175 watt vs 250 watt

[DownwardDawg]

It was a typo. HQI ballast is what you need, like an m80.

Thanks. I figured it was a typo, I just couldn't figure out what you were saying.

So, ya'll don't think the 250 watts will be too much for softies and LPS? I know I will slowly move to a more SPS dominant tank, but for now I only have softies and LPS. I love the LPS!

 

[Toddrtrex]

Think that a 10,000K bulb (( if you like that look )) would be too much, but a 20,000K one should work -- if you acclimate properly.

 

[DownwardDawg]

Think that a 10,000K bulb (( if you like that look )) would be too much, but a 20,000K one should work -- if you acclimate properly.

Thanks. So much to consider. :crazy1:

 

[karsseboom]

The only time I would run 175 is on smaller more shallow tanks. With 250s there so many bulbs to choose from and the par is a lot better. If you ever plan to go sps I would make sure to use 250.

 

[James77]

I'd get a single ended bulb/reflector setup and use the Lumatek switchable 150/175/250/HQI ballast. Mogul/SE bulbs have the same base in 175,250, and 400...so if the light proved to be too much, you could always jump down to 175 if it is too much or vice versa and jump up to 250 if the light is too much.

IMO 175s would be more than enough for LPS/softies and alot of SPS. Either would work fine. If you wanted to save power and keep intensity go with the 175 Iwasaki 15k, brighter than every 250w bulb I have compared with on Sanjays site when run on an electtronic ballast.

 

[James77]

I'd get a single ended bulb/reflector setup and use the Lumatek switchable 150/175/250/HQI ballast. Mogul/SE bulbs have the same base in 175,250, and 400...so if the light proved to be too much, you could always jump down to 175 if it is too much or vice versa and jump up to 250 if the light is too much.

IMO 175s would be more than enough for LPS/softies and alot of SPS. Either would work fine. If you wanted to save power and keep intensity go with the 175 Iwasaki 15k, brighter than every 250w bulb I have compared with on Sanjays site when run on an electtronic ballast.

 

[DownwardDawg]

James,
The Lumatek ballasts I'm looking at are in a "retro-kit" at aquacave. They are listed as Select-A-Watt 175-250. These are electronic but I don't think they are HQI. Will these work on Radiums? Also, will the HQI ballast you mention work on all SE mogul base bulbs?
One more question...how are the sockets rated? It sounds like you are saying that one socket will be good for all wattage bulbs up to 400 watts? That's not the case in your regular household incadescent lighting.

 

[James77]

James,
The Lumatek ballasts I'm looking at are in a "retro-kit" at aquacave. They are listed as Select-A-Watt 175-250. These are electronic but I don't think they are HQI. Will these work on Radiums? Also, will the HQI ballast you mention work on all SE mogul base bulbs?
One more question...how are the sockets rated? It sounds like you are saying that one socket will be good for all wattage bulbs up to 400 watts? That's not the case in your regular household incadescent lighting.

The Lumatek switchables do have a "HQI" setting, though it is not identical to a magnetic HQI ballast outputs. But they will fire Radiums fine on either the 250 or HQI setting. A magnetic HQI ballast will overdrive some bulbs, though quite a few are actually supposed to run on them. Radium and Phoenix are 2 that are supposed to be, but they will run fine on electronics. They just wont be as bright/intense and be bluer. Other bulbs will be overdriven a bit on HQI, and will be whiter and lose life. Radiums run best on HQI, but will work fine-and look better IMO- on the HQI setting on the electronics.
The size of the sockets are the same. Take Lumenmax 2 reflectors....the socket is adjustable to fit 175/250 and 400, the only difference in the bulbs are the length.

If this is the kit you are looking at:
http://www.aquacave.com/lumatek-250w-metal-halide-brretro-kit-with-electronic-ballast-3215.html

The ballast listed as 175/250 will actually have settings for 150/175/250 and HQI( you might want to double check with them...but I am 99.99% sure, I dont know of a ballast that is just 175/250) Consider the Lumenmax Elite or other reflector by sunlight supply...the ords are proprietary and will match. Others will work but you need to splice. Also, you can use the code RC5 at their checkout to knock 5% off. They do have the best prices on that ballast.

 

[Reefnut2010]

My tank is 60" x 18" x 24" and I run 2 175w 15k Iwasaki bulbs supplemented with actinic t5s and led strips for more blue. Tank seems to be doing very well and my light bill is not as bad.

 

[Froggy]

I have been running the 175 watt Iwasaki's on my 120 for a year and on my 75 for a couple of years before that. The 175 will be more than enough for your application even when you start adding SPS. SPS do just fine in my tank and I only run the Iwasaki's on a magnetic ballast. I also only have crappy bat wing parabolic reflectors added to my hood. Needless to say with better reflectors and getting more PAR from an electronic ballast ( 86 PPFD on electronic compared to 71 PPFD on magnetic per Sanjays testing ) you can put even more PAR on the tank.
I am actually switching may lighting to 8 X 54 T5 in December though simply because of the color tweaking that can be done. I have been limited to the one bulb ( Iwasaki ) as I like SPS and other 175 watt bulbs do not compare to the PAR and color combo the Iwasaki provided. If you go the Iwasaki route send me a PM. I can let you know the best on line pricing on the bulb that I found over the last few years. Not sure if I can post the website here. I have gotten my bulbs from the same place the last few years and they always have the lowest price on the bulbs.

Hope this helps,
Joe

 

[DownwardDawg]

The Lumatek switchables do have a "HQI" setting, though it is not identical to a magnetic HQI ballast outputs. But they will fire Radiums fine on either the 250 or HQI setting. A magnetic HQI ballast will overdrive some bulbs, though quite a few are actually supposed to run on them. Radium and Phoenix are 2 that are supposed to be, but they will run fine on electronics. They just wont be as bright/intense and be bluer. Other bulbs will be overdriven a bit on HQI, and will be whiter and lose life. Radiums run best on HQI, but will work fine-and look better IMO- on the HQI setting on the electronics.
The size of the sockets are the same. Take Lumenmax 2 reflectors....the socket is adjustable to fit 175/250 and 400, the only difference in the bulbs are the length.

If this is the kit you are looking at:
http://www.aquacave.com/lumatek-250w-metal-halide-brretro-kit-with-electronic-ballast-3215.html

The ballast listed as 175/250 will actually have settings for 150/175/250 and HQI( you might want to double check with them...but I am 99.99% sure, I dont know of a ballast that is just 175/250) Consider the Lumenmax Elite or other reflector by sunlight supply...the ords are proprietary and will match. Others will work but you need to splice. Also, you can use the code RC5 at their checkout to knock 5% off. They do have the best prices on that ballast.

Thanks for all the great info! That is the kit I'm looking at. This site is great for gathering information.

Froggy, I'm sending you a pm just in case I go with the Iwasaki's.

 

[DownwardDawg]

How much difference will the two 160 watt VHO's make when considering 175 watt bulbs? I plan on going with the Super Actinic and the 454. Just throwing another piece of the puzzle out there.

 

[Froggy]

Color wise or intensity wise? Color wise they will look great with the Iwasaki 175 watt as a supplemental bulb which is a very white bulb. Intensity wise, actinic VHO's do not put out much PAR. I chose to supplement my Iwasaki's with two 54 watt T5's and use two ATI blue plus. It looks very nice and the Blue plus has a lot of PAR. It is not an actinic bulb though and is a blue bulb. Some people only like the actinic purple look to supplement and the VHO's will give you that.

If I were to supplement 4 T5's with the Iwasakis I would use 3 Blue plus and one purple plus or KZ Fiji purple. A LOT of PAR with a nice look. For a LPS, softy tank the VHO's would work fine. If you plan on going more SPS heavy in the future, I would supplement with T5's. You can always use an actinic T5 with less PAR for now and switch to a higher PAR blue T5 later when you get the SPS bug....we all know you will

 

[DownwardDawg]

Color wise or intensity wise? Color wise they will look great with the Iwasaki 175 watt as a supplemental bulb which is a very white bulb. Intensity wise, actinic VHO's do not put out much PAR. I chose to supplement my Iwasaki's with two 54 watt T5's and use two ATI blue plus. It looks very nice and the Blue plus has a lot of PAR. It is not an actinic bulb though and is a blue bulb. Some people only like the actinic purple look to supplement and the VHO's will give you that.

If I were to supplement 4 T5's with the Iwasakis I would use 3 Blue plus and one purple plus or KZ Fiji purple. A LOT of PAR with a nice look. For a LPS, softy tank the VHO's would work fine. If you plan on going more SPS heavy in the future, I would supplement with T5's. You can always use an actinic T5 with less PAR for now and switch to a higher PAR blue T5 later when you get the SPS bug....we all know you will

:hmm5:

 

[karsseboom]

To be honest iwasaki are great bulbs that give nice par but they dont even compare to radiums. If you get radium you wont even need and actinics at all. They are such a nice color and give good growth to.

 

[Toddrtrex]

Here are 2 pictures (( with the same camera settings, and same time of day )) one picture has 2*96 PC actinics, the other is just 2*250 Radiums (( Galaxy ballast ))

 

[mussel and hate]

If you really want a blue look why not just skip the fluorescent lamps and rock the radium. At 250W you would sacrifice some efficiency to the Iwasaki but that's without factoring in the supplemental blue lamps.

If I decided I wanted a 20k look on my setup I would have to take a hard look at adding half a dozen royal blue LEDs to my Iwasaki. 20ish watts of Cree XT-E RB seems to go a long way. Actinic fluoros are so 1988 and laden with toxic mercury ewwww.


Edit:

To be honest iwasaki are great bulbs that give nice par but they dont even compare to radiums. If you get radium you wont even need and actinics at all. They are such a nice color and give good growth to.

You mean they don't compare aesthetically in your opinion right? Cuz par wise they rox your radiums' sox.

 

[DownwardDawg]

Here are 2 pictures (( with the same camera settings, and same time of day )) one picture has 2*96 PC actinics, the other is just 2*250 Radiums (( Galaxy ballast ))

Todd,
That tank looks great. The color is awesome.

 

[DownwardDawg]

If you really want a blue look why not just skip the fluorescent lamps and rock the radium. At 250W you would sacrifice some efficiency to the Iwasaki but that's without factoring in the supplemental blue lamps.


What type of supplemental lighting are you running now? I like the idea of turning off the T5's when the Radiums kick on if I go that route.

I would love to see some pics of tanks lit with Iwasaki's.

 

[karsseboom]

If you really want a blue look why not just skip the fluorescent lamps and rock the radium. At 250W you would sacrifice some efficiency to the Iwasaki but that's without factoring in the supplemental blue lamps.

If I decided I wanted a 20k look on my setup I would have to take a hard look at adding half a dozen royal blue LEDs to my Iwasaki. 20ish watts of Cree XT-E RB seems to go a long way. Actinic fluoros are so 1988 and laden with toxic mercury ewwww.


Edit:



You mean they don't compare aesthetically in your opinion right? Cuz par wise they rox your radiums' sox.

Yeah I mean par too. radium is one of the highest par bulbs you can get. Look at sanjays experiments.