(Viewed 989 times)

[scottmason]

Not sure if this has been mentioned on here yet

news.yahoo.com/blogs/chicago/chicago-neighborhoods-getting-streetlights-132043575.html

"Peter Scales, a spokesman for the city's Department of Transportation, told the Sun-Times, the new lights are "not necessarily brighter. But, these bulbs emit a white light that's more visible. It's easier to distinguish colors. And because of the increased visibility, you don't need to use as much energy to produce the same amount of light.""

So is this going to be good or bad for observing? I can imagine that a more neutral color will be better than having that overpowering orange glow, yet brighter lights can't be good for observing..

[Chicago Astronomer - Astro Joe]

I'm from an era before the orange Mercury Vapor.

Sodium Vapor street lighting were swapped out in the mid seventies - practically wiping out the night sky overnight. I remember a sky much more filled with stars under the white sodium vapor lights.

I don't know if the metal Halide will be better, (they are rated as brighter for less wattrage), but if color is any indicator, white spectrum is might be better than the horrid orange.

[Paulie pchris00]

The orange mercury vapor might look sickly, but I thought it was easy to filter out? Most "light pollution" filters target this area, and pass strongly in the blue/green end of the spectrum. A wider spectrum emitting light would be more difficult to filter out, no?

As for the metal halides, "brighter for less wattage" could be incentive to save energy and money, or it could be incentive to blast them even brighter without raising costs. I suppose it could go either way.