| |
VE2ABT > TECHNI 14.08.04 21:28l 150 Lines 6104 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 262322VE2ABT
Read: GUEST
Subj: Re: Car Battery Confusion.
Path: DB0FHN<DB0RGB<OK0PPL<DB0RES<ON0AR<7M3TJZ<ON0BEL
Sent: 040814/1912Z @:ON0BEL.#LG.BEL.EU #:5856 [Pactor-Belgium WFBB] $:262322VE2
From: VE2ABT@ON0BEL.#LG.BEL.EU
To : TECHNI@WW
TOPIC - CAR BATTERIES - CAR LIGHTS
Andy, GM7HUD ;-) Bonjour !
I've quoted you (>) and my comments follow later down:
> Titre :Re: Car Battery Confusion.
> Path: !ON0BEL!CT4DK!CT2GWY!GB7YKS!GB7YFS!GB7MAX!GB7WIS!
> R:040813/0849z @:GB7ESX.#31.GBR.EU #:73979 $:73979_GB7ESX [Witham, Esx]NNA V3.1.4
>
> Lionel is correct with a significant number of UK motorists now turning
> on their lights in poor conditions. There still a sizeable majority who
> dont though. I sometimes wonder if what the think when they see say 70%
> of the traffic comming towards them with dipped headlamps. I often wonder
> why they dont turn their own lights on. But then I get the really scary
> thought that they havent noticed all the other traffic has
> decided conditions
> are poor enough to need lights :-(
>
> There is a downside though to making driving with lights
> compulsory. That is
> increased fuel consumption. Volvo were the 1st to have
> permanent "running"
> lights followed by SAAB. They may have only had 4 x 5W bulbs
> illuminated but
> the power to drive them had to come from somewhere. OK the fuel used is
> not siginificant for one car and I doubt you'd be able to
> accurately measure
> it but multipled by the millions of cars in the UK and that amounts
> to a significant amount of fuel and extra pollution.
>
> Anoth point (to stray slightly from battery charging) is that many modern
> cars seem to have extremly feeble parking/sidelights. My last
> two cars have
> had pathetically weedy sidelights. I think it's more the design of the
> headlamps and how the sidelight bulbs are fitted. For a while
> many cars sold
> in the UK (especially Ford cars) had a "dim-dip" system. Here
> the sidelights/
> parking lights consisted of the normal 5W bulbs when the
> ignition was off. But
> when turn on the headlamp dipped bulbs were placed in series
> giving a level
> of illumination much better than just sidelights alone. The
> lights in this
> mode weren't really bright enough to drive by, but you could
> see approaching
> vehicles at a much greater distance. By connecting the lamps
> in series you
> only needing an extra relay rather than more bulbs.
>
> We should be able to rely on common sense to tell drivers to
> light up. Sadly
> such sense is anything but common! Given that more and more cars
> sold in Europe
> now come with automatic wipers that switch on when the windscreen is wet,
> perhaps they should reintroduce dim-dpped lamps and have them come on
> automatically as well?
>
> Rear fog lamps? OOh dont get me started on them. They may be of
> benefit if
> you are on some remote road, but the fact that people use them on busy
> motorways blinding the driver behind them is inexecusable. That and
> forgetting to turn them off. We've had a fortnight of fog, mist
> and harrs,
> and I'm happy to wager that in another fortnight's time ther'll still be
> people driving about with their rear fog lights on :-(
>
> 73 de Andy GM7HUD
I have already addressed the headlight question in a previous bulletin.
However, your parting note on REAR FOG LAMPS has brought up a long
unattended need to make a comment on some MODERN LIGHTING SCHEMES FOR
CARS.
This is my chance ... Hi.
Here, in North America, we have seen the introduction of luxury cars,
vans, 4 by 4's and the like with two new gadgets: (1) BRIGHT HALLOGEN HEAD
LAMPS THAT GIVE OFF A VERY CLEAR WHITE LIGHT instead of the yellowish
lights of other types of lamps; and (2) close to the road and frontal
ROUND FOG-LIKE HALLOGEN LAMPS THAT GIVE OFF A BRIGHT CLEAR WHITE LIGHT,
that are LIT 24h IN ADDITION TO THE NORMAL HEADLIGHTS.
I don't own such a car so I am unable to confirm if these ® FOG LAMPS ¯
can be turned off, but I have yet to cross one of these vehicules whose
WHITE FOG LIGHTS ARE OFF.
When you pass these vehicules coming from the other way, you are blinded
by them and you are left woundering what are their utility. Daytime lights
should be a GLOWING LIGHT, NOT BLINDING.
I will tell you -- even on my oath, if need be -- that I KEEP MY COOL when
crossing such a vehicule. Ha, ha ... ;-)
As for REAR FOG LIGHTS, this is a non-sense. Here, in foggy situations,
drivers SLOW DOWN and drive with their HAZARD LIGHTS BLINKING. Since the
rear and front parking lamps glow brighter when blinking, these are
sufficiently visible IN OUR AREA. In areas where there is constant fog,
one may wish for another more secure system (might aa wide rear AMBER
LIGHT not be a good idea ?). Whatever the solution retained, BLINDING YOUR
FELLOW DRIVERS (front or back) is NOT a good idea.
By the way, it is illegal here -- and I guess everywhere (?) -- to blind
drivers behind you or in front of you with WHITE LIGHTS FACING BACK OR
LIGHTS BRIGHTER THAN THE STANDARDS CALL FOR, front or back. Standards
impose a maximum voltage for any car lights.
In passing, I've noticed many other lighting gadgets -- other than the
faint glowing neon lights blue, green, red than young adult drivers place
all around their cars.
There is the blinking side mirrors of all sorts (good idea), the BLINKING
REAR STOP LAMP generally placed higher up in the window or the roof for
better visibility. As the driver presses the brake peddal, the stop light
first blinks for some 5 blinks (approx.). If the driver still keeps his
foot on the brake (coming to a full stop), the light stays continually
lit.
I had the occasion to follow a car with this device (or contraption !) and
I had the right to permanent BLINKING in front of me, since the driver had
his foot on the brakes every 10 or 20 feet for a 20-minute heavy traffic
drive.
How can you not ®not notice¯ this car or even ®notice¯ anything else
around you. Ha, ha.
Meanwhile, goble goble of electrons from the battery and guzzle guzzle
from the petrol reservoir ... naturally. Hi.
73 de
Pierre, VE2ABT
73 de Pierre, VE2ABT @ ON0BEL [@ON0BEL.#LG.BEL.EU]
Message r‚dig‚ … 14:03 UTC le 2004 08 14
Message exp‚di‚ avec WinPack-Telnet V6.80
Authetification: 112004081414030511
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
