Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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 ! |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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 ! |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
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) |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Artificial Lighting Recs | Orchids | |||
Artificial Lighting Question | United Kingdom | |||
[IBC] was Artificial lighting, Now swamps | Bonsai | |||
[IBC] Artificial lighting | Bonsai | |||
Artificial lighting | Bonsai |