HUGE price drop on some Samsung and NEC monitors

[CougTek]

I've had a pleasant surprise when I browsed my pricelist this evening. Many of my favorite monitor models have had a significant price drop this week :

NEC FE791SB 17" : -13% down to 304$CDN
Samsung SyncMaster 765MB 17" : -11% to 279$CDN
Samsung SyncMaster 957MB 19" (my favorite CRT at the moment) : -11.5% to 385$CDN

Additionally, most 17" LCD fell by some 150$CDN during the last month.

Did I miss something important in the display market or what? Why such drastic price drop ...NOW?

Oh well, I won't complain.

 

[Fushigi]

Did I miss something important in the display market or what? Why such drastic price drop ...NOW?

My guess would be the official end of the holiday price-gouging season. Not that prices were necessarily higher than pre-holiday; it's just that most vendors will defer any price reductions until after the holiday season to maximize profits on gift items.

- Fushigi

 

[Buck]

I don't know what happened by you Coug, but prices are still high for me.

 

[double bit CRC error]

I read about this... was it a front page item? I guess not.. anyway, there was supposed to be a lot more supply than demand... so prices were expected to drop... esp in the LCD market.

 

[CityK]

so prices were expected to drop... esp in the LCD market

Oh baby, bring it on! I'm looking forward to clearing up some desk space...but prices and quality have always been an issue.

 

[CougTek]

CityK,

Pay a special attention to the new NEC 1760NX (or 1760V if you only have an analog output). It has an advertized response time of 16ms. Not 16ms rise or fall time. 16ms OVERALL. According to a review of an Hitachi LCD on Tom's Hardware, even the 20ms response time of an Iyama LCD was well enough to make all ghosting vanish. So 16ms...

Only 828$CDN in Montréal BTW. Quite good for a high-end 17" LCD.

NEC Multisync LCD1760NX.

There are models with better contrast ratio and/or brightness, but none with a faster response time, at least among those I saw (a lot).

 

[time]

I'll let you know when I think an LCD monitor is up to the standard of the midrange CRT monitors I can buy for peanuts. Bluntly, I could really use a slimline monitor here right now, but so far they're not even close - and I don't think we're that fussy.

I believe in digital audio and video, but I'm afraid the LCD Emperor just doesn't have enough clothes to convince - yet.

 

[CityK]

16ms! Thats pretty impressive. Thanks Coug, I'll keep a look out for it. Current contender is the Samsung 152T (nice contrast, brightness, and decent 25ms refresh)...but selling for ~$570, I still feel is a little lofty for the overall quality and size ... dang, I hate this affliction I have of coveting technology.

CK

 

[Dïscfärm]

The Samsung LCD that has a rotatable screen (landscape vs. vertical page) is pretty interesting. I noticed a sticker on one that said "Designed By Porsche."

 

[CityK]

They're also priced like a Porsche too. I just don't see myself utilizing that novelity very often....in fact, I'd probably only try it right after I took the monitor out of its box, just to see if it did what its advertised to do.

CK

 

[Dozer]

Rotatable screen is useful in page layout applications. When I worked in graphic design, it would have been nice from time to time. But I can't think of an instance that I would use it in everyday computing.

 

[Mercutio]

I find that it's easier and faster to read lengthy passages of text in the "vertical rectangle" format than the standard monitor layout. I guess that's because books are almost always taller than they are wide.

 

[Stereodude]

I'll let you know when I think an LCD monitor is up to the standard of the midrange CRT monitors I can buy for peanuts. Bluntly, I could really use a slimline monitor here right now, but so far they're not even close - and I don't think we're that fussy.

I believe in digital audio and video, but I'm afraid the LCD Emperor just doesn't have enough clothes to convince - yet.

I tossed my LG Studioworks 995e (19" [18" vis]) for a 20" Dell 1600x1200 LCD. The improvement is incredible. Via DVI It's so sharp and the brightness is excellent. My only grip is that the black aren't quite deep enough for watching DVDs on it, or TV, but for graphics and video work it's excellent as you can easily see the shadow detail and the image is sooooo sharp and crisp.

Stereodude

 

[James]

That's a lot of cash you just spent there dude.

 

[Mercutio]

I actually wonder how much of SD's qualitative judgement of his new display is based on the psychological imperative to judge costly things as better than things that are less costly.

I've seen many large LCD displays connected to DVI (even a 20" Dell, although I don't know if it's the same one SD bought), but I've never seen one that I'd judge superior overall to a high quality CRT, such as a Viewsonic "P"-series monitor.

Different strokes? Or is there a way to quantify the difference?

 

[James]

Mind you the 995e, while a nice display for the price, is not exactly high end.

 

[Stereodude]

I actually wonder how much of SD's qualitative judgement of his new display is based on the psychological imperative to judge costly things as better than things that are less costly.

I've seen many large LCD displays connected to DVI (even a 20" Dell, although I don't know if it's the same one SD bought), but I've never seen one that I'd judge superior overall to a high quality CRT, such as a Viewsonic "P"-series monitor.

Different strokes? Or is there a way to quantify the difference?

The LCD is sharper and brighter. The model I have cost $800 shipped and it's got some pretty nice tricks like PiP with the S-video and composite input. A LCD may lack in contrast ratio (depending how you measure it) and absolute black level (again depending how you measure it), but what else are you guys talking about? LCD driven over DVI is breathtakingly crisp, clear, and you don't get eyestrain.

What units of measure are you guys using when you say you haven't seen one that's superior?

If you use the entire screen black vs entire screen white method to measure contrast ratio and brightness, then yes a CRT will have better absolute black level and contrast, but if you measure with a checkerboard (black and white pattern on the screen at the same time) the CRT won't fare much, if any, better than the latest LCDs in terms of contrast ratio and black level.

Even the best CRT's have a hard time breaking 400:1 on a checkboard pattern and their black level is raised to LCD levels when there is a lot of white on the screen at the same time. When that happens you lose shadow detail that the LCD is still showing. Then you get bleeding of the white objects onto the dark pixels around it (halos). etc, etc.

So only when watching very dark movies on the monitor will it get a little annoying. But for computing use it's awesome.

Stereodude

 

[Stereodude]

Mind you the 995e, while a nice display for the price, is not exactly high end.

It was the best rated 19" displays (price independent) by PC Magazine a few years back.

Stereodude

 

[CougTek]

LCD may lack in contrast ratio (depending how you measure it) and absolute black level (again depending how you measure it), but what else are you guys talking about?

On almost all LCDs, the slower response time creates ghosting on fast moving objects on the screen. It makes FPS gaming and the like less enjoyable. I thought the 25ms response time LCD generation of last year would fix that problem for good, but most of those early fast-response time displays were a bit optimistic with their advertized pixel rise/fall time. However, since last Fall, a few new LCD models, like the NEC I mentioned earlier and at least another Iyama, shaved the response time even more (20ms for the Iyama and 16ms for the NEC), therefore almost completly eliminating ghosting.

Another main pain in the ass about LCD is their restricted viewing angles and the fact that colors change depending on which angle you look at the screen. Of course and again, viewing angles vary a lot between the many models available. But it's never quite as good as on a CRT. This makes LCD less suitable for people doing photo-editing, as color accuracy is often paramount for them.

LCD driven over DVI is breathtakingly crisp, clear, and you don't get eyestrain.

True and that's why I plan to get one eventually. Since I mainly look at my screen when I'm sit in front of it, color variance due to angles won't affect me much. And since I plan to buy a model with a fast response time (and also because I'm not a l33t gamer), ghosting won't be a problem either. The lack of blinking of LCDs means that I won't end up with a headache after a few hours of computing. LCDs aren't for everyone, but the recent higher-end models are better than CRT for most people who can afford it and who spend a lot of time in front of their monitors. They aren't flawless, but IMO, they are a better compromise for most.

 

[JKKJ]

I've seen many large LCD displays connected to DVI (even a 20" Dell, although I don't know if it's the same one SD bought), but I've never seen one that I'd judge superior overall to a high quality CRT, such as a Viewsonic "P"-series monitor.

Which "P" series monitor? I've been happy with a PS790 for 3 years or so, but just bought a P90f, and am really disappointed. The sharpness is poor around the edges (and I'm talking about 2" around the edge, not the edge edge), and the colour consistency across the screen ain't great. I've gone through 3 of these, and have given up fighting with with my shop and the distributor.

I'll probably move this on to someone less sensitive to screen accuracy and take a look at something else. I'm eagerly noting recommendations and comments!

 

[mubs]

In addition to the pros and cons of LCDs mentioned earlier, nobody's mentioned a critical one: the inability to render decently at any resoulution other than the native. As I mentioned in another thread here, I'm half blind now from looking at my IBM Stinkpad for a year--it's a 14.1" LCD with a 1400x1050 native! I'm back on my desktop & CRT now.

You can pretty much rule out an LCD for those situations where a program changes rez. on the fly--like kids' edutainment progs., for instance. And though I don't personally use progs that do this, I'd like to be able to run at a rez. that's comfortable for me, not what's comfy for the display!

 

[Stereodude]

In addition to the pros and cons of LCDs mentioned earlier, nobody's mentioned a critical one: the inability to render decently at any resoulution other than the native. As I mentioned in another thread here, I'm half blind now from looking at my IBM Stinkpad for a year--it's a 14.1" LCD with a 1400x1050 native! I'm back on my desktop & CRT now.

You can pretty much rule out an LCD for those situations where a program changes rez. on the fly--like kids' edutainment progs., for instance. And though I don't personally use progs that do this, I'd like to be able to run at a rez. that's comfortable for me, not what's comfy for the display!

Mubs,

Any good video card will allow you to do the scaling either in the video card, or you have the option of letting the LCD panel do it for you. You're right, for text it doesn't look that good, but for games/video and similar stuff it's pretty subtle and not that noticable. Once the hardware scalers in the video cards do subpixel rendering for the scaling it will all be moot.

Really it's just a tradeoff between sharpness and the ability to scale non native resolutions. A LCD is sharper than a CRT and as a result the image show a more obvious degradation when scaled.

My Dell notebook has a 14.1" 1400x1050 display and I don't have any problems using it all day at work. In fact it was the sharpness and crispness of it compared to my 19" CRT that convinced me to get a 20" LCD.

Stereodude

 

[blakerwry]

Am i weird that I dont get headaches or eye strain when I sit infront of a computer for 8+ hours without break?

I run my 17" NEC @ 1024x768 @ 60 Hz..... although most people consider 60Hz to be low, the screen doesn't flicker and I don't notice a problem so i just run it at that refresh rate.

Since getting a 4 port manual KVM I have noticed that my image is not as sharp as my 2 port KVM... but the difference will hopefully prove to be minor....(my picture is about as sharp as the 4 trinitrons I've used)

 

[mubs]

Blake, yes you're weird, or I am. I can notice flicker on a CRT at 75Hz, believe it or not. Every place I work, one of my conditions is a top quality monitor, or I ain't working there. I'm fine with an LCD at 60Hz. For the past 3.5 years, I've been using and continue to use a Viewsonic PT775 at 1024x768 85Hz. Text is very very sharp, which is of utmost importance to me with my weak eyesight. My hunch is that even though 60 Hz doesn't bother you now, it could be causing eyestrain that could be detrimental in the long run. If your KVM/monitor can handle it, I'd suggest a floor of 72 Hz.

SD, Yeah, you can run an LCD at non-native rez., but I cannot stand the blotchy text. Almost every LCD/vid.card combo I have seen have this problem, except one. My brother has an 18" Viewsonic VA800 with a native 1280x1024, but he runs it at 1027x768 and it's acceptable (to me). His vid.card is an ATI Radeon 32MB DDR (one of the first models).

 

[jtr1962]

Am i weird that I dont get headaches or eye strain when I sit infront of a computer for 8+ hours without break?

I run my 17" NEC @ 1024x768 @ 60 Hz..... although most people consider 60Hz to be low, the screen doesn't flicker and I don't notice a problem so i just run it at that refresh rate.

Since getting a 4 port manual KVM I have noticed that my image is not as sharp as my 2 port KVM... but the difference will hopefully prove to be minor....(my picture is about as sharp as the 4 trinitrons I've used)

Funny, I'm running a 15" KDS monitor at 1024x768 also at 60 Hz, and I don't get headaches or eyestrain most of the time, either. The only exception is when I'm at my computer for 24 hours straight or more. One time the lines of text were actually jumping out off the screen after I had been working for something like 50 hours straight(minus quick bathroom breaks). Nothing that a few hours sleep didn't cure, and then I was at it again for like another 20 hours.

I can't set my refresh higher until I get another monitor-60 Hz is the fastest it'll go at 1024x768. 600x800 looks too blocky, and 1152x864 is too small on a 15" monitor. I'm planning to get a 19" flat screen CRT as soon as I have the money. This should allow better refresh rates, and save my eyesight.

 

[time]

Stereodude,

Do you think it's fair to compare a $200 monitor with an $800 one?

You are comparing two different screen sizes - it's reasonable to assume that anyone would prefer a larger screen.

If you were already running 1600x1200 on your LG, you were pushing it beyond what it is capable of displaying clearly - a common problem with people with 19" monitors. Recommended resolution is 1280x1024@90Hz - were you using a higher refresh?

No offense, but PC Magazine couldn't find their ass with both hands. LG is a value brand (with which I've had mixed success).

Why would you want your monitor to be even brighter? You can already sear your eyeballs with one of Samsung's flat screen CRTs. Only older/crappier monitors are unable to light up a room.

LCD's should be concentrating on improving contrast, and particularly the gamma curve for each color. They just suck in low light conditions.

As Coug said, colors change as your viewing angle changes. In fact, colors can vary between the top and the bottom of the screen, although that's more obvious when you're sitting close to a smaller LCD.

Mubs,

The sensitivity to flicker comes from the outer cells in your retina, which do not form part of the focussing system. So I don't think it will hurt your eyesight per se - just give susceptible people bad headaches. One of us with proper medical knowledge may care to clarify this.

I've actually had more trouble with monitors with poor regulation. It gives me the illusion that the picture is jiggling on the screen, even with the refresh set to 90Hz and above. No-one else seems to notice.

 

[Dïscfärm]

They're also priced like a Porsche too. I just don't see myself utilizing that novelity very often....in fact, I'd probably only try it right after I took the monitor out of its box, just to see if it did what its advertised to do.

>> They're also priced like a Porsche too.

It really wasn't that expensive compared to most other monitors; US$700+ or so.


Well, I actually have a near-everyday use for a portrait (page) monitor, as I do page layout work semi-regularly. If I were in the buying mood, I might buy the Samsung 171R (or 171P?) rotatable LCD, but only for page layout work.

Large-ish LCD displays are certainly excellent devices for drastically gaining back desktop real estate from similar-sized CRT display setups. However, it must be pointed out that current LCD display technologies are next to worthless when it comes to calibratable display needs, as you can not perform colour calibration with an LCD display. Having a calibratable display is absolutely essential in professional photography, certain scientific / technical operations, and in the various graphic arts.

 

[Dïscfärm]

...but I've never seen one that I'd judge superior overall to a high quality CRT, such as a Viewsonic "P"-series monitor...

Some of the first P- series Viewsonics were quite decent monitors, but they weren't / aren't really much better than an excellent mid-range monitor at best.

What I DID like about certain GS- series Viewsonic monitors was the small footprint and (once again) quite decent visual display for general purpose usage.

 

[Dïscfärm]

...As I mentioned in another thread here, I'm half blind now from looking at my IBM Stinkpad for a year--it's a 14.1" LCD with a 1400x1050 native!...

Did yer StinkPad get the ol' "pencil-eraser-poked-a-hole-in-the-screen" treatment from the pointer thingamajig in the middle of the keyboard?

My younger brother had the LCD display in his ThinkPad ruptured 3 times and had the screen replaced each time ($). The forth time the LCD screen got nailed (not that hard to do, by the way), he backed up his files, removed the hard drive, and smashed his 3-1/2 year old StinkPad into about 2000 pieces and threw it away. Then he bought a Toshiba. (BTW, he is an ex-IBM employee.)

 

[Stereodude]

Stereodude,

Do you think it's fair to compare a $200 monitor with an $800 one?

You are comparing two different screen sizes - it's reasonable to assume that anyone would prefer a larger screen.

If you were already running 1600x1200 on your LG, you were pushing it beyond what it is capable of displaying clearly - a common problem with people with 19" monitors. Recommended resolution is 1280x1024@90Hz - were you using a higher refresh?

No offense, but PC Magazine couldn't find their ass with both hands. LG is a value brand (with which I've had mixed success).

Why would you want your monitor to be even brighter? You can already sear your eyeballs with one of Samsung's flat screen CRTs. Only older/crappier monitors are unable to light up a room.

LCD's should be concentrating on improving contrast, and particularly the gamma curve for each color. They just suck in low light conditions.

As Coug said, colors change as your viewing angle changes. In fact, colors can vary between the top and the bottom of the screen, although that's more obvious when you're sitting close to a smaller LCD.

Sure it's a fair comparison. The LG wasn't $200 when I bought it and it was top rated by several places. I've compared my 20" LCD to a 21" Flat CRT and the LCD stomps all over it.

My comparison doesn't mention anything about the size. I'm talking about sharpness and brightness. Those aren't a function of the size of the display. Especially with an LCD.

Running 640x480 on my CRT wasn't as sharp as 1600x1200 is on the LCD. You're simply grasping at straws because apparently you don't like LCDs.

You can color calibrate a LCD monitor and as I pointed out before they can already equal or beat a CRT in contrast (with a checkerboard pattern)

The Dell I have doesn't change color as I move across the viewing angle. I've seen some that do, but this one doesn't.

I'll ask again. In what category is the LCD inferior?

Stereodude

 

[blakerwry]

I've actually had more trouble with monitors with poor regulation. It gives me the illusion that the picture is jiggling on the screen, even with the refresh set to 90Hz and above. No-one else seems to notice.

I notice this sometimes... esp when I'm really far away from the screen... or if you say... have another monitor(maybe even TV) that is close to the monitor you're working on....


now that i have a "better" second monitor I can sync them both to 70hz.. maybe higher... so I think I will...

 

[Dïscfärm]

The sensitivity to flicker comes from the outer cells in your retina, which do not form part of the focussing system. So I don't think it will hurt your eyesight per se - just give susceptible people bad headaches.

There are a couple of things that can explain why *some* monitors don't appear to flicker; one is phosphor persistence and the other is display size.

Phosphor persistence is basically how long the phosphors in a given picture tube glow when zapped by a given illuminating voltage. Most monitors use a medium-short persistence phosphor. This is good for fast moving imagery as it does not "ghost" or "smear." A long persistence phosphor will give you more contrast ratio and richer deeper colour rendition than a short persistence phosphor.

Screen size matters when it comes to the perception of flicker! Many people won't perceive flicker looking at a 15-inch CRT monitor operating with 60 Hz refresh rate. Nearly everyone WILL perceive flicker looking at a 22-inch CRT monitor operating with a 60 Hz refresh rate.

I've actually had more trouble with monitors with poor regulation. It gives me the illusion that the picture is jiggling on the screen, even with the refresh set to 90Hz and above. No-one else seems to notice.

Yes, I point this very thing out a lot to people. When you look at an image on a CRT monitor (or similarly, when you hear the sound created by an audio amplifier) you are basically seeing the results of the voltage from the power supply(s). Cheap power supplies result in inferior imagery.

 

[Dïscfärm]

I notice this sometimes... esp when I'm really far away from the screen...

No, what Time was talking about is something that you'll need to be at a normal working distance to observe. From your description, I would suspect what you noticed was something called beat frequency, which would likely be in your case the difference in the refresh rate of the monitor you were looking at versus the refresh rate of the fluorescent lighting that was likely being used in that same room. The fluorescent light was shining upon the screen and the two frequencies were close enough (monitor at 70 or 75 Hz and fluorescent lighting at 60 Hz) to cause a beat frequency that you could see at a distance but not so much up close once the brightness of the CRT was significantly higher than the ambient lighting.

or if you say... have another monitor(maybe even TV) that is close to the monitor you're working on....

Cheaper monitors don't have particularly good shielding to block electro-magnetic interference, nor do their cables. Excellent shielding will eliminate this problem.

 

[Dïscfärm]

I'll probably move this on to someone less sensitive to screen accuracy and take a look at something else. I'm eagerly noting recommendations and comments!

If you're looking for the best CRT monitors -- and these aren't horribly expensive -- look no farther than the Mitsubishi Diamond Pro monitors. These come in 17-inch, 19-inch, and 22-inch sizes. These all use the same Mitsubishi picture tube that virtually all high-end hyper-expensive graphics monitors manufactured world-wide use.

http://www.necmitsubishi.com/produc...es.cfm?ProductSeries_id=3&division=MITSUBISHI

 

[blakerwry]

No, what Time was talking about is something that you'll need to be at a normal working distance to observe. From your description, I would suspect what you noticed was something called beat frequency, which would likely be in your case the difference in the refresh rate of the monitor you were looking at versus the refresh rate of the fluorescent lighting that was likely being used in that same room. The fluorescent light was shining upon the screen and the two frequencies were close enough (monitor at 70 or 75 Hz and fluorescent lighting at 60 Hz) to cause a beat frequency that you could see at a distance but not so much up close once the brightness of the CRT was significantly higher than the ambient lighting.

Just a question.... but I dont have flourecent lighting.... is it possible that the tungsten lights I'm using still flicker(just a little) because of the AC power?

And AFAIK flourecent lights started at 60hz but it gave people headaches and eyestrain ::shock:: so they doubled the frequency to 120hz years ago.

 

[mubs]

Discfarm,

Fortunately, my Stinkpad does not have the "eraser-screen" problem; maybe they fixed it on my model (it's 1.5 years old). Other than the too-high-rez-for-screen-size problem, it's a pretty darn good m/c. I bought it because it was one of the first noteooks to support 1GB Ram. I was going to run VMWare and multiple virtual m/c on it and needed the RAM. Plus it came with a 48GB HDD. When I was using it, I was running 2xW2k Server virtual m/c (Oracle DB on one, Oracle Forms server on the other) on a W2k Prof. front-end running client apps. It certainly served the purpose admirably.

As regards good CRTs, I've got my eye on the Mitsu 2060u/2070u for a long time. You think they're good? When I have some money.....

 

[Dïscfärm]

Fortunately, my Stinkpad does not have the "eraser-screen" problem; ...It certainly served the purpose admirably.

My brother's was about... er... 5 years old now. And, yes, his Thinker/Stinker Pad actually worked quite well otherwise. He did a lot of C++ programming with it, running OS/2.

But, my brother was definitely not alone with the pointer thingamajig ruining the LCD display. I've come across the occasional ThinkPad owner who has had the very same problem. It came down to the fact that if you didn't take your ThinkPad on the road, it would likely never suffer this problem. All it took was a bit of rough handling that a Toshiba, NEC, Compaq, Dell, Powerbook, etc could probably handle without incident and the little pointer ("eraser tip") in the middle of the keyboard would cause a devastating "dent" in the LCD. More often than suffering a dent/rupture, a bit of jostling about from time to time might eventually cause abrasion or a "worn spot" on the LCD screen to appear that could be rather annoying to look at.

As regards good CRTs, I've got my eye on the Mitsu 2060u/2070u for a long time. You think they're good? When I have some money.....

Are they good? Does a bear %@&# in the woods? 8)

I have rooms full of these at work (connected to workstations, of course) where we do critical image processing. I've compared Diamond Pro monitors side-by-side to other similar brands (Sony, etc) on workstations using Matrox G450 or G550 graphics adaptors. The Mitsubishi DP2040U and DP2060U had no problem winning at overall clarity and faithful rendition. The only monitors that could match them were expensive Barco monitors, which are nothing more than Mitsubishi DP-2040U or 2060U monitors with proprietary electronics and software -- at about $2000 extra. All I can say is that for the money, there isn't a better high-end CRT monitor on the market.

 

[jtr1962]

Just a question.... but I dont have flourecent lighting.... is it possible that the tungsten lights I'm using still flicker(just a little) because of the AC power?

Tungsten lights give off their light solely by heating a filament. The time it takes the filament to heat or cool is up to a few seconds long. Even the time to cool enough to give a noticeable change in light output is longer than the period of one AC wave, so you would not get noticeable(or even measurable) flickering. With lamp flashers about the fastest I can get them flashing is 10 times per second. Above that they just operate like dimmers(in fact lamp dimmers work on this principle). The AC current goes from zero to maximum 120 times per second.

And AFAIK flourecent lights started at 60hz but it gave people headaches and eyestrain ::shock:: so they doubled the frequency to 120hz years ago.

Half wave rectified DC has 60 peaks per second. Full wave rectified DC(or standard AC) has 120 peaks per second. Maybe early flourescents only used half the cycles, which caused them to produce noticeable flicker. AC power has operated at 60 Hz(50 Hz in Europe) pretty much for the last 75 years, with some notable exceptions. For example, the catenary above the NEC(Northeast Corridor) that powers electric locomotives is 25 Hz, 25,000 volts. The NYC subway runs on 600 volts DC. The electric chair is 2000 volts, but AFAIK also operates at 60 Hz, and the condemned convicts didn't flicker when they were fried.

 

[blakerwry]

I didnt mean they doubled the AC frequency we all use in our houses... that has been standard for along time(just as you mentioned). I mean that the early flourecent lights "flickered" 60 times a second and now they do it at 120 flickers a second...

is this what you got from my earlier statements? or were you just exploring the details of AC power?

 

[jtr1962]

is this what you got from my earlier statements? or were you just exploring the details of AC power?

I wasn't sure which you meant, but a flourescent flicking at 60 times per second is definitely noticeable, which is why they've used the full wave for quite some time. At 120 times per second it isn't, but the flicker still makes a great strobe which I've used to get a rough approximation of motor RPMs using a homemade strobe disc. Kind of fun when one set of black patterns remains stationary. You know at that point the motor is turning at an exact factor of 120 turns per second(i.e. 60, 40, 30, 24, 20, etc.). Even watching HO trains run at some point the ties seem "frozen", which gives me an exact indication of the train's speed in ties per second(easily converted to scale miles per hour).

BTW, almost all the lighting in our house now is flourescent. I have 4 40-watt tubes in my small 7x11 workroom downstairs which I need very bright for close work. The kitchen has the same. My bedroom has 2 40-watt tubes which I can dim up to about 50% using an electronic lamp dimmer. Our basement has an assortment of mostly 2x40-watt fixtures. All of our table lamps use those "squiggle" flourescent bulbs, and they even come in three-way now. Overall, flourescent gives a much better light as well as saving energy. One of my current pet peeves is that the "squiggle" bulbs are usually only available in warm white, which is better than an incandescent but I still prefer the cool white of the tubes.

I've read that within about a decade white LEDs will take over most home lighting functions. Right now they're still too costly, and only about as efficient as a bulb. In time they promise to come down in cost, and become several times as efficient as flourescents. You can approximate pretty much any type of light you want, although today most white LEDs give off a very white light with a slight tinge of blue which is very close to either a mercury-vapor arc lamp or discharge headlights. In my opinion it is a very clean, pleasant light as is, and I hope the current spectrum remains among the choices when it goes into home lighting. Imagine lighting a whole room brightly for only about 10 or 20 watts of power. That's whats in store for us in a few years.

Sorry for the dissertation on lighting, but here seemed an appropriate place since we were talking about flourescents.