CF's vs NO overdriven
 

I set up a 15 gallon reef a couple years ago and made the mistake of using black/white combination aragonite (price was to good to pass up). I found the black in the sand absorbed most of the light from my 2x48w PC unit so I added a second unit at another 48 watts and it still didn't appear to be enough light. So, now I'm thinking about doing it all over again, I have a couple of 15 gallon tanks and a 10, I could go to a 20 gallon but I don't need to. So for lighting, I'd like to avoid MH even thought the LFS has a nice 150w HQI pendant for $300 I just want to avoid the heat etc. Does anyone use NO fluorescents on their 15-20 gallon, if so, what ballasts are you using etc. I'm giving some thought to T5s but don't know anything about them yet. Any input would be appreciated.

Doug

Doug,
If I was in your position and didn't want to use MH I would try out the T5's before PC. I have read some good things about them and have seen some really nice tanks set up with them. I wouldn't go with NO as it would probably limit you too much. My tank has actinic suplimentation from 24" VHO fluorescent and I LOVE it. I don't remember how long a 15gal is but if it is 24", a combination of daylight and actinic VHO would be awesome! JMO.

- Chad

Chad thanks for the input and yes I'm going to be looking into the T5s I had a T5 actinic on a 26 gallon bow and it worked well.

Doug

If you do decide to go with OD NO, I have 4 - 4bulbs electronic ballasts I can give you a smoking deal on :biggrin: 1 ballast would OD 2 - 24" bulbs 4x.

Walter

Ive heard alot of people saying t-5s are expensive and not that good compared to the money, but i have no experiance. Im using PCs on my cube and they seem to work well, nice growth already. Im not sure about price comparision between them either though.

When I was looking at getting them, they were the same price as VHO and were reported to be brighter. Also, I have read claims that the bulbs will last longer than PC before needing to be replaced. Anyone else hear that? If it is true, it would be a considerable cost savings over PC. Bob runs some T5's. He might be able to comment. You would need to buy the special T5 reflectors because, as I understand it, that is what makes them so efficient.

- Chad

Interesting stuff. Chad, when I used mine the base worked as a reflector and it was amazing how much light you got compared to if the light was on it's side. I assume a flat white box would work nicely as a reflector with some aluminum tape here and there. I imagine cost could be an issue but where I shop the 24" T5s actinics were half the price of a VHO tube. I'm still in the planning stage so I've got lots of time to look into it.

Walter, that sound like a wee bit much, but please send me a PM as I'm still thinking about my 90 for long term so an electronic ballast may not be a bad thing.

Thanks for the replies everyone

Doug

I'll try and find the thread where I heard it, but the argument was that because of the smaller diameter bulbs, T5 was able to take advantage of parabolic reflectors and the bulb itself didn't stop as much reflected light being blocked. The claim was that without the reflector, T5 was as good as PC but with the reflector, they blew PC out of the water. It is supposedly one of the reasons why DE MH are so much more efficient than SE bulbs - because they can better take advantage of a good reflector.
Just what I heard... at least, I think I did.... :confused:

- Chad

If you go the T5 route, stay a long way away from those Helios fixtures. I bought two and had to return the Actinic because it crapped out right away. I recently measured the daylight I had used for a couple of months, and found it was only 1200 LUX. (I discard PC tubes when they get down to 2000 LUX) :mad:

Sheesh Bob you just rained on my parade, the Helio's is what I can get for such a good deal. I had the actinic and it worked fine until some water got on it but I dried it off and it worked again (big black burn at one end though).
Maybe MH isn't such a bad idea..... oi vey.

Doug

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

yup, nothing like the URI super actinics for color.

Steve

I don't know if that is necessarilly correct. There are many so called actinic PC bulbs that are just blue, so you get no fluorescence. You have to get 460nm true actinic bulbs. I have some of those, and they do indeed cause corals to fluoresce. :biggrin:

For sure Bob, I was talking about what gets the best color though. Just my experience from owning NO PC and VHO actinic.

- Chad

isn't that a contradiction since Actinic light is defined of having a peak wave length of 430nm?

Steve

Okay, Okay :razz: Rather than continuing a useless argument how about saying a bulb that peaks somewhere around 460nm will show good coral fluorescence :question:

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: