# Lithonia ES8 retrofit



## fraydo (Mar 30, 2009)

Have any of you done this? Our city hall did on their first floor and now the chamber of commerce wants us to quote them on this. Personally, I'm curious if it makes any difference to do this. My supervisor is wondering how long it takes per fixture to change. City hall had 3-lamp,4' lay-ins changed and the chamber has 4-lamp, 4' lay-ins to change. According to the city, their maintenace supervisor took 15 min per fixture but that sounds too quick to me. What do y'all think?


----------



## Lighting Retro (Aug 1, 2009)

Just so everyone knows what you are talking about, basically it's a troffer fixture replacement. It's a 2 lamp T8 parabolic like here: 

Although changing out a troffer MAY take only 15 minutes once you have everything you need sitting at the fixture location, this really does not take into account the time required for bringing all of the fixtures into the facility, setup, opening of the fixtures, removal of the old fixtures, and delamping/deballasting of the old fixture for recycling, and disposal of the fixture. We all know that can take as much time as the actual install depending on how spread our your project is and how many fixtures. 

It's the customer's job to get the best price possible. It's the contractor's job to educate them on what a realistic cost is to do the work. When they try to lock you into a "time per fixture" to determine what they think is a reasonable cost, be sure to bring up all of those other items that really go into the time per fixture. They can simply not think about those things, and it's ok to educate them.


----------



## Lighting Retro (Aug 1, 2009)

To address the time question is a loaded question. Experienced lighting techs that do this all the time will be much faster than an inexperienced apprentice. You guys should know how long it takes it change out a fixture, but my guess would be you'll want to budget around 30 minutes per fixture overall for the entire process when determining manpower needed and length of job. Hope that helps, thanks.


----------



## fraydo (Mar 30, 2009)

Thanks for the response. The chamber is a long time customer of ours and will understand the time variables involved. The question was aimed more at the actual work involved. Is it basically removing the "guts" and putting new ones in? I'm assuming its all modular so there's no need to modify the housing. Are we looking at reballasting or just the luminaire parts are changing?

To clear things up they want to use the existing housing not change out the whole fixture.


----------



## Lighting Retro (Aug 1, 2009)

ah, I see, I thought according to the info you gave that it was a new fixture replacement

If it's a retrofit kit, typically you have to gut the fixture which includes lamp removal, ballast cover removal, ballast removal, and possible the socket bar removal on each side. You should have nothing but an empty can left when you are done with your power wires coming in. 

If it is 3 or 4 lamp currently, and you are going to 2 lamp, you will usually install a reflector and new socket bar on each side for your new repositioned lamps, and it also acts as your reflector holder/ballast cover. There is prep time to prepare your kits by wiring your ballast to the new shunted sockets and installing the sockets onto the socket bars. 

15 minutes is possible, but not likely if you haven't been doing them on a regular basis. A more manageable time frame is probably 20-30 minutes for most technicians new to this process. If you pay guys by the piece you will see the efficiency go up in install time frames as they find ways to go faster on their own. Usually takes one day to get a rhythm, and then it goes quicker from there if you are new at it. Experienced techs can do them in 15 minutes, but you don't see most techs go faster than that.


----------



## fraydo (Mar 30, 2009)

Thanks for the info that's what i figured. I think after the first couple i can get around 20 min. Have been doing a generator install and haven't done a proper service call in a while but this sounds like cake. Have you done these specifically? The closest I've done are t12 to t8 retrofits. Just the ballasts,lamps and any broken tombstones.


----------



## Lighting Retro (Aug 1, 2009)

Yes, I've done them myself too. Very simple installation overall depending on brand of kit. I have not used these specifically, but I would imagine they work fine. Basically it's just like the retrofits you've done except you attach your ballast wires to new socket bars so that the lamps are repositioned in the fixture. Along with that, you install a reflector to take full advantage of the 360' of the lamp. After 5 fixtures you'll be a near expert. 

Until you find a fixture they don't fit in lol. Watch out for kits in Parabolics. The cans can be very shallow and they may not close. Might have to speak specifically about that with your supplier.


----------



## fraydo (Mar 30, 2009)

Great,thanks!:thumbsup: So it's the same lamp and ballast? I thought it was like the t8 equivalent of the t12 ho or vho. Interesting.


----------



## Lighting Retro (Aug 1, 2009)

no you're good. 2 T8's can take the place of 4 T12's. They just look better with the reflector when repositioned.


----------



## sparky105 (Sep 29, 2009)

just finish 286 4 lamp t 12 to t8 

In an office with sales people around. 2 2nd year apprenti and myself. 
average was 4 fixtures per hour per man with material moving and clean up.
Take out 4 bulbs 2 ballasts and install 1 ballast and 4 lamps.clean the shade.
If there was a desk clean up the wire stippings. Still cant put my arms down lol good luck


----------



## fraydo (Mar 30, 2009)

sparky105 said:


> just finish 286 4 lamp t 12 to t8
> 
> In an office with sales people around. 2 2nd year apprenti and myself.
> average was 4 fixtures per hour per man with material moving and clean up.
> ...


That's pretty good did the same at 4 story bldg with 2 stairwells and the 4th floor landings needed a 12' ladder. glad it was just 4 floors.


----------



## Electric_Light (Apr 6, 2010)

Lighting Retro said:


> no you're good. 2 T8's can take the place of 4 T12's. They just look better with the reflector when repositioned.


Depends on what you're trying to accomplish. If you want to maintain a similar light level, a two lamp high BF ballast with two RE800 T8 lamps will get around 80% four F34T12/CW on full output magnetic ballast.


----------



## Lighting Retro (Aug 1, 2009)

You are talking lumens only, but not taking into account CRI. We do 2 F32T8's all day long with a low ballast factor and it blows away (4) F34WT12. The reflector actually makes a big difference though. If you don't have one, you lose too much light up into the corners of the fixture vs. capturing the full 360 degree capability of the lamps.


----------



## Electric_Light (Apr 6, 2010)

Lighting Retro said:


> You are talking lumens only, but not taking into account CRI.


That's a separate issue from light level though and F40T12 and F34T12 in premium RE80 are available that employ the same phosphor and provide the same CRI as RE80 T8s. These meet the efficacy standards even after July 14, 2012. RE80 is not something only T5s and T8s are privileged to.

Luminaire efficacy can be improved from simply scrubbing out existing optics and installing RE80 T12 lamps.



> We do 2 F32T8's all day long with a low ballast factor and it blows away (4) F34WT12. The reflector actually makes a big difference though. If you don't have one, you lose too much light up into the corners of the fixture vs. capturing the full 360 degree capability of the lamps.


As I said before, depends on what you're trying to accomplish. If the lighting level was designed much higher than we consider necessary at the time the original fixtures were installed, then reduce the output. Reducing when its okay and turning off when they're not in use both conserves energy. 

4 F34T12 (48" 34W T12)/62 CRI CW has LLD of 85% or so and yields ~9,200 maintained lumens(10,600 new), because most commercial T12 magnetic ballasts are usually close to 1.0 BF. I find that retrofit sell sheets are pessimistic about existing installs so that after value looks better and usually base the existing installs in worst possible conditions with worn out lamps with a bunch of crud building up.

Using 2 standard RE80 T8s that will meet next year's standards (RE70s are going to be banned) on low BF ballasts (0.78) you're only going to get around 4370 maintained lumens. [email protected], [email protected]

4700, 5300 and 7100 lumens maintained if you use special high efficacy lamps. 

So, if you use high lumen lamps, high BF ballast, then improve the efficiency of the fixture by 30%, then you'll match the existing setup. 

I have to disagree there is no way you're going to match, or even come close to 9,200 lumens with 4,370 lumens unless you're comparing fixtures so dirty they're almost black and shiny new premium efficiency fixture.


----------



## Lighting Retro (Aug 1, 2009)

We use top of the line 800 series lamps and low ballast factor ballasts all day. Like you say, there are NO environments that you walk into where T12 lamps are not depreciated in bulk, so we do most definitely get better results. As a matter of fact, many of the rebate programs require that exact setup to quality. They want > 3100 lumen lamps and Premium NEMA rated Low Ballast Factor Ballasts. And we take photometrics before and after. I can tell you that 2 T8's with reflector put out more light than 4 T12's no matter where we are. Is it because the T12's lose so much of their lumens? Quite possibly.


----------



## Electric_Light (Apr 6, 2010)

Lighting Retro said:


> I can tell you that 2 T8's with reflector put out more light than 4 T12's no matter where we are.


Are you comparing same type of fixtures? If the old fixture is a plain opaque lensed troffer with a 30 year old yellowed lens with a lot of dust and you bring in a new parabolic design with exposed lamps, I would attribute the fixture as a big difference. You'll get a big "improvement" if you take the lenses out from old fixtures and take a before & after measurement. 



> Is it because the T12's lose so much of their lumens? Quite possibly.


The cool white halo-phosphor have a lumen maintenance of 85% at 50% life, 80% at end of life. But its incorrect to refer this as "the T12", because T12s are available in RE800 too. 

See attached photo. RE phosphor T8s and T12s have about the same lumen maintenance. 
Graph on left is from a 1990s literature when T12 REs were being promoted. Now, the RE800 data for T12s are usually "left out" since it makes the gain look smaller for T8s and T5s 

There is no doubt the retrofit improves efficacy, but "four lamp 34WT12 is matched with two lamp low BF T8 is same" is a stretch unless you make the old luminaires to be in very bad conditions. Dirty with very yellowed lens and decayed lamps. 

Parabolics have its own issues with "cave effect" though. I'm seeing non planar lensed troffers these days. See page 12. 
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/pdfs/fed_light_gde.pdf


I just checked out the ES8 specs and it is inflated a bit.
They use 4840 lumen 2 lamp lamp-ballast setup consuming 48W with 100.83Lm/W system efficacy. The fixture is stated to be 85.6% efficient, so the luminaire efficacy should be 100.83 x 0.856 = 86.3 Lm/W.. this is with brand new lamps without a spec of dust on parts though.

If you look at the spec sheet, it reports 86 Lm/W which is fair enough
http://www.acuitybrandslighting.com/Library/LL/documents/specsheets/2ES8P-2x4.pdf

But they've inflated 3.1% out of thin air in the marketing brochure to 89 lm/W 
http://www.lithonia.com/es8/pdfs/es8_Brochure.pdf


----------



## Lighting Retro (Aug 1, 2009)

I'm a simple guy that doesn't dig into the stats near as much as you. 



> There is no doubt the retrofit improves efficacy, but "four lamp 34WT12 is matched with two lamp low BF T8 is same" is a stretch unless you make the old luminaires to be in very bad conditions. Dirty with very yellowed lens and decayed lamps.


It's not a stretch. We do it all the time and the customers agree it is much better light. The UTILITY companies insist on that solution and pay for it. Let's just say I'm going to trust their research more than your attempt to discredit the solution. I personally have done the footcandle readings, and I can tell you they are superior. 

You may also find it interesting that (2) F32T8850 lamps with reflector will outperform (2)F96T12 lamps in a strip fixture. We take footcandle readings before and after and regularly get 120% on footcandles. Suffice it to say there is a reason our niche exists.

I don't think you can assume that all T12 product out there is relatively new. We run across 40W lamps all the time. OLD ONES. They had a lot of lumen depreciation in past generations of product, so going from old to new technology is extremely noticeable. 

It's like banking on the lumen depreciation of metal halides when replacing with high bay fluorescents. You know the lumen depreciation is there even if initial lumens is higher with MH, but the mean lumens are higher with fluorescent. Very interesting new digital MH out thought that lose about 5% of lumens. I may post more of that in another post later.


----------



## Electric_Light (Apr 6, 2010)

Lighting Retro said:


> It's not a stretch. We do it all the time and the customers agree it is much better light.


I don't disagree that it could be a better solution. The target is to keep the power consumption to the minimum while maintaining the necessary level of light, which includes reducing light level if the existing light level is too high.



> The UTILITY companies insist on that solution and pay for it.


Utility companies want to reduce wattage, period. I think various standards are there, so that hacks would cut completely ignore anything other than wattage. PG&E pays $1.50 incentive per lamp to simply re-lamp F32T8 lamps to 25WT8/48" in existing setup at the expense of output.
http://www.pge.com/mybusiness/energysavingsrebates/rebatesincentives/ref/lighting/lowwattaget8/



> Let's just say I'm going to trust their research more than your attempt to discredit the solution. I personally have done the footcandle readings, and I can tell you they are superior.


Different luminaires have different light distribution pattern. A strip light has more wall-wash than a parabolic. Are you taking it right underneath, or taking measurements at multiple spots as well as the wall (which adds to atmosphere and indirect lighting)?



> You may also find it interesting that (2) F32T8850 lamps with reflector will outperform (2)F96T12 lamps in a strip fixture. We take footcandle readings before and after and regularly get 120% on footcandles. Suffice it to say there is a reason our niche exists.


But, how about when comparing fixtures with similar optics, and one using F96T12/RE80 (6600new, 6225 mean) vs F32T8/RE80? When comparisons are made between T12s and T8s, usually they bank on higher lumen depreciation of CW phosphor used in T12 lamps. 

You can get about the same maintained lumens of 75W F96T12/CW just by relamping with 60W ES type using RE80 phosphor. 

There's definite benefit from going from 1970s magnetic ballast to 2010 electronic ballast.

Same with CW to RE80 phosphor

Then there is modifying the reflector/fixture.




> I don't think you can assume that all T12 product out there is relatively new. We run across 40W lamps all the time. OLD ONES. They had a lot of lumen depreciation in past generations of product, so going from old to new technology is extremely noticeable.


What I'm saying is that you can only credit the new technology for greater gain that happens because of worn out state of old system. 

Let's compare the performance of cutting edge tires to old tires. A fair comparison of real gain is comparing the performance of new model tires against old model tires when they were new. Not brand new new-model against old model tires that are almost bald. 



> Very interesting new digital MH out thought that lose about 5% of lumens. I may post more of that in another post later.


"digital" :laughing:


----------



## Lighting Retro (Aug 1, 2009)

You are kind of annoying. You come across as one of those guys who can't stand to lose a debate on ANYTHING, and you persist to the point where people just say "You're right!" just so they can leave your presence and be done with you. No offense intended.


----------



## Electric_Light (Apr 6, 2010)

Lighting Retro said:


> You are kind of annoying. You come across as one of those guys who can't stand to lose a debate on ANYTHING, and you persist to the point where people just say "You're right!" just so they can leave your presence and be done with you. No offense intended.


Your claims are stretching things a bit, to say you can match the lighting level with half the lumen output.

I'm not saying everything you're saying is wrong.


----------



## Lighting Retro (Aug 1, 2009)

Electric_Light said:


> Your claims are stretching things a bit, to say you can match the lighting level with half the lumen output.
> 
> I'm not saying everything you're saying is wrong.


No one said 1/2 lumen output. Those are your words. I said half the lamps or lamp feet. Thank you for proving my point by the way. :thumbsup:


----------



## Electric_Light (Apr 6, 2010)

Lighting Retro said:


> No one said 1/2 lumen output. Those are your words. I said half the lamps or lamp feet. Thank you for proving my point by the way. :thumbsup:





> You may also find it interesting that (2) F32T8850 lamps with reflector will outperform (2)F96T12 lamps in a strip fixture.


I'm not sure what you meant by two 4' T8 RE80 lamps matching two 8' F96T12 of unspecified type then. 

If we assume CW phosphor, then half the lumen is implied. 

You said 2 F32T8 RE80 matches two F96T12.
F32T8 RE80 (hi-lumen lamp) x 2 = ~5180 maintained lumens combined on a common 0.88 BF "normal" BF ballast. 

2 x F96T12/CW is 10700 maintained lumens total on typical 0.9 to 1.0 BF magnetic ballast.

4900lm-mean/10700-mean = 46%, or roughly half. 

Did I misunderstand you?


----------



## Lighting Retro (Aug 1, 2009)

I'm tempted to just blow you off brother. 

1st, we only use Hi lumen lamps, so we talking 3100 lumens each. The T12's we replace are typically quite depreciated. The CRI is much higher on the T8, so there is more visible light to the human eye. The footcandle readings are higher with the TWO 4' T8 lamps we install vs old (2) 8' T12's. Notice I also said reflector in the original post. The reflector reduces the waste of lighting going up toward the ceiling and directs the 360 degree characteristics of the lamps downward so there is no waste. 

Proper photometrically designed reflectors make a HUGE difference. I am done discussing this with you. Your experience seems to smack of book smarts only and not real world applications in this industry niche. You come off as a know it all, but in fact you don't. How can this be you say? How can you possibly be wrong? I actually don't give a rip how, but you are. I have the COUNTLESS before and after readings that have shown me, and I have my eyes that have seen it OVER and OVER. My customers see it. Sorry you cannot see it or have not experienced it first hand. It's really not my problem, and I don't feel the need to convince you. I just have a problem with you spreading your misinformation as if it was truth. .


----------



## Electric_Light (Apr 6, 2010)

Lighting Retro said:


> 1st, we only use Hi lumen lamps, so we talking 3100 lumens each.


2418 lumens each is the best you get, even on paper, with "low BF" (usually 0.78) ballasts you're spec'ing. 

It's only 3100 lumen each if you are paring them with 1.0 BF ballast, I used the most common "normal" BF in the previous post, which is 0.88. 



> The T12's we replace are typically quite depreciated.


ok, no argument there.



> The *CRI is much higher* on the T8, *so there is more visible light to the human eye.*


That is misinformation. Lumen is a unit for amount of light, as perceived by *our eyes* 

The way you phrase it makes people think CRI is higher because of "T8". 
CRI is higher on RE80 phosphor than CW phosphor(which 4' T8s are not made with in N.A.), but we do have 4' RE80 85 CRI T12 with 90 lm/W. 

Energy saving isn't quite as good as doing an entire retro but cost is substantially less. Changing to F34T12/RE80 or F96T12/RE80 60W from existing full wattage CW maintains the same light and saves power and it only involves ordering different lamps. 



> The reflector reduced the waste of lighting up the ceiling and directs the 360 degree characteristics of the lamps downward so there is no waste.


I'm not disagreeing that fixture efficiency plays a significant role. However, same level light with half the lumen is a stretch. 



> Proper photometrically designed reflectors make a HUGE difference.


Agreed.



> I just have a problem with you spreading your misinformation as if it was truth. .


Same for you buddy, such as attributing CRI to "increased light level".


----------



## Lighting Retro (Aug 1, 2009)

> That is misinformation. Lumen is a unit for amount of light, as perceived by *our eyes*


Perhaps you can explain to the masses why 841 T8 3100 lumen lamps have a different CRI than 850 T8 3100 lumen lamps. Are you stating that lumens is all that matters and that CRI does not play a role in visible light to us? REALLY?


----------



## Electric_Light (Apr 6, 2010)

Lighting Retro said:


> Perhaps you can explain to the masses why 841 T8 3100 lumen lamps have a different CRI than 850 T8 3100 lumen lamps.


I have no clue. I personally think lamp manufacturers are playing games to a degree trying to gain performance competitive advantage over each other. 

SYLVANIA's XPS lamps were rated at 3200 lumens and 86 CRI 10 years ago
http://ecom.mysylvania.com/miniapps/NewandFeaturedProducts/MayNewProducts/SPHSS/SPHTS OCTRON XPS.pdf

In the latest literature, they're 3100 lumens and 85 CRI, except 5,000K is 3000lm/ 81 CRI
http://assets.sylvania.com/assets/Documents/FL038R1.e5960706-ef72-4c26-9161-633f817703b0.pdf



For Philips lamps
830 to 841 are 85, 850 is 82. At one point, Philips had *all* the RE80s at 86 CRI a few years ago. 

http://www.lighting.philips.com/us_en/browseliterature/download/p-5369.pdf




> Are you stating that lumens is all that matters and that CRI does not play a role in visible light to us? REALLY?


I didn't say it has no role, but what you said earlier is incorrect. In your exact words "The *CRI is much higher* on the T8, *so there is more visible light to the human eye" *
I didn't say it was irrelevant. I said CRI is not related to quantity of visible light like you stated. 

http://www.lrc.rpi.edu/education/learning/intro.asp?mode=terminology
They have all the relevant definitions there. I think you'll find it interesting that even same CRI sources can render color differently.
LRC @ Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute is more or less a neutral third party source. 

CRI is calculated based on eight standard color chips and its only useful for comparing lamps of similar Kelvin CCT, even then its far from being perfect.

~6500K natural sunlight and 2900K incandescent lamps both have a CRI of 100, yet obviously the color rendition is not the same and the UV present in sunlight affects rendition as well due to fluorescence. In fact, they add fluorescent dye to detergent to make clothes look bright in sunlight. A solution of laundry detergent glows blue under black light.


----------



## Lighting Retro (Aug 1, 2009)

There is a difference because it does matter.


----------



## Electric_Light (Apr 6, 2010)

Lighting Retro said:


> There is a difference because it does matter.


Not in the sense of quantity of light though.

In regards to RE850 having a CRI four points lower than the 827 to 841 in newer catalogs? 

I still don't see where/how you came up with higher CRI translates to "more visible light" :001_huh:

Anything between T8 and T12 with less than 89 LPW, which includes T12/CW is getting banned next year anyways. But 40 and 34W T12 in premium RE800 will remain available since they meet the standards.


----------



## Lighting Retro (Aug 1, 2009)

> Perhaps you can explain to the masses why 841 T8 3100 lumen lamps have a different CRI than 850 T8 3100 lumen lamps.


I don't think you have answered the question. Or is the issue with the phrase "more visible" vs. "more clarity" etc? We can spin it one way or another, but CRI impacts the visual effect of the product. If I compare two products with 3000 lumens, and one product has a CRI of 50 vs. 86, which one looks better? How will the footcandles measure? Does the light meter say the same thing for both, but the eye says something different? 

Have you seen a couple year old High Pressure Sodium 400W lamp next to a 6 lamp T8 running off a low ballast factor ballast side by side? (As compared to a normal high ballast factor ballast and fixture running at about 216 Watts) I can actually get superior lighting out of 146 Watts out of the T8 product vs. the HPS. You cannot credit it all to lumens, as they are not there. CRI makes a huge difference. 

That is part of the reason you can go from 4 T12's to 2 T8's and have superior lighting quality. Whether or not it pencils out, it's reality.


----------



## Electric_Light (Apr 6, 2010)

Lighting Retro said:


> I don't think you have answered the question. Or is the issue with the phrase "more visible" vs. "more clarity" etc?


I don't understand what you were asking. 841 and 850 are practically identical in CRI. They both have 80s CRI. and one is 4100K, the other is 5000K. The 5000K is whiter/bluer, but 900K is not THAT much of a difference. What's your point? RE80s come in 3000 to 6500K (well, I think OSI has 2700K too). 3500 and 4100 are the preferred color for most purposes. 



> We can spin it one way or another, but CRI impacts the visual effect of the product. If I compare two products with 3000 lumens, and one product has a CRI of 50 vs. 86, which one looks better?


Depends on the application. For general lighting, usually the RE80.



> How will the footcandles measure? Does the light meter say the same thing for both, but the eye says something different?


Light meter doesn't see in color. If it's calibrated to same response as our eyes, then yes it will read the same. 




> Have you seen a couple year old High Pressure Sodium 400W lamp next to a 6 lamp T8 running off a low ballast factor ballast side by side? (As compared to a normal high ballast factor ballast and fixture running at about 216 Watts) I can actually get superior lighting out of 146 Watts out of the T8 product vs. the HPS. You cannot credit it all to lumens, as they are not there. CRI makes a huge difference.


HPS is 2100K with CRI of 20 or so. It's basically a yellow light with marginal ability to see colors. As shown on RPI website(if you've even bothered to read), CRI is only useful for similar CCTs. A fair CRI comparison against an HPS is an incandescent lamp dimmed down so that the filament is running at 2100K or a whole bunch of candles, there, you have a true comparison of 2100K @ 20 CRI vs 100 CRI. Whichever way you choose, 2100K is too orange for normal indoor lighting. 



You can install all "warm white" 2700K CFLs(or 827 T8) in a bathroom and compare side by side with 6500K "daylight' CFLs(or 865 T8). Both kinds have RE80 blends and practically the same CRI, but the different color temp will look different for better or worse.

If you're comparing 2100K against 4100K or 5000K, you're comparing oranges and white grapes. 



> That is part of the reason you can go from 4 T12's to 2 T8's and have superior lighting quality. Whether or not it pencils out, it's reality.


As previously said you can get the same color temp and CRI change using T12 ADV 8xx lamps. 

The longer wavelengths of HPS doesn't scatter as much in fog and it doesn't hurt night vision as much as say 6500K metal halide, so they're good for highway lights. It's not appropriate for an office or a classroom. 

They're typically outdoors and warehouses where color rendition isn't important.


----------



## Lighting Retro (Aug 1, 2009)

You miss the point and are going in circles avoiding the truth. Either that, or I don't describe it well enough. Either way, I'm ok. Sorry, but no desire to discuss further. Just keep believing you can't do what I described, and I'll keep putting the solution in for happy customers that get rebates, save money, and see the tangible improved results.


----------



## Electric_Light (Apr 6, 2010)

Lighting Retro said:


> You miss the point and are going in circles *avoiding the truth.* Either that, or I don't describe it well enough. Either way, I'm ok. Sorry, but no desire to discuss further. Just keep believing you can't do what I described, and I'll keep putting the solution in for happy customers that get rebates, save money, and see the tangible improved results.





> You cannot credit it all to lumens, as they are not there. CRI makes a huge difference.


The truth is, 6 T8 @ 0.78 BF in place of a 400W HPS (465w 45,000 lm), shaves power use by 64%, but also shaves lumen output by 71%. Power savings come from shaving output and you're trying to say improved CRI makes for such a drastic reduction in output. 

To say that 13,000 lumen replaces 45,000 lumen drop-in is a misinformation.



> (As compared to a normal high ballast factor ballast and fixture running at about 216 Watts


A six lamp high BF fixture may use 215W while your low BF setup with six lamps may only use 144W, but it puts out correspondingly more light, even then it still won't match 400W HPS. You'll need eight F54T5HO for that. 

I get it, what you're trying to say is you're standing on superiority on subjectivity but it does not match lumen level wise. 

You're using more than one ballasts per fixture to run six lamps at 78% "low BF" output instead of using four lamps per fixture at 120% with one 4-lamp "high BF" ballast which produces same output at same efficacy. I don't get what you're doing using twice as many ballasts and 50% more lamps other than perhaps, in your area, you can milk the rebate cow more that way. 



> Whether or not it pencils out, it's reality.


It has to pencil out in the end even for you. There are times when you can shave output as well as energy use. Of course the more watts you cut the more <whatever is saved, not saved or wasted> but in the end its the $$$. You are splitting hair with "more clarity" to make up for lack of lumen.


----------



## Lighting Retro (Aug 1, 2009)

I took some video from my phone tonight for you while on a project. We were retrofitting 8' 2 Lamp Strips with 60W lamps to (2) 32WT8 850 Hi lumen lamps. The fixture is clearly brighter and the footcandle measurements are higher under the T8 vs. the T12 even with half the lamp feet. 

We then took video before and after of a 2x4 troffer with (4) 40W T12 lamps next to one with just 2 lamps working, took before and after measurements, and the retrofit fixture with (2)F32 T8 850 lamps puts out more footcandles than the 4-T12's. 

The format is from my phone, so my video editor does not work. Not that I necessarily think you will be convinced, but we do this all the time, and the results are the same. Half the lamp feet, better light. If I have time to figure out how to load it and edit it together, I'll post it.


----------



## Lighting Retro (Aug 1, 2009)

Ok, loaded them on Youtube:

8' Strip conversion kit (2) 8' T12 60W lamps to (2) 4' 32W T8's. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXzg_Txp0Pg

2x4 Conversion kit 1-4 From (4) 40W T12 to (2) 32W T8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wSi3gdnzao
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvvdtdeFHmY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqgV08Ti5dI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2-jVUji1QE

My meter is on a different setting than normal. Seems to work better bumping up a decimal point, but you can see the results using the same settings on all fixtures. Now I don't know how to tweak one of those units to give false results, so you will see actual readings on fixtures before and after for comparison. 

In ALL cases we are going with half of the lamp feet and have better footcandle results. All I had with me was the Blackberry video option, but it appears to be clear enough to give you the idea. It can be hard to believe at first, but the proof is in the pudding.


----------



## Lighting Retro (Aug 1, 2009)

> A six lamp high BF fixture may use 215W while your low BF setup with six lamps may only use 144W, but it puts out correspondingly more light, even then it still won't match 400W HPS. You'll need eight F54T5HO for that.


The replacement for any 400W HID is a 4 lamp T5 or a 6 lamp T8. Check any and all rebate programs on that one. Even better, see it live yourself and you'll know without a doubt. 

Both options blow away the 400W solution. An 8 lamp T5 HO is used to replace 1000 W HID's.


----------



## Electric_Light (Apr 6, 2010)

Looking at the fixture can be deceiving. 

Take a wild guess in relative difference in output between the two lamps in attached photo. Let's see if you're even close. 

They look "almost as bright as each other" even though you can see some difference if you look closely.


----------



## Lighting Retro (Aug 1, 2009)

Looking at the fixture can be deceiving? 

Only getting your measurements from a footcandle meter can be deceiving :001_huh:

Trusting your eyes can be deceiving :001_huh:

Believing your customers is deceiving :001_huh:

I knew it was pointless, but I decided to post the "evidence" anyways. What you SEE is what matters my friend. Invisible lumens floating around mean nothing. What matters is how it looks and how much juice it uses in the process. What do you think matters beside visible, tangible results? 

Some of your suggestions are so far off, like an 8 lamp T5 to replace a 400W fixture, that I am so confused as to your role in energy efficient lighting. You are obviously very full of knowledge, but it just doesn't seem you have had a chance to apply it in real world applications. If you spec'd out some of what you recommended here, you'd be laughed out of the place. Take a look at our site to see 4 lamp T5 vs. 400W HID sample pictures of before and after work. There is no comparison because of lumens AND CRI. 

A 6 lamp T5 will yield 150% of the footcandles of a 400W HID in a typical application. Most MH have experienced quite a bit of depreciation. 

8 lamp T5 is a replacement for 1000W. On occasion we'll spec 10 lamp. Your recommendation would be 16 T5 lamps?  No such fixture is made at this time, and it's REALLY hard to get someone to even make a 10 lamp. 

No offense, but like I said, I put the stuff in every day and know the actual results vs. what YOU think it should be on paper. I took the video just as much for others so they would not be doubting based upon your word. You just don't have application experience in this field. There is absolutely nothing in your last post that will change anything by telling you what I think about the two lamps. 

You are certain you are right and refuse to believe you are wrong in spite of all of the PUD's nationwide who are recommending half of what you do for a solution. You refuse to acknowledge real world evidence, applications, publications that recommend something totally different than you would. But I'm sure you know better on this. :thumbsup:

----signing off of this thread unless someone else asks a question I can address.


----------



## tim5544 (Dec 27, 2009)

"Lighting Retro" Would you mind sharing what type/brand of retrofit kits you are using on the 8' fixtures. Changing the 2 lamp8' T12 to back to back F32 T8 4' lamps.


----------



## tim5544 (Dec 27, 2009)

fraydo- back to your original question on this thread. We did some Lithonia RT8s last week, it took us about 25 minutes per fixture. Seems like a lot of up and down trips on the ladder. Much slower than just a standard ballast change.


----------



## Lighting Retro (Aug 1, 2009)

tim5544 said:


> "Lighting Retro" Would you mind sharing what type/brand of retrofit kits you are using on the 8' fixtures. Changing the 2 lamp8' T12 to back to back F32 T8 4' lamps.


We have our own manufactured to spec. They work on either 8' or 4' strips with 4.25" wide channel bodies. For wider bodies we use a universal kit, but are working on a new design on that soon. Our guys don't care for the ones we've been buying.


----------



## Electric_Light (Apr 6, 2010)

One thing I didn't even think about.
What's the V(λ) response of the light meter? 

Here's something from EC&M magazine.
http://ecmweb.com/mag/electric_thevalue_good_light/

You need a good light meter so that the response is calibrated to that of our eyes.

If you have a toy solar car, you'll find that it will go stronger on a 100w incandescent than a 26W CFL, because the spectral response of the cell is different. 

The SPD of halophosphate lamp is quite different from triphosphor lamps. 

Did you have V(λ) calibration tested on your meter? How bright does your meter see a blacklight as being?

When you setup a 26W 2700K CFL, 100W incandescent lamp and a 26W 2700K CFL, set the light meter on the ground, or reflecting off a white wall and compare the foot candle readings, do the readings look very similar for all three? If not, its not properly corrected to human eye response. 

Measurements are only as good as the calibration of the instrument.
Looking at the data for your light meter, its calibration is based on an incandescent lamp and it is not even cosine corrected.

http://amprobe.com/specsheets/LM100.pdf


----------



## Lighting Retro (Aug 1, 2009)

You really have a problem being wrong don't you. This does not deserve a response. The fact that you have been digging all this time for a rebuttal so you can be "right" is pathetic. Like I said, the clips were more for others so they wouldn't believe the crap you are spewing. I already knew you would not believe it even if you saw it. 

The video camera did not have a light meter attached to it, but shows obviously better light. The footcandle readings are higher and confirm the output of the fixtures. The customer says "Wow, that looks great". The wattage is less than 50%. CRI matters, and your opinion does not. Good day.


----------



## Electric_Light (Apr 6, 2010)

> The video camera did not have a light meter attached to it, but shows obviously better light.


The video camera doesn't respond anything like our eyes. When you have a subject and a background with a considerably different brightness, the subject appears much darker than it does to our eyes. 

Black light seems much brighter than they do to our eyes and infrared light from remotes are visible through video cameras too. 



> The footcandle readings are higher and confirm the output of the fixtures.


Only to the extent of proper calibration. Your meter is calibrated to incandescent source. If the spectral sensitivity of the meter used is skewed in favor of triphosphor lamps, all bets are off. 



> The customer says "Wow, that looks great".


People who sell "full spectrum" lighting use this line too and argue with subjective fluff to come up with excuses why its better despite the lumen is lower. 



> The wattage is less than 50%.


That's the only objective thing so far. 



> CRI matters, and *your opinion does not*. Good day.


And yours does? 
You're misrepresenting CRI. You're talking as if it affects the perceived light level and makes up for reduction in lumen output.


----------



## Lighting Retro (Aug 1, 2009)

:thumbsup:


----------



## Electric_Light (Apr 6, 2010)

It's fine if we don't agree, which we don't, but I do take issues with misrepresentation.


----------



## Lighting Retro (Aug 1, 2009)

Lighting Retro said:


> Looking at the fixture can be deceiving?
> 
> Only getting your measurements from a footcandle meter can be deceiving :001_huh:
> 
> ...


Repost, and I can provide links to utility companies that dispute most of what you say. You don't like misrepresentation, *but I don't like misinformation.* You are flat out wrong and there is a whole industry in existence that disputes what you say. 

What are your qualifications to dispute the power companies that design these programs?


----------



## Lighting Retro (Aug 1, 2009)

*You might find this helpful to explain what you don't understand in practical applications:*

*"Equivalent" Light Source: Making the Claim*
Date: July 6, 2010
Time: 3 P.M. Eastern, 12 P.M. Pacific
Instructor: 
Sri Rahm, Senior Lighting Application Specialist, GE Lighting Institute 
Level: Intermediate to Advanced
*Why is this topic important? *
When you are comparing alternate light sources that have very different properties the question can be raised: what really does "equivalent" mean? Traditional measures like lumens and footcandles are fine but when you examine how the human eye really perceives light you find that other factors like sparkle, color temperature, color rendering, luminance, etc. also have bearing. In addition there are lighting measures like Nits, Trolands and Talbots that have been invoked with some degree of legitimacy in claiming "equivalent." Join Sri Rahm of GE's Lighting Institute for a tour of the topic. 

*Sign-On Instructions*
To participate, you can click here. 

You will need to enter your name, e-mail address and 
*
Meeting number: *
825 763 753 
*
Password: *
specifier 
*
Conference number*: *
800-734-8582 (Toll Free) 
1-212-231-2901 (Toll Number)


----------



## Electric_Light (Apr 6, 2010)

Lighting Retro said:


> Repost, and I can provide links to utility companies that dispute most of what you say. You don't like misrepresentation, *but I don't like misinformation.* You are flat out wrong and there is a whole industry in existence that disputes what you say.
> 
> What are your qualifications to dispute the power companies that design these programs?


Power companies are endorsing 25W 48" T8 lamps in their programs and subsidizing them too even though they reduce output. Claiming CRI to make up for lost lumens is misinformation and when you get into "more clarity" and other that you can't objectively quantify, you're getting into audio wire salespeople material. 

Am I correct to assume that you don't have the calibration for different light sources for your meter?


----------



## Lighting Retro (Aug 1, 2009)

We don't endorse a 25W solution unless someone is overlit or we are going lamp for lamp with low ballast factor. I do not believe you will see a power company suggest 25W as a suitable replacement for (2) 40W T12's or (2) 34W T12's. They only suggest it if you already have a 700 series T8 in place and can afford to reduce the lumens. 

Was I correct in stating you have a problem being wrong?


----------



## Lighting Retro (Aug 1, 2009)

Lighting Retro said:


> You are kind of annoying. You come across as one of those guys who can't stand to lose a debate on ANYTHING, and you persist to the point where people just say "You're right!" just so they can leave your presence and be done with you. No offense intended.


oh, and just to quote the above portion. YOU ARE RIGHT! Now I'm done. :thumbup:


----------



## Electric_Light (Apr 6, 2010)

I had some issues with connection and wasn't able to stay the whole time, although I did catch something about simply placing a light meter directly below the lamps is cheating, as done in your videos. 
Thanks for the link to *"Equivalent" Light Source: Making the Claim. 
*


----------



## Lighting Retro (Aug 1, 2009)

I didn't get to stay the whole time either. I do suppose though that most T12 systems we run across are very old and depleted. People don't replace lamps unless they are burned out most of the time, so even if "by the book" 2 T8 should not be able to replace 4 T12 unless via High Ballast Factor ballast, most utility companies insist on it with low ballast factor ballasts as a solution. They do since most applications are brighter with what we put in. Same with Metal Halide. 

If you did see their chart, they showed (5)T5's as a replacement for the 400W MH system, but noted that since HID's have such severe depreciation after only 8,000 hours that 4 is often superior. That is definitely true. We recently actually replaced 1000W MH with 4 lamp T5's since it was only for general lighting and most of the light came from task lighting. Footcandles were higher and the overall distribution of light was superior. That should not be, but HID's continue to light far after their "mean lumens" have been achieved. Those 1000W lamps were in bad shape, but the (4) T5 fixtures really were superior. You won't find that on ANY chart since it should not be. 

To be fair to the presenter, and I typically can't stand guys with Indian accents for long periods, he did freely admit that he was open to being disputed, and that these were his educated opinions. He was wrong on a couple of things, and some of his takes are counter to what utility companies require, but he did have several valid points on items that help "deceive" the customer into feeling like they have better light. You can have superior footcandles and not see as well if the rendering is lower or less attractive to the human eye. He did touch on how important CRI was in that part of the equation. 

In short, there are "grey" areas out there, and you and I can go back in forth all day and probably both be technically right. Most of that would depend on the age of the equipment in place at the customer premises, and what it is replaced with. I apologize for busting your balls a bit. I would never intentionally post something false, and after seeing the equipment in use in person, there is just no disputing certain items for me. We both know that by the book does not cover everything, and I really think that is the only difference in our opinion on these matters.


----------

