33 long - 4vho's vs. staying with 4x54 t5's - opinions needed please!

futureeyedoc · 04/06/2009, 09:50 PM

I'm thinking of putting some vho's (have opportunity to get a retro kit for a good deal) over my 33 long.... using the ballasts and endcaps to power 4 - 48" vhos... would purchase all new bulbs and probably a new reflector....

Any opinions from anyone on whether that would be wayyy too many watts (13.333 watts per gallon)??????

It's either the vho's with more actinic/blue bulbs - I'm thinking this would allow me to do mainly blue/actinic and not much in the 65k/10k range - as so to get the maximum in color and still have plenty of par over my 33 long...???

Am I right to be concerned that this will just be too much light and heat over a 33 long or are my concerns incorrect?

Otherwise I'll stay with my 4x54w individual reflector t5's (retro) with new bulbs...

Opinions?

ANY help greatly appreciated

- oh , I have mostly softies - lots of different zoas, palys, xenia, gsp, mushrooms, kenya tree, and a couple different bright colored montis in there at this point....
I would like to venture into some additional lps and sps in the near future....

Chibils · 04/06/2009, 10:12 PM

I assume this is the 30G along the lines of 48*12*12? The T5s you have now are more powerful than VHOs. If that's working out, there's no reason to "downgrade" other than the fact that VHO actinics are the best out there.

futureeyedoc · 04/06/2009, 10:15 PM

I'm confused....

How is 4x54w t5's more powerfull than 4x110w vho's....
aside from the fact that they're t5's and individually reflected.....
I still thought that the 440 watts total vs. 216 would definetly be more?

96p993 · 04/06/2009, 10:16 PM

I agree...stick with what you have, though I must say that is a ton of light...

futureeyedoc · 04/06/2009, 10:40 PM

anyone else?

IPT · 04/07/2009, 12:12 AM

from what I've read the output from the T-5s with reflectors are more than the VHO's. I think the watts per gal rule has been dumpped a long time ago.

04/06/2009, 09:50 PM	#1
futureeyedoc Registered Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Wausau, WI Posts: 218	33 long - 4vho's vs. staying with 4x54 t5's - opinions needed please! I'm thinking of putting some vho's (have opportunity to get a retro kit for a good deal) over my 33 long.... using the ballasts and endcaps to power 4 - 48" vhos... would purchase all new bulbs and probably a new reflector.... Any opinions from anyone on whether that would be wayyy too many watts (13.333 watts per gallon)?????? It's either the vho's with more actinic/blue bulbs - I'm thinking this would allow me to do mainly blue/actinic and not much in the 65k/10k range - as so to get the maximum in color and still have plenty of par over my 33 long...??? Am I right to be concerned that this will just be too much light and heat over a 33 long or are my concerns incorrect? Otherwise I'll stay with my 4x54w individual reflector t5's (retro) with new bulbs... Opinions? ANY help greatly appreciated - oh , I have mostly softies - lots of different zoas, palys, xenia, gsp, mushrooms, kenya tree, and a couple different bright colored montis in there at this point.... I would like to venture into some additional lps and sps in the near future....

04/06/2009, 10:12 PM	#2
Chibils halide loyalist Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Sugar Hill, GA Posts: 2,213	I assume this is the 30G along the lines of 481212? The T5s you have now are more powerful than VHOs. If that's working out, there's no reason to "downgrade" other than the fact that VHO actinics are the best out there. __________________ always learning Current Tank Info: 75G new world cichlid, 25G reef in planning

04/06/2009, 10:15 PM	#3
futureeyedoc Registered Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Wausau, WI Posts: 218	I'm confused.... How is 4x54w t5's more powerfull than 4x110w vho's.... aside from the fact that they're t5's and individually reflected..... I still thought that the 440 watts total vs. 216 would definetly be more?

04/06/2009, 10:16 PM	#4
96p993 Registered Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Mckinney, Tx Posts: 1,130	I agree...stick with what you have, though I must say that is a ton of light...

04/06/2009, 10:40 PM	#5
futureeyedoc Registered Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Wausau, WI Posts: 218	anyone else?

04/07/2009, 12:12 AM	#6
IPT Registered Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Alaska Posts: 3,197	from what I've read the output from the T-5s with reflectors are more than the VHO's. I think the watts per gal rule has been dumpped a long time ago.