Or the Daoine Sidhe, or some Banshees.....Maybe this year we'll get to see the leprechaun!
Or a bowl of Lucky Charms cerealMaybe this year we'll get to see the leprechaun!
or some Irish Spring.Or a bowl of Lucky Charms cereal
AMEN!!!!! P L E A S E.....Great! Considering the low bandwidth required for a (mostly) still scene, I would like to make a suggestion. How about a Dish Scapes 4K test channel?
Considering I made that suggestion over a year ago, I am not hopeful.AMEN!!!!! P L E A S E.....
...and some unusual clouds.The usual rain, clouds...
The name of the game in lighthouses is to be seen as far away as possible by ships at sea. So, if you shine out in both directions, you double the cost (twice the Fresnel lenses) and lose half of your light.Energy consumption and costs would be the same, why would it be different? The energy it takes to light the light is the same no matter what direction you project it.
The lighthouse light is bothering me. The light goes out equally in both directions, which means that it's wasting all that light shining onto land for no apparent reason.
Were lighthouses built that way, rather than putting a mirror on the back side? I would have expected the mirror. But those I have climbed IRL e.g. on the Outer Banks don't have any mirror and have doubled (quadrupled?) their Fresnel lenses instead. This offends my sense of efficiency both for energy consumption and cost.
and the energy costs are still the same either way. Adding the additional lenses hardly doubles the cost compared to the cost of the entire project. In the 1800's the Hatteras lighthouse was built at the cost of $80,000. The set of lenses cost $2,000. So subtract half the lenses and add the cost of a mirror and the difference is less than $1,000 out of $80,000.The name of the game in lighthouses is to be seen as far away as possible by ships at sea. So, if you shine out in both directions, you double the cost (twice the Fresnel lenses) and lose half of your light.
You make it sound so cheap! It cost orders of magnitude more ($11M) just to move it (1999). Interesting read here: Cape Hatteras Light Station - Cape Hatteras National Seashore (U.S. National Park Service)and the energy costs are still the same either way. Adding the additional lenses hardly doubles the cost compared to the cost of the entire project. In the 1800's the Hatteras lighthouse was built at the cost of $80,000. The set of lenses cost $2,000. So subtract half the lenses and add the cost of a mirror and the difference is less than $1,000 out of $80,000.
Full disclosure: I have a lighthouse calendar, and I wear a lighthouse T while inside my house.The 1803 lighthouse was unable to effectively warn ships of the dangerous Diamond Shoals because it was too short, the unpainted sandstone blended in with the background, and the signal was not strong enough to reach mariners. Additionally, the tower was poorly constructed and maintained. Frequent complaints were made regarding the lighthouse.
In 1853, following studies made by the Lighthouse Board, it was decided to add 60 feet to the height of the lighthouse, thereby, making the tower 150 feet tall. The newly extended tower was then painted red on top of white making the lighthouse more recognizable during the day. At the same time, the tower was retrofitted with a first order Fresnel lens, which used refraction as well as reflection to channel the light, resulting in a stronger beam.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?