440w of VHO vs. 400w of MH

[ReefWreak]

I'm inteagued by the idea of swapping my 4x110w VHO superactinic out for 1x400w radium on a PFO HQI ballast. Now I was talking with someone, and he said that 400w is 400w as far as electricity draw and power bill are concerned. Is that true?

If I replaced the aging 440w VHO with a 400w MH HQI would it be less power draw?

I thought the whole reason to use T5 or VHO was that they use less electricity than MH.

I can't find the amperage of the PFO HQI ballast, but on Marine Depot I found that the IceCap 660 has:

# Input Current: 4.4 Amps
# Input Power: 440 Watts

A side question, which will be I'm sure will be more debatable, is whether I'll get as much blue out of 1 400w radium in the middle of my 48" long tank versus 4x110w VHOs which cover the length of the tank. Blue in the sense of coral look/coloring up.

I wonder which I would get more PAR from, because no one ever does PAR measurements of VHO bulbs.

Thanks in advance

[DarG]

One 400 watt metal halide in the center of a 4 foot long tank ...

Take the xtra 100 watt hit and go with 2 250 watt halides or put the single 400 watt (or 250 watt) on a light mover using a good reflector. You will not cover the entire 48" long tank with a single halide in the center doesnt matter if you use a 70 watt, 150, 175, 250, 400 or 1000 watt bulb. You may get 3 foot of coverage with the biggest reflector but 48" begs for either two reflectors or a single on a light mover. Otherwise, maybe convert a couple of the VHO's to T5's with reflectors and forget the halide.

400 watts = 400 watts if you are talking about actual draw of two different systems. But in reality, 400 watts of one type of lighting does not necessarily equal the same energy used as 400 watts of another type of lighting because one or the other or both will not use exactly 400 watts.

[ReefWreak]

Thanks for the reply.

I know it's a stretch to use, but I was being hopeful. I've already got 2x250w + the 4x110w VHO, so it's not that I'm trying to light the whole tank with just that. I ideally want to run 2x250w XM10k bulbs, and need actinic too because of that. The issue is whether the VHO or a single 400w radium would add more blue to the tank. Also which would draw more energy and cost more per month the halide or VHOs. I know they won't be equal, but I just want a quick general idea of which 400w-ish system draws more by the end of the month.

[DarG]

The 400 watt Radium on an electronic ballast would probably use less than the 440 watt VHO. On a pulse start magentic ballast, which is probably the better ballast to run it on since I think it is an HQI rated bulb, it may be the bigger energy user by a small amount. But you are talking about differences here either way that is not very signifigant . You are not comparing 1000 watts to 400. The difference will probably be less than 50 watts either way. You should not be making a descision based on the power bill in this situation, you arent likely to notice a difference between either choice. Make the choice based on what you really would rather do.

If you have dual 250 watt reflectors already over the 4 foot tank, the VHO will give you a more uniform or even supplemental lighting because it is running full tank length. Putting a 400 watt halide in the center for color is going to really create a big hot spot in the middle of the tank added to the already existing 250 watt halides. Plus you will most likely have the color dominance of the 400 watt halide in the center area and then fading to the color dominance of the 250 watt halides more and more as you go outwards toward the ends. Plus, if your 400 watt bulb is going to now be your color "pop" bulb, it wont do much for the corals the further toward the ends you go. Whereas the VHO's are providing light evenly the entire length. I dont think putting a 400 watt halide in the center, considering what you already have, is the best way to go.

[ReefWreak]

Thank you very much for your input. It's exactly what I wanted to know. I really appriciate that.

You've been so helpful so far, that maybe I can throw just one more your way. Do you think that the growth and coloration will be the same whether I use 4x110w superactinics or the 400w halide? I know the 400w radium would give a little bit of growth, but mostly color, but will the VHOs give only color?

Thank you so much!

[DarG]

The question is if you throw a 400 watt radium in the center along with the already existing dual 250 watt halides, will you be overlighting the tank, atleast in the center area and maybe 1 foot either direction. I would think that very well may be too much light, especially in the middle. That bulb is not just adding color just because it is blue. It does produce some healthy par. I'm not an expert on corals and exactly how much light they need but thats going to be a hell of alot of light throwing that 400 watt Radium on top of what the 250 watt XM 10K's are providing. Just taking an educated guess, it's going to be too much in the center and outward a foot or more each way, depending on the reflector.

The VHO actinics provide mainly color and pop but they do provide some par so they would add to growth some. Mostly color though.

[ReefWreak]

Yea I figure with the dual XM 10ks, them being so high PAR on their own, that with the VHO everything will come together nicely.

Since you're an expert on lighting it seems....

Is there any reason to change out the VHO bulbs over time? They're only adding color, but is it at all dependent on the light output of the bulb, or just the fact that they're there?

[DarG]

I am far from an expert on lighting ... :lol:
But thanks !!!

The VHO bulbs do shift in spectrum over time as well as drop in output. I used to run VHO exclusively and I would experience nuisance algae outbreaks if I did not change out the VHO bulbs.
They are supposed to be good for 6 - 9 months if memory serves. I used to try and change mine every 7 months. I know that I have kept them to atleast 1 year before any nusiance algae popped up but I wouldnt go past that. So either change them out at 7 months or so or if you go beyond that watch for nusiance algae, decreased color "pop" from your corals. Even at 7 months, when you put new ones in the difference is big between the old and new bulbs. If you wait for 12 months, when you see what the new ones look like you really know that you should have changed them out a bit sooner.

[ReefWreak]

I've had these bulbs running for 2 years on my tank, and they were a year old when I bought the retrofit kit. I've had them just for the blue. No nusience algae, but that is mostly due to my zealous Sailfin tang and angels.

I guess I should start saving up for bulbs :p

[DarG]

Yep, you will see a big difference between the new bulbs and the old. Also, they wont last forever. They are getting pretty close to one of them burning out and once that happens, none of them will light ... assuming you are using an IceCap ballast.

[ReefWreak]

Good point! I really appreciate your help, again. Have a good evening!

[hahnmeister]

The wattage at the bulbs are what the ballasts are rated on... and thats sometimes a loose figure. To be sure of exactly what you are using, a kill-a-watt would come in handy.

For instance, a 250wattHQI ballast often pulls over 300 watts, usually 320ish, sometimes as high as 350 watts. A 400 watt HQI isnt quite as greedy, but some bulbs can cause the ballast to approach 500 watts!

Same for T5s... they seem to run about 16%-18% over the bulb wattage at the socket. So a 39 watt bulb runs at about 46 watts at the socket. But with T5s, over time, their wattages tend to drop with their outputs somewhat (although not dependent), and their wattage will be largely determined by the amount of cooling (airflow) that the bulb gets. A 39 watt T5 bulb in a Tek (passive cooling) may only run at about 41 watts (and lose about 15-20% of its output as well so its not worth it).

The efficiencies of the bulbs vary though... T5s are about 50% more efficient than VHO's. So you can get about 50% more light from a equal amount of T5s as you can VHO (if the same bulb... T5s are sporting some higher output blue bulbs that are about 2x the output of the T5 actinics).

So '400 watts' is '400 watts', yes... but the mfg rating or 'spec' rating isnt always true. 400 watt HQI ballasts in the US are made from 430 watt HPS ballasts... and they run higher than 430 watts even... so you have to do some fact finding to make sure you are comparing apples to apples.

I thing the biggest reason for switching to a better technology like halide or T5 over VHO is the fact that you get more output per watt, so then you can drop the wattage you need in the first place... saving you money.

Also, the reflectors for T5s and halides are waaaay better than anything for VHO (heck, even the modern reflectors like lumenarcs make for 2-3x the intensity in the tank compared to stuff from a decade ago). So you may consider using less watts as well. Using the latest lighting tech, Im able to get away with less than 400 watts to light my 125g with T5s and halide now... and I still have areas in the tank with too much light for what I want to grow there.

If you went 400wattHQI, and used a nice bulb like an Aquaconnect 14,000K on there (dont use a Radium on a HQI ballast), as well as a lumenarc style ballast, I have no doubt your tank will be getting about 2x as much light as under the VHOs... maybe more.

[DarG]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11190997#post11190997 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by hahnmeister


If you went 400wattHQI, and used a nice bulb like an Aquaconnect 14,000K on there (dont use a Radium on a HQI ballast), as well as a lumenarc style ballast, I have no doubt your tank will be getting about 2x as much light as under the VHOs... maybe more.

So Hahn, are you honestly recommending he dump the supplemental actinic VHO's and add a 400 watt Aquaconnect in the center of a 48" long tank that he already has 2 x 250 watt XM 10K halides on in addition to those VHO actinics?

Reefwreak ... stick with the VHO actinic supplements. True, T5 is a better, more efficient light source for use as a main lighting source, but the VHO actinics are the best actinics. Since you are using the VHOs as actinic supplements, stay with them.

Hahn may be a lighting expert, but I think he is either wrong here or he did not read the part about you already having two 250 watt XM's in addition to the VHO supplements. I doubt that he would suggest removing the VHO supplements and adding a 400 watt halide in the center along with the halides you already have ... but I cant speak for him so we'll see.

[ReefWreak]

DarG, I know Hahn is usually top of the game around here, but I too think that he might have looked from the wrong angle. I guess I haven't really spelled it out very clearly.

I have asked around RC and locally and people really do prefer VHO over T5 for actinic. I wonder why that is...

Thanks again to both of you for your help. Hahn, your information on the wattages is very enLightening. I went back to Joe Burger JBNY's site cnidarianreef.com/lamps.cfm and I'm going over the wattages posted there, at least for my 250w main lights. I just wish there was something along those lines for VHOs and T5s, but whatever, I'm happy to have that at all. It's incredibly helpful.

Thanks again

[hahnmeister]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11191311#post11191311 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by DarG
So Hahn, are you honestly recommending he dump the supplemental actinic VHO's and add a 400 watt Aquaconnect in the center of a 48" long tank that he already has 2 x 250 watt XM 10K halides on in addition to those VHO actinics?

Reefwreak ... stick with the VHO actinic supplements. True, T5 is a better, more efficient light source for use as a main lighting source, but the VHO actinics are the best actinics. Since you are using the VHOs as actinic supplements, stay with them.

Hahn may be a lighting expert, but I think he is either wrong here or he did not read the part about you already having two 250 watt XM's in addition to the VHO supplements. I doubt that he would suggest removing the VHO supplements and adding a 400 watt halide in the center along with the halides you already have ... but I cant speak for him so we'll see.

Well, his original question (I didnt read the rest), was with regards to VHO vs. a 400 watt HQI ballast with a radium bulb... so thats what I concentrated on.

[DarG]

Hahn, I figured that and I missed the 2 x 250 watt halides originally as well.

Reef ... Actually, if you were to swap the vho's for T5 URI actinics and leave them on the Icecap ballast you would have more output from the T5's. They arent bad but for the color and pop, most people find that the VHO super actinic beats the T5 super actinic. I have tried both side by side. I went with the T5 because the output was higher than the VHO with the T5 reflectors and the color is not all that far behind. But VHO super actinic still is a better color than T5 super actinic, even with the T5 on the Icecap ballast. But if it's the additional output you want, you could try the T5 super actinic on the icecap ballast. Or do a combo, 2 VHO super actinic and 2 T5 super actinic with SLR reflectors. You'd have a bit more output and still have the pop from the VHO. YOu can run them all on the same ballast.

[ReefWreak]

Meh. I think I'll just stick with the VHO, as I've got my rocks piled up high so most corals are close enough to get a ton of light from the 10ks, and the VHO are just for color, as would be the T5, and I hear that the VHO is better for color anyway. Thanks again for your input.