Hi all,

Everybody likes good lighting I'm sure except I have few needs.
Replacing the old fixtures.

Have to be electronic ballasts. I get tired from 60hz exposure and
sore, dry eye. Good CRI at least 80+. Color temp between 3500K - 4100K
but I could use "Sylvania's sunshine" (Phlips C50) which is about
5000K and would like to know your experiences with these.

But the store I visited was told about law in ontario canada says can
only get 32W maximum for F40 length (4 foot) and higher for F96 (8
foot) but I think this is bull?

I rather take 40W fluorescents since the type of bulbs I'm looking for
has the specs I want.

My current set up as now over my bench is 10 feet ceiling with old 2 x
4 foot fixtures, each fixture has 2 bulbs. Next to it is one twin
bulb F96 (8 foot).

For close work, ideas on using incendscents lights to light specific
areas?

Cheers, Wizard

"Jason D." wrote in message
...
Hi all,

Everybody likes good lighting I'm sure except I have few needs.
Replacing the old fixtures.

Have to be electronic ballasts. I get tired from 60hz exposure and
sore, dry eye. Good CRI at least 80+. Color temp between 3500K - 4100K
but I could use "Sylvania's sunshine" (Phlips C50) which is about
5000K and would like to know your experiences with these.

But the store I visited was told about law in ontario canada says can
only get 32W maximum for F40 length (4 foot) and higher for F96 (8
foot) but I think this is bull?

I rather take 40W fluorescents since the type of bulbs I'm looking for
has the specs I want.

My current set up as now over my bench is 10 feet ceiling with old 2 x
4 foot fixtures, each fixture has 2 bulbs. Next to it is one twin
bulb F96 (8 foot).

For close work, ideas on using incendscents lights to light specific
areas?

Cheers, Wizard


Actually 40W tubes are legal at the moment, but only in the premium
phosphors, not the old halophosphate stuff (CW, WW, etc) though far less
efficient incandescent stuff has regulations at all thanks to the usual
beaurocratic nonsense that makes up our largely useless energy laws. The
thing is, few "40W" ballasts run the lamps at anywhere near full power, so a
pair of 32W T8's on an electronic ballast are actually considerably brighter
than a pair of 40W T12's, plus you get no flicker. You can even get ballasts
that overdrive the lamps if you need more light, but it's easier to just use
more lamps and cheap T8 ballasts you can get at a hardware store to run up
to 4 lamps each. Personally I like F32T8/850's, 86 CRI 5000K, nice bright
clean white light.

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 04:24:23 GMT, "James Sweet"
wrote:


Actually 40W tubes are legal at the moment, but only in the premium
phosphors, not the old halophosphate stuff (CW, WW, etc) though far less
efficient incandescent stuff has regulations at all thanks to the usual
beaurocratic nonsense that makes up our largely useless energy laws. The

I never did understand this law. Won't people just end up using more
bulbs to make up for their lower light output?
Andy Cuffe

-- Use this address until 12/31/2005

-- Use this address after 12/31/2005

In article ,
Jason D. wrote:
Have to be electronic ballasts. I get tired from 60hz exposure and
sore, dry eye.

Modern tri-phosphor tubes produce less flicker anyway. But go for
electronic ballasts.

--
*Monday is an awful way to spend 1/7th of your life *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 00:40:24 -0400, Andy Cuffe wrote:
On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 04:24:23 GMT, "James Sweet"
wrote:

Actually 40W tubes are legal at the moment, but only in the premium
phosphors, not the old halophosphate stuff (CW, WW, etc) though far less
efficient incandescent stuff has regulations at all thanks to the usual
beaurocratic nonsense that makes up our largely useless energy laws. The

I never did understand this law. Won't people just end up using more
bulbs to make up for their lower light output?
Andy Cuffe

'Tis what happens when folks that believe in "Intelligent Design" help
make laws. See also: Low flush toilets that require 2-3-4 cycles to
clear all "solids".

Jonesy
--
Marvin L Jones | jonz | W3DHJ | linux
Pueblo, Colorado | @ config.com | Jonesy | OS/2
*** I killfile X-Trace: posting.google.com followups in this ng

In article ,
Allodoxaphobia wrote:
Actually 40W tubes are legal at the moment, but only in the premium
phosphors, not the old halophosphate stuff (CW, WW, etc) though far
less efficient incandescent stuff has regulations at all thanks to the
usual beaurocratic nonsense that makes up our largely useless energy
laws. The

I never did understand this law. Won't people just end up using more
bulbs to make up for their lower light output? Andy Cuffe

'Tis what happens when folks that believe in "Intelligent Design" help
make laws. See also: Low flush toilets that require 2-3-4 cycles to
clear all "solids".

Knee jerk reactions by politicians to 'public outcry'. Or more likely the
sensationalist press. "Something *must* be done" And trade organisations
looking after their member's interests or trying to increase their
subscription income by making it compulsory. Leading to poorly thought out
legislation.

In the UK, it's now just about illegal to add an extra socket to an
existing domestic installation. Despite this being well within the
capability of a decent DIYer, since the UK ring main power circuits don't
restrict the total number of outlets. And there being little evidence of
such DIY work being dangerous. What has been shown to be dangerous is the
use of overloaded extension leads etc - fire risk, and also the chance of
tripping over them. And perfectly competent jobbing electricians who would
do such work for a reasonable price are being pushed out of the market by
the high cost of registration etc.

--
*If you must choose between two evils, pick the one you've never tried before

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Andy Cuffe" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 04:24:23 GMT, "James Sweet"
wrote:


Actually 40W tubes are legal at the moment, but only in the premium
phosphors, not the old halophosphate stuff (CW, WW, etc) though far less
efficient incandescent stuff has regulations at all thanks to the usual
beaurocratic nonsense that makes up our largely useless energy laws. The

I never did understand this law. Won't people just end up using more
bulbs to make up for their lower light output?
Andy Cuffe



Yes but since when has logic and common sense played any part in making
laws? Some "expert" probably said hey look if we require the common lamps to
be lower wattage we'll save X amount of energy overall.

The lamp makers had a part in the legislation too, by making the requirment
apply only to the standard phosphors, they could push their more expensive
premium phosphor lamps more effectively since they look that much better
next to the dim flickering energy savers.

In the UK, it's now just about illegal to add an extra socket to an
existing domestic installation. Despite this being well within the
capability of a decent DIYer, since the UK ring main power circuits don't
restrict the total number of outlets. And there being little evidence of
such DIY work being dangerous. What has been shown to be dangerous is the
use of overloaded extension leads etc - fire risk, and also the chance of
tripping over them. And perfectly competent jobbing electricians who would
do such work for a reasonable price are being pushed out of the market by
the high cost of registration etc.



Yeah that would **** me off too, though on the other hand you should see
some of the wiring the previous owner did in my house, it's amazing the
place never burned down! If only they'd focus more on educating people
rather than making more laws.

On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 02:35:22 GMT, James Sweet wrote:
"Andy Cuffe" wrote:
On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 04:24:23 GMT, "James Sweet" wrote:

Actually 40W tubes are legal at the moment, but only in the premium
phosphors, not the old halophosphate stuff (CW, WW, etc) though far less
efficient incandescent stuff has regulations at all thanks to the usual
beaurocratic nonsense that makes up our largely useless energy laws. The

I never did understand this law. Won't people just end up using more
bulbs to make up for their lower light output?

Yes but since when has logic and common sense played any part in making
laws? Some "expert" probably said hey look if we require the common lamps to
be lower wattage we'll save X amount of energy overall.

There was a piece on "CarTalk" ( http://www.cartalk.com/ ) this last
weekend. The discussion went somewhat:

Remember the focus on the wasting of water and an impending clean water
shortage that rose up a decade or two back? Remember the government's
edict to put a brick in each toilet to save water?

(Aside: Remember, too, the more recent duct-tape and plastic edict?)

Well, since we now have a gasoline shortage, why doesn't everybody put a
brick in their vehicle's fuel tank to save fuel?

I fear one or more elected suits was also listening to the same radio show...

Jonesy
--
Marvin L Jones | jonz | W3DHJ | linux
Pueblo, Colorado | @ config.com | Jonesy | OS/2
*** I killfile X-Trace: posting.google.com followups in this ng