VHO's or Actinics?

Meckel · 02-25-2004, 01:05 AM

Im currently looking to buy a Hood to hold my MH's and I either want to get Actinics or VHOs but I was wondering which is better for just all around enhancing of flouresence in corals. What brings out more color or is more effective??
Thanks,
Eric

wanareef · 02-25-2004, 04:13 AM

Actinics are VHO - VHO is just a generic for Very High Output lamps and you have daylight, 50/50, actinics.

I think your question is VHO's or PC? I vote VHO. Best bang for tfhe $$

URI make the best VHO actinics around and they have a built in reflector, too.

Electrobes · 02-25-2004, 08:14 AM

I like PC but make sure you get 03's and not "super actinics", etc.

beachmutts · 02-25-2004, 09:36 AM

For what it's worth this is off of Hamiton Technology's FAQ page:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Which bulb is better: Compact Fluorescent or (T12) Fluorescent?

The Compact Fluorescents are better because they are MUCH BRIGHTER than the VHO's and they hold their spectrum longer. The Compact Fluorescent bulb is a new technology, and you only have to replace them every 14-16 months while the VHO's need to be replaced every 4-6 months.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

bamann345 · 02-25-2004, 10:10 AM

isnt Hamilton going to say that because they are a large part of the PC industry and no so with VHO....

Just another though.

I have had both VHO and PC actinics and I like my VHO much MUCH better than the PC ones.

William

bigjohn · 02-25-2004, 11:23 AM

I have a related question, and I apologize in advance for "threadjacking"!

I am upgrading my VHOs to MH right now. I am planning to keep the VHO ballast and socket for actinic supplementation. My VHO bulbs are due to be replaced anyway. I can either run VHO 110W actinics (~$25 per 4' bulb), or I have read that I can power a standard 40W actinic fluorescent tube (~$15).

I have a 6 foot tank. I am planning (2) 250 W MH, plus the fluorescents. I can run up to (4) 4' foot fluorescent tubes on my Icecap ballast.

Rob_Reef_Keeper · 02-25-2004, 11:55 AM

Is there reall a difference between "03's" and "super actinics"? I have seen these listed as the same bulb at many places.

SaltBlock · 02-25-2004, 01:13 PM

I found these graphs interesting.

The first is a 40 watt Phillips actinic 03 florescent lamps, new and with 3650 hours of usage, and a 40 watt Phillips Ultralume with 3650 hours of usage.

The second is a 40 watt Hamilton Super Actinic florescent lamp
with 3650 hours of usage .

Both reportedly peak around 420-430 nm. The graph suggests that the 03s fade more quikly than the super actinics. Without more information however, I guess this difference could be due to differences between light companies.

Does anyone have any charts that show something different?

AEB

SaltBlock · 02-25-2004, 01:14 PM

bamann345 · 02-25-2004, 01:15 PM

bigjohn,

Yes, you can run 40 watt bulbs on an IceCap ballast and they will overdrive them, but not to the power of a VHO bulb.

Why dont you upgrade to 5 or 6 foot vho bulbs and run 3 of them. Yes, an icecap will run 3 six foot bulb if you keep the ballast on a heat sink and keep the bulbs cool.

Just a thought

Eric P · 02-25-2004, 09:33 PM

Just another vote for VHO's. I am running PC's now but I am going "BACK" to my VHO's. PC bulbs are very expensive, unreliable, (I have had bulb failures and an endcap fire) and I don't think the actinics look nearly as good as VHO.

My .02 Eric...

Imaexpat2 · 02-29-2004, 02:57 AM

I gotta vote with the VHO crowd. I like the lighting effect better than PC. The only time I would willingly use PC's is over a nano reef tank if I didnt use a small halide. On tanks longer than 36" I think VHO is the better way to go.

JMO......