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

[Steve Sr.]

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

 

[Bill Baka]

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

 

[[email protected]]

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

 

[Bill Baka]

[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

 

[LioNiNoiL_a t_Y a h 0 0_d 0 t_c 0 m]

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)

 

[Sorni]

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.

 

[Rich]

[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

 

[peter]

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.

 

[Tom Schmitz]

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

 

[Bill Baka]

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 ****.

 

[Bill Baka]

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

 

[Peter Cole]

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.

 

[Peter Cole]

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.

 

[Peter Cole]

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".

 

[Bill Baka]

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

 

[Bill Baka]

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

 

[Matt O'Toole]

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.

 

[[email protected]]

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.

 

[Simon Cooper]

"Matt O'Toole" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[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.

 

[Bill Baka]

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