I'm after some feedback on fluorescent lighting. Actually some
comparisons between normal fluoro tubes, and the cf's that are meant
to replace incandescents.

When I set up my DOTC (done on the cheap) 15 gal planted tank a while
ago, it seemed like a good idea to try out those cf's. A bargain store
chain here in Oz had 24 W daylight (6500K) cf's for Au$8. The
packaging states 1260 lumens for each bulb. So I made up a rain gutter
type hood - except using 150mm PVC cut in half - set a globe in each
end, and was amazed at the brightness and uniform lighting in the
tank.

But after some reading at this group and other places, it seems most
plant people think normal fluoros are better than the cf's. So I went
and bought a twin 20W fixture. It came with cool white tubes, each
stating 1230 lumens. So before buying some better tubes and fitting a
better ballast I have laying around, wired it up, turned it on and was
disgusted at the crap intensity in the tank.

Now, I know the color temperatures between setups is different, and
the cf's have an extra 60 lumens (wow), but I just didn't expect the
huge drop in intensity. So I'm wondering if anyone else has
experienced this. Because from this experiment, I'm thinking of
building a hood for my 4' tank, housing several cf's with the sockets
along the back of the hood so the globes point forwards. This would
also allow a simulated east-to-west sunset, by turning off the globes
one by one.

Any comments on my experience?

Dave

But after some reading at this group and other places, it seems most
plant people think normal fluoros are better than the cf's.

You've got to be kidding.

Normal flourescents are cheaper and more widely available than PCFs. That's
the main thing to recommend them. Few people go from PCFs to ordinary
flourescents.

However, what really matters is wattage. A lot of the PCF bulbs meant to
replace incandescent lights are very low wattage. (That's not the case with
PCF bulbs meant for fishtanks.)

Sounds like yours were perfect for your tank, though.


Leigh

http://www.fortunecity.com/lavender/halloween/881/

He might be referring to the chunky household CF's which are now available
here in Australia. Damned if I can find any of those thin fandangled 55W
aquarium ones here.

"Graptol" wrote in message
om...
I'm after some feedback on fluorescent lighting. Actually some
comparisons between normal fluoro tubes, and the cf's that are meant
to replace incandescents.

When I set up my DOTC (done on the cheap) 15 gal planted tank a while
ago, it seemed like a good idea to try out those cf's. A bargain store
chain here in Oz had 24 W daylight (6500K) cf's for Au$8. The
packaging states 1260 lumens for each bulb. So I made up a rain gutter
type hood - except using 150mm PVC cut in half - set a globe in each
end, and was amazed at the brightness and uniform lighting in the
tank.

But after some reading at this group and other places, it seems most
plant people think normal fluoros are better than the cf's. So I went
and bought a twin 20W fixture. It came with cool white tubes, each
stating 1230 lumens. So before buying some better tubes and fitting a
better ballast I have laying around, wired it up, turned it on and was
disgusted at the crap intensity in the tank.

Now, I know the color temperatures between setups is different, and
the cf's have an extra 60 lumens (wow), but I just didn't expect the
huge drop in intensity. So I'm wondering if anyone else has
experienced this. Because from this experiment, I'm thinking of
building a hood for my 4' tank, housing several cf's with the sockets
along the back of the hood so the globes point forwards. This would
also allow a simulated east-to-west sunset, by turning off the globes
one by one.

Any comments on my experience?

Dave

"Tasslehoff" wrote in message u...
He might be referring to the chunky household CF's which are now available
here in Australia. Damned if I can find any of those thin fandangled 55W
aquarium ones here.


Sorry for any confusion. I'm talking about the electronic compact
fluoros that are meant to replace a normal incandescent light globe to
'save power'.

I have seen several posts here about them being the most inefficient
fluoro lighting you can get - in terms of lighting a tank uniformly.
So I was wondering if this is so, then why was my tank so much
brighter with them than with normal fluoro tubes. Obviously if both
setups produce roughly the same amount of lumens, this is probably
more a question of reflector efficiency or light losses from different
tube shapes, or something.

So I'm just interested to know if anyone else has tried these lamps,
and found them to be better or worse than normal fluoro tubes. At the
moment, the only disadvantage I can see is the huge amount of heat
given out by the electronic ballast. Sure, they figure to 52.5
lumens/W when the normal fluoro tubes are around 68 lumens/W. But even
after trying different reflectors, I'd need at least another tube - or
probably two - to equal the light intensity I'm getting from the CFL
setup. Sorry I don't have a lux meter to give you figures on this. But
the difference is just too damn noticable by the human eye.

BTW, if anyone here in Australia is interested in using these for a
cheap or temporary lighting system, the lamps are made by Canopower,
and can be found at many of the bargain centres around the country (I
got mine at Clints).

Dave

I have seen several posts here about them being the most inefficient
fluoro lighting you can get - in terms of lighting a tank uniformly.

Ah. In that case, it's probably a matter of tank size. Your tank is quite
small. So it's adequately lighted by two globe-sized bulbs. It wouldn't work
as well on a 4' long tank.


Leigh

http://www.fortunecity.com/lavender/halloween/881/