advantages of MH over PC

[markak15]

quick question....on a 55 gal tank, what would be the potential advantages of MH over say, 260 watts of PC?

[Doug1]

Same as anysize tank, more or less. Metal Halide, assuming the color temp is reef friendly produces a lot of intense light, not just brightness but specific photoactive radiations used by photosynthic organisms the power compact and VHO just cant match, esp for high light demanding clams and SPS corals

[markak15]

but if I'm just going to have softies, there is really no reason to spend the extra bucks and get MH instead of PC, right?

[pnkpanther]

softies do fine under PC


but if you ever plan to upgrade, PC's hold no value

[goodfortune]

If you want to go with flourescent lighting for your softies, yet want the possiblity of upgrading to MH in the future, I would do a retrofit using an IceCap 660 flourescent ballast.

IC 660s can be expensive, but are very versatile ballasts. They can drive VHO, T5, and Power Compacts, and can even overdrive normal output FL bulbs. If/when you upgrade to MH Halide, you can use your IC 660 to drive your actinics.

Also, IC 660 ballasts hold thier resale value well, which is good if should you ever have to sell it.

Just my $0.02; by the way I don't own an IC 660. Good luck!!!

- Michael

[yardboy]

Metal Halide fixtures and lamps in the long run are cheaper than any other light source of anywhere near the same intensity. Check the price of a 65W PC bulb that lasts for 6 months and then the price of most MH's that last at least a year. MH ballasts are competitive with fluorescents. I see it as a no-contest. Even the heat issue can be dealt with very easily. I have a 400W on a 70g and all I use is a $10 Wallyworld fan in the sump and it keeps it cool.

[VWD]

I always think that if you can MH's are the best ways to go then VHO's next.

[wharyat]

For a 55, VHOs are the way to go. PC's are good for tanks 3' and less.

MH would be great, but is not totally necessary for your application; I also second the IceCap ballast.

[Doug1]

Originally Posted by goodfortune

If you want to go with flourescent lighting for your softies, yet want the possiblity of upgrading to MH in the future, I would do a retrofit using an IceCap 660 flourescent ballast.

IC 660s can be expensive, but are very versatile ballasts. They can drive VHO, T5, and Power Compacts, and can even overdrive normal output FL bulbs. If/when you upgrade to MH Halide, you can use your IC 660 to drive your actinics.

Also, IC 660 ballasts hold thier resale value well, which is good if should you ever have to sell it.

Just my $0.02; by the way I don't own an IC 660. Good luck!!!

- Michael

Agreed, on 4' tanks VHO really do well light vs cost, esp if you get one of the clone electronic ballasts the 46.5" or 48" 110 watt VHO give really good coverage, bulbs are cheapers as well as the other factors listed, and if you upgrade to a longer tank you can drive longer actinics.
I still believe E ballast and VHO is a cost effective entry level lighting system

[germy]

metal halide. hands down biggest bang for your buck. YOU WILL WANT THEM.

[markak15]

k, guess I will start saving up ;-)

[markak15]

if I still want to go the cheaper route...what about something like this

http://aquatraders.com/index.asp?Pag...ROD&ProdID=149

is this going to be a piece of crap? do I need a cooling fan for VHO? also, the website says HO, but T5's are VHO, right? will this be better than 260 watts of PC? sorry...lots of questions

[AquaticCo]

Yes, T5's will be much better than PC's. T5's are HO bulbs not VHO. PC's are also HO bulbs

Doug

[wharyat]

Those will be fine, but you will need a minimum of 2 fixtures to keep even softies.

Price wise I still recommend VHO.

[koko]

Aesthetically, the single point source of a Metal Halide bulb gives you the nice refracting light in your display. Any flourescent, since it spreads light out so evenly, will not give you the wavy light across your tank.

MH are worth it just for that effect!

Peace,
koko