Wattage and Lumens of Various Light Types [Archive]

erik

September 23rd 05, 05:22 AM

Wait a minute!
Light intensity is not measured in watts! That's the whole point of
Tim's question. Leave "watts per gallon" as a heater spec. Light
intensity is measured in lumens, or foot candles, or candellas etc...

Tim,
Sorry I don't have a direct answer to your question but it is a good
question. (worthy of a good answer) I think you may have to contact
the lamp manufacturer to find out what the actual light output for
each lamp is. The wattage spec is the amount of electricity it uses,
not necessarily how much light it produces.

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 23:47:12 GMT, Wayne Sallee >
wrote:

>Don't worry so much about those numbers, but look at the
>actual spectrum. Figure wats of light per gallon. You want
>3 to 5 wats per gallon. 3 being low, 5 being where you
>want to be for stonys,and even higher like 6.6 is good.
>And metal halide is the best light.
>
>Wayne Sallee
>Wayne's Pets

>
>
>Timcat wrote:
>> I have a puzzling question. In researching lights to set up a new tank, I
>> can't find anything relating Fluorescent tube wattage and MH wattage to
>> lumens, or a comparison to incandescent...like you always see on CF tubes
>> for home lighting, i.e. 20W CF equals a 100W incandescent bulb. I'm
>> wondering if, for example, 500W of CF lighting has the same output as 500W
>> of MH. Am I making this clear? Am I talking apples and oranges here, or am I
>> missing something?
>>
>> Tim
>>
>>

Wayne Sallee

September 23rd 05, 04:42 PM

Yes watts is the meaasurment of the amount of electricity
it uses, and yes it is in direct corilation of how much
heat is produced, but since watts is the amount of energy
it will give off, watts makes a good measure, but the
spectrum it gives off is important to look at. You want a
quality bulb that gives off energy in the right spectrums.
All of your aquarium bulbs give a spectrograph of what
light it gives off. And all light spectrums prouduce heat.
when light is absorbed, heat is given off. And of course
there is waisted entergy given off as heat directly from
the bulbs and the balast.

The problem with Lumens is that it is a measurment of how
much light the eye can see. This falls short with what is
considered beneficial to the corals. For example a sodium
light produces a lot of lumens, but is too yellow for a
reef tank.

Wayne Sallee

erik wrote:
> Wait a minute!
> Light intensity is not measured in watts! That's the whole point of
> Tim's question. Leave "watts per gallon" as a heater spec. Light
> intensity is measured in lumens, or foot candles, or candellas etc...
>
> Tim,
> Sorry I don't have a direct answer to your question but it is a good
> question. (worthy of a good answer) I think you may have to contact
> the lamp manufacturer to find out what the actual light output for
> each lamp is. The wattage spec is the amount of electricity it uses,
> not necessarily how much light it produces.
>
> On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 23:47:12 GMT, Wayne Sallee >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Don't worry so much about those numbers, but look at the
>>actual spectrum. Figure wats of light per gallon. You want
>>3 to 5 wats per gallon. 3 being low, 5 being where you
>>want to be for stonys,and even higher like 6.6 is good.
>>And metal halide is the best light.
>>
>>Wayne Sallee
>>Wayne's Pets

>>
>>
>>Timcat wrote:
>>
>>>I have a puzzling question. In researching lights to set up a new tank, I
>>>can't find anything relating Fluorescent tube wattage and MH wattage to
>>>lumens, or a comparison to incandescent...like you always see on CF tubes
>>>for home lighting, i.e. 20W CF equals a 100W incandescent bulb. I'm
>>>wondering if, for example, 500W of CF lighting has the same output as 500W
>>>of MH. Am I making this clear? Am I talking apples and oranges here, or am I
>>>missing something?
>>>
>>>Tim
>>>
>>>
>
>

Boomer

September 23rd 05, 11:19 PM

A 400 W lamp or 40 W lamp says nothing about how much light it puts out of any kind. Most
lamps use this wattage to drive themselves. On the avg about 75% of the wattage is for
driving it the other 2%% will be actual light output Some of the more hi-tech stuff drives
more light output, as it use less wattage to drive it.A simple way to look at it is to
look at the wattage and the lumen output. A 100 W bulb that has an output of 10,000 lumens
( say a MH) has an EFFICACY of 100 ( 10,000 / 100). A std incandescent. only has an
output of about 10 lumens / W, so you would need a 1,000 W lamp to be equal 100W MH in
lumen output.

But all this is based on the human eye, which is most sensitive to about 540 nm or green
light. You do not see red or blue light well, so when dealing wit actual light output one
needs to look a "Einstein's", a true light measurement of all light. Or a SED( Spectral
Energy Distribution ) Curve ( you know that nice colored rainbow plot you see on some
light bulbs)

Watts / gal is a MEANINGLESS value !! Why ? How deep is the tank, how wide is the tank,
what kind of bulb ( NO, VHO, CF, MH, MV, as they have a different "Point Source") and K
value, what is in the tank, etc..

--
Boomer

Want to talk chemistry ? The Reef Chemistry Forum
http://www.reefcentral.com/vbulletin/index.php

Former US Army Bomb Technician (EOD)
Member; IABTI, NATEODA, WEODF, ISEE & IPS

If You See Me Running You Better Catch-Up

"

Wayne Sallee

September 24th 05, 02:13 PM

But if watage says nothing about how much light it puts
out, then when ever you order a mh light system, and you
are asked what wattage you want, then you would say "It
doesn't matter".

Wayne Sallee

Boomer wrote:
> A 400 W lamp or 40 W lamp says nothing about how much light it puts out of any kind. Most
> lamps use this wattage to drive themselves. On the avg about 75% of the wattage is for
> driving it the other 2%% will be actual light output Some of the more hi-tech stuff drives
> more light output, as it use less wattage to drive it.A simple way to look at it is to
> look at the wattage and the lumen output. A 100 W bulb that has an output of 10,000 lumens
> ( say a MH) has an EFFICACY of 100 ( 10,000 / 100). A std incandescent. only has an
> output of about 10 lumens / W, so you would need a 1,000 W lamp to be equal 100W MH in
> lumen output.
>
> But all this is based on the human eye, which is most sensitive to about 540 nm or green
> light. You do not see red or blue light well, so when dealing wit actual light output one
> needs to look a "Einstein's", a true light measurement of all light. Or a SED( Spectral
> Energy Distribution ) Curve ( you know that nice colored rainbow plot you see on some
> light bulbs)
>
> Watts / gal is a MEANINGLESS value !! Why ? How deep is the tank, how wide is the tank,
> what kind of bulb ( NO, VHO, CF, MH, MV, as they have a different "Point Source") and K
> value, what is in the tank, etc..
>
>

Timcat

September 24th 05, 03:58 PM

Gee...I think I started something. All of these points are valid. The reason
I asked is to try to buy a lighting system that is as energy efficient as
possible (especially now that electricity rates are about to go through the
roof). I know for most reef aquarists, MH is the lighting of choice...I just
don't know if it's because of its spectral output, intensity, or what. I
built a house 2 1/2 years ago and I installed recessed lights with Elzak
reflectors. The bulbs are 23W, supposedly equal to 100W incandescent, with
1600 Lumens. I am more than pleased. This experience is what caused me to
ponder the question in regards to reef lighting. In essence, does the same
hold true...at that rate, a single 96W CF tube would equal 417W of
incandescent lighting and 667,826 Lumens. I have no experience with MH, and
have no idea how it compares...so, is there any reason a person
couldn't/shouldn't use say, 500W of presumably cooler-running CF instead of
500W of MH? Would 300W of CF equal 500W of MH, or would 500W of MH equal
1500W of CF, for example? Everything I've read refers to color (daylight,
full spectrum, actinic, etc.) and leaves much unsaid in regards to the
amount of power need to achieve the desired amount of that "color."
Hey...members of this group suggested I read (and recommended some books)
and then come back and ask questions. You should have never done it! :)

Tim

"Timcat" > wrote in message
...
>I have a puzzling question. In researching lights to set up a new tank, I
>can't find anything relating Fluorescent tube wattage and MH wattage to
>lumens, or a comparison to incandescent...like you always see on CF tubes
>for home lighting, i.e. 20W CF equals a 100W incandescent bulb. I'm
>wondering if, for example, 500W of CF lighting has the same output as 500W
>of MH. Am I making this clear? Am I talking apples and oranges here, or am
>I missing something?
>
> Tim
>

Wayne Sallee

September 24th 05, 05:01 PM

One thing that helps save money is the use of electronic
balasts. They don't waist as much electricity, as do other
balasts. They are also easyer on the bulbs.

Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets

Timcat wrote:
> Gee...I think I started something. All of these points are valid. The reason
> I asked is to try to buy a lighting system that is as energy efficient as
> possible (especially now that electricity rates are about to go through the
> roof). I know for most reef aquarists, MH is the lighting of choice...I just
> don't know if it's because of its spectral output, intensity, or what. I
> built a house 2 1/2 years ago and I installed recessed lights with Elzak
> reflectors. The bulbs are 23W, supposedly equal to 100W incandescent, with
> 1600 Lumens. I am more than pleased. This experience is what caused me to
> ponder the question in regards to reef lighting. In essence, does the same
> hold true...at that rate, a single 96W CF tube would equal 417W of
> incandescent lighting and 667,826 Lumens. I have no experience with MH, and
> have no idea how it compares...so, is there any reason a person
> couldn't/shouldn't use say, 500W of presumably cooler-running CF instead of
> 500W of MH? Would 300W of CF equal 500W of MH, or would 500W of MH equal
> 1500W of CF, for example? Everything I've read refers to color (daylight,
> full spectrum, actinic, etc.) and leaves much unsaid in regards to the
> amount of power need to achieve the desired amount of that "color."
> Hey...members of this group suggested I read (and recommended some books)
> and then come back and ask questions. You should have never done it! :)
>
> Tim
>
> "Timcat" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>I have a puzzling question. In researching lights to set up a new tank, I
>>can't find anything relating Fluorescent tube wattage and MH wattage to
>>lumens, or a comparison to incandescent...like you always see on CF tubes
>>for home lighting, i.e. 20W CF equals a 100W incandescent bulb. I'm
>>wondering if, for example, 500W of CF lighting has the same output as 500W
>>of MH. Am I making this clear? Am I talking apples and oranges here, or am
>>I missing something?
>>
>>Tim
>>
>
>
>

George Pontis

September 24th 05, 05:59 PM

In article >, says...
> ... I built a house 2 1/2 years ago and I installed recessed lights with Elzak
> reflectors. The bulbs are 23W, supposedly equal to 100W incandescent, with
> 1600 Lumens. I am more than pleased. This experience is what caused me to
> ponder the question in regards to reef lighting. In essence, does the same
> hold true...at that rate, a single 96W CF tube would equal 417W of
> incandescent lighting and 667,826 Lumens.

There is an error in the decimal point, it should come out to 6678 lumens.

> I have no experience with MH, and
> have no idea how it compares...so, is there any reason a person
> couldn't/shouldn't use say, 500W of presumably cooler-running CF instead of
> 500W of MH? Would 300W of CF equal 500W of MH, or would 500W of MH equal
> 1500W of CF, for example?

MH is about as efficient as fluorescent in terms of light output for a given
electrical input. It has the advantage of being more compact for a given power
level, so you can fit more over an aquarium if you so desire. The downside is that
these expensive lamps degrade faster, causing the light output to fall off.
Fluorescent is best in that regard, whether it is a standard T8, a T5, or a power
compact.

In practice one can buy a sleek 48" power compact fixture with 4x96W 50-50 lamps
from one of the better companies, like Coralife. It will produce _plenty_ of light
over any popular 4 foot tank like a 55, 75 or 90G.

Boomer

September 24th 05, 10:40 PM

Not everyone runs MH and not all MH, at say 400 W, necessarily produce the same amount of
light. As I said, you must of missed it.

EFFICACY = Lumens / Watts

All one has to due is look at any 400 W MH and compare it to 400W Iwasaki. No MH @ 400 W
even comes close to this bulbs light output.

"then you would say "It doesn't matter".

I never said it does not matter. Do not be putting words in my mouth :-) It is misleading.
I said "A 400 W lamp or 40 W lamp says nothing about how much light it puts out of any
kind". . Almost any 175 W MH will _usually_ but _not always _will have more light output
than say a 150 MH

Boomer

Want to talk chemistry ? The Reef Chemistry Forum
http://www.reefcentral.com/vbulletin/index.php

Former US Army Bomb Technician (EOD)
Member; IABTI, NATEODA, WEODF, ISEE & IPS

If You See Me Running You Better Catch-Up

"Wayne Sallee" > wrote in message
ink.net...
: But if watage says nothing about how much light it puts
: out, then when ever you order a mh light system, and you
: are asked what wattage you want, then you would say "It
: doesn't matter".
:
: Wayne Sallee
:
:
: Boomer wrote:
: > A 400 W lamp or 40 W lamp says nothing about how much light it puts out of any kind.
Most
: > lamps use this wattage to drive themselves. On the avg about 75% of the wattage is for
: > driving it the other 2%% will be actual light output Some of the more hi-tech stuff
drives
: > more light output, as it use less wattage to drive it.A simple way to look at it is to
: > look at the wattage and the lumen output. A 100 W bulb that has an output of 10,000
lumens
: > ( say a MH) has an EFFICACY of 100 ( 10,000 / 100). A std incandescent. only has an
: > output of about 10 lumens / W, so you would need a 1,000 W lamp to be equal 100W MH in
: > lumen output.
: >
: > But all this is based on the human eye, which is most sensitive to about 540 nm or
green
: > light. You do not see red or blue light well, so when dealing wit actual light output
one
: > needs to look a "Einstein's", a true light measurement of all light. Or a SED(
Spectral
: > Energy Distribution ) Curve ( you know that nice colored rainbow plot you see on some
: > light bulbs)
: >
: > Watts / gal is a MEANINGLESS value !! Why ? How deep is the tank, how wide is the
tank,
: > what kind of bulb ( NO, VHO, CF, MH, MV, as they have a different "Point Source") and
K
: > value, what is in the tank, etc..
: >
: >

Wayne Sallee

September 24th 05, 10:52 PM

But lumens is only related to what the eye perceives.

Wayne Sallee

Boomer wrote:
>
>
> EFFICACY = Lumens / Watts
>

Boomer

September 24th 05, 11:10 PM

Light measurement is not an easy subject. For example, a 200 W of CF and 200 W of MH and
both having the same lumen reading still may not say much / say. MH have a small point
source and CF a large point source. The MH is more like a spot light and the CF more like
a flood light, thus the CF will not penetrate the water as much. MH are better for deeper
tanks and CF can work fine for shallower tanks. Even with all that being said, a CF could
penetrate the water more, if for example it had much more blue light and the MH very low
blue light. There has been allot of testing on MH in this hobby and about nil on CF. It
depends on what bulb you are picking for x application. Over all MH are still.the best
light.

Lets look at your example

"The bulbs are 23W, supposedly equal to 100W incandescent, with
: 1600 Lumens."

CF_Ef =1600 /23 = 70 lunmens / W

Incandescent_Ef =1600/100 = 16 lumens / W

Most MH have a Ef of above 70 lumnes /W, usually around 80 lumens /W

As George pointed out there are a number of good light fixtures like the CF you are lookng
at or T-5 & T-8. MH do cost money :-)

Boomer

Want to talk chemistry ? The Reef Chemistry Forum
http://www.reefcentral.com/vbulletin/index.php

Former US Army Bomb Technician (EOD)
Member; IABTI, NATEODA, WEODF, ISEE & IPS

If You See Me Running You Better Catch-Up

"Timcat" > wrote in message ...
: Gee...I think I started something. All of these points are valid. The reason
: I asked is to try to buy a lighting system that is as energy efficient as
: possible (especially now that electricity rates are about to go through the
: roof). I know for most reef aquarists, MH is the lighting of choice...I just
: don't know if it's because of its spectral output, intensity, or what. I
: built a house 2 1/2 years ago and I installed recessed lights with Elzak
: reflectors. The bulbs are 23W, supposedly equal to 100W incandescent, with
: 1600 Lumens. I am more than pleased. This experience is what caused me to
: ponder the question in regards to reef lighting. In essence, does the same
: hold true...at that rate, a single 96W CF tube would equal 417W of
: incandescent lighting and 667,826 Lumens. I have no experience with MH, and
: have no idea how it compares...so, is there any reason a person
: couldn't/shouldn't use say, 500W of presumably cooler-running CF instead of
: 500W of MH? Would 300W of CF equal 500W of MH, or would 500W of MH equal
: 1500W of CF, for example? Everything I've read refers to color (daylight,
: full spectrum, actinic, etc.) and leaves much unsaid in regards to the
: amount of power need to achieve the desired amount of that "color."
: Hey...members of this group suggested I read (and recommended some books)
: and then come back and ask questions. You should have never done it! :)
:
: Tim
:
: "Timcat" > wrote in message
: ...
: >I have a puzzling question. In researching lights to set up a new tank, I
: >can't find anything relating Fluorescent tube wattage and MH wattage to
: >lumens, or a comparison to incandescent...like you always see on CF tubes
: >for home lighting, i.e. 20W CF equals a 100W incandescent bulb. I'm
: >wondering if, for example, 500W of CF lighting has the same output as 500W
: >of MH. Am I making this clear? Am I talking apples and oranges here, or am
: >I missing something?
: >
: > Tim
: >
:
:

Timcat

September 25th 05, 12:33 AM

Thanks folks! I realize the manufacturers must strike a balance between
giving potential customers enough information (seemingly the lowest possible
denominator), but not enough to cause the eyes to glaze over. However, it
seems the trend is toward not providing enough in many cases. This lighting
thing is a good case in point...for inquiring minds, or people who have been
burned (usually by themselves, like me), or both (like me), there is nowhere
near enough information. I'm having the same issues with almost all my
hardware research...pump ratings don't mention dB, they give flow ratings
without mentioning the head for that flow rating, no mention of Watts nor
amps in many cases. I could go on, but I'm sure almost everyone in this
group has been where I am and gets the point. I mean, Gee Whiz, give me the
efficiency comparisons like you did in your replies...at least I could look
up definitions, etc. if I had to...I can't look up what isn't given to me
when they want me to buy their product. At $500 or so for a decent lighting
system, you can bet I'm gonna do some homework.

Thanks Again,
Tim

"Timcat" > wrote in message
...
> Gee...I think I started something. All of these points are valid. The
> reason I asked is to try to buy a lighting system that is as energy
> efficient as possible (especially now that electricity rates are about to
> go through the roof). I know for most reef aquarists, MH is the lighting
> of choice...I just don't know if it's because of its spectral output,
> intensity, or what. I built a house 2 1/2 years ago and I installed
> recessed lights with Elzak reflectors. The bulbs are 23W, supposedly equal
> to 100W incandescent, with 1600 Lumens. I am more than pleased. This
> experience is what caused me to ponder the question in regards to reef
> lighting. In essence, does the same hold true...at that rate, a single 96W
> CF tube would equal 417W of incandescent lighting and 667,826 Lumens. I
> have no experience with MH, and have no idea how it compares...so, is
> there any reason a person couldn't/shouldn't use say, 500W of presumably
> cooler-running CF instead of 500W of MH? Would 300W of CF equal 500W of
> MH, or would 500W of MH equal 1500W of CF, for example? Everything I've
> read refers to color (daylight, full spectrum, actinic, etc.) and leaves
> much unsaid in regards to the amount of power need to achieve the desired
> amount of that "color."
> Hey...members of this group suggested I read (and recommended some books)
> and then come back and ask questions. You should have never done it! :)
>
> Tim
>
> "Timcat" > wrote in message
> ...
>>I have a puzzling question. In researching lights to set up a new tank, I
>>can't find anything relating Fluorescent tube wattage and MH wattage to
>>lumens, or a comparison to incandescent...like you always see on CF tubes
>>for home lighting, i.e. 20W CF equals a 100W incandescent bulb. I'm
>>wondering if, for example, 500W of CF lighting has the same output as 500W
>>of MH. Am I making this clear? Am I talking apples and oranges here, or am
>>I missing something?
>>
>> Tim
>>
>
>

Wayne Sallee

September 25th 05, 02:02 AM

A lot of times you can get that information by calling the
manufacture. They can often fax or e-mail you the data.

Wayne Sallee

Timcat wrote:
> Thanks folks! I realize the manufacturers must strike a balance between
> giving potential customers enough information (seemingly the lowest possible
> denominator), but not enough to cause the eyes to glaze over. However, it
> seems the trend is toward not providing enough in many cases. This lighting
> thing is a good case in point...for inquiring minds, or people who have been
> burned (usually by themselves, like me), or both (like me), there is nowhere
> near enough information. I'm having the same issues with almost all my
> hardware research...pump ratings don't mention dB, they give flow ratings
> without mentioning the head for that flow rating, no mention of Watts nor
> amps in many cases. I could go on, but I'm sure almost everyone in this
> group has been where I am and gets the point. I mean, Gee Whiz, give me the
> efficiency comparisons like you did in your replies...at least I could look
> up definitions, etc. if I had to...I can't look up what isn't given to me
> when they want me to buy their product. At $500 or so for a decent lighting
> system, you can bet I'm gonna do some homework.
>
> Thanks Again,
> Tim
>
> "Timcat" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Gee...I think I started something. All of these points are valid. The
>>reason I asked is to try to buy a lighting system that is as energy
>>efficient as possible (especially now that electricity rates are about to
>>go through the roof). I know for most reef aquarists, MH is the lighting
>>of choice...I just don't know if it's because of its spectral output,
>>intensity, or what. I built a house 2 1/2 years ago and I installed
>>recessed lights with Elzak reflectors. The bulbs are 23W, supposedly equal
>>to 100W incandescent, with 1600 Lumens. I am more than pleased. This
>>experience is what caused me to ponder the question in regards to reef
>>lighting. In essence, does the same hold true...at that rate, a single 96W
>>CF tube would equal 417W of incandescent lighting and 667,826 Lumens. I
>>have no experience with MH, and have no idea how it compares...so, is
>>there any reason a person couldn't/shouldn't use say, 500W of presumably
>>cooler-running CF instead of 500W of MH? Would 300W of CF equal 500W of
>>MH, or would 500W of MH equal 1500W of CF, for example? Everything I've
>>read refers to color (daylight, full spectrum, actinic, etc.) and leaves
>>much unsaid in regards to the amount of power need to achieve the desired
>>amount of that "color."
>>Hey...members of this group suggested I read (and recommended some books)
>>and then come back and ask questions. You should have never done it! :)
>>
>>Tim
>>
>>"Timcat" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>I have a puzzling question. In researching lights to set up a new tank, I
>>>can't find anything relating Fluorescent tube wattage and MH wattage to
>>>lumens, or a comparison to incandescent...like you always see on CF tubes
>>>for home lighting, i.e. 20W CF equals a 100W incandescent bulb. I'm
>>>wondering if, for example, 500W of CF lighting has the same output as 500W
>>>of MH. Am I making this clear? Am I talking apples and oranges here, or am
>>>I missing something?
>>>
>>>Tim
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Timcat

September 25th 05, 07:27 PM

That was my next step for this week, but it shouldn't have to be this way.

Thanks

"Wayne Sallee" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>A lot of times you can get that information by calling the manufacture.
>They can often fax or e-mail you the data.
>
> Wayne Sallee
>
>
> Timcat wrote:
>> Thanks folks! I realize the manufacturers must strike a balance between
>> giving potential customers enough information (seemingly the lowest
>> possible denominator), but not enough to cause the eyes to glaze over.
>> However, it seems the trend is toward not providing enough in many cases.
>> This lighting thing is a good case in point...for inquiring minds, or
>> people who have been burned (usually by themselves, like me), or both
>> (like me), there is nowhere near enough information. I'm having the same
>> issues with almost all my hardware research...pump ratings don't mention
>> dB, they give flow ratings without mentioning the head for that flow
>> rating, no mention of Watts nor amps in many cases. I could go on, but
>> I'm sure almost everyone in this group has been where I am and gets the
>> point. I mean, Gee Whiz, give me the efficiency comparisons like you did
>> in your replies...at least I could look up definitions, etc. if I had
>> to...I can't look up what isn't given to me when they want me to buy
>> their product. At $500 or so for a decent lighting system, you can bet
>> I'm gonna do some homework.
>>
>> Thanks Again,
>> Tim
>>
>> "Timcat" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>Gee...I think I started something. All of these points are valid. The
>>>reason I asked is to try to buy a lighting system that is as energy
>>>efficient as possible (especially now that electricity rates are about to
>>>go through the roof). I know for most reef aquarists, MH is the lighting
>>>of choice...I just don't know if it's because of its spectral output,
>>>intensity, or what. I built a house 2 1/2 years ago and I installed
>>>recessed lights with Elzak reflectors. The bulbs are 23W, supposedly
>>>equal to 100W incandescent, with 1600 Lumens. I am more than pleased.
>>>This experience is what caused me to ponder the question in regards to
>>>reef lighting. In essence, does the same hold true...at that rate, a
>>>single 96W CF tube would equal 417W of incandescent lighting and 667,826
>>>Lumens. I have no experience with MH, and have no idea how it
>>>compares...so, is there any reason a person couldn't/shouldn't use say,
>>>500W of presumably cooler-running CF instead of 500W of MH? Would 300W of
>>>CF equal 500W of MH, or would 500W of MH equal 1500W of CF, for example?
>>>Everything I've read refers to color (daylight, full spectrum, actinic,
>>>etc.) and leaves much unsaid in regards to the amount of power need to
>>>achieve the desired amount of that "color."
>>>Hey...members of this group suggested I read (and recommended some books)
>>>and then come back and ask questions. You should have never done it! :)
>>>
>>>Tim
>>>
>>>"Timcat" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>I have a puzzling question. In researching lights to set up a new tank,
>>>>I can't find anything relating Fluorescent tube wattage and MH wattage
>>>>to lumens, or a comparison to incandescent...like you always see on CF
>>>>tubes for home lighting, i.e. 20W CF equals a 100W incandescent bulb.
>>>>I'm wondering if, for example, 500W of CF lighting has the same output
>>>>as 500W of MH. Am I making this clear? Am I talking apples and oranges
>>>>here, or am I missing something?
>>>>
>>>>Tim
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>

Wayne Sallee

September 26th 05, 06:41 PM

Manufacturs seem like they tend to think that most
customers are not interested in that much detail, and so
don't provide it unless requested. Or at least that's the
way it seems.

Wayne Sallee

Timcat wrote:
> That was my next step for this week, but it shouldn't have to be this way.
>
> Thanks
>
> "Wayne Sallee" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
>>A lot of times you can get that information by calling the manufacture.
>>They can often fax or e-mail you the data.
>>
>>Wayne Sallee

>>
>>Timcat wrote:
>>
>>>Thanks folks! I realize the manufacturers must strike a balance between
>>>giving potential customers enough information (seemingly the lowest
>>>possible denominator), but not enough to cause the eyes to glaze over.
>>>However, it seems the trend is toward not providing enough in many cases.
>>>This lighting thing is a good case in point...for inquiring minds, or
>>>people who have been burned (usually by themselves, like me), or both
>>>(like me), there is nowhere near enough information. I'm having the same
>>>issues with almost all my hardware research...pump ratings don't mention
>>>dB, they give flow ratings without mentioning the head for that flow
>>>rating, no mention of Watts nor amps in many cases. I could go on, but
>>>I'm sure almost everyone in this group has been where I am and gets the
>>>point. I mean, Gee Whiz, give me the efficiency comparisons like you did
>>>in your replies...at least I could look up definitions, etc. if I had
>>>to...I can't look up what isn't given to me when they want me to buy
>>>their product. At $500 or so for a decent lighting system, you can bet
>>>I'm gonna do some homework.
>>>
>>>Thanks Again,
>>>Tim
>>>
>>>"Timcat" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Gee...I think I started something. All of these points are valid. The
>>>>reason I asked is to try to buy a lighting system that is as energy
>>>>efficient as possible (especially now that electricity rates are about to
>>>>go through the roof). I know for most reef aquarists, MH is the lighting
>>>>of choice...I just don't know if it's because of its spectral output,
>>>>intensity, or what. I built a house 2 1/2 years ago and I installed
>>>>recessed lights with Elzak reflectors. The bulbs are 23W, supposedly
>>>>equal to 100W incandescent, with 1600 Lumens. I am more than pleased.
>>>>This experience is what caused me to ponder the question in regards to
>>>>reef lighting. In essence, does the same hold true...at that rate, a
>>>>single 96W CF tube would equal 417W of incandescent lighting and 667,826
>>>>Lumens. I have no experience with MH, and have no idea how it
>>>>compares...so, is there any reason a person couldn't/shouldn't use say,
>>>>500W of presumably cooler-running CF instead of 500W of MH? Would 300W of
>>>>CF equal 500W of MH, or would 500W of MH equal 1500W of CF, for example?
>>>>Everything I've read refers to color (daylight, full spectrum, actinic,
>>>>etc.) and leaves much unsaid in regards to the amount of power need to
>>>>achieve the desired amount of that "color."
>>>>Hey...members of this group suggested I read (and recommended some books)
>>>>and then come back and ask questions. You should have never done it! :)
>>>>
>>>>Tim
>>>>
>>>>"Timcat" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I have a puzzling question. In researching lights to set up a new tank,
>>>>>I can't find anything relating Fluorescent tube wattage and MH wattage
>>>>>to lumens, or a comparison to incandescent...like you always see on CF
>>>>>tubes for home lighting, i.e. 20W CF equals a 100W incandescent bulb.
>>>>>I'm wondering if, for example, 500W of CF lighting has the same output
>>>>>as 500W of MH. Am I making this clear? Am I talking apples and oranges
>>>>>here, or am I missing something?
>>>>>
>>>>>Tim
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>

Boomer

September 26th 05, 09:58 PM

This never got posted for some reason.

Light measurement is not an easy subject. For example, a 200 W of CF and 200 W of MH and
both having the same lumen reading still may not say much / say. MH have a small point
source and CF a large point source. The MH is more like a spot light and the CF more like
a flood light, thus the CF will not penetrate the water as much. MH are better for deeper
tanks and CF can work fine for shallower tanks. Even with all that being said, a CF could
penetrate the water more, if for example it had much more blue light and the MH very low
blue light. There has been allot of testing on MH in this hobby and about nil on CF. It
depends on what bulb you are picking for x application. Over all MH are still.the best
light.

Lets look at your example

"The bulbs are 23W, supposedly equal to 100W incandescent, with
: 1600 Lumens."

CF_Ef =1600 /23 = 70 lunmens / W

Incandescent_Ef =1600/100 = 16 lumens / W

Most MH have a Ef of above 70 lumnes /W, usually around 80 lumens /W

As George pointed out there are a number of good light fixtures like the CF you are lookng
at or T-5 & T-8. MH do cost money :-)

--
Boomer

Want to talk chemistry ? The Reef Chemistry Forum
http://www.reefcentral.com/vbulletin/index.php

Former US Army Bomb Technician (EOD)
Member; IABTI, NATEODA, WEODF, ISEE & IPS

If You See Me Running You Better Catch-Up

"Timcat" > wrote in message ...
: Thanks folks! I realize the manufacturers must strike a balance between
: giving potential customers enough information (seemingly the lowest possible
: denominator), but not enough to cause the eyes to glaze over. However, it
: seems the trend is toward not providing enough in many cases. This lighting
: thing is a good case in point...for inquiring minds, or people who have been
: burned (usually by themselves, like me), or both (like me), there is nowhere
: near enough information. I'm having the same issues with almost all my
: hardware research...pump ratings don't mention dB, they give flow ratings
: without mentioning the head for that flow rating, no mention of Watts nor
: amps in many cases. I could go on, but I'm sure almost everyone in this
: group has been where I am and gets the point. I mean, Gee Whiz, give me the
: efficiency comparisons like you did in your replies...at least I could look
: up definitions, etc. if I had to...I can't look up what isn't given to me
: when they want me to buy their product. At $500 or so for a decent lighting
: system, you can bet I'm gonna do some homework.
:
: Thanks Again,
: Tim
:
: "Timcat" > wrote in message
: ...
: > Gee...I think I started something. All of these points are valid. The
: > reason I asked is to try to buy a lighting system that is as energy
: > efficient as possible (especially now that electricity rates are about to
: > go through the roof). I know for most reef aquarists, MH is the lighting
: > of choice...I just don't know if it's because of its spectral output,
: > intensity, or what. I built a house 2 1/2 years ago and I installed
: > recessed lights with Elzak reflectors. The bulbs are 23W, supposedly equal
: > to 100W incandescent, with 1600 Lumens. I am more than pleased. This
: > experience is what caused me to ponder the question in regards to reef
: > lighting. In essence, does the same hold true...at that rate, a single 96W
: > CF tube would equal 417W of incandescent lighting and 667,826 Lumens. I
: > have no experience with MH, and have no idea how it compares...so, is
: > there any reason a person couldn't/shouldn't use say, 500W of presumably
: > cooler-running CF instead of 500W of MH? Would 300W of CF equal 500W of
: > MH, or would 500W of MH equal 1500W of CF, for example? Everything I've
: > read refers to color (daylight, full spectrum, actinic, etc.) and leaves
: > much unsaid in regards to the amount of power need to achieve the desired
: > amount of that "color."
: > Hey...members of this group suggested I read (and recommended some books)
: > and then come back and ask questions. You should have never done it! :)
: >
: > Tim
: >
: > "Timcat" > wrote in message
: > ...
: >>I have a puzzling question. In researching lights to set up a new tank, I
: >>can't find anything relating Fluorescent tube wattage and MH wattage to
: >>lumens, or a comparison to incandescent...like you always see on CF tubes
: >>for home lighting, i.e. 20W CF equals a 100W incandescent bulb. I'm
: >>wondering if, for example, 500W of CF lighting has the same output as 500W
: >>of MH. Am I making this clear? Am I talking apples and oranges here, or am
: >>I missing something?
: >>
: >> Tim
: >>
: >
: >
:
:

Boomer

September 26th 05, 09:59 PM

This never got posted for some reason

Not everyone runs MH and not all MH, at say 400 W, necessarily produce the same amount of
light. As I said, you must of missed it.

EFFICACY = Lumens / Watts

All one has to due is look at any 400 W MH and compare it to 400W Iwasaki. No MH @ 400 W
even comes close to this bulbs light output.

"then you would say "It doesn't matter".

I never said it does not matter. Do not be putting words in my mouth :-) It is misleading.
I said "A 400 W lamp or 40 W lamp says nothing about how much light it puts out of any
kind". . Almost any 175 W MH will _usually_ but _not always _will have more light output
than say a 150 MH

--
Boomer

Want to talk chemistry ? The Reef Chemistry Forum
http://www.reefcentral.com/vbulletin/index.php

Former US Army Bomb Technician (EOD)
Member; IABTI, NATEODA, WEODF, ISEE & IPS

If You See Me Running You Better Catch-Up

"Wayne Sallee" > wrote in message
ink.net...
: But if watage says nothing about how much light it puts
: out, then when ever you order a mh light system, and you
: are asked what wattage you want, then you would say "It
: doesn't matter".
:
: Wayne Sallee
:
:
: Boomer wrote:
: > A 400 W lamp or 40 W lamp says nothing about how much light it puts out of any kind.
Most
: > lamps use this wattage to drive themselves. On the avg about 75% of the wattage is for
: > driving it the other 2%% will be actual light output Some of the more hi-tech stuff
drives
: > more light output, as it use less wattage to drive it.A simple way to look at it is to
: > look at the wattage and the lumen output. A 100 W bulb that has an output of 10,000
lumens
: > ( say a MH) has an EFFICACY of 100 ( 10,000 / 100). A std incandescent. only has an
: > output of about 10 lumens / W, so you would need a 1,000 W lamp to be equal 100W MH in
: > lumen output.
: >
: > But all this is based on the human eye, which is most sensitive to about 540 nm or
green
: > light. You do not see red or blue light well, so when dealing wit actual light output
one
: > needs to look a "Einstein's", a true light measurement of all light. Or a SED(
Spectral
: > Energy Distribution ) Curve ( you know that nice colored rainbow plot you see on some
: > light bulbs)
: >
: > Watts / gal is a MEANINGLESS value !! Why ? How deep is the tank, how wide is the
tank,
: > what kind of bulb ( NO, VHO, CF, MH, MV, as they have a different "Point Source") and
K
: > value, what is in the tank, etc..
: >
: >

Boomer

September 26th 05, 10:01 PM

Yes Wayne that is about what they do and more so now. Years ago you could get all kinds of
data especially from GTE/Sylvania

--
Boomer

Want to talk chemistry ? The Reef Chemistry Forum
http://www.reefcentral.com/vbulletin/index.php

Former US Army Bomb Technician (EOD)
Member; IABTI, NATEODA, WEODF, ISEE & IPS

If You See Me Running You Better Catch-Up

"Wayne Sallee" > wrote in message
nk.net...
: Manufacturs seem like they tend to think that most
: customers are not interested in that much detail, and so
: don't provide it unless requested. Or at least that's the
: way it seems.
:
:
: Wayne Sallee
:
:
:
: Timcat wrote:
: > That was my next step for this week, but it shouldn't have to be this way.
: >
: > Thanks
: >
: > "Wayne Sallee" > wrote in message
: > ink.net...
: >
: >>A lot of times you can get that information by calling the manufacture.
: >>They can often fax or e-mail you the data.
: >>
: >>Wayne Sallee
:
: >>
: >>Timcat wrote:
: >>
: >>>Thanks folks! I realize the manufacturers must strike a balance between
: >>>giving potential customers enough information (seemingly the lowest
: >>>possible denominator), but not enough to cause the eyes to glaze over.
: >>>However, it seems the trend is toward not providing enough in many cases.
: >>>This lighting thing is a good case in point...for inquiring minds, or
: >>>people who have been burned (usually by themselves, like me), or both
: >>>(like me), there is nowhere near enough information. I'm having the same
: >>>issues with almost all my hardware research...pump ratings don't mention
: >>>dB, they give flow ratings without mentioning the head for that flow
: >>>rating, no mention of Watts nor amps in many cases. I could go on, but
: >>>I'm sure almost everyone in this group has been where I am and gets the
: >>>point. I mean, Gee Whiz, give me the efficiency comparisons like you did
: >>>in your replies...at least I could look up definitions, etc. if I had
: >>>to...I can't look up what isn't given to me when they want me to buy
: >>>their product. At $500 or so for a decent lighting system, you can bet
: >>>I'm gonna do some homework.
: >>>
: >>>Thanks Again,
: >>>Tim
: >>>
: >>>"Timcat" > wrote in message
: ...
: >>>
: >>>
: >>>>Gee...I think I started something. All of these points are valid. The
: >>>>reason I asked is to try to buy a lighting system that is as energy
: >>>>efficient as possible (especially now that electricity rates are about to
: >>>>go through the roof). I know for most reef aquarists, MH is the lighting
: >>>>of choice...I just don't know if it's because of its spectral output,
: >>>>intensity, or what. I built a house 2 1/2 years ago and I installed
: >>>>recessed lights with Elzak reflectors. The bulbs are 23W, supposedly
: >>>>equal to 100W incandescent, with 1600 Lumens. I am more than pleased.
: >>>>This experience is what caused me to ponder the question in regards to
: >>>>reef lighting. In essence, does the same hold true...at that rate, a
: >>>>single 96W CF tube would equal 417W of incandescent lighting and 667,826
: >>>>Lumens. I have no experience with MH, and have no idea how it
: >>>>compares...so, is there any reason a person couldn't/shouldn't use say,
: >>>>500W of presumably cooler-running CF instead of 500W of MH? Would 300W of
: >>>>CF equal 500W of MH, or would 500W of MH equal 1500W of CF, for example?
: >>>>Everything I've read refers to color (daylight, full spectrum, actinic,
: >>>>etc.) and leaves much unsaid in regards to the amount of power need to
: >>>>achieve the desired amount of that "color."
: >>>>Hey...members of this group suggested I read (and recommended some books)
: >>>>and then come back and ask questions. You should have never done it! :)
: >>>>
: >>>>Tim
: >>>>
: >>>>"Timcat" > wrote in message
: ...
: >>>>
: >>>>
: >>>>>I have a puzzling question. In researching lights to set up a new tank,
: >>>>>I can't find anything relating Fluorescent tube wattage and MH wattage
: >>>>>to lumens, or a comparison to incandescent...like you always see on CF
: >>>>>tubes for home lighting, i.e. 20W CF equals a 100W incandescent bulb.
: >>>>>I'm wondering if, for example, 500W of CF lighting has the same output
: >>>>>as 500W of MH. Am I making this clear? Am I talking apples and oranges
: >>>>>here, or am I missing something?
: >>>>>
: >>>>>Tim
: >>>>>
: >>>>
: >>>>
: >

Wayne Sallee

September 26th 05, 11:19 PM

Yea those two posted :-)

Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets

Boomer wrote:
> This never got posted for some reason
>
> Not everyone runs MH and not all MH, at say 400 W, necessarily produce the same amount of
> light. As I said, you must of missed it.
>
>
> EFFICACY = Lumens / Watts
>
> All one has to due is look at any 400 W MH and compare it to 400W Iwasaki. No MH @ 400 W
> even comes close to this bulbs light output.
>
>
> "then you would say "It doesn't matter".
>
> I never said it does not matter. Do not be putting words in my mouth :-) It is misleading.
> I said "A 400 W lamp or 40 W lamp says nothing about how much light it puts out of any
> kind". . Almost any 175 W MH will _usually_ but _not always _will have more light output
> than say a 150 MH
>
>
>
>

Boomer

September 27th 05, 10:08 PM

OK Wayne thanks but I don't have them or can't see them :-(

--
Boomer

Want to talk chemistry ? The Reef Chemistry Forum
http://www.reefcentral.com/vbulletin/index.php

Former US Army Bomb Technician (EOD)
Member; IABTI, NATEODA, WEODF, ISEE & IPS

If You See Me Running You Better Catch-Up

"Wayne Sallee" > wrote in message
nk.net...
: Yea those two posted :-)
:
: Wayne Sallee
: Wayne's Pets
:
:
:
: Boomer wrote:
: > This never got posted for some reason
: >
: > Not everyone runs MH and not all MH, at say 400 W, necessarily produce the same amount
of
: > light. As I said, you must of missed it.
: >
: >
: > EFFICACY = Lumens / Watts
: >
: > All one has to due is look at any 400 W MH and compare it to 400W Iwasaki. No MH @ 400
W
: > even comes close to this bulbs light output.
: >
: >
: > "then you would say "It doesn't matter".
: >
: > I never said it does not matter. Do not be putting words in my mouth :-) It is
misleading.
: > I said "A 400 W lamp or 40 W lamp says nothing about how much light it puts out of any
: > kind". . Almost any 175 W MH will _usually_ but _not always _will have more light
output
: > than say a 150 MH
: >
: >
: >
: >