CF lamps

[Victor Martinez]

How often are we supposed to replace CF lamps?

--
Victor M. Martinez
Owned and operated by the Fantastic Seven (TM)
Send your spam here:
Email me here:

[Bill Stock]

"Victor Martinez" > wrote in message
...
> How often are we supposed to replace CF lamps?
>
> --
> Victor M. Martinez
> Owned and operated by the Fantastic Seven (TM)
> Send your spam here:
> Email me here:

Victor,

Here's the reply I received a while back on this question.

---------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Bill,


What I have read is that after the intial drop off (all lighting does
this BTW), they stay relatively constant in their output until they
fail. There are people on the Aquatic Plants list that use them until
they don't light anymore. There is even one plant guru, Tom Barr, who
will take ALL CFs that people are tossing that still work even if they
are a couple of years old! Of course you could relamp every year, but
why would you if they still do the job?


It's hard to get used to the idea of not relamping every 6-12 months.
That was one of the factors that swayed me to the CF side, relamping 4
T12's at $7-10/each twice a year was getting pretty expensive. The
fact they use 1/3 less electricity, well that was the icing on the
cake. Relamping every 6-12 months is good practice with T8s and T12s,
but NOT necessary with the setups from AH Supply. I am still getting
great plant growth, even light hungry plants do well. If you are
growing plants with lower light requirements, like Java Fern or Val,
then it's really not necessary.


Lilly

[[email protected]]

Tom Barr, who
> will take ALL CFs that people are tossing that still work even if they
> are a couple of years old! Of course you could relamp every year, but
> why would you if they still do the job?
> It's hard to get used to the idea of not relamping every 6-12 months.
> That was one of the factors that swayed me to the CF side, relamping 4
> T12's at $7-10/each twice a year was getting pretty expensive. The
> fact they use 1/3 less electricity, well that was the icing on the
> cake. Relamping every 6-12 months is good practice with T8s and T12s,
> but NOT necessary with the setups from AH Supply. I am still getting
> great plant growth, even light hungry plants do well. If you are
> growing plants with lower light requirements, like Java Fern or Val,
> then it's really not necessary.
> Lilly

I'm still waiting for someone to send me their 6-12 month old CF
lamps:-(
Some are 4-5 years old, this seems about the max life for most, till
they burn out.

Normal output T-12, T-8's Triton claims 90% and until they burn out
also. T5 light systems have come down some in price also.

I use a combo of MH's HQI's and PC's but will likely use the T5's in
lower light set ups.

Regards,
Tom Barr

www.BarrReport.com
Regards,
Tom Barr

[peepod]

Most of the 55 watt and 96 watt lamps I've bought from AHsupply last
around 18-24 months. Recently, I had one 96 watt lamp die out before 90
days, so I told AHSupply about it. They replied asking if it refused to
light up, but did nothing (ie. no replacment, didn't even tell me who
the manufacturer was in case I wanted to contact them), so I won't be
buying any more CF lamps from them.



Victor Martinez wrote:

> How often are we supposed to replace CF lamps?
>

[Victor Martinez]

Bill Stock wrote:
> cake. Relamping every 6-12 months is good practice with T8s and T12s,

Ok.

> but NOT necessary with the setups from AH Supply. I am still getting
> great plant growth, even light hungry plants do well. If you are
> growing plants with lower light requirements, like Java Fern or Val,
> then it's really not necessary.

Neither, I have lots of med-light plants. Lately I've observed a lot of
algae growth, so I thought it might be that the light output has changed
enough so that plants are not using all the nutrients as efficiently.

Victor


--
Victor M. Martinez
Owned and operated by the Fantastic Seven (TM)
Send your spam here:
Email me here:

[[email protected]]

95% of algae related issues are from CO2, not light changes, less light
= less algae in virtually all cases.

If you have 2w/gal or more of PC lightingm, you are far above the
minimum light compesation point for aquatic plants even if you had a
60% decay of PAR from the lighting.

Algae prefer more light than plants, basically plants are more
efficient at less light.

Regards,
Tom Barr

www.BarrReport.com

[Victor Martinez]

wrote:
> 95% of algae related issues are from CO2, not light changes, less light

I don't do CO2.

> Algae prefer more light than plants, basically plants are more
> efficient at less light.

Ok.

--
Victor M. Martinez
Owned and operated by the Fantastic Seven (TM)
Send your spam here:
Email me here:

[Larry Blanchard]

wrote:

> If you have 2w/gal or more of PC lightingm, you are far above the
> minimum light compesation point for aquatic plants even if you had a
> 60% decay of PAR from the lighting.
>

So what is a good level? 1.5WPG? 1.0? I know plants vary, but for all
but the really high light demanders, what is a good level? I'm getting
ready to build a hood for a 20L and would like to know.

I'm planning on using screw-in fluorescents mounted across the tank and
concentrated in one half, with maybe one 10 watt in the other half for a
"shady" area. Comments?

And yes, I know there's all sorts of fancy stuff out there. but I'm a
retiree on a budget :-).

[[email protected]]

Well that changes things, I'd suggest that it is possible that the less
light=> less uptake so if you have a good size fish load, that might
cause it. Still, I'd think in most cases, I have several non CO2 tanks
as well(more than CO2 entriched), adding new bulbs often causes some
algae but not much.

I have so few algae issues in non CO2 tanks over long time frames as
rule also.

No water changes, lots of plants, good feeding and algae herbivores,
pruning mainly by topping, I do top of the tank once a week with some
KNO3/KH2PO4/Traces and sometimes GH.

SeaChem's equilibrium works nicely as it has most everything except N
and P.

You can also add the ferts once a week and then dose Excel also.

Excel often has a good effect on the plants and not so good for the
algae.

You will need more nutrients(KNO3/KH2PO4) and be able to do water
changes using the Excel.

There are two ways to approach it without addressing the light. I'd do
that first, then consider the new bulbs later.
Adding more light to an existing issue is typically a bad idea with
algae.


Regards,
Tom Barr

www.BarrReport.com

[Victor Martinez]

wrote:
> SeaChem's equilibrium works nicely as it has most everything except N
> and P.

I haven't tried that product, I'll give it a shot. I don't fertilize
much in general, since I have very good plant growth, I assume the fish
waste is enough.

> Excel often has a good effect on the plants and not so good for the
> algae.

I keep trying to remember to dose with Excel, but I forget. :)

Thanks for the pointers.

--
Victor M. Martinez
Owned and operated by the Fantastic Seven (TM)
Send your spam here:
Email me here:

[George Pontis]

In article >,
says...
> wrote:
>
> > If you have 2w/gal or more of PC lightingm, you are far above the
> > minimum light compesation point for aquatic plants even if you had a
> > 60% decay of PAR from the lighting.
> >
>
> So what is a good level? 1.5WPG? 1.0? I know plants vary, but for all
> but the really high light demanders, what is a good level? I'm getting
> ready to build a hood for a 20L and would like to know.
>
> I'm planning on using screw-in fluorescents mounted across the tank and
> concentrated in one half, with maybe one 10 watt in the other half for a
> "shady" area. Comments?
>
> And yes, I know there's all sorts of fancy stuff out there. but I'm a
> retiree on a budget :-).
>

2-5 WPG is the typical range used by most planted tank enthusiasts. Screw-in
fluorescent is economical but you do need to the majority of the light into the
tank. That requires a reflector of some kind, and a reflector for a long tube is
easier to fashion than for a spiral bulb.