250w Phoenix on E-Ballast almost same as a Radium on HQI??

[Horace]

From this spectrum chart, it appears to me that these bulbs are nearly identical...except the phoenix lacks a bit of the purple that the Radium has. It would seem to me that if you were to add some actinic supplements to the Phoenix, you would have yourself pretty much the exact same thing....What do you guys think??

 

[mntl]

The pheonix is almost 50% lower in most of the spectrum below 440nm, and 200% higher in the 590nm range. The pheonix is also shielded in the above test where the radium is not, if you shield the radium it will increase in output.

It would seem to me that if you were to add some actinic supplements to the Phoenix, you would have yourself pretty much the exact same thing

I would understand this if you were using different wattage bulbs and did not want to upgrade equipement, but why would you add the expense of actinic (and heat) to match another bulb, when all you need to do is change to the bulb you are trying to match? If you are going to add actinic to get the color where you want it, you might as well start with a much higher par 10k and adjust the color from there, it is really inefficient to try and adjust a bulb of the same wattage to another bulb of the same wattage with supplimentation just to end up with the bulb you are trying to reproduce with the same par.

you would have yourself pretty much the exact same thing

accept at a greater expense in wattage, equipement ($), and heat. If you want the look of a radium 20k..use the radium 20k.

jmo

-John-

 

[shelburn61]

Hard to argue with those plots? The phx would definitely be the cheaper way to go.

 

[want2reef]

Plus the Phoenix is on the lower wattage E-Ballast.

 

[shelburn61]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7550805#post7550805 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by mntl
The pheonix is almost 50% lower in most of the spectrum below 440nm, and 200% higher in the 590nm range. The pheonix is also shielded in the above test where the radium is not, if you shield the radium it will increase in output.

I think you're splitting hairs here, John. That little bit of 450nm isn't going to make much difference in appearance, and the 590nm should be pretty much irrelevant for the our purposes (or the corals).

I hope the comment on shielding the radium was a typo because that's just wrong?

 

[Horace]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7550862#post7550862 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by shelburn61
I think you're splitting hairs here, John. That little bit of 450nm isn't going to make much difference in appearance, and the 590nm should be pretty much irrelevant for the our purposes (or the corals).

I hope the comment on shielding the radium was a typo because that's just wrong?

I cant agree with you more here....

The other thing you (John) are forgetting is that the Radium has to be replaced every 6 months max where a pheonix will last almost twice as long. Also the Radium is an SE bulb and obviously if I am talking about using the Phoenix, I am running HQI.

Also there is the added advantage of running supplments rather than running your Halides all day. I dont plan on using my halides for the entire photo period, where I DO plan on using the T5 actinics for the entire photo period for dusk/dawn effect.

 

[mntl]

I hope the comment on shielding the radium was a typo because that's just wrong?

If you take par numbers from a properly shielded bulb and compare them to a bulb that is simply suspended without a shield, the output is a significant difference because the relfector is returning light that would otherwise be waisted.

One obvious way to increase the optical output of the light source is to use a bigger lamp. However, using a higher output light source will not always result in higher optical output on the area of concern (in our case the surface of the water in the aquarium). Since light is emitted in all directions (although not equally in all directions for a Metal Halide lamp), what is important is not what is emitted but what is collected and re-directed to the surface of interest. Reflectors are used to collect and re-direct light.

The actual paper Read the paper, a reflecter will give a significant output advantage over the area of concern as apposed to a non-reflected lamp.

I think you're splitting hairs here

Going from .1 to .18 (an 80% increase) in the actinic spectrum is not splitting hairs. If you think the bulbs are the same look at them side by side (over actual tanks), they are clearly different in person. And if you are trying to duplicate a bulb with another as the original poster is, then there is enough of of a difference to prefer one to the other.

The original poster is recommending using actinic to change one 250 into another 250 without the actinic, this is not efficient. If they were the same, why use the actinic to make them more alike?

-John-

 

[Horace]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7550850#post7550850 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by want2reef
Plus the Phoenix is on the lower wattage E-Ballast.

This is also important to note....If you were to run the Phoenix on an HQI it is closer to the Radium in spectrum, but I have not heard good things about the Phoenix on an HQI ballast.

 

[mntl]

Also there is the added advantage of running supplments rather than running your Halides all day. I dont plan on using my halides for the entire photo period, where I DO plan on using the T5 actinics for the entire photo period for dusk/dawn effect.

This is definately understandable, but was not mentioned as the reason for the supplimentation in the first post. But again, why not use a higher k bulb initially if you are going to suppliment only to the level of a radium 20k? If you want bluer- than this it is understandable.

 

[shelburn61]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7550917#post7550917 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by mntl
If you take par numbers from a properly shielded bulb and compare them to a bulb that is simply suspended without a shield, the output is a significant difference because the relfector is returning light that would otherwise be waisted.

"shielding" refers to the pane of glass used to block UV. These are required for using DE bulbs because they don't have a double envelope like SEs. It has nothing to do with the reflector.

 

[mntl]

the output is a significant difference because the relfector is returning light that would otherwise be waisted.

.

what is important is not what is emitted but what is collected and re-directed to the surface of interest. Reflectors are used to collect and re-direct light.

reflection refers to reflection where parallel incident rays of light on a surface are reflected parallel, and any material that reflects light in this manner is called a specular reflector. Examples of specular reflective material are mirrors and polished aluminum. These materials all posses what we would typically consider smooth and shiny surfaces.

This refers to the reflecter not the glass shield, this study is measuring reflecters, not glass shields.

Parabolic reflectors are shaped like a section of a parabola and have one focal point. When the lamp is placed at this focus, the rays of light reflect in a parallel fashion.

Again, not talking about the glass.

-John-

 

[Horace]

The Shield lowers the PAR, it doesnt increase it. A typical DE UV shield will reduce PAR by about 15%. If you run the Phoenix unshielded, the numbers will be ALOT higher, but you will crispy critter your corals, and your eyes if you look at them.

 

[Horace]

John....noone here is talking about reflectors....that has nothing to do with what we are talking about. We are responding to your post about "Shielding" and how it INCREASES light ouput. Re-read your past post and you will see what we are reffering to.

You say

The pheonix is also shielded in the above test where the radium is not, if you shield the radium it will increase in output.

This is absolutly the OPPOSITE of what is true. If you add a shield to the radium (pointless because its already sheilded since its an SE bulb), it will reduce the output of the Radium by about 15%, not increase it. I think your confusing "sheilding" with reflectors....they are NOT the same thing.

 

[Fliger]

However .... the Radium 250W/HQI ballast is NOT the magical combo. That is the Radium 400W/HQI (actually ~360W bulb driven by ~440W ballast). I have run both combos and they are very different. The 250W is more of a blue while the 400W is a much cooler blue with even a little whitish light. I'm not sure who they would graph, but to the eye they are a different bulb - and many of the incredible tanks you see on RC are the 400W/HQI flavor.

I did like the 250W combo, I ran it over a 26" cube and had good luck but still liked the 400W much better.

 

[Ereefic]

I've got a 250w Radium and a 250w Phoenix 14k, side by side, running on PFO HQI ballasts, and they are pretty close in color.

The 14k is about a year old now, but it is brighter and whiter than the Radium. The radium brings out the colors better than the 14k. I prefer the look of the radium over the phoenix 14k.

 

[Ti]

Does the radium flouresce more?

 

[Horace]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7552473#post7552473 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Ereefic
I've got a 250w Radium and a 250w Phoenix 14k, side by side, running on PFO HQI ballasts, and they are pretty close in color.

The 14k is about a year old now, but it is brighter and whiter than the Radium. The radium brings out the colors better than the 14k. I prefer the look of the radium over the phoenix 14k.

Not a huge surprise, though when you have to spend $80 per bulb and replace them twice as often as an phoenix, that doesnt make it worth it to me, especially if your going to run some Actinic supplements for dusk/dawn anyway.

 

[Ereefic]

I didn't say if it was worth it or not, just stating my opinion and observations about the 2 different bulbs.

 

[BreadmanMike]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7553379#post7553379 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Ti
Does the radium flouresce more?

Way more....

Not a huge surprise, though when you have to spend $80 per bulb and replace them twice as often as an phoenix, that doesnt make it worth it to me, especially if your going to run some Actinic supplements for dusk/dawn anyway

No you don't... 250w Radiums are driven pretty close to spec on an HQI ballast. It's the 400w Radiums on HQI that are overdriven.

 

[shelburn61]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7555513#post7555513 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Aquaticman74
Way more....

Are you comparing this to the phoenix on HQI or electronic? I hear the phx brings out colors much better on electronic ballasts but sort of washes things out on hqi.