Thinking of switching light setup

jgb23 · 01/02/2007, 04:06 PM

I am currently running 2 175W MH on my 75G reef tank. I currently stock LPS, softies and mushrooms in my tank. My thought is to go with 4X96W Compact Flourescent (CF) running 2 10K and 2 Actinic 03.
my main goal for the switch is that I am struggling to keep the tank between 81-83 degrees and I dont want to employ the use of a chiller.
Will CF give me the same intensity as the MH? is the bulb scheme that I listed above a good choice?

Thanks

Navyblue · 01/02/2007, 04:42 PM

I used to have 150W of PC then switched to a 150W DE MH and the MH visibly looked a lot brighter. But I guess it also depends on the reflector efficiency of the the individual fixtures. Have you looked at the T5s?

jgb23 · 01/02/2007, 04:50 PM

Flourescents are new to me, so help me out on this one. I was basing my thoughts on the output. From what I found, a 4ft T-5 bulb has an output of 55W and CF outputs 96 watts. Will a T-5 provide more lighting than CF?

jgb23 · 01/03/2007, 07:52 AM

any takers?

kodyboy · 01/03/2007, 08:55 AM

I would go with a 4 foot lighting systems from aquactinic. I would think the 5 bulb HO (high output 54 watts each) system would work well for you and grow just about anything you want. I use 2 blue +, 2 ocean sun (daylight) and 1 super actinic on my 36 inch system. Nice system, reasonable price, great company. If you want to get a really nice light try the solar flare, a four foot, six tube unit that is overdriven to 80 watts per bulb. Probably overkill though. In addition these units produce virtually no heat! (built in fan!) I used to have metal halides, and now I actually need a heater

Navyblue · 01/03/2007, 10:30 AM

Wattage served as an indication at best, we also have to look at the lumens per watt. I don't have hard number off the hand now, but from what I remember, PC and T5 came pretty close, both of them are higher than VHO. The difference is T5 tubes generally last longer than PC and their reflector tend to be more efficient due to their geometry. As far as fluorescent goes T5 wins hands down.

jgb23 · 01/03/2007, 03:46 PM

So 220W of HO will give me just as good light penetration as 350W of MH?

kodyboy · 01/03/2007, 05:44 PM

From what I can tell my 5x39 watt unit provides better lighting than my old 250 MH and 2 65 watt PCs. I get better growth, polyp extension and colors with my T5s. So 195 watts of T5 (with excellent reflectors and a decent fan) have provided my system with better light than a 250 halide and 130 watts of PCs. I will use T5s from now on until maybe LEDs get cheaper/better, and maybe I won't switch at all!

01/02/2007, 04:06 PM	#1
jgb23 Registered Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Melbourne, FL Posts: 74	Thinking of switching light setup I am currently running 2 175W MH on my 75G reef tank. I currently stock LPS, softies and mushrooms in my tank. My thought is to go with 4X96W Compact Flourescent (CF) running 2 10K and 2 Actinic 03. my main goal for the switch is that I am struggling to keep the tank between 81-83 degrees and I dont want to employ the use of a chiller. Will CF give me the same intensity as the MH? is the bulb scheme that I listed above a good choice? Thanks

01/02/2007, 04:42 PM	#2
Navyblue Low maintenance first Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 2,790	I used to have 150W of PC then switched to a 150W DE MH and the MH visibly looked a lot brighter. But I guess it also depends on the reflector efficiency of the the individual fixtures. Have you looked at the T5s?

01/02/2007, 04:50 PM	#3
jgb23 Registered Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Melbourne, FL Posts: 74	Flourescents are new to me, so help me out on this one. I was basing my thoughts on the output. From what I found, a 4ft T-5 bulb has an output of 55W and CF outputs 96 watts. Will a T-5 provide more lighting than CF?

01/03/2007, 07:52 AM	#4
jgb23 Registered Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Melbourne, FL Posts: 74	any takers?

01/03/2007, 08:55 AM	#5
kodyboy Moved On Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 2,990	I would go with a 4 foot lighting systems from aquactinic. I would think the 5 bulb HO (high output 54 watts each) system would work well for you and grow just about anything you want. I use 2 blue +, 2 ocean sun (daylight) and 1 super actinic on my 36 inch system. Nice system, reasonable price, great company. If you want to get a really nice light try the solar flare, a four foot, six tube unit that is overdriven to 80 watts per bulb. Probably overkill though. In addition these units produce virtually no heat! (built in fan!) I used to have metal halides, and now I actually need a heater

01/03/2007, 10:30 AM	#6
Navyblue Low maintenance first Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 2,790	Wattage served as an indication at best, we also have to look at the lumens per watt. I don't have hard number off the hand now, but from what I remember, PC and T5 came pretty close, both of them are higher than VHO. The difference is T5 tubes generally last longer than PC and their reflector tend to be more efficient due to their geometry. As far as fluorescent goes T5 wins hands down.

01/03/2007, 03:46 PM	#7
jgb23 Registered Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Melbourne, FL Posts: 74	So 220W of HO will give me just as good light penetration as 350W of MH?

01/03/2007, 05:44 PM	#8
kodyboy Moved On Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 2,990	From what I can tell my 5x39 watt unit provides better lighting than my old 250 MH and 2 65 watt PCs. I get better growth, polyp extension and colors with my T5s. So 195 watts of T5 (with excellent reflectors and a decent fan) have provided my system with better light than a 250 halide and 130 watts of PCs. I will use T5s from now on until maybe LEDs get cheaper/better, and maybe I won't switch at all!