CFL better than fluorescent?

[Brian]

I recently lost my light hood due to an electrical short - a small fire
quickly put out. I had two T-8 fluorescents. Since I have this
opportunity to start from scratch, I'm considering going with compact
fluorescents instead of the old T-8s. Is there any advantage in CFL?
With the 96W lamp, I can definitely get more watts in the tank, but I
wasn't doing too badly before. Any other advantages to CFL? Certainly,
the T-8 bulbs are cheaper. Thanks,

B

[Victor Martinez]

Brian wrote:
> opportunity to start from scratch, I'm considering going with compact
> fluorescents instead of the old T-8s. Is there any advantage in CFL?

Much higher wattage in a smaller package.

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

[Brian]

In article >,
Brian > wrote:

> I recently lost my light hood due to an electrical short - a small fire
> quickly put out. I had two T-8 fluorescents. Since I have this
> opportunity to start from scratch, I'm considering going with compact
> fluorescents instead of the old T-8s. Is there any advantage in CFL?
> With the 96W lamp, I can definitely get more watts in the tank, but I
> wasn't doing too badly before. Any other advantages to CFL? Certainly,
> the T-8 bulbs are cheaper. Thanks,
>
> B

Sorry, forgot to mention - I run a South American tropical tank, plants
& fish, no CO2, 36" long 38 gallon (US).

B

[Brian]

In article >,
Brian > wrote:

> I recently lost my light hood due to an electrical short - a small fire
> quickly put out. I had two T-8 fluorescents. Since I have this
> opportunity to start from scratch, I'm considering going with compact
> fluorescents instead of the old T-8s. Is there any advantage in CFL?
> With the 96W lamp, I can definitely get more watts in the tank, but I
> wasn't doing too badly before. Any other advantages to CFL? Certainly,
> the T-8 bulbs are cheaper. Thanks,
>
> B

Sorry, forgot to mention - I run a South American tropical tank, plants
& fish, no CO2, 36" long 38 gallon (US).

B

[dc]

Brian > wrote in news:bsheller-FBCA59.21583610092006
@comcast.dca.giganews.com:

> wasn't doing too badly before. Any other advantages to CFL? Certainly,
> the T-8 bulbs are cheaper. Thanks,

Compact fluorescent is more efficient and have a narrower spectrum, which
means you get more light per watt, not just higher wattage.

The bulbs also have a longer lifespan--about 14 months before the spectrum
begins to degrade vs. standard fluorescent's 6 months.

The only advantage standard fluorescent has is cost and accessibility of
replacement bulbs, but you are replacing them more often.

The one disadvantage you may encounter with compact fluorescent is that the
increase in lumens may require CO2 supplementation in order to avoid algae
growth--potentially anyway. I have run compact fluorescet planted tanks
both with and without CO2 with good results.

[Richard Sexton]

In article >,
Brian > wrote:
>I recently lost my light hood due to an electrical short - a small fire
>quickly put out. I had two T-8 fluorescents. Since I have this
>opportunity to start from scratch, I'm considering going with compact
>fluorescents instead of the old T-8s. Is there any advantage in CFL?
>With the 96W lamp, I can definitely get more watts in the tank, but I
>wasn't doing too badly before. Any other advantages to CFL? Certainly,
>the T-8 bulbs are cheaper. Thanks,

Yes. You can get more light per square foot with CFL. And they're more
efficient in the first place. If you avoid buying tubes at petshop
and get them from lighting distributors (warm white is FINE) they're
not terribly expensive.


--
Need Mercedes parts? http://parts.mbz.org
Richard Sexton | Mercedes stuff: http://mbz.org
1970 280SE, 72 280SE | Home pages: http://rs79.vrx.net
633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | http://aquaria.net http://killi.net

[Richard Sexton]

In article >,
dc > wrote:
>Brian > wrote in news:bsheller-FBCA59.21583610092006
:
>
>> wasn't doing too badly before. Any other advantages to CFL? Certainly,
>> the T-8 bulbs are cheaper. Thanks,
>
>Compact fluorescent is more efficient and have a narrower spectrum, which
>means you get more light per watt, not just higher wattage.

The phosphours, and therefore spectra are the same across all tubes.

>The bulbs also have a longer lifespan--about 14 months before the spectrum
>begins to degrade vs. standard fluorescent's 6 months.

The spectrum doesn't degrade the total luminous flux does. The specrtrum is
constant.

>The only advantage standard fluorescent has is cost and accessibility of
>replacement bulbs, but you are replacing them more often.
>
>The one disadvantage you may encounter with compact fluorescent is that the
>increase in lumens may require CO2 supplementation in order to avoid algae
>growth--potentially anyway. I have run compact fluorescet planted tanks
>both with and without CO2 with good results.

Bah, use floating plants to cut down light if there's algae.


--
Need Mercedes parts? http://parts.mbz.org
Richard Sexton | Mercedes stuff: http://mbz.org
1970 280SE, 72 280SE | Home pages: http://rs79.vrx.net
633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | http://aquaria.net http://killi.net

[AustinMN]

Richard Sexton wrote:
> In article >,
> dc > wrote:
> >Brian > wrote in news:bsheller-FBCA59.21583610092006
> :
> >
> >> wasn't doing too badly before. Any other advantages to CFL? Certainly,
> >> the T-8 bulbs are cheaper. Thanks,
> >
> >Compact fluorescent is more efficient and have a narrower spectrum, which
> >means you get more light per watt, not just higher wattage.
>
> The phosphours, and therefore spectra are the same across all tubes.

*keyboard*

I guess the visibly different colors of different fluorescent tubes is
just an illusion?

Austin

[Richard Sexton]

In article om>,
AustinMN > wrote:
>Richard Sexton wrote:
>> In article >,
>> dc > wrote:
>> >Brian > wrote in news:bsheller-FBCA59.21583610092006
>> :
>> >
>> >> wasn't doing too badly before. Any other advantages to CFL? Certainly,
>> >> the T-8 bulbs are cheaper. Thanks,
>> >
>> >Compact fluorescent is more efficient and have a narrower spectrum, which
>> >means you get more light per watt, not just higher wattage.
>>
>> The phosphours, and therefore spectra are the same across all tubes.
>
>*keyboard*
>
>I guess the visibly different colors of different fluorescent tubes is
>just an illusion?

No, it's a carfully controlled mix of phosphours. But it has noting to do with
tube size. For example warm white (2700K) is warm white in T12 or CFL. And Chroma
75 (7500K) is chroma 75 in T12 or T8. They don't make a CFL C75. But they could,
there's just no demand.

There are three major fluorescent manufacturors: GE, OSram/Sylvania and Philips.
Each tube will have a dode that tells you the size and phosphour composition. The
tube size will vary but the phosphour composition - which dictates the color of
light - can be found in many tube sizes.

Have a look at the GE website and downlaod their PDF of tubes and you'll see
much better than I can explain it here.


--
Need Mercedes parts? http://parts.mbz.org
Richard Sexton | Mercedes stuff: http://mbz.org
1970 280SE, 72 280SE | Home pages: http://rs79.vrx.net
633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | http://aquaria.net http://killi.net

[AustinMN]

Richard Sexton wrote:
> In article om>,
> AustinMN > wrote:
> >Richard Sexton wrote:
> >> In article >,
> >> dc > wrote:
> >> >Brian > wrote in news:bsheller-FBCA59.21583610092006
> >> :
> >> >
> >> >> wasn't doing too badly before. Any other advantages to CFL? Certainly,
> >> >> the T-8 bulbs are cheaper. Thanks,
> >> >
> >> >Compact fluorescent is more efficient and have a narrower spectrum, which
> >> >means you get more light per watt, not just higher wattage.
> >>
> >> The phosphours, and therefore spectra are the same across all tubes.
> >
> >*keyboard*
> >
> >I guess the visibly different colors of different fluorescent tubes is
> >just an illusion?
>
> No, it's a carfully controlled mix of phosphours. But it has noting to do with
> tube size. For example warm white (2700K) is warm white in T12 or CFL. And Chroma
> 75 (7500K) is chroma 75 in T12 or T8. They don't make a CFL C75. But they could,
> there's just no demand.

That's a far different statement from:

> >> The phosphours, and therefore spectra are the same across all tubes.

>
> There are three major fluorescent manufacturors: GE, OSram/Sylvania and Philips.
> Each tube will have a dode that tells you the size and phosphour composition. The
> tube size will vary but the phosphour composition - which dictates the color of
> light - can be found in many tube sizes.

Again, far different from:
> >> The phosphours, and therefore spectra are the same across all tubes.

Do you not know what "all tubes" means? Or perhaps it's "spectra" you
don't understand?

Austin

[Richard Sexton]

In article . com>,
AustinMN > wrote:
>Again, far different from:
>> >> The phosphours, and therefore spectra are the same across all tubes.
>
>Do you not know what "all tubes" means? Or perhaps it's "spectra" you
>don't understand?

I stand by my statement but perhaps it needs further explanation. If a tube
uses a SPX65 phosphour (it'll say on the tube) then it doesn't matter if
it's a T12, T8 or T5. That is there are no phosphours unique to CFL. While
it's true there are some phosphors that only exist in T12 size this is
jsut marketing and the ourput spectra of an SPX41 will be the same in
T12 or t5/biax tube.

Or put another way tube makers have a bunfhc of different phosphorus
they use to get different color light. They use these on all tubes
without regard for the tube shape of size - T12, T8, T5 (CFL) alike.

Although that's not strictly true, T12 still reigns supreme in terms
of the more esoteric ones. Only the most usefull are made into T5,
which works out ok for our purposes.




--
Need Mercedes parts? http://parts.mbz.org
Richard Sexton | Mercedes stuff: http://mbz.org
1970 280SE, 72 280SE | Home pages: http://rs79.vrx.net
633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | http://aquaria.net http://killi.net