I am having trouble understanding the differences between a DE and SE MH bulb. My LFS claims the DE configuration is the only way to go. However I see all kinds of SE set-ups that are on very successful reefs. I understand that the SE does not need a lens and the DE should have one but what are the other differences? Can someone help a struggling DIY'er with this problem? I am building a canopy for a 75 and trying to decide on a SE or DE set-up. Thanks....
SE or DE MH?
- Thread starter rnhrtfan
- Start date
kdblove_99
New member
DE needs a lens SE doesnt
I switched from DE to SE. I like the SE alot. A far as coral growth i have seen no diffrence between the two.
But there are so many choices with SE. I love the bulb selection. and i think you get better coverage with SE than DE
I switched from DE to SE. I like the SE alot. A far as coral growth i have seen no diffrence between the two.
But there are so many choices with SE. I love the bulb selection. and i think you get better coverage with SE than DE
ThrowinRoost89
New member
how does a bulb decifer the area it covers? wouldnt that be the reflector? in a 18in wide tank i dont really think it matters
i bought a current usa outer orbit fixture, 2 x250w
i hear good things bout it
i bought a current usa outer orbit fixture, 2 x250w
i hear good things bout it
I think DE was a European thing so it came to the USA later and is still catching up some. But there are tins of bulb choices with DE. The light spread being better for SE is a fallacy. In fact, that was supposed to be one of DE's advantages, smaller more streamlined bulb, better reflectors could be designed for them. I think thats mostly a wash with the Lumenarc and Lumenmax reflectors being available for both types of bulbs.
There is testing done that says that DE generally last longer. Higher pressures inside supposed to equate to longer useable life. The DE's dont have a UV blocking glass envelope so they must be used in reflectors with glass shields. Some have a UV protected coating but it is just in case the glass shield of teh fixture should break. There is no risk of the DE bulbs breaking because of salt water getting on them and the argument is that it is easier to clean the glass than it is to clean the bulb and the reflector. Also, no chance of the reflector staining with a glass shield. There arent many issues with SE bulbs breaking though, but it does happen.
Both work extremely well, it's a wash. Both have great reflectors available and the reflector choice is much more important than the bulb type chosen. Tons of DE's available now. Not sure how many more SE choices there are than DE but finding a DE bulb you like is not an issue. Also, the output advantage that SE is supposed to have is very small when comparing manufacturers DE vs SE versions of the same color temperature bulbs. I took a look at the 250 watt versions and out of something like 18 bulbs that overlapped versions the SE versions had 10 bulbs with higher output there DE counterparts but there were 8 DE versions that were higher output than the SE version. So, thats pretty close. The only negative to DE that I think has any real merit is that the vast majority operate their best on Magnetic HQI ballasts (M80 - 250 watt and M81 - 150 watt) Sometimes signifigantly better on the magnetic HQI ballasts than electronic ballasts. The SE's will generally operate to their potential or close on electronic ballasts. The DE bulbs generally wont and usually meet their maximum potential output on those magnetic ballasts. The Magnetic ballasts also generally use more juice, up to 100 watts more per bulb for 250 watt bulbs compared to electronic ballast. It's typically closer to 50 or 60 watts but it can be upwards of 100. That also means a bit more heat. But, most agree that the DE bulbs last longer with the Magnetic HQI ballasts which are the ballasts that are spec'd to run the DE bulbs.
I use DE because all in all I liked the smaller reflector (Lumenmax 3) and the reported longer life and I didnt want to clean reflectors and bulbs, a small galss sheet is easier and quicker. I also liked the idea of a shield over the bulb to protect from breakage. But you can do anything with SE that you can do with DE and vice versa. Again, it's the reflector more than the bulb type. Great bulbs are available in either version.
There is testing done that says that DE generally last longer. Higher pressures inside supposed to equate to longer useable life. The DE's dont have a UV blocking glass envelope so they must be used in reflectors with glass shields. Some have a UV protected coating but it is just in case the glass shield of teh fixture should break. There is no risk of the DE bulbs breaking because of salt water getting on them and the argument is that it is easier to clean the glass than it is to clean the bulb and the reflector. Also, no chance of the reflector staining with a glass shield. There arent many issues with SE bulbs breaking though, but it does happen.
Both work extremely well, it's a wash. Both have great reflectors available and the reflector choice is much more important than the bulb type chosen. Tons of DE's available now. Not sure how many more SE choices there are than DE but finding a DE bulb you like is not an issue. Also, the output advantage that SE is supposed to have is very small when comparing manufacturers DE vs SE versions of the same color temperature bulbs. I took a look at the 250 watt versions and out of something like 18 bulbs that overlapped versions the SE versions had 10 bulbs with higher output there DE counterparts but there were 8 DE versions that were higher output than the SE version. So, thats pretty close. The only negative to DE that I think has any real merit is that the vast majority operate their best on Magnetic HQI ballasts (M80 - 250 watt and M81 - 150 watt) Sometimes signifigantly better on the magnetic HQI ballasts than electronic ballasts. The SE's will generally operate to their potential or close on electronic ballasts. The DE bulbs generally wont and usually meet their maximum potential output on those magnetic ballasts. The Magnetic ballasts also generally use more juice, up to 100 watts more per bulb for 250 watt bulbs compared to electronic ballast. It's typically closer to 50 or 60 watts but it can be upwards of 100. That also means a bit more heat. But, most agree that the DE bulbs last longer with the Magnetic HQI ballasts which are the ballasts that are spec'd to run the DE bulbs.
I use DE because all in all I liked the smaller reflector (Lumenmax 3) and the reported longer life and I didnt want to clean reflectors and bulbs, a small galss sheet is easier and quicker. I also liked the idea of a shield over the bulb to protect from breakage. But you can do anything with SE that you can do with DE and vice versa. Again, it's the reflector more than the bulb type. Great bulbs are available in either version.
kdblove_99
New member
YEah like you said yourself SE are more energy effient than DE.
I looked at the XM 20K, Ushio 10K, and Aquaconnect. All have better PAR in the SE bulb and use less energy yeah so with DE you get a bulb that last longer but that extra cost is going in your energy bill!
SE!
I looked at the XM 20K, Ushio 10K, and Aquaconnect. All have better PAR in the SE bulb and use less energy yeah so with DE you get a bulb that last longer but that extra cost is going in your energy bill!
SE!
If memory serves there are 18 250 watt bulbs in Sanjays lighting archive of which there are both DE versions and SE versions of the same manufacturers bulbs in the same color temperatures. Of those 18, 10 of the SE's had higher Par than the DE versions and 8 of the DE versions had higher par than the SE versions. These were all compared running on the ballasts that got the most par from the bulbs. Making the statement that SE is more energy efficient is not necessarily accurate and it is not what I said. As a generalized statment it probably is true but there are too many variables that it doesnt cover every bulb/ballast. Plus, in the real world, it just doesnt matter to most users.
I compared the bulbs with the ballasts that brought the most out of them with the exception of putting the SE bulbs on the magnetic HQI ballasts, only a couple of SE bulbs are HQI spec so running them on Magnetic HQI ballasts hurts the longevity of the bulbs. Anyway, in some cases an SE bulb on the correct magnetic ballast had signifigantly higher par than it had on an electronic ballast. In some cases, that same bulb on an electronic ballast would have lower par than it's DE counterpart but on magnetic ballast it would be higher.
Plus, there is no rule saying you have to run a DE on the magnetic HQI ballast. Most of them will run on electronics. Sometimes you loose just a few PPFD and sometimes you lose a good bit of it. But if it's plenty of output for the tank to thrive then you are doing it with only 250 watts and most people dont care. There are a lot of people running DE's on electronic ballasts so they arent using any more energy than the SE bulb users. In the real world, sometimes it just doesnt make a difference whether you are getting the maximum amount of PAR from the bulb and/or whether you could get more from a different ballast and/or what the energy cost is of doing so. Probably more people dont care than do.
Then, finally consider the popularity of the 250 watt Phoenix 14000K bulb. Extrememly popular bulb and it's only available in DE. It probably gets used by a lot more reefers on an electronic ballast than a magentic HQI.
I compared the bulbs with the ballasts that brought the most out of them with the exception of putting the SE bulbs on the magnetic HQI ballasts, only a couple of SE bulbs are HQI spec so running them on Magnetic HQI ballasts hurts the longevity of the bulbs. Anyway, in some cases an SE bulb on the correct magnetic ballast had signifigantly higher par than it had on an electronic ballast. In some cases, that same bulb on an electronic ballast would have lower par than it's DE counterpart but on magnetic ballast it would be higher.
Plus, there is no rule saying you have to run a DE on the magnetic HQI ballast. Most of them will run on electronics. Sometimes you loose just a few PPFD and sometimes you lose a good bit of it. But if it's plenty of output for the tank to thrive then you are doing it with only 250 watts and most people dont care. There are a lot of people running DE's on electronic ballasts so they arent using any more energy than the SE bulb users. In the real world, sometimes it just doesnt make a difference whether you are getting the maximum amount of PAR from the bulb and/or whether you could get more from a different ballast and/or what the energy cost is of doing so. Probably more people dont care than do.
Then, finally consider the popularity of the 250 watt Phoenix 14000K bulb. Extrememly popular bulb and it's only available in DE. It probably gets used by a lot more reefers on an electronic ballast than a magentic HQI.
DE can collect dust on the UV shelter and can be tedious to clean. While SE if placed too close to the water surface, it can get splashed and cracked. I personaly use SE due to the ease to clean. I rather take my chance of getting splashed by hungry fish then having to unscrew the hood to pop open the DE housing for chleaning. The glass shelter in DE hood can shelter significant heat directed at you water surface yet it also reduce the light intensity reasonably.
That's partly why I went with DE. No exposed bulb to water, no chance of breakage or crack and much easier cleaning. There is no dust in my Lumenmax reflector housing. I just wipe the glass and done. No chance for salt to stain the reflector. Lots of argument for SE over DE (and vice versa) but easier to clean isnt a valid one IMO.
Also, information suggesting less loss of output over time and overall longer useful bulb life.
It's a personal choice. Both will supply a tank with light.
Also, information suggesting less loss of output over time and overall longer useful bulb life.
It's a personal choice. Both will supply a tank with light.
Cost is about the same. Electronic ballasts are suited more for SE than DE and electronics are available for a little less money than magentics. Unless you want a bare bones magnetic that you need to find a case for. So, it's really a wash. I think the biggest thing is that they will find out more about the longevity of the bulbs and DE will have the clear advantage in that department. But again, a more important choice than SE or DE is the reflector. Either one in a good reflector like a Lumenarc or Lumenmax is the clear winner of the other in a cheap reflector.
So as long as you pick a good reflector and a decent bulb that has adequate par for your needs, you will have high quality lighting regardless of the bulb type that you go with. The rest of it is about the smaller things. The individual can decide on his or her own what he or she thinks are the most important aspects of each bulb type.
So as long as you pick a good reflector and a decent bulb that has adequate par for your needs, you will have high quality lighting regardless of the bulb type that you go with. The rest of it is about the smaller things. The individual can decide on his or her own what he or she thinks are the most important aspects of each bulb type.
kdblove_99
New member
I dont know about that. The site is down so i cant see what the par is on the Phoenix with Electronic but i would guess not that great. i know its 88 on the HQI cause that is what i use to run.
I ran Phoenix bulbs DE for over a year. I did like it, But when i switched to SE i got a Radium 20K, No comparison. Radium bulb looks much nicer and the PAR is only 3 ppfd diffrent.
So, a 20K SE bulb has just as much PAR as the top 14K DE bulb
I ran Phoenix bulbs DE for over a year. I did like it, But when i switched to SE i got a Radium 20K, No comparison. Radium bulb looks much nicer and the PAR is only 3 ppfd diffrent.
So, a 20K SE bulb has just as much PAR as the top 14K DE bulb
kdblove_99
New member
Here is an old thread that if you could do it over what would you choose DE or SE
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/s...erpage=25&highlight=single ended&pagenumber=2
It is overwelming SE.
Darg have you ran both?
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/s...erpage=25&highlight=single ended&pagenumber=2
It is overwelming SE.
Darg have you ran both?
What don't you know about? I didnt say anything about the Phoenix having better par on an electronic ballast. It doesn't. But there are alot of people running that bulb on Electronics for the blue color. I think the PPFD is in the 70's on electronic BTW. It's from memory and I could be wrong but I dont believe it is that much lower. But that wasnt my point.
As far as your Par comparison, The 20K Radium has just as much par as the Phoenix 14K but I'm not sure I'm getting your point here either. The Phoenix 14K is not a 14K bulb. It's labeled a 14K bulb but it's above 20K. From Sanjays list, you can pick and choose 10 250 watt SE bulbs from manufacturers that have higher Par than the same manufacturers DE versions of the same Kelvin rated bulbs. And I can pick 8 of the DE versions that have higher PAR than the SE versions. All bulbs being run on their optimum ballasts. I did that to prove a point in a thread a while back. Somebody made the claim that SE easily beats DE in PAR and I was surprised to find how close it really was after checking all the 250 watt bulbs. Any other comparisons of PAR between different bulbs from different manufacturers or of different color temps. are not valid.
But if it was all about PAR why would you run 250 watt anyway. Run 400 watt or 1000 watt, why fool with 250 watt?
It seems like the point you are trying to make is that SE has more PAR. Even if it did in all 18 of those cases, which it doesnt, what difference does that make? It would make a difference if DE bulbs could not supply enough PAR but that's simply not the case.
There are inherent attributes to DE that I preferred when making my decision. Smaller reflector was one of them. The Glass shield was another. I do not want an exposed bulb or an exposed reflector over my aquarium. I wanted no risk of broken or cracked bulb. I prefer cleaning a small sheet of glass over cleaning a bulb and reflector to avoid the possibility of staining and maintaining the reflectivity.
I like that the DE bulbs start with higher internal pressures, and when driven by the spec magnetic HQI ballasts, reportedly lose par at a slower rate and have longer usable life compared to SE bulbs. I dont want to use a bulb other than the newer Iwasaki 250 watt 14000K DE. So, if I could do it all over I would stay exactly where I am. There is absolutely no reason or advantage to my switching to SE. None.
kdblove_99
New member
darg you didnt answer my question have you run both or not
My point was a 20K Radium is with a 14K DE Phoenix. Ok so you say that a Phoenix 14K is really 20k. SO please find me a true DE 14K that has better PAR than a Radium 20K.
IF i had a system that needed a 400W. I would run them.
My point was a 20K Radium is with a 14K DE Phoenix. Ok so you say that a Phoenix 14K is really 20k. SO please find me a true DE 14K that has better PAR than a Radium 20K.
IF i had a system that needed a 400W. I would run them.
Look at it yourself then before suggesting that I am lying.
These are all the 250 watt bulbs on Sanjays site from the manufacturers that have both DE and SE versions of the same color temperature.
The DE's are run on either HQI or Electronic ballasts both of which are rated to run the bulbs, and numbers are with the glass shield.
The SE's are run on the spec magnetic ballast or an electronic, whichever produced the highest par numbers and NO glass shields.
10 SE versions had higher PAR than the DE versions and 8 DE versions had higher PAR than the SE version. EXACTLY what I stated in my posts. I never said any different. To suggest that SE bulbs auttomatically have higher par because of the shield is what is FALSE Jman. The numbers are right here. You want to apologize now or argue it some more?
Aquaconnect:
14K
DE - M80 ballast - 82 PPFD
SE - E-ballast - 96 PPFD
AB :
10K
DE - M80 - 104 PPFD
SE - M58 - 101 PPFD
Coralvue:
15K
DE - M80 - 54 PPFD
SE - E ballast - 47 PPFD
20K
DE - M80 - 54 PPFD
SE - E ballast - 60 PPFD
EVC:
10K
DE - M80 - 147 PPFD
SE - Eballast - 110 PPFD
14K
DE- M80 - 66 PPFD
SE - Eballast - 71 PPFD
20K
DE - M80 - 64 PPFD
SE - Eballast - 57 PPFD
Happy Reefing
10K
DE - HQI - 101 PPFD
SE - M58 - 128 PPFD
14K
DE - EVC Eballast - 95 PPFD
SE - EVC Eballast - 67 PPFD
20K
DE - M80 - 84 PPFD
SE - EVC Eballast - 79 PPFD
PFO
11K
DE - M80 - 82 PPFD
SE - M58 - 131 PPFD
Sun Aquattics
10K
DE - M80 - 116 PPFD
SE - M58 - 111 PPFD
14K
DE - M80 - 61 PPFD
SE - Eballast - 47 PPFD
20K
DE - M80 - 64 PPFD
SE - Eballast - 67 PPFD
Ushio
10K
DE - M80 - 84 PPFD
SE - M58 - 118 PPFD
XM
10K
DE - M80 - 109 PPFD
SE - Eballast - 121 PPFD
15K
DE - Eballast - 54 PPFD
SE - Eballast - 66 PPFD
20K
DE- M80 - 42 PPFD
SE - Eballast - 44 PPFD
What is the PAR of the 20K SE radium, 3 lower than the Phoenix at 88 so is it 85??
Sanjays site is down.
The Happy Reefing 14K has PPFD of 95. Is that higher?
The new Iwasaki DE 250 was tested by Sanjay with a preliminary PPFD of 95 if memory serves.
No, I havent run SE, I answered in my last post. But I dont understand your point? Are you suggesting that someone could keep a nicer, more successful reef with SE than they could with DE? I'm not sure what you are suggesting.
jman77
New member
LOL , you just put your foot in your own mouth by posting those comparisons...
How can you compare a bulb that is running on a ballast that is burning up around 350 + watts (M80 AKA HQI) and is pushing more wattage to the bulb vs a E ballast or M58 that runs right around 250 watts. Why don't you run through the calculator and compare the DE Shielded bulb vs the SE non shielded on the SAME ballast and come back and post those numbers.
BTW, want to see some nice PPFD numbers from the calculator, put a XM 10K SE on a HQI ballast
"Sanjay with a preliminary PPFD of 95 if memory serves"
no , it actually tested lower than the P14K bulb ...
How can you compare a bulb that is running on a ballast that is burning up around 350 + watts (M80 AKA HQI) and is pushing more wattage to the bulb vs a E ballast or M58 that runs right around 250 watts. Why don't you run through the calculator and compare the DE Shielded bulb vs the SE non shielded on the SAME ballast and come back and post those numbers.
BTW, want to see some nice PPFD numbers from the calculator, put a XM 10K SE on a HQI ballast
"Sanjay with a preliminary PPFD of 95 if memory serves"
no , it actually tested lower than the P14K bulb ...
mile sq. reefer
New member
SE work, DE work. Who cares. Just use what you like. Both types of lighting have been used successfully to keep reef aquariums. Use Sanjays data to guide you in picking the right bulb and ballast combos to meet your needs.
Similar threads
