Multispectral LED lighting is a disaster for amateur astronomers

On Thursday, 19 November 2015 20:00:17 UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 19 Nov 2015 16:46:27 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

This crap can't be efficiently filtered like sodium and mercury. The environmentalists should take this technology back to HELL with them.

It is still arguably better technology. It is likely to be found
predominantly in much better shielded designs, and very importantly,
it is dimmable.

Living in cities is a disaster for amateur astronomers. The options
are to switch to imaging (which is very tolerant of light pollution),
or to travel a few miles outside of town to observe. That's just the
reality of the world we live in.

95% of us live in cities now. So, ideally, we shouldn't turn them into all night days. But it's forlorn hope, light pollution will keep growing. Ever see how they use the blackness of N. Korea at night in nighttime Earth shots as an indicator of backwardness and evil? They're right about N. Korea, but using those photos sets a bad precedent, "if it isn't Las Vegas, it's bad."

In article ,
RichA wrote:

This crap can't be efficiently filtered like sodium and mercury. The
environmentalists should take this technology back to HELL with them.

Somebody should tell those environmentalists that the most energy
efficient leds are those that emit only at 589 nm or 590.6 nm because
the human eye is most sensitive to those wavelengths, thus permitting
minimization of emitted energy. As restriction to those wavelengths does
not support color vision, some situations may require a different set of
wave lengths. In such situations the most energy efficient set is 436
nm, 546 nm and 700 nm. These wavelengths permit the required
illumination for color vision with minimum energy. Furthermore, for any
given color, best energy efficiency can be obtained with a monochrome
led.

Mikko

On Saturday, November 21, 2015 at 6:28:19 AM UTC-6, Mikko wrote:
In article ,
RichA wrote:

This crap can't be efficiently filtered like sodium and mercury. The
environmentalists should take this technology back to HELL with them.

Somebody should tell those environmentalists that the most energy
efficient leds are those that emit only at 589 nm or 590.6 nm because
the human eye is most sensitive to those wavelengths, thus permitting
minimization of emitted energy. As restriction to those wavelengths does
not support color vision, some situations may require a different set of
wave lengths. In such situations the most energy efficient set is 436
nm, 546 nm and 700 nm. These wavelengths permit the required
illumination for color vision with minimum energy. Furthermore, for any
given color, best energy efficiency can be obtained with a monochrome
led.

Mikko

Environmentalists already know that light pollution is bad for the environment. Not only does it disrupt deep sleep in humans, it alters the rest time for trees which must have a cycle of darkness for proper growth and health.

Uncarollo2 wrote:
On Saturday, November 21, 2015 at 6:28:19 AM UTC-6, Mikko wrote:
In article ,
RichA wrote:

This crap can't be efficiently filtered like sodium and mercury. The
environmentalists should take this technology back to HELL with them.

Somebody should tell those environmentalists that the most energy
efficient leds are those that emit only at 589 nm or 590.6 nm because
the human eye is most sensitive to those wavelengths, thus permitting
minimization of emitted energy. As restriction to those wavelengths does
not support color vision, some situations may require a different set of
wave lengths. In such situations the most energy efficient set is 436
nm, 546 nm and 700 nm. These wavelengths permit the required
illumination for color vision with minimum energy. Furthermore, for any
given color, best energy efficiency can be obtained with a monochrome
led.

Mikko

Environmentalists already know that light pollution is bad for the
environment. Not only does it disrupt deep sleep in humans, it alters the
rest time for trees which must have a cycle of darkness for proper growth and health.


This is a better option for savings.

http://www.norfolk.gov.uk/Travel_and...ting/NCC159261

Also when I was last in Prague some street lamps were interactive. You
walked in a lit zone and lamps switched on ahead of you and off behind.

On Sat, 21 Nov 2015 17:45:00 -0000 (UTC), Mike Collins
wrote:

This is a better option for savings.

http://www.norfolk.gov.uk/Travel_and...ting/NCC159261

Also when I was last in Prague some street lamps were interactive. You
walked in a lit zone and lamps switched on ahead of you and off behind.

These technologies also integrate well with LED lighting, which offers
the option not just of on/off, but can also have the brightness
managed.

In article ,
Uncarollo2 wrote:

On Saturday, November 21, 2015 at 6:28:19 AM UTC-6, Mikko wrote:
In article ,
RichA wrote:

This crap can't be efficiently filtered like sodium and mercury. The
environmentalists should take this technology back to HELL with them.

Somebody should tell those environmentalists that the most energy
efficient leds are those that emit only at 589 nm or 590.6 nm because
the human eye is most sensitive to those wavelengths, thus permitting
minimization of emitted energy. As restriction to those wavelengths does
not support color vision, some situations may require a different set of
wave lengths. In such situations the most energy efficient set is 436
nm, 546 nm and 700 nm. These wavelengths permit the required
illumination for color vision with minimum energy. Furthermore, for any
given color, best energy efficiency can be obtained with a monochrome
led.

Mikko

Environmentalists already know that light pollution is bad for the
environment. Not only does it disrupt deep sleep in humans, it alters the
rest time for trees which must have a cycle of darkness for proper growth and
health.

But they seem to know nothing about wavelengths. And mere knowing
doesn't help: we need results. It's unlikely they could turn all lights
off, but restricting wavelengths has some chance.

Mikko

On Sun, 22 Nov 2015 15:17:22 +0200, Mikko
wrote:

But they seem to know nothing about wavelengths. And mere knowing
doesn't help: we need results. It's unlikely they could turn all lights
off, but restricting wavelengths has some chance.

Probably not. People operate best using relatively white light, and
the most efficient ways of producing it are with phosphors, not by
combining narrow wavelength sources. Led lighting will almost
certainly take over outdoor lighting, and will almost certainly be
broadband.

On Saturday, November 21, 2015 at 12:47:24 PM UTC-5, Mike Collins wrote:
Uncarollo2 wrote:
On Saturday, November 21, 2015 at 6:28:19 AM UTC-6, Mikko wrote:
In article ,
RichA wrote:

This crap can't be efficiently filtered like sodium and mercury. The
environmentalists should take this technology back to HELL with them.

Somebody should tell those environmentalists that the most energy
efficient leds are those that emit only at 589 nm or 590.6 nm because
the human eye is most sensitive to those wavelengths, thus permitting
minimization of emitted energy. As restriction to those wavelengths does
not support color vision, some situations may require a different set of
wave lengths. In such situations the most energy efficient set is 436
nm, 546 nm and 700 nm. These wavelengths permit the required
illumination for color vision with minimum energy. Furthermore, for any
given color, best energy efficiency can be obtained with a monochrome
led.

Mikko

Environmentalists already know that light pollution is bad for the
environment. Not only does it disrupt deep sleep in humans, it alters the
rest time for trees which must have a cycle of darkness for proper growth and health.


This is a better option for savings.

http://www.norfolk.gov.uk/Travel_and...ting/NCC159261

Also when I was last in Prague some street lamps were interactive. You
walked in a lit zone and lamps switched on ahead of you and off behind.

There is no reason to believe that very many streetlights will be configured that way. The relatively low operating costs will tend to encourage the use of more lights generally and use of lights in places that are currently low priority WRT lighting "improvements."

On Friday, November 20, 2015 at 11:20:07 PM UTC-5, RichA wrote:

This crap can't be efficiently filtered like sodium and mercury. The environmentalists should take this technology back to HELL with them.

peterson's platitudes deleted

95% of us live in cities now. So, ideally, we shouldn't turn them into all night days. But it's forlorn hope, light pollution will keep growing. Ever see
how they use the blackness of N. Korea at night in nighttime Earth shots as an
indicator of backwardness and evil? They're right about N. Korea, but using
those photos sets a bad precedent, "if it isn't Las Vegas, it's bad."

This might be related to Jevon's Paradox, which holds that if the efficiency in using a resource is improved then we tend to use much more of that resource, rather than less. We would be using less energy per unit of light emitted, but then end up using much MORE energy ultimately, and getting buried under light pollution, seemingly everywhere, in the process.

It might seem counter-intuitive, but if we were to discourage energy efficient lights then we would end up with lights ONLY in places where there is an actual need (not desire) for them, which will probably turn out to be a surprisingly small number of places, and save quite a bit of energy.

Nobody should ever assume that the typical environmentalist is smart.

On Tue, 24 Nov 2015 07:11:27 -0800 (PST), wrote:

Nobody should ever assume that the typical environmentalist is smart.

Did they let you out for Thanksgiving, or did you break into the
nursing station and get access to a computer?