[HN Gopher] Air Accident Investigation Branch: film lights cause...
___________________________________________________________________
Air Accident Investigation Branch: film lights caused window damage
on A321neo
Author : camtarn
Score : 260 points
Date : 2023-11-16 18:54 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.flightradar24.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.flightradar24.com)
| photoGrant wrote:
| Duh. These lights are frightening to work around sometimes. The
| UV alone you'll get a sunburn working inside a studio lit by
| them.
|
| The black-body radiation is the true heat coming from them
| theyinwhy wrote:
| Of course no idea what you are using, but the industry's leader
| seems to have it figured out:
| https://www.arri.com/en/lighting/professional-lighting-acces...
| photoGrant wrote:
| Us industry professionals that use these tools beg to differ
|
| https://cml.news/g/cml-general/topic/89024886#10533
| theyinwhy wrote:
| Thank you for the link. I am pretty sure following comment
| is more on the side of reality: https://cml.news/g/cml-
| general/message/10540
|
| But good there is awareness about using equipment with old,
| faulty hardware and the need for measuring uv levels as
| part of technical checks.
| photoGrant wrote:
| Think of production and rental companies like airlines.
| Some are the safest and well respected, some are a death
| trap. Most operate middle to right. A lot of salt has to
| be taken with a comment like that as it's more a legal
| response than a valid one. i.e. he worked for ARRI.
|
| To clarify, ARRI can only speak on behalf of what they
| legally aim to sell. Not what the factory reality lets
| out the door, or what any production does with their
| equipment. They aren't evil, just a company.
| theyinwhy wrote:
| I deem the chances Arri tinkering with their equipment to
| circumvent legal requirements to be zero. This "every
| company is having a big, mischievous plan" theme is very
| boring.
| jacquesm wrote:
| That's true, but there is such a thing as component
| variation and there is also aging. It may well be that
| the specified product is well within the safety limits
| but the aging border case is no longer and if there isn't
| enough margin that may well lead to trouble.
|
| Depending on the amount of variation that trouble may
| arrive sooner rather than later.
| theyinwhy wrote:
| I totally agree uv filter fitness should be part of the
| equipment checks happening before an extensive filming.
| jacquesm wrote:
| I wonder to what degree the UV filter coating wears
| _because of the UV_. After all it is made to absorb
| precisely the most energetic component, that can 't be
| without consequences over the longer term.
| atoav wrote:
| I have worked as a light guy on well above 20 film sets, this
| is wrong.
|
| All lamps that have a fixture which would be capable of
| emitting UV lights (mostly HMI lamps) must have UV filters in
| front of them. Typically they are part of the fresnel lense.
| For LED this is a non-issue.
|
| If you got a sunburn in a studio, that means they either used
| shit lamps (non-industry standard), or the filters have been
| removed. Either way this is a work safety violation and any
| study worth their salt wouldn't stand for it.
|
| The lamps are of course still something that you need to treat
| carefully. First because it is a ton of power and heat, but
| also because they are heavy. But if you use them in the way
| intended by the manufacturer they are not more dangerous than
| anything else.
|
| A typical Arri HMI will even have a diagram with safe distances
| for heat radiation engraved somewhere on the body of the lamp.
| So you don't even need a manual to know you are doing it wrong.
|
| I once had a HMI with a broken lense through which UV radiation
| would leak on a outdoor set. We noticed this because a fist-
| sized pile of insects started to accumulate right at the spot
| where the leak was. The smoke from that was quickly noticed.
| photoGrant wrote:
| https://cml.news/g/cml-general/topic/89024886#10533
|
| You'd be surprised what shortcuts budgets end up creating...
|
| Source: A decade+ on film/photography sets as DIT.
|
| p.s. Work on macro phantom stuff. You'll see.
| nashashmi wrote:
| Both of your posts are informative. I think we go back to
| the parent comment that implies UV radiation is a general
| affect, versus a result of shoddy manufacturing, near these
| lamps.
|
| Is UV a standard thing to avoid at every case, or just in
| exceptional cases?
| photoGrant wrote:
| In every case bar working with infra sensors/aesthetics.
| qingcharles wrote:
| "Sunburn": http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1983679.stm
| pimlottc wrote:
| Note in this case the sunburn was caused by natural light
| as the interview was conducted during the day outdoors.
| petee wrote:
| They aren't (edit)carbon* arc lights, they are regular 1000w
| par bulbs, which should all have UV filtering unless its a
| knockoff.
|
| If you're too close you may get burned from the heat, but
| actors spend hours under them and don't get tanned.
|
| But yeah, 72000 watts is alot of heat to pump at an object for
| 9 hours
| photoGrant wrote:
| Carry a UV meter and tell me they do their job!
| petee wrote:
| Sure, when I'm back to work I'll definitely try carrying
| one. I'm not opposed to knowing for sure, though personal
| experience has shown it never to be an issue. I've never
| gotten burned, nor heard of anyone burned; and with the
| intensities we run you would at minimum expect eye burns,
| but doesn't happen even on 14hr days.
| loansindi wrote:
| "Film lights" are pretty likely to be 5kW+ arc lamps.
| Lighting fixtures definitely include filters to keep the UV
| out of the beam, but film still loves giant HMI fresnels.
| petee wrote:
| I should have been more specific, i had mean to say carbon
| arc, as those were alot different that todays technology,
| though I'm not sure about the level of UV protection
| offered back in the 70-80s
| loansindi wrote:
| Carbon arc was definitely a whole different ball game.
| I'd think the fixtures were filtering at least most of
| it, or else everyone on set would have pretty much the
| same problems as someone doing arc welding without a mask
| and sleeves in short order.
| juanse wrote:
| I would expect that those windows be more resistant to heat
| considering the distance they have from the engines, in case
| something went wrong.
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| I imagine if the engine bursts into flames they are probably
| going to want to land the plane anyways.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Assuming you're over land, which definitely isn't always the
| case. You better hope the integral fire suppression system
| works. If it doesn't you're about to have your day - and
| possibly much more - ruined solidly.
| whalesalad wrote:
| the A350 can fly with one engine, not sure about the
| 321neo.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Anything over water can fly with one engine out.
|
| https://www.caa.co.uk/commercial-
| industry/aircraft/operation...
|
| A321 Neo LR is approved for that.
|
| https://simpleflying.com/a321neo-long-range-approval/
| HPsquared wrote:
| Any twin engine can fly with one engine out. The over-
| water part is that it can fly on one engine for a long
| distance to get back to an airport - which tends to be
| further away if you're flying over the ocean. Basically
| having a bit more margin in the design for extended
| endurance with an engine out.
| jacquesm wrote:
| > Any twin engine can fly with one engine out.
|
| That generalizes to 'any plane with more than one engine
| can fly with one engine out'.
|
| > The over-water part is that it can fly on one engine
| for a long distance to get back to an airport - which
| tends to be further away if you're flying over the ocean.
|
| That's where certification comes in: not all twin engine
| planes are ETOPS certified.
|
| > Basically having a bit more margin in the design for
| extended endurance with an engine out.
|
| Yes, and that translates into much more work than just 'a
| bit more margin' under the hood, to get that margin you
| also will need to take this into account during the
| design phase of the aircraft, crew training, maintenance
| schedule etc. Incidents under ETOPS conditions are rated
| more severely than those in other situations.
| leoedin wrote:
| While I appreciate that modern aircraft are incredibly
| safe, I don't think many people really appreciate what it
| means for a flight and aircraft to be ETOPS 240 or ETOPS
| 330 certified. That means if something happens in the
| air, you have _4 - 5.5 hours of flying_ before you reach
| an acceptable runway. You really are on your own.
|
| Something to think about next time you're over the
| pacific.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _more resistant to heat considering the distance they have
| from the engines, in case something went wrong_
|
| For the engine to melt a window, something has gone wrong
| enough that this tolerance isn't material. (You'd need a lot of
| heat. Plus enough turbulence to blow it laterally inward, but
| not so much that it's allowed to cool. That combination
| suggests a loss of power and a low-speed, _i.e._ low-altitude,
| stall.)
| trelane wrote:
| Even more than that.
|
| From the article: "They located the source of the noise as a
| dislodged window pane aft of the over wing exit."
|
| The engines are under the wing; the affected seals were over
| it.
|
| If you're melting the window panes in this scenario from the
| engines, you're having a really, _really_ bad day. Plus, the
| noise increase from a missing window pant would likely be the
| smallest of the warning signs.
| MadnessASAP wrote:
| Failures, particularly fires, around the engines and wings are
| either dealt with in minutes[1] or the state of the window
| becomes no longer relevant.
|
| [1] The complete list of options are typically starvation,
| suppression, evacuation. Apply in that order and do so quickly.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Shouldn't there be an emergency landing somewhere in the
| middle there?
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Landing is just a necessary part of the evacuation step.
| mulmen wrote:
| It's definitely not necessary. Parachutes exist.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| I think it's pretty clear the context is commercial air
| travel here.
|
| "Starvation, suppression, and evacuation" needs neither
| "emergency landing" nor "don a parachute" to be added to
| it to be understandable. Both are just prerequisite steps
| to the "evacuation" mitigation.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Well, in a military context 'evacuation' might be 'pull
| the eject lever', but in a commercial aircraft the
| landing bit isn't optional because there are no ejection
| seats and there isn't a way to exit the plane other than
| after getting it on the ground (or the water) in one way
| or another.
|
| That prerequisite step may never be completed, due to the
| aircraft being destroyed before it can be evacuated.
| MadnessASAP wrote:
| There are incredibly rare exceptions but almost universally
| a uncontrolled fire on a aircraft in flight is not a
| survivable experience. I had a tremendous fear of flying in
| my younger years. I dealt with it through exposure and
| becoming a technician in the air force. Fire is the only
| thing that brings that fear back. Aircraft commonly survive
| (land) incredibly violent stresses, partial structural
| failures, widespread system failures, and explosions. They
| do not survive persistent fires.
|
| So no, if there is a fire, those 3 steps are your options
| regardless of the aircraft's location or altitude.
| jacquesm wrote:
| To quote George Carlin: "The safety lecture continues...
| "In the unlikely event of a water landing..." ... ...
| well what exactly is... a water landing? Am I mistaken or
| does this sound somewhat similar to CRASHING INTO THE
| OCEAN?!!! "...your seat cushion can be used as a
| floatation device." Well imagine that: my seat cushion...
| just what I need... to float around the North Atlantic
| for several days, clinging to a pillow full of beer
| farts!"
|
| Interesting reversal: in my younger years I flew all over
| the planet, I can't even begin to estimate on how many
| flights I've been. And then, a couple of really bad
| flights in succession and I actually find it very
| difficult to contemplate flying again even if I know that
| statistically it's pretty safe and I'm exaggerating.
| Rationality only goes so far, apparently if you scare the
| lizard good a couple of times he remembers.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| I wonder how many terrestrial planes ever landed on water
| leaving at least one survivor.
|
| There is that one case that made the news worldwide for
| months because of how hard it is... and I never heard
| about any other one.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Many, actually:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_landing
| marcosdumay wrote:
| Oh, cool. If I counted that right, there has been 4
| unplanned landings by large planes, and a bit more than
| that of planed landings. But smaller (and slower) planes
| do that all the time.
|
| The part about smaller planes makes a lot of sense.
| MadnessASAP wrote:
| For me the cure came from the sense of control provided
| by knowing everything that was going on the plane. All
| the sounds, sensations, and movements I put a what and
| why too. That and the literal control I get from being
| one of the people responsible for keeping that pile of
| parts in the air. It's some small comfort to think that
| if I'm ever in an crash, I could've done something about
| it rather then having died through no fault or inaction
| of my own.
|
| Also it gives me something to do other then sitting in an
| airport terminal because the plane is delayed due to
| maintenance issues.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Yes, I can see how that would give you a better feeling.
| But I don't have your expertise so for me it feels like
| I'm giving over control over my life to people who
| presumably know what they are doing. Which is fine as
| long as that picture gets reinforced but it breaks when
| you get evidence to the contrary.
| MadnessASAP wrote:
| I don't know if this will make you feel better or worse,
| but it's come rather apparent these days that the person
| in row 0,regardless of their skill, is pretty much the
| least reliable part of the system.
|
| Except for the toaster, the bloody toaster is always
| acting up.
| krisoft wrote:
| > what exactly is... a water landing? Am I mistaken or
| does this sound somewhat similar to CRASHING INTO THE
| OCEAN
|
| What a silly thing to say. First of all not all water is
| ocean. Second the speeds and forces involved in a landing
| and in a crashing are very different.
|
| Here is how an aftermath of a water landing looks like:
| https://youtu.be/x02cA6eamq0?si=-dQsJm353WySpv0Z
|
| As you can see the airplane is designed to float.
| ssnistfajen wrote:
| If an emergency landing was achieved it would imply the
| engine/wing fire was in a containable state.
| Terr_ wrote:
| > or else the state of the window becomes no longer relevant.
|
| I appreciate this, er, implicit understatement.
| qeternity wrote:
| Rapid unscheduled disassembly.
| whalesalad wrote:
| the engines don't put out a lot of radiant heat, especially at
| altitude where it is -50 outside. the lights on the other hand
| are putting out a metric fuck ton of heat directly at the
| illuminated area.
|
| heat from an engine is directed straight out the back by nature
| of the turbines.
|
| modern engines are also what are called "high bypass ratio"
| engines, where the outer ring of the engine (closest to the
| cladding) is really just air flowing by. the combustion area is
| smaller, in the center.
| strangattractor wrote:
| I as thinking how hot it gets sitting on a tarmac in Saudi
| Arabia or Tucson in the summer. A nice BLACK painted fuselage
| seems like a really bad idea. Just a thought.
| kayfox wrote:
| > considering the distance they have from the engines
|
| The engines are under the wing, the windows are above the wing,
| they are not very close to the windows at all.
| chankstein38 wrote:
| I was thinking this too... What if something caught fire in the
| aircraft during flight? I assume they land regardless but it
| goes from "Get the fire extinguisher and put it out" to "DO IT
| BEFORE THE WINDOWS MELT OFF!"
| ssnistfajen wrote:
| The primary objective would be to prevent engines from creating
| those unexpected excessive heat events in the first place.
| nomel wrote:
| With an engine fire, at speed, the vast majority of the heat
| will be from the flame, in the air, traveling backwards at
| hundreds of miles per hour. This leaves the radiant heat. At
| speed, the radiant heat, from a fuel fire, has no hope of
| overcoming the many hundred mph wind that is scrubbing along
| the window, cooling it off.
| GlenTheMachine wrote:
| My research group used to use a Hollywood spotlight to simulate
| the lighting in orbit. These lights take a long time to power
| cycle, so once they're on you kind of want to keep them on,
| otherwise it's 15-30 minutes once you turn them off before they
| fully power up again.
|
| So we left it on. After one test we left it pointed at our test
| article, which was made of styrofoam. After a couple of minutes
| it started smoking and melting. If we hadn't smelled the smoke
| I'm certain it would have caught on fire.
|
| We made very sure we never left it pointed at a fire sprinkler
| after that.
| cge wrote:
| >We made very sure we never left it pointed at a fire sprinkler
| after that.
|
| The one time we had an inadvertent discharge of a fire
| sprinkler in the historic building we're in was when a film
| crew had a light positioned too close to one. It was not close
| enough that someone without specific experience looking at it
| would have thought it was too close. The light wasn't even a
| high-powered outdoor film spotlight; it was for an indoor
| shoot. Film lights can just be _very_ bright, and _very_ hot.
| LeifCarrotson wrote:
| Since it's that time of year again for my fellow northerners
| with SAD, film lights can be wonderfully bright, and the heat
| is a welcome side benefit!
|
| Screw Verilux with their overpriced "10,000 lux" 10W panel
| (only at less than 6 inches from your face), instead get a
| high-CRI studio light over my reading chair and I'll be happy
| all winter.
| tjoff wrote:
| I'm intrigued, any recommendations?
| LeifCarrotson wrote:
| I am currently using a Fovitec Bicolor 650 LED panel - it
| was cheap and I am cheap. I replaced the power supply
| with a higher-wattage unit because it flickered at max
| power, that might be enough to make me not recommend it
| but it works for me.
|
| I previously used some adhesive LED strip lights on a
| 24x24 plate of aluminum. If DIY electronics are your
| aesthetic, go for it!
|
| See also these posts:
|
| https://meaningness.com/sad-light-led-lux
|
| https://meaningness.com/sad-light-lumens
|
| for a much more detailed writeup (no affiliation).
| alright2565 wrote:
| I personally use a 28600lm, 2ft, 220W linear bay light
| from superbrightleds.com for $130. The CRI is only 80+,
| but I personally don't think I can tell the difference.
| Like the other poster, I am cheap, but like actually
| cheap in that I made a spreadsheet to get the greatest
| lumens/$.
|
| I wouldn't suggest going brighter though, 30klm is
| already bright enough I can't look at the light directly
| and need to bounce it off the walls for comfort. The cat
| doesn't seem to mind though:
| https://i.imgur.com/aTegmqR.mp4
| Scene_Cast2 wrote:
| I use a 600W Godox M600BI, it's great.
|
| I found that 200-300W is about the optimum from a dollars
| per high quality lumen perspective. The SmallRig COB
| lights are great if you can get them at a discount.
| phyzome wrote:
| Sounds more like a "you'll be warm for the rest of your
| life" situation. :-P
| ReactiveJelly wrote:
| Just copy whatever train operators use as a deadman's
| switch, so the light turns off if you don't squeeze a
| handle very minute or something lol
| conradev wrote:
| Film lights are fantastic for emulating daylight.
|
| I got two of these, $350, but they're fantastic and I use
| them in place of my crappy ceiling lights:
|
| https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1753990-REG/amaran_a
| p...
| KennyBlanken wrote:
| Or you can just buy 490nm LED bulbs, which is the
| wavelength the photoreceptors in the eye related to
| circadian rhythms are most sensitive to. Just be aware
| that they should be off to the sides and ideally
| indirect, because concentrated blue light is actually
| hazardous to the eye.
|
| One can also buy a couple of bright, high-CRI LED bulbs
| for one's existing lights and save themselves about $650,
| because the difference between those and the studio
| lights is typically red spectrum coverage, which is not
| relevant for circadian rhythm / SAD treatment. The
| film/TV LED lights are also designed to have a really
| smooth spectrum, minimizing gaps. If you want to do
| that...fine, but please don't advise people to waste lots
| of money on something completely unnecessary.
|
| I assure you, a double-height high-CRI LED strip running
| along the edges of the room will throw a _fuckton_ of
| light without the issues caused by having two very
| intense point sources, namely shadows and glare.
|
| There's almost never a problem with too much blue light
| in the high CRI bulbs (in fact, the people doing the
| spectrograms are usually looking for bulbs _without_ the
| high blue spectrum spikes, and many people are looking
| for bulbs without the blue spikes (and they 're hard to
| find!)
| conradev wrote:
| Yeah - to be clear, I am not doing it for any particular
| element of physical health or circadian rhythm, I am just
| trying to emulate sunlight for aesthetic reasons (yum,
| red spectrum coverage)
|
| Smart bulbs sacrifice on light quality for color and dumb
| bulbs can't adjust color temperature (even dumbly!).
| Studio lighting is expensive but has both.
|
| I love the idea of a high-CRI LED strip, because, yeah,
| an intense point source is really not ideal to light a
| room. But the strip would need to be bi-color, but such a
| thing probably exists. I just moved and I have zero
| ceiling sockets, so A19 is dead to me :(
| jvm___ wrote:
| I have two of the crappy 10,000 lux ones that I potato chip
| chip to stay on top of my monitors in my home office.
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| > that I potato chip chip to stay on top of my monitors
|
| What does that mean?
| potatochipclip wrote:
| Presumably they mean a potato chip clip. The kind of V
| shaped clip that one uses to close a bag of potato chips.
| A fancy clothespin.
| 6LLvveMx2koXfwn wrote:
| A Bulldog Clip[1]?
|
| 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulldog_clip
| brnt wrote:
| Dont forget the small power plant you will now neef!
| quickthrowman wrote:
| > The one time we had an inadvertent discharge of a fire
| sprinkler in the historic building we're in
|
| Ouch, hopefully the film production company had liability
| insurance! It's easy to rack up six figures of damage by
| setting off fire sprinkler.
| wkat4242 wrote:
| It's usually not like in the movies that when one sprinkler
| goes off, the entire building is getting a shower. That's
| only for high risk installations.
|
| Usually it's just one in the fire area, they trigger with a
| heat sensitive capsule that breaks.
| burnished wrote:
| Do apartment buildings count as high risk? Genuine
| question
|
| Anyway if I remember my highrise fire safety training
| right there is at least one building where on sprinkler
| going off sets the others off. IIRC the pressure drop
| from one unit activating triggered a pump and the
| subsequent increase in pressure popped the other.
| wkat4242 wrote:
| No they don't. Only industrial places like storage of
| flammables or high-dust that can cause explosions.
|
| Of course it would be quite annoying to have your
| apartment flooded because one of the neighbours let their
| pizza burn :P
| burnished wrote:
| Cool, thank you for clarifying!
|
| A burning pizza just kicks off the fire alarm, not the
| sprinklers. Frankly I don't remember much past the the
| whole drop in pressure detection leading to kickoff of
| other sprinklers thing to suggest what level of
| partitioning occurred .
| burnished wrote:
| How close/far we talking? Could you have touched the
| sprinkler and the light at the same time (if you ignore
| height difference related difficulties)?
| KennyBlanken wrote:
| Sprinkler vials are designed to break at temperatures as
| low as 135 degrees. Air temperature plus radiated heat
| could easily hit that even if the light is fairly far below
| the head.
| GlenTheMachine wrote:
| There is no doubt in my mind that the light we used could
| have set off the sprinklers from at least fifty feet.
|
| I don't know off the top of my head the amp rating, but I
| know we had to have the room electric supply upgraded
| (and this was already a well equipped robotics lab - it
| isn't like the electric supply was bad to begin with).
|
| The light itself was about three feet in diameter, four
| feet long, and, like, 200 pounds. It was a big old hunk
| of photon-generating madness.
| burnished wrote:
| Yeah, I have a physical sense for how hot lights are, but
| I don't have a physical sense for what 'surprising
| proximity to a sprinkler' is and I'm trying to borrow
| theirs to sate my curiosity.
| nashashmi wrote:
| What do you think about this? Is this what may have happened?
|
| >I'm really surprised lights used to simulate sunrise placed
| 20-30ft away could completely melt the foam holding the
| exterior windows in place.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38221699
| GlenTheMachine wrote:
| I am absolutely not surprised, this should be a completely
| expected outcome if you've ever worked with film lights. For
| reference our light was probably more like 40-50 feet away
| from our test article.
|
| We loaned it to some NASA colleagues once, but their safety
| manager refused to allow it in the building. At all.
| CodeWriter23 wrote:
| A school I was working out rented out as a location. The
| lighting crew followed their standard protocols, power all
| lights with the generator so when the Location Manager orders
| the power down they know the lights are off. The wardrobe crew
| on the other hand decided to move one of the lights for their
| convenience and plugged it into the building power supply.
| Someone else had moved a garment rack into range of the light.
|
| About 3am the fire alarm went off. One of the elderly nuns was
| sleeping in her room on the top level of the building, was
| carried out by a firefighter.
|
| The school was a converted English Tutor Mansion, had a grand
| entrance with hand carved mahogany everywhere. The film company
| hired a crew of like 30 cleaners that were scrubbing the smoke
| out of the carvings with toothbrushes.
| lobf wrote:
| This is why film electricians are very strict about nobody
| besides them plugging / unplugging anything. The best boy or
| genny operator is always balancing loads and tracking power
| usage, especially when house power is in play.
| seabass-labrax wrote:
| Would you mind specifying which school this was? I'm curious
| because of your description (presumably that is English
| _Tudor_ Mansion) of the architecture.
| pcthrowaway wrote:
| > presumably that is English Tudor Mansion
|
| Although it's fairly common for schools to have tutors as
| well
| foobar1962 wrote:
| But not common for english tutors to have mansions.
| CodeWriter23 wrote:
| Yeah, no.
| seabass-labrax wrote:
| Right'o! A relative of mine whose school was formerly an
| English Tudor mansion related to me a fire he witnessed,
| and it occurred to me that it would not be impossible for
| this to be the same event.
| rkangel wrote:
| Why is it always the wardrobe department? Years ago I worked
| as local crew at The Mayflower in Southampton (UK). We had to
| evacuate during the show one night because wardrobe had a
| toaster they weren't meant to have, and managed to set fire
| to some costumes.
|
| I was quite impressed the with the evacuation procedures -
| almost 3000 people outside in under 3 minutes!
| ekianjo wrote:
| > which was made of styrofoam.
|
| styrofoam melts super easily so not sure that says much
| ibejoeb wrote:
| Was it an old arc lamp?
| pbjtime wrote:
| NO!
|
| It was a brand new arc lamp.
| ironmagma wrote:
| Did they at least get some good footage out of it?
| codedokode wrote:
| I don't understand, if those lights are so powerful then how do
| actors survive under their light?
| buildbot wrote:
| Humans are actively cooled, and I think these lights were much
| higher power and much closer than typical film lights are to
| actors.
| dmitrygr wrote:
| Your cells will multiply to heal damage. Most polymers will
| just crumble.
| tjohns wrote:
| First, stage lighting is already uncomfortably hot for anyone
| working under them for any length of time.
|
| Second, these weren't ordinary stage lights. These were lights
| for use outdoors to simulate natural sunlight, which is much
| brighter (and hotter) than what you'd normally use indoors.
|
| Third, they were probably positioned too close, and left on for
| too long. Just a guess on this one.
| wkat4242 wrote:
| Still, if they are sunlight stimulators, wouldn't that mean
| that the heat from real sunlight could cause this also? These
| lights were too far for air heating to be an issue. So it
| must have been all IR.
|
| Maybe this kind of foam isn't entirely up to the spec either.
| WalterBright wrote:
| When I lived in Arizona, one quickly learned not to leave
| vinyl records near the car windows! Or crayons.
| wkat4242 wrote:
| Yes my ex' glasses broke on their own while lying on the
| dash in Australian summer. I still have them lol
| hengheng wrote:
| There's a minimum distance of like 10-30ft with these lights.
| They're also uncomfortably warm, prompting humans to leave
| after a while but not airplanes.
| rosywoozlechan wrote:
| Can LEDs be used to create the same brightness without the
| heat?
| ceejayoz wrote:
| If you're filming at high frame rates the flickering might
| become apparent.
| gpm wrote:
| So feed them with DC current? It's not like we're talking
| consumer lightbulbs that need to convert AC to DC as
| cheaply as possible to stay competitive.
| Scoundreller wrote:
| It's possible, but I'm thinking a lot of constant-current
| devices will have some ripple in their output, even if
| smoothened. Human eye won't see it, but high frame rate
| camera might capture at just the wrong rate to see it.
|
| It's an surmountable problem, but can be expensive if it
| doesn't need to be overcome often.
|
| (All speculation on my part)
| mrob wrote:
| Follow your switching regulator or rectifier with some
| analog filtering, then a linear regulator to convert the
| remaining ripple to heat. It doesn't have to be very
| expensive, and only loses a little efficiency. I have LED
| light bulbs that work like this.
| mlyle wrote:
| > then a linear regulator to convert the remaining ripple
| to heat.
|
| I've become much less of a fan of the "switchilinear"
| approach. The control loop of a linear regulator isn't
| fast enough to respond to fast switching frequencies; the
| regulator is effectively just a resistor in a filter
| network at that point.
|
| Even if your switching frequency is in the regulator's
| loop bandwidth, the loop's gain at that frequency is
| almost certainly very low.
| codedokode wrote:
| Ususally they use PWM for controlling the brightness
| because LEDs change their spectrum with voltage change
| and this is undesirable. That's why PWM is used in laptop
| and smartphone screens.
| mlyle wrote:
| You can filter that to be as small as you'd like. Also,
| it can intrinsically matter much less; if you're
| switching at, say, 1MHz (which can be desirable for
| smaller inductors), you're talking about thousands of
| cycles of ripple in each frame.
|
| Assuming you're using a global shutter camera: even if
| the ripple is completely unfiltered, the only remaining
| intensity effect would be that some frames get 8000
| "blinks" in a frame and some get 8001.
|
| Already, stage and film lighting is a relatively small
| market compared to the entire lighting market, but it's
| not so small that NRE can't be spread across a lot of
| units.
| itishappy wrote:
| Incandescent suffers the same issues if run off mains. I
| think the filament itself has a bit of a filtering effect
| (it takes time to heat and cool), but for sensitive film
| work I assume you'll need power conditioning either way.
| mlyle wrote:
| > I think the filament itself has a bit of a filtering
| effect (it takes time to heat and cool),
|
| I believe the time constant for most small lamps is 30ms
| and longer for bigger lamps. 1 / (2 * pi * 30ms) is 5Hz,
| so 120 Hz will be about 30 dB down. This is probably just
| barely big enough to matter.
| Filligree wrote:
| These ones, apparently, take fifteen minutes.
|
| I wonder what the filament looks like.
| mlyle wrote:
| Lights that take a long time to warm up are more about
| establishing an arc or gas temperature for full
| operation. They still respond to power fluctuations more
| quickly than the time it takes them to warm up.
|
| E.g. I have both fluorescent and HID lamps with this
| characteristic; they take a couple minutes to reach full
| brightness, but still will dim when a big load kicks on
| and turn off immediately when I flip the switch.
| saalweachter wrote:
| I feel like the film industry is big enough you should be
| able to engineer and market a special, non-flickering,
| tuned spectrum LED light that produces 80-90% less heat,
| and as long as the TCO isn't like an order of magnitude
| higher, you'd have a gangbuster success.
| KennyBlanken wrote:
| High CRI, tunable color balance and temperature LED
| lights are very widespread in tv/movie/commercial shoots
| and have been for years...
| codedokode wrote:
| LED lights can be made small, flat and portable which is
| good for TV (e.g. for news reporting).
| saalweachter wrote:
| Do you happen to know if the lights everyone tells
| stories about -- both this news article, and other
| anecdotes -- are already LEDs, and still absurdly hot,
| because more light is better?
| kuschku wrote:
| The LEDs only reach up to 800W in the case of the
| SkyPanelX, while regular halogen lamps are still needed
| for more focused, higher brightness lights (which go up
| to 18kW per lamp(!))
| saalweachter wrote:
| Yeah, even with the 4:1 lumen:watt advantage for LED
| bulbs, that's still a nearly 6x brightness advantage for
| halogen.
|
| Is the limiting factor the technology to make a 4500W LED
| bulb in the same form-factor/focus as the 18kW halogen,
| or does it just become prohibitively expensive to do so?
| kuschku wrote:
| LEDs produce 80% less heat, but they also fail at much
| lower temperatures. Which is the major limiting factor
| for LED brightness today, as the cooling solutions get
| larger and more esoteric the more power you concentrate
| in an area.
| zamadatix wrote:
| Flicker isn't inherent to LED lights rather it's inherent
| to being particularly cheap when making them. Even just
| good consumer LED lights will have an extremely constant
| output.
| kube-system wrote:
| I don't think it's that, I think the primary reason is
| color:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_rendering_index#Film_
| and...
| filterfiber wrote:
| The light spectrum from LEDs is undesirable.
|
| But otherwise yes they would be less hot.
| codedokode wrote:
| LED lights (small, flat, square panels with LEDs) are
| used in filming for TV.
| itishappy wrote:
| Without heat? No. With less heat? Yes.
|
| Light is energy, and filming requires a lot of light, so
| there's always going to be significant visible energy
| available to heat things up. (Unless you're filming a
| mirror, but in that case why are you illuminating it?)
|
| Incandescent lights emit a lot of invisible energy in the
| form of infrared radiation, while LEDs are designed to emit
| most of their energy in the visible spectrum. This means
| LEDs need less energy to produce the same visual effect,
| and therefore impart less heat. Another option is to slap a
| "hot mirror" or "cold mirror" (like the one from the
| dentist's office) in front of your lights that separates
| the visible from IR.
|
| https://ogc-jp.com/en/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/cat12.jpg
|
| https://www.edmundoptics.com/c/hot-cold-mirrors/989/
| hex4def6 wrote:
| I wonder why they don't use hot / cold mirrors to
| separate the visible light from the IR. You could bounce
| the IR energy (upwards(?) or into a heatsink) so that the
| scene isn't as intensely heated.
| KennyBlanken wrote:
| There are in fact theater lights at least as early as the
| 90's with cold mirrors to direct IR to a heatsink, to
| extend the life of gobos and gels, and put less IR on
| actors.
|
| Cold mirrors that large are expensive and it's just
| complexity/something to break or need servicing
| (cleaning) so I doubt they were stocked much by rental
| companies or saw much usage in tv/movie production.
| jacquesm wrote:
| It's hard to get the same effect with LED though due to
| spectral differences.
| TaylorAlexander wrote:
| There's that old saying: place a fire under an airplane and
| it will quickly move itself away. Slowly heat it with film
| lights and it will stay there until its seals melt. I am
| surprised the flight crew didn't remember this common saying!
| scyzoryk_xyz wrote:
| Give a flight crew film lights and they will scare the
| plane away, but teach them how to light for film and they
| will fly that plane for a lifetime.
| reactordev wrote:
| I've explained this before but I'll chime in here and explain
| it again. Spotlights like these used for filming get hot
| (temperature wise) as well as having the ability to focus the
| beam. The lights heat will fall off but a focused beam will
| retain more of its energy. Now, some movie makeup has built in
| SPF. Stage makeup definitely has some. On stage, you'll often
| see fans blowing to keep people cool or they will use
| _diffused_ lighting and not spotlights which don't generate so
| much heat.
|
| Spotlights like these though, you might as well be holding a
| giant magnifying glass. The beam is culminated and will cook
| whatever it's pointing at. _Will it cook a human?_ Yes if you
| stand there, still, for long enough. You will definitely get
| sun burned. If you get within 10 feet it will feel like your
| standing in an oven. Within 5 feet and your skin could boil.
| LeifCarrotson wrote:
| It culminates in cooking the human. A laser beam is
| collimated, a spotlight only approximately so.
| jacquesm wrote:
| I've been on a couple of film sets and when those big lights
| are on you better not be caught unprepared especially not when
| they are focused. The lights are usually kept running between
| takes (and during shorter breaks) and you will definitely
| realize you are 'in the beam' when you walk across the set.
| Another commenter here mentions UV protection built into make-
| up, I wasn't aware of that but it makes good sense.
|
| One thing I learned while webcasting Yves St. Laurent's fashion
| show in the mid 90's is that the flowers wilt within minutes of
| being placed due to all of the heat from the lights. So the way
| they dealt with that is that backstage there is an absolutely
| enormous amount of flowers ready to be deployed and they just
| cycle through flower arrangements continuously for the duration
| of the show so that the flowers are always fresh. It's tens of
| people walking to and fro without pause.
| js2 wrote:
| > Loy wrote that the biggest problem during shooting was the
| climactic dinner party scene in which Nick reveals the
| killer. Powell complained that he had too many lines to learn
| and could barely decipher the complicated plot he was
| unraveling. It was the one scene when several retakes were
| necessary, which brought up an entirely new problem. The
| script called for oysters to be served to the dinner guests
| and, in take after take, the same plate of oysters was
| brought out under the hot lights. Loy recalled that "they
| began to putrefy. By the time we finished that scene, nobody
| ever wanted to see another oyster".
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thin_Man_(film)#Filming
|
| (Great movie BTW!)
| jacquesm wrote:
| That's why food photography is an art form. Often the
| actual food is substituted by something that is more
| resistant to the thermal onslaught of the lighting but that
| looks identical.
|
| As to the number of takes and food: one particular set I
| recall was for a cookie brand, they did endless re-takes
| and the actress that had to eat the cookies started to get
| sick enough to vomit. We were all pretty happy when the
| director was finally satisfied with what must have been his
| masterpiece.
| codedokode wrote:
| So the cookies were not as great as advertised?
| pgeorgi wrote:
| It is the dose that makes the poison...
| gnabgib wrote:
| Previously: "Missing windows discovered on U.S.-bound plane after
| departing London" [0] (125 points, 91 comments, 6 days ago)
|
| [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38221121
| LASR wrote:
| So basically, this could have been a serious incident if they
| used a lower power light that did not cause the window to fail so
| obviously. I bet with a full pressure differential at cruising
| alt, this might have blown up catastrophically.
|
| Quite scary what kinds of causes trigger such incidents. As a
| frequent flier, I would have never imagined something like this.
|
| How are there no regulations that should have prevented or caught
| this? I bet there will be now.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Since it has happened before I don't think there will be any
| such regulations.
| buildsjets wrote:
| Aircraft fuselages are not balloons, and they do not
| catastrophically pop if the fuselage is punctured in discrete
| locations. Relevant recommended viewing is "operation
| guillotine fuselage test" on YouTube, where large steel blades
| are dropped through pressurized aircraft fuselage sections to
| validate no explosive decompression. In the late 1950s, BTW.
|
| Commercial aircraft are required to be designed to maintain
| 15,000 foot equivalent cabin altitude after any probable
| failure, which includes multiple missing windows, per the
| requirements of 14 CFR 25.841 and it's EASA equivalent.
|
| There is already regulation in place that should have caught
| this but did not. The captain is required to perform an
| external visual inspection of the aircraft before departure,
| which follows a checklist that includes looking at the windows.
| It appears that did not happen.
| scarby2 wrote:
| > There is already regulation in place that should have
| caught this but did not. The captain is required to perform
| an external visual inspection of the aircraft before
| departure, which follows a checklist that includes looking at
| the windows. It appears that did not happen.
|
| We've no idea if the damage was visible prior to takeoff. It
| may have easily passed a visual inspection on the ground
| before moving at speed with a pressure differential. As per
| the article at least one of them appears to have detached in
| flight and struck the horizontal stabilizer.
| wkipling wrote:
| The walk around is not required to be done by the captain.
| It's not a checklist but a visual inspection of the aircraft
| as per the FCOM.
|
| Also the engineer who signed off the aircraft will do a walk
| around.
|
| The location of these windows might have made it hard to spot
| the damage.
| nomel wrote:
| > How are there no regulations that should have prevented or
| caught this? I bet there will be now.
|
| I would think a pressure check would be _trivial_. I would also
| assume a visual inspection is part of takeoff (camera or
| human). I assume this sort of thing is rare enough to not
| warrant the extra time /cost of these trivialities.
| closeparen wrote:
| Is this significantly more heat than you would get from a tarmac
| delay in Phoenix?
| jacquesm wrote:
| Overall less energy but locally much more due to the fact that
| it is focused. By comparison: a lighter doesn't have a whole
| lot of energy, but it outputs that energy in a tiny volume
| resulting in combustion. The lights they used are not quite
| lighters but they can cause fires if you concentrate their
| output in a small enough area. A tarmac radiating heat is an
| enormous amount of output but on a W/sqm basis for delivered
| power it is a fraction of what those lights can do.
| gomox wrote:
| Can someone explain how:
|
| * Damage to the left leading edge of the horizontal stabilizer
| was noted as well. Investigators found acrylic in the puncture,
| consistent with a window pane.
|
| And:
|
| * The aircraft remained properly pressurized throughout the
| flight.
|
| Are not mutually incompatible? (i.e. a window pane hit the tail
| in flight and somehow the aircraft remained pressurized?)
| reportingsjr wrote:
| Aircraft windows have multiple, separate panes. Presumably only
| the outer pane dislodged and the inner ones remained in place.
| fsckboy wrote:
| the cabins of airplanes are actively pressurized by pumping air
| in, and constantly removing some air so carbon dioxide doesn't
| build up. The pumping that feeds the replacement air could be
| higher capacity than the flow through a missing window.
|
| pressurization of aircraft is not required till 12,500 ft
| (3810m) so the air pressure differential at 15000 is not likely
| to be that great.
| epcoa wrote:
| > pressurization of aircraft is not required till 12,500 ft
|
| Well, no. I don't think cabin altitude for passenger
| airliners has ever been that high, so you need pressurization
| much lower than that (typically starting around 6000 ft for
| modern aircraft).
|
| Edit: Even the Boeing 307 Stratoliner was pressurized to 8000
| ft.
| mwint wrote:
| Pilot here - it's legal to fly at 12,500 in an
| unpressurized aircraft indefinitely. See https://www.ecfr.g
| ov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-F.... Cabin
| pressurization is set to a lower altitude, but that's not
| for a legal requirement. It's just nicer to be at higher
| pressurization.
|
| And, I mean, think about it - there are _towns_ at 9k+
| feet.
| epcoa wrote:
| > but that's not for a legal requirement.
|
| This one? https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/25.841
| imadethis wrote:
| There are three window panes on a commercial plane. The outside
| pane maintains pressure, while the middle one is a failsafe in
| the event the outside pane fails (the inner pane is cosmetic
| and to prevent people from messing with the important panes).
|
| Without reading the report, the outside pane could have failed
| and hit the stabilizer while the middle pane continued to hold
| pressure as expected, therefore no contradiction in the two
| statements.
| illwrks wrote:
| As far as I understand it, there are several layers that make
| up an airplane window, the one in the middle is the vital one
| and the extra layers on either side have other purposes.
|
| In this incident, the outer frame had melted and the outer pane
| had separated from the rest but the central layer was OK at
| that point in time.
|
| https://thepointsguy.com/news/what-are-airplane-windows-made...
| mjg59 wrote:
| You need to pump air into a plane to provide oxygen. That
| implies that you need to let air out. The pressurisation system
| in planes is able to deal with a moderate amount of air exiting
| the aircraft without losing pressure, and the lower the
| altitude the easier that is.
| WalterBright wrote:
| You can have a hole the size of a quarter with no effect on
| cabin pressure.
|
| This is why the fear that a bullet fired in the airplane will
| pop it like a balloon is unfounded. Poking a hole in the
| fuselage won't do anything. A bullet would have to hit and
| disable something critical (and there's always a backup for
| critical parts).
| wkipling wrote:
| Not oxygen, air. The outflow valves on modern aeroplanes are
| almost the size of the windows themselves. They would
| progressively close to maintain cabin pressure.
| OJFord wrote:
| Discussed recently here:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38221121
|
| That article isn't as good (less technical/more 'pop' audience)
| but they both link the actual AAIB report which I found quite
| interesting and surprisingly readable, and I don't think either
| article has anything extra to offer. I'd suggest skipping
| straight to it:
| https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6544b3089e05f...
| foota wrote:
| Sounds expensive.
| userbinator wrote:
| I'm a little surprised that the window panes aren't so much
| physically bigger than the opening such that even if the seal
| failed they'd still be held in place by cabin pressure.
| wkipling wrote:
| They are generally plug type
| davidhyde wrote:
| I just don't understand why all movie set lights haven't
| instantly been replaced by their LED equivalent. Why do people
| still use these things that are crazy expensive to run and can
| set things on fire?
| usefulcat wrote:
| Color temperature, I would guess.
| rtpg wrote:
| Can an LES array nicely reproduce similar color spectrums? If I
| had to guess I imagine the film lamps emit a pretty broad range
| of color.
| SkyPuncher wrote:
| Light quality.
| KennyBlanken wrote:
| The cost of running them isn't relevant. What is relevant:
| being able to get more light from a limited amount of
| house/set/generator power, and the control over them. They
| don't require a dimmer pack, just power and DMX (wired or
| wireless) to control their brightness, color temperature,
| activate special in-light effects like flickering/strobing,
| etc.
|
| Some directors prefer the spectrum completeness and profile
| from tungsten (or the ultimate, carbon-arc, which is virtually
| indistinguishable from the sun.)
|
| I also think there are levels of light that aren't really
| feasible except with carbon arc because LEDs don't like heat
| and that limits power density.
|
| I don't remember what movie it was, but there's a photo of an
| enormous balloon light - larger than an entire house - over a
| farmhouse somewhere in the midwest, at night. Pretty sure it
| wasn't LEDs as the source, but I could be wrong.
| _kb wrote:
| Possibly the set of Nope: https://www.reddit.com/r/Damnthatsi
| nteresting/comments/xmdx0....
|
| Not a balloon, but a big diffuser with a whole bunch of Cineo
| 410 LED sources.
| ComputerGuru wrote:
| Spectrum continuity and spikes, flicker, active cooling,
| ridiculously short lifespans at ridiculously high levels of
| brightness, and a sprinkling of "the old way is the only way"?
| strogonoff wrote:
| Ever heard how painters hunt for pigments? Sure, if you run out
| of orange you can just mix red and yellow, but the end result
| will reflect different frequencies than when you used a
| dedicated orange pigment--meaning some oranges in your final
| work would look ever so slightly different (and sometimes
| _very_ different under some light conditions or angles) from
| other oranges or from what you would like, especially over
| time.
|
| The situation can also be flipped and apply to light sources,
| and those by definition are key in photography.
|
| In case of LED light, its colour balance can be declared to
| match some reference Kelvin number, but because it is "fake", a
| mix of spikes in the spectrum (roughly at R, G, and B for RGB
| LEDs, phosphorus-covered white LEDs have the spectrum more even
| but its own gaps and bumps), and materials of various colours
| can reflect inbetween those peaks, or right at those peaks,
| those materials can look 1) different from scene to scene and
| from light to light or 2) plain wrong in post production,
| compounding variance between camera sensors or films (which
| create colour from their own mix of R, G, and B), lenses, etc.
|
| Added to other flaws of LEDs, such as longevity (of cheaper
| units), issues with brightness and colour reproduction
| consistency, PWM, etc., they make a poor choice for a variety
| of situations[0], but in photography particularly so,
| particularly where colour reproduction and continuity matter
| (TV and film).
|
| By contrast, black body radiation--hot and more energy
| intensive--is a solid spectrum of even light, without spectral
| discontinuities or flicker at any brightness.
|
| [0] In some situations those flaws are considered acceptable.
| You may have noticed how two identical OLED iPhones displayed
| at an Apple Store, even fully reset to defaults, can have
| obviously different white point when you look at them side by
| side--that's colour reproduction/emission variance and/or
| degradation over time. Similarly, you can often spot PWM
| flicker if you reduce brightness and squint at an OLED phone
| with your peripheral vision. These things don't matter much,
| since 99.99% of the time we look only at our own device and our
| colour perception and flicker tolerance is adjusted to it. Not
| so with photography; you can't afford colour variance between
| two different lights even in cases where it's not noticeable to
| the naked eye in the moment, whereas PWM restricts your FPS and
| shutter angle options.
| HPsquared wrote:
| White LEDs do not produce three narrow spectral peaks. That's
| only RGB LEDs, which are a very specific thing and not the
| norm. LED lighting uses phosphors and produces a broad
| spectrum.
|
| Take a CD / DVD (if you can find one in 2023) and look at the
| spectrum from your phone flash, or any other LED lamp, and
| observe the broad spectrum. They all have some sort of blue
| peak, but it's very small in "warm white" lights.
| strogonoff wrote:
| That's true, I edited my comment to note phosphorus-coated
| LEDs, but that coating still leaves spectrum with gaps and
| bumps. Besides, the more coating you add, the less bright
| or energy efficient your lights get, and sets can require
| _very_ bright lights.
|
| Other issues, such as PWM flicker coinciding with your FPS
| and shutter angle or LED controller interference in audio
| recording, remain.
|
| From my understanding, today mature LED-based solutions can
| only mitigate these issues with varying success, not
| eliminate all of them entirely, all this mitigation adding
| complexity and cost, while on the other hand one could just
| use a black body emitter so that those issues are not
| technically a thing, and try not to set things on fire.
| kuschku wrote:
| If you try out the newer ARRI LED based solutions such as
| the new Skypanels, they've fixed that entirely. And even
| low-budget lights such as the newer Aputure ones produce
| an amazingly even spectrum (though their cheapest
| products have a bimodal distribution)
| strogonoff wrote:
| Those that sell for $4k+ USD? Perhaps they mitigate these
| issues (can't find any research that compares the
| spectrum to black body and addresses the other issues),
| though not sure if they are more budget effective if you
| have a well fire hazard trained crew.
| kuschku wrote:
| They don't just mitigate them, they're entirely free of
| them. There's a reason Skypanels are standard on every
| single major hollywood production nowadays.
|
| That said, if you need a _lot_ of light, halogen is
| without alternative. There 's a reason the ArriMAX with
| its 18kW halogen lamp is still popular.
| Aardwolf wrote:
| Bad color rendering index.
| NKosmatos wrote:
| I'm curious to see what kind of photos they took.
|
| Having so many of these huge lights, blasting out 12KWs each, for
| 4-5.5 hrs just to get a few photos of a plane sounds a little bit
| too much, but hey who am I to judge :-)
| alexpotato wrote:
| I went to college in the late 1990s and I distinctly remember my
| university had banned halogen lamps.
|
| The reasoning was that:
|
| - college students are busy/forgetful so will leave the light on
|
| - there are times of day where no one would be in a dorm room
|
| - BUT that dorm room is a bigger dorm with potentially lots of
| other students
|
| - an unattended halogen lamp could set fire to an object on a
| desk etc
|
| this post feels like a much bigger version of the above
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-11-17 23:01 UTC)