sonnus
10/01/2010, 11:02 PM
I was seriously looking into plasma lighting on a new aquarium and there are a few problems with the marketing on these things. I'm sure this has been brought up already but my searches were unsuccessful.
First off, why are they using lumens as the unit of measurement? It's been a long time since I've seen anyone refer to lumens with reef tanks. Obviously lumens are going to result in better numbers for their lower Kelvin lamp when compared to a metal halide 10,000K lamp.
That brings me to my second problem. Why are they comparing a 290W 5500K plasma light to a 400W 10,000K MH light? Again, it's been brought up numerous times that light output increases with lower Kelvin lamps. Shouldn't they be comparing their light to a 250W 5500K MH light? When I look at the lumens of a 250W 6500K MH lamp it looks very much the same as the plasma light, maybe even better.
Lastly, why are they bringing up CRI? We sacrifice CRI when we use our bluer lamps. This has always been an acceptable comprimise with the bluer light reefers like better. Going back to the 6500K MH, it too is going to have a higher CRI. Probably in the same 90-96 range as the plasma light.
I understand that this is all "clever" marketing but what am I missing here? The longer lamp life is the only real benefit I can see plasma having over metal halide.
290w Plasma light:
15,000+ initial lumens
5300K CCT
95 CRI
25,000 hrs
250W Metal Halide:
18,500 initial lumens
6500K CCT
90 CRI
10,000 hrs
MH numbers look better to me (more efficacy). What am I missing here? Doesn't seem like an improvement over MH to me.
First off, why are they using lumens as the unit of measurement? It's been a long time since I've seen anyone refer to lumens with reef tanks. Obviously lumens are going to result in better numbers for their lower Kelvin lamp when compared to a metal halide 10,000K lamp.
That brings me to my second problem. Why are they comparing a 290W 5500K plasma light to a 400W 10,000K MH light? Again, it's been brought up numerous times that light output increases with lower Kelvin lamps. Shouldn't they be comparing their light to a 250W 5500K MH light? When I look at the lumens of a 250W 6500K MH lamp it looks very much the same as the plasma light, maybe even better.
Lastly, why are they bringing up CRI? We sacrifice CRI when we use our bluer lamps. This has always been an acceptable comprimise with the bluer light reefers like better. Going back to the 6500K MH, it too is going to have a higher CRI. Probably in the same 90-96 range as the plasma light.
I understand that this is all "clever" marketing but what am I missing here? The longer lamp life is the only real benefit I can see plasma having over metal halide.
290w Plasma light:
15,000+ initial lumens
5300K CCT
95 CRI
25,000 hrs
250W Metal Halide:
18,500 initial lumens
6500K CCT
90 CRI
10,000 hrs
MH numbers look better to me (more efficacy). What am I missing here? Doesn't seem like an improvement over MH to me.