hqi metal halide?????

[john f]

"And most important factor is that BOTH the 150 and 250 DE AB bulbs have the closest natural spectral balance to the sun's"

Why is this the most important thing?
I know most of our sps are collected in 3-10 feet of water, but is this the area of the reef they grow best?
And even at 10 feet the spectral quality has begun to shift in favor of blue light.
I think there could be some advantages to favoring the blue part of the spectrum over the natural(noon) spectrum at the water surface.
For one thing, micro algae utilize the higher wavelengths very well, and zooxanthellae prefer the lower 450-500 nm wavelengths. Yes, they can use the 550-700nm range as well. But it seems to me more light from 450-500nm and less light from 550-700nm favors coral growth over algae growth.
This is desirable to most reef aquarists I think.

A high PPFD or PAR reading can come from both a balanced spectral output or a narrow one.
I prefer the narrow output bulbs focusing their outputs in the 400-550nm range.
This is the primary reason the Radium bulbs get such low PPFD and PAR readings in tests like Sanjays, yet seem to grow corals quite well. (Steve Tyree, Dr Mac, etc)



John

 

[Ritteri&Bubbles]

Well then if your opinion seems to favor the 450-500nm wavelengths, then you should already know that the DE bulbs and the natural sun's spectrum are strongest in this area and taper off towards the higher nm spectrum.

Corals evolved over thousands of years to our sun's natural spectrum, so why not replicate the same thing in our own systems?? Granted I think that Radium bulbs are great. I used em for quite a bit myself and loved em. And I am actually still using them on the 150 DE(though the 20k DE's have a much better balance than the single ended 20k's) setup. But a monochromatic light output I still think isnt the best. I am sure that there are other benefits in our reef tanks besides the photosynthetic effect for corals that a properly ratio spectral bulb can give to enhance tank quality. But hey, this debate can and will go on for years still I am sure. :twisted: :wink:

 

[sanjay]

Hi,

Just thought I should respond this discussion, especially relating to the 250W and 150W DE 10KK lamps.

The 250W lamp was tested without any reflector, whereas the 150W was tested in the PFO mini hood. When testing these lamps without a reflector, the lamp is basically sticking out with absolutely nothing on top so no light emited from the top is reflected in the downward direction and almost none of that gets measured - since the test is performed an a room with walls painted dull black and really high celing. Since all the tests were performed in a similar manner, this allows direct comparison of the lamps against each other.

However, when a reflector (or in the case of the 150W the mini hood) is thrown in to the mix, the data cannot be easily extrapolated for comparison. To use 50-75% increase due to reflector is most likely not correct, since in the case of the mini hood most of the light was being reflected in a downward direction and hence being measured, and throwing off the comparison based on extrapolation of the data from the 250 tested in a very different manner.


A 250W DE tested in a similar hood will have more light output than a 150W, for lamps with similar spectral output. If someone is willing to send me a 250W hood and lamp I will test it and post the data.

sanjay.

 

[john f]

"Corals evolved over thousands of years to our sun's natural spectrum"

But this is not true in most cases.
Corals evolved over hundreds of millions of years to the light spectrum present at the depths available for colonization.
An acropora collected at 30 feet depth is certainly used to very little red/orange or yellow light. If you subjected this same coral to full spectrum light and intensity it would quickly die.
Clearly this coral has not evolved to handle full spectrum lighting.
In fact the highest diversity of corals does not occur at 3 ft depth.
The highest diversity occurs at 20-60 ft depth.
The light at these depths IS NOT full spectrum lighting.

The aquarium light that most closely matches natural spectral output is the Iwasaki 6500 K. The favorite bulb of Sanjay and the PAR lovers.
This bulb devotes exactly HALF of its light output to light in the red/orange, and yellow spectrum.
This is light that corals do not prefer.
The 10000K HQI bulbs are a little better, devoting only 45% of their output to the red/orange/yellow.
But this red/orange/yellow light is utilized VERY well by algae.

I am not trying to say the 10000k DE bulbs are crap, simply that to use PPFD or PAR to measure their usefulness in our aquaria is an incomplete measure.
Now if you want to simulate a reef crest environment of 1 meter depth, than the 6500K bulbs would be the best.
And you better buy a good wave generator.
I think a great deal of reefers are trying to simulate the forereef and back lagoon areas. They stock their tanks with a variety of hard and soft corals. These types of diverse coral environments do not receive full spectrum lighting in nature.



John

 

[Ritteri&Bubbles]

John F: I think you knew what my point was on the evolution comment. Of course its hundreds of millions of years.

As for the Iwasaki bulb having the closest natural curve to the sun. That is completely untrue. The suns natural spectral range is highest in the 450-500 region and gradually slowly decreses towards the 700nm region. THe Iwasaki bulb has large spikes in the the higher nm region which is not a natural spread. The 10k DE's have a much closer spread in this regard.



Sanjay: So please tell me what your thoughts are on thoese 2 tests you did. Your stated value on a 250 watt DE bulb without shield or reflector was about 128 PPFD.
The 150 with shield and reflector was 246. How much more do you think a 250 DE will give off??You yourself said a reflector adds about 50-75 percent of the value. And a UV shield will only subtract the numbers. From your own tests and words it cant be much more at all and may actually be less.

Sanjy, wouldnt you agree that watt for watt the 150 is the highest in PPFD??This is basically my whole argument to begin with, along with the most natural spectrum curve.
Also how about the spectral curve and PPFD of a 20k DE in both 250 and 150 watt versions?

Your own tests do dictate that. And maybe you can answer this question too. Which setup would give a higher PPFD output, 3x150 DE's or 2x250 DE's??

 

[john f]

It just seems to me R&B that your whole point is the 150 watt DE bulbs are just as good as most 400 watt MH bulbs.

You can't really believe that.

Again,
I have nothing against the 150 watt DEs watt for watt, but for about the same money one can have a 400 watt Radium HQI setup.
I know which one I would buy 8)


John

 

[JeremyR]

Personally I would pick the dual 250, because you are going to get deeper penetration with a more potent light source, unless you are still arguing that the 150 is brighter even after sanjay said it isn't.

The tank we ran the 2x250 hood on was a 75 mixed tank in our main coral system that has at one point had every type of coral in it. That SAME tank now has the 2x150 on it because I didn't like subjecting incoming softies to the 250w DE (some of them bleached), but this has yet to happen with the 150w DE setup. I sold the 2x250 to an SPS keeper. So it's the same system, the same water quality, the same equipment, etc.

The reason I wouldn't pick a 20k radium is the same reason I wouldn't pick anything 20k.. they all have less output than similar broad spectrum type lamps. If I was going to run a 400w lamp, it would be iwasaki or aqualine. We currently have running in the store a whole crapload of 10k 175's (aqualine and ushio), 250w iwasaki, 150w iwasaki on electronic ballast, 2 150w DE's, 250w aqualine mogul, 2 400w iwasakis, etc.. almost 20 in total. There is no way the 150w DE is better for high light stuff than the 400w 'sakis or the 250 DE's, I've ran enough lamps on enough tanks to figure this out.. but to each his own.

 

[Ritteri&Bubbles]

Yes, that is my point also. ANd I think that DE bulbs are far superior to single ended bulbs. In all respects.

1. Less energy consumption by a large margin
2. Higher PAR and PUR watt for watt
3. Bulbs last 18 months vs. 6-9 months for single ended 20k Radium(and I know this first hand using 10 and 20k's the last year and a half) and 10k Ushio bulbs, and are equal to Iwasaki's pretty much in longevity
4. Price per bulb, much cheaper per bulb coupled with longevity means you spend half as much on a yearly basis.

So John Buying a 400 watt HQI setup will cost roughly $150 for ballast,$120 for bulb,and say another $100 for DIY materials or $200-$300 for pre built pendant. So your looking at around $400-$600 roughly for a 400 watt Radium setup. Vs. $600-750 for a pair of full 150 watt DE units with 20k bulbs. So you save initially a few hundred bucks. But an extra hundred watts of continuous usage daily for 10 hour photoperiod will add up over a year or 2 and you will have already replaced the bulb once before I even hit the halfway mark on my bulbs. Plus add in the fact that my PPFD and PUR is now vastly superior to your single bulb setup, and so is my spread of light too.

After owning a 400 watt HQI 20k Radium setup personally I know this first hand. My electricity bill shot up considerable. I just got in my first electric bill yesterday since switching over to the smaller 150 DE's. I saved almost $35 bucks my first month. That adds up over time to alot of cash.

Jeremy: So I am still waiting for Sanjay's response to my last questions towards him. His first post was incomplete at best.Maybe you can email him again to get involved into this enjoyable debate!

And Jeremy you still have yet to answer this question. WHich do you think has a higher output and WHY? A 3x150 DE vs. a 2x250 DE. Lets even throw in another comparision. A 3x150 DE vs. a 2x250 DE vs. a 1x400 Iwasaki. Which has the OVERALL highest PAR,PUR, intensity,light spread? They all use about the same electricity(within 100 watts). SInce I know nobody will answer this question directly, I will, the 3x150 is the best in all aspects. It no doubt will have the highest PAR,PUR and best light spread etc. Jeremy, I bet if you add a third 150 DE on top of your 75g mixed tank you would get the same effect easily as the 2x250.

 

[Ritteri&Bubbles]

Also I wont argue anymore that a 250 isnt "brighter" to our eyes than a 150. Tom at www.inlandreef.com (a sponsor here on reefs.org) used a meter on both e 150 DE and a 250 DE. The 150 DE scored roughly 1150-1200 in the meter he used at 4 inches. The 250 DE(same brand bulb at 10k)at 4 inches scored around 1400 roughly. So it is "brighter, but no by much. So add a 2x250 at 1450 on his meter totals out to 2800. Now adding 3x1150(ill use the low mark on the 150 vs. the high mark on the 250)yields a total value 3450. SO 3 150 bulbs will be "brighter" to our eyes, and will penetrate farther into the water than a pair of 2x250's. And as stated earlier, the PUR,PAR with be also greater and will consume less electricity even in the long run.

 

[john f]

"the fact that my PPFD and PUR is now vastly superior to your single bulb setup"


Where are you getting the PUR numbers from?
I have not seen them posted anywhere.
Also, I'm not sure how you buy your lighting but I can DIY a 400 watt Radium HQI setup for $350. So for the $700 the twin 150 DE setup costs I could have twin 400 watt Radiums.
I KNOW you don't want to argue the twin 150 DEs will be brighter than twin 400 Radium HQIs.

I also noticed how you ignored my comments about PPFD and PAR and also about my comments on the wisdom(or lack of) duplicating natural sunlight spectrum for our aquariums.

BTW, I just measured the light 10 inches under my crappy 12000K 400 watt sunburst. Measures just off the scale on my SUB-LUX meter at 5000 foot candles. For what it's worth, I got around 4000 ft candles in the center of my greenhouse today. I live in Florida and it was 90 degrees today and sunny.



John

 

[Ritteri&Bubbles]

Actually I will argue that point that twin DE 150 HQI's are MUCH BRIGHTER than twin 400 HQI Radium's. In fact that is what I just switched from. My old setup consisted of a Dual PFO HQI 400 watt ballast, a pair of PFO MH/PC pendants utilizing a spider reflector and twin 32 watt PC actinics on each pendant. Totaling about 900 watts drawing almost 10 amps. Using a lux meter 4 inches below the light with the actinics on even I was getting a value of 850-875 solid per fixture. With a single DE HQI 150 I am getting a solid reading of 1150.

This whole argument to begin with was between the DE 250's and DE 150's. Now you're trying to add in a light that nowhere near as efficient watt for watt as the DE setup.
After switching to my 150 DE's I had to move ALL my sps corals to the very bottom of the tank as all corals were literally bleaching and closing up, and this with the fact that I cut down my photoperiod in HALF and had the tank lights raised up 6 extra inches over my previous pendants. Even my Ritteri moved DOWN the rock column, the first time it EVER moved in almost 2 years. THis being from an anemone that needs as much light as any SPS coral. Even the clams on the sandbed stayed partially closed for over 2 weeks.

So John, I posted my articles and proof and actual experiences, so why dont you back up your statements with real honest facts and refence points that we have acess too.

2 DE 150's will still blow the the roof off a pair of 400 watt single ended 20k bulbs in watt for watt comparison, and in PUR(the 400-550 and 650-700nm range)a 400 watt 20K scores about 87, the 150 10K DE scores at bit higher at 92 and still holds a more natural spectral balance overall, and even the DE 250 scores roughly the same as the 150 with a similiar spectral balance.Now add the fact that the 400 watt 20k radium is down almost 35 percent after less than 5 months use! Here is the link: http://www.animalnetwork.com/fish2/aqfm ... efault.asp So that $350 price inflates to an honest $650-$700 after 18 months as you will be on a potential 3rd bulb before I even buy my 2nd set in addition to added electric bill.How do I know? I already did this for 16 months, and went through alot of expensive bulbs in a short time! The HQI DE bulbs are well known to hold their PAR/PUR solid for 18 months. I was asked to post my articles and proof, and I did so. Again watt for watt the DE 150 is the best hands down. For MANY REASONS.

BTW the Celtics just won! Biggest comeback(26 total points)in NBA playoff history!

 

[esmithiii]

If you say watt for watt, then I may agree that 2 HQI DE 150s are as bright per watt than 2 400W bulbs. In other words, they may have more PAR per watt than the 400W bulbs. Total intensity, however I still can't believe that 1 150W HQI DE bulb is brighter than a 400W mogul, specifically the iwasaki bulbs. From what I have read, nothing under 1000W has more PAR than the 400W 6500K iwasaki. If I need 2 150W istead of a single 400W bulb, I am not interested. I live in TN and with TVA it would take a long time to make up the difference in initial outlay to double the number of bulbs in electricity savings. Not to mention the room in my canopy!

I have 3x400W Iwasaki 6500K bulbs supplimented with 4x96W true Actinic power compacts over my 180G tank. My corals are growing like crazy. I find it near impossible to believe that I could use 3x150W HQI DE bulbs and have the same intensity and growth.

Maybe I am missing something here.

Ernie

 

[Ritteri&Bubbles]

Esmithii: I never said that 1 single 150 watt DE bulb was brighter than 1 single 400 watt Iwasaki bulb. Inf act I will easily agree that 1 single 400 watt Iwasaki bulb would be much brighter. But I will state one more time that a single 150 watt DE bulb is brighter than a single 400 watt HQI 20k radium bulb. But for PAR value in the 2002 annual of Marine Fish and Reef the 10k Aqualine Bushke comes real close. It scores 246 with reflector and UV shield. THe Iwasaki scores a 173 bare(without reflector) but with it will probably score around 250-300 realistically I would say. And the 400 watt Iwasaki scores a very high 111 in the important PUR value vs. roughly 90 with a 10k DE bulb. So to be quite honest I will readily agree that 3 400 watt Iwasaki 39/41R bulbs on a MV ballast will be VERY BRIGHT! Thats 1200 watts. But using 4 150 watt DE fixtures you can still easily match the PAR/PUR on the Iwasaki bulbs and be using half the electricity. So in this case the extra savings on the electricity will even out on the extra cost for the DE bulbs(About $20 more per DE bulb over the Iwasaki)and both the Iwasaki and DE's last for the same time period roughly. So in this respect it may be personal preference. But I dont think your corals will grow any quicker with either a 4x150 DE or 3x400 Iwasaki setup.The Iwasaki tank would probably still be "brighter" to your own eyes but that has no direct bearing on the actual coral growth. It will be very close, and may come down to actual lighting color preference and intensity preference. Either way Im sure the corals will be happy!

 

[esmithiii]

But I will state one more time that a single 150 watt DE bulb is brighter than a single 400 watt HQI 20k radium bulb.

I don't know enough to agree or disagree. I know that they 20K radiums have substantially lower PAR values than the 6500K iwasakis.

I think this is excellent discussion, and would love to see some comprehensive/exhaustive comparitive testing of many different aspects of different bulbs/ballast combinations, including:

• PAR, PUR ratings for different bulb/ballast combinations
• Insensity ratings (Lux)
• Affects of using different reflectors
• Side-by-side color analysis
• Growth rates of certain corals
• Coloration of certain SPS corals
• Energy consumption
• Initial cost & maintanence cost
• Heat output
• Dimensions

A side-by-side study would be an incredible tool to help hobbiests determine best lighting for particular needs. Most items on the above list are easily quantifiable. Others may be more difficult. Still, I think that a comparison would be a good tool.

Ernie

 

[Ritteri&Bubbles]

Ernie: Yes it would be nice, until then we are all trying to make the best educated guesses possible. Though the information is slowly mounting thankfully.

 

[JeremyR]

Ok, a customer brought in an ultralife luxmeter and I went around the store testing all the various lights at 8" below the lamp. Here are the results.

150w med base mogul iwasaki 6500 on electronic ballast: ~19000 lux (less than one month old, PFO optimal reflector)

250w mogul iwasaki 6500 at 4 months: ~25000 lux (2 bulbs tested in PFO hood)

400w mogul iwasaki 6500 at 4 months: bulb 1 ~45000 lux, bulb 2 ~89000 lux. I've gotten 90000 lux readings on these before, bulb one is obviously defective as one of the 250's on sanjays study.

150w DE aqualine 10000 in AM starlight: bulb 1 ~30000 lux, bulb 2 ~33000 lux. 1 month old.

250w DE aqualine 10000 in AM starlight: bulb 1 ~56000 lux, bulb 2 ~86000 lux. New bulbs.

So what does this tell you? Here are my thoughts.

1. 1 bulb studies are meaningless. There can be a wide value range between bulbs of the same type and manufacture date.

2. If the 150w and 250w aqualine bulbs have a similar spectrum, and the 250w is giving off that much more lux in the same reflector, then it MUST be giving off more PAR. As sanjay said in his study, the 250w DE had nothing above it, so you lost half the light up that even a non-reflector cover would reflect some of down. I believe what he meant by the 50% better in a good reflector is vs. a non reflector hood, which still puts light down vs. his study bulb which did not. PLus who knows if that was a good bulb or not, as I had a wide variance in the 2 bulbs I tested, but even the lower reading blew away the 150w DE.

Take this for what it's worth.

 

[SPC]

Posted by Jeremy:
PLus who knows if that was a good bulb or not, as I had a wide variance in the 2 bulbs I tested, but even the lower reading blew away the 150w DE.

-Uh Huh :wink:
Steve

 

[Ritteri&Bubbles]

JeremyR: Has anyone told you that lux has no direct bearing with PUR/PPFD?

Your "Lux readings" i think show absolutely nothing to the full extent.


1. Bulb studies are NOT meaningless as they give us a solid foundation on the characteristics of bulbs properties and help consumers pick a bulb that will suit a better need for their tanks.

2. LUX does not translate directly to PPFD/PUR figures.

If the 150w and 250w aqualine bulbs have a similar spectrum, and the 250w is giving off that much more lux in the same reflector, then it MUST be giving off more PAR

My point, not true at all, its proven that "similiar spectrums" with large variance in LUX/output can still be very close in PUR values, and be within 10 percent of each other easily. And you left many details out so this speculation you posted is pretty much worthless still.

Jeremy when you or someone else has acess to a proper spectrometer and can do a direct batch of tests in 100% controlled environments then I sit up and take notice.

 

[Ritteri&Bubbles]

I will have to add this even Jeremy. On the Earths Equator the minimum and maximum "LUX" value is from 115,000 125,000 at midday per square meter on the oceans surface, with the yearly average about 75,000 LUX. With the daily average from sun up to sun down closer to around 50-60,000 LUX

So by your "lux" calculations at 8" above the waters surface a pair of 150 DE bulbs would actually give off a very close rendition of the suns irradiance. On tanks with dpeths of a meter or less(99 percent of the tanks used by hobbyists are less than a meter deep)it would almost seem that folks using Iwasaki and DE 250 watt bulbs are literally using too much light for the average aquariums with a maximum depth of 1 meter, which may show that more isnt always better(yet another argument). Now I dont think personally that 400 watt Iwasaki's are too much, but I think your own testing methods are highly flawed and I highly question the device used by yourself. Too many variables are being added, and I think the original argument here has been lost, but to each his own.

 

[JeremyR]

I said "1" bulb studies as in studies using only a single specimen of a type of bulb are meaningless. Any study on any subject using only a single specimen is meaningless. I didn't say "bulb studies are meaningless".

The only information you are using as a basis for your arguement is from sanjay, and sanjay says you are wrong and misusing the study data. You are like the only person arguing from your side.. and it's pretty obvious you aren't going to change your opinion.. which is all it is as you've never actually USED the other bulb in question and are comparing apples & oranges studies to back yourself up even after sanjay said you were wrong. Do you really believe that the PPFD of a bulb with the same spectrum but nearly 3 times the lux (or 2 times if you pick the lesser bulb) is only going to be 10% higher? I don't care if lux doesn't exactly translate to PPFD or PAR or PUR or whatever acronym you are using today, that statement is purely ludicrous. We are talking the same spectral characteristics, not 2 completely different spike patterns.

But untill someone bums sanjays equipment or sends him a bunch of bulbs and reflectors, I guess you are still gonna believe what you want to believe.. and this thread probably isn't going to progress any further. I think the horse is well beaten to death, and I'm going to let this one go from here on out.