|
08/30/2009, 09:36 PM | #26 |
Registered Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: menifee So cal
Posts: 11,042
|
It is all about the tier system here in California, dropping one tier saves a lot of money, dropping twice is priceless. My bill has tripled since the new rate case was been invoked. 135 used to be my high before the tank, 356 last month. PS small house no pool.
|
08/30/2009, 09:49 PM | #27 | |
Registered Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,772
|
Quote:
Notice that the MH lamp produces MORE visible light! For all intensive purposes for "white" light sources, the PAR will closely track the visible light output. So again, both MH and FL technology are very similar on output. The fact that there are so many bulb and ballast choices for both technologies, makes generalization like you have posted rather misleading. Again, there are a lot of misconceptions regarding lighting technology. As for the definition of a Watt, thanks for trying to help, but it is a subject I am well versed in |
|
08/30/2009, 09:53 PM | #28 | |
Registered Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,772
|
Quote:
It amazes me that they people of California have allowed it to get that out of hand. |
|
08/30/2009, 09:55 PM | #29 | ||
Registered Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Auburn, AL
Posts: 1,124
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
The 0ne. The 0nly. The0wn4g3. Current Tank Info: 40 gallon Rimless- 39Wx4 T5HO on Ice-Cap 660, 29gallon sump, DAS EX-2, Deltec Phosphate Reactor, Koralia 3, 50lbs LR |
||
08/30/2009, 09:57 PM | #30 |
On Yer left!
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 18,777
|
Bean, so that would mean that CFL, VHO and T5 are all the same? Cant say that I agree with that. I've seen the difference in the same wattage CFL and T5 and its dramatic. I dont think generalizing FL output from that chart covers everything.
__________________
- Scott |
08/30/2009, 10:01 PM | #31 |
Registered Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,772
|
The chart I posted is not misleading at all.
The numbers are very relevant and well documented. There are some T5 bulbs that will outperform some metal halides at a given task, watt for watt, and visa-versa. You made the statement that T5 IS cooler because it takes less WATTS of T5 to produce the same amount of light as compared to metal halide. . That is simply not the case. |
08/30/2009, 10:04 PM | #32 | |
Registered Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,772
|
Quote:
FWIW overdriven bulbs are even less efficient. You just get more output per square foot at the sacrifice of efficiency and bulb life. NO fluorescents are pretty darn efficient, but they just don't put out enough light for the space the take up. |
|
08/30/2009, 10:10 PM | #33 | |
Registered Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Auburn, AL
Posts: 1,124
|
Quote:
__________________
The 0ne. The 0nly. The0wn4g3. Current Tank Info: 40 gallon Rimless- 39Wx4 T5HO on Ice-Cap 660, 29gallon sump, DAS EX-2, Deltec Phosphate Reactor, Koralia 3, 50lbs LR |
|
08/30/2009, 10:10 PM | #34 |
On Yer left!
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 18,777
|
The fact that T5s have the efficiency of the SLR and put more light into the tank is exactly the point and is not addressed in that chart. It is not a minor point. Getting the most light into the tank for the least amount of wattage is what we are looking for.
__________________
- Scott |
08/30/2009, 10:13 PM | #35 |
Registered Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Auburn, AL
Posts: 1,124
|
The chart neither includes efficiency increase or decrease due to bulb/ballast combination. For example, an XM on electronic does poorly, but excels on magnetic.
__________________
The 0ne. The 0nly. The0wn4g3. Current Tank Info: 40 gallon Rimless- 39Wx4 T5HO on Ice-Cap 660, 29gallon sump, DAS EX-2, Deltec Phosphate Reactor, Koralia 3, 50lbs LR |
08/30/2009, 10:16 PM | #36 |
Registered Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,772
|
With all due respect, the published data is contrary to your opinion. In fairness to the OP and others following along, I would as that we leave this where it is.
|
08/30/2009, 10:18 PM | #37 | |
Registered Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,772
|
Quote:
|
|
08/30/2009, 10:23 PM | #38 | |
Registered Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,772
|
Quote:
So again, in general, both MH and FL are very similar with regard to overall heat imparted to the tank and growing ability per Watt. Adding a poor ballast, spectral choice or reflector to EITHER technology will make it inferior to its competitor with a good ballast, spectral choice and reflector. To come full circle to the OPs delima. When choosing a lighting technology or upgrade to save energy, it is important to choose a combination of components that will work well together. T5s are certainly a viable option. An overall reduction in light may also be a reasonable avenue. There is some pretty good evidence that many of us coud get away with far less light and still have a thriving tank. |
|
08/30/2009, 10:27 PM | #39 | |
Registered Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Auburn, AL
Posts: 1,124
|
Quote:
Also, the inclusion of a reflector does not change the output of heat in any way, which is what this is all about. Why not create another thread and fully explain the reasoning behind your opinion and reveal all of this published scientific data. I'd like to see where it says CFL, VHO, and MH are all pretty close to being the same.
__________________
The 0ne. The 0nly. The0wn4g3. Current Tank Info: 40 gallon Rimless- 39Wx4 T5HO on Ice-Cap 660, 29gallon sump, DAS EX-2, Deltec Phosphate Reactor, Koralia 3, 50lbs LR |
|
08/30/2009, 10:41 PM | #40 | |||
Registered Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,772
|
Quote:
Both a T5 and a MH lamp are candidates for highly efficient reflectors. Even the narrow T5 bulb does pose a problem of shadowing itself, as it is not a point source. CFL and PC bulbs are not candidates for highly efficient reflectors, as they shelf shadow and have a high degree of restrike (where one side of the element shines light INTO the other parts of the element either directly or via reflection). VHOs could be used in SLRs, but an efficient SLR for a VHO would be 6 or more inches wide, reducing the nubmer you can use above a tank. Quote:
Furthermore, for the T5 to run at optimal efficacy, the bulb envelope needs to be temperature controlled. Changes of up to 20% in efficacy can easily result of the bulbs are not run at an optimal temperature. Quote:
|
|||
08/30/2009, 11:03 PM | #41 | |
Registered Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Auburn, AL
Posts: 1,124
|
What is or is not a candidate for high reflectivity reflectors is also a large non-issue as you defined the initial comparison as only MH vs FL, thus lacking the inclusion of any mention of reflectors. But, I'll go along with this change in condition anyway.
Quote:
What you have defined as a common misconception is that MH and FL are "pretty much the same". That, sir, is incorrect. I see no facts to support this conclusion, either. Just because you post an arguement, does not make it fact. Especially when you have used such incoherent logic thus far.
__________________
The 0ne. The 0nly. The0wn4g3. Current Tank Info: 40 gallon Rimless- 39Wx4 T5HO on Ice-Cap 660, 29gallon sump, DAS EX-2, Deltec Phosphate Reactor, Koralia 3, 50lbs LR |
|
08/30/2009, 11:35 PM | #42 | |||
Registered Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,772
|
Quote:
I have not changed "conditions" or any of the points I have made. I simply took your initial statement that FL bulbs heat a tank less than MH at face value and responded with information showing that in fact they are about the same. You then rephrased your statement to indicate that T5 bulbs put out more light per Watt than MH bulbs and therefore less wattage can be used and will generate less heat. I again kindly pointed out that scientificaly colllected data does not support that statement. As an asside to SJM's question/comment we spoke briefly of the minor differences in FL technology (T12, T8, T5, CFL, PC) and the fact that they are all pretty similar with regard to output with the T5 having several advantages with regard to HOW that output can be directed. It was also pointed out that not only are the T5 bulbs candidates for highly efficient reflectors, but so are MH bulbs, making either a better choice than PC/CFL or older T8 and T12 lamps. Again, these points were an asside that was simply informational regarding the technology and in response to the dialog with SJM. As another side note (and in response to your contention that relfectors had nothing to do with heat), I pointed at that the better the reflector, the more ENERGY (THUS HEAT) is actually radiated into the tank. Something that may not be obvious at first blush. It was an asside and had nothing to do with the correction of your initial statements. Quote:
I clearly (several times) indicated that both MH and FL lamps produce roughly the same amount of RADIANT ENERGY and therefore both impart the same basic amount of HEAT into the water via radiation. I also indicated that they both have similar PAR characteristics and that it fairly closely tracks the visible light output (I.E. the ratio between Watts/Lumens is about the same as Watts/Par). Dan Riddle, JBNY, Grim Reefer, Sanjay Joshi and many others have published pages of data. I also kindly and clearly pointed out that different bulb and ballast combinations may end up worse than the baseline numbers posted in the chart. A good MH setup may beat the snot out of a poor T5 setup, or VISA-VERSA. More to the point, to say that T5 puts out more light and therefore less heat than MH is simply not supported by the facts. Quote:
I hope we can move past this and get back to the OPs power usage problem. He may be a candidate for an minor lighting upgrade, or an entire system overhaul. T5 Lamps may be a perfect solution, but without more facts about his system and livestock it is hard to tell. Last edited by BeanAnimal; 08/30/2009 at 11:55 PM. |
|||
08/31/2009, 12:16 AM | #43 |
Registered Member
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Des Moines Iowa
Posts: 3,190
|
BeanAnimal and The0wn4g3 maybe you guys should move your discussion to PMs or another thread, The OP was asking for help and you guys have gone way beyond that
As someone posted earlier, Get a Kilowatt meter and find where are the power is being used everywhere in the house. You might be surprised how much you can save by changing a few things. Call you power company and see if they offer a free energy audit and ask about what rebates they may offer for any energy saving improvements you do to your home. My electric company offered huge rebates on insulation/windows/furnace/hot water heater/appliances. I cut my energy usage by about 30% and it cost me next to nothing after rebates and tax deductions because I was able to do most of it myself. Don't limit yourself to just making your aquarium more efficient.
__________________
It Was Funny Until Someone Got Hurt..........Then It Was Hilarious! Current Tank Info: DD 250 60x36x27 450 gallon total system. |
08/31/2009, 07:06 AM | #44 |
Registered Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,772
|
He also needs to post a typical monthly electric bill so that we can see usage and how far he has to go to drop a tier.
|
08/31/2009, 07:17 AM | #45 |
Registered Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,772
|
I found rates posted at SCE
http://www.sce.com/NR/rdonlyres/1892...D0806Final.pdf And a List of rebates and savings here: http://www.sce.com/residential/rebates-savings/ It also appears that SCE offers Time Of Use plans where rates are reduced at non peak hours. Selecting this plan and moving lighting to this schedule would help, as would running the dishwasher laundry, etc. I am not sure if he is an SCE customer or not |
08/31/2009, 08:11 AM | #46 |
Registered Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Auburn, AL
Posts: 1,124
|
__________________
The 0ne. The 0nly. The0wn4g3. Current Tank Info: 40 gallon Rimless- 39Wx4 T5HO on Ice-Cap 660, 29gallon sump, DAS EX-2, Deltec Phosphate Reactor, Koralia 3, 50lbs LR |
08/31/2009, 09:23 AM | #47 |
Registered Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Hollywood Florida
Posts: 3,633
|
When i built my 560/g tank everyone thought i was crazy for measuring each pcs of equipment before it went on my tank.
what to look for: Return pumps should be only as big as you skimmer can clean Closed loops VS powerheads Skimmer. Downdraft pumps VS Needle Wheels. Lighting. Going down in Watt or switching to T-5's from MH with this in mind i used only 600W off peak and 1600 watt peak. Again thats for a 560/g tank. |
08/31/2009, 09:27 AM | #48 |
Registered Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,772
|
While I can't stand the look of powerheads (or any equipment in a tank)... If I lived in California, my setup would be VERY different.
A tiny return pump with a sump at display level and powerheads for flow would be my choice. As it is now, our rates here in PA suck, but nothing like those in CA... so my high flow sump and closed loops are a reasonable monthly cost. |
08/31/2009, 01:26 PM | #49 |
Registered Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Auburn, AL
Posts: 1,124
|
As for in-tank flow, would a wave-maker not be preferable to powerheads? The idea behind the Tunze wavebox is to find the resonance frequency in a specific tank and use that to maintain the momentum of the water using a relatively small pump, no? It only uses an average of 10W, and we had great results on a 365 gallon tank. Should be great on a 150. Unless you just have a very wide tank, I'd think that would consume less energy than a any powerhead other than a Vortech.
__________________
The 0ne. The 0nly. The0wn4g3. Current Tank Info: 40 gallon Rimless- 39Wx4 T5HO on Ice-Cap 660, 29gallon sump, DAS EX-2, Deltec Phosphate Reactor, Koralia 3, 50lbs LR |
08/31/2009, 02:28 PM | #50 |
Registered Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,772
|
A wavebox is certainly an option, but they also have their drawbacks. They extremely hard on the seams of the tank and the stand. They are also not compatible with some types of overflow setups. Some people prefer the type of laminar flow that they provide, while other folks are sold on more turbulant flow. Interesting devices, nonetheless.
|
|
|