T5 vs. T8 fluorescent lights

Page 1 of 3  

The discussion of the use of T5/T8 5000 lights sparked my interest - as I had no idea what it was - and I've found tons of information on the internet about it. But as usual, weeding through the contradictions is always difficult.
Some people seem to view the T5 as superior to the T8, both in energy usage and in output. Then I've also found pages saying it isn't true.
A T5 seems very small to be that good at producing enough light ... but some people say they do in fact produce the same amount of ligth.
Who out there is using these and can you give me your opinion on which to go for? I have outlets in the ceiling out the gazoo ... so I can install as many of these as I need. My concern is that I get enough natural looking light, but without an UV since I burn easy.
Jack
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Jack, I assure you the T5 will produce a great deal of light. I have hundreds of them installed in our dealerships and they are great. We are using them as a replacements for the Metal Halide fixtures with T5s as well as older T8s. I too am replacing the fixtures in my shop with T5's and really put out the light. I do not know about the UV levels but the T5 is the future of fluorescent lamps.
Dave
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
mywebaccts (at) PLUGcomcast.net said:

Total light output depends on the phosphors and design of the tube. Different tubes vary as to color temperature and total light output. (Yes, even within families such as 4 foot T-8 and T-5.) HO and VHO bulbs increase light output, but at a loss of bulb life and higher energy consumption.
Look at the bulb specs. Standard T-8 and T-5 bulbs are very similar. There will be a rating of total lumens (after burn-in). Note also the wattage/current it consumes. The CRI is based upon a physiological rendering comparison of the color to noon daylight - the higher the better.
Extrapolate the lumens per watt for the selected bulbs. ~Efficiency. Find out which type is most affordable in your area. Buy based upon sound research.
UV burning isn't much of a factor with fluorescent lighting - perhaps with specialty actinic or UVa/b bulbs, but not std illumination bulbs. It is more of a concern with Metal Halides, especially if the outer envelope is damaged.
FWIW,
Greg G.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"mywebaccts (at) PLUGcomcast.net" <"mywebaccts (at) PLUGcomcast.net"> writes:

I'm actively researching lighting for my new shop right now.
I found a government report on ligghting and energy use. They actually say the T8 is more energy efficient than T5 in many applications. A popular energy saving application for T5 is the replacement of high bay lighting in factories and warehouses.
I found that 96" (actually 92" I believe) T5 fixtures cost about twice what 96" T8 fixtures. 96" T8 strip fixtures for two bulbs cost $58 to $65 or so. The only 96" T5 strip fixtures I could find were $121 each plus the bulbs are very expensive.
T8 96" bulbs are 59 watts and T5 96" watt bulbs are 54 watts. I am certainly not going to pay twice as much to save 10 watts per fixture. I could save about 10 cents every 100 hours the fixture is used.
If anyone has any insight on where to buy the F96T8 strip fixtures for two bulbs, I would appreciate it. So far, I know Grainger has them for about $63 each with no shipping. I am also going to try the electrical supply houses. Shipping on 96" fixtures isn't really worth it.
Brian Elfert
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
RE: Subject
At one time in a past life I designed and sold a lot of lighting systems .
From that perspective, will off the following:
What you want to buy are lumens delivered on the surface you want to light.
By definition, one lumen per square foot = one foot candle.
What you pay for is KWH of electricity.
The lighting system converts KWH of electricity into lumens.
The more efficiently it does this process, the better the lighting system.
Trying to compare the inital cost of various componets is meaningless with out also including the cost of installation, annual hours of operation, efficiency of the lamps, cost of KWH, and the dirt factor of the space you want to light.
Not exactly a simple problem.
Ya pays your money, ya takes your pick.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 18:36:18 GMT, Lew Hodgett

Lew,
Is there a formula to correct for the distance of the subject to the fixture?
It seems to me that low ceilings always need more lights. Or is it my imagination?
Thanks, Barry
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ba r r y wrote:

There are some, but frankly I never used them.
Good engineering and some basic SWAGs took care of things.

Your observation is correct.
Low ceilings are difficult.
When you design a work place lighting sysyem, you are trying to deliver the light to the work surface assumed to be 36" above the floor.
The spacing between fixtures is a function of the mounting height above the work surface and the "spread angle" of the fixture.
When it comes to lighting a workshop in a typical basement, it becomes a "what works" situation.
A single lamp fixture located on 32" centers worked for me in my basement shop a long time ago.
YMMV
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 19:32:19 GMT, Lew Hodgett

THANKS!
I needed a sanity check. <G>
Barry
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 18:36:18 GMT, Lew Hodgett

Well, as long as we're on the subject of lighting, I'm gonna take a shot at butting in.
I'm also looking to light a shop (24 X 25 X 8' ceiling), and in reading an article on workshop lighting, it suggested 80-100 fc for old fogies (40+) like myself for a woodworking shop.
So, while I know there are probably 50 variables including the paint color, machines, etc., how do I (even ballpark) get from KWH (or wattage) to foot candles? Basically, after reading the article I know I want "lots of light," but I still have no clue how to convert "lots of light" into X-number of 2-bulb, 4' fixtures. Any suggestions on how to make the conversion?
Thanks,
Ricky
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ricky Robbins wrote:

<snip>
The 8' ceiling is the controlling factor in the above application.
Use 1 watt per square foot for 100 FC maintained.
24 x 25 = 600
600/40 = 15, 40 watt lamps.
I'd probab;y use 16 lamps in 4 rows of 4 each.
That will provide about 6 ft spacing between rows which id probably about max.
BTW, those calculations were based on old lamps. Todays lamps provive same lumens for less watts.
It's the 16, 4 ft long lamps that is important.
HTH
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

What about the OSHA rules that are often quoted of 3 watts per sq foot for flourescents?
My proposed shop is 24x24 so I would need over 1,500 watts based on that. That seems like a lot. A space heater is usually 1,500 watts.
My thinking for my new shop is 4 rows of 8' T8 double bulb fixtures two per row. That is 944 watts which seems like a lot! Is that too much? I don't really want to burn a kilowatt an hour just for lighting.
My present basement shop only has about half as much light as I am planning for my new shop if I go full bore as described.
Brian Elfert
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Here in Washington State if its a commercial Job is 2.3 watts per square foot for a carpenty shop which is about the highest allowed for any occupancy.
Mike M
wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mike M wrote:

If they do not take the lamp source into consideration, the above makes no sense at all.
Consider the following:
Incandescent: 18-20 lumens/watt on average. Fluorescent: 60-70 lumens/watt on average. Sodium vapor: 125 lumens/watt on average.
Those are initial values, but demonstrate the variation in efficiency of various lamp sources.
It is lumens on the work surface, not watts, that are important.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 22:18:58 GMT, Lew Hodgett

Basically they do consider that in that if you want more light you have to use the most effecient equipment. This is simplified as there are adders for high ceilings, and you treat rack lighting different. All though there is whats called the prescriptive method whereas you can have as many 2/L T8 fixtures as you want. For an office building it 1.2 watts per square foot.
Mike M
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mike M wrote:

Sounds like a spec written by the local utility rather than a lighting systems engineer.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

...that and colour balance. In my business, the customer picks out the colour for their countertops at their house, so I don't really care about balance...just what's easy on the eyes. Too much light in my game is bothersome too... virtual snow blindness can set in and the eye will lose all detail when a white countertop is illuminated too harshly... just can't see and sanding swirls after about 5 minutes of staring at the work.
I also have some fluorescent lamps, vertical, against two walls inside a fixture which I painted black. The lamps cast a nice picture of two white vertical stripes which I use to check for flatness in an assembly. That's also just enough light to show up sanding marks in darker countertops. They're 4-foot bulbs and the centre of the tube is at eye-height. It really shows off how well my parallign vacuum clamps work. http://monumenttoolworks.com/pages/parallign.htm
Level is level, flat is flat, no screwing around, not even with veneered panels... and with all this low-angle lighting, I still can't see a biscuit in a joint..<G>
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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

-Mike-
snipped-for-privacy@alltel.net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No worries... nobody here has ever seen the 'biscuit phenomena' either. Just because that dumb Norm put a cookie 1/16" below the surface of a piece of cheap wood....... <NOMEX=ON>
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Brian Elfert wrote:

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

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

Not if you are going to be an engraver, otherwise yes, IMHO.
See calculation above.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I did a lot of searching of this newsgroup on Google. Many people quoted some OSHA rule of 3 watts per square foot as a guideline for lighting.
They meant it as a guideline, not a rule that had to be followed.
Do you recommend 4' or 8' fixtures? 4' fixtures are a fair amount less money, but a lot of wreckers recommend 8' for better lighting.
Brian Elfert
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.