Comparative Review of Solana 150watt HQI system vs. PFO 150watt HQI pendant with Reef

[cerreta]

Comparative Review of Solana 150watt HQI system vs. PFO 150watt HQI pendant with Reef Fanatic Ballast



Introduction
Reef Fanatic (RF) ballasts are well known as one of the most powerful electronic ballasts on the market. Sanjay has done several professional reviews comparing metal halide ballasts and lamps. The RF ballasts produce higher PAR ratings compared to most other electronic ballasts in the 175, 250, and 400 watt comparisons. Unfortunately, Reef Fanatic has discontinued their ballast line.
The PFO mini pendant is another popular piece of equipment. It is cost effective and small enough to meet most retro demands. The standard of lamps is the Phoenix 14K lamp. The PAR values are near the tops for lamps of spectrum 12K to 15K, but is known for its beautiful crisp blue color. People often claim good growth rates with excellent coloration of corals when using the Phoenix 14K lamp.
I have experimented with many MH systems and found this system to be a true winner. With the introduction of the new Current-USA Solana, I became fascinated with the superior look of the metal orb. It is classy, and all-in-one system (ballast, fixture, and lamp), and costs less than buying separate components at $206.00. The electronic ballast is made by Sunpak and is rated at 150 watts. The equipped lamp is a Current-USA 14K. The question that comes: does this orb stand up to the reputation of the reference system? This sparked my interest to review the two products in a head to head competition.
Initial firing of the Solana system was not impressive. The lamp color appeared warm compared to the Phoenix 14K and the light dispersion pattern seemed very narrow. I also speculated that the power output of the Solana system would be far less than the reference system because it features a 150 watt ballast compared to the 175 watt RF ballast. I have learned a great appreciation for the design aspect of light fixtures. Some results of this test were unpredictable and unforeseen. In fact, I only set out to compare the two systems by changing the two lamps. However, the Solana outperformed the reference system despite using a less powerful ballast. Therefore, I retested the systems by changing the ballasts too. This test proved that the Solana fixture is far superior to the PFO fixture, thus producing a more powerful direct and dispersion pattern regardless of the ballast in use.

Reef Fanatic 175watt SE or DE MH Electronic Ballast

Current-USA Sunpak 150watt DE MH Electronic Ballast

PFO Pendant

Solana Pendant

Testing Methods and Equipment
LUX, a measurement of lamp intensity, was recorded using a Tenma LX-101 digital LUX meter set to the “x100” range. The probe is used without a cover. Direct LUX measurements are recorded at a distance of 7 inches from the UV shield of the pendant system. The probe is moved around the surface of the glass surface until the highest stable value is observed. These are the values reported. Dispersion pattern was measured by placing the probe at one of three corners of the 21” x 18” Nano tank. The rear left corner was numbered one, and the others were labeled in a clockwise fashion. See photo for details. Water surface values were recorded by placing the backside of the probe on the water surface and moved until the highest stable reading was determined. See photo for details. PAR values are calculated based on the equation provided by Delbeek and Sprung: The Reef Aquarium Volume 3, pg 458. PAR = 1.53 + (0.0111) LUX.
Voltage, amperage, and wattage of each ballast was recorded using a Kill A Watt meter model P4400-P3. The line voltage was constant for each test at 119.9 volts.
A lamp warm-up time of five minutes was given before recording values. There was a slight difference in distance between the lamp and glass shield of the two pendants. The PFO has a distance of 2.25 inches. The Solana has a distance of 2.75 inches. There was also a one inch difference in distance between the two pendants to the water surface. The PFO has a distance of 15 inches and the Solana has a distance of 16 inches. Because the PFO is rectangular, compared to the circular shape of the Solana, there was a slight variance in measuring the distances in the dispersion test. See table to view differences.

Tenma Digital LUX Meter

Kill A Watt P3 Meter

Direct Measurement Technique and Equipment

Dispersion Measurement Technique: Position #4 Front Left Corner.

Dispersion Measurement Technique: Directly On the Water

Results
The table below summarizes the recorded values. I recently ordered a Radium 20K lamp and will test this lamp in the next week. I will add the results to this review when available. The results table below has an empty slot for these values.
In regards to lamp intensity (LUX and PAR) during the direct measurements and when the probe is placed directly on the water surface, the Solana pendant outperforms the PFO pendant regardless of lamp or ballast used.
In regards to lamp intensity during dispersion measurements, the PFO pendant outperforms the Solana pendant.
In regards to lamp intensity, the RF ballast is more powerful as noted by consuming more wattage and amperage compared to the Sunpak ballast. Regardless of lamp type, the RF ballast will equally overdrive them with 187 watts and 1.56 amps. However, the Sunpak ballast varies its power consumption depending on the lamp used. The Current lamp has higher resistance compared to the Phoenix lamp when using the Sunpak ballast and only consumes 145 watts and 1.22 amps. Therefore, the subsequent lamp intensity is lower for the Current lamp and Sunpak ballast combo 22,200 LUX (PFO) & 37,500 LUX (Solana), vs. the Current lamp with RF ballast combo 23,500 LUX (PFO) & 40,000 LUX (Solana). A similar trend is observed between comparing ballasts when using the Phoenix 14K lamp. The Sunpak ballast produces 24,500 LUX (PFO) & 38,000 LUX (Solana) vs. the RF ballast 25,500 LUX (PFO) & 45,000 LUX (Solana).
The Solana pendant is far superior compared to the PFO pendant in terms of lamp intensity regardless of lamp or ballast when considering direct and on the water measurements. The Current lamp and Sunpak ballast combo 22,200 LUX (PFO) vs. 37,500 LUX (Solana). The Current lamp with RF ballast combo 23,500 LUX (PFO) vs. 40,000 LUX (Solana). A similar trend is observed between comparing ballasts when using the Phoenix 14K lamp. The Sunpak ballast produces 24,500 LUX (PFO) vs. 38,000 LUX (Solana). The RF ballast 25,500 LUX (PFO) vs. 45,000 LUX (Solana).
The dispersion tests reveal that the PFO pendant produces better lamp intensity compared to the Solana pendant.

 

[cerreta]

DIRECT MEASUREMENTS
Pendant Ballast Lamp LUX PAR Watt Amps
PFO RF PHOENIX 14K 25,500 187 1.57
SOLANA RF PHOENIX 14K 45,000 187 1.57
PFO SUNPAK PHOENIX 14K 24,500 161 1.34
SOLANA SUNPAK PHOENIX 14K 38,000 163 1.36

PFO RF CURRENT 14K 23,500 186 1.55
SOLANA RF CURRENT 14K 40,000 187 1.58
PFO SUNPAK CURRENT 14K 22,200 146 1.23
SOLANA SUNPAK CURRENT 14K 37,500 144 1.21

PFO RF RADIUM 20K
SOLANA RF RADIUM 20K
PFO SUNPAK RADIUM 20K
SOLANA SUNPAK RADIUM 20K
DISPERSION MEASUREMENTS
Pendant Ballast Lamp LUX CORNER 1 LUX CORNER 3 LUX CORNER 4 LUX ON H2O SURFACE
PFO RF PHOENIX 14K 9,500 11,100 10,100 21,100
SOLANA RF PHOENIX 14K 8,300 7,600 8,000 28,000
PFO SUNPAK PHOENIX 14K 7,800 10,000 8,400 18,500
SOLANA SUNPAK PHOENIX 14K 7,800 7,100 7,400 26,000

PFO RF CURRENT 14K 7,300 9,800 8,000 17,900
SOLANA RF CURRENT 14K 7,100 6,600 7,000 23,000
PFO SUNPAK CURRENT 14K 5,600 8,600 7,000 16,500
SOLANA SUNPAK CURRENT 14K 6,000 5,300 5,600 21,500

PFO RF RADIUM 20K
SOLANA RF RADIUM 20K
PFO SUNPAK RADIUM 20K
SOLANA SUNPAK RADIUM 20K




Discussion and Conclusion
While there are notable differences in intensity (LUX and PAR) between ballasts and lamps, nothing produces a greater statistical difference than comparing the two pendants. When using the RF ballast and Phoenix 14K lamp, there is a difference of almost 20,000 LUX favoring the Solana pendant. This is the most significant finding of this study. The Solana pendant was purchased for a 14” Artsy-Cube reef tank. Due to the small size of this tank, the Solana is a perfect match.
While the PFO does provide a better dispersion pattern it is not a large difference. Furthermore, the difference between ballasts outweighs the difference observed between pendant styles when considering dispersion patterns.
When considering lamps I prefer the Phoenix 14K lamp over the Current USA lamp for several reasons. One, the Phoenix lamp is more powerful regardless of the ballast used. Two, the Phoenix lamp has less resistance when used on the Sunpak ballast and results in higher LUX values. Three, the color! I often refer to lamp color in terms of color temperatures, warm and cool. Warmer colors lean towards the red end of the light spectrum, whereas the cool colors lean towards the blue end of the light spectrum. I prefer the cool blue tones produced by the Phoenix lamp. The Current lamp appears purplish-pink, much warmer. See photos and you will notice an obvious difference in color temperature. Four, maybe I had a bum Current lamp, but it had a slight flicker on both ballasts and both pendants. This was not pleasant at all. Five, the coral colors had a more vibrant POP when viewed under the Phoenix 14K lamp. The difference between the two lamps is as obvious as the difference between the Solana pendant and the PFO pendant. I am anxious to test the Radium lamp.
The combination that I will likely use for the Artsy-Cube is the Solana pendant, Sunpak ballast, and Phoenix 14K lamp. This combination produces 38,000 LUX with a current consumption of 1.36 amps at 163 watts. This combination is more effective than the current combination I use on the 20 gallon Nano tank that is seen in the pictures. It features a PFO pendant, RF ballast, and 14K Phoenix lamp. That combination produces 25,500 LUX with a current consumption of 1.57 amps at 187 watts. That’s a big difference! The Solana pendant is a gem!!!


Tank view under Current-USA 14K lamp. Notice the warm colors of purple and pink. It has a similar look to VHO lamps.

Tank view under Phoenix 14K lamp. Cooler colors of crisp white with blue hue.

Phoenix 14K lamp. Notice the blue color on the wall. The other lamp is purple-yellow.

 

[cerreta]

Does anyone know how to insert a table? This is very ugly and hard to read.

Anyone can PM me with your email address and I will send the Word document to you.

 

[MADtanks]

maybe you can convert the table to a JPG or some kind of img put it in photobucket and upload it, i would do it for ya but i cant get into photobucket from work good results either way

 

[GSMguy]

i would have guessed opposite results, the pfo has better reflective material and seems to have a better shape but solana beat it.

 

[cerreta]

GSM, that was my original thought too. The Solana does a better job of focusing the light downward. The lamp is much closer to the side wall surfaces of the Solana, whereas the PFO pendant is rectangular and the bulb is not as close.

Makes me wonder if all circular pendants outperform the larger counterparts.

 

[Rosseau]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11119296#post11119296 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by cerreta
Does anyone know how to insert a table? This is very ugly and hard to read.

CTRL + SHIFT + Print Screen

This will capture whatever is on your screen. Go to paint, select Paste. Crop out the table and save as an image file. Upload!

 

[InsaneClownFish]

Fantastic stuff! Looks like we both made a solid choice with our Solanas. I was also expecting better results with the PFO pendant. The circular design is eye opening indeed.

Is there a quick table for comparing the LUX values you found with the PPFD on Sanjay's site?

For comparison purposes, how would these numbers compare to say a 175 15k Iwaski- that famous little par monster of a 175?

 

[MYG24]

Does anyone know when the 250W version of the Solanas will be out? I love the retro look of the lamp, plus with the new information about it's performance, I am looking forward to getting one.

 

[ezcompany]

there are two possible flaws / variations in the study


1. Age of ballasts compared

2. Salt residue on UV glass

It would be interesting to see the comparison with a brand new RF ballast (which isn't possible but you can possibly age the Sunpark ballast)

 

[er1c_the_reefer]

what about age of lamps?

 

[MADtanks]

hmmm good observation very interesting indeed....

 

[cerreta]

Those are very good questions.

The glass lens was cleaned prior to any testing.

Regarding the age of the ballasts it is irrelevant. The RF ballast outperforms the Sunpak with any lamp tested. Therefore a newer version of the ballast may reveal a greater statistical difference between the ballasts, but it won't change the outcome of the study. The major difference here is the fact that the RF ballast is rated at 175watts and drives the lamp with more power. The RF ballast is about 2 years old.

The lamp age is also irrelevant for the same reason. Although I do agree that a new Phoenix 14K lamp would likely produce better results and widens the gap between the two lamps. However, this is a small fraction too.

I always test the LUX values of new lamps when they are first put in use. The Phoenix 14K lamp is 13 months old (wow time flies).
RF ballast / PFO Pendant / NEW Phoenix 14K = 27,000 LUX
RF ballast / PFO Pendant / USED 13months Phoenix 14K = 25,500 LUX

This equates to a loss of 6% intensity over 13months. I recall when I changed these lamps last year that I observed similar results. It led me to believe that changing MH lamps every year is unnecessary. Seeing the results again today confirms that belief. I do recognize that intensity is just one measurement of lamp degradation. Other factors to consider are spectral changes and degradation of coatings on the glass tubes and maybe others.

However, when testing VHO and T5 lamps in the past I would observe changes of 20 - 40% (LUX) loss of intensity and I observed stunted growth of corals and coral color loss. I do not observe any color loss or growth stunting in my tank now with the 13month old lamp and its 6% LUX drop. Therefore, unlike fluorescent lamps, I believe that MH lamps have a longer life span. I am not in any hurry to change this MH lamp just because it is recommended to do so by the manufacturer that wants my $60 for a new lamp.



I was finally able to get the tables in a jpg file. So here they are in a much easier to read format. Enjoy!!!

 

[InsaneClownFish]

Scott, did you get any PAR readings at ceratin distances below the waterline? Are the "direct" PAR measurements right at the lense?

 

[cerreta]

No to both questions. The LUX values were taken at a distance of 7 inches from the lens. There was also a round of measurements taken at the water surface about 15" from lamps. None taken below the water surface.

I do have an immersion probe, but it records different values when compared to the reference probe above the water surface, so I do not use it.

 

[CamBarr]

Great thread tagging along!!!

 

[cerreta]

Addenum:
The testing has been completed with the Radium 20,000K lamp. The color is not as blue as I hoped. In fact, the Phoenix 14K lamp appears bluer in color and corals look better with the Phoenix 14K. The LUX values comparing the Radium and Phoenix lamps are very similar. I think a new Phoenix 14K lamp would produce a tad more intensity, but as the results stand, it appears that the Radium lamp is more powerful than the 13month old Phoenix lamp.

I also made a few observations when looking at the numbers and discussing some issues about the possibility of upgrading to a 250watt system:

A new Phoenix 14K lamp with RF 150 watt ballast/PFO pendant = 27,000 LUX

13 Month old Phoenix 14K lamp with RF ballast/PFO Pendant as tested in the review = 25,500 LUX.

10/3/06 I tested the LUX of new lamps installed. These are Phoenix 14K lamps powered by an RF ballast and PFO pendant. I owned a 150 watt version for the nano and two 250 versions for the 110 tall tank.

Results:
250watt #1 = 32,500 LUX
250watt #2 = 31,500 LUX
150watt = 27,000 LUX

Taking the average of the two 250watt systems at 32,000 LUX, that equates to a 15% greater intensity over the 150watt system.

That is not very much in my estimation and considering the cost of change over and paying for electricity, I do not consider it a good investment, unless you have a tank deeper than 20". My PROP tank is only 13 inches deep and I have a 3 inch sand bed, so I am happy with the 150watt version.

Another Observation:

The new Phoenix 14K lamp on a RF 250watt ballast and PFO pendant produces 32,000 LUX.

The 13month old 14K lamp on a 150watt Sunpak ballast and Solana pendant produces 38,000 LUX. With the RF ballast it produces 45,000 LUX. That is an increase in Intensity by 16% and 29% respectively.

Therefore, if you really want to make a good upgrade, consider changing to a higher efficiency pendant system before upgrading to a 250watt ballast. It will cost less and may deliver more intensity, depending of what you are currently using. I have obviously only test the PFO and Solana pendant, but wish I had access to a few other makes and models.

I would like to see more studies done comparing pendant systems. I think we are on to something here.

I completed the testing of the Radium lamp and will post results in the other thread. I will also comment about the lamp color.


Here are the three tank shots comparing lamp color. I prefer the look of my corals under the Phoenix 14K lamp. I still noticed a flicker and odd color with the Current USA lamp and will inquire about it being defective. I have seen some other tanks where the lamp color appears bluer.


Phoenix 14K Lamp $60

Radium 20K Lamp $90

Current-USA 14K Lamp $50

 

[Scythanith]

Great work, thank you very much for posting this info. It's another piece of the puzzle to help me try and figure out what lighting combinations to try!

Thanks!

 

[skey44]

when did radium come out with a double ended bulb?

 

[skey44]

never mind i found the 150 online, maybe i was just thinking about the 250.