[Skipper]

Just wanted to share this study by Sanjay (I think it is fairly new.) Check it out here: http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/...omparison.html



------------------
Skipper's Reef

[ASH]

From IceCap:
I have several problems with this review.
1st, it has an error (not in our favor) in the following chart,
Table 6: Comparison of Ballasts for 250W 6500K Iwasaki Lamps, which incorrectly states the IceCap ballast was less efficient [% change in efficiency] by 1.73 when it was actually more efficient by 1.73%. Small issue but... (We also find the Iwasaki bulbs and all other 250-watt MH bulbs run at 285 watts on our ballasts, but we're not an independent source.)

2nd, the review of the 175-MH ballasts skipped ours, and only included "Magnetek magnetic ballast, and Blueline 175". Not an issue but for the fact the review on 175-watt MH ballasts by R. Harker exists from 11/2000 , http://www.icecapinc.com/article2000.htm where it states "As the table demonstrates, the Blueline consumes less power than either the tar or the IceCap ballast. It generates less light, however. In contrast, the IceCap ballast consumes nearly as much power as the tar ballast, but generates considerably more light." Guess there wasn't room for our results in the graph.
Andy

[SKRIZ]

I can't believe the regular mh ballast is better than the reccomended mv ballast for the iwasaki bulbs! just when i thought it was clear on which one to go with, now I ahve a decision to make..mh or mv ballast?

[Ironreef]

I would get the mh cuz you aren't limited to iwaski. unless you are getting 400w then mv is better but you are limited to iwaski unless you plan on running only iwaski i would get mv . there can be a big varible when testing different ballast even if they are the same. But imo if you have halides let your corals tell you what they like and i would do my own survey of what ballast to buy by asking and searching to see what ppl think are most reliable.