PC vs. VHO and why?

[danspyvey]

I know this is probably a frequent question, I quit looking at page 25 on the forum, and have read every article with lighting in the library and saw the survey. I have a standard 55 gal tank that I plan to try and grow softies, LPS and maybe even try a low light SPS (I haven't heard of one of these yet). I also want a squamosa or dersa clam (because of the low light requirments). I want to get the most intensity, Par, and wattage as cheap as I can without having to much light. If my tank was larger I would consider MH lighting, but I think that is overkill and I just won't consider this as an option.

So far I have narrowed the search to 3 different light systems. I found the orbit satellite 4x65 watt as the least expensive (I really like the look of this eventhough it's probably not very good since I like it), an ARO VHO 440 watt retrofit (w/4 bulbs) being second most expensive but not by much and a Hamilton retro 4x96 watt being most expensive. The retro fits are ok that just means I need to build a hood.

I have seen power compact lights before (not an orbit that was actually turned on though), but I have never seen daylight bulbs in a VHO system only actinics with MH bulbs. I have heard that 96 pc's put out almost as much light as 110 VHO but I don't know for sure. Please help me out with my situation.

 

[SnowManSnow]

For what it's worth I'm planning on the Current USA Satelite 30 inch PC fixture for my 37 tank. For the price it doesn't seem you can beat PC for smaller tanks. Puls they come standard with a cool little moonlight, built in fans, and multiple switches. If your considering the Satelite or the Orbit check out Webaquatics.com They have been CONSIDERABLY cheaper on these particular PC fixtures.

B.

 

[ChrisRD]

Hi Dan and :welcome:

Lighting is a very subjective thing, so without actually looking at these setups IMO it's hard to make a choice.

That said, I'm not a big fan of PC lighting - although it is a very economical way to go on smaller tanks. On a tank like yours (4' long) I'd go with VHO.

Also, I prefer the look of VHO actinics to PC actinics, but it is a very subjective thing. I also feel better quality VHO lamps are easier to come by (URI lamps are preferred by many VHO users.

All that said, if you're serious about keeping Tridacna clams I think you'd be better off with metal halides. If you look into DIY options I think you'll fine they're not all that expensive.

I believe http://www.hellolights.com has a good selection of DIY halide stuff.

HTH

 

[Anonymous]

If you have a 4' tank then my "gut" feel would favor VHO. that way the light is the entire length of the tank.

There are also less expensive options depending on what you want to keep. For instance, I run about 220w of NO bulbs using $30 of fixtures from the home depot web site. But most ill tell ya that's a no no.

 

[Fatal Morgana]

>... But most ill tell ya that's a no no.

There is nothing wrong with NO if you have the space for them in the canopy.

 

[Anonymous]

I agree mostly with Chris.

However, I have seen way too many people start with PC or VHO only to ditch them later and go with MH. When you factor in bulb replacment of a 4 bulb pc or vho system over a year, a MH system isn't really all that much more expensive. And you get the light you need to keep basically anything.

My recommendation would be to find a used MH system. YMMV.

 

[ChrisRD]

I agree - most people who stay in the hobby end-up with MH lighting for those very reasons.

Common reasons (sorta misconceptions IMO) you hear for people not wanting to go to MH is intial setup cost and heat issues (thinking they'll need a chiller). IME the former can be addressed by Righty's suggestion of buying used, or DIYing. The second, by a well ventilated setup and fans (basement sumps are awesome too but understandably not everyone has the room for this).

Once you see what they do to corals/clams you'll never go back to flourescents! Plus, you get cool glimmer lines too...

 

[HClH2OFish]

I agree..MH is the way to go for clams. Once the initial costs are done, you're gonna have a lighting setup that won't need upgrading once the bug bites ya to get some more demanding corals.

My only issue w/MH is I've yet to see an MH setup that I could use for my 10gal jelly tank

 

[Anonymous]

My only issue w/MH is I've yet to see an MH setup that I could use for my 10gal jelly tank

70 watt DE pendant?

 

[Anonymous]

My only issue w/MH is I've yet to see an MH setup that I could use for my 10gal jelly tank

70 watt DE pendant?

 

[HClH2OFish]

Can't do a pendant due to the location of the tank.
It's sitting on our bathroom counter in the Master Bedroom (big counter)
Was originally a QT tank and used to cure LR -- now it's home to a buncha jellies that hitchiked in on some rock.
I'd like to find some kind of light that can just sit on top of the tank...but with MH temp would be an issue.

 

[ejordan]

I was looking at upgrading my current PC compact lighting system to Metal Halide, and came across some interesting MH / PC combination setups. Has anyone had any experience with this combos? What would be the advantage of combining these two different types of lighting?

-ej

 

[Anonymous]

The advantage is that you get to supplement your MH with pc actinics. I am however, not a big fan of PCs. They don't last all that long and I like the look of VHO better.

 

[danspyvey]

I appreciate all of the replies, however I don't see the cost of Metal Halide's set up cost anywhere in my near future. I have a 100gal tank (currently freshwater) as well as the 55gal What the actual plan is to one day in the future convert the 100 gal into a larger reef when I have more experience and make the 55 gal a saltwater fish only tank. I plan on putting the metal halides on the 100 gal when it's a reef tank.

So as far as right now goes I am still planning on going either VHO or PC. I plan to continue to add to my softies (a few mushrooms and 2 small colonlies of ZOO's) with maybe a few LPS. After reading this thread I have come to realize that the clams are out of the picture :x for this time until the 100gal gets up and running with the MH's. I have narrowed the cost down to three systems again either NO's 4x40 or the orbit Satellite 4x65 or the 4x110 ARO VHO light system. All of these are not to much different in cost. So what will be the least expensive, but best way to go without the overkill of light in the tank.

 

[danspyvey]

After checking on the survey I notice that people chose the PC's 3 to 1 over VHO as their primary light source. This would lead me to believe that the PC's are the more popular and probably the way to go is there any suggestions on this as well

 

[HClH2OFish]

PC's are the more popular and probably the way to go

More popular doesn't necessarily mean it'll work. I personally have PC's, but it's only a 25gal w/fish and some mushrooms...

I think best way to find what works best is to see what you want to keep in the tank, and then find others with same kinda critters and see what they've been successful with.

As always...just my .02

 

[danspyvey]

I am planning to keep soft corals and lps corals (the lower end of light hungry corals)

 

[Anonymous]

One thing people tend to ignore is the replacement cost per bulb and how often the replacement is supposed to happen. When you do the math for a year, MH really isn't all that expensive compared to PC.

As for what is the best of the systems I think the answer is whichever you like the best.

 

[ChrisRD]

FWIW... ...out of the choices you're looking at I'd go with VHO personally (since T-5s or metal halides aren't a choice)...