Originally Posted by fishfreek
I would have to ask this question then. If one was to compair 10K bulbs of each type would that be a fair representation? If a chart could be done showing the output of different types of 10K bulbs. Either try to make the intensities match or make the wattage match as best as possible and show how different bulb's have different intensities at the same or less wattages.
All bulb comparisons from manufacturers, IMO
, need to be taken with a grain of salt.
In order for a comparison to have ANY
meaning, more information must be presented as to how the tests were preformed.
Color temps and wattages of all the bulbs should be matched as closely as possible. Comparing a 6500k Iwasaki to a 20,000k Radium is nonsense.
Operating temperatures must be controlled. All bulbs have a temperature window where they operate most efficiently. While maintaining this temperature in the real world may be nearly impossible, some attempt should be made to at least equalize a temperature during testing so as to simulate real world conditions.
Ballasts.... ballasts have the biggest impact on light intensity. The same bulb run on 3 different ballasts will give off 3 entirely different readings. Close attention must be paid to the ballast factor rating provided with all fluorescent ballasts. This will determine whether the bulb will be over or under driven.
Just for the record, I'd like to say that, I have never used an Icecap, I don't know how they work, and to be perfectly honest, I would never spend the money that they want for them.
Presently, I'm using MH
's, NO fluorescents, overdriven NO fluorescents, VHO
fluorescents and PC
's. The only preference I have, is that I like the way the MH
's look over all the others. Other than that coral and plant growth seem to be great with any kind of lights.