Overdriving NO Tubes

Discussion in 'Reef Fishes' started by Mort, Aug 21, 2003.

  1. Mort

    Boomer Guest

    Almost every matter can change phase from state to liquid and gas
    and all of it depends of the temperature. But I guess you call Argon
    "a true gas" because it has gas phase in a room temperature, right? :)


    Ok, you want to go there :)

    True gases are molecules not ions, O2, N2, CO2, Argon, Neon and they occur naturally as
    gas, you can't see them and most make up air. A gas also has a perfect molecular mobility
    and the indefinite property of expansion



    A vapor is not a gas really, it is quantity of visible matter diffused or suspended in air
    and air is made of gases. Vapors may occur as molecule or ions.

    Vapor does not =gas and gas does not = vapor

    Thus water or Mercury are not gases but vapors and using the term "gas" is using it
    loosely and not by its proper meaning . However, some do choose to do so but it is
    incorrect. You know what a MV lamp is, Mercury Vapor, it is not called a MG lamp because
    it is not a gas. Air does not have water gas in it, it is always called water vapor and
    there is a reason for that, it is not a gas. Think of vapor as a very find dust

    "But some of missunderstanding here can be derived from the fact,
    that English is my second language, as it was stated correctly
    on this ng recently :))"

    I did not know that where are you from ?

    "Do I understand correctly you are saying design of gas discharge lamps are your
    profession?"

    No you do not understand correctly. Go back and re-read it. I said I know the guy that
    invented the tri-phosphor lamps, his name is Dr Perry Thrasher


    --
    Boomer

    Want to talk chemistry ? The Reef Chemistry Forum
    http://www.reefcentral.com/vbulletin/index.php

    Want to See More ?
    Please Join Our Growing Membership
    www.coralrealm.com

    If You See Me Running You Better Catch-Up
    "Pszemol" <Pszemol@PolBox.com> wrote in message news:biatsu$94f$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
    : "Boomer" <wcwing@chartermi.net> wrote in message
    news:vkhhifjc5nfabb@corp.supernews.com...
    : > "I was not talking about Argon but about "gases in the tube" :))"
    : >
    : > OK, I'll let you off the hook since you say ""gases in the tube" , in which case the
    only
    : > real "gas" is Mercury vapor and only Mercury vapor, with the very very small addition
    of
    : > some of he emissive material being "gases".
    :
    : Ok, thank you for your mercy ;-)
    :
    : > Aragon is a true gas and not a vapor.
    :
    : I do not like the "true gas" term... How do you define it?
    : Gas is gas :) There is no true gas or false gas :))
    : Almost every matter can change phase from state to liquid and gas
    : and all of it depends of the temperature. But I guess you call Argon
    : "a true gas" because it has gas phase in a room temperature, right? :)
    :
    : > One other thing;
    : >
    : > "Plasma is ionized gas :)))"
    : >
    : > Well, that is only half of it. :)) A Plasma is a stream of positively charged
    : > ions accompanied by about equal proportions of electrons
    :
    : By "ionized gas" I ment whole gas in state of ionizations.
    : No ions alone, but with electrons detached from original atoms too :)
    : But some of missunderstanding here can be derived from the fact,
    : that English is my second language, as it was stated correctly
    : on this ng recently :))
    :
    : > "I was also correct with the three-phosphors tubes "
    : >
    : > I know the guy personnel, that invented all of the tri lamps with the built in
    reflectors,
    : > Dr. Perry Thrasher, know matter what name is on the bulb. Perry has left the company
    ,do
    : > to illness and I haven't found out where he went other than California for health
    reasons.
    : > Me and JB ( John Burleson) had the first sets :)
    : >
    : > http://www.light-sources.com/
    :
    : Do I understand correctly you are saying design of gas discharge lamps are your
    profession?
     
    Boomer, Aug 25, 2003
    #41
    1. Advertisements

  2. Mort

    Pszemol Guest

    Have you sent it for the 2nd time or you changed somthing I did not notice?

    BTW - our discussion about vapors/gases reminds me one confusion
    with vegetables and fruits. For a biologist, a red tomato is a fruit,
    a part of the plant, the one carrying seeds. For a cook, a tomato is not
    a fruit. For a cook tomato is a vegetable... This is the difference
    we probably need to grasp when talking about vapors and gases :) Vegetables
    used by the cook can be leaves, roots or fruits in the eyes of a biologist.
    Like for the cook, the "true fruit" is an apple or a plum for you "true
    gases" are oxygen, nitrogen but mercury in a gas form you call vapor.

    Cheers,
    Pszemol


    "Boomer" <wcwing@chartermi.net> wrote in message news:vkkaum1qe48c8d@corp.supernews.com...
    > Almost every matter can change phase from state to liquid and gas
    > and all of it depends of the temperature. But I guess you call Argon
    > "a true gas" because it has gas phase in a room temperature, right? :)
    >
    >
    > Ok, you want to go there :)
    >
    > True gases are molecules not ions, O2, N2, CO2, Argon, Neon and they occur naturally as
    > gas, you can't see them and most make up air. A gas also has a perfect molecular mobility
    > and the indefinite property of expansion
    >
    >
    >
    > A vapor is not a gas really, it is quantity of visible matter diffused or suspended in air
    > and air is made of gases. Vapors may occur as molecule or ions.
    >
    > Vapor does not =gas and gas does not = vapor
    >
    > Thus water or Mercury are not gases but vapors and using the term "gas" is using it
    > loosely and not by its proper meaning . However, some do choose to do so but it is
    > incorrect. You know what a MV lamp is, Mercury Vapor, it is not called a MG lamp because
    > it is not a gas. Air does not have water gas in it, it is always called water vapor and
    > there is a reason for that, it is not a gas. Think of vapor as a very find dust
    >
    > "But some of missunderstanding here can be derived from the fact,
    > that English is my second language, as it was stated correctly
    > on this ng recently :))"
    >
    > I did not know that where are you from ?
    >
    > "Do I understand correctly you are saying design of gas discharge lamps are your
    > profession?"
    >
    > No you do not understand correctly. Go back and re-read it. I said I know the guy that
    > invented the tri-phosphor lamps, his name is Dr Perry Thrasher
    >
    >
    > --
    > Boomer
    >
    > Want to talk chemistry ? The Reef Chemistry Forum
    > http://www.reefcentral.com/vbulletin/index.php
    >
    > Want to See More ?
    > Please Join Our Growing Membership
    > www.coralrealm.com
    >
    > If You See Me Running You Better Catch-Up
    > "Pszemol" <Pszemol@PolBox.com> wrote in message news:biatsu$94f$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
    > : "Boomer" <wcwing@chartermi.net> wrote in message
    > news:vkhhifjc5nfabb@corp.supernews.com...
    > : > "I was not talking about Argon but about "gases in the tube" :))"
    > : >
    > : > OK, I'll let you off the hook since you say ""gases in the tube" , in which case the
    > only
    > : > real "gas" is Mercury vapor and only Mercury vapor, with the very very small addition
    > of
    > : > some of he emissive material being "gases".
    > :
    > : Ok, thank you for your mercy ;-)
    > :
    > : > Aragon is a true gas and not a vapor.
    > :
    > : I do not like the "true gas" term... How do you define it?
    > : Gas is gas :) There is no true gas or false gas :))
    > : Almost every matter can change phase from state to liquid and gas
    > : and all of it depends of the temperature. But I guess you call Argon
    > : "a true gas" because it has gas phase in a room temperature, right? :)
    > :
    > : > One other thing;
    > : >
    > : > "Plasma is ionized gas :)))"
    > : >
    > : > Well, that is only half of it. :)) A Plasma is a stream of positively charged
    > : > ions accompanied by about equal proportions of electrons
    > :
    > : By "ionized gas" I ment whole gas in state of ionizations.
    > : No ions alone, but with electrons detached from original atoms too :)
    > : But some of missunderstanding here can be derived from the fact,
    > : that English is my second language, as it was stated correctly
    > : on this ng recently :))
    > :
    > : > "I was also correct with the three-phosphors tubes "
    > : >
    > : > I know the guy personnel, that invented all of the tri lamps with the built in
    > reflectors,
    > : > Dr. Perry Thrasher, know matter what name is on the bulb. Perry has left the company
    > ,do
    > : > to illness and I haven't found out where he went other than California for health
    > reasons.
    > : > Me and JB ( John Burleson) had the first sets :)
    > : >
    > : > http://www.light-sources.com/
    > :
    > : Do I understand correctly you are saying design of gas discharge lamps are your
    > profession?
    >
    >
     
    Pszemol, Aug 25, 2003
    #42
    1. Advertisements

  3. Mort

    Mort Guest

    > What do you mean by "putting out 130 watts"?
    > You rather say "consumes 130 watts". You do not measure the light
    > output in watts. This is an electric not light output unit...



    Good point. I talked to him again and asked him about that. The guy that
    he knows measured the OUTPUT of the lights. (with a photometer) I cant
    remember if it was 6000 lumens for the fixture or for each bulb (I'm pretty
    sure it was each) Anyway, the guy that he knows did the mathmatical
    conversion and concluded the lights were using 130watts.

    After 1 year, the bulbs are barely darkened on the ends and HE has not
    noticed a change in the color.

    I may not try this for my first corals but I am most certainly going to try
    this for my FW tanks.
     
    Mort, Aug 25, 2003
    #43
  4. > > What do you mean by "putting out 130 watts"?
    > > You rather say "consumes 130 watts". You do not measure the light
    > > output in watts. This is an electric not light output unit...


    watts has nothing to do with electric anything, it is a measurement of power, it can be
    manythings, candlepower,horsepower .... they can all be converted to watts

    > Good point. I talked to him again and asked him about that. The guy that
    > he knows measured the OUTPUT of the lights. (with a photometer) I cant
    > remember if it was 6000 lumens for the fixture or for each bulb (I'm pretty
    > sure it was each) Anyway, the guy that he knows did the mathmatical
    > conversion and concluded the lights were using 130watts.


    thats an interesting calculation and interesting wording, but as I didnt do the testing I
    dont know whats missing from it :)

    > After 1 year, the bulbs are barely darkened on the ends and HE has not
    > noticed a change in the color.


    noticing spectrum shifts isnt very effective, you really need special equipment

    > I may not try this for my first corals but I am most certainly going to try
    > this for my FW tanks.


    the best plan Ive heard of yet :), might add FO to the list also :)

    --
    Richard Reynolds
    Richard.Reynolds@usa.net
     
    Richard Reynolds, Aug 25, 2003
    #44
  5. Mort

    Pszemol Guest

    "Richard Reynolds" <reynolds46@cox.net> wrote in message news:pHt2b.10674$Qy4.1956@fed1read05...
    > > > What do you mean by "putting out 130 watts"?
    > > > You rather say "consumes 130 watts". You do not measure the light
    > > > output in watts. This is an electric not light output unit...

    >
    > watts has nothing to do with electric anything, it is a measurement of power,
    > it can be manythings, candlepower,horsepower .... they can all be converted to watts


    I was not talking about watts generally but in the context of this particular
    subject - watts printed of the bulb or balast are not the measurment of the
    amount of light in that case but the estimated amount of electric power the
    bulb consumes. To get an idea about the amount of light you need to consider
    the ratio the electric current is converted into light in such design.
    And it is far from 100%. We do not even know if the balast for 130W VHO does
    output equal amount of electric power to the NO bulb in overdriving conditions
    or not. There are chanses it does if the lenght of the tube and its thicknes
    is the same, but as Boomer has indicated, things are going "crazy" inside the
    tube, so it my behave different creating different electrical conditions for
    the tube being the load for the balast.

    > > Good point. I talked to him again and asked him about that. The guy that
    > > he knows measured the OUTPUT of the lights. (with a photometer) I cant
    > > remember if it was 6000 lumens for the fixture or for each bulb (I'm pretty
    > > sure it was each) Anyway, the guy that he knows did the mathmatical
    > > conversion and concluded the lights were using 130watts.

    >
    > thats an interesting calculation and interesting wording,
    > but as I didnt do the testing I dont know whats missing from it :)


    I would suggest to Mort to invite the guy to our newsgroup and ask him
    to explain results of his tests here... I will be very interesting
    to talk about this first hand. The difference between 6000 lumens each
    or 6000 the whole fixture is significant enough that if we do not have
    this "detail" sorted our we cannot treat this test as educational for us :)

    > > After 1 year, the bulbs are barely darkened on the ends and HE has not
    > > noticed a change in the color.

    >
    > noticing spectrum shifts isnt very effective, you really need special equipment


    Exactly. Human eye adapts to white color in very wide ranges. It is enough
    to compare to white pages of different paper types. Both seem white when
    you look at each separately, but you can easily tell which one is "whiter"
    when you put them side-by-side.

    > > I may not try this for my first corals but I am most certainly going to try
    > > this for my FW tanks.

    >
    > the best plan Ive heard of yet :), might add FO to the list also :)


    This plan does not bring us closer to use overdriven NO over reef,
    where the light spectrum is really important, does it?
     
    Pszemol, Aug 25, 2003
    #45
  6. Mort

    Mort Guest

    "Pszemol" <Pszemol@PolBox.com> wrote in message
    news:bid947.7c.0@poczta.onet.pl...
    > "Richard Reynolds" <reynolds46@cox.net> wrote in message

    news:pHt2b.10674$Qy4.1956@fed1read05...
    > > > > What do you mean by "putting out 130 watts"?
    > > > > You rather say "consumes 130 watts". You do not measure the light
    > > > > output in watts. This is an electric not light output unit...

    > >
    > > watts has nothing to do with electric anything, it is a measurement of

    power,
    > > it can be manythings, candlepower,horsepower .... they can all be

    converted to watts
    >
    > I was not talking about watts generally but in the context of this

    particular
    > subject - watts printed of the bulb or balast are not the measurment of

    the
    > amount of light in that case but the estimated amount of electric power

    the
    > bulb consumes. To get an idea about the amount of light you need to

    consider
    > the ratio the electric current is converted into light in such design.
    > And it is far from 100%. We do not even know if the balast for 130W VHO

    does
    > output equal amount of electric power to the NO bulb in overdriving

    conditions
    > or not. There are chanses it does if the lenght of the tube and its

    thicknes
    > is the same, but as Boomer has indicated, things are going "crazy" inside

    the
    > tube, so it my behave different creating different electrical conditions

    for
    > the tube being the load for the balast.
    >
    > > > Good point. I talked to him again and asked him about that. The guy

    that
    > > > he knows measured the OUTPUT of the lights. (with a photometer) I

    cant
    > > > remember if it was 6000 lumens for the fixture or for each bulb (I'm

    pretty
    > > > sure it was each) Anyway, the guy that he knows did the mathmatical
    > > > conversion and concluded the lights were using 130watts.

    > >
    > > thats an interesting calculation and interesting wording,
    > > but as I didnt do the testing I dont know whats missing from it :)

    >
    > I would suggest to Mort to invite the guy to our newsgroup and ask him
    > to explain results of his tests here... I will be very interesting
    > to talk about this first hand. The difference between 6000 lumens each
    > or 6000 the whole fixture is significant enough that if we do not have
    > this "detail" sorted our we cannot treat this test as educational for us

    :)
    >
    > > > After 1 year, the bulbs are barely darkened on the ends and HE has not
    > > > noticed a change in the color.

    > >
    > > noticing spectrum shifts isnt very effective, you really need special

    equipment
    >
    > Exactly. Human eye adapts to white color in very wide ranges. It is enough
    > to compare to white pages of different paper types. Both seem white when
    > you look at each separately, but you can easily tell which one is "whiter"
    > when you put them side-by-side.
    >
    > > > I may not try this for my first corals but I am most certainly going

    to try
    > > > this for my FW tanks.

    > >
    > > the best plan Ive heard of yet :), might add FO to the list also :)

    >
    > This plan does not bring us closer to use overdriven NO over reef,
    > where the light spectrum is really important, does it?


    Wow, if I didn't know better, I would think you were really aggressive =P

    I will see if I can get this guy to tell the other guy to come to our NG
    here to discuss this.
    But you better be nice to him! lol

    ~Mort
     
    Mort, Aug 25, 2003
    #46
  7. Mort

    Pszemol Guest

    "Mort" <LordMort@NOSPAMsbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:gbu2b.15379$Ih1.4989849@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com...
    > Wow, if I didn't know better, I would think you were really aggressive =P


    No, I am :soaked: with friendliness to you guys ;-)

    > I will see if I can get this guy to tell the other guy to come to our NG
    > here to discuss this.
    > But you better be nice to him! lol


    I could promisse I will try, but you already know that I will probably fail ;-)
     
    Pszemol, Aug 25, 2003
    #47
  8. Mort

    Boomer Guest

    LOL

    "And I am after the intense course of physics and chemistry - that is
    the background of my curiosity and the reason I ask you for these definitions :)"


    If that was so you would not be arguing

    and if you had a cubic meter of dry air, with no water and a cubic meter of air that has a
    relative humidity of 100 %, which one rises faster, which one cools faster and which one
    weighs more?:))

    "But "normal" state of
    oxygen is gas for us, same like "normal" state of Mercury or water is liquid.
    This is the only reason we call their "not-normal" states as vapors, I suppose"

    True, so why are you still arguing if you understand this.

    "Agree with an exception - vapor can be gas and gas can be vapor, but not always"

    But according to you a vapor and gas are the same but now you make a distinction

    "Gas is just one of three states of a matter: it can be gas, liquid or solid"

    You missed the 4th state of matter, Plasma, according to many

    "Unles you, as The Oracle,
    can see water vapors escaping from your fish tank to the air :))) "

    You many want to re-think that, e.,g gasoline vapor can be seen quite easily. Let me
    know when you can see O2 vapor

    "Clean air is made of gases and vapors then :))"

    But if you remove the water vapor then there is only gas :)

    "Atmospheric Gases

    There are a number of atmospheric gases which make up air. The main gases are nitrogen and
    oxygen, which make up 78% and 21% of the volume of air respectively. Oxygen is utilized
    primarily by animals, including humans, but also to a small degree by plants, in the
    process of respiration (the metabolism of food products to generate energy).

    The remaining 1% of the atmospheric gases is made up of trace gases. These include the
    noble gases, very inert or unreactive gases, of which the most abundant is argon. Other
    noble gases include neon, helium, krypton and xenon. Hydrogen is also present in trace
    quantities in the atmosphere, but because it is so light, over time much of it has escaped
    Earth's gravitational pull to space.

    The remaining trace gases include the greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous
    oxide, water vapor and ozone, so-called because they are involved in the Earth natural
    greenhouse effect which keeps the planet warmer than it would be without an atmosphere."

    Note that even in atmospheric chemistry there is a distinction "water vapor".Why don't
    they just say gas ?


    I think you found yourself digging a hole and you are not trying to dig your way out :)

    "water vapor
    n : water in a vaporous form diffused in the atmosphere but
    below boiling temperature"


    "The term vapor is sometimes used in a more extended
    sense, as identical with gas; and the difference
    between the two is not so much one of kind as of
    degree, the latter being applied to all permanently
    elastic fluids except atmospheric air, the former to
    those elastic fluids which lose that condition at
    ordinary temperatures. The atmosphere contains more or
    less vapor of water, a portion of which, on a reduction
    of temperature, becomes condensed into liquid water in
    the form of rain or dew. The vapor of water produced by
    boiling, especially in its economic relations, is
    called steam.

    Vapor is any substance in the "gaseous" condition
    at the maximum of density consistent with that
    condition. This is the strict and proper meaning
    of the word vapor."

    Vapor
    n 1: a visible suspension in the air of particles of some
    substance [syn: vapor]
    2: the process of becoming a vapor


    Boomer

    Want to talk chemistry ? The Reef Chemistry Forum
    http://www.reefcentral.com/vbulletin/index.php

    Want to See More ?
    Please Join Our Growing Membership
    www.coralrealm.com

    If You See Me Running You Better Catch-Up
    "Pszemol" <Pszemol@PolBox.com> wrote in message news:bicq2s.3c8.0@poczta.onet.pl...
    : "Boomer" <wcwing@chartermi.net> wrote in message
    news:vkk3hj7iio18b@corp.supernews.com...
    : > Ok, you want to go there :)
    :
    : Yes, I always like to clear things up and by doing so I always learn something new...
    :
    : > True gases are molecules not ions, O2, N2, CO2, Argon, Neon and they occur naturally
    as
    : > gas, you can't see them and most make up air. A gas also has a perfect molecular
    mobility
    : > and the indefinite property of expansion
    :
    : Your definition/explanation is not clear, I'm affraid... The same you can say about
    : water vapor! It matches your def! It is a gas then, because it consists of molecules,
    : not ions and it occurs naturally as gas - you cannot see it. Unles you, as The Oracle,
    : can see water vapors escaping from your fish tank to the air :))) I cannot see water
    : vapor until it condenses to a liquid form of spray suspended in the air (called "fog").
    :
    : > A vapor is not a gas really, it is quantity of visible matter diffused
    : > or suspended in air
    :
    : A vapor can have gas, solid or liquid form. For example, when you consider
    : water vapors, they can be in the gas form of steam, they can also precipitate
    : from the air in the liquid form as a fog, or -when the temperature is freezing
    : cold- it can precipitate in a solid form of ice particles...
    : So yes - "vapor" is not the term describing gases only.
    :
    : > and air is made of gases.
    :
    : Clean air is made of gases and vapors then :))
    : For example water vapors which can condensate into clouds :))
    : Dirty air can have even solid particles suspended in it.
    : Like the waste from the coal electric plant, right? :))
    :
    : > Vapors may occur as molecule or ions.
    : >
    : > Vapor does not =gas and gas does not = vapor
    :
    : Agree with an exception - vapor can be gas and gas can be vapor, but not always.
    :
    : > Thus water or Mercury are not gases but vapors
    :
    : Both water and mercury can be in gas form when they evaporate :)
    : Gas is just one of three states of a matter: it can be gas, liquid or solid.
    : Water can become a gas, can be solid state when iced. That is the reason
    : I ask you what do you mean by "true gas". I do not know a formal definition
    : of "true gas" - this is the first time I meet it used in your text.
    : And I am after the intense course of physics and chemistry - that is
    : the background of my curiosity and the reason I ask you for these definitions :)
    :
    : > and using the term "gas" is using it loosely and not by its proper meaning .
    : > However, some do choose to do so but it is incorrect.
    :
    : You have not defined proper meaning clearly. As I stated at the beginning,
    : the water vapor fits your description of "true gas" before it gets condensed into fog.
    :
    : > You know what a MV lamp is, Mercury Vapor, it is not called a MG lamp because
    : > it is not a gas. Air does not have water gas in it, it is always called water vapor
    and
    : > there is a reason for that, it is not a gas. Think of vapor as a very find dust
    :
    : Common language is full of imprecision, we call fuel "a gas" at the
    : "gas station" while we do not refuel any gases into our cars but gasoline :)))
    : Ther reason MV term is refering to the term "vapor" is to underscore gas form
    : of used Mercury in it. But vapor can have the characteristic of "true gas".
    : It can compress/decompress (as an opposite to liquids or some solids) it fills
    : all the given space when expands equally. So it has the same characteristic
    : like other gases you listed (O2, N2 etc.) If you start lowering the temperature
    : of a container with a gas and increase its pressure it starts to condense
    : and change phase to its liquid form. If we all lived on the Planet with average
    : temperatures and pressures below oxygen condensation point we would probably
    : call oxygen in its gas form as a oxygen vapors :))) But "normal" state of
    : oxygen is gas for us, same like "normal" state of Mercury or water is liquid.
    : This is the only reason we call their "not-normal" states as vapors, I suppose...
    :
    : BTW - do you agree in the main subject that the overdriven NO tubes
    : will not last 6 months if standard driven VHO last 6 months?
    :
    : > "But some of missunderstanding here can be derived from the fact,
    : > that English is my second language, as it was stated correctly
    : > on this ng recently :))"
    : >
    : > I did not know that where are you from ?
    :
    : I was born in Kraków, Poland. I worked there in Polish office of one US company.
    : Moved to their US headquarters a couple of years ago and I like it here so I'll stay :)
    :
    : Greetings for all reefers on this ng! (*)
    : Pszemol.
    :
    : (*) I did not mean hashish users but rather reef owners ;-)
    :
     
    Boomer, Aug 26, 2003
    #48
  9. Mort

    Boomer Guest

    "Anyway, the guy that he knows did the mathmatical
    conversion and concluded the lights were using 130watts."

    I would like to have him show me that trick, as you can't. A bulb could be 6,000 lumens
    and be 100 watts or 6,000 lumens and 200 Watts. I think you misunderstood what he was
    saying. 1 watt at 555 nm = 683 lumens and different nm will give a different lumen. But
    then again if he was using a radiometric spectrophometer he could measure the output of
    different nm ranges and convert to lumens, as each nm value would have a different peak
    wattage and adding them up would tell you how many watts of light are being produced or
    delivered from the but not what the lights were using. It takes wattage to just get the
    bulb going before there is any light produced.

    --
    Boomer

    Want to talk chemistry ? The Reef Chemistry Forum
    http://www.reefcentral.com/vbulletin/index.php

    Want to See More ?
    Please Join Our Growing Membership
    www.coralrealm.com

    If You See Me Running You Better Catch-Up
    "Mort" <LordMort@NOSPAMsbcglobal.net> wrote in message
    news:yyt2b.15372$Ih1.4981733@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com...
    : > What do you mean by "putting out 130 watts"?
    : > You rather say "consumes 130 watts". You do not measure the light
    : > output in watts. This is an electric not light output unit...
    :
    :
    : Good point. I talked to him again and asked him about that. The guy that
    : he knows measured the OUTPUT of the lights. (with a photometer) I cant
    : remember if it was 6000 lumens for the fixture or for each bulb (I'm pretty
    : sure it was each) Anyway, the guy that he knows did the mathmatical
    : conversion and concluded the lights were using 130watts.
    :
    : After 1 year, the bulbs are barely darkened on the ends and HE has not
    : noticed a change in the color.
    :
    : I may not try this for my first corals but I am most certainly going to try
    : this for my FW tanks.
    :
    :
    :
    :
    :
     
    Boomer, Aug 26, 2003
    #49
  10. Mort

    Pszemol Guest

    "Boomer" <wcwing@chartermi.net> wrote in message news:vkl96fnd7jim31@corp.supernews.com...
    > LOL
    >
    > "And I am after the intense course of physics and chemistry - that is
    > the background of my curiosity and the reason I ask you for these definitions :)"
    >
    > If that was so you would not be arguing


    I am not saying I know more than you know :)
    I just say I know basics and just want to clarify some stuff.

    > and if you had a cubic meter of dry air, with no water and a cubic meter of air that has a
    > relative humidity of 100 %, which one rises faster, which one cools faster and which one
    > weighs more?:))


    What does this question have to do with the subject discussed here?

    > "But "normal" state of
    > oxygen is gas for us, same like "normal" state of Mercury or water is liquid.
    > This is the only reason we call their "not-normal" states as vapors, I suppose"
    >
    > True, so why are you still arguing if you understand this.


    Because I heard from you the term "true gas" which freaked me out :)

    > "Agree with an exception - vapor can be gas and gas can be vapor, but not always"
    >
    > But according to you a vapor and gas are the same but now you make a distinction


    No, I did not say vapor and gas are the same.

    > "Gas is just one of three states of a matter: it can be gas, liquid or solid"
    >
    > You missed the 4th state of matter, Plasma, according to many


    Right... See! That is the reason for arguing :) I always learn something new :)))

    > "Unles you, as The Oracle,
    > can see water vapors escaping from your fish tank to the air :))) "
    >
    > You many want to re-think that, e.,g gasoline vapor can be seen quite easily.


    Only because of big difference with rest of the air in the light refraction.
    It is still transparent and it is consisted with molecules, not ions,
    so it matches your definition of true gas, right?

    > Let me know when you can see O2 vapor


    Sure I can... just above a jar with liquid O2.

    > "Clean air is made of gases and vapors then :))"
    >
    > But if you remove the water vapor then there is only gas :)


    But is it not natural air anymore. Natural air contains some water.

    > "Atmospheric Gases
    >
    > There are a number of atmospheric gases which make up air. The main gases are nitrogen and
    > oxygen, which make up 78% and 21% of the volume of air respectively. Oxygen is utilized
    > primarily by animals, including humans, but also to a small degree by plants, in the
    > process of respiration (the metabolism of food products to generate energy).
    >
    > The remaining 1% of the atmospheric gases is made up of trace gases. These include the
    > noble gases, very inert or unreactive gases, of which the most abundant is argon. Other
    > noble gases include neon, helium, krypton and xenon. Hydrogen is also present in trace
    > quantities in the atmosphere, but because it is so light, over time much of it has escaped
    > Earth's gravitational pull to space.
    >
    > The remaining trace gases include the greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous
    > oxide, water vapor and ozone, so-called because they are involved in the Earth natural
    > greenhouse effect which keeps the planet warmer than it would be without an atmosphere."
    >
    > Note that even in atmospheric chemistry there is a distinction "water vapor".Why don't
    > they just say gas ?


    For the same reason you call mercury vapor a vapor.
    But from the above you can clearly see the air contains water vapor :)

    > I think you found yourself digging a hole and you are not trying to dig your way out :)
    >
    > "water vapor
    > n : water in a vaporous form diffused in the atmosphere but
    > below boiling temperature"
    >
    >
    > "The term vapor is sometimes used in a more extended
    > sense, as identical with gas; and the difference
    > between the two is not so much one of kind as of
    > degree, the latter being applied to all permanently
    > elastic fluids except atmospheric air, the former to
    > those elastic fluids which lose that condition at
    > ordinary temperatures. The atmosphere contains more or
    > less vapor of water, a portion of which, on a reduction
    > of temperature, becomes condensed into liquid water in
    > the form of rain or dew. The vapor of water produced by
    > boiling, especially in its economic relations, is
    > called steam.
    >
    > Vapor is any substance in the "gaseous" condition
    > at the maximum of density consistent with that
    > condition. This is the strict and proper meaning
    > of the word vapor."
    >
    > Vapor
    > n 1: a visible suspension in the air of particles of some
    > substance [syn: vapor]
    > 2: the process of becoming a vapor


    So basicaly, you have made up the term "true gas"? :))
    And I could call a mercury vapors in the tube with a name "gas"
    according to the definitions you have posted above :)))

    I think we have exhausted the subject already... :)
     
    Pszemol, Aug 26, 2003
    #50
  11. Mort

    Pszemol Guest

    "Boomer" <wcwing@chartermi.net> wrote in message news:vkl9vlgj9e7u4a@corp.supernews.com...
    > Yes Pszemol, the actual watts of light a bulb produces is way below its
    > "power consumption wattage."
    > A 100 watt bulb of x type may only produce 40 watts of light


    So bad? Only 40%? What could be the max efficiency of MH light source?
     
    Pszemol, Aug 26, 2003
    #51
  12. Mort

    Boomer Guest

    ""So basicaly, you have made up the term "true gas"? :))"


    I forgot the term "true gas" is used quite often in the scientific literature

    --
    Boomer

    Want to talk chemistry ? The Reef Chemistry Forum
    http://www.reefcentral.com/vbulletin/index.php

    Want to See More ?
    Please Join Our Growing Membership
    www.coralrealm.com

    If You See Me Running You Better Catch-Up
    "Boomer" <wcwing@chartermi.net> wrote in message news:vklcnbmu1icvfa@corp.supernews.com...
    : "So basicaly, you have made up the term "true gas"? :))"
    :
    : I think you are qutie of aware of what I mean as "true gas", your posts show that -))
    :
    :
    : "And I could call a mercury vapors in the tube with a name "gas"
    : according to the definitions you have posted above :)))"
    :
    : Well yes you can as many do. I prefer not to and is why there are two terms gas and
    vapor
    :
    :
    : "Because I heard from you the term "true gas" which freaked me out :)
    :
    : And most know exactly what I mean by that e. g. O2 , CO2, N2 Argon,Neon etc..
    :
    :
    : "Only because of big difference with rest of the air in the light refraction"
    :
    : It does not make any difference as to why I can see it and you can't see O2 or N2 gas
    now
    : can you, no matter what the refract rate is
    :
    : "I think we have exhausted the subject already... :)"
    :
    : That I will agrree on
    : --
    : Boomer
    :
    : Want to talk chemistry ? The Reef Chemistry Forum
    : http://www.reefcentral.com/vbulletin/index.php
    :
    : Want to See More ?
    : Please Join Our Growing Membership
    : www.coralrealm.com
    :
    : If You See Me Running You Better Catch-Up
    : "Pszemol" <Pszemol@PolBox.com> wrote in message news:bidooe.3s8.1@poczta.onet.pl...
    : : "Boomer" <wcwing@chartermi.net> wrote in message
    : news:vkl96fnd7jim31@corp.supernews.com...
    : : > LOL
    : : >
    : : > "And I am after the intense course of physics and chemistry - that is
    : : > the background of my curiosity and the reason I ask you for these definitions :)"
    : : >
    : : > If that was so you would not be arguing
    : :
    : : I am not saying I know more than you know :)
    : : I just say I know basics and just want to clarify some stuff.
    : :
    : : > and if you had a cubic meter of dry air, with no water and a cubic meter of air that
    : has a
    : : > relative humidity of 100 %, which one rises faster, which one cools faster and
    which
    : one
    : : > weighs more?:))
    : :
    : : What does this question have to do with the subject discussed here?
    : :
    : : > "But "normal" state of
    : : > oxygen is gas for us, same like "normal" state of Mercury or water is liquid.
    : : > This is the only reason we call their "not-normal" states as vapors, I suppose"
    : : >
    : : > True, so why are you still arguing if you understand this.
    : :
    : : Because I heard from you the term "true gas" which freaked me out :)
    : :
    : : > "Agree with an exception - vapor can be gas and gas can be vapor, but not always"
    : : >
    : : > But according to you a vapor and gas are the same but now you make a distinction
    : :
    : : No, I did not say vapor and gas are the same.
    : :
    : : > "Gas is just one of three states of a matter: it can be gas, liquid or solid"
    : : >
    : : > You missed the 4th state of matter, Plasma, according to many
    : :
    : : Right... See! That is the reason for arguing :) I always learn something new :)))
    : :
    : : > "Unles you, as The Oracle,
    : : > can see water vapors escaping from your fish tank to the air :))) "
    : : >
    : : > You many want to re-think that, e.,g gasoline vapor can be seen quite easily.
    : :
    : : Only because of big difference with rest of the air in the light refraction.
    : : It is still transparent and it is consisted with molecules, not ions,
    : : so it matches your definition of true gas, right?
    : :
    : : > Let me know when you can see O2 vapor
    : :
    : : Sure I can... just above a jar with liquid O2.
    : :
    : : > "Clean air is made of gases and vapors then :))"
    : : >
    : : > But if you remove the water vapor then there is only gas :)
    : :
    : : But is it not natural air anymore. Natural air contains some water.
    : :
    : : > "Atmospheric Gases
    : : >
    : : > There are a number of atmospheric gases which make up air. The main gases are
    nitrogen
    : and
    : : > oxygen, which make up 78% and 21% of the volume of air respectively. Oxygen is
    : utilized
    : : > primarily by animals, including humans, but also to a small degree by plants, in the
    : : > process of respiration (the metabolism of food products to generate energy).
    : : >
    : : > The remaining 1% of the atmospheric gases is made up of trace gases. These include
    the
    : : > noble gases, very inert or unreactive gases, of which the most abundant is argon.
    : Other
    : : > noble gases include neon, helium, krypton and xenon. Hydrogen is also present in
    trace
    : : > quantities in the atmosphere, but because it is so light, over time much of it has
    : escaped
    : : > Earth's gravitational pull to space.
    : : >
    : : > The remaining trace gases include the greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide, methane,
    : nitrous
    : : > oxide, water vapor and ozone, so-called because they are involved in the Earth
    natural
    : : > greenhouse effect which keeps the planet warmer than it would be without an
    : atmosphere."
    : : >
    : : > Note that even in atmospheric chemistry there is a distinction "water vapor".Why
    don't
    : : > they just say gas ?
    : :
    : : For the same reason you call mercury vapor a vapor.
    : : But from the above you can clearly see the air contains water vapor :)
    : :
    : : > I think you found yourself digging a hole and you are not trying to dig your way out
    : :)
    : : >
    : : > "water vapor
    : : > n : water in a vaporous form diffused in the atmosphere but
    : : > below boiling temperature"
    : : >
    : : >
    : : > "The term vapor is sometimes used in a more extended
    : : > sense, as identical with gas; and the difference
    : : > between the two is not so much one of kind as of
    : : > degree, the latter being applied to all permanently
    : : > elastic fluids except atmospheric air, the former to
    : : > those elastic fluids which lose that condition at
    : : > ordinary temperatures. The atmosphere contains more or
    : : > less vapor of water, a portion of which, on a reduction
    : : > of temperature, becomes condensed into liquid water in
    : : > the form of rain or dew. The vapor of water produced by
    : : > boiling, especially in its economic relations, is
    : : > called steam.
    : : >
    : : > Vapor is any substance in the "gaseous" condition
    : : > at the maximum of density consistent with that
    : : > condition. This is the strict and proper meaning
    : : > of the word vapor."
    : : >
    : : > Vapor
    : : > n 1: a visible suspension in the air of particles of some
    : : > substance [syn: vapor]
    : : > 2: the process of becoming a vapor
    : :
    : : So basicaly, you have made up the term "true gas"? :))
    : : And I could call a mercury vapors in the tube with a name "gas"
    : : according to the definitions you have posted above :)))
    : :
    : : I think we have exhausted the subject already... :)
    :
    :
     
    Boomer, Aug 26, 2003
    #52
  13. Mort

    Mort Guest

    "Boomer" <wcwing@chartermi.net> wrote in message
    news:vklapmbjniph78@corp.supernews.com...
    > "Anyway, the guy that he knows did the mathmatical
    > conversion and concluded the lights were using 130watts."
    >
    > I would like to have him show me that trick, as you can't. A bulb could be

    6,000 lumens
    > and be 100 watts or 6,000 lumens and 200 Watts. I think you misunderstood

    what he was
    > saying. 1 watt at 555 nm = 683 lumens and different nm will give a

    different lumen. But
    > then again if he was using a radiometric spectrophometer he could measure

    the output of
    > different nm ranges and convert to lumens, as each nm value would have a

    different peak
    > wattage and adding them up would tell you how many watts of light are

    being produced or
    > delivered from the but not what the lights were using. It takes wattage to

    just get the
    > bulb going before there is any light produced.
    >
    > --
    > Boomer



    Well, this is way over my head. I'm gonna keep my mouth shut until he shows
    up. Then you can bite HIS head off! =)

    ~Mort
     
    Mort, Aug 26, 2003
    #53
  14. Mort

    Boomer Guest

    That would depend on allot of things, e.g. ballast, what " soft silver metals"are being,
    ratios of those, metals, bulb type and size of lamp(wattage),etc. and do we only include
    visible light.

    In short here is an example of a common MH lamp

    ..........hmmmmm can't find my MH one Psz, so a 2 lamp one will have to suffice and it is
    scary. Lets say I under estimated it :) A MH would be close.

    Energy Emission 4-foot GTE 40W T-12

    UV = 0.16 W
    Violet = .72 WW
    Blue =1.98W
    Green = 2.35W
    Yellow -1.74 W
    Orange = 1.69W
    Red 0.18W

    Total watts of light delivered = 9.45 W = 100 % or 25 % of the 40 W is for just light and
    the other 75 % or 30 W is to drive it, plus it by-products. And in the other post I said
    40 % for light 60 % to drive it

    And to add some more from a similar lamp but divided up with more meaning

    100 % = 40 W

    60 % UV, 24 W, that gives 21 % light + and an additional light of 2 % from the original
    input energy for a total = 23 % or 9.3W

    38 % heat from the original input and 39 % heat from the UV for a total of 77 % using 30.7
    W

    Of that 77 % , 36 % is infrared , 14.4 W and 41 % is convection and conduction for heat at
    16.3 W

    So 77 % for heat and IR and 23 % actual light

    16.3 + 14 .4 + 9.3 = 9.3 W of actual light
    --
    Boomer

    Want to talk chemistry ? The Reef Chemistry Forum
    http://www.reefcentral.com/vbulletin/index.php

    Want to See More ?
    Please Join Our Growing Membership
    www.coralrealm.com

    If You See Me Running You Better Catch-Up
    "Pszemol" <Pszemol@PolBox.com> wrote in message news:bidolv.3co.1@poczta.onet.pl...
    : "Boomer" <wcwing@chartermi.net> wrote in message
    news:vkl9vlgj9e7u4a@corp.supernews.com...
    : > Yes Pszemol, the actual watts of light a bulb produces is way below its
    : > "power consumption wattage."
    : > A 100 watt bulb of x type may only produce 40 watts of light
    :
    : So bad? Only 40%? What could be the max efficiency of MH light source?
     
    Boomer, Aug 26, 2003
    #54
  15. Mort

    Pszemol Guest

    Thanks - if you ever find similar detailed info for MH I would appreciate this.

    "Boomer" <wcwing@chartermi.net> wrote in message news:vkmp2ldrg0kbd3@corp.supernews.com...
    > That would depend on allot of things, e.g. ballast, what " soft silver metals"are being,
    > ratios of those, metals, bulb type and size of lamp(wattage),etc. and do we only include
    > visible light.
    >
    > In short here is an example of a common MH lamp
    >
    > .........hmmmmm can't find my MH one Psz, so a 2 lamp one will have to suffice and it is
    > scary. Lets say I under estimated it :) A MH would be close.
    >
    > Energy Emission 4-foot GTE 40W T-12
    >
    > UV = 0.16 W
    > Violet = .72 WW
    > Blue =1.98W
    > Green = 2.35W
    > Yellow -1.74 W
    > Orange = 1.69W
    > Red 0.18W
    >
    > Total watts of light delivered = 9.45 W = 100 % or 25 % of the 40 W is for just light and
    > the other 75 % or 30 W is to drive it, plus it by-products. And in the other post I said
    > 40 % for light 60 % to drive it
    >
    > And to add some more from a similar lamp but divided up with more meaning
    >
    > 100 % = 40 W
    >
    > 60 % UV, 24 W, that gives 21 % light + and an additional light of 2 % from the original
    > input energy for a total = 23 % or 9.3W
    >
    > 38 % heat from the original input and 39 % heat from the UV for a total of 77 % using 30.7
    > W
    >
    > Of that 77 % , 36 % is infrared , 14.4 W and 41 % is convection and conduction for heat at
    > 16.3 W
    >
    > So 77 % for heat and IR and 23 % actual light
    >
    > 16.3 + 14 .4 + 9.3 = 9.3 W of actual light
     
    Pszemol, Aug 26, 2003
    #55
  16. Yes, let me know if you like them. I had no issues with them at all.

    Marc


    xerces@NOSPAM.eastlink.ca wrote:

    > Mark:
    >
    > I have seen the Phillips 6500K bulbs at Home Depot here in Halifax,
    > Nova Scotia. I bought two the other day for $5.99! I'm going to try
    > them on my Icecap 660. I'll run two of the Phillips 6500K (Alto series
    > I think) with two URI super actinics.
    >
    > I'll keep everone posted of my progress.
    >
    > On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 23:54:15 GMT, Marc Levenson <melev@swbell.net>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >Mort,
    > >
    > >VHO bulbs must be replaced every six months. So if you want to save some money
    > >you can buy Sylvania or Philips 6500K bulbs at Home Depot or Lowes for ~$4.50
    > >each. Great price. IceCap ballasts will overdrive them from 40w to 110w each,
    > >but it will shorten their useable lifespan. In six months, their usefullness is
    > >over. But that is okay!! It's time to replace them anyway.
    > >
    > >If you don't change out your bulbs on schedule, you can end up with older bulbs
    > >that shift in color spectrum which fuel algae outbreaks.
    > >
    > >VHO - 6 months
    > >MH & PC - 12 months.
    > >
    > >Marc

    >


    --
    Personal Page: http://www.sparklingfloorservice.com/oanda/index.html
    Business Page: http://www.sparklingfloorservice.com
    Marine Hobbyist: http://www.melevsreef.com
     
    Marc Levenson, Sep 9, 2003
    #56
  17. Mort

    Mort Guest

    "Mort" <mort2fragu@NOSPAMameritech.net> wrote in message
    news:vZ81b.10971$Ih1.4006300@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com...
    > Is anyone here familiar with overdriving NO fluorescent tubes?
    >
    > I met a DIYer today (Marc, that's the guy I told you about with those5

    stage
    > RO/DI units) that does this to his lamps.
    >
    > Apparently you replace the balast with a higher output Electronic ballast
    > (About $10 from home depot) and it can double even triple the wattage of

    the
    > bulb. It operates at a higher frequency and does not shorten the life of
    > the bulb much at all. He's had a setup with a twin 30w 36" fixture that
    > with this balast is putting out 130watts after 1 year.
    >
    > Will this trickery work for marine aquaria and corals???
    >
    > ~Mort
    >
    >
    >


    For anyone who is interested, I just finished overdriving a small fixture
    for a freshwater tank. The difference is amazing. However, I do not care
    for the color of these cheap bulbs. Part of the problem is that they are
    15" tubes so my selection is very limited at the hardware store. All I
    could find out about these buls is that they are "cool white" but overdriven
    in a tank they are yellow, almost green.
    Anyway, I can pick up some 18,000K bulbs for $10ea or get the "aqua-glo"
    again for $10/ea. I know this info really isnt that useful for reefs (my
    apologies) but I figured I'd follow up for archiving purposes. HTH

    ~Mort
     
    Mort, Sep 11, 2003
    #57
  18. Mort

    Acrylics Guest

    >overdriven
    >in a tank they are yellow, almost green.


    Mort,
    you seem to getting the same results I did some time back. If I may ask - what
    sort of ballast are you using? That's kinda the difference between King Marc's
    experience and mine. I used the PFO electronic while he used the Icecap I
    believe.

    James
     
    Acrylics, Sep 11, 2003
    #58
  19. Mort

    Mort Guest

    "Acrylics" <acrylics@aol.comatose> wrote in message
    news:20030911012012.10923.00001153@mb-m29.aol.com...
    > >overdriven
    > >in a tank they are yellow, almost green.

    >
    > Mort,
    > you seem to getting the same results I did some time back. If I may ask -

    what
    > sort of ballast are you using? That's kinda the difference between King

    Marc's
    > experience and mine. I used the PFO electronic while he used the Icecap I
    > believe.
    >
    > James


    Hi James,
    I used one from the hardware store mfg by Sylvania. Again, the only
    thing I know about the bulbs is that they are "cool white" I have no idea
    what their actual Kelvin rating is. I found some 15" bulbs at an LFS that
    are 18,000K. I think I am going to try them.

    ~Mort
     
    Mort, Sep 11, 2003
    #59
  20. Mort

    Mort Guest

    <snip>

    > Again, the only
    > thing I know about the bulbs is that they are "cool white" I have no idea
    > what their actual Kelvin rating is.


    </snip>


    I just found it on-line. The color rating is 4200K

    ~Mort
     
    Mort, Sep 11, 2003
    #60
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.