watts per gallon????????

Slakker, I think you're right, but IMO the pure intensity of the light is what's going to make it penetrate deeper. You're not going to get a sunburn under a 96 watt pc, or even a few of them, but you're going to get scorched under 250 watts of MH and even worse under 400. I can't say that if you put 250 watts of pc against a 250 watt mh bulb what the difference would be. I would guess that since the surface area from which an MH bulb lights is so much smaller that it would still be more intense. Just a guess though.

Would you agree with that?
 
I think it would depend on how close the 2 250's were to each other.

I agree tho, it's tough to realize the logic that even 3 250's would penetrate deeper than the single 400, directly under that point.

hahn?
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12851744#post12851744 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by dcombs44
Slakker, I think you're right, but IMO the pure intensity of the light is what's going to make it penetrate deeper. You're not going to get a sunburn under a 96 watt pc, or even a few of them, but you're going to get scorched under 250 watts of MH and even worse under 400. I can't say that if you put 250 watts of pc against a 250 watt mh bulb what the difference would be. I would guess that since the surface area from which an MH bulb lights is so much smaller that it would still be more intense. Just a guess though.

Would you agree with that?

I would think that the difference is now in the efficiency of the lights/bulb design. PC is terribly inefficient at getting the light it does produce into the tank, the width of the bulb and the double-tube design makes it near impossible to create a truly efficient reflector, plus quite a lot of light is wasted between the two tubes of the PC bulb.

That's how I see it anyways...I'm sure it's entirely possible that I could be missing something. I look forward to hearing what Hahn has to say, it should prove to be a good learning experience.
 
Back
Top