[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: Skylights: The Flourescent Conspiracy



Mark. Gooley <gooley@netcom.com> wrote:
 
>A sunscoop might not be necessary, but a lot of summer overhang would
>be a good idea.

Well, a sunscoop can provide both, as well as easily concentrate the
heat and light gain in winter by 2 or 3:1, while using a smaller aperture
into the building for heat loss in the winter and heat gain in the summer.

>In the summer you'd get at least as much light as from
>a northern exposure, and in the winter some solar gain as well.

Vy does everyone want to have North-facing skylights? The sun is in the South!

>Do fluorescents dim well even with a special ballast?

I think you need new ballasts to dim them completely. Lutron makes a
nice dimmer. And somebody makes a whole system with a serial addressable
digital interface, to control individual units in small increments, with
one serial bus.

>Maybe a "digital" approach is better: use a lot of those new 34-watt thin
>tubes rather than the big 8-footers, and shut some of them off completely
>when there's enough daylight.

Sounds good. Perhaps more efficient.

>I take it we're pretty much agreed that conventional skylights (as
>opposed to cleretories) leak, lose too much heat, and provide too much
>direct light in summer, yes?

No... At least not ones equipped with Zomeworks sunscoop reflectors.

Nick


References: