Re: Lighting and Lux

["S. Hieber" <shieber at yahoo_com>]

Wayne Jones" <waj at mnsi_net>

I had said: "I looked again at the [Fitch] chart it appears for all >
the world to plot the watts used by Amano against the tank sizes that
those wattages were used on, by Amano.  This is not Watts per gallon?"


And Wayne replied, in part:
 
> Well yes it is labelled watts per gallon but the effect has nothing
> to
> do with higher light levels/gallon required for smaller tanks. The
> light
> levels per gallon are probably constant. It is the lamp efficiency
> that
> is changing. The short fixtures just use more watts to create a unit
> of
> light than the long fixtures.

I think I see your point, but maybe that's part of the reason that
watts per gallon is a useful heuristic.  The spread of points in the
Fitch chart is, I think, telling.  Watts/galon doesn't get you homed in
except in a rough way, but no assemblage of info readily available to
most hobbyists does.


As for energy efficiency ratings -- well, size matters too. T8s might
be more energy efficient than PCs, but if I can get enough light into
my tank with the latter and not the former, I'll use the latter.  Maybe
I will replace those incandescents in the rest of my house with
flourescents to make up for the being such an energy spendthrift with
my aquairum lights ;-)  Afterall, incadnescents are over 90% efficient
as heaters but consumate hogs as illuminators.  They are Edison's
revenge for the world not adopting his DC power system.

Scott H.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com