8' Halco LED Bulbs at HD - Anyone do a conversion??

[Davefr]

Yesterday I saw that HD is stocking 8' LED bulbs to replace the old F96/T12 florescent tubes. (requires ballast bypass)

42 watt vs 75 watt
5500 lumens vs 5000/natural to 8000/cool
50,000 hours vs 15,000 hours
$24/bulb vs $10/bulb

Has anyone done the conversion with these bulbs? Any feedback? I have 3 twin banks so it's kind of spendy.

 

[GRB]

How high are your fixtures and are they bare strips or have reflectors?

I'm skeptical about their spec sheet showing 270* beam spread. A single row of LED emitters is usually speced at 120*.

The 36watt single row are a bit glarey at 12'. I do have some at 10' but they are old fixtures with a 1' wide reflector and since you can rotate a single pin bulb, i just rotate and aim them at the reflector.

They are not shown on HD website for me but that could mean they don't have them in my area.

 

[cybrdyke]

Anytime a manufacturer uses a non-industry term like "beam spread", you know it's a lie.
It's an indication of a crappy manufacturer.
CD

 

[Platonic Solid]

The correct term is "Beam Angle", but that's a pretty minor oversight.

 

[cybrdyke]

It's not, though. Halco knows the correct term and chooses not to use it. Why? Because the lamp doesn't have a 270 beam angle and they want to convince you that it does. Currently, beam angle is the SINGLE MOST fudged spec in the industry. Green Creative is the biggest offender, citing things such as "wide viewing angle" or "light distribution angle" hoping to convince the unknowing that their product is better than it actually is. It's dishonest, it's shady and it needs to pointed out so that it stops. Please dont minimize it.
CD

 

[GRB]

Great info guys. I think the only way that they are going to have a legitimate 200* or more beam angle is by having two rows of emitters at 90* or more from each other. If they show a picture of a clear lens version you can tell if that is true.

Carson Lighting did show an actual lamp with 3 rows of emmittes on a triangle base so 120* between each row and a T12 diameter bulb but what seems to have made it to production is two rows at 180* and clear lens. Strictly designed for dual sided signs.

I did double check to make sure I didn't change their term to beam spread. Their brochure says "Beam Spread".

 

[cybrdyke]

Great info guys. I think the only way that they are going to have a legitimate 200* or more beam angle is by having two rows of emitters at 90* or more from each other. If they show a picture of a clear lens version you can tell if that is true.

Carson Lighting did show an actual lamp with 3 rows of emmittes on a triangle base so 120* between each row and a T12 diameter bulb but what seems to have made it to production is two rows at 180* and clear lens. Strictly designed for dual sided signs.

I did double check to make sure I didn't change their term to beam spread. Their brochure says "Beam Spread".

You can get a true beam angle over 200 with a single strip by using secondary optics, phosphors, etc.
For those that dont know, "beam angle" is a specifically measured criteria that allows you to compare lamp A to lamp B. When a manufacturer's lamp has a small beam angle, they'll lie and cheat to claim their beam is bigger by using different words so that they cant be held accountable. It's despicable.

 

[Platonic Solid]

It's not, though. Halco knows the correct term and chooses not to use it. Why? Because the lamp doesn't have a 270 beam angle and they want to convince you that it does. Currently, beam angle is the SINGLE MOST fudged spec in the industry. Green Creative is the biggest offender, citing things such as "wide viewing angle" or "light distribution angle" hoping to convince the unknowing that their product is better than it actually is. It's dishonest, it's shady and it needs to pointed out so that it stops. Please dont minimize it.
CD

I have little faith on most companies sell sheets. I stick to more reliable data like IES files and LM-79 reports. Unlike many lamp manufacturers, at least Green Creative makes their IES files and LM-79 reports available here: https://greencreative.com/product-category/lamps/ . I'm not defending them - I know exactly what you're talking about, which is why I ignore the sales fluff and go straight to the useful data - which in the case of Green Creative, is actually accessible without jumping through hoops.

 

[BillK]

I used Keystone KT-LED43T8-96G-850-D They claim a 325 degree "beam angle" ? They were $23 ea at my local supply house Rexel.

If you Google the part number you can get a pdf of the actual spec sheet. So far they are great. Here is a link to the Rexel site but they dont show all of the specs:
https://www.rexelusa.com/usr/Root-C...Linear,-96",-43W,-Single-Pin,-5000K/p/1297095

Here is a quick picture down one side of my shop. Shop is 30x60. Has two rows of three double tube fixtures. 12 Lamps altogether. I plan on adding more shortly but the LED's made a huge difference over the fluorescents.

 

[cybrdyke]

I used Keystone KT-LED43T8-96G-850-D They claim a 325 degree "beam angle" ?

KT-LED43T8-96G-850-D 5000K 96″ 120-277V >80 43W 5500 240º 325º 129 lm/W No
On their website, they have it correct, where list the beam angle at 240, which makes more sense, and the "light spread" (which means nothing) is 325.
Here's the page, scroll to the bottom: https://keystonetech.com/all-products/linear-led-tubes/direct-drive-led-t8/

They used the wrong number on the spec sheet. Accidental? You decide.
CD

 

[BillK]

On their website, they have it correct, where list the beam angle at 240, which makes more sense, and the "light spread" (which means nothing) is 325.
................
They used the wrong number on the spec sheet. Accidental? You decide.
CD

I didn't notice that But then again I really was not looking for it. I bought two tubes at first and tried them. They made such a difference that I went ahead and did the rest. I am not sure that any wider angle would really make a difference anyway. At least not in my case. Much more than 180 degrees is going up towards the roof and there is not much there to reflect it down. Matter of fact it might actually be better with the narrower angle. Hard to say with nothing to compare it to.

If the lights were mounted just below a flat white painted ceiling then it might help to have more light aimed up ??

 

[2level]

Good info in this thread. I noticed those T12 replacement LEDs at HD too, but ruled them out based on cost. Those bulbs are over 6 times the price of the 55w T12's we are currently using in our warehouse (110 bulbs). Factoring in a 25% savings on the lighting bill, payback period would be ~10 years. No go.

 

[GRB]

I didn't notice that But then again I really was not looking for it. I bought two tubes at first and tried them. They made such a difference that I went ahead and did the rest. I am not sure that any wider angle would really make a difference anyway. At least not in my case. Much more than 180 degrees is going up towards the roof and there is not much there to reflect it down. Matter of fact it might actually be better with the narrower angle. Hard to say with nothing to compare it to.

If the lights were mounted just below a flat white painted ceiling then it might help to have more light aimed up ??

A wider angle would be a disadvantage for you with the height of your fixtures, the layout, and not having reflectors on the fixtures.

You can see on one of my parts rack rows how I need wide light distribution. That is just one building and row E out of rows A-S. So LED could save me a lot of money at CA electrical rates.

 

[GRB]

Good info in this thread. I noticed those T12 replacement LEDs at HD too, but ruled them out based on cost. Those bulbs are over 6 times the price of the 55w T12's we are currently using in our warehouse (110 bulbs). Factoring in a 25% savings on the lighting bill, payback period would be ~10 years. No go.

Depending on what bulbs you are using the "bulbs" could last 4-8 times as long. That means they might cost a bit more or a bit less in actual cost. Then you are saving electricity also, which can be a big deal depending on your rates.

Standard F96 T-12 are 75w and saver bulbs are 60w or 65w. Are you sure the ones you are using are 55w?

 

[2level]

I'm using 50,000 hours vs 15,000 hour lamp life average for this comparison. Electrical consumption difference is under $400/year. Upfront bulb cost difference is +$2400 ($24 x 110 vs $3.75 x 110 plus tax) -- long-term bulb cost difference is apx. +$1,000 . Add installation labor to the equation, and the cost of money.

The T12 lamps I'm comparing the Halco LEDs to are rated at 60w. Some of our fixtures draw less than .7 amps because they are setup with one F96T12 bulb (electronic ballast), so I'm factoring that in to get the 55w average.