Metal halide lighting questions

[jrflanagan]

I am looking to purchase a metal halide light for my planted tank, but I had a few questions.

What are the advantages/disadvantages to internal vs. external ballasts?

If I got a 250W fixture, can I replace the bulbs with 150W down the road if i want to?

What brand fixtures are the best?

Thanks

 

[pjsmetana]

...If I got a 250W fixture, can I replace the bulbs with 150W down the road if i want to?...

I don't see any reason why not.

 

[xxjoshxx]

Depending on the Type of Ballast you have it may work Or simply blow the bulb soon as you turn the switch on. try with a cheapie 150W mh bulb to sure

Most ballast Only send out a certain amount of watts i believe it will overpower the bulb and pop it. Look on the ballast see if it is Variable watt or Look at the output watts if it says JUST 250 its putting out 250Watts all the time no matter what.

I know ICE cap just recently Came out with a Selectable Watt Ballast First one ive heard of.

 

[ashtree68]

If you decide to I have a K-2 150 watt viper for sale with a couple of bulbs, located chicago-60612. 125$

 

[MyGiants]

I don't see any advantages running MH. Disadvantage is higher electricity bill. Higher heat above the tank. I feel MH are really obsolete now for planted tanks. Florescent run cheaper run cooler and you can target your spectrum better that plants need.

 

[Zander_The_RBP]

I don't see any advantages running MH. Disadvantage is higher electricity bill. Higher heat above the tank. I feel MH are really obsolete now for planted tanks. Florescent run cheaper run cooler and you can target your spectrum better that plants need.

That is so wrong on so many levels


Metal halides do not draw any more wattage for what they do than flourescents they are actualy 4% more effcient (on avarage) than t5 lighting 175 watts of metal halide will give off more light than 175 watts of flourescent,

In accordance with the laws of conservation of energy if they are producing more light for the same amount of energy then it is because they are producing less heat the only reason you feel the heat with halides more is becuase the heat is emmited from a more concentrated area. Overall there is actualy LESS heat.

Concerning the spectrum metal halides (of any colour temp you could pretty much get metal halides made for industrial purposes and they would still work for growing plants) aproximate natural sunlight the best out of any current light source becuase they give a full and complete spectrum. Go look a spectral chart of a metal halide and compare it to a flourescent the flourescent looks like jagged peaks while the halides is much smoother, now go look at the spectrum of sunlight it's nearly a perfect arch and very smooth. This is similar to an incandescent but incandescents the spectrum is so far over towards the red end that they are unusable for planted tanks with metal halides they can effectively be wherever on the spectrum you want to be (you just have to change the composition of the lamp)

The only lighting source that is truely obsolete for planted tanks are incandescents and in my opinion flourescents.

in a couple of years everything will be using LED's and everytihng including flourescents and metal halides will be obsolete

Metal halides (and other High Intensity Discharge lamps) and LED's are the only things that should be used at all for aquariums.

 

[FLESHY]

That is so wrong on so many levels

Hmm...+1

MH are awesome for a lot of reasons. Shimmer lines are sweet.

They have higher intensity than any other bulbs, and have better penetration power. Plus who doesnt think that shimmer lines are sweet. Right now, MH is the closest you can come to the real thing (the sun) as you can buy. (Minus LED, and the science behind that in my opinion isnt completely worked out, and they are still expensive as hell.)

To my knowledge pretty much all MH ballasts are remote. Unless you buy a complete fixture your ballast will be kept elsewhere to keep heat down.

There is only one ballast that I know of that allows you to use different wattage bulbs. And its a 250w-400w.

Fixtures are the most expensive way to do MH...but probably the best from a rookie "plug'n'play" perspective. I would recommend current. Not cheap, but very good, excellent customer service, and last I checked, made in the USA. The ballast will be internal.

 

[MyGiants]

That is so wrong on so many levels


Metal halides do not draw any more wattage for what they do than flourescents they are actualy 4% more effcient (on avarage) than t5 lighting 175 watts of metal halide will give off more light than 175 watts of flourescent,

They do draw more electricity cause you don't need 175W to outperform it with T5. And yes a single 175W lamb will put out more intense light in a smaller area then 175 watts of T5 bulbs. But with T5 you your light spread out more evenly. MH is brightest just below the bulb an gets less intense further away. Plus would not need 175W to out perform a single 175W MH bulb. Also the sprectrum is not idea IMO yes it is super bright like the sun. But plants don't use all the suns spectrums to grow. MH might be good for a really really tall tank. But I would take T5 any day over MH.I know I had MH on my reef tank. And they do produce so much more heat!. I don't need to convince anyone.

 

[Zander_The_RBP]

They do draw more electricity cause you don't need 175W to outperform it with T5. And yes a single 175W lamb will put out more intense light in a smaller area then 175 watts of T5 bulbs. But with T5 you your light spread out more evenly. MH is brightest just below the bulb an gets less intense further away. Plus would not need 175W to out perform a single 175W MH bulb. Also the sprectrum is not idea IMO yes it is super bright like the sun. But plants don't use all the suns spectrums to grow. MH might be good for a really really tall tank. But I would take T5 any day over MH.I know I had MH on my reef tank. And they do produce so much more heat!. I don't need to convince anyone.

maybe you didnt read my post ? 175 watts of metal halide will produce the equivalent of 175 x 1.04 watts of flourescent (182 watts) so therefore you would need 182 watts of flourescent to match the output of a single 175 watt halide) Every single type of light gets dimmer as you move further away from it so thats not even a valid point.


And your telling me metal halides defy the laws of physics by somehow by producing more light AND more radiant energy in the form of heat from the same amount of energy than flourescents... nice try. They produce less heat than flourescents but that heat is more concentrated and because we usualy are dealing with such high wattages so the heat is felt more.


sure your free to take your outdated t5 lights anyday over my halides but at the end of the day ill have the brighter more energy efficient tank.


just throwing this out there these statistics are for t5s NOT t5HO. T5ho is LESS efficient than normal t5's (because essentialy you are over driving the bulbs)


The only things that flourescents are good for anymore is in saltwater where you need the extra actinic blue or violet light but Led's have flourescents beat on this as well as by the nature of flourescents they can never be truely monochromatic (one wavelength ) they can come close and emit up to 90% of their output as one wavelength LED's however can be monochromatic and therefore make more usable light for what you want them to do.



LED's are definetely IMO the future of lighting, producing almost no heat and being brighter than all other light sources (per watt) only reason i am using halides (or will be using them very soon) is that i found some at a great deal and i still may supplement them with some ODNO t8's or LED's

 

[MyGiants]

I am talking about T5HO and they do produce more light then standard T5. Let try to explain again why it will cost more and produce more heat.
First let me state I agree that 175W of flourescent will equal 175W of MH as far as energy used.
Lets take a 55 gallon that is 4 feet long. If you placed a single 175W bulb in the middle of the tank you will not get a uniform lighting across the whole tank. Even if you raised it higher from the water which you will need to do anyways then flourescent bulbs It will be very bright in the middle and visibly see less intensity on each end so you will need to either put 2-3 175W bulbs to get a uniform light across the tank. 175W x 3 = 525W
way overkill! Why it cost more is because you don't need 175W or 525W to grow lush planted tank. Two 48" 54W T5HO 108W total will give you even light aross the tank with less watts producing less heat using less energy plus will grow your plants thick and lush with co2. Again I don't have to convince you. Do some research there is plenty of info out there on the benefits of HO or VHO flourescent over MH for a planted tank. I fact I don't think anyone any more recommends MH for planted tanks with todays selection HO anf VHO flourescents available. MH degrade visibly after 4-6 months with no negligible degrade of flourescent after 1 year. Infact you can run flourescents until they burnout!