Compact vs Regular Fluorescent

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.

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! =-----