Dave Dodds
February 27th, 2008, 12:19 PM
I recently came across something interesting - data that conflicts with "common knowledge" about the efficiency of fluorescents.
A 55w flo tube (the kind that go in the Diva Light, Caselight, and Coollights stuff) is rated as outputting 2800-2900 lumens. Thus, in the common four bulb fixtures out there, there would be a little over 11,000 lumens. These fixtures, which are 220w fixtures, are commonly known to have an output equivalent to almost 900w of tungsten light. However, a 750w tungsten bulb (say, one for a Lowel Tota) is rated as outputting almost 20,000, significantly more. What's the deal with this?
I know the fluorescents are still way more efficient. I'm just trying to make sure I'm understanding things the right way when I'm planning lighting setups with flos. Are the tubes really 4 times as efficient or is my confusion just a matter of softer light giving off fewer lumens than hard light of similar wattage? Not that I've typed that, that seems to be a logical reason, but could someone verify?
Thanks.
~~Dave
A 55w flo tube (the kind that go in the Diva Light, Caselight, and Coollights stuff) is rated as outputting 2800-2900 lumens. Thus, in the common four bulb fixtures out there, there would be a little over 11,000 lumens. These fixtures, which are 220w fixtures, are commonly known to have an output equivalent to almost 900w of tungsten light. However, a 750w tungsten bulb (say, one for a Lowel Tota) is rated as outputting almost 20,000, significantly more. What's the deal with this?
I know the fluorescents are still way more efficient. I'm just trying to make sure I'm understanding things the right way when I'm planning lighting setups with flos. Are the tubes really 4 times as efficient or is my confusion just a matter of softer light giving off fewer lumens than hard light of similar wattage? Not that I've typed that, that seems to be a logical reason, but could someone verify?
Thanks.
~~Dave