John Kogel Posted December 9, 2016 Report Posted December 9, 2016 If we cut a hole in the side of a light tube, which connects a rooftop lens to the ceiling drywall, and run a second tube from that hole thru the ceiling, will we get more light in the room? [:-magnify Click to Enlarge 52.54 KB Click to Enlarge 52.46 KB Click to Enlarge 62.11 KB
Jim Baird Posted December 10, 2016 Report Posted December 10, 2016 ...maybe, but it might not be visible to the naked eye.
kurt Posted December 10, 2016 Report Posted December 10, 2016 It'd be easier, cheaper, and more light to put up a track with LED heads.
Marc Posted December 10, 2016 Report Posted December 10, 2016 It's an absurd idea. Light beams are not like water or gas. Marc
Jim Katen Posted December 10, 2016 Report Posted December 10, 2016 John Kogel said: If we cut a hole in the side of a light tube, which connects a rooftop lens to the ceiling drywall, and run a second tube from that hole thru the ceiling, will we get more light in the room? No. You'll get less.
Jerry Simon Posted December 10, 2016 Report Posted December 10, 2016 Jim Katen said: John Kogel said: If we cut a hole in the side of a light tube, which connects a rooftop lens to the ceiling drywall, and run a second tube from that hole thru the ceiling, will we get more light in the room? No. You'll get less. True, but perhaps a *better* light. Those dang tube-type skylights are so bright that I'd rather have two dimmer ones. (Can't tell you how many times I tried to turn them off at a light switch when leaving a room.)
John Kogel Posted December 10, 2016 Author Report Posted December 10, 2016 Jerry Simon said: Jim Katen said: John Kogel said: If we cut a hole in the side of a light tube, which connects a rooftop lens to the ceiling drywall, and run a second tube from that hole thru the ceiling, will we get more light in the room? No. You'll get less. True, but perhaps a *better* light. Those dang tube-type skylights are so bright that I'd rather have two dimmer ones. (Can't tell you how many times I tried to turn them off at a light switch when leaving a room.) I suppose they are brighter where you live, catching a more direct beam from the sun. I was wondering if there is only a finite amount of light entering at the roof lens, True, you say, then splitting the light with reflectors, or spreading the light over a larger area of the ceiling does not result in more light. Correct? Some of that light could be directed into an area that is now dark. The tube in the attic can be made more reflective with mirrored surfaces. What y'all are saying is that mirrors will not increase the light. I suggest that mirrors will reduce losses into the attic. There is one version that has an opaque tube which lights up that whole area of the attic. Light tube joke - "It comes on by itself every morning, and you can't turn it off".
Jim Baird Posted December 11, 2016 Report Posted December 11, 2016 If this light relies on reflection then it is like a moon. If your sky had two moons in it instead of one, would not there be more light delivery?
John Kogel Posted December 11, 2016 Author Report Posted December 11, 2016 Jim Baird said: If this light relies on reflection then it is like a moon. If your sky had two moons in it instead of one, would not there be more light delivery? Yes, in Northern latitudes in the winter, the sunlight hits the side of the tube, and then is reflected down to the lens in the ceiling. If you look up into the tube, you can see that the side of the tube opposite the sun is brighter and that bright area rotates as the earth turns the house away from the sun.Sure we could install another light tube for twice the light. But my question is can we catch more light from just the one roof tube by dividing it. Y'all say no. Can we make the distribution more efficient? Yes, we could do that, reduce the losses with better reflection. Then suppose we reflect that salvaged light toward another lens in the ceiling.
kurt Posted December 11, 2016 Report Posted December 11, 2016 I want to see this conundrum expressed in a mathematical equation.
Marc Posted December 11, 2016 Report Posted December 11, 2016 That would be by use of reflections and dispersions (since the surfaces involved are not mirrors). I'm not up to it but just consider these two players and that should be convincing enough. Marc
kurt Posted December 11, 2016 Report Posted December 11, 2016 That's fine. I never liked light tubes anyway. God created electricity for us to evolve to LED lighting. It says so in the Bible.
John Kogel Posted December 11, 2016 Author Report Posted December 11, 2016 I'll just line my toque with tin foil and call it a day, then. []
Tom Raymond Posted December 12, 2016 Report Posted December 12, 2016 I seem to recall a single dome with two tubes in a magazine. Been 3 years since I was in the retail biz though. I think you'd get more light from two holes in the roof and one in the ceiling.
ghentjr Posted December 12, 2016 Report Posted December 12, 2016 kurt said: I want to see this conundrum expressed in a mathematical equation. 1X divided by 2 = 1/2X
Jim Baird Posted December 12, 2016 Report Posted December 12, 2016 ghentjr said: kurt said: I want to see this conundrum expressed in a mathematical equation. 1X divided by 2 = 1/2X Way too simple. First we have to answer the question of whether light is a particle or a beam.
kurt Posted December 12, 2016 Report Posted December 12, 2016 Particle or a wave. I thought it was supposed to be both.
Marc Posted December 13, 2016 Report Posted December 13, 2016 It's the visible spectrum of electromagnetic radiation. 'Wave' works outside of scientific journals. 'Beam' is a layman's term. JMHO Marc
Jim Baird Posted December 14, 2016 Report Posted December 14, 2016 Yes, Marc, Kurt straightened me right out on my terms. So if light can be quantified by breaking it into a number of particles or a number of wave segments, how many get bounced by reflective surfaces to the end of the tube. How many get lost along the way, and if they are divided by a fork in their road, do their numbers stay the same or do they get halved at the fork?
John Kogel Posted December 14, 2016 Author Report Posted December 14, 2016 ghentjr said: kurt said: I want to see this conundrum expressed in a mathematical equation. 1X divided by 2 = 1/2X Study the Fresnal equations and get back to me. The answer is there, just beyond my grasp. [:-graduatThe tinfoil helmet isn't helping. Jim B, you have seen the light. My quest is to retrieve some of the diffused light that would otherwise be lost, reflected back or absorbed. Thus there will be more light.
Denray Posted December 16, 2016 Report Posted December 16, 2016 Whip up a small model somewhere and see what happens.
John Kogel Posted December 16, 2016 Author Report Posted December 16, 2016 OK, that's a brilliant idea, Denny. If I disappear for a while, it will be the Fresnel equations bogging things down. []
kurt Posted December 16, 2016 Report Posted December 16, 2016 Tomorrows headline..... "British Columbia Home Inspector Disappears In a Flash of Light....No One Knows Why"
Tom Raymond Posted December 16, 2016 Report Posted December 16, 2016 kurt said: Tomorrows headline..... "British Columbia Home Inspector Disappears In a Flash of Light....No One Knows Why" And stI'll no like button. SMH.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now