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