Deleted

Has anyone been following the PC7 conversation, who has an email notification of Bill's comment and Chrissy's follow-up on their computer? The missing comment is from 11/29.I apologize for an inadvertent screw-up on my part, and unfortunately not one that I can repair. The skeleton of each credit page on LEEDuser is called a metadata page, and this is what comments get attached to. I noticed recently that there mistakenly had been two metadata pages created for PC7. I deleted the one that I thought was inactive, and only very recently noticed that the comments had gone missing -- I deleted the wrong one. The only practical way to get those comments back is if anyone following the conversation received the email notifications of yours and Chrissy's posts, and can repost them. Or if what you said is replicable. I don't remember if it was as long and detailed as many of your posts are. I'm sorry.

Here are the last 2 comments (Bill & then Crissy). The earlier ones are cut off after a few sentences so they don't make much sense now.

Bill Swanson 11/29/2010:

" Thanks for actually responding. Seems I talk to the wind about this credit most of the time.
1) Now it is available. For all of 1 week prior to the launch of LEED-2012.
I don't understand why this was a pilot credit then.
2) I think projects with good lighting and little pollution should be able to earn this point following either option. I've never seen a numbers argument for the tight limits that the BUG system has in the 80-90 range. With them being as tight as they are it seems this is very important and the other option should be modified to follow suit.
4) I was referring to the 1st draft. After posting I realized I again missed the public comment. It's a bit frustrating having to find and argue elsewhere for items added into LEED.
5) Yes, the MLO 1st draft had a mistake, which was wholly adopted by LEED-ND.
I complained about the BUG system during that public comment and the system was adopted as is. If obviously bad oops can't be vetted, the system has a flaw. The desire to have MLO and LEED match has over-ridden the public comments. Public comments are useless if you try to offer anything that is different from the MLO.
6) Glare is less affected by night time ambient light level variations then it's being made out to be. It really doesn't need 5 zones. The idea to just "go with it for now" is how bad laws spread. The 0.01 fc1. A footcandle (fc) is a measure of light falling on a given surface. One footcandle is defined as the quantity of light falling on a 1-square-foot area from a 1 candela light source at a distance of 1 foot (which equals 1 lumen per square foot).
Footcandles can be measured both horizontally and vertically by a footcandle meter or light meter.2. The non-metric measurement of lumens per square foot, one footcandle is the amount of light that is received one foot from a light source called a candela, which is based on the light output of a standardized candle. A common range for interior lighting is 10 to 100 footcandles, while exterior daytime levels can range from 100 to over 10,000 footcandles.
Footcandles decrease with distance from the light source. The metric equivalent of a foot candle is 10.76 lux, or lumens per square meter. limits was terrible. Once LEED issued it out it spread anywhere. And then it gets entrenched because people don't want variations in different Codes. Like you matching the MLO with LEED, or 189.1. It's mind numbing trying to change bad law. I want it stopped before it starts. I hate just "going with it". That is not science.
7) People will always look for loop holes. Ten might be extreme but I know someone will put two or three poles in the same footing and do this. Should there be a minimum 1 pole-height spacing between each pole? I don't even know if this BUG system counts a 4-head pole with one BUG rating. What good is a back-light shield on a 4-head pole?
8) I think you'll find most spill light under this version will be coming from the sides of fixtures which this BUG system doesn't address. It's over complicating a system while glossing over holes.
9) I've been trying to make the case it should be at the neighbor building or building set back line. The property line or opposite curb has been my compromise point.
10) I would really demand that the handbook provide people examples for how to document this when they make funky rules like a vertical calc grid.

Chrissy Macken 11/29/2010:

Hi Bill -
With reference to the schedule of releasing the Pilot credits: all pilot credits that are also in the next version public comment documents will be available throughout the entire public comment process, which is proposed to be about 1.5 years long in total.
The point of the dual process is so that we get public comment feedback from the market, and also feedback from projects that are able to test the new credits and compare across versions of the credits. The pilot credits will be available for testing until it is determined that a credit is ready to enter member ballot for a vote and become part of a balloted rating system.
I will let the lighting experts address your other points.
Thanks for the feedback!

Thank you for the comments, Bill. I am incorporating them into our discussion of this credit. As I said above, we're revising this language, and I think many of your comments will be addressed when the language is released for second public comment. We've caught the errors and are addressing the issues raised in regards to the BUG system and MLO.