Pet hate: Why do people aim the centre of the beam to the far edge of their
property? This means that 50% of the light will be wasted by going beyond
or above the boundary.

Aim the centre of the "beam" to a point half way between lamp and boundary
and less light will be wasted and neighbours will be less ****ed off.

On Sat, 05 Jan 2019 13:04:28 +0000, DerbyBorn
wrote:

Pet hate: Why do people aim the centre of the beam to the far edge of
their property? This means that 50% of the light will be wasted by going
beyond or above the boundary.

Aim the centre of the "beam" to a point half way between lamp and
boundary and less light will be wasted and neighbours will be less
****ed off.

AOL

Avpx


--
"He's a man of few words, and he doesn't know what either of them mean,"
people said, but not when he was within hearing.
(The Carpet People)
13:30:01 up 17 days, 42 min, 9 users, load average: 1.08, 2.25, 2.77

Or use a simple baffle plate.
Does seem strange for folk to not get this. I remember somebody having an
accident with a car when crossing a road near a floodlight on the side of a
house as the dazzle meant he did not see the cyclist at all, and the
cyclist was distracted by the light. I'm aft
raid folk do not think things through very much.
Brian

--
----- --
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"DerbyBorn" wrote in message
2.222...
Pet hate: Why do people aim the centre of the beam to the far edge of
their
property? This means that 50% of the light will be wasted by going beyond
or above the boundary.

Aim the centre of the "beam" to a point half way between lamp and boundary
and less light will be wasted and neighbours will be less ****ed off.

In article 2,
DerbyBorn wrote:

Pet hate: Why do people aim the centre of the beam to the far edge of their
property? This means that 50% of the light will be wasted by going beyond
or above the boundary.

Aim the centre of the "beam" to a point half way between lamp and boundary
and less light will be wasted and neighbours will be less ****ed off.

WIth you all the way. Two comments:

(1) Many (most?) "people" doing the aiming are professional
electricians, engaged to do the work. Very, very obviously,
manufacturers' instructions and recommendations do not mention annoying
the neighbours, or indeed causing a hazard.

(2) Why the F**K are these things so powerful?!?! There is absolutely
no need to try and recreate daylight: at night, you need only 100 watts
at most, to provide useful light in the back yard, or illumination on
the front drive, or to deter bad people. It seems that most people
think that the more powerful the floodlight, the more intimidation it
will deliver. Ignorant sods :-(

High time for legislation on this matter.

John

On Sat, 05 Jan 2019 13:04:28 GMT, DerbyBorn wrote:

Pet hate: Why do people aim the centre of the beam to the far edge of
their property? This means that 50% of the light will be wasted by going
beyond or above the boundary.

Or in the case of a local farm 3/4 mile away and nearly 300' lower
have their (high pressure sodium) floods aimed such that there is
enough light with us to read by and cast shadows!

Aim the centre of the "beam" to a point half way between lamp and
boundary and less light will be wasted and neighbours will be less
****ed off.

Quite. We are lucky to have pretty dark skies, on a clear night and
not even fully dark adapted eyes the Milky Way is a glorious band
across the sky. But you have to have your back to that farms floods
or get a bit of building between you and them.

LED flood lights are an awful design with a "beam" pretty much a
hemisphere and no reflector/hood to give those who want to restrict
where the light goes a chance to do so. Driving at night can now be
hazardous due to the glare/dazzle and confusing as the colour
temperature matches that of some headlights, so is that a car coming
the other way or not?

And it's not just cheap domestic luminaires that squirt the light out
sideways. GlaxoSmithKline at Barnard Castle have installed new LED
lamp standards for their carpark. These produce distracting glare and
highlights when approaching Barney along the B6278 at about 3 miles
and 400' *above* the level of the carpark.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Sat, 05 Jan 2019 18:16:01 +0000, Another John wrote:

(2) Why the F**K are these things so powerful?!?! There is absolutely
no need to try and recreate daylight: at night, you need only 100 watts
at most, to provide useful light in the back yard, or illumination on
the front drive, or to deter bad people. It seems that most people
think that the more powerful the floodlight, the more intimidation it
will deliver. Ignorant sods :-(

Yep, and all a bright does is make the shadows darker and easier for
bad people to hide in.

High time for legislation on this matter.

Agreed, Dark Skies For All. Legislate that no luminare intended for
external use, be that a lamp post, flood light or decorative fitting
or WHY can emit any light above 30 degrees below a horizontal plane
passing through the light source.

Building flood lights? I question the need to routinely flood light a
building in the first place. *IF* that can be justfied, legislate
that no light is emitted from the fitting below 60 degrees above the
horizontal plane through the light source and other measures are in
place to restrict the light to the structure.

--
Cheers
Dave.

"Dave Liquorice" Wrote in message:
On Sat, 05 Jan 2019 13:04:28 GMT, DerbyBorn wrote:

Pet hate: Why do people aim the centre of the beam to the far edge of
their property? This means that 50% of the light will be wasted by going
beyond or above the boundary.

Or in the case of a local farm 3/4 mile away and nearly 300' lower
have their (high pressure sodium) floods aimed such that there is
enough light with us to read by and cast shadows!

Aim the centre of the "beam" to a point half way between lamp and
boundary and less light will be wasted and neighbours will be less
****ed off.

Quite. We are lucky to have pretty dark skies, on a clear night and
not even fully dark adapted eyes the Milky Way is a glorious band
across the sky. But you have to have your back to that farms floods
or get a bit of building between you and them.

LED flood lights are an awful design with a "beam" pretty much a
hemisphere and no reflector/hood to give those who want to restrict
where the light goes a chance to do so. Driving at night can now be
hazardous due to the glare/dazzle and confusing as the colour
temperature matches that of some headlights, so is that a car coming
the other way or not?

And it's not just cheap domestic luminaires that squirt the light out
sideways. GlaxoSmithKline at Barnard Castle have installed new LED
lamp standards for their carpark. These produce distracting glare and
highlights when approaching Barney along the B6278 at about 3 miles
and 400' *above* the level of the carpark.


Cracking road (in the day light & summer!)

Used to regularly head up to around Allendale Town for boozy
weekend dos, & I hope I'll never forget blasting to & from in a
company V6 petrol estate - that used to sing at full chat when
all the cams etc came in :-) invariably just me on the road
...

/Reminisce mode :-)
--
Jim K


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

On Saturday, 5 January 2019 21:38:44 UTC, Dave Liquorice wrote:

Agreed, Dark Skies For All. Legislate that no luminare intended for
external use, be that a lamp post, flood light or decorative fitting
or WHY can emit any light above 30 degrees below a horizontal plane
passing through the light source.

What a stupid proposed law.

On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 15:49:54 -0800 (PST), wrote:

Agreed, Dark Skies For All. Legislate that no luminare intended
for
external use, be that a lamp post, flood light or decorative
fitting
or WHY can emit any light above 30 degrees below a horizontal
plane
passing through the light source.

What a stupid proposed law.

Stupid comment.

Present reasoned counter point(s).

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 06/01/2019 00:59, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 15:49:54 -0800 (PST), wrote:

Agreed, Dark Skies For All. Legislate that no luminare intended
for
external use, be that a lamp post, flood light or decorative
fitting
or WHY can emit any light above 30 degrees below a horizontal
plane
passing through the light source.

What a stupid proposed law.

Stupid comment.

Present reasoned counter point(s).


Impossible to enforce.
Guaranteed solution is to blind everyone at birth.

On Sunday, 6 January 2019 00:59:41 UTC, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 15:49:54 -0800 (PST), tabbypurr wrote:

Agreed, Dark Skies For All. Legislate that no luminare intended
for
external use, be that a lamp post, flood light or decorative
fitting
or WHY can emit any light above 30 degrees below a horizontal
plane
passing through the light source.

What a stupid proposed law.

Stupid comment.

Present reasoned counter point(s).

Very well, I thought they would be obvious.

The problem is not light above 30 degrees down, it's substantial amounts of light well above horizontal. So your chosen angle is way off, and would crimialise a great range of useful fittings. It would also require a much greater number of fittings to cover a give area, another waste of money.

All lights produce at least some light out at unintended angles, through eg vent holes, prism effects, reflection off the fitting etc. Requiring them all to give zero at these angles could only be achieved by using vanta black, an expensive and pointless process, and by blocking vents, requiring larger more costly fittings. Money wasted all round.

And some lights emit all over the place uncontrolled, but are not a problem in any way. Festive LED decorations are a good example. Outlawing them is senseless.

The proposal clearly was not thought through.


NT

In article ,
wrote:
On Sunday, 6 January 2019 00:59:41 UTC, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 15:49:54 -0800 (PST), tabbypurr wrote:

Agreed, Dark Skies For All. Legislate that no luminare intended
for
external use, be that a lamp post, flood light or decorative
fitting
or WHY can emit any light above 30 degrees below a horizontal
plane
passing through the light source.

What a stupid proposed law.

Stupid comment.

Present reasoned counter point(s).

Very well, I thought they would be obvious.

The problem is not light above 30 degrees down, it's substantial amounts
of light well above horizontal. So your chosen angle is way off, and
would crimialise a great range of useful fittings. It would also require
a much greater number of fittings to cover a give area, another waste of
money.

All lights produce at least some light out at unintended angles,

Theatre lights don't, but they do cost a bit more than your average
domestic fitting

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

In article ,
wrote:

On Sunday, 6 January 2019 00:59:41 UTC, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 15:49:54 -0800 (PST), tabbypurr wrote:

Agreed, Dark Skies For All. Legislate that no luminare intended
for
external use, be that a lamp post, flood light or decorative
fitting
or WHY can emit any light above 30 degrees below a horizontal
plane
passing through the light source.

What a stupid proposed law.

Stupid comment.

Present reasoned counter point(s).

Very well, I thought they would be obvious.

The problem is not light above 30 degrees down, it's substantial amounts of
light well above horizontal. So your chosen angle is way off, and would
crimialise a great range of useful fittings. It would also require a much
greater number of fittings to cover a give area, another waste of money.

All lights produce at least some light out at unintended angles, through eg
vent holes, prism effects, reflection off the fitting etc. Requiring them all
to give zero at these angles could only be achieved by using vanta black, an
expensive and pointless process, and by blocking vents, requiring larger more
costly fittings. Money wasted all round.

And some lights emit all over the place uncontrolled, but are not a problem
in any way. Festive LED decorations are a good example. Outlawing them is
senseless.

The proposal clearly was not thought through.

That's exactly why there is a Parliament: a proposal is made, and then
it's debated, calmly and rationally, from both sides, by expertly
informed MPs. Then Parliament makes up its mind, and the majority passes
the law.

You can be forgiven for forgetting these basic principles, and simply
answering as you did in your first post: for the last 2-3 years, you
haven't had a very good example of debate, coming from Down There by the
Thames.

John

On Sunday, 6 January 2019 19:46:43 UTC, charles wrote:
In article ,
tabbypurr wrote:
On Sunday, 6 January 2019 00:59:41 UTC, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 15:49:54 -0800 (PST), tabbypurr wrote:

Agreed, Dark Skies For All. Legislate that no luminare intended
for
external use, be that a lamp post, flood light or decorative
fitting
or WHY can emit any light above 30 degrees below a horizontal
plane
passing through the light source.

What a stupid proposed law.

Stupid comment.

Present reasoned counter point(s).

Very well, I thought they would be obvious.

The problem is not light above 30 degrees down, it's substantial amounts
of light well above horizontal. So your chosen angle is way off, and
would crimialise a great range of useful fittings. It would also require
a much greater number of fittings to cover a give area, another waste of
money.

All lights produce at least some light out at unintended angles,

Theatre lights don't, but they do cost a bit more than your average
domestic fitting

of course they do. Light bounces off the filter frame & some gets out the rear vents. They also aren't suited to exterior lighting use.


NT

On Sunday, 6 January 2019 21:51:53 UTC, Another John wrote:
In article ,
tabbypurr wrote:
On Sunday, 6 January 2019 00:59:41 UTC, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 15:49:54 -0800 (PST), tabbypurr wrote:

Agreed, Dark Skies For All. Legislate that no luminare intended
for
external use, be that a lamp post, flood light or decorative
fitting
or WHY can emit any light above 30 degrees below a horizontal
plane
passing through the light source.

What a stupid proposed law.

Stupid comment.

Present reasoned counter point(s).

Very well, I thought they would be obvious.

The problem is not light above 30 degrees down, it's substantial amounts of
light well above horizontal. So your chosen angle is way off, and would
crimialise a great range of useful fittings. It would also require a much
greater number of fittings to cover a give area, another waste of money.

All lights produce at least some light out at unintended angles, through eg
vent holes, prism effects, reflection off the fitting etc. Requiring them all
to give zero at these angles could only be achieved by using vanta black, an
expensive and pointless process, and by blocking vents, requiring larger more
costly fittings. Money wasted all round.

And some lights emit all over the place uncontrolled, but are not a problem
in any way. Festive LED decorations are a good example. Outlawing them is
senseless.

The proposal clearly was not thought through.

That's exactly why there is a Parliament: a proposal is made, and then
it's debated, calmly and rationally, from both sides, by expertly
informed MPs.

another optimist. Maybe it happens on a good day. IRL MPs are often not as well informed as would be a good thing.

Law is too often made by people with some but not enough knowledge. Part P anyone? HIPs? Compulsory overpriced incompatible CFL fittings? Or indeed much of modern BR.


NT

On 05/01/2019 21:38, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sat, 05 Jan 2019 18:16:01 +0000, Another John wrote:

(2) Why the F**K are these things so powerful?!?! There is absolutely
no need to try and recreate daylight: at night, you need only 100 watts
at most, to provide useful light in the back yard, or illumination on
the front drive, or to deter bad people. It seems that most people
think that the more powerful the floodlight, the more intimidation it
will deliver. Ignorant sods :-(

Yep, and all a bright does is make the shadows darker and easier for
bad people to hide in.

I used to have a fairly high powered one on the front of my garage (now
replaced with an LED one) - partly because we need good lighting from
the garage (at the back of the back garden), right along the garden and
along the side of the house, to allow for getting to and from the garage
without tripping over various low visibility hazards. Mainly though,
because it can be switched to permanently on and used as a work light
for work in front of the garage (either on one of our cars or when
cutting materials for DIY) and due to the door positions, there isn't a
suitable position for two separate lights, so one has to serve both
purposes.


High time for legislation on this matter.

Agreed, Dark Skies For All. Legislate that no luminare intended for
external use, be that a lamp post, flood light or decorative fitting
or WHY can emit any light above 30 degrees below a horizontal plane
passing through the light source.

That would leave the whole side of my house, including the back door in
darkness! I need less than 9° from the horizontal to do that.

Light is however blocked from reaching the front by the high, wooden
gates that are only inches lower than the light fitting.

SteveW

In article ,
wrote:
On Sunday, 6 January 2019 19:46:43 UTC, charles wrote:
In article ,
tabbypurr wrote:
On Sunday, 6 January 2019 00:59:41 UTC, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 15:49:54 -0800 (PST), tabbypurr wrote:

Agreed, Dark Skies For All. Legislate that no luminare intended
for
external use, be that a lamp post, flood light or decorative
fitting
or WHY can emit any light above 30 degrees below a horizontal
plane
passing through the light source.

What a stupid proposed law.

Stupid comment.

Present reasoned counter point(s).

Very well, I thought they would be obvious.

The problem is not light above 30 degrees down, it's substantial
amounts of light well above horizontal. So your chosen angle is way
off, and would crimialise a great range of useful fittings. It would
also require a much greater number of fittings to cover a give area,
another waste of money.

All lights produce at least some light out at unintended angles,

Theatre lights don't, but they do cost a bit more than your average
domestic fitting

of course they do. Light bounces off the filter frame & some gets out the
rear vents. They also aren't suited to exterior lighting use.


Some are specifically designed for outdoor use.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle