175-watt MH

CoralKing · #1 02/08/2007, 12:23 PM

I currently run (2) 175 10K bulbs and am thinking of upgrading to (2) 250's. Is there a significant difference?

BurntOutReefer · #2 02/08/2007, 12:44 PM

the real question would be why? What is the reason for the upgrade?

CoralKing · #3 02/08/2007, 01:23 PM

I keep mostly sps, which are doing fine under the 175's - It seems like most people keeping sps are using 250's or 400 watt bulbs.

BurntOutReefer · #4 02/08/2007, 01:45 PM

IMO....if it is working for you then why change...unless you're looking for greater growth /color etc....then maybe its just easier to change the K rating on your bulb....
Just my .2 cents

gcarroll · #5 02/08/2007, 01:46 PM

If you are running electronic ballast, I would strongly advise you to consider the 175 watt Iwasaki Aqua2 14K. The bulb is as bright as many 250 watt 10K.

Toddrtrex · #6 02/08/2007, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by gcarroll
If you are running electronic ballast, I would strongly advise you to consider the 175 watt Iwasaki Aqua2 14K. The bulb is as bright as many 250 watt 10K.

I concur, I have a pair of those over my 58g, and love them.

CoralKing · #7 02/08/2007, 03:05 PM

I don't currently have electronic ballasts. Would it be worth it to upgrade my 175 watt ballast to a 175 watt electronic ballast? It seems that the price difference between a 175 and 250 watt electronic ballast is very small.

Toddrtrex · #8 02/08/2007, 03:07 PM

I can't fully answer that, since I only had those bulbs on an E-ballast.
But, I can say, that I have having zero issues growing anything with my current setup (of course there is more factors than just the lights) All my SPS show great growth and color, and my purple LTA look wonderful under those lights.

BurntOutReefer · #9 02/08/2007, 03:32 PM

I have magnetic ballast running XM 10K....(albeit 400W).....
looks great and great growth....I think the XM 10 or 14K would be good for your system.....

raynist · #10 02/08/2007, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by CoralKing
I don't currently have electronic ballasts. Would it be worth it to upgrade my 175 watt ballast to a 175 watt electronic ballast? It seems that the price difference between a 175 and 250 watt electronic ballast is very small.

You could still use the Iwasaki Bulbs with the Magnetic ballast (I think). It will still put out a lot more PAR than you have now.

gcarroll · #11 02/08/2007, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by raynist
You could still use the Iwasaki Bulbs with the Magnetic ballast (I think). It will still put out a lot more PAR than you have now.

Yep but 20-25% more with the electronic ballast.

DrBDC · #12 02/09/2007, 07:15 AM

Those bulbs are awesome. I upgraded my tank and decided to upgrade the light too. I had to go to 400's to get any par increase worthwhile of an upgrade. The 175 Iwasaki's put out mroe than about half of the 250's.

CoralKing · #13 02/09/2007, 10:50 AM

I currently run (2) 10K 175 watt XM bulbs. Would the Iwasakis still put out more par if I run them on my magnetic ballasts?

DrBDC · #14 02/09/2007, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by CoralKing
I currently run (2) 10K 175 watt XM bulbs. Would the Iwasakis still put out more par if I run them on my magnetic ballasts?

You are currently getting a cct of 10,179 with a ppfd of 62. With the Iwasaki you'll get cct of 15,215 and a ppfd of 71.

I'm not sure they make a bulb in 250 and the 15,000K range that would be that high.

CoralKing · #15 02/09/2007, 11:16 AM

Thanks for that info, DrBDC - are those figures for an electronic ballast or a magnetic ballast?

DrBDC · #16 02/09/2007, 11:39 AM

That's for a M57 magnetic ballast. With an ARO electronic from hellolights it is 86 ppfd and 13,794. With an Icecap it is 86 and 14,565.