Compact vs Regular Fluorescent

[[email protected]]

I am thinking of upgrading my lighting system and see two choices.

1. All-Glass triple tube fluorescent strip at 40watts per bulb for a
total of 120watts.

2. All-Glass High Output Compact fluorescent double 2x55watt for a
total of 110watts

The cost of the assembly for (1) is cheaper at about $100, relative to
around $130 for (2). The bulbs for (1) are around $9.00 and must be
replaced every 6 months to a year.

One, I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts about preferences for
one or the other ? In terms of output, costs ?

Does anyone have info on the cost of the bulbs for (2) and how often
they need to be replaced ?

Much thanks

[Bruce Abrams]

I'd stay away from the AG compact hoods, as they don't have a real reflector
and consequently lose a great deal of light. If you get the triple
fluorescent strip, find it doesn't provide enough light and are at all
handy, you can retrofit it with an excellent compact fluorescent kit from
Aquarium Hobbyist Supply at http://ahsupply.com/index.html. I installed
their 55 watt kit on my 36 bow-front and am growing even high light
requirement plants very lushly. I can only imagine how much light their 96
watt at $60 plus bulb (or 2x96 watt! depending on your tank size) would
provide.

> wrote in message
...
> I am thinking of upgrading my lighting system and see two choices.
>
> 1. All-Glass triple tube fluorescent strip at 40watts per bulb for a
> total of 120watts.
>
> 2. All-Glass High Output Compact fluorescent double 2x55watt for a
> total of 110watts
>
> The cost of the assembly for (1) is cheaper at about $100, relative to
> around $130 for (2). The bulbs for (1) are around $9.00 and must be
> replaced every 6 months to a year.
>
> One, I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts about preferences for
> one or the other ? In terms of output, costs ?
>
> Does anyone have info on the cost of the bulbs for (2) and how often
> they need to be replaced ?
>
> Much thanks
>

[Homie]

Bruce

Unless my eyes deceive me the AG hood is the same in the compact and
regular fluorescent models. So you are implying neither is a "real
reflector"; by this I gather you are making the argument about shape
and reflector material? I am not sure I want to buy a $100 light just
to retrofit it later for another $100 or more.

Anyone else have any experience with either light assemblies or other
thoughts ?

Thanks

"Bruce Abrams" > wrote in message >...
> I'd stay away from the AG compact hoods, as they don't have a real reflector
> and consequently lose a great deal of light. If you get the triple
> fluorescent strip, find it doesn't provide enough light and are at all
> handy, you can retrofit it with an excellent compact fluorescent kit from
> Aquarium Hobbyist Supply at http://ahsupply.com/index.html. I installed
> their 55 watt kit on my 36 bow-front and am growing even high light
> requirement plants very lushly. I can only imagine how much light their 96
> watt at $60 plus bulb (or 2x96 watt! depending on your tank size) would
> provide.
>
> > wrote in message
> ...
> > I am thinking of upgrading my lighting system and see two choices.
> >
> > 1. All-Glass triple tube fluorescent strip at 40watts per bulb for a
> > total of 120watts.
> >
> > 2. All-Glass High Output Compact fluorescent double 2x55watt for a
> > total of 110watts
> >
> > The cost of the assembly for (1) is cheaper at about $100, relative to
> > around $130 for (2). The bulbs for (1) are around $9.00 and must be
> > replaced every 6 months to a year.
> >
> > One, I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts about preferences for
> > one or the other ? In terms of output, costs ?
> >
> > Does anyone have info on the cost of the bulbs for (2) and how often
> > they need to be replaced ?
> >
> > Much thanks
> >

[Evergreen]

I have the All Glass 2x55 compact flourescent hood on my 46 gallon bowfront
and I think it does pretty well. Doubtless that many people in this group
are wiser than me with lights, but I am curious, Bruce, what is wrong with
the reflector? I look inside the hood and it looks pretty reflective to me.
And it surrounds the bulbs at all angles. ??



"Homie" > wrote in message
om...
> Bruce
>
> Unless my eyes deceive me the AG hood is the same in the compact and
> regular fluorescent models. So you are implying neither is a "real
> reflector"; by this I gather you are making the argument about shape
> and reflector material? I am not sure I want to buy a $100 light just
> to retrofit it later for another $100 or more.
>
> Anyone else have any experience with either light assemblies or other
> thoughts ?
>
> Thanks
>
> "Bruce Abrams" > wrote in message
>...
> > I'd stay away from the AG compact hoods, as they don't have a real
reflector
> > and consequently lose a great deal of light. If you get the triple
> > fluorescent strip, find it doesn't provide enough light and are at all
> > handy, you can retrofit it with an excellent compact fluorescent kit
from
> > Aquarium Hobbyist Supply at http://ahsupply.com/index.html. I installed
> > their 55 watt kit on my 36 bow-front and am growing even high light
> > requirement plants very lushly. I can only imagine how much light their
96
> > watt at $60 plus bulb (or 2x96 watt! depending on your tank size) would
> > provide.
> >
> > > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > I am thinking of upgrading my lighting system and see two choices.
> > >
> > > 1. All-Glass triple tube fluorescent strip at 40watts per bulb for a
> > > total of 120watts.
> > >
> > > 2. All-Glass High Output Compact fluorescent double 2x55watt for a
> > > total of 110watts
> > >
> > > The cost of the assembly for (1) is cheaper at about $100, relative to
> > > around $130 for (2). The bulbs for (1) are around $9.00 and must be
> > > replaced every 6 months to a year.
> > >
> > > One, I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts about preferences for
> > > one or the other ? In terms of output, costs ?
> > >
> > > Does anyone have info on the cost of the bulbs for (2) and how often
> > > they need to be replaced ?
> > >
> > > Much thanks
> > >

[RedForeman ©®]

It may be 'in comparison of AHSupply and All-Glass' that Bruce claims the
difference... I have an AH Supply reflector, and it's more like a mirror...
I've never seen the AG reflector, but I do know many light kits come with
basic, generic white painted panels for reflectors.... white is good, but
it's no mirror...

--
RedForeman ©®



"Evergreen" <no > wrote in message
...
> I have the All Glass 2x55 compact flourescent hood on my 46 gallon
bowfront
> and I think it does pretty well. Doubtless that many people in this group
> are wiser than me with lights, but I am curious, Bruce, what is wrong with
> the reflector? I look inside the hood and it looks pretty reflective to
me.
> And it surrounds the bulbs at all angles. ??
>
>
>
> "Homie" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Bruce
> >
> > Unless my eyes deceive me the AG hood is the same in the compact and
> > regular fluorescent models. So you are implying neither is a "real
> > reflector"; by this I gather you are making the argument about shape
> > and reflector material? I am not sure I want to buy a $100 light just
> > to retrofit it later for another $100 or more.
> >
> > Anyone else have any experience with either light assemblies or other
> > thoughts ?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > "Bruce Abrams" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > I'd stay away from the AG compact hoods, as they don't have a real
> reflector
> > > and consequently lose a great deal of light. If you get the triple
> > > fluorescent strip, find it doesn't provide enough light and are at all
> > > handy, you can retrofit it with an excellent compact fluorescent kit
> from
> > > Aquarium Hobbyist Supply at http://ahsupply.com/index.html. I
installed
> > > their 55 watt kit on my 36 bow-front and am growing even high light
> > > requirement plants very lushly. I can only imagine how much light
their
> 96
> > > watt at $60 plus bulb (or 2x96 watt! depending on your tank size)
would
> > > provide.
> > >
> > > > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > I am thinking of upgrading my lighting system and see two choices.
> > > >
> > > > 1. All-Glass triple tube fluorescent strip at 40watts per bulb for a
> > > > total of 120watts.
> > > >
> > > > 2. All-Glass High Output Compact fluorescent double 2x55watt for a
> > > > total of 110watts
> > > >
> > > > The cost of the assembly for (1) is cheaper at about $100, relative
to
> > > > around $130 for (2). The bulbs for (1) are around $9.00 and must be
> > > > replaced every 6 months to a year.
> > > >
> > > > One, I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts about preferences
for
> > > > one or the other ? In terms of output, costs ?
> > > >
> > > > Does anyone have info on the cost of the bulbs for (2) and how often
> > > > they need to be replaced ?
> > > >
> > > > Much thanks
> > > >
>
>

[Homie]

Well, assuming that the compact and regular fluorescent have the same
reflector. The $100 All-Glass triple tube fluorescent @ $9.00 per bulb
would produce 120 watts (3x40watts). The compact fluorescent at $150
and $20 per bulb would produce 110 watts (2x55). This seems to me to
favor the triple tube assembly. Also, I believe the regular
fluorescent bulbs give you more flexibility in terms of available
types of bulbs to use.

Incidently: I am not sure that a mirror (in the ahsupply) reflects any
better than a white surface when it comes to light.


"Evergreen" <no > wrote in message >...
> I have the All Glass 2x55 compact flourescent hood on my 46 gallon bowfront
> and I think it does pretty well. Doubtless that many people in this group
> are wiser than me with lights, but I am curious, Bruce, what is wrong with
> the reflector? I look inside the hood and it looks pretty reflective to me.
> And it surrounds the bulbs at all angles. ??
>
>
>
> "Homie" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Bruce
> >
> > Unless my eyes deceive me the AG hood is the same in the compact and
> > regular fluorescent models. So you are implying neither is a "real
> > reflector"; by this I gather you are making the argument about shape
> > and reflector material? I am not sure I want to buy a $100 light just
> > to retrofit it later for another $100 or more.
> >
>

[Harry Muscle]

Yes the triple would produce more light if you measure wattage. However,
because it is so cramped a lot of the light produced at the upper side of
the bulb will never make it into the water (it bounces of the reflector, but
get's blocked by the bulb itself). The compact version produces less light,
when measuring wattage, however, because the bulbs are a lot smaller a lot
more light might actually reach the water. Unfortunately the only way to
know is to either measure it, or do a 3D light model. There is though some
info that might help on the krib that talks about a three bulb hood that
get's more light into a tank than a same sized six bulb hood.

Harry


"Homie" > wrote in message
om...
> Well, assuming that the compact and regular fluorescent have the same
> reflector. The $100 All-Glas le tube fluorescent @ $9.00 per bulb
> would produce 120 watts (3x40watts). The compact fluorescent at $150
> and $20 per bulb would produce 110 watts (2x55). This seems to me to
> favor the triple tube assembly. Also, I believe the regular
> fluorescent bulbs give you more flexibility in terms of available
> types of bulbs to use.
>
> Incidently: I am not sure that a mirror (in the ahsupply) reflects any
> better than a white surface when it comes to light.
>
>
> "Evergreen" <no > wrote in message
>...
> > I have the All Glass 2x55 compact flourescent hood on my 46 gallon
bowfront
> > and I think it does pretty well. Doubtless that many people in this
group
> > are wiser than me with lights, but I am curious, Bruce, what is wrong
with
> > the reflector? I look inside the hood and it looks pretty reflective to
me.
> > And it surrounds the bulbs at all angles. ??
> >
> >
> >
> > "Homie" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > Bruce
> > >
> > > Unless my eyes deceive me the AG hood is the same in the compact and
> > > regular fluorescent . So you are implying neither is a "real
> > > reflector"; by this I gather you are making the argument about shape
> > > and reflector material? I am not sure I want to buy a $100 light just
> > > to retrofit it later for another $100 or more.
> > >
> >




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[Bill Kirkpatrick]

Had both "normal" and Power Compact types.

PC tubes are just so damn fragile. I had more than one
simply "pop" within a few hours of installation, all on its
own. My LFS is good about it, but still a 20 minute drive.

PC tubes "burn", and do it fast. I had to wait for a BO to
come in last time I replaced my 50/50 tubes. Took one home,
3 weeks later I got the other. The comparison was
remarkable. The 3 week old tube looked damn near black in
comparison. That, as they say, was the end of that.

I now use an Ice Cap and URI tubes on both tanks. They
don't darken nearly so fast, last about 2 years, and are far
less fragile. Savings on tubes/year have paid for the
high-priced ballast many times over.

So, I'd go with the triple tube, and replace the ballast -
day 1.

****************************************

wrote:
> I am thinking of upgrading my lighting system and see two choices.
>
> 1. All-Glass triple tube fluorescent strip at 40watts per bulb for a
> total of 120watts.
>
> 2. All-Glass High Output Compact fluorescent double 2x55watt for a
> total of 110watts
>
> The cost of the assembly for (1) is cheaper at about $100, relative to
> around $130 for (2). The bulbs for (1) are around $9.00 and must be
> replaced every 6 months to a year.
>
> One, I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts about preferences for
> one or the other ? In terms of output, costs ?
>
> Does anyone have info on the cost of the bulbs for (2) and how often
> they need to be replaced ?
>
> Much thanks
>