AN INSECT TRAP

Abstract

A trap for catching or killing insects includes a back housing, an insect capture or killing mechanism, an insect attracting light source comprising light emitting diodes (LEDs) which emit ultra violet (UV) radiation through a lens, and a cover comprising one or more openings allowing insects to enter the trap, through which insect attracting light is dispersed, or a fascia and one or more independent openings allowing insects to enter the trap, through which insect attracting light is dispersed.

Claims

1. A trap for catching or killing insects comprising: a. a back housing; b. an insect capture or killing mechanism; c. an insect attracting light source comprising light emitting diodes (LEDs) which emit ultra violet (UV) radiation through a lens; and d. i) a cover, comprising one or more openings allowing insects to enter the trap, through which insect attracting light is dispersed, or ii) a fascia and one or more independent openings allowing insects to enter the trap, through which insect attracting light is dispersed; wherein the LEDs, which emit ultra violet (UV) radiation, are: i) not orientated to direct light to either a centre of the trap from a periphery or immediately inwardly onto the insect capture or killing mechanism, ii) not arranged to direct light substantially perpendicularly to a normal plane of the back housing, iii) not arranged to direct light immediately outwardly through the cover, and iv) are mounted in front of, and directed towards, the insect capture or killing mechanism or the back housing, each lens having a primary lens axis at an angle of between plus or minus up to 75 degrees reading from a horizontal X-X axis to a vertical Y-Y axis.

2. A trap as claimed in claim 1, wherein a beam of light transmitted from the LED is a narrow beam at an angle of between plus or minus up to 15 degrees reading from the horizontal X-X axis to the vertical Y-Y axis.

3. A trap as claimed in claim 1, wherein a beam of light transmitted from the LED is an intermediate beam at an angle of between plus or minus up to 30 degrees reading from the horizontal X-X axis to the vertical Y-Y axis.

4. A trap as claimed in claim 1, wherein a beam of light transmitted from the LED is a broad beam at an angle of between plus or minus up to 45 degrees reading from the horizontal X-X axis to the vertical Y-Y axis.

5. A trap as claimed in claim 1, wherein a beam of light transmitted from the LED is an extra broad beam at an angle of between plus or minus up to 75 degrees reading from the horizontal X-X axis to the vertical Y-Y axis.

6. A trap as claimed in claim 1, wherein a beam of light transmitted from the LED is configured to transmit light to one side of the Y-Y axis only.

7. A trap as claimed in claim 1, wherein a beam of light transmitted from the LED is configured to transmit light to both sides of the horizontal X-X axis.

8. A trap as claimed in claim 1, wherein the LEDs are positioned on a shielding member that channels light in the desired direction.

9. A trap as claimed in claim 1, further comprising a diffractor.

10. A trap as claimed in claim 9, wherein the diffractor is opaque.

11. A trap as claimed in claim 1, comprising a pair of LED strips positioned towards the top and bottom, but not the middle, or on either side, but not the middle, of the insect capture or killing mechanism.

12. A trap as claimed in claim 1, comprising a single strip of LEDs positioned towards a periphery of the trap.

13. A trap as claimed in claim 1, which is a wall sconce comprising the fascia and one or more independent openings allowing insects to enter the trap and through which insect attracting light is dispersed, and wherein the insect capture or killing mechanism is a glue board positioned along the horizontal axis X-X and not the vertical axis Y-Y between the fascia and the back housing.

14. A trap as claimed in claim 13, comprising a wall side LED strip and a cover side LED strip, and wherein each lens has a primary lens axis at an angle of between plus or minus 15 to 60 degrees, reading from the horizontal X-X axis to the vertical Y-Y axis.

15. A trap as claimed in claim 14, wherein at least one LED strip has a primary lens axis at an angle of between plus or minus 22.5 or 45 degrees, reading from the horizontal X-X axis to the vertical Y-Y axis.

16. A trap as claimed in claim 1, further comprising a mechanism for lowering the power to at least one of improve capture performance and lower running cost.

17. A trap as claimed in claim 1, wherein an array of LEDs are mounted on an inner face of the cover.

18. A trap as claimed in claim 1, which is a SMART internet enabled trap.

19. A method of attracting flying insects to an insect trap comprising a back housing, an insect capture mechanism, a cover or fascia and one or more openings allowing insects to enter the trap, the method comprising diffusing light, emitted by light emitting diodes (LEDs) which emit ultra violet (UV) radiation, through a lens such that the light is: i) not orientated to either a centre of the trap from a periphery or immediately inwardly onto the insect capture mechanism, ii) not arranged to direct light substantially perpendicularly to a normal plane (P-P) of the back housing, iii) not arranged to direct light immediately outwardly through the cover, and iv) is directed towards, the insect capture mechanism or the back housing, each lens having a primary lens axis at an angle of between plus or minus up to 75 degrees reading from a horizontal X-X axis to a vertical Y-Y axis.

20. A method as claimed in claim 19, further comprising adjusting via a driver power input based on time to maximise an effective life of the UV LED light source.

21-24. (canceled)

Description

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0059] FIG. 1 is an exploded perspective view of a typical prior art insect trap showing the cover being removed and the frame slightly open with conventional UV fluorescent tubes;

[0060] FIG. 2a is a trap of the invention with the cover on;

[0061] FIG. 3 is a trap of the invention with the cover removed to show the back housing, an insect capture means, reflectors and a LED containing mount;

[0062] FIG. 4 is a comparator photo illustrating an illuminated insect trap with conventional fluorescent tubes (upper) verses one with LEDs (lower);

[0063] FIG. 5 is a graph illustrating how a driver can correct for performance over time.

[0064] FIG. 6a is a 3rd angle projection drawing of a Genus Cobra trap;

[0065] FIG. 6b is a cross section of a Genus Cobra trap;

[0066] FIG. 7a is a 3rd angle projection drawing of a Genus Fil trap;

[0067] FIG. 7b is a cross section of a Genus Fli trap;

[0068] FIG. 8a is a 3rd angle projection drawing of a Genus Galaxy trap;

[0069] FIG. 8b is a cross section of a Genus Galaxy trap;

[0070] FIG. 9a is a 3rd angle projection drawing of a Genus Illume trap;

[0071] FIG. 9b is a cross section of a Genus Illume trap; and

[0072] FIGS. 10a and 10b illustrates the difference in radiation pattern between a fluorescent and LED light source.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

[0073] FIG. 1 illustrates a typical prior art insect trap (10). It comprises a number of basic components: a back housing (12), a light source in the form of fluorescent, UV emitting tubes (22), an insect capture means (100) and a cover (16). The figure shows the fluorescent tubes carried on a frame hinged to the back housing. The plane of the back housing, and insect capture means, runs in the direction P-P

[0074] In contrast, and as illustrated in FIGS. 2, 3, 4 (lower) and 6, a preferred insect trap of the invention (10) comprises a cover (16) which hides the LEDs from view. All that can be seen through the cover openings (18) (when the lights are off) are a minor portion of the glue board (100), a minor portion of the mount (14) supporting the LEDs, and a minor portion of the reflectors (44).

[0075] Referring more specifically to FIGS. 6a and 6b one can see that the trap has three LED strips (22) positioned between the back housing (12) (and glue board (100)) and front cover (16). The strips are positioned on carrying members (24) and are positioned across the trap towards the top, bottom and middle with the light being directed at an angle of 45 degrees from the perpendicular of plane P-P or between axis X-X (outwardly/inwardly) and Y-Y. (upwardly downwardly)

[0076] Referring to FIG. 3 the mount (14) projects from, and is mounted to, the back housing (12) and comprises two pairs of facing LED carrying members (24a; 24b) which are inset from, a perimeter (20) of the back housing. Such a configuration has been shown by experiment, Example 1 below, to significantly improve insect capture.

[0077] This or, for example, a substantially circular configuration orientates the LEDs in facing relationship to direct light to the centre (26) of the trap.

[0078] A further and significant feature in maximising capture efficiency was to shield the LEDs so the light is directed in a plane (P-P) parallel to the back housing (12). This may be achieved by housing the LEDs in e.g. a substantially U or other shaped LED carrying member(s) (24) (the LEDs are not visible in the Fig) which precludes light from being directed immediately outwardly through the cover (16) or immediately inwardly onto the insect capture means (100).

[0079] The cover (16) is made of a translucent material and has an innermost surface which is shaped or roughened to maximise the transmission of UV light as set out in EP1457111. The openings (18) which allow insects to enter the trap are shaped to prevent the lights (22) being visible when viewed substantially perpendicularly to the normal plane (P-P) of the back housing (12). The general principle of maintaining a pleasant appearance of a trap is set out in EP0947134.

[0080] The data supporting the earlier claimed invention is set out in the Example 1 below with additional data supporting additional and alternative aspects disclosed with reference to Examples 2 to 7 and FIGS. 6 to 9.

Example 1

Methodology

[0081] 1. Test Procedure—1-hour Fly Catch tests (Single trap test) [0082] 1.1 Houseflies were reared using a standard rearing procedure. Three to four days old, mixed sex flies were used in the experiments; [0083] 1.2 200× flies were used for each replicate; [0084] 1.3 Before commencing the test, the Fly Test Room was cleaned of any residual flies from previous tests. Walls and floors were moped using a mild detergent in water. [0085] 1.4 Test Room measures 6 metres (length) by 3 metres (width) by 3 metres (height); [0086] 1.5 The test room contains 8×40 Watt Fluorescent tubes evenly spaced and mounted on the ceiling; [0087] 1.6 Each tube is 4 m in length and is a ‘Cool white’ colour; [0088] 1.7 Ambient UVA and the visible light intensity of the rooms fluorescent light lamps were measured immediately before the release of flies into the room; [0089] 1.8 Immediately after the commencement of each test ambient UVA and visible light were measured at a fixed point, from the centre of the room. The reading was taken with the sensor face parallel to the ceiling, at a distance of 1.5 metres, from the ground; [0090] 1.9 Temperature was maintained at 25±3° C. and temperature and relative humidity was recorded immediately before the release of any flies into the room; [0091] 1.10 Traps were placed at 1.8 m from the floor to the underside of the trap, centrally on either of the long walls; [0092] 1.11 Trap UV output was measured by calibrated UVA test equipment on the centre UV face of the trap at a distance of 1 meter from the face. [0093] 1.12 Two Hundred (200×) mixed sex flies were transferred into the room, at the end farthest from the door, in the corner farthest from the trap. allowed to acclimatize for 30 minutes to the new room environment with the traps switched OFF; [0094] 1.13 After 30 minutes of acclimatization, the traps were switched ON, environmental parameters recorded, and the traps were allowed to operate. The flies were then released, and the numbers of flies trapped was recorded every 30 min for a total of 60 minutes.

Results

[0095] The results from sequential tests are set out in the Tables below:

Test 1

[0096] 40 LED array (comparing outwardly and inwardly facing LEDs)

TABLE-US-00002 TABLE 2 Design Ave Catch (60 min) LED Outwardly 44% LED Inwardly 93%

[0097] Surprisingly this test suggested that, unlike with fluorescent tubes, it was not desirable to directly transmit the light outwardly, to obtain the most efficient capture.

Test 2

[0098] 28 LED array with directional testing and testing the effect of the translucent cover.

TABLE-US-00003 TABLE 3 Design Ave Catch (60 min) LED Inwardly (90 deg - towards glue board) 50% LED Parallel (180 deg) 72% LED Splayed (45 deg inward) 80% LED Splayed (45 deg inward) translucent cover 44% blackened

[0099] This test demonstrated that the translucent cover was, like with a traditional fluorescent tube, still playing a significant effect in attracting insects, and that the “internal lighting” of the trap was of significance.

Test 3

[0100] 30 LED array—Additional effect of directional control, using guides or baffles, to limit the direction of light transmission and further effect of translucent cover.

TABLE-US-00004 !TABLE 4 Design Ave Catch (60 min) LED Parallel (180 deg) plus directional guides 83% precluding light being transmitted directly outwardly LED Parallel (180 deg) plus directional guides 40% but with translucent cover blackened

[0101] The results showed that the use of guides to control the direction of emission maximised catch and that the translucency of the cover was of significance.

Test 4

[0102] 30 LED array—Comparative study between UV fluorescent trap and UV LED trap of otherwise equivalent design.

TABLE-US-00005 TABLE 5 Cobra trap (3 × fluorescent tubes) Time post insect Cobra trap (fluorescent) release (minutes) 1 2 3 4 5 Catch (Ave) Replicate 30 46 62 64 50 32 50.8 60 58 86 80 72 58 70.8

TABLE-US-00006 TABLE 6 Cobra trap (30 LED (UV) array) Time post insect Cobra trap (LED) release (minutes) 1 2 3 4 5 Catch (Ave) Replicate 30 59 53 53 55 52 54.4 60 88 83 82 84 80 83.4

[0103] The results show a statistically significant improvement in catch rate over 60 minutes (20% improvement).

TABLE-US-00007 TABLE 7 (Statistical analysis on Table 5 data) t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means  60 mins CCT LCT Mean 70.8 83.4 Variance 161.2 8.8 Observations 5 5 Pearson Correlation −0.223025967 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0 df 4 t Stat −2.061422972 P(T <= t) one-tail 0.054138833

[0104] A statistically significant p value of 0.05 confirms the greater capture efficiency of the LED trap over a conventional fluorescent tube trap after 60 minutes of operation.

[0105] Finally, FIG. 4 illustrates, photographically, the different appearance of the two traps—LED (lower) compared to fluorescent (upper).

Example 2

[0106] In a fresh set of experiments, designed to identify key parameters affecting “catch”, Experiments were grouped, and compared to a “standard”-catch (obtained using a Cobra insect trap, which used 3×15 W fluorescent tubes, positioned across a back board using approximately 45 W). The Cobra trap is illustrated in FIG. 1, and the results are illustrated in the comparative reference of Table 5 reproduced in different form as Table 8.

TABLE-US-00008 TABLE 8 Trap type Time (min) % catch Power (W) Fluorescent No tubes Cobra 30 51 3 × 15 W 3 60 71

Series 1

[0107] In S1 Tests 1 and 2, the effect of reduced power (compared to nominally 45 W, and in reality approx. 54 W—Table 8) was explored using a set up mimicking the traditional set up with three strips of LEDs positioned to emit light substantially evenly over the catch area of a glue board (as fluorescent tubes), BUT with them directed towards the glue board, as opposed to outwardly, based on the results of Example 1 in international application WO2019082051.

S1 Test 1

Results

[0108]

TABLE-US-00009 TABLE 9 No strips and LED's Trap type Time (min) % catch Power (W) LED per strip Cobra 10 43 11.8 yes 3 × 15 30 63 60 77

S1 Test 2

Results

[0109]

TABLE-US-00010 TABLE 10 No strips and LED's Trap type Time (min) % catch Power (W) LED per strip Cobra 10 51 17.8 yes 3 × 15 30 68 60 83

Conclusion

[0110] It can also be seen by comparing S1, Tests 1 and 2 with Table 8 above, that the catch (at 60 minutes) increases with power from 77% to 83%, but that al low power (compared to the at least 45 W used with fluorescent tubes) is still more effective (71% catch).

Series 2

[0111] In series 2, applicant explored the effect of adding a diffuser (lens) in front of the LED's, to direct/scatter the light, in a similar manner to the way light is transmitted through a translucent cover (outwardly) in a conventional trap, since the cover increases catch. The results the S2, Tests 3 and 4, were compared with the S1 Tests 1 and 2.

S2 Test 3

Results

[0112]

TABLE-US-00011 TABLE 11 No strips and Trap Time % Power LED's type (min) catch (W) LED per strip Comment Cobra 10 64 11.8 yes 3 × 15 Vs 43 30 78 Vs 63 60 84 Vs 77 Example 1

S2 Test 4

Results

[0113]

TABLE-US-00012 TABLE 12 No strips and Trap Time % Power LED's type (min) catch (W) LED per strip Comment Cobra 10 51 17.8 yes 3 × 15 V 51 30 71 V 68 60 79 Vs 83 Example 2

Conclusion

[0114] The results are inconclusive, but the trend suggests a diffuser improves/speeds catch.

Series 3

[0115] In a further series of experiments the effect of reducing the intensity of each of the three LED groupings was explored with a power input of 11.8 W (approx. a quarter of a traditional fluorescent trap).

S3 Test 5

Results

[0116]

TABLE-US-00013 TABLE 13 No strips and LED's Trap type Time (min) % catch Power (W) LED per strip Cobra 10 48 11.8 yes 3 × 54 30 68 60 80

S3 Test 6

Results

[0117]

TABLE-US-00014 TABLE 14 No strips and LED's Trap type Time (min) % catch Power (W) LED per strip Cobra 10 44 11.8 yes 3 × 18 30 67 60 85

S3 Test 7

Results

[0118]

TABLE-US-00015 TABLE 15 No strips and LED's Trap type Time (min) % catch Power (W) LED per strip Cobra 10 46 11.8 yes 3 × 15 30 65 60 78

Conclusion

[0119] It can be seen from the three results that the catch from each of Tests 5 to 7 performed substantially equivalently, indicating it is possible to use a set up that draws much less power than a conventional set up to achieve results which are better that an equivalent fluorescent set up.

Series 4

[0120] Up to this point Applicant had considered configurations in which the LED's were positioned across the trap, in a manner substantially equivalent to a set up using fluorescent UV, sources BUT with the LED UV source being substantially unidirectional towards (and not away from) the glue board.

[0121] They next considered whether reducing the number of UV strips would affect catch rates. The results provided an unexpected finding in that two Examples, from six basic configurations tested, produced catch rates in excess of 90%. These are set out in S4 Tests 8-13 below:

S4 Test 8

Results

[0122]

TABLE-US-00016 TABLE 16 No strips and LED's Trap type Time (min) % catch Power (W) LED per strip Cobra 10 51 9 yes 16-30-0 30 69 60 82

S4 Test 9

Results

[0123]

TABLE-US-00017 TABLE 17 No strips and LED's Trap type Time (min) % catch Power (W) LED per strip Cobra 10 32 10.5 yes 54-0-54 30 54 60 90

S4 Test 10

Results

[0124]

TABLE-US-00018 TABLE 18 No strips and LED's Trap type Time (min) % catch Power (W) LED per strip Cobra 10 34 11.8 yes 16-30-0 30 53 60 70

S4 Test 11

Results

[0125]

TABLE-US-00019 TABLE 19 No strips and LED's Trap type Time (min) % catch Power (W) LED per strip Cobra 10 35 17.8 yes 8-15-0 30 61 60 85

S4 Test 12

Results

[0126]

TABLE-US-00020 TABLE 20 No strips and LED's Trap type Time (min) % catch Power (W) LED per strip Cobra 10 40 17.8 yes 15-0-15 30 65 60 92

S4 Test 13

Results

[0127]

TABLE-US-00021 TABLE 21 No strips and LED's Trap type Time (min) % catch Power (W) LED per strip Cobra 10 40 18 yes 8-15-0 30 50 60 74

Conclusion

[0128] As can be seen from the S4 Tests above that the configurations (S4 Tests 9 and 12) in which the lighting was directed towards the periphery, top and bottom, but not the centre of the insect capture or killing means, irrespective of power, produced quite outstanding results at 60 minutes.

[0129] The inference from this, which may be extrapolated, is that directing the lighting towards one or more peripheral edges (at or inset from the perimeter) BUT not directly towards the centre of the trap (centre 20-40%) appears optimum.

[0130] Whether this is one edge, top/bottom, side/side, or substantially the full perimeter has yet to be determined, but it is clear that the UV light should not be directed towards or positioned at the centre of the trap, by which is meant the at least central 20%, through 25%, 30%, 35% to 40% by area.

Example 3

[0131] Example 3 demonstrates how to intelligently increase the power input overtime to account for a reduction in performance of LED's with time.

[0132] This is illustrated with reference to FIG. 5 which is a graph showing Power (Y axis) and time (X axis). The middle line is representative of an “ideal” and the lower curve shows a reduction in performance over time. By means of s simple algorithm it is possible to periodically adjust the power input (upper curve) to compensate for a loss in performance (Lower curve).

[0133] Thus, in another aspect of the present invention there is provided a trap and methodology which adjusts power to ensure a consistent UV LED output.

[0134] The novel method provides an increase of power through a driver that corresponds to a decrease of output power of the UV LED over time. This ensures that the UV LED's function at optimal luminescence, at all times, during its operational life. In this regard, a UV LEDs typically has a decay of power output over time during normal operations. This reduces its effectiveness as a flying insect attractant. Current practice suggests replacement of the UV LED source at a predetermined time e.g. 2 years.

[0135] A corrective power driver that automatically increases power when the UV LEDs delivers lower output provides for a longer life and optimum efficiency. It ensures UV LED output power remains linear and consistent throughout its specified lifetime.

[0136] An Intelligent Driver (iDriver) identifies the UV LED serial to determine the start date. This is achieved using e.g. a RFID reader. The iDriver will store this data in its local memory. The iDrivers comes preloaded with the UV LED decay characteristics. At predetermined times, the iDriver will make corrections to the input power of the UV LEDs to deliver consistent UV LED output power.

Examples 4-7

[0137] Examples 4 and 7 illustrate variations for different trap configuration.

Example 4. Genus Cobra

[0138] FIGS. 6a and 6b illustrate the Genus Cobra in more detail. It comprises a back housing (12), a cover (16) and a glue board (100). Its three primary openings, from top to bottom, (18a, 18b and 18c) are located approximately mid-way between each of the top, middle and bottom third of the trap. The cover (16) is a translucent cover designed to scatter light. Three LED strips (22) are located between the cover (16) and the back-housing (12) which supports the glue board (100). The three light strips, (22a, 22b, 22c) are fitted to carrying members (24) and are directed such that the main axis (25) is at an angle of between 30 and 60 degrees, optimally 45 degrees reading from the X-X axis to the Y-Y axis (Test 2).

Example 5 Genus Fli

[0139] FIGS. 7a and 7b illustrates a Genus Fli trap. In contrast to the Genus Cobra trap illustrated in FIGS. 6a and 6b and referenced in Examples 2 and 4, which comprised 3 LED strips of lights (22) and a translucent cover (16), the Genus Fli comprises a back housing (12) supporting a glue board (100), and a metal cover (16) with four major openings (18), two (18a) in a front cover surface which lies parallel with the glue board and back housing and two (18b) in side cover surfaces as well as many (18c) smaller holes apertures formed in groups there between. It comprises a mount (14) and LED carrying members (24) which support two LED strips each comprising a plurality of LEDs (22). The LEDs are positioned in alignment with the two primary openings (18a) in the cover (16) and each lens (23) has a primary lens axis (25) at an angle of between plus or minus 60 and 75 degrees, optimally 67.5 degrees reading from the X-X axis to the Y-Y axis.

[0140] This angle was selected based on the following test data:

TABLE-US-00022 TABLE 21 Test 14 LED Strip Angles - Top/Bottom 180/180 45/45 67.5/67.5 Catch % 10 7.0 13.6 18.3 mins 30 11.5 27.6 32.9 60 23.0 43.2 50.0

TABLE-US-00023 TABLE 22 Test 15/ LED Strip Angles - Top/Bottom 180/180 45/45 45/67.5 67.5/−45 67.5/45 67.5/67.5 Catch 10 8.0 19.5 19.6 16.0 18.7 18.5 % 30 16.9 30.5 32.0 32.0 35.0 34.9 mins 60 27.4 45.0 46.4 49.7 51.3 54.5

TABLE-US-00024 TABLE 23 Test 16/ LED Strip Angles - Top/Bottom 180/180 45/45 67.5/−45 67.5/45 67.5/67.5 Catch 10 8.8 21.0 14.0 16.0 20.4 % 30 16.0 34.7 28.8 26.7 35.8 mins 60 31.2 50.0 42.8 43.7 56.4

Conclusion

[0141] From these results the best results are obtained with the primary lens axis having a greater angle of incidence measured from the glue board towards the primary openings (18a) such that the preferred angle is between plus or minus 60 and 75 degrees reading from the X-X axis to the Y-Y axis.

Example 6

[0142] FIGS. 8a and 8b illustrates a Genus Galaxy trap. In contrast to the previous traps, the Genus Galaxy is a wall sconce trap and differs fundamentally in that it's front facing fascia (16) is closed (no outwardly facing openings) and the light is instead directed upwardly towards the ceiling (and optionally downwardly towards the floor) through one or more openings (18). It comprises a back housing (12), for attaching the trap to a wall, but in contrast to the previously described traps the glue board (100) is positioned along the horizontal axis X-X (and not the vertical axis Y-Y) between the fascia (16) and the back housing (12). It comprises a mount (14) and LED carrying members (24) which support two LED strips (22), each comprising a plurality of LEDs. The LED strips are positioned in spaced relationship between the fascia (16) and back housing (12) below the opening (18). There is a wall side strip (22a) and a fascia side strip (22b) and each lens (23) has a primary lens axis (25) at an angle of between plus or minus 15 and 30 degrees, optimally 22.5 degrees reading from the X-X axis to the Y-Y axis.

[0143] In this trap the LED's project light at 65 degrees either side of the primary axis (25). However, they are configured such that the primary axis hits the back wall at the boundary with the opening (18) such that it reflects off the back wall and the back housing across the opening and is not directed immediately towards the ceiling. It also reflects off the back housing (due to the spread) and in the case of light emitted from the fascia side strip (22b) light also reflects off the wall side strip (22a) such that additionally the glue board (100) is lit.

[0144] This angle was selected based on the following test data:

TABLE-US-00025 TABLE 24 Test 17 Catch % at 60 minutes Cover Side LED Strip LED −135 −90 −45 22.5 90 Strip Angle Wall 90 50.0 Side 22.5 70.7 LED −45 63.8 Strip −90 43.4 −135 64.0

Conclusion

[0145] From these results the best results are obtained with the primary lens axis (25) having a greater angle of incidence measured from the glue board towards the primary openings (18a) such that the preferred angle is between plus or minus 15 and 30 degrees reading from the X-X axis to the Y-Y axis

Example 7 Genus Illume Alpha

[0146] Similarly to Example 6, this is a wall sconce trap comprising a back housing (12), a fascia (16) and a glue board (100). Its opening (18) is at the top of the trap where the light from two light strips, (22a) and (22b) is emitted. The primary difference between this and Example 6 is that the unit is smaller resulting in the fascia side strip (22b) being located closer to the wall side strip (22a). In consequence to ensure that the primary axis hits the back wall at the boundary with the opening (18) such that it reflects off the back wall and the back housing across the opening and is not directed immediately towards the ceiling, and it also reflects off the back housing (due to the spread) the two strips are disposed at different angles, the wall side strip (22a) having an angle of between plus or minus 30 and 60 degrees, optimally 45 degrees reading from the X-X axis to the Y-Y axis and the fascia side strip (22b) having an angle of between plus or minus 30 and 60 degrees, optimally 22.5 degrees reading from the X-X axis to the Y-Y axis.