Re: Fluorex Lights

["Giancarlo" <gp at isaconsulting_com>]

Wasn't expecting such a debate from this thread, I think some are thinking I
was suggesting the Fluorex lamps as a substitute to kits such as the AH
Supply CFs. I would never suggest that as I too use these kits and think
they are great. These Fluorex lights are cheaper and yes the design may not
be as efficient as a straight twin tube but I think compared to normal screw
in CFs they perform better. The replacement bulbs are only $12 at HD, not
sure where some have seen them for more than twice that price but for those
like me that live close to a HD the price is pretty good. The fixture can be
thrown out too, just need the screw socket which is not standard. The
circuit inside the fixture is just the light sensor circuit so placing these
bulbs under a better reflector is possible if you wanted to. As for the
quality of LOA products I can't talk as I have no past experience with their
products. The links I provided in my last post pointing to the UniQuaria
messages I think show that this item does put out a lot of light an imo a
lot more than any screw in CF I have seen myself. I apologize to those that
are not members of the UniQuaria group and probably can't access those
posts, I would post them somewhere else but I don't have the permission to
do so from the author. I've seen Kevin's photos and others who have been
growing plants under these bulbs for over a year and besides two indications
of early failure of the bulb, they all indicated that they are happy with
this light. As I indicated earlier I'll be testing one over a quarantine
tank to see how the plants do compared to my other tanks. I've never used
screw in bulbs or anything else other than traditional and straight CF tubes
so I'm quite interested in seeing how it goes (no I don't expect it to do
better than my straight CFs), if it works great, if it doesn't I'll have a
new flood light for the back yard.

Thanks for all the replies on this topic, I haven't yet lost hope until I
try it myself, I guess I'm kind of stubborn like that, tell me the iron is
hot and I'll go touch it to make sure ;-)

Giancarlo Podio


> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 16:12:54 -0400
> From: "Kevin Madsen" <Kevin_Madsen at hotmail_com>
> Subject: Re: Flourex Lights
>
> There are 65watt replacement bulbs available for these lamps. I also know
> from experience with 5 above a 135g that they work very well, providing at
> least moderate light. Comparing it to a 6g with a AH 13 watt this tank is
> brighter. Now I can not speak to any numbers as to how much light these
> produce, but as for the price/value they are not a bad choice.
>
> Kevin
>
> >I would stay away from those lights. If >you want cheap lighting go with
a
> 4
> > 32 watt ballast
> >and overdrive some 2' lamps. Fluorex >does not publish any specs. to
> support
> >their claims and in fact appear to be >telling lies about their products.
> The
> >replacement lamp for that fixture is >either a 27 or 36 watt lamp. Where
> >8000
> >lumens comes into it I don't know. The >only 8000 lumen CF is 3' long, 96
> >watts and made by Panasonic. If you >actually do track this fixture down
> and
> >buy it I would bet big money you will be >disappointed.
> >
> >There is no way to use a nominal lamp >wattage to determine how much
light
> a
> >fixture will produce. Like many others >you are being misled by the watts
> per
> >gallon rule. Just because a lamp says it >is 65 watts doesn't mean it
uses
> 65
> >watts and just because it says 8000 >lumens doesn't mean the lamp
>produces
> >8000 lumens with that particular ballast. >On top of that the actual
shape
> of
> >the fixture has a profound effect on how >much light might make it into
> your
> >tank. Anyone who wants to know how >much light their fixture will produce
> >must know the ballast factor of the >ballast, the fixture efficiency and
> the
> >lamp lumens. If you wish to know how >much plant usable light will be
> >produced you have to multiply the lamp >lumens by a correction factor
which
> >depends on the actual spectrum of the >lamp. There is no other way to do
> this
> >without taking some pretty sophisticated >light measurements.
> >
> >Wayne
>