Artificial Lighting Question
 

Hi folks, We are renovating our sunroom room which is 2m x 5m (6' x
16') with full afternoon sun on the long side. Australian climate, similar
to Florida. My question is, would it be beneficial to include (say) 2 x
1.2m (4') fluoro fixtures in the ceiling with Grolux-type tubes, or would it
be pointless? Thanks for any replies.

Artificial Lighting Question
 

"rapdor" wrote in message ...
Hi folks, We are renovating our sunroom room which is 2m x 5m (6' x
16') with full afternoon sun on the long side. Australian climate, similar
to Florida. My question is, would it be beneficial to include (say) 2 x
1.2m (4') fluoro fixtures in the ceiling with Grolux-type tubes, or would it
be pointless? Thanks for any replies.

Pretty pointless as plants need to be within inches of the tube to benefit.
Might be good so you can see at night !

Artificial Lighting Question
 

"rapdor" wrote:

Hi folks, We are renovating our sunroom room which is 2m x 5m (6' x
16') with full afternoon sun on the long side. Australian climate, similar
to Florida. My question is, would it be beneficial to include (say) 2 x
1.2m (4') fluoro fixtures in the ceiling with Grolux-type tubes, or would it
be pointless? Thanks for any replies.

Pointless. If you need light at night use cheap flourescents.
Plants need to be very close to the light in order to benefit
properly.
DiGiTAL ViNYL (no email)
Zone 6b/7, Westchester Co, NY, 1 mile off L.I.Sound
1st Year Gardener

Artificial Lighting Question
 

No real difference, the intensity of the light is the reciprocal of the
square of the distance. In short not much light will show on the plant.
Now if you were to cover the whole ceiling with the lights as well as the
walls, then that would be about equal to being close.

--
Joseph E. Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math


"Andrew Ostrander" wrote in message
...
The idea that plants have to be so near the light source is rather
misguided. While it is certainly true if the light comes from one single
source point, it is less true when the light comes from a stretched out
source like the fluorescents, and is even less true if there is a bank of
side-by-side fluorescents, and even less true again if the light that
would
escape out the sides is reflected back to the plants. With good side
reflection the light is almost equally bright everywhere, regardless of
distance from the lamp.
"Beecrofter" wrote in message
om...
"rapdor" wrote in message
...
Hi folks, We are renovating our sunroom room which is 2m x 5m (6'
x
16') with full afternoon sun on the long side. Australian climate,
similar
to Florida. My question is, would it be beneficial to include (say) 2
x
1.2m (4') fluoro fixtures in the ceiling with Grolux-type tubes, or
would it
be pointless? Thanks for any replies.

Pretty pointless as plants need to be within inches of the tube to
benefit.
Might be good so you can see at night !

Artificial Lighting Question
 

rapdor wrote:

Hi folks, We are renovating our sunroom room which is 2m x 5m (6' x
16') with full afternoon sun on the long side. Australian climate, similar
to Florida. My question is, would it be beneficial to include (say) 2 x
1.2m (4') fluoro fixtures in the ceiling with Grolux-type tubes, or would it
be pointless? Thanks for any replies.

Metal halides would be preferable. Three or four 400 watt units should
evenly illuminate your space.

Artificial Lighting Question
 

That's a first to me. If I have a double bank of flourescent ceiling
lights and my plant is 5-8 feet away from them, all I need to do is
setup a reflectors and my plants will be happy? Never heard people
could grow any plant they want in ordinary room lighting before.
Wonder why professional nurseries everywhere don't do that.

"Andrew Ostrander" wrote:

The idea that plants have to be so near the light source is rather
misguided. While it is certainly true if the light comes from one single
source point, it is less true when the light comes from a stretched out
source like the fluorescents, and is even less true if there is a bank of
side-by-side fluorescents, and even less true again if the light that would
escape out the sides is reflected back to the plants. With good side
reflection the light is almost equally bright everywhere, regardless of
distance from the lamp.
"Beecrofter" wrote in message
. com...
"rapdor" wrote in message
...
Hi folks, We are renovating our sunroom room which is 2m x 5m (6' x
16') with full afternoon sun on the long side. Australian climate,
similar
to Florida. My question is, would it be beneficial to include (say) 2 x
1.2m (4') fluoro fixtures in the ceiling with Grolux-type tubes, or
would it
be pointless? Thanks for any replies.

Pretty pointless as plants need to be within inches of the tube to
benefit.
Might be good so you can see at night !


DiGiTAL ViNYL (no email)
Zone 6b/7, Westchester Co, NY, 1 mile off L.I.Sound
1st Year Gardener

Artificial Lighting Question
 

I don't think a double bank would be adequate, but a ceiling covered with
fluorescents would be enough for some plants at some stages of their growth.
It would be prohibitively expensive for commercial greenhouses to do that;
sunlight is free.

Andrew

"DigitalVinyl" wrote in message
...
That's a first to me. If I have a double bank of flourescent ceiling
lights and my plant is 5-8 feet away from them, all I need to do is
setup a reflectors and my plants will be happy? Never heard people
could grow any plant they want in ordinary room lighting before.
Wonder why professional nurseries everywhere don't do that.

"Andrew Ostrander" wrote:

The idea that plants have to be so near the light source is rather
misguided. While it is certainly true if the light comes from one single
source point, it is less true when the light comes from a stretched out
source like the fluorescents, and is even less true if there is a bank of
side-by-side fluorescents, and even less true again if the light that
would
escape out the sides is reflected back to the plants. With good side
reflection the light is almost equally bright everywhere, regardless of
distance from the lamp.
"Beecrofter" wrote in message
. com...
"rapdor" wrote in message
...
Hi folks, We are renovating our sunroom room which is 2m x 5m
(6' x
16') with full afternoon sun on the long side. Australian climate,
similar
to Florida. My question is, would it be beneficial to include (say)
2 x
1.2m (4') fluoro fixtures in the ceiling with Grolux-type tubes, or
would it
be pointless? Thanks for any replies.

Pretty pointless as plants need to be within inches of the tube to
benefit.
Might be good so you can see at night !


DiGiTAL ViNYL (no email)
Zone 6b/7, Westchester Co, NY, 1 mile off L.I.Sound
1st Year Gardener

Artificial Lighting Question
 

Andrew Ostrander wrote:

I don't think a double bank would be adequate, but a ceiling covered with
fluorescents would be enough for some plants at some stages of their growth.
It would be prohibitively expensive for commercial greenhouses to do that;
sunlight is free.

Andrew

Don't they supplement with halides when daylight hours are short?


"DigitalVinyl" wrote in message
..
That's a first to me. If I have a double bank of flourescent ceiling
lights and my plant is 5-8 feet away from them, all I need to do is
setup a reflectors and my plants will be happy? Never heard people
could grow any plant they want in ordinary room lighting before.
Wonder why professional nurseries everywhere don't do that.

"Andrew Ostrander" wrote:

The idea that plants have to be so near the light source is rather
misguided. While it is certainly true if the light comes from one single
source point, it is less true when the light comes from a stretched out
source like the fluorescents, and is even less true if there is a bank of
side-by-side fluorescents, and even less true again if the light that
would
escape out the sides is reflected back to the plants. With good side
reflection the light is almost equally bright everywhere, regardless of
distance from the lamp.
"Beecrofter" wrote in message
. com..
"rapdor" wrote in message
...
Hi folks, We are renovating our sunroom room which is 2m x 5m
(6' x
16') with full afternoon sun on the long side. Australian climate,
similar
to Florida. My question is, would it be beneficial to include (say)
2 x
1.2m (4') fluoro fixtures in the ceiling with Grolux-type tubes, or
would it
be pointless? Thanks for any replies.

Pretty pointless as plants need to be within inches of the tube to
benefit.
Might be good so you can see at night !


DiGiTAL ViNYL (no email)
Zone 6b/7, Westchester Co, NY, 1 mile off L.I.Sound
1st Year Gardener

Artificial Lighting Question
 

Dr. Rev. Chuck, M.D. P.A. wrote:

Andrew Ostrander wrote:

I don't think a double bank would be adequate, but a ceiling covered with
fluorescents would be enough for some plants at some stages of their growth.
It would be prohibitively expensive for commercial greenhouses to do that;
sunlight is free.

Andrew


Don't they supplement with halides when daylight hours are short?


They use incandescent lamps in greenhouses if they are just trying to
lengthen the hours of daylight for plants that are sensitive to day length,
because incandescents are cheap and they don't need much brightness. They
use high pressuse sodium lamps if they need to supplement the amount of
light. The natural light provides plenty of blue wavelengths to regulate
plant growth, and HPS are more efficient and have better lumen maintenance
than metal halide lamps. (that means they don't start dimming out after a
few hundred hours.)

Best regards,
Bob

Artificial Lighting Question
 

But the heat output and cost factor could be prohibitive. MH lights
get HOT and make the meter spin like crazy.

-- pelirojaroja


"Dr. Rev. Chuck, M.D. P.A." wrote in message ...
rapdor wrote:

Hi folks, We are renovating our sunroom room which is 2m x 5m (6' x
16') with full afternoon sun on the long side. Australian climate, similar
to Florida. My question is, would it be beneficial to include (say) 2 x
1.2m (4') fluoro fixtures in the ceiling with Grolux-type tubes, or would it
be pointless? Thanks for any replies.

Metal halides would be preferable. Three or four 400 watt units should
evenly illuminate your space.

Artificial Lighting Question
 

A couple of fluorescents would be pointless. The light intensity decreases with
the square of the distance from the light source. If you had a bunch of
fluorescents, you might see some benefit. Or better yet, install a couple of
400W HID lights. Since you already have a source of natural sunlight, I think
your best bet would be high pressure sodium lights. However both of these
options would be somewhat expensive, both in initial investment and in adding to
your electricity bill.

rapdor wrote:

Hi folks, We are renovating our sunroom room which is 2m x 5m (6' x
16') with full afternoon sun on the long side. Australian climate, similar
to Florida. My question is, would it be beneficial to include (say) 2 x
1.2m (4') fluoro fixtures in the ceiling with Grolux-type tubes, or would it
be pointless? Thanks for any replies.

--
Stephen Sassman
Analytical Chemist
Purdue University, Department of Agronomy
Crop Soil and Environmental Sciences
915 W. State Street, Lilly Hall
West Lafayette, IN 47907-2054
Phone: (765) 471-9135

Artificial Lighting Question
 

-- pelirojaroja said:

But the heat output and cost factor could be prohibitive. MH lights
get HOT and make the meter spin like crazy.

On a lumens per watt basis, metal halides win over flourescents. That's why I'm
seeing them more and more often in commercial buildings. The only lights that
beat them for efficiency are the high pressure sodium lights (the ones that look
very orange); metal halides have a more natural-looking spectrum so win out
over sodium for indoor lighting.


--
Pat in Plymouth MI

Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
(attributed to Don Marti)

Artificial Lighting Question
 

Pat Kiewicz wrote:
-- pelirojaroja said:

On a lumens per watt basis, metal halides win over flourescents.

No, generally they don't. Triphospor T8 fluorescents with electronic
ballasts can exceed that magic 100 w/l ratio. There are a *few* MH lamps
that start out just as efficient (but not more efficient) but MH lamps lose
their brightness fairly rapidly, while triphosphor flourescents maintain
about 90% of their original brightness throughout their 20000+ hour life.

That's why I'm
seeing them more and more often in commercial buildings.

You're seeing them more often in commercial building because of the very
high ceilings involved. Those are 400W lamps. It would take too many
fluorescents to light a warehouse.

The only lights that
beat them for efficiency are the high pressure sodium lights (the ones that look
very orange); metal halides have a more natural-looking spectrum so win out
over sodium for indoor lighting.

Low pressures sodium are even more efficient and look *much* worse. :-)

Best regards,
Bob

Artificial Lighting Question
 

I didn't say that. *I* said that MH lights were MORE expensive to run in
comparison to fluorescents.

--
-- pelirojaroja

Please ignore anti-spam address. Email pelirojaroja @ yahoo-dot-com
-----------------------------------------------

"zxcvbob" wrote in message
...
Pat Kiewicz wrote:
-- pelirojaroja said:

On a lumens per watt basis, metal halides win over flourescents.

No, generally they don't. Triphospor T8 fluorescents with electronic
ballasts can exceed that magic 100 w/l ratio. There are a *few* MH lamps
that start out just as efficient (but not more efficient) but MH lamps
lose
their brightness fairly rapidly, while triphosphor flourescents maintain
about 90% of their original brightness throughout their 20000+ hour life.

That's why I'm
seeing them more and more often in commercial buildings.

You're seeing them more often in commercial building because of the very
high ceilings involved. Those are 400W lamps. It would take too many
fluorescents to light a warehouse.

The only lights that
beat them for efficiency are the high pressure sodium lights (the ones
that look
very orange); metal halides have a more natural-looking spectrum so win
out
over sodium for indoor lighting.

Low pressures sodium are even more efficient and look *much* worse. :-)

Best regards,
Bob

Artificial Lighting Question
 

pelirojaroja wrote:

I didn't say that. *I* said that MH lights were MORE expensive to run in
comparison to fluorescents.


You're right; I was replying to what Pat said. I wasn't quoting you,
but left your name in by mistake as part of quoting Pat's message.
I should have editted it out, but didn't notice. Sorry for the confusion.

Best regards,
Bob