Which Halide Bulb???

[Beckmola24]

I have only had power compacts before so I am pretty unfamiliar with the different brands of halide bulbs. Does Aqualine AB make a good bulb??? (Hellolights has a sale for RC members only on those bulbs) What does everybody here use??? I guess I just need some guidance as to what bulb/s would be best for SPS. I know XM has a high PAR which is good for sps but there's the yellowing problem that keeps occurring. Thanks in advance for any help.

 

[bradreef]

advanced aquarist online mag did a study on some of the new cheaper bulbs this month. look into it.

 

[mattseattle]

what type of ballast are you running the halides on? that seems to determine which bulbs are best. i was looking into the hamilton 14k bulbs but since i'm running a standard pfo the par seems really low on those. so now i'm trying to decide which 250w bulbs would be enough par/enough blue for my ballast and my sps. i'm currently running xm10k's and looking for something more blue. i may try the xm 20k's but not sure.

brad - that article is for DE bulbs. does it make a difference?

 

[Beckmola24]

I have a HQI ballast and would need Double Ended bulbs. I think I would like 10K bulbs. Thanks!

 

[mattseattle]

oh ok then that article will help you.

 

[Beckmola24]

The XM seems to be a great bulb except for the random yellowing.... Aqualine also makes a good bulb.

 

[Beckmola24]

A lot of people seem to be recommending the Hamilton 14K's. I know MtnDewMan uses them.... Does anyone know if they have a really blue tint???

 

[Scooterman]

I'm using the blueline 10k with the blueline electronic ballast, I love it, the ballast 250w barely gets warm. I probably will get a 10k ushio next run, I just got these on special but still have no complaints.

 

[bradreef]

the phoenix 14 ks are supposed to be good DE bulbs for a lot less than the aqua connects. then you have the hamilton 14ks

 

[Beckmola24]

This may be helpful to people here, but I was told that the 250 Watt DE XM 10K bulbs actually burn at around 7000K but the comparable Ushio's run right at 10K. In this case it seems like the XM's would be yellow and the Ushios would suit my needs better. I do have supplemental T-5 actinic lighting to go with the 2- 250Watt halides.

 

[Beckmola24]

I've been reading through a lot of these articles and have found them to be very helpful. http://www.reeffrontiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=71 But I am sill a bit lost. It appears that the DE bulbs don't have as high of par as the Moguls??? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears that way... So now what I have to figure out is who makes the highest PAR bulb in DE's...

 

[moonpod]

Becky, with DE MH its all about two things. One you have a bulb that is made to be run on the mag HQI ballast which juices things at 300+watts. You CAN run SE bulbs on that ballast, but you WILL suffer early color shifting and bulb deaths. You will not have that problem with DE MH. Two the reflectors. GOOD DE reflectors (ie the SLS ROIII and the PFO mini) are much, much, much better at getting the light into the tank than any of the SE reflectors. So the end result is that you often get performance from the 250w DE that is equal to or only marginally less than what you can get with a 400w SE setup. That being said, that's a big caveat. If you use electronic ballasts you lose the advantage. If you use a lesser pendant/reflector you lose the advantage. Also, with all SE and DE setups you have to be cognizant of the bulbs. They are NOT the same. An SE Ushio actually burns at 8800k or something, so yes, you expect it to have better output than the true 10k burning DE version. Where the SE setup has an advantage is that because the light output isn't as "focused" you tend to be able to light broader areas with less fall off at the margins and there is more light "spill" so sometimes people find the SE to be visually more bright (it's b/c more light is heading out horizontally towards your eye instead of going down towards the tank).

 

[Scooterman]

Ushio's run right at 10K. In this case it seems like the XM's would be yellow and the Ushios would suit my needs better. I do have supplemental T-5 actinic lighting to go with the 2- 250Watt halides.

That would be an awesome combination, Ushios & H.O. T5's.
A must read
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/august2003/feature.htm
DE Lamps

http://www.cnidarianreef.com/lamps.cfm
http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=254667&perpage=25&pagenumber=1

Ballast questions?
http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/s/b/sbj4/aquarium/ballast%20comparison/ballast-comparison.html

Electronic ballast is the best you can get, more efficient, cooler running & will drive almost any Lamp on the market excluding only one. (Starburst)

http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=201570

 

[Scooterman]

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/nov2002/feature2.htm

http://www.coralreefecosystems.com/ltg_technical_data.htm#Output%20Analysis:
Look at these also, No BS here just factual informaton.

 

[Beckmola24]

Thanks you for the reading!! very helpful.... I have been researching all morning and I am pretty sure I'm going to qo with the Aqualine DE's. They have pretty good PAR comparatively with the XMs and the Ushios in the DE versions, and seem to have a good rep...

 

[Oscapus]

I have been using a 400w 14k Hamilton on an IceCap electronic ballast for the past 6 months on my seahorse tank. The blue color is beautiful, but my Halimeda macroalgae, candy cane corals, xenias, and finger leathers all do not like it at all. Things sort of grew, but are stunted and weird looking, especially the Halimeda. Some wild creeping Calerpa macroalgae, and some very tough stalked hair algae took over instead. Clams are, well, happy as a clam. So I added some 10k PCs 5 weeks ago to try to get the Halimeda to grow tall at least (hitching posts for the seahorses). However the Hamilton bulb just failed and I sent it back yesterday for pro-rated refund. Not sure what to recommend for you at this point, I haven't had much lighting stability lately, but consider what you are growing before going with a Hamilton-only setup.

 

[moonpod]

Electronic ballast is the best you can get, more efficient, cooler running & will drive almost any Lamp on the market excluding only one. (Starburst)

JMO, eballasts are good choices for SE bulbs. They are poor choices for in particular the 250w DE bulb. It underdrives them, no ifs ands or buts. There is no effeciency advantage vs the mag HQI M80 ballast (look at Sanjay Joshi's data, in fact often the M80 is MORE effecient). There is no objectively proven bulb lifespan advantage (there are in fact those that feel that the way electronics start DE bulbs is bad for them). The "spec" for the 250w DE is the M80 ballast. Just the way it is. The advantages an eballast has over the M80 are 1) size 2) weight 3) less electricity (with the linearly corresponding less light level) and 4) less heat (though the bluewave "packaged" M80 is no warmer to the touch than an icecap).

 

[Scooterman]

I wasn't comparing them to running de lamps, & didn't mention the e-blasst as being better over the M81? Matter fact I posted one his links above.

[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Discussion and Conclusion[/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Figure 15, and 15 show comparison of power and PPFD of the various lamps tested. Once again as seen from the data and plots, there is wide variation among the lamps and the use of CCT to designate the lamps is pretty much meaningless given that the spectral plots are often very similar yet the lamps are being sold with different color temperatures. The usual disclaimer applies - this data is based on a sample size of one, and we have no idea what the variation is within lamps. The HQI 80 ballasts tends to consume much higher wattage than the rated 250W, while the electronic ballast tends to stay close to the rated power of the lamp. The implications of consuming more power are obvious - more light output, however if this detrimental to lamp life remains to be seen.[/font]​

[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Comparing the data here and other 250W DE articles with the data for 250W Mogul lamps, should provide enough factual information to dispel the myth that 250W DE lamps produce more light output than the 250W single ended mogul lamps. A general sweeping statement to this effect cannot be made, and depends on the lamp under consideration.[/font]​

​

​

this is from his second article, the electronic ballast for 250, 150 uses less current & less power in all of the above test, this is how Efficiency is determined.​

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/oct2004/reviewb.htm​

 

[BCT182]

I have the 14,000ks on my tank, and I love em.

Brett

 

[moonpod]

Scooter this is my last post on the subject since you seem to be offended.

I view ballast effeciency as PAR or PPFD produced/vs watts expended. Sanjay uses this definition in his website and gives an effeciency "factor". If you compare his DE bulb data on his website (lamp/ballast combos), there tends to be very little difference for 250w DE bulbs with the M80 ballast vs electronic ballasts and sometimes it's the M80 that's more effecient sometimes it's the eballast. If you simply view effeciency as less electricity consumed and do not take into account light produced, then yes, eballasts are more effecient. I personally like to take into account the light produced. DE bulbs are not like SE bulbs. They are made for the M80 ballast. It's the mag ballast that fires them. Pulse and probe starts will not, or certainly not safely or reliably.

For SE bulbs b/c of the issues of one, the effeciency, and two the probe vs pulse start bulbs and ballast compatability, I do agree that eballast is a better choice. You get a ballast that in general will run all comers without problems and is for sure much more effecient than probe or pulse starts.