You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
2x250 or 2x400...
- Thread starter PeeJ
- Start date
I would go for the 2x400 watt the cost isnt that far off .and if you get a larger tank down the road you will be glad you got the 400's . Right now Im running a 250watt Iwasaki with Icecap E ballast. with Ice cap timer. and I just put in a 400watt XM 20k bulb with a Blueline ballast . Im also running a 95watt PC 03 actinic. this is on a 300gallon tank. I plan on going 4x400 I dont think I will need the actinics with the Xm 20k they are blue from what Im looking at, I need to break in the bulb though. Definately go with the 400watters it s a good investment.
I have 2x250 over my 90g, i'd say go with them. My home-built canopy isn't vented. My temp usually stays at around 81-82f, but it the day is warm i may see 83-84f. The 400's i think will be to much heat for your 100. Unless like a bro said ,"have a chiller".
_________________
economic recession definition
_________________
economic recession definition
I agree with the last 2 posts. My 2*250w brought my reef up to 90 degrees a couple times last summer. 400's would of course be better but IMO would make planning for heat issues a must.
If you do not want any actinic supplementation at all you may want to consider 20k. (I presently have Ushio 10k and find they do need a bit of actinic). As an added bonus they may last longer before needing to be changed.
If you do not want any actinic supplementation at all you may want to consider 20k. (I presently have Ushio 10k and find they do need a bit of actinic). As an added bonus they may last longer before needing to be changed.
Yeah there is definatly a hugh heat issue from 400's. I used to use 400's and now use 250's and have no heat issues with the 250's. If you arnt going to use actinics though I would go with 400 watt 20k radiums. As the loss in par from the use of high k bulbs will be counteracted by the high wattage. If you use 250 10k's and acouple of 96 watt PC's you'd be getting close to the same par (or more) then with the 400 20k's Plus you can change bulbs less often with the 10k's over the 20k's. So you'd save money, through less bulb changes, less electricity usage, and less heat issues.
Plus ther are plenty of awsome tanks that use 250's to sow they are just as good on your size tank.
Plus ther are plenty of awsome tanks that use 250's to sow they are just as good on your size tank.
Hello:
If you are not going to use the Actinics, then you will want to choose a bulb that has more blue in it's color spectrum. You might want something in the 6.5K or 10K range. Tests have showed that the 20K lose some of the spectrum faster then the 6.5k and 10K.
If you are going with a fish only tank, get a bulb that makes the tank look nice such as a 10K white. There is no reason to put a huge spotlight on your fish, as your tank will go from dark to light in a microsecond.
If you are going with corals, then light intensity will make them grow and you will want a light with more blue as that is the main color spectrum down were the corals live in the sea. That is the reason that people use the actinics; however just to confuse the issue more, tests have shown that corals will grow with a bulb from 4k to 20k. Again, higher intensity seemed to cause the corals grow faster.
Generally speaking, a 250-watt MH should be good for your size of tank (down to about 30" deep). 400w will work for a tank about 36" deep and some are dimmable.
I often feel that the whole light issue has become overly complicated. You will be able to find people that have used this, or that, and both have good results. More times than not, water conditions have a bigger impact on coral/fish growth than the lights. Everybody can live in a dim place, but can't live without proper nutrition. It is easier to raise a coral higher in the tank for more light, than it is to provide a good living environment.
To summarize, I think that a 250W hanging from a pendant with a 10k would work just fine for your tank. I hope that this is some help as your are going to be making a sizeable financial investment in lights and everyone wants to spend their money wisely.
Bob
If you are not going to use the Actinics, then you will want to choose a bulb that has more blue in it's color spectrum. You might want something in the 6.5K or 10K range. Tests have showed that the 20K lose some of the spectrum faster then the 6.5k and 10K.
If you are going with a fish only tank, get a bulb that makes the tank look nice such as a 10K white. There is no reason to put a huge spotlight on your fish, as your tank will go from dark to light in a microsecond.
If you are going with corals, then light intensity will make them grow and you will want a light with more blue as that is the main color spectrum down were the corals live in the sea. That is the reason that people use the actinics; however just to confuse the issue more, tests have shown that corals will grow with a bulb from 4k to 20k. Again, higher intensity seemed to cause the corals grow faster.
Generally speaking, a 250-watt MH should be good for your size of tank (down to about 30" deep). 400w will work for a tank about 36" deep and some are dimmable.
I often feel that the whole light issue has become overly complicated. You will be able to find people that have used this, or that, and both have good results. More times than not, water conditions have a bigger impact on coral/fish growth than the lights. Everybody can live in a dim place, but can't live without proper nutrition. It is easier to raise a coral higher in the tank for more light, than it is to provide a good living environment.
To summarize, I think that a 250W hanging from a pendant with a 10k would work just fine for your tank. I hope that this is some help as your are going to be making a sizeable financial investment in lights and everyone wants to spend their money wisely.
Bob
I also see alot of difference in heat between the 400's and my new 250's becasue the 400's were retrofit and the 250's are in a contained in an enclosed hood inside the canopy I built. I only use one 4" fan blowing through the hood. I use 10k ushio and 2x 96 watt PC's. What type of ballast did you get?
I use the PFO and have always liked them. They will last forever even if they cost a bit more to run versus the e-ballast.
I do believe HQI provides more par then regualr mogul and am sure there is test somewhere. This info is old but still good.
http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/s/b ... rison.html
I use the PFO and have always liked them. They will last forever even if they cost a bit more to run versus the e-ballast.
I do believe HQI provides more par then regualr mogul and am sure there is test somewhere. This info is old but still good.
http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/s/b ... rison.html
Sponsor Reefs
We're a FREE website, and we exist because of hobbyists like YOU who help us run this community.
Click here to sponsor $10:
