|
|
But lumens is only related to what the eye perceives.
Wayne Sallee Boomer wrote: EFFICACY = Lumens / Watts |
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 : : : |
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 |
|
|
|
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 : : : : : |
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.. : : |
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 : : : : |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:07 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FishKeepingBanter.com