Lighting Website Updates - Page 18

Tunguska · #**426** 02/15/2006, 09:27 AM

Well, I'm using a Catalina Aquarium 10K bulb. My montipora are growing quickly, but some of the higher light stuff is just hanging on or slowly receding. All the colors are getting dimmer, regardless of growth. You get what you pay for, it seems.

Anyways, the whole setup cost me $60 -- bulb, ballast, DIY pendant... so I can't complain.

I don't have any pics of the nano, since I only manage to borrow a camera every now and then. I haven't had a chance since I set it up. A friend of mine took some pics right after set-up, but she never sent them to me. If I can make it to the frag swap, I'll have some pics of the DIY lighting and the nano on my phone.

hahnmeister · #**427** 02/16/2006, 02:16 PM

Antman, you asked for the 'bluest' bulb. When someone says this, I go directly to 14,000Ks. 14,000Ks have the largest blue/420nm spike of any bulb and sometimes little else. 20,000K bulbs are not the bluest, they are the most purple because besides the 420nm spike, they also have a huge 450nm purple spike. Often the only difference between a 20,000K and a 14,000K is this purple spike. If you look at the graphs of 250watt radium and a 250watt pheonix/aquaconnect, the only diff between them seems to be that the radium (connsidered by some to be the highest K bulb) has a larger 450nm spike. So quite literally, the pheonix/aquaconnect 14,000Ks are the 'bluest' bulbs out there. So I didnt mention any 20,000K bulbs like the XM and CV...they have more purple. If you were to ask for the bulb with the most purple, an Iwasaki 6500K would be in order.

So there are two interpretations of 'bluest'. The bulb that looks the bluest to you, or that might have the largest blue peak.

If what you want is a blue-looking bulb, then the radium classic blue would be that.

Antman · #**428** 02/16/2006, 03:25 PM

The Radiums are 20K thow NO ? Also I do not think they have a 175W lamp

hahnmeister · #**429** 02/16/2006, 03:29 PM

They have been rated as 38,000K by some. They have a good PAR however.

Antman · #**430** 02/16/2006, 03:36 PM

But do they make a 175W SE lamp ?

hahnmeister · #**431** 02/16/2006, 03:59 PM

Hmmm. No, I dont think so. They do list their 150s at 165watts however...I wonder if it wouldnt work anyways... They make a screw socket 150watt. Ewww, 175 watters...that gets tough.

The aquaconnect is still the bluest then...lol.

Sanjay, I need a suggestion. I would like to get an EVC 250watt e-ballast. I see one place listing it, but do you know of any other places to get it from? It seems to outperform the Icecap ballasts on every bulb its tested with, and even outperforms the M80 on some bulbs.

Travis · #**432** 02/16/2006, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Antman
The Radiums are 20K thow NO ?

The kelvin ratings that lamp manufacturers put on their lamps are simply a generalization that the company uses to convey to the user what color to expect from the bulb. You cannot accept these numbers as fact, however.

For example, the XM 10k is labeled a 10k bulb. But when I plug it into sanjay's spectral plot with a M58 ballast, the true CCT 12000k. So this is actually a 12k bulb that is marketed as a 10k.

If you want a good idea of how a bulb will look, you need to plug the bulb and ballast combination into the spectral plot form on Sanjay's site and look at the graph and also the CCT. Lower CCT numbers correlate to a more yellow looking bulb, while higher CCT numbers correlate to a bluer looking bulb. Unfortunately, a lot of the 14k and 20k bulbs come up as NA for the CCT as they out of range for the instrument used.

edwadd · #**433** 02/16/2006, 05:52 PM

Only problem is I dont know anyone who thinks xm on m-58 is really 12000cct. I started a thread on this and almost every one complained how yellow xm was. I asked and asked and no one agreed with the 12000# as far as bulb appearance, unless of course 12000cct looks yellow.

Travis · #**434** 02/16/2006, 09:21 PM

That is the bulb/ballast combination I'm currently running and I don't see any yellow. But everyone's opinion of bulb color is going to be different.

hahnmeister · #**435** 02/17/2006, 12:46 AM

K ratings are relative. They are some sort of average it seems, so two bulbs with similar K ratings could have wildly varying peaks throughout the spectrum.

MARSHALL MANN · #**436** 02/17/2006, 01:45 AM

with my experience
the xm 400 watt 10K moguls on a electronic ballast look yellow without a doubt

im running aprox. 9000 watts on different systems and i must say its hard to find a nice bulb for the money in mogul lamps.

has anyone tried any of the geismen 14k mogul bulbs ?
and over what type of corals and with what results

one more question
i will be lighting my 300 starphire and aquascaping soon
for this tank i will do de hqi and keeping primarily clams montis and table acros

i will be using 400 watt pfo hqi ballasts since i already have them

what do you think is a nice choice for bulbs
like everyone else i want a nice blue look but want to keep a high par

MM

Urabggr · #**437** 02/18/2006, 12:31 PM

Any recent info on a 250w version of the 14k Iwasakis? Right now I have 14k unsupplemented EVC's and I plan on changing to either the 10k EVC's or the 14k Iwasakis (if they're out by decemberish). I want to avoid using supplements, but still want colors to pop. Also, I think the 14k EVC's are too blue for my taste... I guess i like more of a crisp white look. So which would be better... the 10k EVC's or the 14k Iwasakis (if they are even going to come out)? SE bulbs btw.

H20Sidhe · #**438** 02/27/2006, 07:42 PM

Hi there,

Sanjay, I too thank you very much for all your hard work. I have learned alot from reading your articles. I look forward to seeing you at the WMC in April.

I have 2 questions, and I have read all 18 pages of this thread TWICE to be sure the answers aren't here - if I missed them I apologize heartily! (and I have learned even more from reading this - thanks all)

Question # 1, when I read about the lamp & ballast statistics on your webpage, I start with efficiency (PPFD/watt). then I go to spectral plot. Thge highest efficiency I have found so far is 54% achieved with a 150/175 w electronic ballast you have listed as "LampsNow". When I google LampsNow, I get the hellolights webpage with a 150/175w electronic ballast made by ARO. Is this the same ballast?

Question #2, on page 11 of this thread you have a nice graph of "PPFD of all lamp ballast combinations". The vertical axis is labelled PPFD. The horizontal axis is not labelled, but is marked off in increments of 10. Is this month of use, inches from light source, or some other variable entirely?

Thanks,

Sherie

pvtschultz · #**439** 02/27/2006, 09:05 PM

Lamps now is now known as hello lights.

The horizontal should be wave length.

armygreen11 · #**440** 02/27/2006, 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by pvtschultz

The horizontal should be wave length.

Wavelength is already a factor of PPFD since it's the measure of light energy in the 400-700nm range, so it can't be wavelength. Besides, the scale goes from 0 to 60. My guess is that it's just the combination number... For 400W SE 10000K bulbs, it looks like there are 52 plotted points, like he used 4 different 400W ballasts, and 13 different 10000K SE bulbs. Just a guess though.

H20Sidhe did mention that it could be months of use, and while I don't think that that graph showed anything related to time, I personally WOULD still really like to see some plots of how certain bulb/ballast combintations change their spectral output over time (say the course of a year....)

H20Sidhe · #**441** 02/27/2006, 10:51 PM

Wavelength!
OK, Please help me understand this - wavelength should be measured from 400 to 700nm (or 310 to 850). The horizontal axis on the graph I referred to on page 11 of this thread is 0 to 60 in increments of 10. Are you sure this is supposed to be wavelength? What is the conversion factor?

armygreen11 · #**442** 02/27/2006, 11:14 PM

See my last post....

H20Sidhe · #**443** 02/27/2006, 11:28 PM

I like that guess - except that when I look at the performance data on his website, for 400w he used 4 types of ballasts, and for electronic ballasts alone, he tested 5 different brands, and for the Blueline ballast alone he tested 25 individual bulbs. This would have generated mora than 52 data points for 400w combinations.

Sanjay · #**444** 02/28/2006, 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by H20Sidhe
Hi there,

Sanjay, I too thank you very much for all your hard work. I have learned alot from reading your articles. I look forward to seeing you at the WMC in April.

I have 2 questions, and I have read all 18 pages of this thread TWICE to be sure the answers aren't here - if I missed them I apologize heartily! (and I have learned even more from reading this - thanks all)

Question # 1, when I read about the lamp & ballast statistics on your webpage, I start with efficiency (PPFD/watt). then I go to spectral plot. Thge highest efficiency I have found so far is 54% achieved with a 150/175 w electronic ballast you have listed as "LampsNow". When I google LampsNow, I get the hellolights webpage with a 150/175w electronic ballast made by ARO. Is this the same ballast?

Question #2, on page 11 of this thread you have a nice graph of "PPFD of all lamp ballast combinations". The vertical axis is labelled PPFD. The horizontal axis is not labelled, but is marked off in increments of 10. Is this month of use, inches from light source, or some other variable entirely?

Thanks,

Sherie

Sherie

Lampsnow is now Hellolights. The ARO ballast is most likely the same one.

The horisontal axis in this case is meaningless. In fact if you want to know what it is - it's the id # assigned to the lamp#ballast# combo in that category. The data shows all the lamp ballast combos that I had tested until that point, so all the PPFD readings are at 18". The main reason behind that plot was to show that there are wide ranges withing a lamp category, and often considerable overlap in PPFD among lamps of different wattages.

I usually tell peple that if you choose a lamp with a PPFD of 100 (unshielded) or 80 (shielded) and have a good reflector system you will be fine with SPS and clams in a 24" deep tank. Again this is just a good rule of thumb.

sanjay.

armygreen11 · #**445** 02/28/2006, 10:02 AM

Guess I was right then.

H20Sidhe · #**446** 02/28/2006, 06:55 PM

Guess you were!

Sherie

TheMoneyPit · #**447** 03/17/2006, 06:27 PM

Sanjay,
What bulbs do you use on your tank? What bulbs do you recommend? I have a sps tank with 400 watt metal halides and I'm using Lumenarc III reflectors and prefer 10Ks. Thanks for your help and I apologize if this question has been asked and answered already. I admit I only skimmed through the thread.

szeth13 · #**448** 03/22/2006, 06:08 PM

what ballast would be comparable (that you test with and offer results with) with the ballasts that come with the aqua medic oceal light pendants? and in your opinion, what bulb has the best par that would be white on this ballast?

szeth13 · #**449** 03/22/2006, 06:11 PM

i forgot to mention that its a 250 watt DE fixture

Sanjay · #**450** 03/22/2006, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by TheMoneyPit
Sanjay,
What bulbs do you use on your tank? What bulbs do you recommend? I have a sps tank with 400 watt metal halides and I'm using Lumenarc III reflectors and prefer 10Ks. Thanks for your help and I apologize if this question has been asked and answered already. I admit I only skimmed through the thread.

I personally look for value ( Performance - cost). So I have used the EVC lamps on the Penn State tank and recently put in XM 10ks. You also have to remember that I am often experimenting with lamps - I ran the 4 EVC for over a year, and collected data on them by testing every few months. Am doing the same with the XMs.

I liked the look of the tank with the EVC as well as the XM

sanjay.