[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[DSLF] Digest Number 868



_________________________________________________
To subscribe to the DarkSky List Forum send email
to:  DarkSky-list-subscribe@yahoogroups...  or visit:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DarkSky-list/join

Help save your town from obtrusive lighting --
Invite your Planning and Zoning department and
local officials to join us!  Please visit the IDA
website at http://www.darksky.org frequently, too!
------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are 16 messages in this issue.

Topics in this digest:

      1. The N.East States Min. Efficiency Standards Project
           From: saros61@aol...
      2. N.East States Min. Energy Standards Project
           From: saros61@aol...
      3. Oops
           From: saros61@aol...
      4. Re: FCO streetlight costs vs. regulare Cobra head
           From: "mike pelletier" <mikpel@hotmail...>
      5. Re: LP Article in New Hampshire Paper
           From: "mike pelletier" <mikpel@hotmail...>
      6. Re: FCO streetlight costs vs. regulare Cobra head
           From: "Terry McGowan" <lighting@ieee...>
      7. Re: FCO streetlight costs vs. regulare Cobra head
           From: patric@ghostriders...
      8. Re: FCO streetlight costs vs. regulare Cobra head
           From: Jan Hollan <jhollan@amper....muni.cz>
      9. Re: FCO streetlight costs vs. regulare Cobra head
           From: "ctstarwchr <ctstarwchr@aol...>" <ctstarwchr@aol...>
     10. RE: Rubber meets the road...
           From: Steve Davis <w2sgd@juno...>
     11. Re: FCO streetlight costs vs. regular Cobra head
           From: Steve Davis <w2sgd@juno...>
     12. MH now dominates
           From: Steve Davis <w2sgd@juno...>
     13. Re: FCO streetlight costs vs. regular Cobra head
           From: Steve Davis <w2sgd@juno...>
     14. Re: FCO streetlight costs vs. regular Cobra head
           From: "ctstarwchr <ctstarwchr@aol...>" <ctstarwchr@aol...>
     15. FCO vs drop lens
           From: Steve Pauley <spauley@cox-internet...>
     16. Re: Re: FCO streetlight costs vs. regular Cobra head
           From: "Terry McGowan" <lighting@ieee...>


________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 1
   Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 09:01:38 -0500
   From: saros61@aol...
Subject: The N.East States Min. Efficiency Standards Project

Cliff will be posting this site to his LiteLynx List...

CF


________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 2
   Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 09:03:05 -0500
   From: saros61@aol...
Subject: N.East States Min. Energy Standards Project

http://www.neep.org/Standards/index.html

Cliff will be posting this site to his LiteLynx List...

CF


________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 3
   Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 09:03:37 -0500
   From: saros61@aol...
Subject: Oops

Sorry, please disregard the email w/out the URL link...

CF


________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 4
   Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 08:10:43 -0500
   From: "mike pelletier" <mikpel@hotmail...>
Subject: Re: FCO streetlight costs vs. regulare Cobra head

OK, this is the raw cost I obtained from a local hardward distributor:

Round Bottomed Streetlight: Grainger stock # 3GU94...$135

Flat Bottomed Streetlight: Grainger stock # 3GU95....$157

So, very simply put, I will take these numbers to my Planning Board and tell 
them that 'FCO' streetlights only cost about 10% more.  Given the simple 
questions given to me by them, "Does FCO streetlights cost too much or are 
they a special order?", this will put the request in the best, if not the 
most clear, light !

Mike

_________________________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. 
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail




________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 5
   Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 08:05:11 -0500
   From: "mike pelletier" <mikpel@hotmail...>
Subject: Re: LP Article in New Hampshire Paper

Steve W. is the NH Office of State Planning Director.  He wrote NH Technical 
Bulletin #16 which was sent to every (yes, all of them) Planning Board and 
Town/City Government in NH.  It is a 18 pager booklet on good outdoor 
lighting and sample ordinances.  You can see it at

http://www.state.nh.us/osp/planning/guide/docs/TechBulletin16.pdf

Mike in NH



>From: Scott Griswold <griz@lightfromabove...>
>To: DarkSky List <DarkSky-list@yahoogroups...>
>Subject: [DSLF]  LP Article in New Hampshire Paper
>Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 00:30:46 -0500
>
>Hello all,
>
>Recently, I picked up a copy of the Country Chronicle, a small paper
>covering the upper valley of VT and NH. I grabbed the paper because I
>have been looking for small papers I can send letters to the editor or
>articles about LP to. Well, much to my surprise, there was already an
>LP article in this particular paper. It is written by Steve Whitman
>from the NH Office of State Planning. I am not sure if Steve is on
>either of these lists, but if he is, let me just say, a mighty fine job
>helping to get the word out. The article is direct and to the point and
>covers many aspects of LP. Wonderful Job.
>
>Peace & Starry Nights,
>
>Scott Griswold

{SNIP}
{PLEASE TRIM Past Message before posting}
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. 
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus




________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 6
   Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 10:09:39 -0500
   From: "Terry McGowan" <lighting@ieee...>
Subject: Re: FCO streetlight costs vs. regulare Cobra head

Mike, since you obtained your quote from Grainger, you can also point out
that the FCO streetlight is not a special order.  One of Grainger's selling
points is an "in stock" requirement.  If an item shows up in their catalog
with a Grainger Stock Number, by definition, it is in the Grainger system
and is either in local stock or deliverable in a day or so.

Terry McGowan


----- Original Message -----
From: mike pelletier <mikpel@hotmail...>
To: <DarkSky-list@yahoogroups...>
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 8:10 AM
Subject: Re: [DSLF] FCO streetlight costs vs. regulare Cobra head


> OK, this is the raw cost I obtained from a local hardward distributor:
>
> Round Bottomed Streetlight: Grainger stock # 3GU94...$135
>
> Flat Bottomed Streetlight: Grainger stock # 3GU95....$157
>
> So, very simply put, I will take these numbers to my Planning Board and
tell
> them that 'FCO' streetlights only cost about 10% more.  Given the simple
> questions given to me by them, "Does FCO streetlights cost too much or are
> they a special order?", this will put the request in the best, if not the
> most clear, light !
>
> Mike

{SNIP}
{PLEASE trim past message BEFORE posting!}



________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 7
   Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 09:38:59 -0600
   From: patric@ghostriders...
Subject: Re: FCO streetlight costs vs. regulare Cobra head

mike pelletier wrote:
 
> So, very simply put, I will take these numbers to my Planning Board and tell
> them that 'FCO' streetlights only cost about 10% more.

Check a few more distributors if you can -- the last time I priced G.E.
cobras with one local distributor, the flat-lens were a few dollars
*less* than it's drop-lens counterpart. His explanation was that the
drop lens refractor is more expensive to manufacture than a flat piece
of glass.  
Keep in mind that none of this takes into account any municipal bidding
process, and how quantity buying affects prices.
Patric.



________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 8
   Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 18:10:06 +0100 (CET)
   From: Jan Hollan <jhollan@amper....muni.cz>
Subject: Re: FCO streetlight costs vs. regulare Cobra head

> First, with a flat lens FCO, the angle of incidence between a ray of
> light and the lens affects the distribution and efficiency.  By trying
> to throw the peak candlepower just beneath cut off (in order to light
> the road as evenly as possible), light strikes the lens at a shallow
> angle, reducing the efficiency and therefore candlepower at the long
> angle. You can read about Brewster's angle and critical angle in any
> physics text.  This is the fundamental reason that the drop lens cobra
> outperforms the flat lens FCO and permits wider spacing.

I did not understand the remark on the Brewster's angle at all. What has
it in common with the reflection over 70 degrees (not to speak about
critical angle, as the luminaires are mostly not full of water or even
made as blocks of solid glass)? Up to that angle from nadir, there is no
large difference between flat lens and drop lens. And there is hardly a
perceptible difference below 65 degrees (a decimagnitude in astronomical
terms at most, a value which just very experienced observers are able to
discern, at low light levels common at night).

But then I realized, that the common computations of road luminance at
grazing angles are seriously flawed: the reflected component depends on
the polarisation of the light hitting the road. With no lens, there is
almost no polarisation. With both flat and drop lens, the light is mostly
polarised in such a way, that it reflects less from the road. More enters
the dielectric asphalt or stone grains and is absorbed there.

An interesting point: the standard ies or eulumdat files are not adequate
for computing the luminances, as they don't contain two values for each
direction, one for the polarisation in the plane of incidence and the
other for the perpendicular polarisation. It has never occurred me before.
The effect is not at all negligible, the differences of luminances (e.g.
between no lens and drop lens) in a logarithmic scale for the same road
illuminance are several decimagnitudes probably...

Back to glass transmittance. Below is a table of the amounts of
transmitted and reflected (unpolarised, originally) light through an
almost ordinary glass (almost: it means non-absorbing, which is not the
case). The Brewster angle, where no light of one polarisation reflects off
the glass, is at 56 degrees. (I'd be pleased to know the refraction
indices of polycarbonate and acrylic stuffs, if it's lower, also the
reflection is lower.)

 Per cent of light
 which gets through a non-absorbing layer of glass with n=1.540
 at a given angle of incidence (not considering multiple reflections;
 including them, a bit more gets through)

   angles            transmitted        reflected
 / 1 degree     electric vector         at each
outside inside   perp. along   average  surface
   0.0     0.0   91.4   91.4    91.4     4.4
   5.0     3.2   91.4   91.3    91.4     4.4
  10.0     6.5   91.7   91.0    91.3     4.4
  15.0     9.7   92.1   90.6    91.3     4.4
  20.0    12.8   92.7   89.9    91.3     4.4
  25.0    15.9   93.4   89.0    91.2     4.5
  30.0    18.9   94.4   87.9    91.1     4.5
  35.0    21.9   95.5   86.3    90.9     4.7
  40.0    24.7   96.7   84.2    90.5     4.9
  45.0    27.3   98.0   81.6    89.8     5.3
  50.0    29.8   99.1   78.1    88.6     5.9
  55.0    32.1   99.9   73.7    86.8     6.8
  60.0    34.2   99.7   68.0    83.9     8.4
  65.0    36.1   97.7   60.9    79.3    11.0
  70.0    37.6   92.2   52.0    72.1    15.1
  75.0    38.8   81.1   41.2    61.2    21.8
  80.0    39.8   62.1   28.7    45.4    32.6
  85.0    40.3   34.1   14.8    24.5    50.6

thanks to James Benya for opening an interesting field for thoughts,

jenik hollan






________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 9
   Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 17:52:12 -0000
   From: "ctstarwchr <ctstarwchr@aol...>" <ctstarwchr@aol...>
Subject: Re: FCO streetlight costs vs. regulare Cobra head

--- In DarkSky-list@yahoogroups..., "mike pelletier" <mikpel@h.....> 
wrote:
> OK, this is the raw cost I obtained from a local hardward 
> distributor:
> 
> Round Bottomed Streetlight: Grainger stock # 3GU94...$135
> 
> Flat Bottomed Streetlight: Grainger stock # 3GU95....$157
> 
> So, very simply put, I will take these numbers to my Planning
> Board and tell them that 'FCO' streetlights only cost about 10%
> more.

Sounds like a very good place to start Mike!  As Terry mentioned, 
W.W. Grainger's stocking and fulfillment policy is excellent for 
meeting dire needs in an emergency.

Please take note that if purchasing these Lithonia roadway luminaires 
from Grainger the CHE 150 S R2 DLA (semi-cutoff drop lens priced at 
$135.95) will actually cost $158.79 because it does not include the 
$22.84 150-watt HPS bulb (Grainger p/n 2V452).

That may be encouraging news to the town officials because the drop 
lens semi-cutoff will actually cost 1% MORE than the flat lens FCO, 
whereas the Lithonia flat lens full cutoff is $157.75 and it includes 
the lamp if purchased from W.W. Grainger.  Check some other sources 
too, and ask if they have volume discounts because that will not only 
help your community officials submit bid requests, but it will also 
give you a better idea of what is available.

The next question you need to think about is does your area REALLY 
need to have 150 watts of HPS light applied in blanket fashion for 
every application or could they possibly meet the needs by applying 
35, 50, 70, 100 watt luminaires for varying needs?  The Lithonia CHE 
roadway series cobrahead is available with those wattage options, but 
maybe not when purchasing them from Grainger.  I will send you the 
manufacturer's CHE specifications (cut sheet) under private cover.

Applying 16,000 lumens (typical HPS lamp) less the various light loss 
factors that occur over time may increase the ambient sky brightness, 
not to mention more energy consumption even if flat lens is installed.

A bit chilly walking around outdoors this time of year but the 
following information might help you get a better idea of what is 
presently installed.  Look for a square sticker at the bottom of the 
existing roadway fixtures.  If they use High Pressure Sodium (HPS)
lamps a square yellow sticker with black numbers will be used.  The 
color coded sticker indicates the lamp type and wattage -- but you must
add a zero or a five to the end depending on the lamps offered.  For 
instance, if the sticker has a yellow background with a black 3 it is
a 35 watt HPS fixture.  If it has a 5 or a 7 it is a 50 or a 70 watt 
fixture.  If it reads 15 it is a 150 watt fixture, and so on.

Walk three or four streets that have different land use patterns 
(i.e., commercial, residential, rural, etc.) and log the results you 
discover in a notebook classified by land use.  If you can also 
roughly estimate the traffic and pedestrian density all the much 
better.  This way you can get a *rough* feel for what the community 
has applied and what they feel relatively comfortable with.

Presenting the information to the officials in a simple way they can 
understand will let them know you have done your homework on the 
issue.  Be careful about giving them too much technical information 
at once and you should be just fine.  Best of luck and keep up the 
great work!

Clear skies and good seeing,
Keep looking up!

Cliff Haas
http://members.aol.com/ctstarwchr





________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 10
   Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 12:56:38 -0500
   From: Steve Davis <w2sgd@juno...>
Subject: RE: Rubber meets the road...

Fitzpatrick, Eric (J.) wrote:

> LSI offer excellent flush and recessed lens luminaires for canopies.

The fixture may be excellent, but the 175/250/400 watt lamp is
too much especially when there it one or more luminaires
for every hose under the canopy.

Chris Luginbuhl pretty much *nailed it* with IDA Info Sheet 151
which list others with wattage down to 50 watts and describes
proper placement.  Read your IDA stuff folks.

The other night I was completely disorientated after an emergency
stop at one of those overlighters. -sd


________________________________________________________________
Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today
Only $9.95 per month!
Visit www.juno.com



________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 11
   Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 12:57:21 -0500
   From: Steve Davis <w2sgd@juno...>
Subject: Re: FCO streetlight costs vs. regular Cobra head

According to Terry McGowan of GE fame, GE makes and sells
more FCO which has made the FCO slightly cheaper.

Also, according to the mangers of streetlighting in LA and
Cambridge (MA), FCO is worth it despite any problems with
poles spacing or other arguments people like to toss around.
BTW, Cambridge did not change pole spacing to accommodate
FCO. -sd


________________________________________________________________
Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today
Only $9.95 per month!
Visit www.juno.com



________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 12
   Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 12:55:29 -0500
   From: Steve Davis <w2sgd@juno...>
Subject: MH now dominates

Some have argued going after streetlighting and ignoring the commercial
sector because business contributes less to overall LP.

It hit me last night when looking out the window just before going to
bed.
It had just snowed.  In the direction of greatest skyglow, the clouds and
the sky were brighter than early twilight and white.  "White Nights" - 
remember the movie starting Mikhail Baryshnikov? People didn't like short
nights in northern latitudes because of difficulty in sleeping.  MH now 
exceeds HPS.  The HPS is still there.  Streetlights are no longer in the
number one position.  Nearby streetlights weren't even needed to see.

All the streets have lights, so any increase has to be from other
sources.
The only places left to light are parking lots, structures, trees and
bushes.
If anything needs control, it is those places that haven't been lit yet.
-sd


________________________________________________________________
Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today
Only $9.95 per month!
Visit www.juno.com



________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 13
   Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 13:00:07 -0500
   From: Steve Davis <w2sgd@juno...>
Subject: Re: FCO streetlight costs vs. regular Cobra head

There are many different breeds of "dogs" and even
within one breed there are significant differences.
FCO doesn't mean quality light, especially when the
wattage is too much.  I have even seen very expensive
FCO with nasty glare at high angles, such as used
at the new High Peaks rest areas on I-87.  Therefore,
price is no indication of quality lighting either. -sd


________________________________________________________________
Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today
Only $9.95 per month!
Visit www.juno.com



________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 14
   Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 18:20:41 -0000
   From: "ctstarwchr <ctstarwchr@aol...>" <ctstarwchr@aol...>
Subject: Re: FCO streetlight costs vs. regular Cobra head

--- In DarkSky-list@yahoogroups..., Steve Davis <w2sgd@j.....> wrote:
> According to Terry McGowan of GE fame, GE makes and sells
> more FCO which has made the FCO slightly cheaper.

Not to mention the fact GE offers one of the few TRUE 85° full cutoff 
cobraheads available where zero light intensity emits at 85° and all 
angles above in their M250 family of Cutoff luminaires.  Good price
with excellent performance and good field track records for reliability.

We use them here in CT for both local roadways and highways and they 
are awesome!  Ketchum uses them, too, as mandated by that community's 
outdoor lighting code that addresses municipal and state route lighting.

The laws of supply and demand are beginning to take hold and reach 
a critical mass where good quality full cutoff fixtures are in many 
cases becoming less expensive than the glaring semi-cutoff counterparts.

The best benefit to society is perhaps how the glare and visual clutter 
is significantly reduced with full cutoff and *near* full cutoff lighting
(i.e., cutoffs that emit less than 0.2% lamp intensity & 90°), but the
bottom line will usually be the price for most communities.  Smart Town 
and City managers will consider the cost long before before the purchase
price alone.  

Cost vs. Price ratio is an interesting and powerful management tool.
Cost == how much any product costs to purchase, install, and operate 
through its lifetime, whereas *price* only considers what it costs to 
purchase.  I learned that a long time ago buying tools.  The wrench from
Sears was cheap and worked well on new nuts and bolts, but the SnapOn
wrench cost 6 times as much, did not cause muscle cramps, and worked MUCH
better on rusted parts.  It also outlasted all Sears tools serving needs
with significantly better preformance and reliability over time.

Clear skies,

Cliff Haas
http://members.aol.com/ctstarwchr



________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 15
   Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 11:51:01 -0700
   From: Steve Pauley <spauley@cox-internet...>
Subject: FCO vs drop lens

Jim
Using your knowledge as a lighting engineer, will
you also discuss:

1)  the energy issues and wattage requirements of
fco vs drop lens.
2) do you suggest that this list and the IDA give
up the battle for fco street lighting based on Brewster's angle and
not how the human eye sees better at night with fco?
3) If fco is good enough for Yosemite, then why isn't it good
enough for our cities and residential areas?
4) If fco cobras are so bad, why don't you lighting engineers
design some good ones and then promote their use?

My concern is that your engineering expertise and your implication that
fco street lighting should not be our goal, and that only super qualified
lighting engineers should help write local  lighting ordinances,
are getting in the way of common sense, are a put down to
all on this list (we "folks" as you call us) who fight locally for dark skies
and ignore all of photobiology and the capabilities of the
human eye.

Steve P
====================
 >>First, with a flat lens FCO, the angle of incidence between a ray of light
and the lens affects the distribution and efficiency. By trying to throw
the peak candlepower just beneath cut off (in order to light the road as
evenly as possible), light strikes the lens at a shallow angle, reducing the
efficiency and therefore candlepower at the long angle. You can read about
Brewster's angle and critical angle in any physics text. This is the
fundamental reason that the drop lens cobra outperforms the flat lens FCO
and permits wider spacing.

 >>Second, to add insult to injury, the FCO is generally not as efficient as
the drop lens cobra. This is simple optics. A larger aperture will kick a
smaller aperture around the block every day. A shoe box approaches the
efficiency of the drop lens cobra, but the flat lens cobra that most cities
will use is a dog, relatively speaking.>>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 16
   Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 14:38:56 -0500
   From: "Terry McGowan" <lighting@ieee...>
Subject: Re: Re: FCO streetlight costs vs. regular Cobra head

Perhaps I should clarify that these days I have a lighting/engineering
consulting business which includes managing the Lighting Research Office for
the Electric Power Research Institute. While I was with GE Lighting for some
38 years, that ended with retirement in 1998.  Any comments from me on these
pages are 100% my own.

Terry McGowan, FIES, LC
Lighting Ideas, Inc.
3574 Atherstone Rd.
Cleveland Hts., OH  44121 U.S.A.
216-291-1884
Fax: 216-382-6424
lighting@ieee...

----- Original Message -----
From: Steve Davis <w2sgd@juno...>
<-snip->
> According to Terry McGowan of GE fame, GE makes and sells
> more FCO which has made the FCO slightly cheaper.
<-snip->





________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/