PDA

View Full Version : Metal Halides


wiszmaster
02/02/2007, 11:43 PM
This afternoon i managed to aquire a light fixture with 3 x 150w MH bulbs ... tonight i put them on the tank to see how it would look . . . . . .


DO NOT LIKE IT!

my xenias have barely any color ... the acros on top looked decent .. but thats about it.
I have to honestly say that i was not all that impressed.... i am however impressed with the LED moonlights that are in that fixture .. they light up the tank nicely ... REALLY brings out the colors in .. especially the greens.

ConcreteReefer
02/03/2007, 03:39 PM
What kind of bulbs are they? 10k's?

I hope you covered your corals with something (light diffuser) before adding lights. You could damage them if your not careful.

I use 2-150watt 14ks HQI's with 2-96 watt dual actinics.. Looks awesome. I love the shimmer lines that halides create.

Hobster
02/03/2007, 05:25 PM
As Concrete stated. Depends on the brand, what "k" and how much use on them.

wiszmaster
02/03/2007, 05:53 PM
they were 14K 150's ... the shimmer lines are alright ... i currently keep about 650w of T5 on my tank .. i still need to add the last 2 48" bulbs ...

coralfarmer84
02/03/2007, 08:45 PM
lol so quickly to bash metal halide....

allow me to professionally analyze your conclusion

You were running a fixture that had a total of 450 watts spread over 6 feet.

Your tank is 5 feet long with 760 plus watts of T-5 lighting. Half of which I'm assuming are strictly actinic tubes. Thats over 300 watts of pure actinic to make the greens pop. This particular halide system had no actinic whatsover. Therefore greens are not going to stand out as much. Keeping in mind that T-5 lighting is slightly less intense then metal halide, I would have to say if you found a 5 foot fixture with the 3x150 watt halides and added only 160 watts of T-5 actinic, you'd get the nice shimmer, plus you'd get better and more intense lighting for growth. My guess is if you left the halides on the tank for 4 months you'd notice much more growth on stonies and corals inparticular than the previous 4 months of T-5. So in conclusion, its a safe bet to say you didn't like the halides cuz you are used to actinic supp. along with twice the amount of watts over your tank.

This has been a in depth analysis by Ryan aka Coralfarmer.

lol :lol: :lol:

wiszmaster
02/03/2007, 09:02 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9152276#post9152276 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by coralfarmer84
lol so quickly to bash metal halide....

allow me to professionally analyze your conclusion

blahh blahh blahh

So in conclusion, its a safe bet to say you didn't like the halides.

This has been a in depth analysis by Ryan aka Coralfarmer.

lol :lol: :lol:

lol - thanks brotha!

let me reply to your professional analyze!:

1. i'm running about 600w
2. only 2 of them are atinics
3. yes, you are right - if i had actinics i'm sure the colors would've looked better.
4. i know it wasn't a fair comparison ... just figured i'd give me $0.07 cents to this heavily debated & fought over civil war starting topic.

keinreis
02/03/2007, 09:04 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9152276#post9152276 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by coralfarmer84
lol so quickly to bash metal halide....

allow me to professionally analyze your conclusion

You were running a fixture that had a total of 450 watts spread over 6 feet.

Your tank is 5 feet long with 760 plus watts of T-5 lighting. Half of which I'm assuming are strictly actinic tubes. Thats over 300 watts of pure actinic to make the greens pop. This particular halide system had no actinic whatsover. Therefore greens are not going to stand out as much. Keeping in mind that T-5 lighting is slightly less intense then metal halide, I would have to say if you found a 5 foot fixture with the 3x150 watt halides and added only 160 watts of T-5 actinic, you'd get the nice shimmer, plus you'd get better and more intense lighting for growth. My guess is if you left the halides on the tank for 4 months you'd notice much more growth on stonies and corals inparticular than the previous 4 months of T-5. So in conclusion, its a safe bet to say you didn't like the halides cuz you are used to actinic supp. along with twice the amount of watts over your tank.

This has been a in depth analysis by Ryan aka Coralfarmer.

lol :lol: :lol:

keinreis
02/03/2007, 09:09 PM
here he goes he is one of those halides are the only way guys... before you say halides put out more intense light you might want to find some proof of that. There has been many tests done on here where they put out the same if not more par then halides, and there is alot of people who have claimed better groth from t-5's after ditching their halides. I know marco can back me on this as I know he has read the threads with the geeks and their par meters doing all sorts of testing. One thing I feel strongly about is halides are not the only way to go. Sure they work, but many people have had just as good of success with t-5's. again who is right, and who is wrong? neither! seems to me both set-ups are great for keeping corals and clams happy.


<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9152276#post9152276 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by coralfarmer84
lol so quickly to bash metal halide....

allow me to professionally analyze your conclusion

You were running a fixture that had a total of 450 watts spread over 6 feet.

Your tank is 5 feet long with 760 plus watts of T-5 lighting. Half of which I'm assuming are strictly actinic tubes. Thats over 300 watts of pure actinic to make the greens pop. This particular halide system had no actinic whatsover. Therefore greens are not going to stand out as much. Keeping in mind that T-5 lighting is slightly less intense then metal halide, I would have to say if you found a 5 foot fixture with the 3x150 watt halides and added only 160 watts of T-5 actinic, you'd get the nice shimmer, plus you'd get better and more intense lighting for growth. My guess is if you left the halides on the tank for 4 months you'd notice much more growth on stonies and corals inparticular than the previous 4 months of T-5. So in conclusion, its a safe bet to say you didn't like the halides cuz you are used to actinic supp. along with twice the amount of watts over your tank.

This has been a in depth analysis by Ryan aka Coralfarmer.

lol :lol: :lol:

ConcreteReefer
02/03/2007, 11:48 PM
T5 + HQI is the way to go. If my deal falls apart with the Solaris, I will buy a combo fixture with both.

Marco- Your comparing apples to oranges, Unhook your actinic T5's and then do a comparison.

There's a reason that 90% of SPS I've seen tanks are using halides, they work.

wiszmaster
02/04/2007, 12:51 AM
Jeff,

I had already stated that my comparison wasn't fully serious ... but in all honesty - there are plenty of people that grow some great tanks w/out MHs ... if you were to give them a try - i'm sure you'd see what i'm talking about.

If i had to do it over again, and money wasn't an issue, i'd still go with T5's.

wiszmaster
02/04/2007, 12:54 AM
look up the user grimreefer (sp?) on here ... he has done many comparisons, checked the PAR & output of MH/VHO/T5/PCs ... please check it out yourself!

I'm by NO means saying that T5's are the answer to all questions reefing - but i do believe that they are a reat alternative to MHs that run HOT, expensive & draw more wattage than a small african village. ;-)

ConcreteReefer
02/04/2007, 10:46 PM
LED's are going to take over the market in the next few years anyway. So this T5 vs. MH is pretty much pointless.

Wiz- I totally agree with you-T5's are a great/cheaper alternative to MH's. I'm actually going to buy an Icecap T5 48" retro for my sump/refugium.

wiszmaster
02/04/2007, 11:02 PM
48" for your sump/fuge?

are you going to light up your whole sump? i'd refrain from doing so - unless you want algae growing in the whole sump ... i'm about to put some black acrylic against the walls of my fuge, and get a 20" PC fixture for my fuge ... but the last think i want is to light up the whole damn thing ...

wiszmaster
02/04/2007, 11:16 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9160530#post9160530 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ConcreteReefer
LED's are going to take over the market in the next few years anyway. So this T5 vs. MH is pretty much pointless.

Wiz- I totally agree with you-T5's are a great/cheaper alternative to MH's. I'm actually going to buy an Icecap T5 48" retro for my sump/refugium.

I'd beg to differ.
For 1 - LED fixtures are still much too expensive to 'take over the market' anytime soon.

I.E.:
14" 20K Solaris LED Illumination System. - $849
24" 20KSolaris LED Illumination System. - $1308
36" 20K Solaris LED Illumination System. - $1878
48" 20K Solaris LED Illumination System. - $2325
60" 20K Solaris LED Illumination System. - $2896
72" 20K Solaris LED Illumination System. - $3344

The life excpectancy of these LEDs is supposedly 50,000 hours - that would be 5.7 years.
Great - so in 5.7 Years the LEDs will 'brun out' - but in all honesty - LEDs go dimmer as they age - when is the recommended change out time? How costly will it be to change out LEDs?

LEDs are just now being used for cars, the first car was just released with all LED headlights (Audi R8 & Lexus LS) ....


<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9160530#post9160530 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ConcreteReefer
So this T5 vs. MH is pretty much pointless.


maybe for you ... but for the rest of people that cannot afford, or simply will not pay $2896 (+ Tax) + Shipping ... it still is very much worth discussing.

coralfarmer84
02/04/2007, 11:44 PM
i agree, LED's will not get cheaper anytime soon.... just as metal halides have not come down in price nor anything else in this hobby lol. Its just one of them things were you have something that works and your going to pay for it.

By the way i'm going with T-5 and metal halide in about 2 weeks. So the best of both worlds can rock on.

ConcreteReefer
02/05/2007, 12:50 PM
OK, Solaris is the only LED fixture on the market right now.
just wait, look at how Tunze was the only prop-pump and now we have about 4 mfg's making them-Vortech,Seio & Hydor (not to mention the cheap mjmod)--
but; just like Tunze, they cannot seem to keep the Solaris in stock.


With the Solaris you have to take the following into consideration-The only comparable MH fixture that comes with a computer to simulate dawn/dusk, clouds & moon phases is the
Sfiligoi Infinity with ACLS. the price- $4,000 & up. The downfall of ACLS- It does not dim T5's, just MH's- so you would have to spend more to control the T5's.

Here we go-Wiz, This is what I've been thinking about for the past couple of months.

Cost of owning LED vs. MH - 5yr. comparison
72" outer orbit pro (1062w MH=3-250w T5.ho=8-39watt LED=12 blue & 12 white)
vs.
72" Solaris 20k

Lets compare: Outer Orbit
MH/T5 combo- $1000
Chiller 1/2hp- $800
Solar dimmer- $500
Bulbs 1yr x5 - $1700
electric- 1yr x5- $600
electricity- est. $10 more/month (low) for the MH/T5+chiller

Outer Orbit-Total cost 5 yrs-$4600


Solaris: Total cost 5 yrs-$$3067 http://www.theculturedreef.com/solaris_price.htm


So, Up front cost are a little more for the Solaris than MH/T5, but in the long term, you actually save money.

Now, The question- Is the light output of the Solaris equal to the output of the outer orbit? From what I've read, most people that buy the Solaris have to turn the Light output down initially due to coral bleaching. If there's any truth to this, who knows?

ConcreteReefer
02/05/2007, 01:08 PM
The life excpectancy of these LEDs is supposedly 50,000 hours - that would be 5.7 years.


How did you come up with this #??

If you run it 10hrs a day x 365=3,650hrs/yr

50,000/3,650 = 13.69 yrs??

right??

wiszmaster
02/05/2007, 01:24 PM
Of course - its that way with anything!

AFAIK - The biggest issue to date is still the development of LEDs ... the LED technology has not progressed as fast as expected ... but worse .. pricing is still too high for good quality large diode LEDs


i don't see you calculating ANY power consumption into your equasion for money savings for the Solaris.

I am well aware of the long term money saving ability of products - I work for a comany that builds ENERGY EFFICIENT homes - HOWEVER they cost up to 15% more upfront ... you would make your money back after a few years ... most people don't have that kind of time to wait for the payback.

The government gives me, the builder between $500-$1,500 to make our homes more energy efficient.

Here is the catch ... The certification to get this government money costs me about $300.

even worse ... the material & equipment in order to qualify & make homes more efficient adds approximately $5,000-$15,000 ontop of the construction cost ...

I haev had lots of customers walk in & request the most efficient home - however none of them were willing to pay for the extra $15,000 - payback would take about 10 years.

Please, go ahead & buy a Toyota Prius - I'd love to ... great concept - just too bad that you won't be saving money until 3-4 years from now - when you'll probably be selling/trading it in anyway. Why? higher upfront cost. not to mention the replacement cost for the batteries.

and again - the LEDs dim with age - long before they burn out @ their 5.7 year lifetime excpectancy. So will you really let these LEDs run for their 50,000 hour duty cycle? most wouldn't .. not if they dim. The reefer that is concerned about controlling their lights with dimming capabilities during the day to simulate a cloudy day would most likely replace the LEDs before they reach 50% light output ...


You can always create a demand by limiting supply. Its Great marketing!

ONLY 5 Units left in stock - Purchase NOW - Next shipment not until march - preorder now ... these units go quick.


Don't get me wrong - i'm all for going LED, I'd love to ... less heat, eventhough LEDs will get hot, and more so - the transformers & power supplies will.
However the technology is not ready for affordable mainstream.


thats just my $0.02 ... take it for whats it worth ... nothing.

wiszmaster
02/05/2007, 01:25 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9164229#post9164229 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ConcreteReefer
How did you come up with this #??

If you run it 10hrs a day x 365=3,650hrs/yr

50,000/3,650 = 13.69 yrs??

right??

i did a 24 hour day ... my guess is that since they dim with moonlights that the entire unit may be dimmed down really low ... maybe 5% ?

wiszmaster
02/05/2007, 01:28 PM
ok - i see the unit has seperate LEDs for lunar cylcles ...


"dim the actinic blue LEDs, white LEDs, Lunar actinic blue LEDs and Lunar White LEDS independently from 0-100%. "

wiszmaster
02/05/2007, 01:34 PM
like i said before .. i like the technology ... i'd love to go with it myself ... but its not the answer to MH vs. T5 ... not at the current price point.
I don't think T5's are the answer to MH ... i believe they are a very viable option, or alternative ...

To tell you the truth .. i'd love to setup the tank via sunlight ... seeing how we have ample supply of it here.

keinreis
02/05/2007, 01:59 PM
The solaris uses Luxion bulbs which are not standard LED's. The company I work for has been playing with a few Luxion products, but not enough for me to voice my oponion on them, but I do know they are bright as s#$%

wiszmaster
02/05/2007, 02:08 PM
yes, they are much brighter, and the life expectancy is longer with less loss, but they still loose. supposedly they will retain around 70% of brightness by 50,000 hours.

if you look att eh following graph - it looks like by about 12,000 hours the LED will be at about 80% brightness

http://www.solarisled.com/Portals/0/Images/5mm%20light%20output.gif

ConcreteReefer
02/05/2007, 02:23 PM
To tell you the truth .. i'd love to setup the tank via sunlight ... seeing how we have ample supply of it here.

I was actually thinking about doing this- There is a great thread somewhere here about the use of "Solatubes". I think we live in the perfect environment for them, What better way to replicate nature? + could you imagine the long term savings.

As far as evergy cost/comparison goes- i was simply stating that LED's will probably save you about $10 per month compared to the 3-250w's, 8 T5's + the chiller.

My old chiller (1/4hp coralife) used to cost me about $30/month to keep my tank at 79-80 in the summer.

but its not the answer to MH vs. T5 ... not at the current price point

exactly, It will be in the next few years though.

ConcreteReefer
02/05/2007, 02:27 PM
LOL- That graph is from July 2002... What kind of LED's were they testing? Find one for Luxeon bulbs and then post it.

keinreis
02/05/2007, 02:29 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9164881#post9164881 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ConcreteReefer
LOL- That graph is from July 2002... What kind of LED's were they testing? Find one for Luxeon bulbs and then post it.


LOL I know for a fact things have changed quite a bit since then as far as luxeon development. good catch!

wiszmaster
02/05/2007, 02:31 PM
Yes, the solartubes .... i wouldn't be surprised if the LEDs would save you more than $10/month .. the chiller bumped by power bill up by about $15-$18/month... just the upfront cost makes them hard to reach for most.

wiszmaster
02/05/2007, 02:33 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9164908#post9164908 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by keinreis
LOL I know for a fact things have changed quite a bit since then as far as luxeon development. good catch!

don't kill the messenger!

i pulled that graph RIGHT FROM SOLARISLED.COM

http://www.solarisled.com/FAQTechnical/5MMLedvsHighPowerLED/tabid/60/Default.aspx

deschlayer
02/05/2007, 02:33 PM
I don't want real life lighting...I want better! Nature/god never grew a 400 pound pumpkin, man did. I don't want my "reef" to take 20 years to look good. LED's hands down are better then anything else right now. an incandescent light losses 95% of its watts to heat a led looses 5%. the solris is expensive because of it's computer, R&D of the technology, and specialized nature of the product. If a company were to take 200 or whatever leds and string them up in a 20k configuration with a simple on/off switch without the coral growth robing cloud coverage none-seance. It would be 1/5 the cost with all the same advantages.

wiszmaster
02/05/2007, 02:39 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9164943#post9164943 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by deschlayer
I don't want real life lighting...I want better! Nature/god never grew a 400 pound pumpkin, man did.

THANK YOU ! now thats sig material!

deschlayer
02/05/2007, 02:44 PM
for a 24 inch led light you need 50 Luxeon bulbs and at $5 a pop(witch is way more expensive the Solris would get the for) it would cost $250 and use 250 watts of power
so $50 for a light housing
$250 for lights (my cost)
$50 for a 250 watt dc transformer
$25 for resisters and wires and whatever

total to build your self a led light witch i think I an rounding up by a very good bit $375.00

wiszmaster
02/05/2007, 02:47 PM
you added in the drivers as well?

deschlayer
02/05/2007, 02:51 PM
yeah run the light in secsetion*spelling with a 250watt dc transformer, I would use resisters for the "drivers"

deschlayer
02/05/2007, 03:14 PM
I might make one for myself sometime

wiszmaster
02/05/2007, 03:35 PM
go ahead ... i'd be interested in how it comes out, and how well you'll like it.

I've seen a bunch of small replacement light bulbs that are powered by LEDs ... pretty neat.

coralfarmer84
02/05/2007, 10:29 PM
you guys and your fish tank nonsense. What kind of person has a reef tank in their house anyways :) ;)

coralfarmer84
02/05/2007, 10:35 PM
Why don't you guys do something constructive instead of quarrel about lighting.

I want one of you guys to design a chiller that is composed of one icecube, two pieces of epoxy on each end, and a 3/4 inch pvc pipe. Then put it in a fancy box and stick a picture of scott on the side, wearing a maguyver teeshirt and sticking his thumb up!

I may be a little off topic but hey this discussion needed a lil comic relief at the expense of keinreis, rock on "tuna can" rock on :lol:

wiszmaster
02/05/2007, 10:50 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9168949#post9168949 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by coralfarmer84
I may be a little off topic but hey this discussion needed a lil comic relief at the expense of keinreis, rock on "tuna can" rock on :lol:


hahaha! tuna can ... hahaha!

wiszmaster
02/05/2007, 10:51 PM
:thumbsup: x 10

keinreis
02/06/2007, 07:29 AM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9169075#post9169075 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by wiszmaster
hahaha! tuna can ... hahaha!

nothing like girth!

lisaFL
04/25/2007, 06:54 AM
bump

Hobster
04/25/2007, 09:11 AM
Well bump to you too.:D

lisaFL
04/25/2007, 09:44 AM
you're alive?

you coming to the meet & frag swap this saturday?

Hobster
04/25/2007, 11:05 AM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9808439#post9808439 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by lisaFL
you're alive?

you coming to the meet & frag swap this saturday?

Well that is highly questionable. Physically yes, mentally ??
:lol:

No, can't come, other commitments.