CF's vs NO overdriven

[StirCrazy]

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

[BCOrchidGuy]

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

[Fish]

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

[StirCrazy]

Originally Posted by Fish

I think it is probably because VHO actinic is the best looking actinic light - Chad

yup, nothing like the URI super actinics for color.

Steve

[Bob I]

Originally Posted by Fish

I think it is probably because VHO actinic is the best looking actinic light and PC the worst!
- Chad

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.

[Fish]

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

- Chad

[StirCrazy]

Originally Posted by Bob_I

You have to get 460nm true actinic bulbs. I have some of those, and they do indeed cause corals to fluoresce.

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

Steve

[Bob I]

Originally Posted by StirCrazy

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

Steve

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

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.