# My results came in



## LightsRus (Sep 12, 2010)

*Results*



Dnkldorf said:


> For the Coach Light I retrofitted with a 70W Induction and my Reflectors.
> 
> Ballast and Bulb temp tests- Passed
> 
> ...


Did they give you the temperature measurements?

The footcandles to distance should be constant for all temperatures, which it does show them tracking. Except for, initial turn on. This shows that some optics changed from warming up, changed the reading about 9%.
It stabilized afterward, so whatever changed only did it from the first sign of heat.

That could be a reflector or fastener moved, distance to a lens, etc., but some optical measurement changed.

The photopic/scotopic graph shows reasonable color stability, but again, something changed from initial warm up. Can't suggest much more without knowing more.


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

Dnkldorf said:


> For the Coach Light I retrofitted with a 70W Induction and my Reflectors.
> 
> Ballast and Bulb temp tests- Passed
> 
> ...



Congratulations...:thumbup:

Don't feel bad IDK what the charts mean either...:blink:.:laughing:


----------



## Electric_Light (Apr 6, 2010)

I don't understand the point of second graph

S/P ratio is determined by the spectral power distribution of the light. An RE850 fluorescent lamp has a S/P ratio of 2.0 or so. It isn't affected by the distance from the source since the SPD isn't affected by distance from light.

Where is the lumen data?


----------



## 10492 (Jan 4, 2010)

Electric_Light said:


> Where is the lumen data?


I thought that was the first graph. 

This was what they sent me. 

What am I missing?


----------



## Electric_Light (Apr 6, 2010)

Dnkldorf said:


> I thought that was the first graph.
> This was what they sent me.
> What am I missing?


The graphical display of distribution. 
Everything is in wacko format. 
The lumen utilization. 

Who did the testing? What type of accreditation do they have? 

This is what a proper street light test report looks like:
This is the company used by big boys like CREE, Acuity Brands, etc. They're NVLAP accredited 
http://www.itlboulder.com/pdf files/road.pdf

Here's a different company with a different accreditation but not NVLAP:
Indoor LED
http://www.luminairetesting.com/Files/Sample_Indoor_Report_LED.pdf
Roadway
http://www.luminairetesting.com/Files/Roadway.pdf

List of NVLAP accredited lighting labs:
http://ts.nist.gov/standards/scopes/eelit.htm


----------



## 10492 (Jan 4, 2010)

Electric_Light said:


> The graphical display of distribution.
> Everything is in wacko format.
> The lumen utilization.
> 
> ...


 
Can anyone help understanding all that mumbo jumbo?

The only thing I read, that is clear to understand, is that 42% of the light output, never comes out of the light.

Where on them charts does it clearly show the mounting height, and clearly show how many FC hit the street?


----------



## LightsRus (Sep 12, 2010)

Dnkldorf said:


> Can anyone help understanding all that mumbo jumbo?
> 
> The only thing I read, that is clear to understand, is that 42% of the light output, never comes out of the light.
> 
> Where on them charts does it clearly show the mounting height, and clearly show how many FC hit the street?


The only thing I got from the thermal data was that something changed at initial warm-up.
There is no useful photometric information at all.

You say it passed the test, but can you define that test? What did you request them to do or put in the report?


----------



## Electric_Light (Apr 6, 2010)

By the way, did you notice that companies that sell LED and induction in particular like to push "scotopically enhanced" or S/P ratio?
I believe they are doing so to compensate for the fact their products have low efficacy and its the only way to make their products seem comparable or better to competitive technologies that are rated in industry accepted measurements. 

"scotopic enhancement" is not something related to LED or induction technology, so using them in sales literature is basically the application of fudge factor. Induction is simply fluorescent lamps without electrodes, sot he light quality is identical. An RE865 daylight spiral CFL sold at department stores have a S/P of around 2.3, however CFLs are usually not sold with fudge factored lumen output. 

It is not accepted in the lighting industry right now. I think its fine to add as a sub-header "S/P ratio x.x" but to advertise in scotopic lumen and footnoting it is an unconscionable business practice, comparable to dealers advertising vehicles using imperial gallon, a unit not accepted in the market here, then foot noting "figures are based on imperial gallon".

Any car will get 18.9% higher mpg on imperial gallon simply because US gallon is 3.785 liter while imperial gallons 4.5 liter. 





Dnkldorf said:


> Where on them charts does it clearly show the mounting height


Page 1 on header: 

"ISOFOOTCANDLE LINES OF HORIZONTAL ILLUMINATION
Values based on 20 foot mounting height."



> and clearly show how many *FC hit the street?*


Page 5 and 6 precisely tabulates FC on both house and street sides, relative to mounting height, which is what you'd get on the surface if you were to mount it like the setup, then take FC measurements on the ground. When you put it out on the graph paper in the same format as an altitude graph, you'll get something like the graph on page 1.

There is no such answer as "the foot candle that "hit the street", because foot candle is the intensity of lighting. 

It's not the sun, sun you can not get an even luminance level on every square foot of the street. 

The graph on page 1 visualizes how it hits the street. 

Page 4 shows efficiency of the fixture and the angular distribution of quantity of light in lumens. 

As to OPs post, 

Graph #1: are they putting a candle in a lantern and holding it at shoulder height off a fishing rod or are they mounting on the bottom of a helicopter? They do not give any information about mounting height. 

Graph #2: what are they doing? Are they putting multi-colored lenses that tint the light? Otherwise, this is absolutely completely useless. If you shine light through a car windshield, the S/P ratio can go up on some 
windows, because the blue tinting alters the spectral power distribution. 

Please name the lab that sent this result. If it's the factory, inquire them about the accreditation they have that is relevant to photometric testing.


----------



## 10492 (Jan 4, 2010)

LightsRus said:


> You say it passed the test, but can you define that test? What did you request them to do or put in the report?


Temperature tests.

Before the manufacturer would warranty their parts, they require factory testing to insure the temp of the driver, power coupling, bulb, and other parts do not exceed max temps. Without factory testing, they will not offer the unlimited 5 yr warranty to me.


----------



## 10492 (Jan 4, 2010)

Electric_Light said:


> By the way, did you notice that companies that sell LED and induction in particular like to push "scotopically enhanced" or S/P ratio?
> I believe they are doing so to compensate for the fact their products have low efficacy and its the only way to make their products seem comparable or better to competitive technologies that are rated in industry accepted measurements.
> 
> "scotopic enhancement" is not something related to LED or induction technology, so using them in sales literature is basically the application of fudge factor. Induction is simply fluorescent lamps without electrodes, sot he light quality is identical. An RE865 daylight spiral CFL sold at department stores have a S/P of around 2.3, however CFLs are usually not sold with fudge factored lumen output.


That's pretty funny. Last week I had the photographer come out to photograph what I am doing for marketing materail. The first thing he did was have me shut off all the T-8 lights. He then turned on his lights, Halogens, and broke out a S/P meter. He spent about 45 minutes setting up lights and remeasuring for the ideal lighting needed to photograph my stuff. They came out beautiful.

So, I guess S/P readings are all nonsense.







Electric_Light said:


> Please name the lab that sent this result. If it's the factory, inquire them about the accreditation they have that is relevant to photometric testing.


 
Fulham.


----------



## 10492 (Jan 4, 2010)

FWIW, it was tested at 12' mounting hieght at 240V.


----------



## Electric_Light (Apr 6, 2010)

Dnkldorf said:


> That's pretty funny. Last week I had the photographer come out to photograph what I am doing for *marketing materail*.


Figured as much. 



> The first thing he did was have me shut off all the T-8 lights. He then turned on his lights, Halogens, and broke out a S/P meter. *He spent about 45 minutes setting up lights and remeasuring for the ideal lighting needed to photograph my stuff. They came out beautiful.*


 Reminds of me of an article I read about the amount of effort that goes to photographing fast food restaurant menu photos :laughing: 

Setting things up for photography is a different ball game. I think we're all familiar with the scenario when you take a photo of someone with the sun behind him/her and subject turns out MUCH darker than it appears to your eyes. Film and sensors have much narrower latitude than our eyes, so to make the photo look the way you want you'll have to adjust lighting accordingly, like in the above case, you'll use the flash. 



> So, I guess S/P readings are all nonsense.


 For the most part, that's correct. It's not an accepted measure in the industry. Both units are not true measure of power, but they're a weighed to average human eye response, just like different weighing methods used for dB for sound levels. 

Noise level measurements are made in dB(A) and ordinances and such regulating exhaust, construction etc noise are in dB(A). You could still use a meter that responds dB(C), but it would produce a report that is useless, because its not an acceptable measure in the industry. 



> Fulham.


They make quite a few ballasts that lists lamps they can not operate in accordance with ANSI C78.81 standards. Given this, I'm not surprised they put out some non-sense report.


----------



## LightsRus (Sep 12, 2010)

Dnkldorf said:


> Temperature tests.
> 
> Before the manufacturer would warranty their parts, they require factory testing to insure the temp of the driver, power coupling, bulb, and other parts do not exceed max temps. Without factory testing, they will not offer the unlimited 5 yr warranty to me.


Thermals would be their only concern for warranty.
They are component manufacturers, have no interest if any light comes out of the thing. Explains why the report has little or no photometric value.

But still not clear to me what you plan to make or sell. If selling retrofit kits, you have no control of end product anyway, or what they light up. You might publish an iso-illuminance graphic or report as example only, but no need to spend money on a real photometric lab test.


----------



## Electric_Light (Apr 6, 2010)

Dnkldorf said:


> unlimited 5 yr warranty to me.


No such thing for lighting products. Craftsman hand tool warranty is close to unlimited, but it is still limited as it does not cover loss. 

An *unlimited *warranty will replace the covered components even if the pole got hit by a car. 

I'm looking in the lamp catalog and I can only :yes: at why induction and LED sales people use "scotopic" non-sense, otherwise you might just realize that you have performed a completely merit-less retrofit.

HPS is nearly untouchable for efficacy. 200W HPS is 22,000 lumens new 19,800 lumens @ 10,000 hrs with >24,000 hour life. Both the efficacy and lumen maintenance is superior to induction fluorescent. If the fixture has 60% utilization(lamp lumen - lumen trapped inside) and photometry designed to light up the street and you cram induction in there, who knows what you'll get. If the utilization is reduced or you get substantially greater portion lighting up the ditch/missing the target, that portion is useless so realistically you'll have to subtract it from utilization. If its residential street lights, it will also lead to light trespass complaints. 

Cram-in retrofit is not good. It's like cram-in HID for car headlamps. If the optics and lamp don't match, you won't get the light distribution intended by fixture mfgr. 


Currently, LPS (SOX) is absolutely untouchable despite its absolute absence of color rendition ability with 55W lamp having 167 lumens per watt with almost zero depreciation over life.

Street lights are usually publicly owned and cities usually have a large quantity of same model, so complete photometry testing isn't unreasonable to expect. Street lights come out of tax payers' pocket, so I'm not going to agree to something that is unjustified.


----------



## 10492 (Jan 4, 2010)

LightsRus said:


> Thermals would be their only concern for warranty.


Yup, you nailed it.



LightsRus said:


> They are component manufacturers, have no interest if any light comes out of the thing. Explains why the report has little or no photometric value.


What is photometric value?




LightsRus said:


> But still not clear to me what you plan to make or sell. If selling retrofit kits, you have no control of end product anyway, or what they light up.


Yup, plan on offering this fixture as a complete Induction replacement fixture. 

And, a retofit kit, so township guys who currently repair their own lights, can swap out the HPS and install the Induction as they go bad.

And offering the same to private businesses who have this style light.

And offering the exact same for LED, as I am for the Induction.

And more when I think of it.

This fixture, and kits, will be replacements for American Electric and Cooper coach light fixtures.

Then I'll keep playing and moving forward with Acorns. parking lot lights, Car dealer lights......ect.










LightsRus said:


> You might publish an iso-illuminance graphic or report as example only, but no need to spend money on a real photometric lab test.


 
That's what I'm thinking. Use what I got for marketing, just so I can go put up a sample. From there, they should sell themselves. :thumbsup:


----------



## 10492 (Jan 4, 2010)

FWIW, I doubt this post light is designed to light up the street directly under it for safety reasons, as much as I think it is designed as a marker similar to a lighthouse for boats.

Either way, when I show you the results of the photo's, it is easy to see that the Induction, lights up more of the street, sidewalk and yard, vs the existing HPS's.


Phototopic/smotopic. You can see more, and identify more with white light from the Induction, than you can with the yellow/green of the HPS.


----------



## 10492 (Jan 4, 2010)

Electric_Light said:


> No such thing for lighting products. Craftsman hand tool warranty is close to unlimited, but it is still limited as it does not cover loss.
> 
> An *unlimited *warranty will replace the covered components even if the pole got hit by a car.


No, stop being stupid.

The unlimited warranty is a guarantee that If I install their materials in this light, with my modifications, and insure that the input voltage is 240V or higher, whatever happens to the parts is guaranteed. Minus labor.

I am trying to get them, to add some labor in, in the event that the failure rate exceeds a given percent. What that number is, is negotiable. We'll see.


----------



## LightsRus (Sep 12, 2010)

Dnkldorf said:


> Yup, you nailed it.
> 
> What is photometric value?


By "Value" I mean something you can use. A real photometric file has tabular candela values listed for the entire sphere around the light being tested, and with that, the actual field lighting can be simulated on a paper plot (report). 

The data you received is nothing more than someone reading a light meter against a tape measure and entering one row and column in a spreadsheet. That was probably to make you feel like they did something besides just read the thermometer.
But if they will honor their 5-year warranty from that, go for it.


----------



## Electric_Light (Apr 6, 2010)

Dnkldorf said:


> What is photometric value?


The stuff you've been calling mumbo-jumbo that you could not read. 



> And, a retofit kit, so township guys who currently repair their own lights, can swap out the HPS and install the Induction as they go bad.
> 
> And offering the same to private businesses who have this style light.
> 
> Then I'll keep playing and moving forward with Acorns. parking lot lights, Car dealer lights......ect.


Businesses can chose to spend/waste money as they want, but township purchasing office has accountability to tax payers money. Remember, they're spending SOMEONE ELSE's money. Yours and mine. I will raise hell if they're blowing money on some garbage.




Dnkldorf said:


> FWIW, I doubt this post light is designed to light up the street directly under it for safety reasons, as much as I think it is designed as a marker similar to a lighthouse for boats.
> 
> Either way, when I show you the results of the *photo's, *it is easy to see that the Induction, lights up more of the street, sidewalk and yard, vs the existing HPS's.


I could bypass the ballast, stick in a 26W CFL, spend 45 minutes messing with the camera and come up with similar photos and claim the same thing. 

When you see these photos, its easy to see that they're almost equally easy to see. You don't see that much difference in brightness or seeability do you? Seeing is believing. Top one is actually 12x brighter. The bottom one just looks similar by extending the shutter speed 12 times. The beauty of photographic magic. 














> Phototopic/smotopic. You can see more, and identify more with white light from the Induction, than you can with the yellow/green of the HPS.


That claim is right along the line with low efficacy "full spectrum" lamps that let you see "better" and "healthier" crap Duro-Test aggressively pushed even though they're putting out about 35% less light. Photopic is the only lumen. Any other flux measure at this point is mumbo-jumbo that is not accepted in the industry.



Dnkldorf said:


> No, stop being stupid.


Stop misrepresenting stuff. Warranty is a legal contract. Unlimited means unlimited. 
Legally, if this, if that, and only if then, those are called LIMITED warranty. 



> The unlimited warranty is a guarantee that If I install their materials in this light, with my modifications, and insure that the input voltage is 240V or higher, whatever happens to the parts is guaranteed. Minus labor.


Oh so yet another condition. Since they can use brown outs as a way to weasel out, this is exactly why its called LIMITED warranty. 
The FTC would consider the claim "unlimited warranty" deceptive.


----------



## 10492 (Jan 4, 2010)

Electric_Light said:


> Stop misrepresenting stuff.


 
Take the two subjects, take one picture using the exact same settings.

You're right, I should of said, "limited". You never know when an airplane will fall out of the sky, land on a post light, and my disclaimer doesn't have "acts of god" included in it or "power requirements" in it.

Stop being a putz. 

You're not as clever as you believe, and I'm not sure if anyone here, buys into all the crap you post.


----------



## 10492 (Jan 4, 2010)

LightsRus said:


> By "Value" I mean something you can use. A real photometric file has tabular candela values listed for the entire sphere around the light being tested, and with that, the actual field lighting can be simulated on a paper plot (report).
> 
> The data you received is nothing more than someone reading a light meter against a tape measure and entering one row and column in a spreadsheet. That was probably to make you feel like they did something besides just read the thermometer.
> But if they will honor their 5-year warranty from that, go for it.


It would seem if I plotted my light, and drew circles around it, and plotted the FC readings that Fulham provided to me, that this would be this photometric file, you speak of?

If the light is 4 sided, with the pyramid in the middle. It would seem that all four readings should be identical, predictable, and repeatable on the graph.

That would be easy enough to do.


----------



## LightsRus (Sep 12, 2010)

Dnkldorf said:


> It would seem if I plotted my light, and drew circles around it, and plotted the FC readings that Fulham provided to me, that this would be this photometric file, you speak of?
> 
> If the light is 4 sided, with the pyramid in the middle. It would seem that all four readings should be identical, predictable, and repeatable on the graph.
> 
> That would be easy enough to do.


You are describing the iso-illuminance plot (foot candles flat on the ground). May suffice in many instances.

The true photometric file will plot a full 180° from Nadir(0° down) to straight up, showing any uplight. You may not need that, depending upon if they have any interest in dark sky compliance.


----------



## 10492 (Jan 4, 2010)

LightsRus said:


> You are describing the iso-illuminance plot (foot candles flat on the ground). May suffice in many instances.
> 
> The true photometric file will plot a full 180° from Nadir(0° down) to straight up, showing any uplight. You may not need that, depending upon if they have any interest in dark sky compliance.


I can't stop uplight. The prismatic diffusers are hammertone.

With laser light, I can prove that without the difussers in place, 0% of light goes up. With the diffusers installed, I can't control the light hitting one of the "bubbles" and being redirected upwards. The only way I can think of, to eliminate any uplight, is to change the diffusers. 

I haven't found anyone who makes replacement diffusers yet, to test my theory.


----------



## LightsRus (Sep 12, 2010)

Dnkldorf said:


> I can't stop uplight. The prismatic diffusers are hammertone.
> 
> With laser light, I can prove that without the difussers in place, 0% of light goes up. With the diffusers installed, I can't control the light hitting one of the "bubbles" and being redirected upwards. The only way I can think of, to eliminate any uplight, is to change the diffusers.
> 
> I haven't found anyone who makes replacement diffusers yet, to test my theory.


Something is weird about the FC readings they (fullham) gave you.

By private email, if you can send me the globe manufacturer name, or even their IES file, I will take a look at that, and maybe can adjust to match the fullham readings.


----------



## 10492 (Jan 4, 2010)

LightsRus said:


> Something is weird about the FC readings they (fullham) gave you.
> 
> By private email, if you can send me the globe manufacturer name, or even their IES file, I will take a look at that, and maybe can adjust to match the fullham readings.


I'd have to google for it. I asked them, Fulham, if they took readings of the HPS before they started. It would of been a great comparison. They didn't. 

I took FC candles of both myself at night, and plotted them down. 

The actually FC driops from the HPS to Induction, but with the eye, it appears that the Induction is brighter, lights up a bigger area, and the color of what you see is alot better.

This is where my confusion is. How can less FC be so much better on the eye, when people say the more FC the better. Color rendering has alot to do with what you can see, and how you see it. It isn't all about just FC.

I'll look into the file, and PM you when I find it.

Thanks for the help.:thumbsup:


----------



## LightsRus (Sep 12, 2010)

Dnkldorf said:


> The actually FC driops from the HPS to Induction, but with the eye, it appears that the Induction is brighter, lights up a bigger area, and the color of what you see is alot better.
> 
> This is where my confusion is. How can less FC be so much better on the eye, when people say the more FC the better. Color rendering has alot to do with what you can see, and how you see it. It isn't all about just FC.


The DOE refers to it as Spectrally Enhanced Lighting, but IESNA doesn't buy it.

_Rensselaer Lighting Research Center_ has an extensive paper http://www.lrc.rpi.edu/programs/solidstate/assist/pdf/AR-VisualEfficacy-Jan2009.pdf and you will see they don't allow multipliers above 0.6cd/m2


----------



## 10492 (Jan 4, 2010)

No misrepresenting, or changing of photo settings to prove any points.


Exsiting 100W HPS's on streets, my Induction in the center. Look at the street, look at the sideewalks and look at the green grass.

This was at dusk.











Side by side with an existing, randomly chosen HPS across the street from the marketing guys house.


----------



## LightsRus (Sep 12, 2010)

Send me the manuf data or IES file when you can. 

Let me know your plans for LED. We have just released one of our LED lantern series that is quite impressive against HID fixtures. It can come down on wattage if desired for an even faster payback.


----------



## 10492 (Jan 4, 2010)

55W kit














70W Kit












:thumbsup:


----------



## LightsRus (Sep 12, 2010)

OK, that explains the spike at 5-ft when the original manufacturer's IES file didn't show that.


----------



## 10492 (Jan 4, 2010)

LightsRus said:


> OK, that explains the spike at 5-ft when the original manufacturer's IES file didn't show that.


Fulhams file make sense now?


----------



## LightsRus (Sep 12, 2010)

Dnkldorf said:


> Fulhams file make sense now?


Assuming you have the lantern with clear lens, the Fulham data suggests their test room had lots of reflections. That should never have 5 FC at 0° down. The spike at 5-ft horizontal is explained by the reflector shape.

I think we've established the Fulham report is of little use photometrically, but that was not their primary goal. You got the thermals and warranty assurance. 

If you need a photometric report, you will need a proper lab test.


----------



## Electric_Light (Apr 6, 2010)

Dnkldorf said:


> The actually FC driops from the HPS to Induction


So there you have it!



> but with the eye, it appears that the Induction is brighter, lights up a bigger area, and the color of what you see is alot better.


S/P for 2700K CFL is ~1.13, 6500K is ~2.3 incandescent is ~1.4

23W = 100W is about the standard for CFLs. If this BS flew, then 6500K CFLs maybe marked 23 = 165W (100 * 2.3/1.4) incandescent at night. So far, only Lights of America pulled off a stunt like this to my knowledge.


----------



## LightsRus (Sep 12, 2010)

Dnkldorf said:


> I took FC candles of both myself at night, and plotted them down.
> 
> The actually FC driops from the HPS to Induction, but with the eye, it appears that the Induction is brighter, lights up a bigger area, and the color of what you see is alot better.
> 
> This is where my confusion is. How can less FC be so much better on the eye, when people say the more FC the better. Color rendering has alot to do with what you can see, and how you see it. It isn't all about just FC.


Some municipalities adhere to lighting standards, some publish their own. See if your customer has something in writing.

They may look to you as a lighting specialist that will look out for them, so they don't need to dig into details.

You want to be sure the customer understands what they are getting, and won't hold you liable later when they have some aha moment. This is one of the reasons for the IES file and report, for them to sign off.

Be careful of all the scotopic stuff going around because that will not get through IESNA scrutiny. It's been tried now for 20-years and still no go. It is more like cheating when the light can't measure up, and can backfire if there is some crime in the neighborhood.


----------



## 10492 (Jan 4, 2010)

LightsRus said:


> Some municipalities adhere to lighting standards, some publish their own. See if your customer has something in writing.


Dude, great advice......I'm on it.:thumbsup:




LightsRus said:


> You want to be sure the customer understands what they are getting, and won't hold you liable later when they have some aha moment. This is one of the reasons for the IES file and report, for them to sign off.


I agree, but only with muni's. Private property owners, private property managers would have no use for the IES file. They would dazzled enough with cost savings and maintenance enough to not give a hoot about any file they may not understand. 




LightsRus said:


> Be careful of all the scotopic stuff going around because that will not get through IESNA scrutiny. It's been tried now for 20-years and still no go. It is more like cheating when the light can't measure up, and can backfire if there is some crime in the neighborhood.


Oh yeah, I get it.......(I think). But it will make for great marketing. This leads to a sample fixture being installed, and that leads to cash in my pocket.


----------



## LightsRus (Sep 12, 2010)

Dnkldorf said:


> I agree, but only with muni's. Private property owners, private property managers would have no use for the IES file. They would dazzled enough with cost savings and maintenance enough to not give a hoot about any file they may not understand.


It's not important they read an IES file, but that file creates a report for them to accept as their new lighting criteria. 

Municipalities can take an attitude, such as go ahead, try to sue us. 
Private owners may be even more likely to drag you down if tenants suffer a crime wave. 

Lighting can be serious business if it's expected to solve some problem, so be careful when you take that light meter out there and show them how much more visible everything is. Are you creating that sense of security?


----------



## 10492 (Jan 4, 2010)

LightsRus said:


> Lighting can be serious business if it's expected to solve some problem,


I am marketing it to help reduce energy costs, and maintenance costs.

I will not be marketing, claiming, making any kind of assumption, when it comes to security or safety. That will be clear in the disclaimer.



LightsRus said:


> so be careful when you take that light meter out there and show them how much more visible everything is.


Don't count on me to take light meters out anywhere. The proof is in the pudding. They will see the light, with their own eyes. The numbers on savings is just math on a chart.

At least that's the plan, and we all know these change daily.:001_huh:


----------



## Electric_Light (Apr 6, 2010)

One of the light rail stations around here took out the HPS, gutted out the ballast and put in what appears to be a 23 or 26W 6500K screw-in CFL in place They've got a simple round glass globe. 

Apparently they thought it was over-lit in the past or someone sold them on the scotopic/mesopic luminance crap and convinced them that its equivalent to 70 or 100W HPS. It depends on where you look, but S/P ratio for HPS is around 0.62 and 6500K 865 CFL is 2.2 to 2.3 

If you use luminance system not recognized in the industry, the S/P ratio, you can present it as if they're identical. 

So, under the measurement system not accepted in the lighting industry, it would make the night light 2.2/0.62 = 3.5 times. 

HPS
(lamp W/input W) 
70/86W ~5300 lm mean 
100/115W ~ 8000 lm mean 

integral ballast CFL 
23W 1500 lm initial

*Fudge Factoring & Sales *
Rule #1: It's all in HOW you present it. 
(a long distance here) 
Rule #2: Always use initial lumen for your product and mean lumen for existing install. 
Rule #3: Take photos and pretend that $100 camera from Target is a spectroradiometer that responds just like our eyes.

CFL 6500K ultrabright superwhite megadeluxe technology natural spectrum 80+ CRI
1500 lm x 2.2 = 3,300 seeable lumens 

HPS
That nasty old school HPS yellow junk
5300 x 0.62 = 3,300 seeable lumens 
8000 x 0.62 = 5,000 seeable lumens 

*The what I call "BS": *
Save almost 75% in power while providing same seeable light output. Our proprietary innovative 23W full spectrum natural daylight technology produces the same seeable lumens as 70W HPS that uses 86W and a substantial improvement in color rendition and seeability.




Dnkldorf said:


> What is photometric value?





Dnkldorf said:


> Can anyone help understanding all that mumbo jumbo?





> The proof is in the pudding. They will see the light, with their own eyes. The numbers on savings is just math on a chart.


I guess that pretty much sums up "sales & marketing rep". It's really all in how you present it with enthusiasm. At one point, I did insurance sales. Hated it with passion. Quit in a month. All the training sessions were focused on presentation and avoid making claims that'll get you trouble and looking like you know what you're talking about as opposed to actually knowing.


----------



## Electric_Light (Apr 6, 2010)

delete delete


----------

