While the bulbs may be cheaper to replace, a decent reflector and ballast
are a cost one doesn't need with a 125W CFL, as the ballast is built-in and
it screws into a standard Edison base.

I see about 18-24 months out of them, and if I'm not mistaken, MH and HPS
bulbs should be replaced about that often, no?

--

Ray Barkalow - First Rays Orchids - www.firstrays.com
Plants, Supplies. Books, Artwork, and lots of Free Info!


"Duncan" wrote in message
news:arAKi.241298$fJ5.186751@pd7urf1no...

If you are considering large cfl's I would strongly recomend you at least
think about a small MH or HPS. Not only are CFL's very fragile and tend
to not last anywere near their rated life (Made in China) they are also
only about half as efficent as MH. On a watt per lumen basis hps and mh
give of twice the light and only half the heat. ie a 100W MH would give
off the same light as a 200W CFL and only a quarter of the heat. The big
kicker is a small MH is only about $50-$75 more and replacement cost on
the bulb is only about $30 Vs $85-$150. Unfortunaltly not that great for
shelving systems as all the light is coming from one source. HPS is even
more efficient but have an icky colour of light.

wrote in message
...
Here is a bit of what I have seen on the 200W CFL bulbs
The first one I ever ordered came broke right out of the box. The
spacers that are glued at the top of the tubes had come loose and the
bulb was cracked at the base. The replacement for it lasted about
three weeks then just did not light at all. I have had one other just
give up with less than 100hrs on it. And of course I have broken two
of them myself moving them around (one of them by putting it in a
fixture and one by it slipping in my hand and I tightened my grip and
it just snapped) The 200W are very fragile. I have 4 of the 200 watt
bulbs that have been running 18-20hr a day (two in fixtures and two
hanging in between rowes of shelving) a good bit over two years and
they still put out resonable lummes.
I prefer to use the next wattage down (the 125watt) because...
They are cheaper, put two together and you have more light at less
cost, less fragile, standard base socket and did I mention less
fragile?
I use them just hanging vertically from a socket on a cord.
Also the 200W runs pretty hot (not like the MH or HPS but still they
are hot) My personall opinion and unfounded non scientific reseach
says they run hotter than a 48" 4 tube light and if you have pots
above them they will dry them out in a hurry.
Again this is just my personal research and opinion, yours will very.

On Sep 26, 6:29 pm, "Al" wrote:
it always falls off at the same rate. The difference is a florescent tube
is long and narrow, so the 'point' of light is really many points of light.

Which is what I said.

J. Del Col

On Sep 13, 4:28 pm, wrote:
Hi folks. I'm new to orchids and new to this group. I'm hoping
you'll share your expertise on a lighting problem. I keep my orchids
on two Humidity Trays (each one is 29.5" x 13.5"). The trays are on a
kitchen counter up against a west-facing window (one window per
tray). Domestic issues dictate that no light units can hang from the
ceiling. (There is no other room in which to keep the orchids).

My proposed solution is to purchase a Sunlight Supply 4-foot
fluorescent Light Stand, which can raise a light unit up to 5 ft. (It
looks to be better quality than the Green Thumb/Jump Up unit). In
that way, I can remove the unit when company comes over and harmony is
maintained. This seems to solve my problem, but am I missing
something important here?

The stand does not appear to come with a fluorescent light unit. The
stand can take all of the Tek-Light T5, Light Wave T5, Satellite II
and Satellite IV grow lights. If you agree that this plan is
workable, what 4 foot fluorescent light unit(s) do you recommend to
hang on it? Given the dimensions of the trays, should I go for a 2
light or 4 light unit? I'm willing to spend some money to get a
quality unit and would appreciate any recommendations as well as some
good places on-line to buy it.
Thanks-
JS

There are so many variables, your significant other, cost, beauty,
quick moves, light requirements, best bulb and on and on. Take a look
at;

http://images.google.com/images?hl=e...h+Images&gbv=2

Follow the links to see what is available, what others have done etc.
Regardless, your first try will probably not be your last.

Yes, you did. And I agree. Although I think I understand more clearly now
and can rephrase the idea we both agree with so it says this:

given two bulbs that produce the same desired lumen output at one foot from
the bulb, the first bulb being a fist-sized incandescent and the second
being a 4 foot long tube, the difference in the size of the lumen footprint
between the two bulbs is what makes one more desirable than the other. The
first bulb produces a 1 foot by 1 foot space of desired lumens, the second
produces a 1 by 4 foot space of desired lumens.

However, what really through me for a few minutes in what I read he

HOWEVER, from a large or diffuse source such as a fluorescent tube,
the falloff is less drastic because the tube is, in effect, a large
number of overlapping point sources. The handy rule for such a source
is that the intensity falls off as the inverse of the distance, i.e.
twice as far ,1/2 as intense, three times as far, 1/3, etc.

was the difference between "inverse" and "inverse square". One makes the
statement false; although not so far wrong in the short distances we are
talking about under a bulb, that it was worth jumping to this lovely thread.
The other thing that threw me was the need to state how distance and
intensity are related in the equation. "Twice" and "Three times" mislead
me, (again the distances we are talking about are small, so as a handy rule
over distances of a foot or two, it works well enough). Anyway, I managed
to puzzle out the paragraph and make sense of it to my own satisfaction.
Sorry to do it in front of everybody, I should have just roamed around the
greenhouse talking to myself until I figured it out. That would have been
the more peaceable choice.

This is an interesting thread. Don't stop on my account.



sizein the 600 lumen footprint located at one foot from the bulb. ban
encandecent bulbcandesnt bulb and a that with a incasent bulb, that the
difference between a florecent and inThere is a difference between inverse
and inverse square.
"jadel" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Sep 26, 6:29 pm, "Al" wrote:
it always falls off at the same rate. The difference is a florescent
tube
is long and narrow, so the 'point' of light is really many points of
light.

Which is what I said.

J. Del Col

I stopped selling the standard base ones because they couldnt take being
mounted horizontal. A mogul socket is quite cheap anyway ($10). I usually
recomend changing MH or CFL bulbs at a year or less( but i sell them for a
living). Realisticly MH would burn for at least 3-4 years but light output
would go way down over that much time and bulbs are cheaper than
electricity. The city only changes HPS streetlights when they burn out and i
hardly ever see them doing it. Yoe don't "need" a reflector for MH or HPS
either but I sell one with CFL's most of the time too. It is only a one
time expense and ballast last so long they are almost a one time cost as
well. I'm not saying CFL's are no good just that for the cost and power use
it is worth thinking about MH/HPS. I actually even have a 125W 25000K bulb
in my grow room right now. It makes the room nice and blue. If you are using
multiple CFL's a small HID light kit is way cheaper than 4 125 CFL's.Plus
you have enough light for more orchids.

"Ray B" wrote in message
news:08LKi.6887$YN2.189@trndny07...
While the bulbs may be cheaper to replace, a decent reflector and ballast
are a cost one doesn't need with a 125W CFL, as the ballast is built-in
and it screws into a standard Edison base.

I see about 18-24 months out of them, and if I'm not mistaken, MH and HPS
bulbs should be replaced about that often, no?

--

Ray Barkalow - First Rays Orchids - www.firstrays.com
Plants, Supplies. Books, Artwork, and lots of Free Info!


"Duncan" wrote in message
news:arAKi.241298$fJ5.186751@pd7urf1no...

If you are considering large cfl's I would strongly recomend you at least
think about a small MH or HPS. Not only are CFL's very fragile and tend
to not last anywere near their rated life (Made in China) they are also
only about half as efficent as MH. On a watt per lumen basis hps and mh
give of twice the light and only half the heat. ie a 100W MH would give
off the same light as a 200W CFL and only a quarter of the heat. The big
kicker is a small MH is only about $50-$75 more and replacement cost on
the bulb is only about $30 Vs $85-$150. Unfortunaltly not that great for
shelving systems as all the light is coming from one source. HPS is even
more efficient but have an icky colour of light.

wrote in message
...
Here is a bit of what I have seen on the 200W CFL bulbs
The first one I ever ordered came broke right out of the box. The
spacers that are glued at the top of the tubes had come loose and the
bulb was cracked at the base. The replacement for it lasted about
three weeks then just did not light at all. I have had one other just
give up with less than 100hrs on it. And of course I have broken two
of them myself moving them around (one of them by putting it in a
fixture and one by it slipping in my hand and I tightened my grip and
it just snapped) The 200W are very fragile. I have 4 of the 200 watt
bulbs that have been running 18-20hr a day (two in fixtures and two
hanging in between rowes of shelving) a good bit over two years and
they still put out resonable lummes.
I prefer to use the next wattage down (the 125watt) because...
They are cheaper, put two together and you have more light at less
cost, less fragile, standard base socket and did I mention less
fragile?
I use them just hanging vertically from a socket on a cord.
Also the 200W runs pretty hot (not like the MH or HPS but still they
are hot) My personall opinion and unfounded non scientific reseach
says they run hotter than a 48" 4 tube light and if you have pots
above them they will dry them out in a hurry.
Again this is just my personal research and opinion, yours will very.

Really? Mine are horizontal.

--

Ray Barkalow - First Rays Orchids - www.firstrays.com
Plants, Supplies. Books, Artwork, and lots of Free Info!


"Duncan" wrote in message
news:_kWKi.245911$fJ5.104591@pd7urf1no...
I stopped selling the standard base ones because they couldnt take being
mounted horizontal. A mogul socket is quite cheap anyway ($10). I usually
recomend changing MH or CFL bulbs at a year or less( but i sell them for a
living). Realisticly MH would burn for at least 3-4 years but light output
would go way down over that much time and bulbs are cheaper than
electricity. The city only changes HPS streetlights when they burn out and
i hardly ever see them doing it. Yoe don't "need" a reflector for MH or HPS
either but I sell one with CFL's most of the time too. It is only a one
time expense and ballast last so long they are almost a one time cost as
well. I'm not saying CFL's are no good just that for the cost and power
use it is worth thinking about MH/HPS. I actually even have a 125W 25000K
bulb in my grow room right now. It makes the room nice and blue. If you are
using multiple CFL's a small HID light kit is way cheaper than 4 125
CFL's.Plus you have enough light for more orchids.

"Ray B" wrote in message
news:08LKi.6887$YN2.189@trndny07...
While the bulbs may be cheaper to replace, a decent reflector and ballast
are a cost one doesn't need with a 125W CFL, as the ballast is built-in
and it screws into a standard Edison base.

I see about 18-24 months out of them, and if I'm not mistaken, MH and HPS
bulbs should be replaced about that often, no?

--

Ray Barkalow - First Rays Orchids - www.firstrays.com
Plants, Supplies. Books, Artwork, and lots of Free Info!


"Duncan" wrote in message
news:arAKi.241298$fJ5.186751@pd7urf1no...

If you are considering large cfl's I would strongly recomend you at
least think about a small MH or HPS. Not only are CFL's very fragile
and tend to not last anywere near their rated life (Made in China) they
are also only about half as efficent as MH. On a watt per lumen basis
hps and mh give of twice the light and only half the heat. ie a 100W MH
would give off the same light as a 200W CFL and only a quarter of the
heat. The big kicker is a small MH is only about $50-$75 more and
replacement cost on the bulb is only about $30 Vs $85-$150.
Unfortunaltly not that great for shelving systems as all the light is
coming from one source. HPS is even more efficient but have an icky
colour of light.

wrote in message
...
Here is a bit of what I have seen on the 200W CFL bulbs
The first one I ever ordered came broke right out of the box. The
spacers that are glued at the top of the tubes had come loose and the
bulb was cracked at the base. The replacement for it lasted about
three weeks then just did not light at all. I have had one other just
give up with less than 100hrs on it. And of course I have broken two
of them myself moving them around (one of them by putting it in a
fixture and one by it slipping in my hand and I tightened my grip and
it just snapped) The 200W are very fragile. I have 4 of the 200 watt
bulbs that have been running 18-20hr a day (two in fixtures and two
hanging in between rowes of shelving) a good bit over two years and
they still put out resonable lummes.
I prefer to use the next wattage down (the 125watt) because...
They are cheaper, put two together and you have more light at less
cost, less fragile, standard base socket and did I mention less
fragile?
I use them just hanging vertically from a socket on a cord.
Also the 200W runs pretty hot (not like the MH or HPS but still they
are hot) My personall opinion and unfounded non scientific reseach
says they run hotter than a 48" 4 tube light and if you have pots
above them they will dry them out in a hurry.
Again this is just my personal research and opinion, yours will very.

I Tottaly forgot the Signifigant other variable. I hear "My wife/husband
will kill me if i..." almost every day.

"jtill" wrote in message
ups.com...
There are so many variables, your significant other, cost, beauty,
quick moves, light requirements, best bulb and on and on. Take a look
at;


http://images.google.com/images?hl=e...h+Images&gbv=2

Follow the links to see what is available, what others have done etc.
Regardless, your first try will probably not be your last.

They started to sag after a while. The mogul based ones can take weight no
problem.

"Ray B" wrote in message
news:tAWKi.6368$Pc3.3093@trndny09...
Really? Mine are horizontal.

--

Ray Barkalow - First Rays Orchids - www.firstrays.com
Plants, Supplies. Books, Artwork, and lots of Free Info!


"Duncan" wrote in message
news:_kWKi.245911$fJ5.104591@pd7urf1no...
I stopped selling the standard base ones because they couldnt take being
mounted horizontal. A mogul socket is quite cheap anyway ($10). I usually
recomend

On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 23:53:53 GMT, "Duncan"
wrote:

I Tottaly forgot the Signifigant other variable. I hear "My wife/husband
will kill me if i..." almost every day.


We use old fashioned fluorescents and 4' trays about 20-22 inches wide
with 4 tubes. Like many we use egg-crate* for drainage. We upgraded
today by setting 1/2 inch spacers under the egg-crate(legs) and window
screen on top. It is not as easy to set your plants in place - the
window screen floats like a table cloth and moves as freely if you
drag a pot. But now when the bark falls into the tray it will be on
top of the window screen and I will be able to clean it off. It will
not get into the egg-crate or into the drain on the tray. We cut the
legs from left over PVC pipe we had on hand so they happen to be about
1 inch diameter. They would probably be better if they were larger -
but scrap is the correct price..... free.

Ya - late in the game for the light bulb to go off -- but better late
than never.

* egg-crate = the plastic diffusers used in commercial buildings on
drop ceiling fluorescent fixtures, about 4' x 20" they have a pattern
of small squares.
SuE
http://orchids.legolas.org/gallery/main.php

Al wrote:

Yes, you did. And I agree. Although I think I understand more clearly
now and can rephrase the idea we both agree with so it says this:

given two bulbs that produce the same desired lumen output at one foot
from the bulb, the first bulb being a fist-sized incandescent and the
second being a 4 foot long tube, the difference in the size of the lumen
footprint between the two bulbs is what makes one more desirable than
the other. The first bulb produces a 1 foot by 1 foot space of desired
lumens, the second produces a 1 by 4 foot space of desired lumens.

However, what really through me for a few minutes in what I read he

HOWEVER, from a large or diffuse source such as a fluorescent tube,
the falloff is less drastic because the tube is, in effect, a large
number of overlapping point sources. The handy rule for such a source
is that the intensity falls off as the inverse of the distance, i.e.
twice as far ,1/2 as intense, three times as far, 1/3, etc.


was the difference between "inverse" and "inverse square". One makes
the statement false; although not so far wrong in the short distances we
are talking about under a bulb, that it was worth jumping to this lovely
thread. The other thing that threw me was the need to state how distance
and intensity are related in the equation. "Twice" and "Three times"
mislead me, (again the distances we are talking about are small, so as a
handy rule over distances of a foot or two, it works well enough).
Anyway, I managed to puzzle out the paragraph and make sense of it to my
own satisfaction. Sorry to do it in front of everybody, I should have
just roamed around the greenhouse talking to myself until I figured it
out. That would have been the more peaceable choice.

This is an interesting thread. Don't stop on my account.


OK, I won't.
Think about this. A fluorescent tube is pretty much an infinite
collection of points. Place a plant one foot under the center, then move
it to two feet. For the one point directly over head, the plant will be
twice as far away and the inverse square rule works. For a point way
over at the end of the tube, the plant has barely moved a little farther
away from that point. Sure, the point directly over head provides more
light than the others but the others all contribute too.
So, the points that contribute the most light fade the most as the plant
moves farther away. The points that contribute the least light nearly
stay the same as the plant is moved farther away.
My conclusion? I don't know, now I'm lost. Al, why don't you walk a few
more laps around the greenhouse and get back to us on this.

Steve

On Sep 27, 6:30 pm, "Al" wrote:
Yes, you did. And I agree. Although I think I understand more clearly now
and can rephrase the idea we both agree with so it says this:

given two bulbs that produce the same desired lumen output at one foot from
the bulb, the first bulb being a fist-sized incandescent and the second
being a 4 foot long tube, the difference in the size of the lumen footprint
between the two bulbs is what makes one more desirable than the other. The
first bulb produces a 1 foot by 1 foot space of desired lumens, the second
produces a 1 by 4 foot space of desired lumens.

However, what really through me for a few minutes in what I read he

HOWEVER, from a large or diffuse source such as a fluorescent tube,
the falloff is less drastic because the tube is, in effect, a large
number of overlapping point sources. The handy rule for such a source
is that the intensity falls off as the inverse of the distance, i.e.
twice as far ,1/2 as intense, three times as far, 1/3, etc.

was the difference between "inverse" and "inverse square". One makes the
statement false;

No it doesn't. They refer to completely separate circumstances.


although not so far wrong in the short distances we are
talking about under a bulb, that it was worth jumping to this lovely thread.
The other thing that threw me was the need to state how distance and
intensity are related in the equation. "Twice" and "Three times" mislead
me, ...

I don't see why.

J. Del Col

On Sep 27, 11:38 pm, Steve wrote:
Al wrote:
Yes, you did. And I agree. Although I think I understand more clearly
now and can rephrase the idea we both agree with so it says this:

given two bulbs that produce the same desired lumen output at one foot
from the bulb, the first bulb being a fist-sized incandescent and the
second being a 4 foot long tube, the difference in the size of the lumen
footprint between the two bulbs is what makes one more desirable than
the other. The first bulb produces a 1 foot by 1 foot space of desired
lumens, the second produces a 1 by 4 foot space of desired lumens.

However, what really through me for a few minutes in what I read he

HOWEVER, from a large or diffuse source such as a fluorescent tube,
the falloff is less drastic because the tube is, in effect, a large
number of overlapping point sources. The handy rule for such a source
is that the intensity falls off as the inverse of the distance, i.e.
twice as far ,1/2 as intense, three times as far, 1/3, etc.

was the difference between "inverse" and "inverse square". One makes
the statement false; although not so far wrong in the short distances we
are talking about under a bulb, that it was worth jumping to this lovely
thread. The other thing that threw me was the need to state how distance
and intensity are related in the equation. "Twice" and "Three times"
mislead me, (again the distances we are talking about are small, so as a
handy rule over distances of a foot or two, it works well enough).
Anyway, I managed to puzzle out the paragraph and make sense of it to my
own satisfaction. Sorry to do it in front of everybody, I should have
just roamed around the greenhouse talking to myself until I figured it
out. That would have been the more peaceable choice.

This is an interesting thread. Don't stop on my account.

OK, I won't.
Think about this. A fluorescent tube is pretty much an infinite
collection of points. Place a plant one foot under the center, then move
it to two feet. For the one point directly over head, the plant will be
twice as far away and the inverse square rule works. For a point way
over at the end of the tube, the plant has barely moved a little farther
away from that point. Sure, the point directly over head provides more
light than the others but the others all contribute too.
So, the points that contribute the most light fade the most as the plant
moves farther away. The points that contribute the least light nearly
stay the same as the plant is moved farther away.
My conclusion? I don't know, now I'm lost....

There's no reason to be lost. The rule used by lighting engineers
is that for large or diffuse sources the intensity of light falls off
inversely to the distance.

If they followed the classical physics inverse square rule, they'd
need a hell of a lot more lights to brighten up the Walmart.

The real trick is to change the bulbs every few monthsbecause their
output decreases over time.

J. Del Col

Ah. Now I see what you were getting at. I suspended the end with a piece
of wire so it wouldn't.

I know that in my application - seedling enclosure have a 4' x 5' bench -
the 200-watter would have been too big, while the 125 W one was perfect.

--

Ray Barkalow - First Rays Orchids - www.firstrays.com
Plants, Supplies. Books, Artwork, and lots of Free Info!


"Duncan" wrote in message
news:JsXKi.246341$fJ5.37178@pd7urf1no...
They started to sag after a while. The mogul based ones can take weight
no problem.

"Ray B" wrote in message
news:tAWKi.6368$Pc3.3093@trndny09...
Really? Mine are horizontal.

--

Ray Barkalow - First Rays Orchids - www.firstrays.com
Plants, Supplies. Books, Artwork, and lots of Free Info!


"Duncan" wrote in message
news:_kWKi.245911$fJ5.104591@pd7urf1no...
I stopped selling the standard base ones because they couldnt take being
mounted horizontal. A mogul socket is quite cheap anyway ($10). I
usually recomend