LED Fluoresecent replacements ????

Are LEDs that much better than the best fluorescent, even now?

Quick google says 32w instead of 70w - so multiply that 38w saving by 72 tubes, and that's a _saving_ of nearly 3kw!

Quick google says 32w instead of 70w - so multiply that 38w saving by 72 tubes, and that's a _saving_ of nearly 3kw!

Not big enough !!!

Andrew

Sounds impressive! :-)

Is there a photo?

Wrong sort of lights? Is the roof too low to use discharge lamps? You get more than 20000 lumen from a 250w metal halide lamp.

Metal halide lamps are nowhere near as efficient as even fluorescent tubes.

There's a lot of mileage in splitting your lighting into zones so you only switch on the lights needed. Even pull switches for individual lights.

You could think about electronic ballasts, most of the loss from fluorescen t lights comes from conventional switch start ballasts. This brings them up to near LED efficiency and prolongs tube life.

Also make sure lights are correctly positioned over benches etc.

Not all areas need the same lighting levels. Eg walkways need less light th an over benches. So don't necessarily go for all tubes to be the same size or spacing.

Often lights are mounted far too high.

You might be able to halve your lighting bill just by these means.

At the moment with that lot, you may find that the outlay is worth it, but what nobody knows as yet is whether the leds are truly reliable and also will the rather more focussed light and the different collour temperature affect the people working in this factory at all. I would definitely equip a somewhat smaller area first if possible. Also did I not read some time agao that electronic ballasts and good old fashioned tubes were still pretty good value? Also, what about the loading on half cycles? I seem to recall the cruder leds tended to only use half cycles, though this does seem to be a bit stupid, if true. Brian

I think they are, yes.

IIRC LEDS are a tad more efficient. And I certainly prefer the light quality.

If anyone knows better Id also be interested in a moire definitive answer.

I prefer LEDs and also they're available at 4000 - 4500K eqiv. - just right for a good light without being blueish.

Don't be offended, but in this light fingered age I'm never too keen displaying my toys :(

Andrew

Already installed and have been for the last 6 years. Capital cost of replacement too excessive

Andrew

Already done at original installation - split into 6 banks

Andrew

Not a factory Brian, it's my hobby workshop - only me intermittently working in it :)

Andrew

With 72 tubes, at least you should be able to see them!

When they are all working, we have 8 fluorescent tubes in our kitchen.

I'd worked that out. Otherwise, you'd have to have a humongous switch just to turn the lights on and off.

How much of a PITA is it to order in the tubes and replace them when they fail? Your time might be a significant consideration, and LEDs last far longer.

My experience is that when the fluorescents in the kitchen start to fail, it's worthwhile replacing all of them in one go. That way we get an even light, and it saves getting the ladder out just to replace one or two tubes. Also, new tubes are brighter.

We only have two in ours ... and 4 in the workshop. ;-(

But there is an up side, just think how cheap it would be for me to convert them to LED. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

Well, obviously... Duh...

My triple garage is on two two-tube and two single-tube 4ft, with four single-tube 2ft at low level in the bay with the ramp - daylight tubes in them all. Then, when I get the workbenching in place, I'll figure some task lighting around there. So that's 600sqft with 32ft of tube. And you've got 400ft more of tube!

Have to admit, I'd not even thought about whether LED "tubes" were available - I know there's been various discussions about retro-fitting them into the standard flouro fittings in our '80s camper, where battery space is limited so off-grid power saving is an issue.

No offense taken. I understand.