VHO or PC's

salt55

salt55

Member
Hey, i have a question about lighting. I recently ordered an icecap retrofit kit with 4 48" bulbs and a 660 ballast. I talked to the lfs and when i told the owner what i had bought and needed a canapy he said "im sorry" and said power compacts are better. I currently have powercompacts with two smartlamps which are the 50/50 actinic/10000k.
I am about to return the VHO's i just want everyones opinion before i decide.
Icecap VHO kit............or................PC'c with smartlamps?????
 
michaeltx

michaeltx

Moderator
I have pc's but the smart lamps and the 2 different color tubs just dont give you enough of one certain type of light. ex the 4 twin tube 1/2 10,000k and the other 1/2 actinic didnt give me enough actinic lighting or the 10,000k I changed to 2 10,000k and 2 actinic and the difference is unbeleivable. even though I have the same amount of each the actuall difference is astounding.
 
scarybo

scarybo

Member
What size tank do you have. I had 4x55 watt pc on a 40 and switched to 4x95 VHO. The difference is incredible. Atinics look so much better and now I have total tank coverage. PC's in my opinion (nothing scientific) are designed for smaller tanks. Anything above 20 gallon and I think it is hard to get complete tank coverage.
 
bang guy

bang guy

Moderator
My personal preference between VHO and PC is VHO.
However, you need to think outside the box just a bit more.
With the ballast you purchased you can mix bulb types. IMO the 50/50 PC bulbs are the worst on the market but you could use a pair of 110 watt URI SuperActinics combined with a pair of 96 watt 10,000K PCs.
From my experience VHO is just plain superior * except * for nano reef applications where space is limited.
 
fuscus

fuscus

Member
sorry to jump in, but I have a simmilar dilema
Due to My hood being too short, heat reqires me to either go with PC or VHO's (I do not want to change the hood for Asthetic reasons)
Ok I've read a majority of the the old posts regarding the ongoing question of wether VHO or PC are better.
smaller tank=PC larger tank=VHO
however, I was personally thinking about puting 6-96 pc above my 125 due to people saying that they put out twice as much light per watt than the VHO.
Now that I have sean the VHO actinics I would agree that they due make the blues more beautiful.
the question is should I combine 4-96 10,000 k with two 140 super actinics
or go with all 5-140w Vho balasts and just save money on innitial costs?
or go with 6 96pc and find out about this new (?) PC actinic that is supposed to have almost as beautiful blues as the VHO and save money on Power and bulb cost in the long run.
(I would rather not make money deciding factor)
any suggestions for this ignorant newbie?
 
overanalyzer

overanalyzer

Active Member
I have been mulling over the same issue and I believe when I build out my 72 gallon bowfront I will go with:
the question is should I combine 4-96 Watt PCs with two VHO super actinics and try to set the hood up so it looks like this:
front of hood
Moonlight effect lights
VHO - Act.
PC
PC one Exhaust fan
PC
PC
VHO - Act
4 96 Watts + 2 110 watt VHOs = 8.38 Watts per gallon ....
 
gatorcsm

gatorcsm

Member
VHO, IMO, are much better, and based on lighting output, I'm pretty sure VHO put out more per watt. Never checked it though;
As far as cost, you can buy non ice cap ballasts for same, if not less than PC. The one I bought has same electrical ratings as ice cap (same power reduction factor, ratio, and watts); Same safety circuitry, only that it doesn't have the connection for a dimmer, which i've read often that it isn't recommended, even with the ice caps.
So, I'd definitely go with all VHO unless space is an issue; If heat is an issue, add a fan to the back. I picked up a computer case cooling fan for 9.95 from compusa that had more CFM than the ice cap ones. You can even buy a variable speed based on heat output for like 14.95; It's just a little smaller.
 
scarybo

scarybo

Member
I have had both ...and my opinion is go all VHO. My corals seem to look better under the light. Everything opens up great. Plus it gives you the option to go bigger in the future and use VHO to supplement MH (that's my plan).
 
gatorcsm

gatorcsm

Member
Bronco, to tell you the truth, I do not know the brand. I just have the UL info on it, and some tech specs. I'm not sure if I saw a brand on it. heh, but it works... :)
 
reeflooker

reeflooker

Member
Every LFS person that I've talked to says that PCs are better for corals than VHOs. I have ice cap 660 with 4 110watt VHO on a 90 gal. I thinking of adding two additional 96 watt PCs for some extra punch.
Good Luck - Reeflooker
 
nm reef

nm reef

Active Member
I'm another that runs a combination of PC & VHO on my reef. I like the performance of the 4x65 watts of CSL 10K PC's combined with 2x110 watts of URI superactinics.The 10k's are bright white and the acinics balance the effect with the blue spectrum. I don't have scientific data to support my method...but the combination has worked well over my lil 55.
As I develope a larger system I'll probably use a mix of MH's and VHO actinics...but on my smaller reef PC's & VHO's work fine.:cool:
 
scarybo

scarybo

Member
The link to aquabotanic is a comparison of a lights for a freshwater planted aquaria. I would believe there are differences between that use and the type of VHO's we use on a reef tank. I would like to see research comparing lighting used on reefs. This is a very interesting topic.
 
the claw

the claw

Active Member
Stick with the 660 and vho. I have them, (several of them) and they work exceptionally well. I also dumped saltwater into the ballast once, and Ice cap had great service and replaced the ballast for pennies. (saltwater is very conductive by the way- great special effects.):eek:
 
overanalyzer

overanalyzer

Active Member

Originally posted by SCARYBO
The link to aquabotanic is a comparison of a lights for a freshwater planted aquaria. I would believe there are differences between that use and the type of VHO's we use on a reef tank. I would like to see research comparing lighting used on reefs. This is a very interesting topic.
While I agree the comparison was for a freshwater planted tank the guy did all of his measurements regardless of of what kind of tank:
" We concern ourselves here with efficiency instead. That is, given a fixed amount of electrical energy (Watts), how can we get the maximum "light" possible, simultaneously keeping the good looks of our tank ? "
He just happens to want the lights for a planted tank and what he says is that it is nearly a wash - but he also measures PAR efficiency:
"The ordering in decreasing PAR efficiency is almost identical with the ordering in decreasing overall efficiency. This effect is expected since both parameters ultimately measure the efficiency of conversion of electrical energy into electromagnetic energy, over a wide spectral band and without regard to the spectral shape. If we ignore the halogen bulb, both parameters span a relatively narrow range of a factor 2. This is also a consequence of the fact that both parameters in fact depend only on the underlying physical processes used to convert electricity into light. Incidentaly, the halogen bulb is the only one in this sample that relies on a fundamentaly different physical process to create ligth: heating of a radiative solid element. All other bulbs rely on some type of electrical discharge in a gas. We may conclude that the most popular existing lighting technologies are not capable of conversion efficiencies larger than about 30%. "
With MH out of the equation it basically comes down to personal preference .......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top