City Centre lighting - Ricahrdson Candles under threat, will the AJC see the light?
J
Cam.transport)
Has a number of interesting items, but the report on city centre
lighting caught my eye.
It seems clear that the AJC is being gradually 'guided' into the
acceptance of wholesale replacement of the long standing city centre
Richardson Candle lighting. This is apparently because of the present
relative low lighting levels, and certain imperatives to save energy
and to reduce skyward light emissions.
Naturally a consultants report said that light levels were presently
low, and a separate government report stated that high light levels
reduced the fear of crime. Note fear of crime, not necessarily reduce
crime. As the report mentions extraordinary levels of tooling cost to
make a custom light design, (150k) and it seems clear that the
'engineers' have ruled out refurbishment and upgrading of the existing
Richardson Candles, it looks like we will see most if not all of them
disappear to be replaced with something 'contemporary'.
I'm told that many of the lights are operating sub-optimally, which
would explain the perceived low light levels. I would suggest that a
better way to proceed would be to assess the costs of refurbishing the
classic lights, updating the luminaires with modern higher efficiency
tubes and electronic high frequency ballasts. As the complaints have
been about low street lighting levels, I'm surprised that sky glow is
a major problem.
Many of the original number of lights have been removed due to vehicle
damage. If any are to be replaced then unless old ones can be found,
new ones would have to be made. That is more of a challenge. I hope
that some of you here will support the retention of existing lighting
units, and the possible replacement of their fallen comrades if this
can be done.
John
J
John
Espen Koht
<8e0fcaf9-26fd-4245...@1g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
J <john....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> I'm told that many of the lights are operating sub-optimally, which
> would explain the perceived low light levels. I would suggest that a
> better way to proceed would be to assess the costs of refurbishing the
> classic lights, updating the luminaires with modern higher efficiency
> tubes and electronic high frequency ballasts. As the complaints have
> been about low street lighting levels, I'm surprised that sky glow is
> a major problem.
As much as I would like to sympathise with your cause, I doubt any
refurbishing or modernisation of these lights can overcome the fact that
their core design is fundamentally flawed. I think this photo, randomly
retrieved on the Internet, illustrate the problems quite succinctly:
<http://www.geocities.com/turbo123498/cambridgeshire/cambridge/trinitystr
eetnov2003.jpg>
Rather than expending energy trying to fix the unfixable, I would
suggest campaigning for some historically appropriate light fixtures
which can actually be made to work.
Duncan Wood
Having tried walking through the bits of town "lit" by them with partially
sighted people the sooner they're replaced by something less useless the
better. What's good about them?
Colin Rosenstiel
eh...@cam.ac.uk (Espen Koht) wrote:
> In article
> <8e0fcaf9-26fd-4245...@1g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
> J <john....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm told that many of the lights are operating sub-optimally, which
> > would explain the perceived low light levels. I would suggest that a
> > better way to proceed would be to assess the costs of refurbishing
the
> > classic lights, updating the luminaires with modern higher efficiency
> > tubes and electronic high frequency ballasts. As the complaints have
> > been about low street lighting levels, I'm surprised that sky glow
is
> > a major problem.
I don't know if this has been explored in a saga that has run for
decades. I wasn't involved at first but as some of the city's leading
environmental guardians who were defending the standard of lighting in
this area are now dead I find myself having to be involved.
> As much as I would like to sympathise with your cause, I doubt any
> refurbishing or modernisation of these lights can overcome the fact
> that their core design is fundamentally flawed. I think this photo,
> randomly retrieved on the Internet, illustrate the problems quite
> succinctly:
>
<http://www.geocities.com/turbo123498/cambridgeshire/cambridge/trinitystre
etnov2003.jpg>
Perhaps you could explain what point you think that photo illustrates
(genuine question)? To me it shows 6 Richardson's Candles looking better
maintained than usual.
> Rather than expending energy trying to fix the unfixable, I would
> suggest campaigning for some historically appropriate light
> fixtures which can actually be made to work.
There are no historically appropriate light fixtures for these streets.
They have had modern style lighting for well over 50 years. I see no
reason why that should change.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Dan Sheppard
> What's good about them?
They break a lot, and then you can see the stars.
Dan.
zulu
"Espen Koht" <eh...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:ehk20-DB8538....@nntp-serv.cam.ac.uk...
> In article
> <8e0fcaf9-26fd-4245...@1g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
> J <john....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>
> Rather than expending energy trying to fix the unfixable, I would
> suggest campaigning for some historically appropriate light fixtures
> which can actually be made to work.
Gas lamps!
Bring back the lamplighters... :-)
--
ŚzuluŚ
Paul Oldham
> "Espen Koht" <eh...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:ehk20-DB8538....@nntp-serv.cam.ac.uk...
>
>> Rather than expending energy trying to fix the unfixable, I would
>> suggest campaigning for some historically appropriate light fixtures
>> which can actually be made to work.
>
> Gas lamps!
Malvern still had gas lamps the last time I was that way (a few years
ago now but not that long) and very nice they were too. Probably not
very "green" mind you.
> Bring back the lamplighters... :-)
<grin> pilot lights dear boy.
--
Paul Oldham ----------> http://the-hug.org/paul
Milton villager ------> http://www.miltonvillage.org.uk/
and FAQ wiki owner ---> http://cam.misc.org.uk
"I started out with nothing & still have most of it left"
camjay
> "Espen Koht" <eh...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:ehk20-DB8538....@nntp-serv.cam.ac.uk...
>
> > In article
> > J <john.law...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> >snip>>
>
> > Rather than expending energy trying to fix the unfixable, I would
> > suggest campaigning for some historically appropriate light fixtures
> > which can actually be made to work.
>
> Gas lamps!
>
> Bring back the lamplighters... :-)
>
Barrow road off Trumpington road still has working gas lamps
Espen Koht
rosen...@cix.co.uk (Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:
> > As much as I would like to sympathise with your cause, I doubt any
> > refurbishing or modernisation of these lights can overcome the fact
> > that their core design is fundamentally flawed. I think this photo,
> > randomly retrieved on the Internet, illustrate the problems quite
> > succinctly:
> >
> <http://www.geocities.com/turbo123498/cambridgeshire/cambridge/trinitystre
> etnov2003.jpg>
>
> Perhaps you could explain what point you think that photo illustrates
> (genuine question)? To me it shows 6 Richardson's Candles looking better
> maintained than usual.
It does indeed show those 6 Richardson's Candles quite clearly. It also
shows that you can't see much on the street level around them apart from
where secondary lighting is providing illumination. They have a
decorative function I guess, and do illuminate the first floor of
several buildings quite nicely (which must be popular with those living
with the candles right outside their bedroom windows).
> There are no historically appropriate light fixtures for these streets.
> They have had modern style lighting for well over 50 years. I see no
> reason why that should change.
Sorry, poor choice of words. 'Historically' was intended in the soft
sense of sensitive to the architecture of the area.
Fevric J Glandules
> Naturally a consultants report said that light levels were presently
> low, and a separate government report stated that high light levels
> reduced the fear of crime. Note fear of crime,
Yes, and I don't understand why the more rational members of society
should have to subsidise the less rational.
When they've done reducing risk, and then fear of risk, what next?
On which:
http://freerangekids.wordpress.com/
--
One way ticket from Mornington Crescent to Tannhauser Gate please.
Chris Shore
"camjay" <cam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f36296e9-7eab-4bba...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> Barrow road off Trumpington road still has working gas lamps
There are also still a couple on Little St Mary's Lane.
Chrsi
Theo Markettos
> It does indeed show those 6 Richardson's Candles quite clearly. It also
> shows that you can't see much on the street level around them apart from
> where secondary lighting is providing illumination.
Bear in mind that cameras don't really assess lighting too well - they set
the exposure level based at looking directly at the light sources, while
people very rarely stare directly at them. We don't know the exposure
settings of the picture.
An example: if you take a picture upwards towards a football pitch's
floodlights, you can only see the floodlights because they're so bright.
But at pitch level there's plenty of light.
> They have a decorative function I guess, and do illuminate the first floor
> of several buildings quite nicely (which must be popular with those living
> with the candles right outside their bedroom windows).
Having had a friend living in one of those rooms (think it was above the
doctors' surgery, can't remember if it was directly next to a candle or not)
it wasn't too bad. What was much worse was the flashing Christmas lights
installed outside her window.
Theo
Sarah Brown
Colin Rosenstiel <rosen...@cix.co.uk> wrote:
><http://www.geocities.com/turbo123498/cambridgeshire/cambridge/trinitystre
>etnov2003.jpg>
>
>Perhaps you could explain what point you think that photo illustrates
>(genuine question)? To me it shows 6 Richardson's Candles looking better
>maintained than usual.
...and illuminating ... nothing useful.
I do think the photo makes the point. They're pretty, but a bit
rubbish at being street lights.
Espen Koht
Theo Markettos <theom...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> Espen Koht <eh...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> > It does indeed show those 6 Richardson's Candles quite clearly. It also
> > shows that you can't see much on the street level around them apart from
> > where secondary lighting is providing illumination.
>
> Bear in mind that cameras don't really assess lighting too well - they set
> the exposure level based at looking directly at the light sources, while
> people very rarely stare directly at them. We don't know the exposure
> settings of the picture.
True, but in this case I have actually travelled up and down that street
enough at night to judge it a reasonable illustration of the actual
conditions. Coming from the other direction (ie. turning from Bridge St
into St John's St) is genuinely atmospheric at night, but you have to be
comfortable with dark streets at night to enjoy it.
J
> True, but in this case I have actually travelled up and down that street
> enough at night to judge it a reasonable illustration of the actual
> conditions. Coming from the other direction (ie. turning from Bridge St
> into St John's St) is genuinely atmospheric at night, but you have to be
> comfortable with dark streets at night to enjoy it.
I am. It's a very underexposed photograph. The camera has clearly
exposed correctly for the lights themselves, making everything else
dark. You therefore are overstating the case using this example. My
point is that the lights are likely to be generally below par. With
new tubes and electronic ballasts an increased lighting level over
original could be achieved. It may be possible to modify the units to
achieve even better results, and with a power saving.
Some fill-in lights might be needed, but as the old adage says 'if it
ain't broke don't fix it', and these lamps have been acceptable for
50years. Not a bad record. If they were less special I would not be
so concerned, but removing these signature lamps and replacing them
with some utilitarian units needs better justification than I have
encountered so far.
Imagine the cost of wholesale replacement too, even if the County
plans a PFI for this. If that happens I imagine we will get whatever
'style' units they feel like putting up, and we won't have much or any
say.
John
J
> Theo Markettos <theom+n...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>
> > Espen Koht <eh...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> > > It does indeed show those 6 Richardson's Candles quite clearly. It also
> > > shows that you can't see much on the street level around them apart from
> > > where secondary lighting is providing illumination.
>
> > Bear in mind that cameras don't really assess lighting too well - they set
> > the exposure level based at looking directly at the light sources, while
> > people very rarely stare directly at them. We don't know the exposure
> > settings of the picture.
One step photo fix in Paint Shop Pro produced this:
http://www.brunk.org.uk/images/trinitystreetnov2003.jpg
Which is more realistic.
John
Tony Finch
>
>True, but in this case I have actually travelled up and down that street
>enough at night to judge it a reasonable illustration of the actual
>conditions. Coming from the other direction (ie. turning from Bridge St
>into St John's St) is genuinely atmospheric at night, but you have to be
>comfortable with dark streets at night to enjoy it.
That doesn't show the lights at their best because (1) there's an
exceptionally bright light opposite the Round Church; (2) some of the
lights by St John's are broken.
Tony.
--
f.anthony.n.finch <d...@dotat.at> http://dotat.at/
FITZROY SOLE: SOUTH OR SOUTHEAST 4 OR 5 INCREASING 6 OR 7, PERHAPS GALE 8
LATER. MODERATE INCREASING ROUGH, OCCASIONALLY VERY ROUGH LATER IN WEST. RAIN
LATER IN WEST. MODERATE OR GOOD, OCCASIONALLY POOR LATER IN WEST.
Tiger
> Barrow road off Trumpington road still has working gas lamps
So has Little St Mary's Lane, just off Trumpington Street in the city
centre.
tony sayer
.com>, camjay <cam...@gmail.com> scribeth thus
Most of which still work;) How come they can get the spares etc?.
Wonder who it is who looks after them perhaps they got a very old 100
year plus lamplighter;))..
--
Tony Sayer
Duncan Wood
They don't turn them off, you can still buy gas mantles at any camping
store.
no-rep...@ntlworld.com
Some others:
Willow Walk, off Emmanuel Road has several. Often on during the day.
Millington Road in Newnham has some with electronic controls - not
always working correctly :)
Claremont off Hills Road
Jules
> Malvern still had gas lamps the last time I was that way (a few years
> ago now but not that long) and very nice they were too. Probably not
> very "green" mind you.
Maybe it's possible to run them on cow farts (does burning a cow fart
produce more nasty stuff than just releasing one into the atmosphere
will?)
Roland Perry
11:05:09 on Tue, 15 Apr 2008, Jules
<jules.rich...@remove.this.gmail.com> remarked:
>Maybe it's possible to run them on cow farts (does burning a cow fart
>produce more nasty stuff than just releasing one into the atmosphere
>will?)
Cow farts are methane, which is much more (20x at least) of a greenhouse
gas than CO2.
--
Roland Perry
Jon Fairbairn
But methane only has a half life of 7 years in the
atmosphere compared to 150 or so for CO₂, so multiplying by
20 is misleading.
--
Jón Fairbairn Jon.Fa...@cl.cam.ac.uk
http://www.chaos.org.uk/~jf/Stuff-I-dont-want.html (updated 2007-05-07)
Anthony Frost
Methane (CH4) is something like 20 times more effective as a greenhouse
gas than CO2. Burning it gets you a CO2 and two waters, water isn't that
good either but at least it's being produced low down so may rain out.
Anthony
Jules
Yep, but that methane is being produced anyway - it's a question of
whether burning it makes the problem worse.
(harvesting the methane would be left as an exercise for the reader ;)
Roland Perry
Apr 2008, Jon Fairbairn <jon.fa...@cl.cam.ac.uk> remarked:
>But methane only has a half life of 7 years in the
Is that natural breakdown of the methane, or because airplanes burn it
as they pass through the atmosphere?
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
<jules.rich...@remove.this.gmail.com> remarked:
>> Cow farts are methane, which is much more (20x at least) of a greenhouse
>> gas than CO2.
>
>Yep, but that methane is being produced anyway
Not relevant. (And we could stop eating beef)
>- it's a question of whether burning it makes the problem worse.
My feeling is that it doesn't.
--
Roland Perry
Mike Clark
Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <pan.2008.04.15....@remove.this.gmail.com>, at
> 11:47:56 on Tue, 15 Apr 2008, Jules
> <jules.rich...@remove.this.gmail.com> remarked:
> >> Cow farts are methane, which is much more (20x at least) of a greenhouse
> >> gas than CO2.
> >
> >Yep, but that methane is being produced anyway
>
> Not relevant. (And we could stop eating beef)
>
It's not just eating beef, but also production of dairy products.
Mike
--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark
<\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
"> || _`\<,_ |__\ \> | caving, antibody engineer and
` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user"
Jules
> In message <pan.2008.04.15....@remove.this.gmail.com>, at
> 11:47:56 on Tue, 15 Apr 2008, Jules
> <jules.rich...@remove.this.gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Cow farts are methane, which is much more (20x at least) of a greenhouse
>>> gas than CO2.
>>
>>Yep, but that methane is being produced anyway
>
> Not relevant.
We've got x tons of methane going into the atmosphere from livestock
anyway - in *theory* it could do some form of work via burning, assuming
that burning it and releasing it into the atmosphere that way doesn't
cause a far bigger problem.
In practicality it's almost certainly a dead-end (I realise I was
missing a smiley from the original post), although I believe there have
been some attempts to derive power via methane extracted from more
solid animal waste.
cheers
Jules
Roland Perry
18:40:10 on Tue, 15 Apr 2008, Mike Clark <mr...@nospam.cam.ac.uk>
>> >> Cow farts are methane, which is much more (20x at least) of a greenhouse
>> >> gas than CO2.
>> >
>> >Yep, but that methane is being produced anyway
>>
>> Not relevant. (And we could stop eating beef)
>
>It's not just eating beef, but also production of dairy products.
Of course, but not eating beef is a start.
--
Roland Perry
Jules
>>> Not relevant. (And we could stop eating beef)
>>
>>It's not just eating beef, but also production of dairy products.
>
> Of course, but not eating beef is a start.
I suppose if we stop eating altogether, the problem eventually solves
itself :)
Colin Rosenstiel
wrote:
The Barrow Road lights seem to be the best representation available today
of what most side road gas lighting looked like until the 50s and 60s.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Colin Rosenstiel
eh...@cam.ac.uk (Espen Koht) wrote:
> In article <memo.2008041...@cam002297.rosenstiel.co.uk>,
> rosen...@cix.co.uk (Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:
>
> > > As much as I would like to sympathise with your cause, I doubt any
> > > refurbishing or modernisation of these lights can overcome the fact
> > > that their core design is fundamentally flawed. I think this photo,
> > > randomly retrieved on the Internet, illustrate the problems quite
> > > succinctly:
> >
>
<http://www.geocities.com/turbo123498/cambridgeshire/cambridge/trinitystre
etnov2003.jpg>
> >
> > There are no historically appropriate light fixtures for these
> > streets. They have had modern style lighting for well over 50
> > years. I see no reason why that should change.
>
> Sorry, poor choice of words. 'Historically' was intended in the
> soft sense of sensitive to the architecture of the area.
Er, are you seriously claiming they had street lighting in mediaeval
times?
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Colin Rosenstiel
wrote:
> On 15/04/08 07:49, zulu wrote:
>
> > "Espen Koht" <eh...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
> > news:ehk20-DB8538....@nntp-serv.cam.ac.uk...
> >
> >> Rather than expending energy trying to fix the unfixable, I would
> >> suggest campaigning for some historically appropriate light fixtures
> >> which can actually be made to work.
> >
> > Gas lamps!
>
> Malvern still had gas lamps the last time I was that way (a few
> years ago now but not that long) and very nice they were too.
> Probably not very "green" mind you.
So does Little St Mary's Lane (to mention a rather more local example).
As far as I know it's the only gas lighting remaining on an adopted
highway. Barrow Road and Willow Walk are private roads.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Espen Koht
rosen...@cix.co.uk (Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:
> Er, are you seriously claiming they had street lighting in mediaeval
> times?
No, and I doubt you are seriously suggesting that I'm suggesting such a
thing.
Colin Rosenstiel
eh...@cam.ac.uk (Espen Koht) wrote:
So why is fake Victorian lighting any more appropriate for it than more
modern designs?
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Espen Koht
rosen...@cix.co.uk (Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:
> So why is fake Victorian lighting any more appropriate for it than more
> modern designs?
Maybe they aren't. Given a chance someone can probably come up with
suggestions for something which both works and looks good rather than
just taking the first part of a shelf.
Duncan Wood
Fairly common, the ones I put up on Great Yarmouth beach front would be an
extreme example, & presumably inappropriate for Cambridge (not that seems
to apply to toilet blocks), but small batch runs of 100 custom cast street
lights are normal.
Jon Fairbairn
All of it, but I think it's mostly natural. Unfortunately
(according to
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg12216635.100-methane--the-hidden-greenhouse-gas-methane-from-cowsrubbish-tips-and-rice-fields-is-warming-the-earth-car-exhausts-may-helptheprocess-but-methane-from-the-arctic-tundra-could-be-most-damaging-of-all.html
-- what a URL!) the methane sinks are reducing as time goes by.
J
> In article <memo.20080416010203.30...@cam002297.rosenstiel.co.uk>,
> rosenst...@cix.co.uk (Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:
>
> > So why is fake Victorian lighting any more appropriate for it than more
> > modern designs?
Victorian 'style' wouldn't be so wrong for that area. Kings College is
only Victorian Gothic. It's actually only the chapel that's the
historical gem.
> Maybe they aren't. Given a chance someone can probably come up with
> suggestions for something which both works and looks good rather than
> just taking the first part of a shelf.
Unfortunately, if you read the documents from the council officers,
you will see that it doesn't seem to be working like that. This is
why I have raised this issue. I believe that the current lights in
Trinity Street and Trumpington Street at least have character, and
should not be removed and replaced with utilitarian modern ones.
Pending an investigation of the internal lighting parts, which as an
engineer I would like to be involved with, I believe they could very
likely be considerably upgraded in light output and efficiency.
John
J
> Fairly common, the ones I put up on Great Yarmouth beach front would be an
> extreme example, & presumably inappropriate for Cambridge (not that seems
> to apply to toilet blocks), but small batch runs of 100 custom cast street
> lights are normal.
Any pictures Duncan?
John
Duncan Wood
But they mainly spill light in every direction except the usefull ones, so
improving the effeciency would utterly change the light.
J
No, just more of it. I haven't yet thought of a way to increase just
the downward illumination without using a lens of some sort, or by
using additional lighting fittings
John
The Luggage
wrote:
IIRC the CO2 comes from cow belches, but that doesn't make it any
easier to capture!
TL
Duncan Wood
http://www.goldenmile.org.uk/integreat03_lighting.php
which doesn't really show the full "glory" of a colour changing wash over
the beach.
Jules
> But they mainly spill light in every direction except the usefull ones
Pull them up, and plant them back in the ground upside-down?
Duncan Wood
Well it would make the idiotic black trip posts easier to see.
Jules
> The Barrow Road lights seem to be the best representation available today
> of what most side road gas lighting looked like until the 50s and 60s.
Can someone grab a photo? I'm curious now - I didn't think gas lights
still existed anywhere (least of all functional ones), and being so far
away I can't exactly just pop down and look for myself...
J
inteGREAT, hmm. Probably inappropriate for here.
Could turn the Richardson Candles into giant barber's poles.
John
magwitch
one...
Why not commission Jim Lawrence (an East Anglian lighting manufacturer
based in Hadleigh) to design some? We've got his in our house. I can
honestly say I haven't got sick of them yet as they're simple and
neither modern nor antique.
http://www.jim-lawrence.co.uk/detail.cfm?m_parent=166&product=Smuggler's%20Wall%20Lights
Ben Harris
Not taken by me, but <http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/647735> shows one of
the Barrow Road lamps and <http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/492773> one in
Little St Mary's Lane.
--
Ben Harris
Duncan Wood
For obvious reasons I will forbear from passing comment.
J
> >>http://www.goldenmile.org.uk/integreat03_lighting.php
>
> >> which doesn't really show the full "glory" of a colour changing wash
> >> over
> >> the beach.
>
> > inteGREAT, hmm. Probably inappropriate for here.
>
> > Could turn the Richardson Candles into giant barber's poles.
>
> > John
>
> For obvious reasons I will forbear from passing comment.
Sorry. Please stick around, we might need your talents
John
Jules
Hurrah - thanks.
Presumably there were plenty of later electric lamps around with that same
style? It looks reasonably good in terms of directing the light where it
needs to go, and has a nice vintage charm to it; I don't think a
modern copy of that would look out of place in any Cambridge street, TBH.
cheers
Jules
Colin Rosenstiel
jules.rich...@remove.this.gmail.com (Jules) wrote:
No. Such columns had the lanterns removed and swan-neck fittings attached
with a control gear box included to the top of the column. Initially they
had small lanterns at the top holding 150W incandescent lamps. The
columns should be familiar. There are plenty still around the city,
though with larger SOX (sodium)-equipped lanterns. They are mostly
painted black these days.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Dan Sheppard
>When they've done reducing risk, and then fear of risk, what next?
The risk of the fear of risk, surely? For example, a police project to
block up alleyways may have no effect on risk, but decrease fear of
risk. However, if there's a report which is published between now and
then saying alleyways are good, there's a chance that the project will
increase the fear of risk. Therefore, they must manage the risk of the
fear of risk increasing, say by phoribiting all dissent.
After that you move onto the fear of the risk of the fear of risk. For
example, someone may worry that such a report comes out, but it
acutally be quite unlikely. However, the worry could lead them to
march onto the campus of research universities and set fire to their
sociology departments just in case.
Of course it won't stop there. The risk of the fear of the risk of the
fear of risk would cause insurance companies to increase the premiums
to University sociology departments, and the fear of the risk of the
fear of the risk of the fear of the risk might dissuade universities
from establishing sociology departments (owing to increased fire
premiums) even if insurance companies wouldn't actually take into
account the possiblity of flame-wielding fearers of reports into
whether blocking alleyways causes crime.
You can carry on, of course, if you wish, but it starts to get a
little silly. Those who fear the risk of the fear of the risk of the
fear of risk of crime might worry that Universities might make such a
move to hard sciences and away from sociology in anticipation of
insurance companies worrying about a mob burning down sociology
departments in case they publish a report which would cause a police
project to block up alleyways increase the fear of an individual of
suffering crime might, for example, petition parliament to enact laws
to prevent Universities from doing so.
But I suspect they'd be better of on stronger medication.
Dan.
Mark Ayliffe
Dan Sheppard <da...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> illuminated us with:
<fx: applause>
--
Mark
Real email address | Star Trek lines we'll never see:
is mark at | "Cry on someone else's shoulder, I'm off-duty."
ayliffe dot org | - Troi
Fevric J Glandules
> You can carry on, of course, if you wish, but it starts to get a
> little silly.
It's already bloody silly.
--
One way ticket from Mornington Crescent to Tannhauser Gate please.
PaulB
> On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 20:25:42 +0100, Dan Sheppard wrote:
>
>> You can carry on, of course, if you wish, but it starts to get a
>> little silly.
>
> It's already bloody silly.
Don't underestimate Mr Sheppard, this is what he had to say about Pepsi Cola
some time ago...
Meldrew of Meldreth <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> 6.4 coke manufacture
>
>And what makes Pepsi manufacture so much less risky (or are we talking
>about class 1 drugs here)?.
Coca Cola is called coca-cola because it contains coal whose tar has
been dehydrated and oxidised, which has then been recombined with the
remaining calcinate, and then heated in a reducing atmosphere; and also
out of Koala Bears.
Pepsi, by contrast, is out of the Spice Girls.
The risk from coke manufacture comes from the Koala Bairs mixing with
the reduced coal to form bubbles of secondary cocaine (or CO2) which
is only approved for use by qualified doctors to apply to nasal
membranes in certain otolaryngial procedures, such as making you burp,
because it is a greenhouse gas.
The spice girl used in Pepsi, by contrast, is marketed as being
marginally counter-cultural by the media, principally by MTV, Agar,
VH1, and beef bouillon. Whilst some strains of spice girl contain
plasmids coding for dangerous material liable to cause emesis, such as
Westlife, Shiga-Like Toxin and Cliff Richard, their biotoxic
properties generally act as a preservative, making the formulation
typically much safer than coke.
Hope this helps,
Dan.
--
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~dans/Paul
Fevric J Glandules
> Fevric J Glandules wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 20:25:42 +0100, Dan Sheppard wrote:
>>
>>> You can carry on, of course, if you wish, but it starts to get a
>>> little silly.
>>
>> It's already bloody silly.
>
> Don't underestimate Mr Sheppard, this is what he had to say about Pepsi Cola
> some time ago...
I meant "it", not Mr Sheppard's post, which was /admirably/ silly.
Funnily enough one of the rants on today's Now Show [1], which I'm
listening to now, touched on the general issue of perceived vs.
actual risk.
And this paper:
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/usability.pdf
which I started reading today also has some pertinent comments
about risk-reduction.
[1] That's on Radio 4, for those at the back going "eh?".
Available via Listen Again, natch.
J
> On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 20:25:42 +0100, Dan Sheppard wrote:
> > You can carry on, of course, if you wish, but it starts to get a
> > little silly.
>
> It's already bloody silly.
So is there a consensus that the lighting levels in Trinity Street may
be a little low due to below par lighting, but not so low as to
generate uncomfortable levels of anxiety about personally becoming a
victim of criminal activity?
J
Duncan Wood
Generally I find they're low enough to generate anxiety about tripping
over street furniture, Trinity street doesn't exactly feel like a criminal
hangout.
Mark Ayliffe
J <john....@ntlworld.com> illuminated us with:
Trinity street isn't a problem really, certainly it's gloomy, but
there's enough light from the shops to see by. The real problem is St
John's st. I've lost count of the number of times I've just missed an
idiot cycling the wrong way up there in the dark.
I'd agree that we don't need most of the really bright lighting we
have in Cambridge, but I'm not so sure that the Richardson candles
send most of their light the right way. I speak as one who likes to
examine the night sky a little closer than usual from time to time.
--
Mark
Real email address | A human being is the best computer available to place in a
is mark at | spacecraft. It is also the only one that can be mass produced
ayliffe dot org | with unskilled labor. - Werner Von Braun
Jules
So what are they using now?
Simon Lane
[...]
> It seems clear that the AJC is being gradually 'guided' into the
> acceptance of wholesale replacement of the long standing city centre
> Richardson Candle lighting. This is apparently because of the present
> relative low lighting levels, and certain imperatives to save energy
> and to reduce skyward light emissions.
[...]
Would not the best way to save energy not be to use lights with motion
detectors similar to the ones people use domestically on front
porches, etc.? And would not expanding this practice to all street and
highway lighting not save a fortune globally? Of course highways would
require smarter technology to provide illumination a sufficient
distance ahead, but nothing particularly challenging as far as I can
see.
Surely I am not the first to think of this, and if not, does anyone
know why I've never seen it anywhere?
Simon.
Duncan Wood
Apart from anything else because street lights run on off peak electricity
& most of the cost of supplying them is connecting them.
PaulB
news:pan.2008.04.19....@remove.this.gmail.com...
> On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 21:22:38 +0100, PaulB wrote:
>> Pepsi, by contrast, is out of the Spice Girls.
>
> So what are they using now?
You'd have to ask our resident humourist DS.
PaulB
news:9728129b-2ef1-43ea...@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
Reply
Because lamps of that type and wattage have a considerable warm up time
which would far outweigh the passage of a pedestrian or car. By the time it
had come on the person or car would be long gone.
Paul
J
>> "Simon Lane" <s...@cb1.com> wrote in message
>
> >know why I've never seen it anywhere?
> Because lamps of that type and wattage have a considerable warm up time
> which would far outweigh the passage of a pedestrian or car. By the time it
> had come on the person or car would be long gone.
I remember a TV advert where streetlights turned on as someone walked
along. A nice dream.
When LED lighting is more available then selective brightening of
lights on this principle could technically be possible.
Another suggestion would be fill-in lighting operated by motion
detectors.
J
PaulB
It's not as simple as that. In areas where street lighting coexists with
housing the residents become used to the glow in the sky and over the fence.
The introduction of motion detection would result in light transitions that
would be far more obtrusive than the constant light. It would actually be
awful and the effect on aircraft pilots can only be wondered at when trying
to land at night. It's a non-starter.
Paul
J
> J wrote:
> > I remember a TV advert where streetlights turned on as someone walked
> > along. A nice dream.
> > When LED lighting is more available then selective brightening of
> > lights on this principle could technically be possible.
> > Another suggestion would be fill-in lighting operated by motion
> > detectors.
>
> It's not as simple as that. In areas where street lighting coexists with
> housing the residents become used to the glow in the sky and over the fence.
> The introduction of motion detection would result in light transitions that
> would be far more obtrusive than the constant light. It would actually be
> awful and the effect on aircraft pilots can only be wondered at when trying
> to land at night. It's a non-starter.
It looked cool on TV
J
Tim Ward
news:IEFOj.31426$Ka7....@newsfe30.ams2...
>
> the effect on aircraft pilots can only be wondered at when trying to land
> at night.
Nah, I can do better than just "wonder".
Most night landings, in particular the vast majority of commercial flights,
are done on instruments, and the pilot doesn't even need to look out of the
window until nicely lined up with the runway lights straight ahead of them.
You *might* confuse amateurs who are lost and trying to fly visually and too
timid to scream for help as they should do ... but you probably wouldn't
confuse them significantly worse than they were already confused.
Runway lights are pretty directional, anyway, so you don't see them from the
side, and can't easily locate an airfield by looking around and trying to
spot the runway lights - instead you spot the green flashing beacon, so if
you're lost that's probably what you're looking for (the Cambridge one can
be seen for miles). Now if you were proposing green flashing LED street
lights that flashed in Morse code patterns that happened to spell out the
identifiers of local airfields *then* you could maybe cause problems. I
think the CAA might call you and ask you politely to turn them off.
--
Tim Ward - posting as an individual unless otherwise clear
Brett Ward Limited - www.brettward.co.uk
Cambridge Accommodation Notice Board - www.brettward.co.uk/canb
Cambridge City Councillor
Martyn Pollard
> Trinity street isn't a problem really, certainly it's gloomy, but
> there's enough light from the shops to see by. The real problem is St
> John's st. I've lost count of the number of times I've just missed an
> idiot cycling the wrong way up there in the dark.
Walking down there tonight I'd agree. But looking at the lamps especially
the one near St Johns which gives off a very dingy glow - to a layman it
would seem all they need is a new set of tubes. I wonder when they were
last replaced?!
Surely any project to replace these fittings for the sake of it is just
another way to spend or waste taxpayers money?
Martyn
Duncan Wood
By definition if it's done for the sake of it it's a waste of money.
Presumably that isn't why the ideas been raised ?
J
> Walking down there tonight I'd agree. But looking at the lamps especially
> the one near St Johns which gives off a very dingy glow - to a layman it
> would seem all they need is a new set of tubes. I wonder when they were
> last replaced?!
>
> Surely any project to replace these fittings for the sake of it is just
> another way to spend or waste taxpayers money?
I went out tonight to look at the lights in St John's street, Trinity
Street, Kings Parade and Trumpington Street. The lighting really is
dim in places, the worst in St John's street where there is a missing
lamp somewhere, probably outside the Divinity Faculty.
It wasn't like this in the past IIRC and I've lived in and around the
city for 37years. Nearly every Richardson Candle I saw tonight was
clearly below par performance. Some were really bad, others somewhat
dim, one was flickering, one was not working.
The lights have clearly not been maintained properly. Some are dirty
on the outside, and most have discolouration apparently on the
inside. A very few looked good, and afforded a reasonable light. So
it's the old story. Run things down by neglect, then pronounce them
unserviceable, then scrap them. It doesn't have to be this way. It
shouldn't be this way.
The danger is the PFI agreement for streetlighting that the County
wants. Everything will get ripped out and we'll be paying for it
forever.
J
Mark Coley
>>> Fairly common, the ones I put up on Great Yarmouth beach front would
>>> be an
>>> extreme example, & presumably inappropriate for Cambridge (not that
>>> seems
>>> to apply to toilet blocks), but small batch runs of 100 custom cast
>>> street
>>> lights are normal.
>>
>> Any pictures Duncan?
>>
>> John
>
>
>
> which doesn't really show the full "glory" of a colour changing wash
> over the beach.
How many LEDs would be needed to match the light output of one of the
existing candles? If the radius of the tube was 10cm, with a
circumference of 62.8cm, you'd be able to fit 125x5mm LEDs on the edge
of a circular piece of circuit board. Then adding a stack of such
circular boards, say, 50, you'd have over 6k LEDs. If they were angled
downwards, and a soft diffuser was placed around the candle you could
direct more light downward than upward. And if multicoloured LEDs were
added you could press a button and turn them into Chistmas lights
automatically!
Mark.
Duncan Wood
wrote:
Well if they're 4 lumens each then they'll have equalled the fluoros, 30
lumens per watt gives you 800 watts of led versus 320watts of fluoro. Or
150W of MH in a sensible fixture would be brighter at ground level.
J
> Well if they're 4 lumens each then they'll have equalled the fluoros, 30
> lumens per watt gives you 800 watts of led versus 320watts of fluoro. Or
> 150W of MH in a sensible fixture would be brighter at ground level.
There is a lantern in Trumpington Street, just round the corner from
Benet Street that has been modified using a MH lamp and a conical
reflector at the top. It isn't convincing in terms of light output or
original appearance. That doesn't mean that it can't be done as you
say.
I am interested in efficiency (or efficacy) levels. I have referred to
this table near the bottom of the page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminous_efficacy
I suspect the old tubes in the candles aren't particularly high
efficiency ones.
At this stage the AJC will need to be convinced that some more
investigation should be done into producing an updated design of
Richardson Candle that can be retro-fitted. Currently they believe is
that the experimental lamp referred to above didn't work, and that
appears to be that. AFAIK no-one in the Councils lighting departments
wants to keep the candles.
But as I stated previously the lights are mostly in a very poor
state. If you have a multi-tube fluorescent lighting installation
that is obviously below par, most people would remove the cover, clean
and change the tubes as required, clean and refit the cover. Hey
presto, fully working lamps again. This hasn't been happened here.
The candles have clearly been neglected. But is that a matter of
policy one wonders?
J
J
also has a copy of a document "Why Snuff The Candles".
http://www.simoncornwell.com/lighting/install/cambridge/rc/index.htm
J
Mark Ayliffe
>
>> Walking down there tonight I'd agree. But looking at the lamps especially
>> the one near St Johns which gives off a very dingy glow - to a layman it
>> would seem all they need is a new set of tubes. I wonder when they were
>> last replaced?!
>>
>> Surely any project to replace these fittings for the sake of it is just
>> another way to spend or waste taxpayers money?
>
> I went out tonight to look at the lights in St John's street, Trinity
> Street, Kings Parade and Trumpington Street. The lighting really is
> dim in places, the worst in St John's street where there is a missing
> lamp somewhere, probably outside the Divinity Faculty.
I agree, I think there is one missing just there.
> It wasn't like this in the past IIRC and I've lived in and around the
> city for 37years. Nearly every Richardson Candle I saw tonight was
> clearly below par performance. Some were really bad, others somewhat
> dim, one was flickering, one was not working.
It's been bad throughout this last winter at least.
> The lights have clearly not been maintained properly. Some are dirty
> on the outside, and most have discolouration apparently on the
> inside. A very few looked good, and afforded a reasonable light. So
> it's the old story. Run things down by neglect, then pronounce them
> unserviceable, then scrap them. It doesn't have to be this way. It
> shouldn't be this way.
A cynic might suggest that they have been allowed to get into this
state so that TPTB jump to the obvious Something Must Be Done
conclusion that those responsible for maintaince would like?
--
Mark
| "If once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon
Real email address | he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing
is mark at | he next comes to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and
ayliffe dot org | from that to incivility and procrastination."
| - Thomas De Quincey (1785 - 1859)
J
> A cynic might suggest that they have been allowed to get into this
> state so that TPTB jump to the obvious Something Must Be Done
> conclusion that those responsible for maintaince would like?
Yes I thought that, and they certainly are in a bad state. However
read the 'Why Snuff The Candles' document and page 4 states "when
examing the light output of the existing candles, allowance must be
made for the fact that very few now have their full complement of
fluorescent tubes."
That was in 1980. So poor maintenace isn't a new problem.
J
Jules
> But as I stated previously the lights are mostly in a very poor
> state. If you have a multi-tube fluorescent lighting installation
> that is obviously below par, most people would remove the cover, clean
> and change the tubes as required, clean and refit the cover.
That would seem to be a sensible first test - a simple bit of maintenance
would be very easy to do and low-cost. Something's badly wrong
(particularly from a spending PoV) if the first avenue is "let's replace
it" rather than "let's see if we can fix it".
cheers
Jules
Espen H. Koht
Jules <jules.rich...@remove.this.gmail.com> wrote:
If it only was that simple. As pointed out both here and in the
information on the web site John found, the design of the lights is
simply deficient. As the upgrade recommendation on
<http://www.simoncornwell.com/lighting/install/cambridge/rc/cls2.htm>
points out:
"Optically they fittings have one endearing feature in that they act as
a series of visual markers along the streets on which they are situated.
Otherwise, by contemporary standards they are: inefficient, expensive to
maintain and exacerbate the problems of light trespass and light
pollution. Their illumination is mainly thrown sideways and upward,
whilst their downward component fails to provide any meaningful
illumination to highways or pedestrian routes."
Duncan Wood
Unless they where blatantly a bad purchase in the first place.
J
> On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 14:27:27 +0100, Jules
>
>
>
> <jules.richardsonn...@remove.this.gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 00:35:38 -0700, J wrote:
> >> But as I stated previously the lights are mostly in a very poor
> >> state. If you have a multi-tube fluorescent lighting installation
> >> that is obviously below par, most people would remove the cover, clean
> >> and change the tubes as required, clean and refit the cover.
>
> > That would seem to be a sensible first test - a simple bit of maintenance
> > would be very easy to do and low-cost. Something's badly wrong
> > (particularly from a spending PoV) if the first avenue is "let's replace
> > it" rather than "let's see if we can fix it".
>
They may have very old tubes that are hard to source, and old control
gear that's seen better days. They might not have been serviced
because they are short of spare parts.
J
Duncan Wood
They're 5' fluoros, still available in a choice of colour temperatures &
electronic ballasts work with a range of bulbs nowadays. The killer is why
on earth they where mounted vertically in the first place, but presumably
Richardson has passed on & can't tell us.
J
> They're 5' fluoros, still available in a choice of colour temperatures &
> electronic ballasts work with a range of bulbs nowadays. The killer is why
> on earth they where mounted vertically in the first place, but presumably
> Richardson has passed on & can't tell us.
Yes but until I've actually seen the gear I don't know exactly what's
there.
The design by the architect Sir Albert Richardsonare is explained
quite well here:
http://www.simoncornwell.com/lighting/install/cambridge/rc/wstc4.htm
I don't necessarily agree with the consultants conclusions, which I
feel are rather negative.
J
Duncan Wood
> On Apr 22, 7:00 am, "Duncan Wood" <bodged...@dmx512.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> They're 5' fluoros, still available in a choice of colour temperatures
>> &
>> electronic ballasts work with a range of bulbs nowadays. The killer is
>> why
>> on earth they where mounted vertically in the first place, but
>> presumably
>> Richardson has passed on & can't tell us.
>
> Yes but until I've actually seen the gear I don't know exactly what's
> there.
> The design by the architect Sir Albert Richardsonare is explained
> quite well here:
>
> http://www.simoncornwell.com/lighting/install/cambridge/rc/wstc4.htm
>
Where Richardson says they should be vertical despite that being an
obviously daft way of supplying light. If we're argueing that they're
works of sculpture then that's a point with merit, but as lamps they're
inherently a bad design.
> I don't necessarily agree with the consultants conclusions, which I
> feel are rather negative.
>
> J
The comparison with the sons is somewhat facetious though, the usefull
area illuminated by one gas lamp fitting is far larger than the area
illuminated by one candle, most of the light radiated below horizontal by
the candles is wasted. Although the new columns on Kings parade are truly
ugly & one can opnly presume where chosen by somebody hoping to impress on
people how bad modern lighting columns can be, one can't help but feel the
city could have spent it's public art money on some decent columns rather
than a block of granite.
Espen Koht
"Duncan Wood" <bodg...@dmx512.co.uk> wrote:
> Although the new columns on Kings parade are truly
> ugly & one can opnly presume where chosen by somebody hoping to impress on
> people how bad modern lighting columns can be, one can't help but feel the
> city could have spent it's public art money on some decent columns rather
> than a block of granite.
The worst thing about this is the additional street furniture which is
likely to come of this to add to the already mind-boggling amount of
visually polluting and hazardous posts, columns and bollards which this
city puts up with. If I read between the lines correctly, existing wall
mounted lamps are most likely to be replaced with additional columns
because its easier than getting permission to replace the wall lamps.
magwitch
> The comparison with the sons is somewhat facetious though, the usefull
> area illuminated by one gas lamp fitting is far larger than the area
> illuminated by one candle, most of the light radiated below horizontal
> by the candles is wasted. Although the new columns on Kings parade are
> truly ugly & one can opnly presume where chosen by somebody hoping to
> impress on people how bad modern lighting columns can be, one can't help
> but feel the city could have spent it's public art money on some decent
> columns rather than a block of granite.
Applause.
The new light is horrible, why silver? Black cast iron would have been a
better choice.
J
> The new light is horrible, why silver? Black cast iron would have been a
> better choice.
SIlver? It's a sort of bronze colour.
J