Well, I was sitting around this evening drinking a couple of Bigfoot Ales. Nothing too incredably exciting with that. In fact it is kind of settling. At any rate that isn't the news that I have to share with you. I spent a decent part of my evening rounding up the results of the Josi & Morgan tests on MH intensity and performance.

I have compiled the results of three of their tests into one handy reference.


The articles themselves can be found at:

• - http://www.animalnetwork.com/fish2/a.../1/default.asp
  - http://www.animalnetwork.com/fish2/a.../2/default.asp
  - Marine Fish and Reef 2001 Annual magazine

Sorry for the graphic size, but it is a lot of information. Plus I didn't want you to have to go scrambling for the magnifying glass.

Please let me know if you can think of any other good articles that contribute information on more bulbs. I am not against expanding the spreadsheet to include PC, VHO, and NO tubes for comparison sake. In fact I would like to do this. At any rate check it out if you are interested. If not, thanks for looking anyways.

------------------
Doug

"Wait a minute. There's no Shamus McCloud in North Kilt Town" Homer

Visit Our Tanks

Homepage

[This message has been edited by dsb1829 (edited 03-29-2001).]

I like the chart. I have read the articles but this puts it all together in one chart.
I would like to see the VHO,PC's listed the same way if possible. I have not seen the articles comparing these bulbs like the mh articles.


------------------
------------------------
Paul C
Things should be made as simple as possible, but not any simpler.
Einstein

PPFD is...? Efficiency is rated by... ?

For my Iwasaki 250 bulb:
Magnatec M58: PPDF=104.5, Efficiency=n/a
IceCap: PPFD=99.8, Efficiency=0.410 (that many significant numbers?)

How do I translate this information?
I am using the M58 ballast.
Sorry if it sounds like a silly question, but I'll never know unless I ask.

Scott

ScottC, I would suggest reading the articles listed. That will clear up some of the questions.

------------------
------------------------
Paul C
Things should be made as simple as possible, but not any simpler.
Einstein

Scott I believe the effeciency is rated by the amnt of electricity taken in versus the amount transfered to lumens

------------------
Check out my NEW website

Scubadude's Website

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.

Scott, don't ever feel bad for asking questions. The only stupid ones are those that go un-asked.

PPFD= Photosynthetis Photon Flux Density
It is a means of quantifying the amount of light output by a bulb both in quantity and quality. I don't know how it is calculated and it isn't elaborated upon in any of the articles. Probably another evenings worth of work to find out.

Efficiency is calculated in these articles as PAR/input power. Unfortunately they don't give us either of these values independently.

What exactly are the numbers you are posting, and where did you get them??

I have given a little thought to adding data to this matrix and am thinking it isn't the best idea. Currently these tests, although performed at seperate times, are normalized. By this I mean that they were conducted at the same controlled line voltage, same distance from the bulb, in the same black background test enclosure, with a given 20 minute warm up period.

It would be hard if not impossible to anything more than moot reference from tests performed under other parameters. I would still like to know of any other good articles for vho, pc, and NO tubes though.



------------------
Doug

"Wait a minute. There's no Shamus McCloud in North Kilt Town" Homer

Visit Our Tanks

Homepage

Originally posted by dsb1829:

I would still like to know of any other good articles for vho, pc, and NO tubes though.

I would like to see un-biases articles not written by the manufactures themselves. Such as Sanjay's and Morgan's. If you know of any on pc, VHO and NO please send them to me, I enjoy these articles.

Thanks for the effort, its very helpful




------------------
------------------------
Paul C
Things should be made as simple as possible, but not any simpler.
Einstein

One little correction. The 400w GE 6000K lamp is not an HQI lamp and therefore it was not tested on the PFO HQI ballast. The PPFD of 179.7 for this lamp was achieved with a Blueline electronic ballast.

Ninong [img]/ubb/smile.gif[/img]

P.S. - Here is Dr. Joshi's explanation of PPFD --
When measured in photon terms, PAR is also called Photosynthetic Photon Flux Density (PPFD), which is a measure of the number of photons in the 400 nm to 700 nm waveband that are incident per unit time on a unit surface. When expressed in photon terms, all the photons are considered equal, independent of their energy. The quantity of photons is measured in moles of photons (1 mole of photons = 6.022 x 1023 photons = 1 Einstein). In practice, PPFD is measured in microEinstein/m2/second, or µE/s*m2.


------------------
Irrational Exuberance!

Originally posted by dsb1829:
Well, I was sitting around this evening drinking a couple of Bigfoot Ales. Nothing too incredably exciting with that

Ninong, you are quite right on a couple of points. That was on a Blueline ballast. Did I mention I was drinking while studying this?? And secondly that PPFD is the measure of the number of photons in the 400 nm to 700 nm wavelength that are incident on a unit of area in a unit of time. Not a straight quote, but close to it on my part.

Got any articles on reference for this or other comparisons???

------------------
Doug

"Wait a minute. There's no Shamus McCloud in North Kilt Town" Homer

Visit Our Tanks

Homepage

I got those numbers off of the chart posted above. How do I compare my numbers with those of the Icecap ballast (or any of the other listed ones)? There isn't much variance in the numbers, but it might be more that it actually looks.

Scott

Hi Doug ~

I only had one correction--the ballast on the GE 400w lamp. That's why I put the PPFD definition below the post. Didn't want you to think I was being nitpicky, it just looks so nice with the exact units of measurement. [img]/ubb/biggrin.gif[/img]

Ninong [img]/ubb/biggrin.gif[/img]

P.S. - If I find any more metal halide studies, I'll post a link for you. I read a study on the 150w 10,000K HQI double-ended lamps about 18 months back but I can't find it anywhere now.

------------------
Irrational Exuberance!

here's a link with info on the blueline, and icecap ballasts with the Aqualine Bushke 10k 175w lamp. http://www.animalnetwork.com/fish2/a...ct/default.asp

Digital oceans electronic 400w, and others: http://www.animalnetwork.com/fish2/a...ct/default.asp

-Perry

------------------
Some call it evolution,
And others call it God.
Each In His Own Tongue (1908}
William Herbert Carruth 1859-1924

[This message has been edited by PerryinCA (edited 03-28-2001).]

Great post!

Does anyone know where I can get the Magnetek 1110-247sc-tc Ballast cheap. I've looking but can find a 400W MH Ballast from Magnetek. Thanks

Jason


------------------
Got my site up, please take a look:

http://communities.msn.ca/NatureReef&naventryid=100

Thanks Perry, I have read those before. I will have to add them into the matrix after I make sure that the test setups were the same.

Got any HQI links??

------------------
Doug

"Wait a minute. There's no Shamus McCloud in North Kilt Town" Homer

Visit Our Tanks

Homepage

Okay, I just updated the matrix. It did require a bit more information to be displayed since the test setups were not the same. I also did not include effieciency since I didn't convert it to the same units.

One more note: I didn't include the Digital Oceans data because I feel it doesn't offer any relative information. Light measurements in that test were taken only 6" from the bulbs. That is 12" closer to the bulb than the Josi&Morgan tests and could be more confusing than helpful.

Jason,
I don't know where to buy the bare ballast, but IME it is neater, safer, and more convenient to use one of the enclosed ballasts like the PFO or Hamilton setups. In all reality the money that is saved by purchasing the ballast is less than it would cost you to make an enclosure with switches and disconnects. In all reality by the time you buy quality cables, disconnects, and switches you will only have saved about $50. Is it worth it? Okay, enough rambling. You have my $.02.



------------------
Doug

"Wait a minute. There's no Shamus McCloud in North Kilt Town" Homer

Visit Our Tanks

Homepage

Doug,
I can't seem to view the graphic. Can you possibly email it to me. Thanks in advance.

Mike
mlundstrom@earthlink.net

I will e-mail it to you in a bit. It might be too big of a graphic for your browser. It is still okay and in a secure location.

------------------
Doug

"Wait a minute. There's no Shamus McCloud in North Kilt Town" Homer

Visit Our Tanks

Homepage

[This message has been edited by dsb1829 (edited 04-02-2001).]

I noticed in the 400W Iwasaki test, the test results for the same ballast (Magnetek#1110-247SC-TC) are different. I know the tests were done two years apart. Has anyone received a reason for the difference?

Another question, what was the spectral shift of the 400W Iwasaki bulbs in refference to MV Vs. MH? The PPFD numbers are fairly close and efficiency being nearly the same as well. Is the bulb more yellow on MH than on MV. I've read all the lengthly posts regarding this subject. If I mis-read the posts, I didn't see or read a difintive answer on this topic...
Please correct me if I'm wrong or missed the conclusion...


------------------
Mike
jerseyreef@home.com

For the 250W Iwasaki, there are two Magnetek ballasts called out ... One that says Magnetek, the other is Magnetek M58.

What are the differences between these two ballasts. I take it they are two separate ballasts. Anyone know what part numbers they are? The PAR difference seems significant.

Originally posted by MtnDewMan:

For the 250W Iwasaki, there are two Magnetek ballasts called out ... One that says Magnetek, the other is Magnetek M58.

In the Aquarium Frontiers article of December 1999, the ballast is called "Magnetek M58." In the article in Marine
Fish & Reef USA 2001 Annual, which was a ballast comparison, the ballast is called "Magnetek." It is possible that they are different ballasts and it is possible that they are the same ballast. I guess I could e-mail Sanjay and ask him. That's how I found out that the 250w 10,000K HQI double-ended lamp tested in the December article was actually a Ushio/BLV, because it was not identified in the article.

What are the differences between these two ballasts. I take it they are two separate ballasts. Anyone know what part numbers they are? The PAR difference seems significant.

Yes, the PAR differences are significant, so perhaps they are different ballasts. Or, maybe it was just a quirk of the testing, since they only tested one sample of each ballast. It does seem odd that that one number would be in the 124 range when the same lamp has been tested by Sanjay on three or four other ballasts (including tests for both articles) at 104 or less.

I'll let you know what he says.

Ninong [img]/ubb/smile.gif[/img]

------------------
Irrational Exuberance!