| Revision as of 02:24, 25 October 2005 edit166.70.56.217 (talk) →Recently added arguments against full cutoff lighting← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:29, 25 October 2005 edit undoIzogi (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,280 edits →Recently added arguments against full cutoff lighting: I'll remove the paragraphNext edit → | ||
| Line 80: | Line 80: | ||
| ] 22:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC) | ] 22:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC) | ||
| This user also claims full-cutoff fixtures are 30-50% more expensive to install and operate than "more efficient" designs, without even hinting what these putative designs are. Perhaps globe luminaires might spray light further than full-cutoff models, allowing fewer streetlights to be installed, but this comes at the expense of increased glare. | :This user also claims full-cutoff fixtures are 30-50% more expensive to install and operate than "more efficient" designs, without even hinting what these putative designs are. Perhaps globe luminaires might spray light further than full-cutoff models, allowing fewer streetlights to be installed, but this comes at the expense of increased glare. | ||
| Guest 03:25, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC) | :Guest 03:25, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC) | ||
| ::I think you're right. This is quite controversial. On its own this shouldn't be a problem, but and theres really not and specific enough citation to back it up. I'm going to remove the paragraph in question (it's included below for easier future reference) from the article on these grounds. Unfortunately the anonymous user who inserted it doesn't seem to be available to comment on it's authenticity and context. I have no objection to it being put back ''if'' the citation can be clarified and made specific enough to track down each specific publication that's being cited, and ''as long as'' the article explains it in context. eg. If D. Keith is a radical researcher whom few peers agree with, we should make it quite clear that it's not a commonly held opinion, or exactly what circles the opinion is held in. ] 06:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :: '''Removed text (which is adapted from the original) is as follows:''' "Some researchers (Keith, D., Journal of the IES, 2000, 2002, 2003) have reported that using "full cutoff" light fixtures increases the costs and energy use necessary to meet the objectives of the lighting. When lighting a roadway continuously in accordance with the American National Standard Practice for Roadway Lighting, IESNA full cutoff distributions increase the initial and operating costs by around 20% and up to 50% compared to more effective light distributions. This does NOT mean all full cutoff distributions are worse than others, but that lighting systems with full cutoff distributions will typically NOT be the most cost and energy efficient lighting choice. Not only are full cutoff distributions usually more expensive to install and operate, but also side-effects such as mercury pollution (from generation of electricity) will increase by the same proportion. Uplight, light above horizontal that contributes to sky glow has also been shown to increase (Keith, D., Journal of the IES, 2000, 2003) when full cutoff distributions are used." | |||
Revision as of 06:29, 25 October 2005
To-do list
Here's a list of possible things that the article might benefit from, in no particular order:
|
Its members are universities, public administrations, representatives of manifacturing industries and so on. It produced a specific standard UNI 10819 to (very theoretically) protect the sky from light pollution and some lectures to defend it against the hordes of people that recognized how that standard LEGALIZED light pollution rather than reduce it, but if every one agree I can try to translate their thoughts. To point out how scientists can vary their opinions about this topic it could be useful to summarize prof Zichichi article on catholic magazine "Famiglia Cristiana" and the remarks of prof Maffei, an italian astronomer who pionereed infrared photografic surveys to Zichichi's article. Again, I can traslate. As a final suggestion based on my own experience in Italy I have to remark that the "dispute" about light pollution depends on the strong relationship that links light and energy industries, universities, politicians. Light and energy industries are trying to increase profits and do not accept any regulamentation, universities have to defend their own business and do not like that someone else discovers and applies cheaper and environmental safe lighting rules, politicians fear to lose a powerful argument to gain votes, summarized as "daylight intensity lighting for safety against crime". But I have to remark that only 7 1/2 italian regions on 20, 40% of land and 30% of population have to bear "industrial" lighting rules: in 2007 Liguria, Friuli Venezia Giulia and half of Trentino Alto Adige rejected UNI standards to adopt "zero lighting above lamps" rules. How can exist a "dispute" about light pollution when the majority of a nation says that night skies have to be protected ? --195.210.65.30 (talk) 08:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
|
Feel welcome to edit the list, of course. Izogi 23:55, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Never Seen Night Time
at least until I went away to college, even then the sky was still a bright orange color (-;
- ya, I live in Las Vegas, so i know what you mean. But I'm also an amatuer astronomer, so I get away at least once a year.
This article will help me with my science project
Thanks!
"really semi-barbaric densely populated areas of the United States" -- that's supposed to be NPOV?!
FAC?
Just came across this article and it's looking great! Izogi seems to have done a great job making this into a very good piece of work. I'd love to nominate this as a FAC, but I know there's one thing that might hold it back - references. If someone could add this one missing section (perhaps by rearranging the External links section) then I reckon it could become featured. violet/riga (t) 23:02, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks, that's very flattering and I agree with you about the references. (So far I've been lazy, since a lot of the info that I've added has been coming from recollections of my own experience.) I'll look at improving them over the next few days to help back up the information. I also still feel that it's not quite complete yet, and it trails off a bit towards the end. In particular, there's quite a bit more that might be said about the methods of reducing light pollution. If anyone wants to help fill that in, the door's open. Otherwise I'll see what I can do. Izogi 01:41, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
More pictures
I don't know if anyone's following the edits I've been making lately. If you are, though, can anyone provide an extra image or two for inclusion in the article? In particular, I've been looking around for a good picture of something like a drop-lens cobra fixture, taken during the day, to demonstrate how it's designed in such a way so that light will escape horizontally and upwards. Any other images that might demonstrate things in the article would be great too, of course.
I'd thought there might be free-to-use pictures available from the IDA, but it seems to want to charge even to obtain them, let alone re-publish.
Izogi 07:09, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
- Well the quality could be better, but these two may help — by the way I assume these are cobra liuminairs based on the examples given elsewhere. If that's not right, please rename them. -- Solipsist 15:52, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks -- these are just what I had in mind. I'll try them out in the article. Izogi 21:02, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Temporarily (?) removed a paragraph
- "According to a study performed by Backpacker magazine, Natural Bridges National Monument, Utah has the least amount of light pollution, and thererefore the darkest skies in the continental United States."
I've just (temporarily) removed the above paragraph from the Consequences/Loss of night sky section, because it doesn't seem to fit there when I read it. It doesn't seem like a consequence to me. I'm not sure exactly which section it should go into as they are right now. It might be that the article needs a new section for the current state of light pollution in different parts of the world, or something like that, but if so it'd be nice to have a bit more information stated than a line about Utah in the USA. Hopefully it can be cited a bit more specifically soon, too -- I've contacted User:R Lee E to ask about where it came from. Does anyone have any thoughts? Izogi 10:54, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
readded blip about darkest sky in U.S.
october 2004, page 56 - cover article is entitled "America's Last Wild Places"R Lee E 03:42, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
- Neat, thanks. I've adjusted the citation slightly, for consistency as much as anything else. Izogi 05:14, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
- I presume the intention is to add the place with the darkest sky in every other country as well? Otherwise it is US-POV and should be removed - MPF 23:22, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
- Point taken. It's very biased towards the US, and I'm not comfortable with that either. (I'm not from the US at all, FWIW.) I do think it's relevant, however, that people have to travel for hours or days at great expense just to get somewhere that's unaffected, and one or two representative examples of that would be beneficial, irrespective of where they come from. It might read better if it was worked into the surrounding text as a representative example. Not having access to the cited article, though, I don't want to start editing it blindly. Izogi 00:29, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
- I presume the intention is to add the place with the darkest sky in every other country as well? Otherwise it is US-POV and should be removed - MPF 23:22, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Sofixit - its not like its a left-wing, right-wing thing. I simply supplied the relevant and useful information that I came across, and I wasn't considering politics. And personally I can't see any reason to consider politics. If you can provide similar info for other countries, that'd be wonderful. But it would be an over-reaction to start a NPOV debate over this. R Lee E 00:16, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
- I'll see what I can find. Come to think of it, wouldn't the darkest place in the continental US be somewhere in Alaska? - or should it read "the contiguous states"? - MPF 00:23, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
regarding your statement about Alaska, my assumption with that is the fact that it stays dark for about 3 or 4 hours in the summer up there. The sun doesn't set until about 11:00pm up there in the summer. When it does set, its more like a perpetual twilight rather than complete darkness. R Lee E 00:58, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
What do people think about re-formatting of references?
I've been thinking about re-formatting the references list to use footnote-style numbering templates. (My favourite is Misplaced Pages:Footnote3, because it's auto-numbered.) The main reason I'd like to do this is because a lot of the citations aren't clear author-title-date specified. Instead, it's a mixture including many web pages, government reports, and so on. I've been finding it a bit difficult to briefly but accurately refer to specific references from within the text. A auto-numbered system could remove a lot of ambiguity and make the citations tidier to look at. The References section of the Tasmanian Devil article is an example similar to what I have in mind.
How would others feel about this change, though? Is it a problem to anyone else? Are there better ways of fixing it? I realise that the numbering system is controversial in some ways, both for clarity in some people's view, as well as some technical arguments with respect to Misplaced Pages. (See here for more detail).
Izogi 03:59, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Cobra Luminarie (At night)
G'day, I've an excelent opportunity to take a picture of both types of lights at night with the patterns of illumination visible. We are currently feeling the effects of Hurricane Katrina and so I won't be able to take a good picture of the lights until a few days from now, but I'll add 'em here for your perusal. Flehmen 16:42, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- Hello (again). Thanks for offering. If you do this, though, could you please make an effort to take notes of all the relevant camera settings? Photography's something that's quite easy to be creative with, maybe unfortunately in this case. One of the things I find a bit disturbing about many light pollution information sources and advocate groups is that they show lots of comparison photos, but don't clearly state any evidence that it's not just creative photography causing the lights to look less glarey, and so on. If someone was trying to use them to convince me, possible creative photography is one of the first things I'd question. If the relevant camera settings are all documented, though, it'll be much easier to present it objectively and from more of a neutral point of view. Maybe I'm pedantic, but it seems like a lazy way for so many organisations to do it, and I think it's something that Misplaced Pages could quite easily do much better than what tends to be the status quo. Izogi 06:39, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- No, that sounds like an appropriate idea. MY thought is to take them both in the same picture. Of course, as with anything digital, that doesn't even matter but it is a little more appropriate when comparing...Flehmen 09:42, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Question about efficiency of cobra light fixtures
The article claims these fixtures are more efficient. This claim is unclear. My initial thinking reading this was that its not more energy efficient, since the same amount of power is drawn, but the light merely gets lost inside the fixture. I suppose it could be more efficient if the bulb is shaped to only allow light to point downward, or the inside of the fixture has some sort of mirror coating. Is this the case? If so, we should say so in the article, instead of just making this vague claim about efficiency. Thanks. ThePedanticPrick 17:36, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- Hello. The pictures (and their captions) used to be in the opposite order, so some of the context might have been lost by putting the full cutoff one first. What it should indicate is that a flat lens cobra fixture is a full cutoff fixture, whereas the drop-lens cobra fixture isn't. This means that the flat-lens fixture doesn't emit light to useless places (ie. sideways and upwards), so less energy is needed overall and the light can operate on less total power. This is explained in the text, but the caption didn't seem to prioritise the phrase "full cutoff", so it might not have been clear that that's what it was talking about. I've made a quick attempt to make it clearer, but I'm about to go out, so won't be able to look at it properly immediately. If anyone else wants to have a go meanwhile, help yourself. Izogi 06:56, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Recently added arguments against full cutoff lighting
Hello. Anonymous user 68.166.244.209 recently added a paragraph that cited D. Keith in the "Journal of the IES", who (apparently) claims quite a few things about systems with full cutoff fixtures. Does anyone know which journal this is? The citation details don't seem to be specific enough to indicate which papers or articles are being referenced.
I did a quick google, and there's a Journal of the IES which stands for "Journal of the Institution of Engineers Singapore". Then I looked a bit further, and this page indicates that the same name is also an alternate title for the Journal of Environmental Sciences.
Neither of these journals seem to have online table of contents details to indicate if the articles are there, and I'm not sure if I have access to a library at the moment. Does anyone (is the anon user still around?) have access to check this out? The claims are likely to be quite contriversial, so it'd be good to have an accurate reference if it's going to be in the article. It'd be good to have some specific article titles and issue numbers rather than just years.
Izogi 22:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
- This user also claims full-cutoff fixtures are 30-50% more expensive to install and operate than "more efficient" designs, without even hinting what these putative designs are. Perhaps globe luminaires might spray light further than full-cutoff models, allowing fewer streetlights to be installed, but this comes at the expense of increased glare.
- Guest 03:25, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- I think you're right. This is quite controversial. On its own this shouldn't be a problem, but and theres really not and specific enough citation to back it up. I'm going to remove the paragraph in question (it's included below for easier future reference) from the article on these grounds. Unfortunately the anonymous user who inserted it doesn't seem to be available to comment on it's authenticity and context. I have no objection to it being put back if the citation can be clarified and made specific enough to track down each specific publication that's being cited, and as long as the article explains it in context. eg. If D. Keith is a radical researcher whom few peers agree with, we should make it quite clear that it's not a commonly held opinion, or exactly what circles the opinion is held in. Izogi 06:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
- Removed text (which is adapted from the original) is as follows: "Some researchers (Keith, D., Journal of the IES, 2000, 2002, 2003) have reported that using "full cutoff" light fixtures increases the costs and energy use necessary to meet the objectives of the lighting. When lighting a roadway continuously in accordance with the American National Standard Practice for Roadway Lighting, IESNA full cutoff distributions increase the initial and operating costs by around 20% and up to 50% compared to more effective light distributions. This does NOT mean all full cutoff distributions are worse than others, but that lighting systems with full cutoff distributions will typically NOT be the most cost and energy efficient lighting choice. Not only are full cutoff distributions usually more expensive to install and operate, but also side-effects such as mercury pollution (from generation of electricity) will increase by the same proportion. Uplight, light above horizontal that contributes to sky glow has also been shown to increase (Keith, D., Journal of the IES, 2000, 2003) when full cutoff distributions are used."