IMHO, it should be the same assuming that the ballast efficiency is 100%which is not possible, there should be energy lost. Question is which one more efficient MH balast or T5 ballast?
Guys,
If 2wpg is needed then my 6ft should need about 300watt.
My question is; will 2 x 150w MH cost more than 30 x 10w T5? I thought the total watt is the measuring yardstick in terms of electricity bill instead of types of lighting? I thought we should be looking at the lumen output to get the best bang right? No?
How much is the cost of electricity bill of having a 150w MH that stays on for 10hours per day?
FL
IMHO, it should be the same assuming that the ballast efficiency is 100%which is not possible, there should be energy lost. Question is which one more efficient MH balast or T5 ballast?
I would say it's how you want to use the lights.
If you've learnt, teach, if you have, give.
Don't walk behind me as I might not lead, don't walk in front of me as I might not follow. Walk beside me, as my friend.
Mohamad Rohaizal is my name. If it's too hard, use BFG. I don't mind.
You guys are good! Okay hypothetically let's say if the utilization of the lights and ballast is 100% (nevermind it is not possible), does it mean both have similar electricity cost? Open for discussion![]()
IMHO, I think so.
Check this out - http://rexgrigg.com/mlt.html
and this - http://www.fitchfamily.com/lighting.html
It might change your whole perception of "3wpg rule"
Experience wise, you can use 2 x 150W MH or 3 x 70W MH over a 6 feet tank.
70W for less intensity and more even coverage, 150W for more intensity and milder spots at the sides.
The halide usually wins in terms of efficiency looked from the side of growth. While the T5 and other fluoroscent seems to win when it comes to consistency at milder lighting level.
Yours Truly, Avan
I went into the woods because I wanted to live deliberately. I wanted to live deep and suck out all the marrow of life... to put to rout all that was not life; and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived.
~ Henry David Thoreau
I agree mostly with them on the limitation of 3wpg rule. However, it still lack the concerns on depth. Most divers would know sunlight will lose its RED completely between 5-7m depth. Though our tanks are rarely 1m, at least 10% is lost according to proportion. And we are talking about Sunlight here, any electrical lights with less penetration strength would lose even more. Therefore, I believe the deeper your tank is, the less BLUE your lights should be. For deeper high tech tanks, I would suggest MH lights. My experience with them is a lot better compared to FLs and PLs. I had never owned any T5 though.
PS: These are personal assumptions. I am not a specialist nor professional in this field.
Bro, I suggest you can go over to midori suntec to take a look at their 3 ft display tank... then you will know whether its MH or T5 or PL or FL to choose according to your likings. Me personally will stick with MH no matter what after using itNothing beats the feel and looks of glithering/shadowing effects like real sunlight failing into the water.
Medicineman et al, thanks for the advice! 3 x 70W sounds sweet. I am toying with the idea of Pendant MH. Anything I should look out for?
Is the heat output in relation to the wattage? meaning higher W = hotter?
Sorry, somehow I missed your last question and I apologize.
There are 2x18w PL in the market. But hold your horses.... Highlight does not necessary mean the "right" light. Its the balance that is important. You are asking for trouble if you use highlight methods but are unable to provide the required "raw materials" for the plants especially CO2 which might have problems dissolving fast enough in a small nano tank.
May want to try out buying from DE lightings if you have the fund.
Look for proper pendant and reflector for aquarium. Match them with electronic ballast if you still have the extra fund to spare.
Opt for generic metal halide with generic bulb and magnetic ballast if you are short on fund. These will also do, at slightly less efficiency, a chance of slight buzzing and a little bit more heat.
3 x 70W is a good option for easier maintenance than blistering 150W, while it is still good enough to grow most plants.
Have you bought any thing for it yet ? If not, here is my 2 baht worth as another option. Before I setup my 5x2x2 ft tank, I went thru similar thought process like you.
Finally, I picked BOYU 4x55wPL set with 7200k each plus another set of 2x36w fluorescents with 6500k & 8000k, one was daylight & the other was pinkish tubes. I also have 3x5 " fans running when lights are on to keep the temp around 27 c.
So far I'm very pleased with this light setup. Definitely it cost me less than going for MH & moreover it's easier to keep the tank in balance.
Now for your 6' tank, you may need a bit more wattages than I.
Good luck
henry
Hi Medicineman,
Thanks for your valuable input again.
What do you mean by 'easier maintenance for 3 x 70W over 2 x 150w'? Also, do you think the heat output by the 70s will be lesser than 150s? Sorry for the bunch of questions
I am a believer of E ballast. But I am under this notion that lightings offer by Aquarium trade are always much dearer than the lighting market, product for product. Altough I could be wrong (which I have been proven many times over). If anyone has any lobang on E ballast and decent pandent style MH please point me to that direction.
Thanks in advance guys...
Henry, I have visited the route to PL and FL. T5 is interesting but I just want to give MH a try. Thanks anyway....sawatikap...
Type and amount of light is relative to what you intend to plant in your tank.
I have a 6x2x2 and I am only using 6x36w PL.
Danny Chng
Bookmarks