WPG rule updated

[IceH2O]

You guys need to read this and let us know what you think.

This was taken from a forum I found called Aquarium Advice, it deals with wpgs via CF and states that the CF wpg is higher than NO wpg even if they're the same wattage. Example being a 65w CF gives out more wpg then a 65w NO because of lumens.

Credit goes to Wizzard~Of~Ozz @ Aquarium Advice

http://www.aquariumadvice.com/viewtopic.php?t=72491&highlight=wpg

According to this site my 1.75 wpg is actually a medium light level of I can't remember exactly but closer to 2.5 wpg.

 

[loaches r cool]

Well the WPG I think is more of a rule of thumb than a rule. Wattage is typicaly rated in how much energy the light bulb is consuming - thats something that link above they didnt really hit on much. Do plants care how much energy your lights are consuming (there not paying the electric bill are they)? It think it is impossible to get an accurate rating, as plants light demand varies and detailed spectral information is usually not that avaiable for alot of bulbs out there. Generaly speaking though, in the world of flourescent lighting it seems the smaller diameter the tube the more efficient the bulb is for light output vs wattage. On my canopy I am building (check out my other lighting post here) a 2x overdriven philips bulb is much brighter than a 4x overdriven GE bulb (even though the GE bulb is estimated drawing almost 50% more power than the philips). So its not all about wattage but the intensity at usuable frequency.

WPG also doesnt consider how deep the water is, just the total gallons of the tank. What really matters is how far the plant is from the light nad how many gallons of water are in the lights way getting to the plant. The same light atop a 40 long (13" deep) will not be as intense on a 40 tall (20" deep). Just some food for thought.

 

[joephys]

My NO tube is 20 watts, 750 lum. Thats 37.5 lum/watt. My cf bulbs, are 13 watts, and 800 lum. Thats 61.5 lum/watt. That is 61% more light than a NO tube. I should note that the cf bulbs I was looking at were normal house light bulbs, not suitable for aquarium use, but I would think that it should be the same.

Thanks for posting that, I would have never thought about checking that out. Although, now that I think about it, it makes sense since CF bulbs are becoming popular because they are more efficient.

 

[loaches r cool]

I am really interested in the 'T6' lighting myself. I have seen just a few of these bulbs online. If I remember correctly they are T5 bulbs that have ends to fit your common T8,10,12 fixtures and are compatable with those ballasts. I might just have to order one or two, but the Philips T8 bulbs I just got are amazingly bright and dirt cheap.