|
|
|
|
#76
10/18/2003, 10:40 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
right now I have the XM10K burning in on the main tank. It's in the middle of two Ushios. It looks to be brighter than the ushio, but I'm not sure if it looks bluer. The ushio next to the XM10k look to be bluer than the XM10K. I'm not sure if the XM10K is brighter or more yellow. It doesn't look yellow, but the ushio definately look more blue now.
It's only been on the tank for about 2 days so it still needs to burn in alot. But that's what it looks like now.
__________________
-Joe |
|
#78
10/18/2003, 04:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
JB NY:
Outstanding work to say the least. You are going to put to rest so many misconceptions about bulbs and looks to rest all at once. As Kevin suggested, jumping to the 400 watt bulbs would be the ultimate. Especially since they are seen by many as the ultimate MH lighting for reef tanks. And yes, trust me when I say I can see this is time consuming as heck. At the end of it, you can feel very satisfied to know that you as a single individual put out more true information about our current MH lighting than just about anyone else. This is certainly going to be a MH manual to many for a long time to come.
__________________
Arguing with ignorant people is an exercise in futility. They will bring you down to their level and once there they will beat you with their overwhelming experience. |
|
#79
10/18/2003, 10:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Perry is correct about the wattage/power consumption.
The wattage posted by Joe includes ballast losses (ballast+lamp wattage). Here is power usage for each 250W ballast: PFO Standard Magnetic: 285-295W (Average) (Wattage rating from ballast manufacturers specifications) Coralvue: 260W (Wattage rating from www.coralvue.com) Icecap: 255W (Wattage rating from IceCap Inc.) It actually looks like none of those ballasts are overdriving the lamps. The best way to see if a ballast is operating a lamp to spec or not is to measure the ballast output (what the ballast is feeding the lamp) while the lamp is operating. Hope that helps |
|
#80
10/18/2003, 10:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
This is by-far the best bulb comparison thread I have ever seen.
JB NY, 2 very big thumbs up to you bud. Now you just have to get those AB's... 
__________________
Some people are like Slinkies... not really good for anything, but you still can't help but smile when you see one tumble down the stairs. |
|
#81
10/18/2003, 10:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Thanks 
|
|
#84
10/20/2003, 07:09 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hi Joe,
I have been selling Metal Halide bulbs on ebay for the last few months under the user id sunaquatics (with a 100% feedback rating). I have heard some really good feedback from people who bought these lamps. Since you seem to be doing an unbiased review of the product I'll be interested in sending you a bulb for your testing free of charge. Will it be possible for you to include this bulb in your comparison, you can call them them the "The sun", for the time being as I am yet to decide a brand name. The results of the these tests on different ballast will be of inererest to me and others alike. Since these bulbs are almost 1/2 the price of the lowest priced bulb in your comparison, I am sure the members will be benefited from these tests. Thanks Venki Worathur |
|
#85
10/20/2003, 08:14 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Venkiw,
Will you be sending your 10k and new 13k's that you will eventually be selling? I'd be very interested in seeing the comparisons done by JB NY. JB NY, I've heard nothing but great things regarding Venkiw's bulbs. I know several people who have tried these bulbs, and are really excited by their quality, color, brightness, and price. It would definately be of benefit to many people to see these bulbs tested alongside the others.
__________________
Some people are like Slinkies... not really good for anything, but you still can't help but smile when you see one tumble down the stairs. |
|
#86
10/20/2003, 08:23 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hi Tang_man_montreeal,
The 13K have not been successful in my evaluation for one reason the CRI of these bulbs are coming at 65% as aginst 90% plus for the 10Ks even though the CCT is 13,000K, I am not happy about them as yet, so I have asked for additional research before introducing the 13K lamps. If anyone has the CRI for PFO 13K lamp, I'll be interested in knowing it as well, as I am not sure if this is common phenomenon. I can send the 250 Watts 10K for comparison if JB NY decided to include them in the comparison. Venki Worathur |
|
#88
10/20/2003, 09:40 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Maybe I'm confused on this issue, but isn't CRI a color index that relates how true to natural sunlight our eyes see the light? I have always been under the assumption that as you go up in Kelvin ratings that CRI has a tendancy to go down, probably because of the increased "blue" spectrum in relation to the over all color balance. If one is looking at using a specific bulb without any other lighting to balance and add specific wavelengths this might be more of an issue. Just because a bulb has a low CRI doesn't mean it does not have appropriate uses?
__________________
Rick " Just Because I'm not afraid to voice my opinion, doesn't mean you should take it as gospel.....I really don't want the responsability ;-) " |
|
#89
10/20/2003, 09:55 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thats exactly the reason I am interested in finding about other 13K bulbs. My 13K bulbs which are in development phase have a solid spike in the blue spectrum, and peaks in Yellow and Green, the others colors are subdued.
|
|
#90
10/20/2003, 10:54 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Nice work. Is this the older 250 IceCap ballast or the newer 250 HQI IceCap ballast? Thanks. EDIT: Never mind. Found the answer on page 3 which is YES, it is an HQI ballast. 
|
|
#92
10/21/2003, 07:32 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hey Joe...I may have missed something but where did the PAR numbers on the CoralVue web site come from. Did you post them on RC?
http://www.coralvue.com/parvalues.htm |
|
#93
10/21/2003, 09:07 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hey Brad,
Those were the original numbers Joe had put up in the long thread in the SPS forum. Those readings were taken on the HQI ballast with a reflector and taken over his tank rather than in the more stable set-up he has used for the readings in this thread. It will be intersting to see if the results are similar with the reflector removed and the current set-up he is using for the HQI. HTH
__________________
Justin |
|
#94
10/21/2003, 09:20 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thanks Salt..um I mean Justin...no wonder the higher PAR readings!
|
|
#96
10/21/2003, 11:44 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Uhh ohhhh
 At least they mentioned your name and RC. I'm sure they're following this thread and will be contacting you shortly. They didn't make the pictures clickable either. Maybe that's becuase the large pictures are on your personal website, and the small pics and information are on this public forum. Either way they should have contacted you before using that info IMO.
|
|
#97
10/21/2003, 10:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
bump
|
|
#98
10/22/2003, 08:56 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thanks once again for taking on this test. It's of great value to the many of us who don't use 400W bulbs (that of course, everyone else tests!).
Just a quick question: has the 250W Radium been tested yet? Most likely I'm assuming it would be tested on an HQI ballast. |
|
#99
10/22/2003, 09:17 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I haven't posted any updates in a bit. I had to finish burning the radium lamp in. That will be done today.
I'll be able to post information on the ARO electronic ballast with the PFO HQI next. But first I have a question for everyone. I've been contacted by a company that tests MH lamps for manufactures. The short of it is they pointed out some problems in the way I am testing the lamps. I've been doing my tests the way everyone has, including Sanjay, bare bulb with no reflector with the measurement taken from the bottom of the bulb. It seems that a much better way to do this would be to take the measurement from the top of the bulb, giving time for the lamp to burn in the position it will be measured for a few hours. Then take all the measurements of the same lamp with the lamp's nipple in the same position(either 3, 12 or 9 o'clock) as it was burned in. After some thought, I agree and feel this is a better way. In our tanks we use a reflector, the reflector takes the light from the top of the lamp and reflects it back into our aquariums. I have no idea if the measurements will change or if one lamp will do better or worse than it did before. I have not done this as of yet. I would need to change a few things around, but I could probably get back to where I am right now, with the ballasts and lamps, in about 1 week. I am thinking of re-doing all the tests as I think it will give us, the hobbyist, a better look at the lamp, and how it performs, than ever before. I also think it will help, in the future, to produce better lamps from the manufacturer. As they review the results themselves and see both what the hobbyist wants and where they stack up next to the competition. Personally, I find this whole affair very frustrating as I continue to do this. I've actually had lots of private conversation with different people from many different facets of the aquarium lighting industry and getting good information has been challenging to say the least. But I do feel the tests done, have helped push the understanding of the way these lamps work in our world better than we have had in the past. If you feel strongly that I should not re-test please say so. Otherwise, I'm planning on starting new tests in a few days. Thanks for your understanding.
__________________
-Joe |
|
#100
10/22/2003, 10:14 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
JMO, but the best way to test the bulb is in a setup that more accurately reflects the over tank situation. So for instance lots of people buy that cheap cool touch lighting setup w/the plain reflector (not a "effecient" reflector like the ROII or the PFO parallel) It doesn't really matter how much light the bulb puts out per se but rather how much gets into the tank right? You're setup looks like it measured the side of the tube that faces the tank in a hypothetical no reflector setup. Granted sure you can control for nipple positioning, but do people really pay that much attention? And does it affect light output that much? It's assumed there's a +/- 10% at least from bulb to bulb right? I wouldn't redo it.
Edit: Uhm, in Joshi's testing that cool touch type reflector did practically nothing, so I wouldn't change your test rig.
__________________
Excuses are just the nails for the house of failure. Last edited by moonpod; 10/22/2003 at 10:28 AM. |
|
|
Linear Mode
