Interesting. I was wondering how they’d deal with powering the LEDs in the panels, but they got around that issue by not actually using them at all, which makes sense. So this works even if the tv is completely broken.
Which means you could use some color-variable LED strips that would totally recreate the Mitsubishi panel and then some - potentially allowing for some lovely faux-sunsets, too.
There are many millions of homes and offices around the world which have rooms without natural light - this will help in all those places. I’ll wait until the cheap imitations come out, though.
In a perfect world this would only be installed in existing buildings, but the problem is the overstated claims of these products are used as excused to continue building inhumanely.
I don’t mean this to be snarky, but are there any examples of that happening for this product? It seems to me that there are a heck of a lot more existing buildings in dense urban areas than there are buildings going up, so if I were working in one of those buildings with bad/no natural lighting, I’d probably appreciate the improvement in my own environment. There are probably a lot of people with basement/garden level apartments who would probably appreciate something like this, as well, I would imagine.
Do you really think developers need excuses? They’ll build without natural light anyway. Light pipes have been around for a long time, now - do any building regulations require their use in rooms without other access to natural light? Not that I know of.
It seems expensive now, but it won’t once the sky is gone.
Seems like there are a lot of negative comments about this product, but LEDs can provide the kind of targeted spectrum light to reduce Seasonal Affective Disorder in high latitudes, even where sources of natural light are available. This isn’t a gimmick for most people - it’s a real benefit to health. And as some pointed out, for many buildings without interior sources of natural light, these provide a reasonable retrofit option. As always with new technology, the $7k price tag will drop quickly if the product is adopted in large numbers and can go into volume manufacturing.
As an architect I can say yes, these products come up in meetings for everything from public schools to offices and then we are stuck between knowing that access to natural light is superior and has numerous proven benefits vs a client who can and will go this route because it looks better on a spread sheet. Even in existing buildings, where I’ve already agreed these are step up from regular troffers, these products are brought up as justification to claim more submerged spaces as usable that should honestly only be used for storage. So when I say people are buying into these claims, I’m saying that from experience of clients having cut windows out of projects for this exact reason.
There aren’t, currently. Most, if not all, “green” standards require or give large credits for access to natural light, but it’s not yet embedded in health and safety codes. Developers would build without windows, stairs, or restrooms if they could get away with it.
Thanks for the explanation from a professional’s opinion.
I don’t thinks we’ll agree whether on balance these products are a net benefit or detriment, but it may be moot given that the technology is out there and won’t be put back in a bottle.
I suppose one could get really dystopian. Maybe, after peak oil, we’ll all be living in bunkers (in climates like, say, the place I escaped from, Minnesota — which at least has water). Then the tiny power draw of things like this would save sanity…
Meanwhile, a Denny’s in my area has actual skylights with mirrors that track the sun, for daytime illumination. Indoors, they look like large light fixtures.
Indeed. That price tag reflects the kind of money that suddenly kick in when you realise you are on your way to a fuck up and need a last minute band aid to comply with previously presented specs.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
