Help
http://www.strayligh...ine-index.shtml
Page 1 of 1
Well, Here It Is...the First Of The Plasmas For Aquariums Start saving now.
#2 Guest_Quigs_*
Posted 07 January 2010 - 08:21 PM
Looks interesting. When are we likely to see these arrive on our shores then?
Would like to see a bigger reflector aswell, although it does say they can be customised.
Would like to see a bigger reflector aswell, although it does say they can be customised.
#3
Tony B 
- Trigger Fish
- Group: Members
- Posts: 772
- Joined: 11-February 08
Posted 08 January 2010 - 11:01 AM
Interesting alright but I would question the data as follows:
When comparing to a 450w halide (odd wattage, do they make 450w?) to their plasma light, how old was the bulb? What reflector was bulb in? What ballast was used? How far from water's surface was halide? What make was the bulb? What was the spread of light; was the plasma more focused and therefore concentraded or did both lights have the same reflector/light spread? And so on....
In short I rarely trust manufacturer's data, independant data is imho far better.
My above concerns aside I think that plasma lighting could provide a better solution than LEDs. It looks good....
When comparing to a 450w halide (odd wattage, do they make 450w?) to their plasma light, how old was the bulb? What reflector was bulb in? What ballast was used? How far from water's surface was halide? What make was the bulb? What was the spread of light; was the plasma more focused and therefore concentraded or did both lights have the same reflector/light spread? And so on....
In short I rarely trust manufacturer's data, independant data is imho far better.
My above concerns aside I think that plasma lighting could provide a better solution than LEDs. It looks good....
#5
karnivor
- Angelfish
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1,315
- Joined: 18-June 08
Posted 08 January 2010 - 01:32 PM
Tony B, on Jan 8 2010, 11:01 AM, said:
Interesting alright but I would question the data as follows:
When comparing to a 450w halide (odd wattage, do they make 450w?) to their plasma light, how old was the bulb? What reflector was bulb in? What ballast was used? How far from water's surface was halide? What make was the bulb? What was the spread of light; was the plasma more focused and therefore concentraded or did both lights have the same reflector/light spread? And so on....
In short I rarely trust manufacturer's data, independant data is imho far better.
My above concerns aside I think that plasma lighting could provide a better solution than LEDs. It looks good....
When comparing to a 450w halide (odd wattage, do they make 450w?) to their plasma light, how old was the bulb? What reflector was bulb in? What ballast was used? How far from water's surface was halide? What make was the bulb? What was the spread of light; was the plasma more focused and therefore concentraded or did both lights have the same reflector/light spread? And so on....
In short I rarely trust manufacturer's data, independant data is imho far better.
My above concerns aside I think that plasma lighting could provide a better solution than LEDs. It looks good....
The reason they quote 450W is because it relates to system wattage and not bulb wattage. in other words, it is the total power consumed by the bulb AND the ballast. So a 400w bulb would consume 400w + 50w consumed by the ballast. This is the correct way to measure efficiency as it takes the power supply into consideration.
They quote the output of the unit as 15000+ Lumens, which is the total light emitted from the bulb. This measurement has no bearing on reflector type or height above the water, it is purely the light emitted from the bulb. As such, it is very easy to compare its output against any other light source in terms of efficiency, without taking reflectors into consideration and a quick search around the net will give you a long list of light sources that you can compare to.
Reflector design is a relative thing. I.e you cannot design a reflector to cover all possibilities, so a reflector is only as good as the application its designed for. the Luminarc for instance, is a brilliant reflector, for what it was designed, which is Horticultural growth and works quite well in aquariums, but it is not suitable for all applications. The 30 degree relector in this design for instance, will work very well on an aquarium but will need to be raised quite high above the water's surface to provide full illumination. However, once correctly possitioned, it will give excellent depth penetration because light loss will be low.
Its also worth bearing in mind that because the light is a very small point source, reflector design will become easier as all of the available light will be close to the point of focus and directed forward.
#6
Tony B
- Trigger Fish
- Group: Members
- Posts: 772
- Joined: 11-February 08
Posted 08 January 2010 - 02:02 PM
karnivor, on Jan 8 2010, 01:32 PM, said:
They quote the output of the unit as 15000+ Lumens, which is the total light emitted from the bulb. This measurement has no bearing on reflector type or height above the water, it is purely the light emitted from the bulb. As such, it is very easy to compare its output against any other light source in terms of efficiency, without taking reflectors into consideration and a quick search around the net will give you a long list of light sources that you can compare to.
And how exactly are lumens measured? How would you (or I, or 'they') measure lumens?
#7
karnivor
- Angelfish
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1,315
- Joined: 18-June 08
Posted 08 January 2010 - 03:16 PM
Tony B, on Jan 8 2010, 02:02 PM, said:
And how exactly are lumens measured? How would you (or I, or 'they') measure lumens?
A simple explanation.
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2000-...16675.Eg.r.html
Share this topic:
Page 1 of 1