Thats not because of the amount of light. It's because of the temperature. E-ink overheats easily.
Nope - I tested that.
Simple experiment:
Very strong sunlight.
Half cover the screen.
Change the page.
Uncover the page.
The covered half will look fine. The uncovered half will have the faded-ink look.
The e-ink does not fade *after* the page turn.
I guess that when the e-Ink is re-organising, the sunlight pressure may be sufficient to prevent the black particles from reaching the front of the screen. Because there's going to be more radiometric force on the black particles than the white.
The covered half will look fine. The uncovered half will have the faded-ink look.
The e-ink does not fade *after* the page turn.
I guess that when the e-Ink is re-organising, the sunlight pressure may be sufficient to prevent the black particles from reaching the front of the screen. Because there's going to be more radiometric force on the black particles than the white.
I wonder if that is an adequate experiment to divine the cause, though the explanation does make sense. It would seem that a sheet of paper might be able to reflect enough radiant heat to make enough of a difference in heat.
I wonder if that is an adequate experiment to divine the cause, though the explanation does make sense. It would seem that a sheet of paper might be able to reflect enough radiant heat to make enough of a difference in heat.
Two things:
Temperature is a measurable quantity. If temperature is the cause, then the specific temperature at which it occurs can be determined.
Temperature effects take time to develop because it takes time for any heat source to warm the screen. OTOH, photonic effects should be instantaneous.
It should be a relatively easy task to determine whether the effects seen in sunlight are caused by heat or light.
The covered half will look fine. The uncovered half will have the faded-ink look.
The e-ink does not fade *after* the page turn.
I guess that when the e-Ink is re-organising, the sunlight pressure may be sufficient to prevent the black particles from reaching the front of the screen. Because there's going to be more radiometric force on the black particles than the white.
C.
Temperature is the reason given in the research I've read over the past several years. When you block the sun out, the temp is lower as well. The amount of light hitting shouldn't affect it at all. Direct sunlight heats up an object. Don't you notice a difference in temperature when moving from sun to shade? It's the direct heating effect. Shading the device accomplishes that.
There's no appreciable "pressure" from the sunlight. These particles aren't that small. And they're round. Any pressure shouldn't have an effect on a round particle. What happens is that the heat changes the liquid surrounding the particles, and changes the conductivity slightly.
Temperature is a measurable quantity. If temperature is the cause, then the specific temperature at which it occurs can be determined.
Temperature effects take time to develop because it takes time for any heat source to warm the screen. OTOH, photonic effects should be instantaneous.
It should be a relatively easy task to determine whether the effects seen in sunlight are caused by heat or light.
It only needs a portion of a second. Infra red, and ultra violet both affect this. The liquid layer is just a few thousandths' of an inch thick. It takes very little radiated heat to affect it.
It only needs a portion of a second. Infra red, and ultra violet both affect this. The liquid layer is just a few thousandths' of an inch thick. It takes very little radiated heat to affect it.
Perhaps what I am calling light, you are calling heat?
It could well be infra-red light (aka heat) disrupting the e-Ink.
It certainly is not the ambient temperature of the room.
After the e-Ink has fixed, exposure to sunlight has no effect. It's only during page-turns that this effect is noticeable.
Perhaps what I am calling light, you are calling heat?
It could well be infra-red light (aka heat) disrupting the e-Ink.
It certainly is not the ambient temperature of the room.
After the e-Ink has fixed, exposure to sunlight has no effect. It's only during page-turns that this effect is noticeable.
C.
The problem would be during operation. Remember that to us, infra red isn't light, it's heat. Cut the infra red from a light source, and the heating effect is very small. That's why LED lights project very little heat, though the LEDs themselves do get hot.
The problem would be during operation. Remember that to us, infra red isn't light, it's heat. Cut the infra red from a light source, and the heating effect is very small. That's why LED lights project very little heat, though the LEDs themselves do get hot.
Looks like we're sidetracked onto the definition of "light". But what the hell, I'm game.
The word "light" can mean a variety of things depending on context. For instance, infra-red is considered "light" when the term "visible light" is also being used. But yeah, this isn't always the context.
Also, LEDs do generate infra-red light, if it is an infra-red LED. Same as how LEDs only generate green light if they're green LEDs. (or white) Infra-red LEDs are great for night vision security cameras.
Looks like we're sidetracked onto the definition of "light". But what the hell, I'm game.
The word "light" can mean a variety of things depending on context. For instance, infra-red is considered "light" when the term "visible light" is also being used. But yeah, this isn't always the context.
Also, LEDs do generate infra-red light, if it is an infra-red LED. Same as how LEDs only generate green light if they're green LEDs. (or white) Infra-red LEDs are great for night vision security cameras.
It isn't light unless we can see it. That's the definition. Infra red means below red, which we can't see. Ultra violet means above violet, and we can't see it as well. Light is about 400nm to 700 nm. That's the visible spectrum, otherwise known as "light" (or visible). Anything else is part of the electromagnetic spectrum outside of that tiny part that we can see, and has its parts named accordingly.
From the Merriam-Webster online dictionary:
Quote:
1 a : something that makes vision possible b : the sensation aroused by stimulation of the visual receptors c : electromagnetic radiation of any wavelength that travels in a vacuum with a speed of about 186,281 miles (300,000 kilometers) per second; specifically : such radiation that is visible to the human eye
The fact that some animals can, or that some plants can respond doesn't mean that it's light. In biology, we speak of that as simply responding to infra red or ultra violet.
I know that there are infra red LEDs. Obviously, I was referring to LEDs that put out "light" not heat.
I am perfectly happy to rephrase my issue with e-ink as...
Infra-red radiation - as occurs in direct bright sunlight - is sufficient to disrupt the usability of an e-ink display.
(if that will make you happy)
I just found the arguments that e-ink is fine in direct sunlight to be at-odds with my actual experience.
C.
I suppose that would be fine.
I've used a friends' here in NYC several times outdoors, and it worked well enough. It's always slow; no matter what. I haven't tried it now that it's so cold. I imagine that might affect it somewhat as well.
It isn't light unless we can see it. That's the definition. Infra red means below red, which we can't see. Ultra violet means above violet, and we can't see it as well. Light is about 400nm to 700 nm. That's the visible spectrum, otherwise known as "light" (or visible). Anything else is part of the electromagnetic spectrum outside of that tiny part that we can see, and has its parts named accordingly.
The fact that some animals can, or that some plants can respond doesn't mean that it's light. In biology, we speak of that as simply responding to infra red or ultra violet.
I know that there are infra red LEDs. Obviously, I was referring to LEDs that put out "light" not heat.
That seems like quite a lot of work in an attempt to proclaim that "light" has a single definition and that everyone is wrong unless they agree with your definition.
Try googling "infrared light" and "visible light". Are you honestly going to claim that all those tens of millions of pages are using the word "light" incorrectly? All those physicists writing about "infrared light" and "visible light", they're wrong too?
And about those LEDs that don't emit "light" under your definition, wouldn't those be HEDs instead of LEDs. Better go back and correct you posts to agree with your own definition of light.
That seems like quite a lot of work in an attempt to proclaim that "light" has a single definition and that everyone is wrong unless they agree with your definition.
Try googling "infrared light" and "visible light". Are you honestly going to claim that all those tens of millions of pages are using the word "light" incorrectly? All those physicists writing about "infrared light" and "visible light", they're wrong too?
And about those LEDs that don't emit "light" under your definition, wouldn't those be HEDs instead of LEDs. Better go back and correct you posts to agree with your own definition of light.
Honestly Melgross, you're cracking me up today.
Its not MY definition. Yes, many of millions of pages are using the word incorrectly. Just because something is in the common vernacular doesn't mean it's correct. I've just been blasted in calling S40 Symbian. It's also in a vast number of pages, including those of developers, apparently, it's not correct.
Merriam-Webster didn't ask ME what the definition was. Neither did the technical writers on Wikipedia. Should I post numerous definitions?
Don't be funny. LED is a categorical definition of a process defined device. If you don't know that then don't bother. The LED was invented a long time ago, well before the infrared version came on the scene. You might as well use the heat lamp, which produces mostly infra red, as a light to read by, with its leakage of some visible spectrum and call it a reading light.
If there's no point in the subject, why did you bring it up in the first place? Why tell us that we're using the term incorrectly if there's no point?
Somehow I knew that you were going to dig your heals in and claim that billions of people and a large portion of the scientific community is wrong. Meanwhile, reasonable people (including world renowned scientists) will continue to use phrases such as "visible light" and "infrared light".
Next you'll be claiming that sub-sonic and ultra-sonic vibrations aren't "sound" either.
To cite the same source you cited:
Wikipedia: "Electromagnetic radiation in this range of wavelengths is called visible light or simply light."
Now what? Is your own source wrong as well?
You'll just have to come to grips with the fact that definitions aren't always pretty. Sometimes words can mean different things based upon context. Sometimes a definition actually contradicts the meaning of the word itself. Inconvenient, annoying, but true.
If that pisses you off, contemplate this: "clipless pedals". Clipless pedals refer to bicycle pedals that you clip into. Yes, the phrase means exactly the opposite of the definition of the individual words!
If I were to post 10 links to definitions of "light" which don't limit its meaning to "visible light", would that convince you? Or would they all be wrong too?
If there's no point in the subject, why did you bring it up in the first place? Why tell us that we're using the term incorrectly if there's no point?
Somehow I knew that you were going to dig your heals in and claim that billions of people and a large portion of the scientific community is wrong. Meanwhile, reasonable people (including world renowned scientists) will continue to use phrases such as "visible light" and "infrared light".
Next you'll be claiming that sub-sonic and ultra-sonic vibrations aren't "sound" either.
To cite the same source you cited:
Wikipedia: "Electromagnetic radiation in this range of wavelengths is called visible light or simply light."
Now what? Is your own source wrong as well?
You'll just have to come to grips with the fact that definitions aren't always pretty. Sometimes words can mean different things based upon context. Sometimes a definition actually contradicts the meaning of the word itself. Inconvenient, annoying, but true.
If that pisses you off, contemplate this: "clipless pedals". Clipless pedals refer to bicycle pedals that you clip into. Yes, the phrase means exactly the opposite of the definition of the individual words!
If I were to post 10 links to definitions of "light" which don't limit its meaning to "visible light", would that convince you? Or would they all be wrong too?
In the context of the discussion here we were talking about the problem with the Kindle, it made sense. You're argument doest.
And if you read the article properly, you would see that what you quoted means exactly what I said it does.
Scientific definitions will agree with what I've said. There is no such thing as invisible light. Light is visible.
In the context of the discussion here we were talking about the problem with the Kindle, it made sense. You're argument doest.
And if you read the article properly, you would see that what you quoted means exactly what I said it does.
Scientific definitions will agree with what I've said. There is no such thing as invisible light. Light is visible.
enough already!
In the context of this discussion, there was no point in telling us that your definition was the only definition. We were talking about sunlight, which includes infrared light.
And no, reading that articles proves exactly what i've been saying, that the word has multiple definitions.
Comments
Thats not because of the amount of light. It's because of the temperature. E-ink overheats easily.
Nope - I tested that.
Simple experiment:
Very strong sunlight.
Half cover the screen.
Change the page.
Uncover the page.
The covered half will look fine. The uncovered half will have the faded-ink look.
The e-ink does not fade *after* the page turn.
I guess that when the e-Ink is re-organising, the sunlight pressure may be sufficient to prevent the black particles from reaching the front of the screen. Because there's going to be more radiometric force on the black particles than the white.
C.
Nope - I tested that.
Simple experiment:
Very strong sunlight.
Half cover the screen.
Change the page.
Uncover the page.
The covered half will look fine. The uncovered half will have the faded-ink look.
The e-ink does not fade *after* the page turn.
I guess that when the e-Ink is re-organising, the sunlight pressure may be sufficient to prevent the black particles from reaching the front of the screen. Because there's going to be more radiometric force on the black particles than the white.
I wonder if that is an adequate experiment to divine the cause, though the explanation does make sense. It would seem that a sheet of paper might be able to reflect enough radiant heat to make enough of a difference in heat.
I wonder if that is an adequate experiment to divine the cause, though the explanation does make sense. It would seem that a sheet of paper might be able to reflect enough radiant heat to make enough of a difference in heat.
Two things:
- Temperature is a measurable quantity. If temperature is the cause, then the specific temperature at which it occurs can be determined.
- Temperature effects take time to develop because it takes time for any heat source to warm the screen. OTOH, photonic effects should be instantaneous.
It should be a relatively easy task to determine whether the effects seen in sunlight are caused by heat or light.Nope - I tested that.
Simple experiment:
Very strong sunlight.
Half cover the screen.
Change the page.
Uncover the page.
The covered half will look fine. The uncovered half will have the faded-ink look.
The e-ink does not fade *after* the page turn.
I guess that when the e-Ink is re-organising, the sunlight pressure may be sufficient to prevent the black particles from reaching the front of the screen. Because there's going to be more radiometric force on the black particles than the white.
C.
Temperature is the reason given in the research I've read over the past several years. When you block the sun out, the temp is lower as well. The amount of light hitting shouldn't affect it at all. Direct sunlight heats up an object. Don't you notice a difference in temperature when moving from sun to shade? It's the direct heating effect. Shading the device accomplishes that.
There's no appreciable "pressure" from the sunlight. These particles aren't that small. And they're round. Any pressure shouldn't have an effect on a round particle. What happens is that the heat changes the liquid surrounding the particles, and changes the conductivity slightly.
Two things:
- Temperature is a measurable quantity. If temperature is the cause, then the specific temperature at which it occurs can be determined.
- Temperature effects take time to develop because it takes time for any heat source to warm the screen. OTOH, photonic effects should be instantaneous.
It should be a relatively easy task to determine whether the effects seen in sunlight are caused by heat or light.It only needs a portion of a second. Infra red, and ultra violet both affect this. The liquid layer is just a few thousandths' of an inch thick. It takes very little radiated heat to affect it.
It only needs a portion of a second. Infra red, and ultra violet both affect this. The liquid layer is just a few thousandths' of an inch thick. It takes very little radiated heat to affect it.
Perhaps what I am calling light, you are calling heat?
It could well be infra-red light (aka heat) disrupting the e-Ink.
It certainly is not the ambient temperature of the room.
After the e-Ink has fixed, exposure to sunlight has no effect. It's only during page-turns that this effect is noticeable.
C.
But my bet is on heat, which includes absorbed solar radiation. Radiation pressure in the form of photons being emitted by the sun, not so likely.
If that were true, amazon would be marketing kindles as the greatest thing in solar sail technology.
Perhaps what I am calling light, you are calling heat?
It could well be infra-red light (aka heat) disrupting the e-Ink.
It certainly is not the ambient temperature of the room.
After the e-Ink has fixed, exposure to sunlight has no effect. It's only during page-turns that this effect is noticeable.
C.
The problem would be during operation. Remember that to us, infra red isn't light, it's heat. Cut the infra red from a light source, and the heating effect is very small. That's why LED lights project very little heat, though the LEDs themselves do get hot.
The problem would be during operation. Remember that to us, infra red isn't light, it's heat. Cut the infra red from a light source, and the heating effect is very small. That's why LED lights project very little heat, though the LEDs themselves do get hot.
Looks like we're sidetracked onto the definition of "light". But what the hell, I'm game.
The word "light" can mean a variety of things depending on context. For instance, infra-red is considered "light" when the term "visible light" is also being used. But yeah, this isn't always the context.
Also, LEDs do generate infra-red light, if it is an infra-red LED. Same as how LEDs only generate green light if they're green LEDs. (or white) Infra-red LEDs are great for night vision security cameras.
Looks like we're sidetracked onto the definition of "light". But what the hell, I'm game.
The word "light" can mean a variety of things depending on context. For instance, infra-red is considered "light" when the term "visible light" is also being used. But yeah, this isn't always the context.
Also, LEDs do generate infra-red light, if it is an infra-red LED. Same as how LEDs only generate green light if they're green LEDs. (or white) Infra-red LEDs are great for night vision security cameras.
It isn't light unless we can see it. That's the definition. Infra red means below red, which we can't see. Ultra violet means above violet, and we can't see it as well. Light is about 400nm to 700 nm. That's the visible spectrum, otherwise known as "light" (or visible). Anything else is part of the electromagnetic spectrum outside of that tiny part that we can see, and has its parts named accordingly.
From the Merriam-Webster online dictionary:
1 a : something that makes vision possible b : the sensation aroused by stimulation of the visual receptors c : electromagnetic radiation of any wavelength that travels in a vacuum with a speed of about 186,281 miles (300,000 kilometers) per second; specifically : such radiation that is visible to the human eye
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum
The fact that some animals can, or that some plants can respond doesn't mean that it's light. In biology, we speak of that as simply responding to infra red or ultra violet.
I know that there are infra red LEDs. Obviously, I was referring to LEDs that put out "light" not heat.
Infra-red radiation - as occurs in direct bright sunlight - is sufficient to disrupt the usability of an e-ink display.
(if that will make you happy)
I just found the arguments that e-ink is fine in direct sunlight to be at-odds with my actual experience.
C.
I am perfectly happy to rephrase my issue with e-ink as...
Infra-red radiation - as occurs in direct bright sunlight - is sufficient to disrupt the usability of an e-ink display.
(if that will make you happy)
I just found the arguments that e-ink is fine in direct sunlight to be at-odds with my actual experience.
C.
I suppose that would be fine.
I've used a friends' here in NYC several times outdoors, and it worked well enough. It's always slow; no matter what. I haven't tried it now that it's so cold. I imagine that might affect it somewhat as well.
It isn't light unless we can see it. That's the definition. Infra red means below red, which we can't see. Ultra violet means above violet, and we can't see it as well. Light is about 400nm to 700 nm. That's the visible spectrum, otherwise known as "light" (or visible). Anything else is part of the electromagnetic spectrum outside of that tiny part that we can see, and has its parts named accordingly.
From the Merriam-Webster online dictionary:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum
The fact that some animals can, or that some plants can respond doesn't mean that it's light. In biology, we speak of that as simply responding to infra red or ultra violet.
I know that there are infra red LEDs. Obviously, I was referring to LEDs that put out "light" not heat.
That seems like quite a lot of work in an attempt to proclaim that "light" has a single definition and that everyone is wrong unless they agree with your definition.
Try googling "infrared light" and "visible light". Are you honestly going to claim that all those tens of millions of pages are using the word "light" incorrectly? All those physicists writing about "infrared light" and "visible light", they're wrong too?
And about those LEDs that don't emit "light" under your definition, wouldn't those be HEDs instead of LEDs. Better go back and correct you posts to agree with your own definition of light.
Honestly Melgross, you're cracking me up today.
That seems like quite a lot of work in an attempt to proclaim that "light" has a single definition and that everyone is wrong unless they agree with your definition.
Try googling "infrared light" and "visible light". Are you honestly going to claim that all those tens of millions of pages are using the word "light" incorrectly? All those physicists writing about "infrared light" and "visible light", they're wrong too?
And about those LEDs that don't emit "light" under your definition, wouldn't those be HEDs instead of LEDs. Better go back and correct you posts to agree with your own definition of light.
Honestly Melgross, you're cracking me up today.
Its not MY definition. Yes, many of millions of pages are using the word incorrectly. Just because something is in the common vernacular doesn't mean it's correct. I've just been blasted in calling S40 Symbian. It's also in a vast number of pages, including those of developers, apparently, it's not correct.
Merriam-Webster didn't ask ME what the definition was. Neither did the technical writers on Wikipedia. Should I post numerous definitions?
Don't be funny. LED is a categorical definition of a process defined device. If you don't know that then don't bother. The LED was invented a long time ago, well before the infrared version came on the scene. You might as well use the heat lamp, which produces mostly infra red, as a light to read by, with its leakage of some visible spectrum and call it a reading light.
There's not much more point to this.
Somehow I knew that you were going to dig your heals in and claim that billions of people and a large portion of the scientific community is wrong. Meanwhile, reasonable people (including world renowned scientists) will continue to use phrases such as "visible light" and "infrared light".
Next you'll be claiming that sub-sonic and ultra-sonic vibrations aren't "sound" either.
To cite the same source you cited:
Wikipedia: "Electromagnetic radiation in this range of wavelengths is called visible light or simply light."
Now what? Is your own source wrong as well?
You'll just have to come to grips with the fact that definitions aren't always pretty. Sometimes words can mean different things based upon context. Sometimes a definition actually contradicts the meaning of the word itself. Inconvenient, annoying, but true.
If that pisses you off, contemplate this: "clipless pedals". Clipless pedals refer to bicycle pedals that you clip into. Yes, the phrase means exactly the opposite of the definition of the individual words!
If I were to post 10 links to definitions of "light" which don't limit its meaning to "visible light", would that convince you? Or would they all be wrong too?
If there's no point in the subject, why did you bring it up in the first place? Why tell us that we're using the term incorrectly if there's no point?
Somehow I knew that you were going to dig your heals in and claim that billions of people and a large portion of the scientific community is wrong. Meanwhile, reasonable people (including world renowned scientists) will continue to use phrases such as "visible light" and "infrared light".
Next you'll be claiming that sub-sonic and ultra-sonic vibrations aren't "sound" either.
To cite the same source you cited:
Wikipedia: "Electromagnetic radiation in this range of wavelengths is called visible light or simply light."
Now what? Is your own source wrong as well?
You'll just have to come to grips with the fact that definitions aren't always pretty. Sometimes words can mean different things based upon context. Sometimes a definition actually contradicts the meaning of the word itself. Inconvenient, annoying, but true.
If that pisses you off, contemplate this: "clipless pedals". Clipless pedals refer to bicycle pedals that you clip into. Yes, the phrase means exactly the opposite of the definition of the individual words!
If I were to post 10 links to definitions of "light" which don't limit its meaning to "visible light", would that convince you? Or would they all be wrong too?
In the context of the discussion here we were talking about the problem with the Kindle, it made sense. You're argument doest.
And if you read the article properly, you would see that what you quoted means exactly what I said it does.
Scientific definitions will agree with what I've said. There is no such thing as invisible light. Light is visible.
enough already!
Dictionary.com: "a similar form of radiant energy that does not affect the retina, as ultraviolet or infrared rays."
American heritage: "Electromagnetic radiation of any wavelength."
Webster: "a form of radiant energy similar to this, but not acting on the normal retina, as ultraviolet and infrared radiation"
Are these dictionaries wrong as well? Or are you ready to admit that your definition is just one of the valid definitions?
Here's a few definitions showing that "light" at times refers to non-visible radiation:
Dictionary.com: "a similar form of radiant energy that does not affect the retina, as ultraviolet or infrared rays."
American heritage: "Electromagnetic radiation of any wavelength."
Webster: "a form of radiant energy similar to this, but not acting on the normal retina, as ultraviolet and infrared radiation"
Are these dictionaries wrong as well? Or are you ready to admit that your definition is just one of the valid definitions?
Link to the total definition of those, or quote the entire one, as I did. Your selective quoting is misleading.
In the context of the discussion here we were talking about the problem with the Kindle, it made sense. You're argument doest.
And if you read the article properly, you would see that what you quoted means exactly what I said it does.
Scientific definitions will agree with what I've said. There is no such thing as invisible light. Light is visible.
enough already!
In the context of this discussion, there was no point in telling us that your definition was the only definition. We were talking about sunlight, which includes infrared light.
And no, reading that articles proves exactly what i've been saying, that the word has multiple definitions.