[Ltspd]

Whats everyones opinion of the article in MFAR 2002 annual?

The 150w HQI sort of goes head to head with the 400w Iwaskai. The 150w wins

I really like Sanjays last statement:

Through judicious use of the inverse square law and good quality reflectors, it is possible to provide more light reaching the water surface using lower wattage lamps. As seen from the results with the 150w Aqualine HQI lamp in the PFO reflector, the PPFD of the setup is higher than a 400w Iwasaki lamp (without a reflector) at the same distance. Given the increasing costs of electrical energy, it may be worthwhile to try to use lights more efficiently by selecting quality reflectors and lower wattage lamps.

I was really pleased to see him use my setup of the Aromat ballast powering the 150w HQI.

Once again, great article, sure to stir the waters.

[icemark]

Yes, I agree. I've alwasy prefered to use the lowest watt bulbs I can (just as an energy saving tactic), and is report re-enforces my idea.

But I do feel he was a little on comparing apples and pears in this test, (I/E that a good bulb with good refector had as much output as a good bulb at 2x the wattage but without a good reflector)

[dsb1829]

Real test would have been to have 150w hqi with uv shield, no reflector, and mounting brackets. This would have given some information for comparison. As always the Josi tests leave us with a kernel of information and a thirst for more answers to issues that are just touched upon. My only real complaint is that these tests have no correlation to the tests of the previous year. The data is way different even though the test hasn't changed much. I was really hoping to have this article tie together the last couple of articles. Instead it opened a whole new can of worms.

[Ltspd]

dsb182, they used a sheild on the HQI bulbs. Sanjay states that a good reflector would add 50-75% improvement. But compared with the the cost of electricy consumption the HQI is still the winner, IMO.

Have you read the article?

[Ninong]

Doug,

The tests on all of the lamps except the AB 150w 10,000K HQI DE were conducted the same as his previous tests: "The lamps were mounted in a fixture that positions the center of the lamp's arc tube 18" from the cosine receptor." The reason the 400w 6500K Iwaski lamp tested this time at 173 PPFD is because it is a different lamp completely from the ones Sanjay tested a couple of years ago and in his ballast tests early last year. Iwasaki has redesigned their 250w and 400w 6500K lamps and given them different code numbers. Their spectral distribution has been changed to reduce the yellow appearance.

The AB 150w 10,000K HQI DE lamp was tested in a PFO Lighting fixture with a reflector and UV absorbing glass shield. So the UV absorbing glass shield would have reduced the readings by approximately 10-15% (my estimate) and the reflector would have increased the readings by a certain amount--I have no idea how much. Anyway, the PPFD numbers on that little DE lamp were impressive: 246 PPFD on PFO Magnetic ballast, 210 PPFD on PFO Electronic ballast and 209 PPFD on Aromat Electronic ballast.

Maybe it would be better if he tested all of the lamps in a fixture with reflectors and UV absorbing glass shields. He could test all of the lamps in the same fixture with the same reflector because some manufacturers make identical single lamp fixtures for mogul base and DE lamps. The only reason he tests everything 18" from the receptor is to not wear out the equipment.

A very revealing result was the fact that the 175w 10,000K Red Sea (which is actually a Ushio/BLV) tested three times stronger than the same wattage ALS and Blueline. And the AB 250w 10,000K mogul base lamp (which is not as efficient as the same manufacturer's DE version in that wattage) produced double the PPFD of the Blueline and triple the PPFD of the Sunburst.

All of those results are comparable because they were tested on the same equipment with the same ballasts at the same time, etc. About the only thing you can say about the little DE lamp is that it was very impressive... unless you want to add approximately 50% to all of the other lamps' test numbers to make up for the lack of a reflector and then subtract 10-15% for the effect of the UV absorbing glass shield that was not utilized.

But it does confirm that those Chinese imports are wimpy lights in comparison to the German lamps.

Ninong

[reef120]

LTSPD

You mentioned a Aromat ballast when testing the 150watt 10K HQI where do you buy such a ballast and do they make it in 250 or 400watt? Is this an e-ballast?

[Reef Man]

an anybody tell me where can I read allthe results and article about this?

TIA.

[Ninong]

Originally posted by Reef Man
an anybody tell me where can I read allthe results and article about this?

TIA.

All of his tests are on his website... http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/.../aquarium.html

...except for the most recent one in Marine Fish & Reef 2002 Annual:



Usually he puts them on his website about three months after publication.

Ninong

[Ltspd]

reef120,
I picked my ballast up on ebay for 30 bucks. Yes, it is a e-ballast, problem is the ones on ebay are for 277v which is non-standard voltage. I was however able to swap it out for a 120v by calling in a few favors

The LN IMO are better, less hum (actually none) and I have powered not only the HQI's but the Iwasaki's with the same ballast without sending it back to the factory to be re-tuned.

The article states that the Aromat was the least provider of PPFD (also the PFO e-ballast) with the mag being the greatest. It was also mentioned that the Aromat pulled less amps compared to the mag which could explain the diffrenece in PPFD's.

[dsb1829]

Originally posted by Ltspd
dsb182,

Have you read the article?

Yes, I will pick up a new annual mag every time I see one(I read it too. ). Mine main gripe is the same that I had when compiling data from his previous tests. You can fin a spreadsheet comparing that data over in the RC library at http://www.reefcentral.com/library/mh_comparison.htm. I really thrive on data that give corelation to as much of the lighting equipment as possible.

Ninong, good point about the new bulb design.

I haven't spent much time pondering over the meaning of this article yet. Basically read it and didn't get an immediate connection. I saw this thread up and I voiced my opinion on it. Yes, that little 150w put out some impressive numbers. But even he admited that it isn't anything more than a big number that isn't under the same circumstances as the rest of the test bulbs.

Anyhow, not trying to ruffle feathers. Just called it at my first impression. I will have to go back and read the article again.

ttt...

[Ltspd]

dsb1829,

The thing that "hooked" me the most was the fact of the lower wattage bulb producing results of the more powerful 400w. Not only does this save elec cost month to month it also produces less heat, further reducing the possibilty of a chiller which adds even more to the month to month elec cost.

Also the use of the 10kk bulb (hqi) requires less actinic's to smooth out the color for my taste, even furter reducing the elec cost.

I have tried the 6500k's and now the HQI's. The tank is much brighter with the HQI's. I am using an additional bulb where I was only using (2)6500's but still with only the 2 outside hqi's its brighter. Growth seems to be the same on both bulbs.

[bowfront]

Ltspd,

You turned me on to this thread please tell me more.

1. What size tank are you running the 3x150's on.

2. IYO, will dual 150's + 220w VHO actinic please a heavily SPS infested 72g?

I am energy conservative and would really like to give this a try but on the other end for > $100 more I could up the setup to 2 x 250w. BTW, I am talking PFO mini pendants enclosed in a canopy w/ PFO HQI ballast. The Catch 22 to all this is that with the additional watts I will also have unwanted heat which could very possibly = chiller. Need help in deciding from someone with experience with these lights.

[Ltspd]

Bowfront.

I am using (2)250w and (1)150w in the center and (2)40w NO actininc bulbs. Tank dimensions are 60x24x27 (168 approx). The 250w are ran on the LN ballast with the 150 being run on the aromat, all are e-ballast.

The pendants are the worst thing to use the HQI's with. The pendants do not allow much light spread, but since your tank is small I think it will be ok provided the bulbs are 12-18" above the water as recommended by the manf.

IMO you need the 250w as some extra kick on the sps, but that is way to much blue, or atleast for my taste.

The amount of blue I have on my tank suits me very well, it still allows the corals to floresce, and I have a blue only period at both the beginning and end of my light cycle.

I probally would have went with all 3 mh's as 250w but I got such a killer deal on the ballast I went that route. The 150w comes on later in the day, approx 2 hrs less burn time than the 250w's.

It works for me

[bowfront]

Paul,

Thanks for your response. I have more questions but don't want to hog this thread with my personal ignorance. I have started a thread of my own here and would welcome more comments/help from you or anyone regarding my situtation/confusion.