hey in my house we turn the lights off when you leave the room

def

i think this is tax related

why dont we put motion sensors on street lights ? so when someone walks past or drives by lights come on further up the road ,and turns off after a few minutes

wouldnt this save millions of euros in taxes?

and help gardai chasing suspects,and lets say if it was recored then it would only be an impersonal moving objects useless apart from ,lets say theres a murder on the street at 2 in the morning ,an unidentified object would be tracked to a rough location which happens to be near the home of the main suspect ,who had been drinking heavily that night in question for example

good idea ?bad idea? with or without recording the movements

any other uses like being able to witness the stars at night?

come on ,i wont bite ,or get offended, i will however change my mind if you can convince me

jor el

You're assuming that it would be free to set up such a system, which it would not. This is a ridiculous suggestion, and has nothing to do with taxation either.

def

jor el wrote: »

You're assuming that it would be free to set up such a system, which it would not. This is a ridiculous suggestion, and has nothing to do with taxation either.

of course it wouldnt be free ,jaysus, compared to the cost of leaving the lights on all night it would be pennys ,

and then over time we would save lots of TAX money, you see? also it would save money through shorter court cases ,but that could back fire as there could be more convictions

heres some reading to get you in the mood...

http://www.powersines.com/Case_Studies_Energy_Savings_Lighting

http://www.sei.ie/Power_of_One/Power_of_One_Street/The_Residents/Family_Profiles/Cork_School.html


i dont think you fully appreciate how much it costs to keep those lights on do you pay the bills? because if you live in ireland and pay tax on the work of your own hand ,and then pay tax again when you eat(or whatever) ,you are footing the street light bill....wouldnt you want them turned off if no one was there to use them?

now im sure the esb would hate this ,as they would lose out on hundreds of millions of tax payer money:eek: may be billions i cant find the figures , if you can id LOVE to know ,it would make me very happy

wait we could save hundreds of millions? why didnt all our representitives think of this when they were cutting wages? because they dont think long term....:rolleyes:(and probly have high up buddys in the esb)

or is this a very silly selfish notion? please every and anybody let me know what you think,,, even if you think it might be a bit silly because this is just a day dream i had ...im not getting paid to think this stuff up

syklops

Wind, rain, traffic, animals. These are all things that will set off the motion sensors. The constant flashing on and off of street lights will cause light pollution to anyone living in the area. Also, bulbs rarely blow when turned on. They generally blow when being turned on, as the sudden increase of voltage can cause hardware damage.

Street lights constantly flashing on and off increase the likelyhood of blown bulbs.

Here is a quick experiment for you:

Stand in your kitchen and turn the light on and off hundreds of times. It wont be long until your bulb blows.

Now imagine several million street lights flashing on and off all night. Imagine 1% of bulbs blowing every night. Thats 10000 bulbs that need to be replaced everyday. A street light bulb costs about a 100 euro, compared to the cost of running the light for 8 hours, it costs less to leave the light on.

RoundyMooney

From a technical and conservation standpoint, a ridiculous suggestion.

If this gets moved to Electrical, I'll happily explain why, it is not a topic for Taxation.

Del2005

On top of the other reasons, there's also the fact that the street lights are using the extra electric power that can't be turned off efficiently, we'd have to pay for it anyway on our normal bills if it isn't sold somehow.

def

syklops wrote: »

Wind, rain, traffic, animals. These are all things that will set off the motion sensors. The constant flashing on and off of street lights will cause light pollution to anyone living in the area. Also, bulbs rarely blow when turned on. They generally blow when being turned on, as the sudden increase of voltage can cause hardware damage.

Street lights constantly flashing on and off increase the likelyhood of blown bulbs.

Here is a quick experiment for you:

Stand in your kitchen and turn the light on and off hundreds of times. It wont be long until your bulb blows.

Now imagine several million street lights flashing on and off all night. Imagine 1% of bulbs blowing every night. Thats 10000 bulbs that need to be replaced everyday. A street light bulb costs about a 100 euro, compared to the cost of running the light for 8 hours, it costs less to leave the light on.

would there be any way of making it work ?
setting a longer on period?
or if it was just from midnight until they would be off anyway?
pointing sensors at certain places /sheilding them to prevent accidental activation?

pawrick

worked in a small office once with motion sensor lighting - pain in the ass as I'd usually be the only one there all day and the lights would keep turning off when I was reading. cue crazy arm movements in the air.

as for these in a street - nope.

def

RoundyMooney wrote: »

From a technical and conservation standpoint, a ridiculous suggestion.

If this gets moved to Electrical, I'll happily explain why, it is not a topic for Taxation.

is it not tax related if its paid for by tax? Explain why it would cost too much tax money.

def

pawrick wrote: »

the lights would keep turning off when I was reading. cue crazy arm movements in the air.

i was thinking since there all in a row... you could use that
somthing like ...when you activate a sensor the light comes on ,pass the next sensor, a timer for the first light to turn off is activated ,

when some one walks or drives by the timer is reset ,

if the second sensor is not activated ,the first set of lights /light lasts a longer time frame then it would have if the second light/sensor had not been activated

Fighting_Irish

Don't most street lights waste a good bit more energy when they're first turned on?

syklops

Fighting_Irish wrote: »

Don't most street lights waste a good bit more energy when they're first turned on?

Yes they do. It takes time for the bulbs to 'warm' up.

Its a good idea, it is just not workable.

RoundyMooney

OP, smart lighting is the model that will be followed. (I know, another buzzword-but this one is actually quite a clever implementation).

Aside from costs, and cycle time of the individual lanterns, there's liability to be considered, no local authority would leave themselves open to that.

The solution, as used by some authorities in the UK, and sporadically here, is to fit each individual light with smart ballasts. These send data by various means, and receive it, from a central control system. Thus, units can report deteriorating lamps, feedback power consumption etc. They can also dim on command, the practisse being to reduce output to say, 30% between midnight and 7am, or dawn, whichever comes first.

Problem is, they cost money. I can't remember offhand the amount of lighting units in the country, but it's around 280,000 or so. Electronic ballasts, without a node system to go with them , would be at least 50 quid each, not including retrofitting etc.

def

syklops wrote: »

Yes they do. It takes time for the bulbs to 'warm' up.

Its a good idea, it is just not workable.

seems that way alright..... thanks all