California LIght Bulb Law is Based On Myth - Page 19

 



With that statement
You are taking the basses, for the laws out of context.
You are also leading people to a conclusion that isn't based in reality.

The IDA (international dark sky association) had similar line of stuff on
their website a few years ago. And I sent a couple very long Emails(a lot
longer than my first post) to them about two years ago, detailing my
distaste for their overall attitude that they presented on their website.
And the falsehoods they were obviously trying to imply on their website. And
the damage it was doing to community regulations.

There was also a bunch of lighting companies that were starting to put
pressure on them at that time, to try to get them to stop acting like a
bunch of idiots.

http://www.cooperlighting.com/content/source/energy_legislation/dark_sky.cfm

The results.
They have built a lot better web site since them. That I find a lot more
fair, and even handed. They don't try (as much as they use to) to brainwash
readers with irrational hatred of specific technologies any more. I don't
know if it was anything directly to do with the feedback they got from the
public like me, or the lighting industry it's self.

I can only hope that I helped straighten them out a bit. :-)


The problem I have with you statement is, you are making a strong
implication that the forced use of sodium sources, more specifically low
pressure sodium sources, and the outright banning of mercury vapor lights,
reduced the sky glow, and made the stars more visible.

And implications like that is what got me cranked at the IDA.

The thing that helped the sky glow to the naked eye is the mandated use of
full cutoff fixtures.

The use of low pressure sodium sources was primarily for the ease of
filtering out the man made light at the observatory.  The light that still
made it to the sky even with full cutoff fixtures.

The use of the sodium sources do nothing to reduce sky glow to the human
eye. In fact, they help increase sky glow to a certain point. That is
because you have to use higher illumination levels to achieve the same
usability as other whiter sources like mercury vapor, and metal halide. So
total reflection and total sky glow is increased above the level that you
would have if you were using whiter light sources.

The use of full cutoff fixtures in what people need to push for, to help
reduce sky glow that the people at large, see. The mandated use of sodium
sources is something that I often see in other locations, that have no
reason for such laws. The reason they have such laws is because they are
drawing directly from legislation generated in areas surrounding protected
areas (telescopes) without any real understanding why the laws they are
drawing off of, were written like they were. Since the laws in Arizona have
a requirement for sodium sources, they think they need to put the same laws
in effect where they are.

They are also using the "efficiency" chant to try to push the use of sodium
sources while neglecting the fact that sodium sources are one of the most
worthless night time light sources. Even to the point that the actual usable
illumination per watt is lower than mercury vapor.

In the light from a high/low pressure sodium source, you basically have
tunnel vision. Your peripheral vision is degraded to the point that it's
almost useless.

http://www.lightcorp.com/indWhitePaper.cfm?id=6

http://www.eere.energy.gov/femp/pdfs/29267-5.4.5.pdf

That is why a lot of cities are starting to ban the use of high/low pressure
sodium sources for public lighting. Because the lighting degrades the night
time vision of the people under it, to the point that it's dangerous.

The only problem is, with the forced end to mercury vapor lights, that
leaves metal halide lights as the only high power source for outdoor
lighting in a lot of areas at this time.

In 2004, 2005 time frame, the information about how bad sodium sources were,
was just coming out.  And a lot of people in the lighting industry, and
regulatory branches were fighting it. It was basically saying that the
pushed changeover from mercury vapor, to high/low pressure sodium was a big
mistake. (That they caused)

That is about the time when they instated the ban on production of mercury
vapor ballast that starts in 2008. Which was a mistake, that was based on
faulty logic.

And now, it's starting to become widely accepted that metal halide is the
preferred light source. And that the only acceptable replacement for aging
mercury vapor fixtures that are being forced out of use, is a metal halide,
or fluorescent light source.

http://fm.colorado.edu/planning/projects/documents/LightingMP.pdf

That is why I think the government has no right impose regulations like
that. In this case, the damage is already done. And the results are
irrevocable.

 



N9WOS wrote:

The problem I have with your statement is that you are saying personal
observation is irrelevant. I find mercury harsh and invading at night. I
find sodium much more benign.

Of course, you don't have to like my opinion as lighting is subjective.
Visit Flagstaff and see how it 'feels'.

 

Falgstaff. It was

wife and

You can

Incandescent lamps are huge energy wasters.
Their lifespan is also very small. comparatively.

I am hoping the time will come when high efficiency LED lamps
will replace everything concerning lighting today.

 

Pluto wrote:


Falgstaff. It was

wife and

You can

This is not about incandescent. I haven't looked at the numbers, but, it
is likely that sodium and mercury are on par with each other.


CFs are cost competitive and LEDs, (market), are not as efficient. I ran
down the numbers about a half a year ago. They came in at something like
ten times the cost and 70% as efficient. There is a thread back there
with references.

 

Pluto wrote:


What's so special about LEDs ?

Graham