New info on flourex lights from HD

[bigfoot]

hi everybody just a little fyi here these lights are awsome! I still reccomend vho and halides but..... my boss at work set up a 180g about 5 months ago hes been running 2 of these along with 180 watts of coralife CF and he did an expierement he put a piece of pink tipped torch coral next to the glass at each end of the tank and marked their growth on the glass with a dry erase marker and he ran 1/2 of the tank under cf and the other half under these he got in one month 1/2 inch of growth from the CF's and under these he got 1 3/4 inches of growth they sell these at HD in the security light section for 45$ and you need a cord to wire it but he know swears by these and has switched the CF's to actinic for color these are yellow light at 6500k not bad for 500 watts of power at 65 watts of consumption and a new bulb is 9.99 btw just thought id share some good info if you cannot afford expensive lighting these are for you :)
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=4381527033&category=46314&sspagename=rvi:1:2v_home

[tjBlotto]

Seems too good to be true.

If people will vouch I'll buy 2 tomorrow.

$65 dollars per, $20 shipping.

That means I'll pay $150 for lights that are equivalent with MH!!?

That's the same light I use on my refuge. Picked it up at home depot for 40$ also. It works really well for a refuge!! All they are is a 65w 6500k PC. It would be a bit yellow on the display IMO.

They ARE NOT equivalent with MH tjBlotto...

[fppf]

My biggest problem with the Saltwater industry is everything that is "Known" and, well everything is done by here say and "Rules of Thumb".

Almost no one gives any type of test that can be repeated exactly.

So why don't we change that, why don't we come up with a test to see how good or how bad lights work.

Anytime your trying to see if one element effects something more than another you MUST have control over all of them. So lets get a few frags from the same parent stoney coral. Get a long tank so all of them are in the same water conditions with the same flow. Then put dividers in the tank to prevent the light from spilling over. Blackout the glass to remove room light or put the tank in a dark room. MASS the frags and try to make them have the same mass when you start. Grow them all under the same light to get a base line grow rate, using MASS as the indicator. Then put each of them under there test lights.

I would use mass because each frag may not grow the same direction and size being hard to measure. But mass is mass, no matter how it grows if it does it will add mass.

Also Documentation and pictures are a MUST. Lets put sience to work for us instead of Joe Shmoe saying which one "Worked" for him.

Comments? Thoughts?

I think that's a great idea!! Let us know your results!!

[bigfoot]

its what i have over my tank i use the 250 watt model wit 2 NO 24 bulbs for actinc supplementation they arent halides but when you have 30 gallon tanks like mine a 175 watt halide is kinda expensive tjblotto they are sold at home depot for 30-40 dollars he just buys em spray paints the out side and the reflector and charges you 60 and 20 for shipping these are light i wouldt think more than 13 to ship myself they are not equivlent to halide i like em because im running 6 30 tanks thats alot of money for halides

[bigfoot]

id do the test but i have no halides sorry i did discover in my last substrate test that the white silica sand sold at lowes as landscaping sand is nice it does have a diatom bloom but then i added some cheato and poof pure white sugar sand and diatoms after 1 month :)

[Brock Fluharty]

So what are you saying bigfoot, cheato causes a diatom bloom, or prevents a diatom bloom?


Brock

[Ocean Singer]

same with brock, luke can be confusing at times :) and on the lighting, I'd say that 1 of those lights were equivilent to 1 24" cf lights

[bigfoot]

prevents in a way i guess

I agree, it would prevent it in a way because the cheato would compete with the diatom for nutrients.

[fppf]

I would love to do it and document it.

Only a few issues, I don't have any MH lamps, or any other types of lamps. I also don't have any corals.

Well I have no scientific test results to post but I do have a lot of experience using different types of lighting with different types of corals... as does many others here. That's what these forums are good for... not "here say and Rules of Thumbs" but sharing actual experience with other hobbyists.

[fppf]

Well I did a lot of reading on the subject of how light is measured for plants and how its measured for intensity. That is where "PAR" comes into play. A seldem spoke of term which is not widely understud.

PAR is basicly a measurement of light between 400nm and 700nm which is the usable range for plants. Its units are in umols/m^2/Sec. I found one web site that did PAR measurements on MH bulbs. At about 8" from the bulb the PAR output of most 6500K to 10000K bulbs was about 600 umols/m^2/Sec. At noon on a sunny day at the equator the PAR will be in the 2000 range. As you go deeper into the water the PAR goes down as you would guess.

So I sent an Email to the guy that sells those lights asking what the PAR was. He did not understand the question at first and I sent him more detail. I also sent an Email to the mfgr, Light of America.

Even if this light is able to put out half of the PAR value a MH would and you used 2 of them for ever 1 MH you would still be WAY ahead of the game in electricity and total cost.

I will let you all know if I get an answer. I'm also trying to find someone with a PAR meter that I can use to measure one myself. They are stocked at the local homedepot. The cheapest PAR sensor I found was $200.

When I get started with corals and have a good foot hold I will be more than happy to start doing some real world testing.

Even if this light is able to put out half of the PAR value a MH would and you used 2 of them for ever 1 MH you would still be WAY ahead of the game in electricity and total cost.

Sounds like your on the right track but I do not understand this... how would you be "way ahead"?? It may be cheaper but you still will not have anything close to a MH.

http://advancedaquarist.com/index/ Has several articles on MH spectral and PAR analysis's on different bulbs and ballasts.

[fppf]

Well, if you could use 2 of these bulbs in place of 1 MH and get the same job done....

Cheaper up front, 2 fixtures with bulbs is $80
With MH your talking about $150 for a lamp and ballast

Lower operating costs, 2 65 watt for 130 watt total
1 175 watt MH, save 45 watts per hour

Less heat put into the tank which you then need to take out

Replace the bulbs once a year vs 6 months
Bulbs are $10 compared to $70

That is why I think you would be ahead of the game.
Anytime you have a light bulb it draws power and then outputs it in the form of heat and light. The more heat you have the less light you have for the same given power draw. Energy in must equal energy out. If I can do the same job without the high heat of a MH and with a little extra $$ saved you bet I will. If it wont do the same job then I will use MH.

There is always a better way!

[Telco Guy]

Well, the cllaims are that they are "Full Spectrum", but I would assume that they are basically the same as PC lights. And they don't appear to be that much cheaper than the currently accepted aquarium grade PC lighting. For example, on marinedepot.com you can buy a 24" 1x65W Current USA PowerCompact Single Satellite Fixture for $58.90.

if you could use 2 of these bulbs in place of 1 MH and get the same job done....

That's a big if... and I agree with Nick, they are just normal PCs.

[fppf]

Thanks for that link Travis
There is tons of very detailed information.
I like the artical about giving your corals to much light and how to much light will actually stunt the growth.

Yes, there are a lot of VERY big "IF's", but hey if no one asks "Why not" then we wont get any farther ahead.

The thing I liked about the bulb is its size. 65 watts in a much smaller package and still cheaper price. The other reason of intrest is the "New" coating inside the bulb. Basicly all fluorescent bulbs make UV light inside. Its the coating on the glass that converts the UV to usable light. As the coatings get better we should see more intensity and better spectrum.

[MikeS]

Interesting thead...I'm going to move this to the advanced forum...

fppf brought up a good point on repeatability...more importantly, I think this could be a case of inturpetation of results.

First, let's talk about coral "growth" as a standard for judging the effectiveness of a stimulis applied to the coral. What is meant by growth? Did the coral increase in mass? Did it bud and divide? "Growth" of a coral is not always an indicator of a healthy or ideal environment. There are several examples to back that statement up...
An elevated Ca level can accelerate "growth"...but in reality what is happening is the coral is removing the excess Ca from the water at the expense of using the same energy to promote tissue growth. Also, many corals bud or reproduce as a survival backup in response to a less than ideal environment. Both of these situations may lead the reefkeeper to mistake the "growth" for a healthy enviornment.

So...coral "growth" does not always indicate an ideal situation. Rather, what we need to see here is a long term survival rate under these lights...


Mike

[FishinInTheDark]

Not to gang up on you, but do you realize that all other light bulbs are meant to replace incandescent bulbs of a higher wattage? They base this on the amount of lumens produced.

This light is no different. They claim that this 65W light replaces a 500W light because it puts out "approximately 4550 lumens." Here (http://www.bulbs.com/products/product_detail.asp?page=products&inventory=11721) is a very cheap, poorly colored 50W power compact lamp that puts out 4800 lumens. Does that mean that if I put eight of those (I currently have eight 55W PC lamps) over my tank, I would truly be running over 4,200 watts? (4550 lumens / 500 supposed watts = 9.1 lumens per watt, so 4,800 lumens / 9.1 lumens per watt = 527.47 supposed watts, meaning I would have 8 * 527.47 = 4,219.78 watts!)

And then, if you take two cheap 400W metal halide lamps (http://www.bulbs.com/products/product_detail.asp?page=products&inventory=8482) which puts out 22,300 lumens each, you could claim you were running 4,901.10 equivalent watts. (Same formula: 22,300 lumens / 9.1 lumens per watt = 2,450.55 watts per lamp.)

If you compare the fluorex bulb to an incandescent bulb, it's amazing. If you compare it to cheaper versions than what is commonly run over aquaria, it just falls short. (I chose that webpage because it was the first one I found with the wattage and lumen data available.)

Now, this doesn't even address PAR. But, the claim that it is a 500W equivalent light does not address PAR either. All I am saying is that if you take the data that he furnishes you, and apply it to other lights, you can make some pretty amazing claims!

[MikeS]

good post Conni

simply the point I'm trying to make is "growth" is hard to link to any one thing...long term survivability is a better measure....

Mike

I like the artical about giving your corals to much light and how to much light will actually stunt the growth.

Post a link to that one... I would like to read it.

I also agree with Mike and Conni...

Here's some shots of my 110g... the first with one LOA 65w PC and the other with one 400w 20k XM MH...

http://www.hostedimage.com/usr/335/8890Picture_007.jpg

http://www.hostedimage.com/usr/335/8890Picture_012.jpg

This is just a visual... the real difference is the amount of PAR being produced. MHs penetrate the water deeper and produce more PAR than PCs watt for watt... even if you could stack 6 of these lights on one side of the tank... the MH would still be the better choice. Figure out the purchase cost and bulb replacement for 6 of these lights... the MH would also be cheaper.

Although this is not a "scientific experiment" I think it shows what we are talking about. I wouldn't run anything other than MHs over this tank. The corals require lighting much brighter than PCs can provide.

http://www.hostedimage.com/usr/335/1181Picture_008.jpg

http://www.hostedimage.com/usr/335/Picture_010.jpg

Not to mention that yellow color... :razz:

[fppf]

Yes, I totally agree with everyone that Mfgr claims can not be taken at face value.

That is why I'm trying to get some numbers that would be more usable.

Travis, did you go out and buy one of those lights??
Now if you only had a PAR meter!

Here is the link on that page you provided about having to much light
Too Much Light (http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/july2004/feature.htm)

Travis, did you go out and buy one of those lights??

That's the same light I use on my refuge. Picked it up at home depot for 40$ also. It works really well for a refuge!! All they are is a 65w 6500k PC. It would be a bit yellow on the display IMO.

They ARE NOT equivalent with MH tjBlotto...

[bigfoot]

http://www.lightsofamerica.com/specs-fl.htm heres the mfg spec sheet

[bigfoot]

i think they do pretty good on smaller shallower tanks like 30 50 gallons i like mine and yes its real yellow so i supplement with 2 24 NO 03 actinic bulbs to get a nice crisp white

[bigfoot]

now if you could get a better reflector in there they work alot better cause the white paint cuts down alot bend a piece of anodized reflector material would be 2x better plus in your picsthe LOA is resting on your tank and it doesnot have the height to spread the light farther then the halide

[FishinInTheDark]

Bigfoot, I'm truly glad that these are working for you. BTW, your 2 x 24W NO flurescent bulbs should have a lumen output somewhere around 1400 each, which makes them comparable to a 150 watt (or so) incandescent bulb. Sure sounds good on paper!

I just want to point out one more time, to anyone who wants corals to flourish in their tanks, that this is little more than a standard, mogul based, compact fluorescent fixture. While it can be compared to a 500 watt incandescent bulb (you know, the kind that were invented by Thomas Edison in 1879), for our hobby purposes, you will have 65 watts of CF. Nearly all 65 watt CF bulbs can be compared to a 500 watt incandescent. The mogul based ones are generally lower than the square- or straight-pin configuration as far as lumen output. A 400 watt aquarium matal halide lamp is equivalent to roughly a 2400 watt incandescent.

There is nothing wrong with the LOA light. But, it is not even remotely comparable to metal halide. I just want to dispel that notion.

Lighting is just confusing, isn't it? It's so easy to get lost in all the jargon!

There is nothing wrong with the LOA light. But, it is not even remotely comparable to metal halide.

With out a doubt!! It's like comparing apples and oranges.


fwiw, this is my top recommended light for refuges!! I have told many people about them... they grow algae well... but I wouldn't use them on the display.

[bigfoot]

i agree i would go mh but for 9 tanks no way can i afford that so i use these instead but all im saying is for us smaller tank users these are good

[MikeS]

I saw a graph comparing the spectral band of the LOA 6500K's to (as I remember) both Iwasaki 6500K's and some 6500K T5's....the spikes were significantly different...with the LOA's being pretty heavy on the red end...something to be aware of...I'll see if I can locate it again...

Mike

[fppf]

Well its been 2 days so far.
The guy that buys these things from Homedepot, slaps some High temp paint and a cord and then sells them for a $25 profit was quick to respond.

He did not understand "PAR" and thought of the stage term of Parabolic reflector. So I educated him a little and gave some links to some scientific pages that explained what PAR was and why its better than lumins. He went off and found a thread on some garden forum where a guy that basiclly contridicted himself did not feel PAR was a good measure. So that was the end of that.

The mfgr has not sent back a response.

So unless any of you guys with this light have a PAR meter we wont have any real numbers.

[tjBlotto]

I can't read the whole article but i think it says that using a MH wouldn't hurt a smaller aquarium. A good HO setup like bigfoots would be sufficient for my current aquarium, but I think if I upgrade to a 100+, which I plan on doing, I'll want MH.