🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <82253@ut-emx.uucp> kuehne@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (kuehne) writes:
>All this jabber about lighting 'systems' reminds me that lighting the road
>is a very inefficient way of seeing in the dark.  It certainly is a pitiful
>way of doing things.  Why splash tons of light all over creation just to get
>back a few photons into your eyeball, especially when star-light on a moonless
>night provides enough light for good vision? 
>
>The REAL way to see in the dark is with an image intensifier.  Even now, there
>are off-the-shelf second-generation light-weight portable hand-held monocular
>image intensifiers that amplify ambient light levels by >15,000 times with a
>continous operating time of 24 hours on a couple of AA batteries.  Wire one of
>these things into a Bell helmet as a flip-down accessory, and you've got a
>first-class way of seeing in the dark.  Check out an Edmund Scientific catalog
>or similar rag.  I mean, if evolution or whatever doesn't equip you with the
>right kind of eye to do what you want to do at night, then just go right to
>the heart of the matter and fix what's wrong with your eye.  Don't dump light
>all over the place.  Intensify it!
>-john kuehne


Not a bad idea in a way. But a lot of what we're trying to do with lights
is make ourselves visible to the motoring public.
What does an image intesifier cost ?

Don