30'x48'x10' Garage Ligting Solution

[2ManyProjects]

Most of the lights you are showing here have diffusers. That's a subject we haven't hit on in this thread. To diffuse or not to diffuse.

In most cases, I prefer "with" diffusers, particularly if the ceiling height is on the low-ish side. But I wanted to also include some references to open-tube strips, in order to give you a somewhat more direct comparison to the fixtures you had cited.

The first two lights you presented are cheep < $30 shop lights. Been there done that at least with T12's was not impressed. That is why I opted for the industrial versions that I'm hoping really will go down to 0°F

T12s are a whole different world, especially if they used old-school magnetic ballasts (which, if they were old enough, or REALLY cheap, they probably did). Don't judge modern T8s with electronic ballasts by that horridly antiquated yardstick. Virtually every modern T8 ballast made (cf. http://www.1000bulbs.com/category/2-lamp-t8-fluorescent-ballasts/) is rated for cold starts down to 0°F, many to -20°F. In short, you're worrying about a ghost.

 

[2ManyProjects]

As promised I modeled the wood shop where I work to gage the lights.

The wood shops dimensions are 28 x 24 with an estimated 18 foot ceiling. The lights are suspended 10' of the floor. There are a total of 6 4' fixtures with 3 T8 tubes FO32/735/ECO. Each fixture has an aperture reflector installed. and a protective cage over the tubes. The walls floor and ceiling is painted beige and is somewhat dirty. Above the lights is about 8 ft of empty space with ducts wiring and trusses.

The best matching fixture I could find was the Lithonia MS8 3 32 SBL WD. Putting this into the model yields a 52 cf solution.

And what happens to that model when you substitute, for example, the "MS8 3 32 SBL ND" model?

While those two models outwardly appear to be essentially identical, their photometrics are in fact quite different:

http://www.visual-3d.com/tools/photometricviewer/default.aspx?id=15285
http://www.visual-3d.com/tools/photometricviewer/default.aspx?id=15286

Which do you suppose is REALLY closer to whatever fixtures happen to be installed in your wood shop? And are EITHER of them really all that close?

I also modeled the company machine shop. which is 28x40x18 with the same fixtures at 12' height. The machine shop is fitted with FO32/850/ECO tubes. and has a light grey walls ceiling and floor with new clean paint. Putting this into the model yields a 54 cf solution.

OK here's where the models are limited. Everyone agrees that the wood shop could use more lighting but everyone feels that the machine shop is beautiful. Yet they essentially yield the same results. Also the machine shops tubes were refitted about 6 months ago. They originally had the same FO32/735/ECO as the wood shop. The Forman in the machine shop states that there was a night and day change with the FO32/850/ECO tubes.

Also the wood shop tubes are old and wearing out black spots on the ends, no one ever recalls them being changed.

Not to be unkind, but just those differences in the tubes are enough to completely invalidate the results. The tubes in the wood shop are not only of a somewhat inferior type vs. those in the machine shop; more importantly, they are obviously near the end of their useful life. Therefore, you can be quite certain that they are producing significantly less light than they did when new. Did you adjust for that in your modelling?

Your models also have some other glaring problems...

-- You modeled the ceiling heights as the installed fixture heights, then stuck the fixtures directly on the ceiling.

-- You used the same "Room Reflectances" values in both cases, despite the fact that, per your description above, they are obviously VERY different. I would suggest re-running the models with the "Room Reflectances" values set to perhaps 70/70/30 for the Machine Shop, and 30/50/30 for the Wood Shop.

-- Are the fixtures REALLY oriented within the rooms as depicted in the diagrams? For the wood shop, I would find that reasonably plausible. But the arrangement shown for the machine shop seems questionable, at best (particularly given the relatively positive comments by the users which you report): I would expect it to produce two relatively bright "bands" of illumination running down each side of the room, with a comparatively dim area in the middle.

It is pretty clear that who ever designed the lighting in these shops was targeting 50 cf.

Possible. But I certainly would not base such a conclusion on your models, as they currently stand.

It is for these reasons I am hesitant about setting 100cf overall lighting as a base with additional boosting in high use areas above 100 cf.

Let me try one last time to get this across...

1. - Whether you "target" 50 lumens/ft.^2, or 150 lumens/ft.^2, or anything in between, is simply NOWHERE NEAR as important as making sure you have good, even light coverage everywhere you need it.

2. - Given the shape, size, and (especially) ceiling height of your garage/shop, it is almost a foregone conclusion that by the time you accomplish that "light everywhere you need it" goal, you will COINCIDENTALLY produce an "average" illumination level somewhat higher than what you have been arbitrarily aiming for. But it WILL NOT be so high as to be a problem in and of itself.

3. - It makes ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE to compromise the light distribution/layout in order to stick to some arbitrarily low "average illumination" target.

4. - If you want to be happy with your lighting, STOP WORRYING about the difference between 50 lumens/ft.^2, and 100 lumens/ft.^2, and just let the chips fall where they may on that front. In small-room applications such as yours, such calculations are mostly just "sanity checks" anyway.

My conclusion is that the 92 cf solution I came up with using 9 8' fixtures with gaps equal to those found in the above two examples that will only be apparent when the lights are partially dimmed will be a more than adequate starting point.

As previously discussed, using 8-foot fixtures reduces your potential switching flexibility. So you will more often want/need to run ALL the lights, than had you used 4-foot fixtures. That will raise your effective operating costs FOREVER. And yes, over even just the lifetime of the first set of tubes, your operating costs will utterly SWAMP your purchase and installation costs, regardless of which fixtures (at least of those discussed to date) you choose.

And you're still going to want that "crossways" run near the back of the shop. Bet on it.

 

[600SL]

And what happens to that model when you substitute, for example, the "MS8 3 32 SBL ND" model?

While those two models outwardly appear to be essentially identical, their photometrics are in fact quite different:

http://www.visual-3d.com/tools/photometricviewer/default.aspx?id=15285
http://www.visual-3d.com/tools/photometricviewer/default.aspx?id=15286

Which do you suppose is REALLY closer to whatever fixtures happen to be installed in your wood shop? And are EITHER of them really all that close?

All I can do is select the MS8 3 32 SBL ND based of 4 ' 3 tube with reflector and arpature same as the fixtures in wood shop.

Not to be unkind, but just those differences in the tubes are enough to completely invalidate the results. The tubes in the wood shop are not only of a somewhat inferior type vs. those in the machine shop; more importantly, they are obviously near the end of their useful life. Therefore, you can be quite certain that they are producing significantly less light than they did when new. Did you adjust for that in your modelling?

Your models also have some other glaring problems...

-- You modeled the ceiling heights as the installed fixture heights, then stuck the fixtures directly on the ceiling.

-- You used the same "Room Reflectances" values in both cases, despite the fact that, per your description above, they are obviously VERY different. I would suggest re-running the models with the "Room Reflectances" values set to perhaps 70/70/30 for the Machine Shop, and 30/50/30 for the Wood Shop.

-- Are the fixtures REALLY oriented within the rooms as depicted in the diagrams? For the wood shop, I would find that reasonably plausible. But the arrangement shown for the machine shop seems questionable, at best (particularly given the relatively positive comments by the users which you report): I would expect it to produce two relatively bright "bands" of illumination running down each side of the room, with a comparatively dim area in the middle.

You are not unkind. But what you are stating here is just the limits of the software, with the exception of the room reflectance which admittedly is a punt on my part. Software will not allow you to specify tubes, or how old they are or allow modeling of a high ceiling with low fixtures. Just like the software will not allow me to model the "W" for my shop. I would love to see software that can do this and also display light gradient's. I'm sure it exists at a cost.

As for the fixtures in both the machine shop and wood shop they are oriented as depicted. I go in these rooms everyday and do not notice two bright bands. This is where I'm having a problem with your gap theory. I have places to compare and I just don't see is.

Possible. But I certainly would not base such a conclusion on your models, as they currently stand.



Let me try one last time to get this across...

1. - Whether you "target" 50 lumens/ft.^2, or 150 lumens/ft.^2, or anything in between, is simply NOWHERE NEAR as important as making sure you have good, even light coverage everywhere you need it.

While this may be true, what it takes to get an even distribution of light you haven't proven at least to me based on my observations of the machine and wood shop. Keep in mind this is a world class aircraft manufacturing facility.

2. - Given the shape, size, and (especially) ceiling height of your garage/shop, it is almost a foregone conclusion that by the time you accomplish that "light everywhere you need it" goal, you will COINCIDENTALLY produce an "average" illumination level somewhat higher than what you have been arbitrarily aiming for. But it WILL NOT be so high as to be a problem in and of itself.

My ceiling also will go up above the lights. Its 10' by the doors and back wall but about 14' in the middle. Another thing that cant be modeled in the software.

3. - It makes ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE to compromise the light distribution/layout in order to stick to some arbitrarily low "average illumination" target.

I have no intension of compromising. I will do what ever it takes even if it requires 2 or 3 iterations.

4. - If you want to be happy with your lighting, STOP WORRYING about the difference between 50 lumens/ft.^2, and 100 lumens/ft.^2, and just let the chips fall where they may on that front. In small-room applications such as yours, such calculations are mostly just "sanity checks" anyway.

Absolutely. That's all the software is good for. According to the software I put in 9 8' lights anywhere and get out 92fc everywhere. Based on that everyone should be jumping for joy.

As previously discussed, using 8-foot fixtures reduces your potential switching flexibility. So you will more often want/need to run ALL the lights, than had you used 4-foot fixtures. That will raise your effective operating costs FOREVER. And yes, over even just the lifetime of the first set of tubes, your operating costs will utterly SWAMP your purchase and installation costs, regardless of which fixtures (at least of those discussed to date) you choose.

OK this is all based on coming in the room and turning on the correct level of lighting in one central location and then living with it for the day or having to go back and forth to change it.

My plan is to come into the garage an turn on 1 switch at one of two locations, activating the lights for that location only at a reduced level and air-compressor. Then turn on lights at the zones where more light is needed with switches located at those zones. The challenge will be to wire this such that when leaving and powering down the system all lights and the compressor go out plus when returning and repowering up the system only the basic lights and compressor come on regardless of the state the lighting was in when turned off. This will require relays or some kind of controller.

And you're still going to want that "crossways" run near the back of the shop. Bet on it.

I'm about 75% positive on the crossways. The back of the shop is where the front of the cars are and where most of my tools and work bench area will be. If you recall the original goal was to have 50cf overall lighting and 100cf where working. I always work up front so having 100 cf up there at all times is required. The sides of the cars I turn on the side lights when working there.

 

[2ManyProjects]

Sorry for the delayed reply; I was "down" with some weird stomach virus or similar for nearly a week, and am just now starting to catch up. Suffice it to say, a few days ago I would have given my eye teeth to merely "feel like utter ****". Then, on top of that, the Forum itself has apparently been having "issues".

All I can do is select the MS8 3 32 SBL ND based of 4 ' 3 tube with reflector and arpature same as the fixtures in wood shop.

And how did the calculated lighting performance change when you did that?

You are not unkind. But what you are stating here is just the limits of the software, with the exception of the room reflectance which admittedly is a punt on my part. Software will not allow you to specify tubes, or how old they are or allow modeling of a high ceiling with low fixtures.

Not really. If you look down to the lower part of the page, where the fixture type and its specs are noted, there are fields to specify, among other things, the "Suspension Height". You can also do at least a rough approximation of old, degraded tubes by simply lowering the default lumen output by 10-20%, a field for which is also in that same section of the page.

Just like the software will not allow me to model the "W" for my shop. I would love to see software that can do this and also display light gradient's. I'm sure it exists at a cost.

It probably does. But this misses the point that you just don't need it. If you use a modicum of common sense when laying out your lights, anything beyond a crude "sanity check" is simply unnecessary -- and as you have so spectacularly illustrated in this thread, it can actually be misleading.

As for the fixtures in both the machine shop and wood shop they are oriented as depicted. I go in these rooms everyday and do not notice two bright bands. This is where I'm having a problem with your gap theory.

This is one of the reasons why I keep cautioning you to not put so much blind faith in a lighting calculator, or any over-simplified "single figure of merit", such as the average illumination per ft.^2.

Based on the layout you showed, vis-a-vis the distribution pattern of typical fluorescent tube/fixture, it was reasonable to presume that most of the light from each of those fixtures would be dispersed perpendicular to the tubes, as opposed to parallel to the tubes. So, with the fixtures arranged in two rows, with each fixture rather tightly-spaced (broadside) to the next one, yet leaving a relatively large gap between the two rows themselves... Well, that "banding" effect seemed pretty likely. That said, the various room surfaces MAY be sufficiently reflective to at least partially ameliorate the effect; and so too, you may just be accustomed to it.

{re: layout/distribution is more important that arbitrary lumen levels}

While this may be true, what it takes to get an even distribution of light you haven't proven at least to me based on my observations of the machine and wood shop. Keep in mind this is a world class aircraft manufacturing facility.

Your garage is NOT a "world class aircraft manufacturing facility". And more importantly, from a lighting perspective the two applications don't necessarily have much in common.

My ceiling also will go up above the lights. Its 10' by the doors and back wall but about 14' in the middle.

OK, that's new information (I think). I'm not going to dig back through all the old posts at this point; but I'd gotten the distinct impression we were talking about a relatively flat ~10-foot ceiling. Having a cathedral ceiling has some impact on the style of fixtures you would choose; but it doesn't really obviate my previous comments. And the limiting factor is still the 10-foot height at the lowest points.

Another thing that cant be modeled in the software.

Well, perhaps not THAT software. But again, don't sweat that.

I have no intension of compromising. I will do what ever it takes even if it requires 2 or 3 iterations.

Better to get it (at least nearly) right the first time.

{re: simplistic lighting calculators are merely "sanity checks"}

Absolutely. That's all the software is good for.

Well... "mostly", perhaps.

According to the software I put in 9 8' lights anywhere and get out 92fc everywhere. Based on that everyone should be jumping for joy.

Did you not read/understand the explanations I posted SEVERAL times as to why 8-foot fixtures are by definition less-than-ideal?

{re: yet another of those explanations...}

OK this is all based on coming in the room and turning on the correct level of lighting in one central location and then living with it for the day or having to go back and forth to change it.

That may be slightly related; but it's not really what I'm talking about.

The MAIN issue is to have enough flexibility in terms of how many (and exactly WHICH) tubes get turned on at any given moment that you will have the best chance of being satisfied with reduced-intensity lighting more of the time. If, because there are huge/severe gaps in the coverage pattern at (let's call it) "Stage 1", you are too often tempted/forced to go to "Stage 2" just to fill in that gap, then you will have defeated the purpose (and written off the benefit) of multi-stage lighting.

My plan is to come into the garage an turn on 1 switch at one of two locations, activating the lights for that location only at a reduced level and air-compressor. Then turn on lights at the zones where more light is needed with switches located at those zones.

{SIGH}

You are STILL thinking in terms of "zoning", as opposed to "intensity control". I've tried several times to get the latter concept across to you, apparently without success. So I give up.

The challenge will be to wire this such that when leaving and powering down the system all lights and the compressor go out plus when returning and repowering up the system only the basic lights and compressor come on regardless of the state the lighting was in when turned off. This will require relays or some kind of controller.

For the functionality you describe, Insteon controllers are just the ticket.

 

[600SL]

Sorry for the delayed reply; I was "down" with some weird stomach virus or similar for nearly a week, and am just now starting to catch up. Suffice it to say, a few days ago I would have given my eye teeth to merely "feel like utter ****". Then, on top of that, the Forum itself has apparently been having "issues".



And how did the calculated lighting performance change when you did that?



Not really. If you look down to the lower part of the page, where the fixture type and its specs are noted, there are fields to specify, among other things, the "Suspension Height". You can also do at least a rough approximation of old, degraded tubes by simply lowering the default lumen output by 10-20%, a field for which is also in that same section of the page.



It probably does. But this misses the point that you just don't need it. If you use a modicum of common sense when laying out your lights, anything beyond a crude "sanity check" is simply unnecessary -- and as you have so spectacularly illustrated in this thread, it can actually be misleading.



This is one of the reasons why I keep cautioning you to not put so much blind faith in a lighting calculator, or any over-simplified "single figure of merit", such as the average illumination per ft.^2.

Based on the layout you showed, vis-a-vis the distribution pattern of typical fluorescent tube/fixture, it was reasonable to presume that most of the light from each of those fixtures would be dispersed perpendicular to the tubes, as opposed to parallel to the tubes. So, with the fixtures arranged in two rows, with each fixture rather tightly-spaced (broadside) to the next one, yet leaving a relatively large gap between the two rows themselves... Well, that "banding" effect seemed pretty likely. That said, the various room surfaces MAY be sufficiently reflective to at least partially ameliorate the effect; and so too, you may just be accustomed to it.

{re: layout/distribution is more important that arbitrary lumen levels}


Your garage is NOT a "world class aircraft manufacturing facility". And more importantly, from a lighting perspective the two applications don't necessarily have much in common.



OK, that's new information (I think). I'm not going to dig back through all the old posts at this point; but I'd gotten the distinct impression we were talking about a relatively flat ~10-foot ceiling. Having a cathedral ceiling has some impact on the style of fixtures you would choose; but it doesn't really obviate my previous comments. And the limiting factor is still the 10-foot height at the lowest points.



Well, perhaps not THAT software. But again, don't sweat that.



Better to get it (at least nearly) right the first time.

{re: simplistic lighting calculators are merely "sanity checks"}


Well... "mostly", perhaps.



Did you not read/understand the explanations I posted SEVERAL times as to why 8-foot fixtures are by definition less-than-ideal?

{re: yet another of those explanations...}


That may be slightly related; but it's not really what I'm talking about.

The MAIN issue is to have enough flexibility in terms of how many (and exactly WHICH) tubes get turned on at any given moment that you will have the best chance of being satisfied with reduced-intensity lighting more of the time. If, because there are huge/severe gaps in the coverage pattern at (let's call it) "Stage 1", you are too often tempted/forced to go to "Stage 2" just to fill in that gap, then you will have defeated the purpose (and written off the benefit) of multi-stage lighting.



{SIGH}

You are STILL thinking in terms of "zoning", as opposed to "intensity control". I've tried several times to get the latter concept across to you, apparently without success. So I give up.



For the functionality you describe, Insteon controllers are just the ticket.

The Insteon controllers seem very interesting. I have been reading the manual and still a bit confused. In trying to work this out with hard wired relays it is very expensive especially if using latching relays.

I'm still confused with these controllers. It appears that are a stand alone solution or do they need to be connected to a network with wireless router???

 

[2ManyProjects]

The Insteon controllers seem very interesting. I have been reading the manual and still a bit confused. In trying to work this out with hard wired relays it is very expensive especially if using latching relays.

You definitely don't want to home-brew something with ad-hoc relays, etc.; there is simply no point in reinventing the wheel (and probably having it come out octagonal instead of round).

I'm still confused with these controllers. It appears that are a stand alone solution or do they need to be connected to a network with wireless router???

For basic functionality (which nonetheless in many ways goes WELL beyond "basic"), you don't need any network connection, other than the one the Insteon devices themselves automagically form over the power lines and via RF. You simply install one Wall Switch:

http://www.smarthome.com/2477S/Swit...-Remote-Control-Switch-Dual-Band-White/p.aspx

or Keypad:

http://www.smarthome.com/2487S/Keyp...pad-with-On-Off-Switch-Dual-Band-White/p.aspx

or hardwired load module:

http://www.smarthome.com/2475SDB/In...ontrol-In-Line-On-Off-Switch-Dual-Band/p.aspx

per light or group of lights that you want to individually control. Then via certain sequences of button-presses, you "link" these together to form "scenes" and such. Once that is done, each device in the system "remembers" these linkages, as acts accordingly. Hence, one keypad can control multiple different loads, grouped together in various ways. You can have as many control points (i.e., wall switches or keypads, as well as various hand-held remotes) as you like, located anywhere within the home. and they can all be set up to remotely control ANY load device in the system.

OTOH, if you want to access and control the system remotely from outside those premises (such as would be useful with a vacation house, for example), or implement semi-complex "IF-THEN-ELSE" logic and/or timer-controlled "events", then a central controller of some sort is needed. Such a central controller may or may not make use of an Internet connection, depending on just what you want to do with it. SmartHome recently (well, a year or so ago) introduced their "Insteon Hub" controller:

http://www.smarthome.com/2242-222/INSTEON-Hub/p.aspx

which is by far the lowest-cost such device yet developed. It's aimed in large part at folks who want to control everything via their iPhone or similar; but you don't NEED to do that for the unit to have value.

 

[600SL]

You definitely don't want to home-brew something with ad-hoc relays, etc.; there is simply no point in reinventing the wheel (and probably having it come out octagonal instead of round).



For basic functionality (which nonetheless in many ways goes WELL beyond "basic"), you don't need any network connection, other than the one the Insteon devices themselves automagically form over the power lines and via RF. You simply install one Wall Switch:

Thanks for the info.

It looks like this will work and will be cheaper than relays. My only real concern is the air compressor. I don't believe the Insteon relays are capable of switching motor current so that will still require a relay. I would prefer a non magnetic type latching relay but all I can find is units for about $500.00 any ideas.

My lights just came in today 17 8' fixtures which I believe I can make work as 4 ' units if need be. I should have these up within the next 3 weeks but will not have electricity for some time.

John

 

[2ManyProjects]

Thanks for the info.

It looks like this will work and will be cheaper than relays. My only real concern is the air compressor. I don't believe the Insteon relays are capable of switching motor current so that will still require a relay.

The Insteon stuff is primarily designed for lighting and light-duty appliance loads. I think they have some modules capable of handling such things as moderate-size pump motors and such; for example, these are rated for up to 30A:

http://www.smarthome.com/2477SA1/IN...ntroller-Normally-Open-Relay-Dual-Band/p.aspx
http://www.smarthome.com/2477SA2/IN...roller-Normally-Closed-Relay-Dual-Band/p.aspx

Then there's this:

http://www.smarthome.com/72800/Elk-...ctured-Wiring-Panel-Enclosure-Elk-9200/p.aspx

which is rated for up to 60A; but seems a bit "kludgey" to me.

I would prefer a non magnetic type latching relay but all I can find is units for about $500.00 any ideas.

Were it me, I would relax the "one button shuts off EVERYTHING" requirement, and just use a separate mechanical disconnect on the compressor circuit. Simple, (relatively) cheap, and effective. Don't make things harder than they need to be.

 

[600SL]

The Insteon stuff is primarily designed for lighting and light-duty appliance loads. I think they have some modules capable of handling such things as moderate-size pump motors and such; for example, these are rated for up to 30A:

http://www.smarthome.com/2477SA1/IN...ntroller-Normally-Open-Relay-Dual-Band/p.aspx
http://www.smarthome.com/2477SA2/IN...roller-Normally-Closed-Relay-Dual-Band/p.aspx

Then there's this:

http://www.smarthome.com/72800/Elk-...ctured-Wiring-Panel-Enclosure-Elk-9200/p.aspx

which is rated for up to 60A; but seems a bit "kludgey" to me.



Were it me, I would relax the "one button shuts off EVERYTHING" requirement, and just use a separate mechanical disconnect on the compressor circuit. Simple, (relatively) cheap, and effective. Don't make things harder than they need to be.

Thanks

Either of these will do just fine. I wish the larger one was available in a smaller box.

John

 

[600SL]

Well I said it would be a while before I had lights up. Lights are now up.

I went with the W configuration in the auto shop area and 2 rows of 3 8'ers in the machine shop. I also went with aperture reflectors since my ceilings are white and I liked what I read about them as far as keeping bulbs clean. According to the software there was no difference in the performance but I believe I modeled my ceiling on the conservative side.

Unfortunately lights will not be on for about 2 more weeks. That's when the electricity should be hooked up. So all lighting is complete and ready for final inspection.

After inspection I put up the interior walls and start the outlets. I will have 1 temporary 115v outlet to work with until my walls are up and I will also have 2 240V outlets available which may be required to grind the floor for paint.

 

[$lacker]

The Insteon stuff is primarily designed for lighting and light-duty appliance loads. I think they have some modules capable of handling such things as moderate-size pump motors and such; for example, these are rated for up to 30A:

http://www.smarthome.com/2477SA1/IN...ntroller-Normally-Open-Relay-Dual-Band/p.aspx
http://www.smarthome.com/2477SA2/IN...roller-Normally-Closed-Relay-Dual-Band/p.aspx

For a compressor, you'd want a "normally open" unit, correct?

 

[600SL]

For a compressor, you'd want a "normally open" unit, correct?

I would assume so but I don't know why it would make a difference unless it is to default to a state in the event of a problem.

 

[ishiboo]

I would assume so but I don't know why it would make a difference unless it is to default to a state in the event of a problem.

I'd go NO, with NC you'd have to energize the relay to turn the compressor off, so it would consume power and produce heat whenever it was NOT on.

 

[600SL]

I'd go NO, with NC you'd have to energize the relay to turn the compressor off, so it would consume power and produce heat whenever it was NOT on.

That makes sense assuming this is like a magnetic relay.

 

[600SL]

Well I thought I would finally have electricity today. Duke Electric came and dug the trench and installed the line but no meter WTF

 

[600SL]

So I found that in order to get the meter installed the whole garage needs a final inspection. I asked the inspector if could get the inspection performed without interior walls since they are optional. He said yes and he will be down Tuesday. Hopefully I will have electricity by the end of next week.

 

[600SL]

Well came home today and the lights are finally on. Too early to assess how effective they will be but first impression is not at bright as I expected them to be. Second observation is that I cant tell the difference between the 107 CF auto shop side and the 75 CF machine shop side.

I have noticed that 2 of the bulbs seem to be out so I will have to investigate. Some of the bulbs seen dark in the middle so they may need a bit of time to break in.

So far I have no trick circuits just a switch in the auto shop and a switch in the machine shop. There will be white steel walls going up next so I do believe the results will change somewhat.

With such a bear room for the moment its hard to evaluate.

 

[600SL]

Well not much has happened since I last posted. But I did paint the floor. Whit metal walls are not installed yet but I actually have cars in the garage now and can get a better idea of how this is working out.

From what I can see so far in an empty shop with two cars it looks like the lighting solution is perfect. I can see all sides of each car. no appearance of shadows anywhere. Not overly bright and no where dim at all.

I will report back in a few months when I have the shop fully equipped.