First I would like to thank Ryan for letting use his quantum!!
I originally posted this on another board, here is the meat of it so far...

So over the last couple weeks I have be compiling results from various fixtures....
My goal was to get more numbers before I posted them but the info is not helping anyone if its in my 3ring binder. Also the prodding from certain members also influenced me.

I will skip the details of the tests unless someone asks.
I used an Apogee Quantum meter on the Electric setting as compared to the SUN setting.

The first test here, the Tek 4 lamp vs Tek 6 lamp vs Tx5
All the lamps were the EXACT same age, ran for the same time exactly and all had the same lamps, Giesemann Aquablue and Actinic+
All tests were down in AIR to prevent any variables water can cause such as clarity and turbulence.

Ok, enough, down to the numbers...

Tek 4 Lamp
215---320---195
325---491---300
174---263---170

Tek 6 Lamp
355---492---290
388---600---369
293---405---244

TX5 with Shield
159---254---151
226---359---206
126---201---115

Tx5 without Shield
175---293---173
251---402---245
149---229---132

Just for fun I also tested a 130watt PC over a 29 gal
First test had about 12mo old lamps
Bottom of tank-45uMol
Middle-80 uMol
Right under water 149 uMol

Here is with BRAND new lamps
Bottom-96uMol
Middle-188uMol
Top-358uMol

So, PC guys CHANGE YOUR LAMPS!!! FREQUENTLY!!

More to come as I test them!

Not what I expected from the TX5!

if you want another to compare I have an ATI sunpower 6X54 fixture totally diff bulbs though.

I appreciate that Dan....
I was borrowing a Quantum for Ryan and as gracious as he his he offered it to me when I need it... What a guy!!

I was contacted by Tom of Aquactinics once this thread hit RC, and needless to say he wasn't happy....

While I somewhat recanted the thread there I spoke with others in the industry and I believe my tests weren't that far fetched...
Granted I did not take reflection/refraction into consideration and I did not have thousands of data points nor did I have data from different heights when both Ryan and I tested a few points in the water of the tank with the TX5 the numbers were lower than that of the Tek fixtures....
I have gone back and forth with Steve(Grim Reefer) too many times to count and he essentially said until I or someone else proves me wrong go with it....

Aquactinics is supposedly making a jig to test just about every T5 fixture on the market as well as MH against each other but the way Tom was telling me it didn't make sense.... I tested according to the size tank the fixture would light, he is planning on testing on the same size plot.... Well, If you test a MH pendant on a 4'sq for section how is that going to be accurate as far as what you would use in on in real life? Then you are going to test a 48" T5 fixture or for that matter a 24"??

Plus I can imagine that many people would find the tests biased and skewed if a company puts out a set of numbers that includes their own units as well as the competitions?!

Dan once I have more time and a better way to come up with "a protocal" I will get ahold of you!

Joe

Huh I dont see the need for a special jig, put all the fixtures at the same height above a tank, then take different readings left center right at a couple different levels, "K.I.S.S." right? Im sure you could do it 30 different ways then pic the one that shows yours more favorably but unless it started getting totally crazy I would think the results would all be pretty simular as far as proportions or %.

Well thats exactly what I did, kept all lights the same height, measured the same distance from the ends and front and back to get the nine points. Tom was talking about one point every inch front to back, side to side and vertical for 20,000+ some points. Yes it is more accurate that way but if it isn't done by a third party I will anticipate people thinking its biased or skewed..

Well we'll see

I always test fixtures and reflectors on a grid... 4'x4' works for most. With T5's, you can just take a reading along the center line for comparison since you can assume that side to side they are the same profile.

If you compare the bulbs then w/o any reflector then for a relative reading from each bulb, then with the reflector comparison you can derive what a complete fixture would be like. Its much more adaptable that way.

Just trying to make something clear for me... how are your numbers organized? Going up and down is it top, middle, bottom?
then are the numbers organized left, middle, right?

sorry if thats confusing, i didnt know how to really explain it.

I'm surprised this made its way back on the front page...

I essentially made a grid of only horizontal plane, and made the coordinates front to back(of tank) side to side and so on....
Problem with this is its in air, which we clearly don't grow corals in and there is no vertical axis...

I would like to retest all this someday but with out a Quantum of my own or heck the time even if I borrowed Ryans again, I doubt this will happen anytime soon.

When I spoke with Grim again after the whole fall out he told me that even in air the TX5 should've crushed the Tek, he claims there could've been a bad ballast or something, and that Tom @Aquactinics should have tried to find the root of the problem or help me find a better way to test... Tom told me to find a protocol, and once I told him what I did he found more holes, such as I should've had 20,000 points or this and that...
I would've been happier if he took my protocol and found why his unit performed poorer than the others...

thanks for the info

lol