Confused by MH/VHO lighting configuration...

[Anonymous]

I think, given the size of my tax return, that I will probably outfit my 5-foot oceanic 110 gallon tank for metal halide/VHO lighting so I can keep SPS and clams. However, I'm a little confused as to how this would work as far as the lighting arrangement on the top of the tank.

I plan on getting two 250-watt MH pendants, each with a 10,000k white/blue bulb, and two URI 140-watt 5-foot VHO actinic 03 bulbs to supplement. The confusion I have is this :

The metal halides would be arranged so each would hang over the middle of each half of the tank. Where would I put the VHO bulbs so that they cover the whole tank, and yet don't get in the halides' way? Is there a set way to do this?

I don't plan on having a glass canopy or a hood on this tank.

Please advise...this has me both baffled and a little intimidated.

Peace,

Chip

[ January 14, 2002: Message edited by: marillion ]</p>

 

[Super Len]

What most people (including myself) do is flank the metal halides like so:

=====================
MH MH
=====================

The VHOs should aligned at the same level as (or a little below) the pendants' bottom. This way, you maximize both the MH output and VHO output.

Without a canopy, the actinics may look a little unsightly/distracting. You'll probably want to shield them with some kind of enclosure or full reflector.

An easier option is to just go with 3 250w 10kk pendants and forego the VHOs.

 

[M.E.Milz]

Hmmm, I would consider PFO's horizontal pendents that combine a single MH bulb (250 or 400 watt) with 2x 28 watt actinic PC's. Antoher advantage of these pendants are that they mount the MH's horizontally.

Of course, you could achieve a similar lighting effect by just using 2x 400 watt 10,000K MH's.

 

[Super Len]

My recommendation: 3 x 250 watt HQI 10,000K pendants (2, if finances don't allow) without actinic supplementation.

 

[Anonymous]

Would two 250watt 10K bulbs be enough for the 110 gallon? That would be the easiest for me if possible...

Thanks much.

Peace,

Chip

 

[Anonymous]

Two 250w would be 4.5W/G and that's around the lower limit for light loving corals. But, muahahahaha, the area directly under the lights (or upper half depending on your reflectors etc.) will have much higher W/G numbers, and the bottom corners will be lower. So, imo, that'd be a great setup.

 

[bgdiving]

Marillion, before you get an expensive lighting sytem you should think about PAYING for the corals you ordered and recieved in early July. Last Email I had from you said you couldn't evan afford fish food, since then you have gotten a 110 gallon oceanic tank and are thinking about buying an expensive lighting system. Chip please pay for the 2 boxes of corals and macros that you recieved 7 months ago, and if you owe anyone else for corals please pay them also, before you jump into expensive lighting upgrades.

Chip I sent you some Email a few days ago but haven't heard from you, please check your email.

 

[dattack]

Err, Shouldn't you have received the money before sending out stuff?

 

[bgdiving]

Dattack, Your correct I should have required the money before shipping, if this had been E-bay I would have but was a little more trusting on this board shipping to somebody who had been posting on this board for quite a while. I wouldn't hesitate to send some one in our reef club a bunch of corals if they didn't have the money on them at the time or will not have something to trade for a couple of months, in fact I've done that several times with no problem. I guess I kind of felt the same type of commonality here with everyone deeply interested in reefs, guess I should have assumed the worst.

 

[esmithiii]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote

Two 250w would be 4.5W/G and that's around the lower limit for light loving corals.

WPG (watts per gallon) means nothing. It is a poor choice for rating lighing, IMO. The following factors MUST be given consideration (watts per gallon does not address all but one of these issues):

<ul type="square">[*] Tank height is a critical factor. Two tanks with the same volume can have different heights. Since light intensity is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source, tank height cannot be ignored.[*] Similarly, distance from the bulbs to the water and to different spots in the tank is important too.[*] Also, reflector type and distance between bulbs and width of tank affect intensity.[*] Spectrum is also important.[*] Different type lighting options (NO, VHO, PC, MH) all have different intensities for the same color temp bulb in the same wattage. 96W daylight PC is more intense than 110W daylight in VHO, for example.[*] Color temperature greatly affects intensity and PAR. A 400W 6500K Iwasaki has MUCH more PAR than a 400W 10,000K bulb.[*] WPG does not take into account layout of bulbs. [*] Glass or acrylic between the bulbs and the water also reduce intensity.
[/list]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote

Would two 250watt 10K bulbs be enough for the 110 gallon? That would be the easiest for me if possible...

How high is the tank? I assume it is 24" tall. If you plan on keeping clams or SPS low in the tank the I doubt that 2 x 250W 10,000K will be enough. I doubt that 3 would be enough. This is just my opinion, however.

What do you want to keep?

[ January 19, 2002: Message edited by: esmithiii ]</p>

 

[Downdeep]

Sounds like you should pay the money you owe to BGDiving before you make any more purchases. Makes you look pretty bad when he sends corals and macro algeas months ago and you don't have the consideration to pay him for what he's sent to you.

 

[Downdeep]

^

 

[Downdeep]

^^^