I'm not against PAR measurements being on any box even though it may sound that way. You do however point out what my worry is that the reflector would ideally need to be supplied with said box so that the user knows what they are getting otherwise we are still at the stage of her's a tube and then 1 user has a great reflector and says 1WPG is great another has a poor reflector but thinks it's great and rubbishes the claim. I am suggesting they both have the same tube and both think they have the top reflector (no-one can agree on the best reflectorstyle or type or surface etc!!!) and therefore the data becomes a non entity again.
What they also cannot show is how that PAR will relate when using multiples of said tube when used together even with the same reflectors when overlap occurs.
It would be pretty confusing to all if the box had a datasheet detailing the PAR of a single tube/reflector combo and then started talking about PAR with overlap at X distance.
I don't think people understand too much the difference when you equal up the spread etc. All the standard tubes T12/T10/T8/T5 are pretty much the same wattage at the sameish lengths. T5HO is a different matter but then there is T12 and T8 VHO. The diameter makes better penetration we are told, The PAR show us that.........or does it? These are PAR readings from T5 with reflectors compared to other tubes with other reflectors. Are the reflectors better for T5? Are we measuring electronic ballast driven tubes and comparing them to magnetic/electric ballast driven tubes? We need to test this theory on a level playing field whixh as far as I can see has never ever been done, yet facts bandied around the web are T5 rules!!!
If T5 indeed does provide better penetration does it also provide better intensities at angles from the tube or is it just directly below the tube? Someone needs to test all these as single tubes, both with electronic ballasts and either with identically (although different scale) reflectors or better still with no reflectors. Using no reflectors would remove another varuible that could be the difference between 1 reflector and another no matter how identically they are in proprtions to the tube or metal used etc.
We are told that T5 penetrates better than T12 and each increment in diameter from T5 upward decreases in pentration potential but is it in all directions?
I don't think reflectors can be brought into this equation. whilst I used to talk of restrike being less with T5, these days I ask myself why is that. Surely the larger the diameter of the tube the larger the diameter of the reflector. Therefore if the same design is made for a reflector for T12 as is for T5 although the amount of restrike measured by a area would be greater for the larger diameter tube would it still be the same % of tube diameter and therefore exactly the same % of lost light?
Now this of course does assume that we can find electronic ballasts for T12 so that we could compare them. I think that'll be a failed search but you see what I am getting at.
We can't say T5 are better because there are better reflectors available for them than T12, T8 etc. That is wrong because that does not mean T5 are better. Just that the setups available for T5 are better.
On a level playing field with the same types of ballast, The same design of reflector just a different scale of proportion and identical K,CRI etc how much more light in all directions would the T5 give than the T12. Would it be any more?
I admit that WPG is useless as it just says this light is going to consume 'X'W. But then a PAR number would say this tube emits 'X' PAR at 'X' level. 1 person achieves great results using 2 tubes and thinks he has the PAR on the box. Maybe he has used 2 tubes which should mean 'X' PAR x 2 when in fact because of the overlap it was 'X' PAR x 3!!!! He has a medium light tank I will suggest for arguments sake. For the sake of argument lets say its 2WPG
Another person assumes he can use half as much as his friend and have a low light tank so he gets 1 tube. Same setup for the 1 tube and asks himself why it is so much poorer than his friends. After all his friend has twice as much. The PAR label says so. His light is medium so half should be 1WPG and fine for most 'low light plants'. what is going wrong?
You see what I am getting at here? The PAR says 1 tube = X and therefore someone with 2 tubes says X x 2 when in fact improving the spread (probably) changes the PAR.
We are now back to having a label that needs measuring by the end user to trully know where we are and cannot be calculated from the box label statement.
I think plant keepers used to push 6-8WPG because they knew no better just as you say. Tubes may not have been so good back then too. I;ve said a few times that even existing technolgies like T12 and T8 will have improved through the years and therefore today's T12 may also blast the original calculations out of the water.
The WPG rules didn't put an end to the sink hole though. Just look at some of the APC peeps who proudly state they have 6WPG even these days!!!! Some never learn, Some refuse to learn and some just don't care. You tell them different and its like a personal attack on them. they defend their beloved super power compact as if it is family. lol.
I totally agree with you r.e. the luminaires where they shove as many tubes as they can in there. They miss the point. they give you the optimum light and then fit it into a beautiful slimline unit rather than look at reality where a wide unit with the tubes spaced would be much better. They already make the luminaires to standard lengths of tank so they can also go for standard depths to be able to do this. I don't agree they shove another tube in and think we can charge more for it though. I think they shove more tubes in and charge more because the foolish customer WANTS it. Supply and demand.
BUT 2 things.
1 - They make slimline units because they are more aesthetically pleasing to a world that wants ever smaller technology. Smaller phones, smaller mp3 players, smaller everything so it satisfies their eyes. MARKETING SPEAK - 'We make these smaller for you the consumer to make them look perfect in your house'
2 - Also larger units use more materials, take more room, need larger packaging, require more area for storage, less units per shipment etc. Therefore they cost the manufacturer more to make. Would the consumer pay that extra? No. BUSINESS SPEAK - 'Make them smaller so that it's cheaper for the consumer and we don't need 3 more factories, 3 more warehouses and more containers on the ships but don't cut the retail price as much as it saves'
Satisfies both sides here. lol. Customer gets their sleek unit at a price they like. the manufacturer needs less of everything whilst gaining a little bit more on their margin.
So in summary give us the PAR a tube puts out without reflector. Give us measurements detailing severla differnt reflectors and tell us exactly which make and model reflectors they were. Same for the ballasts. Then give us the readings that detail different spacings and how much the PAR rises when the effect of overlapping comes into play with the different spacing. When you've finished printing the book we aren't paying an extra a,punt for it, we want it as part of the package.
What is detrimental to plantkeeping is the hobby itself because for every one of us that tries to explain the reality of light etc there are 1000 out there ready to shout back that we know nothing. I didn't go on APC for a long long time due to the hammering I used to get but these days I do again. I tend to read more than write though unless something takes my fancy.
We jokingly talk about the 'light obsessed americans' on the UK forums because of the number that protect their 6WPG setups against anyone who dares to suggest they don't need them and there are loads. CF is still the most used lighting in the US whereas in the UK we seem to have skipped CF (although for a short spell we did use it including me for 3 months) and gone straight for T5/T5HO. Not through choice I might add. CFs seemed to die out in the retailers!!!
Philosophos - You know me from APC and you know I use exaggeration a lot to explain my points. This may be a fault but then thats just how I explain things. lol so take all of the above with a pinch of salt. In the main it is what I believe but I may ecaggerate situations to show differences a little better. lol. I can be a little pedantic as well but then why not
One things for sure. It would cost the companies to do thorough testing. Even if they published the info on the internet rather than having to print datasheets to put with the tubes (It wouldn't fit on the package. lol) They would charge for it and that I'm afraid would send me over to the tubes with no info on them!!!
*edit* Can this please be the start of another long debate? My last one over on AQ is winding down
Yes it can. lol
If you haven't read enough here are some interesting links on LED comparison to MH. They talk in our language
Info that many reefer MH lovers do not believe!!!! p.s. this unit usees the same Luxeon 3W LEDs that I have although they use a combination of K where I use just 5500K. The argument here is another one I don't know really. Should we be using PAR? Should we not be using PUR. The first article compares a 75W LED fixture to a 250W MH and the LED has 89% of the PAR of the MH. Much better per watt of course. However The LED fixture produces much much more PUR.
Guest Article: A New Horizon in Lighting: PFO's Solaris LED System
The LED Solaris Lamp PAR Comparison by PFO - 3reef Forums
AC
