Working Light Problem - Alternatives needed!!

[niclights]

I wouldn't rule out trying lower power lamps. I've had similar problems with 500's even in traditional orientation but 200's here are fine. I also use 200's pointing straight down for stage worklight at about 70% (low trim) and none have blown in two years where average show day use is approx 6hrs.

 

I understand your concerns about whether they will be bright enough but I think you may be surprised, esp. 300's if they give reliability. You could always buy new units that take 200's if you need.

 

Quality of lamp should be considered too.

[sleah]

. As such I worry about how many florries it would take to cover the surface area I have to cover. (Auditorium of 400 seats and stage 14 metres square.)

Thank you all for your help and suggetions.

 

Good point! If you can go down the florry route, there are many available with decent reflectors in them (not just the office anti-glare type) and some with tubes that are more like CFLs. You'd be supprised just how much light these things kick out!

 

it may be worth having a chat with someone like an MK rep, who will be better clued up as to what fittings are around that are both bright and efficent than most of us here.

 

Please don't take the 'smart-arse' comments as an attack and bombardment, I think I speak for all here when I say it is born from genuine concern for both the planet and seeing someone following a less than ideal route that could be avoided.

 

Remember that charities often receive public money of some sort, be it direct or indirect, so their use of it is everyone's potential concern.

[pritch]

We were using 500W outdoor halogens, but have actually replaced them with 48W (I think) fluoro floods. Yes, the colour is a little weird (might look into colour correction gel, actually - hadn't thought about it before), and apart from the fact that they take a little while to realise their full light output, they do the job very well.

[adam2]

An organisations carbon footprint, is a measure of the amount of carbon dioxide emitted as a result of the organisations activities.

Emmisions can be direct, such as from central heating boilers, motor vehicles etc, or indirect such as from the burning of fuel in power stations to supply electricity used, or the burning of fuel by aircraft used to transport products or persons.

 

An organisation can reduce its carbon footprint in many ways, some are complex or expensive in capital, others are simple.

One of the easiest ways of reducing carbon dioxide emissions is the use of energy efficient lighting, hence the concerns expressed at your proposed use of halogen lighting.

Floursecent or metal halide lighting has several times the effeciency of halogen, and also much longer lamp life.

The linear halogen lamps have a life of 1,000 or 2,000 hours in theory, but if exposed to vibration, or if cheap lamps are used it can be much less.

Premium brands of flourescent lamp, in modern fittings with electronic ballasts last about 20,000 hours, thats well over 2 years of continous operation, or perhaps 5 years if used in working hours.

Metal halide lamps last about 10,000 hours.

 

I would think twice about supporting a charity that wastes energy by continued use of low efficiency lighting.(my concerns would be both financial and enviromental)

I believe that incandescent lighting (including halogen) should only be used in special circumstances such as stage lighting, and not for general illumination.

[bruce]

Why is it that a few years ago people on this forum were so happy to help, but now most people that ask for assistance with something are bombarded with smart arse answers and are patronised for not knowing the answer? Bewilders me...

 

I'm saddened that you are interpreting what I see as very helpful responses as "smart arse" and "patronising". It's certainly not the way they were intended. All that we are suggesting is that you remain open to an alternative way to tackle the problem, which is more environmentally friendly, and which would long-term cost you less money. Some people might interpret that as a "better" solution.

[Ynot]

Whatever units I go for, will have to be rigged approx 6.5 metres off the flying gantry. As such I worry about how many florries it would take to cover the surface area I have to cover. (Auditorium of 400 seats and stage 14 metres square.)

 

Hmmm...

I've seen and worked in theatres MUCH larger than this which are lit with fluoro lighting more than adequately. Look at how large warehouses and supermarkets are lit - larger spaces and in some cases much higher ceilings too...!

I'm of the same opinion that fluoro fittings shouldn't be ruled out here for all the reasons given.

That said, halide is another way to go, and also more efficient/cheaper to run in the long term, so don't discount them.

 

Can you tell us exactly why the management have vetoed fluoros though?

 

A concurrent post has been automatically merged from this point on.

 

Why is it that a few years ago people on this forum were so happy to help, but now most people that ask for assistance with something are bombarded with smart arse answers and are patronised for not knowing the answer? Bewilders me...

Hmmm... (again)

Well, if all you wanted were answers that fit into a little box you've made for yourself, then I suspect you're in the wrong place!

And making sweeping statements like 'Money is no object - we're a charity' are pretty much like waving a red hanky in front of a male cow! My own venue is a charity, run by volunteers, but if I made such a leading statement here I think I'd be shouted down double time!!

 

Most of the responses here have been pretty reasonable I'd say, and have given you more than enough food for serious thought.

[adam2]

Whatever units I go for, will have to be rigged approx 6.5 metres off the flying gantry. As such I worry about how many florries it would take to cover the surface area I have to cover. (Auditorium of 400 seats and stage 14 metres square.)

 

 

You may well need fewer flourescent or metal halide lights than 500 watt halogens.

 

A premium brand 500 watt halogen produces 9,700 lumens, a cheap no name one about 8,000.

 

A twin 1500mm flourescent with colour 830 lamps produces 10,800 lumens, for a consumption of about 120 watts, including ballast losses.

The light distribution is very different, with the flourescents producing a wider spread, which is probably an adavantage for a large area.

 

Every halogen replaced with a flourescent would save 380 watts.

If the venue has 10 such lights, each used for 3,000 hours a year, then the yearly saving would be 11,400 KWH. Thats at least £1,000, and possibly more.

Even if you dont pay for electrcity, the savings in lamps and in time and trouble might make it worth while, and one should consider the enviromental impact anyway.

 

Metal halide lamps tend to be slightly less efficient than flourescent, and dont last quite as long, but would still produce very substantial savings, and have the possible advantage of being more compact.

A 150 watt metal halide lamp produces about 10,000/11,000 lumens and with control gear losses, consumes about 155/160 watts.

[woody74]

Drill holes in the reflectors to let heat escape?

 

-w

[mikienorth]

I'm going to be awkward now and say, like everyone else, that flourescent tubes are the way to go. Out of all the theatres, big, small, professional, amateur I have worked in, two have been lit by Halogen. One by four 1kW Strand units connected to the workers circuits, and the current office, lit by 6x 500W TH cross lighting the stage, with flourescent under the gantries.

 

Guess what.

 

I spent more time in the old one changing halogen in the 5 months I was there, than I did in the two years I worked on a very very big stage lit by flourescents.

 

The 500W units in the office at the moment are ignored. Lamps last a day, and as such we just leave them blown. We are working towards the end of the Financial with bonuses in mind, so are planning a replacement in April. Probably HQI or similar. The flourescent lighiting is more than adequate however.

 

1) Tubes for flourescents are cheaper then a TH lamp, or when bought in good bulk they are...

2) Flourescents last years, not days

3) Flourescents are brighter

4) They run cooler, so are less likely to scorch something accidently placed too close, therefore a safety benefit

5) They are a LOT cheaper to run - 108W for a twin 1500 fitting, putting out more light.

 

Fixing them under gantries is ideal, look at a twin fitzgerald 1500mm fitting with the addition of a white reflector and a clip on cage. Not massivley expensive, but damned effective mounted beneath a gantry running around SR, US, SL of a very big venue....

 

We do realise there is a reason you, or your organisation do not wish to use these, but you need to explain it better than saying 'wasting energy, pah, I care not for that' Which is how it came across to me. We are all involved in what is perceived to be a very wasteful industry, how many batteries a month on on west end show, in LSI this month, 1800?

 

As such it benefits all of us in the business to conserve energy as much as possible in areas it can be, if for no other reasons than money saving - less spent on the power bill = more for the charity's aims, and for good PR, to show the industry knows it has a waste issue, and a carbon footprint bigger than bigfoot, but is doing what it can to change that.

 

Those of us suggesting this are, on the whole, and in at least three of our cases, speaking from experience of various sizes of theatre, from very large to tiny, and from years of experience in doing this for money, working to budgets to maintain buildings like this.

 

We are not saying flourescent to be awkward, just that we know they work, and work well.

 

 

On the other hand, in our exhibition hall we have a high bay type fitting which runs a 230W ES lamp, compact TH lamp. Perhaps this lamp type, in a different fitting might be suitable. They are rather bright, don't blow as much as the garden lamps, and are less energy hungry.

 

Probably really expensive lamps though, and the fittings will cost £100+ Bt it is an incandescent source, and if that is what the people in charge demand....

 

E2A: Link to website showing image of 230W lamp, priced at £9.60 each, to prove to myself and others is was the wattage and not the voltage I was quoting.......

[adamharman]

Fixing them under gantries is ideal, look at a twin fitzgerald 1500mm fitting

 

To be slightly pedantic, Fitzgerald went under about 6 months ago. There's some talk of a resurection with a limited product range but I'm not sure how certain that is.

 

Not sure who else still makes the big white reflectors for their fittings, but somebody must.

[Dicky]

I am about to order some of these...

24w fluorescent replacement for floods

Purely for the energy /man power saving.

I'd been looking for something like this for a while..

Working light in my theatre is all flourecent with 6x 400w daylight HMIs, except for 10 of your standard 500w flood units which have to be re-lamped twice a year.

 

I'd be interested to see if anyone else has used them and if they're bright enough?

 

Dicky

[adam2]

The flourescents linked to above may not be bright enough for your application.

As a rough guide flourescent lighting has about 4 times the efficiency of halogen, perhaps 5 times for the very best.

Therefore to replace 500 watt halogen you would need about 100/125 watts of floursecent, whereas the unit linked to above is only 24 watts.

 

Also these are converters intended to replace linear halogen lamps in existing fittings, very clever, but perhaps a bit of a compromise compared to a purpose designed flourescent fitting.

 

A number of suppliers sell compact flourescent floodlights that take two 26 watt PLC lamps, I have installed a number of these and found them to be reliable, still only roughly equal to 200 watts of halogen though.

[Tomo]

It appears that the reasoning for no florries is the 'harsh' light you get from some of them.

 

You *can* get reasonably nice 'warm white' fluorescent lamps - they don't dim (I've seen exactly one good dimmable florry, and it had a very frightening price tag) - but that doesn't matter for worklight.

Go to a dealer and test a few of their different colour varieties - they will probably have one that is good enough for your purpose.

 

Almost every theatre I've been to uses linear fluorescents for worklight, and I've been to a *lot* of theatres.

[Jivemaster]

Currently the only justification for tungsten light in general service is the odd occasion when full light is necessary instantly on switch-on.

 

If you can wait half a second for a "warm-up period" then Fluorescsnt or CFL are a much better option, If you can wait 5 seconds then a big discharge fitting will produce lots of light for little electricity going as far as the yellow sodium light which is about 10 times as electrically efficient as a halogen lamp but part of the trade-off there is the colour.

 

Filling the place with 500w nightfighters is hugely wasteful of your green credentials and if you are a charity could cost you the goodwill of your supporters.

 

Modern CFLs go into BC or ES holders as direct replacements for tungsten lamps

 

Linear fluorescents can fit on theatre bars in the rigging without having too much width.

 

Modern ceiling downlighters are almost certainly fluorescent.

[peternewman]

If you can wait half a second for a "warm-up period" then Fluorescsnt or CFL are a much better option, If you can wait 5 seconds then a big discharge fitting will produce lots of light for little electricity going as far as the yellow sodium light which is about 10 times as electrically efficient as a halogen lamp but part of the trade-off there is the colour.

And if you can't wait for the warm-up, there was a topic on here a while back, where someone was asking about, and found links to, control electronics, so you'd get a blast of 500W flood for five seconds or whatever until your more energy efficient lighting is up to temperature, giving the best of all worlds.