Ethan wrote:

As a cheap alternative to lighting a planted tank, I am trying out 20W
(1150 lumen) 65k screw-base compact fluorecent lights, $5 at Sam
Walton's store. A lot of lumens for little money! Anyone think of a
reason that this won't work? I am considering supplementing them with
a couple of the grow-bulbs also available.

I hate to write a "me too" type post, but this will probably get more
attention now that it's cross-posted to the higher volume (but still
on-topic) r.a.f.plants newsgroup. (For some reason all rec.aquaria.tech
seems to get is cross-posts - I doubt many people even monitor it.)

I'm not sure why it wouldn't work - as I understand most of the
screw-base bulbs use the tri-phosphor tech, which should be good for
plants, right?

"Rocco Moretti" wrote in message
...
Ethan wrote:

As a cheap alternative to lighting a planted tank, I am trying out 20W
(1150 lumen) 65k screw-base compact fluorecent lights, $5 at Sam
Walton's store. A lot of lumens for little money! Anyone think of a
reason that this won't work? I am considering supplementing them with
a couple of the grow-bulbs also available.

I hate to write a "me too" type post, but this will probably get more
attention now that it's cross-posted to the higher volume (but still
on-topic) r.a.f.plants newsgroup. (For some reason all rec.aquaria.tech
seems to get is cross-posts - I doubt many people even monitor it.)

I'm not sure why it wouldn't work - as I understand most of the
screw-base bulbs use the tri-phosphor tech, which should be good for
plants, right?

Should be a fine idea.

You should be able to dim most of these too. I considered sticking about 8
of these in a canopy last year. But the daylight bulbs were too
hard/expensive to get here in Canada. So I went with A.H. supply instead.

Uh.... "ME TOO"



Seriously though, I'm currently using the exact same bulbs on some of
my smaller tanks and they are working out splendidly... they seem to
show up the fishes' colors nicely and the plants have never been
happier.

so238 wrote:

Dances With Ferrets wrote:

Seriously though, I'm currently using the exact same bulbs on some of
my smaller tanks and they are working out splendidly... they seem to
show up the fishes' colors nicely and the plants have never been
happier.

They should be fine, but I'm not certain what type of screw-in
fluorescent you're talking about. If it's the kind that you can fit into
a socket meant for incadescent bulbs, then it's noticeably less energy
efficient than normal fluorescents.

Do you have a reference/website which talks more about the reduced
efficiency of edison(screw)-base compacts for incandescent sockets? I'd
be curious to know why it is less efficient, and how big a hit it is.
The phosphor can be the same, and I doubt that bending the tube is an
issue - my only thought is that the internal ballast is less efficient
than an external ballast, but I was under the impression that they used
electronic ballasts, which even on a bad day should be more efficient
than a straight tube with a magnetic ballast.

Dances With Ferrets wrote:
Uh.... "ME TOO"



Seriously though, I'm currently using the exact same bulbs on some of
my smaller tanks and they are working out splendidly... they seem to
show up the fishes' colors nicely and the plants have never been
happier.

They should be fine, but I'm not certain what type of screw-in
fluorescent you're talking about. If it's the kind that you can fit into
a socket meant for incadescent bulbs, then it's noticeably less energy
efficient than normal fluorescents.
I know of compact fluorescents that look like a double-barrel shotgun,
have used them before OK but never knew you get screw-on types.

Sebastien

[snip]
Do you have a reference/website which talks more about the reduced
efficiency of edison(screw)-base compacts for incandescent sockets? I'd
be curious to know why it is less efficient, and how big a hit it is.
The phosphor can be the same, and I doubt that bending the tube is an
issue - my only thought is that the internal ballast is less efficient
than an external ballast, but I was under the impression that they used
electronic ballasts, which even on a bad day should be more efficient
than a straight tube with a magnetic ballast.

I didn't read it from a reference/website--I just compared the
manufacturer's rated lifespan printed on the bulb's packaging, and the
price tag. Judging from what the stuff on the packaging says, those
fluorescent lamps for incandescent sockets have as little as half the
lifespan of regular fluorescents, use more wattage for the same output
and cost more. At least that's last time I checked at the shop. If I
check again I'll tell you all.

Seb

These lamps are 1150 lumens, 20W, 6000 hours. Anyone have a regular
tube (in package) on hand? I asked the mgf for lumens/life graph, but
no reply yet. Th mfg is Lights of America.

so238 wrote in message ...
[snip]
Do you have a reference/website which talks more about the reduced
efficiency of edison(screw)-base compacts for incandescent sockets? I'd
be curious to know why it is less efficient, and how big a hit it is.
The phosphor can be the same, and I doubt that bending the tube is an
issue - my only thought is that the internal ballast is less efficient
than an external ballast, but I was under the impression that they used
electronic ballasts, which even on a bad day should be more efficient
than a straight tube with a magnetic ballast.

I didn't read it from a reference/website--I just compared the
manufacturer's rated lifespan printed on the bulb's packaging, and the
price tag. Judging from what the stuff on the packaging says, those
fluorescent lamps for incandescent sockets have as little as half the
lifespan of regular fluorescents, use more wattage for the same output
and cost more. At least that's last time I checked at the shop. If I
check again I'll tell you all.

Seb