Wizzard~Of~Ozz
Aquarium Advice Addict
czcz, I find your response most interesting, Yes I assume 100% reflectivity, it's not so much a question of that, since a CF with 95% reflectivity vs an NO with 95% reflectivity have the same variation.
Ahh yes, the "no change in output" by switching the 50/50 for a flora bulb. the flora bulb has an output around 14-1500 lumens. the 50/50 has an output of 14-1500 on the 10k side, the rest is actinic. but you are correct in assuming the NO3 is responsible..
That is great to see that they are that close in agreement..
For the T8/T12 comparison I used 2 phosphoretically (is that a word?) identical bulbs, Philips daylight deluxe, I have T8 and T12 for the bulb. Assuming identical phosphors are being compared, this difference would remain true for any bulb out there.. (I'll confirm with another set of bulbs)
Perhaps the best way to start a rating would be lumens per gallon.. but since some manufacturers don't make this information available, it would make it difficult.
I'm not trying to make a 100% fool proof system, but I think +/- 5-10% is far more accurate then the current +/- 75% or more. I also know using all variables is near impossible, but to rank the limitations would make more sense, the minor ones must be left out or risk making it to complicated to calculate.. Assuming most things can be set up in a table, it would make things much easier to
I will read a couple more of the links posted.. they look interesting.
Another problem, Hagen chose to market their bulbs on a "lux" scale, well 180 lux = 180 lumens. According to measured results, the lumens of a power glo bulb is 2200.. Interesting those chose to make their own scale..
Conversion 1 lux = 1 lumen/square meter..
As for the link on light threshold.. I follow every thing but the last portion. he has the right idea tho, surface area is most important, something that even I overlooked when I got stuck on the "per gallon" guideline..
This is proving to be very interesting, so far I've broken it down to lumens / Sq. inch, initial loss, depth loss.. But there are still some hurdles to overcome.. like what is "high light" "very high light" etc.
I've based the levels on
220w NO T12 on a 55Gal - Very High Light (formerly 4WPG)
165w NO T12 on a 55Gal - High light (formerly 3WPG)
110w NO T12 on a 55Gal - Moderate Light (formerly 2WPG)
055w NO T12 on a 55Gal - Low Light(formerly 1WPG)
I think this is fairly correct. 220W on a 55 is a lot of light to grow anything..
agree?
Ahh yes, the "no change in output" by switching the 50/50 for a flora bulb. the flora bulb has an output around 14-1500 lumens. the 50/50 has an output of 14-1500 on the 10k side, the rest is actinic. but you are correct in assuming the NO3 is responsible..
Anyway, let's test. My high-light 8gal has 2x13W CF and 1x20w NO. I came to using this light by trial and error through obervation of high light plants. (There is also light from a 23w spiral screw-in CFl on the side for a nano, but I am ignoring it.)
Using your calcs above for equivalent NO WPG
(26w CF * 1.75w NO equivalent/(w CF)) + 20w NO = 65.5w equivalent NO
The fitchfamily.com derived Amano calc gives 59w. Pretty close.
That is great to see that they are that close in agreement..
For the T8/T12 comparison I used 2 phosphoretically (is that a word?) identical bulbs, Philips daylight deluxe, I have T8 and T12 for the bulb. Assuming identical phosphors are being compared, this difference would remain true for any bulb out there.. (I'll confirm with another set of bulbs)
Perhaps the best way to start a rating would be lumens per gallon.. but since some manufacturers don't make this information available, it would make it difficult.
You are right, a watt is a watt, I'm trying to say, a watt of light energy doesn't necessarily equal a watt of light energy when different bulbs are in play.Quote:
I've noticed more and more people are using Watts from a CF to equal 1WPG..
A watt is still a watt though, and so WPG is the same. Of course your point is with relative light output, and so you should move forward in posts off-thread with "lumens per gallon," or perhaps "relative/equivalent NO WPG" or something.
I am of still of the opinion that WPG's usefullness ends whereever CO2 is necessary, and the rest is tweaking to get past the threshold of high light, if wanted. I suspect that a full analysis of lighting and all its variables -- very small and high volume breaking the rule, tank surface area, height, reflector quality, glass tops, and so on -- makes a one-size-fit-all standard unlikely. Instead, it is better to tackle light with experience and trial and error, as most tackle stocking,
I'm not trying to make a 100% fool proof system, but I think +/- 5-10% is far more accurate then the current +/- 75% or more. I also know using all variables is near impossible, but to rank the limitations would make more sense, the minor ones must be left out or risk making it to complicated to calculate.. Assuming most things can be set up in a table, it would make things much easier to
I will read a couple more of the links posted.. they look interesting.
Another problem, Hagen chose to market their bulbs on a "lux" scale, well 180 lux = 180 lumens. According to measured results, the lumens of a power glo bulb is 2200.. Interesting those chose to make their own scale..
Conversion 1 lux = 1 lumen/square meter..
As for the link on light threshold.. I follow every thing but the last portion. he has the right idea tho, surface area is most important, something that even I overlooked when I got stuck on the "per gallon" guideline..
This is proving to be very interesting, so far I've broken it down to lumens / Sq. inch, initial loss, depth loss.. But there are still some hurdles to overcome.. like what is "high light" "very high light" etc.
I've based the levels on
220w NO T12 on a 55Gal - Very High Light (formerly 4WPG)
165w NO T12 on a 55Gal - High light (formerly 3WPG)
110w NO T12 on a 55Gal - Moderate Light (formerly 2WPG)
055w NO T12 on a 55Gal - Low Light(formerly 1WPG)
I think this is fairly correct. 220W on a 55 is a lot of light to grow anything..
agree?