MV160W(sb) vs MH100W Observations

[Rev. Redmond Farrier]

It has been a few days since I set up the 100w metal halide bulb and at this point I am noticing a trend. I figured that I would put my observations here for future reference for those considering their lighting options.

Since I have both the mh bulb and the self ballasted 160w mv bulb, I decided that I would run two lightsheets on different parts of my property. So far the trend is that the mh is far out performing the mv. I am consistently seeing many more big moths at the mh than the mv. Other insects are showing in greater numbers as well. It is still too early to draw any solid conclusions and I still need to eliminate a couple of variables in order to make this a truly scientific test.

Starting tonight, I am going to start making a log of all the Saturniidae moths and other interesting insects at each light. After I have gathered enough data, I will eliminate the variable of location by swapping the two setups and gather another data set. I will then compare the two data sets and eliminate any insects that prove to be location specific. I should then be able to calculate the ratios and have a solid number to represent how much better one light performs than the other.

I am pretty sure how it will turn out, but I am doing this more for fun than the knowledge and who knows, maybe the results will surprise me.

[africaone]

"I will eliminate the variable of location by swapping the two setups and gather another data set. "

to do such you have to swap randomly (follow a table of random numbers i.e.) each day

on a second level, other interesting variable to complete (correlate) datas are
- weather
- T°
- season
- moon light

ps : be sure that lighting in a location don't interfer with the other (moths follow tracks as butterflies !!!)

[Rev. Redmond Farrier]

The fact that I am running them both simultaneously eliminates the need to randomly swap them. This means that they both get the same weather and moon conditions. Also, since I am comparing in ratios and not the base numbers, the variation in season between the first data set and the second gathered after the swap will not be an issue.

I realize that this isn't the perfect "scientific" test, but it should be accurate enough to give a good idea of the performance these lights have.

[africaone]

the "second level" of parameters are not relied to the random swap. it is just parameters to have a better POV on the question.

the random technic is one of the important required parameter to compare scientifically the two bulbs !

[leptraps]

Are both your 160 Watt MVSB and your 100 Watt MH clear glass or are they coated white?

I have a UV Light Meter and have tested both MV and MH for UV out put. The MV produces 600+ NM of UV while the 100 Watt MH produces less than 300 NM of UV (Both in Blue).

The MV should emit light farther the MH, However, bulb coated white will produce little UV while emitting light outward beyond 300 yards. I am assuming your MH has a Ballast?

[bugman7]

I'll weigh in with my two cent's worth and maybe shed some "light" on this thread. Mogul vs. standard base doesn't seem to make any difference, therefore go for the better price. In choosing MV or MH, it's all about wavelength and output. For insect attraction the higher the Kelvin temp, the better (Google the article, "The Color of Light"). I look for a rating of 5700K or higher (these bulbs have aquarium/horticultural applications).
I've been able to find metal halide balasts on ebay for the cheaper MV bulbs, and have been extremely pleased with the results over the past 15 years.
If clear, non-coated, self-ballasted bulbs meet these specs, go for it.
A great place to purchases these bulbs is 1000bulbs.com No, I don't get a commission from these guys.