tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4790144193713579414.post6506110768509365602..comments2018-01-23T15:09:22.278-08:00Comments on Ransen's Lighting And Color Blog: CIE88 2004, Calculation of Tunnel Lighting Transition Zone LengthOwen Ransennoreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4790144193713579414.post-88722634609437934002017-01-28T08:38:28.930-08:002017-01-28T08:38:28.930-08:00The original CIE88 2004 standard uses that notatio...The original CIE88 2004 standard uses that notation, t not d, and has 4 scales under the graph which shows the distance travelled at 60 80 100 and 120 km hour. I stuck to their way of doing it!<br /><br />Standards! Arbitraryness! What are you suggesting? ;) I think it was a reasonable er, approximation to what they were trying to achieve...Owen Ransenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17321551101861359844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4790144193713579414.post-88164675748368521522017-01-25T05:31:53.640-08:002017-01-25T05:31:53.640-08:00Hi Owen,
very nice blog explaining clearly the pro...Hi Owen,<br />very nice blog explaining clearly the problems related to photometric calculations! <br />I found one formal issue however: in the formula for Lin one can find the (1.9 + t) term. t looks for me like distance rather than time (although for a constant velocity they are effectively equivalent), particulary, when placed in the figure of a tunnel profile. You could easily avoid this ambiguity by putting (1.9 + v*t) for a constant v.<br /><br />One more question: I guess that the function aproximating Ltr, i.e., Ltr = Lth(1.9+t)^-1.4 is an arbitrary one (with border conditions fixed only), am I right?Adamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00467207269416037674noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4790144193713579414.post-2024518539296473552017-01-25T05:30:48.703-08:002017-01-25T05:30:48.703-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Adamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00467207269416037674noreply@blogger.com