Kessil A350W vs Metal Halide

[Barbelist]

I was wondering just how my Kessil A350W compares to metal halide lighting by comparison....


....does anyone here know what the equivalent metal halide wattage the 90w A350W would compare to???

Not a pressing subject I know, but one that is on my mind nonetheless:hmm6:



Paul

 

[Barbelist]

45 views and no responses....

....does anybody know the answer??


Paul

 

[sirreal63]

You are not getting an answer because the answer isn't that easy. There can be a huge variation in MH setups. They are not all the same. Just looking at par, a poorly setup 250 can be beat by a properly set up 150. Then when you add in ballast and reflector it gets even more complicated and the available light to the tank can be very different.

There is no easy answer to your question.

 

[Barbelist]

I thought I'd try asking Kessil direct and this is what they replied:

Thank you for contacting Kessil Lighting.

Sorry to see that no one knows the answer to you million dollar question. The A350 and A360 are considered a replacement for a 250W metal halide. The lights can replace more or less wattage bulbs but as far as output to output a 250 would be the best comparison.

So now we know:fish2:

 

[sirreal63]

Ask them specifically which 250 watt MH it is a replacement for, that they tested to arrive at that answer, they will not have an honest answer.

Just looking at Sanjay's testing, a 6500 Iwasaki put out 189 ppfd on M80 and a Geismann 20K put out 34 ppfd on an IceCap electronic ballast. Both are 250 watt MH bulbs but the output is vastly different. This is mostly why there is no easy answer, which setup is the Kessil equivalent to?

 

[Barbelist]

Jack,

I'm not THAT interested my friend....I only mused upon what the comparison might be whilst supping a coffee one day and when I couldn't find an answer on-line, thought I'd throw it open on the forum to see if there was an answer. On the back of your first reply I thought I'd go direct and seek their opinion. It is of note that Kessil only give their opinion and not any anecdotal evidence....good enough to satisfy my curiosity

Paul

 

[sirreal63]

I wish it were an easy answer, it may help people, but unfortunately it isn't. A few years back everyone was saying their fixture was equal to a 250 watt MH, not a single one of them could say which 250 MH. Today few LED mfg's make that claim, it was marketing fluff that had no real value and only served to sell lights and confuse the people buying the lights.

The Kessil is a nice light, aside from the fact that wattage equivalents are meaningless. Enjoy the light, it works and if used in the correct number it will do anything you want. I have been impressed by the color of every one of their lights.

 

[grigsy]

I thought I'd try asking Kessil direct and this is what they replied:

Thank you for contacting Kessil Lighting.

Sorry to see that no one knows the answer to you million dollar question. The A350 and A360 are considered a replacement for a 250W metal halide. The lights can replace more or less wattage bulbs but as far as output to output a 250 would be the best comparison.

This is the standard LED company answer. They love saying that their LED light is "equivalent to a 250 watt halide".

I havent seen that to ever be the case -especially in terms of coral growth. That and the "50,000 hour" LED life answer - yet none of the aquarium LEDs have been tested that long yet to firmly make that statement.

I have used a few different popular LED fixtures (AI Sol, Radion, Kessil 350) and none of those gave me near the growth that I get from a 250 watt metal halide using either a Hamilton Cayman Sun or SLS Lumen Max with M80 ballast and PHX or Hamilton 14K bulb.

 

[Reefvet]

Ask them specifically which 250 watt MH it is a replacement for, that they tested to arrive at that answer, they will not have an honest answer.

They won't because nobody can and they ARE honest.

Just looking at Sanjay's testing, a 6500 Iwasaki put out 189 ppfd on M80 and a Geismann 20K put out 34 ppfd on an IceCap electronic ballast. Both are 250 watt MH bulbs but the output is vastly different.

And one creates light that grows corals like all hell but aesthetically sucks. The other has a nice look and grows corals but not as well.

I have used a few different popular LED fixtures (AI Sol, Radion, Kessil 350) and none of those gave me near the growth that I get from a 250 watt metal halide using either a Hamilton Cayman Sun or SLS Lumen Max with M80 ballast and PHX or Hamilton 14K bulb.

And none of them gave you the same electric bill, the same heat and the same pleasure of buying a new bulb every few months. But they'll all grow nice corals.

There is no way to compare the two. That's the only thing we know to be true.

 

[sirreal63]

I would consider honesty not making the comparison, saying it is considered a replacement for a 250 watt MH is misleading, because they cannot say which 250 watt MH they consider it to be a replacement for. Add in a proper reflector and spec ballast and the comparison becomes even more ludicrous. Honesty would be to not even make the comparison because it is irrelevant. Their light can stand on it's own, does it really need rubbish to sell it?

 

[grigsy]

And none of them gave you the same electric bill, the same heat and the same pleasure of buying a new bulb every few months. But they'll all grow nice corals.

Not to mention that my 300 watt heater was on ALL THE TIME when running LEDs. Where was the electricity savings in that?

And - buying a new bulb "every few months"? My halide bulbs are replaced every 14 months - big whoop.

My ballasts are 10 years old. I doubt many of the LED fixtures sold today will light 10 years from now.

 

[Barbelist]

Don't fall out over this.....I was just a bit bored and wondered - that's all folks

 

[Bent]

I've need a new light, and I've been back and forth between the same setup. LED or halide.

For me the decision is very much multi factorial.

1: control.
The LED wins this hands down. The halide simply does not have the amount of control the LEDs do. Being able to change color and intensity and program them is pretty cool. Necessary for good growth? No. But still cool.

2: heat.
Again the LEDs win. Halides produce a mass amount of heat, to the point that smaller water volumes could need a chiller.

3: cost.
From what I can tell, while the Halide may seem more expensive to run both in the electric bill and bulb changes. There are other factors to consider. Halides may or may not need a chiller, which will add to the electric bill and the yearly bulb costs add up too. But the LEDs still may require a fairly large heater. So it all depends on what setup you are comparing. Also it seems to me the initial setup costs and fixture costs are close to the same.

4: efficiency.
In my mind the LED takes this. The halides use a lot of energy creating heat, while LEDs will put out more par watt for watt.

5: growth.
This is the real question isn't it? I've seen people start to make the switch back from LEDs to halides and have seen explosive comparative growth. But again, this depends on what you are trying to accomplish. That's not to say that LEDs can't grow coral, because we all know that's not true. But, I do think that the halides will grow better corals than the LEDs ever will. If this is your end game and nothing else matters to you, I believe halides outperform the LEDs. YMMV.

 

[Hoopz87]

I have the kessil a360w And love it Excellent colors and growth imo

 

[Bent]

That's probably what I'll end up with.

 

[trueperc]

Funny thing is my friend just bought three kessil 360 for his 180 and we talked comparing to what I have. One thing to conside, to properly light his tank you would need 6 kessil. With metal halide you would only need 3. He also find them dim even at 100 percent. The shimmer was easly washed out when using an addition 60w chinese cree fixture to help with dimness.
Also consider cost. That upfront cost seems to be so dismissed but in reality that is the one kicker. I mean for him it will be close to $1600 and that does not include the hydro cost. Now for the cost of even brand new metal halide maybe at most 800-1000 for everything brand new. Replacement bulbs every year, which is a bit to early, 150-200. So me the true cost in savings. Not much. Now if you have to buy 6 kessils or any other led, then where is the saving.
Most of these leds seem to have a life span of 1-3 years before parts start needing to be replace. Also some one pointed out the controlablity, for me that is both a blessing and a curse. There is so many thread about settings and having to find the magic spot and constant tweaking. Metal halide just work. This just my two cents and experience as I had 6 led fixture over my current tank before.

 

[Av8bluewater]

I went with an ATI sunpower because my favorite tanks on the internet are usually T5 and Radium tanks. Certainly some merits to both. One thing a person also needs to consider is 4-5 years from now will you still be happy with your LEDs? In the camera world there is a term called "digital rot". Meaning the equipment loses value. Something to consider when trying to compare bulb replacement costs.

 

[JN93]

I have a Geisemann 250W Double end fixture on a M80 ballast running a 14k phoenix bulbs and love the growth and quality.

 

[Meteordealer]

Funny thing is my friend just bought three kessil 360 for his 180 and we talked comparing to what I have. One thing to conside, to properly light his tank you would need 6 kessil. With metal halide you would only need 3. He also find them dim even at 100 percent. The shimmer was easly washed out when using an addition 60w chinese cree fixture to help with dimness.
Also consider cost. That upfront cost seems to be so dismissed but in reality that is the one kicker. I mean for him it will be close to $1600 and that does not include the hydro cost. Now for the cost of even brand new metal halide maybe at most 800-1000 for everything brand new. Replacement bulbs every year, which is a bit to early, 150-200. So me the true cost in savings. Not much. Now if you have to buy 6 kessils or any other led, then where is the saving.
Most of these leds seem to have a life span of 1-3 years before parts start needing to be replace. Also some one pointed out the controlablity, for me that is both a blessing and a curse. There is so many thread about settings and having to find the magic spot and constant tweaking. Metal halide just work. This just my two cents and experience as I had 6 led fixture over my current tank before.

I agree with everything you said. I ran 2 x 250 watt Halides for 4 or 5 years and my corals grew like crazy. Then i switched to 2 Kessil A350's. Everything looked good for the first month or so, then almost all of my corals started receding and shriveling up. It has now been a year and a half since i switched to the LED's and all of my coral are gone except for a Hammer and a few polyps that are barely clinging to life.

Now, after just over a years worth of use, one of my pendants is having electrical issues and will need repaired/replaced at my expense. I have decided just to sell the LED's and go back to Halides.

Halides are modular. There is a reflector, a ballast, and a bulb. All of which can be easily replaced if any of them ever fail. With LED's, you pretty much have to scrap the entire fixture and buy a new one (unless you're an electrical engineer and can fix it yourself).

 

[snowboard1]

+1 to this post. I started in the hobby 8 years ago with vho and had good growth. Switched to LED and lost most of my corals over 4-5 yrs. went back to t5 and corals exploded again. Went to MH and corals did even better. Just my experience...