Halides vs. CF

[WVfishguy]

I got halides for Christmas (actually, two weeks prior). A couple of 150 watts (10,000 k) pendants for my 75 reef. I'm also running a two 65 watt 50/50 (1/2 actinic) CF fixture. This seems to equalize the spectrum so it's not so white.

I had eight 65-watt compact florescent (520 watts total) which worked quite well until the bulbs began dimming. The expense of replacing all eight bulbs made me consider changing out the entire system.

I nearly lost a nice Pearl coral before changing to halides. Also, I had to move a Cynarina to the top because it began to deflate. The Fungia, green & red brains, sinularias, gorgonian and assorted mushrooms were doing well, but may have deteriorated with time. I also have a montipora which has tripled in size.
With the new lights, the Pearl is coming back quickly. Everything else is doing great.
I guess the lesson is this: CF lights are good when brand new, but don't seem to be a good idea in the long run. Plus, halides just look better.

I'm not setting up any more invert tanks without halides.

 

[DrHank]

T5s work good too. A lot of folks are switching to them instead of MH. They run a lot cooler. You don't get the shimmer you do with MH unfortunately but even SPS seem to do well.

If you really want something nice change the PCs to T5 actinics when you can. You'll really see a differance.

 

[saltycreefer]

BRAVO!

 

[WVfishguy]

I have T5's on a customer's tank. Eight lamps over a 150. I'm not overly impressed. IMO, T5's are not much better (if any) than CFs. T5s are more finicky to work with, generate considerable heat, do not go a deep as MH lights, and are not all that great. I certainly won't be buying any more.
Just my opinion based on my experience.

Saltycreeper: Has being a professional "fishguy" made you crazy yet?

 

[phljess]

Why is this question even being asked? There is no comparison, its like comparing a Chevette sitting on cinder blocks in someones front yard to a brand new Corvette.

IMO: Tropical midday sun= great, Halides= very good, all others I have seen fall short... Especially when keeping high light demanding inverts. However, the jury is still out on LEDs.

 

[coralreefer]

Re: Halides vs. CF

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8825499#post8825499 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by WVfishguy
I had eight 65-watt compact florescent (520 watts total) which worked quite well until the bulbs began dimming. The expense of replacing all eight bulbs made me consider changing out the entire system.

When I got my 220 it was running 7 6" VHOs. I switched to MH for what it would cost to replace the bulbs. Plus I'd rather have MH

 

[fishmon]

MH is BEST AVAILABLE, everything I have ever seen or done with them vs/ other lighting shows it.

 

[firefish2020]

Halide all the way IMO, proofs in the pudding as far as Im concerned.

T5s work good too. A lot of folks are switching to them instead of MH.

Thats just asking for trouble IMO.

 

[WVfishguy]

Halides are great, especially when they are FREE!
BTW - Jim, you guys really should place your lighting fixtures more toward the back of the store, farther away from the front door. Just a heads up.
TR

 

[Nathan4Wvu]

MH= :rollface:

T5= :thumbdown

there is no comparing the two

 

[fishmon]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8838772#post8838772 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by WVfishguy
BTW - Jim, you guys really should place your lighting fixtures more toward the back of the store, farther away from the front door. Just a heads up.
TR

I don't have any in the front, except the 10gallon incandescent hoods???, most all are overhead.

 

[Brock Fluharty]

I have T5's, and I honestly don't like the look of them, and growth is slightly dormant. I really wanna switch to halides, but the parents aren't too keen on paying that electricity bill...

 

[firefish2020]

Don't worry about that electric bill hype Brock it's not what you think.

 

[phljess]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8839271#post8839271 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by firefish2020
Don't worry about that electric bill hype Brock it's not what you think.

Yes and no, it depends on the efficiency of the ballast and the type of bulbs used. However, the amount of electricity used would be fairly close to other types of lighting that use the same amount of wattage. I do know that magnetic ballasts use more electricity to run bulbs than an electronic ballast.

Another thing you would need to consider is the difference in price to change the bulbs. You can probably save a little bit using halides over most other types of lighting. For example: you would probably need four PC/VHO/T5 bulbs on a 48 inch tank but you would only need two halides for the same tank if you were not running actinics.

 

[mcox33]

The MH lights run about the same to replace in my opinion. As for the electric bill, Mine seems to have gone down since I started running MH lights. I was running 440 watts of pc and now run 2 X 400 watts of MH (on a magnetic ballast) and 260 watts of PC plus the moonlights and a something watt T-5.

 

[Reef4Fun]

I have had my MH lighting for my 120 going for over 8 months now and to be honest, I have not even noticed a raise in the electric bill, and I keep it on 12(actinic) and 9 (MH) hours.

 

[Brock Fluharty]

Wow, gonna have te get the parents to read this.

I'm not concerned about the bulb replacement cost. If my tank needs something, I save up the money and work to buy it. How would I get actinics on the tank? PC?

 

[phljess]

If you run a high K bulb you would not really need actinics but some say they help induce feeding reponse in LPS coral. I would probably use just one T5 for actinic supplementation.

 

[MacJoe]

My wife gave me a MH for Christmas (and a clam ). I can not get over the difference it made. The tank looks so much better, I had no idea what I was missing out on.