- Messages
- 2,722
- Reaction score
- 0
Exactly
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
LED Lighting
- Thread starter gwen_o_lyn
- Start date
Exactly
Maroons15 wrote: IMO they are too expensive for the average aquarist. But if your willing and are able to spend that much on a light then im all for it!
I think because it's a new technology the price is still high, but once the market experiences more competition you'll see the prices drop. They may not go as low as Metal Halides, but I'll definately be keeping an eye on them.
- Messages
- 1,524
- Reaction score
- 0
Yeah it's like any new technology. Look at the New PS3. or the old PS2 when it first came out it was like $300.00 now you can get it for $100.00. However I still think that $900.00 is alot for a light. Thats what I paid for my HQI fixture. But thank god my dad helped me out! BUT it was worth it, it is an amazing light!
- Messages
- 1,524
- Reaction score
- 0
Sprayin70 wrote: Maroons what is the wattage on your Coralie fixture?
492 watts......
Ok so it's the 2 by 150 watt hqi's. that's cool I almost bought that but in the 250's. I chose T-5's instead. I was going to order from Marine Depot. They were the cheapest I found.
http://www.marinedepot.com/md_viewItem.asp?idproduct=ES53506">http://www.marinedepot.com/md_viewItem.asp?idproduct=ES53506</a>
Thanks
http://www.marinedepot.com/md_viewItem.asp?idproduct=ES53506">http://www.marinedepot.com/md_viewItem.asp?idproduct=ES53506</a>
Thanks
- Messages
- 1,524
- Reaction score
- 0
Yeah I wanted the 250's also but I can't afford that. I got mine from Marine Fish when they had that huge sale and I believe we got it for $638.24
Sprayin70 wrote: Ok so it's the 2 by 150 watt hqi's. that's cool I almost bought that but in the 250's. I chose T-5's instead. I was going to order from Marine Depot. They were the cheapest I found.
http://www.marinedepot.com/md_viewItem.asp?idproduct=ES53506">http://www.marinedepot.com/md_viewItem.asp?idproduct=ES53506</a>
Thanks[/QUOTE]
Sprayin70, which would you consider better: 216 Watts of T5's better or 384 Watts of PC's? I'm planning on upgrading my lighting but don't want to go with metal halides.
Thanks
- Messages
- 1,524
- Reaction score
- 0
I say the PC's. But they generate more heat.
This isn't correct either. M made a semi-good point with albiet poor wording. Light gets filtered out the less focused it is as it passes through water. One of the reasons MQ is such a good light is that it is highly directional with the reflectors. The glimmer effect on the surface focuses the light and causes narrower beams to "punch" more energy further down into the tank. This focusing effect actually does yield more usable energy (PAR, PUR) for a fraction of a second to the coral. Granted it is the same light energy at the start, but the end result is more energy to the coral.CGill311 wrote: Ummm. No. No "extra" light is being produced by the surface agitation. Light can be bent when changing from one media to another (IE: from air to water) depending on its angle of incidence. This is also known as refraction. As such, some areas of the tank could have more light focused on that spot and some will have less due to the bending of light. This produces the glimmer. However, the total amount of light per unit area (IE: lumens, PAR, whatever) does not change. So you had the right idea, but wrong wording.
In all fairness, the PFO system is not only a first of its kind but a great first of its kind unit that should be a model in design for units to come. They not only tried to reproduce the effect of the MQ and arguably succeeded, but they also leveraged the power of the LED to do something that to my knowledge no commercial lighting system has ever tried which is the excellent programability. Is it worth 3500? Probably given its the first and I am sure the are trying to recoup some of the design costs. I personally would by one if I had a big pocket book and eventually it will be a better deal than MQ even at that price. The cost savings monthly on the electric bill and the annual bulb savings will eventually bring the cost inline with MQ.
Sprayin70 wrote: I have 171 par at the sand bed of my 75 gallon! That is the same as 2 by 250 MH's. T-5's rock no heat and you can keep anything you want to. My tank is mostly SPS and some LPS. Everything is growing and my SPS' color is awesome!!!
How many watts of T5's do you have????
T5s with reflectors kick PCs butt. PC is a great fixture, but without that directional light so much of it is filtered out on the surface. Also right now you can get a steal of a deal at hellolights.com on T5 retrokits. For just over $100 bucks you get everything you need to wire 2 T5s. PAR readings from people over at reefcentral by a club in Colorado 8x48" T5s was equal to 2x250 MQs on the same tank at a depth of 24". This was using better reflectors and better bulbs, but you are still going to get very close. That would be about $420 bucks + shipping at hellolights. Virtually the same output, about 30% less electicity and about 30% of the heat.wbholwell wrote: Sprayin70, which would you consider better: 216 Watts of T5's better or 384 Watts of PC's? I'm planning on upgrading my lighting but don't want to go with metal halides.
http://www.hellolights.com/t5horeki.html">http://www.hellolights.com/t5horeki.html</a>
All that said, there is still A LOT of debate on this subject. I know you can grow most non-light demanding corals with PC easily and lots of people have kept light demanding ones with good T5 setups. MQs though still reign supreme if you want to be completely sure.
Sorry... caught this after my T5 post.tsciarini wrote: I think you guys are getting a bit off topic...
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Replies
- 2
- Views
- 757
