| See also: Discussions on forums and newsgroups: What's the point? | Linux/GPL fanboys/zealots |
The posts below, I posted in December 2011 on Linkedin, in response to a nutter called Barry who posted comments on Linkedin, supposedly to get input on a taillamp modification to give a brake lamp. But he is not actually interested in discussing anything, as is clear from his statement "I also won't divulge my intellectual property". Why the hell take part in a discussion, no, to start a thread even, to get input on whether the system he proposed is useful, and then say you're not going to discuss that system? (of which nothing of supposedly "intellectual property" need be discussed, but also, he could respond in a suitable way while not talking about what he doesn't want to talk about). If that was his attitude from the start, then it's clear he only wanted self-esteem boosting "wow, that's great" responses, or he is using Linkedin discussions to advertise. I think it's both. I found something about him where he talked about himself and it made me immediately dislike him. It shows how he really is, as it was braggy: "look at how great I am!". Despite his own views of how great he is, he's not actually very smart, and in the two responses below I gave him a hard lesson in two things:
I always make well thought and deep responses taking most possible counter arguments into account. I suppose this must be incredibly annoying to fanboys and generally people who always think they are right, like Barry, because it leaves just about zero room to respond in a way to disagree with me unless someone really HAS a counter argument. This is of course, because most people don't actually think about possible counter arguments, they have preconceptions and ideas that they think are right and they argue to make it show their views are right, and this does not work with me and my responses, as if there's anything wrong with an argument (for their viewpoints/ideas, or against my viewpoints/ideas), I will see it.
A few years ago I realised that that was a big reason for people not giving counter arguments about licences in gnu.misc.discuss and instead giving silly remarks like "I don't know what the solution is but your ideas are not good": They could not find any holes in my arguments for my ideas, nor could they invalidate my arguments against other ideas. I also realised that my postings must be incredibly frustrating for such people! :-) And it was shown of course that my ideas were good...
> If you want to "get rid of dangerously blinding taillamps that shine light in a cone" then buy a Barry Beams "Off My Tail" light instead.
Barry, you need to get a different attitude. "Off My Tail" is an agressive description that makes it look as it everyone is out to kill you. I don't know the circumstances of where you ride, but the design principles of good taillamps as I give on my website are the best to be seen, not be annoying, and not blinding such that motorist see you and can estimate distance. I mentioned blinding taillamps because people could run into you because of that. They cannot then see if they are getting closer. Blinking also makes this almost impossible.
> You persist in false assumptions and imbedding declaration in statements, to then use as if it were fact as the basis to derive a false conclusion.
No I don't. But your response is a typical response of someone who cannot give logical arguments against those I gave. I experienced such things a lot in the late 1990s in Linux newsgroups. It was fun dissecting and disproving other peoples nonsense but then the only response they could give, as they could not find counter arguments, was a similar style of response as you give. It was interesting then, but it's just tedious now...
> No I'm not going to take an hour to read links of redundant information that I can skim and get the essential points of in two minutes.
If you think what's on my website is redundant then you are as closed minded as I already thought you were from reading what you wrote in in various threads on Linkedin, before I had commented in this thread.
> You're sounding more like a troll, needing to negate another and lure me into a dead end discourse.
You said you wanted opions on whether a brake lamp would be useful. You said it would be an in-between box for existing taillamps. I gave a list of possible problems and why I don't think brake lamps are particularly useful. It makes more sense to me to design a complete new taillamp. You are however not interested in such comments nor in a real discussion. This is quite clear from how you responded to the examples of already existing brake lamp systems, but especially so in your responses to my posts. So you are the troll.
> Fact is, I'm new, unique, and novel, not a niche market, don't fall into conventional wisdom that lumps "bright" and "cone shaped" as inseparable siamese twins.
And lumping together "bright" and "cone shaped" as 'inseparable siamese twins' is not conventional wisdom, but ignorance. So if you make a taillamp that puts out light diffused + optic for a collimated beam [ add: that's great (In part 2 in the original Linkedin discussion I noted this was missing from this sentence in this, part 1) ]. But there should be brightness limits as in car taillamps. I think it's bad to go above theses brightness levels, as I explain on my website but I guess you already know the reasons for that without reading about it, right ;-)
> I also won't divulge my intellectual property
I'm not interested in your 'intellectual property'. You wanted comments about in in-between box to give a brake lamp from an existing taillamp. I gave a list of possible problems and that also means taking into account the price of a taillamp. It makes more sense to me to design a complete new taillamp.
> but do spend countless hours simulating my beam shapes before moving to final production optics, and refer you to a one minute YouTube that says more than all your balderdash combined.
Balderdash?
The biggest mistake you can make is to ignore the input from others who have thought a lot (a lot more than you) about issues in light design.
Continued in part 2.
Part 2 (I had to split up my response to fit in Linkedin's message length limit).
> This video is also my last word on the subject, until my products become a smashing sales success, so take what you like and leave the rest.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWpjiLh-uYk&feature=youtu.beUhm, yes, what does this prove? You really should have read on my website about the issues of interpretation, and why descriptions of beamshots (but ditto for videos) are essential to show what a lamp is like in reality, and how well it performs.
You may well become successful with your brake lamp, just like Supernova is quite succesful in selling expensive bicycle lights, despite the fact that they are not particularly bright! (the lights, and the people working there ;-))
I think we need better taillamps, and I went in this discussion for that purpose, to give my views, to perhaps help improve things. However, you are not actually interested in discussing anything, you give no arguments for a brake lamp, you just tell me I make assumptions, but don't say what assumptions. It is more the other way around. You make some assumptions about what I'm trying to do, as evidenced by what you wrote in your latest post, and you are wrong.
You know, I also posted a comment with your video about the somewhat-cutoff headlamp you are working on, but you only allow comments to stand after being approved, and that still hasn't happened even though according to Youtube your last activity on Youtube was on 19 Dec. 2011, so it seems you don't want any critical comments there either. It again shows you cannot deal with any criticism and that you are not interested in a real discussion.
Therefore I will also put the following comments in another thread ('Light !') where more is written about headlamps, StVZO etc. slightly edited as that thread was originally about in interest in dynamo lighting. The the modified LBL is the best around of that. The attitude you display in that thread was telling, but I gave my views and arguments w.r.t. brakelamps for you to consider, despite that...
So, about 'Barry Beams Bicycle Lighting's first night riding demo' ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MFz08vG44M ):
I wasn't much impressed I have to say, as I gather it is supposed to be 1000 lm (at least that's the figure in the description of another of your videos). I think this could be caused partly by the camera (another tricky subject in bicycle lighting, you could read about this on my website but I suppose you know all this already as with everything else I wrote ;-)), but if you want to show your headlamp is better than others, the Philips LBL is one to beat. So you should make a comparison video with that, then we might be impressed. And as to how the LBL performs, see my video here of one modified for use with dynamo:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6Bfv8H4pXk&context=C38d9723ADOEgsToPDskK5-P5kNCFFjlWEKTKudokn
(there are more videos on my website)
This should give about 330 lumen, and most of that gets onto the road (far more than 2/3), and it has a near perfect light distribution (This is important because in particular overexposure of the near field means you won't see as far, as I wrote on my website, but I guess you already know all about that ;-))
Also, the glare for oncoming cyclists in another of your videos with your headlight was quite high. Perhaps the camera was positioned very low but it seems to put a lot of light above the horizon. In another thread on Linkedin ('Light !''you mention 1/3 or less above the 'midpoint' of the beam, so a little less than 1/3 goes above the 'cutoff'? That's a lot! Barely a cutoff at all. You don't need that much light above the horizon, no, it is in fact counterproductive. Esp. retroreflecting signs become annoyingly bright with too much light going upwards.
| To email me go to the email page |
Last modified: Sat Oct 6 17:09:56 CEST 2012