# ikea style halogen lights?



## phishphood (Apr 4, 2007)

Are there any glaring reasons that I'm missing why we can't just use ikea-style halogen lights? Something along the lines of say..








or something like that. It's a 35W halogen bulb I believe. Bulbs are cheaper and mostly more readily available than PC's etc. I just ask since I'm using some desk lamps to temporarily light my tank right now and it looks pretty darn good. And it's decent light penetration 18" down. Thoughts anyone?


----------



## MemphisBob (May 2, 2007)

AFAIK they don't make halogen's that are any good at growing plants. They produce a lot of light without much PAR.


----------



## phishphood (Apr 4, 2007)

That'd be the glaring reason I was looking for. Anyone willing to test this out?


----------



## Storm_Rider (Sep 30, 2006)

why don't you test it out and let us know:icon_idea


----------



## Rex Grigg (Dec 10, 2002)

Halogen = incandescent.

So take that 35 watts and divide by 4 to get actual watts.

Now try and find a halogen bulb in the correct color temp.


----------



## phishphood (Apr 4, 2007)

storm- I was referring to the PAR part of it. 

Rex- thanks for the info. The highest K bulb I could find was around 5000k I believe. I guess it might be doable for a nano or something on the smaller side.


----------



## fishscale (May 29, 2007)

you should easily be able to find a bulb higher than 5000k

home depot sells lots and lots of 6500's


----------



## Storm_Rider (Sep 30, 2006)

oh! well either way i was hoping you'd just do it  i was looking at the same ikea lights a week or two back. 

if i remember right, someone else on here has some ikea halogen fixtures (the display type ones with shrouds you mount under something) on top of their tank, though it looked insufficient...

found the tank:


----------



## phishphood (Apr 4, 2007)

I agree it looks on the weakside. But in counter-evidence, here's my tank w/ it's temp. lighting situation. The first pic is with one 50W 2pin halogen bulb. 2nd pic is with the same light, as well as 2 20W halogens of the same style.


----------



## phishphood (Apr 4, 2007)

Sorry for the large size pics.


----------



## epicfish (Sep 11, 2006)

Are those tannins in your water? It looks unusually cloudy.


----------



## ruki (May 28, 2007)

Rex Grigg said:


> Halogen = incandescent.


It's an improved incandescent with a bit better spectrum than ordinary incandescent.



> So take that 35 watts and divide by 4 to get actual watts.


Huh? 

Actual watts is what is consumed by the fixture. I have one of those kill-a-watt meters (http://www.weemscreeksolutions.com/KillAWatt.htm) that measures exactly this. :icon_roll

Remember that the watts per gallon is an estimate, not a rule. It's +/- 50 percent or so. A long, normally driven T5 tube with an optimum reflector will send twice as much light down into to tank per watt than the typical Power Compact fixture. It's really easy to calculate watts per gallon, so we keep using it (for better or for worse :icon_lol: )



> Now try and find a halogen bulb in the correct color temp.


That's a valid point. Halogen technology is physically limited to 3500K. It's a better spectrum than ordinary incandescent, but still not all that great. One could coat the glass with a phosphor to get blues, but then one may as well get a phosphor coated tube -- i.e. fluorescent tube.

What's geeky cool about halogen is that the halogen gas prevents the filament from evaporating and depositing itself on the glass. (Take a look at the bulb immediately after you turn it off and you will see a purple cloud around the filament.) This lets them over-drive the filament so the bulb is more efficient and has a bluer spectrum than ordinary incandescent. But this is physically limited since tungsten melts at around 3656K. You just can't get 5000K daylight from a tungsten filament.

However, there is a different technology that will you use mini-pendants with good spectrum. There are small metal halide lamps that could be used for this. It might be possible to convert a halogen pendant fixture to use min-halide lights. Is there enough room? You could always make your own fixture...


----------



## phishphood (Apr 4, 2007)

epic- Moved everything into that tank yesterday I believe. No mech. filtration to speak of right now, so everything is still floatin all around. 

Ruki- thanks for the break down. The main reason I was interested in the ikea lights was because a) I had them and needed a temp lighting solution. b)I'm willing to spend $20 to get a decent looking pendant with semi-decent lighting capabiliities.

I agree that the temp issue is a main factor. I know I can easily find/make a 70W MH pendant, but I was going for super low budget, somewhere in the sub $50's level.


----------



## Rex Grigg (Dec 10, 2002)

When we talk about watts per gallon we are talking fluorescent watts. A 15 watt CF is equal to a 60 watt incandescent bulb.

I know what watts actually are. But we are making conversions here. You have to agree that 100 watts of incandescent light is not even close to 100 of CF light.


----------



## ruki (May 28, 2007)

Rex Grigg said:


> When we talk about watts per gallon we are talking fluorescent watts. A 15 watt CF is equal to a 60 watt incandescent bulb.


I know what you are trying to talk about, but you're playing silly games with language and units. For an example, it takes an 18 watt CF bulb to equal the output of a 60 watt incandescent. So you are already off by 20 percent. It's perfectly OK to make estimates, but why pretend they are equivilants?
http://hes.lbl.gov/hes/makingithappen/no_regrets/lighting.html


> Lighting manufacturers must now label packaging with the number of lumens as well as the number of watts. It may take some adjustment at first, but look for the number of lumens you are getting per watt. Both the 60-watt incandescent and the 18-watt fluorescent give off about 1000 lumens. But the incandescent produces only 15 lumens per watt, while the fluorescent produces over 50 lumens per watt. It's not hard to tell which one is more efficient. A good rule of thumb is to choose a compact fluorescent that is about one-third the wattage of the incandescent you would normally buy.





> I know what watts actually are. But we are making conversions here.


No. You are not making a conversion, you are making an estimate. "Sorry officer, I converted my speed from miles per hour to speed per gallon of gas burned in 5th gear, but forgot to take account of going down a hill with a tail wind."  



> You have to agree that 100 watts of incandescent light is not even close to 100 of CF light.


I think you're trying to get back to "fluorescent watts". I generally use an error bound of +/- 50 percent when using this term for aquarium use. Even this sloppy, it's usually a good enough, but why pretend it's much better than that?

Different technologies, different efficiencies: T5's are about 20 percent more efficient that T8's which are about 20 percent more efficient than T12's which are better than VHO. T5 HO is more intense, but drops to about T8 efficiency. CF's are something like a bent T5 HO, but these are non-standard among themselves, tough to get good numbers.

Physical constraints: Longer tubes are more efficient than shorter tubes. Newer tubes are better than older tubes, and not all tube types age at the same rate. Most tubes lose output and life when they get above 30C.

Reflector efficiency: I deduct for CF tubes since these handicap reflectors. Can't ignore this if your truly interested in light sent down into the aquarium rather then stuff getting blocked by the tube or bounced around in the reflector ad infinitum. (Take a look at the 96 watt Coralife fixture with three bends. How can light from the back side make it into the aquarium with this bulb/reflector combination?)

Note that I'm making some assumptions too, but at least I'm up front about them:
* Lumens aren't optimal for plants, but I assume that the comparative efficiencies in photon production across the different tube technologies hold when these are used for speciality aquarium bulbs.
* Custom bulbs in one technology are not important and can be replaced by an equivalent bulb in another technology. Not always true.
* For more than a few tanks, even non-green folks want to conserve electricity to get the most light possible from an already high electricity bill.
* Most fixtures have horrible reflectors, I assume hobbyists will eventually demand better ones 
* T6 is coming but isn't used enough to include.
* Those thinking about using PAR, remember that it doesn't deduct for green light, which is reflected off most leaves. Very few bulbs list PAR, so I don't use it. PAR meters cost more than most aquarium setups.


----------



## sayn3ver (Sep 1, 2006)

Cheap Lighting Option

16w
19w

Both in the 5100k coloring. I do believe someone found a similar bulb but in 6500k/6700k...i forget the temp.


----------



## garuf (May 30, 2007)

if only the uk didnt use 240v mains these would be idea for my nano anyone know if theirs similar available for the uk market? 
would this lamp work or is it the wrong type i noticed it was par38 where as this is par 30 
http://www.netlamps.co.uk/MEG15P30ES.html


----------

