'Some' news is good news :)

BrettM wrote:

BrettS wrote in
:

lots of snips


Didn't you know, we program these things to create maximum delay for an
particular individual. I'd say it would be hard for us to improve in
this area =D

Cheers

BrettM
Oh no!!! All our worst fears have been confirmed....

Kathy wrote:


BrettM wrote:

BrettS wrote in
:

lots of snips



Didn't you know, we program these things to create maximum delay for
an particular individual. I'd say it would be hard for us to improve
in this area =D

Cheers

BrettM

Oh no!!! All our worst fears have been confirmed....


I am sure all lighte everywhere are programmed so the senior programmer
gets a perfect run too and from work every day. All else is consequent
to this design criteria

On 2005-09-05, BrettM wrote:
The LEDs reduced the number of transforms, remove the need for lamp changes
and simplified the wiring. But they cost a bomb so change over is slow.

Yes, but what they cost upfront, they more than make up for in
maintenance costs. I'm pretty sure that the number of times an LED-based
signal needs (eg) a bulb changed is significantly lower (order of
magnitude, possibly two) than an incandescent-based signal.

I semm to remember, though, that the power draw is pretty similar, which
surprises me.

--
My Usenet From: address now expires after two weeks. If you email me, and
the mail bounces, try changing the bit before the "@" to "usenet".

Stuart Lamble wrote:
On 2005-09-05, BrettM wrote:

The LEDs reduced the number of transforms, remove the need for lamp changes
and simplified the wiring. But they cost a bomb so change over is slow.


Yes, but what they cost upfront, they more than make up for in
maintenance costs. I'm pretty sure that the number of times an LED-based
signal needs (eg) a bulb changed is significantly lower (order of
magnitude, possibly two) than an incandescent-based signal.

I semm to remember, though, that the power draw is pretty similar, which
surprises me.


This was the whole argument a few years ago when they (Main Roads)
changed the globe types from the ones that were fast acting to a newer
type that turn on and off slightly slower. The new globes required
replacement less often, significantly reducing costs.

--
BrettS

Stuart Lamble wrote in
:

On 2005-09-05, BrettM wrote:
The LEDs reduced the number of transforms, remove the need for lamp
changes and simplified the wiring. But they cost a bomb so change
over is slow.

Yes, but what they cost upfront, they more than make up for in
maintenance costs. I'm pretty sure that the number of times an
LED-based signal needs (eg) a bulb changed is significantly lower
(order of magnitude, possibly two) than an incandescent-based signal.

I semm to remember, though, that the power draw is pretty similar,
which surprises me.


I think (from memory) that power is similar but current is substantially
less.

You're right about the savings but.... Try convincing the pollies (includes
senior brass) that rehabing pavements, providing extra width and replacing
all the globes with LED is worth doing is a different story. It will save
lives and reduce costs but it just isn't sexy.

Same with bike facilities.

Cheers

BrettM