![]() |
overdriven NO's don't even compare to PC's T5's are a option but now that they have been used for a while I am starting to hear a lot of unhappiness about them on the net. I would go PC's for 10K and VHO for actinic myself.
Steve |
Steve, thanks as always for your input, can you tell me why VHO for actinic though? I can get a 2x65watt PC unit and exchange one of the tubes for a 10,000k and keep the other a 50/50. Why would a VHO actinic be better and if I went that route, what ballast would you recommend for a 24 in VHO tube a workhorse 5? The 24" VHO tube is a 75 watt, so I'm assuming the WH5 would be the best match. If I decide to do the 90 as a reef in the future can I go with a workhorse7 or 8 and still run the 75 watt at it's rated 75 watt then if I need I can run two 110 watts at the max rating for that ballast?
Doug |
I think it is probably because VHO actinic is the best looking actinic light and PC the worst! I would even go NO actinic over PC actinic. The color of VHO is much nicer and it will make corals fluoresce much more which is the reason I ended up chosing it for actinic instead of T5 in my MH retrofit. I haven't used daylight VHO so I don't know how it would work with a VHO-only hood.
- Chad |
Quote:
Steve |
Quote:
|
For sure Bob, I was talking about what gets the best color though. Just my experience from owning NO PC and VHO actinic.
- Chad |
Quote:
Steve |
Quote:
I have a 460nm tube that gives great coral color. I also have a dual element 460/420nm tube that gives equally good color rendition. :rolleyes: |
All times are GMT. The time now is 01:25 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.