Canreef Aquatics Bulletin Board  

Go Back   Canreef Aquatics Bulletin Board > General > Reef

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-17-2010, 06:43 PM
fkshiu's Avatar
fkshiu fkshiu is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 1,499
fkshiu is on a distinguished road
Default

Joe, it depends on what you want your tank to be. I get fine coverage and grow all sorts of high light stuff with 2x175W Vertex electronics running Iwasaki 15Ks under Lumenmax pendants. PPFD per watt, this is the most efficient set up according to Sanjay's figures using less electricity than 150W HQI system but putting out more PAR than some 250W systems:

http://www.canreef.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=59449

Understand that I have a mixed reef with lower light creatures too and my tank is on the shallow side for a 6-footer. Looks wise no one has ever noticed any dim spots. If you want a full out SPS garden, however, going with three 250W pendants is the better choice. You start getting diminshing rates of return once you hit 400W territory.

You can have a closer look when you come by for you macro later this week.

Last edited by fkshiu; 11-17-2010 at 08:15 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-17-2010, 08:12 PM
Myka's Avatar
Myka Myka is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Saskatoon, SK.
Posts: 11,268
Myka will become famous soon enough
Default

Those Iwasaki bulbs on electronic ballasts are a PAR breaker...not typical! You can't get the same PAR using different bulbs on that ballast. As long as someone is happy to commit to that one single bulb, that's a great choice! Pricey bulb though...
__________________
~ Mindy

SPS fanatic.

Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-17-2010, 05:41 PM
Myka's Avatar
Myka Myka is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Saskatoon, SK.
Posts: 11,268
Myka will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by plutoniumJoe View Post
What I am reading in the article though states that you get more light for less power out of two 400 vs 3 @ 250.
Keeping in mind I didn't even glance at the article, what I think they mean is that you get more intensity out of the 400w bulbs than you do out of the 250w bulbs. You use 50 watts more using 2x400w than 3x250w, but the intensity you get out of the 400w bulbs makes up for that. So essentially if you get more intensity for close to the same amount of electricity, the efficiency is greater using the 400w bulbs.

Having said that, I still think you're better off keeping 3x250w over a 6' tank unless you get some sort of custom reflector for 2x400w that spreads the light over the 6' length, but doesn't spread it past the width of the tank. Now that would be interesting...
__________________
~ Mindy

SPS fanatic.


Last edited by Myka; 11-17-2010 at 05:44 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-17-2010, 05:57 PM
lastlight's Avatar
lastlight lastlight is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Calgary
Posts: 6,997
lastlight has a spectacular aura aboutlastlight has a spectacular aura aboutlastlight has a spectacular aura about
Default

Sorry I wasn't thinking specific ballast data you used generic numbers so I thought I was missing something. My radium is a 250w and burns at around 333w so I fully get that. I always thought the e-ballast would use a little less. For example my same Radium on icecap uses 244W. Not sure if this was the old or newer icecap but I didn't think any e-ballasts overdrove bulbs.
__________________
Brett
My 67 392 225 101 94 34 97 404 28 93 209 gallon reef.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:36 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.