hqi metal halide?????
- Thread starter 25gator
- Start date
First of all, Geisemann pendants have been around in the US for more than 2 months. I bought a couple of them 1.5yrs ago. The spread is lacking, imo. Thats due to the physical size of the pendant and reflector. Btw, the model that I bought was the single 250 hqi d/e 10k, the Nova 2. Im sure the larger Geisemann's will do fine though.
Quite possibly, but I havent seen mention of them in the last few years from any major MO place at all. But the Nova II's will have pretty much identical spread to basically any other Gieseman product or Aqualine product. As the actual reflectors themselves are really no different between the Giesemann's or Aqualine products cept the actual material used to reflect the light itself. The actual physical dimensions of the reflectors are very similiar, thus giving off a similiar spread. 2 Nova II pendants will give the same spread as say a Aqualine Starlight/spacelight/sunlight 2xwhatever wattage fixture, or Giesemann System 230 or 260. The only difference in the full size fixtures is that they house all the ballasts and extras like moonlighting etc. But the actual physical reflectors from all the products are still pretty much the same.
I still can't believe that anyone can say that the 150 DE and 250 DE are almost identical in output. Sheesh, the 250 blows the 150 away. You can see it visually, and you can see it in animal response. Maybe we can get sanjay to shed some more light on this subject (pun intended 
)
)JeremyR":8k5grkq6 said:I still can't believe that anyone can say that the 150 DE and 250 DE are almost identical in output. Sheesh, the 250 blows the 150 away. You can see it visually, and you can see it in animal response. Maybe we can get sanjay to shed some more light on this subject (pun intended
I agree completely. I have some of each that will be going to suit this very purpose. Results should be completed and posted by someone your all familiar with.
Enough misinformation.
Regards,
Perry
Hi I have been following this thread on lighting. Very interesting. I will be setting up a 240 gal reef with a mixture of corals. the tank will measure 74x28x31. Which lighting would you guys use on this size tank 250 watters or should I stay as planned 3 x 400 PFO? Thanks for the thoughts.
Jeremy, the light from the Aqualine 250 watt fixtures DID have about 10-15 percent more lux.(brightness/intensity) over the Giesemann 150 But light intensity and PPFD DO NOT go hand in hand. And after looking over Sanjay's own tests it is proven the the 150 DE's do have the highest PPFD watt for watt period, and the 250's PPFD value may actually be a bit lower overall. Also Jeremy I do not believe that you have had the opportunity to do a direct comparison of the Aqualine fixture with the Giesemann fixture. I have, and the Giesemann fixture uses a far superior reflector material. No misinformation is given here at all.
Please enlighten me on the thread Steve, you see what it says in my signature. "Banned from RC". I can only view stuff from RC in the mornings and afternoons when I am home.
But anyway, Sanjay's own 2 tests show that the PPFD(the important output for coral photosynthesis)on the 150 Double ended bulbs to be the highest watt for watt. Isnt that what matters?? Yeah maybe the 250 DE's do look brighter to our eyes, but I dont think that has any bearing on the corals or their photosyntesis process.
But anyway, Sanjay's own 2 tests show that the PPFD(the important output for coral photosynthesis)on the 150 Double ended bulbs to be the highest watt for watt. Isnt that what matters?? Yeah maybe the 250 DE's do look brighter to our eyes, but I dont think that has any bearing on the corals or their photosyntesis process.
25Gator: thanx for the "enlightenment"!
Steve: I am rather dissapointed in you then for pointing me to that non functioning link! I would think that you yourself would know that our percieved "brightness" of a light has absolutely nothing to do with PPFD output. Nothing more needs to be said on my end here. :twisted:
Steve: I am rather dissapointed in you then for pointing me to that non functioning link! I would think that you yourself would know that our percieved "brightness" of a light has absolutely nothing to do with PPFD output. Nothing more needs to be said on my end here. :twisted:
Maybe I"m missing it, but I don't see where in that article it shows a PPFD value for the 150w DE, only the 250.. and sanjays own page makes no mention of testing 150w bulbs that I can find. If the PPFD value for the 150 is coming from another test by another person, it's value can't be used in comparison if the testing setup and distance from sensor isn't the same. I'd like to see the sources posted here, unless I've missed it in that article in which case I'll have to eat crow...
In any event, I'm not arguing for or against geisemann or AM hoods.. I'm just discussing whether or not the 150 is virtually as good as the 250w aqualine DE.
In any event, I'm not arguing for or against geisemann or AM hoods.. I'm just discussing whether or not the 150 is virtually as good as the 250w aqualine DE.
OK, Ill state this one more time. In the 2002 Annual of Marine Fish and Reef on page 56 starts an article by Sanjay Joshi where different MH bulbs are compared for PPFD and CCT. On page 68. The 150 watt DE 10k bulb was tested WITH a UV shield and reflector. Using a magnetic ballast it scored a PPFD of 246. Its CCT was 10147.
Now Sanjay Joshi also reviewed the 250 watt version of the 10K DE bulb. This is the article: http://www.animalnetwork.com/fish2/aqfm ... efault.asp
In this article, the DE bulb was tested with the SAME spectroradiometer and was again 18 inches away from the bulb. The 250 watt bulb scored a PPFD of 128.80 and a CCT of 11,723. Now this bulb was assumed to be tested without reflector and UV shield(if it was tested with a UV shield and reflector there wouldnt even be a debate to begin with period)using an appropriate magnetic ballast. So its well known that a good quality reflector will add anywhere form 50-75 percent of the given PPFD value. I will even go as far as to say its 75%. 75% of 129 is 97 roughly. SO add 129 and 97 and you get a total value of about 226 PPFD. Which is a little less than the 150 watt 10k DE bulb. Hell, even if I added double the value on the reflector the 250 DE and 150 DE are still equal. But the 250 needs 100 more watts and roughly another amp to get the same PPFD roughly.
The 150 DE setup is the best watt for watt on PPFD. Thank you, drive thru.....
Jeremy: BTW how does that "crow" taste??
Now Sanjay Joshi also reviewed the 250 watt version of the 10K DE bulb. This is the article: http://www.animalnetwork.com/fish2/aqfm ... efault.asp
In this article, the DE bulb was tested with the SAME spectroradiometer and was again 18 inches away from the bulb. The 250 watt bulb scored a PPFD of 128.80 and a CCT of 11,723. Now this bulb was assumed to be tested without reflector and UV shield(if it was tested with a UV shield and reflector there wouldnt even be a debate to begin with period)using an appropriate magnetic ballast. So its well known that a good quality reflector will add anywhere form 50-75 percent of the given PPFD value. I will even go as far as to say its 75%. 75% of 129 is 97 roughly. SO add 129 and 97 and you get a total value of about 226 PPFD. Which is a little less than the 150 watt 10k DE bulb. Hell, even if I added double the value on the reflector the 250 DE and 150 DE are still equal. But the 250 needs 100 more watts and roughly another amp to get the same PPFD roughly.
The 150 DE setup is the best watt for watt on PPFD. Thank you, drive thru.....
Jeremy: BTW how does that "crow" taste??
R&B,
You state that PPFD is the important output for coral photosynthesis.
Why?
It is my understanding that PUR is the most usefull measure.
PAR is useless IMO.
And please don't quote an opinion of Sanjays for backup.
Do you really think corals will grow better under 150 watt DE bulbs instead of 400 watt HQI Radiums? Or am I missing something here?
John
You state that PPFD is the important output for coral photosynthesis.
Why?
It is my understanding that PUR is the most usefull measure.
PAR is useless IMO.
And please don't quote an opinion of Sanjays for backup.
Do you really think corals will grow better under 150 watt DE bulbs instead of 400 watt HQI Radiums? Or am I missing something here?
John
It's my opinion that 150w HQI will outgrow a 20k radium HQI too, but having ran both the 150w HQI & 250w HQI I know from experience the 250 is definitely the better bulb for SPS...
Some people are questioning the 150 hqi test mentioned, and there are some other independant results supposed to be out soon so I'll leave it at that.. but comparing a 150 in a reflector to a 250 without is apples & oranges, you can't make up out of your head what you think the 250 would be with a reflector, you need to run it on the same gear, and preferably with the same years bulb (the 250 test was in 1999, who even knows if the bulb readings are the same now). I would also be interested in sanjays personal take as he's being quoted an awful lot without adding any input himself.. I did email him, we'll see what he says. In the meantime, I find this an interesting discussion, but I don't see any point in things getting heated so I'll wait to post further till I hear back from sanjay OR someone else posts their testing info. I would also like to hear from other people who have ran both bulbs as I have since those experiences seem to be few and far between. I think you'll find that anyone who has ran both will tell you the 250 is the superior SPS light.
Some people are questioning the 150 hqi test mentioned, and there are some other independant results supposed to be out soon so I'll leave it at that.. but comparing a 150 in a reflector to a 250 without is apples & oranges, you can't make up out of your head what you think the 250 would be with a reflector, you need to run it on the same gear, and preferably with the same years bulb (the 250 test was in 1999, who even knows if the bulb readings are the same now). I would also be interested in sanjays personal take as he's being quoted an awful lot without adding any input himself.. I did email him, we'll see what he says. In the meantime, I find this an interesting discussion, but I don't see any point in things getting heated so I'll wait to post further till I hear back from sanjay OR someone else posts their testing info. I would also like to hear from other people who have ran both bulbs as I have since those experiences seem to be few and far between. I think you'll find that anyone who has ran both will tell you the 250 is the superior SPS light.
Jeremy R: You quote:
Jeremy also answer this for me, and please give a detailed expanation with your reasoning: Which do you think would be better for "SPS" growth, 3 150 watt DE pendants, or 2x250 DE watt pendants?
One last thing Jeremy, but if you go to: http://www.giesemann.de and go to the Nova II specs under the marine section you will notice that they rate both the 150 and 250 watt lamps for the same depth marine tanks. 60cm each. If the 250 is so much better as you would claim you would think that Giesemann would also rate the 250 for a deeper tank? Just a side note Im adding. Maybe the Germans know something we dont?
Oh really?? You cant make an educated guess? Well everybodies light God Sanjay Joshi sure did. He stated on the RECENT article that a good reflector will add anywhere from 50-75 percent ABOVE the total value for a given bulb in PPFD. So to be fair I added 75-100 percent. The 250 still is on "PAR"(pun intended) at best with the 150.
I would too, because after you folks wanting my direct info and getting it, your still trying to dodge the bullet with some excuses that are more opinionated now, not showing your own links or articles of proof as you have asked on my part.
Well Jeremy, you will openly admit that a 150 DE is better for SPS growth than a 400 Radium, so who's not to say that a 150 wouldnt be better than a 250 either??
SO do you have valid verifiable proof of this?? Could you please explain to me how long you have had direct comparisons going on?? Your testbed setup? Were the corals in a controlled environment?? Same exact water parameters etc? I was asked to give my points of reference which I gladly did, so I would like yours too. But honesty, can you say the 250 is actually BETTER? WHich is better for SPS, a 150 DE hanging 6 inches over the water vs. a 250 DE hanging 12 inches over the water?? There are alot of factors I think you need to account for yourself before you can make any claims too.
Jeremy also answer this for me, and please give a detailed expanation with your reasoning: Which do you think would be better for "SPS" growth, 3 150 watt DE pendants, or 2x250 DE watt pendants?
One last thing Jeremy, but if you go to: http://www.giesemann.de and go to the Nova II specs under the marine section you will notice that they rate both the 150 and 250 watt lamps for the same depth marine tanks. 60cm each. If the 250 is so much better as you would claim you would think that Giesemann would also rate the 250 for a deeper tank? Just a side note Im adding. Maybe the Germans know something we dont?
John F: Sorry, I didnt see your post there. Yes I do also agree that the PUR is in fact the most important value on top of everything said. Again the 150 DE's have the highest output of USEABLE radiation on a watt for watt basis combined from 400-550nm and 650-700 and in the right proportion. A major reason why its PPFD's overall score is so high. Even its CCT shows this spread. And most important factor is that BOTH the 150 and 250 DE AB bulbs have the closest natural spectral balance to the sun's. Which might be the most important factor of all. Hell the Germans have been using these bulbs for YEARS on end. They are just now starting to catch mainstream over here slowly.
Sponsor Reefs
We're a FREE website, and we exist because of hobbyists like YOU who help us run this community.
Click here to sponsor $10:
