vho vs. compacts ?

[afkouns]

As i stated in a previous post, I have 4x96watt compacts over my 125g reef tank. I was looking at getting some more light since I'm barely over 3watts per gallon. I already spent a lot of money on my compacts and would hate to have to reinvest on a whole new refecter plate and compact assembly. Plus 2 more compacts wouldn't realy fit well evenly in the lighting skeem. 2 are 10k's the other 7100k's. If I added 2 more compacts it would realy work well. Thats why I was thinking of 2 VHO's, 1 being 10k and the other atinic.

I wanted to know if VHO's run significantly hotter then compacts? Also, are the VHO with built in reflector in the bulb descent at all?

I'm running mainly polyps, toadstools and mushrooms. I also have a open brain and molar corals. Going to add xenias soon. No plans for hard corals.

[BrianH]

Why wouldn't 2 more 96watt compacts fit over your tank? I have 4 x 96 over my 50gal. tank.

Brian

[afkouns]

Well simply because I'm in conflict of how to arrange 6 bulbs. I either have to run 4 10k's and 2 atinic or 4 atinic and 2 10k's. Also if I went with 2 60" VHO's I could puse a litte more wattage. I would have 140watts each bulb over 96watts per bulb. Currently it works out to 3 watts per gallon. With 2 more compacts I would have 4.6watts per gallon. And with 2 VHO's I would have 5.3 watts per gallon. Also the lights are mounted on top of the canopy about 10inchs above. The tank is 24inchs deep too.

[afkouns]

By the way. My question wasn't answered about how much heat the vho generates over a compact.

[a_free_bird73]

I can't answer the heat question since I have never used VHO's. However, it is not the wattage per gallon that you should be concerned about, but rather the light output per watt and where is it focused as well as the reasons for you need more light. If you don't have hard corals, I would struggle to justify having any more than you already have.

In any case, actinics are more useful for "most" corals. The 7600K bulbs are for our visual enjoyment rather than functionality (not always though). So you can have 5 actinics and only one 7600K as long as you like the final look of the tank. I would say 4 actinics and 2 7600K will look just fine...

[BrianH]

I do not have any experience with VHO's either, but I like the look of mostly 10k with some actinic supplementation. You could also mix 10k, 8800k 6500k and actinic to get the full color spectrum. I like the look of the blue actinic at times, but I don't think I'd appreciate a tank that is mostly lit by actinics.

Brian

[afkouns]

right now i have 2x96 6700k's and 2x96 that are called blue right now. I think I will change to real 10k's and real atinics. I was told by a few people at the lfs that I might be able to get away with running my 4x96 over my 125. I might try it for now and see how the corals do. Otherwise I think I might add another 2x96 and either run 4x96 atinics and 2x96 10k's or the other way around. What do you think of either combo?

[BrianH]

As I stated above, my preference is towards the 10k not actinics. At most I would go 50/50 10k/actinic. If you go with the 6 x 96, since you already have 2 6700 k , you could do the following:

2 x 96 @ 6700k
2 x 96 @ 10000k
2 x 96 @ actinic.

You could also start and end your daily lighting cycle with the actinics only. Many reefers with metal halide do this to simulate dawn and dusk. It may not matter with to the inhabitants with lower intensity PC lighting, but you do get to enjoy the blue actinic look for a period of time also.

Brian

[afkouns]

I use the atinics to simulate dawn and dusk already, thanks. I also use the atinics to during the mid-day to have full power on and also reduce the yellowing from the other compacts. I have the atinics on for 2hours, then the 6700k on for 1, then all on for 6hours, 6700k for 1 hour, then atinics for 2hours. I think I would like to run the 10k's the 6700k's are kinda yellow. I also like your idea of 4 10k's and 2 atinics.

[Ancient Mariner]

I would repeat what was said by another poster. The formula for watts per gallon is for fluorescent light only. NO lights put out 35W per Lumen, whereas Compact Fluorescents put out 70W per lumen. That would in reality give you six watts per gallon.

[agilis]

Here is a simple answer to your question: VHO bulbs run significantly cooler to the touch than compact flourescent. They are T 12 size, meaning that they are 1.5 inches in diameter, diffusing the heat. Also, the bulbs with inner reflective coatings work very well. Ultraviolet Resources makes an excellent product. I strongly recommend their Actinic White in your arrangement.

Lots of people use reflectorized VHO bulbs in a harness, with no enclosure at all. The harness simply holds the bulbs in place. You can simply place them in your existing enclosure wherever they fit. VHO will not create hot spots on the cover glass or in the enclosure the way that CF does. I use both types of bulbs, and find that CF is most useful for getting a lot of light in a limited space. I like the idea of adding two reflectorized VHO bulbs to your set- up. Get the best quality ballast you can afford. I use Icecaps: no heat at all, super performance, and they last . Quality is cheaper in the long run.

[afkouns]

I like both your ideas (Ancient Mariner & agilis). I like the thought that my 384watts over my 125 is more like 6watts per gallon. I also like the fact it would be easy to install a couple of VHO's.

Thanks for the answer for heat and the description of how compacts differ from regular on wattage per lumen.
How would the watts per lumen be for VHO?

I would like to see if anybody else out there has similiar thoughts????
maybe a pole to see if I realy need the VHO's or going on what Ancient Mariner has qouted from another "The formula for watts per gallon is for fluorescent light only. NO lights put out 35W per Lumen, whereas Compact Fluorescents put out 70W per lumen. That would in reality give you six watts per gallon."

What do the rest of you think?

[slipknottin]

Originally posted by Ancient Mariner
I would repeat what was said by another poster. The formula for watts per gallon is for fluorescent light only. NO lights put out 35W per Lumen, whereas Compact Fluorescents put out 70W per lumen. That would in reality give you six watts per gallon.

CFs are fluorescent lights. They have no advantage over NO or VHO bulbs other than being bent in half and taking up less room. In fact, the bending of the bulb causes them to loose quite a bit of output. As with all fluorescent bulbs, they're brightest in the middle and dimmer near the ends. CF bulbs have 4 ends instead of just 2, causing a dramatic drop in output.

As bulb diameters get smaller (T12, T8, T6, T5) the operating temperature of the bulb gets higher. Also, the light output per watt increases.

Its been a long standing rumor that CF bulbs are brighter than the equivelent watt VHO or NO tube, when in fact it is false. Even though VHO bulbs are T12s, and NO bulbs are commonly T8s, the T6 CF bulbs are not any more efficient due to them being bent in half. The VHO bulbs made by URI are the absolute top of the line. The bulb manufacturing makes up for any disadvantage due to using a T12 bulb.

T5 bulbs are becoming popular now. The actinic and 50/50 bulbs are now coming to the US. They are offered in lengths of both 4 and 5 feet. They offer more light/watt than any other fluorescent bulb avaliable for the hobby. They also have a life of well over 2 years, and will not loose any output in the first 100 hours like most other bulbs do.

[Ancient Mariner]

Originally posted by slipknottin
[B]

[quote]CFs are fluorescent lights. They have no advantage over NO or VHO bulbs other than being bent in half and taking up less room. In fact, the bending of the bulb causes them to loose quite a bit of output. As with all fluorescent bulbs, they're brightest in the middle and dimmer near the ends. CF bulbs have 4 ends instead of just 2, causing a dramatic drop in output.

As bulb diameters get smaller (T12, T8, T6, T5) the operating temperature of the bulb gets higher. Also, the light output per watt increases.

The two statements above contradict each other, and my statement has been proven correct by measurement, and visual evidence.

[slipknottin]

Those do not contradict at all. If CF bulbs were linear T6s they would be brighter than VHO or NO bulbs per watt.

They arent linear bulbs however, and are bent in half. Resulting in a significant loss of light ouput.

[Ancient Mariner]

Originally posted by slipknottin
Those do not contradict at all. If CF bulbs were linear T6s they would be brighter than VHO or NO bulbs per watt.

They arent linear bulbs however, and are bent in half. Resulting in a significant loss of light ouput.

I suppose that is the beauty of most of these boards. There are always those who argue that black is white, and vice versa. It does not matter that the reverse of what you claim has been proven numerous times, both by quantified measurement, and visually.

It does not matter to me ,however, you may continue to give bad advice. I will just go away. I will continue the use of my two 96W CF's on my 50 gallon tank, and continue to be happy.:cool:

[slipknottin]

Please show me any test done that shows PC lights are vastly superior to both NO and VHO bulbs.

I have never stated that PCs are bad bulbs. I use them on a few of my tanks. They just arent any more efficient than VHO bulbs. PC bulbs also break pretty easily, ive broken off the socket part on quite a few of them.

[Pisces]

PC's were all the hype when we were setting up our 125G and we forked out over $600.00 for Custom Sea Life's retro-fit kit of four 96 watt bulbs (it came with the 6700K and blue bulbs) We ran it for over a year, I hated the color it put out, the tank grew tons of green hair algae (mainly where the blue light was). We changed to the 10,000K bulbs and real actinics when they became available, but still weren't happy with the light output so we finally ended up buying 2 metal halides instead.

The PC's have now become very, very expensive space lights for above and below the tank stand.:rolleyes:

Yes, the PC bulbs DO break easily, hubby broke at least 2 of them trying to install them and one replacement bulb arrived broken. I'm all for metal halides or NO's. Never have tried VHO's yet.

[Pisces]

I wanted to add that PC's are better suited for use in small, shallow tanks.
Once we switched to the halides I realized that the PC's didn't have nearly enough intensity to reach the bottom of the 125G tank properly. Just like I noticed how the algae only grew on the glass in areas directly under the PC's because that was the spot where the lighti was most intense.
I'm really not knocking PC's, but I do think they were way over-hyped in the beginning, and for the money they cost you might as well go with halides and be done with it. JMO, of course.

[afkouns]

I'm new to all of this, but I'm going to have to disagree. My lights don't have a bend at the end. I have the 4 pin design, correct me if I'm wrong, but that means to seperate lights for each piece (i.e. bulb). I did switch to 2 10k's and 2 real atinics over my old 6700k's and 7100k's(blue). I only noticed good things. My tank is lit up very well on the bottom and my corals that are on the bottom, mushrooms, are doing very very well. I did some more research on how to properely calculate how much light is needed. I checked out PAR and Lumens. In lumens I have 4325 lummens per square foot which is more then adequate for the types of corals I have. I may even try a low light clam pretty soon as well. My coraline algae is growing better now and my leathers and polyps love the new lights too. I do agree that the bulbs are expensive. I paid $200 for 4 new CF's. That is the only downfall I see so far. I have never had a problem with breakage and I have removed the lights and reinstalled them many times. I am running Coralife bulbs. I think I'm gunna be ok, my algae does grow all over the tank and even at the very bottom. My cleanup crew takes care of it all. We will see if I'm wrong later but if you check on lumens and not 3-5 watts per gallon, I'm in good shape.

thanks and I'll keep you all informed.

[slipknottin]

Thats a low-medium light tank. Coralline grows better in low light.


CF by definition is a bulb that is bent in half. Coralife bulbs are no different.

[Pisces]

In the 4 pin design the "2 bulbs" are connected in the middle at the end are they not? Our Custom Sea Life bulbs are the 4-square pin type and the bulbs are connected, hence it's really one bulb, isn't it?

You were asking for opinions on PC lights and I let you know my experience with them, I've only been reefkeeping for 7 years. I don't think they are worth the money and I don't think they put out any better light than NO's or VHO's. If space is an issue, sure they can be useful. If you ARE growing algae everywhere, that should be a sign that something isn't right with your water or the lighting is just perfect for the algae. I personally don't want to grow algae in my tank, and I don't.

As for being adequate lighting for a 125G tank, it depends on what you're keeping in it. We had both hard and soft corals and they just didn't flourish until we switched to the halides. If you're mainly keeping mushrooms, a leather and some polyps I suppose you will do fine with the PC's because they are low light corals. I've never heard of a low light clam before, what species is that? All the clams I've seen for purchase around here require intense metal halide lighting to thrive.
______
I'm going to correct myself. Ok, if you use a combination of 6500K's and 10,000K's or all 10,000K's (or even 20,000K's), you shouldn't NEED to supplement the blue spectrum with actinics because the 10,000K and 20,000K should provide plenty of blue spectrum wavelengths. Does that sound right? Actinics are still useful for simulating dawn and dusk but wouldn't it just be blue spectrum overkill to leave them on all day? Maybe I'm wrong but we did switch our actinics for 6500K bulbs and I think it looks great with the 10,000K MH bulbs.
And of course if you only have 6500K's you should use actinics to supply the blue spectrum.
I'm sure you know already, but keep in mind that PC's come with plain "blue" bulbs, not true actinics. I don't know why that is, they really need to change that.

Sorry about the previous statement. I was mis-remembering (is that even a word?) an article that my husband had read aloud to me. I've done my reading and realize I goofed. It was getting very late and I had the wrong idea in my head. My bad! Sorry for the fuss. I really DO need to get more sleep...:rolleyes:

[hammerandy]

I have a 125 gallon tank and I used 6-55 watt CP for three years and grew the greatest mushrooms and soft corals. 15 months ago I added two 175 MH 10K and now the tank has exploded with both hard and soft corals. I run the 6-55 watt CP two actinic and four 10k. I thought I grew great soft corals before. Now I cut and scrape star polyps, mushrooms and button polyps, and give them away. My leathers have popped babys all over the tank and my Bubble coral has doubled in size.

Spend the bucks!!! MH

Randy

[afkouns]

I stated that I have algae growth all over and not just the top, due to a previous reply stating taht CF's are only good in shalow tanks and that his algae only grew at the top where the lighting was most intense. Also there is no connection or bend at the end that I can determine that connects the to rods. How could the even make 50/50's like this if its sharing the same tube. The phosphours would mix! I have also read that CF's put out more lumens then VHO based on testing equipment and not just visual opinion. Since I have switched to atinics and the 10k's my corals seem to be doing much better then before. I would like to read the article on how atinics don't offer benefit. The reading I have done show how corals benefit from the intense blue spectrum to reproduce the zooanthanol which is there main source of food (its misspelled i'm sure). I do plan on adding MH's someday, but there isn't much budget for it right now and I don't want to cut into my brand new canopy. After doing extensive research on PAR and Lumens I have discovered that 3-5 watts per gallon that is typically stated is not a very good gauge to determine lighting needs. I used the Lumens method and have found from many sights that discuss lighting have shown I have good lighting for the types of corals I'm running and even a few hard corals. If I do want hard corals I can always place them near the top, but I don't at this time. Sorry I don't remember what species of low light clam it was. I have read there are some that you can get away with not running MH's.

[BrianH]

The lower light clams you are referring to would be Derasa and Squamosa. There are many opinions out there regarding different lighting methods. Most of them agree that CF is a valid method of lighting for a low to medium light tank. As far as comparisons to NO, there really isn't any. CF & VHO are much more suitable for reef tank than NO. I've also never seen any info stating actinic lighting does not enhance coral growth. Please note that almost all light reaching below 3 to 10 feet of water in the ocean is of the blue spectrum. This would lead you to believe that the actinic lighting should be benificial to coral growth. Since most of the lighting options out there are so new, most of this information is theoretical. That being said, I would just research the options out there and make the decision that best suits my situation.
JMHO
Brian