MH or T5 ho 39w actinic?

Discussion in 'General Reef Topics' started by Gabriel, Dec 9, 2009.

to remove this notice and enjoy 3reef content with less ads. 3reef membership is free.

Page 2 of 2
  1. Gabriel

    Gabriel Astrea Snail

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2009
    Messages:
    49
    Location:
    Romania,Bucharest
    you are absolutely right in what cost. My tank has a height of 60cm (25 inches) and a length of 100cm (39 inches). I like to put 3x150w MH in case and 2 t5 actinic by 39w.

    the only problem I have a distance between water surface and lamp.lamp can not raise above 4 inches above the water. could be a problem? and here I think: the flow of light too strong or not has nothing to do.
     
    Gabriel, Dec 10, 2009
    Gabriel, Dec 10, 2009
    #11

    2. Click Here!

  2. horkn

    horkn Giant Squid

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2009
    Messages:
    3,200
    Location:
    Cedarburg, Wi
    3reef is actually not biased either way.

    Both have their pros and cons, but IMHO, putting halides over a tank that won''t have sps is a waste of money.

    What 1000110101 is forgetting is that energy costs a lot more in Europe than here in the US. That is why you will find far more t5 users in europe than Mh users.

    you do only need 2 mh at most on that tank though. 3 is a waste as well.
     
    horkn, Dec 10, 2009
    horkn, Dec 10, 2009
    #12
Page 2 of 2