vho vs. compacts ?

[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

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.

 

[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.

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.