The Effect of Light Shielding and

Light Wavelength on Light Pollution

Nathan Beswick and Andrew Borders

Macomb Mathematics Science Technology Center

Physics 12A

Mr. McMillan / Mrs. Gravel / Mr. Acre / Mrs. Dewey

6 December 2016
 Effects of Light Shielding and Wavelength on Light Pollution

The objective of this experiment was to reduce the amount of light pollution in the

sky. The data from this experiment may allow astronomers to study the stars to study

them in closer, more convenient locations rather than travel to remote areas.

This experiment was conducted by projecting stars on the ceiling of a dark room.

The stars were then obstructed by a second light that emitted either long or short

wavelengths, and the number of unobstructed stars were recorded. Afterwards, a two

factor DOE was used to analyze the data from the two populations (light shielding and

light wavelength) to find if light pollution could be significantly reduced by using full,

downward shielding and long wavelength lights, shielding being the amount of outer

covering the light is surrounding by. No shielding, a plate-shaped shield, and a bowl-

shaped shield were used along with compact flourescent, incandescent, and high-pressure

sodium light bulbs. Although the data did show more visible stars with longer wavelength

lights (high pressure sodium), the difference between the populations of high and low

wavelength lights was not significant enough to conclude that long light wavelength

could reduce light pollution. However, after analyzing the data, light shielding was found

to significantly reduce light pollution. Overall, it may be said that if light shielding was

used more frequently in urban areas the amount of light pollution could be reduced.
 Table of Contents

Introduction1

Review of Literature...3

Problem Statement.10

Experimental Design..11

Data and Observations...13

Data Analysis and Interpretation16

Conclusion..21

Appendix A.23

Appendix B.24

Appendix C.25

Appendix D.26

Works Cited31
 Beswick-Borders 1

Introduction

Light pollution has long been labeled as a major issue by the environmentalist

community, because it cuts off the visibility of the stars in the sky. In crowded and

bustling cities like Los Angeles, almost no stars are visible even in the dead of night, due

to the amount of artificial light coming from the city. Obviously, there are more stars in

the sky than almost none.

This research is a study into how light pollutions effects may be reduced. The

solution is not as simple as not using lights during the night, because lights are obviously

necessary to be able to see at night. This experiment uses both the type of light shielding

fixture and the type of light bulb as variables. These two factors, while they may not be

the only major factors in the issue, are realistically changeable for both the purposes of an

experiment, and in the real world. The shielding is the amount of casing or outer shell

that blocks an amount of light from being projected upward. These usually range from

covering the back or top of the light to about half of the whole light. The light bulb itself

is a different factor. Different makes of light bulbs give off different kinds of light

wavelengths. In this experiment, incandescent, compact fluorescent (CFL), and high-

sodium (HPS) lights were used.

This research will benefit both stargazers and astronomers who are affected by the

large amounts of artificial lights around urban areas. Cities such as Los Angeles or New

York would benefit most from changing their lighting policies, due to their apparent

starless skies. The reduced quantity of light pollution will also aid astronomers by making

less remote locations viable for observatories, whereas currently astronomers usually
 Beswick-Borders 2

need to travel to mountains or deserts to observe the sky properly. Overall, reducing light

pollution would make observatories more accessible for anyone to use.

With the data obtained from this research, it is hoped that further experimentation

will be done on the subject of light pollution. At a certain point, there may be sufficient

evidence to place more shields or use less severe light bulbs, reducing the amount of light

in the atmosphere and giving more visibility to the stars in the sky. While it is not

expected that this issue will be eradicated, it certainly is possible for this paper to aid in

the efforts to lessen the severity of light pollution for everyone who is affected by it.
 Beswick-Borders 3

Review of Literature

Many amateur astronomers may look up at the sky near urban areas and wonder

why some of the stars they have seen before seem to have disappeared. They know that a

star couldnt have just vanished without explanation, so why is it not where they have

seen it before? This is due to light pollution, an effect of artificial lighting that causes the

brightness of the sky to increase (Demonstrating Light Pollution & Shielding), therefore

concealing some of the dimmer stars behind the illuminated atmosphere. This can

become a huge problem for people who wish to study the stars. Many astronomers must

travel to deserts or mountains to escape light pollution and see the stars properly, which

can be a huge inconvenience. It may seem hopeless to ever see the stars from suburban

neighborhoods, but there are some things that can be done to reduce light pollution that

will be explored in this research paper.

Light pollution is a term used to refer to the effect of copious amounts of artificial

light on the sky on the Earth. While light pollution is the easily identifiable and most

common term, it is a bit of a misnomer. Pollution would refer to a cumulative and

eventually toxic effect on the local wildlife. Light pollution is not cumulative, meaning

that it will not build up over time, and only debatably toxic, as will be discussed later in

the section. A better term for the phenomena would be something along the lines of light

aura or light persistence. Light pollution occurs when the artificial lights are used to

increase visibility or extend the workday also produce light into the sky (Light

Pollution). This most visibly creates an area of light visible from most cities and heavily

populated suburbs. This coating of light prevents people from naturally seeing the sky at

night from where they are on the ground. Many stars and constellations simply are not
 Beswick-Borders 4

visible, since the glow outshines them, so to speak. They are not gone; simply

unobservable. This effect makes the occupation of astronomers increasingly difficult, as

they must go out of their way to avoid civilization and city lights to study the stars

(Vandernoot). This research will attempt to reduce the amount of light pollution by

replicating a nighttime environment and experimenting with different lighting options.

This will make it easier for amateur astronomers to see the night sky.

Light pollution is often classified on a scale of 1 to 9, 1 being the clearest (How

Light Pollution Affects How We See the Night Sky). This is known as the Bortle Scale,

which varies slightly according to the source used. Generally, 1 is a completely

unobstructed sky while 9 is almost entirely obstructed except for a few of the brightest

stars such as Polaris or Sirius.

Figure 1. The Bortle Dark-Sky Scale.

Figure 1 gives a direct visual aid to the description of light pollution. Giving

some context, a sky with a scale of 1 would be the most secluded of parks, campsites, and
 Beswick-Borders 5

deserts, with most major celestial bodies visible, and the silver cloud of the Milky Way

visible. The Milky Way remains visible to an extent, up to scale 4 and 5 areas, which are

low-light suburbs and transitions into suburban areas from less-polluted areas. Most

people live in areas that land on 7, 8, and 9 on the scale, being located in urbanized areas

or cities, which tend to be most heavily populated, in addition to having taller buildings

that produce light higher in the sky.

Beginning to move past the basics, light pollution usually manifests in three

separate forms: sky glow, glare, and light intrusion (Mizon). Sky glow is caused by

wasted light shining upwards into the atmosphere from unshielded light fixtures. This

creates the aforementioned aura of light above most cities and populated areas in the

developed world.

Glare is a more safety-related aspect of light pollution, and is commonly the end

result of use of the standard-issue 500W home security lamp. Glare is a visual sensation

caused by uncontrolled lights that shine into peoples eyes and obstruct their vision

(Mizon). One cause of this is security lamps used in an effort to ward off criminals from

the brightly-lit property; however, there is little data present to suggest that this is true.

Road lights create a similar conundrum; despite being angled downwards towards the

streets, light can escape upwards since the sides of road lights are not covered. Due to a

lack of regulation, poorly aimed, designed, or shielded domestic, commercial and sports

lights continue to perpetuate the effects of light pollution (Shultz).

Light intrusion is the spilling of light past the originating property (All About

Light Pollution). This occurs when porch or security lights bleed into neighboring

houses and gardens. This has been a point of contingency to environmentalists. One point
 Beswick-Borders 6

used by environmentalists against these lights is that using thick bedroom curtains may

not solve the problem of one bothered by the lighting, making the intrusion an

inconvenience to other people.

Another one of the scientific concepts needed to understand this topic is light

shielding. Shielding refers to preventing light from projecting upwards, directly at the sky

(Shultz). Typical shielding fixtures cut off light from projecting above 90 degrees, or the

horizontal angle perpendicular to the ground. This action significantly reduces the

amount of light that can reflect off the atmosphere and cause light pollution because the

light will first have to reflect off some other object before indirectly heading up towards

the sky, which is certainly possible in places like large cities, but the reduction in excess

light is still present. Some shielding fixtures also shield light below the 90 degree

horizontal point to reduce the glare of the lights on drivers and homes, this will further

reduce light pollution by decreasing the range of angles the light can project downward

towards the ground ("Difference between Full Cutoff and Fully Shielded."). The concept

of light shielding will be used in this research by experimenting with different shielding

options in an attempt to reduce the amount of light pollution.

Figure 2. Levels of Light Shielding.

 Beswick-Borders 7

Figure 2 shows how different shielding fixtures on street lights project light in

various directions, and the effect that they would have on the amount of stars visible at

night. By properly shielding lights, the amount of light that can project directly upwards

is greatly reduced, and therefore reduces the amount of light pollution.

Moving forward, most research efforts on light pollution have been ways to

reduce it or the effects of it by either reducing the amount of artificial lights used by

calculating the most efficient placement, or by designing shielding to block out light that

isnt directed towards the ground. The research outlined in this paper attempts to do the

same, while adding experimentation with other types of light into the data.

Light travels in waves, and the color of the light changes the length of those

waves, and how they behave on the environment. For example, on the light spectrum, red

light has the longest wavelengths, while violet light has the shortest wavelengths. Since

the human eye is more sensitive to blue and green wavelengths, lights that have more

emission lines between 450 - 570 nm will cause more sky glow than lights with fewer

emission lines between that range ("Lamp Spectrum and Light Pollution").
 Beswick-Borders 8

Figure 3. Light Spectrum

As seen in the figure above, the light spectrum displays a rainbow-esque pattern.

The lights in the center of the spectrum are the brightest to the human eye, specifically

the 555 nm green light. Most common light bulbs give off yellow light, near the center

of that spectrum. The higher the light is on the spectrum, the longer its wavelength is.

One possible way to reduce the reach of light pollution is to use lights with lower

wavelengths when possible, due to our eyes being less sensitive to those wavelengths

("Spectral Sensitivity of the Human Eye"). Red lights are used in photography dark

rooms, military bunkers, submarines, and other environments where something must be

done in the dark. It provides enough light to see, while keeping the human eye adjusted

for the dark (Koberlein). The most obvious use is in a photography rooms. While

celluloid pictures develop, they cannot be exposed to bright lights, lest it ruin the image

by developing impossibly pale. Red lights have a long wavelength, and are very non-

invasive. They also do not produce a glare as easily as brighter lights.

One of the previous experiments on subjects similar to the one covered by this

paper is the work outlined in the National Optical Astronomy Observatorys setup

(Demonstrating Light Pollution & Shielding). In this experiment, observations were

made and recorded using a paper cube planetarium, created by cutting a small hole on
 Beswick-Borders 9

one side of a cardboard cube and pinholes on the opposite side to simulate stars. The

amount of stars visible during a trial was the data primarily collected once a second

light was placed near the projection point of the stars to simulate light pollution.

Makeshift shielding for the secondary light would recreate streetlights against the night

sky and create a variable for the data to be compared around. The setup of using a

planetarium cube to project stars on the ceiling will be used in this research, however

this research will also experiment with various wavelength lights in addition to shielding.

Coming back, the main factors the research aims to deal with are sky glow, glare,

and light intrusion. Ways to affect these phenomena include light shielding of various

shapes and sizes, and the placement of the light on the light spectrum. This research will

test these factors by using a planetarium box and measuring the number of visible

stars when they are obscured by lights of various wavelengths and shielding fixtures.
 Beswick-Borders 10

Problem Statement

Problem:

How do varying light wavelengths and light shielding fixtures affect the amount

of light pollution in the atmosphere?

Hypothesis:

If a lamp is shined at stars on the ceiling, the lamp with the longest wavelength

light and most downward shielding will obscure the least amount of stars.

Data Measured:

The independent variables were light wavelength and shielding fixture

(unshielded, horizontal shielded, downward shielded). Light wavelength was altered by

using different light bulbs (incandescent, compact fluorescent, high pressure sodium) that

emit different wavelengths. The dependent variable was the amount of stars not obscured

by the lights. To analyze the data, a two factor DOE was run five times, with 7 trials per

run.
 Beswick-Borders 11

Experimental Design

Materials:

70 W High-pressure sodium (HPS) light Poster board flat circular shield

bulb (Appendix A)
70 W Incandescent light bulb Poster board cube planetarium
13 W Compact fluorescent (CFL) light (Appendix B)
bulb Black paper
Lamp outlet Smartphone LED
Lamp outlet w/ ballast Meterstick
Poster board cylindrical shield
(Appendix A)

Procedure:

1. Cover the floor with black paper to avoid light bouncing off of reflective tiles.

2. Place the smartphone LED in the paper cube to recreate stars. An iPod Touch 5 was
used as the smartphone LED in this experiment.

3. Place the planetarium cube with stars facing up. Place the other light for the trial on
the whiteboard 1 meter away.

4. Plug one of the bulbs into the outlet and hold it near the floor covered by the black
paper. The HPS bulb requires a ballast.

5. Test to see how many stars are visible out of the total when in the secondary lights
presence.

6. Record results from the test.

7. Repeat for each bulb used and for each level of shielding.
 Beswick-Borders 12

Diagrams:

Figure 4. Materials.

Figure 4 shows all materials used in the experiment. The constructed shields and

planetarium box can be seen here, as well as all lightbulbs, sockets, and other materials

used during data collection. The high pressure sodium light bulb would not work in

standard sockets and required a special outlet with a ballast to work properly.

Figure 5. Experimental Setup.

The experiment was performed in a locker room, where there is no light when

closed off. The black paper was spread across the floor to cut down on light reflection off

the tiles. The planetarium cube was placed on the floor, with a smartphone flashlight to

provide stars. A meter away, another light bulb was held near the floor to simulate light

pollution at varying levels.

 Beswick-Borders 13

Data and Observations

Table 1
Factors in the Experiment
Light Shielding Light Bulb
- Control + - Control +
None Plate Bowl CFL Incandescent High-Sodium

Table 1, shown above, displays the factors that the experiment focused on. The

first variable is the level of shielding around the light, or the amount of the light that the

shield covers, and the second variable is the kind of light bulb that is being used during

the test.

Table 2
Experimental Data
Run 1 Run 2 Run 3
Order Runs Result Order Runs Result Order Runs Result
1 Stand 13 1 Stand 15 1 Stand 14
3 ++ 19 2 ++ 20 3 ++ 19
2 - - 0 3 - - 2 6 - - 6
4 Stand 13 4 Stand 13 4 Stand 12
5 +- 18 6 +- 19 5 +- 20
6 - + 6 5 - + 5 2 - + 7
7 Stand 13 7 Stand 12 7 Stand 15

Run 4 Run 5
Order Runs Result Order Runs Result
1 Stand 14 1 Stand 14
5 ++ 20 2 ++ 20
2 - - 1 5 - - 5
4 Stand 15 4 Stand 15
3 +- 17 3 +- 20
6 - + 7 6 - + 7
7 Stand 15 7 Stand 14

Table 2 is the data obtained over the course of trials. The test used is a two-factor

DOE. The data seemed to show that that larger shields cover up more light. The CFL

produced the least amount of light, while the high-sodium light far outshined the other

two types when undimmed.

 Beswick-Borders 14

Table 3
Experimental Observations
DOE Trial Observation
1 Some stars appeared on the wall. Bulbs got dangerously hot
2 The CFL blinked and hummed when attached to the dimmer
1 3 The sodium light gradually got brighter.
5 The CFL blinked and hummed when attached to the dimmer
6 The sodium light gradually got brighter.
2 The sodium light gradually got brighter.
3 The CFL blinked and hummed when attached to the dimmer
2
5 The sodium light gradually got brighter.
6 The CFL blinked and hummed when attached to the dimmer
2 The sodium light gradually got brighter.
3 The sodium light gradually got brighter.
3
5 The CFL blinked and hummed when attached to the dimmer
6 The CFL blinked and hummed when attached to the dimmer
2 CFL blinked and hummed.
3 CFL blinked and hummed.
4
5 The sodium light gradually got brighter.
6 The sodium light gradually got brighter.
2 The sodium light gradually got brighter.
3 The CFL blinked and hummed when attached to the dimmer
5
5 The CFL blinked and hummed when attached to the dimmer
6 The sodium light gradually got brighter.

Table 3 shows the observations recorded after each trial. Any unlisted trials went

as expected without abnormalities. No singular trial in any DOE stood out in any

particular fashion; any observations that seemed unusual in the first run then consistently

occurred across every test with the same factors, an example being the CFL light, which

flickered when connected to the dimmer.

 Beswick-Borders 15

Figure 6. Example Trial.

Figure 6 shows an example of one of the standard trials. The stars needed to be

circled due to the camera being unable to pick up the light, despite being clearly visible

during the trials. Figure 5 is heavily edited to make the image visible since the picture

was taken in the dark.

 Beswick-Borders 16

Data Analysis and Interpretation

The experiment below used tests randomized through a seed number generator on

a TI-NSpire CX Calculator (Appendix C). Experiments were performed in a dark

subterranean locker room, so no outside light would affect the data. Every test was run in

the same place in the locker room each testing day with the light being the same distance

away from the planetarium box.

This experiment was conducted to determine the effect that light shielding and

varying types of light bulbs can have on the amount of light pollution in the sky. It was

hypothesized that downward shields and light bulbs with long wavelengths would reduce

the number of visible stars and reduce light pollution. The dependent variable in this

experiment was the number of visible stars on the ceiling, while the two independent

variables were the type of shield and the type of light bulb. Five two-factor design of

experiments was used to analyze the data. This design was an appropriate choice because

two different independent factors were tested against each other: light shielding and the

type of light bulb.

Table 4
DOE Trial Results and Averages
First Second Third Fourth Fifth
Trial Average
DOE DOE DOE DOE DOE
+,+ 19 20 19 20 20 19.6
-,- 0 2 6 1 5 2.8
+,- 18 19 20 17 20 18.8
-,+ 6 5 7 7 7 6.4
Average 11.9

Table 4 shows the average number of stars for the high-high, low-low, high-low,

and low-high trials. Each individual average was calculated by adding all the high-highs,

high-lows, etc. and dividing them by five, since there are five data sets. The grand
 Beswick-Borders 17

average is the average of all the averages, found by adding the four up and dividing by

four. The calculated grand average was 11.9 stars.

Table 5.
Effect of Light Shielding.
Light Shielding
None (-) Bowl (+)
2.8 19.6
6.4 18.8
Avg = 4.6 Avg = 19.2

Figure 7. Effect of Light Shielding.

Table 5 shows the average values for light shielding. The averages were

calculated by adding the averages of the high shielding trials together and dividing by

two, as well as doing the same for the low shielding averages.

Figure 7 presents a visual of the averages of light shielding. Using the low value

of 4.6 stars and the high value of 19.2, the effect value can be obtained by subtracting the

low average from the high average. This gives an effect value of 14.6. The graph shows

that as the shielding fixture enlarges, the number of visible stars increases.

Table 6.
Effect of Light Bulb.
Light Bulb
CFL (-) High-Sodium(+)
2.8 19.6
18.8 6.4
Avg = 10.8 Avg = 13.2

Figure 8. Effect of Light Bulbs.

Table 6 shows the average values for the light bulb used. Again, the high and low

averages were found by adding the number of stars together for that trial.
 Beswick-Borders 18

Figure 8 presents the averages of the light bulb used as a graph. The effect value

can also be calculated at this point, by subtracting the low average from the high average.

This gives the light bulbs an effect value of 2.4. Light wavelength does appear to some

effect on the number of visible stars. The low positive slope of the line shows that

although the number of stars may increase slightly as longer wavelength lights are used,

the amount of light pollution reduced by these lights is not likely statistically significant.

Table 7.
Interaction Effect of the Variables.
Light Bulb
- +
Solid
+ 18.8 20
Line
Shielding
Dotted
- 2.8 6.4
Line
Figure 9. Interaction Effect.

Table 7 arranges the average values for shielding fixture and light bulb used. The

interaction effect can be found by finding the difference between the slopes of the lines.

Here, the slope of the solid line (0.6), minus the slope of the dotted line (1.8), so the

interaction effect is -1.2.

Figure 9 shows the interaction between shielding fixture and light bulb type

displayed on a graph. Neither factor seemed to have an influence on the other. The slopes

of the two lines are nearly parallel, suggesting no interaction between the two effects.

Also, it can be seen below in Figure 11 that the interaction between the two is not

significant, since the effect is not close to being outside double the range of standards.

Table 8.
Standard Values.
Standards
13 13 13 15 13 12 14 12 15 14 15 15 14 15 14
 Beswick-Borders 19

Table 8 shows all the results from the standard tests in the five DOEs. The

standard test used an incandescent bulb with a plate shield. On average, this test resulted

in visibility of about 13.8 out of the twenty total stars. There is little variability in these

trials due to all data collected only varying within 3 stars of any other standard trials.

Figure 10. Graph of Standards.

Figure 10 shows graph of each of the standards. The standards range from 12 to

15, giving a range of 3. This range is considered low due to the total range of 20 stars and

the comparatively larger ranges found between other non-standard trials. The low range

suggests that there is little variation in the data and our results are accurate.

Figure 11. Dot Plot of Effects.

Figure 11 shows a dot plot of the effects of the variables. The dotted lines show

double the range of standards. The points are labeled S for shielding, L for light bulb, and

SL is the interaction of the two variables. The effect of shielding was the only effect

outside of this range and therefore was found to be statistically significant.

 Beswick-Borders 20

= 11.9 + 7.3() + 1.2() 0.6() + ""

Figure 12. Prediction Equation.

Figure 12 shows the prediction equation. In this equation, all effects were used no

matter if they were deemed significant. The factors used in this equation were the grand

average, half effect of light shielding, half the effect of light bulb, half the interaction

effect, and noise. Noise was used to describe unexplainable or uncollectable data and

errors during the experiments.

= 11.9 + 7.3() + ""

Figure 13. Parsimonious Prediction Equation.

Figure 13 shows the parsimonious prediction equation. In this equation, only the

significant effects were used. For this experiment, only the effect of light shielding was

deemed statistically significant. The only factors in the equation were the grand average,

half effect of light shielding, and noise. Neither light bulb type nor the cross effect of the

factors were included in this equation, as neither had a significant effect on the number of

visible stars. Noise was used to describe unexplainable or uncollectable data and errors

during the experiments.

Interpretation:

The original hypothesis was rejected. This is due to the effect of light bulbs not

being strong enough to be deemed significant, although it did show positive correlation.

However, the type of shielding fixture was found to have a significant effect on the

number of stars visible, agreeing with the hypothesis. Both the full shielding and the high

pressure sodium lights longer wavelengths seemed to increase the number of visible

stars.
 Beswick-Borders 21

Conclusion

The goal of this experiment was to determine ways in which light pollution could

be reduced by testing different light bulbs and lighting shields. Overall, light shielding

was found to have a significant impact on the amount of light pollution, while the light

bulb itself had a lesser impact on the data. In addition, light shielding and light bulb type

were independent from one another. The hypothesis predicted earlier in the paper states

that the larger shields and longer wavelength lights would block more of the excess light

more effectively. Due to the results of the analysis, this hypothesis was rejected.

Although it correctly predicted that larger shielding fixtures would increase the number

of visible stars, there was not enough evidence to conclude that longer light wavelengths

would increase the number of visible stars. This may have been due to the short distance

the light had to travel, not giving the HPS bulb a large enough distance to dissipate more

than the CFL or incandescent bulb.

The research findings seem to indicate that the high pressure sodium (HPS) bulb

produced the least invasive light of the three lights used. The incandescent bulb showed a

smaller range of data points than the CFL (incandescent range was 3 while CFL range

was 6), being used only in the standard tests of the DOE where all the variables were

consistent. However, the incandescent bulb was brighter than the CFL, though it is only

slightly so. The HPS light bulb was extremely bright, continuously gaining brightness as

it remained plugged in. It also had a back plate which could have skewed data.

Results from testing agree with other work in the field. Most research done

around this topic indicated that both larger shielding fixtures and longer wavelength

lights would reduce light pollution. Shielding lights downward prevented the most light
 Beswick-Borders 22

from obscuring the stars. Although deemed to be insignificant in this experiment, the type

of light bulb did seem to have a small effect on the results; the majority of trials using the

HPS bulb showed an equal or slightly higher number of visible stars when compared to

CFL bulbs with equal shielding. The results of this experiment could show the scientific

community the need to push for more conservative lighting policies in urban areas, so

that both astronomers and stargazers will be able to observe the night sky more easily.

Weaknesses in the design or practice of the experiment may firstly include the

need for a completely dark test environment, which is not necessarily possible, as was the

case in this experiment, where the test area had an exit sign lit in red light. While this did

not seem to affect the data, it very well could have. Another issue occurred in the design

of the planetarium box; the corners of the poster board box had holes in them. This was

remedied with extra electrical tape, but it is possible for additional holes to appear over

time, or for the researchers to miss covering one and skew the data. The researchers

themselves present a lurking variable in the form of their level of perception. It is not

realistically possible for a perfect scale of visibility to be developed for this particular

model, so having more people to view the setup and give multiple observations may have

yielded a more accurate average value for better data.

Further research on the topic could potentially increase the scale to produce more

realistic or reliable data. By either upscaling or using materials that would be more

accurate for field testing, more useful observations may be obtained than were possible

from this papers iteration of the research. A possible alternative variable is the lights

placement on the light spectrum. For example, red lights are usually used in photography

dark rooms because they are not very bright, but still provide light enough to see.
 Beswick-Borders 23

Appendix A: Shield Construction

Materials:

Poster board Electrical tape

Scissors

Procedure:

1. Cut two circles from the poster board with radius 9 cm.

2. Use one of these circles as the flat shield for the standard trials.

3. Cut a rectangle with dimensions 8 cm x 57 cm.

4. Attach the rectangle to the circumference of the circle with electrical tape to form
the bowl shaped shield.

Diagrams:

Figure 14. Plate and Bowl Shields.

Figure 14 shows the completed plate and bowl shields. The tape along the edges

prevents light from traveling directly through the shield, so it has to go around the shield

to obscure the stars.

 Beswick-Borders 24

Appendix B: Planetarium Cube Construction

Materials:

Poster board Electrical tape

Scissors

Procedure:

1. Cut six squares in a T-shape, each square with a width of 18 cm.

2. Fold the six squares into a cube, and poke 20 one-millimeter diameter holes
into the top of the box.

3. Cut a 1.5 cm x 8 cm rectangle from the bottom of one side of the box so a
smartphone can slide into the box.

4. Cover all edges and corners of the box with electrical tape so excess light
cannot escape from the box

Diagrams:

Figure 15. Planetarium Cube.

Figure 15 shows the completed planetarium cube. The holes in the top are not

easily visible due to their small size. The cube has electrical tape along all edges and

sides so excess light cannot escape and skew data.

 Beswick-Borders 25

Appendix C: Randomization

Materials:

TI-Nspire CX calculator

Procedure:

1. Open a calculator page.

2. Press the menu button.

3. Scroll down to 5: Probability and press enter.

4. Scroll down to 4: Random and click enter.

5. Select 2: Integer and press enter.

6. The display of randInt() should now be on your screen. Type 1,7 in the

parenthesis.

7. Press enter and a random number between 1 and 7 should appear.

8. Record the number in the order of the blanks in the Run 1 column on the data

table (Note that the standard trials will always be 1, 4, and 7).

9. Continue pressing enter until all trials are accounted for, if a number repeats or if

it has the same number as a standard trial, ignore it and press enter again.

10. Repeat steps 1-9 until the trial orders for all 5 runs are randomized.
 Beswick-Borders 26

Appendix D: Sample Calculations

Two-Factor Design of Experiment:

When conducting a two-factor design of experiment, data is analyzed by means of

tables and graphs. Two independent variables are chosen to be tested separately, as well

as against each other. Each run consists of five different treatments high-high, high-

low, low-high, low-low, and standard. However, to be sure the experiment is valid and

uniform, three standard trials were performed per run, for a total of seven trials.

Calculating the range of standards was the first step in analyzing the experiment.

To find the range of standards, all three standards from each of the runs were taken into

consideration. To call the experiment valid, there should be a small range between the

highest and lowest standard values. To calculate the value, take the lowest standard trial

value and subtract it from the highest standard trial value.

= ( ) ( )

Figure 16 below shows a calculation using sample values to simulate the range of

standards calculation.

= ( ) ( )
= (60.75) (42.25)
= 18.50
Figure 16. Sample Range of Standards Calculation.
 Beswick-Borders 27

Second, calculate the grand average. The grand average is, respectively, the

average of all the averages. Find the average of all trials in each run, omitting the three

standard trials, and separating by treatment. There should be four different averages for

the four different treatments (high-high, low-low, high-low, and low-high). Add the

averages up and divide by four to find the grand average.

(+, +). +(, ). +(+, ). +(, +).

=
4

Figure 17 below shows a sample calculated grand average.

(+, +). +(, ). +(+, ). +(, +).

=
4
16.40 + 25.12 + 5.24 + 11.67
=
4
= 14.61
Figure 17. Sample Grand Average Calculation.

Next, is to analyze the effects each treatment had on the dependent variable. The

averages must be found before calculating the effects. Each effect value must be

calculated individually, two averages were used for each independent variable, one high

and one low. The averages used for both high and low values must correspond to the

correct independent variable. To calculate the high trial average for the first independent

variable, add together the two high trial values for that variable and divide by two. Repeat

with the low values for that same variable for the low trial average. Repeat both of the

previous calculations for the second independent variable.

( ) 1 + ( ) 2
=
2
 Beswick-Borders 28

Figure 18 below shows a sample calculation for finding one effect value average.

( ) 1 + ( ) 2
=
2
24.45 + 36.02
=
2
= 30.24
Figure 18. Sample Effect Value Average Calculation.

In order to complete the procedure and actually find the final effect values, the

low average must be subtracted from the high average. This must be done for both of the

two independent variables, as there should be two separate effects.

= ( ) ( )

Figure 19 below shows a sample effect value calculated.

= ( ) ( )
= (45.23) (23.09)
= 22.14
Figure 19. Sample Effect Value Calculation.

Next, the basic formula for finding the slope of a line is used to calculate the

interaction effect. The first step in finding this effect is to place both the effect values on

the same graph. For the graph, place low averages for each independent variable on the

left (at -1), and high averages for each on the right (at +1). Be sure to connect the low and

high values that correspond to the correct variables. To ensure accuracy, make one line

dotted and one solid. After that, find the slope of each line. To calculate slope, look at the

solid line, then take the y-value of the low point and subtract it from the y-value of the

high point. After, subtract the x-value of the low point from the x-value of the high point.
 Beswick-Borders 29

Divide the y-value answer by the x-value answer to get the final slope. Repeat the process

for the dotted line.

( )
=
( )

Figure 20 below shows a sample calculated slope value.

( )
=
( )

(27.45 19.34)
=
(31.29 25.93)

= 1.51
Figure 20. Sample Slope Calculation.

Then, to complete the calculations and find the overall interaction effect, the

slopes of the lines must be subtracted. Subtract the slope of the dotted line from the slope

of the solid line.

= ( ) ( )

Figure 21 below shows a sample interaction effect calculation.

= ( ) ( )
= (2.89) (13.98)
= 11.09
Figure 21. Sample Interaction Effect Calculation
 Beswick-Borders 30

Next is to analyze which variables, if any, are significant. Create a dot plot, with

each effect as a point on the number line. Be sure to include individual effects and the

interaction effect. Also, plot dotted lines (fences) at the positive and negative values of

the range of standards, however, the value should be doubled. Any effects outside of the

doubled range of standards are considered statistically significant.

= ( ) 2

Figure 22 below shows a sample calculation to find where the fences should be placed

on the dot plot.

= ( ) 2
= (40.23) 2
= 80.46
Figure 22. Sample Dot Plot Fences Calculation.

Lastly, insert the most important calculated values into the parsimonious prediction

equation. The parsimonious prediction equation consists of the grand average, the

significant variables, and noise. Noise accounts for any uncontrolled variables within

the experiment. To figure out which variables are significant, refer to the dot plot

explained previously. Add the values together for the final equation.
 Beswick-Borders 31

= ( ) + ( ) + ""

Figure 23 below shows a sample parsimonious prediction equation.

= ( ) + ( )
+ ""
= (40.23) + ( )
+ ""
= (40.23) + (20.34) + ""
= 60.57 + ""
Figure 23. Sample Parsimonious Prediction Equation.
 Beswick-Borders 32

Works Cited

Bortle Scale Digital image. Goldpaint Photography.

N.d. Web. 2 Oct. 2016.

Demonstrating Light Pollution & Shielding National Optical Astronomy Observatory.

N.p. Web. 2 Oct. 2016.

"Difference between Full Cutoff and Fully Shielded." Lighting Answers. Rensselaer
Polytechnic Institute, Feb. 2007. Web. 02 Oct. 2016.

Eric Vandernoot, Department of Physics, FAU. "Light Pollution Hurts the Night Sky for
Astronomy." Light Pollution Obscures the Night Sky for Astronomy. N.p., n.d.
Web. 20 Sept. 2016.

"How Light Pollution Affects How We See the Night Sky." Php Bloginfoname RSS. N.p.,
2016. Web. 15 Sept. 2016.

Koberlein, Brian. "Blinded by the Light." One Universe at a Time. N.p., 8 Apr. 2015.
Web. 2 Oct. 2016.

"Lamp Spectrum and Light Pollution." Flagstaff Dark Skies Coalition. Flagstaff Dark
Skies Coalition, 28 Mar. 2016. Web. 4 Sept. 2016.

Levels of Light Shielding Digital image. Wildlife Ecology & Conservation.

N.d. Web. 2 Oct. 2016.

"Light Pollution." International Dark-Sky Association. International Dark-Sky

Association, 19 July 2016. Web. 02 Oct. 2016.

Mizon, Bob. "Light pollution: penetrating the veil." Journal of the British Astronomical
Association 122.4 (2012): 204+. Academic OneFile. Web. 16 Sept. 2016.

Shultz, Jennifer. "Star Light, Star Blight." State Legislatures 42.2 (2016): 8. Academic
OneFile. Web. 16 Sept. 2016.

"Spectral Sensitivity of the Human Eye." Spectral Sensitivity of the Human Eye.
Gigahertz-Optik, 2016. Web. 02 Oct. 2016.