LED Lightbulbs

[Michael Chare]

I see I can now buy a 60W equivalent LED light bulb Philips myAmbiance
872790091840300 at a price which will take the best part of £40.00!

Are they any good?

I have also seen LED car stop & tail bulbs. Should I get one the next
time a bulb fails?

--
Michael Chare

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <RpidnTRYB6M28xXS...@brightview.co.uk>,

Michael Chare <mUNDERSCOREnews@chareDOTorgDOTuk> wrote:
> I have also seen LED car stop & tail bulbs. Should I get one the next
> time a bulb fails?

Check if they carry the E mark - as all suitable replacements must do to
meet the regs. You'll likely find they don't.

--
*Any connection between your reality and mine is purely coincidental

Dave Plowman da...@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Andrew Gabriel]

In article <RpidnTRYB6M28xXS...@brightview.co.uk>,

Michael Chare <mUNDERSCOREnews@chareDOTorgDOTuk> writes:
> I see I can now buy a 60W equivalent LED light bulb Philips myAmbiance
> 872790091840300 at a price which will take the best part of £40.00!
>
> Are they any good?

I would start with a very large dose of scepticism, based on past
experience of Philips (and others) claims for performance of new
lamp technologies.

I wouldn't spend £40 to find out, but if someone gave me one,
I'd certainly kick the tyres. The datasheet shows how much better
it is than a 60W filament lamp, but it's got to be very significantly
better than a £2 15W CFL before it's viable in my eyes, and it
isn't. When it costs a quarter of the current price, I would buy
one to try.

Being dimmable is interesting, but most light dimmers won't work
with such a low load, so that's probably not useful unless you have
lots of them.

> I have also seen LED car stop & tail bulbs. Should I get one the next
> time a bulb fails?

Only if the car manufacturer states they still meet the regs, which
they almost certainly will not unless they're original equipment.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

[Moonraker]

On 13/04/2012 20:15, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
> In article<RpidnTRYB6M28xXS...@brightview.co.uk>,
> Michael Chare<mUNDERSCOREnews@chareDOTorgDOTuk> writes:
>> I see I can now buy a 60W equivalent LED light bulb Philips myAmbiance
>> 872790091840300 at a price which will take the best part of £40.00!
>>
>> Are they any good?
>
> I would start with a very large dose of scepticism, based on past
> experience of Philips (and others) claims for performance of new
> lamp technologies.
>
> I wouldn't spend £40 to find out, but if someone gave me one,
> I'd certainly kick the tyres. The datasheet shows how much better
> it is than a 60W filament lamp, but it's got to be very significantly
> better than a £2 15W CFL before it's viable in my eyes, and it
> isn't. When it costs a quarter of the current price, I would buy
> one to try.
>
> Being dimmable is interesting, but most light dimmers won't work
> with such a low load, so that's probably not useful unless you have
> lots of them.
>

>> I have also seen LED car stop& tail bulbs. Should I get one the next

>> time a bulb fails?
>
> Only if the car manufacturer states they still meet the regs, which
> they almost certainly will not unless they're original equipment.
>

I read recently that LEDs in cars are not as efficient as touted, it
seems they need cooling to work efficiently, so that may apply to the
home as well.

--
Residing on low ground in North Staffordshire

[John Williamson]

Moonraker wrote:
> I read recently that LEDs in cars are not as efficient as touted, it
> seems they need cooling to work efficiently, so that may apply to the
> home as well.
>

The benefits of LEDs on vehicles are the long life and resistance to
vibration. They also normally fail in a manner that leaves at least some
light being generated by the unit, which is safer than the all or
nothing when a filament lamp fails.

The efficiency savings for mobile use aren't worth bothering about
except for applications like battery powered cycle lights or torches, as
the power used by the lighting on a car is a small percentage of the
total power used to move it. At 30mph on a flat road, the absolute
maximum total lighting load on most cars, including headlamps and
foglamps, is less than 400 watts, as against ten kilowatts or more being
used to overcome rolling and air resistance.

LEDS in fixed installations are noticeably more efficient than filament
bulbs, as they use a switched mode supply, with a total comsumption of
about 10% or 15% that of the filament bulbs for the same light output.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Andrew Gabriel]

In article <9ut39a...@mid.individual.net>,

John Williamson <johnwil...@btinternet.com> writes:
> Moonraker wrote:
>> I read recently that LEDs in cars are not as efficient as touted, it
>> seems they need cooling to work efficiently, so that may apply to the
>> home as well.

Indeed it does. The lighting industry got a very bad reputation
with the dishonest claims for CFLs, and LEDs started off even worse,
e.g. quoting efficiencies with the LED chip at 25C, which is only
going to apply if you run the thing in your freezer.

> The benefits of LEDs on vehicles are the long life and resistance to
> vibration.

Also, faster 'ON' time, particularly for brake lights.

However, the lamp cluster needs to have been designed for LEDs.
Retrofitting them into a cluster designed for a filament light
source isn't going to conform to regs.

> They also normally fail in a manner that leaves at least some
> light being generated by the unit, which is safer than the all or
> nothing when a filament lamp fails.
>
> The efficiency savings for mobile use aren't worth bothering about
> except for applications like battery powered cycle lights or torches, as
> the power used by the lighting on a car is a small percentage of the
> total power used to move it. At 30mph on a flat road, the absolute
> maximum total lighting load on most cars, including headlamps and
> foglamps, is less than 400 watts, as against ten kilowatts or more being
> used to overcome rolling and air resistance.
>
> LEDS in fixed installations are noticeably more efficient than filament
> bulbs, as they use a switched mode supply, with a total comsumption of
> about 10% or 15% that of the filament bulbs for the same light output.

LEDs at that efficiency do exist, but are pricy. Most of the LEDs
you'll see at halfway affordable prices are around the same efficieny
as CFLs, and the cheaper ones are nearer the efficiency of LV halogens.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <9ut39a...@mid.individual.net>,

John Williamson <johnwil...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> LEDS in fixed installations are noticeably more efficient than filament
> bulbs, as they use a switched mode supply, with a total comsumption of
> about 10% or 15% that of the filament bulbs for the same light output.

Cars use SMPS too for LEDs.

A difference is that 12v tungsten are already more efficient than mains
ones.

I'd love to see *any* LED with the same light output as halogen mains. And
by that I mean a near 360 degree output of the same colour spectrum. Not
just measured by pointing some crude light meter at it. And using the very
worst possible tungsten as the comparison.

--
*What are the pink bits in my tyres? Cyclists & Joggers*

[charles]

In article <jmbn48$ge3$1...@dont-email.me>,

Andrew Gabriel <and...@cucumber.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <9ut39a...@mid.individual.net>,
> John Williamson <johnwil...@btinternet.com> writes:
> > Moonraker wrote:
> >> I read recently that LEDs in cars are not as efficient as touted, it
> >> seems they need cooling to work efficiently, so that may apply to the
> >> home as well.

> Indeed it does. The lighting industry got a very bad reputation
> with the dishonest claims for CFLs, and LEDs started off even worse,
> e.g. quoting efficiencies with the LED chip at 25C, which is only
> going to apply if you run the thing in your freezer.

Sorry, but while you might get 25°F in your freezer, 25°C is a slightly
warm ambient temperature.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

[Bill Wright]

John Williamson wrote:

> The efficiency savings for mobile use aren't worth bothering about
> except for applications like battery powered cycle lights or torches, as
> the power used by the lighting on a car is a small percentage of the
> total power used to move it. At 30mph on a flat road, the absolute
> maximum total lighting load on most cars, including headlamps and
> foglamps, is less than 400 watts, as against ten kilowatts or more being
> used to overcome rolling and air resistance.

If that 400W could be reduced to 100W there would be worthwhile fuel
savings.

Bill

[John Williamson]

Less than 3% at constant speed in town, less at higher speeds or when
accelerating. Stopping at one red traffic light in a five mile journey
would make more difference. Correcting the tyre pressures every time the
load changes can make more difference. Removing the toolbox or shopping
from the boot makes almost as much difference. The absolute maximum on
my car is 210W, and that's using high beam headights and rear fog lights
while I'm signalling a turn.

To get the maximum lighting load down to 100W, you'd need to replace the
headlights with ultra efficient lights, which at the moment isn't
practical. In town, using dipped beams, the load is more like 150W,
anyway. You'll only use 400W in a situation where you are driving in
foggy conditions or using four high power halogen main beam lights.

[Andy Bartlett]

"Bill Wright" <bi...@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:jmbp4b$prs$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

Depends what you mean by worthwhile.
Back of a fag packet calcs. (assuming the vehicle does 35mpg and speed
averages 32mph) that 300W saving is 0.7% of your energy budget.
At £1.40 litre current petrol price that is about 1p per litre.
When you factor in the conversion cost I think it is a non starter.

Andy

[Adam Aglionby]

On Apr 14, 12:48 pm, charles <char...@charleshope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <jmbn48$ge...@dont-email.me>,
>    Andrew Gabriel <and...@cucumber.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > In article <9ut39aFkp...@mid.individual.net>,

> >    John Williamson <johnwilliam...@btinternet.com> writes:
> > > Moonraker wrote:
> > >> I read recently that LEDs in cars are not as efficient as touted, it
> > >> seems they need cooling to work efficiently, so that may apply to the
> > >> home as well.
> > Indeed it does. The lighting industry got a very bad reputation
> > with the dishonest claims for CFLs, and LEDs started off even worse,
> > e.g. quoting efficiencies with the LED chip at 25C, which is only
> > going to apply if you run the thing in your freezer.
>
> Sorry, but while you might get 25°F in your freezer, 25°C is a slightly
> warm ambient temperature.

Thats the Temperature Junction, Tj, in the data sheets, which is
actually a tiny area less than 1mm ^2 heating rapidly as soon as
energised.

Astounding effiency can be demonstrated by a couple of difficult to
replicate outside of the lab ,er, strategies.

Measure the output in first few miliseconds of start up with a boosted
current.

Actively chill the heatsink, to get Tj to 25C means heatsink is going
to have to start colder.

Run the device at a tiny current lowering self heating effects then
supply the numbers for massage to marketing department....

Cheers
Adam

[Mike Clarke]

On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 13:18:50 +0100
John Williamson <johnwil...@btinternet.com> wrote:

> In town, using dipped beams, the load is more like 150W,
> anyway. You'll only use 400W in a situation where you are driving in
> foggy conditions or using four high power halogen main beam lights.

How can foggy conditions result in so much more load? A pair of front
foglamps will be the same power as a pair of dipped headlamps and the
rear foglamps will only add 21w each which will only push it up to
about 200w total

--
Mike Clarke

[John Williamson]

You've got 200W minimum at the front, due to the dipped headlamps *and*
foglamps being on, then add the 42W drawn by the high intensity rear
lamps, plus at least 42W for brake lights and the same for indicators,
when they're being used. Plus, of course, at least 24W for side and tail
lights, not forgetting the side marker lights fitted to some cars. I was
giving maximum loads, not average ones.

Four bright halogen main beam lights are 350W just on their own.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <jmbp4b$prs$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,

It would, but that 400w includes headlights. And very few cars have LED
ones. HID are more common - and vastly more efficient than tungsten. My 35
watt units produce much more light than 55w halogen. I'm not sure how LED
compares to that.

--
*There are two kinds of pedestrians... the quick and the dead.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <9ut89g...@mid.individual.net>,

John Williamson <johnwil...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> To get the maximum lighting load down to 100W, you'd need to replace the
> headlights with ultra efficient lights, which at the moment isn't
> practical.

It already is. HID are commonly 35 watts per lamp. And produce far more
light than 55w halogen.

--
*Corduroy pillows are making headlines.

[Andy Burns]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

> that 400w includes headlights. And very few cars have LED
> ones. HID are more common - and vastly more efficient than tungsten. My 35
> watt units produce much more light than 55w halogen. I'm not sure how LED
> compares to that.

The top-end Audis have optional LED headlights, it mentions 40W per unit
for the dipped beam, but doesn't state the wattage for high-beam.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <9uteak...@mid.individual.net>,

John Williamson <johnwil...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> You've got 200W minimum at the front, due to the dipped headlamps *and*
> foglamps being on,

There is absolutely no point in using both in fog. The idea of low mounted
fog lights is they cut beneath the fog and light the road. Headlights as
well will just produce scatter and blind you.

--
*We waste time, so you don't have to *

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <3Y6dnT8b4_arDRTS...@brightview.co.uk>,

That's more or less the same as HID. Be interesting to do a comparison.
I'm very happy with my HID units.

The only snags with HID is the time they take to reach full brightness,
and not being a good idea to flash them, like all such types. Not a
problem in practice, but means you can't switch them on and off like
'normal' units. So you either use mirrors for dip/main beam or add
conventional mains. And some other lamps for flashing.

I suspect LED will prove cheaper, rather than better, in the scheme of
things.

--
*Indian Driver - Smoke signals only*

[Andrew Gabriel]

In article <5280563...@davenoise.co.uk>,

"Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> writes:
> In article <9uteak...@mid.individual.net>,
> John Williamson <johnwil...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> You've got 200W minimum at the front, due to the dipped headlamps *and*
>> foglamps being on,
>
> There is absolutely no point in using both in fog. The idea of low mounted
> fog lights is they cut beneath the fog and light the road.

The original "aim" was to pick out the kerb with the left one, and
the lane marking with the right one, nearer to the car than the
dip beam headlamps will effectively light. Nowadays, they're rather
more cosmetic than functional, and often can't even be adjusted to
aim/cutoff correctly.

> Headlights as well will just produce scatter and blind you.

Can do, depending on conditions, but not always.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <jmc6c3$1mu$1...@dont-email.me>,

Andrew Gabriel <and...@cucumber.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > There is absolutely no point in using both in fog. The idea of low mounted
> > fog lights is they cut beneath the fog and light the road.

> The original "aim" was to pick out the kerb with the left one, and
> the lane marking with the right one, nearer to the car than the
> dip beam headlamps will effectively light.

All proper fog lights have a wide beam with a sharp cutoff. So can't
really be aimed as you suggest.

> Nowadays, they're rather
> more cosmetic than functional, and often can't even be adjusted to
> aim/cutoff correctly.

Some cars have extra driving lights rather than true fogs. As you say more
to differentiate the head of paper clips car from his mere salesmen.

> > Headlights as well will just produce scatter and blind you.

> Can do, depending on conditions, but not always.

Always. That's why foglights are low mounted and illegal in good
visibility. If the headlights were good in fog - why have specialised
lighting just for it?

But I'm talking about proper fog where you're reduced to walking pace.

--
*On the seventh day He brewed beer *

[charles]

In article <20120414144...@curlew.lan>,

'cos most cars, idiotically, only allow you to use the fog lights when the
headlamps are switched on.

[charles]

In article <528052f...@davenoise.co.uk>,

Dave Plowman (News) <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <9ut89g...@mid.individual.net>,
> John Williamson <johnwil...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> > To get the maximum lighting load down to 100W, you'd need to replace
> > the headlights with ultra efficient lights, which at the moment isn't
> > practical.

> It already is. HID are commonly 35 watts per lamp. And produce far more
> light than 55w halogen.

and even they give out a lot more light than the tungsten as supplied with
my Anglia.

[Andy Burns]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

> That's more or less the same as HID. Be interesting to do a comparison.

Test drive an R8 about 5pm in winter then!

> I'm very happy with my HID units.

Ditto.

> The only snags with HID is the time they take to reach full brightness,

I think by the time they've struck and been waggled to level them,
they're at full rightness

> and not being a good idea to flash them

I don't know if that applies or not, I think mine has some normal bulbs
used for flashing and during the warm-up, you see the colour change when
these switch off, not examined them in detail though.

> like all such types. Not a
> problem in practice, but means you can't switch them on and off like
> 'normal' units. So you either use mirrors for dip/main beam or add
> conventional mains.

Dunno if mine is mirrors or some sort of shade that is raised to unmask
for high beam, again I've not looked.

[Andrew Gabriel]

In article <5280597...@davenoise.co.uk>,

"Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> writes:
> In article <3Y6dnT8b4_arDRTS...@brightview.co.uk>,
> Andy Burns <usenet....@adslpipe.co.uk> wrote:
>> > that 400w includes headlights. And very few cars have LED ones. HID
>> > are more common - and vastly more efficient than tungsten. My 35 watt
>> > units produce much more light than 55w halogen. I'm not sure how LED
>> > compares to that.
>
>> The top-end Audis have optional LED headlights, it mentions 40W per unit
>> for the dipped beam, but doesn't state the wattage for high-beam.
>
> That's more or less the same as HID. Be interesting to do a comparison.
> I'm very happy with my HID units.
>
> The only snags with HID is the time they take to reach full brightness,
> and not being a good idea to flash them, like all such types. Not a
> problem in practice, but means you can't switch them on and off like
> 'normal' units. So you either use mirrors for dip/main beam or add
> conventional mains. And some other lamps for flashing.
>
> I suspect LED will prove cheaper, rather than better, in the scheme of
> things.

HIDs are cheap to make and factory fit and increase the perceived
value of the car, which makes for a good manufacturer profit margin.
Also good profit on spare parts.

LEDs are still expensive to design and manufacture for the required
performance, and don't add much (if any) perceived value over HID,
so not yet so compelling for manufacturers. It will probably come
in time though, particularly as efficiency isn't a significant
factor in this application (high efficiency jacks up LED price).

LED would perhaps allow for some clever stuff with dynamic cut-off
adjustments, such as automatic left/right side dipping based on
GPS (country, and even road-specific, e.g. where there can't be
any oncoming traffic). If the French still required yellow
headlamps, I could imagine some adjustable colour versions
too (again, derived from the GPS location).

[Mike Clarke]

On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 17:21:48 +0100
charles <cha...@charleshope.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> 'cos most cars, idiotically, only allow you to use the fog lights
> when the headlamps are switched on.

Glad mine doesn't fall into the "most cars" category then. The scatter
from the headlights would defeat the benefit of the sharp cut-off beam
from the fog lights.

--
Mike Clarke

[Dave Liquorice]

On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 14:41:33 +0100, Mike Clarke wrote:

> How can foggy conditions result in so much more load? A pair of front
> foglamps will be the same power as a pair of dipped headlamps and the
> rear foglamps will only add 21w each which will only push it up to
> about 200w total

Full lighting load, as standard, on my car is something over 400W.

6 x 55W (dip, main, fog), front side lights, rear lights, rear fogs.
Braking (+42W) indicating (+50W, 2 x 21W plus side marker) 500W+ ...

Admittedly if one needs the front fogs on at all then the main and
dip are off as you get too much glare back from them.

--
Cheers
Dave.

[Dave Liquorice]

On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 17:19:21 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

>>> Headlights as well will just produce scatter and blind you.
>>
>> Can do, depending on conditions, but not always.
>
> Always. That's why foglights are low mounted and illegal in good
> visibility. If the headlights were good in fog - why have specialised
> lighting just for it?

Quite agree.

> But I'm talking about proper fog where you're reduced to walking pace.

Proper fog that most people never ever see.

I think I've had to drop to front fogs just a handful of times up
here on the North Pennines where we almost live in the hill fog. When
the snow poles are too far apart to see from one to the next, there
is thick fog visibilty about 15' max and everything is also smoothly
covered in snow with no tracks to follow it makes for an
"interesting" drive. Fast walking pace, concentration, and "if it
gets bumpy I'm probably no longer on the road". B-)

--
Cheers
Dave.

[dennis@home]

"Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:5280434...@davenoise.co.uk...

> In article <9ut39a...@mid.individual.net>,
> John Williamson <johnwil...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> LEDS in fixed installations are noticeably more efficient than filament
>> bulbs, as they use a switched mode supply, with a total comsumption of
>> about 10% or 15% that of the filament bulbs for the same light output.
>
> Cars use SMPS too for LEDs.
>
> A difference is that 12v tungsten are already more efficient than mains
> ones.
>
> I'd love to see *any* LED with the same light output as halogen mains. And
> by that I mean a near 360 degree output of the same colour spectrum. Not
> just measured by pointing some crude light meter at it. And using the very
> worst possible tungsten as the comparison.

Let us know when you can get halogen lights that can do this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znivDtjl1N4

[dennis@home]

"charles" <cha...@charleshope.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:52805d85...@charleshope.demon.co.uk...

Do you mean the rear fogs, I know of none that have front fogs where you
have to have the headlamps on as well.

[gri...@gmail.com]

On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 21:58:55 +0100, "dennis@home"
<den...@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:

>Let us know when you can get halogen lights that can do this
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znivDtjl1N4

Oh, I do like that; especially the selective illumination in the face
of oncoming traffic.
Otoh, it's just another gadget/gizmo to go expensively wrong.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <jmcoef$noa$1...@news.albasani.net>,

dennis@home <den...@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:
> > I'd love to see *any* LED with the same light output as halogen mains.
> > And by that I mean a near 360 degree output of the same colour
> > spectrum. Not just measured by pointing some crude light meter at it.
> > And using the very worst possible tungsten as the comparison.

> Let us know when you can get halogen lights that can do this
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znivDtjl1N4

I realise you're not technical, Dennis, but multiple lamp halogens could
do exactly the same thing. Although just why you'd want to escapes me.

But it's nice to see you're impressed by computer animation.

--
*I like cats, too. Let's exchange recipes.

[m...@privacy.net]

On 14 Apr,

"Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:

> Always. That's why foglights are low mounted and illegal in good
> visibility.

Can you quote evidence of that? I'm sure that was the case in the 60s and
have trawled the net to find the rules for how high lights must be to be used
in good visibility and failed miserably in finding any evidence of the
illegality of the current spate of foglights in good visibility.

> If the headlights were good in fog - why have specialised lighting just for
> it?
>

Exactly! It's fairly rare for any fog lights to be needed. Rear foglights
should only be used when visbility is below 100 metres, so speed needs to be
restricted too. Most peeps switch on rear fog lights as soon as there's a
hint of mist, and don't slow down, being unaware that the fog lights mask
their brake lights and signals, being much brighter.

The regulations state that only one rear fog light is allowed, and that must
be on the offside, to reduce the likelyhood of them being mistaken for brake
lights.

--
B Thumbs
Change lycos to yahoo to reply

[dennis@home]

"Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message

news:52807f0...@davenoise.co.uk...

> In article <jmcoef$noa$1...@news.albasani.net>,
> dennis@home <den...@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:
>> > I'd love to see *any* LED with the same light output as halogen mains.
>> > And by that I mean a near 360 degree output of the same colour
>> > spectrum. Not just measured by pointing some crude light meter at it.
>> > And using the very worst possible tungsten as the comparison.
>
>> Let us know when you can get halogen lights that can do this
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znivDtjl1N4
>
> I realise you're not technical, Dennis, but multiple lamp halogens could
> do exactly the same thing. Although just why you'd want to escapes me.

I realise you don't know as much as you think but the optics to do that with
halogen lamps would be rather difficult.
The filament would have to be too long to actually make the sharp cut off
required.
But I guess you don't know much about the differences between LED lamps and
filament lamps.

>
> But it's nice to see you're impressed by computer animation.

Its not all animation, but I realise that you can't tell the difference.
Even Mickey mouse cartoons are more impressive than you these days.

[PeterC]

On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 21:46:08 +0100 (BST), Dave Liquorice wrote:

>> But I'm talking about proper fog where you're reduced to walking pace.
>
> Proper fog that most people never ever see.
>
> I think I've had to drop to front fogs just a handful of times up
> here on the North Pennines where we almost live in the hill fog. When
> the snow poles are too far apart to see from one to the next, there
> is thick fog visibilty about 15' max and everything is also smoothly
> covered in snow with no tracks to follow it makes for an
> "interesting" drive. Fast walking pace, concentration, and "if it
> gets bumpy I'm probably no longer on the road". B-)

Last had that coming home from walking on Kinder Scout. Brilliant day on the
tops but cloud below 1500'.
On the last roundabout on the southern edge of Derby I lost the kerb and had
to go round again; I could just see the signs fron about 5 yards away.

A bit further on we turned L into a pub's car-park (we often used that pub)
and were followed by another car. The other car realised that we'd parked
and swung L. It got to an exit (visibility there was about 10 yards), turned
L onto a minor road, reached the A-road from which it had come and turned R!
It had Channel Island plates, so it might just have been a tad lost - only
180 deg. though.
--
Peter.
The gods will stay away
whilst religions hold sway

[charles]

In article <20120414210...@curlew.lan>,

agreed

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <52808147CB%brian...@lycos.co.uk>,

<m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> On 14 Apr,
> "Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:

> > Always. That's why foglights are low mounted and illegal in good
> > visibility.

> Can you quote evidence of that? I'm sure that was the case in the 60s
> and have trawled the net to find the rules for how high lights must be
> to be used in good visibility and failed miserably in finding any
> evidence of the illegality of the current spate of foglights in good
> visibility.

You can't have tried very hard. It's in the highway code.

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_069859

although that seems to suggest they must be used with headlights. Which
completely defeats the purpose of them.

> > If the headlights were good in fog - why have specialised lighting
> > just for it?
> >
> Exactly! It's fairly rare for any fog lights to be needed. Rear
> foglights should only be used when visbility is below 100 metres, so
> speed needs to be restricted too. Most peeps switch on rear fog lights
> as soon as there's a hint of mist, and don't slow down, being unaware
> that the fog lights mask their brake lights and signals, being much
> brighter.

They are normally the same brightness as stop lamps or indictors. They are
also very useful in heavy rain in daylight. They allow you to see there is
a car in front before you can actually see the car itself.

> The regulations state that only one rear fog light is allowed, and that
> must be on the offside, to reduce the likelyhood of them being mistaken
> for brake lights.

Both my cars have twin rear fog lights.

--
*What do little birdies see when they get knocked unconscious? *

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <jmd0vc$7lp$1...@news.albasani.net>,

dennis@home <den...@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:
> > I realise you're not technical, Dennis, but multiple lamp halogens
> > could do exactly the same thing. Although just why you'd want to
> > escapes me.

> I realise you don't know as much as you think but the optics to do that
> with halogen lamps would be rather difficult. The filament would have
> to be too long to actually make the sharp cut off required.

A sharp cutoff is achieved with a french flag. Many many cars with halogen
and HID units do this. LEDs will be no different. It's down to the optics,
not light source.

> But I guess you don't know much about the differences between LED lamps
> and filament lamps.

Obviously a lot more than you.

> > But it's nice to see you're impressed by computer animation.

> Its not all animation, but I realise that you can't tell the difference.
> Even Mickey mouse cartoons are more impressive than you these days.

If they have to resort to animation, it means real world conditions don't
show the effects they're conning the likes of you into believing. Are you
actually dribble? He's another who believes everything he sees in adverts.

--
*Why doesn't Tarzan have a beard? *

[Rod Speed]

Dave Plowman (News) <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote

> <m...@privacy.net> wrote

>> Dave Plowman (News) <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote

>>> Always. That's why foglights are low mounted and illegal in good
>>> visibility.

>> Can you quote evidence of that? I'm sure that was the case in the 60s
>> and have trawled the net to find the rules for how high lights must be
>> to be used in good visibility and failed miserably in finding any
>> evidence
>> of the illegality of the current spate of foglights in good visibility.

> You can't have tried very hard. It's in the highway code.
> http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_069859

> although that seems to suggest they must be used with headlights.

No it does not.

> Which completely defeats the purpose of them.

Which is presumably why it doesn't say that.

[ARWadsworth]

Dave Liquorice wrote:

> Fast walking pace, concentration, and "if it
> gets bumpy I'm probably no longer on the road". B-)

vbg


--
Adam

[Dave Liquorice]

On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 00:00:01 +0100, m...@privacy.net wrote:

> Rear foglights should only be used when visbility is below 100 metres,

Correct.

> so speed needs to be restricted too. Most peeps switch on rear fog
> lights as soon as there's a hint of mist,

Only stupid prats but there does seem to be a lot of them about. If
it's having them on when visibilty is >100m it's leaving them on in
traffic.

> The regulations state that only one rear fog light is allowed,

Rubbish many cars have two rear fog lights. It's only the smaller
cheaper cars that have one and the coresponding place in the other
light cluster has the reversing light.

> and that must be on the offside,

True if there is only one.

--
Cheers
Dave.

[ARWadsworth]

When I had a Berlingo (only one rear fog light on the OS) I got a MOT
failure for a NS rear fog light not working and a Ł5 bill to fit a new bulb.
Bet you can guess what I did with that bill:-)

The mutual agreement reached between myself and the owner of the garage
after the argument was that it would be best if I did not use their garage
again.

--
Adam

[Dave Liquorice]

On 15 Apr 2012 09:07:56 GMT, Huge wrote:

> My Disco 3 has a mechanical interlock in the switch which means you
> cannot switch the fogs on without having the headlamps on, and the front
> fogs come on before the rear ones. Both of which I find bizarre and
> irritating.

Also means that the rear fogs get turned off automatically when you
turn off the main lights. Years ago I suspect the main reason for
rear fogs being on when they shouldn't have been was due to lack of
interlock/self cancelling and tiny tell tale out of the drivers
normal view.

Surprised a DIII has a mechanical interlock, both DII's I've had they
have been under control of the BCU. Are the front "fogs" real fogs or
"auxillary driving lights"? A real fog has low wide beam with the cut
off on the ground at around 30' or less from the front of the
vehicle. No good for night driving on their own.

--
Cheers
Dave.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <9uvj9m...@mid.individual.net>,

Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_069859

> > although that seems to suggest they must be used with headlights.

> No it does not.

I wouldn't expect you to understand English. Thanks for confirming it.
It must have been the likes of you who wrote that HC rule.

--
*Middle age is when it takes longer to rest than to get tired.

[Mike Clarke]

On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 00:00:01 +0100

<m...@privacy.net> wrote:

> The regulations state that only one rear fog light is allowed,and
> that must be on the offside, to reduce the likelyhood of them being
> mistaken for brake lights.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1989/1796/schedule/11/made states
that it's mandatory to have (at least) one rear fog lamp but 2 lamps are
optional. In the event of only one lamp then it must be on the
centre-line or offside of the vehicle but there are no restrictions if
2 lamps are fitted.

--
Mike Clarke

[Andy Burns]

Mike Clarke wrote:

> <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> The regulations state that only one rear fog light is allowed,and
>> that must be on the offside
>

> http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1989/1796/schedule/11/made
>
> states that it's mandatory to have (at least) one rear fog lamp but 2
> lamps are optional. In the event of only one lamp then it must be on
> the centre-line or offside of the vehicle but there are no
> restrictions if 2 lamps are fitted.

So you could be stupid and have two on the nearside, so close together
that they're barely distinguishable, it only mentions separation between
stop and fog lamps ...

[dennis@home]

"Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message

news:5280b84...@davenoise.co.uk...

> In article <jmd0vc$7lp$1...@news.albasani.net>,
> dennis@home <den...@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:
>> > I realise you're not technical, Dennis, but multiple lamp halogens
>> > could do exactly the same thing. Although just why you'd want to
>> > escapes me.
>
>> I realise you don't know as much as you think but the optics to do that
>> with halogen lamps would be rather difficult. The filament would have
>> to be too long to actually make the sharp cut off required.
>
> A sharp cutoff is achieved with a french flag. Many many cars with halogen
> and HID units do this. LEDs will be no different. It's down to the optics,
> not light source.
>

What makes you think LEDs need a baffle to throw half the light away?

>> But I guess you don't know much about the differences between LED lamps
>> and filament lamps.
>
> Obviously a lot more than you.

Obviously not.

>
>> > But it's nice to see you're impressed by computer animation.
>
>> Its not all animation, but I realise that you can't tell the difference.
>> Even Mickey mouse cartoons are more impressive than you these days.
>
> If they have to resort to animation, it means real world conditions don't
> show the effects they're conning the likes of you into believing. Are you
> actually dribble? He's another who believes everything he sees in adverts.

I wonder how many things started out by someone showing a drawing, or a
slide show to someone else before it became something real..
lets think a few seconds..
that would be almost everything in the last decade or three.

[Mike Barnes]

PeterC <giraffe...@homecall.co.uk>:

>On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 21:46:08 +0100 (BST), Dave Liquorice wrote:
>
>>> But I'm talking about proper fog where you're reduced to walking pace.
>>
>> Proper fog that most people never ever see.
>>
>> I think I've had to drop to front fogs just a handful of times up
>> here on the North Pennines where we almost live in the hill fog. When
>> the snow poles are too far apart to see from one to the next, there
>> is thick fog visibilty about 15' max and everything is also smoothly
>> covered in snow with no tracks to follow it makes for an
>> "interesting" drive. Fast walking pace, concentration, and "if it
>> gets bumpy I'm probably no longer on the road". B-)
>
>Last had that coming home from walking on Kinder Scout. Brilliant day on the
>tops but cloud below 1500'.
>On the last roundabout on the southern edge of Derby I lost the kerb and had
>to go round again; I could just see the signs fron about 5 yards away.

You can see why it makes sense to fit proper front fog lights to cars
even though they're only needed once in a blue moon. When you need them,
you really need them. It's a pity about those prats that switch them on
at the first hint of mist, and take their time turning them off again.

--
Mike Barnes

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <jmest3$lds$1...@news.albasani.net>,

dennis@home <den...@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:
> > A sharp cutoff is achieved with a french flag. Many many cars with
> > halogen and HID units do this. LEDs will be no different. It's down to
> > the optics, not light source.
> >

> What makes you think LEDs need a baffle to throw half the light away?

What makes you think there's another way of doing it? Not a knowledge of
optics, obviously.

--
*Marriage changes passion - suddenly you're in bed with a relative*

[dennis@home]

"Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message

news:5280ea4...@davenoise.co.uk...

> In article <jmest3$lds$1...@news.albasani.net>,
> dennis@home <den...@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:
>> > A sharp cutoff is achieved with a french flag. Many many cars with
>> > halogen and HID units do this. LEDs will be no different. It's down to
>> > the optics, not light source.
>> >
>
>> What makes you think LEDs need a baffle to throw half the light away?
>
> What makes you think there's another way of doing it? Not a knowledge of
> optics, obviously.

So do you know the difference between a filament and a silicon junction?

[Adam Aglionby]

On Apr 14, 9:58 pm, "dennis@home" <den...@killspam.kicks-ass.net>
wrote:
> "Dave Plowman (News)" <d...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in messagenews:5280434...@davenoise.co.uk...
>
> > In article <9ut39aFkp...@mid.individual.net>,

> >   John Williamson <johnwilliam...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >> LEDS in fixed installations are noticeably more efficient than filament
> >> bulbs, as they use a switched mode supply, with a total comsumption of
> >> about 10% or 15% that of the filament bulbs for the same light output.
>
> > Cars use SMPS too for LEDs.
>
> > A difference is that 12v tungsten are already more efficient than mains
> > ones.
>
> > I'd love to see *any* LED with the same light output as halogen mains. And
> > by that I mean a near 360 degree output of the same colour spectrum. Not
> > just measured by pointing some crude light meter at it. And using the very
> > worst possible tungsten as the comparison.
>
> Let us know when you can get halogen lights that can do thishttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znivDtjl1N4

Citreon DS famously had steering headlights, think there has been a
few since, self levelling are very common via tilt servo.

Advantage here is probabkly very efficient optics getting most of
light from LED in collimated beam and then using multiple beams to
cover the area.

Works well in a car becasue area needing lit is relatively narrow.

Cheers
Adam

[Rod Speed]

Dave Plowman (News) <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote

> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Dave Plowman (News) <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote

>>> http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_069859

>>> although that seems to suggest they must be used with headlights.

>> No it does not.

> I wouldn't expect you to understand English. Thanks for confirming it.
> It must have been the likes of you who wrote that HC rule.

You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.

[David]

On 15/04/2012 18:59, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article<jmest3$lds$1...@news.albasani.net>,
> dennis@home<den...@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:
>>> A sharp cutoff is achieved with a french flag. Many many cars with
>>> halogen and HID units do this. LEDs will be no different. It's down to
>>> the optics, not light source.
>>>
>
>> What makes you think LEDs need a baffle to throw half the light away?
>
> What makes you think there's another way of doing it? Not a knowledge of
> optics, obviously.
>

Seriously?

you do realise that you just modulate the drive current to turn a LED
on/off.

No mechanical parts required.

cheers

David

[Andrew Gabriel]

In article <9v0rl0...@mid.individual.net>,
Huge <Hu...@nowhere.much.invalid> writes:

> And that directs the light in a particular direction how, exactly?

An LED-based headlamp is likely to be multi-LED source.
With LEDs being tiny sources anyway, it's relatively easy to
build optics around them to very accurately direct each LED
source to a specific part of the output beam. This means you
can do beam dipping simply by switching off those LEDs which
give the high beam. As I eluded in another post, you could
have beams which are much more dynamically adjustable than
just main/dip. Could also vary intensity of parts of the beam,
and unlike either filament or HID, colour shift would be
minimal if you did this.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

[David]

On 15/04/2012 22:07, Huge wrote:
> On 2012-04-15, David<nos...@nospam.com> wrote:

> And that directs the light in a particular direction how, exactly?
>
>

by having multiple LEDs that you simple switch on/off

this is not a smooth transition but rather a discrete group of settings
- a digital rather than analogue directional control if you like.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <jmf48v$65q$1...@news.albasani.net>,

dennis@home <den...@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:
> > What makes you think there's another way of doing it? Not a knowledge
> > of optics, obviously.

> So do you know the difference between a filament and a silicon junction?

LEDs don't need optics, then?

--
*The average person falls asleep in seven minutes *

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <84GdnYLEGfKhqhbS...@eclipse.net.uk>,

Which discussion do you think you're reading?

--
*Can atheists get insurance for acts of God? *

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <jmfe1u$k1c$1...@dont-email.me>,

Andrew Gabriel <and...@cucumber.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> An LED-based headlamp is likely to be multi-LED source.
> With LEDs being tiny sources anyway, it's relatively easy to
> build optics around them to very accurately direct each LED
> source to a specific part of the output beam.

High power LEDs are tiny sources? Some data, please.

However, to provide a sharp cutoff, you'll still need some form of flag.
Just like any other light source.

--
*When it rains, why don't sheep shrink? *

[dennis@home]

"Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message

news:528104a...@davenoise.co.uk...

> In article <jmf48v$65q$1...@news.albasani.net>,
> dennis@home <den...@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:
>> > What makes you think there's another way of doing it? Not a knowledge
>> > of optics, obviously.
>
>> So do you know the difference between a filament and a silicon junction?
>
> LEDs don't need optics, then?

Stop wriggling.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <jmgpr2$33q$1...@news.albasani.net>,

Ok Dennis. Explain how you get a sharp cutoff on an LED without using
optics. My breath is bated.

Hint: Just how the light is produced - filament or discharge etc make
little difference. The more of a point source it is just makes the optics
easier.

--
*There are two sides to every divorce: Yours and shit head's*

[Steve Firth]

"Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <jmgpr2$33q$1...@news.albasani.net>,
> dennis@home <den...@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:
>
>
>> "Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:528104a...@davenoise.co.uk...
>>> In article <jmf48v$65q$1...@news.albasani.net>,
>>> dennis@home <den...@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:
>>>>> What makes you think there's another way of doing it? Not a
>>>>> knowledge of optics, obviously.
>>>
>>>> So do you know the difference between a filament and a silicon
>>>> junction?
>>>
>>> LEDs don't need optics, then?
>
>> Stop wriggling.
>
> Ok Dennis. Explain how you get a sharp cutoff on an LED without using
> optics. My breath is bated.
>
> Hint: Just how the light is produced - filament or discharge etc make
> little difference. The more of a point source it is just makes the optics
> easier.

Dennis seems to be hitting new depths. Power LEDs generally have one or two
reflectors (sometimes the manufacturer has a reflector in the LED ) and
usually two lenses, one incorporated in the package and a second lens and
reflector for the array. Blathering away than a lens is not required is,
errm total bollocks, again.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article
<1112846494356274271.133213%steve%-mallo...@news.eternal-september.org>,

Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
> Dennis seems to be hitting new depths. Power LEDs generally have one or two
> reflectors (sometimes the manufacturer has a reflector in the LED ) and
> usually two lenses, one incorporated in the package and a second lens and
> reflector for the array. Blathering away than a lens is not required is,
> errm total bollocks, again.

Indeed - I've never even looked at a car headlight LED, but laws of
physics don't change regardless of what Dennis wants.

But having at least some of the optics as part of the 'bulb' is nothing
new - some tungsten Lucas ones had a built in flag in the '50s.

--
*If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular? *

[Andrew Gabriel]

In article <5281050...@davenoise.co.uk>,

"Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> writes:
> In article <jmfe1u$k1c$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Andrew Gabriel <and...@cucumber.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>> *An LED-based headlamp is likely to be multi-LED source.*

>> With LEDs being tiny sources anyway, it's relatively easy to
>> build optics around them to very accurately direct each LED
>> source to a specific part of the output beam.
>
> High power LEDs are tiny sources? Some data, please.

Um, read what I wrote above again...

> However, to provide a sharp cutoff, you'll still need some form of flag.
> Just like any other light source.

The difference from other light sources is the size - they're
tiny - much smaller than a filament, or the arc in a HID.
What this enables you to do is to build optics which
concentrate the light in very specific directions. The ideal
light source for this is a point which you can use to generate
images with sharp boundaries. As that light source grows in
size, you can think of it as an out-of-focus point, and it
will generate correspondingly out-of-focus boundaries. An
LED is nearer to a point source than existing technologies.

'Flag' is too loosely defined in this case. You may have a
set of LED with optics which give you the dip beam pattern,
and another set which give you the (main beam) - (dip beam)
pattern. No 'flag' is required to block anything, it's
simply that the optics only direct the light where it's
wanted.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <jmhapa$oaa$1...@dont-email.me>,

Andrew Gabriel <and...@cucumber.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> 'Flag' is too loosely defined in this case. You may have a
> set of LED with optics which give you the dip beam pattern,
> and another set which give you the (main beam) - (dip beam)
> pattern. No 'flag' is required to block anything, it's
> simply that the optics only direct the light where it's
> wanted.

To provide a very sharp cutoff, you'd need rather a large number of LEDs.
;-)

The size of the source (within reason) only make a difference to the size
and complexity of the optics. If this weren't the case cinema projectors
etc could never have been made to work well.

--
*War does not determine who is right - only who is left.

[dennis@home]

"Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message

news:52814dd...@davenoise.co.uk...

> In article <jmgpr2$33q$1...@news.albasani.net>,
> dennis@home <den...@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:
>
>
>> "Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:528104a...@davenoise.co.uk...
>> > In article <jmf48v$65q$1...@news.albasani.net>,
>> > dennis@home <den...@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:
>> >> > What makes you think there's another way of doing it? Not a
>> >> > knowledge of optics, obviously.
>> >
>> >> So do you know the difference between a filament and a silicon
>> >> junction?
>> >
>> > LEDs don't need optics, then?
>
>> Stop wriggling.
>
> Ok Dennis. Explain how you get a sharp cutoff on an LED without using
> optics. My breath is bated.
>
> Hint: Just how the light is produced - filament or discharge etc make
> little difference. The more of a point source it is just makes the optics
> easier.

Well there you are, that is exactly what I said in the first place and what
you have been arguing about since.
I knew you would hang yourself if I let you.

[Man at B&Q]

On Apr 14, 10:45 pm, "dennis@home" <den...@killspam.kicks-ass.net>
wrote:
> "charles" <char...@charleshope.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:52805d85...@charleshope.demon.co.uk...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <20120414144133.1adc1...@curlew.lan>,
> >   Mike Clarke <UCEbl...@milibyte.co.uk> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 13:18:50 +0100
> >> John Williamson <johnwilliam...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> >> > In town, using dipped beams, the load is more like 150W,
> >> > anyway. You'll only use 400W in a situation where you are driving in
> >> > foggy conditions or using four high power halogen main beam lights.
>
> >> How can foggy conditions result in so much more load? A pair of front
> >> foglamps will be the same power as a pair of dipped headlamps and the
> >> rear foglamps will only add 21w each which will only push it up to
> >> about 200w total
>
> > 'cos most cars, idiotically, only allow you to use the fog lights when the
> > headlamps are switched on.
>
> Do you mean the rear fogs, I know of none that have front fogs where you
> have to have the headlamps on as well.

Shows how much you know.

I have never owned car where you could have the front fogs on without
the headlights.

Try any Ford with the rotary/pull position/headlight/fogs switch for
example. Turn it to off and it pops back in turning the fog lights off
as well.

MBQ

[dennis@home]

"Man at B&Q" <manat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bae19433-6911-4c7e...@j15g2000vbt.googlegroups.com...

> On Apr 14, 10:45 pm, "dennis@home" <den...@killspam.kicks-ass.net>
> wrote:
>> "charles" <char...@charleshope.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>
>> news:52805d85...@charleshope.demon.co.uk...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > In article <20120414144133.1adc1...@curlew.lan>,
>> > Mike Clarke <UCEbl...@milibyte.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 13:18:50 +0100
>> >> John Williamson <johnwilliam...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > In town, using dipped beams, the load is more like 150W,
>> >> > anyway. You'll only use 400W in a situation where you are driving in
>> >> > foggy conditions or using four high power halogen main beam lights.
>>
>> >> How can foggy conditions result in so much more load? A pair of front
>> >> foglamps will be the same power as a pair of dipped headlamps and the
>> >> rear foglamps will only add 21w each which will only push it up to
>> >> about 200w total
>>
>> > 'cos most cars, idiotically, only allow you to use the fog lights when
>> > the
>> > headlamps are switched on.
>>
>> Do you mean the rear fogs, I know of none that have front fogs where you
>> have to have the headlamps on as well.
>
> Shows how much you know.
>
> I have never owned car where you could have the front fogs on without
> the headlights.

2006 corsa works without the headlights on..

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <jmhtl6$hk5$1...@news.albasani.net>,

dennis@home <den...@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:
> > Ok Dennis. Explain how you get a sharp cutoff on an LED without using
> > optics. My breath is bated.
> >
> > Hint: Just how the light is produced - filament or discharge etc make
> > little difference. The more of a point source it is just makes the
> > optics easier.

> Well there you are, that is exactly what I said in the first place and
> what you have been arguing about since.

Have you ever thought about treatment for your delusions?

> I knew you would hang yourself if I let you.

Strangely, I'm still breathing.

--
*If you don't like the news, go out and make some.

[Man at B&Q]

On Apr 16, 10:18 pm, "dennis@home" <den...@killspam.kicks-ass.net>
wrote:
> "Man at B&Q" <manatba...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:bae19433-6911-4c7e...@j15g2000vbt.googlegroups.com...

So you based your statement on your experience of one car.

MBQ

[dennis@home]

"Man at B&Q" <manat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:12bc3150-01a3-43c4...@is10g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

> So you based your statement on your experience of one car.

No I based it on fact!
I knew of none where what you said was true, now someone has stated it to be
true on one.

And you based yours on experience of how many?
And how do you get to *most* based on your experience?

At least I didn't make stupid claims.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article
<12bc3150-01a3-43c4...@is10g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,

Man at B&Q <manat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > 2006 corsa works without the headlights on..

> So you based your statement on your experience of one car.

It does seem to vary by make - and possibly by age too. Both my cars allow
the front fogs to be used independently of the headlights. Anything else
would be a nonsense.

However, the HC rule as quoted earlier is ambiguous on this point.
Obviously written by an idiot.

Logically, there is no point in fitting dedicated fog lights if they only
work with headlights, as those headlights will produce light scatter
negating the benefits of a low mounted light with flat top beam designed
to cut under the fog and illuminate the road just in front of the car.

--
*Happiness is seeing your mother-in-law on a milk carton

[Rod Speed]

Dave Plowman (News) <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote

> Man at B&Q <manat...@hotmail.com> wrote

>>> 2006 corsa works without the headlights on..

>> So you based your statement on your experience of one car.

> It does seem to vary by make - and possibly by age too. Both my cars allow
> the front fogs to be used independently of the headlights. Anything else
> would be a nonsense.

> However, the HC rule as quoted earlier is ambiguous on this point.

Like hell it is.

> Obviously written by an idiot.

Obviously read by an idiot, you.

> Logically, there is no point in fitting dedicated fog lights if they only
> work with headlights, as those headlights will produce light scatter
> negating the benefits of a low mounted light with flat top beam designed
> to cut under the fog and illuminate the road just in front of the car.

Which is why the HC rule doesn’t say that they have to be used with the
headlights.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <9v4tma...@mid.individual.net>,

Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > However, the HC rule as quoted earlier is ambiguous on this point.

> Like hell it is.

Thanks for confirming your lack of comprehension. But then since English
isn't your first language it's only to be expected.

--
*Never miss a good chance to shut up.*

[dennis@home]

"Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:5281c5a...@davenoise.co.uk...

> In article
> <12bc3150-01a3-43c4...@is10g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
> Man at B&Q <manat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > 2006 corsa works without the headlights on..
>
>> So you based your statement on your experience of one car.
>
> It does seem to vary by make - and possibly by age too. Both my cars allow
> the front fogs to be used independently of the headlights. Anything else
> would be a nonsense.
>
> However, the HC rule as quoted earlier is ambiguous on this point.
> Obviously written by an idiot.
>
> Logically, there is no point in fitting dedicated fog lights if they only
> work with headlights, as those headlights will produce light scatter
> negating the benefits of a low mounted light with flat top beam designed
> to cut under the fog and illuminate the road just in front of the car.

Its even more confusing when you see cars that have supplemental driving
lamps that aren't fog lamps at all.
These have to work with the headlights.

I should point out that the extra visibility from fog lamps is likely to be
an illusion.
there is no reason why a wide angle beam should penetrate further into the
fog than the headlights and the glare doesn't actually make it so you can't
see further, it just makes it easier on the eyes.

What you need is augmented reality with an IR illuminator and a head up
display fed from an IR camera.
Not that i have seen any really thick fog for the last decade (stuff that
would require you drive below 30).

[Rod Speed]

Dave Plowman (News) <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote

> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote

>>> However, the HC rule as quoted earlier is ambiguous on this point.

>> Like hell it is.

> Thanks for confirming your lack of comprehension.

[Rod Speed]

dennis@home <den...@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote

> Dave Plowman (News) <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote

>> Man at B&Q <manat...@hotmail.com> wrote

>>>> 2006 corsa works without the headlights on..

>>> So you based your statement on your experience of one car.

>> It does seem to vary by make - and possibly by age too. Both my cars
>> allow
>> the front fogs to be used independently of the headlights. Anything else
>> would be a nonsense.

>> However, the HC rule as quoted earlier is ambiguous on this point.
>> Obviously written by an idiot.

>> Logically, there is no point in fitting dedicated fog lights if they only
>> work with headlights, as those headlights will produce light scatter
>> negating the benefits of a low mounted light with flat top beam designed
>> to cut under the fog and illuminate the road just in front of the car.

> Its even more confusing when you see cars that have supplemental driving
> lamps that aren't fog lamps at all.
> These have to work with the headlights.

> I should point out that the extra visibility from fog lamps is likely to
> be an illusion.

Fraid not.

> there is no reason why a wide angle beam should penetrate further into the
> fog than the headlights

They arent just wide angle beams, they are mounted lower than
the headlights for a reason and have a much lower beam cutoff too.

> and the glare doesn't actually make it so you can't see further, it just
> makes it easier on the eyes.

Even sillier.

> What you need is augmented reality with an IR illuminator and a head up
> display fed from an IR camera.

Completely off with the fucking fairys, as always.

[dennis@home]

"Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:5281c5a...@davenoise.co.uk...

> However, the HC rule as quoted earlier is ambiguous on this point.
> Obviously written by an idiot.
>
> Logically, there is no point in fitting dedicated fog lights if they only
> work with headlights, as those headlights will produce light scatter
> negating the benefits of a low mounted light with flat top beam designed
> to cut under the fog and illuminate the road just in front of the car.

Requirements about the use of headlamps and front fog lamps

25.-(1) Save as provided in paragraph (2), no person shall use, or cause or
permit to be used, on a road a vehicle which is fitted with obligatory
dipped-beam headlamps unless every such lamp is kept lit-

(a)during the hours of darkness, except on a road which is a restricted
road for the purposes of section 81 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984
by virtue of a system of street lighting when it is lit; and .

(b)in seriously reduced visibility. .

(2) The provisions of paragraph (1) do not apply-

(a)in the case of a motor vehicle fitted with one obligatory dipped-beam
headlamp or a solo motor bicycle or motor bicycle combination fitted with a
pair of obligatory dipped-beam headlamps, if a main-beam headlamp or a front
fog lamp is kept lit; .

(b)in the case of a motor vehicle, other than a solo motor bicycle or motor
bicycle combination, fitted with a pair of obligatory dipped-beam headlamps,
if- .
(i)a pair of main-beam headlamps is kept lit; or .
(ii)in seriously reduced visibility, a pair of front fog lamps which is so
fitted that the outermost part of the illuminated area of each lamp in the
pair is not more than 400 mm from the outer edge of the vehicle is kept lit;


Clear now?

I wonder where the bit about only using them in falling snow or fog is?

[charles]

In article <jmjgel$8qj$1...@news.albasani.net>, dennis@home
<den...@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:

[Snip]

> I should point out that the extra visibility from fog lamps is likely to
> be an illusion. there is no reason why a wide angle beam should
> penetrate further into the fog than the headlights and the glare doesn't
> actually make it so you can't see further, it just makes it easier on
> the eyes.

It's not so much the wide beam angle, but the very narrow horizontal one
which helps. In the '60s, when these things were self fit extra, I did a
lot of trial & error tests. We also got quite a bit of fog in those days.

> What you need is augmented reality with an IR illuminator and a head up
> display fed from an IR camera. Not that i have seen any really thick fog
> for the last decade (stuff that would require you drive below 30).

You've been lucky. I've ceratinly had to crawl (at 20mph) quite recently

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <jmjgel$8qj$1...@news.albasani.net>,
dennis@home <den...@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:

> > Logically, there is no point in fitting dedicated fog lights if they
> > only work with headlights, as those headlights will produce light
> > scatter negating the benefits of a low mounted light with flat top
> > beam designed to cut under the fog and illuminate the road just in
> > front of the car.

> Its even more confusing when you see cars that have supplemental driving
> lamps that aren't fog lamps at all.
> These have to work with the headlights.

It only confuses if you don't know your car.

> I should point out that the extra visibility from fog lamps is likely to
> be an illusion. there is no reason why a wide angle beam should
> penetrate further into the fog than the headlights and the glare
> doesn't actually make it so you can't see further, it just makes it
> easier on the eyes.

It's the low mounting of the lamp that makes the difference. The actual
beam, less so.

--
*Parenthetical remarks (however relevant) are (usually) unnecessary *

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <jmjhgm$au6$1...@news.albasani.net>,

dennis@home <den...@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:
> Requirements about the use of headlamps and front fog lamps

[snip]

What is that quoted from? It looks more like construction and use regs.
The highway code is the more important one.

--
*Why do they put Braille on the drive-through bank machines?

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <9v4uuk...@mid.individual.net>,

Here's the rule again since you probably couldn't find it unless someone
does it for you.

************

226

You MUST use headlights when visibility is seriously reduced, generally
when you cannot see for more than 100 metres (328 feet). You may also use
^^^^
front or rear fog lights but you MUST switch them off when visibility
improves (see Rule 236).

**********

Since, as I said, you have little comprehension of the English language
I've included the definition of 'also' below:-



Collins GEM English Dictionary

also adv. in addition; too.


Is that clear enough even for the likes of you? 'Too', after all, is a
pretty simple word.

--
*Parenthetical remarks (however relevant) are (usually) unnecessary *

[dennis@home]

"Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message

news:5281d14...@davenoise.co.uk...

> In article <jmjhgm$au6$1...@news.albasani.net>,
> dennis@home <den...@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:
>> Requirements about the use of headlamps and front fog lamps
>
> [snip]
>
> What is that quoted from? It looks more like construction and use regs.
> The highway code is the more important one.

The construction and use regs are what they build cars to.
The highway code is not actually law.
However if you cause an accident while not driving according to the highway
code you will probably be done under the real laws the highway code is
derived from.
Also you may well leave yourself open to being sued, which doesn't require
you to break any laws.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <jmjmst$m7q$1...@news.albasani.net>,

dennis@home <den...@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:
> The highway code is not actually law.

The bits marked 'must' are.

--
*If you can't see my mirrors, I'm doing my hair*

[charles]

In article <5281d14...@davenoise.co.uk>,

Dave Plowman (News) <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <jmjhgm$au6$1...@news.albasani.net>,
> dennis@home <den...@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:
> > Requirements about the use of headlamps and front fog lamps

> [snip]

> What is that quoted from? It looks more like construction and use regs.
> The highway code is the more important one.

Construction & Use Regs are a legal requirement. The Highway Code simply
points out all the varios bits of law applying to driving.

[dennis@home]

"Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message

news:5281d60...@davenoise.co.uk...

> In article <jmjmst$m7q$1...@news.albasani.net>,
> dennis@home <den...@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:
>> The highway code is not actually law.
>
> The bits marked 'must' are.

Well if you can show me where the highway code has been enacted into law
please do.

[Man at B&Q]

On Apr 17, 9:31 am, "dennis@home" <den...@killspam.kicks-ass.net>
wrote:
> "Man at B&Q" <manatba...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:12bc3150-01a3-43c4...@is10g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

>
> > So you based your statement on your experience of one car.
>
> No I based it on fact!

On your view of the facts, which was lacking experience fo the counter
example.

> I knew of none where what you said was true, now someone has stated it to be
> true on one.
>
> And you based yours on experience of how many?

Irrelevant I never implied that my experience was indicative if the
general case. On the contrary, I was filling in your lack of knowledge
to show that both examples (independent fog lights or interlocked with
headlights) can be found

> And how do you get to *most* based on your experience?

I didn't claim *most*. I simply gave a counter example to your claim
that you knew of none.

> At least I didn't make stupid claims.

I didn't make *any* claims. I recounted my experience.

You have a strange way of debating. No wonder you get so much flack.

MBQ

[John Williamson]

It says in the introoduction to the Highway Code that where it says that
something "must" or "must not" be done, this is related to a law
mentioned in the Code, either in the Rule itself, or in the index.

The Highway Code is not law, and it admits this in the introduction,
however, it contains references to laws which *must* be obeyed.

When it say that dipped headlights *must* be used in conditions of
reduced visibility, this is a law which must be complied with. When it
says foglights *may* be used, then they are optional, so, in conditions
of reduced visibility, it is against the law to use foglights without
also having dipped headlamps lit as well. It is, however, perfectly
legal to use dipped headlamps without folglamps, even when visibility is
everely reduced. This is whay the vast majority of vehicles that I drive
have the foglights wired in such a way that if the dipped headlamps are
off, then the foglights will not work. The foglights also turn off when
the main beam headlamps are on.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[charles]

In article <5281d60...@davenoise.co.uk>,

Dave Plowman (News) <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <jmjmst$m7q$1...@news.albasani.net>,
> dennis@home <den...@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:
> > The highway code is not actually law.

> The bits marked 'must' are.

No, it's just pointing out the bits that are law. In itself it is not law.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <5281df75...@charleshope.demon.co.uk>,

charles <cha...@charleshope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <5281d60...@davenoise.co.uk>,
> Dave Plowman (News) <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
> > In article <jmjmst$m7q$1...@news.albasani.net>,
> > dennis@home <den...@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:
> > > The highway code is not actually law.

> > The bits marked 'must' are.

> No, it's just pointing out the bits that are law. In itself it is not
> law.

Splitting hairs, Charles. They refer to things which are law.

--
*Do infants enjoy infancy as much as adults enjoy adultery? *

[Man at B&Q]

On Apr 17, 4:20 pm, "Dave Plowman (News)" <d...@davenoise.co.uk>
wrote:
> In article <5281df7570char...@charleshope.demon.co.uk>,
>    charles <char...@charleshope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > In article <5281d60114d...@davenoise.co.uk>,
> >    Dave Plowman (News) <d...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
> > > In article <jmjmst$m7...@news.albasani.net>,

> > >    dennis@home <den...@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:
> > > > The highway code is not actually law.
> > > The bits marked 'must' are.
> > No, it's just pointing out the bits that are law. In itself it is not
> > law.
>
> Splitting hairs, Charles. They refer to things which are law.

If there were no split hairs, Dennis would have nothing to argue over.

MBQ

[dennis@home]

"Man at B&Q" <manat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:e2d322d7-c407-4825...@l18g2000vbx.googlegroups.com...

> On Apr 17, 9:31 am, "dennis@home" <den...@killspam.kicks-ass.net>
> wrote:
>> "Man at B&Q" <manatba...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> messagenews:12bc3150-01a3-43c4...@is10g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > So you based your statement on your experience of one car.
>>
>> No I based it on fact!
>
> On your view of the facts, which was lacking experience fo the counter
> example.

Well your view of the facts would be wrong as there is no way you can know
how many cars with fog lamps that work as I stated that I have seen.
However I know exactly and its therefore a fact in my case.

Anyway it was only one example, I have seen others but not my cars so I have
no idea if they were built like it or retro fitted later.

The construction and use regs do not require the headlights on with *fog*
lamps.

the stupid ones fitted to some cars that are more than 400mm from the edge
are not fog lamps and can't be used without the headlights.

[dennis@home]

"John Williamson" <johnwil...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:9v5cj8...@mid.individual.net...

> dennis@home wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:5281d60...@davenoise.co.uk...
>>> In article <jmjmst$m7q$1...@news.albasani.net>,
>>> dennis@home <den...@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:
>>>> The highway code is not actually law.
>>>
>>> The bits marked 'must' are.
>>
>> Well if you can show me where the highway code has been enacted into law
>> please do.
>
> It says in the introoduction to the Highway Code that where it says that
> something "must" or "must not" be done, this is related to a law mentioned
> in the Code, either in the Rule itself, or in the index.
>
> The Highway Code is not law, and it admits this in the introduction,
> however, it contains references to laws which *must* be obeyed.

It is someone's interpretation of the law.

>
> When it say that dipped headlights *must* be used in conditions of reduced
> visibility, this is a law which must be complied with. When it says
> foglights *may* be used, then they are optional, so, in conditions of
> reduced visibility, it is against the law to use foglights without also
> having dipped headlamps lit as well.

Which law states this?
The construction and use doesn't.

> It is, however, perfectly legal to use dipped headlamps without folglamps,
> even when visibility is everely reduced. This is whay the vast majority of
> vehicles that I drive have the foglights wired in such a way that if the
> dipped headlamps are off, then the foglights will not work. The foglights
> also turn off when the main beam headlamps are on.

Which cars?

[Rod Speed]

Dave Plowman (News) <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Dave Plowman (News) <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote

>>>>> However, the HC rule as quoted earlier is ambiguous on this point.

>>>> Like hell it is.

>>> Thanks for confirming your lack of comprehension.

>> You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.

> Here's the rule again since you probably couldn't
> find it unless someone does it for you.

> ************

> 226

> You MUST use headlights when visibility is seriously reduced, generally
> when you cannot see for more than 100 metres (328 feet). You may also use
> ^^^^
> front or rear fog lights but you MUST switch them off when visibility
> improves (see Rule 236).

Pity you flagrantly dishonestly ripped away the context where
its clear that they don’t have to both be on at the same time.

And even that bit doesn’t say that the headlights have to be on when the fog
lights are on.

[John Williamson]

dennis@home wrote:
>
>
> "John Williamson" <johnwil...@btinternet.com> wrote in message

>> The Highway Code is not law, and it admits this in the introduction,
>> however, it contains references to laws which *must* be obeyed.
>
> It is someone's interpretation of the law.
>

As it's a Government publication, I'd say it's the Government's
interpretation, which has a pretty good chance of being the correct one.

However, the only problem from your point of view is that it's not an
interpretation of the law, but a condensed reference to the laws all
road users are required to follow.

>>
>> When it say that dipped headlights *must* be used in conditions of
>> reduced visibility, this is a law which must be complied with. When it
>> says foglights *may* be used, then they are optional, so, in
>> conditions of reduced visibility, it is against the law to use
>> foglights without also having dipped headlamps lit as well.
>
>
> Which law states this?
> The construction and use doesn't.
>

Road Vehicle Lighting Regulations 1989, sections 25 and 26. As quoted in
Rule 226 of the HIghway code.

>> It is, however, perfectly legal to use dipped headlamps without
>> folglamps, even when visibility is everely reduced. This is whay the
>> vast majority of vehicles that I drive have the foglights wired in
>> such a way that if the dipped headlamps are off, then the foglights
>> will not work. The foglights also turn off when the main beam
>> headlamps are on.
>
> Which cars?

Currently, IIRC, Ford Focus, Ford Fiesta, Ford Galaxy, Various Scania
and Volvo coaches, and at least one Mercedes minubus. The Ford Torneo
minibus may have the same interlock, but I've not driven it for a while.
The VW Sharan had the same system, but that was scrapped a while ago, as
was the Mondeo.

[dennis@home]

"John Williamson" <johnwil...@btinternet.com> wrote in message

news:9v5ssl...@mid.individual.net...

> dennis@home wrote:
>>
>>
>> "John Williamson" <johnwil...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>>> The Highway Code is not law, and it admits this in the introduction,
>>> however, it contains references to laws which *must* be obeyed.
>>
>> It is someone's interpretation of the law.
>>
> As it's a Government publication, I'd say it's the Government's
> interpretation, which has a pretty good chance of being the correct one.
>
> However, the only problem from your point of view is that it's not an
> interpretation of the law, but a condensed reference to the laws all road
> users are required to follow.
>
>>>
>>> When it say that dipped headlights *must* be used in conditions of
>>> reduced visibility, this is a law which must be complied with. When it
>>> says foglights *may* be used, then they are optional, so, in conditions
>>> of reduced visibility, it is against the law to use foglights without
>>> also having dipped headlamps lit as well.
>>
>>
>> Which law states this?
>> The construction and use doesn't.
>>
> Road Vehicle Lighting Regulations 1989, sections 25 and 26. As quoted in
> Rule 226 of the HIghway code.

No it doesn't, I have already quoted that Act.

Here it is again...

Requirements about the use of headlamps and front fog lamps

25.-(1) Save as provided in paragraph (2), no person shall use, or cause or
permit to be used, on a road a vehicle which is fitted with obligatory
dipped-beam headlamps unless every such lamp is kept lit-
(a)during the hours of darkness, except on a road which is a restricted
road for the purposes of section 81 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984
by virtue of a system of street lighting when it is lit; and .
(b)in seriously reduced visibility. .
(2) The provisions of paragraph (1) do not apply-
(a)in the case of a motor vehicle fitted with one obligatory dipped-beam
headlamp or a solo motor bicycle or motor bicycle combination fitted with a
pair of obligatory dipped-beam headlamps, if a main-beam headlamp or a front
fog lamp is kept lit; .
(b)in the case of a motor vehicle, other than a solo motor bicycle or motor
bicycle combination, fitted with a pair of obligatory dipped-beam headlamps,
if- .
(i)a pair of main-beam headlamps is kept lit; or .
(ii)in seriously reduced visibility, a pair of front fog lamps which is so
fitted that the outermost part of the illuminated area of each lamp in the
pair is not more than 400 mm from the outer edge of the vehicle is kept lit;

.........................................

>
>>> It is, however, perfectly legal to use dipped headlamps without
>>> folglamps, even when visibility is everely reduced. This is whay the
>>> vast majority of vehicles that I drive have the foglights wired in such
>>> a way that if the dipped headlamps are off, then the foglights will not
>>> work. The foglights also turn off when the main beam headlamps are on.
>>
>> Which cars?
>
> Currently, IIRC, Ford Focus, Ford Fiesta, Ford Galaxy, Various Scania and
> Volvo coaches, and at least one Mercedes minubus. The Ford Torneo minibus
> may have the same interlock, but I've not driven it for a while. The VW
> Sharan had the same system, but that was scrapped a while ago, as was the
> Mondeo.

Focus manual states the fog lamps can be operated in the dipped or parking
light (side lights to the uneducated) position.
The fiesta manual say nothing useful.

[Andy Champ]

On 16/04/2012 21:39, Man at B&Q wrote:
>
> Shows how much you know.
>
> I have never owned car where you could have the front fogs on without
> the headlights.
>
> Try any Ford with the rotary/pull position/headlight/fogs switch for
> example. Turn it to off and it pops back in turning the fog lights off
> as well.
>

My Toyota is such a car. Pretty sure my old Nissan was too.

Rear fogs require either/or headlights or front fogs.

Andy

[Andy Champ]

On 17/04/2012 11:43, dennis@home wrote:
> Requirements about the use of headlamps and front fog lamps
>
> 25.-(1) Save as provided in paragraph (2), no person shall use, or cause
> or permit to be used, on a road a vehicle which is fitted with
> obligatory dipped-beam headlamps unless every such lamp is kept lit-
>
> (a)during the hours of darkness, except on a road which is a restricted
> road for the purposes of section 81 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act
> 1984 by virtue of a system of street lighting when it is lit; and .
>
> (b)in seriously reduced visibility. .
>
> (2) The provisions of paragraph (1) do not apply-
>
> (a)in the case of a motor vehicle fitted with one obligatory dipped-beam
> headlamp or a solo motor bicycle or motor bicycle combination fitted
> with a pair of obligatory dipped-beam headlamps, if a main-beam headlamp
> or a front fog lamp is kept lit; .
>
> (b)in the case of a motor vehicle, other than a solo motor bicycle or
> motor bicycle combination, fitted with a pair of obligatory dipped-beam
> headlamps, if- .
> (i)a pair of main-beam headlamps is kept lit; or .
> (ii)in seriously reduced visibility, a pair of front fog lamps which is
> so fitted that the outermost part of the illuminated area of each lamp
> in the pair is not more than 400 mm from the outer edge of the vehicle
> is kept lit;

Ah, this will be

<http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1989/1796/contents/made>

It says in there you're not allowed to fit flashing lamps. As most of
the new front running lights, and a lot of LED tail lights, flash at
about 50Hz, these must be obsolete. I don't suppose you have the new ones?

Andy