Los Angeles Times Interbike Review, guess which bike light isbest?

On 1/30/2017 8:50 PM, wrote:
On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 3:45:54 PM UTC-8, Barry Beams wrote:
On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 10:02:56 AM UTC-8, wrote:
On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 3:25:11 PM UTC-8, Barry Beams wrote:
Los Angeles Times Interbike Review, guess which bike light is best?

http://www.latimes.com/health/la-he-...128-story.html


There is a problem with these "precisely targeted beams". Very often these lights are so closely focused that they do not light up the area around the beam with sufficient light to show obstacles slightly off center of your direction of travel. They also have such a large difference in brightness of the beam and from any surrounding lights such as street lights that you lose night vision outside of the beam. So while brightness is good, it has to be dispersed enough to be effective.

You clearly haven't tried an Oculus, nor want to as my posting offers. Rather you want to insult and contrive excuses to demean.
See the Learn More page on the website for a Zemax output mapping. NO red hot spots anywhere. 3% measured maximum variation with spectrometers from side to side. Your phrase "closely focused" is vague and without a context to makes sense of.
Dispersed, even brightness created in an additive process is one of the key differentiators of Oculus' patented optics versus anything else on the market. Easy to criticize when you don't know what you're talking about. Your pre-determined intent to belittle is obvious starting with your "very often these" statement, self-proclaiming you're an expert on what "these" is, and attempting to lump my lights in with anything else. You seem not to understand the difference between focusing a light beam, versus aiming rays where you want and need. Focusing shoves rays together excessively close to a center spot, removing peripheral vision and lessening contrast. My optics don't focus, in the sense you're attempting to misrepresent. Rather,according the testing at NASA Ames labs, it enhances depth perception and contrast, increasing peripheral vision over anything else out there. It does it so well that they're designing their lunar resource prospector rover with it.
Barry

My intend was to demonstrate that you have been posting a commercial product add on this forum and thank you for so proving.


Yeah so what?
It's his product, he isn't engaging in subterfuge or
dishonesty. Either buy one or don't but merely discussing
his product is probably useful and/or interesting to many here.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 1/31/2017 9:31 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/30/2017 8:50 PM, wrote:
On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 3:45:54 PM UTC-8, Barry Beams wrote:
On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 10:02:56 AM UTC-8,
wrote:
On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 3:25:11 PM UTC-8, Barry Beams wrote:
Los Angeles Times Interbike Review, guess which bike light is best?

http://www.latimes.com/health/la-he-...128-story.html


There is a problem with these "precisely targeted beams". Very often
these lights are so closely focused that they do not light up the
area around the beam with sufficient light to show obstacles
slightly off center of your direction of travel. They also have such
a large difference in brightness of the beam and from any
surrounding lights such as street lights that you lose night vision
outside of the beam. So while brightness is good, it has to be
dispersed enough to be effective.

You clearly haven't tried an Oculus, nor want to as my posting
offers. Rather you want to insult and contrive excuses to demean.
See the Learn More page on the website for a Zemax output
mapping. NO red hot spots anywhere. 3% measured maximum variation
with spectrometers from side to side. Your phrase "closely focused"
is vague and without a context to makes sense of.
Dispersed, even brightness created in an additive process is
one of the key differentiators of Oculus' patented optics versus
anything else on the market. Easy to criticize when you don't know
what you're talking about. Your pre-determined intent to belittle is
obvious starting with your "very often these" statement,
self-proclaiming you're an expert on what "these" is, and attempting
to lump my lights in with anything else. You seem not to understand
the difference between focusing a light beam, versus aiming rays
where you want and need. Focusing shoves rays together excessively
close to a center spot, removing peripheral vision and lessening
contrast. My optics don't focus, in the sense you're attempting to
misrepresent. Rather,according the testing at NASA Ames labs, it
enhances depth perception and contrast, increasing peripheral vision
over anything else out there. It does it so well that they're
designing their lunar resource prospector rover with it.
Barry

My intend was to demonstrate that you have been posting a commercial
product add on this forum and thank you for so proving.


Yeah so what?
It's his product, he isn't engaging in subterfuge or dishonesty. Either
buy one or don't but merely discussing his product is probably useful
and/or interesting to many here.

I agree. Barry's at least honest and straightforward. He's not doing
Scharf's "guerilla marketing," and what he posts is certainly more
relevant to bike tech than Tom's know-it-all political and social
harangues.

Regarding the light, and headlights in general: I saw the videos at
http://www.barrybeams.com/action-videos.html
and the various photos. It's a shame, though, that it's so difficult to
get a realistic impression of a headlight's performance from a web page
or video. I suppose the root of the problem is that a camera's exposure
latitude is so much less than that of the human eye. But in at least
some cases with comparative beam shots, I get the impression that a
change in exposure setting could improve things greatly.

I think that's the case in the downhill video, i.e. the top one at the
above link. It makes the light look so glaring that the road surface
isn't even visible, as if it's a massive overcooked hot spot. Based on
written reviews, that's not the case; but it would be nice to be able to
prove that with online images.

As others know by now, I'm not a fan of extreme excess in bike lights.
There's no way I'd ever need 1600 lumens. But I'd like to see the beam
shape in a comparison test with other optically engineered beams, like
the Busch & Muller range of lights.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 6:31:24 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/30/2017 8:50 PM, wrote:
On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 3:45:54 PM UTC-8, Barry Beams wrote:
On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 10:02:56 AM UTC-8, wrote:
On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 3:25:11 PM UTC-8, Barry Beams wrote:
Los Angeles Times Interbike Review, guess which bike light is best?

http://www.latimes.com/health/la-he-...128-story.html


There is a problem with these "precisely targeted beams". Very often these lights are so closely focused that they do not light up the area around the beam with sufficient light to show obstacles slightly off center of your direction of travel. They also have such a large difference in brightness of the beam and from any surrounding lights such as street lights that you lose night vision outside of the beam. So while brightness is good, it has to be dispersed enough to be effective.

You clearly haven't tried an Oculus, nor want to as my posting offers. Rather you want to insult and contrive excuses to demean.
See the Learn More page on the website for a Zemax output mapping. NO red hot spots anywhere. 3% measured maximum variation with spectrometers from side to side. Your phrase "closely focused" is vague and without a context to makes sense of.
Dispersed, even brightness created in an additive process is one of the key differentiators of Oculus' patented optics versus anything else on the market. Easy to criticize when you don't know what you're talking about. Your pre-determined intent to belittle is obvious starting with your "very often these" statement, self-proclaiming you're an expert on what "these" is, and attempting to lump my lights in with anything else. You seem not to understand the difference between focusing a light beam, versus aiming rays where you want and need. Focusing shoves rays together excessively close to a center spot, removing peripheral vision and lessening contrast. My optics don't focus, in the sense you're attempting to misrepresent. Rather,according the testing at NASA Ames labs, it enhances depth perception and contrast, increasing peripheral vision over anything else out there.. It does it so well that they're designing their lunar resource prospector rover with it.
Barry

My intend was to demonstrate that you have been posting a commercial product add on this forum and thank you for so proving.


Yeah so what?
It's his product, he isn't engaging in subterfuge or
dishonesty. Either buy one or don't but merely discussing
his product is probably useful and/or interesting to many here.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Oh, I don't mind him advertising his product here but you and I both know that his product uses bright white LED's which was what I was criticizing as making it difficult to see in the surrounding yellow cast street lights.

There is more to a headlight than doing a good job of lighting the pathway for the bicycle. I ended up with a bright white tightly focused headlight and an incandescent wide angle with a large battery so that as you rode mostly on the yellow cast lamp your vision wasn't badly disturbed by the bright light focused where the front wheel was going.

On 1/31/2017 2:12 PM, wrote:
On Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 6:31:24 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/30/2017 8:50 PM, wrote:
On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 3:45:54 PM UTC-8, Barry Beams wrote:
On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 10:02:56 AM UTC-8, wrote:
On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 3:25:11 PM UTC-8, Barry Beams wrote:
Los Angeles Times Interbike Review, guess which bike light is best?

http://www.latimes.com/health/la-he-...128-story.html


There is a problem with these "precisely targeted beams". Very often these lights are so closely focused that they do not light up the area around the beam with sufficient light to show obstacles slightly off center of your direction of travel. They also have such a large difference in brightness of the beam and from any surrounding lights such as street lights that you lose night vision outside of the beam. So while brightness is good, it has to be dispersed enough to be effective.

You clearly haven't tried an Oculus, nor want to as my posting offers. Rather you want to insult and contrive excuses to demean.
See the Learn More page on the website for a Zemax output mapping. NO red hot spots anywhere. 3% measured maximum variation with spectrometers from side to side. Your phrase "closely focused" is vague and without a context to makes sense of.
Dispersed, even brightness created in an additive process is one of the key differentiators of Oculus' patented optics versus anything else on the market. Easy to criticize when you don't know what you're talking about. Your pre-determined intent to belittle is obvious starting with your "very often these" statement, self-proclaiming you're an expert on what "these" is, and attempting to lump my lights in with anything else. You seem not to understand the difference between focusing a light beam, versus aiming rays where you want and need. Focusing shoves rays together excessively close to a center spot, removing peripheral vision and lessening contrast. My optics don't focus, in the sense you're attempting to misrepresent. Rather,according the testing at NASA Ames labs, it enhances depth perception and contrast, increasing peripheral vision over anything else out there. It does it so well that they're designing their lunar resource prospector rover with it.
Barry

My intend was to demonstrate that you have been posting a commercial product add on this forum and thank you for so proving.


Yeah so what?
It's his product, he isn't engaging in subterfuge or
dishonesty. Either buy one or don't but merely discussing
his product is probably useful and/or interesting to many here.


Oh, I don't mind him advertising his product here but you and I both know that his product uses bright white LED's which was what I was criticizing as making it difficult to see in the surrounding yellow cast street lights.

There is more to a headlight than doing a good job of lighting the pathway for the bicycle. I ended up with a bright white tightly focused headlight and an incandescent wide angle with a large battery so that as you rode mostly on the yellow cast lamp your vision wasn't badly disturbed by the bright light focused where the front wheel was going.


Well, that's another thing entirely. Your preference for a
different format[1] shouldn't keep Mr Beams from discussing
his ideas[2] here.

[1] People like what they like and that's OK.
[2] Other people don't. Celebrate diversity!

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 12:20:37 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/31/2017 2:12 PM, wrote:
On Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 6:31:24 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/30/2017 8:50 PM, wrote:
On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 3:45:54 PM UTC-8, Barry Beams wrote:
On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 10:02:56 AM UTC-8, wrote:
On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 3:25:11 PM UTC-8, Barry Beams wrote:
Los Angeles Times Interbike Review, guess which bike light is best?

http://www.latimes.com/health/la-he-...128-story.html


There is a problem with these "precisely targeted beams". Very often these lights are so closely focused that they do not light up the area around the beam with sufficient light to show obstacles slightly off center of your direction of travel. They also have such a large difference in brightness of the beam and from any surrounding lights such as street lights that you lose night vision outside of the beam. So while brightness is good, it has to be dispersed enough to be effective.

You clearly haven't tried an Oculus, nor want to as my posting offers. Rather you want to insult and contrive excuses to demean.
See the Learn More page on the website for a Zemax output mapping. NO red hot spots anywhere. 3% measured maximum variation with spectrometers from side to side. Your phrase "closely focused" is vague and without a context to makes sense of.
Dispersed, even brightness created in an additive process is one of the key differentiators of Oculus' patented optics versus anything else on the market. Easy to criticize when you don't know what you're talking about. Your pre-determined intent to belittle is obvious starting with your "very often these" statement, self-proclaiming you're an expert on what "these" is, and attempting to lump my lights in with anything else. You seem not to understand the difference between focusing a light beam, versus aiming rays where you want and need. Focusing shoves rays together excessively close to a center spot, removing peripheral vision and lessening contrast. My optics don't focus, in the sense you're attempting to misrepresent. Rather,according the testing at NASA Ames labs, it enhances depth perception and contrast, increasing peripheral vision over anything else out there. It does it so well that they're designing their lunar resource prospector rover with it.
Barry

My intend was to demonstrate that you have been posting a commercial product add on this forum and thank you for so proving.


Yeah so what?
It's his product, he isn't engaging in subterfuge or
dishonesty. Either buy one or don't but merely discussing
his product is probably useful and/or interesting to many here.


Oh, I don't mind him advertising his product here but you and I both know that his product uses bright white LED's which was what I was criticizing as making it difficult to see in the surrounding yellow cast street lights.

There is more to a headlight than doing a good job of lighting the pathway for the bicycle. I ended up with a bright white tightly focused headlight and an incandescent wide angle with a large battery so that as you rode mostly on the yellow cast lamp your vision wasn't badly disturbed by the bright light focused where the front wheel was going.


Well, that's another thing entirely. Your preference for a
different format[1] shouldn't keep Mr Beams from discussing
his ideas[2] here.

[1] People like what they like and that's OK.
[2] Other people don't. Celebrate diversity!

But he should hold at least some respect for my opinion. I actually used these sorts of lights and know the conditions that his sort of light is to be operated in.