PAR Tests on Lamps and Fixtures

^ Also a great idea. +K
You should conduct all the tests in the same controlled conditions.

not ... some with the sheilds, some without shields,.... some through air, some through water....some bulbs cool, some with the bulbs hot...low charge batteries in the par tester, new batteries in the par tester (if it's battery operated, that is).
You get the picture...

 

Screwtape and bogie,
I took PAINS to make sure all the three fixtures that were tested were tested evenly, thats why it took me 3 times just to figure out ways to make them more even.

Without sounding haughty I am smart enough to know NOT to test the lamps as soon as I fired them up.... I let the lamps, in this test, run for hours before I tested them. I have also tested them when I just turned them on and noticed lower PAR levels as expected.

not ... some with the sheilds, some without shields,.... some through air, some through water....some bulbs cool, some with the bulbs hot...low charge batteries in the par tester, new batteries in the par tester (if it's battery operated, that is).
You get the picture...
As far as why I tested some with shields?! I tested the TX5 with it on and off to show how much PAR you are losing... the PC fixture I tested in water and with the shield Bogie, because like I said before I wanted to show PC what they are really getting, not all that much. I will test it in air also when I have the time, most likely this saturday. Also, I never mentioned anything about testing cool lamps...

I appreciate the feedback all of you but I have used quatums before and have read enough articles on how to conduct tests similarly and as well as how to get the most accurate tests taken.

I am just as interested in accurate results as you are and since I am taking MY personal time I am not going to do it inaccurately, I can tell you that. Doing these tests takes longer than you think!

Until next time Happy lighting!

 

Keep up the good work Joe!!

 

I wasn't trying to criticize your testing method, I thought it would be interesting to see how the heat affected the PAR, and clarifying the method you used so I knew what I was looking at. I'm sure you know more about testing the bulbs than I do, I've never done, was just offering some thoughts.

 

Sorry if I came off hasty, thats the problem with not seeing someone face to face...
No, I appreciate the help, heck I could use it. I was VERY, VERY surprised that the Tek 4 lamp w/o fans beat out the TX5... I originally did the test maybe 3 hours after ALL the lamps were on not just the actinics, then tested again about 7 hours after all lamps went on and the results were very similar to the originals.

I honestly think the issue with the TX5 is the way the SLRs are positioned in a concave.
I will keep testing as many lamps/fixtures I can and keep posting them, thanks for the help and taking the time to read the results!!

 

loving this thread good job

 

I found a picture on premiumaquatics site and thought that they looked concave but wasn't sure if it was the picture. I didn't quite get why they would do that either.

 

Companies always trying something new......Seems like they would test out a prototype before going out on the market though. I could see rushing it out if it were an inferior piece of equipement, but this seems like a good unit. Puzzling it is......

 

I think Aquactinics wanted to conserve space with the TX5 hence the concave SLRs.... I wanted to talk to Tom before posting these esp since it shows one of his fixtures in a poor light... I will call him this week to see if there was anything that could explain the results.

 

Here are the results for the 30" PC fixture...
To keep in line with the tests of the 36" T5 fixtures I made a grid but shrunk it abit to level the playing field. Considering one would most likely use the 30" fixture on a 30" tank such as a 29... I used the 29 as a base and made my grid points off of that.
I tested WITH and WITHOUT shield as well, and the probe was the same distance from the lamps as the T5s were.

PC 130w 50/50 WITH SHIELD
62---126---53
115---244---94
99---232---97

PC WITHOUT SHIELD
80---140---60
126---255---100
105---223---97

*Note, while these numbers do not look all that bad, the PC did not have the penetrating power as the T5 did.

More to come later...