[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[DSLF] Digest Number 863
_________________________________________________
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 12 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. Re: NPR Story on Bird Kills by Towers
From: "William Bahus" <thebahuses@skylog...>
2. Re: NPR Story on Bird Kills by Towers
From: "John L. Liebenthal" <jll@srv...>
3. RE: NPR Story on Bird Kills by Towers
From: "Michael Stephan" <mstephan@kconline...>
4. Re: help with the rules for Czechia and grandfatherig
From: Steve Davis <w2sgd@juno...>
5. Proposed Ordinance Notes
From: "Robert K. MacDowell" <macdowell_r@mediasoft...>
6. White vs red tower lights
From: Steve Pauley <spauley@cox-internet...>
7. Rubber meets the road...
From: "Fitzpatrick, Eric (J.)" <efitzpat@visteon...>
8. Re: White vs red tower lights
From: ctstarwchr@aol...
9. Re:Lighting Ordinance for Review
From: glennlaser@aol...
10. Sportslighting impact photos
From: "Karolyn Beebe" <keedo@merr...>
11. Re: Rubber meets the road...
From: ctstarwchr@aol...
12. Re: Sportslighting impact photos
From: "ctstarwchr <ctstarwchr@aol...>" <ctstarwchr@aol...>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 08:50:05 -0800
From: "William Bahus" <thebahuses@skylog...>
Subject: Re: NPR Story on Bird Kills by Towers
>From what I have seen towers with red beacons usually have one (or more)
lights that are always on, the white lit towers only have strobes. This
makes it an "apples and oranges" comparison, if you looked at red-lit towers
with only strobes and compared them with white-lit towers that strobe then
you would have a valid comparison.
Just look at the terminology; "red beacons...white strobes."
Bill Bahus
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Wigell" <kwemail@twcny....com>
To: <DarkSky-list@yahoogroups...>
Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 4:34 AM
Subject: [DSLF] NPR Story on Bird Kills by Towers
> I heard the story this morning on NPR about bird kills caused by towers.
>
> One of the recommendations proposed was to replace the red marker beacons
> with white strobe lights. Apparently there is evidence that the white
> strobes are less confusing to birds at night than the red beacons.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 08:17:58 -0700
From: "John L. Liebenthal" <jll@srv...>
Subject: Re: NPR Story on Bird Kills by Towers
At 05:34 AM 12/6/02 , you wrote:
>I heard the story this morning on NPR about bird kills caused by towers.
>
>One of the recommendations proposed was to replace the red marker beacons
>with white strobe lights. Apparently there is evidence that the white
>strobes are less confusing to birds at night than the red beacons.
>
>However, I'd have to believe that tens (or hundreds?) of thousands of towers
>across the country with white strobe lights flashing all night long would be
>a disaster, astronomically speaking.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
A tower here was operated after its installation with a strobe at night in
violation of the conditional use permit. There was universal negative
reaction
in this relatively dark valley, because of the quality of the light and the
fact that it was visible throughout the entire valley. In already bright
places, a strobe might not be as noticeable, but it goes far beyond the only
really similar thing, an airport beacon, in bothering people
Jack Liebenthal
Victor ID
208/354-8001
more at
<http://www.srv.net/~jll/jackjean.html>http://www.onewest.net/~jll/jackjean.
html
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 10:31:52 -0500
From: "Michael Stephan" <mstephan@kconline...>
Subject: RE: NPR Story on Bird Kills by Towers
"One of the recommendations proposed was to replace the red marker
beacons
with white strobe lights. Apparently there is evidence that the white
strobes are less confusing to birds at night than the red beacons."
Figures, within 1/4 mile on the same property as our observatory is a
cellular tower. We also have (3 miles away in local small town) a
"gentleman's club" which discovered search lights are a neat way to
attract attention to their establishment. Rural area so no ordinances
except for nuisance. You can believe the town folk are consulting county
planners and lawyers.
Mike
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 11:59:25 -0500
From: Steve Davis <w2sgd@juno...>
Subject: Re: help with the rules for Czechia and grandfatherig
> The responsible clerk sent me a letter saying that ``it has not been
> unequivocally demonstrated that fully shielded luminaires can be used
in
> all cases'' and that therefore the Order does allow using partially
> shielded ones as well whenever anybody thinks that fully shielded ones
> would not do the job... with even no grandfathering.
Beyond a reasonable doubt and then some. They want an iron
clad guarantee on everything. Otherwise, anybody who can
screw in a light bulb can make the decision as to what is
appropriate. The science or practice of anything will never
progress with people like this in charge. The same mentality
is everywhere and exhibited by those who don't want change
for whatever reason and are unwilling to at least give it
a try. How did the World ever get to it present state
without experimentation, adventure, and even failure?
Rather than running around trying to collect evidence for
all cases, which can't be done -- an exercise designed to
consume time and produce failure, tactics ought to be
reversed.
When is the next election? Put this person's job on the line.
[They must be relatives or friends of Pataki.] -sd
________________________________________________________________
Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today
Only $9.95 per month!
Visit www.juno.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 5
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 14:41:22 -0500
From: "Robert K. MacDowell" <macdowell_r@mediasoft...>
Subject: Proposed Ordinance Notes
Greetings,
With reference to the proposed ordinance circulated in Digest No. 862, I
would add in the preamble a paragraph that cites the waste of electrical
energy that results from unnecessary, dusk-to-dawn 'security lights',
lighting that uses more wattage than is truly necessary for the job at hand
(e.g. gas station canopies) and point out the air pollution that results
from burning fossil fuels to generate the wasted electricity. Air quality is
a serious human health issue as well as a problem for plants and other
living creatures.
I'm also in the camp that **strongly** believes that we need sundown
provisions, and I would not endorse any ordinance that allows existing
installations to remain in place without proper retrofit shielding or
fixture replacement. There must be a time period specified, but if it is
longer than two years, I would object, and I think many of us agree on this
point. If we allow older fixtures to remain, we will **never** solve the
outdoor lighting problems that plague us.
Hope this is of some help,
Robert K. MacDowell
Waterford, Virginia
http://www.mediasoft.net/macdowell
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 6
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 14:49:55 -0700
From: Steve Pauley <spauley@cox-internet...>
Subject: White vs red tower lights
Kevin
A paper on this subject was presented at the UCLA
ECANL meeting in Feb. '02. I too was disappointed
in the results. White tower lights were less attractive
to birds than red light, but that doesn't necessarily make
red ok since birds were also around the towers with red lights.
To me and most others there is nothing more annoying
than towers with flashing white strobes. Here in ag. country,
many irrigation pivots use flashing white lights to indicate
the pivots are on and turning - an annoyance to nearby
homes. Irrigators could easily use red instead of white.
I think the FLAP folks would also say that far more
birds are killed crashing into lighted bldgs. at night and
into bldgs. with reflective glass during the daytime, and
we can't demand no more tall bldgs., only no lighted ones
at night, and the use of non reflective glass.
I have no solution for our mutual dissatisfaction on the tower
issue. Plane crashes are worse than bird crashes, so
I suppose we must live in compromise, but I'd say that
since the FAA allows either red or white, we should push
for red lighted towers at the expense of a few more bird kills.
Humans should not have to live with annoying white strobes marring
the darkness, and with the growth of cell phones,
lighted towers are only going to increase across the US.
Steve P
======================
From: "Kevin Wigell" <kwemail@twcny....com>
Subject: NPR Story on Bird Kills by Towers
I heard the story this morning on NPR about bird kills caused by towers.
One of the recommendations proposed was to replace the red marker beacons
with white strobe lights. Apparently there is evidence that the white
strobes are less confusing to birds at night than the red beacons.
However, I'd have to believe that tens (or hundreds?) of thousands of towers
across the country with white strobe lights flashing all night long would be
a disaster, astronomically speaking.
I hope there is some other solution that can avoid bird kills without
destroying the night sky.
Kevin Wigell
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 7
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 16:27:11 -0500
From: "Fitzpatrick, Eric (J.)" <efitzpat@visteon...>
Subject: Rubber meets the road...
About a two years ago, I initiated an outdoor lighting policy for my city
which came into existence last year. See
http://www.geocities.com/eric74382000/policy.htm
Around the time of the policy's implementation, a gas station went up with
recessed fixtures and the works. It was great. Then about a month ago, the
gas station replaced the recessed lenses with glaring drop lens fixtures.
You know the ones. Shortly after that, the gas station installed three MH
flood lights on top of the canopy facing south. Talk about a horrific
downgrade!
So I called a councilman and the ordinance supervisor. They are currently
looking into what they are going to enforce. The ordinance supervisor did
say something is going to be done about the floodlights, but he is not sure
about the canopy. He is saying the site plan called for recessed lights on
the canopy, which could be interpreted as recessed ballasts which they are,
but not necessarily including the lens. Here is the wording of the site
plan from the council minutes:
10. That the lights of the pump island canopy shall be recessed in such a
way that the intensity of the illumination is decreased;
11. That all stand-alone light standards shall be shielded from the adjacent
properties and shall not exceed 20 ft. in height;
He wants me to send him pictures of the recessed fixtures that were on the
canopy before, which I will.
I will post updates as they occur...
Eric.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 8
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 17:57:20 EST
From: ctstarwchr@aol...
Subject: Re: White vs red tower lights
In a message dated 12/06/02 4:52:28 PM Eastern Standard Time,
spauley@cox-internet... writes:
> However, I'd have to believe that tens (or hundreds?) of thousands of towers
> across the country with white strobe lights flashing all night long would be
> a disaster, astronomically speaking.
Steve:
You might be pleased to learn that when I was designing communications towers
for VoiceStream and Omni-Point a few years ago, several of the projects
mounted the antennas on existing structures. I have applied them to existing
water towers and have also even applied them inside of existing church
steeples!
Many of the projects I designed that required new construction placed the
antennas inside of the tops of flag poles.
http://www.valmont.com/communication/pdf/Flag_Pole_Sell_Sheet.pdf
In all cases no structures exceeded 200 feet (we made them 199 feet above
ground level maximum) so they did not require any obstruction marking or
lighting.
Valmont -- one of the major manufacturers of monopoles and other structures
and appurtenances used by the comm tower industry also makes antennas that
look like pine or palm trees. I never applied any of them in any designs but
found them quite intriguing.
http://www.valmont.com/communication/pdf/Palm_Tree_Sell_Sheet.pdf
For the record, out of respect for professional astronomers AND the landscape
-- as long as I breathe my family shall NEVER own nor shall they ever use a
cell phone unless technology allows free reign without impacting the
landscape or the view of the heavens above. I find them obnoxious and
totally unnecessary. It is amusing how so many people are totally addicted
to them.
Clear skies and good seeing,
Keep looking up!
Cliff Haas
Author: Light Pollution Awareness Website (LiPAW)
http://members.aol.com/ctstarwchr/index.htm
Fight for your right to see stars in the night!
Join IDA Today! http://www.darksky.org
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 9
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 22:48:15 EST
From: glennlaser@aol...
Subject: Re:Lighting Ordinance for Review
Cliff,
I'm not an ordinance expert but I am a lighting designer and this ordinance
would be a mess either to comply with or to enforce. (Help me out here Jim
Benya)
1. "Full cut-off" and "semi-cutoff" are terms with detailed IESNA
definitions. The definitions in this ordinance are not the same. If they like
their definitions they should at least come up with their own unique terms to
avoid confusion.
2. The required "fully shielded" fixtures are not defined. What is "fully
shielded"?
3. I assume that when it says "lighting fixtures rated at xxx lumens" it
means the lumen rating of the light source inside the fixture, not the total
lumens coming out of the fixture, but this must be clearly defined.
4. "all lighting fixtures shall be designed, located, and installed to avoid
casting direct light onto adjacent streets or properties."
This is way too vague. How do you determine whether or not the design
"avoided?"
5. 15 footcandles, 6 footcandles! Where does this come from? Is this measured
horizontally or vertically? It is stated as a maximum, which means that I
could theoretically light the whole property to 15 or 6 footcandles (although
this would be a practical impossibility). With a fairly uniform installation,
maximums of 15 fc might mean an averages of 5-10 fc. That would be
excessively high for almost any outdoor lighting application that I can
imagine. This ordinance could in fact cause a gross increase in light levels
and energy consumption by setting these high maximum limits that might then
be considered to be appropriate. Why not just use IES RP criteria? Or are
these maximums based on an attempt to interpret IES criteria and I just don't
get it?
6. "Uplighting of signs and flags is permissible as long as the light
fixtures are carefully located, aimed, and shielded so that the light is
directed solely onto the sign or flag"
Who determines what "carefully" is?? It is physically impossible to have all
of the light fall on the sign or flag, so you need to define how much spill
is permissible (and a flag is a floppy moving target).
7. "Architectural Lighting"
Same problem of max footcandles (10 fc over total facade would be very
bright) and vagueness of "carefully."
There is more I'm sure. This is just what I caught on my first pass.
Glenn Heinmiller, LC
> Message: 7
> Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 00:54:53 -0000
> From: "ctstarwchr" <ctstarwchr@aol...>
> Subject: Lighting Ordinance for Review
>
> Greetings DSLF Members:
>
> Presently I'm too busy to perform a fair and detailed review of the
> proposed code at this time. Please help out a friend from far away
> by providing your opinions and comments on the following proposed
> outdoor lighting code...
> Cliff Haas
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 10
Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2002 00:28:06 -0600
From: "Karolyn Beebe" <keedo@merr...>
Subject: Sportslighting impact photos
Milwaukee's Wehr Astronomical Society has
a photo report of Musco sports lighting and its
impacts, before and after "TLC" shielding, at:
http://www.wehrastro.org/Rampage/index.html
Karolyn Beebe
Madison WI
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 11
Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2002 02:46:52 EST
From: ctstarwchr@aol...
Subject: Re: Rubber meets the road...
In a message dated 12/06/02 6:21:46 PM Eastern Standard Time,
efitzpat@visteon... writes:
> 10. That the lights of the pump island canopy shall be recessed in such a
> way that the intensity of the illumination is decreased;
Eric:
You must be boiling about this and with our wholehearted empathy as well.
This code requirement is crystal clear that the *luminaire* must be recessed,
which means NO dropped lenses. The ballast is only PART of the luminaire and
thus does not meet the defined declaration. Any judge regardless of how
ignorant about lighting products or design would back that up in a court of
law.
> 11. That all stand-alone light standards shall be shielded from the adjacent
> properties and shall not exceed 20 ft. in height;
Oh my! That criterion requires the POLES to be shielded from adjacent
properties NOT the lights that are mounted on the poles! *Standards* are
support structures!
Hope they have some invisibility paint to cover those noncompliant poles with
so they will not be visible to any adjacent properties! :-))))))) <huge grin>
Best of luck to you on this one! I'm not sure if this can help you but my
LiteLynx List has several recessed canopy luminaires listed in the
Manufacturers' section.
http://members.aol.com/ctstarwchr/LiteLynx.htm#mfrs
As a preparation it might bode well for you to print them out and pass them
on to the Authority Having Jurisdiction and also give a copy to the Mayor or
First Selectman when requesting a compliance adjustment be made while
explaining requirements of #10 above mean the *whole fixture INCLUDING the
lens* when action is taken. See LSI and Rudd lighting for two manufacturers
who offer excellent flush and recessed lens luminaires for canopies.
Stress public safety and light trespass concerns that affect quality of life
for neighbors and all passers by, not to mention the image of the community.
Clear skies,
Cliff Haas
http://members.aol.com/ctstarwchr
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 12
Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2002 09:26:01 -0000
From: "ctstarwchr <ctstarwchr@aol...>" <ctstarwchr@aol...>
Subject: Re: Sportslighting impact photos
--- In DarkSky-list@yahoogroups..., "Karolyn Beebe" <keedo@m.....>
wrote:
> Milwaukee's Wehr Astronomical Society has
> a photo report of Musco sports lighting and its
> impacts, before and after "TLC" shielding, at:
> http://www.wehrastro.org/Rampage/index.html
Boy howdy! Those luminaires sure do kick up quite a fuss of flux
directly in view of an astronomical observatory! The URL directory
indicates the anxt of these poor astronomers as well.
FYI - the luminaires appear to be very similar to the Musco design.
They DO NOT appear to have the TLC shielding applied, however!
http://www.musco.com/permanent/tlc.html
Also, the poles are WAY TOO LOW, thus increasing the required aiming
angles needed for a good sports lighting design application! The
higher the aiming angle is the higher the glare factor always becomes
regardless of any shielding that does get applied. TLC will help to
mitigate direct uplight but will not help much with off-site glare.
Instead of using 40 foot high poles (probably decided by the Parks &
Rec's Manager) they should be using 90 foot or higher poles! Hope my
distinguished cohort from Washington will back me up on that one.
I concur with the postulate these fixtures with the higher lateral
aiming angles appear to be pitching some glare from the backs of the
reflector assemblies, too. This back glare can be mitigated to some
degree by painting the backs of the reflectors with high temperature
matte black paint. It will also benefit the luminaires by increasing
the temperature dissapation as scientifically proven by the engine
engineering knowledge going back 100 years of racing history.
For clarification, ALL of the high performance engines I ever built
for 1/4 mile dragaways and also for professional oval track racing
back in the early 1970s were painted flat black with 3M high temp
matte finish paint and they ran 20% cooler with 5% more horsepower
developed at full throttle under very grueling conditions as proven
on a dynomometer AND many wins at the track. You want the motor cool
and the exhaust system as hot as possible for the best power curve.
Consequently using a white finish retains more heat and thus reduces
horsepower unless used on exhaust systems where as much heat as can
be retained is beneficial for optimum volumetric efficiency. Ask
Reeves Calaway who consults on engine designs for Ferarri and also
for Lamborghini if you don't believe me. His shop is in Old Lyme,
Connecticut, and is the only person in the world who is licensed and
approved by GM to revamp Corvettes and sell them as new products
under his own name.
Any well stocked speed shop offers this paint and it is usually used
for exhaust headers (+/-800° F). Just ask for *header paint* when
you visit your local NAPA dealer. VHT makes a ceramic silicone hot
paint for up to, I believe, 1500° F. tolerence. It comes in white,
silver or satin finish black. Also, Eastwood has a nice high temp
coating you can apply with a foam brush. Search for "high
temperature coating"
http://www.eastwoodcompany.com
For reference on temperature related to color...
http://www.swaintech.com/header.html
I will pass this one on to my contacts at Musco and see what's up.
Stay tuned Karolyn.
Clear skies,
Cliff Haas
http://members.aol.com/ctstarwchr
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/