|
|
|
#1
02-19-2008, 09:32 PM
|
|||||
|
|||||
175W MH depth question
Ok, I am thinking of using a 175w MH 10k or 12k over a 24" depth tank.
Anyone have any opinions on whether this will penetrate enough to provide good lighting? Currently I will be going with zoo's , rics etc... but would like to throw in some SPS eventually. I know near the surface SPS will do fine, but what about 3/4's down? Comments? Thanks! Chad
__________________
Chad 
|
|
#5
02-19-2008, 10:51 PM
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
My 250 14K SE, are not close to the 175w Iwasaki,s in par. As a matter of fact, most 14K & up 250w bulbs are not, unless overdriven. 250w 10K is another story however.
As for T-5,s. I still run 4 HO bulbs over my 90. Well its ok and my sps are doing ok, they are not close to the guys with lots of halide light. I need to add at last one more 2 bulbs fixture or something like the Tec, 8 bulb fixture. My 4 bulbs would be ok for most soft corals, with perhaps 6 being the best. Guess it all depends on a lot of things. 250,s would give you the most flexability or multiple T-5,s if thats your preference. I was looking at the 175 for my cube but not sure if I would do it on my 90, as those bulbs are $90 plus each. However T-5,s are usually $20 and up per bulb, depending on quality. The cheaper, higher "K" 250,s would be ok, but I would drive them with nothing less than electronic ballasts.
__________________
Doug
|
|
#6
02-19-2008, 11:31 PM
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Well, I would be lighting a 18" X 18" X 24" cube tank . I have a 250W x2 PFO ballast right now and a 175w (something).. I didn't want to have the huge 2x PFO ballast hanging around the tank for no reason. I thought the 175w might give me enough lighting but I am not so sure.
I was going to do the following; 55w CF atinic 175w 10K 55w (unknown) Any other configurations people think would be better? T5's are an interesting prospect but I don't think they will span well over 18", I looked at the bulb sizes, they are 24" min., I think.
__________________
Chad
|
|
#7
02-19-2008, 11:37 PM
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2005...=iwasaki%20175
I think the 175 Iwasaki may just fit your situation then as you have a ballast already. http://216.187.96.54/vbulletin/showt...t=175w+iwasaki The 1st link has several other 175w bulbs for comparison.
__________________
Doug
|
|
#8
02-20-2008, 01:38 AM
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
If you decide to go with the 175w, then your main concern should be water clarity (different than quality, eh?
 ). Carbon would not be an option...you'd need it, as well as regular maintenance needed to keep your water quality up as well. As long as your water clarity is very high, you shouldn't have a problem. I don't forsee SPS doing terribly well 3/4 of the way down the rock work though. I think you'd be limited to the upper 1/3 of the tank for SPS.
|
|
#9
02-20-2008, 02:19 PM
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Quote:
 Why do you say that. {although you are correct about clarity}. The threads I linked show the par value of the Iwasaki compared with the 250,s that many run. Mind you, thats one specific bulb, as most other 175 bulbs are less. Plus he,s running a pair of supplemental lights. If not running that bulb, then I would agree with you. If going to 250, then the proper ballast/bulb combo is required or you will end up with less output than the Iwasaki & compacts. If running compact actinics, then using something like the SA 10K bulb, that has superb par and comes at a decent price would be good.
__________________
Doug
|
|
#10
02-20-2008, 04:04 PM
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Quote:
|
Linear Mode
