DE HQI VS. SE HQI

[StirCrazy]

Well i did some testing on two setups, so I am able to make the results of my first HQI comparison knowen.

the two set ups were

1, the AB 250 watt 10000K DE (HQI) in a mini pendant and powered by a IceCap HQI electronic ballast.

2, The AB 250 10000K watt SE (HQI) in a home made reflector and powered by a Advance M80 250 watt HQI ballast.

inital observations I had show the IceCap to run real cool whare my M80s can heat a small room :wink: , infact I would not have any problems mounting it against wood at all, but I would raise it just to be safe. on the down side the IceCaps restrike was found to be about 15 min whare my M80s have a restrike time of less than 5 min , I would have expected quicker for a electronic ballast.

Now for some numbers, sence there was no tank set up that we could do both ballasts on at the same time I did a all air measurment of 12"
(Just for some background notes both the AB SE and DE bulbs are HQI and tested by them selves put out almost the exact same numbers, the DE has the advantage of being able to be put into reflectors that are smaller and can focuse the light better. so the differences will be from a combanation of ballast and reflector)

IceCap set up
12" from outside of actual bulb to top of sensor = 703.92 PAR

M80 set up
12" from outside of actual bulb to top of sensor = 1071.69 PAR

I also tested mine through 5" air plus 7" of water (12" total) and got a result of 709.32 PAR

and interesting note is that if I look back to testing of another friend's tank with the son agros and the Ushio 10K's I got readings of 400 PAR and 555 PAR respectivly.

I also had the opertunity to test a 250 watt radium on my Ballast thanks to a friend, and was very impressed with the results there also. first the 250 watt radium has no internal starter so you need a ballast with a starter to run it, and it is about 2/3 the length of the 250 watt AB.

the results... 655.35 PAR throught the 5" air and 7" water. (only slightly lower than the AB#'s

here are a couple comparason pics, the first is two ABs the second pic is one radium and one AB

Just so there is no confusion the IceCap driven system is only putting out 66% of the light my M80 driven system is putting out.. now having said that reflectors will play a part also.

the upper hand should go to the pendent that the DE bulb was in (the IceCap set up) but I have a hunch my reflector is preforming a bit better. aside from that I still think the M80 is also producing more PAR, but the only way I would be able to tell for sure is if I had an IceCap ballast and I was to wire it to my bulb and reflector.

Steve

 

[ChrisRD]

Any pics of the reflectors?

 

[GSchiemer]

It would be beneficial to measure the running amps for each setup and figure that into the efficiency.

FWIW, I use the IceCap 250 with Ushio 10K and have had excellent results. I highly recommend this setup. I'm able to mount the ballast inside the aquarium stand and out of sight as well.

Greg

 

[StirCrazy]

It would be beneficial to measure the running amps for each setup and figure that into the efficiency.

FWIW, I use the IceCap 250 with Ushio 10K and have had excellent results. I highly recommend this setup. I'm able to mount the ballast inside the aquarium stand and out of sight as well.

Greg

If I was worried about Power issues I woulden't have bought the M80 ballast befor I did the test. FWIW the difference in power consumption between a 250 watt electric ballast and a tar ballast is pennied a day so concidering the amount I have spent on everything else in the tank I am more concerened with getting more light than saving a couple bucks..

As I said I would love the opertunity to test a IceCap on my system and this way make the twst 100% equal, but the price prevents me from being able to do it.

Wolfman, here is a link to a thread on the reflectors I made.
http://www.canreef.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=3667

the reflector for the DE was a mini pendant

Steve

 

[GSchiemer]

If I was worried about Power issues I woulden't have bought the M80 ballast befor I did the test. FWIW the difference in power consumption between a 250 watt electric ballast and a tar ballast is pennied a day so concidering the amount I have spent on everything else in the tank I am more concerened with getting more light than saving a couple bucks..

If your criteria is simply getting the most light, then why not simply use 400 watt MH bulbs? Or 1000's?

Here in NYC we don’t have the luxury of being able to ignore the cost of electricity, especially for those of us running multiple bulbs. A 15% savings could be significant over the course of a year and pay for the cost of an electronic ballast. There’s also the possibility of bulbs lasting longer on electronic ballasts. Additionally, electronic ballasts don’t dump heat into the room, which may save on the cost of running a chiller or A/C.

The PAR numbers you’ve quoted are interesting but virtually meaningless since you measured the light at a single point under two different reflectors. That’s why I suggested measuring the running amps, which may add some meaningful data to the discussion.

Greg

 

[Anonymous]

I am gonna have to back Greg on this one. The #'s are surely interesting, but what people continually neglect to realize is that the reflector is the MOST important part, and most influential part of a lighting system, PERIOD.

Ballasts are important of course, and electronic ballast savings will definintely add up (my parents are paying somwhere around .20 cents plus a KWH in the east bay/tri-valley in CA during peak times), and the size is a major benefit in my opinion. BUT, the reflector will have -by a large margin- the greatest impact on a lighting system.

To compare the output between different lamps, in different fixtures, with different ballasts is really interesting, and can really help you to place coral, but I wouldn't use it as a measure of comparing two ballasts.

-Perry
Sunlight Supply, Inc.

 

[sanjay]

Just some pre publication teaser :wink:

Look for the first part of the reflector study article in the next month's issue of Advanced Aquarist.

sanjay.

 

[GSchiemer]

Just some pre publication teaser :wink:

Look for the first part of the reflector study article in the next month's issue of Advanced Aquarist.

sanjay.

Will this be based upon the data you presented at MACNA? If so, I'm sure everyone will find it very enlightening. Pun intended.

Greg

 

[liquid]

Kick@$$! Glad to see that it's going to be published soon!!!

Shane

 

[sdgtivr6]

Just some pre publication teaser :wink:

Look for the first part of the reflector study article in the next month's issue of Advanced Aquarist.

sanjay.

Alright! I've been waiting for this to be published since November!

 

[StirCrazy]

the reflector is the MOST important part, and most influential part of a lighting system, PERIOD[/i].

but I wouldn't use it as a measure of comparing two ballasts.

-Perry
Sunlight Supply, Inc.

If you re read my inital post you will see I am comparing two systems not two ballasts, infact I said the only way I could compare two ballast is if I had a IceCap ballast to hook up to my system so I fail to see why you all are going on about it being a pour way to compare ballast.. I said that already, I also said that I suspect a large portion of the difference is due to the reflectors.

I think the problem is there have been so many hokey tests by amitures and Pros that everyone is automaticly skeptical about any test and right away attack it..

To tell the truth I was kinda surprised by the numbers myself as there was so much hype about the DE's and the Electronic ballasts.

Sanjay, this is good to see actual reflector info comming out now as I have said a reflector can do wonders for the last couple years,


As for the power issue, there is 277 watts ( IceCap) to 322 watts (Advance M80) so 45 watts (this also is taking the power factors into account already). so you would have to burn your light 22 hours to make 1KWh (here 1KWh is $0.055) so for me I would save $10.00 a year on power from the ballast but the ballast costs 150.00 more than the M80.. 15 years isn't a good pay back rate for me.. :roll: for thoes of you that pay $0.20/KWh you will be a little better off, after 4 years it will start saving you money.

One thing I did like about the IceCap was the temp at which they ran, I would have no problem bolting one of them up against the wood under my stand at all. my M80's well they will stay in a box outside the stand. :wink:

Steve

 

[Anonymous]

Steve,

I misunderstood the context of what you were saying, so sorry if I came off seemingly "attackful".

Any information is interesting to me, I just want to make sure things aren't taken out of context. All I have to say is 150w DE vs 400w MH and most people know what I am talking about. Info is power.

 

[samw]

It was my DE pendant lighting system that Steve used to compare with his SE system. Steve used my IceCap 250W HQI ballast and Optix III pendant w/ a 10,000 K AB bulb for his tests. Everything was brand new at the time. I brought the setup to our local reefer's meeting where that part of the test was performed.

The numbers did surprise me as I was expecting better results. How much would the glass shield affect the result? I assume the SE setup did not have a glass shield.

Some Pics




.

 

[StirCrazy]

Samw, Thanks for chiming in, hey do you ever come over to the Island? if so maby one time you could stop by with the ballast and we can get a "Pure ballast" comparason.

The glass shield will affect the reading some but not enuf to account up for the difference.. I have placed glass under my bulbs to see how much of a effect it had and it wasn't much at all.

Steve

 

[sanjay]

I am glad to see someone else collecting data on lamps, reflectors, ballasts.... its nice to be able to verify results.

The one thing we need to do when collecting such data is that we should be careful in presenting data that compares apples to apples. Having too many variables makes comparison difficult.

I have not looked at all the data I have to make a comment about 250W SE vs DE lamps, but within the 250W DE lamps I have found that the M80 ballast does put out more light than the ICECAP electronic ballast. However, it does so at the cost of consuming more power too. So clearly there is some tradeoff between light output and input power. About 25-30% more output with the M80 ballast, at 20-25% more power.

its not easy to say that M80 ballast is better than the ICECAP, because the metrics used are not often the same, and are not weighted the same by all users. For example, if the power consumption is the only metric, then the ICECAP uses less power. If the metric is more light, irrespective of power then M80 is better. If the metric is heat added to the environment, then the ICECAP is better. If the metric is electro magnetic interference from the ballast, then M80 is better (I can't use ICECAP on the same ciruit as my X-10 due to interferece from the ICECAP electronic ballast). What most users do is to factor in data with respect to thier own objective function (which may be different for different people). I think the nice thing about knowing data is that one can make an informed decision based on thier own constraints and objective functions. What people seem to want is - "Tell me what is the best", and I do not think there is a simple straightforward answer to that question.

If the total light is an issue with an ICECAP ballast, there are ways to compensate for it. For example, the light can be lowered, or a "better" reflector could be used, etc.

What I am basically saying is that all these solutions can be made to work - i have seen corals being grown in all sorts of lighting conditions. Knowing the differences and the implications is important so we can possibly someday be able to better understand the implications of the differences.


Greg:
yes the articles will be based on the material I presented at MACNA. The first one deals with Mogul Reflectors, to be followed by DE reflector systems. I am also looking at some of the horticulture reflectors. If only I had more time !!!


sanjay.

 

[samw]

Steve, I've been to Vancouver Island 3 times in the last 15 years. Don't wait for me.

On the other hand, you seem to come to Vancouver regularly. If you come by car, bring your ballast over and we can test different ballasts on the same pendant.

Also, do you have other DE bulbs we could put into my pendant for testing? The new bulb that came with my system looked hazy on the inside and I've never seen another DE bulb before to compare with. They might all be like that but I was surprised to see a new bulb look like that. Not trying to make excuses here.

Lastly, the large number of tests and results make it hard for me to follow everything. Maybe charts or excel spreadsheet might help. For example what are the Son Agro numbers 400 and 555 for? I'm assuming the first is through water and air and the second is through air only. Any reflectors? So, I should be happy that my setup performs better than those? Son Agro is a 430W system right? So why is the PAR so low? Can you tell I'm confused again?

 

[samw]

OK, you can correct me if I'm wrong. I've just looked over some of your old data to see where the 400 and 555 numbers come from.

http://www.canreef.com/phpBB2/viewtopic ... sc&start=0

Ushio 400 watt 10000K MH

M59 ballast
12" = 402 PAR (7" air and 5" water)

Son Agro ballasts
12" = 555.21 PAR (7" air and 5" water)

Now see, this is where some excel spread sheets might come in handy. Now I can sleep in peace.



Any explanation why your 250 HQI system outperforms the 400W systems?



.

 

[StirCrazy]

OK, you can correct me if I'm wrong. I've just looked over some of your old data to see where the 400 and 555 numbers come from.

http://www.canreef.com/phpBB2/viewtopic ... sc&start=0

Ushio 400 watt 10000K MH

M59 ballast
12" = 402 PAR (7" air and 5" water)

Son Agro ballasts
12" = 555.21 PAR (7" air and 5" water)

Now see, this is where some excel spread sheets might come in handy. Now I can sleep in peace.



Any explanation why your 250 HQI system outperforms the 400W systems?



.

No not realy, the 400's were spectral aluminum spiderlight reflectors. so maby it is a combanation of "HQI" and this new reflector I have made. that is the only thing I can come up with.

Steve

 

[GSchiemer]

To tell the truth I was kinda surprised by the numbers myself as there was so much hype about the DE's and the Electronic ballasts.

On the one hand, you chide Perry and say that you're not making a statement on ballasts, but then you make a disparaging comment on electronic ballasts and DE bulbs based upon your "data." I don't see how anything could have "surprised" you based upon a single measurement under different bulbs, ballasts and reflectors.

Greg

 

[StirCrazy]

On the one hand, you chide Perry and say that you're not making a statement on ballasts, but then you make a disparaging comment on electronic ballasts and DE bulbs based upon your "data." I don't see how anything could have "surprised" you based upon a single measurement under different bulbs, ballasts and reflectors.

Greg

Once again I am talking about systems.. :roll: and all the hype was that a DE set up on a electronic ballast was the brightest thing sence sliced bread.. I was suprised as I expected the mini pendent system to blow mine out of the water.

you know you are starting to sound like you don;t want to beleive any post about lighting unless it makes what you have look better.. I am done responding to your off beat posts.. Now I see why Sanjay and other don't post light info regulary.. even thought I don't test near to the degree they do I am still trying to put usefull info out for people to look at different options and set ups..

Steve