PAR Readings for 6x54 Tek T-5 fixture vs Iwasaki 15k 175 MH Bulb

raynist · 09/08/2006, 07:37 PM

I posted this in the lighting forum, but it may be relevant here:

These are on an unshielded Tek light with the following bulb combo from front to back:

UV Lighting Super Actinic
D&D Blue Plus
D&D Aqua Blue
D&D Aqua Blue
D&D Aqua Blue
UV Lighting Super Actinic

These lights are about on average 6 months old.

The Iwasaki is housed in a Lumenarc 2 fixture using an Icecap 175w electronic Ballast and the bulb is about 2 months old.

I took measurements at several points in the tank and on the rocks with the t-5 lights and the Iwasaki 15k 175w light mounted on my 75g SPS tank. Here are the results based on my Apogee Quantum meter calibrated for electric lights:

The Tek lights are 4 inches from the water level (lowest it can be with mounting legs), the Iwasaki is 8 inches

Directly under lights at surface, above water

Tek - 650
Iwasaki - 1730

Directly under lights, just under water level

Tek - 410
Iwasaki - 1120

Halfway down tank on rocks

Tek - 170
Iwasaki - 450

Bottom of tank - Barebottom

Tek - 125
Iwasaki - 310

I think the bottom of the tank measurement is pretty much in line with what Grim tested, I think his was around 135 or so, but I have no sand in my tank so I am probably down 2 inches or so further than his test was.

Also notice that the shield on the Tek light reduced the light by about 20 percent based on my readings from last night.

---Ray

raynist · 09/08/2006, 07:46 PM

I just did another test using a regular piece of glass to cover the MH light. At the surface, just above the water, the reading was 1780 without glass and 1680 with glass. A difference of 6%.

--ray

zapata41 · 09/08/2006, 09:21 PM

nuff said, yet people will still try and argue which puts out more light. i saw similar numbers with my 400w setup, well compared to a t5 setup that is, only the 400w 10k xm was pulling over 2200 at 8" under the bulb.

no wonder why my corals grow better with the 400's

Tim

gcarroll · 09/08/2006, 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by raynist
I think the bottom of the tank measurement is pretty much in line with what Grim tested, I think his was around 135 or so, but I have no sand in my tank so I am probably down 2 inches or so further than his test was.

Great Job Ray! The difference is that you compared a good T5 system and a good metal halide system. You did not copare a MH system that was one of the worst ever tested. (BTW: PFO pulled the same shenanigans when they compared their solaris LED system to MH.

old salty · 09/08/2006, 11:27 PM

Wow, does this mean that if I remove the acrylic shields, I can get 20% more par into the tank?

NuclearReefs · 09/08/2006, 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by old salty
Wow, does this mean that if I remove the acrylic shields, I can get 20% more par into the tank?

safe with SE bulbs,, NOT with DE ........Dont even try it . Toast city !

Mchava · 09/09/2006, 01:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by NuclearReefs
safe with SE bulbs,, NOT with DE ........Dont even try it . Toast city !

I think he was reffering to the T5 setup. Cuase a mh setup would toast the acrylic reallly fast

Mchava · 09/09/2006, 01:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by raynist

The Tek lights are 4 inches from the water level (lowest it can be with mounting legs), the Iwasaki is 8 inches

Directly under lights at surface, above water

Tek - 650
Iwasaki - 1730

Directly under lights, just under water level

Tek - 410
Iwasaki - 1120

Halfway down tank on rocks

Tek - 170
Iwasaki - 450

Bottom of tank - Barebottom

Tek - 125
Iwasaki - 310

I think the bottom of the tank measurement is pretty much in line with what Grim tested, I think his was around 135 or so, but I have no sand in my tank so I am probably down 2 inches or so further than his test was.

---Ray

Thats about what I got from my t5 set up and It was 3 AB and 3B+. But I am more surpriced at what the Iwasaki is doing at the bottom of the tank. I meen I was only able to get about 250-275 with the 14k phoenix. Do you know if they make the Iwasaki's in a 250DE set up yet. Would be nice to see what they put out.

DrBDC · 09/09/2006, 06:30 AM

The 175w Iwasaki 15,000K's are a par making machine. They have more than many 250 watt bulbs. I hear they will release 250 watt versions about Christmas time and the 400 watt versions in the spring.

beapeams · 09/09/2006, 07:23 AM

I see that Iwasaki has a 50,000K halide. What would be the benifit of 50,000K for SPS and the aquarium?

dvanacker · 09/09/2006, 07:40 AM

Thats incredible...has sanjay run tests on the IWASAKI.??

raynist · 09/09/2006, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by dvanacker
Thats incredible...has sanjay run tests on the IWASAKI.??

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2005/12/review/view

raynist · 09/09/2006, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by old salty
Wow, does this mean that if I remove the acrylic shields, I can get 20% more par into the tank?

That was on the Tek light, and the shield was very dirty.

I put a random piece of glass over the Iwasaki and it dropped output by 6%.

--Ray

DrBDC · 09/09/2006, 08:55 AM

You don't need to have glass over the mogul based bulbs, only the double ended. That is the UV shield. If you remove it from the de's your tank will be sorry but you won't be able to tell because your retina's will be burned and varying degree's of radiation poisioning.

piercho · 09/09/2006, 09:14 AM

Quote:

has sanjay run tests on the IWASAKI.??

Yes. PAR and spectral info on Sanjay's Reef Lighting Info page. Try the bulb comparison application under Spectral Plots.

Quote:

I see that Iwasaki has a 50,000K halide. What would be the benifit of 50,000K for SPS and the aquarium?

The 50000K bulb is the origonal EYE (Iwasaki) AQUA. EYE also makes a 20000K AQUA2, and the 15000K AQUA2/HOR. Info on bulb packages for each bulb is available from EYE Lighting. Right now the 15000K bulb is only available in a 175W SE package. All three bulbs put out much of their light near 450 nM (blue). For those 3 type bulbs at 175W or 150W, the 15000K AQUA2/HOR will be the bulb of most interest to SPS keepers due to its higher PAR, IMO.

raynist · 09/09/2006, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by DrBDC
You don't need to have glass over the mogul based bulbs, only the double ended. That is the UV shield. If you remove it from the de's your tank will be sorry but you won't be able to tell because your retina's will be burned and varying degree's of radiation poisioning.

I don't use glass on this bulb, just wanted to test it out.

old salty · 09/09/2006, 09:40 AM

I was indeed referring to the TEK fixtures. I try to keep them rather clean, but I had no idea that I could get much more light if I removed the plastic. I may do this and bring the fixtures up another 1/4 inch to reduce the build up.

raynist · 09/09/2006, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by old salty
I was indeed referring to the TEK fixtures. I try to keep them rather clean, but I had no idea that I could get much more light if I removed the plastic. I may do this and bring the fixtures up another 1/4 inch to reduce the build up.

I did not test when the shield was cleaned. I will try to do that this weekend. Remember, the shield was pretty dirty.

I would keep the shield, the tek reflectors stain pretty easily.

--Ray

old salty · 09/09/2006, 01:04 PM

Thanks a bunch. I will eagerly await your results before doing this. I am kind of hesitant as the shields to get dirty within a week. I'm really not the type who would regularly clean bulbs and reflectors.

ahchung · 09/09/2006, 11:56 PM

If the shield is really dirty, it can reduce light intensity by 40% or more.

RichConley · 09/10/2006, 01:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by raynist
I posted this in the lighting forum, but it may be relevant here:

These are on an unshielded Tek light with the following bulb combo from front to back:

UV Lighting Super Actinic
D&D Blue Plus
D&D Aqua Blue
D&D Aqua Blue
D&D Aqua Blue
UV Lighting Super Actinic

These lights are about on average 6 months old.

The Iwasaki is housed in a Lumenarc 2 fixture using an Icecap 175w electronic Ballast and the bulb is about 2 months old.

I took measurements at several points in the tank and on the rocks with the t-5 lights and the Iwasaki 15k 175w light mounted on my 75g SPS tank. Here are the results based on my Apogee Quantum meter calibrated for electric lights:

The Tek lights are 4 inches from the water level (lowest it can be with mounting legs), the Iwasaki is 8 inches

Directly under lights at surface, above water

Tek - 650
Iwasaki - 1730

Directly under lights, just under water level

Tek - 410
Iwasaki - 1120

Halfway down tank on rocks

Tek - 170
Iwasaki - 450

Bottom of tank - Barebottom

Tek - 125
Iwasaki - 310

I think the bottom of the tank measurement is pretty much in line with what Grim tested, I think his was around 135 or so, but I have no sand in my tank so I am probably down 2 inches or so further than his test was.

Also notice that the shield on the Tek light reduced the light by about 20 percent based on my readings from last night.

---Ray

I dont doubt your tests, but where did you test in a lateral sense?

Directly under the halide? It would be interesting to see testing at a couple spots across the tank, to show that the Halide is very intense in a narrow area while the T5s are moderately intense over a large area.

DrBDC · 09/10/2006, 05:19 AM

That would be a better comparison although the type/brand of reflector would be important as you can see the difference in the mh reflectors here:

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issu...03/feature.htm

kimoyo · 09/10/2006, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by RichConley
I dont doubt your tests, but where did you test in a lateral sense?

Directly under the halide? It would be interesting to see testing at a couple spots across the tank, to show that the Halide is very intense in a narrow area while the T5s are moderately intense over a large area.

I would be interested in seeing that also since t5s and Mhs light the tank differently.

The tek fixtures are nice but it would also be cool to see the better t5 reflectors used in a comparison if possible.

raynist · 09/10/2006, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by kimoyo
I would be interested in seeing that also since t5s and Mhs light the tank differently.

The tek fixtures are nice but it would also be cool to see the better t5 reflectors used in a comparison if possible.

Only if someone sends me some free Icecap reflectors

Greg Hiller · 09/10/2006, 07:04 PM

>The 175w Iwasaki 15,000K's are a par making machine<

I agree, Sanjay's numbers for the bulb are very good. I recently replaced an old 10K XM with a 175 W Iwasaki 15K. I must say I was a little disappointed with the color of the bulb initially. To me it looked quite green, not the typical blue of a 15K bulb. However, it appears to be burning in to a more white color over the past 10 days or so I've had it running. Certainly a lot brighter. Jury's out for me still.

FWIW, I used to be a die hard 250 W 6500K Iwasaki user until the 10K 250 W XM's came along.

09/08/2006, 07:37 PM	#1
raynist Registered Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Pittsburgh, PA Posts: 4,921	PAR Readings for 6x54 Tek T-5 fixture vs Iwasaki 15k 175 MH Bulb I posted this in the lighting forum, but it may be relevant here: These are on an unshielded Tek light with the following bulb combo from front to back: UV Lighting Super Actinic D&D Blue Plus D&D Aqua Blue D&D Aqua Blue D&D Aqua Blue UV Lighting Super Actinic These lights are about on average 6 months old. The Iwasaki is housed in a Lumenarc 2 fixture using an Icecap 175w electronic Ballast and the bulb is about 2 months old. I took measurements at several points in the tank and on the rocks with the t-5 lights and the Iwasaki 15k 175w light mounted on my 75g SPS tank. Here are the results based on my Apogee Quantum meter calibrated for electric lights: The Tek lights are 4 inches from the water level (lowest it can be with mounting legs), the Iwasaki is 8 inches Directly under lights at surface, above water Tek - 650 Iwasaki - 1730 Directly under lights, just under water level Tek - 410 Iwasaki - 1120 Halfway down tank on rocks Tek - 170 Iwasaki - 450 Bottom of tank - Barebottom Tek - 125 Iwasaki - 310 I think the bottom of the tank measurement is pretty much in line with what Grim tested, I think his was around 135 or so, but I have no sand in my tank so I am probably down 2 inches or so further than his test was. Also notice that the shield on the Tek light reduced the light by about 20 percent based on my readings from last night. ---Ray

09/08/2006, 11:27 PM	#5
old salty Genius Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: The Island of Misfit Toys Posts: 3,131	Wow, does this mean that if I remove the acrylic shields, I can get 20% more par into the tank? __________________ "The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers." Thomas Jefferson Current Tank Info: Out of the marine aquarium hobby

09/09/2006, 06:30 AM	#9
DrBDC Registered Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Ballwin, Missouri Posts: 10,358	The 175w Iwasaki 15,000K's are a par making machine. They have more than many 250 watt bulbs. I hear they will release 250 watt versions about Christmas time and the 400 watt versions in the spring. __________________ Some drink at the fountain of knowledge, some just gargle, but most are rabid. Current Tank Info: 180g sps+75 softy/lps on one system tunze's, seio's, mjmods, aquacontroller w/add ons, 2X400 XM10000 and 3X160 vho actinic, 110g sump, 110 frag tank, Geo Beckett and other stuff

09/09/2006, 07:23 AM	#10
beapeams Registered Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 607	I see that Iwasaki has a 50,000K halide. What would be the benifit of 50,000K for SPS and the aquarium? __________________ Life's not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty well preserved body, but to skid in broadside, used up, worn out, and loudly proclaiming: WOW What a Ride! Current Tank Info: 125g Tank, 70g Sump, 1050 wats of halides, SPS tank

09/09/2006, 07:40 AM	#11
dvanacker DID I SOUNDS SMRT?? Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Ontario, CAN Posts: 3,690	Thats incredible...has sanjay run tests on the IWASAKI.?? __________________ --DARRYL-- Current Tank Info: 200g SPS dominant Mixed Reef

09/08/2006, 07:46 PM	#2
raynist Registered Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Pittsburgh, PA Posts: 4,921	I just did another test using a regular piece of glass to cover the MH light. At the surface, just above the water, the reading was 1780 without glass and 1680 with glass. A difference of 6%. --ray

09/08/2006, 09:21 PM	#3
zapata41 Moved On Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Humboldt County, CA Posts: 2,024	nuff said, yet people will still try and argue which puts out more light. i saw similar numbers with my 400w setup, well compared to a t5 setup that is, only the 400w 10k xm was pulling over 2200 at 8" under the bulb. no wonder why my corals grow better with the 400's Tim

09/09/2006, 08:55 AM	#14
DrBDC Registered Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Ballwin, Missouri Posts: 10,358	You don't need to have glass over the mogul based bulbs, only the double ended. That is the UV shield. If you remove it from the de's your tank will be sorry but you won't be able to tell because your retina's will be burned and varying degree's of radiation poisioning. __________________ Some drink at the fountain of knowledge, some just gargle, but most are rabid. Current Tank Info: 180g sps+75 softy/lps on one system tunze's, seio's, mjmods, aquacontroller w/add ons, 2X400 XM10000 and 3X160 vho actinic, 110g sump, 110 frag tank, Geo Beckett and other stuff

09/09/2006, 09:40 AM	#17
old salty Genius Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: The Island of Misfit Toys Posts: 3,131	I was indeed referring to the TEK fixtures. I try to keep them rather clean, but I had no idea that I could get much more light if I removed the plastic. I may do this and bring the fixtures up another 1/4 inch to reduce the build up. __________________ "The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers." Thomas Jefferson Current Tank Info: Out of the marine aquarium hobby

09/09/2006, 01:04 PM	#19
old salty Genius Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: The Island of Misfit Toys Posts: 3,131	Thanks a bunch. I will eagerly await your results before doing this. I am kind of hesitant as the shields to get dirty within a week. I'm really not the type who would regularly clean bulbs and reflectors. __________________ "The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers." Thomas Jefferson Current Tank Info: Out of the marine aquarium hobby

09/09/2006, 11:56 PM	#20
ahchung Registered Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: HK Posts: 304	If the shield is really dirty, it can reduce light intensity by 40% or more. __________________ Explore the cheapest method to maintain SPS! Current Tank Info: 172L/45G SPS Tank

09/10/2006, 05:19 AM	#22
DrBDC Registered Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Ballwin, Missouri Posts: 10,358	That would be a better comparison although the type/brand of reflector would be important as you can see the difference in the mh reflectors here: http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issu...03/feature.htm __________________ Some drink at the fountain of knowledge, some just gargle, but most are rabid. Current Tank Info: 180g sps+75 softy/lps on one system tunze's, seio's, mjmods, aquacontroller w/add ons, 2X400 XM10000 and 3X160 vho actinic, 110g sump, 110 frag tank, Geo Beckett and other stuff

09/10/2006, 07:04 PM	#25
Greg Hiller Registered Member Join Date: Apr 2000 Location: Wakefield, MA, USA Posts: 1,702	>The 175w Iwasaki 15,000K's are a par making machine< I agree, Sanjay's numbers for the bulb are very good. I recently replaced an old 10K XM with a 175 W Iwasaki 15K. I must say I was a little disappointed with the color of the bulb initially. To me it looked quite green, not the typical blue of a 15K bulb. However, it appears to be burning in to a more white color over the past 10 days or so I've had it running. Certainly a lot brighter. Jury's out for me still. FWIW, I used to be a die hard 250 W 6500K Iwasaki user until the 10K 250 W XM's came along.