An electrical and lights relater question

[Mike Arman]

>From: "Pantelis Giamarellos" <pantg at otenet.gr>

>Subject: An electrical and lights relater question
>Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 08:17:31 -0700
>
>Dear Fellow AUDIphiles,
>
>Through the Land Rover discussion forum I have been advised of a system for
>improving (actually increasing) the amount of output of the lighting system
>of conventional bulbs equipped cars.
>
>Namely this system increases the voltage from 12V to 24V but the current is
>not continuous but intermittent at around 2000 times per second.
>
>According to the information that was quoted this system lets the filement
>inside the bulb (working with tungsten and halogen lamps) cool down as much
>as it is required so that it does not burn from the increase Voltage but
>lets the lamps produce far more light than before. A number of turning a 60W
>lamps to the lighting equivalent of 180W (YES 180W) was quoted.
>



This sounds like the free lunch syndrome, except this free lunch only costs
GBP 130 (Around $200). And a lot of bulbs.


Remember that sheer wattage output does not mean good visibility - that
comes from proper beam patterns, decent reflectors, and good design.



60 watts at 12 volts is 5 amps, at 24 volts it is 2.5 amps, but it is still
60 watts. If we double the voltage AND retain the 5 amps, now we have 120
watts going through the bulb, and yes, it will be VERY bright, until it
burns out, which it will do QUICKLY!!!


Most incandescent bulbs fail at turn-on, when the inrush of current goes
through the cold filament. The idea this vendor is espousing is that since
the filament is already hot, 2,000 on-off cycles per second won't hurt it
because it has a chance to cool off between pulses.


I found this idea highly suspect - the heat has to go someplace, and we are
now trying to dispose of twice the power, some of which comes out as more
light, but a LOT is turned into heat. The heat transfer out of the bulb is
too slow to dispose of twice the wattage.






>There is no need to replace stock wiring, no need to increase the output of
>the alternator and the only drawbacks is the propose to change the lamps to
>new ones of the same type since as they quoted the used lamps store the kind
>of voltage that they were running at and when the higher voltage passes
>through them they burn, but this does not happen with the new ones (same
>wattage as the old ones).

This is absolute BS. Lamps have no memory for whatever voltage they are
"used to running on" - that's like saying your car gets "used to" the road
you frequently drive on.



 Another slight drawback is the increase in the
>operating temperature inside the lighting cluster and the mirrors but this
>goes up at around 30% more which is any case happens when we increase the
>wattage of our stock lamps from 55 or 60W to 80, 100 or more Watts.
>
>So the question goes. Does this sound like a working and theoriticaly sound
>system?



I doubt it - this sounds like mouse-milk to me, and in my not terribly
humble opinion, is simply another way to separate us from our money.


You don't get something for nothing. Despite what hucksters, charlatains,
thieves and flim-flam artists worldwide may insist, the laws of physics
have not been repealed, and are certainly not likely to be for THEIR
express benefit.


This would be a neat trick if it could be made to work, but I *seriously*
doubt it - and would advise you to save your money.


Best Regards,

Mike Arman






>
>Cost is around 130 pounds including all taxes but no carriage. Group
>purchase of ten or more systems brings the price down to 110 pounds same as
>above.
>
>I am considering buying a kit for my cars (do now know at which one to mount
>it first) but I would appreciate your input.
>
>Take care
>Pantelis
>
>P.S. No internet site at the moment. Just a friend from the UK who has seen
>it and wrote to me about it.
>
>