Testing screw in fluorescents

On Sun, 6 Mar 2005 03:45:08 GMT, (Richard Sexton)
wrote:

For my 2.5 G tanks I use 13W bulbs. Each tank gets half of an
AHSUPPLY 26 watt bright kit. I just build a new hood from rain gutter
parts, I like it so far.

Seven watter per gallon ought to work :-)



the watts per gallon does sound outrageous, but I don't see it as too
bright. In one tank some dwarf sagitaria does really well, in another
anubius grows about normally (slow), java moss survives, Echinodorus
tenellus barely lives and algae grows, but not too badly. There must
be a scale factor working here, but I don't understand it.
--
Charles

Does not play well with others.

Charles wrote:
On Sun, 6 Mar 2005 03:45:08 GMT, (Richard Sexton)
wrote:


For my 2.5 G tanks I use 13W bulbs. Each tank gets half of an
AHSUPPLY 26 watt bright kit. I just build a new hood from rain gutter
parts, I like it so far.

Seven watter per gallon ought to work :-)




the watts per gallon does sound outrageous, but I don't see it as too
bright. In one tank some dwarf sagitaria does really well, in another
anubius grows about normally (slow), java moss survives, Echinodorus
tenellus barely lives and algae grows, but not too badly. There must
be a scale factor working here, but I don't understand it.

Agreed. I'm getting Rotala indica growing about 1/2" a day on the 2
gallon tank with 14 watts but that's about like 2 wpg on a larger tank.
Many years ago, when small CF bulbs were not available I tried a 4
watt CF fixture designed for closets. That's 2 wpg, yet I could barely
keep Anubias alive.

I suspect that there is a minimum number of lumens required for aquatic
plant growth. In smaller tanks, we need more than 2 wpg to reach the
magic number.

--
__ Elaine T __
__' http://eethomp.com/fish.html '__

In article ,
the watts per gallon does sound outrageous, but I don't see it as too
bright. In one tank some dwarf sagitaria does really well, in another
anubius grows about normally (slow), java moss survives, Echinodorus
tenellus barely lives and algae grows, but not too badly. There must
be a scale factor working here, but I don't understand it.

Watts per gallon is a rough metric. Watts of energy going in
does not always produce the same lumens or lux (quantity) of
light coming out, and the shape of the bulb and and type or absence
or a reflector also matters.

What is significant is aht emount of light measured at the gravel.
And old photographic light meter in a plastic bag can measure this.

Small tanks and small bulbs are really a boundry condition for the
"watts per gallon" ruls and forumulas, especially imprecise ones
don't work well at boundry conditions.

Sounds fine to me.

--
Need Mercedes parts ? - http://parts.mbz.org
http://www.mbz.org | Mercedes Mailing lists: http://lists.mbz.org
633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | Killies, killi.net, Crypts, aquaria.net
1970 280SE, 72 280SE | Old wris****ches http://watches.list.mbz.org

On Sun, 6 Mar 2005 18:26:11 GMT, (Richard Sexton)
wrote:

In article ,
the watts per gallon does sound outrageous, but I don't see it as too
bright. In one tank some dwarf sagitaria does really well, in another
anubius grows about normally (slow), java moss survives, Echinodorus
tenellus barely lives and algae grows, but not too badly. There must
be a scale factor working here, but I don't understand it.

Watts per gallon is a rough metric. Watts of energy going in
does not always produce the same lumens or lux (quantity) of
light coming out, and the shape of the bulb and and type or absence
or a reflector also matters.

What is significant is aht emount of light measured at the gravel.
And old photographic light meter in a plastic bag can measure this.

Small tanks and small bulbs are really a boundry condition for the
"watts per gallon" ruls and forumulas, especially imprecise ones
don't work well at boundry conditions.

Sounds fine to me.


All good to me, but no way am I going to put my light meter in the
tank, plastic bag or no. I wonder why no one has yet built a light
meter with a submersible sensor. I'm happy with those lights on those
tanks, so I am not going to do anything about it anyway.
--
Charles

Does not play well with others.

On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 04:23:13 GMT, Charles
wrote:
(snip)

I wonder why no one has yet built a light
meter with a submersible sensor.

I found out, they do. Got a Petsolutions catalog today, it fell open
at that page.
--
Charles

Does not play well with others.

Charles wrote:
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 04:23:13 GMT, Charles
wrote:
(snip)


I wonder why no one has yet built a light
meter with a submersible sensor.


I found out, they do. Got a Petsolutions catalog today, it fell open
at that page.

Gotta love serendipity! If you get it, please share your results!

--
__ Elaine T __
__' http://eethomp.com/fish.html '__

On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 05:48:50 GMT, Elaine T
wrote:

Charles wrote:
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 04:23:13 GMT, Charles
wrote:
(snip)


I wonder why no one has yet built a light
meter with a submersible sensor.


I found out, they do. Got a Petsolutions catalog today, it fell open
at that page.

Gotta love serendipity! If you get it, please share your results!


Probably won't. $102.99 US is a bit much for a toy that I wouldn't
use much. (not to say it would be the first.)

:-)


--
Charles

Does not play well with others.