[DJ88]

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

You are right, but the people that don't miss it tend to blow it out of proportion also

<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.

the 150 has been tested against a 250 in identical fixtures..

<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?

if you want to compare a 10K bulb... compare it against another 10K bulb.

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

when Darren posted his pic's of his tank with the iwasaki and the 10000K bulb on it I liked the 10000K bulb better, from the pictures there wasn't much difference in brightness but if you look closly his corals are floressing a little harder under the 10000K

<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.

I have always had a preference for the 12K flanked by a pair of 10K bulbs.

<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]

Gettin tired of paying through the nose for everything

<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.

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">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 ]