On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 19:46:08 -0500, Mike Marlow wrote:

I wondered about color correction since I paint a lot of cars, but to be
honest, I'm not going to sweat it anymore. The light and the color are
so much better than what I was used to that I'll just stick with what I
have.

As I mentioned here once before, try a couple of the GE kitchen and bath
bulbs in one of the fixtures. You'll like it.

The discussion of the use of T5/T8 5000 lights sparked my interest - as
I had no idea what it was - and I've found tons of information on the
internet about it. But as usual, weeding through the contradictions is
always difficult.

Some people seem to view the T5 as superior to the T8, both in energy
usage and in output. Then I've also found pages saying it isn't true.

A T5 seems very small to be that good at producing enough light ... but
some people say they do in fact produce the same amount of ligth.

Who out there is using these and can you give me your opinion on which
to go for? I have outlets in the ceiling out the gazoo ... so I can
install as many of these as I need. My concern is that I get enough
natural looking light, but without an UV since I burn easy.

Jack

Jack said:
The discussion of the use of T5/T8 5000 lights sparked my interest
snip
Some people seem to view the T5 as superior to the T8, both in energy
usage and in output. Then I've also found pages saying it isn't true.

A T5 seems very small to be that good at producing enough light ... but
some people say they do in fact produce the same amount of ligth.
Snip

Jack, I assure you the T5 will produce a great deal of light. I have
hundreds of them installed in our dealerships and they are great. We are
using them as a replacements for the Metal Halide fixtures with T5s as well
as older T8s. I too am replacing the fixtures in my shop with T5's and
really put out the light.
I do not know about the UV levels but the T5 is the future of fluorescent
lamps.

Dave



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

mywebaccts (at) PLUGcomcast.net said:

The discussion of the use of T5/T8 5000 lights sparked my interest - as
I had no idea what it was - and I've found tons of information on the
internet about it. But as usual, weeding through the contradictions is
always difficult.

Some people seem to view the T5 as superior to the T8, both in energy
usage and in output. Then I've also found pages saying it isn't true.

A T5 seems very small to be that good at producing enough light ... but
some people say they do in fact produce the same amount of ligth.

Who out there is using these and can you give me your opinion on which
to go for? I have outlets in the ceiling out the gazoo ... so I can
install as many of these as I need. My concern is that I get enough
natural looking light, but without an UV since I burn easy.

Total light output depends on the phosphors and design of the tube.
Different tubes vary as to color temperature and total light output.
(Yes, even within families such as 4 foot T-8 and T-5.)
HO and VHO bulbs increase light output, but at a loss of bulb life and
higher energy consumption.

Look at the bulb specs. Standard T-8 and T-5 bulbs are very similar.
There will be a rating of total lumens (after burn-in).
Note also the wattage/current it consumes.
The CRI is based upon a physiological rendering comparison of the
color to noon daylight - the higher the better.

Extrapolate the lumens per watt for the selected bulbs. ~Efficiency.
Find out which type is most affordable in your area.
Buy based upon sound research.

UV burning isn't much of a factor with fluorescent lighting - perhaps
with specialty actinic or UVa/b bulbs, but not std illumination bulbs.
It is more of a concern with Metal Halides, especially if the outer
envelope is damaged.

FWIW,

Greg G.

"mywebaccts (at) PLUGcomcast.net" "mywebaccts (at) PLUGcomcast.net" writes:

The discussion of the use of T5/T8 5000 lights sparked my interest - as
I had no idea what it was - and I've found tons of information on the
internet about it. But as usual, weeding through the contradictions is
always difficult.

Some people seem to view the T5 as superior to the T8, both in energy
usage and in output. Then I've also found pages saying it isn't true.

I'm actively researching lighting for my new shop right now.

I found a government report on ligghting and energy use. They actually
say the T8 is more energy efficient than T5 in many applications. A
popular energy saving application for T5 is the replacement of high bay
lighting in factories and warehouses.

I found that 96" (actually 92" I believe) T5 fixtures cost about twice
what 96" T8 fixtures. 96" T8 strip fixtures for two bulbs cost $58 to $65
or so. The only 96" T5 strip fixtures I could find were $121 each plus
the bulbs are very expensive.

T8 96" bulbs are 59 watts and T5 96" watt bulbs are 54 watts. I am
certainly not going to pay twice as much to save 10 watts per fixture. I
could save about 10 cents every 100 hours the fixture is used.

If anyone has any insight on where to buy the F96T8 strip fixtures for two
bulbs, I would appreciate it. So far, I know Grainger has them for about
$63 each with no shipping. I am also going to try the electrical supply
houses. Shipping on 96" fixtures isn't really worth it.

Brian Elfert

Subject

At one time in a past life I designed and sold a lot of lighting systems .

From that perspective, will off the following:

What you want to buy are lumens delivered on the surface you want to light.

By definition, one lumen per square foot = one foot candle.

What you pay for is KWH of electricity.

The lighting system converts KWH of electricity into lumens.

The more efficiently it does this process, the better the lighting system.

Trying to compare the inital cost of various componets is meaningless
with out also including the cost of installation, annual hours of
operation, efficiency of the lamps, cost of KWH, and the dirt factor of
the space you want to light.

Not exactly a simple problem.

Ya pays your money, ya takes your pick.

Lew

On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 18:36:18 GMT, Lew Hodgett
wrote:

What you want to buy are lumens delivered on the surface you want to light.

By definition, one lumen per square foot = one foot candle.

What you pay for is KWH of electricity.

The lighting system converts KWH of electricity into lumens.

Well, as long as we're on the subject of lighting, I'm gonna take a
shot at butting in.

I'm also looking to light a shop (24 X 25 X 8' ceiling), and in
reading an article on workshop lighting, it suggested 80-100 fc for
old fogies (40+) like myself for a woodworking shop.

So, while I know there are probably 50 variables including the paint
color, machines, etc., how do I (even ballpark) get from KWH (or
wattage) to foot candles? Basically, after reading the article I know
I want "lots of light," but I still have no clue how to convert "lots
of light" into X-number of 2-bulb, 4' fixtures. Any suggestions on
how to make the conversion?

Thanks,

Ricky

Ba r r y wrote:

Lew,

Is there a formula to correct for the distance of the subject to the
fixture?

There are some, but frankly I never used them.

Good engineering and some basic SWAGs took care of things.

It seems to me that low ceilings always need more lights. Or is it my
imagination?

Your observation is correct.

Low ceilings are difficult.

When you design a work place lighting sysyem, you are trying to deliver
the light to the work surface assumed to be 36" above the floor.

The spacing between fixtures is a function of the mounting height above
the work surface and the "spread angle" of the fixture.

When it comes to lighting a workshop in a typical basement, it becomes a
"what works" situation.

A single lamp fixture located on 32" centers worked for me in my
basement shop a long time ago.

YMMV

Lew

Ricky Robbins wrote:

I'm also looking to light a shop (24 X 25 X 8' ceiling), and in
reading an article on workshop lighting, it suggested 80-100 fc for
old fogies (40+) like myself for a woodworking shop.

snip

The 8' ceiling is the controlling factor in the above application.

Use 1 watt per square foot for 100 FC maintained.

24 x 25 = 600

600/40 = 15, 40 watt lamps.

I'd probab;y use 16 lamps in 4 rows of 4 each.

That will provide about 6 ft spacing between rows which id probably
about max.

BTW, those calculations were based on old lamps. Todays lamps provive
same lumens for less watts.

It's the 16, 4 ft long lamps that is important.

HTH

Lew

Lew Hodgett writes:

The 8' ceiling is the controlling factor in the above application.

Use 1 watt per square foot for 100 FC maintained.

What about the OSHA rules that are often quoted of 3 watts per sq foot for
flourescents?

My proposed shop is 24x24 so I would need over 1,500 watts based on that.
That seems like a lot. A space heater is usually 1,500 watts.

My thinking for my new shop is 4 rows of 8' T8 double bulb fixtures two
per row. That is 944 watts which seems like a lot! Is that too much? I
don't really want to burn a kilowatt an hour just for lighting.

My present basement shop only has about half as much light as I am
planning for my new shop if I go full bore as described.

Brian Elfert

On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 20:51:20 GMT, Lew Hodgett
wrote:

It's the 16, 4 ft long lamps that is important.

Thanks, Lew, for the info.

Ricky

Brian Elfert wrote:

What about the OSHA rules that are often quoted of 3 watts per sq foot for
flourescents?

I have no clue where that comes from but it doesn't apply to non
commercial applications anyway.


My proposed shop is 24x24 so I would need over 1,500 watts based on that.
That seems like a lot. A space heater is usually 1,500 watts.

Way too much.

I'd use 600 watts/40 watts/tube = 15 tubes +/-.


My thinking for my new shop is 4 rows of 8' T8 double bulb fixtures two
per row. That is 944 watts which seems like a lot! Is that too much? I
don't really want to burn a kilowatt an hour just for lighting.

Not if you are going to be an engraver, otherwise yes, IMHO.

See calculation above.

Mike M wrote:
I started to scan about ten pages from the illuminating engineering
handbook, but realized no one does them by hand anymore. Its either
rule of thumb, or we use software.

snip

That is known as the LGB theory of lighting design.

You bring in the out of town lighting guru from the factory.

Take guru to job site for an inspection.

Guru looks around and says, "Put luminaires here, here and here",
pointing towards ceiling.

"Now, Lets Get a Beer."

Lew

Mike M wrote:
Here in Washington State if its a commercial Job is 2.3 watts per
square foot for a carpenty shop which is about the highest allowed for
any occupancy.


If they do not take the lamp source into consideration, the above makes
no sense at all.

Consider the following:

Incandescent: 18-20 lumens/watt on average.
Fluorescent: 60-70 lumens/watt on average.
Sodium vapor: 125 lumens/watt on average.

Those are initial values, but demonstrate the variation in efficiency of
various lamp sources.

It is lumens on the work surface, not watts, that are important.

Lew

"Brian Elfert" wrote in message
...
Lew Hodgett writes:

The 8' ceiling is the controlling factor in the above application.

Use 1 watt per square foot for 100 FC maintained.

What about the OSHA rules that are often quoted of 3 watts per sq foot for
flourescents?

My proposed shop is 24x24 so I would need over 1,500 watts based on that.
That seems like a lot. A space heater is usually 1,500 watts.

My thinking for my new shop is 4 rows of 8' T8 double bulb fixtures two
per row. That is 944 watts which seems like a lot! Is that too much? I
don't really want to burn a kilowatt an hour just for lighting.

My present basement shop only has about half as much light as I am
planning for my new shop if I go full bore as described.

Brian Elfert

Brian:

I've gotten completely lost following the lumens, watts, 5's, 8's, rows,
and... man, my head is starting to hurt. But... I just changed the lighting
in my garage/body shop/woodshop from incandescent to florescent. I
originally had 3 100W bulbs in each of the three bays. The garage is 3 bays
(36x26) but only two bays are real car bays. The third is where I keep all
of my tools since it always seems to be too cluttered to actually use any of
them in that bay.

I bought the basic 0 degree 4 foot, double tube fixtures from Lowes - $20
each. I used standard 40W, soft white tubes in the fixtures . I put 6
fixtures in the two car bays. They run in two rows, from the garage doors
to the back wall, just inside of where the door tracks run. That puts them
roughly 8 feet (or a bit more) apart. End to end, each fixture is 32" from
its neighbor. I had to start about 52" from the front wall of the garage
due to clearance of the door as it opens/closes. I didn't care exactly what
distance the last light ended up being from the back wall. My ceiling is 9'
2" high.

What I can tell you is that each bay is lit up like glory itself. It took a
little getting used to - the light is so different in color from the yellow
of incandescent. But in a short time it became quite natural seeming. The
best part - no shadows. I mean - no shadows. I don't care what you do, you
can't produce a shadow that obstructs your view. It was shocking to really
see everything that was cluttered on top of my table saw - and I'm not
kidding.

I priced 8 foot fixtures and bulbs but all I could find locally - without a
lot of shopping around, was HO fixtures and the bulbs will take you to the
poor house. Not worth it in my opinion.

I wondered about color correction since I paint a lot of cars, but to be
honest, I'm not going to sweat it anymore. The light and the color are so
much better than what I was used to that I'll just stick with what I have.

My neighbors have made laughing comments about the light coming from my
garage now. I mean - it's a lot of light. My eyes are going the wrong way
fast and I just can't see like I used to in low light conditions anymore.
Not a problem anymore.

So - I don't know what the lumens are, don't care. Don't care what the
watts are. Don't care about 5's, 8's or 12's. I got light now and it was
quite reasonable the way I did it (price wise).

Hope this sheds some light on the discussion.

--

-Mike-

Mike M wrote:
Thats how I ended up with my own software, I'd send a parking lot to
be redone in showing the existing pole locations and they would do a
new lay out. I'd end up with poles in the roadways.

Ye gads, unless it was a car lot, 4:1 pole spacing ruled for parking
lots as long as the poles were 40 ft or less.

Roadway jobs, now that is a whole nother kettle of fish which I avoided
like it was the plague.

Times have sure changed I guess.

Lew

Mike M wrote:


Basically they do consider that in that if you want more light you
have to use the most effecient equipment. This is simplified as there
are adders for high ceilings, and you treat rack lighting different.
All though there is whats called the prescriptive method whereas you
can have as many 2/L T8 fixtures as you want. For an office building
it 1.2 watts per square foot.

Sounds like a spec written by the local utility rather than a lighting
systems engineer.

Lew

Lew Hodgett writes:

Brian Elfert wrote:

What about the OSHA rules that are often quoted of 3 watts per sq foot for
flourescents?

I have no clue where that comes from but it doesn't apply to non
commercial applications anyway.

I did a lot of searching of this newsgroup on Google. Many people quoted
some OSHA rule of 3 watts per square foot as a guideline for lighting.

They meant it as a guideline, not a rule that had to be followed.

Do you recommend 4' or 8' fixtures? 4' fixtures are a fair amount less
money, but a lot of wreckers recommend 8' for better lighting.

Brian Elfert

Brian Elfert wrote:

Do you recommend 4' or 8' fixtures? 4' fixtures are a fair amount less
money, but a lot of wreckers recommend 8' for better lighting.

A lot depends on hours of operation and ambient temperature.

A 96" HO tube has better terminations than a 48" standard, but usually
more than double the cost.

Life of either one is usually quoted at 20,000 hours.

If you are looking at a typical home workshop type application, consider
the following:

2-3 hours/night, 5 maybe 6 days a week will be about 20 hours per week.

20 hours per week, 50 weeks a year = 1,000 hours/year or 20 year life.

How long the system lasts becomes moot with numbers like that.

Things like inital cost, power costs, winter time temperatures, become
signficant issues.

The very first one you want to address is temperature since light output
is so temperature dependant.

If you need insulation, that is ahead of lighting, IMHO.

Notice how everything I touch turns into a systemG?

It's just the nature of the beast.

Lew

Mike Marlow wrote:

I wondered about color correction since I paint a lot of cars, but to be
honest, I'm not going to sweat it anymore. The light and the color are
so much better than what I was used to that I'll just stick with what I
have.


You get the message.

For your application, you could care less what the true color is, but
you sure care that it is repeatable, 24/7.

Have done some work on "color tables" as they are called.

Requires a controlled temperature, a specific set of lamps that have
been precalibrated, with known hours of operation, and a whole bunch of
other things.

People who need a color table are ink manufacturers, greeting card
manufacturers, etc.

IOW, the print portion of the graphic arts industry.

Doing a color table is strictly for the prestige.

Lots of time for small amounts of money.

Lew

Mike M wrote:
This one tells me you have been around lighting.

Don't remind meG.

Lew

Lew Hodgett writes:

Things like inital cost, power costs, winter time temperatures, become
signficant issues.

The very first one you want to address is temperature since light output
is so temperature dependant.

The shop will be fully insulated, heated, and cooled. Temps will be kept
at 45 to 50 degrees in the winter.

I definitely want T8 fixtures with electronic ballast. 4' or 8' is the
real question. The 8' fixtures are more than twice as much as 4' fixtures
from what I have found to date.

Brian Elfert

Brian Elfert wrote:

I definitely want T8 fixtures with electronic ballast. 4' or 8' is the
real question. The 8' fixtures are more than twice as much as 4' fixtures
from what I have found to date.


Makes sense, they put out twice as much light.

Guess it gets down to a "what flavor do I like" decision.

Good luck.

Lew

"Brian Elfert" wrote in message
...
Lew Hodgett writes:

Things like inital cost, power costs, winter time temperatures, become
signficant issues.

The very first one you want to address is temperature since light output
is so temperature dependant.

The shop will be fully insulated, heated, and cooled. Temps will be kept
at 45 to 50 degrees in the winter.

I definitely want T8 fixtures with electronic ballast. 4' or 8' is the
real question. The 8' fixtures are more than twice as much as 4' fixtures
from what I have found to date.

Brian Elfert

Double check price and availability of bulbs Brian. Not to say they're not
available, but which is more convenient, more common, cheaper, etc.?

One consideration I found worthwhile with the 4 foot fixtures is that I can
turn off fixtures I don't always need. Mine all have chain pulls on them.
For normal garage lighting I might get by on only half of my lights. Easy
to turn off the ones I don't want and still maintain the ease of hitting the
wall switch to light the bay to the normally needed amount of light.

BTW - did I tell ya that my freakin' garage is *bright* now?

--

-Mike-

On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 20:51:20 +0000, Lew Hodgett wrote:

Ricky Robbins wrote:

I'm also looking to light a shop (24 X 25 X 8' ceiling), and in reading
an article on workshop lighting, it suggested 80-100 fc for old fogies
(40+) like myself for a woodworking shop.

snip

The 8' ceiling is the controlling factor in the above application.

Use 1 watt per square foot for 100 FC maintained.

Don't know where you came up with that number, but it sounds golden and
looks to solve my own lighting questions. I'm in a basement with a 7'
ceiling so I should be fine with anywhere from 1/2 w / sq ft (~50 fc?)to
the full watt (slightly greater than 100 fc).

Right?

Bill

W Canaday wrote:

Don't know where you came up with that number, but it sounds golden and
looks to solve my own lighting questions. I'm in a basement with a 7'
ceiling so I should be fine with anywhere from 1/2 w / sq ft (~50 fc?)to
the full watt (slightly greater than 100 fc).


7' mtg ht makes getting a good lighting job tougher than 8', but it can
be done.

Use single tube fixtures and keep rows of fixtures no more thyan 48" apart.

Good luck.

Lew

In article . net,
Lew Hodgett wrote:

It is lumens on the work surface, not watts, that are important.

....that and colour balance. In my business, the customer picks out the
colour for their countertops at their house, so I don't really care
about balance...just what's easy on the eyes. Too much light in my game
is bothersome too... virtual snow blindness can set in and the eye will
lose all detail when a white countertop is illuminated too harshly...
just can't see and sanding swirls after about 5 minutes of staring at
the work.

I also have some fluorescent lamps, vertical, against two walls inside a
fixture which I painted black. The lamps cast a nice picture of two
white vertical stripes which I use to check for flatness in an assembly.
That's also just enough light to show up sanding marks in darker
countertops. They're 4-foot bulbs and the centre of the tube is at
eye-height. It really shows off how well my parallign vacuum clamps
work. http://monumenttoolworks.com/pages/parallign.htm

Level is level, flat is flat, no screwing around, not even with veneered
panels... and with all this low-angle lighting, I still can't see a
biscuit in a joint..G

"Robatoy" wrote in message
...


Level is level, flat is flat, no screwing around, not even with veneered
panels... and with all this low-angle lighting, I still can't see a
biscuit in a joint..G

Oh great. You just hadda go there, didn't ya?

--

-Mike-

In reefkeeping, T5's are the new black. They allow for more light with
a smaller fixture, the bulbs last quite a bit longer than T-8's, are
cheaper to operate than MH, and put out more light than a compact
fluorescent.

That said, the light available is more a product of the reflector
chosen than the bulb. The t-5 allows a smaller reflector that bounces
more light down into the tank.

I have T-5's over my tank and track lighting in my shop. It allows me
to put light exactly where I need it with no shadows (and I got 15
fixtures on Ebay for 10.00 so the price was right)

In article ,
"Mike Marlow" wrote:

"Robatoy" wrote in message
...


Level is level, flat is flat, no screwing around, not even with veneered
panels... and with all this low-angle lighting, I still can't see a
biscuit in a joint..G

Oh great. You just hadda go there, didn't ya?

No worries... nobody here has ever seen the 'biscuit phenomena' either.
Just because that dumb Norm put a cookie 1/16" below the surface of a piece of
cheap wood.......
NOMEX=ON

On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 19:56:14 +0000, Lew Hodgett wrote:

7' mtg ht makes getting a good lighting job tougher than 8', but it can be
done.

Use single tube fixtures and keep rows of fixtures no more thyan 48"
apart.

Good luck.

Lew

I took a closer look, got measurements and dirtied a piece of graph paper.
I have 372 sq ft on a 12 x 31 rectangle. That argues for 10 x 40w tubes.
After considering the effect of 80x (2x40w) directly over my lathe, I
don't think that 400w is going to cut it. I decided to put a row of single
tubes 2' away from each wall and end with a row down the middle
(lengthwise) offset by 2' to balance things out. The rows
are designed to be no more than 48" apart, although a couple of
obstructions (plumbing) will cause this to vary somewhat. This will yield
15 tubes for a total of 600w general lighting. There will be additional
point-of-use task lighting at the bandsaw, lathe and drill press.
Possibly also at the table saw over the router table wing.

All lamps are "daylight" spectrum, 6500k, 2325 lumens.

I'm tired of squinting in the dungeon.

Bill

W Canaday wrote:

I took a closer look, got measurements and dirtied a piece of graph paper.

It's not rocket science.

Play with several layouts before you commit.

Don't forget you can use supplemental task lamps for specific tasks.

Uniformity of the lighting is the controlling fsctor.

Have fun.

Lew

Lew Hodgettwrote:


The 8' ceiling is the controlling factor in the above application.



Lew,

could impose on your previous life one more time...

If a guy had 29 x 51 shed with 12' ceilings (white steel panels on
ceiling and walls, insulated) hoping for 80-100 FC maintained.

How many would you recommend ? and what layout ?

(my flavor would be leaning towards 2 fluorescent 40 watt
lamps/fixture mounted to the ceiling) but if you have a better idea
for 12' ceilings, please let me know what you would do.

TIA
Tom

trechsteiner wrote:

Lew,

could impose on your previous life one more time...

If a guy had 29 x 51 shed with 12' ceilings (white steel panels on
ceiling and walls, insulated) hoping for 80-100 FC maintained.

How many would you recommend ? and what layout ?

Use 1 watt/sq ft for estimating.

(29)(51)/(40)= 36.98 or 37 lamps.

So it gets down to any combination that allows even distribution of
fixtures.

What about 3 rows, 10 ft apart, along the 51 ft dimension, mounted 10 ft
high? (36 4 ft lamps or even 18, 8 ft lamps)

No consideration given to shelving, etc that might block out some areas.

Lew

Thank you Lew, much appreciated.

Tom