[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: DIY reflector

Howdy Bob,

>  > This issue comes up quite a lot over the years.  I'm certain that the
>  > information is out somewhere for the exact percentage, but bright white
>  > paint reflects something like 95% of the light.  A full-on polished chrome
>  > reflector did something like 98% or 99%.
>  >>
>  Wadw Shimoda, who subscribes to this list, works for a company that
>  helps businesses save money by replacing 4-tube flourescent fixtures
>  with reflectorized 3-tube fixtures.  The result is a 25% savings on
>  electricity, with the same, or very near the same lumens output from
>  the fixtures.  Wade, are the fixtures you guys replace normally painted
>  white, as the vast majority are?  If so, then white reflectors reflect
>  only about 75%, not your "something like 95%", of the tube's output.

Nuts, I'm gonna have to get you for this Bob. :) Going back to the
archives I always fine quite painful.  Anyway, I found one references
quickly enough from Eric Olson talking about reflectivity of white paint
vs. silverized teflon.  This was a conversation back in 96.


Here white pain was 90 something percent and the teflon 99%.

You can most likely find more, however I'm not willing to do the research
again on this one.

Another topic was relative to the flourescent tubes and their output when
they had the 180 degree as opposed to 360 degree output.  Again, minimal 
difference.  Look for keywords booth on that one.  I remember him in the

>  > In summary, 99% of all people are wasting their optimization efforts (on a
>  > meager 5%) to worry about doing anything but providing a nice flat white
>  > surface for the light to bounce off of.
>  IMHO, I can clearly see the difference.  I'll keep spending the 98 cents per
>  fixture to spray them with chrome paint. 


>  > Issues that are more important to maximize the lights benefit IMHO are:
>  <<snip 
>  > 4. The type of ballast you're using.
>  Now here's something I haven't heard before.  Matthew, share a little
>  more for us on what you know (not what you've conjectured) on this
>  concept that a different ballast can improve the output of the tubes.

Sigh, not "conjectured", read on the list, ballast specs and the like.
I'm not terribly interested in doing much more than pointing people to the
information that exists on the archives or on www.dejanews.com as most
of this stuff has been written about before and I don't love typing.

Again, I don't have time to go poking in the lists.  The jist of it is
that there are a few classifications of ballasts.  The electronic
capacitor non ballast type flourescent drivers do not drive the ballasts
hard enough and the frequency is hard on the bulbs.  Many of the newer
ballasts are "energy efficient."  This often implies that the ballast that
you are using is not driving the bulb to its full capacity to save
electricity.  However, it is this energy which is necessary to go through
the bulb to get to the plants.  Think of a bulb as just a nice converter
of electrical energy to engery which is useful for plants.  If you have
something which is reducing the energy going to the bulbs, you've got
something which is reducing the energy to the plants.  

Finally, if you go to www.dejanews.com you can find a ton of discussions
on this relative to IceCap ballasts vs. Advanced vs. Magnetec and the like
if you search on rec.aquaria.marine.reefs and lighting and ballasts.