To avoid these ads, REGISTER NOW!

How many lumens do you have per square foot?

Schrodingers Cat

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
161
Ok guys....science class time.....

A diffuser 'diffuses' light......so, yes, if you measure the light with and without a diffuser, the reading will be different....but not because the diffuser is blocking so much light.....

Lets assume a bulb puts out 100 lums of light....if you direct that light to a single point, you will measure 100 lums at a specific distance....(for reference, lums to be accurate must be stated at a given distance). Now measure the lums away from the point of light.

Now, take that same light and put in a diffuser. Measure the light again at the same points.....the measurement at where the original point was will be less....and the light at the off point position will be higher.

Why? Because we are 'diffusing' the light....in other words, spreading it around....you have the same amount of total light, only the intensity at a given point is less....

Unless you have a really crapy diffuser, I would be surprised if more than 5% of the light is being blocked.

Heat....the diffuser is NOT heating up because it is blocking the light....it is heating up because it is in close proximity to the bulb and is preventing heat from escaping....you would get the same result with a clear piece of glass.

Any questions students?

BTW....if your going to tell me I don't know what I'm talking about, then you need to include technical data and references to any rebutal.

exactly :D
if you integrate the output of a bare bulb and a diffused bulb, the total lumens will be ~the same...the diffuser will 'average out' the level

exactly
the heat is efficiency losses of the bulb, ballast, etc.
NOT the light rays radiating energy onto surfaces (at least in the spectrum we are discussing)

I will add for the spectrum being discussed a bezzled or 'frosty' diffuser is for all intents and purposes will appear 'clear' to our frequency of light...
 
Last edited:
To avoid these ads, REGISTER NOW!

walrus

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
11,691
Location
Maine
Ok guys....science class time.....
Any questions students?

BTW....if your going to tell me I don't know what I'm talking about, then you need to include technical data and references to any rebutal.

Shouldn't this be physics class and if the diffuser is absorbing 5% of the light isn't their less light?
 

Schrodingers Cat

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
161
Shouldn't this be physics class and if the diffuser is absorbing 5% of the light isn't their less light?

he'd be 'surprised' if it were that high...it's closer to 0...

maybe 2% or so, but some diffusers will actually produce more light on target, ie, lights up the intended area better, because they have LESS loss to due to dispersion (scattered where not intended, that's a 'loss' of use, is it not?)...so you can achieve the same fc on the work surface with LESS fixtures...they act as a lens of sort, focusing the light where desired...

but it's not 'much' less, 'huge' losses or '25%' less as was postulated....
 

Schrodingers Cat

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
161
and back on topic...if you calculate 100 lamp lumens/ft^2, you better multiple that by ~0.6 to get usable/measurable actual work surface fc (or lumen per sq ft)...
 

walrus

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
11,691
Location
Maine
maybe 2% or so, but some diffusers will actually produce more light on target, ....

I was just using his numbers:D I agree some diffusers actually do that. LSI makes one that I service alot that does that. Allows for less wattage while providing more light where you want it.
 

Chris Adams

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 21, 2007
Messages
2,117
Shouldn't this be physics class and if the diffuser is absorbing 5% of the light isn't their less light?


Walrus, you are missing the point. They are debating theory, not actual results.

Operating rooms, for example, use light fixtures that cost more than my toolbox.

Which has 0.0% to do with what people are actually using.

Cheap diffusers (you know, the kind we would actually be using) block a heck of a lot more than 5%, which you can test in seconds by actual light meter or actual visual testing.

Add a layer of dust, which covers my black tool boxes in about 1 day, over the diffuser surface and I suspect the drop will be 1% more.

Keep adding that and pretty soon the lights look like the diffusers in the local stores. About 10-20% covered.

Who in their right mind is going to climb the ladder 20 times, drop the diffuser, climb back down, clean it with water (we found soap left a film) then climb back up, and return the diffuser. Say every week or even every month.


Oh, by the way, cheap diffusers come apart pretty fast when you take them down even once every three months. Guess how I know...


Then there is the idea that a diffuser, a large upwards surface, will gather dust in proportion to round glass facing downwards.
Think about it.
We used to 'dust' the T12 bulbs in the stores about once every two years. We had to clean the diffusers every three months and that wasn't often enough.


Bulb facing down, diffuser facing up, for those that don't see it.


Diffuser rough surface, bulb shinny surface, for those still not following.


Oh, and don't forget the moths, flies, etc. that like to die in there. Every fixture is an entomologist playground.


5% loss is WAY less than real world, but again, we are not arguing the same point.

They are making theoretic points, like in Physics class. I am talking actually doing it.

So we are talking to different points.
In theory, anything can be proven.

Try the lights with, and without diffusers. See what you see.
Arguing is not useful.

Count the horses teeth.

For those that don't get it, old parable about Greek philosophers arguing about how many teeth a horse had.
After listing for three hours a old Arab leaves, comes back and gives a definitive answer.
The philosophers wanted to know his logic, his reasoning, his basis for his theory.
He told them 'I went to the stable and counted them'.
So of course they discounted his answer...
 
Last edited:

Schrodingers Cat

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
161
I was just using his numbers:D I agree some diffusers actually do that. LSI makes one that I service alot that does that. Allows for less wattage while providing more light where you want it.

heretic! impossible!!!
perpetual motion machine!!!!
it's the devils work!!!!
souls in a bottle!!!!!



:bounce:
 

walrus

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
11,691
Location
Maine
Walrus, you are missing the point. They are debating theory, not actual results....

I'm not missing the point, cheap diffusers are just that, cheap and probably won't do what they say they will do in the real world. On the other hand I work on lights with glass diffusers that definetely do what say they will do and for long periods of time. Theory tells a story, it may or may not be the whole story
 

Schrodingers Cat

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
161
Walrus, you are missing the point. They are debating theory, not actual results.

you are assuming and mistaken...
actual results and operating conditions favor diffusers...
a bare tube will foul the same as a diffuser and the light output is diminished the same, it can be proven mathematically, but trust me, it does...
maybe worse because the hi temp will bake the crud on and darken it...can't clean the tube easily...so real world, diffusers...

lets say a tube puts out 300 lumen/sq ft (fc's) at 1"
so at 3" it puts out 33.3 or so
let's say a film of dirt forms and obscures it 5%
so at 1" 285, and 3" 31.7 (0.95 x 33.3 or 285/9) same result

with diffuser at ~3" from the bulb
the bulb is not dirty, covered by the diffuser
so at 1" 300 and a bit less than 3" inside surface of the diffuser 300/9 ~ 33.3
outside the diffuser 0.95 x 33.3 ~31.7, same as before...
 

walrus

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
11,691
Location
Maine
you are assuming and mistaken...
actual results and operating conditions favor diffusers...
a bare tube will foul the same as a diffuser and the light output is diminished the same, it can be proven mathematically, but trust me, it does...
maybe worse because the hi temp will bake the crud on and darken it...can't clean the tube easily...so real world, diffusers...

lets say a tube puts out 300 lumen/sq ft (fc's) at 1"
so at 3" it puts out 33.3 or so
let's say a film of dirt forms and obscures it 5%
so at 1" 285, and 3" 31.7 (0.95 x 33.3 or 285/9) same result

with diffuser at ~3" from the bulb
the bulb is not dirty, covered by the diffuser
so at 1" 300 and a bit less than 3" inside surface of the diffuser 300/9 ~ 33.3
outside the diffuser 0.95 x 33.3 ~31.7, same as before...

Diffuser or not, tubes get dirty in the real world
 
To avoid these ads, REGISTER NOW!

Boyd Who

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 15, 2007
Messages
1,080
Location
Manitoba
I'm going to wade into this mess and say I have no idea exactly how many lumens/sq. ft I have in my little garage, but I do know that I almost need welding goggles to work in there! There are 7, 2-tube T8 units in my 240 sq ft garage. :D
 

Prototyper

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
77
Location
Kalispell, Montana
I just invested in new lighting for my 2 car garage. I bought 8: 4 bulb T-8 fixtures at HD. For bulbs, I am running Sylvania 5200K, 25 Watt bulbs that output around 3400 Lumens. These bulbs had the highest Lumen / Watt ratio that I could find. All told, 800 watts, 108,800 Lumens boils down to 247 Lumens/sq. Foot.

I cannot say enough good things about my lighting. The electronic ballasts are completely silent, and with that many tubes, shadows are non-existent. Total investment: around $450. Well worth it for something that is central to the usability of the shop, and will last for many years.
 

Schrodingers Cat

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
161
I just invested in new lighting for my 2 car garage. I bought 8: 4 bulb T-8 fixtures at HD. For bulbs, I am running Sylvania 5200K, 25 Watt bulbs that output around 3400 Lumens. These bulbs had the highest Lumen / Watt ratio that I could find. All told, 800 watts, 108,800 Lumens boils down to 247 Lumens/sq. Foot.

I cannot say enough good things about my lighting. The electronic ballasts are completely silent, and with that many tubes, shadows are non-existent. Total investment: around $450. Well worth it for something that is central to the usability of the shop, and will last for many years.

~1.8 W/ft^2
I'm estimating ~65 fc...that's bright :D
 

Schrodingers Cat

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
161
I'm going to wade into this mess and say I have no idea exactly how many lumens/sq. ft I have in my little garage, but I do know that I almost need welding goggles to work in there! There are 7, 2-tube T8 units in my 240 sq ft garage. :D

I estimate that to be ~70+ fc, very bright...but not excessive...
 

Ironcrow

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
1,169
Location
Arizona
Gee, I got 200 fc back in post #27. I consider the lighting nearly adequate. I wonder where the disconnect is between my perception and lighting professionals?
 

Schrodingers Cat

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
161
Gee, I got 200 fc back in post #27. I consider the lighting nearly adequate. I wonder where the disconnect is between my perception and lighting professionals?

chalk it up to eyesight ;)

known: 32W, 2850 lumen/lamp, 2 lamps per fixture, 30 fixtures, 600 sq ft, 13' clg

I came up with ~170fc using the GE calculator
factoring for losses, etc. (not in the program) ~ 0.7 x 170 ~ 120 or so

the other program is 4 lamps/fixture, so we need 15 equivalent fixtures to get 60 tubes: 110 FC

32W, 2850 lumen/lamp. 2 lamps per fixture, 30 fixtures
30 x 2 x 32 W/600 ft sq ~ 3.4 W/sq ft
3.4/1.1 x 40 ~120 fc (using the rule of thumb 1.1 W per 40 fc)

so I would say you have ~120 fc, still very bright...
 
To avoid these ads, REGISTER NOW!
Top Bottom