Interesting numbers

That would be awesome. I'm getting pretty deep into this and would love to see more. PM it to me please.

 

I think you might want to do some more research on reflectors if you are going to rule them out entirely. Basing results off of only the bulbs is like judging who is going to win a race based only off of the engines in the cars, not the body design, tires, driver, gas etc. Sure the bulb is the source of the power but it can only do so much without everything else. A good driver can take a subpar car and win with it, a good reflector can make a mediochre bulb perform better than a bulb without a reflector.

 

Thank you to everyone who has been arguing against me on this one. You are all clearly right and I'm clearly wrong. this is the type of thing that needs to be considered more deeply.

Here is my conclusion on the lack of argument for PC lighting as reef lighting:

While PC light BULBS have similar outputs in almost every respect to MH BULBS there are a few other factors that make MH the clear choice over PC. Space is the number one constraint that renders PC bulbs less usable. You simply cannot fit enough PC bulbs over a given footprint to equal the PAR output of MH bulbs. PC bulbs are also more expensive than MH bulbs to replace. PC fixtures may be cheaper but the cost to replace the PC bulbc on the cheapest of PC fixtures is more in the long run than cost to replace bulbs and even ballasts on the cheapest of MH fixtures. The inefficiency of PC fixture reflectors also plays some unknown amount of dimming on the overall output of a PC fixture as compared to MH fixtures.

The argument is the same for T5 lighting.

K+ to everyone who voiced against me. I'll be working on a more complete write up of my finding's on this.

 

I just found this and wish I found it sooner. As someone who has played around with a Quantum meter quite abit I would say I could voice some input...

First without my exp take a look at this comment from the link....

For carrying out the computations, I used only spectral curves and bulb data I was able to get from the web, as well as some web-published photosynthesis action spectra. I also had to write a short computer program. Details and pointers to original data can be seen in the appendix.

So from what I read this gentlemen didn't do any testing he pulled stuff from various online sources....then let a computer generated program run with it..

Ok what I have seen and that has been echoed my lots of others(not just lighting companies that want to sell you expensive lights Mike ) is that PC doesn't hold a candle to MH or T5...

I have gone back and forth with Grim Reefer on RC many times on testing procedures and so on and compared my results with his always for them to be very comperable..

For example I tested 2 BRAND NEW PC lamps(Coralife 50/50) 65watters, against 2 54w T5 lamps (one Aquablue+ and the other Actinic+) and even with the probe a foot or so away from the T5 lamps and the probe inches from the PC the T5 destroyed the PC numbers wise.

The reflector is one aspect of PC that lead to its downfall but the shape of the lamp is also a terrible factor.

Another anectdote, I tested the PAR of the CFL lamps you use in houses the 13w'ers, and inch from the lamp the PAR was like ~400ish two inches from that is was under 100uMol/m2/sec.
A photon of light produced by anylamp will be the same, problem is how efficient or well each lamp or type of lamp produces a photon....

No light "penetrates" deeper than others... MH has that reputation but in all science of lighting it simply isn't true. Of course if you have 250w concentrated into a little area and it is directed straight down you will have higher numbers than if you have a long lamp that is 80w over the length of the tank. I bet if I were to cram the same amount of wattage over my 180 as a comperable MH setup the PAR numbers would be the same just as deep.

Ok Im getting off track, as far as PC efficiency goes, they are pretty terrible, and no I am not just trying to be a PC hater, I still have 3 unused fixtures in my storage, and thats 3 less that I either sold or gutted... I have used PC for MANY years I am aware of their inefficiencies first hand.... I had 6 65w PC lamps over a 75 and had barely any SPS growth but as soon as I tossed them in the 180 with T5 even halfway down the tank they have blown previous growth out of the water....

Ok, I am trying to police my kids so my thoughts are off track, when I can get my thoughts better collected I will add more...

 

Another huge point that I forgot to add.
Doing my research on my algae scrubber. I came across one of Santa Monicas post on another website about when to replace bulbs. A CFL light needs to be replaced at about 3 months, PC 6 mo., T5 12mo. Now that's just coming from another respected reefer nothing scientific but...
I just replaced my CFLs at 3.5 months and I can tell a difference visibly.

 

CFL? Do you mean like standard PC lamps or the ones in your house for light? If you mean the ones in your house Im gonna run my bad boys till they burn out!