5 ms·
The thread at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8210878 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8210878 (assuming StavrosK was not lying like one of the comment
by ay 12y ago
The thread at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8210878 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8210878 (assuming StavrosK was not lying like one of the comments suggested), shows an interesting discrepancy in the vision of different people.
- hansjorg 12y agoMonty actually mentions this in the footnotes of the article: > The original version of this article stated that IR LEDs operate from 300-325THz (about 920-980nm), wavelengths that are invisible. Quite a few readers wrote to say that they could in fact just barely see the LEDs in some (or all) of their remotes. Several were kind enough to let me know which remotes these were, and I was able to test several on a spectrometer. Lo and behold, these remotes were using higher-frequency LEDs operating from 350-380THz (800-850nm), just overlapping the extreme edge of the visible range.
- ay 12y agoThanks, I missed this addition! So there are even two moving targets - the LEDs' lower wavelength and different humans' higher wavelength.