| [ Main index » Criticism about tests and reviews and forums » The issues with forums: Moderators on candlepowerforums | ] |
2020-3-31: This was the old version of the message criticising and correcting the dimwit moderator virgil on cpf. Due to delays I didn't get to post it and in the end I decided I don't care about cpf, don't care whether my message gets removed or edited, I willl simply put on the previous page the message that I post there, if it changed you can see for yourself. Further more I'm going to boycott cpf unless the moderators Alaric and Virgil get removed. Here I will keep the old message that had choices for actions in case of editing or removing my post.
Here is the original message I wanted to post, that incorporates the information on how to get the ECE rules, from a reader:
so I have prepared the following reply , and if that messsage gets deleted or edited, I will never ever visit that site again. Here it is, enjoy:
[ addition: I decided to send Greta at cpf an email first, giving the choice of what to do, so in case she agrees to post my message and let it stand, with all criticism, and let it stay unedited by a moderator, then I will post this message there but I will change the ending as the choice I gave at the end of this message is then no longer relevant.
20120-2-14: The answer was only 'noted', instead of taking action, hmm, I will then post it with the slight alteration that I made at the end and esp. with the addition of references to where to download the ECE rules. ]
Quote Originally Posted by swhs
Car headlamps approved via ECE rules (r113) are restricted in lux and lumen, and of course the light going upwards (above the horizon) is limited just as much as with incandescent lights so that has not increased from before Xenon lighting. Don't know what the rules are in the USA-Virgil- wrote:
You don't appear to know what the rules are in Europe and the rest of the world where UN Regulations (you are calling "ECE rules") are in effect, either. UN R113 defines motorcycle headlamps, not car headlamps. R113 headlamps are permitted only on L-class vehicles (motorcycles). M- and N-class vehicles (cars and trucks) have to have headlamps as specified in UN R112 (halogen and LED), R98 (HID) and R123 (AFS/ADB) -- motorcycles may optionally be equipped with car/truck headlamps.Moreover, R113 (as well as R112) mentions lumens only with regard to certain light sources and combinations of light sources used in headlamps. R98 does not mention lumens at all. None of these regulations specify headlamp output in terms of lumens; there's not a word about lumens within the beam.
What I am calling ECE rules? ECE R113 = UN/ECE R113, saying UN R113 is also incomplete. Calling the rules ECE is just fine. Your abbreviation is better than mine, eh?
Oops, yes, I wrote R113 instead of R112, and indeed the former is for motorcycles. I remembered that one especially as I analysed it long ago and therefore I thought about that being it. I know about the different ECE rules for cars, if you think I don't know about them then that says more about you than about me!
Had a brief look again, oh you got me! :) My copy of ECE R113 is old, it talks about bulbs (incandescent), that are restricted such that for cutoff light:
b) bei Scheinwerfern der Klassen A und B der Bezugslichtstrom für Abblendlicht nicht mehr als 600 lm beträgt;
c) bei Scheinwerfern der Klassen C und D der Bezugslichtstrom für Abblendlicht nicht mehr als 2 000 lm beträgt.
So all types have light output restrictions (lumen). It seems to me very unlikely that in later regulations they suddenly removed the restrictions, or that suddenly for LEDs or Xenon you are allowed more light ouput, but perhaps that is the case with a leveling system that I do know is required for high output Xenon lamps for cars.
[ btw., as you seem to be autistic, i.e. you can't look at the larger picture of the differences between what I said was in R113 and your more up to date standards (which you should and likely did realise from candela vs. lux, see further, and try to find out why these are different, then realise the cause, and then you could have mentioned things like auto-levelling, and so have given an actually helpful informative post, but such things are not what you can provide, precisely because of not understanding connections in more complex topics. ]
I'm not interested in finding or acquiring more recent versions of ECE R113, nor any other ECE rules, nor in seeing about interpretation issues there might be of what is allowed in what cases, as I don't need them but also because they are not freely distributed and as I don't need them I'm not interested in acquiring them for money. For those who want to know the current limits, this presents an issue if you are not going to make a product. This is one of the issues why standards should be open and free, to be able to properly discuss them...
Note further: You noticed further on that I mentioned lux, and you talk about only candela being mentioned in ECE. From that change that you are aware of, you could and should have realised that I have older copies of the ECE standards... Then you could have given a proper (more meaningful and more polite) reply...
Addition 2020-2-14: Thank you to a reader of my site, he sent me the link to the ECE rules which are freely available after all. I and others had searched before and didn't find the rules except from paid sources, I guess I could have asked the UN but this was never an area of much interest to me so yes, made a mistake, assumed from these paid sources that they are not freely available similar to DIN/TA/BS etc. not being freely available... In any case this is the link to find R112 and R113: https://www.unece.org/trans/main/wp29/wp29regs101-120.html.
To get the other regulations, I had to search a bit (I did some URL guessing first but I wanted to see if these were not hidden links), knowing they were there and possibly not hidden links, I found them via the rather non-obvious names (thank you UN for hiding this stuff so well!): Go to https://www.unece.org/trans/main/welcwp29.html, then on the left menu click on Agreements and Regulations, then on UN Regulations (1958 Agreement), then on UN Regulations (Addenda to the 1958 Agreement) and then finally you will see the choice for:
Regs 0-20
Regs 21-40
Regs 41-60
Regs 61-80
Regs 81-100
Regs 101-120
Regs 121-140
Regs 141-160
-Virgil- wrote:
Moreover, in all three regs the old lux specs at named screen-distance points were superseded years ago by candela specifications at angular coordinates.
I don't have the latest ECE regulations, as are they are not freely distributed and I don't need them so I'm not interested in acquiring them. Further:
You do realise don't you that in practice measurements are done at long distances (25 m or so) and generally by that point the lamps can be considered close enough to point sources such that making the distinction between lux as projected onto a screen and cd doesn't really matter much? In any event the lux values that I mentioned can be used to compare the glare from bicycle and car headlamps, and glare/impairment of vision does depend on emitting area but I will get to that further on.
Cars going over crests is an issue but it's an annoyance, not so bad normally that you don't see anything. I've been blinded more by a too high aimed Edelux-Virgil- wrote:
What you are doing here is very common and quite wrong: you are mistaking what you think you've seen/think you've felt for actual objective fact. We (humans) are not equipped to accurately judge how well our eyes are working, it only feels like we are. In terms of actual, measurable, objective visual performance you almost certainly haven't actually been "blinded" by an Edelux aimed too high, you just felt like you were.
I'm not making a mistake in anything here. I know exactly what I experience. Further, someone saying he is being blinded doesn't always mean he can see absolutely nothing, it is commonly used to indicate that your vision is severely impaired. Are you autistic? It seems that way in taking everything literally and very precisely defined. Though then strangely you are writing UN R113 instead of UN/ECE R113, and also strangely you didn't seem to have noticed the implicit contradiction in 'blinded more' which is present if you assume that 'blinded' means not being able to see anything, hmm....
Notice that I wrote "I've been blinded more by a too high aimed Edelux". You cannot be blinded more than being totally blinded so blinded here is used in the sense of vision being severely impaired... And I'm not saying "blinded more" in the sense of "blinded more times" as I mention just the 1 time that it happened...
And by the way it is definitely possible to be 100% blinded by some bicycle lamps, it depends on the exact light distribution (and power) of such a lamp. I experienced it for example with a Magicshine long ago (less than 500 lm).
The issue is light emitting size... The smaller the lamp and thus emitting size, the more it will hinder, even blind you-Virgil- wrote:
This is not correct. For any given intensity, a smaller emitting surface will naturally have higher luminance, which will mean looking at it causes more discomfort glare, but -- this is the important part -- increased luminance does not aggravate disability glare (i.e., the degradation of visual acuity). Disability glare is purely a function of intensity, not of luminance.
What a load of rubbish!
I wrote "the issue is light emitting size... The smaller the lamp and thus emitting size, the more it will hinder, even blind you".
I did NOT write "disability glare is caused by".
Impairment of vision consists of various issues, adaptation to bright lights, discomfort glare (which impairs the processing of vision as if you are distracted, you won't notice everything very well, so that psychological issue can definitely cause actual glare in the sense of not processing in your brain correctly things that you may see with your eyes!), and the internal lighting issue in the eye, i.e. disability glare and likely more factors, as there is the issue of luminance, which is real! (this is likely a composite of adaptation and the point source vs. non-point source nature of a larger light and getting closer to that means the non-point source nature becomes apparent in (directional) measurements and thus also in the eye. E.g. in TA they prescribe that measurements should be done at such a distance that the taillamp can be considered a point source...)
Actual impairment of vision, i.e. not being able to see properly other things close to a near-point source of light, is definitely an issue. I know this from experience, while riding at night, unable to see things close to some very bright almost point source like taillamps (likely not StVZO approved, but I will get to that further on). Even an StVZO approved taillamp with near point source really impairs my vision (i.e. being able to see/distinguish other things near it) whereas a different taillamp with at least the same light output in cd coming from a large surface (also an approved taillamp) causes no impairment of my vision.
To confirm it (again), I just tried the following: I tried a Spanninga Lineo, >10 cd according to Spanninga. Vs. a B&M's Toplight flat plus (IIRC ca. 8 cd, in any case less than 12 cd as that is the maximum allowed in TA), and while having my fairly strong main room light on that illuminates everything quite well, I first put the Lineo on the bed spread. I had no problem seeing the colours and the patterns on the bed spread. Then I did the same with the Toplight flat plus (bare LED plus a poor distribution via some sort of lens, i.e. luminance is very high), I could see next to the Toplight: nothing! I couldn't see any colours, I couldn't see any pattern. And this is with a bed spread that is quite well illuminated! So yes, a small surface area emitter most definitely affects what you are able to see as well as cause discomfort.
But, there is more. I can look at "disability glare" theoretically, only looking at the intensity in cd, and then it is clear that that is greatly influenced by the emitting area, simply from changing distance, i.e. in case of a large light emitting area, you will, when you get closer, get a lower value in cd. This is so because light is generally emitted most strongly straight ahead, then dropping off to the sides. You see this in LEDs. If you take several light sources, that have an emitting range of say from -60 to +60 degrees from the normal direction, then when these emitters are far enough you will see light from all sources, when you get close enough, not see a number of them any more. And thus the value in cd (even while accepting larger differences in directionality of light at a given measurement spot) will drop... In a not so large emitting area there is still the issue of directionality and also a drop of intensity in cd from areas at the larger angles.
[ Addition: This is exactly the point I made to the researcher working on the new TA, that with high luminance (near point source) taillamps and DRL you are annoyed more the closer you get (which doesn't happen with taillamps and DRL have a larger illuminated area and yet still have the same intensity, as measured from a large distance), and that is NOT useful. DRL and taillamps are used to be noticed, you don't to be noticed/annoyed more the closer you get, it needs to be at a certain distance. or with a certain amount of glare even, not with a lot more but that is what happens with a small emitting area because of coming close (more light is captured by the eye on the same area) whereas with a larger illuminated area that has a lower luminance but at distance the same intensity you will not be annoyed/blinded as much ('blinded' in the non absolute meaning, I just mention it for autists like you who don't understand how language is used). Note that with cutoff light you will already be noticed and the advantage of that is that intensity drops at shorter distances (esp. useful when opposing traffic is close to you), thus I consider this a superior form of making yourself seen compared to DRL (which is designed to be at certain limits in intensity and luminance to give some glare). ]
And let's have a look at Wikipedia (oh and don't retort that it's not a scientific reference, it is almost always correct):
---
Glare is caused by a significant ratio of luminance between the task (that which is being looked at) and the glare source. Factors such as the angle between the task and the glare source and eye adaptation have significant impacts on the experience of glare.
---
But just for fun via a websearch I had a look at a few randomly chosen research papers and saw several from various years of publication, and noticed they often use luminous intensity onto the eye to calculate veiling luminance, but also there was mention in some papers about the fact that they usually took point sources long ago for tests and that lights with bigger sources and source size had not been examined enough in how it affects vision, i.e. glare as a whole/impairment of vision. I found one research paper on streetlights which did look more into this more and there they say:
"However, stronger glare effects may also be introduced due to the compact size. Especially the high luminance could be observed from the white-LED based street lamps."
Aha!
I don't have more time (nor interest) to figure out what researchers have further calculated or what tests they have done in the latest research. I'm sure of what I experience, I've done enough tests, I know that near-point light sources impair one's vision, and are detrimental to e.g. distance estimation, which is also one of the issues, i.e. one of the hinders that I referred to by "the more it will hinder", it's not just about glare/discomfort/impairment of vision, but in inability to estimate distance.
similar to a laser-Virgil-:
Not at all similar to a laser. Lasers produce coherent beams; vehicle lights do not -- no matter what technology they incorporate.
Yes, similar to a laser in the sense that your vision gets similarly impaired! Why do I have to explain this? Why do you take everything literally? Again clearly it isn't meant that a bicycle light with point source is the same as a laser (If you are autistic that would explain your inability to understand the clearly implied meaning, but then you should not be a moderator). This was meant for people who might have experienced a low power laser causing not being able to see but not experienced such an effect from a bicycle light, or for people who know this is an issue, from being told so via e.g. news reports on pilots getting blinded from people shining laser pointers to aeroplanes! And I know everything about lasers, including the physics of how (why) they work, you don't need to (try to) lecture me.
-Virgil-:
It might be a good idea for you to assume/guess less and learn/know more about the science of this field before you start handing out advice and trying to teach classes about it -- especially if you are trying to funnel business toward what appears to be some kind of commercial activity in consulting on vehicle lighting.
Hey Virgil, It might be a good idea for you to assume/guess less and learn/know more about the science of this field AND DO SOME EXPERIMENTS, before you start handing out advice and trying to teach classes about it to people here on CPF. -- Especially since as a moderator you have extra power which means that people may not dare correct you on matters for fear about being banned or posts getting edited in such a way as to remove the parts that show your ignorance or your inability to understand normal use of language...
Summary: You are in no position to tell me anything, you don't even know what causes real impairment of vision!
I'm not trying to funnel any business either. I am not impressed by such inane insinuations!
Are you by any chance one of the reasons there are so few postings on cpf these days in the bicycle forum?
Btw., I got a PM about the issue that moderation removed some postings and thus that because of that I wasted my time. Removing the posts was not done by you, but I will tell the following here: Yes, I had seen that a few of my posts in the thread "Custom Lens Designer Required (StVZO, Cree XP-L)", where I gave insight into the issues in approval that lighting makers have to deal with. These postings indeed were as a whole not belonging in that thread, though the first by Marcturus was a question related to who he thought was the company. Those messages should have been put into a new thread, just chucking them away means I wasted my time and these posting could be of interest not just to lighting makers. I asked the likely moderator and he replied to my PM something about the rest looking like 'advertising for Exposure'. Eh, what? No it f-ing wasn't.
I don't mind the removal much actually, I mention it here for the principle. Regarding the person who sent me the PM, and you as moderator can likely find out who it is, just FYI: It was my impression that that person is on the verge of disappearing from cpf (or at least in not going to do much effort in postings here) and from your response I will tell you further related to that:
- I am one of the best critical reviewers who identified lots of issues in bicycle lighting and figured out how proper reviews needed to be done and all sorts of psychological issues caused by beam shapes and beam patterns, and did proper reviews in a way that nobody else had done in a way anywhere close to that [ this was not just in bicycle lighting by the way, with mini-pumps and a few other subjects it was the same, I did it properly in a way that nobody else had done before me ]. I analysed TA and found errors and interpretation issues that I sent to the researcher working on the new TA and who was also responsible for parts of the old TA, and he then wrote to me that nobody had ever analysed those rules as critically before, he agreed about all my comments, and he said he would write the text for the new TA such that all interpretation issues should then be removed and the errors that I found would be corrected.
- If you or any moderator here gives me silly replies like yours ever again including insinuating that I am trying to funnel business, when I am actually extremely reticent about such things, or if you edit or remove this post, then I will remove my account and never visit this forum again. I don't want to deal with autists who whine about imprecise use of language, or rather about normal use of language (which they don't understand), nor do I want to deal with people who assume that not-using luminance in various research papers related to one aspect of glare, means it's not important for any aspect of what may be called glare and for actual impairment of vision, i.e. the type of people who simplistically assume they know it all when they don't even check their own 'facts'.
As you are a moderator that gives you power, as 1) in the rules of CPF it says I am not allowed to criticise moderation, and 2) you could remove or edit my posts.
Well, I will tell you this, and the consequences I will accept:
- If you want to edit or remove my post, then please instead do the following:
1) Remove all my posts from the last week, i.e. since my account got reactivated, and not just delete or edit this post + 2) remove your own replies to my posts.
If you only do something with this post (edit or remove it) or only remove all my posts and not your replies to mine, then I will send an email to Greta about this and ask her to do one of 2 things:
either a) remove you as a moderator, or b) to remove all my recent posts + your replies to my posts, that have been posted since I asked to reactivate my account several days ago.
Further let me make clear, for the unlikely case that my post remains as is: from your silly response, even though I may have made a mistake about the lumen limits in car headlamps (I admit that but I didn't have the latest rules): I don't care about you correcting people if they make mistakes, that is fine, but from the way you respond I am not interested in your replies to any of my posts ever again. I learned that people generally do not change in their life, I don't want hassle, so I have no interest in further dealing with you.
I have been proactive, and sent Greta a link to the text of this reply before posting to cpf, along with options on how to proceed, in any case, farewell to you!
| To email me go to the email page |
Last modified: 2020-3-31