Re: LED Overhead BGS Illumination

On Jul 13, 11:01 pm, mkeen <inks...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 13, 5:08 pm, "rshe...@xxxxxxxxx" <rshe...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Jul 13, 4:25 pm, mkeen <inks...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jul 12, 6:42 pm, "rshe...@xxxxxxxxx" <rshe...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jul 12, 5:46 pm, mkeen <inks...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

These flourescents (which are now gone) seemed to last for decades
without maintenance.

I don't know about that.

fluorescent lighting was always troublesome, maybe not the fixtures
them selves, but the wiring.

I'm only basing my point on what I saw locally here in North Jersey.
Most of the fluorescent fixtures at the I-80/US46/NJ23 interchange
were still working well right up until they were demolished last year
while newer mercury vapor or metal halide were mostly dark.

You see, early on, and with the pic you posted, you did not have exit
number tabs.

that was one of the reasons they did away with the top side
flourescent  fixture.

Interesting point.  But I don't think the exit number tab precludes
top lighting.  Just raise the fixtures to clear the tab.

But a 9 or 12 foot high sign is not going to be evenly illuminated by
either a top side or bottom side fixture, that, and the maint problems
is the reason flourescents are no longer used.

I agree that signs are now sometimes much larger than most from the
sixties and seventies.  I'm not sure how different lamp technologies
compare in terms of throw distance.

solar panels are a good idea on oh structures in FL and TX, but not in
NJ.

I disagree.  The extra daylight time in Florida is not enough to make
a big difference.  Solar panels are already in heavy use in NJ in all
sorts of applications.  Solar panels work on light, not temperature..

They add to the weight of the structure and even more in ice and snow

But LED fixtures weigh less than other types.  Probably a wash in
terms of weight.

Also they add to wind resistance.

C'mon.  That's why we have engineers.

Here is what I was thinking, not in terms of daylight.  I realize they
are used all over the northland, but on a oh structure, with 9x12 foot
signs, those mentioned engineers, will have to build a heavier, more
substantial structure.

Consider an oh structure with 3 9x12 foot signs, lighting, solar
panels for the lighting, having to be designed for 200 mph wind speed
and 5 inches of ice.

another thing you might want to consider

some years ago, when the vms's that now appear on the interstates and
other hwys were being designed, NJDOT initially wanted to use
cantilever supports rather then full oh structures.

upon installation, a problem was evident, they wobbled, iow they were
not stable in high winds, and also the backwash from passing trucks.

I am fairly sure the above is why you only see the solar panels on
ground mounts, school crossing and crosswalk signage.

I agree that ice is a consideration, if not for its weight then for
its potential for damage as it slides off in sheets.  But panels can
certainly be affixed to the upright supports that hold the overhead
signs.  In fact they do precisely that on some NY Thruway structures
in Rockland County.  Those panels supply power to flashing lights that
warn of curved ramps.  I don't know the comparative power requirements
of yellow warning LEDs vs. white lighting LEDs.



You are correct, they are on the side supports, but those panels
supply power to one sign

if you are going to solar power two other signs on the cross members,
then you have to consider wind and ice





I do believe that most overhead sign structures are capable of holding
considerably more weight than they do.  I've seen several fitted with
cellular phone antenna arrays years after they were originally
installed.  Most around here now have catwalks if they have lights.


a tangent to the above

NJ has always used very substantial oh structures on the interstates
compared to NY.

I know PA had serious problems with it oh structures similar to what
NY uses.

If you ever get to I-95 in Philly, those may be the most substantial
oh structures I have seen anywhere.

One of the problems, I understand was those 40 ft long dump trucks
raising their dumpers as they pass under the structure and knocking it
down.





Many in New York have been fitted with EZ pass readers, video cameras,
overheight truck detectors, and the like.


I have seen the ez pass readers in NJ, but not in NY

they are mounted behind the signs, which breaks the wind

aren't the video cameras and overheight truck detectors mounted on the
side supports, which give more stability and support

also the cameras and detectors are really not a huge profie




I recall the cantilevered VMS problems that caused several of them to
have to be taken down while studies were done.  In fact, the one on
I-80 in Pine Brook was fitted with all sorts of sensors and wires to
measure the effect of updrafts when trucks drove underneath.  I don't
know if they eventually made changes to the design, but all of the
cantilevered VMS signs in North Jersey were later reinstalled.


not to argue with you, but are you sure?

The vms signs I saw on 80 were full oh structures, not cantilevers




M Keen
Ringwood NJ

.

Loading