Sceadwian
Banned
colin55, why would you be sad if he was an engineer for you colin55? Virtual every LED torch on the market works the same way, smaller ones with fewer LED's don't even use current limit resistors and just rely on the bulk resistance of the battery to limit current. It's simple, cheap and works extremely well, engineering perfection.
Don't mind colin55 gary the reason he told me in post number #35 is because I've asked him the same question some time ago and the method he used to measure efficiency was both flawed and inaccurate, and colin55, I'd love nothing more than to build one and demonstrate it, except I don't have a scope that would be required to measure it accurately and neither did you the last time you brought up this efficiency claim (I'll try to hunt down the original thread but I think this was a year and a half ago)
Using the scientific method is pretty simple, you make a claim, you devise a testing method, observe the results and the critically evaluate both the results and the test methods to come up with a better test until you continually get consistent results. The burden of proof is on you not someone else to prove your theory, you can't just go around making random claims with no demonstrable proof and scoffing at others for questioning the claim, you either have proof and can substantiate the claim or you don't. If you can't or refuse to provide proof for your claim you're nothing more than another wacko on the Internet spewing nonsense.
I'm not trying to insult you or prove anything whatsoever and questioning your claim is valid to the topic at hand, that you refuse to substantiate the claim puts you in the position of proving overwhelmingly that your statement was correct with pure data or retracting the statement.
Don't mind colin55 gary the reason he told me in post number #35 is because I've asked him the same question some time ago and the method he used to measure efficiency was both flawed and inaccurate, and colin55, I'd love nothing more than to build one and demonstrate it, except I don't have a scope that would be required to measure it accurately and neither did you the last time you brought up this efficiency claim (I'll try to hunt down the original thread but I think this was a year and a half ago)
Using the scientific method is pretty simple, you make a claim, you devise a testing method, observe the results and the critically evaluate both the results and the test methods to come up with a better test until you continually get consistent results. The burden of proof is on you not someone else to prove your theory, you can't just go around making random claims with no demonstrable proof and scoffing at others for questioning the claim, you either have proof and can substantiate the claim or you don't. If you can't or refuse to provide proof for your claim you're nothing more than another wacko on the Internet spewing nonsense.
I'm not trying to insult you or prove anything whatsoever and questioning your claim is valid to the topic at hand, that you refuse to substantiate the claim puts you in the position of proving overwhelmingly that your statement was correct with pure data or retracting the statement.