Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> 0.9 - 1.1 watts per square foot

So with LEDs, one and a half 60 watt equivalents per square meter? That's pretty bright. If I'm doing my math right that's enough for 1000 lux.




I'm not sure how you're calculating that, but if you're just looking at the lumen output of the bulb, the lighting level is measured at the work surface. In an office, that's at 3' off the floor and the light is at the ceiling which is at 8'-10'. Lighting intensity decreases with the square of distance, so if you have 1000 lux right next to the bulb, you're going to have considerably less 5' - 7' away.

Add to that that those aren't the kinds of fixtures that are used in offices. People don't want to look at bare bulbs (and they also create glare) so most lights have some sort of lens that is going to reduce the light output somewhat.

The target lighting level for offices is 30 footcandles or about 322 lux. Even 1000 lux is nowhere close to being outside on a sunny day which is more like 100,000 lux.


> Lighting intensity decreases with the square of distance, so if you have 1000 lux right next to the bulb, you're going to have considerably less 5' - 7' away.

But you're in the range of square-of-distance bulbs. An array of lights on a ceiling gives approximately the same lighting as if you had a uniformly glowing ceiling and all the light went exactly down.

You'd be outputting a good amount more than 1000 lumens per square meter of ceiling. Most of that hits the work surface of the same size, so you get 1000 lumens per square meter, which is 1000 lux.

> some sort of lens that is going to reduce the light output somewhat

A lens shouldn't reduce it by much if it's doing its job.

> Even 1000 lux is nowhere close to being outside on a sunny day which is more like 100,000 lux.

Yeah but it's a lot more than 300! If there's a problem it's probably not caused by energy rules.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: