"Artifical" lighting -- Any successes?
 

Those of us who earn our living as researchers don't really have a problem
with this. It's the way most professionals operate, especially those who
"educate". Better to do it right than to be like the gardening show host
who asked a guest what time of year was best to transplant your carrot
seedlings out to the garden. ;-)

"Dwayne" wrote ...
Yes, you can. Mainly because she has some one else do the reasearch and
work and she takes the credit for it. I have learned a lot.

Dwayne

"Repeating Decimal" wrote in message
Dwayne wrote
learned that from Martha Stewarts show before she got into trouble.

I am surprised you can learn anything from that show.

Bill

"Artifical" lighting -- Any successes?
 

"paul olive" wrote...
some catalogues sell sunlight bu;lbs to to treat SAD , disesae of paople
from lack of sunlight, e-mail me if you need the details

SAD is not a disease, it is a mood disorder.
http://www.mentalhealth.com/book/p40-sad.html#Head_3

"Artifical" lighting -- Any successes?
 

in article . rogers.com, Jo
at wrote on 1/24/03 3:45 PM:

Those of us who earn our living as researchers don't really have a problem
with this. It's the way most professionals operate, especially those who
"educate". Better to do it right than to be like the gardening show host
who asked a guest what time of year was best to transplant your carrot
seedlings out to the garden. ;-)

"Dwayne" wrote ...
Yes, you can. Mainly because she has some one else do the reasearch and
work and she takes the credit for it. I have learned a lot.

Dwayne

"Repeating Decimal" wrote in message
Dwayne wrote
learned that from Martha Stewarts show before she got into trouble.

I am surprised you can learn anything from that show.

Bill





When I first got onto the internet, I was surprised at the invective aimed
at Martha Stewart. I had never heard of her. At the time, I indicated that
she is entitled to make a living any legal way she could. That is the
American way. Every now and then a nothing gets to be very successful.

After watching the show several times, I could see why people might resent
her. She gave some terrible knife sharpening advice. Her experts did not
prevent her from doing that.

She still is allowed to make a living. Nevertheless, it is also the American
way to poke fun when media idols are found to have feet of clay.

Bill

"Artifical" lighting -- Any successes?
 

When I first got onto the internet, I was surprised at the invective aimed
at Martha Stewart.... snip

She still is allowed to make a living. Nevertheless, it is also the
American
way to poke fun when media idols are found to have feet of clay.

Bill

I'm glad I'm Canadian. We just assume that beforehand. ;-)

"Artifical" lighting -- Any successes?
 

On Sat, 25 Jan 2003 01:40:27 GMT, Repeating Decimal
wrote:

in article . rogers.com, Jo
at wrote on 1/24/03 3:45 PM:

Those of us who earn our living as researchers don't really have a problem
with this. It's the way most professionals operate, especially those who
"educate". Better to do it right than to be like the gardening show host
who asked a guest what time of year was best to transplant your carrot
seedlings out to the garden. ;-)

"Dwayne" wrote ...
Yes, you can. Mainly because she has some one else do the reasearch and
work and she takes the credit for it. I have learned a lot.

Dwayne

"Repeating Decimal" wrote in message
Dwayne wrote
learned that from Martha Stewarts show before she got into trouble.

I am surprised you can learn anything from that show.

Bill





When I first got onto the internet, I was surprised at the invective aimed
at Martha Stewart. I had never heard of her. At the time, I indicated that
she is entitled to make a living any legal way she could. That is the
American way. Every now and then a nothing gets to be very successful.

After watching the show several times, I could see why people might resent
her. She gave some terrible knife sharpening advice. Her experts did not
prevent her from doing that.

She still is allowed to make a living. Nevertheless, it is also the American
way to poke fun when media idols are found to have feet of clay.

Er...we're talking securities fraud. She's allegedly done some
illegal things on the market.




--
Polar

"Artifical" lighting -- Any successes?
 

"Mahasamatman" wrote in message arthlink.net...

You will have far better results with metal halide bulbs, or at least HO
type flourescents. The regular tubes don't produce quite enough light,
though some people make them work for them. There is a nice self-ballasted
75W reflector metal halide bulb on the market now that is inexpensive and
easy to use.



Excuse me if this is a dumb question, but does one need a special fixture
to use metal halide bulbs? Or do they screw into a regular light socket?
I'm very impatient to get some seeds started indoors, but I'm also
trying not to break the budget.

Thanks for any advice!

Stella

"Artifical" lighting -- Any successes?
 

Stella Hackell wrote:

"Mahasamatman" wrote in message arthlink.net...

You will have far better results with metal halide bulbs, or at least HO
type flourescents. The regular tubes don't produce quite enough light,
though some people make them work for them. There is a nice self-ballasted
75W reflector metal halide bulb on the market now that is inexpensive and
easy to use.


Excuse me if this is a dumb question, but does one need a special fixture
to use metal halide bulbs? Or do they screw into a regular light socket?
I'm very impatient to get some seeds started indoors, but I'm also
trying not to break the budget.

Thanks for any advice!

Stella


A self-ballasted light will screw into a standard incandescent socket --
but I've never seen a self-ballasted MH lamp. I have hight-pressure sodium
lights, metal halide lights, and triphosphor fluorescents. The
fluorescents are far cheaper and the plants do better with them. Look for
a shop light or "troffer" style fixture for suspended ceilings that uses
F32T8 lamps, with normal brightness or high brightness. The lamps you want
are 4' long and look like normal fluorscents except they are one inch in
diameter instead of 1.5". Look for something with a designation of "835"
or "830" or "SPX30" (this indicates the color, or "warmness", and the color
rendering, or "naturalness"). The lamps are usually less than $2 each at
Home Depot or at a commercial lighting store. Forget the "one warm white
and one cool white" conventional wisdom -- that worked 20 years ago before
EPACT ruined 40W fluorescent lamps. These new triphosphor lamps are better
anyway. Some of them (like Philip's or Sylvania's "Alto" series with the
green endcaps) are low mercury.

F32T8 lamps have an expected life of about 20000 hours, and an expected
useful life of about 20000 hours. The old lamps had an expected life of
22000+ hours but you had to replace them at about 10000 hours or less
because they lost too much brightness.

If you already have 4' fluorescent grow lights, you can upgrade the
ballasts to use the new lamps for less than $20 per fixture. Try to find
an electronic ballast with a "ballast factor" (not to be confused with
"power factor") of greater than 1.

Best regards,
Bob

"Artifical" lighting -- Any successes?
 

On 29 Jan 2003 12:30:46 -0800, (Stella
Hackell) wrote:

"Mahasamatman" wrote in message arthlink.net...

You will have far better results with metal halide bulbs, or at least HO
type flourescents. The regular tubes don't produce quite enough light,
though some people make them work for them. There is a nice self-ballasted
75W reflector metal halide bulb on the market now that is inexpensive and
easy to use.



Excuse me if this is a dumb question, but does one need a special fixture
to use metal halide bulbs? Or do they screw into a regular light socket?
I'm very impatient to get some seeds started indoors, but I'm also
trying not to break the budget.


I've used regular cheap fluorescents with very good results
for many years. I can't see a need for anything else.

Pat
-- Pat Meadows
CLICK DAILY TO FEED THE HUNGRY
United States: http://www.stopthehunger.com/
International: http://www.thehungersite.com/

"Artifical" lighting -- Any successes?
 

Pat Meadows wrote:


I've used regular cheap fluorescents with very good results
for many years. I can't see a need for anything else.

Pat


Hi Pat,
I generally agree with you, but I've found that when it's time to replace
the lamps it is just about as cheap to replace the ballast with an
electronic ballast and switch to inexpensive triphosphor F32T8 lamps.

Cheap 4' shoplight lamps are usually only 25W or 34W now even though they
say F40T12, and they don't put out nearly as much light as they used to.

Best regards,
Bob

"Artifical" lighting -- Any successes?
 

On Wed, 29 Jan 2003 16:14:47 -0600, zxcvbob
wrote:



Pat Meadows wrote:


I've used regular cheap fluorescents with very good results
for many years. I can't see a need for anything else.

Pat


Hi Pat,
I generally agree with you, but I've found that when it's time to replace
the lamps it is just about as cheap to replace the ballast with an
electronic ballast and switch to inexpensive triphosphor F32T8 lamps.

Cheap 4' shoplight lamps are usually only 25W or 34W now even though they
say F40T12, and they don't put out nearly as much light as they used to.


This is a good tip. I'll print this out and see if we can
get them locally. Thanks.

Pat
-- Pat Meadows
CLICK DAILY TO FEED THE HUNGRY
United States: http://www.stopthehunger.com/
International: http://www.thehungersite.com/

"Artifical" lighting -- Any successes?
 

zxcvbob wrote in message ...

Stella Hackell wrote:

"Mahasamatman" wrote in message arthlink.net...

You will have far better results with metal halide bulbs, or at least HO
type flourescents.

Excuse me if this is a dumb question, but does one need a special fixture
to use metal halide bulbs? Or do they screw into a regular light socket?
I'm very impatient to get some seeds started indoors, but I'm also
trying not to break the budget.


A self-ballasted light will screw into a standard incandescent socket --
but I've never seen a self-ballasted MH lamp. I have hight-pressure sodium
lights, metal halide lights, and triphosphor fluorescents.

. . .

Thanks very much for all the helpful information.

Maybe next year I'll get the seeds started. This season, I shall attempt
to possess my soul in patience. :)


Stella

"Artifical" lighting -- Any successes?
 

In article ,
Polar wrote:

On Sat, 25 Jan 2003 01:40:27 GMT, Repeating Decimal
wrote:

in article . rogers.com, Jo
at wrote on 1/24/03 3:45 PM:

Those of us who earn our living as researchers don't really have a problem
with this. It's the way most professionals operate, especially those who
"educate". Better to do it right than to be like the gardening show host
who asked a guest what time of year was best to transplant your carrot
seedlings out to the garden. ;-)

"Dwayne" wrote ...
Yes, you can. Mainly because she has some one else do the reasearch and
work and she takes the credit for it. I have learned a lot.

Dwayne

"Repeating Decimal" wrote in message
Dwayne wrote
learned that from Martha Stewarts show before she got into trouble.

I am surprised you can learn anything from that show.

Bill

When I first got onto the internet, I was surprised at the invective aimed
at Martha Stewart. I had never heard of her. At the time, I indicated that
she is entitled to make a living any legal way she could. That is the
American way. Every now and then a nothing gets to be very successful.

After watching the show several times, I could see why people might resent
her. She gave some terrible knife sharpening advice. Her experts did not
prevent her from doing that.

She still is allowed to make a living. Nevertheless, it is also the American
way to poke fun when media idols are found to have feet of clay.

Er...we're talking securities fraud. She's allegedly done some
illegal things on the market.


While I am no fan of hers, I still think she is the female scapegoat
while all the male white-collar-crimers from Enron, et al, get away with
murdar.

"Artifical" lighting -- Any successes?
 

Phaedrine Stonebridge wrote:

In article ,
Polar wrote:

On Sat, 25 Jan 2003 01:40:27 GMT, Repeating Decimal
wrote:

in article . rogers.com, Jo
at wrote on 1/24/03 3:45 PM:

Those of us who earn our living as researchers don't really have a problem
with this. It's the way most professionals operate, especially those who
"educate". Better to do it right than to be like the gardening show host
who asked a guest what time of year was best to transplant your carrot
seedlings out to the garden. ;-)

"Dwayne" wrote ...
Yes, you can. Mainly because she has some one else do the reasearch and
work and she takes the credit for it. I have learned a lot.

Dwayne

"Repeating Decimal" wrote in message
Dwayne wrote
learned that from Martha Stewarts show before she got into trouble.

I am surprised you can learn anything from that show.

Bill

When I first got onto the internet, I was surprised at the invective aimed
at Martha Stewart. I had never heard of her. At the time, I indicated that
she is entitled to make a living any legal way she could. That is the
American way. Every now and then a nothing gets to be very successful.

After watching the show several times, I could see why people might resent
her. She gave some terrible knife sharpening advice. Her experts did not
prevent her from doing that.

She still is allowed to make a living. Nevertheless, it is also the American
way to poke fun when media idols are found to have feet of clay.

Er...we're talking securities fraud. She's allegedly done some
illegal things on the market.

While I am no fan of hers, I still think she is the female scapegoat
while all the male white-collar-crimers from Enron, et al, get away with
murdar.

The problem is she was a director of the New York Stock Exchange who got
caught with her hand in the cookie jar. It doesn't matter that she
[allegedly] only stole one cookie. As a director of the exchange and as
a former stock broker, she is held to a higher standard than most
people.

I don't really care about Martha, I'm waiting for Bernie Ebbers and
Scott Sullivan [Worldcom] to get thrown in jail for 50 or 60 years.

Best regards,
Bob

"Artifical" lighting -- Any successes?
 

In article ,
zxcvbob wrote:

Phaedrine Stonebridge wrote:

In article ,
Polar wrote:

On Sat, 25 Jan 2003 01:40:27 GMT, Repeating Decimal
wrote:

in article
.rogers.com, Jo
at wrote on 1/24/03 3:45 PM:

Those of us who earn our living as researchers don't really
have a problem with this. It's the way most professionals
operate, especially those who "educate". Better to do it
right than to be like the gardening show host who asked a
guest what time of year was best to transplant your carrot
seedlings out to the garden. ;-)

"Dwayne" wrote ...
Yes, you can. Mainly because she has some one else do the
reasearch and work and she takes the credit for it. I have
learned a lot.

"Repeating Decimal" wrote in message Dwayne wrote
learned that from Martha Stewarts show before she got into
trouble.

I am surprised you can learn anything from that show.

When I first got onto the internet, I was surprised at the
invective aimed at Martha Stewart. I had never heard of her. At
the time, I indicated that she is entitled to make a living any
legal way she could. That is the American way. Every now and
then a nothing gets to be very successful.

After watching the show several times, I could see why people
might resent her. She gave some terrible knife sharpening
advice. Her experts did not prevent her from doing that.

She still is allowed to make a living. Nevertheless, it is also
the American way to poke fun when media idols are found to have
feet of clay.

Er...we're talking securities fraud. She's allegedly done some
illegal things on the market.

While I am no fan of hers, I still think she is the female
scapegoat while all the male white-collar-crimers from Enron, et
al, get away with murdar.

The problem is she was a director of the New York Stock Exchange who
got caught with her hand in the cookie jar. It doesn't matter that
she [allegedly] only stole one cookie. As a director of the exchange
and as a former stock broker, she is held to a higher standard than
most people.

I don't really care about Martha, I'm waiting for Bernie Ebbers and
Scott Sullivan [Worldcom] to get thrown in jail for 50 or 60 years.

Don't hold your breath.

I am not saying she should not be prosecuted for any crimes she did---
if indeed she did. But I just find it ironic that the main focus in
this huge nest of corporate rip-off artists turned to Stewart while the
Enron crew and the rest of the "good 'ol boys" are apparently getting
off scott free.

"Artifical" lighting -- Any successes?
 

On Sun, 02 Feb 2003 19:01:33 -0600, Phaedrine Stonebridge
wrote:

[...]


I am not saying she should not be prosecuted for any crimes she did---
if indeed she did. But I just find it ironic that the main focus in
this huge nest of corporate rip-off artists turned to Stewart while the
Enron crew and the rest of the "good 'ol boys" are apparently getting
off Scot free.

One explanation I have seen several times is that it's still a "man's
world", and the guys love to see a powerful woman brought low.

Of course she could have handled it better, but then so could some of
the major male corporate crooks. (FOB = Friends of Bush).




--
Polar