Tech FAIL of the Day

[HardOCP News]

Ever wonder why all 1,800 lights in Central Park are on 24/7 wasting electricity as the light poles? Because some genius thought it would be a good idea to wire all the security cameras to the same power source. Meaning the lights have to be on for the security cameras to work.

Mr. Hewitt visited the office of his City Council representative, Helen Rosenthal. A member of her staff, Ned Terrace, dug into the matter. “The answer I received was that the power source for the streetlights is the same as the power source for the security cameras that the N.Y.P.D. has in Central Park, meaning that they have to be operating so that the cameras can remain on,” Mr. Terrace wrote on Nov. 11.

 

[nutzo]

So if it's too expense to run a 2nd power source for the security cameras, why don't they just install a photo sensor on each light so the lights only come on when it's dark.

 

[thesmokingman]

So if it's too expense to run a 2nd power source for the security cameras, why don't they just install a photo sensor on each light so the lights only come on when it's dark.

Unpossible, that would require someone to use a brain!

 

[Shmee]

So if it's too expense to run a 2nd power source for the security cameras, why don't they just install a photo sensor on each light so the lights only come on when it's dark.

But that would require spending money to fix a problem. If they were too cheap to run power to their cameras, they are probably too cheap to buy the sensors. It is the usual government spending problem. Yes it will save them money in the long run, but it will cost them money this year, and since they are already spending all this money on power they don't need to get approval to keep wasting money.

 

[amddragonpc]

So if it's too expense to run a 2nd power source for the security cameras, why don't they just install a photo sensor on each light so the lights only come on when it's dark.

I'm sure SOMEONE suggested that and that person was told, "That's a great idea! Find a way so that it costs the city nothing. You know ... Free?"

 

[Babbster]

It's pretty crazy that they converted all the lights to LED for energy savings (and I'm sure they draw less power running 24/7 than their previous lights did if they were turned off during the day) without ensuring that the lights would only be on when they were needed. Very sloppy work.

 

[Advil]

I'ts because they decided they needed the cameras later. The lights have probably been there forever. or the plan was simply to have the whole power line on or off from a central location. That's fine. Simple. Easy. Brilliant.

The problem was when someone decided they HAD to have TONS of cameras and the only place to put them with power was on all the existing light poles.

So really, the question is... do they NEED the cameras?

 

[Gweenz]

Taking the lowest bidder means getting the lowest bidder quality work.

 

[Babbster]

I'ts because they decided they needed the cameras later. The lights have probably been there forever.

Doubtful. A need for cameras in Central Park would have predated the installation of the LEDs and installing bulbs with photo sensors should have been an easy decision with a relatively (relative to thousands of bulbs bought in bulk) minor increase in cost. In fact, they could probably do that now and repurpose the existing bulbs for installation/replacement in fixtures elsewhere without the same problem.

 

[CaptNumbNutz]

After reading that entire article, it sounds like the construction in the area played a large part. They likely had to re-route power, tap into existing lines, dig near electrical lines, etc. My guess is that the Police Cameras themselves were relying on the power sources near the construction and something changed forcing them to seek a new power source. If the Police camera's were on their own circuit before, then any chance of construction tearing up the electrical lines is something the police would like to avoid. The simplest and likely cheapest solution was likely tapping into the park's lighting system. Since the park just switched to LED lamps, they also likely had plenty of watts to spare in the existing setup.

Due to this solution, and it being police camera's, that's also why the article's author likely had a heck of a time uncovering the real answer.

 

[AK0tA]

Replace the cameras with snipers, crime problem solved and money saved.

 

[TechLarry]

I can see it.

It may cost more to run extra power lines/control switches for the lights than to just leave it alone for 50 years.

Besides, I'm sure they are all LED lights and run for around $2 a year each

 

[prime2515102]

Helen Rosenthal? Is this for real? Why is a Crysis character ... oh wait ... maybe that was Helena.

 

[c3k]

Cost? I'm willing to bet that the city does NOT pay for the cost of the cameras. It's probably paid for by other people. You know, via a "federal grant" or other nationally supported tax/deficit spending. Something folded into the national budget under a security tab.

 

[Kelby]

So if it's too expense to run a 2nd power source for the security cameras, why don't they just install a photo sensor on each light so the lights only come on when it's dark.

"You're hired! Let us know when you're done installing and this great city will reward you with a sturdy handshake and a "Never Forget" t-shirt that we still have laying around here somewhere." - Cuomo

 

[xorbe]

just install a photo sensor on each light so the lights only come on when it's dark.

That's too easy. Install solar panels next to the lights, so that the lights charge up some off-grid batteries via the solar panels, then the batteries can power the security cameras when the lights are turned off later.