I take anything on Mr. Sterns site with a grain of salt.
But does that salt supply iodide, a necessary nutrient?
I'm using projectors in low beam for proper cut off.
Cutoff is not the most important determinant for a beam's safety and performance. Not by a long shot. It's not the cutoff that you need to worry about, it's the reflector bowl. The distribution of light that comes out under the cutoff is completely wrong when the wrong shape light source is used.
Remember, a filament light source is an approximation of a point source. An arc-discharge light source has TWO hotspots, not one, and those hotspots are equidistant from what would be the light center length of a filament bulb. The optics are way out of focus from the start. You can't adjust for this by reaiming. It's doomed from the start.
My hella 500 driving beams with hid work just fine. I can tell you from personal experience that the 500 with an hid retro kit works, and works very very well.
The Hella 500s weren't the greatest lamps in the first place when using the light sources for which they were designed. Changing to an arc-discharge light source made already borderline lamps absolutely bad. Your subjective impression does not outweigh objective fact.
Mr stern blows lots of smoke my friend.
Must be low-sodium smoke, too. Be sure to take it with a grain of iodized salt.
It seems that when people are out-educated and out-facted by someone else, the first thing they do is resort to the meaningless remarks. What's next? Saying he's "got a lot of book-learnin' but he ain't gots no common sense"?
I use only headlights for on road driving, well low beam with factory fogs.
You are, of course, only using the fog lamps at speeds below 30mph, and only in genuinely foggy conditions, right? Because if you're not, you're oversaturating the foreground with light, which actually hurts your ability to see farther down the road. Running fog lamps with low beams at highway speeds in clear weather is a bad idea.
Besides, a properly-designed low beam headlamp has all but eliminated the need for fog lamps-- not to mention that factory fog lamps are typically toys.
Use the right housing even one not designed for it initially but still puts light where you need and not in everyone's eyes is fine by me.
If it's not the right optics for the light source, it's going to put light in everyone's eyes.
Two different things. A house NEEDs to be exact.....I'm a commercial contractor, BTW.
But you're not a lighting engineer. You might also not be an LA or PE. When you receive a set of plans, would you know if the PE's stamp wasn't fraudulent? The building might "look good", but it might also fall down in the next windstorm or magnitude 2.3 earthquake.
However lighting does not need to be exact.
Actually, it does. Have you seen the actual spec sheets (not marketing material, but real, live, genuine spec sheets) for the Philips X-Treme Power HB4? There are some mighty tight tolerances in there!
If I went by numbers, I would have a 50" led with jw speaker lights as they test the best. However the real world beam pattern of my truck lites are much better than my friends jw's.
Which JW Speaker, and which Truck-Lites? The JW Speaker 8900 (intended to replace the H6054) soundly smacks the Truck-Lites down. Not that the Truck-Lites are *bad*, they are objectively good, but they have some odd artifacting and also aren't optically aimed.
And my hella 500s were put down as useless by Mr stern, however real world results say otherwise, contrary to the "lab tests".
Lab tests are what count. Real-world tests are subjective. Personal preference does not determine how a lamp performs or its suitability for a task.
I could use high bay lighting or metal halaides in the buildings I design, both are different but accomplish similar things, not an exact art.
This is because the building is not hurtling down the highway at 65mph. This building is not signaling a turn at an intersection, only to have the signal not seen because of excessive glare from a lamp that has the wrong light source in it. Also-- you design buildings? So, you're an RA in addition to being a contractor?
I agree that you can have something that in theory and simulation seems perfect,gets built and tested,and either produces completely different results to the simulation,or else the same,but put it into use and it is completely unusable/unsuitable.
If it was designed properly, any faults in the real application are at the building stage.
You can put a set of lights into a car and dance around in front of it with a lux meter and take a thousand readings,and it tests perfectly,it it might actually be the wrong light for the person themselves.
That would mean the person needs to pay a visit to the optician and may even be referred to an opthalmogist.
Imagine a chair,and it is tested by measuring the width of the seat,the length of it,the height of the back,and the angle in relation to the seat. In theory you could have built the perfect chair,everything measures up right,but in reality there is splinters sticking out of it left right and centre,it weeps sap and creaks like a mo-fo. A chair that measures up to all the requirements,but go to use it and it is a terrible experience.
That's because whoever built it couldn't follow instructions. They didn't use the specified materials. They did not follow the spec for finishing. They used poor tools. The failure was in
how it was built, not in the design (so long as the design specified materials, of course). That's the entire point of drawing up requirements and plans and spec sheets. The plans are so the thing can be made again, over and over, by different people if need be. Just like we use the written word to ensure a message is communicated. Plans MEAN things.
Same goes for anything,cakes,amplifiers,lights,photography and just about everything else.
Cake tastes bad when Goofus makes it, but good when Gallant makes it? Goofus dumps random stuff in the mixing bowl, Gallant measures every ingredient carefully.
Amplifier should sound AWESOME according to the circuit diagram, but actually sounds terrible? Goofus subs in resistors with a 10% tolerance, Gallant uses resistors with a .1% tolerance.
Lamp SHOULD produce an excellent beam pattern? Goofus puts arc-discharge light sources in the lamp assembly, Gallant uses the filament light source specified in the design.
Seeing a pattern here?