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

Re: DIY Power Compacts

>Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 13:44:37 -0800 (PST)
>From: Erik Olson <erik at thekrib_com>
>Subject: Re: DIY Power Compacts
>On Mon, 30 Nov 1998 IDMiamiBob at aol_com wrote:
>> Mark Pan writes:
>> > 2 x Osram Dulux D, 1,700 lumens 6,000 K lights (now that's very, very
>> >  white!)
>> >  26Watts with rated output of 150W (!) Or so the box says so anyway :-)
>> Forgive me if I am wrong, but isn't a standard 40-watt Flourescent tube rated
>> at like 3,120 lumens?  And Ultralumes give off even more than that.  If this
>> is the case, I don't understand how a lamp with 1700 lumens ranks a rating of
>> 150W, unless it is being compared to incandescents.  Then we are mixing apples
>> and kumquats, and I fail to see the output advantage of PCs
>First off, these aren't PC's.  These are the older 13 watt traditional
>compact fluorescents that are equivalent in efficiency to standard
>fluorescent tubes.  
>"Rated output" doesn't mean squat on this list.  Talk lumens, talk PAR,
>talk about actual wattage used by the bulbs.  Dulux tubes are 13 watt
>fluorescent tubes.  Not 75 watts.  If you use the 2-bulb unit, you are
>getting 26 watts of fluorescent light.  This is slightly more than a
>2-foot T12, and probably similar to a 2' T-8.  You cannot replace a 175
>watt MH pendant with this unit and expect similar output.
>The neat thing about "Power Compacts" is that they extend this concept to
>larger tubes, such as the 22" long 40 watt tube I mentioned this morning.
>And these later-generation tubes are supposed to have similar efficiency
>to T-8's.

Well, seems I've stirred a little hornets nest just by messing around with
terminology :-) Sorry to have rankled so many feathers. Anyway, a few
statements did bother me somewhat:

1) If these aren't Power Compacts, what are? As far as I can see, they are
far and away more powerful than any 2-foot fluorescent lamp I've seen. You
mean PCs are even more powerful still?? If so I'd like to get my hands on

2) OK, so let's not talk of "rated output" as it seems like a dirty word in
this list <g> But doesn;t anyone think that 1,700 lumens for 26W (65W per
lumen) is pretty darn good for a 6 inch piece of fluorecent tubing?

3) The Dulux tubes I have are 26W, not 13W. (unless by 2 bulb you mean that
each unit comes with 2 bulbs, in which case you are right, as it comes in 2
U-shaped tubes per unit) Using 2 units gives me a total of 52Ws. 

4) I never intended these bulbs to replace 175W MHs! I am curious though, as
I've heard of reef enthusiasts who are changing to PCs to replace their MHs.
So isn't it possible? BTW, at $10 a pop (now convert that to US dollars and
it gets real interesting) you can have enough light to boil water if you
wish to fit over a standard 2 by 2 :-)

5) Bob wasn't comparing the light output correctly, at 26W, an accurate
comparison would be against 2-foot fluorescents. If I wanted to compare
these PCs (forgive me I don't know what else to call them) against 4-foot
tubes, I would've used the higher output tubes. Then again, maybe I wasn't
too clear in my message. 

6) As Ron rightly said, these 26W lamps are perfect for lighting up my tiny
1-foot cube tank. It's just been set up and if anyone's interested I'll post
the results on my webpage (as soon as the plants grow though)

Mark Pan, who was just trying to be helpful.