Steve Tyree's chat the other night
 

How can you tell me that I alway try to copmapare iwasaki whith other? you did. I only try to show you that you are rong. in stating that a 150 will
blow away any 250 watt + comparing as you do a 150 whith a reflector to a 250 whitout on is comparing orange whith orange?

[quote]Originally posted by StirCrazy:

Quote:

Originally posted by DJ88: [qb] but the Ab bulb will still lay waist to any 250 watt bulb out there :D but, this is not the important thing. the fact is that a 150 watt AB DE bulbs seams to provide Iwasaki power with a 10000K color and that its effectiveness is some where between a 250 and a 400. Steve

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I have show you from the mouth of Sanjay that this is copletly false but you dont want to admit

As for HQI refering to DE HQI vs mogul a MH is completly false HQI is a trade mark from Sylvania
from bulb that are not even DE but mogul, but all europeen call there bulb HQI single ended or DE double ended. Same compagny DE or mogul are the same bulb but whith different socket DE are made for Europe home and comercial mogul are made for industrial That the only difference but most of the time american run mogul whith regular ballast and those bulb are not made for this they should be run whith the exacly same ballast that a DE.

as for the other 250w bulb like mogul sunburst, radium blue line and ALS you can not commpare them either because they are not true 10k but super blue bulb

the only other bulb that last are BLV Ushio and
Aqualine DE or mogul those are from the same class

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Do you have the anual 2002? I tink you should point your nose in those number are from there but you are right the AB was a mogul but it will be same result whit a DE
they are the same bulb

[ 08 June 2002, 08:27: Message edited by: stephane ]

Steve Tyree's chat the other night
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">yup this is true, HQI's can be had in either DE or SE and both use a HQI ballast.

(for the record HQI is a tradmarked name by Sylvaina, but I will use it to refer to all bulbs that use the same technology weather they are single ended or double ended as this is what the aquarium indistury is doing.)

Thats not the point though, both Ushio and AB make NON-HQI standard mogal MH bulbs and they were used in the tests also. if you look at the page I posted in my last post Steph the only two HQI bulbs tested were the Ushio 250 HQI and the AB 150. All the other AB and Ushio bulbs were everyday ordnary MH bulbs, the 400 watt Ushio and AB are a good example of this.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">ahh yes but they are advertizing as 10K are they not? if you want to say something is a 10K then you can compare it against other 10K's

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes I do Steph and there was no 250 HQI tested in there, I think you are being confused by the testing of a Aqualine 250 10000K and it being real close to a 250 watt Iwasaki. this bulbs is not a HQI but just a satandard MH bulb designed to run off a standard MH ballast.

Steve

Steve Tyree's chat the other night
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">This is where you are totaly wrong ushio mogul or DE is the same exact bulb but without UV shield and different socket they are the same exact inside technologie and made to run on the same exact ballast same as ALL europeen MH bulb HID HQI or what ever you want to call them

Aquarium compagny could tell you wathever you want to sell you someting please dont beleive whatever they said to sale you someting go on the ushio site and compare lumen from DE to mogul of the same watt and kelvin you will be very surprise my friend.

what have made the ting the more confuse is people have import mogul europen bulb and have put them right in there old fixture and ballast but without having matching the ballast. then they clame mogul bulb are not good, this in not the fact THEY ARE TO NUTS TO RUN THEM ON THE RIGHT BALLAST

Steve Tyree's chat the other night
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">This is where you are totaly wrong ushio mogul or DE is the same exact bulb but without UV shield and different socket they are the same exact inside technologie and made to run on the same exact ballast same as ALL europeen MH bulb HID HQI or what ever you want to call them

Aquarium compagny could tell you wathever you want to sell you someting please dont beleive whatever they said to sale you someting go on the ushio site and compare lumen from DE to mogul of the same watt and kelvin you will be very surprise my friend.

what have made the ting the more confuse is people have import mogul europen bulb and have put them right in there old fixture and ballast but without having matching the ballast. then they clame mogul bulb are not good, this in not the fact THEY ARE TO NUTS TO RUN THEM ON THE RIGHT BALLAST</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">YOU want to compare aple with aple Them compare identical spectre Those are mono cromatique bulb same exact spectre as the radium (who is in fact
not a 20k but a monochromatique blue bulb and definitivalie not made for aquarium bulb)

Aquarium compagnie put all kind of name to all kind of product just to made more profite on you
you just have to be brighter than them :D

Steve Tyree's chat the other night
 

ok this is gonan be a long one. Go away for a day and look what happens. :D

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Seems both sides do. I look at the numbers as I see them. The 150DE had a reflector the others didn't. Concidering that a reflector can give you up to 75% increase* in power(more in this case IMO since the reflector was built for this bulb) I don't see the 150DE laying waste to the Iwasaki 250W. It equals it. Or very close. The 400W 65KK lays waste to the 150WDE. Big time. With a reflector. This really needs to be reinforced. The 150W DE was tested with a reflector specifically built for that bulb. Enclose an Iwaskai in that style enclosure and I bet you'd be rethinking that thought. That enclosure also focuses the light emitted in a mich smaller beam pattern than a standard reflector. Apples and oranges are being compared. Well one orange to a bunch of apples. And that orange isn't as juicy as everyone seems to think. :rolleyes:

*This fact has been tested by Sanjay and he found that a good reflector will increase light emitted to a source by 50-75%. Fish and Marine annual 2002.

I think this pic says it all. 400W on the left 150W on the right. The intensity difference is obvious.
http://www.reefcentral.com/vbulletin...&postid=600337

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Where? How can you test a DE HQI in an identical fixture to a mogul? I follow lighting threads very closely and haven't seen this anywhere. Can you get this data for me? Thanks. Or do you mean the 250W HQI?

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">But you weren't doing this earlier. :confused:

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">One thing I didn't say which I now know I should have is that my camera did a HUGE adjustment to get that exposure with the Iwaskai so that shot looked equal to the 10KK. They are no where near similar. The exposure for the 10KK was 1/60th of a second where with the Iwasaki it was 1/250th of a second. I can't remember the F-stop but it was a lot higher for the Iwasaki. With my eyes I can say there is at least 2x's the light. Yes there is a color difference in the pics. But once again it is misleading because of the camera. With the slower exposure speed and lower Fstop used it has made the corals look like they are flourescing more as it is letting more light in to achieve a proper picture. When I had the bulbs running the 10KK was a bit whiter. But no diff in coloration. Honest.

One thing that needs to be said about EVERY photo online comparing tanks before and after is that unless the camera is set to the exact same settings for both shots the pictures will be and are decieving.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Hmm interesting combo Doug. I have a 400W ballast. Maybe this is the route I need to go. It is in essence what I want to do with the 6500K and the 50000K. Thanks for passing that on. [img]smile.gif[/img]

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I hear ya. I still don't mind paying, but woudln't mind a break if ya know what I mean.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">With lighting it is an approximation as to what the Kelvin is. Do you honestly believe the Iwasaki Aquas are 50000K? From what others have said they more closely resemble a 14000K. Even then they don't know if a 14000K is actually 14000K. All kelvin ratings for lighting, MH, fluorescent et. al. are an approximation. It is not exact. Due to the fact lights emit so many different levels and intensities of different wavelengths. 6500K's look yellowish white yet they are actually concidered a Green bulb. It is for this reason all kelvin ratings for bulbs are approximations. And are IMO misleading. Bulbs should be rated for colors by what the differnet peaks are with the differnet wavelengths. That is too difficult tho so we get kelvin ratings that are approximations. Anyways if I remember right the max you can go is about 35000K for a true black body temperature. I am going by memory tho. I'll try to find the physics site I had been reading a while ago that talks about highest black body temp.

With all of this another thing to concider with the Iwasaki is that they are being tested on balalsts made to run MH bulbs. The Iwasaki runs optimally on the MV(EYE) ballast. It is even whiter and more punch to it than I have now.

IMO all the comparisons are moot for the most part. More an more each day I realise this. Kind of like a light bulb turning on. ;) You can cut and paste all you want from the net or magazines. Extrapolate what you want or don't want from the info contained. All too often people misread this data anyways and only see what they want to see.

What it boils down to is this. If you find a combo that works. Go for it. Asthetically I like the Iwakasi but want to try a blue bulb instead of the actinics and VHO's. Nothing more. As an added bonus I will get a bit more PPFD with two more MH's than the VHO's and NO's I currently have. If this gives me more growth or color, fabulous. I'll be estatic. But in that event I can't sit and say that it is due to bulb A and bulb b. There are too many variables in these tanks. Water, food, etc etc. Light is only one part of the big equation. A part of the equation that has so many possible combinations that we can't say what is best or isn't best(for the most part). Peoples ideas of what is best or not is almost entirely dependant upon what the experts say. Steve Tyree feels that bule bulbs are what makes for a successful tnak. A few months ago no one was really interested in 20KK radiums. Now you can't find anyone who doesn't want to use em. lol ;) I can show you a 100+ gallon tank that is running only 175's and it is fabulous. Then find another tank that runs 400's and isn't quite as nice so on and so forth. Lighting is one part but no one light is the final answer.

Comparing one bulb made by one manufacturer to another made by someone else is once again. Apples to oranges. All that you really can compare is data you can accurately measure. ie. PPFD, Lumens, spectral analysis et al. Kelvin isn't something that can be compared. I have seen two different manufacturers 10KK's and they didn't look anything alike. Because they aren't. Kelvin ratings are approximations given by a manufacturer. Nothing more.

man my fingers hurt again. I need a beer. lol

[ 08 June 2002, 20:54: Message edited by: DJ88 ]

Steve Tyree's chat the other night
 

One thing I've mentioned when the lighting debate came up recently is that the manufacturers of bulbs change. What may be a quality bulb one year may not be the next. AB has switched a few times as has Coralife. I can't find my reference but it is somewhere on Fishnet and a point is made by Richard Harker that sums it up well.

As for prices, they are seeming to be a lot better. Enough so that I considered buying new MH ballasts so that I can switch bulbs if I want. But, the longevity of the Iwasaki is still one of it's best features. 109 bucks for over a year compared to $180 for 6-9 months. Basically the cost of the higher K bulb is $360. That is a lot of scratch per year.

Steve Tyree's chat the other night
 

This is RC tank of the month look what kind of light this guy have ;)

http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2002-06/totm/index.htm

Look the result I tink as a reefer have coral that color is the ultimate I have the saki and have good looking coral but no way compare to those :( Those pic result IMO worth a lot more than any magazine or scientific test. You dont need to be a scientist to know what you want and that what I want so bye bye saki hello radium :D

http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/20...yGrayPic31.JPG

http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/20...cyGrayPic5.JPG

http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2002-0...rayPic0top.jpg

[ 12 June 2002, 22:13: Message edited by: stephane ]

Steve Tyree's chat the other night
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">What about a radium the price of a saki and for her shelf Dr mac and other change them each 12 month + dont forget the save on all those fluorescent tube useless with those bulb!
;)

Steve Tyree's chat the other night
 

Stephane,

It is agreat looking tank and all. But you can't say that it is the bulbs and the bulbs alone that is getting the results that we are seeing in those pictures. I highly doubt it is the bulbs alone. Anyone who says coral growth and coloration is due to a bulb intensity and kelvin and nothing else is full of it IMO.

First off, there are too many factors in a reef tank to say for certain it is the bulbs. We can't do that. The more I think about this the more I think it has more to do with many things. And the end result of all the parts is a good looking tank.

Secondly,

Digital Cameras are decieving when it comes to reef tanks. They enhance certain colors and distort what the colors actually are. This is after years of digital photography. With a camera I can make almost any tank look spectacular for color and you wouldn't even notice or know I had done it. I'd say that 95% of all tank shots we see are digital or more. And every camera works differently. Enhancing certain colors, etc etc. I took shots of my tank with one camera, then with a different brand the same night. They looked like two coempetely different tanks due to the intensity of the colors in one of them. I will place money on the fact that some of the amazing colors you see in most reef tank pics are due to this happening.

Until someone can prove without a shadow of a doubt through testing waht bulb is the absolute best for coral coloration and growth all in one and can keep that bulb consistent in production from year to year for a long period of time then I will say go for it. This bulb is the be all to end all.

Until then.. nope.

The colors are enhanced with the 20000K bulbs, and the 10000K bulbs and that is it. They won't be visible, or barely visible(probably visible as they are naturally) with a proper full spectrum light that has a broad band even strength throughout the specturm to balance it out as white light. Not the peaks at violet, blue, green, red etc etc etc. Put a color under 400-470nm wavelength light and it flouresces and glows brighter then natural. That is all we are doing. Enhancing it.

Having all these fancy high kelvin bulbs is for our eyes only IMO. EYe candy as it were. Most guys see eye candy as a great looking woman. We see it as corals.. ;) There may be some benefit for having higer peaks at certain wavelengths but we don't know for sure. One expert says 400W MH is too much, another says it is barely enough. One says this bulb is best in a few months it will be another bulb. Not for purely scientific reasons but due to the fact he/she likes its look. Once again saying that it is the bulb alone doing miracles in a tank is a crock. It is the whole combination of lighting, water quality, water movement and feedings. If a person is cheap on one thing or doesn't do enough of one thing they aren't going to get the results that someone who puts the time, effort and necessary steps in does.

For example. Water quality is something you have to have for a successful reef tank. Whether that is by mechanical means(good skimmer) or natural means(large enough refugium or ATS). Along with water quality is stability. Having your water stay at the levels the corals need to grow properly is essential.

There are too many things to say that just one is doing it all.

I have seen great tanks with 250W & 400W 6500 Iwaskais, 400W 10000K's, 250W 10000K HQI's, 175W 10000K's. All different combinations. With those four combos alone you see that it isn't just one bulb that makes for a successful reef tank. It's a lot more things that that.

IMO the facy bulbs make the tank look pretty. SOme have enough energy to allow the corals to grow as well as look pretty. Some don't.

What is right? who knows. Find what you like. But don't say that this bulb will make your tank look like some of the tanks we see online nowadays. Cause it is more than just one bulb that will make or break your tank.

Steve Tyree's chat the other night
 

Personally I think the only way to really tell is to experiment on your own. We can read people's experiences but they're always anecdotal. We can read testing results such as Sanjay's but they're always theoretical. Now the theory behind the Radium sounds good. According to test they show a PPFD value almost comparable to Iwasaki. So growth should be OK. And they're blue, so colour for our esthetics should be OK. But really, the only way to tell for sure if you'll like 'em is to try 'em for yourself.

I was absolutely convinced that Iwasaki's were the way for me, based on what I've read over the years. Now that I finally have them ... I must say the one real disappointment I have is they really do not do reds any justice. I see fantastic reds under, say, 250W HQI 10000K and in my tank they're just a wee pink. So... once these Iwasakis are spent, in a year or whenever, I might give the radiums a very serious think. Since that will be an option somewhat affordable (comparatively speaking), because, while the HQI option sure looks nice, I definitely can't afford that unless I came into a lot of wealth (still waiting... :rolleyes: ). The radiums, at least they're mogul so more DIY options available and the bulbs seem only marginally more expensive than, say, Iwasaki. (Someone said $150? My Iwasaki's ran me about $100 each, well, hmm, maybe more like $90 each.)

[ 13 June 2002, 12:07: Message edited by: delphinus ]