|
|
|
#1
03-05-2003, 01:50 PM
|
||||
|
||||
MH pendant choices: PFO vs. AB spacelight
I am planning a 120g reef (48" x 24" x 24"). It is my first reef tank after 30 years of fw and plant tank experience. I have decided on pendant lighting over an open top to make it easier to work on the tank as well as make it easier to control heat buildup.
The two brands of pendant lighting I have seen are: PFO pendant lighting with remote magnetic ballast. Options include 2 x 175W MH or 2 x 250W MH, and 2 x 48" NO or VHO actinic bulbs, plus 2 regular fans of 2 icecap fans. Aqualine Buschke "Aquaspacelight" with internal magnetic ballast. Two double-ended 250-watt 10,000K bulbs with the choice of actinic cf lighting. No fans. The pros and cons that I have seen and read are: AB pendant looks better, PFO system has a bulky remote ballast, AB ballast may hum a lot. Prices seem about comparable. I don't know which one to choose. I can't look at the AB unit in person, only over the internet. I have seen the PFO unit in stores but I can't tell much about the fan or ballast noise, because of the ambient noise in the stores. Anyway my questions are: Does anyone have one or the other of these units, can you recommend one? Is the hum from magnetic ballasts a problem? Are there any other brands of pendant MH lighting to consider? Can I go just with 2-250W 10,000K bulbs (AB model) without actinic supplementation, will it look good? (again I can't see these lights in person to check them out). 
|
|
#2
03-05-2003, 06:19 PM
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Quote:
You can get an electronic ballast as low as $120US each and the pendant (PFO mini or Optix mini) for $109US each by mailorder.
|
|
#3
03-05-2003, 06:47 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
FWIW, I didn't like all the noise from the Magnetic ballasts at first but everyone assured me it would quiet down and it did. I have a 90, same as yours just not so much front to back room and I find two 175 10,000k and 2 NO actinics to be a nice combination, it all depends on what you want to keep though. If I had my $$ back I probably would have gone to the 250s but then again, I may have even gone to 400s so I could keep Acopora.
My Montipora's all do great under the 175.
|
|
#4
03-06-2003, 04:01 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
If I go with 2 x 250W MH, will this be too much for the soft corals? Or will they be OK as long as they are near the bottom of the tank?
There is an option of 2 x 150W or 2 x 175W MH, but it is not much cheaper than the 2 x 250W, what do people recommend?
|
|
#5
03-06-2003, 08:24 AM
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Quote:
I'd go with 2x250W since the price difference is about $50 I think. It shouldn't be too much light and if it was, you can always raise the pendants or reduce the photoperiod.
|
|
#6
03-06-2003, 08:06 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I agree with Sam, go with the 250s, softies will be fine... I think most of us would have rather spent the extra couple dollars for the extra light if and when we were in your shoes.
|
|
#7
03-06-2003, 08:47 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
O.K. good, that's what I'll do.
If I go with 2 x 250 watt 10,000K MH (Aqualine Buschke HQI double-ended bulbs) can I go without actinic supplementation? I am just not keen to make things any more expensive or any more complicated than they already are.
|
|
#8
03-07-2003, 03:48 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I think you should have actinic as well, coraline algae grows well under it... starting up a new tank with live rock/base rock I would use the actinic to help the coraline algae to get a good head start before the MH goes on and the ugly algae starts.
|
Linear Mode
