Dish Scapes on 199 is interesting

[maggiedeahne]

Maybe this year we'll get to see the leprechaun!

Or the Daoine Sidhe, or some Banshees.....

 

[Howard Simmons]

Maybe this year we'll get to see the leprechaun!

Or a bowl of Lucky Charms cereal

 

[pattykay]

Or a bowl of Lucky Charms cereal

or some Irish Spring.

 

[Bobby]

Just slip me a glass of Tullamore Dew and I’ll be happy!

 

[Howard Simmons]

Last chance to watch this month's Dish Scapes.

 

[MrDishTech]

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?

AMEN!!!!! P L E A S E.....

 

[TheKrell]

AMEN!!!!! P L E A S E.....

Considering I made that suggestion over a year ago, I am not hopeful.

 

[grc]

Apparently, the Irish Countryside isn't causing much excitement in the Satelliteguys ranks. Or maybe people are just moving on from Dish Scapes?

 

[TheKrell]

I have glanced at it and hereby pronounce it very lovely. I have not watched a full cycle so I don't know what (if anything) pops up.

 

[Brussam]

The sheep move, a dog comes out and barks, there are five diffenent boats that disappear behind the castle or appear from behind. The lu
Lighthouse lights at times, lights cycle in the castle and houses. The usual rain, clouds, moon and some music once in a while.





It

 

[Radioguy41]

An impressive thunderstorm followed by a rainbow. If you watch the night scene it varies which cottage chimney is smoking. Then there is the meteor shower and the evening fog horn.

 

[pattykay]

The usual rain, clouds...

...and some unusual clouds.

 

[Bobby]

and the moon comes out but never moves...

 

[TheKrell]

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.

 

[Radioguy41]

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.

 

[joegr]

The ones we have here, shine the same in all directions, land or sea. Of course, I don't think they serve any actual navigational purpose anymore.

 

[TheKrell]

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 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.

 

[Howard Simmons]

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.

 

[Radioguy41]

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.

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.

 

[TheKrell]

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.

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)

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.

Full disclosure: I have a lighthouse calendar, and I wear a lighthouse T while inside my house.