-
Happy Birthday ICMag! Been 20 years since Gypsy Nirvana created the forum! We are celebrating with a 4/20 Giveaway and by launching a new Patreon tier called "420club". You can read more here.
-
Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!
Fluorescent Lighting Comparison & Maximising Your Lumens
- Thread starter ScrubNinja
- Start date
knna
Member
Excellent thread! 
I didn't see it at the moment, so I just want to show my agreement with the last points raised by SupraSPL and clarify some topics a little more.
Figures for integrated bulbs (bulb and ballast included in the same device, as CFLs) includes the ballast's losses, but for most light products where ballast and bulb are separated things so each can use a different combination, bulb's manufacturers just gives the figures for the bare bulb, without including the ballast losses. So the figures given are optimal, as they test the bulb with the ballast which best match it, and it is to expect somewhat lower perfomance using any other ballast. On the best cases, manufacturer offer separate data about perfomance with a given ballast (usually of the same company). All of this is valid for fluo tubes, not integrated CFLs (as PLLs) and HID bulbs.
Another point to clarify is to distinguish between power factor of a ballast and its efficiency. They are different things, although many small manufacturers say it ambigously so people may be misleaded to get the power factor figure as the efficiency figure, which usually is lower (at least in Europe, where there is minimum requeriments of power factor) for the most used today electronic ballast.
I didn't see it at the moment, so I just want to show my agreement with the last points raised by SupraSPL and clarify some topics a little more.
Figures for integrated bulbs (bulb and ballast included in the same device, as CFLs) includes the ballast's losses, but for most light products where ballast and bulb are separated things so each can use a different combination, bulb's manufacturers just gives the figures for the bare bulb, without including the ballast losses. So the figures given are optimal, as they test the bulb with the ballast which best match it, and it is to expect somewhat lower perfomance using any other ballast. On the best cases, manufacturer offer separate data about perfomance with a given ballast (usually of the same company). All of this is valid for fluo tubes, not integrated CFLs (as PLLs) and HID bulbs.
Another point to clarify is to distinguish between power factor of a ballast and its efficiency. They are different things, although many small manufacturers say it ambigously so people may be misleaded to get the power factor figure as the efficiency figure, which usually is lower (at least in Europe, where there is minimum requeriments of power factor) for the most used today electronic ballast.
McNerdius
Member
(i know this thread is ancient, pls see bottom if u dont like that im bumping it.)
disclaimer: i'm not pro, nor noob. just trying to share perspective. i realize i may be preaching to the choir to a certain extent, but what is a nerd to do ?
regarding the CFL ballast wattage inclusion/exclusion, power factor, ballast factor, and all that jazz, i'm surprised one thing in particular hasn't come up: CFL "Restrike" (paragraph 2). I don't think it's a stretch to say that, while the "actual" efficiency of a CFL after subtracting out the 3-4 watts(or w/e it really is) may be more than simple lumens divided by advertised wattage - it's probably moot, given the restrike that's a given with the swirlies.
All of this aside, Linear Tubes are just what the doctor ordered for SCROG. Flat canopy, flat lights. Swirlies need not apply. I'm a PLL'er myself. My 3*55watt setups have a 12" wide reflector-zone and actual bulb length of 19.5" = 1.625sqft (same dimensions as screen
) - it works out to a nice, evenly lit canopy at 8300lm/sqft, using 4500lm/bulb. I couldn't do this with CFL or T5... or HPS for that matter.
ok the bump thing: I'm the type to search forums and re(re-(re-))ad threads from the start. In this case, rereading the PLL club thread brought me here. I got here how i was supposed to get here, right ? So all i'm doing here, is adding info to a thread that people will, hopefully, get to "the right way" - searching and reading. Ugh... sorry, "search the forum" vs "dont bump old threads" whatnot gets under my skin... it's a peeve & i needed to vent lol.
disclaimer: i'm not pro, nor noob. just trying to share perspective. i realize i may be preaching to the choir to a certain extent, but what is a nerd to do ?
regarding the CFL ballast wattage inclusion/exclusion, power factor, ballast factor, and all that jazz, i'm surprised one thing in particular hasn't come up: CFL "Restrike" (paragraph 2). I don't think it's a stretch to say that, while the "actual" efficiency of a CFL after subtracting out the 3-4 watts(or w/e it really is) may be more than simple lumens divided by advertised wattage - it's probably moot, given the restrike that's a given with the swirlies.
All of this aside, Linear Tubes are just what the doctor ordered for SCROG. Flat canopy, flat lights. Swirlies need not apply. I'm a PLL'er myself. My 3*55watt setups have a 12" wide reflector-zone and actual bulb length of 19.5" = 1.625sqft (same dimensions as screen
) - it works out to a nice, evenly lit canopy at 8300lm/sqft, using 4500lm/bulb. I couldn't do this with CFL or T5... or HPS for that matter.ok the bump thing: I'm the type to search forums and re(re-(re-))ad threads from the start. In this case, rereading the PLL club thread brought me here. I got here how i was supposed to get here, right ? So all i'm doing here, is adding info to a thread that people will, hopefully, get to "the right way" - searching and reading. Ugh... sorry, "search the forum" vs "dont bump old threads" whatnot gets under my skin... it's a peeve & i needed to vent lol.
A very narrow band of orange made them only useful as supplemental lighting. They are also rather large. The top of a street lighting pole (you know we're talking about the really old orange lights right?) would be filled by just a ~35w light. The lamp was like a 1000 in size. So now we could exploit it's monotone output with leds, it's still to big to be supplementing with such smaller tech really. At this point in time, leds are near enough as efficient anyway, so nobody is going to use low pressure sodium lamps with led helpers commercially. It's almost out of date, and so big... so very big...
In the 80s people would use them if extremely limited power resources were available. They grew sticks. The mercury spike was not enough blue spectrum. It was amateur hour really. When things had to be worked out for yourself. I sourced a UV light and put myself in bed for 2 days with swollen eyelids. I couldn't open them at all. So have no idea how bad I actually looked.
There is no need to revisit these dark ages of lighting. Where Mercury, HPS and Fluorescents ruled over LPS and incandescent lamps.
edit: Yes I know it's an old post, but it seemed worth answering
