Who has switch from Iwasaki 400w to HQI?

[BigLar]

I currently am running 3 400w Iwaski's and am about to add an Icecap 660 ballast for actinic bulbs.

What I'm wondering is if I was to switch to HQI's will I need to supplement? Also, can I expect to see a big drop in my electric bill?

Who has switched and will never go back?

[golfish]

I use a 400 watt Iwasaki and 2x250 watt HQI's (double ended 10K's) I'm not very happy with the HQI's. If I could do it over I would probably use 2x400 Iwasaki's and 4x110 watt VHO actinics. Looking at the tank, its looks like the single 400 watt Iwasaki gives off more light then both the HQI's and the Iwasaki is mounted over the glass cross bar.

[Ninong]

Originally posted by golfish:
Looking at the tank, its looks like the single 400 watt Iwasaki gives off more light then both the HQI's and the Iwasaki is mounted over the glass cross bar.

This is exactly what one would expect because the human eye is more sensitive to the yellow-green bands of the spectrum. These bands are more represented in 6500K Iwasaki lamps. By actual measurements, a Ushio/BLV 250w 10,000K HQI double-ended lamp puts out about 1/3 less PAR than a 400w 6500K Iwasaki MH lamp and slightly more PAR than a 250w 6500K Iwasaki MH lamp. These relative measurements were made at exactly the same distance from the lamp. Remember, for proper light spread, you need to mount HQI double-ended lamps 9-12" above the water. You could probably get by with locating Iwasaki lamps a bit closer to the water with a good reflector.

Originally posted by BigLar:
What I'm wondering is if I was to switch to HQI's will I need to supplement? Also, can I expect to see a big drop in my electric bill?

You won't need to supplement to change the appearance from yellowish-white like you might with Iwasakis; but you might want to use some supplemental actinic anyway for dawn/dusk effects and extra actinic effects. If you switch to 10,000K metal halide lighting (dbl-ended or mogul based), you can get by with less actinic supplementation than you would need to use with Iwasakis to achieve the same end result.


Ninong

[golfish]

This is exactly what one would expect because the human eye is more sensitive to the yellow-green bands of the spectrum

LOL, not really what I expected. I guess what I mean is I didn't expect for the HQI's to suck as much as they do.

Hey Ninong, don't you need to reduce the output on the HQI's a little more (like 10+%) do to the UV shield?

[Ninong]

Originally posted by golfish:
Hey Ninong, don't you need to reduce the output on the HQI's a little more (like 10+%) do to the UV shield?

Yes, that's a good point that I forgot to mention. You should always use a tempered glass shield with HQI double-ended lamps and this will reduce the intensity by 10-15%. However, most folks believe that you should also use an additional glass shield with ALL metal halide lamps (e.g., Robert Fenner, Dana Riddle, Julian Sprung, et al). Although many hobbyists, and a few authors (e.g. Eric Borneman), believe that this is unnecessary.

Ninong

[Ltspd]

Originally posted by golfish


LOL, not really what I expected. I guess what I mean is I didn't expect for the HQI's to suck as much as they do.

I like mine a lot better than my Iwasaki's. I went from 250w 6500's to 10kk HQI's. Mine is a DIY (as you know) and the spread is better IMO than my 6500's were. The problem with the HQI's is the people who use them in a pendant fixture, which naturally reduces the spread of the light.

[golfish]

yeah, but with your setup your just throwing weaker light over a wider area.....which is worse?

[Ltspd]

Mark,
Guess you missed the PAR values and such in the 250w lighting article.

Yes, I do use a glass sheild, but the same thing should be used for all bulbs IMO.

No, with the same bulb wattage I have better coverage with the HQI's in my setup. Growth appears to be better but that is my obeservations, no real facts. Clams love it, even the maxima I have on the sand bed, 27" down under the 150w HQI.

I pity those who use pendants with either HQI's or standard MH's due to the poor spread. I do not use that setup.

I am not knocking Iwasaki 400's. BUT for the 250w'rs I have reduced my power consumption and improved my lights and the look of the tank.

[Ironreef]

The new Iwaski 250w has 130par Dunno what the hqi has. But in pendant when you raise it for spread you are also loosing light. The mogul bulbs have a built in uv don't they. double end doesn't. this is why the uv shiel is needed. but as for par the 10k has alot in the blue but is all lost in a few mo. double end has more of the other colors like Iwaski just alittle more blue. this is why they last lonker than other 10k= blue loses fast the rest stays. But I've seen many tanks iwaski double end and found it doesn't really matter its all preferance. But if one has the $$ I would use 400 hqi and 20k seems like thats a good color lots of par in the blue. More than any other. They way the bulb is it can't really be tested for par(accurate) if you read all sanjay reports. But they need to be replaced often which cost. But i use Iwaski and 4 actinics cuz iwaski last almost 2years and looks good with actinics IMO. I need a bulb not was gonna buy an Ushio but I can get 1 Iwaski and2 actinics for 1 ushio. guess I'm cheap. I say if you like 10k have $$ get it. Just replace it every year JMO

[golfish]

Paul,
I read the acrticle. I guess you missed my point. Its though by many (myself included) that these bulbs mounted in a pendant cast a more concentrated light. With your setup your just throwing the light from the same bulb over a wider area getting less par.

If you go back you will see that I have never said anything about the spread (this thread) I don't have problem one with the light spread in my tank. In fact, I'm thinking I need to move my Iwasaki back some to cover the middle back of the tank better. I just don't care much for the HQI's. The colors not all that great and the overall lights is not that great. For now I'm stuck with em and will make do with what I have. Never know, maybe they'll grow on me. If they ever come out with a 20K bulb I may be real happy with em

[Ltspd]

Mark,
So you say that if I move the HQI's up I am spreading the "poor" light over a wider area, but this isnt the case with a Iwasaki? My bulbs are in the same location as my old Iwasaki's

Must be a modern technology

;)

Ironreef, you are correct, its a matter of preference..... But its fun to argue about

[golfish]

So you say that if I move the HQI's up I am spreading the "poor" light over a wider area, but this isnt the case with a Iwasaki? My bulbs are in the same location as my old Iwasaki's

What the hec are you talking about? What I'm saying is: The mini pendants cast a more direct, concentrated light, kind of like a flashlight does (I hate to use that as an example) With your setup it cast a wider less direct, less concentrated light. I never said anything about moving your lights up, Poor light, and yes, if you do move them up or Iwasaki's up or your Grandma's porch light up it will be weaker.

Not modern technology.....common sense;)


Who gives a rats butt about the spread? I don't have a problem with it, do you? I'm just voicing my opinion on these lights. And that is, they pretty much suck.

You like Coors I like bud.....its a matter of preference

Mark

[Ltspd]

Originally posted by golfish
yeah, but with your setup your just throwing weaker light over a wider area.....which is worse?

No, the light is not weaker, about the same with both setups equal, including wattage.

Mark,
I think you need to sit back and re-read your posts and my reply's. And like has been said by myself and several others including yourself its a matter of opinion. Mine work better for me, are more pleasing to me, and light my tank much better than the Iwasaki's.

You just seem to ignore the fact that not all people use their lights in a pendant which is a poor choice for spread over the area of larger tanks. Now I cant remeber you exact setup, but have you compared apples to apples, or same setup to same setup? If I remember correctly you are using 400w 6500k bulbs and a 250w 10kk hqi. I hate to tell you the obvious but they are diffent, both in aspect of wattage and par output. When you compare apples to apples as I have maybe you can make a better statement in regards to the equailties or in-equalities of the bulbs in the 250w range.

Now to get back to the question of the first post. I have switched to 10kk HQI's in the 250w wattage, not the 400w. The answers to your question are as follows:

1) yes I supplement, but I dont need as much wattage. I went from (2)96w pc's to (2)40w NO bulbs. So I went from a 1.74 amp draw to a .5 amp draw situation. I went for several days without any and I was pleased, but the addition of the 80w's of actinic really made the tank look even better.

2)Yes, I saw a drop in my electric bill, and that is true even after adding a 3rd mh bulb. My old setup was (2)6500k's and (2)96w pc's. My new setup is (2)250w HQI's (1)150w HQI and (2) NO actinic's.

3) I cant say I wont go back, becasue I am always tinkering and trying new things. I can say I am much happier with my current setup over my old setup. This is not to knock the 6500's which IMO cant be beat in a 400w setup.

[golfish]

Paul,
You REALLY crack me up.....I think maybe your reading off a different BB then I am.......

The answers to your question are as follows:

What questions? are you reading my posts? How am I ignore the fact that not all people use their lights in a pendant " I just said the pendants cast a more direct concentrated light in a smaller area. If you don't agree then just says so. NO need to write a bunch of mumbo jumbo. Its only common sense. I'm not knocking your lights. I never said anything bad about YOUR lights.

Relax and go back and RE READ....

See my last line on my last post..

You keep bring up the Iwasaki's.......why? who cares?



I just said the pendants cast a more direct concentrated light in a smaller area If you don't agree then that's OK.

[Ltspd]

Originally posted by golfish
Paul,
What questions? are you reading my posts?

Here is what I said. Please look at the 10th word, First, which means 1 or the very first post.

Now to get back to the question of the first post. I have switched to 10kk HQI's in the 250w wattage, not the 400w. The answers to your question are as follows:

Now here is where I came up with that.

Posted by the author

I currently am running 3 400w Iwaski's and am about to add an Icecap 660 ballast for actinic bulbs.

What I'm wondering is if I was to switch to HQI's will I need to supplement? Also, can I expect to see a big drop in my electric bill?

Who has switched and will never go back?

Mark, I know this is tough, but

READ

[golfish]

your no fun to argue with organicreefer...oppos, I mean Paul


But I do have a guestion for ya. I thought you were burning 250 watt Iwasaki's? If you went from 2x250 watts plus 2x96 watts TOO 2x250 watts plus 150 watt plus 80 watts. How is it your electric bill went down?.......This is a question Paul, just a question. Don't get on the defense.......

I think to answer Big Lar's question. If he switched from 3x400 watt Iwasaki's and 4x110 watt VHO's (or more) to say 3x250 watt HQI's he would be loosing at least 1/3 of his light (par) But he would\should see the electric bill go down some.

[Ltspd]

Mark,

The 150w mh and the (2)40w NO draw the same current as the (2) 96w pc's. A 150w mh on the aromat ballast draws 1.25amp, the NO's draw .5 amps, the (2)96w pc's drew 1.74 amp. Supposivly HQI's do not require as much elec to power as standard mh bulbs. I cant prove this other than the elec bill. I keep meaning to borrow a amp probe to check current draw of several items but havent done so as of yet. Unfornuatly I can not test the 6500k's as easy as I could before. I still can swap bulbs to test the propsed claim.

As far as disagreeing, I wasnt, just bringing to light the facts of my bulb swap on my tank. You began the issue by claiming that I was using weaker bulbs, of which I was not. Bulbs for all practical purposes are equal in PAR, diffrent in color.

As far as the heat sheild/uv sheild. IMO it adds mor benifit to a canopy than it takes away. Since I added the glass (tempared 3/16 standard glass) I no longer have to run any fans on my tank. This could also be one reason that the power bill is less but I wouldnt guess the fans drew that much current. The glass acts as a barrier between the tank and the heat of the bulbs. With proper placement of vent holes the heat is disappated threw convection without the aid of any fans. All I can say is I am glad I dont have the (2) turbo props drowning out the tv.;)

[golfish]

Paul, That's the ballst you got from Hellolight (lampsnow)?

yeah, I think you misunderstood my comment about weaker light....I meant the whole spread not the bulb

[Ltspd]

The LN's came from Lampsnow, the Aromat was purchased off of ebay. But it is also a e-ballat.

[Ironreef]

Funny... I thought the poster was asking 400w Iwaski- 400w hqi 10k?That means new ballast ect... I would just try 10k. Running 10k ushio on a hqi runs them only 10% better but that can also lessen the life= most 10k are good for 1 year. but theres no true data just a guess.But trying new bulbs is the cheaper way and you can always go back to using other bulbs. Iwaski has a 50k that may come out sometime in the 400w. If your going to 250w hqi i wouldn't do that unless you are wanting less powerbill. Wait i maybe on the wrong board then never mind JMO