41–50 of 88 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Now prices have fallen. We have installed about 50 systems till now
Have you explored possibility of making this light rich enough in different wavelengths to also let plants grow under it? Or is it not possible with LEDs?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would have to produce vitamin-D (or whatever the sunlight produces when it hits your skin) in order to combat that. Source: Me in wintertime Sweden.
Concurrent orally-administered vitamin D would achieve the same effect.
My understanding is that (a) utilization of dietary vitamin D is significantly lower than naturally produced D (from sun exposure) and (b) vitamin D is one of several micronutrients produced from sun exposure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't forget seasonal affective disorder, or just the general influence on affects that cloudy weather has. Imagine waking up to streaming sunlight every morning. I can see that making a huge change in people's lives.
It would have to produce vitamin-D (or whatever the sunlight produces when it hits your skin) in order to combat that. Source: Me in wintertime Sweden.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While this is is nice, the main breakthrough of CoeLux is the simulation of Rayleigh scattering, not just a bright diffused light.
Lot of things scatter. There is probably something cheaper than $35,000 per light. Maybe milk could be used? :) http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-wyj6iHUndhg/UXpUk6HxfLI/AAAAAAAACu... http://thestandardmodel.blogspot.com/2013/04/when-i-was-chil... It feels like they charge so much not because there would be some principal engineering / technical obstacle but simply because they can. They have been the first who realized some…
This is the type of 'simple' invention that you could never really anticipate but changes the future profoundly.
Cool but creepy. How about just build non-gulag style buildings with exposure to actual sunlight?
Cool but creepy. How about just build non-gulag style buildings with exposure to actual sunlight?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Concurrent orally-administered vitamin D would achieve the same effect.
Do you have a source for that? My understanding is that (a) utilization of dietary vitamin D is significantly lower than naturally produced D (from sun exposure) and (b) vitamin D is one of several micronutrients produced from sun exposure.
The end product of UVB irradiated skin (i.e., sunlight) is vitamin D3. (D3 is "activated" locally in tissues utilizing it.) Ingested D3 supplements effectively add to the body's supply, though the optimum intake is controversial and varies among individuals.
One difference between sunlight and supplements is that D3 production via UVB exposure has an upper bound, only so much can be made because there's a limited amount of substrate available in skin cells to convert to vitamin D. The upshot is sunlight is "safer" re: potential toxicity of excessive vitamin D intake.
AFAIK vitamin D is unique among nutritional factors in its reliance on UVB exposure. Don't know of any other micronutrients directly related to sunlight, but possible there's something I've overlooked.