good comparason info on bulbs - Page 2

stephane · #11 05-28-2002, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by StirCrazy:
Stephan, you posted this on the other thread and the Germans said they use this bulbs for SPS on up to 24" deep tanks did you miss that? or do you not believe the Germans over the French? :D

That pic is not really a good one as the 150 is in an inferior pendant. If you look at the other pic they are in identical pendants.

Besides I am only comparing them to a 250watt bulb here... so don't turn this thread into a RC argument... I have not claimed here that the AB is a good of lights and everything I have posted has been factual and standardized... not the result of a half assed visual light test with to totaly different fixtures / reflectors. Personally I don't care what anyone uses for lights I just thought people would want to see some hard and fast #'s that were collected in a scientific and standardized method.

Steve

in FACT this is what they say so dont turn it to your advantage OK

i have to agree with much of Stephane's comments. Here in Europe the 150w DE lamps would be looked upon as softie tank. 250W for mixed or SPS corals.

I have run 150w DE Arcadia 10k in the past and got good colouration out of Pocillipora damicornis and a Seriatopora hystrix, most Acropora sp. were healthy and grew but no great colouration. On upgrading to 250w DE BLV 10k I have had excellent colouration of Acropora in my current tank although I was dissapointed that the size of the reflector in the Arcadia (similar to AB/Giesseman etc) was small so the tank only had on really bright spot with rapid drop off of light near the edges of the tank.

Now, I have just upgraded to 400w mogul BLV 10k for my new tank. First, I would like to say these lights are crisp white just like my 250w BLV DE 10k unlike some reports in the US of them been yellow. Secondly, I have measured PAR with my Apogee PAR meter and the 400w are putting out around 1.6x as much light as the 250w at 175cm from centre of the bulb. I am waiting for them to burn in the same amount of time as I did the 250w before taking any measurments to list.

I have never tried any of the US metal halide bulbs as all our European bulbs require ballast with ignitor which are cheaply and easily available.

stephane · #12 05-28-2002, 12:11 PM

Stir I could show you a lot more of similar europeen tread if you want
I reply here only because I dont want other to jump in the same bandwagon than you because I care about other but if you want to buy the 150 go for it man this is you money and reef

by the way you said on the other post:

Quote:

personally I think dsb1829 original post should never have been made, how can you compare PAR from how much a bulb lights up a table

but you do exacly the same as him here so him very confuse here?

Troy F · #13 05-28-2002, 12:14 PM

Quote:

I am wondering because if it is even only close to the 250 wattt iwasaki instead of the 400 watt like the AB version for 10 bucks mor eit would be worth it to have the 10000K colour temp.

I'm sure you're aware of this but don't forget to take bulb life in when comparing costs. This is where the Iwasaki really takes the lead IMO.

Of course to every point there is a counterpoint [img]smile.gif[/img] .

DaleD had a 175W 10000K AB bulb over a LPS and softie tank that had been on there for I think 18 months with no signs of problematic microalgae. Chime in Dale if you happen to be reading.

stephane · #14 05-28-2002, 12:16 PM

And if you tink a 150 AB will beat a 250 iwasaki
this what I tink

I am French and have read a lot from french board in europe
and there no way you could grow any hight light demand on a
AB 150 HQI in fact they recomend this bulb for SOFTY you dont realy need to be scientific to know this only talk french those guy
run the AB for many years so I tink they know them a lot better than any of us! this not science this THE FACT !!!!!!!!

Anyway Comparing an iwasaki 400 or even a 250 whith an 150 watt 10k is completly usless and you dont need to be a rocket scientist to know that you only need to be a litle bright

the AB is on the market for more than 10 years (im not shure exact time but long time ) just tink about this and if a compagny have found a 150 that light like a 400 all other would have copy it long time ago!! not only for aquarium but all other MH aplication

Troy F · #15 05-28-2002, 12:53 PM

Quote:

the AB is on the market for more than 10 years (im not shure exact time but long time ) just tink about this and if a compagny have found a 150 that light like a 400 all other would have copy it long time ago!! not only for aquarium but all other MH aplication

Hasn't the actual manufacturer of AB changed quite a few times? I believe there is information on Fishnet from either Dana or Richard that confirms this.

Delphinus · #16 05-28-2002, 01:23 PM

Just throwing my $0.02 into the hat here ...

Over my 20g tank I have a Hamilton 10000K 175W, that I bought in November 1999. It hasn't been used all the time since then so it's not a full 2.5 years of use however it is probably fair to say that it has >18 months at either 10 hours per day or 12 hours per day. No nuisance algaes yet! And the softies are fine under this bulb however there is NO coloration on the one remaining SPS in this tank (unless you count brown as a colour :D )

For a period of time I had the 250W Iwasaki (non-R) over this tank. I switched back to the 175W because of heat issues, mostly.

But I don't like the smaller intensity now that I once had the 250W Iwasaki over it. You get spoiled, you know.. [img]smile.gif[/img] So what I want to do next for this tank is try the 150W DE 10000K. I know I won't get the same intensity as the 250W Iwasaki, but what I AM hoping for is a moderate improvement in intensity over my old 175W, but at a slightly smaller power draw. The long-term goal of this tank is really just a species tank for my green carpet and a few small softeys. I think this is a PERFECT application for the 150W DE bulb. This is, of course, me talking without having TRIED it, so, it is possible that one year from now I have a very different opinion. We shall see.

The only thing is, it is a rather expensive option. Most people I have talked to have tried to talk me out of this idea for my 20g based purely on the cost. And they might still succeed, I haven't yet bought the bulb or pendent yet. Maybe I'll just end up using my 150W e-ballast on the Iwasaki 150W blue bulb, and try that one on for size instead... I don't know yet.

stephane · #17 05-28-2002, 03:05 PM

delphinus

I dont want to discourage you of buying it because from what I have read it is a good bulb
but I only aware people from tinking that they are as bright as an Iwasaki 250 or 400

as far as what coral need what intensity its your to decide do we need the intensity of those monster?
I dont know for shure since some grow coral even under fluo and I do it in the past but if we dont need intensity why just bug buying 180$ MH bulb when you could do it whith VHO or PC smaller tank ?

Delphinus · #18 05-28-2002, 05:01 PM

Yikes! :eek: At $180 per bulb, the idea is COMPLETELY unattractive. I was hoping that when the time came, I'd be able to do better. But maybe not. I haven't started looking for a bulb yet, since I have too many other projects to finish first. But if it's almost $200 per SINGLE bulb .... indeed, a person is far better off just to go 250W Iwasaki at that point. The extra $$$ in the power bill isn't going to offset the extra $$$ in the purchase of the smaller bulb.

StirCrazy · #19 05-28-2002, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by stephane:
if you want to buy the 150 go for it man this is you money and reef

Stephan, I never said once that I was going to buy the 150 watt HQI, the AB is the only one I would buy and at 180.00 it is too much I think.

Quote:

by the way you said on the other post:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />personally I think dsb1829 original post should never have been made, how can you compare PAR from how much a bulb lights up a table

but you do exacly the same as him here so him very confuse here?[/QB]<hr /></blockquote>I wasn't comparing PAR here the only reason I posted that pic is because they were in the same brand of pendants so it kinds will show the brightness, but that is it... you can not measure PAR, and I never claimed you could, by looking at how bright it is.

Anyways I was not trying to confuse anyone and due to some idiots on RC getting banned and all there posts being deleted the one I was referring to is no longer available. The one Stephan posted isn't the one I was talking about.

Having said that, it never seams to amaze me on how people automatically condemn something and refuse to believe specs that have been tested and posted for information. Now I know how Darwin must have felt when he tried to introduce the theory of evaluation :D anyways I started off just posting some factual numbers, not to say "Troy your lights suck you better go out and buy HQI", or "Brad you are wasting power with those 400 watt bulbs you need 150 watt ones they are just as good" (just examples guys I am not serious about these :D )Heck I am not even saying your setup is wrong Stephan, and no one has, so why are you so against people posting factual numbers but rather to help people like myself, who are looking for lights, sort through all the myth and legends.

Everyone is defending Iwasaki's... did I once say they were inferior? No... Hell in the 250 tests the iwasaki and the HQI were the top of the barrel. Remember Iwasaki is not a normal MH bulb, if you look at the data it is over twice the PAR of any other MH bulb except the AB mogul MH and the 250 HQI, so why isn't anyone bashing the Iwasaki... you can beleive it could be that powerfull can you? And if you can... why do you refuse to beleive that there could be one brand of DE HQI that has more output than the others? Hmmm sounds like the Iwasaki story doesn’t it.

I guess everyone is scared of change, heck there were even huge arguments about DSB's (and still are) even thought they have been proven to work.

Personally I applaud anyone who goes out of the way to provide a controlled and factual test and then make the result known for everyone to see, there should be more of this and maybe we can all stop spending money of stuff we don't need.

Hmmm Darren, maybe you better not test any Icecap ballasts, no one will believe you anyways :D :D

Steve

Son Of Skyline · #20 05-28-2002, 11:22 PM

[quote]Originally posted by StirCrazy:

Quote:

Having said that, it never seams to amaze me on how people automatically condemn something and refuse to believe specs that have been tested and posted for information...
I guess everyone is scared of change, heck there were even huge arguments about DSB's (and still are) even thought they have been proven to work.

Personally I applaud anyone who goes out of the way to provide a controlled and factual test and then make the result known for everyone to see, there should be more of this and maybe we can all stop spending money of stuff we don't need.

Hmmm Darren, maybe you better not test any Icecap ballasts, no one will believe you anyways :D :D

Steve

Well said Steve. Personally, I thought that the initial picture posted with the 400w vs 150w DE next to each other was the best comparison pic I've ever seen. Simple, to the point, and accurate in terms of photo quality and consistency. I don't like to go by numbers, seeing the actual intensities side by side was a real eye opener.