400W Bulb Testing

J

Jeremy B.

Active member
We had the chance to test some of the 400w bulbs on the market just recently, and found some pretty interesting numbers. This was setup using a standard M59 ballast, running the lamps in a PFO parallel reflector, and measuring exactly 20" from the arc tube on all lamps. All lamps tested were new, and not yet burned in, so there could be some discrepencies there. The only thing we measured was lux, which does not tell us the actual PAR, although there is a formula to figure PAR by just using a lux number. This is said to be "within 95% correct using this formula." If anyone wants to convert these numbers to PAR, they can go to Animal Network's site and lookup some of Richard Harker's articles.

Here is what we found, mind you this is just based on total light output only......

10k Ushio 16.2 200k Lux

10k AB 17.0 200k Lux

10k Blueline 4.1 200k Lux

12k Sunburst 6.6 200k Lux

13k PFO 8.9 200k Lux

20k Radium 7.2 200k Lux

20k XM 8.0 200k Lux

20k Coralvue 11.0 200k Lux


We are going to try and measure a couple more lamps in the 400w category, as well as all the major 250w lamps SE and DE on the market. We will measure the light intensity at the same distance, with the same reflectors and ballast used for the 250w too. The only differences we will have on the 250W DE's will be running them in their own pendant (different style reflector), and running them on an "HQI" style ballast.
 
Sweet!!! Thanks Jeremy...If you keep all these bulbs running, can you rerun these tests in a few weeks after burn-in?
I'm liking the look of that Coralvue.... :)
 
I want to get 250 SE's and DE's tested first to compare to the 400's. It is a little time consuming, so it might not be until the first of next week until I can get the PFO HQI done.
 
Question, in the line '10k Ushio 16.2 200k Lux', what does '16.2' represent, and what does '200k' represent?
 
The 16.2 looks like the absolute light output with the "200k" being the unit of measurement. Just the way I would interpret the data as presented which basically tells us what we already knew from Sanjay Joshi's testing--short of the iwasaki which wasn't tested it's AB, Ushio and then the rest far behind.
 
It is basically comparing NEW bulbs on the market that most people don't know about yet, to the older bulbs that we are already aware of. No, it is not scientific, but rather just a little bit of data to maybe help us understand these new lamps a little better. I wanted to see what the XM, PFO, and Coralvue lamps were capable of, and I think this shows it pretty well as far as light output goes. Once we get in a new 10K 400W Coralvue, I think it will show it will be the most intense "10K" on the market. For spectral curve and accurate ppfd/par ratings we'll have to wait for someone who has access to a spectraradiometer.
 
moonpod said:
basically tells us what we already knew from Sanjay Joshi's testing--short of the iwasaki which wasn't tested it's AB, Ushio and then the rest far behind.
Click to expand...

?????

I do not think Sanjay tested the PFO 13K OR the CoralVues OR the XM's.
 
yes, but given the higher k values in could fairly logically be deduced that the PAR values would be lower. I mean the XM "looks" a little whiter than a radium so it could be deduced that it's got a higher PAR. ditto Coralvue. I got no comment on the sunburst, PFO, or the blueline
 
moonpod,

You are exactly right. Just because the output is increased, that doesn't always mean that the par rating is increased. Although I did find this paragraph from Richard Harker on the animalnetwork.com site pretty interesting.......

Regression analysis is a statistical tool that examines the relationship between two variables and tells us how they are related. Linear regression applied to PAR and lux suggests a strong linear relationship with an R-squared of 95.3 percent. This means that over 95 percent of the change in PAR from bulb to bulb can be explained by the change in lux. In other words, using the lux meter and calculating PAR closely approximates what a considerably more expensive PAR meter would read. The regression analysis also provides a formula to calculate PAR from lux, which is: PAR = 1.53 + (0.0111)lux
Click to expand...
 
So wait, I'm confused. Using:
PAR = 1.53 + (0.0111)lux
and this:
10k Ushio 16.2 200k Lux

1.53+(.0111*16.2)

Does that mean the approximate calculated PAR (as defined by Richards formula) for the Ushio is 1.71?

Doesn't Sanjay's article measure the PAR of a 10K Ushio at 72.1? (and that's a 150 DE!)
What math trick am I missing?

Mike
 
I do not think you put in the value of 16.2 directly into the formula as measured by Jason.

If you look at the article by Harker, the Lux values he uses in his regression formula are from a low of 1750 (Belgium 175W) to a high of 8700 (Iwasaki 400W). So, we would have to convert Jasons Lux value to a different scale that is comparable to the regression formula. I'm not sure what the conversion would be...

Jason do you know what the measure of the 16.2 means.

Brad
 
My interpretation of the light meter (and again, I am just an uneducated user of this thing) is that the 16.2 would the 200k lux, meaning that is reading out a lux of 16.2(200) = 3240 From there you plug in your formula which would give you a par reading of 37.494. At least this my thinking of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Paul B
Think like a fish
Replies
1
Views
116
Vinny Kreyling
Vinny Kreyling
Smite
48x48x16 frag tanks and titan bin
Replies
1
Views
656
Smite
Smite
Reef Kinetics
Exciting Review by Joey Jones of TheCoralReefTalk: New Batch 6 ReefBot Lab
Replies
0
Views
202
Reef Kinetics
Reef Kinetics
Reef Kinetics
Watch Joey’s Discovery of the Future of Automated Testing!
Replies
0
Views
339
Reef Kinetics
Reef Kinetics
Brian60077
Be patient, wait, and do not rush to add things ???
Replies
11
Views
296
Brian60077
Brian60077
Back
Top