BobCajun
Well-Known Member
https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjX2JfH_6TLAhXltIMKHdpAAyAQFggmMAE&url=http://www.geocities.ws/sash_elias/files/thesis1.pdf&usg=AFQjCNEquxn1tIzgQWKXNo7_5EcS8XO2Fg&sig2=4TBT0aMC-w7cplBDUzS0Ow&bvm=bv.115339255,d.amc
This article looks more useful.
Some drivers can only dim to 50%, others can go right off. That pdf I linked may not be very relevant because it used equal on and off times, rather than shorter light pulses than dark, as the first article said was necessary. Also, all of the experiments except the 120 Hz one were too slow anyway. The normal flicker of LEDs also probably wouldn't do anything, because they also don't go completely off, just vary. Anyway, lots of possibilities here. Something is bound to work out to save power and give similar yields, even if there is no actual increase.Well according to the paper the light flashes must be shorter than the dark period. Implying to me at least that there needs to be periods of total absence of light, not just reduced output. IE making it impossible to simulate the effects using a light mover or through the dimming wires of a meanwell B type driver.
This article looks more useful.
Last edited: