View Single Post
Old 04-29-2019, 09:28 AM   #48
Tokei
Member
Tokei ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Tokei ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Tokei ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Tokei ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Tokei ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Tokei ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Tokei ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Tokei ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Tokei ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Tokei ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Tokei ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 19
Karma: 2075226
Join Date: Apr 2019
Device: Kobo Forma
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidfor View Post
But they don't say where they got the 400Hz figure from.
I think they based that on the IEEE 1789 standard. "Even frequencies in the range of 100–400 Hz can have a negative influence on the human organism, as is explained in IEEE 1789"

I could find that standard, but I didn't see the 100-400hz anywhere in the document (though admittedly I didn't read the whole thing). The paper is a meta-study, drawing a low-risk / no-effect curve from collating various studies on the topic.

In their conclusions they actually use PWM as an example on page 46: "[...] the recommended practice for PWM dimming at 100% modulation depth is that the frequency satisfies f > 1.25 kHz. [...] This level of flicker could help minimize the visual distractions such as the phantom array effects. The recommended NOEL for PWM dimming is 3 kHz [...]." NOEL = "no observable effect level".

The paper itself is behind a paywall but the US Dep. of Energy has a nice summary here: https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/fi...htfair2015.pdf
Tokei is offline   Reply With Quote