Marine Depot <----> AirWaterIce
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 46

Thread: Wavelength-specific intensity drop for flourescents?

  1. #31
    Owner / Administrator
    Scooterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    12,305
    Rep Power
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by Boomer View Post
    Any bulb only puts out about 20 % of its W rating. A NO 40 W only puts out about 10 W of light, a 400W MH about 100W of light.
    The rest of the energy is used or wasted through heat right?

  2. #32
    RF Staff
    Boomer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Duluth, Minnesota
    Age
    69
    Posts
    2,781
    Rep Power
    94
    Yes that is correct or driving the bulb
    Last edited by Boomer; 09-28-2006 at 09:50 PM.
    Boomer

    Want to Talk Chemistry ! Hidden Content

    Want to See More !

    Hidden Content


    Hidden Content

    If you See Me Running You Better Catch-Up


    An explosion can be defined as a loud noise, accompanied by the sudden going away of things, from a place where they use to be.

  3. #33
    alveopora
    dnjan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    1,585
    Rep Power
    0

    Summary (kind of)

    I originally asked the question because I was wondering if it would be more efficient (in terms of bulb life) to use MH's with less intensity in the 420-430nm range, and then supplement with flourescent actinic03's. (since the 420-430 intrensity drops off so quickly with MH's).

    And it seems that, for tanks with shallow to moderate depths, MH's (possibly 6500's to 10k's) plus T5 Actinic03's would be a good solution. (assuming you can control the heat to avoid having the MH's prematurely cook the T5's phosphors)

    Is that a reasonable interpretation?
    Don

  4. #34
    RF Staff
    Boomer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Duluth, Minnesota
    Age
    69
    Posts
    2,781
    Rep Power
    94
    That sounds good Don.

    The "cooking" of flourescent bulbs, as you put it, is a huge issue. It is so bad that Sanjay now refuses to use any flourescent lamps within MH hoods. MH that is it, no other bulbs for him and nothing over 10K.

    Is there any reason you can not just use T-5's or HO T-5's ?
    Boomer

    Want to Talk Chemistry ! Hidden Content

    Want to See More !

    Hidden Content


    Hidden Content

    If you See Me Running You Better Catch-Up


    An explosion can be defined as a loud noise, accompanied by the sudden going away of things, from a place where they use to be.

  5. #35
    alveopora
    dnjan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    1,585
    Rep Power
    0
    I like the ability of an MH bulb to "spotlight" part of the tank (plus the shimmer lines are better with MH), and also you can get a bit of a sun-tracking effect by having the line of MH's come on and off in sequence. But when I get around to setting up a small tank at my work, T5HO's it will be.

    Still not sure what I will do when I get around to finishing the basement (retirement project) ...
    Don

  6. #36
    RF Staff
    Boomer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Duluth, Minnesota
    Age
    69
    Posts
    2,781
    Rep Power
    94
    Ok on that Don and I agree on those thoughts on MH. I would have the same reasons as you

    retirement

    You will like that I retired in June

    note; shimmer lines, it is glimmer lines Don if you are talking about the bright lines that move across the bottm due to the light be focused by the wave action.
    Boomer

    Want to Talk Chemistry ! Hidden Content

    Want to See More !

    Hidden Content


    Hidden Content

    If you See Me Running You Better Catch-Up


    An explosion can be defined as a loud noise, accompanied by the sudden going away of things, from a place where they use to be.

  7. #37
    Owner / Administrator
    Scooterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    12,305
    Rep Power
    10
    I've been thinking of using H.O. T5's about 8 on a 48" x 25" tank if it can fit. Don't know if they will punch deep enough in a 25" tank though, wish we had something to look at as far as testing goes.

  8. #38
    Clownfish

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    1,329
    Rep Power
    0
    There is actually on rc. Ill try to find the thread, but the guy does par readings at various levels of the tank of both a t5HO and MH, so you can see how the t5's fall off vs height. The only problem I have with his numbers is hes comparing bubls that are known to have among the highest par, to those of only average par.

    I kind of like the idea of having a lower light area on the bottom, so I can keep some softies and lps lower down, and a few sps up top. My other reason for going t5 is the heat. I have PC lights right now, and the heat from the lamps is enough to warm my water almost to the point of needign a chiller. I can only expect that 2 MH's are going to b a whole lot worse. Since I have a 36inch tank Id need atleast 2 halide fixtures to cover the whole thing.

  9. #39

  10. #40
    Owner / Administrator
    Scooterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    12,305
    Rep Power
    10
    Had to go back through this thread, it is very useful.

  11. #41
    Clownfish

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    1,329
    Rep Power
    0
    Hopefully next week Ill be able to post some spectrum results. These will compare the spectrum of a new bulb, to one with 100Hr's on it, then to 5 months old. Just need to sweet talk my friends professor one more time...

  12. #42
    Clownfish

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    1,329
    Rep Power
    0
    Wow.. all I can say is wow. I ran the 6 month spectral test on 4 different t5 bulbs tonight and the results were pretty astonishing imho. At only 6 months of age the bulbs were quite frankly barely useable. The spectral plot looses all its sharp peaks, and really flattens out. I am no lighting scientist mind you, so maybe I am incorrectly interperting the data. Within the next day or two Ill put up excels showing intital readings, 125Hr readings, and 6 month readings. My roomate will do a lab write up on it to explain his experimental procedure and all that stuff since hes the one who knows how to use the equipment.
    I have a feeling this will make me unpopular with the T5 manufacturers out there =P

  13. #43
    Owner / Administrator
    Scooterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    12,305
    Rep Power
    10
    Probably why most T5 users that grow sps replaces them every 6 months. They will last almost two years & probably not show much drop off to the human eye but these meters usually are correct enough to use as reliable data. I would still have use for them in my plans as supplementing MH's & they would grow soft & LPS & even sps under the right conditions.
    Last edited by Scooterman; 05-16-2007 at 01:29 PM. Reason: DHOO duplicated thoughts!

  14. #44
    alveopora
    dnjan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    1,585
    Rep Power
    0

    Finally, almost ...

    I started this thread over two years ago partially because I was interested in finding the most cost-effective way (in both bulb cost and electricity) to provide lighting in the actinic range. Looks like we are finally getting close to a first cut on having the missing data.

    Thanks!
    Don

  15. #45
    Clownfish

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    1,329
    Rep Power
    0
    "Probably why most T5 users that grow sps replaces them every 6 months."

    From what I have read, those are mostly people who overdrive their t5's that reaplce them every 6 months, while regular users usually wait about 12 months. However, my bulbs are not overdriven at all. If regular driven bulbs are looken that bad after 6 months, Im sure that overdriven ones are horrible.

    "I would still have use for them in my plans as supplementing MH's & they would grow soft & LPS & even sps under the right conditions."

    Thats the part that really has me thinking. My tank is mostly sps, and things are still growing. Even some coral that went several months without showing much signs of growth, recently started growing. I will still be using T5's for supplementation in my next tank. They are still the best non mh technology out there.


    Peace

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •