Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: Setting Up Non-Obnoxious Outdoor Lighting?
An anonymous reader writes "My neighbor recently complained about my outdoor floodlight shining in her window. While trying to address this problem, I read an essay about the tragedy of light pollution, and started to think that this is a much broader issue. With all the new lighting technologies out there, this may be the right time to rethink lighting — both indoor and outdoor; public and private. I solved my problem by replacing the floodlight with a spotlight, but I also considered installing a colored light. What are some strategies for illuminating what we need to without casting excess light everywhere and inadvertently blinding our neighbors or keeping them awake?"
What do you need a floodlight for?
IMHO there is way too much lighting - residential areas just plain don't need outdoor lighting at all; what's wrong with just carrying a torch?
http://blog.nexusuk.org
Watch out, they may respond with poisonous gas!
http://www.27bslash6.com/halogen.html
paul reinheimer
Your first thought might be "boy this would be easily solved by one massive bright light affixed somewhere high up" but you'd get better results with less neighbor-annoyance (since the light is close to the ground, your fence/the bushes in your front yard will stop it.
Sure it's more work and admittedly can be a pain to wire your yard (if you go that route, there are solar powered designs out there) but it looks a hell of a lot more attractive than floodlights.
The http://www.darksky.org/ has several resources. Better yet, become a member.
why else would you shine a floodlight into a woman's window?
The simple solution to this problem is to only use lighting when it is really needed, ie. when there is a human within range who wants to have some extra light. As soon as the human is gone, switch of the light. Use a motion sensor adjusted to human-sized objects so it does not trigger every time the neighbour's cat comes wandering by. Aim it so it does not get triggered by passers-by who have no intention of entering the designated area.
Night time is supposed to be dark. Make it so. Turn it off!
--frank[at]unternet.org
I did this in my back yard. 10 "old" 60W Edison bulbs with nice large filaments, strung up between two corners of the roof line, and a dimmer switch rated for 1000W.
It's quite nice and it's no brighter than you need it to be.
You're obviously not an astronomer. See this photo for a good example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Light_pollution_country_versus_city.png (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_pollution)
Wouldn't know, I don't have any neighbors within viewing distance. With that comes a beautiful view of the night sky. Get out of the suburbs and live a little! ;)
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
If you're an astronomer pro or amateur, or even if you merely enjoy the night sky, there most certainly is light pollution.
I've lived in both the middle of nowhere and in urban areas. The difference is staggering. (To air quality, too.)
It's all relative - replace your light with a carbon-arc searchlight, the sort they used to light up bombers during the War. After a couple of weeks of that making her bedroom look like a film set, she'll be thrilled when you put the original one back. Alternatively, put the light on a strobe circuit. Then you can claim with perfect accuracy that you have reduced the light output to half of what it was previously, and as a bonus her room will look really cool.
Surely this is the excuse you've been waiting for to buy night vision goggles?
...hundreds of them. Keep you occasionally illuminated and entertained at the same time.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Google "dramatic outdoor lighting". With a little work, and not too much expense, you can add some nice lighting to your property that will give you more security without irritating your neighbors. It will also enhance the look of your home. I wish more people would do this instead of installing glaring flood lights that come on every time the wind changes direction.
Proverbs 21:19
As a long time stargazer I can sympathize with your neighbor and its pretty much the reason I moved out to the country. Floodlights are the worst, they illuminate every which way. Good lighting uses something to shield the light from going up and sideways and focuses the beam down toward the ground. We installed pot lights outside and use colored lights in them that are softer but are still plenty bright enough to see if you go outside. Also, there is no substitute for simply turning them off when you are in the house, although that is easy for me to say where I live. In the city some see them as a deterrent to people sneaking around their yard. You could always put your lights on a motion sensor as well I guess. You can google for outdoor residential lighting that minimizes light pollution. Check out a few astronomy forums, there are plenty of militant anti-light folks there that could advise you as well.
Use lenses and reflectors to make sure the light does not go anywhere but where you want it to. Very easy to do, but not the cheapest thing to do. Most people care about cheap not correct.
Once you stop being cheap and design your outdoor lighting correctly, all these problems go away.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
if (FireFury03 == 'Brit'){
torch = 'flashlight';
};
Light fixtures that shine the light where you want it (typically down) and block it from shining where it's not needed. Many communities that have building codes are requiring these where people can still see the stars at night.
They can be used in combination with motion sensors or stand-alone.
But if you live in one of those communities where everybody has a spotlight on the front of their McMansion to show the stone façade work off to passers-by ... well, some things just can't be fixed.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Using a laser you will light exactly the point you need
Nope. Pollution is merely a contaiminant introduced into an environment that causes adverse change. Light pollution can have adverse effects on the environment beyond making astronomers cranky. There are also medical studies showing that excessive light has adverse effects on the health on both humans and other animals.
You're simply misinformed and bashing a strawman.
The real problem with outdoor lighting is that fixtures are installed incorrectly probably 99% of the time. is there ANY reason that >50% of the light escaping the fixture should be going skyward? Aim the things properly and > 90% of the light pollution problem will go away (what remains is incidental reflection from the ground or scattering by water vapor). I have been in well-lighted gated communities where careful design went into outdoor lighting, and despite the ground being well lit, you still get a great view of the sky.
I am finishing a move to Lee, NH and in my backyard I can see the Milky Way very clearly, and for the first time I can actually spot the Andromeda Galaxy clearly without resorted to averted viewing.
Near me I have two NASCAR tracks and one drag track nearby (Lee Speedway, Star Speedway, and one New England Dragway). Lee Speedway is a short jog through the woods and Friday nights, sky viewing is crap; driving by I checked out the lights, and they're aimed at about a 30 angle, throwing 70%+ of the light up to the sky. I don't mind the noise at all from the track, but the light pollution is very annoying, because when those stupid lights are on I can't see much more in the sky than I can see in Boston. The problem can be solved very easily by aiming the lights correctly. It would still create a light dome from reflected and refracted light, but it would be very minimal.
Most of the problem is due to installer incompetence. There is no reason - no need for these lights to not be aimed properly. In fact, IMHO, it should be part of NEC to require outdoor lighting to be aimed as well as wired and sealed properly.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Actually excessive light can severely interfere with both plants and animals natural cycles, damaging health and possibly even survival, especially in the long term. One of the most extreme examples are undersea oil pumping rigs - big brightly lit towers standing above a black seascape. The "pillars of light" memorial in New York had the same problem: birds apparently get disoriented by the light and "orbit" it rather than continuing on their journey. Over land it may be immediately survivable but still comes at the cost of a lot of wasted calories and time, which may reduce long-term survival. At sea it's a lot more likely to be fatal when they run out of energy with no land within reach.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
I live in a wood in Scotland three miles from the nearest streetlight, half a mile from the nearest other house. I don't have any exterior lights, because I don't need them. There's no more than two nights a year when it's murky enough - usually because of fog - to need a torch. The human eye is extremely good at adapting to low light, if you give yourself a couple of minutes to adjust. And out of doors, on planet Earth, it is literally never dark.
Starlight is a free natural service offered you by the planet which doesn't run up your energy bill or cause light pollution. Use it.
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
I use led safety glasses which are a lot less dorky looking and work pretty well.
screw that noise, build a moonlight tower and show Mother Nature who's BOSS!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Go up to an American cop, standing outside a blazing building, and tell them you were there before the fire and brought a torch to light the place up. See how well that goes for you.
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
There is no such thing as "light pollution". That's not to say that shining a floodlight through a neighbours window isn't inconsiderate, but it's not "pollution".
I don't know what your definition of pollution is, but excess outdoor lighting is ugly, it's unwanted, it can cause adverse change (everything from sleepness nights to wildlife deaths to increased levels of vandalism and other crime. And it has detrimental effects on health including a carcinogenic effect. I call it pollution, you call it light trespass or whatever you like but I suspect there is a level of excess light that you would call pollution. Can your neighbor shine floodlights into your window? How about stroboscopic flashing lights tuned to disorient and possibly trigger seizures? How about lasers? I'm not joking, given the fact that running a laser advertisement is now practically free, expect to see the night sky filled with McDonalds ads and other annoyances. If we continue to treat light pollution as a non-issue, our beautiful night sky will be replaced with pop-up ads.
The proper solution to the OP's problem is to:
1) Stop shining your lights in the direction of your neighbour 2) Use a motion-sensing light so that it at least only turns on when it needs to be
I agree with you here. This is a very good start. Ask yourself, "Is the light necessary? Is it necessary to run continuously? Would I like it if all of my neighbors had the same light? What if millions of people did exactly what you are doing, would the environmental impact be worth it? Does it provide even and useful illumination of an important area or does it provide glare and deepen shadows?"
If you do need lights, LED lights provide many advantages over older outdoor lighting technology. They are smaller than discharge tubes so can be focused better. They can be placed where you need them and they consume far less power than incandescent lights. They can be PWM dimmed, they can be cycled instantaneously (opposed to the 10-20 minute warm-up of sodium/mercury discharge lights) without significant reduction in life. Rural areas could turn off streetlights unless they detect someone (a car or a mobile phone) in the area.
Or maybe that you're going outside to light up a few fags. Usually works just as well, depending on the crowd.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
if ( Person.HasAccent(Accents.British)) {
explanation = 'plausible';
};
Just because the benefit outweighs the cost does not mean it is not pollution. It just means the pollution is potentially justified (arguments nailing down the costs and benefits aside). Putting oil slicks on ponds benefits people in some areas by killing mosquito larvae, but that doesn't mean it isn't pollution, even if the costs out weigh the befits. An emergency generator running a hospital during a power outage produces a crap ton of benefits, but that doesn't mean the exhaust is pollution free. The costs don't have to be direct human health costs either, as they can include quality of life costs and damages to wildlife (the latter may be considered part of the former...).
Also, just about every light pollution campaign I've seen isn't arguing removing lighting. It is about using lighting as needed, and not being wasteful. Light designs that seen 10-50% of the light directly into the air are not increasing security, just wasting electricity. Lighting that is uneven is wasting electricity on the excessively bright areas while not providing enough illumination in other ares. In that case, it is large detriment to security, as someone hiding in shadows when your eyes are accustomed to a brightly lit path is even better hidden than if on consistently lit, dim path.
Certainly not Rock and Roll
Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
There are a lot of resources easily found on Google that discuss the problem of light spill and how improperly directed lighting is more dangerous than no lighting (since it creates dark spots and an illusion of safety).
The most recommended solution is to use lower power lighting and more units if necessary, ensure they are equipped with shades that direct the light down and make all effort possible to keep the light from being direct at the observer's eyes as that is the biggest problem with safety (and comfort). Lights that are elevated above people are the hardest to prevent from shining in eyes as they have to be restricted quite heavily to a small spotlight beneath them to prevent blinding people on approach and created dark spots. Keep the lights low, directed down and out of eyes!
I tried to find a collection of fixture designs I saw circulated a few months back but my search-fu is weak today. It basically compared designs of common lighting figures and pointed out the problems. For instance light bollards are generally quite useful since they sit below most people's eyes but poorly designed ones allow light to shine upward and into the observer's eyes directly causing night blindness. A proper bollard uses a shade or proper design to ensure the light is directed out and down and none up toward the eyes. Keeping the lighting level low and using more bollards makes it easier for people to transition into dark areas where the bollards can't go without causing them undo strain.
An anecdotal story: where I lived outside DC there was a bike / walking trail that followed the road until a certain point where it diverged into a more scenic area. The whole path was lined with tall traffic lights that shone quite brightly but where the path diverged, the lights didn't follow. The path was equipped with either timed or motion lights (that didn't detect motion well) at a completely different intensity but still quite high and shining outward. Walking that path in late dusk was super hazardous because you couldn't see where you were going. The lights would go on and off and the shadows it cast made it impossible to see if you were going to step in a hole or if the dark areas under the groups of trees you had to walk past had anyone concealed. It was a horrible design and it rendered the path unusable.
Actually, there is considerable evidence that the safety benefits of poorly designed illumination are not real, and that badly though out illumination can actually cause more harm than good. Well lit is not the same thing as brightly lit.
Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
Of course it's pollution. The first google'd definition is: "The presence in or introduction into the environment of a substance or thing that has harmful or poisonous effects." (wikipedia's entry explicitly calls out light as a pollutant).
First, light is clearly a thing, and we've added it to an environment in which it would not have otherwise been. Second there are lots of studies that bright, constant lighting at all hours is harmful to the otherwise indigenous or natural ecosystems: light pollution has been linked to changes in melatonin production, problems with bird migration, sleep cycles in nocturnal animals, the ability of vulnerable animals to hide at night during normal foraging times. Here are a few links:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0056563
http://physics.fau.edu/observatory/lightpol-environ.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_light_pollution
There are many many more. Sure some human benefits of illumination may outweigh these, such as safety, but with more options becoming available (more efficient, dimmer, more focused lights), those benefits can be had with a lower polluting impact. It's not just a problem for astronomers, although I would like to see the stars a bit better!
Except that "light pollution" isn't pollution by definition, and the safety benefits of illumination in cities far outweighs any potential inconvenience to astronomers.
Also the benefits of electricity far outweigh the environmental damage caused by generating it; the benefits of oil far outweigh the wars required to get it; the benefits of censorship "to protect the children" far outweigh the problems... Trashing the environment and other people's freedoms with the excuse that there is some benefit that you think outweighs them is a pretty crappy thing to be doing.
Illuminating the more hazardous road junctions is certainly beneficial. Illuminating the city centres may well be a good thing (although I think we currently massively exceed the amount of illumination required - there's absolutely no need to light them up like day time, especially at times of the day when there's almost no one around.) But residential areas really don't need street lighting at all - would it kill you to take a torch when you go out at night?
Street lighting uses a huge amount of energy (8% of all energy in the US is used for street lighting); it makes the night sky invisible (this isn't just about the astronomers - everyone should have the right to enjoy the natural environment); lighting frequently decreases safety by providing deep shadow for attackers to hide in and glaring drivers; 24 hour lighting completely fucks up wildlife, and there's some evidence to show it can cause psychological problems for humans too.
http://blog.nexusuk.org
First off, practically all outdoor lighting SHOULD be low-pressure sodium. It's the most efficient you can get, it has a narrow spectrum that won't affect astronomy, and the amber tint doesn't harm your night vision nearly as much as white light.
Secondly, as other have said, aim it all properly. You want to light up your walkway, fine, focus on that area with the minimum light you need, and keep the rest dark if possible. With lights always installed above your head, omnidirectionality doesn't make any sense, as about 80% of that light will be shining off into the sky where it's useless and causes that light pollution.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
There's little evidence that lighting city streets at night keeps it safer. At best it displaces crime to places where there are no lights. At worst, it provides light so that criminals can see what they are doing, without carrying their own light to bring attention to themselves.
It's also very hard for a potential mugging victim to see outside the direct glow of the street light. Attackers can hide outside the circle of light, and wait for the victim to leave. Since the victims eyes are not dark adjusted, he's at a significant disadvantage.
The only thing we can say with confidence is that street lighting reduces the fear of crime, not crime itself. And even if it did, astronomy is more important than you think. Astronomy is one of a very few sciences that addresses the big questions, "what is the nature of the universe?".
Besides, there are much better ways we can reduce street crime.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Why not try using Claymore mines: http://www.amazon.com/Airsoft-Claymore-Wireless-Remote-Spring/dp/B0037MH646 ?
They scare the living Bejesus out of wiggin' meth-heads.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
And if I go for a walk in the forest the foreign element of my boot can have an adverse effect on the ant that I stepped on but raising it to the level of "pollution" is an exaggeration. For any sane amount of lighting the by far greatest impact on the environment is the street, not the street light or for that matter the dwelling and the outdoor light. Nocturnal creatures instantly retreat to the shadows and day creatures like ourselves "pollute" ourselves with thousands of times more artificial light at "unnatural" hours of the day with no significant ill effects to show for it.
It's fair that astronomers speak of it that way in context with astronomy, since they're so extremely sensitive to it the same way I'd also accept hyper-allergics speaking of "contaminants" in food to describe what is insignificant and imperceptible impurities for others, but outside of that you just look like a fool. In short, unless your lights are inconveniencing anybody and they're reasonably necessary for their purpose don't worry about it, you're not some kind of eco-terrorist. Or if you are, you probably are in a thousand more significant ways than that.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
If you're a criminal, there's no reason to stop shooting people. Everyone else is just going to keep shooting people.
See the problem? Light pollution is the sum of multiple people's emissions. If you reduce yours, over time, other folks will notice and reduce theirs, but even if they don't, there's still less light pollution than there would have been had you not done so.
Put another way, light pollution levels will never improve until someone gets the process started.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
In theater metal flaps called barn doors are used to control where light falls. Flood lights typically have a very wide beam pattern. You could mount a flap of metal at the top of the fixture to limit how far out the light projects. If your problem is just with a neighbor's single window then a square of opaque material mounted on a very stiff wire and then adjusted to block the light to that window would work.
The other approach is down light. Use a more focused flood light and mount it higher and aim it down so excess light does not spill into your neighbor's windows.
Personally I have a different solution. Since I want light for walking around in my yard, I use battery powered motion detector LED lights. These are small units you mount on the wall. When you walk under them they light up. The only problem is that you have to change the batteries every year or two. But this is a lot cheaper than running a flood light all night long. The units I use are Megabright MB-DLM-83, http://www.amerasiaenterprises.com./ They are nice because the LED lighting head flips down so you can mount them vertically and shine the light on the ground. I still have conventional outdoor lighting for when I am working outside at night.
You need light in your back yard to see when you're grilling something at night....
Do people on here NOT hang out in their back yards in the evenings when the weather is nice?
I'm kinda dumbfounded at the number of people that can't seem to understand why you'd want to "light up" your backyard...does no one spend time outside anymore with a grill and some cold beer and friends/family sitting around the patio table?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Rather than one big light (no matter how well targeted), consider a bunch of smaller lights all the way along the path.
There are various ranges available, most are solar powered LED, some have motion sensors built in. Here are some examples I found on Amazon
Mini "lamp-post style"
Motion sensitive, solar powered. Bigger, and you wouldn't need so many
Illuminated road/pathway studs. They look like cats-eye road studs, and would illuminate the edge of the path.
There are others that might be more appropriate for your pathway.
Hope that helps.
Paul Leader
ERROR: Null reference exception. penis is null.
You really should have checked to see if that property was populated before using it.
http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
Why would you argue the opposite. As an Australian living in the USA, speaking in Australian English just gets me blank stares. After a little while I realised that people either didn't know what I was talking about or had to think for a little bit to work it out. Making communication difficult is one of the cornerstones of impoliteness.
Is 1563649 a prime number?
I live in a 1960's ranch house. I used LED motion lights in my back yard and LED rope lights under the eaves of my house up front. The City of Las Vegas recently replaced the HPS lights with LED, so the amount of light pollution hitting my yard is now negligible. By hiding the LED's behind the eaves, they are not visible from most viewing angles. The soft yellow glow from my walls is enough to light up my yard, but not enough to attract bugs. The light washing down onto the windows of the house is enough to produce a pleasing night light inside, and the glowing walls outside make it harder to tell which rooms have lights on inside. I had to run about 150' of the lights. Very satisfied. I got them at Costco.
I also purchased LED motion lights. These were a little obnoxious and directional, so I pointed them up into the eaves to bounce and soften the light. Much less annoying for the neighbor who's bedroom window my lights hit.
Often in Error, Never in Doubt.
The horror disgust and hilarity concerning "fanny packs" are very real, but they have nothing to do with the meaning of the word "fanny."
um, living in Ireland I would have to say nobody says top of the morning to you or to be sure to be sure apart from tourists looking to get a belt. To be fair you probably will not get one but everyone in the world will be evaluating you a tosser or some kind of a tool.
In most parts of the world trying to copy accents is generally seen as being cringe worthy and annoying. Nobody in England talks like dick van dyke.
As for the other piss poor Australian accent copying, often endured by New Zealanders as nobody can tell the difference... Or the South Africans ...
The only way you should speak a second language is the way you learned it and by absorbing it through long term exposure. You know what an American trying to do a British accent sounds like? An American trying to do a British accent.
Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
Begin with passive infrared (PIR) sensors and when they is triggered, enable your narrowly-focused pulsed-infrared laser illumination system so your cameras can get a high res look at what triggered the PIR. Your image recognizer will then compare with previous captures to determine whether the movement was caused by a squirrel, blowing leaves, or a band of Ninjas. If it is Ninjas, turn on the tri-color visible laser illumination system. Use an intensity capable of seeing or burning through the black Ninja clothing so that a good color photograph can be captured and sent to your local rent-a-cop or SWAT team. Optional spectrometer will log the absorption lines of the vaporized Ninja clothing to see if they show any traces of drugs or explosives. Your visible-light lasers will be polarized and pulsed in a pseudo-random NRZ pattern so that the synchronized Kerr cells in your own bedroom window can keep out the glare while allowing you to enjoy the beauty of a starry night sky. The visible laser wavelengths will be selected so that a multi-layer interference filter can be installed on each of your neighbor's windows in order to block the light.
You're going to make me explain the joke, aren't you?
In British English a "fag" is a cigarette. "Going out to light up a fag" is the equivalent of saying "Going out for a smoke".
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.