Re: Fluorex Lights

["Wayne J" <w.jones at sympatico_ca>]

Giancarlo Podio wrote:

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 ;-)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah, me too. I like empirical evidence and could care less about anecdotal
evidence. I don't like some of LOAs wild claims. I want to see those claims
backed up by scientific evidence. I have always wondered how they could get
away with those huge lumen per watt values. There are rules about lamp
labeling covered under the appliance rule and rules about how lamps are to
be tested. I suspect that small specialty companies must be exempt and maybe
LOA is one of them.

I find that many aquarium lighting products are sold to hobbyists under
false pretences. The marketing is generally designed to trick people into
thinking they are getting something they are not getting. It really bugs me.
So, I try and promote the idea of buying from companies that give real
useful information about their products.

That Fluorex lamp may not be so terrible either. I just can't tell from what
LOA says about it. Panasonic makes a similar lamp which is about a 60 lumen
per watt lamp. If the "tines" of LOAs lamp were longer it would likely be
more efficient than 60 lumen per watt. Anyhoo...even if it made it to70
lumens per watt would only be typical of any compact fluorescent lamp.

Wayne