. The MC-200 was
    not as well reviewed. The HL-500II is still sold, although I think time
    is limited for incandescent lights.

    LED lights are slightly more efficient overall, more rugged with better
    lamp life. The only drawback is the 3x price differential. A light made
    from a 1W LED like the NiteHawk Emitter is somewhat less bright than the
    Cateye Micro, but has a better beam pattern. Because of the intrinsic
    optics of LED devices the beams will be better than incandescents, even
    the tiny bulbs that Cateye uses.
     
  13. Peter Cole

    Peter Cole Guest

    Tom Schmitz wrote:

    >
    > In my mind the biggest drawback to the vast majority of commercial
    > lights today is the lack of prismatic optics at the aperture of the
    > lamp. Give me an LED lamp with the optics of my BiSy and I'll be happy.
    > I'm looking into whether or not one of those LED lamps will mimic the
    > characteristics of an HPR64 sufficiently well enough to use in that lamp.
    >


    I'm not sure what you mean by "prismatic optics at the aperture of the
    lamp". If you mean the molded focusing elements on the lens, the Cateye
    has these.

    According to Peter White:
    <http://www.peterwhitecycles.com/b&m.asp>
    The B&M "Freelight D" has the same optics as the Lumotec.
     
  14. Peter Cole

    Peter Cole Guest

    Bill Baka wrote:

    > I tried Halogen once at night on a rough road and the filaments break
    > under the stress of bouncing. The same thing happened on my cars on off
    > road excursions or when I hit potholes.


    I've never broken a filament from "bouncing".
     
  15. Bill Baka

    Bill Baka Guest

    Peter Cole wrote:
    > Bill Baka wrote:
    >
    >> I tried Halogen once at night on a rough road and the filaments break
    >> under the stress of bouncing. The same thing happened on my cars on
    >> off road excursions or when I hit potholes.

    >
    >
    > I've never broken a filament from "bouncing".


    How hard do you bounce? The filaments usually break when on and the
    metal is just so much weaker from the heat. I have never broken one when
    off either.
    Bill
     
  16. Bill Baka

    Bill Baka Guest

    Peter Cole wrote:
    > Steve Sr. wrote:
    >
    >> Lighting Gurus,
    >>
    >> Do any of you have any opinions of Cateye's halogen battery operated
    >> headlights?
    >> I believe that the MC-200 is the original Cateye Micro which is a 2.4W
    >> 4 AA light. These are supposedly bright enough to see by and I think
    >> they are popular with commuters and shorter brevet riders. This light
    >> appears to have been discontinued as there is no information except
    >> for parts on the Cateye web site.
    >>
    >> It looks like the replacement for the MC-200 is the HL-500II (Micro
    >> II?) It has the same battery and bulb arrangement as the MC-200. I was
    >> wondering if the optics and the overall light is better or worse than
    >> its predecessor. It does look like the reflector diameter is smaller
    >> on this one.
    >>
    >> It appears that these both use a proprietary over driven halogen bulb.
    >> Are these bulbs only available from Cateye? It looks like Cateye is
    >> really trying to push towards LED technology so am wondering how long
    >> bulbs for their halogen lights will be available.

    >
    >
    > The MC-200 is a cheaper version of the HL-500II. The HL-500II has been
    > around for at least 10 years and has been very popular. The MC-200 was
    > not as well reviewed. The HL-500II is still sold, although I think time
    > is limited for incandescent lights.
    >
    > LED lights are slightly more efficient overall, more rugged with better
    > lamp life. The only drawback is the 3x price differential. A light made
    > from a 1W LED like the NiteHawk Emitter is somewhat less bright than the
    > Cateye Micro, but has a better beam pattern. Because of the intrinsic
    > optics of LED devices the beams will be better than incandescents, even
    > the tiny bulbs that Cateye uses.


    OK, I did pay over $30 for the LED Cateye, but I think it was worth it.
    It has a quick release bracket so I can take it in the house with me and
    it makes a very good flashlight, too.
    Bill
     
  17. Matt O'Toole

    Matt O'Toole Guest

    On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 21:20:07 -0700, Rich wrote:

    > [email protected] wrote:
    >> Bill Baka wrote:

    >
    >>>The Cateye 5 LED is much more efficient since the is a direct electric
    >>>to light conversion and no heat wasted. Go to their web site and you
    >>>will see the difference.

    >> ??
    >>
    >> Do you have a specific URL? I looked around their website a bit and
    >> didn't find anything relevant to that point. There is a comparison
    >> chart, but it doesn't list brightness measurements.
    >>
    >> - Frank Krygowski

    >
    > I hate to agree with Iron Bill, but LEDs are much more effecient at
    > converting electricity into light than incandencent bulbs, as all
    > incandecent bulbs convert a significant portion of the electricty they
    > use into heat.


    This is true but not to the degree you may be led to believe by LED
    marketing. White LEDs are really just colored ones with filters, and the
    LED colors used to start with are not the most efficient ones.

    Getting back to the original topic -- I use an old Cateye Micro almost
    every day. Side by side it's brighter and more useful than the newer
    LED models, the EL-300 and EL-500. The latter is bright and
    efficient for a 1W light, but it's still just 1W, vs. 2.4W. LEDs are not
    *that* much more efficient than incandescent bulbs. Also, to boost the
    brightness ratings, the LED models have very narrowly focused beams -- too
    narrow. I'm not impressed. If the 1W LED units gave me an advantage I
    would have bought one.

    I don't know about the MC-200, but I've been told it's not as good as the
    older Micro. There are plenty of older Micros still around. I've seen
    them advertised for $10. Google is your friend.

    Matt O.
     
  18. Matt O'Toole wrote:
    > On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 21:20:07 -0700, Rich wrote:
    >
    > > [email protected] wrote:
    > >> Bill Baka wrote:

    > >
    > >>>The Cateye 5 LED is much more efficient since the is a direct electric
    > >>>to light conversion and no heat wasted. Go to their web site and you
    > >>>will see the difference.
    > >> ??
    > >>
    > >> Do you have a specific URL? I looked around their website a bit and
    > >> didn't find anything relevant to that point. There is a comparison
    > >> chart, but it doesn't list brightness measurements.
    > >>
    > >> - Frank Krygowski

    > >
    > > I hate to agree with Iron Bill, but LEDs are much more effecient at
    > > converting electricity into light than incandencent bulbs, as all
    > > incandecent bulbs convert a significant portion of the electricty they
    > > use into heat.

    >
    > This is true but not to the degree you may be led to believe by LED
    > marketing. White LEDs are really just colored ones with filters, and the
    > LED colors used to start with are not the most efficient ones.
    >
    > Getting back to the original topic -- I use an old Cateye Micro almost
    > every day. Side by side it's brighter and more useful than the newer
    > LED models, the EL-300 and EL-500. The latter is bright and
    > efficient for a 1W light, but it's still just 1W, vs. 2.4W. LEDs are not
    > *that* much more efficient than incandescent bulbs. Also, to boost the
    > brightness ratings, the LED models have very narrowly focused beams -- too
    > narrow. I'm not impressed. If the 1W LED units gave me an advantage I
    > would have bought one.
    >
    > I don't know about the MC-200, but I've been told it's not as good as the
    > older Micro. There are plenty of older Micros still around. I've seen
    > them advertised for $10. Google is your friend.
    >
    > Matt O.


    http://www.nashbar.com/profile.cfm?...and=&sku=13661&storetype=&estoreid=&pagename=

    $9.95 from Nashbar before coupons for the Micro II. Lat year I bought
    a couple of these for about $8 and the Cateye EL500 Opticube and
    several other Cateye and various brand LED lights. When I tested them
    side by side in a dark room the cheap Micro II produced so much more
    light than all of the LEDs. Only 3 hours battery life. But I'd rather
    have sufficient light for 3 hours and carry extra batteries than have
    unusable poor light for many hours with the LEDs. For anyone
    considering LED lights, buy several of them and the cheap Micro II and
    try them. Send the ones you don't like back.
     
  19. Simon Cooper

    Simon Cooper Guest

    "Matt O'Toole" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:p[email protected]
    > On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 21:20:07 -0700, Rich wrote:
    >
    > > I hate to agree with Iron Bill, but LEDs are much more effecient at
    > > converting electricity into light than incandencent bulbs, as all
    > > incandecent bulbs convert a significant portion of the electricty they
    > > use into heat.

    >
    > This is true but not to the degree you may be led to believe by LED
    > marketing. White LEDs are really just colored ones with filters, and the


    This just isn't true. They're more like mixtures of other LEDs to get all
    the colours needed to appear white. Or at least blue and yellow, anyway.
    Here's a quick summary of a few techniques used:
    http://ietele.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/E88-C/9/1860

    > LED colors used to start with are not the most efficient ones.


    That may well be true, I'm not quite sure how Candela and Lumens account for
    the colour of light.
     
  20. Bill Baka

    Bill Baka Guest

    Matt O'Toole wrote:
    > On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 21:20:07 -0700, Rich wrote:
    >
    >
    >>[email protected] wrote:
    >>
    >>>Bill Baka wrote:

    >>
    >>>>The Cateye 5 LED is much more efficient since the is a direct electric
    >>>>to light conversion and no heat wasted. Go to their web site and you
    >>>>will see the difference.
    >>>
    >>>??
    >>>
    >>>Do you have a specific URL? I looked around their website a bit and
    >>>didn't find anything relevant to that point. There is a comparison
    >>>chart, but it doesn't list brightness measurements.
    >>>
    >>>- Frank Krygowski

    >>
    >>I hate to agree with Iron Bill, but LEDs are much more effecient at
    >>converting electricity into light than incandencent bulbs, as all
    >>incandecent bulbs convert a significant portion of the electricty they
    >>use into heat.

    >
    >
    > This is true but not to the degree you may be led to believe by LED
    > marketing. White LEDs are really just colored ones with filters, and the
    > LED colors used to start with are not the most efficient ones.
    >
    > Getting back to the original topic -- I use an old Cateye Micro almost
    > every day. Side by side it's brighter and more useful than the newer
    > LED models, the EL-300 and EL-500. The latter is bright and
    > efficient for a 1W light, but it's still just 1W, vs. 2.4W. LEDs are not
    > *that* much more efficient than incandescent bulbs. Also, to boost the
    > brightness ratings, the LED models have very narrowly focused beams -- too
    > narrow. I'm not impressed. If the 1W LED units gave me an advantage I
    > would have bought one.
    >
    > I don't know about the MC-200, but I've been told it's not as good as the
    > older Micro. There are plenty of older Micros still around. I've seen
    > them advertised for $10. Google is your friend.
    >
    > Matt O.


    BZZZT, wrong. The LEDs are specially formulated with all kinds of exotic
    materials beyond the Indium/Gallium/Arsenide/Silicon normally used. No
    filters involved since they don't want to waste any of the precious
    battery power. They are also (some of them) built up in layers that
    generate light which is passed through the next layer, etc., until it is
    emitted. All normal LEDs radiate at one and only one wavelength +/-
    about a half a nanometer. The white ones tend toward a blue tint but the
    result is close enough to white not to be noticeable on the road. Single
    color LEDs also take about 1.4 volts to work and the white ones take
    about 4.5 volts to come alive. Different chemistries. Google white LEDs
    and you should find a lot more technical data than you can digest, even me.
    Pure sunlight is not white, just a combination that we have evolved to
    perceive as white.
    Bill
     
Loading...
Loading...