Give it a rest, guys. Please.
Maris
----- Original Message -----
From: "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@ix.netcom.com>
To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2001 5:11 PM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: LED Illumination for Film Scanners
|
| > Austin went just a bit over the edge with that 1000
| > hour MTBF figure.
|
| I don't know quite what you meant by that comment. It comes across that
you
| believe I am somehow making up the 1000 hour number I cited? Why on earth
| would I do that?
|
| Here is the product spec I got that information from:
|
|
|
| The sheet says that 1000 Hrs. is what they GUARANTEE for "Operating Life"
| given the test conditions they state. That's what any designer is going
to
| design it to unless they do their own MTBF tests.
|
| There is no doubt that there are LEDs available that (according to the
| manufacturers) have far longer MTBF, but since no one here knows what LEDs
| Nikon used, we don't know what the MTBF for the LEDs Nikon used is. You
can
| cite all the specs you want, but unless you cite the spec for that LED
Nikon
| used you really don't know.
|
| Do you know that the MTBF numbers you cited, were for a similar type of
LED
| that would be used by the Nikon?
|
| > I suppose if you figure in hard mechanical
| > shock (like in Austin's Land Rover) the
| > numbers might go down a bit. Time to fix
| > the potholes in your driveway, Austin,
| > or get new shock absorbers for that beast.
|
| It's a Range Rover, the shocks are fine (relatively new gas Bilsteins) and
| my driveway doesn't have "pot holes" it does get washed out during heavy
| rainstorms. Luckily, I have a tractor with a grader to take care of it
when
| someone complains enough.
|
|
