Abstract
THE floodlighting of many of London's famous buildings last year was a great popular success. It also gave engineers a unique opportunity of studying the problem critically. In a paper on the subject which appears in the General Electric Co.'s (G.E.C.) Journal for November, Mr. T. E. Ritchie begins a very thorough discussion of the subject. He shows the fallacy of thinking that floodlighting is objectionable because it is ‘unnatural’. The same objection might be urged against the inside lighting or the warming of a building or even against the building itself. In many cases, however, the way in which it is done is open to severe criticism. To illustrate this he shows photographs of Thames House, Millbank, floodlighted, first when special attention is paid to the roof and skyline and secondly when they are neglected. In the first case, the effect produced is beautiful but in the second case the floodlighting is very disappointing, the building appearing dwarfed and incomplete. The floodlighting in the first case was designed by Sir Frank Baines, the architect responsible for the building, and he supervised its execution. It is also pointed out what an important part the reflection factor of the lighted portion of the front of the building plays. In floodlighting the front of the Institution of Electrical Engineers, London, for example, the aggregate total load on the 26 floodlights used is 39 kilowatts. Owing to lack of time, the front had not been steam-cleaned prior to the installation and so the average reflecting factor was only 7 per cent. If it had been steam-cleaned, the average reflecting factor would have been increased about five times and so the saving, if the same total illumination were produced, would be about four-fifths of the present current bill.
Article PDF
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Floodlighting. Nature 130, 992–993 (1932). https://doi.org/10.1038/130992d0
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/130992d0