175W MH depth question

[Myka]

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.

[Doug]

Originally Posted by Myka

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.

If I may. 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.