Aquarium & Tropical Fish Site
Tropical Fish Forums
Aquarium fishkeeping around the world!
 
ChatChat  HelpHelp   Search BoardSearch Board   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   Check your private messagesCheck your private messages   Log inLog in   RegisterRegister 
Lighting for 55 gallon
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 Forum Index > Marine Equipment and Chemistry  Reply to topic   Post new topic
Author Message
SLACkra
Advisors


Joined: 06 Feb 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia, Australia

PostPosted: 2007.03.04(Sun)17:21    Post subject: Reply with quote

why not just get two 150watt metal halide shop fitter setups. we get him in aus for like $150ish aus each. course we also can get $30-40 aus mh bulbs too. cheap as chips but not as bright. hell I got a 2nd hand 150watt mh setup with an 8 month old bulb. $50, but the reflector is a bit shifty so going to replace it but thats only $25-30 aus.

two 150watt metal halides should light up a 55gallon easy.

andrew
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jhart401
New Members


Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Location: Dayton, Ohio

PostPosted: 2007.04.09(Mon)9:50    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is a link for a place I bought my MH's from when I had a 55 gal reef, I used 2 175w 12k bulbs, with soft corals and some sps and 10" diameter long tentacle and everything did awesome. You may have to custom fit them to the hood but it will save some serious cash. Before the MH bulbs I was using a standard watt 48" twin tube (80 watts), and when I put the MH's on my soft corals grew by 1/2 thier original size. Plus NOTHING looks cooler than the shimmer in your tank from the ripples of the water.

http://www.aquaticlight.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dale
Advisors


Joined: 10 Jan 2005
Location: Abbotsford Canada

PostPosted: 2007.04.11(Wed)23:49    Post subject: Reply with quote

I would be a little concerned about the heat build up from two 150 MH's over a sumpless 55G. The evaporation and constant top ups might soon take the fun out of the set up.
If you plan to go with MH's an alternative might be to just go with one and plan your aquascaping accordingly.
Here's a quick sketch for discussion sake:

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
FloridaGirl
New Members


Joined: 21 Mar 2007

PostPosted: 2007.04.15(Sun)18:57    Post subject: light show? Reply with quote

Using metal halides is certain to make your electricity bill a very different bill than ever experienced before. The heat that comes out from them is often too much for a small lounge or most rooms to bear.
Having said this, metal halides are available in quite a number of spectrums especially from specialized art shop, etc.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sirreal63
Advisors


Joined: 21 Feb 2004
Location: Meadowlakes, TX

PostPosted: 2007.04.15(Sun)19:21    Post subject: Reply with quote

Halides do not use that much more electricity than any other lighting source watt for watt. Most modern electronic ballasts use about the same amount of electricity as Power Compacts. Using old magnetic ballasts are not the energy saving way to go however electronic ballasts do provide a substantial savings over old magnetic ones.

I haven't noticed any difference in my electricity bill with the addition of the halides. My old lighting scheme was all magnetic 250 HQI magnetic ballasts and the usage was only slightly more than it is now with all electronic ballasts. Your mileage may vary but my bill has stayed consistant.
_________________
Out on the road today...I saw a DeadHead sticker on a Cadillac...
Jack
110 Gallon DSA Pentagon
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger Yahoo Messenger
leejnn
New Members


Joined: 21 Mar 2007

PostPosted: 2007.04.15(Sun)20:20    Post subject: . Reply with quote

When I first bought 2 metal halides, I did not take into account how warm the room would be after about 2 hours or so. My bill did go up. Assuming 2 metal halides would run at 150 watts each, this would definitely reflect in the electricity usage bill. Most people leave their lights on for 8 hours minimum per day. I am currently using 3 sera high intensity marine flourescent lamps which seems acceptable so far .
My living room is not so hot anymore and I do not have to turn on the ariconditioning most of the times like previously.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dale
Advisors


Joined: 10 Jan 2005
Location: Abbotsford Canada

PostPosted: 2007.04.16(Mon)1:20    Post subject: Reply with quote

No need to bold your text like that leejnn. On the forum it is like shouting out every word.

Jacks right about the energy comparisons. I am currently running 4X96W CF's and 2X28W T5's for a grand total of 440W's. More than 2X150W MH which = 300W's.
_________________
Intelligence is not having all the answers; it's knowing how to think!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
SharkyX
Members


Joined: 06 Feb 2003

PostPosted: 2007.04.27(Fri)14:24    Post subject: Reply with quote

Two 150w MH bulbs doesn't use 300 watts... the more energy efficient electronic ballasts still draw power so you're looking at about 161 watts a piece for top end.
If the fixture manufacturer hasn't made the switch to an electronic and still use the good old core and coil magentics you'r energy consuption can range anywhere from 170 to 190 watts per bulb...
So depending on the fixture you could be look at 380 vs. 440.
However your also forgetting the ballasts for the 96 watt fluorescents and how that is being modified so you may be consuming more or less then 440w.

In regards to T5 not being able to punch out the same amount of light... that's not exactly correct. A standard T5 lamp yes you're right you cannot get enough of them to match the output of the MH lamp.

However if you look beyond the standard into the T5HO which is now being released in the spectrums desired by aquarium enthusiasts (previously the highest they went up to in a commercially available lamp is 6500K, there are now 10000K and a 460nm Actinic Blue and a handful of others).

A single 4 lamp fixture is capable of directly replacing a single 400w metal halide without an mean light loss.
The 400w would use 458 watts, the 4 lamp T5 would use 240watts.

The lamps are the same in construction as the standard nominally 4ft lamp, you would simply need to change the ballast in an existing fixture if you don't like DIY lighting.
_________________
There is nothing wrong with you that completely changing your entire personality wouldn't fix.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sirreal63
Advisors


Joined: 21 Feb 2004
Location: Meadowlakes, TX

PostPosted: 2007.04.27(Fri)16:00    Post subject: Reply with quote

Do you have par numbers to back that statement up? 10K 400 watt halide vs. T5s's at say a 30" depth?
_________________
Out on the road today...I saw a DeadHead sticker on a Cadillac...
Jack
110 Gallon DSA Pentagon
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger Yahoo Messenger
SharkyX
Members


Joined: 06 Feb 2003

PostPosted: 2007.04.27(Fri)20:34    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sirreal63 a 30" depth eh?
I don't have my number crunching stuff as most of that, I leave at the office... however on sheer light output alone.
I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you know what a lumen is and all that fun stuff.

T5 HO lamps are a 5000 lumen lamp initial light output so a 4 lamp system will give us only 20,000 lumens, compared to the initial light output of a 400w Metal Halide lamp (FYI both systems are rated for a 20,000 hour lamp life or more so we're comparing apples to apples... which matters later) the initial lumen output is 36,000 lumens... so if we're just comparing initial light output then yes the 400w MH lamp will win every time.
But unless you relamp your tank every year whether you need to or not T5 will eventually win out.
At the 40% life mark the Metal Halide lamp will have depreciated from 36,000 down to about 22,000 to 24,000 lumen output depending on the quality of the lamp in question (some are just built better then others)
The T5HO has depreciated only to 18600 lumens.

So after this time we're down to about a 15% difference in sheer light output.
If I remember right (again I can verify on monday for you) the mortality curve brings it's light output below the T5 lamp at around the 55% of life mark... so from this point onward you have less light.

So because the T5HO has the much smaller lumen depreciation then the 400w Metal Halide it's generally accepted as a direct replacement.

Anyways T5 also doesn't have problems with colour shift as Metal Halide does... buying a 10,000K metal halide doesn't mean your lamp is always going to be a 10,000K lamp. As metal halide ages its CCT shifts. I've seen blue lamps turn green (which actually looks pretty neat side by side).

So I guess I don't have the number you asked for on hand, will try to get that though... but looking at the sheer amount of light output by both bulb types is a start at indicating how much light you have reaching the bottom of your tank.

I'm not suggesting anybody who has the MH setups already installed run out and switch everything around, because you have to use what works for you, but for a new setup or if you're looking at making a change anyways I'd recomend looking at T5HO as an alternative to Metal Halide.
_________________
There is nothing wrong with you that completely changing your entire personality wouldn't fix.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
 Forum Index > Marine Equipment and Chemistry All times are GMT - 6 Hours Reply to topic   Post new topic
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Jump to:  
  You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2008 phpBB Group

oF <=> oC in <=> cm G <=> L