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



Peter Cole wrote:
<Big snip again>
>
> The typical incandescent flashlight has terrible beam uniformity, many
> bike lights I've seen are almost as bad. I'm shining one of the old
> Cateye HL-500 (2-C battery) lights on the wall as I type, it has a
> reflector that's wider than tall (~2"x1") and has lens elements molded
> (vertically oriented cylindrical lenses to spread the beam sideways and
> a central circular lens to give a bright spot -- shifted slightly below
> axis to make the spot "bottom heavy") it's very uneven, although a
> somewhat useful shape. You can clearly see the projected image of the
> bulb top (dim center in bright spot). It's just not as effective as the
> LED light as far as uniform light beam goes. I find it harder to pick
> out shadowed objects when the beam has so many artifacts.

I have my Cateye Hl-EL300 with me and it has about a 10 degree beam
spread. Each of the 5 LEDs has a lens in front of it and has about a 5
degree beam per LED. Together they form a beam that is slightly more
wide than high so I can see a bit off the side of the road. More than 15
degrees there is no light on the road but enough for a person to see
that the light is on. The LEDs are mounted on a circuit board and I can
wiggle them a bit to fine tune the pattern and could probably make a 5
degree spot light out of it, but why bother? I have it aimed to hit the
road about 40 feet in front of me and the residual light makes the road
almost under me visible so I have no complaints for a light that I only
use at a maximum speed of 18 to 20 MPH, and usually just about 12 MPH.
Why nit pick?
Bill Baka
 
[email protected] writes:

> [email protected] wrote:
> <significant snippage>
>> I notice that filament-based bike lights (and car headlights, etc.)
>> frequently have very sharp, well-defined beam shapes,
>> characteristic of very good optical control. Every LED-based light
>> I've seen has lacked the sharp cutoffs. To me, this is evidence
>> that the LED isn't as focusable.
>>
> Frank -
>
> I have a bit of experience with good quality incandescent lighting
> both on cars and on bikes and I can't agree with your last sentence,
> though I'm allowing for misunderstanding on my part.
>
> For many years a decent lamp was characterized by a high quality
> parabolic reflector, a well positioned light source, and an optical
> lens to shape the beam to the required ground pattern. Off topic are
> the newest automotive lamps which employ complex reflectors for beam
> shaping and virtually no optical lens.
>
> I have limited experience with LED lighting - only the NiteHawk
> Emitter. That beam is quite well focused. Unfortunately, it is
> focused solely by the parabolic reflector, so it has a conical
> pattern. Perhaps the only LED lights you've had a chance to observe
> have been similar.

Good bicycle light optics provide a more or less rectangular beam
pattern, brighter at the top and pretty sharply cut off. The result
is an evenly lit patch of ground with good illumination at the far end
of the beam. LED lights (that I have seen, which is a limited sample)
just have a round beam of even brightness. That results in a puddle
of light that is dimmer further away and brighter up close.

What I like about LED beams is that there are no dark spots in the
middle of the beam, which often seem to be present in halogen lights.
There are some new generation LED generator lights made by companies
that understand the optical needs of the bicyclist, so perhaps those
have better beam patterns. I haven't seen 'em in person, though. An
example is the Busch und Mueller DLumotec.
 
Tim McNamara wrote:
> Bill Baka <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>>Why nit pick?
>
>
> Oooohhhhh, dude, you *are* new to Usenet aren't you? ;-)

Nah,
I am an old timer, but there is always someone on any group that just
HAS to try to prove he is an expert. I have been around since DOS when
the Internet was a public unknown. Some people have very easy buttons to
push and I can't resist.
Bill
 
On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 03:48:16 GMT, Bill Baka wrote:

> I am an old timer, but there is always someone on any group that just
> HAS to try to prove he is an expert.

The sort of twit who's read just enough about quantum physics to
claim that it gives LEDs close to 100% efficiency, for example.

--
Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw
 
Bill Baka wrote:

> ...there is always someone on any group that just
> HAS to try to prove he is an expert.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! OMG my sides hurt.

That's sort of like Hillary talking about the Bush Admin's penchant for
withholding info! Delicious irony and/or hypocrisy (take your pick)...

Bill "don't ever change, Bullshittin' Bill" S.
 
Sorni wrote:
> Bill Baka wrote:
>
>
>>...there is always someone on any group that just
>>HAS to try to prove he is an expert.
>
>
> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! OMG my sides hurt.
>
> That's sort of like Hillary talking about the Bush Admin's penchant for
> withholding info! Delicious irony and/or hypocrisy (take your pick)...
>
> Bill "don't ever change, Bullshittin' Bill" S.
>
>
Here, digest this from one supplier.
http://www.aopinc.net/cgi-bin/v04/dbv04/display.cgi?search=1&Color_Type=New White
Bill
 
Bill Baka wrote:
> Sorni wrote:
>
>> Bill Baka wrote:
>>
>>
>>> ...there is always someone on any group that just
>>> HAS to try to prove he is an expert.
>>
>>
>>
>> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! OMG my sides hurt.
>>
>> That's sort of like Hillary talking about the Bush Admin's penchant
>> for withholding info! Delicious irony and/or hypocrisy (take your
>> pick)...
>>
>> Bill "don't ever change, Bullshittin' Bill" S.
>>
>>
> Here, digest this from one supplier.
> http://www.aopinc.net/cgi-bin/v04/dbv04/display.cgi?search=1&Color_Type=New White
>
> Bill

Those are dinky little ones. That supplier does make 1, 3 & 5W LED like
the Luxeons. They claim a "no phosphor" process, combining RGB LEDs
rather than pumping a yellow phosphor with a blue LED like the Luxeons.
Looking at the data sheet, they're claiming 32lumen/W in the 1W size,
fairly typical for LEDs in that power these days. More efficient than
overdriven halogen (~20 lumen/W), but not hugely so. Still only around
10% of the electrical power coming out as light. The rest is heat, just
like a regular bulb. The difference is that LEDs don't radiate that heat
in their beam, just from the package.
 
Rich wrote:
> Bill Baka wrote:
>
>> Here, digest this from one supplier.
>> http://www.aopinc.net/cgi-bin/v04/dbv04/display.cgi?search=1&Color_Type=New White
>
>
>
> Holy ****! ********'n Bill actually tried backing up his claims with a
> link (albiet unsuccessfully)! Maybe you can teach an old dog new tricks.
>
> Rich

Did you read ALL the PDFs? The intent is to convert as much electricity
as possible directly to light but there is thermal loss because of any
material's resistance to electric current. I doubt that there ever will
be 100% efficient conversion, but glowing wire lights are definitely not
the way of the future. High pressure Sodium or Mercury vapor lights are
really bright but the electronics would price them out of bicycle range
anyway. They also generate a lot of heat, hence the quartz tube inside a
protective glass tube. Besides, who wants a million candlepower for one
minute before his batteries go dead?
The LED lights work for me since I hate having to charge batteries all
the time.
Now DROP it.
Bill
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
Setting Clock Cateye Micro Wireless
Replies
14
Views
10K
Cycling Equipment
Cyclingf00l
Cyclingf00l
C
Cateye Micro Wireless (MC100w)
Replies
4
Views
757
Cycling Equipment
Capri
C
M
Cateye Micro vs. new LED models?
Replies
5
Views
545
Cycling Equipment
R. Marks
R
bentboob
old Cateye Micro
Replies
1
Views
1K
Cycling Equipment
serenaslu
serenaslu
M
Cateye Micro vs. newer LED models
Replies
16
Views
1K
Cycling Equipment
David Damerell
D
Top Bottom Back