whady'all think o my idear

i wrote this a while ago, and can see some tiny flaws in it that could be worked out (like the fact mirrors and mylar only refelct 99 percent of the light that hits them so for every refraction your losing 1 percent reverse compounded of lumen potential.
any one else see any flaws?
do you think it could work/will ever catch on?

(my energy saving idea)

a lighting system that saves energy by eliminating the need for multiple sources of light, reducing energy consumption. a single 60 watt incandescent produces only between 600-800 lumens of light. a 23 watt compact flouro can produces much more light, ranging between 1000-1500 lumens, tiwce the effecinecy for a little over a third of the energy used.
a single 150 watt high pressure sodium light produces 16,000 lumens....,..which means 60 watts of incan produces merely 600 lumens, when 60 watts of hps produces over ten times that amount at 6800 lumens. this has amazing energy effeciciency capacity, but is relatively untapped, why? because no one has made a delivery system that can seperate the light for different rooms. if you only need 1000 lumens per room in your house, why would you get a 16000 lumens producing light for that room?

back in the olden days you needed multiple fireplaces to heat a house..then the concept of central heat came about. in the heat of summer people had to sit around an air conditioner to get cool, UNTILL the invention of central air....now adays people need independant sources of light for each room, when light should be centralised at considerable savings and effeciency.

imagine a room where a light sits sorounded by mirrors, with mirror(or mylar) lined ducting going to each room, much like central heating from a furnace. how much light disperesed into each room could easily be controlled manually, or by computer interface.

not only is it a good idea for energy conservation, but it also allows for light concentration where heat and limited space would be of concern. say a comercial indoor tomatoe farmer wanted a way to increase light on his plants without increasing the heat in his grow room, or because of space limitations can't fit another light in. the light could be placed outside the room and directed at the plants via the mirrored delivery system.

( a similar system could easily be adjusted for use of the sun via a sun roof during daytime hours providing a HUGE increase in energy svings)

 

they do have light tubes on the market mostly used for commerial space right now, uses one light reflected down a plasic tube.

also some of the proto type houses use one central light witch is piped thru the house by fiber optics in fact the expensive cars are now using it for there lighting needs.

 

:O
those bastards stole my idear!!!
oh well, im glad someone is using it. is there considerable energy consumption reduction?

 

That's an interesting idea, sound like it wouldn't be too improbable to come about...

 

yeh those bastards!!!!!!!!!

they use special high-intensity lights and the new sulphur light lights which mean better energy consumptions

also the heat from the lights can be controlled, witch inproves air conditioning.

though the products have been around for sometime they are not being used enough and the patents will limit competion for now.

 

How would you set up the mirrors to route the light? You'd need so many ducts which would take up a lot of space compared to much simpler electrical wiring...and all those finely placed mirrors; would the settling and shifting of the house affect their precise orientations? And would this be inexpensive enough to do it, compared to the benefit it would previde? Seems like fiber optics might be easier to use, although they'd be very expensive. Anyways, for an average family household, very little energy is spent on lighting; the major source is appliances. This might work in large office buildings, though.

I'd say cost is the most major issue, followed by the complexity of the idea. Maybe you already have this worked out, if so, let us know. Seems like the idea could have potential tho

I say, if you want light, go outside. It's free and the air is better anyways.

 

thank god for our capitalistic patenting societty that renders new technology inaccesable to the masses, and helps drive up the cost of prescription medicines, and delays beneficial reductions to evironmental destruction.

 

well it would be more a tube of solid mirroring than percisely placed individual mirrors. so natural shifting and settling of the house/building shouldnt cause any problems...maybe a few extra refractions of the light but nothing noticeable

it could be made very inexpensive with the use of mylar and mass produced tubes, but i agree not much energy is used on lighting. but let me have a check of my house....well we have 45 incan lights in the house plus 12 40 watt flouro tubes. the lights are on almost all night...but well say only 1/3 rd of them are on for....6 hours of the night. i'll round that down to 13 60 watt incans and your using 780 watts per hour, which is 4680 watts, for 7800 lumens. alternatively you could use the hps at 150 watts per hour (900 watts) to produce 16,000 lumens (minus the light lost in transition)

(for those of you who aren't aware a lumen is the amount of light a candle produces on the surface of a wooden board 1ft X 1ft, exactly 1 foot away from the candle, and is the unit used in measuring the amount of light)

yes cost is always the number one downfall, but if it catches on with big business (Those who stand the most to gain) then it can be made much cheaper for the general public. hopefully with that specially designed light whispers mentioned there can be an ever larger margin for energy savings and light produced.

heh and i agree, it would be better to use natural light, which this system would be fully adaptable for. normally you have some rooms that need light even in the day, due to lack of properly placed or large enough windows, and you could use the suns light to illuminate the basement which has an energy cost of zero, and no pollution.

 

Actualy lighting accounts for a large amount of power usage.

With more effient light systems and they start piping more good old daylight into the buildings energy consumption could be reduced.

By the looks of even a small reduction in energy consumption could save large amounts of oil and natural gas usage.



http://www.ecmweb.com/news/electric_department_energy_releases/

 

hmm, interesting link, i liked this part the best:
"Incandescent lamps were the highest energy user." because the use of incan is exactly what im trying to eliminate.

to anyone who doenst want to wait for a central light delivery system: don't buy incandescent lighting, buy compact flouro energy saver bulbs. they fit in the same socket, cost twice as much but last ten times longer, use 1/4 of the energy, and produce way more light so you need less per room.

i think the worst on energy is...quartz? bulbs...i dunno something like that. i think they use more energy and produce even less light than incans but aren't used nearly as frequently.

 

Sorry my knowledge on optics isn't really up to snuff. How do you make a tube of solid mirror? Is it like fiber optics, basically? And how do you collect the light? How is it distributed at the output end?

Here are some thoughts about what's been discussed

First, why are so many of your lights on all the time? If everyone's sleeping, why do you need them on? And, damn, you have like 2x as many lightbulbs as my house does.

Second, businesses waste a lot of energy and money by leaving their lights on all the time, to say nothing of your point on how inefficiently lit they are in the first place. We need to work on a.) getting them to turn lights off when not in use and b.) possibly implement some sort of "central lighting system" like yours...it's an interesting idea, especially the use of sunlight to do this. I like that idea the best.

Third, are there flourescent lights that don't give off that really unpleasant light? Everytime I go to work, I literally start feeling tired and shitty after a few minutes because of the lighting, and I don't want that effect in my house too.

 

I thought they spoke better (or clearer - not necessarily better) english up north? What's this Y'all stuff? You sound like a southerner!

 

We have rednecks up here too, man.

 

you know that coloured metalic christmas wrapping paper thats like a milimeter thick? thats mylar, when its not coloured it reflects 99 percent of light that hits it, which is better than silvered mirrors. take a standard ducting vent before the metal is bent into its circular shape and line the inside with mylar reflective side up. bend the ducting so its circular and you've got reflective tubing. thats probably the simplest part of the whole set up.

in winter its dark at about 5 where i live, which means the lights need to come on about 4 to keep dusks darkness at bay. my family doenst go to bed till about 10 or 11 thats 6-7 hours, plus im up all hours of the night. there are 6 people in my family so our energy needs are higher and our house is bigger thus e have more lights, so really this system would be beter designed for living situations like mine than say a single child family.

heh, yes the main problem isnt so much the delivery of the light but how much is wasted to advertise their stores all through the night and deter robbers. we do need to get people to turn off more lights as a first priority. and i agree the sun is the best source, its too bad we can't store the suns light AS light. we can convert it to energy but in the conversion process we lose almost all of its potential. if we could keep the light in a box somehow(which tehoreticly ISN'T impossible.)....we would be much better off. the problem with that is the speed at which light travels..if for every one refraction the light makes you lose 1 percent of the intensity, if you store the light in any given reflective space for up to one second you've already lost all visible light.....now if we could somehow slow the speed of light....*fades off into mad scientist world*

yes and no. the flouro's you probably have at your work are cold white lights. they give off a sterilized feel and produce light mainly in the blue and green spectrum...there is another kind of flouro, and thats warm white lights, which produce a much higher red and yellow spectrum light. the optimal conditions would probably be 2/3rds cold white, and 1/3 wram white to produce a more effective full spectrum lighting (like the sun gives off) but thats usually not the case of how most employers set it up...
this also brings into play the fact that high pressure sodium lights (the kind i had initially suggested be used for the light delivery system) produce light very high in the yellow spectrum, and there have been numerous studies proving that lighting greatly effects workers moods and productivity. i don't know what kind of light the new light whispers was talking about produces, but i do know that if places like warehouses and office buildings were to use natural sunlight as opposed to what ever they are using, it would greatly increase workers moods and productivity.

 

Third, are there flourescent lights that don't give off that really unpleasant light? Everytime I go to work, I literally start feeling tired and shitty after a few minutes because of the lighting, and I don't want that effect in my house too.

Yes there are, it has to do with the frequency they operate on, and cheap ballasts have a very low frequency, not quite high enough for our eyes to not notice. Many lighting stores offer the better fixtures and tubes. Also, there are full spectrum flourescents that mimic the color of sunlight. They are great.

 

not only is it a good idea for energy conservation, but it also allows for light concentration where heat and limited space would be of concern. say a comercial indoor tomatoe farmer wanted a way to increase light on his plants without increasing the heat in his grow room, or because of space limitations can't fit another light in. the light could be placed outside the room and directed at the plants via the mirrored delivery system.

( a similar system could easily be adjusted for use of the sun via a sun roof during daytime hours providing a HUGE increase in energy svings)

But will the 'tomatoes' get the same benefits as they would if you used full spectrum flourescents?
I like your concept, and have seen a similar one at Expo 86 in Vancouver. The building has a number of hollow, translucent, three-sided columns that go from the roof through to the basement, and they are lined on the inside with tiny prisms. It was not bright light, but your eyes got used to it, and you could get them in colours too.

 

.....now if we could somehow slow the speed of light....*fades off into mad scientist world*
Scientists have slowed light right down to a crawl by using some type of very thick liquid. Water slows light down.

 

*raises one eyebrow* so you're saying the fundemental basis that light travels at a constant speed isnt true?
hmmm.....imagine delayed sunlight.....have a sun roof so light can get through in the day, store light in a liquid at a seperate location, then spread that liquid out so as the light passes through it becomes as bright as day.......interesting. i imagine the speed of light returns to normal after its passed through the liquid?

 

The scientists used liquid helium kept at a temperate a few degrees above absolute zero in a high vacuum chamber. Not very practical for home use.

 

http://www.mass.gov/dep/files/lamps.htm

Funny how the same people who bitch about the mercury in the air support the use of fluorescent lights. I know everybody who uses them recycles them properly though, right?