Real World PAR: 175W on eballast vs. 250 on M58....

pjr300 · 05/19/2008, 09:28 PM

As so many of us try to do, I am attempting to develop a setup that is energy efficient, minimizes heat, and helps my reef thrive.

With that backdrop, I noted that some interesting data from Sanjay Joshi's tests that I thought may be worth some discussion.

According to his lab results for Hamilton 14K bulbs:

-- The 250W SE version produces a PAR reading of 53 on a M58 ballast. It uses 2.63 amps.
-- The 175W SE version produces a PAR reading of 48 on an IceCap electronic ballast. It uses 1.63 amps.

So, could you surmise that:

1. Output is virtually the same, and;
2. The eBallast uses less power, and will produce less heat.

Or, am I reading too far into the data?

Thx!

OnlyCrimson · 05/19/2008, 10:28 PM

1. The output is very similar.
2. yes

kdblove_99 · 05/20/2008, 03:23 AM

Bulbs will be diffrent CHeck out XM useing your theory

[IMG]

[/IMG]

pjr300 · 05/20/2008, 08:05 AM

Wow, that XM difference is huge! I would bet that the 250w is much more blue than the 175w by looking at the chart. There is also a large PPFD difference too.

Great chart... I wonder if there is a similar comparison of the Hamiltons.

pjr300 · 05/20/2008, 09:22 AM

Your chart sent me over to Sanjay's site. Here's the Hamilton comparison. What do you make of this data?

mdt178 · 05/20/2008, 09:30 AM

The Hammy 175W on IC will look very yellow, CCT 8220.

Have you seen an Iwasaki 250W 15K? It will blow away anything in the 175W class.

pjr300 · 05/20/2008, 01:26 PM

No... I was looking to see if there was any opportunity for more efficiency by going to 175w eBallast vs standard 250w on the M58. Looks like the answer is no.

kgross · 05/21/2008, 01:40 PM

The best way to gain efficiency is to get better reflectors.

gcarroll · 05/21/2008, 01:53 PM

have you considered the Iwasaki 15K on the 175 watt e ballasts? Definitely a bulb that should be considered whenever considering a 175 watt choice.

glxtrix · 05/21/2008, 01:58 PM

I run 3x175W Iwasaki's on my 140. have them in the LumenBright reflectors ran off of ARO ballasts. These IMO are the only bulb worth getting in the 175W flavor.....well, if you want best bulb for growth. IMO, actinic supp. is most likely needed. But they are an amazing bulb. I will agree with kgross tho, better reflector will help utilize the light better.

mdt178 · 05/21/2008, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mdt178
The Hammy 175W on IC will look very yellow, CCT 8220.

Have you seen an Iwasaki 250W 15K? It will blow away anything in the 175W class.

Brainfart! I meant to say Iwasaki 175W 15K blowing away other 175 watters!

glxtrix · 05/21/2008, 03:37 PM

Lol, I was wondering if they maybe released a 250. There has been speculations on this, but nothing rock solid as of yet.

pjr300 · 05/21/2008, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by glxtrix
I run 3x175W Iwasaki's on my 140. have them in the LumenBright reflectors ran off of ARO ballasts. These IMO are the only bulb worth getting in the 175W flavor.....well, if you want best bulb for growth. IMO, actinic supp. is most likely needed. But they are an amazing bulb. I will agree with kgross tho, better reflector will help utilize the light better.

Thx guys... that sounds like a worthwhile option.

glxtrix: what's the dimensions of your 140g?

glxtrix · 05/22/2008, 04:33 AM

55x24x24

pjr300 · 05/26/2008, 10:37 PM

To the folks using the Iwasaki 15K --- how is the color? do you need to run actinics to provide a pleasing color?

Toddrtrex · 05/26/2008, 11:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by pjr300
To the folks using the Iwasaki 15K --- how is the color? do you need to run actinics to provide a pleasing color?

IMO, you should run actinics with those bulbs, I know that they weren't blue enough for me without actinics.

Though, I do prefer a bluer bulb, I just upgraded to 250 watt XM's ( 250 watt SEs )

glxtrix · 05/27/2008, 05:31 AM

They are decent. They have a crisp white with blue tint. But I run actinics with them. If you're looking for a blue bulb, these wont suffice most needs.

pjr300 · 05/27/2008, 09:19 AM

Major Error on my part: I realized that the chart I provided above used the 10K Ham 175W instead of the 14K data. The correct chart is below. My observation is that the dropoff to 175 is relatively small as long as the ballast is upgraded.

pjr300 · 05/27/2008, 09:28 AM

I also did the same breakdown with the XM 20k bulbs... here's the difference is MUCH larger!

- The 250w XM 20k provides higher output on the M58 than the 250w Hamilton.

- But the 175w XM 20k provides LOWER output on the Electronic Balalst than the 175w Hamilton.

pjr300 · 08/08/2008, 04:10 PM

Quick question: Does anyone have heat issues with the 175W halides? Seems like they would be much cooler than 250 systems.

Toddrtrex · 08/08/2008, 05:08 PM

Recently ( couple of months ago ) I upgraded from 2*175 to 2*250, and didn't noticed any increase in temps.

It is possible that my clip on fans come on more often, but the other temps have stayed the same.

05/19/2008, 09:28 PM	#1
pjr300 Moved On Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 234	Real World PAR: 175W on eballast vs. 250 on M58.... As so many of us try to do, I am attempting to develop a setup that is energy efficient, minimizes heat, and helps my reef thrive. With that backdrop, I noted that some interesting data from Sanjay Joshi's tests that I thought may be worth some discussion. According to his lab results for Hamilton 14K bulbs: -- The 250W SE version produces a PAR reading of 53 on a M58 ballast. It uses 2.63 amps. -- The 175W SE version produces a PAR reading of 48 on an IceCap electronic ballast. It uses 1.63 amps. So, could you surmise that: 1. Output is virtually the same, and; 2. The eBallast uses less power, and will produce less heat. Or, am I reading too far into the data? Thx!

05/20/2008, 03:23 AM	#3
kdblove_99 Registered Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Frederick,CO Posts: 8,683	Bulbs will be diffrent CHeck out XM useing your theory [IMG][/IMG]

05/21/2008, 01:40 PM	#8
kgross Premium Member Join Date: Nov 1999 Location: Nampa, ID Posts: 5,870	The best way to gain efficiency is to get better reflectors. __________________ Proud Member of the Idaho Marine Aquarium Society America will only be the Land of the Free as long as it is the Home of the Brave. Current Tank Info: AGA 180gallon tank, VHO/MH lighting, DSB, calcium reactor, Also a 7 Gallon Nano softy tank, and a 32 gallon cube

05/21/2008, 01:53 PM	#9
gcarroll Registered Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Orange, CA Posts: 9,666	have you considered the Iwasaki 15K on the 175 watt e ballasts? Definitely a bulb that should be considered whenever considering a 175 watt choice. __________________ Greg Carroll I will be at REEF-A-PALOOZA! SPS = Stability Promotes Success Be wary of advice coming from those who will not show you the fruits of their success! Current Tank Info: building: 250g AGE Euro tank, Abyzz A200, Vertex Supra-G filtration, Ecotech Radion Pro LEDs, ...

08/08/2008, 05:08 PM	#21
Toddrtrex Registered Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Carol Stream, IL Posts: 23,162	Recently ( couple of months ago ) I upgraded from 2175 to 2250, and didn't noticed any increase in temps. It is possible that my clip on fans come on more often, but the other temps have stayed the same. __________________ Click my name and then "visit toddrtrex's homepage" for tank pictures Current Tank Info: 210g reef and 65g reef

05/19/2008, 10:28 PM	#2
OnlyCrimson Registered Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Royal Oak,Michigan Posts: 863	1. The output is very similar. 2. yes

05/20/2008, 08:05 AM	#4
pjr300 Moved On Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 234	Wow, that XM difference is huge! I would bet that the 250w is much more blue than the 175w by looking at the chart. There is also a large PPFD difference too. Great chart... I wonder if there is a similar comparison of the Hamiltons.

05/20/2008, 09:22 AM	#5
pjr300 Moved On Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 234	Your chart sent me over to Sanjay's site. Here's the Hamilton comparison. What do you make of this data?

05/20/2008, 09:30 AM	#6
mdt178 Registered Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 655	The Hammy 175W on IC will look very yellow, CCT 8220. Have you seen an Iwasaki 250W 15K? It will blow away anything in the 175W class.

05/20/2008, 01:26 PM	#7
pjr300 Moved On Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 234	No... I was looking to see if there was any opportunity for more efficiency by going to 175w eBallast vs standard 250w on the M58. Looks like the answer is no.

05/21/2008, 01:58 PM	#10
glxtrix Registered Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: ATL, GA Posts: 882	I run 3x175W Iwasaki's on my 140. have them in the LumenBright reflectors ran off of ARO ballasts. These IMO are the only bulb worth getting in the 175W flavor.....well, if you want best bulb for growth. IMO, actinic supp. is most likely needed. But they are an amazing bulb. I will agree with kgross tho, better reflector will help utilize the light better.

05/21/2008, 03:37 PM	#12
glxtrix Registered Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: ATL, GA Posts: 882	Lol, I was wondering if they maybe released a 250. There has been speculations on this, but nothing rock solid as of yet.

05/22/2008, 04:33 AM	#14
glxtrix Registered Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: ATL, GA Posts: 882	55x24x24

05/26/2008, 10:37 PM	#15
pjr300 Moved On Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 234	To the folks using the Iwasaki 15K --- how is the color? do you need to run actinics to provide a pleasing color?

05/27/2008, 05:31 AM	#17
glxtrix Registered Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: ATL, GA Posts: 882	They are decent. They have a crisp white with blue tint. But I run actinics with them. If you're looking for a blue bulb, these wont suffice most needs.

05/27/2008, 09:19 AM	#18
pjr300 Moved On Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 234	Major Error on my part: I realized that the chart I provided above used the 10K Ham 175W instead of the 14K data. The correct chart is below. My observation is that the dropoff to 175 is relatively small as long as the ballast is upgraded.

05/27/2008, 09:28 AM	#19
pjr300 Moved On Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 234	I also did the same breakdown with the XM 20k bulbs... here's the difference is MUCH larger! - The 250w XM 20k provides higher output on the M58 than the 250w Hamilton. - But the 175w XM 20k provides LOWER output on the Electronic Balalst than the 175w Hamilton.

08/08/2008, 04:10 PM	#20
pjr300 Moved On Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 234	Quick question: Does anyone have heat issues with the 175W halides? Seems like they would be much cooler than 250 systems.