Welcome Guest, Please Login or Register!
Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Support RL
Home Forum Aquarium Log Gallery Sponsors RHO Bookstore

Reefland's PFO's dual ballast

Go Back   Reeflands Forum > Equipment > Lighting
Sponsored Links
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-06-2001, 01:47 PM   #1
Governor
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Watertown,SD,USA
Posts: 1,502
Reefland's PFO's dual ballast

If I were to get mh and buy them here, is it better to buy the "eye" dual ballast? If so why? Also can I order sockets without reflectors? Thanks

I'm going back and forth on the mh, I havn't decided what to do?
Mikeman is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links

Old 07-06-2001, 02:06 PM   #2
Owner
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Bardstown, KY
Posts: 13,044
Hi Mike!

It depends on how you look at it.

The "EYE" ballast powers the Iwasaki and is a MV ballast.

The standard ballast powers the Iwasaki (10% less per PFO) as well as the other popular bulbs such as 10k, 12k, etc. This is a MH ballast.

Folks that know they will stick with the Iwasaki's go with the EYE. Those that wish to have the extra flexibility choose the standard ballast, accept the 10% loss and have the option to change bulbs if they don't like the Iwasaki's.

Socket's can be order without the reflectors. They are located in the "Build Your Own" section.

Scott
Reefland is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2001, 02:12 PM   #3
Governor
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Watertown,SD,USA
Posts: 1,502
thanks scott, you cleared that up for me, I think

If you buying mh would you go for the "eye" ballast?

thanks again
Mikeman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2001, 02:21 PM   #4
Owner
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Bardstown, KY
Posts: 13,044
I would get the EYE if I didn't mind being stuck with Iwasaki's. If I wanted flexibility, I would go with the standard ballast. Just depends.

Scott
Reefland is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2001, 03:46 PM   #5
Citizen
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Louisville, KY USA
Posts: 240
Scott I see you have your feet firmly planted on Both sides of the fence.
__________________
Never put off till tomorrow what you can do the day after tomorrow (or next week)
My9t is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2001, 05:01 PM   #6
Governor
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 2,103
Personally I enjoy the flexibility factor, so I would opt for the standard 250. (non-EYE)

-Perry
PerryinCA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2001, 07:21 PM   #7
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Alta Loma,Ca
Posts: 2,942
I'm with Perry, I would and did the standard ballast
golfish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2001, 09:34 PM   #8
Owner
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Bardstown, KY
Posts: 13,044
Sorry, didn't want to appear partial there.
Reefland is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2001, 11:12 PM   #9
Mayor
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Lynchburg, Virginia
Posts: 518
I dont see why you would want the 10k? There is a significant difference in the PAR of the 10k and the iwasaki. What is more important? A pure white or your organisms health? If you want flexibilty go with ice cap. They can rewire any ballast to fit the bulb you want. Otherwise I would go with EYE, the iwaskis are cheap, efficient, and pretty much white.

IMO
Andrew
chromis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2001, 05:17 PM   #10
Governor
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 2,103
I agree Chromis...to an extent. PFO claims that there is a 10% loss in with the use of the magnetic ballast...Sanjay's tests report a increase in output using the MH over the MV for the 250w. Its also possible to have variations of up to 25% with any given setup (in terms of output).

I think its safer to use the MH, because of the flexibility... When using Iwasaki's, the 10% is a pretty negligable loss.... Don't get me wrong, I am a big fan of "lots o' light", but some prefer to have that bluer look (not me) and they'll be stuck with Iwasaki's if they change thier mind.

I agree on the Icecaps though. They are all I will ever use, have always worked flawlessly for me, and are small/light/cool running. I can see how the price may hold some back. According to the RC forum, they are working on, or toward, a 400w version. That will make a lot of reefers happy.

-Perry
PerryinCA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2001, 10:25 PM   #11
Mayor
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Lynchburg, Virginia
Posts: 518
Thanks for agreeing(sort of), I think most people who are serious about sps and clams like I am are either going with iwasakis or HQI. I was dead set on the MV but am starting to consider the MH ballast. Not because I want to run a 10k but because of Sanjay's tests. However now I am thinking of running 2 x 400s over my 55 so in that case I would only get the MV ballast. My fixture wont be done for a while so I still have plenty of time to decide.

Andrew
chromis is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:54 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0 Release Candidate 3
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.1.0 ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79