Gripe wrote:Law of Physics: White the absence of color and black the combination of all colors.

Mildly entertaining... except that it implies you're using white paper. And, regardless, the combination of all colors is brown.

martmann4 wrote:

Have you never seen a Pink Floyd DSOTM album cover?

Why? Does it have spiffy arrows showing which way the beams are going? F'r'nstance, if all of the colors on the right were going left, would you end up with a beam of white light on the left side of the prism?

Anyhow, the cover is, once again, an example of subtractive color (i.e. add enough of everything and you get something that is usually at least close to black) rather than additive color. As such, it neither aids nor hinders this stupid argument these dull-wits are having.

BIGELLOW wrote:Mildly entertaining... except that it implies you're using white paper. And, regardless, the combination of all colors is brown.

Now I'm speechless!

From what I understand most cities the firemen have this same bulb in their rescue head gear lights so they have to be pretty good for brightness and dependable.

And the fact that they'll last for 70hrs before the batteries go down is a plus.

In for a pair here.

epyzero wrote:Black is the absence of color (and is therefore not a color)

White is the blending of all colors and is a color.

you got it the other way around dude

Yes and No.

It depends if you're talking about additive or subtractive colors. If you mean subtractive, (as in print, painting, etc.), then black is the combination of all colors. For example, in printing, one way they print black is to use equal parts CMYK. However, if you're talking about additive colors, (e.g., lighting), then in that case white IS the combination of all colors.

JohnnyLemonhead wrote:Plutonium theft would probably have been simpler in 1955 vs 1985.

Two fundamental errors in your logic:

1) There wasn't anything even NEAR as much plutonium in 1955 as there was in 1985.

2) Gosh, if security is so much tighter, then why is there a truly ghastly amount of the stuff (all told, over all the world, etc.) actually not accounted for at the moment? An example from 4 years ago:


"British plant missing 30 kilograms of plutonium (Associated Press) February 17, 2005 at 7:40 AM EST"

That is just one PLANT that is missing that much. And this isn't just clerical errors or anything.

You could probably scrape up a fairish amount just from the soil down-wind of what was Rocky Flats (unless they dug that up as well).

zozzles wrote:Why? Does it have spiffy arrows showing which way the beams are going? F'r'nstance, if all of the colors on the right were going left, would you end up with a beam of white light on the left side of the prism?

Anyhow, the cover is, once again, an example of subtractive color (i.e. add enough of everything and you get something that is usually at least close to black) rather than additive color. As such, it neither aids nor hinders this stupid argument these dull-wits are having.

Oh and Yes you would end up with white light on the left, if you placed the color lights on the right correctly, duh.

No, just like on the DSOTM cover a prism (as it is commonly used in a setup like shown on the cover) takes white light and separates it into it's component wavelengths (colors) Showing you that white light is made up of multiple colors/wavelengths, making my point. Jeez go to science class!

Bowhunters wrote:From what I understand most cities the firemen have this same bulb in their rescue head gear lights so they have to be pretty good for brightness and dependable.

And the fact that they'll last for 70hrs before the batteries go down is a plus.

In for a pair here.

True they do last a long time on little power.
But the thing that gets me is "10 times brighter than a standard LED".

Maybe if the area was pitch black, then 10x a normal LED would be enough for me to get to safety. But come on, at least put more than 1 super LED in this thing!

Bought these for the kids. I'll stick with my 5 million candle power. It's great for shark fishing at night.

martmann4 wrote:No, just like on the DSOTM cover a prism

What!?!?!? That is a prism?!?!? It looks merely like an IMAGE of a prism to me.

Never mistake the map for the territory, bozo.

guys, it's 2am, don't make me think about physics at this hour, k?

In for a pair - one for my snowplow truck, another for the boat in the summer.

<-- oldest wooter in this woot I bet.
This old man needs sleep.

McDealerWTF wrote:guys, it's 2am, don't make me think about physics at this hour, k?

In for a pair - one for my snowplow truck, another for the boat in the summer.

<-- oldest wooter in this woot I bet.
This old man needs sleep.

Damn, zozzles beat me by a month.

zozzles wrote:What!?!?!? That is a prism?!?!? It looks merely like an IMAGE of a prism to me.

Never mistake the map for the territory, bozo.

Wow that stupid comment really cemented your point, bravo!

JohnnyLemonhead wrote:One thing I always wondered was how they knew which second the bolt of lightning would strike? The clock did not have a second hand on it, so how did they know which of the 60 seconds of 10:04PM the lightning would strike? This is a major plot hole if you ask me. Also, back then plutonium would have probably been easier to come by than it was in 1985. There were nowhere near the safety and security regulations (especially in foreign nations) in 1955 that there were in 1985. Plutonium theft would probably have been simpler in 1955 vs 1985. Plus, they never explored alternate ways to achieve 1.21 gigawatts besides a lightning bolt or plutonium. There are probably more ways to achieve that wattage and those ways were sadly not explored by Doc Brown who was more concerned with building scale models than researching alternate power sources.

\sillysarcasm\
It's 1.21 jigawatts. Morans.
\/sillysarcasm\

All this physics talk really makes me sleepy.

JohnnyLemonhead:
First time I've posted here, but I have to tell you, you had me literally in tears laughing with your owl spotting queries. Cheers, brother!

What is Woot selling? I'm having too much fun reading the comments tonight to care.
Its like drunk men finding flaws in science. Very entertaining.

mreed911 wrote:1 watt. 100 of them and you've got a bright lightbulb.

100 of them and you've got 100 bright leds....
a Lux 1 watt will most likely put out 40-60 lumens which is pretty low in comparison with newer cree's and SSC's (100 of them would combine to put out 4-6000 total lumen output-much much more than any incandescent running off the same power). however with a large reflector/focusing lens, it could probably throw the beam pretty decently.
I'm in for 1 to satisfy my flashlight addiction and to try and modify w/ and SSC P7 LED and new driver circuitry.

Question - If this is a 2 Pack for sale on "2 for Tuesday" do we get 4 for the price of 2 $15?

Bowhunters wrote:And the fact that they'll last for 70hrs before the batteries go down is a plus.

Garrity conveniently neglected to mention that it won't be at full brightness throughout those 70 hours though.

bopimo wrote:Question - If this is a 2 Pack for sale on "2 for Tuesday" do we get 4 for the price of 2 $15?

o0

you get 2 for 14.99+$5 shipping

you get 4 for 29.98+$5 shipping

you get 6 for 44.97+$5 shipping

These will come in handy for when the zombies attack. I'm in for a pair. Just don't wake up the witch.

nexus77 wrote:JohnnyLemonhead:
First time I've posted here, but I have to tell you, you had me literally in tears laughing with your owl spotting queries. Cheers, brother!

well thanks, but the OP never answered back so I had to do my own research into the matter. It turns out that "owl enthusiasts"--as I incorrectly called them--are in fact known as owlers. That's "owlers."

Secondly, it is quite mean to shine a light--even one far weaker than the one being offered here--into the eyes of an owl. I don't want to have to copy and paste whole pages of material here--let alone recount it--but trust me brother it is not a nice thing to do. Many, many Karma demerits will follow such an activity, if you are inclined to believe in Karma of course--which I don't--but damn please don't shine these on poor little owls. Not cool.

martmann4 wrote:Wow that stupid comment really cemented your point, bravo!

Ok, let me clean up the quote as a search key:

quote "the map is not the territory"

Gosh, I only get about 12,000 references to that EXACT phrase on Google. So, praytell, how is the comment "stupid" if it is used so widely? If we were to get into general semantics, we'd see articles like:

"Hayakawa, S.I., Language in Thought and Action, Harcourt, Brace and Company, (New York), 1949, p.31: "The symbol is NOT the thing symbolized; the word is NOT the thing; the map is NOT the territory it stands for."

The image of a prism is NOT a prism. You can draw anything you wish, no matter how fanciful, and it need not reflect that which exists in reality. At best, the DSOTM album has a very nice graphic on it, but even there it fails: the bands of color are shown as being distinct; they have edges. In reality, the spectrum would appear "smeared" as one goes through the entire transition of colors (you know, like in a rainbow?)

I believe that your comment was not only incorrect but merely the flatulent emission of an untutored mind.

Well, I am in for one set. Despite the shape of these, they are seem to be more comparable to a Maglight. With this in mine, WOOT has given us a pretty good deal here!!!

*N41*
~Skidi

zozzles wrote:Ok, let me clean up the quote as a search key:

quote "the map is not the territory"

Gosh, I only get about 12,000 references to that EXACT phrase on Google. So, praytell, how is the comment "stupid" if it is used so widely? If we were to get into general semantics, we'd see articles like:

"Hayakawa, S.I., Language in Thought and Action, Harcourt, Brace and Company, (New York), 1949, p.31: "The symbol is NOT the thing symbolized; the word is NOT the thing; the map is NOT the territory it stands for."

The image of a prism is NOT a prism. You can draw anything you wish, no matter how fanciful, and it need not reflect that which exists in reality. At best, the DSOTM album has a very nice graphic on it, but even there it fails: the bands of color are shown as being distinct; they have edges. In reality, the spectrum would appear "smeared" as one goes through the entire transition of colors (you know, like in a rainbow?)

I believe that your comment was not only incorrect but merely the flatulent emission of an untutored mind.

So when you said:

"Why? Does it have spiffy arrows showing which way the beams are going? F'r'nstance, if all of the colors on the right were going left, would you end up with a beam of white light on the left side of the prism?"

You meant image of a prism right?

Typical maroon tactic, lose an argument, change your argument.

ACNickC wrote:i'd suggest selling them to owls so they can people watch

Awesome idea...

"Mr Person, how many candlepower does it take to shine to the center of a Tootsie Pop?" - Owl

Gripe wrote:Law of Physics: White the absence of color and black the combination of all colors.

um, no? have you ever played with a prism? white LIGHT is the combination of all colors such as refracting white light in water droplets creating all the colors in the rainbow arch of visible light

naune wrote:Does anyone know if these have single LEDs or do they have the multi-LED "cluster"?

If it's a Luxeon 1 watt (which the description says it is) then it's a single very bright LED.

ronsiajaixp wrote:um, no? have you ever played with a prism? white LIGHT is the combination of all colors such as refracting white light in water droplets creating all the colors in the rainbow arch of visible light

"LIKE" on the cover of Pink Floyd DSOTM, right? Yeah now I get it. Hope you're not talkin about an IMAGE of a prism, zozzles hates that.

Gripe wrote:Law of Physics: White the absence of color and black the combination of all colors.

Oggling my goat?, are you kidding me... Flip the back of a CD over... "PHYSICALLY" hold it up to white light and tilt back and forth... WHAT DO YOU SEE?

Unbelievable that people dont THINK before they start typing away...

ronsiajaixp wrote:um, no? have you ever played with a prism? white LIGHT is the combination of all colors such as refracting white light in water droplets creating all the colors in the rainbow arch of visible light

played with a prism? did your parents buy you a prism when you were little? it seems like kind of a dangerous toy for a youngster if you ask me. Not only is it sharp and pointy all around but it is also glass which can be broken into even sharper pieces. bottom line playing a prism is not recommended, especially for children under the age of 13. angry children aged 13 to 18 should also avoid them.

JohnnyLemonhead wrote:played with a prism? did your parents buy you a prism when you were little? it seems like kind of a dangerous toy for a youngster if you ask me. Not only is it sharp and pointy all around but it is also glass which can be broken into even sharper pieces. bottom line playing a prism is not recommended, especially for children under the age of 13. angry children aged 13 to 18 should also avoid them.

How about an IMAGE of a prism?

(OK I'm done)

Sheesh... I have not been on Woot for over a year it seems.

Anyway, these are great for searching high and low for lost stuff in my closets, behind the computers and under my cats' paws.

Good for looking around for the cats too.

kevrotti wrote:Black hole sun... won't you come? Wash away the rain.. Black hole sun, won't you come? Woooon't you coooooooooo-oooooooooooooooooome......

creepy. jack fm sacramento steaming is playing your song now, just as i finished your song. i love woot.

martmann4 wrote:So when you said:

"Why? Does it have spiffy arrows showing which way the beams are going? F'r'nstance, if all of the colors on the right were going left, would you end up with a beam of white light on the left side of the prism?"

You meant image of a prism right?

Typical maroon tactic, lose an argument, change your argument.

OK, fine. Let us say that we take this experiment into the physical world rather than merely as the cover of an album.

Let us say that you can produce rays of colored light in PRECISELY the shades shown on the album (and even then, those are "process" colors and not luminous ones) and that those rays are shaped PRECISELY as they are on the album and they impinge on a perfect prism at the EXACT points shown on the album.

You've given no proof that Snell's law is being followed properly. Do you happen to know the index of refraction of the prism in question? Will the beams of light entering the prism exactly as shown end up in a perfectly parallel formation?

Are you therefore claiming that you would get a beam of -PURE- (depending on what you mean by pure, for example what "color temperature" and all that) white light would emerge from the other end?

It is my contention that this is not the case. You'd end up with something, but the color temperature would be messed up given that you've used so -few- colors in generating it. It wouldn't be recognizably "pure white".

Of course, "pure" depends on what you mean by "white"... given the relatively large range of "color temperature" at which light can be considered "white", which one are you going to consider to be "pure white"? I still contend that with so few frequencies going in, you aren't going to end up with something that looks "white" at the other end...

So, there you go. If you set up a physical experiment that exactly imitates the cover of the Dark Side of The Moon album cover with beams of colored light entering the prism on the right side, I STILL assert that you wouldn't get a beam of "pure" white light emerging from the left side as shown.

waacodemon wrote:o0

you get 2 for 14.99+$5 shipping

you get 4 for 29.98+$5 shipping

you get 6 for 44.97+$5 shipping

Heck of a deal...
Maybe Woot will do what they did with LockJaw plier sets and send us two two-packs ??

I'm in for 1 in any case

WooT!

ACNickC wrote:law of idiocy, white LIGHT is made up of all light colors,

white paint is made up of an absence of color

i love fizucs

So this whole candlepower deal got me thinking becuse I have always wondered what that meant. I mean, are we going to stick all those candles together and focus their light and if we did would it really be the same as the electronic counterpart being offered?

Before I even got into that issue, however, I remembered another type of power that I have always wondered about: horsepower. I mean, is a 300 HP car really the same as 300 horses' power being harnessed together? It turns out the whole HP deal is pretty complicated. First of all, even a the power of one horse is not technically equal to 1HP! On average, with continuous operation, a single horse produces less than 1HP. Can you believe it?!?!?! A single horse's power is not even one HP. What is the world coming to.

Now, and this will blow your mind folks, a single horse was measured at a peak of over 14HP! They didn't sustain it for a long period, but they still got there! How is that even possible?!?! A single horse making over 14HP? Shouldn't they change the measurement to included what is possible? I mean, typically power is rated in terms of peak or possible, not average. Do you think your 3.2GHz computer is always running at 3.2GHz? Think again. Science is silly.

zozzles wrote:OK, fine. Let us say that we take this experiment into the physical world rather than merely as the cover of an album.

Let us say that you can produce rays of colored light in PRECISELY the shades shown on the album (and even then, those are "process" colors and not luminous ones) and that those rays are shaped PRECISELY as they are on the album and they impinge on a perfect prism at the EXACT points shown on the album.

You've given no proof that Snell's law is being followed properly. Do you happen to know the index of refraction of the prism in question? Will the beams of light entering the prism exactly as shown end up in a perfectly parallel formation?

Are you therefore claiming that you would get a beam of -PURE- (depending on what you mean by pure, for example what "color temperature" and all that) white light would emerge from the other end?

It is my contention that this is not the case. You'd end up with something, but the color temperature would be messed up given that you've used so -few- colors in generating it. It wouldn't be recognizably "pure white".

Of course, "pure" depends on what you mean by "white"... given the relatively large range of "color temperature" at which light can be considered "white", which one are you going to consider to be "pure white"? I still contend that with so few frequencies going in, you aren't going to end up with something that looks "white" at the other end...

So, there you go. If you set up a physical experiment that exactly imitates the cover of the Dark Side of The Moon album cover with beams of colored light entering the prism on the right side, I STILL assert that you wouldn't get a beam of "pure" white light emerging from the left side as shown.

Give it up carbuncle bag you are wrong.

shine a red a blue and a green light source on the same spot, guess what? WOW!!!! white.

Pure white? no, but what most people who aren't pedantic a-holes would call white.

I made a simple reference to one of the most viewed IMAGES (there are you happy) of a prism breaking up white light into it's component colors, which helps those who don't know, understand that white light is made up
colors. Is it exact? No, is it pertinent? yes.

Your original argument is that it was not pertinent.

YOU ARE WRONG, get over it.