[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Mercury vapour lamps
>Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 16:10:11 +0800
>From: taburnok at skyinet_net
>Subject: MORE MERCURY VAPOUR Q's
>STEVE WROTE :
>>The main disadvantage with mercury lamps is you get about a third more
>>[photosynthetically active radiation] out of a metal halide of the same
>snip snip ..
>yes but how are they compared to flourecents
If we are talking about the lighting of an average sized tank, there is not
point in using them. The linear nature and more favourable spectrum make
flourecents more suitable.
>... and another thing .. they
>cost 1/3 of the price MH bulbs go for too
Yes because they are produced for lighting purposes, and most people opt for
the more efficient [brighter] metal halide.
>and I THINK .. they produce less
>heat that MH bulbs
I would have thought they produce more heat than MH of the same wattage;
not produced as 'light', normally ends up as heat with HID's.
.. is it true that they produce blue light
The primary emission of mercury lamps is at the blue end of the
appear white with a blue tinge.
.. ive never seen
>any of these in action .. just an idea id be willing to try .. seems more
>hi-tech than the normal flourecents .. SEND FEEDBACK
There's nothing hi-tech about them Mike, they have been in use since the
If a mercury lamp buts out enough light for your purposes and you are
concerned about cost, they will do. If you want more of a better quality
light then pay the extra for the MH.
Personally, as I have said, for use with an average tank I would go for
Hope this helps.