RLiu818 Posted February 23, 2003 Share Posted February 23, 2003 I am having trouble deciding between these two brands for my 70W MH HQI. http://www.hellolights.com/70wattmhbulb.html Link to comment
cmoreash Posted February 23, 2003 Share Posted February 23, 2003 I've got both, and I like the look of the Ushio more. It appears to be brighter than the Aqualine. It seems to fire up a bit better on a standard magnetic ballast for me as well. Link to comment
Dave ESPI Posted February 24, 2003 Share Posted February 24, 2003 http://www.coleman.com/coleman/colemancom/...ct_id=5154B700T kicking rad. Link to comment
gregmoeck Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 I am curious. What is better, a 96 watt PC or a 70 watt MH? Link to comment
DeskJockey Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 greg- I would have to say the 70w MH I cant find any evidence but I would have to guess the 70w MH has a higher PAR rating then the 96w PC's. You would probably have to supplement actinic though, but with 2 13w PC's that would put you right at 96w anyway. And being a point source you would get shimmer lines...ooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhh =) but then again it depends on your application Link to comment
wetworx101 Posted March 18, 2003 Share Posted March 18, 2003 Power compact has about four times the lumens output that the equal wattage in metal halide has...so PC will be brighter. Thats why so many people can put 175 watt pendants over a nano...it isnt really that much, besides the directional intensity you can get with metal halide, thus making it great for deep tanks, but all the extra watts in metal halide are lost in heat...Metal halide is also valuble for it's almost identicle light wavelength to daylight as well, so some could argue that as long as the intensity of a metal halid is enough, its wattage could be more effective than PC. So, I suppose my point of all this is that a more accurate comparison would be a 175 watt metal halide or a 96w PC being compared (well say PC = 2x MH for actual effective light).... and at that...it depends on the tank. I wouldnt use PC as a primary light source on any tank more than 18" deep...it's light just doesnt penetrate...but on a nano, or where the heat of MH is a problem, PC is best. Link to comment
Xwhite Posted March 18, 2003 Share Posted March 18, 2003 I was thinking the same thing tonight. I can walk up to my two 36 watt PC bulbs when they've been on and actually touch their enclosure and even the bulbs themselves without being burned. Granted, the heat is being distributed over a larger surface area... but still... I ran 2 175 watt MH bulbs with PC actinics on my first reef. And the heat factor was enormous. Was near impossible to keep the heat down to an acceptable level in that tank. So, it got me thinking tonight. Sure, it's 175 watts of metal halide goodness. But is it really that much brighter? Is the metal halide bulb throwing off that extra wattage in pure heat instead of light? I don't know but it's something I've been thinking about. I do know that my two little 36 watt PC bulbs seem to be almost as bright in my 18 gallon tank as my MH/PC setup was in my 55 gallon tank. Though, I guess I'd need a meter to make any scientific statements. John Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.