# 8ft T8 phaseout?



## McClary’s Electrical

per_son said:


> Hi everyone! I have question about the upcoming t12 phaseout. As I understand it most t12 bulbs will be phased out by July 1, 2012. I have also heard rumors that 8ft T8's are also part of this phase out? Can anyone verify this as I can't seem to find anything in writing about this. We have about 80 8ft fixtures which are a mix of T12 and T8's (all with 8ft bulbs). Trying to decide on the best upgrade/replacement options. Thanks in advance for any help you can give me!


 
I haven't heard of a t8 phase out. Magnetic t12 ballast have certainly disappeared, but with good reason. I seen no reason to phase out t8's themselves.


----------



## jwjrw

Yes the t-12's are being phased out. T-8's are the replacement.


----------



## MDShunk

I haven't heard anything about 8' T-8's, but if you made me guess, I'd say it was manufacturer driven due to slow sales. Just a guess. Seems like an awful lot of the 8' conversions and replacements got done with 4' lamps for whatever reason.


----------



## per_son

MDshunk, Exactly why I thought something might be going on with 8ft t8's. seems most new 8ft fixtures are 4 bulb now. I did find this: http://www.facilitiesnet.com/energy...hting-Product-Phaseouts-and-Exemptions--12011 Talks about phasing out "some" 8ft t8's


----------



## jwjrw

I heard t-12 ho's were not being phased out. I don't know if it's true or if it's just a later date.


----------



## Bob Badger

I think in general 8' T-8s are a PITA to ship, store, handle, dispose of etc.


----------



## jwjrw

Bob Badger said:


> I think in general 8' T-8s are a PITA to ship, store, handle, dispose of etc.



Yea I don't think we have put an 8ft bulb fixture up in the last 3 years. Always 8ft 4 tube ones.


----------



## per_son

Bob, I could not agree more! I just don't want to waste time and money converting all our t12's to t8's if the 8ft bulbs are going away (or way up in price) in the near future.


----------



## Bob Badger

per_son said:


> Bob, I could not agree more! I just don't want to waste time and money converting all our t12's to t8's if the 8ft bulbs are going away (or way up in price) in the near future.


We have literally done thousands of conversions but we convert two lamp 8' T12 fixtures to four lamp 8' T8 fixtures.


----------



## MDShunk

Bob Badger said:


> We have literally done thousands of conversions but we convert two lamp 8' T12 fixtures to four lamp 8' T8 fixtures.


Did you really mean to say it that way?


----------



## per_son

Bob Badger said:


> We have literally done thousands of conversions but we convert two lamp 8' T12 fixtures to four lamp 8' T8 fixtures.


That is what I want to do also but when I present this to management I know they are going to ask "why not just upgrade everything to 8ft t8's". It will be cheaper and easier to do than a complete fixture change. They don't care if the bulbs are harder to handle as thats my problem! Now If I can show them something saying that these bulbs are going to be phased out also then that changes things.


----------



## MDShunk

per_son said:


> That is what I want to do also but when I present this to management I know they are going to ask "why not just upgrade everything to 8ft t8's". It will be cheaper and easier than to do a complete fixture change. They don't care if the bulbs are harder to handle as thats my problem! Now If I can show them something saying that these bulbs are going to be phased out also then that changes things.


Not only that ,but the kit to change an 8' T-12 to a 4-lamp 4' T-8 includes new tombstones and a new belly pan. Guys don't always change the tombstones if they're doing a straight t12 to t8 conversion, so they're getting new tombstones for sure in a 8 foot to 4 foot conversion.


----------



## Bob Badger

MDShunk said:


> Did you really mean to say it that way?



Kind of, 8' fixture with 4' lamps


----------



## per_son

MDShunk said:


> Not only that ,but the kit to change an 8' T-12 to a 4-lamp 4' T-8 includes new tombstones and a new belly pan. Guys don't always change the tombstones if they're doing a straight t12 to t8 conversion, so they're getting new tombstones for sure in a 8 foot to 4 foot conversion.


Good point, but I have not had any luck obtaining any of these conversion kits. I have tried to order samples from several different places (goodmart.com and warehouse-lighting.com). So I just got the impression that replacing the whole fixture was the best route. Do you know of a reliable source for these kits?


----------



## MDShunk

per_son said:


> Good point, but I have not had any luck obtaining any of these conversion kits. I have tried to order samples from several different places (goodmart.com and warehouse-lighting.com). So I just got the impression that replacing the whole fixture was the best route. Do you know of a reliable source for these kits?


I feel your pain. The supply houses around here are no help at all in that regard. I don't think I've ever ordered the kits from the same place twice. Of the one's I've used, they come from online recommendations and ads in electrical magazines. I'm taking the day off, and don't really have a good way at the moment to look up what I've used before. 

One tip... get a dimensioned cut sheet from the proposed kit and make sure for yourself that it will work on the fixtures you plan to convert. Some kits are a pain to use, and others are dirt-simple.

EDIT... just came to me. The best kit I've used was from a company called Metal Optics.


----------



## per_son

MDShunk said:


> I feel your pain. The supply houses around here are no help at all in that regard. I don't think I've ever ordered the kits from the same place twice. Of the one's I've used, they come from online recommendations and ads in electrical magazines. I'm taking the day off, and don't really have a good way at the moment to look up what I've used before.
> 
> One tip... get a dimensioned cut sheet from the proposed kit and make sure for yourself that it will work on the fixtures you plan to convert. Some kits are a pain to use, and others are dirt-simple.


That's what I was afraid of. At least I'm not the only one who's had problems getting these. How about whole strip light fixtures? It seems like everyone that I have tried (from HD or Lowe's) has a questionable quality ballast. I'm afraid if I go that route then I'll have a ballast replacing nightmare in the near future. Is there a certain brand of fixture that you can recommend?


----------



## MDShunk

per_son said:


> That's what I was afraid of. At least I'm not the only one who's had problems getting these. How about whole strip light fixtures? It seems like everyone that I have tried (from HD or Lowe's) has a questionable quality ballast. I'm afraid if I go that route then I'll have a ballast replacing nightmare in the near future. Is there a certain brand of fixture that you can recommend?


Yeah, do a whole store and tell me how much fun replacing the whole strip is again. :laughing: You need the kits for that. 

For just a few, any decent supply house brand is fine by me. I'm more particular about what ballast is inside than the brand of the fixture itself. Lately, I've been stuck on Columbia, but for no special reason. Good ballast and decent price, I suppose. It's more regional than anything, I think. What's good and reasonable in your area might be unobtanium in my area.


----------



## per_son

MDShunk said:


> Yeah, do a whole store and tell me how much fun replacing the whole strip is again. :laughing: You need the kits for that.
> 
> For just a few, any decent supply house brand is fine by me. I'm more particular about what ballast is inside than the brand of the fixture itself. Lately, I've been stuck on Columbia, but for no special reason. Good ballast and decent price, I suppose. It's more regional than anything, I think. What's good and reasonable in your area might be unobtanium in my area.


Well I will try again on the kits and see what I can get. Thank you for all your time and info on this!


----------



## Lighting Retro

Kits are available here: www.fleco.com I recommend the ERK for 4.25 channel width. They have a universal one for the older wider bodies. Also, here is info on phase outs in the links below. It has everything to do with efficiency and lumens per watt capability. 8' T8 may go away just because it's a hard to handle/not popular product. We replace all of them with 4' so facilities are standardized. 

http://www.energyretrofitters.com/T12-Phase-out-2.pdf

http://www.energyretrofitters.com/T12_8'_lamp-Phase-out-July-2010.pdf

http://www.energyretrofitters.com/T12_Phase_Out.pdf

Summary: 8' T8's do meet the new efficiency requirements. 
T12 HO passes for now, but looks like not next year. 
T8 700 series does not pass, so it is going away. 800 series only. 
There are a couple of exceptions--see below. 

Here is a brief summary:



> Exception and Exemptions
> �� T12 ballasts for replacement purposes in existing installations
> These ballasts can be manufactured until June 30, 2010, but must be marked
> "For Replacement Use Only", have leads shorter than the length of lamps intended
> to be operated, be contained in packages of 10 ballasts or less, and must meet the 1991
> T12 magnetic BEF criteria.
> �� T12 dimming ballasts that dim to 50% or less of its maximum light output
> �� 2-Lamp F96T12 HO ballasts designed for -20°F operation and used in outdoor signs
> �� Magnetic ballasts with power factors less than 0.90, designed and labeled for use only in
> residential applications
> 
> There is an implied warning to all fluorescent lamp users that if they have not converted to T8 or
> T5 (requires new fixtures) by June 20, 2010, they will have to use T8 lamps and ballasts for spot
> replacement in their existing T12 magnetic ballast installations. This could result in
> maintenance problems if the maintenance personnel are not conscientious about installing T12
> lamps with the remaining T12 ballasts and T8 lamps with T8 ballasts. T12 lamps operated by
> T8 ballasts will be under driven and T8 lamps operated by T12 ballasts will be over driven. The
> end result will be the same: significantly reduced lamp life.
> Although magnetic ballasts will not be available for the covered T12 lamps after 2010, lamp
> manufacturers will continue to make T12 lamps so long as there is sufficient market demand and
> future DOE rule makings or legislation do not eliminate them.





> Effective Date of new DOE standards: July 14 , 2012
> Current exemptions continue [For example, lamps with CRI ≥87, cold temp. (CT), UV, etc.]
> Impact for Lamps ≤ 4500K and > 4,500K and ≤ 7,000K
> • T12 4-ft. & 2-ft U-lamps with medium bi-pin bases
> - Majority of F40 and F34T12 lamps and all FB40 and FB34T12 U-lamps fail.
> - 4-ft. requires 3560 lumens @ 40W and 3030 lumens @ 34W to pass @ 89 LPW.
> - 2-ft. U-lamps require 3360 @ 40W and 2856 @ 34W to pass @ 84 LPW.
> - CWX/DX/DSGN50/C50 are exempt due to CRI.
> • T12 8-ft. Slimline with single pin bases
> - All 75W F96T12 lamps fail.
> - All 60W F96T12/ES fail except for the 800/SPX Series & some 700/SP long life Series.
> - CWX/DX/DSGN50/C50 are exempt due to CRI.
> • T12 8-ft. 800mA HO with RDC bases
> - All 110W F96T12 HO lamps fail. Requires enhanced coatings with 10,120 lumens to pass.
> - All 95W F96T12/ES/HO fail except for enhanced 800 Series. Requires 8740 lumens to pass.
> - CWX/DX/DSGN50/C50 are exempt due to CRI; CW/CT & D/CT are exempt.
> • T8 4-ft. & 2-ft. U-lamps with medium bi-pin bases
> - All 4-ft. T8 basic 700/SP Series lamps @ 2800 lumens fail. Requires 2850 lumens to pass.
> - All other 4-ft. pass.
> - All 2-ft. 800/SPX Series U-lamps pass. Some 700/SP Series pass.
> • T8 8-ft. Slimline with single pin bases
> - All pass except some 700/SP Series. Requires 5723 lumens @ 59W to pass.
> • T8 8-ft. HO with RDC bases
> - All pass except some 700/SP Series. Requires 7912 lumens @ 86W to pass.
> • T5 4-ft with miniature


Some good reading in those short documents about the reasoning behind why the changes are in place. Helps to squash the misinformation out there and greasy sales tactics going on.


----------



## per_son

Wow, thanks Lighting_retro! Some very good info about all of this. I assume the best way to get pricing and or ordering info is to contact my local sales rep or can I just call direct if I know what I need? Thanks again!


----------



## Electric_Light

http://assets.sylvania.com/assets/Documents/Prod.0bbbbb5d-fb92-4ebe-830f-621b9a13306b.pdf

F96T8 and its HO equivalents are here to stay as they meet the efficacy standards.

F96T12 (75W) are going away with the exception of >90 CRI lamps and other specialty stuff, but using Colortone 50 is a really bad idea, because they're horribly inefficient. On the other hand, F96T12 60W will remain available but they suck below 60F. 

F96T12/HO 110W is going away, with the exception of cold weather lamps.


----------



## Lighting Retro

per_son said:


> Wow, thanks Lighting_retro! Some very good info about all of this. I assume the best way to get pricing and or ordering info is to contact my local sales rep or can I just call direct if I know what I need? Thanks again!


call and ask for Jon Sayah. Let him know I referred you, and you'll get the hookup. :thumbsup: He's been taking real good care of anyone I refer over. thanks.


----------



## Lighting Retro

Electric_Light said:


> http://assets.sylvania.com/assets/Documents/Prod.0bbbbb5d-fb92-4ebe-830f-621b9a13306b.pdf
> 
> F96T8 and its HO equivalents are here to stay as they meet the efficacy standards.
> 
> F96T12 (75W) are going away with the exception of >90 CRI lamps and other specialty stuff, but using Colortone 50 is a really bad idea, because they're horribly inefficient. On the other hand, F96T12 60W will remain available but they suck below 60F.
> 
> F96T12/HO 110W is going away, with the exception of cold weather lamps.


I'm interested to see what the next round of exclusions will be. Most people have not heard of the 700 series going away, and that kind of surprises me.


----------



## per_son

Lighting Retro said:


> call and ask for Jon Sayah. Let him know I referred you, and you'll get the hookup. :thumbsup: He's been taking real good care of anyone I refer over. thanks.


Sorry for the dumb question but what is your name so I can tell him? Thanks again!


----------



## Lighting Retro

per_son said:


> Sorry for the dumb question but what is your name so I can tell him? Thanks again!


sent via PM, thanks


----------



## jwcknet

*Solution*

Replace a 8ft tube with two 4ft led tubes that use 15 W, Pf >0.9 CRI 80. More info on Led-O.com . They save a ton energy and can be mounted in the 8ft fixture by removing the ballast and placing a connector bracket in the middle to which neutral should be connected. The hot wire should be connected to each original end-socket.

Thanks,

joel


----------



## superdeez

My understanding is that the phaseout is due to new lumens-per-Watt standards. Many t8 warm whites and cool whites will go bye bye but daylites will remain. 

Already I'm seeing facilities get switched from WWs to daylight lamps and everyone's marveling at the difference in light quality. Even F60T8 WWs seem to be unavailable to us. 

I'm waiting to get to do LED conversions after some facilities T12 troffers finally can't be serviced anymore.


----------



## jwcknet

*PF and W*

The new standards should be LM/VA as the LEDs otherwise are missleading ad the Power factor does make a difference in the energy consumption.


----------



## Lighting Retro

superdeez said:


> My understanding is that the phaseout is due to new lumens-per-Watt standards. Many t8 warm whites and cool whites will go bye bye but daylites will remain.
> 
> Already I'm seeing facilities get switched from WWs to daylight lamps and everyone's marveling at the difference in light quality. Even F60T8 WWs seem to be unavailable to us.
> 
> I'm waiting to get to do LED conversions after some facilities T12 troffers finally can't be serviced anymore.


It actually has nothing to do with the color temperature of the lamps, only Lumens per watt. Newer 800 series T8 lamps come in a variety of spectrums from 2700k to over 6500k. All meat the standards, but the CRI is actually higher on lower spectrum lamps in most cases.


----------



## Electric_Light

Lighting Retro said:


> It actually has nothing to do with the color temperature of the lamps


His understanding may have come from that traditionally daylight deluxe and high CCT lamps have been the high CRI lamps that is above the exemption cut off, greater than or equal to 97 point on CRI.



> only Lumens per watt.


For the most part, but read again. They give a very slight lee away on lamps 4500-7500K.



> Newer 800 series T8 lamps come in a variety of spectrums from 2700k to over 6500k. All meat the standards, but the CRI is actually higher on lower spectrum lamps in most cases.


The kelvin spec is color temperature, or more precisely correlated color temperature, not spectrum. 

For triphosphor lamps The CRI tends to be the same for 2700 to 4100K lamps, then a few points lower on 5000 and 6500. 

Most of special purpose high CRI lamps tend to be >5000K CCT with >90 CRI like DSGN/Chroma/Colortone 50.


----------



## Lighting Retro

good call, and did I really type "meat" standards lol? need to get my eyes checked.


----------



## abandit

*Take cover ,*



per_son said:


> Hi everyone! I have question about the upcoming t12 phaseout. As I understand it most t12 bulbs will be phased out by July 1, 2012. I have also heard rumors that 8ft T8's are also part of this phase out? Can anyone verify this as I can't seem to find anything in writing about this. We have about 80 8ft fixtures which are a mix of T12 and T8's (all with 8ft bulbs). Trying to decide on the best upgrade/replacement options. Thanks in advance for any help you can give me!



I got blasted when I tried to say a little something about T-12' and T-8's before. If you would like to know more look at our site, it has many useful links with that info. 
http://www.retro-bright.com


----------



## Lighting Retro

abandit said:


> I got blasted when I tried to say a little something about T-12' and T-8's before. If you would like to know more look at our site, it has many useful links with that info.
> http://www.retro-bright.com


 I didn't see you get blasted before, so I probably haven't seen your posts. However, I checked out your site:

The cost of each RetroBright is $44.95. This is actually a really bad price. I get better pricing on kits with lamps and ballasts, and I don't like the way this kit looks at all. 

I also find it interesting that you show a chart with 15w lCFL's, but don't offer that wattage among the ones you are selling. Why is that? CFL's never last as long as linear lamps, so I don't understand why someone thought this was a good idea to make, and try to market at that price.


----------



## abandit

Lighting Retro said:


> I didn't see you get blasted before, so I probably haven't seen your posts. However, I checked out your site:
> 
> The cost of each RetroBright is $44.95. This is actually a really bad price. I get better pricing on kits with lamps and ballasts, and I don't like the way this kit looks at all.
> 
> I also find it interesting that you show a chart with 15w lCFL's, but don't offer that wattage among the ones you are selling. Why is that? CFL's never last as long as linear lamps, so I don't understand why someone thought this was a good idea to make, and try to market at that price.


Thanks for the input. What cost does the consumer get on a new T-8 or T-5? Lets say Home Depot 64.00 and now I have to tear all my old stuff out ? What is the cost to tear all of your T-12's out of your factory and replace with T-8s? Or what is the retail consumer cost of an electronic ballast for a T-12? How long do the new electronic ballast last? You do not have to use 15W bulbs. You can use CFL's from walmart or anywhere you like , you can choose from a wide color spectrum and any wattage you like. You will never have to screw with a ballast again, New LifeLamp by Wholesale Bulbs has introduced a moduler CFL for E-27 socket so even with the CFL you will not have to replace the ballast with bulb. Who is qualified to replace a screw in bulb? Will I need an electrician? Is this product qualified for tax credits or rebates? YES , So If I pay [email protected] for a T12 and hire an electrician to install for what ? 50.00 an hour and it takes him 15 min. thats 12.50 if he can tear it out and install in 15 min. that's 77.00 plus bulbs is how much? Tell me again what is wrong with doing away with my old ballast and bulbs and buying any future bulbs from the grocery store for my new fixture that cost 40% less.


----------



## abandit

abandit said:


> Thanks for the input. What cost does the consumer get on a new T-8 or T-5? Lets say Home Depot 64.00 and now I have to tear all my old stuff out ? What is the cost to tear all of your T-12's out of your factory and replace with T-8s? Or what is the retail consumer cost of an electronic ballast for a T-12? How long do the new electronic ballast last? You do not have to use 15W bulbs. You can use CFL's from walmart or anywhere you like , you can choose from a wide color spectrum and any wattage you like. You will never have to screw with a ballast again, New LifeLamp by Wholesale Bulbs has introduced a moduler CFL for E-27 socket so even with the CFL you will not have to replace the ballast with bulb. Who is qualified to replace a screw in bulb? Will I need an electrician? Is this product qualified for tax credits or rebates? YES , So If I pay [email protected] for a T12 and hire an electrician to install for what ? 50.00 an hour and it takes him 15 min. thats 12.50 if he can tear it out and install in 15 min. that's 77.00 plus bulbs is how much? Tell me again what is wrong with doing away with my old ballast and bulbs and buying any future bulbs from the grocery store for my new fixture that cost 40% less.


If I could add just a dab to that, The Retro-Bright fixture 
http://www.retro-bright.com 
has been added to the list of products available for rebates by AMERESCO in CT. Then there is the matter of using LED's in the RetroBright fixure in the E-27 socket. There are available now but for a retro we deem the price to high. As soon as we deem the price at an acceptable level for a retro we will include them as well as CFL's for the RetroBright


----------



## Lighting Retro

I just can't see why I would pay that price for a CFL retro when I can have superior performance from a linear fluorescent retrofit kit. First time I've seen one, but the price seems high compared to what we pay. Just giving you honest feedback. 

I'm not comparing your product to whether or not I should replace a T12 fixture with it. I'm comparing it to a competitive kit with T8 lamps and ballasts. We find that with a 5 year warrant on ballasts, and an expected life of 36,000 hours on linear lamps (which also don't take a scientist to change) vs. maybe 10,000 on a normal CFL, I just don't see the value or the performance that I would want out of the fixture. 

I have no doubt you sell them, but I just don't think it compares favorably to other solutions on the market.


----------



## Lighting Retro

To add to that, we only use XL/XP T8 lamps, so we typically are looking at about 3150 lumens per lamp at 32 Watts with even light distribution. 

In order to even come close to that with CFL's, you have to use a (using your chart) a 42W CFL to get 2800 lumens. Your lamp is $6.95. The T8 is about $2 to us. That's a pretty big difference on price, performance, and longevity. 

I could see where this would work in certain applications, but not many. And not at that cost.


----------



## abandit

Lighting Retro said:


> To add to that, we only use XL/XP T8 lamps, so we typically are looking at about 3150 lumens per lamp at 32 Watts with even light distribution.
> 
> In order to even come close to that with CFL's, you have to use a (using your chart) a 42W CFL to get 2800 lumens. Your lamp is $6.95. The T8 is about $2 to us. That's a pretty big difference on price, performance, and longevity.
> 
> I could see where this would work in certain applications, but not many. And not at that cost.


All those numbers look great but if you will actually put a light meter, lux or ft. candles on the floor below them you will be surprised. We have. A electronic ballast T-12 in perfect condition with 2- 60W (5300 Lumens) bulbs will only put off 9% more lux at 10 feet than the RetroBright with 4 23 W CFL's rated 1600 lumens. And this 9% difference is acheived by the T-12 , with 4600 more rated lumens and 14% more power. Now how is 
that? We have done these test. Now if you compare an old mag. ballast T-12 to the http://www.retro-bright.com/
there is really no comparrison. They are close on a hot day but when the temp goes down they are not even on the same planet with the retrobright fixture. Did I mention that the RetroBright fixture will retrofit Westinghose, Lithionia, GE and many more without any special tools or modifications.
As far as the numer of aging T-12's out there , probably several million.
How much will you sell me new HO T-8' for? If they are as cheap as you say they are I will buy them from you.


----------



## Lighting Retro

T8 HO? I'm quoting 4' T8 XP/XL/HL lamps. Obviously we buy quite a bit, but they last 4 x longer than CFL's at about 25% of the price. That more than pays for the ballast which runs about $10-$12. 

But again, I stressed you are comparing only to T12. I'm saying it's an inferior solution to a linear fluorescent retrofit kit from a performance and light distribution standpoint. 

However, a product only need be better than what you are replacing in order to sell it, but when one knows all of the options available, there are ones that would not sell as well. I have a feeling if your shop carried both linear kits and your CFL kits, you would rarely if EVER sell the CFL kit. Since you are the manufacturer it appears, I can understand your enthusiasm to defend your product, but I just disagree with your assessment of how great it is. 

Compared to T12, perhaps. Compared to a linear T8 that costs less? Don't buy it.


----------



## abandit

Lighting Retro said:


> T8 HO? I'm quoting 4' T8 XP/XL/HL lamps. Obviously we buy quite a bit, but they last 4 x longer than CFL's at about 25% of the price. That more than pays for the ballast which runs about $10-$12.
> 
> But again, I stressed you are comparing only to T12. I'm saying it's an inferior solution to a linear fluorescent retrofit kit from a performance and light distribution standpoint.
> 
> However, a product only need be better than what you are replacing in order to sell it, but when one knows all of the options available, there are ones that would not sell as well. I have a feeling if your shop carried both linear kits and your CFL kits, you would rarely if EVER sell the CFL kit. Since you are the manufacturer it appears, I can understand your enthusiasm to defend your product, but I just disagree with your assessment of how great it is.
> 
> Compared to T12, perhaps. Compared to a linear T8 that costs less? Don't buy it.


The numbers defend themselves. So you were comparing a 4ft fixture price to our 8ft. fixture price? What is the retail price of the 4ft unit you are talking about? I was comparing 8ft to 8ft. I have a client in NC with over 500 T-12's and I would like to put a quote together. Please send me what the complete installed cost would be also send me the retail unit price per unit. I will look around today and see how the cost looks here. 
If you spend 200-300% more to incorporate super lamps what have you done? How long will it take you to re-coupe that expenditure ? Will you ever? None of the new lamps or ballast last as long as the older ones did. Also/again , I think you are talking w/s prices not retail . Apples to oranges. 
Will these 4ft models fit it the place of the existing T-12's ? Of course they will after you spend a lot of money to do it they will fit just fine. 
We have done energy test, light test, and money test. Guess which one plays the biggest role most of the time?


----------



## Lighting Retro

abandit said:


> The numbers defend themselves. So you were comparing a 4ft fixture price to our 8ft. fixture price? What is the retail price of the 4ft unit you are talking about? I was comparing 8ft to 8ft. I have a client in NC with over 500 T-12's and I would like to put a quote together. Please send me what the complete installed cost would be also send me the retail unit price per unit. I will look around today and see how the cost looks here.
> If you spend 200-300% more to incorporate super lamps what have you done? How long will it take you to re-coupe that expenditure ? Will you ever? None of the new lamps or ballast last as long as the older ones did. Also/again , I think you are talking w/s prices not retail . Apples to oranges.
> Will these 4ft models fit it the place of the existing T-12's ? Of course they will after you spend a lot of money to do it they will fit just fine.
> We have done energy test, light test, and money test. Guess which one plays the biggest role most of the time?


no, 4' lamp. You said something about 8' HO. Very few of those out there, so not a good comparison. 


> None of the new lamps or ballast last as long as the older ones did.


That assertion is not backed up by data. Not sure where you got that. T8's last longer than T12's. By far if you are buying the good stuff. They also don't dramatically lose their lumens like the old T12's did. 

No time right now, but I'll send you pricing of (500) 8' T12 conversion kits installed by a traveling crew. I'll assume scissor lift required unless you state ladder, that recycling certificate is required for lamps and ballasts, and trash to used on site for misc scrap. I will include cost of wire nuts/tech screws if not provided in the kit. I'll even provide numbers on two different types of kits just for kicks. 

Now if I am comparing wholesale to retail, tell me now. I am going to give you a price for what I would charge to put them in retail anywhere in US. I'm expecting you to come up with what your installation cost is in addition to the cost of your kit for comparison, and include recycling, misc parts, lifts, etc.


----------



## Lighting Retro

and yes, to clarify, I was speaking about a 4' lamp, as an 8' fixture conversion will use 4' lamps when complete. I see I did not clarify that well. Thanks.


----------



## abandit

Lighting Retro said:


> and yes, to clarify, I was speaking about a 4' lamp, as an 8' fixture conversion will use 4' lamps when complete. I see I did not clarify that well. Thanks.


I shopped around , The cheapest model 4'T8 I could find was 20.00. Now the 2 of them = 40.00 best I can tell. And you were comparing 1 to the RetroBright 8ft. Why would you do that? 
Now you are telling me that I need to replace my T-12's with these? 
You want me to tear all my old junk out and put this in? I have a warehouse that has T-12s end to end , fastened with screws and E.M.T. Do I fasten these new 4' T-8s end to end as with the T-12s? 
I could save you enough money on the install to pay for all the lights you think I should install. 
I can retrobright a T-12 before you can remove the old junk and I can make as much or as little light as I want and I can reduce my maintenance to the simple screwing in of a readily available bulb by the village idiot. And you want me to tear all my old stuff out and put those 4ft models in . 
I may consider it if you will pay the install and give me a maintenance contract to go with it. 
I can't make the numbers match. Not from an investment stand point.
But I can easily see how people and companies who are vested in the linear light industry or products would not want to adapt new technology 
into old . Every RetroBright fixture sold means somebody didn't get to sell a ballast or bulb or a high price install.. 
There is a correct time and place for everything. To completely gut the lights out of an old factory or shop to install twice as many potential problems as you had before that give you a little more light doesn't appear a great option.
I do have a good idea for a test. In the future give all your potential retrofit clients the web site address.

http://www.retro-bright.com and I will show my clients 4ft. T-8 fixtures. That is fair isn't it?


----------



## Lighting Retro

abandit said:


> I shopped around , The cheapest model 4'T8 I could find was 20.00. Now the 2 of them = 40.00 best I can tell. And you were comparing 1 to the RetroBright 8ft. Why would you do that?
> Now you are telling me that I need to replace my T-12's with these?
> You want me to tear all my old junk out and put this in? I have a warehouse that has T-12s end to end , fastened with screws and E.M.T. Do I fasten these new 4' T-8s end to end as with the T-12s?
> I could save you enough money on the install to pay for all the lights you think I should install.
> I can retrobright a T-12 before you can remove the old junk and I can make as much or as little light as I want and I can reduce my maintenance to the simple screwing in of a readily available bulb by the village idiot. And you want me to tear all my old stuff out and put those 4ft models in .
> I may consider it if you will pay the install and give me a maintenance contract to go with it.
> I can't make the numbers match. Not from an investment stand point.
> But I can easily see how people and companies who are vested in the linear light industry or products would not want to adapt new technology
> into old . Every RetroBright fixture sold means somebody didn't get to sell a ballast or bulb or a high price install..
> There is a correct time and place for everything. To completely gut the lights out of an old factory or shop to install twice as many potential problems as you had before that give you a little more light doesn't appear a great option.
> I do have a good idea for a test. In the future give all your potential retrofit clients the web site address.
> 
> http://www.retro-bright.com and I will show my clients 4ft. T-8 fixtures. That is fair isn't it?


It appears the reason you take heat is you are not comprehending what people are telling you. No where did I say replace the fixture. You just spent a lot of effort on something no one was talking about.

A standard 8' conversion kit, when going from T12 to T8, uses 4' lamps. Now do you understand? Did you follow the link I posted to see what a sample kit looks like?

I'll post pics later as I'm on the road now.


----------



## Lighting Retro

I have an idea too, since you are obviously new to the industry and a bit of a smartelik. I might be wrong, but that's how you come across to me. 

I'm going to waste some money on your "kit" and show the results here with pictures and video. I'll post yours side by side with a linear kit to show the difference in output and amp draw. 

Stop me now. When I'm done, my concern is that you"ll agree with me so strongly you might quit your job.


----------



## abandit

Lighting Retro said:


> It appears the reason you take heat is you are not comprehending what people are telling you. No where did I say replace the fixture. You just spent a lot of effort on something no one was talking about.
> 
> A standard 8' conversion kit, when going from T12 to T8, uses 4' lamps. Now do you understand? Did you follow the link I posted to see what a sample kit looks like?
> 
> I'll post pics later as I'm on the road now.


 I went back and looked and didn't find the link. Please send again. 
I would like to do a cost evaluation and time comparison. No heat at all , 
really would like to see. So you don't like the Idea of me showing your 4ft T-8 retrofit and you showing the RetroBright. What you got to loose? There is no doubt there is always something coming down the tube more efficient. L.E.D.s for instance. What is feasible for the consumer and what he wants is what we deem practical. 
BTW , We also have the same configuration for the 2X4' recessed fixture. 
It as well as the RetroBright once in place are but a hop away from the inclusion of L.E.D. Right now it's still a price issue 
Send info first chance you get


----------



## abandit

Lighting Retro said:


> I have an idea too, since you are obviously new to the industry and a bit of a smartelik. I might be wrong, but that's how you come across to me.
> 
> I'm going to waste some money on your "kit" and show the results here with pictures and video. I'll post yours side by side with a linear kit to show the difference in output and amp draw.
> 
> Stop me now. When I'm done, my concern is that you"ll agree with me so strongly you might quit your job.


I was being serious. Sorry I offended you. Not intended. 
No joke, not being a smart ass, Tell me exactly what fixture you would like me to compare to and I will post haste acquire them for our testing. 
Manufacture and Model number and which lamps. I will order them today. I have a warehouse 1/4 mile from here that is a perfect candidate for time study , amperage draw, light values and cost evaluation. It has old T-12's in it and it is currently vacant. I have everything I need to do this except which ever light you tell me to get. I will video each step and not hide anything. 
I will compare T-12 to CFL, to whatever you tell me. 
Again, my apologies if I offended


----------



## Lighting Retro

No worries, the type written word can leave many things open to interpretation. It sounds as if you have a more readily available facility for testing, so I will be happy to let you do the testing. I would be interested in seeing the comparative data. 

The link I mentioned was probably in another thread. www.texasfluorescents.com

They have an ERK retrofit kit for 8' strip lights. Harris also makes an identical kit, and there is a spec sheet here. http://www.harrislights.com/media/3734/cutsheet-mksr.pdf What is nice about this kit is that you can retrofit an 8' 2L T12 strip fixture with either (2) 32W T8 lamps or (4) lamps. The kits are reversible to accommodate the configuration you want. The new reflector or belly pan is now the ballast cover attached via quarter turns so you now have tool-less fixture access later. (Like most are now) 

The same kit is used for 4' or 8' versions of strip fixtures. The 8' requires 4 brackets you tech screw to the fixture can, and the 4' requires only 2 brackets. 

Here is another kit from ESI that is new to us that we will probably be installing soon on a labor only project. This kit was spec'd out, and I'm intrigued. The kit comes pre-assembled, so it saves on installation time frames. A partner out in CA of ours says their techs can install (40) 8' kits in 8 hours, so they are quite efficient. I do not have pricing on these yet, but they do seem quite simple. I know we can't install the other versions that fast, so I will be pricing these and considering them for installs. This is a national chain we would be installing on, so speed is vital. 

Pricing on the first ERK kit would be as follows in the closest format to what you are currently proposing with your kit. If equal light output is desired, we use (2) 4' T8 lamps with reflector to replace the output of (2) 8' 60W T12 lamps. We get better footcandles out of that combination than the existing T12 fixture as you do. We use a low ballast factor ballast at .77, model number below as well. 

(1) 2 Lamp electronic T8 ballast.GE-232-MV-L (.77 ballast factor) 
(2) GE T8 lamps F32T8/XL/SPX850/HL/ECO 3100 lumens
(1) ERK 8' Retrofit Kit with (2) 4' white reflectors
Kit will use just under 50 watts. 

I won't list what we pay per item to protect my supplier, but I can tell you we pay less than $30 combined. If the retail price was similar to yours, it would be a greater than 50% markup. 

It appears your kit would install a little quicker. You are still gutting the fixture, removing ballast, lamps, and I'm assuming sockets and socket bars. You would be hooking up power to two locations per 4' section, whereas we hook up power to the ballast, but are wiring the ballast to the sockets with push in style connectors. The time difference would appear to be mostly related to screwing the brackets in on the fixture can. 

I take that back. After looking at your picture on the website, you do not remove the old sockets. You use the existing socket bar to connect to via quarter turn or tech screw it appears. I don't like leaving behind sockets that won't be used, as I think it looks tacky, but that would be a time savings. Your picture on the site shows brand new looking T8 sockets, but we both know that the old sockets we run across don't look quite that nice. 

So if we say the kits sold for the same amount, even though we don't mark up that much, the difference between products would be installation time and performance(Including life span, replacement labor costs, lumens, lights distribution, TCO, etc). A solid tech can install 20 of those 8' ERK kits a night, but 40 of the ESI kits. Not sure on price difference at this time, but the ESI is going to likely be more since it is preassembled and prewired. I seriously doubt it's double the cost though, so I would not compare to that one to be fair. I'd be interested in seeing your photometric data and final labor numbers to compare these options. 

I would agree that you could outperform T12 lamps with your kit, but I just can't imagine the numbers being compelling enough to convince me to buy a kit for screw in CFL's vs the linear option at the price point you show, leaving sockets behind, and performance differences. I will keep an open mind and look to see your data. 

Who knows, perhaps you will convince me to try your kits. :thumbsup:


----------



## Lighting Retro

Just as an explanation on the ESI kit: The kits are flat and universal. You bend them to fit either the 4.25" channel width or 5" width on the most common strip fixtures. Looking forward to giving them a spin.


----------



## abandit

Lighting Retro said:


> Just as an explanation on the ESI kit: The kits are flat and universal. You bend them to fit either the 4.25" channel width or 5" width on the most common strip fixtures. Looking forward to giving them a spin.


I have not found this kit. Some time back I read something about someone installing something like this. Is there a part # I can reference? I did acquire
a 4' T8 with 32W lamps. It has a SS ballast . Other than this I know nothing about this fixture. 64 W = .53 amps. As close as I can get to that with a CFL wattage that I have on hand is .54 W=.45 A
I will compare this one light as soon as time permits. Today I hope. 
Instead of barking at me about these fixtures I think you should look into the way some utility co. have restructured there bill in the face of consumers using less electricity. 
There is an evil on this earth worse than you and I.


----------



## Lighting Retro

abandit said:


> I have not found this kit. Some time back I read something about someone installing something like this. Is there a part # I can reference? I did acquire
> a 4' T8 with 32W lamps. It has a SS ballast . Other than this I know nothing about this fixture. 64 W = .53 amps. As close as I can get to that with a CFL wattage that I have on hand is .54 W=.45 A
> I will compare this one light as soon as time permits. Today I hope.
> Instead of barking at me about these fixtures I think you should look into the way some utility co. have restructured there bill in the face of consumers using less electricity.
> There is an evil on this earth worse than you and I.


utilities are evil? but of course. 

You need to get A GE Low Ballast factor ballast in order to compare to what we do. The reason the ballast factor is important is that you multiply the ballast factor x the combined lamp wattage. (32W x 2 = 64W) (64W x .77 = 49.28

It's also important to get Hi Lumen lamps that have 3100 lumens. You can buy T8 lamps with far less than that, but I have given you the specs we use, and we only buy the best lamps out there. They are quoted to last about 42,000 hours,and they have the best output. Buying just any old T8 lamp or ballast won't cut it unless you are trying to skew results in your favor. 

Why did you buy a 4' fixture? I thought you were going to retrofit a couple of 8' fixtures side by side to compare? Buying a junk 4' fixture with cheap components is not a comparison at all. :blink:

On part numbers, I sent you links to the web except for the ESI. I have not ordered directly from them yet, but I'll be looking them up soon.


----------



## Lighting Retro

Here is the ESI kit location on the web. I have a request in for pricing now for 2 and 4 lamp varieties for an 8' kit. http://www.esilighting.com/products/Retrofit/KS/KS.pdf

EDIT:

Just got pricing. I can get this prewired kit for under $30 with premium lamp and ballast. I just don't see how your kit really compares at $45 when all you are supplying is a bellypan and sockets. Do I understand correctly that this $45 price does not include CFL's? If so, that makes the difference even more dramatic. It appears strictly based upon lumens, your kit would require about another $12 in CFL's to be somewhat apples to apples on lumens, but there is still the issue of dark spots and left over tombstones showing. 

So $45 goes to approximately $57. I would have nearly 100% markup on our kits at that price, and I'm not really seeing a huge time savings on install installing prewired kits vs wiring 4 separate sockets in your 8' version.

I struggle to see the value you are showing here. If I'm at $45 retail (which is a much more reasonable number) and installation is around $20, (giving me a total of roughly $65 INSTALLLED for an 8' conversion) I'm having a hard time seeing how your solution brings value vs. this solution. You'd have to install for roughly $8 each, and I still think the performance would be lower and it wouldn't look as nice. 

Again, might be better than T12, but I don't think it compares to linear kits. I just don't see it. Still be interested in seeing your performance data though.


----------



## Electric_Light

Lighting Retro said:


> utilities are evil? but of course.
> 
> You need to get A GE Low Ballast factor ballast in order to compare to what we do. The reason the ballast factor is important is that you multiply the ballast factor x the combined lamp wattage. (32W x 2 = 64W) (64W x .77 = 49.28


Wrong. Ballast factor is applied on *output end*. Input wattage is not something you can calculate from it. You need to refer to/contact manufacturer with model # and production lot for the system configuration you will be using. The ballast factor refers to the output it will drive the ballast compared to reference ballast, which the lamp ratings are based on.

I think "3100 lumen" lamps are misleading. It's only 3100 lumens on the day you install it. I personally favor the mean output comparison.

A typical NEMA premium low BF example:
AC 277v 48W (GE Consumer & Industrial 72264)
F32T8 32WT x 2, 3100 lumen ea initial as per ANSI conditions
BF=0.77

So, you get
3000 lm-mean x 2 lamps x 0.77 BF =4620 lm
96.3lm/W mean system efficacy

A typical old setup:
AC 277v 60W 
F32T8 32WT x 2, 2660lm-mean x 2 lamps x 0.87 =4630 lm
77.1 lm/W mean system efficacy 

So, as you can see, NEMA premium low BF ballasts with premium efficacy lamps will hold the same output as before, but reduce 20% compared to 15 year old T8 electronic ballast with low-bid RE70 lamps. 

Take the lamp out of equation and you compare ballasts of same number lamps and types by:

BF * 100 / watts input = BEF
So, the GE UltraMax L gets 0.77 * 100/48 = 1.60 
the older first/second generation T8 electronic one gets 0.87 * 100/60 =1.45, so you'll see that newest electronic ballasts are about 10% more efficient just in ballast.

You seem to push the low ballast factor system a lot. They are not good except for retrofit application like above. It doesn't extend the lamp life. So you'll need more lamps to produce same lumens. It is meant to under-drive lamps. If luminaires are getting changed, normal (0.87) and high ballast factor(1.15 to 1.20) should be considered as well. Low ballast factor don't always give you the best system efficacy either. 




> It's also important to get Hi Lumen lamps that have 3100 lumens.


Anything with spec initial efficacy below 88 lm/W will be outlawed soon, so the RE70s are going away. The RE80s are usually rated 32W/2950 lm. 




> You can buy T8 lamps with far less than that, but I have given you the specs we use, and we only buy the best lamps out there. They are quoted to last about 42,000 hours,and they have the best output. Buying just any old T8 lamp or ballast won't cut it unless you are trying to skew results in your favor.


Make & model & mean lumen of said "3100 lumen" initial with 42,000 hour life? Is the life based on 3-hour instant start like everyone else or is it based on 12-hr programmed start to make itself look good?


----------



## Lighting Retro

You crack me up man. I have never seen anyone more capable of avoiding discussing the issue at hand and get mired in minutia. (What I consider minutia) 

Bottom line: Would you install his kit? Do you see ANY value in it. 

Everything else we are trying to compare apples to apples initially. While I diasagree with some of your points and know you have limited in the field experience, I absolutely applaud your impeccable knowledge of lighting. I don't even know if they spec out mean lumens for CFL's, so I'm just trying to make sure he buys a comparable lamp to what we install.

I don't consider a cheap 4' strip with import normal power ballast and 700 series lamp a good comparison.

Yes that was 12 hour numbers-same way they rate CFL's if I'm not mistaken.

Would you ever recommend that kit when there obvious superior options?


----------



## Lighting Retro

by the way, in regards to this:



> Wrong. Ballast factor is applied on *output end*. Input wattage is not something you can calculate from it. You need to refer to/contact manufacturer with model # and production lot for the system configuration you will be using. The ballast factor refers to the output it will drive the ballast compared to reference ballast, which the lamp ratings are based on.


It is not a perfect method, 100% agreed, but it is commonplace in the industry and very close to accurate. I see utility people, designers, manufacturers use it all the time. They are rarely more than 1 watt off manufacturer charts. We all realize there is a difference with 277 or 120, but the bottom line is it is darn close. In the interest of time, it is a very acceptable and commonly used method of calculation. You are much more thorough than most, and I know it probably doesn't cut the snuff for you, but I'm perfectly ok with it.


----------



## Electric_Light

Lighting Retro said:


> You crack me up man. I have never seen anyone more capable of avoiding discussing the issue at hand and get mired in minutia. (What I consider minutia)


So, why would you bring up "ballast factor" as an "IMPORTANT ISSUE" only to spew out a bunch of misinformation, then dismiss it as "minutia" issue? You brought it up, not me. I felt I had to say something so you're not spreading misinformation. 



> Bottom line: Would you install his kit? Do you see ANY value in it.


So really you're only concerned with making the sale. Typical salesman approach. 



> Everything else we are trying to compare apples to apples initially. While I diasagree with some of your points and know you have limited in the field experience, I absolutely applaud your impeccable knowledge of lighting. I don't even know if they spec out mean lumens for CFL's, so I'm just trying to make sure he buys a comparable lamp to what we install.


You can state "up to 45 mpg" and note that represents going 55mph after the car is fully warmed up and going in a circle on a track in still wind on a very smooth road, but to allow for fair comparison, all the data needs to based on industry accepted method. 

When you say "they're quoted to last about 42,000 hours" and you use that to make sales, do you even know the details behind it? 
Industry standard is 3 hours on, instant start, and life until 50% failure out of a large sample, nothing else. If you use 12 hour on, programmed start and until 70% failure, 42,000 hours isn't a dream, but as I said above, its like comparing industry standard mpg rating of a competitors car against the aforementioned creative conditions.



> I don't consider a cheap 4' strip with *import *normal power ballast and 700 series lamp a good comparison.


Huh? GE, Sylvania and Advance ballasts are all "import". As a matter of fact, why did you even bring up "import" if it wasn't discrediting your competitors? I see that you're limited on the technical side, but have emphasis on sales side. 




> Yes that was 12 hour numbers-same way they rate CFL's if I'm not mistaken.


Make & model? All fluorescent lamps are rated at 3 hours on per cycle by default as prescribed by IESNA, with other operating conditions published as optional information. Those that do not are not following industry practice. Then you made allegations of competitors "making themselves look good" only to find that numbers you're using are derived the same way for the same purpose. 



> Would you ever recommend that kit when there obvious superior options?


What's "obvious superior"?



Lighting Retro said:


> by the way, in regards to this:
> 
> It is not a perfect method, 100% agreed, but it is commonplace in the industry and very close to accurate. I see utility people, designers, manufacturers use it all the time. They are rarely more than 1 watt off manufacturer charts. We all realize there is a difference with 277 or 120, but the bottom line is it is darn close. In the interest of time, it is a very acceptable and commonly used method of calculation. You are much more thorough than most, and I know it probably doesn't cut the snuff for you, but I'm perfectly ok with it.


I've NEVER ballast factor misapplied in reference to rated lamp wattage the way you did. Not in manufacturer literature, not in IESNA literature and not in anything else. The way you present it in conjunction with "3100 lumen lamps" makes it seem like you're getting 3100 lumens, while "only consuming lamp watts x BF" . It does not make distinction between magnetic ballast, electronic or premium efficiency. In fact, you're completely dismissing the benefit of increasing ballast efficiency when you dismiss the manufacturer quoted wattage for given ballast factor.

BEF, which is calculated based on number/type of lamp being driven, ballast factor and input wattage is the criterion for utility rebate eligibility.


----------



## Electric_Light

Lighting Retro said:


> We get better footcandles out of that combination than the existing T12 fixture as you do. We use a low ballast factor ballast at .77, model number below as well.
> 
> (1) 2 Lamp electronic T8 ballast.GE-232-MV-L (.77 ballast factor)
> (2) GE T8 lamps F32T8/XL/SPX850/HL/ECO 3100 lumens
> (1) ERK 8' Retrofit Kit with (2) 4' white reflectors
> Kit will use just under 50 watts.
> 
> I won't list what we pay per item to protect my supplier, but I can tell you we pay less than $30 combined. If the retail price was similar to yours, it would be a greater than 50% markup.
> 
> 
> I don't consider a cheap 4' strip with *import normal power ballast* and 700 series lamp a good comparison.


Yeah I really see that you're all about sales. You're really shooting yourself in the foot. You just criticized competitor kits' ballast as "import ballast" when you're selling GE ballast that's most likely made in China. The GE UltraMAX I just checked are Made in China. 

By the way, that particular model of ballast isn't NEMA Premium listed, which may exclude you from some rebates. You're clouding up the definition of ballast factor to really hide that savings come from under-driving the lamps and really that lamps are driven to only push 2387 lumens each. 


What do you mean "normal power"? Ballast factor is not a representation of anything other than the percent output the lamps are driven at doesn't mean inferior or superior. Note that MV-N (normal ballast factor) is slightly more efficient, therefore NEMA Premium listed. 

The MV series are 2nd class products. The UltraMAX is their top line, and you will see that MAX-L, N and H are all NEMA Premium listed.

See NEMA premium listing:
http://www.nema.org/gov/energy/efficiency/upload/nema_premium_electronic_ballast_program.pdf

I figured out the 42,000 hour mystery. It doesn't even apply to your kit. It applies for PROGRAMMED RAPID START ballast, and 12 hours per cycle. 

It's rated 3,000 lumens new, 2,820 mean. The 3,100 lumen applies to all, except the 850 that you're selling. 

Rated life is 25,000 hours at 3hrs per start on instant start. 

Going back to GE's own datasheet:
http://www.gelighting.com/na/busine...fluorescent/28337_f32t8_high_lumen_linear.pdf

I'm not sure what GE is doing. Some of their lamps have "rated life" based on standard 3 hour. Some based on something else. It does use 3 hour/IS for specifier statement, then 12 hour PRS for front page. Who knows.
"
F32T8/XL/HL (32W) Specifier Statement:
Lamps shall be GE Starcoat® T8 High Lumen lamps having
medium bi-pin bases. F32T8/XL/HL lamps shall be designed
to pass the Federal TCLP test in force at the time of manufacture.
F32T8/XL/HL rated life shall be at least 25,000 hr at 3 hours per
start on a T8 instant start ballast. F32T8/XL/HL lamps shall have
initial lumens of at least 3100 (3000 for 5000K) and mean lumens
of at least 2915 (2820 for 5000K), and a color rendering index of at
least 80 for the 5000K, 82 for the 4100K lamp, 85 for the 3500K and
3000K. F32T8/XL/HL lamps shall have a nominal wattage of 32
watts. Lamps shall be operated on GE UltraMax™ electronic, high
frequency ballasts or other ANSI-approved instant start ballasts."


----------



## Lighting Retro

Obviously I've ticked you off lol. 

I used the wrong word when saying import, as I should have said "no name brand." I buy Ace ballasts from time to time,(which most if not all of you have never heard of) and they are imported straight from China. 2L T8 electronic .88 ballast for $6 in bulk. They are pretty decent ballasts, but as "imports" they do not come in a low ballast factor option. There are applications where it's a fit, and we've used enough of them we may feel comfortable extending our same warranty if the project was local to us. I much prefer warranties from the tried and true been around for a long time companies (Big 3 or 4) vs the folks who email us from China every other day. I don't know where they make them and don't really give a crap. Made is USA is pretty easy to get approval for, so again you are splitting hairs. Bottom line is they have a performance history we feel comfortable with, and have an L option. 

You can almost guarantee that the fixture he picked up does not have a GE, Advance, Sylvania, Phillips, Fulham, etc set of components. They rarely do since they are competing with others who don't, and they need to move product. We have to spec out the components we want if we don't won't no name "import" lamps or ballasts. My manufacturer actually puts that on his price sheets, but pardon me for being terribly incorrect. 

If we could only all be as technical as you, the world would be a better place. There are few who can compare to your technical expertise. However, the guys who are most technical often do not possess the gift of presentation and could not sell their way out of a paper bag. Without guys making sales at your company, you have no job sir. Do not be too quick to dismiss me an non technical. I read all of the material to understand how all products we use work, but I know what details to retain that are important to the customer. You retain EVERYTHING. :laughing: The issues you bring up are very minor in practical applications. We have spoken on this before, and it's obvious to me you lack practical application experience in the field actually SEEING before and after results. If you had, you would not say some of the things you do. 

Yes, that is not a NEMA ballast, but most of the projects we use them on are not rebate worthy size wise. The difference between the NEMA Ultrastart vs. Proline performance wise is really pretty minuscule. Most rebate programs we deal with would approve a Proline, but gov't or public works do not. The only project we've installed Ultrastart on in the past year was a school that required NEMA product. 

Have you evaluated the difference from a cost/performance standpoint. I have, and I can't justify it if there are no rebates to offset the difference in cost. We bid against companies using non NEMA components, so we would shoot ourselves in the foot pricing them as standard. 

Yes, the lamp is not producing 3100 (or 3,000) lumens using a L ballast. I know that, you know that, but I mentioned it so he would buy the Hi Lumen lamp and not a 700 series for testing purposes. The reason we buy the Hi Lumen T8's is to offset some of what you lose by using the L ballast. 

2800 x .88 = 2464
3100 x .77 = 2387

You have a very similar performance level if you invest in a better lamp. Now is that sales-zee, or just practical? I think it's brilliant. I use less power for VERY similar results. That is smart, and well worth the extra $1 a lamp IMHO. The ROI is there and it makes business sense. 

Let me pull out my GE chart to make you happy so I don't accidentally misquote something every so slightly. 



> I've NEVER ballast factor misapplied in reference to rated lamp wattage the way you did.


You need to get out more. All of us sales people are doing it. Including those at GE. :laughing:

 GE Ballast numbers By the way, on any, I repeat ANY ballast and lamp combination on their published sheet, multiply the ballast factor x the wattage of the lamps being used and see if it matches their published input number. Maybe I'm misunderstanding why you are taking issue with this method of calculation, but when I do it, it appears to be matching precisely what the manufacturer is showing with appropriate rounding up. Are they too sales-zee and dumb it down for the masses, or is this in fact a pretty darn accurate method of calculation? Does this bother you since it is not calculated out to the 4th decimal place? 

Again, if you want to dribble on all day about the finer points of calculation, some here will be impressed. The bottom line is what does the customer care about? Lower Utility bills, better visual results, no humming, reliability, etc. They don't care about the 1/2 lumen the calculations are off from being perfect, as when you add them all up they total squat. It affects a project with a 24 month payback about 2.3 days. Run the numbers buddy. You are right, but you'd be a fool to bring it up with a customer in the interest of perfection. They don't care. 

You waste an inordinate amount of time splitting hairs that few people care about. Don't get me wrong, we need technical people who know how to make this stuff work, but your company can't afford to put you in front of a customer. You'd blow a sale because you don't focus on what is important. The sales process would infuriate you because you would feel the need to correct the customer on his understand and drag him to your den of lighting encyclopedias. They would leave feeling beat over the head with too much information, and then they would buy from a sales guy who shares the info they want to know. 

Your customer doesn't care how much you know until they know how much you care. You care by giving them the best value and solutions on the market. You care by having practical in field expertise, not by saying you can't replace adequate light levels of a 400W Metal Halide unless you use an 8 lamp T5. I won't forget that one buddy. That was the biggest pile of horse doo I've ever heard. 4 lamp T5 is superior all day long, but you will argue that till the day you die.

So while I, being more sales than technical, might not understand the finer points of CRI, and scotopic vs. photopic, I understand that it's better to see with for the human eye. You can correct my use of the word "spectrum" when I'm describing 2700k to 6500k lamps and tell me the right word, but the bottom line is the customer doesn't give a crap. They knew what I meant. Everyone here knew what I meant, but you, being the locked away techno dude in the basement feel it necessary to correct people at every opportunity to show your superior knowledge. 

Bravo, you are fantastic. I bow down to your superior technical understanding of all that is lighting. I also freely admit you can come across as a douche at times. 



> I figured out the 42,000 hour mystery. It doesn't even apply to your kit. It applies for PROGRAMMED RAPID START ballast, and 12 hours per cycle.


Quoting the max life potential of a lamp for the sake of saying, "this is the best lamp they make" was only for that purpose. Yes, we know all spec sheets publish 3 hour and 12 hour time frames, and not all use programmed start as part of it. It's an incredible performance number as far as length of time. 

Yes, I do tell my customers that this is based upon 12 hours on time, but it falls to a measly 25k or whatever it is if you average 3 hours---which they don't. Either way, they can look at their annual hours of 3500 to 5000 hours a year and know they won't be changing too many lamps for a good long time. You miss the entire point of mentioning the benefits of an XL/XP/HL lamp vs comparing to a 700 series. You seriously waste too much time on irrelevant encyclopedic information no one gives a rip about but you. The POINT was a top of the line linear fluorescent will FAR OUTPERFORM a top of the line CFL on all fronts. 

That's it, but you can turn a statement (With intentionally left out details so as to not bore) into what you perceive as a vital need to correct and inform the masses of this egregious error. 



> I figured out the 42,000 hour mystery. It doesn't even apply to your kit. It applies for PROGRAMMED RAPID START ballast, and 12 hours per cycle.


Of course it had nothing to do with the kit. The kit is hardware only, not components. You are correct, but the difference is 36,000 hours on instant start 12 hour start time. We serve primarily commercial environments where they are on for 12 hours or more a day. Even if they are on slightly less, it rarely justifies the bump up in price in the customer's mind to move from instant to programmed start. I know this first hand-- as there was a time when I felt compelled to share "all the options." We put programmed start in anytime we have sensors, but rarely beyond that. 




> Quote:
> Bottom line: Would you install his kit? Do you see ANY value in it.
> So really you're only concerned with making the sale. Typical salesman approach.


I kind of have to laugh at this comment of yours. "Would you install it?" has to do with how the kit looks, how the kit performs, the value it brings to the client, labor consideration numbers for your client, total cost of ownership when considering maintenance of CFL's vs Linear. Do you see the value in converting an 8' strip to a CFL kit? If that is only concerned about the sale, then you simply don't get it. That is called making a business decision on value before you present something to your client. 

Every day you decide if you will spec out UltraStart vs. Proline or something similar. 835 vs 850. 3 lamp or 4? What factors in? RFP specs? Customer needs? Budget? Environmental conditions? Height of fixtures for service consideration? Temperatures? There are many reasons to consider a product or not. How hard of a question is it to ask a fellow pro if they see the value? If that was because I'm all sales, you need to get some sales in you. 

Yes, you are correct that the 850 is only 3000 lumens. I don't always commit every last variation of these lamps to memory. As you stated, out of 2700k, 3000k, 3500k, 4100k, and 5000k, the only one that was not 3100 was the specific model number I listed. Shoot me. Again the point was it's a darn good lamp, and if we are going to use a low ballast factor ballast, put in the high lumen lamp. I personally prefer the 850 lamps from a color perspective. 

No one is trying to trick or mislead anyone. The point is to get a comparable product that we use in the kit to compare footcandle readings and amp draw. But hey, dig for that final detail to prove you are right 100% of the time if it makes you happy. Can't wait to see the dissertation you write to defend your honor on this one. In fact, I could probably bet several guys on here that you would be incapable on NOT replying to this post even if I put $1,000 on the table. 



> Typical salesman approach.


Typical engineer response. The world needs us both. I'm just a happier person. :whistling2::thumbup:

I might bust your balls a little from time to time, but I do truly respect your knowledge. I don't agree with all of your assessments since I am in tune with what is important to the customer, but as a guy who must sell and interface with customers, I know the value of having a guy like you on your side. I feel I have that with the manufacturer I use. I just wouldn't bring them to a sales call.


----------



## Lighting Retro

> What's "obvious superior"?


Yeah, I didn't word that too hot. I personally feel, and this is the sales guy in me speaking, that a kit that removes the old tombstones/sockets, has no dark spots like the one linked to cause uneven light distribution, and has a longer life span is more attractive to my customer. 

The technical guy in me can't make sense of Total Cost of Ownership from the bidding side, stomach the warranty calls sure to come from having hundreds or thousands of CFL's on a job, make sense of the photometric or wattage calculations as being beneficial when compared to the linear kit. 

I have no stock in either option, but from a purely practical standpoint, I can't come to any conclusion why I would choose to retrofit 8' strips with CFL's. While I agree it may outperform T12, I can't see how it would outperform T8. And I can't stand the though of leaving old tombstones behind. That just seems so tacky. 

That is what I meant when I said obviously superior. At least to me with the data I currently have. I find more information can temper how you feel on things, so we'll see if he decides to do testing or not.


----------



## Electric_Light

Lighting Retro said:


> Obviously I've ticked you off lol.
> I used the wrong word when saying import, as I should have said "no name brand."


That's a big mistake right there, especially when you're trying to curb stomp your competitor. I do find it unacceptable, just as you do when people use misinformation to extend competitive advantage leverage using cheater bars. 



> I don't know where they make them and don't really give a crap.


Exactly so why would you even bring it up other than the reason I mentioned above(which is what ticked me off in the first place...) 



> I read all of the material to understand how all products we use work, but I know what details to retain that are important to the customer. You retain EVERYTHING. :laughing: The issues you bring up are very minor in practical applications.


I call it deliberate omission. Our car is 160 hp, theirs is 155 hp, so lets say this, but our warranty is not transferable so lets not mention it :whistling2: 
You're not in this trade. You're told 3,100 lumen each x 2 and 50 watts. I think that this will mislead them into believing that you're getting 6,200 lumens for 50 watts. 



> Yes, that is not a NEMA ballast, but most of the projects we use them on are not rebate worthy size wise. The difference between the NEMA Ultrastart vs. Proline performance wise is really pretty minuscule.


Where did UltraStart come into discussion? UltraStart is a programmed start ballast. I said UltraMAX, which is a instant start. 



> Yes, the lamp is not producing 3100 (or 3,000) lumens using a L ballast. I know that, you know that, but I mentioned it so he would buy the Hi Lumen lamp and not a 700 series for testing purposes. The reason we buy the Hi Lumen T8's is to offset some of what you lose by using the L ballast.


I've been around long enough to know you emphasize the 850, you and the manufacturers sales dept put a lot of emphasis on hi-lumen entirely based on amplifying the sales pitch into 150 lumens or so difference, so relatively speaking, when 150 lumen is what the fight is about, its completely unacceptable to up-claim product you're selling by 100 lumens. When you claim "our product lasts 4x longer than CFLs" and omit specifics, that's a blanket misrepresentation. What CFLs in specific? Some twin CFLs are rated at 24,000 hours at 12 hour cycle. 

The premium hi-lumen 850 you quote is 3,000 new/2,820 mean. with 25,000 3hr/36,000 12 hr 
The base model Philips T8 841 is 2,950/2,800 with 24,000 3hr/30,000 12 hr life or the Plus is 30K/36K hrs respectively.

The difference is so insignificant it really doesn't matter in real application, but it really the marketing dept who tries to make it seem like it does. 

The marketing people inflate the tiny differences to differentiate their product and upsell to expensive to expensive stuff, then when they're called out for making absurd claims, they play the "its such a small difference it doesn't matter" card. 

841 vs 850 is just a matter of color difference.

When customers are told "3,100 lumen super extra performance HL SPX" they feel its that much better from soon to be just a little better than legal minimum "base RE80 lamps". It's just a way to avoid having to say base 841 is 2950 lumens, uber premium 850 is 3000 lumens, i personally think 5000 looks better in the same way that strawberry milk is better than chocolate milk and its only 1 and a fraction of percentage better for all of 25% higher cost, how about it? 



> You have a very similar performance level if you invest in a better lamp. Now is that sales-zee, or just practical? I think it's brilliant. I use less power for VERY similar results. That is smart, and well worth the extra $1 a lamp IMHO. The ROI is there and it makes business sense.


But the 50 lumen gain over the base model RE80 for premium price makes what business sense? 

When you're fighting for market share over tiny differences, then correspondingly tolerance for misquotation is equally low. 






> Again, if you want to dribble on all day about the finer points of calculation, some here will be impressed. The bottom line is what does the customer care about? Lower Utility bills, better visual results, no humming, reliability, etc. They don't care about the 1/2 lumen the calculations are off from being perfect, as when you add them all up they total squat. It affects a project with a 24 month payback about 2.3 days.


But you expect them to care about the 50 lumen specification difference? All sales people do is to try to get people to care about thing that don't really matter to maximize customers project expenditure. 

If YOURS is tiny bit better, you boast, even use best possible theoretical values given in literature, if theirs is TINY bit worse, you curb stomp and you use the worst figures possible, as you did calling out your competitor as "import" junk, or "ours lasts 4x longer than CFLs" without really having a clue. 



> You miss the entire point of mentioning the benefits of an XL/XP/HL lamp vs comparing to a 700 series.


You miss the point of diminishing return. No question there is real merit from going from cheapest 700 series to better lamps. What you're not saying is that the performance gap between better(RE80) vs best (XL/XP/HL, hi-lumen, blah blah blah blah) is razor thin and price gap between the latter two is disproportionate with performance gain. 



> Even if they are on slightly less, it rarely justifies the bump up in price in the customer's mind to move from instant to programmed start.


So just quote the appropriate life specs for application, rather than quoting values that do not even apply to the application. 








> Yes, you are correct that the 850 is only 3000 lumens. I don't always commit every last variation of these lamps to memory. As you stated, out of 2700k, 3000k, 3500k, 4100k, and 5000k, the only one that was not 3100 was the specific model number I listed. Shoot me. Again the point was it's a darn good lamp, and if we are going to use a low ballast factor ballast, put in the high lumen lamp. I personally prefer the 850 lamps from a color perspective.


Again, you push on low ballast factor and 5000K a lot. 841 vs 850 is purely a matter of personal preference. Base model RE80 841 is 2,950 lumens, your premium cost RE80 850 is 3,000 lumens, not enough to call home about. Premium 841 is 3,100. Again, if you're trying to upsell premium based on ~150 or so lumens, misquoting by 100 on a difference of 150 is a HUGE error. 

There is a difference between being off a 100 when you're trying to leverage on a difference of 150 vs 10,000. For latter, I will over look it as an error. Do you not agree with this?

It's really the sales people who bicker over the smallest difference trying to get the customer to decide if they buy from you or them. I don't work with sales. I have no stake in your company, so therefore, I have little tolerance for any misinformation you use in the course of trying to sell products. 

Also, lamps are available in 25, 28 and 30W. Simply using 28W RE80 lamps during next relamp cycle can leverage power savings with the only added cost difference being the lamp cost. You're accomplishing most of the reason low BF saves power, that is reducing the power each lamp gets. 

Replace lamps with low wattage, high efficacy phosphor
Replace lamps with full wattage high efficacy and low wattage ballast

Outcome is the same.


----------



## Lighting Retro

I get to keep my $1,000. :thumbsup:



> What CFLs in specific? Some twin CFLs are rated at 24,000 hours at 12 hour cycle.


If you read the thread, you would know what type of CFL's he was talking out. I don't care how well screw in CFL's are rated, they are the number one warranty item we have. If you leave them on for long periods of time they have hope, but I am underwhelmed about your standard 12-25W CFL. 



> I call it deliberate omission.


We call it throwing up on the customer when you include ALL the details, including the ones they don't care about. 



> I said UltraMAX, which is a instant start.


 You used the correct name, I did not. Long week. 

The only importance to me in specifying the higher lumen lamp is to help account for the fact we prefer the lower power ballast. If I'm going to get data on a test, I'd like it to represent something we actually use. 



> 841 vs 850 is just a matter of color difference.


 and 100 lumens and usually a couple CRI points right? Agreed it's not much, but it's not the ONLY difference. 



> But the 50 lumen gain over the base model RE80 for premium price makes what business sense?


 50? Or 150? (Nevermind. I see you were comparing 850 vs 841) I was thinking 3,000 vs. 2850. I try to stay with the same brand for warranty purposes and color matching, so we've come to be primarily GE good or bad. 

The reason it is important to me is to maintain performance. Using a low ballast factor with standard 800 series is fine, but I love MORE light. When you KNOW what works because you've done it over and over, you stick with what works. I know that L Ballast and Hi Lumen blows away what was there. Again, just want data on what I actually use, not trying to create some misinformation. It's a preferred solution. The small difference in price to us is about $0.60 a lamp. I would prefer to pay the extra per lamp vs. $8-$10 more on a programmed start ballast all day. I can squeeze that extra 6,000 hours out of the lamp by going programmed start, or I can buy the better lamp for under a buck that has a few more hours and higher lumen. It's a trade off, but high lumen is the better value to us. 

at one point I did the research, tested it, like the results of the combo and stuck with it. 



> All sales people do is to try to get people to care about thing that don't really matter to maximize customers project expenditure.


Ouch! Blanket statement for the ages there. I might agree with you IF I wasn't a business owner. Since I am, I have far greater concerns such as customer satisfaction, reputation, lack of service calls, etc. I care about our employees, sales commissions, operating at a profit so I can continue to service my customers, taking care of our suppliers, and much more. Some salespeople might do all they can to pump up a customer project price, but we don't. We don't spec out anything that does not have a decent return. We discourage use of sensors if the client won't benefit. We don't do dimmable ballasts or daylight harvesting unless requested because it rarely provides a great return. I care about what's in the best interest of my customers, so I make recommendations that are best for them. They know this, and because we do business the right way, we can be profitable. 



> You miss the point of diminishing return. No question there is real merit from going from cheapest 700 series to better lamps. What you're not saying is that the performance gap between better(RE80) vs best (XL/XP/HL, hi-lumen, blah blah blah blah) is razor thin and price gap between the latter two is disproportionate with performance gain.


 Disagree, and explained why above. There is little price difference when calculating ROI, but having the best lamp possible is worth it to me. I wasn't comparing RE80 vs. XL/XP/HL, but you know that. That's one of those things I didn't even think was necessary to bring up and not sure why you did. 



> Again, you push on low ballast factor and 5000K a lot. 841 vs 850 is purely a matter of personal preference. Base model RE80 841 is 2,950 lumens, your premium cost RE80 850 is 3,000 lumens, not enough to call home about. Premium 841 is 3,100. Again, if you're trying to upsell premium based on ~150 or so lumens, misquoting by 100 on a difference of 150 is a HUGE error.


 Wow, sorry you feel so strongly about a mental mistake. Again, I wanted "my kit" tested that we use. Nothing else to read into. 



> I have little tolerance for any misinformation you use in the course of trying to sell products.


 That's part of what I find to be so interesting. I'm not selling these guys a product. I am product neutral and will buy the best thing for our client. If I end up installing the ESI retro kit and find it superior to the other kit, I'll either ask my manufacture to make it or buy it from ESI. I might have preferences, but I'm not asking people to buy stuff from me. This is not an audience to sell to. 

I'm an electrical contractor, not a supplier. We sell projects, design projects, and install projects. I do sing the praises of www.fleco.com because they blow me away with service and pricing. Can't hide it when you find a great supplier and want to pass it on. 




> Also, lamps are available in 25, 28 and 30W. Simply using 28W RE80 lamps during next relamp cycle can leverage power savings with the only added cost difference being the lamp cost. You're accomplishing most of the reason low BF saves power, that is reducing the power each lamp gets.
> 
> Replace lamps with low wattage, high efficacy phosphor
> Replace lamps with full wattage high efficacy and low wattage ballast
> 
> Outcome is the same.


Completely agree....to a point. We created a spreadsheet at one time to compare the cost of the different wattage lamps and ballast combos to come up with what we wanted. The newer 28W lamps compare favorable to the old 700 series lamps, so a simple relamp is a great savings tool without sacrificing performance. At some point we settled on the HI Lumen lamp and L ballast combo from a value/performance standpoint for our customers. Those different lamp combos can double the lamp cost, whereas the ballast price is now nearly identical. It's also nice to use the ballast factors to allow a single wattage lamp to be stocked for a facility, but with completely different results based upon application. 

The same 32W lamp could be used in the offices with L ballasts, with N ballasts in the stock room, and H ballasts in the high bays. They make life very practical,and it's easier for a contractor to stock a truck to service if the lamps are all the same, but you stock 3 types of ballast factors. 


Thanks for the frank feedback. Did I previously misunderstand your issue with the wattage calculation when multiplying the cumulative lamp wattage by the ballast factor? I'm trying to understand where we did not agree on that one. Did I explain what I did wrong, or was it just that the actual equation much more complex but not really all that different? 

Also, I agree that it could have come off that I might be digging in on certain details, but selecting the ones I wanted to care about. Simply came down to my preference in kits based upon our previous research and what we use most. I've tested them over and over and over, so I know what works in the field and lasts. That's all I would care to test as a combo. I could just have easily said RE80 and N ballast for similar lumen count, but the wattage would be slightly higher.


----------



## Lighting Retro

Do you like the idea of that kit? Do you find value in it?


----------



## Electric_Light

Lighting Retro said:


> The newer 28W lamps compare favorable to the old 700 series lamps, so a simple relamp is a great savings tool without sacrificing performance. At some point we settled on the HI Lumen lamp and L ballast combo from a value/performance standpoint for our customers.


The 30W lamps designed to have the same output as base 32W RE80 uses the same phosphor as hi-lumen with the big P. Not sure about the big G. The 28W should have a similar performance as existing RE70 base. 

The lamps cost more, but they don't need contractors. They can just have maintenance use those lamps on existing system if they already have 48" T8 system. Installation cost is zero, because if you wait until relamp time, you will have to relamp anyways. 

Another effective, yet crude energy saving means is delamping. Many T8 instant start ballasts support N-1 lamp operation. A four lamp fixture will run 3 lamps at 100% or 4 lamps at 87% and uses less power with three lamps. The UltraMAX 4 lamp is supposed to be able to run 2,3, or 4 lamps at 87%. 

Why do you place such a strong emphasis on under-driving lamps at 77%?


----------



## Lighting Retro

> Why do you place such a strong emphasis on under-driving lamps at 77%?


For 34W or 40W T12's, we find the combination of Hi Lumen lamps and L Ballast to be our best value based upon info I posted above. We actually design jobs based upon needs, but we find that combo to be great for troffers and strip fixtures. We see tons of those and high bays, so you end up seeing about 10 solutions over and over, with 10% of the projects being slightly different. 


Let me know if you have an opinion on the kit or wattage calculation though.


----------



## Electric_Light

> That's all I would care to test as a combo. I could just have easily said RE80 and N ballast for similar lumen count, but the wattage would be slightly higher.


It shall be referred by BF & BEF. L, N, H, etc are not standardized and there is no hard number associated with them. 

2950 lumen RE841 on 0.87 BF ballast do not give similar output as 3100 lumen RE841 "uber premium" on second class GE232-MV-L Proline, non NEMA Premium 0.78 BF ballast. It increases system output by 6.1%, and you already stated, you like more lumens. Is it insignificant? That's subjective. If you say that 1.06~~1.00 then its insignificant.

Comparing BEF, a 0.87 BF 232-MAX-N ballast provides 5.3% better system efficacy than the second class 0.78 BF ProLine used in systems you specify, that is with same lamps, crappy or good. This more than exceeds 5.0% efficacy gained by HL/XL/blah 850 over base RE850. 

232-MAX-N 1.642, 53W 
232-MAX-L 1.604, 48W

The one you sell does not earn NEMA Premium
72273 GE232-MV-L 1.56, 50W 

Since GE232-MV-N gets NEMA Premium seal, I would expect it provides better system efficacy over the one you sell. In other words, output increase is greater than wattage increase. 

You were comparing the cost difference between Proline and UltraStart, not Proline and UltraMAX, so the $xx.xx more you quoted is wrong.

Ok, to put it in laymans terms, the 78% MV-L uses less gallons while traveling less miles compared to 87% MAX-N, however per mile traveled, MAX-N consumes less gallons.



Lighting Retro said:


> For 34W or 40W T12's


There's enough difference in output that you can't compare them as if they're the same thing. 34W T12 provides less output than 40W, but if you play it by feelings and perceptions, you can be so far off on numbers and get away with a lot of s|-|i7.


----------



## Lighting Retro

> Proline and UltraStart, not Proline and UltraMAX,


 like stated, I meant to say Ultramax. And yes, the dollar amount difference is pretty accurate. I think we go from $9 to $17 on the 2 lamp, so it's $8. I'll have to go back and look, but it's close. That's a HUGE percentage difference, but I might be thinking programmed start. As a matter of fact, I think I am. I think the Ultramax were about $4-$5 more or so. 


> It shall be referred by BF & BEF. L, N, H, etc are not standardized and there is no hard number associated with them.


You are correct, but since we use primarily GE ballasts, it's easy for me to go down that road since the BF remain a constant for me. 



> 232-MAX-N 1.642, 53W
> 232-MAX-L 1.604, 48W
> 
> The one you sell does not earn NEMA Premium
> 72273 GE232-MV-L 1.56, 50W


I will need to rerun numbers to check how it affects pricing/ROI. The simply equation I showed earlier worked on the standard (lower tier) ballast, but if your equations are correct, it would not appear to be accurate on the Ultramax. Obviously there is more to the equation, which is why I asked. As a general rule it works and is accurate, but a difference of two watts for the same L power ballast is significant enough it must be accounted for. 

BUT, once again you have gone down the road of not addressing what I considered to be the main point. I might have been slightly off on details to the point of 2-4%, but the bottom line is would you ever spec out that kit? Do you see value in it over a linear kit? 

You can educate me all day on the finer points of the calculations so that we all have greater understanding of how it's calculated to the nth degree, but if it's not applied it doesn't help anyone. 

Based upon your knowledge of both product lines, what would you choose given the price points in play? Given the performance data? Given installation considerations? Given maintenance considerations? 

I don't want to spend time on 10 more posts splitting hairs on minor calcs. As stated, the reason I initially made a big deal out of the specific components was because it was a combination we researched, tested, implemented, were happy with results of, and found to be the best value for our clients. I might have been off a few percentage points, but I wanted that specific combo tested for comparison. 

Do you have an opinion, or do you just want to correct calculations? Does your knowledge have a rubber meets the road point? Do you make recommendations based upon your knowledge, or just spend time correcting everyone else on their understanding. This is what I'm talking about when dealing with engineers. You might be brilliant, but it can be frustrating getting one to answer the point of importance to you. Engineers LOVE the details. They live and breathe them. 

People who have to sell realize they have to tone that down in order to be successful. We have to cut to the chase to get down to the details the customer wants to know about. So while my details were a couple points off and I don't dispute it, I was actually looking forward to your OPINION on the product based upon your superior understanding of the difference between them.


----------



## Lighting Retro

> but if you play it by feelings and perceptions, you can be so far off on numbers and get away with a lot of s|-|i7.


There are no feelings, only visual results. No one tries to get away with anything that I am aware of. I know we put together solutions for our customers that try to address their needs as we try to balance the best benefits of technology and application.


----------



## Electric_Light

Lighting Retro said:


> You are correct, but since we use primarily GE ballasts, it's easy for me to go down that road since the BF remain a constant for me.


But they don't. 
MV-L is 0.78
MAX-L is 0.77. 

I will need to rerun numbers to check how it affects pricing/ROI. The simply equation I showed earlier worked on the standard (lower tier) ballast, but if your equations are correct, it would not appear to be accurate on the Ultramax. Obviously there is more to the equation, which is why I asked. As a general rule it works and is accurate, but a *difference of two watts for the same L power ballast is significant enough it must be accounted for*. 

BUT, once again you have gone down the road of not addressing what I considered to be the main point. *I might have been slightly off on details to the point of 2-4%*, but the bottom line is would you ever spec out that kit? Do you see value in it over a linear kit? 
[/quote]
You're going in a circle. So you dismissed a few percent difference as insignificant error in one part, but when it comes to "watts", you come back and say those few percents within the margin of error is "significant enough" that you must account for. 

part of the difference is due to slight difference in BF between the two units. The remainder due to the fact UltraMAX is more efficient by exactly 2.8%. MV-L puts out 1.3% more light while consuming 4.1% more power. 



> Based upon your knowledge of both product lines, what would you choose given the price points in play? Given the performance data? Given installation considerations? Given maintenance considerations?


I consider utility rate, available incentives, etc. Some utilities, energy conservation cooperatives etc offer incentives and credits, for example $1.00 for each 25W lamp installed. 



> Do you have an opinion, or do you just want to correct calculations?


I've already shown the calculations. Of those three, MV-L 0.78 is the worst, MAX-L is second, and MAX-N is the best when you're looking at BEF. 

My opinion is that go with MAX-N, and gain the benefit of reduced SKUs. Use base RE80 lamps or long life standard. There. You really only need two ballasts. MAX-N two lamp and four lamp. The UltraMAX supports N-1 operation without affecting ballast factor, so the two will accommodate 1,2,3 and 4 lamp configuration. 

If you're in Seattle or Vancouver, BC (5-6c/kWh) reduced lamp wattage lamps all the way on existing system. If you're retrofitting from a T12 system, then base ballast + base RE80. 

If you're in Hawaii (25c/kWh), HECO offers rebates on NEMA Premium, so go with premium ballast with premium lamps. 




> Engineers LOVE the details. They live and breathe them.


Sales love to blow minor advantages out of proportion trying to seal the deal



> People who have to sell realize they have to tone that down in order to be successful. We have to cut to the chase to get down to the details the customer wants to know about


Look at this baby, the (name of car) in Fascia, it's our most popular model (when it's really the color nobody wanted and its been sitting around on the lot forever), you lucked out and its available,but if you don't take it now, it won't be here tomorrow! They tell customers what they want to hear so they'll feel good about their purchase. 

Even if UltraMAX is superior, a company with a large amount of inventory of second class ballast will probably try to make the difference sound as insignificant as possible so they can clear the warehouse. 




Lighting Retro said:


> There are no feelings, only visual results. No one tries to get away with anything that I am aware of. I know we put together solutions for our customers that try to address their needs as we try to balance the best benefits of technology and application.


Take a picture of something outside of something in the shade and something in sun at the same time. Your eyes can see both things clearly, but the picture will show the item in shadow completely black, or the item in sun completely washed out, which shows that the limited dynamic range cameras have. 

"before" and "after" photos are absolutely useless as cameras don't see it the same way we do. It's also auto-compensating to get the proper exposure. Half the light, it open up a full aperture stop, or doubles exposure time and you'll get same exposure latitude. Even if it wasn't, 1/2 the actual output doesn't look the same on the photo as it does to our eyes. 

Your own commercial website that you like to link a lot is full of those "before and after" photos(that do not show camera settings right on photo) 




> I might have been slightly off on details to the point of 2-4%


If you're going to write off 2-4% as margin of error, how can you even push and believe in premium lamps that are only 5% more efficacious? It would be a fair claim to compare a kit that uses regular base RE80 lamps and say they're identical "within a reasonable margin of error"


----------



## Lighting Retro

Fair enough, I give LOL.


----------



## abandit

Lighting Retro said:


> Fair enough, I give LOL.


I finally found what you were telling me about. Ballast and lamp holders for the T12 to the T-8. Looks like a good deal to me . The two points I addressed at the first were,( still remain) How much does it cost and how much installation cost go with it. My whole point from the very start was this, If you are converting to make more light great, If you are converting to save money don't bother. How many years will it take to re coupe the investment before you can actually save money? And as I pointed out last week, we have examined some power companies bills that reflected what should be a prison term. One of the bill we looked at indicated that if I cut my KWH by 50% it would only reflect a 5% decrease in my bill. If the state or Feds are footing the bill for install, You go! If poor ol Joe the plumber has to come off the hip with the cash, 
I think you and I are looking at this from two extreme perspectives.
There are CFL's out there that do just about anything you want. I fully understand your complaint about reliability. It is a problem. It isn't the CFL that is at fault. It is the cheap shoddy, corner cutting manufacture of that bulb. Several organizations in CA, are trying to get a bill introduced that will put some standards on this growing industry. Not watts or lumens or color but quality standards. And there comes a major rub, to quantify quality to the consumer. The new moduler CFL for the E-27 socket may be a step in the right direction. It will help pipoint problem areas.


----------



## Electric_Light

abandit said:


> that? We have done these test. Now if you compare an old mag. ballast T-12 to the http://www.retro-bright.com/


Lighting Retro,
I didn't look at the Retro-Bright kit. All I can say is. AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA :laughing::laughing:

smaller CFLs do have their place and that is in luminaires with designs that can not accept long tubes. You can actually get better lumens per watt on existing magnetic ballast using triphosphor T12 which you can find at Home Depot. Maintained efficacy is in 50-60 and initial in 60-70 lumens/watt range for smaller CFLs. They are essentially HO to VHO fluorescent lamps, because of the amount of power pushed through the lamp for given size. 

Screw in CFLs are $1-2 retail, however the power factor is around 0.5 and you'll have blobs of bright spots, rather than uniform spread of linear lamps when used in fixture layout that is meant to accommodate linear lamps. 

Good luck finding screw-base 277v CFLs. 

There is also danger of someone using A-19 incandescent lamps in the medium base socket.

To clarify, I was thinking of higher end large CFLs, such as triphosphor 16" 36W and 22 1/2"40W PL-Ls used in 2x2' troffers before I looked at that thing.


----------



## Lighting Retro

I didn't ask you to dog him lol.


----------



## shineretrofits

per_son said:


> Hi everyone! I have question about the upcoming t12 phaseout. As I understand it most t12 bulbs will be phased out by July 1, 2012. I have also heard rumors that 8ft T8's are also part of this phase out? Can anyone verify this as I can't seem to find anything in writing about this. We have about 80 8ft fixtures which are a mix of T12 and T8's (all with 8ft bulbs). Trying to decide on the best upgrade/replacement options. Thanks in advance for any help you can give me!


Hey guys! I've been in the lighting industry awhile and can't believe I haven't run across this forum yet. I've read a lot of posts today and am happy to find a group of like-minded lighting professionals. Aside from the short introduction, I want to say that there is a ton of good information being posted.

I think this thread got sidetracked a bit with the cfl kit but per_son I have some more thoughts on the 8ft retrofit if you're still looking for advice -

There are a number of different retrofit kits that include just pan/ballast covers or different kinds of "winged" reflectors for different ceiling heights. There are 2 or 4-lamp 4ft T8 combinations with different ballast factors you can use depending on what you have in there now. 

Can I ask what the fixture height is and how do you or the customer perceive the light levels in there right now? Do you want to keep the same light levels or brighten it up a bit? 

I would also back up what others have mentioned in that going with a kit would be the right move rather than buying a new complete fixture. They are 1) cheaper and 2) allow you to get all new sockets or lampholders so you don't have to mess with crumbling old ones. I would agree also that you'd want to shift over to 4ft T8's rather than 8ft T8's due to breaking during shipping and I also find them to be more expensive overall vs. the 4ft's you can get (2 x 8ft vs. 4 x 4fts). Hopefully this helps some.

For you other veterans I have a question - Have you guys ever gone with a High BF ballast with 2 T8 lamps (3,100~ lumens) with a reflector kit to replace 2 8ft T12s like in this situation? We've done this in the past and it turned out well, and it saves more energy than just going with a low BF .77 ballast with 4 T8's. I know it depends on the particular situation, but I'm wondering if others have done it as well. 

Good to meet everyone!


----------



## Lighting Retro

You can typically match existing light levels with Low BF ballasts and two T8's, so you most certainly can with Normal or High BF ballasts. Really depends on desired savings or light levels. Really ends up being a design call.


----------



## Electric_Light

shineretrofits said:


> For you other veterans I have a question - Have you guys ever gone with a High BF ballast with 2 T8 lamps (3,100~ lumens) with a reflector kit to replace 2 8ft T12s like in this situation? We've done this in the past and it turned out well, and it saves more energy than just going with a low BF .77 ballast with 4 T8's. I know it depends on the particular situation, but I'm wondering if others have done it as well.
> 
> Good to meet everyone!


75W CW is already phased out, so its most likely that existing T12 setup is using F96T12 60W CW. These lamps are rated 4750 mean lumens and magnetic ballasts are usually 0.95 or so BF, so you'll need system lumen of 4,500 per lamp to match it. 

Reflector kit is equally effective/disturbing whether its on existing T12 or new T8. mirror finish reflectors have a tendency to increase glare. They're used extensively in high-bay luminaires, but not really the best for low height strip lights. 

Osram Sylvania high BF is rated 1.2 BF and high lumen lamps are usually 3,000 mean lumens, so you'd be looking at 20% reduction in system lumens if you were to do what you described. More if you use lower BF "high BF" ballasts.


----------



## Lighting Retro

I've posted footcandle readings in the past of a (2)T8 lamp conversion kit that outperformed (2) 60W T12's. Although you are correct on mean lumens, the CRI plays a role in better appearance. My lumens are typically 1.2 higher with that kit.


----------



## Electric_Light

Lighting Retro said:


> You can typically match existing light levels with Low BF ballasts and two T8's, so you most certainly can with Normal or High BF ballasts. Really depends on desired savings or light levels. Really ends up being a design call.


This is exactly what I meant when you say you can get a way with a lot of cow patties by deliberate omissions and ambiguities. 

Typically the sales & marketing are interested in before = existing setup in about to retire state vs after = new install on day one of use.

"measured" light level can also be manipulated by not measuring correctly. a 4' long linear source emitting 3,000 lumens vs 8' linear source emitting 6,000 lumen could very well get a meter to read the same reading if the meter is placed creatively. 

The inverse law does not work with linear fluorescent, because its not a point source.

What realistically matters is not existing lamps in current state vs new lamps in brand new state. It's the mean lumen to mean lumen.

F96T12 (60W) CW is 4750 mean and driven around 0.88 or 4180 lumens

F32T8 hi-lume is 3,000 mean and ballast you spec drives them at 0.77 or 2310 lumens 

Scenario 1: 
8' 60W standard CW @0.88 to 32W T8 841 [email protected] = 45% light reduction * whatever gain from messing with optics, which can also be applied to existing ballast + lamp combo. 

Scenario 2: 
8' 75W 841 CW @0.94 to 32W T8 841 HL @ 0.77 = 60% drop in light output at source. Yes, 841 F96T12 75W lamps are available. 


You compare worst possible to best possible, but the CRI is about the phosphor and T8 vs T12 is irrelevant here. 

"My lumens are typically 1.2 higher with that kit."
How did you come up with this conclusion and which lab did you submit the entire systems in to for testing? Luminaire lumen testing is not something you can do on-site. 

You have 45% reduction in lamp lumens and a 20% gain in luminaire output? Did you paint the old fixtures flat black inside before testing?


----------



## electricmanscott

You two are going to have awesome makeup sex. :thumbup:


----------



## Lighting Retro

> Did you paint the old fixtures flat black inside before testing?


No, I did not lol. 



> You two are going to have awesome makeup sex.


The man is a lighting encyclopedia, and I learn from him every time we "debate", but I do not always agree with his sentiments based upon standard in field applications he disputes that I find indisputable. 

The new T8's only lose 5% lumens over the life of the lamp, so our measurements will never be that far off. 

Our local utility company will spec out exactly the solution that I posted for rebates. 

Although I cannot explain it adequately, CRI plays a role in the equation. There is a big difference in the old T12 lamps we replace and the new T8. Otherwise it is not explainable. 

It's the only way one can explain how a 4 lamp T5 is superior to a 400W MH. The mean lumens don't bear it out, 100% agree, but in actual practice it is superior. 

Even the screw in CFL kit MAY outperform a old T12 unit. I am not a photometric expert, and I took measurements before and after of different retrofit kits several times at different heights to become comfortable with different applications and feel confident with what was going in. I wouldn't sell it if I didn't believe in it. 

As a matter of fact, I had a completely different stream of income prior to full time lighting, so there was no "sales" motivation to find a way to manipulate data. 

when we put in (4) T8 lamps in 8' linear kits, we had light levels that averaged 2.2 x higher. You can't really compare product like for like unless all other factors are similar. CRI being different plays a role, but you might be able to explain that better than I did. 

When I posted the previous findings when debating this, I posted links to film when reducing 2x4 Troffers with (4) 40W T12 lamps to (2) T8 lamps with reflector kit, 3000 lm 850 lamps, and .88 ballasts. I also filmed the (2)8'T12 60W kits converted to (2)T8 32W .88 kits at that time, and the footcandles were recorded from the spots in both cases. There was no attempt to manipulate data. There was no need to.


----------



## Electric_Light

Lighting Retro said:


> The new T8's only lose 5% lumens over the life of the lamp, so our measurements will never be that far off.


You're still not specific about conditions of existing setup. 



> Our local utility company will spec out exactly the solution that I posted for rebates.


Utilities support conservation effort even if it reduces output as long as efficacy isn't going down along. They didn't post objection to 40W T12 to 34W T12 switch over either,even though it resulted in output reduction roughly proportional to reduction in power. 



> Although I cannot explain it adequately, CRI plays a role in the equation.


That's what I call fluffing up.



> There is a big difference in the old T12 lamps we replace and the new T8. Otherwise it is not explainable.


For the US market, newer T8 (meaning excluding 18" 15W and such) was never available with standard "CW". There is a "big difference" between standard T12 in "standard CW" and "841" as well. 



> It's the only way one can explain how a 4 lamp T5 is superior to a 400W MH. The mean lumens don't bear it out, 100% agree


So it doesn't. Many 400W MH replacements are 6 lamp F54T5HO. There are also new MH systems that use solid state ballast and new arc capsule design that with significantly reduced depreciation that comes very competitive with fluorescent. 

The 40% light loss over the life is a big blow on conventional MH.



> but in actual practice it is superior.


fluffing. 



> Even the screw in CFL kit MAY outperform a old T12 unit.


Possibly, if you mean OLD magnetic ballast design, some of which used aluminum wires. Magnetic ballast from 90s are usually low loss type. Spiral CFLs are more efficacious than incandescent and work well in luminaires designed for traditional bulb shape, but the decay is significant and efficacy is not great to begin with. 

I am not a photometric expert, and I took measurements before and after of different retrofit kits several times at different heights to become comfortable with different applications and feel confident with what was going in. I wouldn't sell it if I didn't believe in it. 



> when we put in (4) T8 lamps in 8' linear kits, we had light levels that averaged 2.2 x higher. You can't really compare product like for like unless all other factors are similar. CRI being different plays a role, but you might be able to explain that better than I did.


It does not. Properly made and calibrated light meter does not give a hoot about CRI. 



> When I posted the previous findings when debating this, I posted links to film when reducing 2x4 Troffers with (4) 40W T12 lamps to (2) T8 lamps with reflector kit, 3000 lm 850 lamps, and .88 ballasts. I also filmed the (2)8'T12 60W kits converted to (2)T8 32W .88 kits at that time, and the footcandles were recorded from the spots in both cases. There was no attempt to manipulate data. There was no need to.


Intensity can be changed by collimating the beam in the general area of light meter. When you add more lamps, the source becomes "wider" and becomes closer to being a "plate" of light. so you can be just enlarging the area with out proportional change in intensity. 

As you get it higher up, it behaves closer to a point source.

So if you were measuring the brightness of a TV and the lamps lighting up the upper half of screen burns out and you're measuring at lower half, you won't see much difference in "FC" readings.


----------



## Lighting Retro

> Quote:
> Although I cannot explain it adequately, CRI plays a role in the equation.
> That's what I call fluffing up.


Call it fluff all you want, but I have yet to see an installation were our recommendations were not superior to the existing lighting. You seem very quick to dismiss the impact of CRI. Why is that? 

I have seen installations where 4 lamp T5's were actually superior to depreciated 1000W Metal Halide. You seem stuck on comparing product on mean lumens, but that is not always a concern of the client. When you upgrade their lighting, and it's BETTER today than what they had yesterday, they are very happy with that. And since the newer fl. technology depreciates so little, it makes sense to improve on what they have vs. try to compare it to some ideal the client is not aware of, doesn't care about, and in their mind is probably unimportant or unexplainable. You can't very well say, "Well, your facility SHOULD look like this, so we'll recommend something based on something you don't have, because the book says we should." 

That wouldn't fly. Ask anyone in the field if they have EVER seen a 4 lamp T5 be outperformed by a 400W MH. 

CRI might not show up on a meter, but people can tell the difference. If that's fluff, send me more fluff!


----------



## Electric_Light

Lighting Retro said:


> Call it fluff all you want, but I have yet to see an installation were our recommendations were not superior to the existing lighting. You seem very quick to dismiss the impact of CRI. Why is that?


It is a completely different metric. It is not related to lumens. CRI is a measure of degree of distortion for very specific sample of eight color chips and it is computed as per CIE standards based on instrument readings. 



> I have seen installations where 4 lamp T5's were actually superior to depreciated 1000W Metal Halide. You seem stuck on comparing product on mean lumens


Take the entire luminaires, test it in an integrating semi-sphere and confirm your claim. 



> but that is not always a concern of the client. When you upgrade their lighting, and it's BETTER today than what they had yesterday, they are very happy with that.


Give me "better" objectively. If a building was used for one purpose and it is being used for another application now that requires much less light (i.e. automotive paint shop to warehouse), then simply turning off every other lights can be construed as "better". 



> That wouldn't fly. Ask anyone in the field if they have EVER seen a 4 lamp T5 be outperformed by a 400W MH.


Car seems peppier, quieter after installing tornado fuel saver so therefore it is outperforming what it was like before. Stereo sounds "better" after $$$ too much speaker cords. Are you convinced? Testimonials often lack the proper control to be objective enough to be meaningful. There's also psychological effect after spending a bunch of money on something. 



> CRI might not show up on a meter, but people can tell the difference. If that's fluff, send me more fluff!


CRI does not show up in luminance meter. It can be evaluated with instruments intended to do so. 

CRI is an evaluation under very specific prescribed conditions. 

http://www.lrc.rpi.edu/education/learning/terminology/cri.asp

Here, you're given two sources with CRI of 70. Which one is "better"? Is there an objective answer? Same CRI and you can tell the difference, thus it questions the validity of claim "the difference is due to CRI difference". 

Another good example is GE Reveal incandescent which has a CRI of around 70, as oppposed to ~100 of normal light bulbs. It gets 70, because under lab conditions, it causes distortion on some color chips, however some people like the accentuation caused by distortion. This isn't a matter of better/worse. It comes to a matter of personal preference.

Given chicken burrito and steak burrito and out of a sample of 50, 30 favored chicken, does that make chicken "better" ? No, I don't think so, it's personal preference.


----------



## MDShunk

Watching two lighting guys duke it out on a forum is a lot like watching two girls in a slap fight.


----------



## Bob Badger

MDShunk said:


> Watching two lighting guys duke it out on a forum is a lot like watching two girls in a slap fight.


No, not even that good, at least the two girls may be hot. :laughing:


----------



## Lighting Retro

Hey, I'm hot lol.


----------



## Lighting Retro

> Take the entire luminaires, test it in an integrating semi-sphere and confirm your claim.


Not even sure what that means. You win. 



> Give me "better" objectively. If a building was used for one purpose and it is being used for another application now that requires much less light (i.e. automotive paint shop to warehouse), then simply turning off every other lights can be construed as "better".


OK, let's play along with your silliness. No customer is going to do their lighting and leave the building. Of course it's for the same application. Better as in "I see better" as in "it's much brighter" as in "it uses much less power". That kind of better. Now remember, this was not the only thing I was doing when I started, so I was actually quite suspicious of results before we got them. 

You have tried to tell me footcandle readings can be deceiving. CRI is only preference. You have said visual results can be deceiving and can be impacted by the fact the customer just dropped their load of cash on new lighting, so they can't be trusted. Sorry, but those are the main things that matter in the industry. The book may say one thing, but if the customer isn't satisfied with light levels, if they pay too much, if it doesn't look better, they are not happy and do not pay. I have a large set of references that base their opinions off of just those things. 

No one has this book of chinese you use to evaluate projects. We aren't that smart, so we go with tangible and less credible things like measurable results with light meters (without intention to manipulate data), how our clients feel, and how we feel. I have found I will take that over the book every day. 




> Given chicken burrito and steak burrito and out of a sample of 50, 30 favored chicken, does that make chicken "better" ? No, I don't think so, it's personal preference.


chicken is better, so this does not surprise me :thumbsup:


----------



## LightsRus

Electric_Light said:


> It is a completely different metric. It is not related to lumens. CRI is a measure of degree of distortion for very specific sample of eight color chips and it is computed as per CIE standards based on instrument readings.


I don't understand your association of CRI with Lumens?
CRI has everything to do with customer acceptance, which is what pays the bill.
The 8-color CRI scheme is being deprecated; retail lighting has been using the 14-color scheme for 2 years now. This was because MH was too lacking in red, however, since CRI averages the total, a high blue content gave it high CRI number. LED lighting in retail and in medical apps requires R9 enhancement. I found this material interesting and may help illustrate the necessity http://www.eyelighting.com/pres/EYE_Cera_Arc_Natural_Red.pdf
Both LED and MH can cause reds to appear washed out or the wrong color entirely. Red meat, apples and red peppers would not look right; a surgeon might cut off too much of your leg.

Moral to the story - Higher the CRI the better, but, identical CRI # at different color temperatures will render the same colors differently. Ultimately if the customer likes it, it sure is good.



> Given chicken burrito and steak burrito and out of a sample of 50, 30 favored chicken, does that make chicken "better" ? No, I don't think so, it's personal preference.


No question - chicken is better. I prefer Fajitas to Burritos, but, if the customer likes beef burritos, sell them beef burritos (and be quiet about it !).


----------



## Electric_Light

LightsRus said:


> I don't understand your association of CRI with Lumens?


I was saying that lumen and CRI are unrelated. 



> CRI has everything to do with customer acceptance, which is what pays the bill.


Not necessarily. CRI is not a measure of how pleasing it looks. The GE Reveal(CRI ~70) is sold as premium product and costs more than regular incandescent lamp (CRI 100), because it artificially distorts color, so to speak, to make it look more "pleasing" to some people. 



> The 8-color CRI scheme is being deprecated; retail lighting has been using the 14-color scheme for 2 years now.


As far as I know, new standard hasn't been widely adopted yet. The published data is still based on Ra8 system. The Ra8 dates back to 1960 if I recall correctly. 



> This was because MH was too lacking in red, however, since CRI averages the total, a high blue content gave it high CRI number. LED lighting in retail and in medical apps requires R9 enhancement. I found this material interesting and may help illustrate the necessity http://www.eyelighting.com/pres/EYE_Cera_Arc_Natural_Red.pdf
> Both LED and MH can cause reds to appear washed out or the wrong color entirely. Red meat, apples and red peppers would not look right


What is the "right" appearance of red meat and produce? As seen under daylight outdoors? Promolux makes meat display case, but they make meat look "wrong", but "pleasing" through selective spectrum enhancement that accentuate red that's seen as desirable in American consumer market. 



> Moral to the story - Higher the CRI the better, but, identical CRI # at different color temperatures will render the same colors differently. Ultimately if the customer likes it, it sure is good.


You could have similar CCTs and similar CRI, but have things render differently if the two sources have drastically different SPDs.

A 5000K 86 CRI tri phosphor source and a 5,000K 90 CRI smooth spectrum source behaves quite differently depending on what is being illuminated. CCDs and films also have different response characteristics so CRI doesn't mean much. A very very high near IR content doesn't affect CRI at all to human audience. It affects film and CCDs.


----------



## Lighting Retro

I think this ability you have to divert a topic is a God given gift that should not be overlooked. Have you ever considered being a lawyer?


----------



## Electric_Light

Lighting Retro said:


> Not even sure what that means. You win.


So, you claim that retrofits you sell perform comparable and at the same time admit you have no idea how total light amount in lumens is measured.
It's like making a claim that your container holds more water, then when told to weigh the contents on a balance, you have no idea what you're just told. 



> OK, let's play along with your silliness. No customer is going to do their lighting and leave the building. Of course it's for the same application. Better as in "I see better" as in "it's much brighter" as in "it uses much less power".


Sales isn't about being correct. It's about persuasion and how far you can stretch your claims, be it true or BS. If you successfully convince a customer to buy blue shirts instead of red ones simply because you have way more of blue in inventory and you want to get rid of it by BSing how much better blue is, that's BSing your way through. Not proving that blue is better.



> You have tried to tell me footcandle readings can be deceiving. CRI is only preference.


It was even mentioned in teleconference that you referred me that placement of meter right under the luminaires is cheating.

http://www.electriciantalk.com/f8/lithonia-es8-retrofit-14250/index3/#post251405

FC is a measure of intensity. (quantity per area)
Lumen is a measure of quantity. 

You can turn off areas in unneeded areas and still maintain the same intensity in relevant area. 



> You have said visual results can be deceiving and can be impacted by the fact the customer just dropped their load of cash on new lighting, so they can't be trusted.


"visual results" can not be objectively quantified. It seems better, feels brighter, I feel more energetic and such testimonials are used by infomercials at 3AM be it some stupid exercise machines, vitamin supplements, "full spectrum" lighting or what not.


----------



## Lighting Retro

Lighting Retro said:


> I think this ability you have to divert a topic is a God given gift that should not be overlooked. Have you ever considered being a lawyer?





> Originally Posted by *Lighting Retro*
> _Not even sure what that means. You win._


Obviously that was a joke. What I really meant to say, is that you wore me out, and I have no desire to discuss this further. It's pointless. You don't have in field experience, and it is obvious by your posts. I'm not an engineer, and it's obvious by mine. 

Your little crusade against salespeople is a little ridiculous though. You really don't understand how things work, and you seem to have an axe to grind with the world of sales. Without them, you don't eat. You seem to think the worst of people for some reason, but whatever floats your boat brother. I still admire your vast knowledge, but I am left more convinced than ever that there is a balance of knowledge and in field experience that must occur to be successful in this game. 

Peace out.


----------



## guest

Ok, this was an interesting thread... 

But I have one other thing to note about that cfl retrofit kit..since it uses standard screw base cfl's what is there to prevent someone from replacing the cfl's with standard incandescent lamps? 

I am aware that incandescents are being phased out but I also know a lot of folks who are stocking up now.


----------



## Lighting Retro

There is nothing to prevent it at all. But there is also no way to keep people from putting T12 lamps back in place of T8's as long as they exist either. See it all the time.


----------



## Electric_Light

Lighting Retro said:


> There is nothing to prevent it at all. But there is also no way to keep people from putting T12 lamps back in place of T8's as long as they exist either. See it all the time.


There is really no harm though, other than reduced lamp life. 40W T12 is designed for 430mA and T8 lamps are designed for 265mA and the arc voltage of T12 is lower for the same current, so they just operate at 25W or so.


----------



## Lighting Retro

the 40W operates at 25W? Wow, first I've heard that. It would appear the main downside would be non matching product and lumen output then eh?


----------



## Electric_Light

Lighting Retro said:


> the 40W operates at 25W? Wow, first I've heard that. It would appear the main downside would be non matching product and lumen output then eh?


The ballast will be fine as the T8 ones are meant to accommodate anything from 2' 17W to 4' 32W and a 40W T12 behaves somewhere in between at drive current produced by T8 ballasts. (magnetic reference ballast at 60Hz is 265mA, but a 0.88 BF high-freq will be less) 

F40T12s were not meant to be instant started and when you operate it on T8 ballast, it will operate at reduced output (~200mA or so), which is essentially dimming without providing cathode heaters, so lamp will fail prematurely. Wattage isn't proportional to current, because as the current(controlled by ballast), voltage increases(set by negative resistance characteristic of lamp). 

For the same fill gas, thinner lamps have higher voltage for given current.

If you put F32T8 into a F40T12 magnetic ballast, the series capacitor-inductor will not match and cause both the ballast and lamps to fail.


----------



## Lighting Retro

You should consider writing textbooks if you don't already. Some people have a gift for that, and there are royalties involved. I have an uncle that does that in Real Estate, and it's been a wise investment of time.


----------



## electricmanscott

Lighting Retro said:


> You should consider writing textbooks if you don't already.


Yeah, they'd be a great insomnia cure. :laughing:


----------



## HARRY304E

..........................


----------



## JoeD23

Lighting Retro said:


> Yeah, I didn't word that too hot. I personally feel, and this is the sales guy in me speaking, that a kit that removes the old tombstones/sockets, has no dark spots like the one linked to cause uneven light distribution, and has a longer life span is more attractive to my customer.
> 
> The technical guy in me can't make sense of Total Cost of Ownership from the bidding side, stomach the warranty calls sure to come from having hundreds or thousands of CFL's on a job, make sense of the photometric or wattage calculations as being beneficial when compared to the linear kit.
> 
> I have no stock in either option, but from a purely practical standpoint, I can't come to any conclusion why I would choose to retrofit 8' strips with CFL's. While I agree it may outperform T12, I can't see how it would outperform T8. And I can't stand the though of leaving old tombstones behind. That just seems so tacky.
> 
> That is what I meant when I said obviously superior. At least to me with the data I currently have. I find more information can temper how you feel on things, so we'll see if he decides to do testing or not.


----------



## JoeD23

LED. Bypass ballast. Maybe I’m late to the conversation otherwise just throw line and jetsam


----------



## jw0445

Like over a decade late. Stop that


----------



## Spark Master

This thread started 12 years ago, I bet a lot has been phased out since then. I just trashed some 8 foot T8's.


----------

