Exceeding LED ratings

[ItchyGato]

Um, wrong "Indians". ;-)

You obviously didn't get it.

 

[MrTallyman]

I was under the impression that LEDs failed short

They "GENERALLY" fail short. not always.

 

[MrTallyman]

but my Christmas tree lights (wired in series) appear to work
just fine with a couple dead LEDs.

They are physically strung on a string 'in series', but are NOT wired
'in series'. Nice guess though. You should probably look first next
time before presuming based on appearances.

 

[MrTallyman]

OK, I'll bite. Why is it not _possible_ to use 81 LEDs in series?
We use 230V AC here. Not everyone lives in the US.

Read it again, idiot. It was stupid to claim that a human would have
even suggested it.

The main reason not to is that you can have a fail open.

The other thing is that you are not firing these with AC, so why even
bring your fucking line voltage up? LEDs operate on DC. Back biased they
put out nothing. One current limit feeds an LED not voltage limit.

 

[John S]

Idiot. It also means that a FAIL open is a catastrophic failure, not
that you, being the result of one, would know that term.

You are AlwaysWrong ( [email protected] )

 

[John S]

You obviously mis-read what I wrote.(haha) You are busted being stupid
yet again.

You are stupid, and considering your retarded bloodline, it is quite
believable!

You are AlwaysWrong ( [email protected] )

 

[John S]

They are physically strung on a string 'in series', but are NOT wired
'in series'. Nice guess though. You should probably look first next
time before presuming based on appearances.

You are AlwaysWrong ( [email protected] )

 

[John S]

Read it again, idiot. It was stupid to claim that a human would have
even suggested it.

The main reason not to is that you can have a fail open.

The other thing is that you are not firing these with AC, so why even
bring your fucking line voltage up? LEDs operate on DC. Back biased they
put out nothing. One current limit feeds an LED not voltage limit.

You are AlwaysWrong ( [email protected] )

 

[[email protected]]

You obviously didn't get it.

No, you obviously didn't, even though there was a big fat smiley to make sure
your nose would find it.

 

[John S]

No, you obviously didn't, even though there was a big fat smiley to make sure
your nose would find it.

What did you expect? That's AlwaysWrong ( [email protected] )

 

[Pimpom]

Read it again, idiot. It was stupid to claim that a human
would have
even suggested it.

I've seldom flamed or insulted anyone in more than a dozen years
of Usenet participation, but I'll make this one of the few
exceptions. It's amazing that anyone can be so ignorant and so
arrogant at the same time.

The main reason not to is that you can have a fail open.

An elementary consideration that hardly needs mention in s.e.d.
But you claimed that it's stupid to suggest that it's POSSIBLE to
operate 81 LEDs in series. 81 red LEDs in series need 150-170V.
Why the hell is it *not* possible, as long as a supply source
higher than that is available? Whether it's advisable or not is
another matter - a choice of simplicity or reliability. It's done
all the time with non-critical applications.

The other thing is that you are not firing these with AC, so
why even
bring your fucking line voltage up? LEDs operate on DC. Back
biased
they put out nothing. One current limit feeds an LED not
voltage
limit.

And you power everything from batteries? Ever hear of
rectification? Of controlling current in low-power AC circuits
with a capacitor?

 

[ItchyGato]

No, you obviously didn't, even though there was a big fat smiley to make sure
your nose would find it.

Ahh... must be like the one I placed, which you all have obviously
missed.

 

[MrTallyman]

to suggest that it's POSSIBLE to
operate 81 LEDs in series.

No, I claimed it should not be possible to be so stupid as to suggest
it, not that the set up itself was not possible. TRY AGAIN, you fucking
IDIOT! It was a remark about how a human should be. Not how you idiots
ARE.

 

[John S]

I've seldom flamed or insulted anyone in more than a dozen years
of Usenet participation, but I'll make this one of the few
exceptions. It's amazing that anyone can be so ignorant and so
arrogant at the same time.

An elementary consideration that hardly needs mention in s.e.d.
But you claimed that it's stupid to suggest that it's POSSIBLE to
operate 81 LEDs in series. 81 red LEDs in series need 150-170V.
Why the hell is it *not* possible, as long as a supply source
higher than that is available? Whether it's advisable or not is
another matter - a choice of simplicity or reliability. It's done
all the time with non-critical applications.


And you power everything from batteries? Ever hear of
rectification? Of controlling current in low-power AC circuits
with a capacitor?

He thinks he knows everything while, in fact, he know practically
nothing. He insults everyone on this group. You are not special in that
respect.

He has many nyms but he is actually [email protected]

You will be better off to ignore him and continue business as usual. It
is unfortunate that there are damaged individuals such as him.

Cheers,
John S

 

[MrTallyman]

And you power everything from batteries? Ever hear of
rectification? Of controlling current in low-power AC circuits
with a capacitor?

At which point the LEDs are being fed DC. GET A CLUE, IDIOT.

Mentioning the line voltage was dumb.

 

[John S]

At which point the LEDs are being fed DC. GET A CLUE, IDIOT.

Mentioning the line voltage was dumb.

If so, then you mentioning the above was even more dumb. I said you were
the epitome of stupid, but I underestimated you. You have reached a new
level stupidity that cannot be defined.

 

[[email protected]]

Ahh... must be like the one I placed, which you all have obviously
missed.

Mommy's hamper is calling, DimBulb.

 

[Pimpom]

He thinks he knows everything while, in fact, he know
practically
nothing. He insults everyone on this group. You are not special
in
that respect.

He has many nyms but he is actually [email protected]

You will be better off to ignore him and continue business as
usual.
It is unfortunate that there are damaged individuals such as
him.

Cheers,
John S

You're right. I've had my say. It's a complete waste of time
arguing with an utter idiot like him.

 

[MrTallyman]

You're right.

No, he isn't. He never is, as he never takes a position. ALL he EVER
does is make retarded, peanut gallery remarks that show him for the total
twit that he is. You cannot be much better to carry on a discourse with
him in such a vein. You are a true hypocrite.

I've had my say.

You said nothing. If you think you did, then you are even more stupid
than the twit boy is.

It's a complete waste of time

Especially when you did not even make a point... at all.

arguing with an utter idiot like him.

You are an idiot. You never made an argument, and you sucked up to a
complete fool who never makes ANY point in the group, much less any that
are valid.

 

[Baron]

Pimpom Inscribed thus:

I've seldom flamed or insulted anyone in more than a dozen years
of Usenet participation, but I'll make this one of the few
exceptions. It's amazing that anyone can be so ignorant and so
arrogant at the same time.

An elementary consideration that hardly needs mention in s.e.d.
But you claimed that it's stupid to suggest that it's POSSIBLE to
operate 81 LEDs in series. 81 red LEDs in series need 150-170V.
Why the hell is it *not* possible, as long as a supply source
higher than that is available? Whether it's advisable or not is
another matter - a choice of simplicity or reliability. It's done
all the time with non-critical applications.


And you power everything from batteries? Ever hear of
rectification? Of controlling current in low-power AC circuits
with a capacitor?

I agree with John ! I've got him "Sin Binned". Just ignore him, he's not
worth it.