willgr1 Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 not to beat this subject into the ground anymore than it already has, but i was pondering the different possiblities for lighting while getting ready for work this morning. i know most people advocate MH for anenomes and that is what i have recommended to others in the past. but i recall a lot of people saying VHOs are better than halides for sps (or the same, depending who you ask), so i was curious as to people's opinions about VHOs for anenomes as well. discuss.... Link to comment
Travis Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 I think that MH is better, VHO is kinda old school. Link to comment
Steve973 Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 What does "as to" mean? I'm referring to the quote: "as to people's opinions..." To answer your question, metal halide. Link to comment
King-Kong Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 "kinda old school". does this mean it is un-cool to use VHO's, and all the cool kids on the playground sport the new expensive MH? Link to comment
goochs Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 old school:*( I had 2 anenomes and several fish and an octupus in a 55gal with nothing but 4 normal flourescents??? they lasted for about a year until my mom gave herself a perm in my compressor room.. killed the puss and my anenome went the next day and boy when they go what a mess.. Of course this was back in the 70's when it was metal what or v Who?? Link to comment
willgr1 Posted January 24, 2005 Author Share Posted January 24, 2005 old school or not, if it works it works. i run halides on my tanks for my sps, i've thought about experimenting with vhos for actinics (i run compacts right now). the main point is, when i'm at work and someone mentions they want the anemome in the tank i immediately ask them tank specs. most of them say what ever came in that hood over there. so next comes a whole lecture about the importance in lighting and tank stability (most people's tanks are less than a month old at this point). when i mention metal halides people tend to cringe at the though of spending a few hundred bucks on lights to keep an animal (unfortunately i get the same reaction when i have to tell people about the importance of UV for reptiles(my first obsession...)). i was wondering the effectiveness of vhos compared to halides not only for my own reference but to offer other alternatives to those expensive halide fixtures for people who are willing to for out some extra buck but don't want to blow their budget if you know what i mean. Link to comment
Samc Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 I have done the research, and it boils down to metal halides being the CHEAPEST. Thats right, the cheapest. You need to look into more than original startup cost. Bulb cost is the cheapest for mh. You need around 4 vhos, for a total of $120 per complete bulb change, plus the bulbs last less than mh bulbs do. One mh bulb does the job, and even if you get REALLY expensive bulbs, thats like $90, and they last for 12 months! Plus, electricity costs the same. And, if you had say 2 vho's, thats $60. You can get good mh bulbs for that much, any wattage. Thats more light than vho for less. I can put togethor a 150 watt de setup for $150, $200 for a 250 watter. Thats 150 watts for $20-30 more than 130 watts of pc or a similar vho setup (vho costs more than pc now anyway). 150 watt of MH, much better light, waaay higher par than any variation of flo's (except maybe T-5's). The big thing is they penetrate better. Sam Link to comment
FAC_WNY Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 SamC hit the nail on the head. VHO's end up being much more expensive to maintain and operate while still offering less PAR. Cheers, Fred Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.