# Why the stigma with Metal Halides? T-5er's chime in



## Tuchon35 (Feb 9, 2009)

T-5 guys chime in.

Anyone who has been into aquariums for the past 10-12 years have seen trends. One thing has remained constant, Metal Halides. When VHO's came out they were the best thing, then came compact flourescents, then came t-5's, what next LED's?

I have used them all. Some people will swear by NO t-8's and some people swear by MH's. Most people fall somewhere in between. However, one thing remains constant, people have success no matter what the light.

What is it? Do people with NO T-8's take pride in being able to have healthy tanks with minimal lighting? Do people with Metal Halides feel like they are better for using more expensive lighting? Or do the people in between think they have found the most effiecent way to grow plants?

Pure curiosity?

BTW- I am MH guy


----------



## Tuchon35 (Feb 9, 2009)

For example....

The gentleman with the 92 gallon corner bowfront. How would you light it with anything but a MH. Lets assume he doesn't have a canopy, he doesn't own a metal or wood shop.


----------



## eyebeatbadgers (Aug 6, 2007)

I'm not sure what you're really asking, but most people shop based on price first, then total output next, if I had to hazard a guess. 

Folks who don't want to fork over a ton of cash stick with their NO bulbs and do fine. Others who want to shell out a little dough might upgrade to compact fluorescents. And it just goes on from there, until you get to LED's.

Each lighting type has it's own pros and cons. Some generate more heat than others, some draw more electricity per output than others. And some cost much more than others.


----------



## jargonchipmunk (Dec 8, 2008)

the choice between T5's and MH's for me would be price. Short AND longterm. T5 fixtures (or retros) cost a ton less than MH, you get to mess with color spectrum more, and the bulbs last for friggin ever, and cost less to replace when they do go. (sort of) If I had a bit more salary coming in the door, I'm sure I'd go for the inbetween. (A lower output MH with T5 suppliment) you still get the color variations you want with multiple bulbs, lighting scenarios, and the nice MH shimmer, but again.... cost. And as you said... all of the lightings have been proven to work many times over. All comes down to availability, cost, and if those two factors (sorry Tom Barr) are non-limiting, then you can dose metal halide.


----------



## Tuchon35 (Feb 9, 2009)

Thank you, I just wanted to get a discussion going. I just noticed everytime MH's are mentioned as an option, they are shot down. I am trying to figure out the logic behind it. Most people that shoot them down, have never had MH's. 

Back to my example again, that guy went out and bought a t-5 fixture, that was useless to him. I think if people were more open to MH's that gentleman would not have wasted his time and or money. 92 gallon corner tanks without a canopy, maybe an exception to the rule, where MH's are more practical, and cost effective

I wonder if lights were free, which type of lighting everyone would get.


----------



## coolnick (Oct 28, 2006)

I got two electronic 70w MH ballasts, two lamps, two reflectors and all the wiring for $200. I'm pretty sure I spent more than that on my 2x96 CF setup that I am replacing and the MH lamps are cheaper and will likely retain a higher output for longer. If you do some hunting MH really isn't very expensive at all.

On my small tanks I use spiral CFs from Home Depot with sockets and reflectors pieced together from whatever happens to be cheap.


----------



## hooha (Mar 14, 2004)

other issues with MH:

Heat - usually you need some sort of fan for cooling, especially if you add it to a canopy

"placement" - MH often needs suspended above the tank, or cooling as noted above - 

cost - as mentioned above

"inflexibility" - with most good CF/T5 systems, you can 'bank' your lights to turn on at different times, or increase/decrease your lighting without buying a new fixture by turning on/off sets of bulbs.


MH are good lighting systems, but for planted tanks imo it's not the optimal choice.....


----------



## Tuchon35 (Feb 9, 2009)

He makes a good point. I spent $150 on a new MH pendant. I originally had bought it for a reef tank, but it works fine for this application. The algae problems exist with every type of lighting, along with every other problem. I don't care about paying an extra 2.75 a month in electrcity

For 36" inch tanks or smaller you only need one light. If your going to go with T-5's you are going to need C02 too. 

If this is place to help fellow hobbyist out, I think creating biased opinions maybe set some individuals back. Too much light? Overpowering your plants? It seems like a crock to me. Especially coming from a reef guy. Why would the sun strength/spectrum/ yada yada be good for corals, but not plants 1000 feet away in freshwater pond. It makes no sense, why it would be harmfull to have more light. (I won't say stream, or river)


----------



## Tuchon35 (Feb 9, 2009)

*Forgot Price*



hooha said:


> other issues with MH:
> 
> Heat - usually you need some sort of fan for cooling, especially if you add it to a canopy
> 
> ...


Heat- doesn't effect MY water column, sure if i touch a light bulb i might get burnt. To my knowledge most CF/PC and HO T5's need fans in enclosed area.

Placement- Most lights are suspended above the water. A pendant or a fixture with legs most likely does not need a chiller. If you don't have a canopy you won't have a problem. Asthetically I think a suspended lighting is more appealing. How many ADA tanks have canopies? 

Inflexibility- You can't stagger MH's, but is that necessary. You can stagger when your MH has PC or T5's that is why most of them have them. Reefers have been doing it years before the concept became popular in planted tanks. We have been doing since VHO's.

Price- Once again, they are not much more expensive, if not the same price. If you want compare an Odyessa T-5 fixture to a Giesemann MH/t5 combo, they will be more expensive. Electricity again, it maybe a wash, the photoperiod is less on a MH tank. 110watt HO T5 for 10 hours =1100 watts, 150watt MH for 7 hours = 1050. (i know its more complicated, but it shows the point)


----------



## jargonchipmunk (Dec 8, 2008)

if you offer the option of adding banks of T5HO to a MH pendant, then you're in a whole new realm. No longer is it a choice between one or the other, it's a combo.


----------



## Tuchon35 (Feb 9, 2009)

I here you, on the combo thing. By the book you are correct, but if somebody has a T-5 / MH combo, they will say, they have metal halide. Just like we don't say T-5 with led moon lights 6 blue,6 white, one would simply say, I have T-5's.


----------



## hooha (Mar 14, 2004)

I can see your attempt to promote MH as a viable option for planted tanks. However making a comparison from reef tanks to planted tanks doesn't always work.

In reef tanks, you try to remove all nitrate and phosphate. In planted tanks you need these macronutrients in a stable equilibrium for plants to flourish. That increases the risk of algae with higher light.

You mention you can't see why "too high" of light would be a problem with freshwater plants.....it's a problem with planted tanks. With more experience you will see that. Think of driving at 50mph versus 150mph. At higher speeds you have less leeway to make corrections if problems arise. Higher light is similar - it's far easier to crash and burn if something goes out of balance with higher lighting. You will also see that plant growth can actually get too fast in the sense that trimming and aquascaping becomes a nuisance.

You mention a bowfront tank being impractical for T5 lighting - it's essentially a 'rectangular' tank and T5's/CF work well with that setup. A corner tank is a different story - MH would work best for something like that....

In our club we have a reef guy who also uses MH for his planted tank. He stated that if he sets up another planted tank he would use T5's for some of the reasons I mentioned above and in my previous post. It's not necessarily 'biased' information people are giving out - it's also from experience.

You initially stated that this is question is a curiousity - it's starting to come off as a rant....


> If this is place to help fellow hobbyist out, I think creating biased opinions maybe set some individuals back. Too much light? Overpowering your plants? It seems like a crock to me. Especially coming from a reef guy. Why would the sun strength/spectrum/ yada yada be good for corals, but not plants 1000 feet away in freshwater pond. It makes no sense, why it would be harmfull to have more light. (I won't say stream, or river)


Keep in mind that you can be become biased on the 'other side' of the coin as well.

T5's, MH, CF, NO - all viable lighting options for planted aquariums. Which one is the best and is recommended is a matter of opinion - the majority of people in the planted hobby for some time have noticed the above problems with MH, making them a secondary recommendation.....


----------



## ColeMan (Mar 9, 2008)

hooha said:


> other issues with MH:
> 
> Heat - usually you need some sort of fan for cooling, especially if you add it to a canopy
> 
> ...


You hit the nail on the head, at least as far as my own reasons for avoiding MH lighting for this particular application.


----------



## Tuchon35 (Feb 9, 2009)

I agree, I think I went off on a rant. Sorry, just got caught up.

The bowfront was a corner unit. Just out of curiosity how would you light a 92 gallon corner tank? Not being arguementative. My whole reason for the post originally was to try and help out that gentleman


----------



## epicfish (Sep 11, 2006)

Tuchon35 said:


> I agree, I think I went off on a rant. Sorry, just got caught up.
> 
> The bowfront was a corner unit. Just out of curiosity how would you light a 92 gallon corner tank? Not being arguementative. My whole reason for the post originally was to try and help out that gentleman





hooha said:


> *A corner tank is a different story - MH would work best for something like that....*


...


----------



## prototyp3 (Dec 5, 2007)

Tuchon35 said:


> BTW- I am MH guy


Really??? 

I'm guessing this might be inpart a result of my lighting suggestions made yesterday. Quite simply 342 watts is way too much for a 40 gallon planted tank. Not quite sure how one would try to dispute that. And this comes from a guy who has used that very same light fixture, as well as metal halide lighting alone, regular T5 lighting, high output T5, and power compacts. (LEDs are on the way)

I don't think it's an anti-MH sentiment at all. It's just cost vs effectiveness. If my friend asks what car they should get to commute back and forth from school I'm not going to recommend a Ferrari. It's just not the most practical solution. I wouldn't consider myself a friend if that was my first recommendation to them.

I think MH are most effective and the best solution when you're working with large tanks. Not many of us have the room or budget for huge tanks where the MH would prove a practical choice. On smaller tanks (<100) that you most frequently see here there are better lighting options. Would I personally want a MH over a 36" long tank? No thanks. You get dim ends and potential heat issues if it's too low to the water. And you get wild light spillage into the room if it's too high over the water.

I guess my question to you would be why you think more light equates to being better? If the plants grow great, the tank is stable, and it's all wonderful to look at, why more light? Especially when more light can make achieving a stable tank more difficult, mangifying every mistake.


----------



## Tuchon35 (Feb 9, 2009)

Look, I did something most people won't do , and I admitted I went off on a rant. I don't have dim corners, and I found a way to use the spillage for my orchids.

I have been in the hobby since 2000. How many people are you basing your information off of. I want someone who has actually had MH's say they would choose something different. There is a word for everything that has been said against MH's, Hearsay


----------



## Tuchon35 (Feb 9, 2009)

And no, I never read your post. This was in regards to a gentleman that had a corner tank.


----------



## prototyp3 (Dec 5, 2007)

It's fine to rant, no problem there. But then I'm certainly allowed to post my comments as well.

I guess you missed the part where I said I've owned and used MH/compact combo fixtures as well as MH pendant alone. (and I've since moved onto other lighting) So my opinions and recommendations are coming from firsthand experience.


----------



## Tuchon35 (Feb 9, 2009)

well, thank you for your opinion. Your tank looks great


----------



## ColeMan (Mar 9, 2008)

Tuchon35 said:


> Look, I did something most people won't do , and I admitted I went off on a rant. I don't have dim corners, and I found a way to use the spillage for my orchids.
> 
> I have been in the hobby since 2000. How many people are you basing your information off of. I want someone who has actually had MH's say they would choose something different. There is a word for everything that has been said against MH's, Hearsay



I've had MH's and I would (and did) choose something different. I used them for an indoor gardening project, and had 3 250w MH's from sunlight supply. I could have easily used them for my tank, but they ran too hot, the ballast would buzz and there was no easy way for me to cram that into my hood. Granted they weren't low profile reflectors, but still....Sure they'll grow plants great, but so will t5's. For all the reasons mentioned in the above posts, I believe t5's to be the better choice for most hobbyists. I would absolutely not tolerate a bunch of light spilling out of my tank, especially if there were so much that I had to find a way to properly utilize the "spillage."

There's an exception though, so hold on before you yell at me....I would use the 8000K HQI lamps from ADA. That's it though. that's all I'll admit. 

That said, I plan on setting up a little nano-reef, at which time I will most likely purchase another MH.


----------



## unirdna (Jan 22, 2004)

I didn't read my favorite "perk" of MH lighting....point source.

I've used NO, VHO, CF, T5, and MH. T5 are my favorite strip light - love em. But, they don't create the shadow effect of MH. Nor do they reflect ripples back to the ceiling like MH. 

I agree re: all the cons stated about MH. I avoided the "fan" issue by [morgaging my house and] buying an ADA MH pendant, which uses passive radiation to "cool" the lamp - so it's silent. 

MH's are not for everyone - heck, they probably aren't even right for 1/2 of tank owners. But, for those willing to tackle the obstacles, they can pay off.

That said, I would not use a 340w lamp over a 40g tank . (unless it was suspended 8 feet above the tank ).


----------



## Tuchon35 (Feb 9, 2009)

Every light that is not in a canopy has some spillage. I also have a 400 watt MH for my reef tank, as well as 400 HPS for the majority of my orchids and flowering plants. My study is going to bright anyhow, but it is my slice of paradise.

I would recommend HPS for indoor plants, unless they are non flowering.


----------



## ColeMan (Mar 9, 2008)

I had a switchable ballast MH/HPS, so I got the best of both bulbs (MH for growing my tomatoes big and strong, HPS for setting flowers and pulling giant fruit). I second your emotion regarding their excellent growing abilities. And of course you're right: every light that is not in a canopy has some spillage. That's kind of the point I was making, in so much as that's why my light went into the canopy, I didn't want a bunch of light spilling out into my kitchen...and if it was so much that I could grow some orchids, well...that's just not for me. Personal preference, of course, so to each his/her own. :thumbsup:


----------



## Tuchon35 (Feb 9, 2009)

Not to get side tracked, but the MH to HPS converter was a great invention. MH's are better for most plants, but HPS does promote better flowering. HPS sucks though, i hate the yellow light. However, I am not talking about tomatoes:icon_eek:


----------



## lauraleellbp (Feb 3, 2008)

I went with T5HOs instead of MH over my 90gal for multiple reasons:

Heat first and foremost- it's a serious issue in the summers where I live. Just CF lighting sent my tank temps in the the high 80s to mid 90s. I've got vaulted ceilings so suspending a fixture wasn't too appealing to me.

Cost- I could get more wattage per dollar for T5HO than MH.

Light distribution- the light from T5HOs distributes more evenly through a large tank than from MH fixtures due to the shape of the bulb, and multiple bulbs.

If cost were no issue and I wanted high light, I would have combined the best of both worlds and gone with an HQI fixture.

I am very interested in the new LEDs though, and look forward to seeing research done and those becoming more mainstream.

Efficiency, heat, and economics. :thumbsup:


----------



## t0p_sh0tta (Jan 24, 2008)

lauraleellbp said:


> I am very interested in the new LEDs though, and look forward to seeing research done and those becoming more mainstream.
> 
> Efficiency, heat, and economics. :thumbsup:


Agreed. LED might even allow me to keep CRS without a cooler during the summer!


----------



## amp (Dec 2, 2008)

I dont think theres any stigma over HM, just the cost factor (at least for me). Recently I built a 110g pond on my porch, I would have loved to have hung some HM over it, but looking at the cost for just a single fixture put it out. I ended up throwing two 48 x 4 T8s over it just be cause they could be had so cheap.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

Tuchon35 said:


> Look, I did something most people won't do , and I admitted I went off on a rant. I don't have dim corners, and I found a way to use the spillage for my orchids.
> 
> I have been in the hobby since 2000. How many people are you basing your information off of. I want someone who has actually had MH's say they would choose something different. There is a word for everything that has been said against MH's, Hearsay


Muuum k,

I've been in the hobby since 1977, a punk kid.
I have combo hoods, Coralife pancakes as I call them.

HQI+PC lights.
No issues with them.
I get the beneficial trade offs with those of each type.
ADA's lighting also does this in some models(but for 3X as much).

I have another pair of tanks, one with a single 150wHQI on a 38 cube, and a bank of 3 from an Aqua Medic sexy series 2x150 HQI+ 1x 70W.

I have and own a light meter(have for a few years), and have compared it with the LiCOR we have at the lab for research. They are within 2% error, not bad.

I use 445 Watts(measured from the terminal, not the wattage of the bulbs) to run the AM light. I use 216 Watts for T5's.

Color is different, some like the cooler colors of T5's. I'm more interested in saving some electrical cost and trying things out, testing the differences.

The MH's look better IMO overall.
But the watt and the spread is terrible.

MH's are good for deep tanks.
T5's are not bad for deep tanks, but nothing like MH's.

Unless your tank is say 28-30" or more deep, I think you get perfectly good results, good spread with less watts using T5's.

I targeted 70-80 micromol of light over the surface for the AM light.
I get this same amount and evenness with 1/2 the watts using the T5's. 

One reason is not so much PAR/watt to PAR/watt differences, but I do not have the raise the T5's up high.

You lose intensity, but gain spread when you do this with MH's. 
You mostly just lose intensity when you do this with T5's.

There's the difference.

You have a lot of color combos and can stagger the light times to use less intensity and slow the RATES of plant growth up, or down to suit your routine, species you keep and trimming frequency.
Lighting is a lot more stable than limiting CO2, PO4 or other methods to slow growth and adjust things, and there's little if any testing required.
Growth starts with lighting also, not way down the line, which makes keeping the other parameters in good ranges much much easier.

With such lighting options and flexibility, lower wattage use, color temps/combos, this is perhaps more practical for most folks.

Enclosed hoods is another issue, T5's are very easy to add.
MH's, not so much.

In defense of reducing the lighting, using open top wire adjustments, I can easily adjust the intensity by raising or lowering the the MH pendent. However, I lose spread when lowering the light and still have to pay the electric bill the same, not so with the T'5.

An option would be to place the MH on a rail and move it back and forth, but that's now an engineering issue, something my landlord would not care for:icon_redf

So I decided to use both and use those trade offs to get the best of both worlds. Careful when you think everything is "either or", "black and white".
You might fine the trade offs for HQI are fine and you do not care about the negatives.

Some might.

As long as you can justify your goal with some logic, not bias(fine if you admit to it), agenda and ego, then you are okay. 

These are my views, which are subject to change/s:redface:

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## jargonchipmunk (Dec 8, 2008)

plantbrain said:


> These are my views, which are subject to change/s:redface:


 
lol nicely put. I think everyone who ever posts on these forums should add this as a tagline. This hobby changes around us every week. Some stick to the old methods that have worked for them, and some jump on every new fad. Most old fads come back around as the "new" fad, and the cycle repeats. The only people's views that AREN'T subject to change are those who refuse to admit that what they're doing might not be the "best" for everyone. This isn't exactly directed at the OP either, just a quaint observation. These are just my views, which are subject to change/s:redface:


----------



## epicfish (Sep 11, 2006)

jargonchipmunk said:


> lol nicely put. I think everyone who ever posts on these forums should add this as a tagline. This hobby changes around us every week. Some stick to the old methods that have worked for them, and some jump on every new fad. Most old fads come back around as the "new" fad, and the cycle repeats. The only people's views that AREN'T subject to change are those who refuse to admit that what they're doing might not be the "best" for everyone. This isn't exactly directed at the OP either, just a quaint observation. These are just my views, which are subject to change/s:redface:


I just might have to quote Barr in my signature.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

jargonchipmunk said:


> lol nicely put. I think everyone who ever posts on these forums should add this as a tagline. This hobby changes around us every week. Some stick to the old methods that have worked for them, and some jump on every new fad. Most old fads come back around as the "new" fad, and the cycle repeats. The only people's views that AREN'T subject to change are those who refuse to admit that what they're doing might not be the "best" for everyone. This isn't exactly directed at the OP either, just a quaint observation. These are just my views, which are subject to change/s:redface:


I try things, evaluate them, then make a conclusion/s.
As I find new ways to look at them, test and measure them, I get new insight and make improvements upon the old model. That's how knowledge works. It's not some ultimate truth or 100% correct, it's progressively getting closer to the truth.

Some start off with a conclusion, then go about looking for info to support their conclusion. A good example is folks that claim excess nutrients cause algae.

Get a light meter and try some of these things out and see if you can teach yourself something. See if you can understand a method that uses lower nutrients(both in the sediments in the water column) and the correlation between that a light.

ADA sure has that:thumbsup:

I did not expect that, but we ran over 6 ADA tanks, same on every tank.
Pretty low light. Spread was even, so watt /gal or even Watt/m^2 or ^3 etc etc............does you no good at all.

Still, while these are my views and subjected to change, they are well supported via test, data and observations of other tanks, not just one etc, experience, good methods and logic, not just my "personal belief" or magic.

You have to offer some support, some logic, an end point goal etc for the debate. Yelling louder and poo pooing on folks personally does not cut it. 

That is often what a mob will do on line, a bunch of "me too's". They are gasping for anything that says what they wanna hear and offers any bit of support.

Do not believe everything you think.
See if it's true, test and confirm it.
A good answer there stimulates a dozen new questions.

Put that in your sig.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## Tuchon35 (Feb 9, 2009)

Tom,
I respect your opinion. A punk kid, I am not. I am a 100% disabled Marine Corps combat veteran of the Iraq war, and I find the hobby therapeutic. I maybe igonarant but i'll be the first to admit it, as I have. Simply trying to gain insight into the hobby, is not starting a debate. Did I ever claim to know anything or everything? 

Instead using your knowledge to educate me, you thrash me. Ignorant interest, is still interest in the hobby. I think you lost sight of that. 

So, why do think there is a stigma attached to metal halide users? 

Don't give life lessons to a combat veteran, especially a Marine. Stick to your guns, I don't care what you have to say outside of the aquatic world. Its useless to me. Put that in your signature. You are the punk.


----------



## Tuchon35 (Feb 9, 2009)

When my 5 year old son shows off playing basketball, I don't swat the ball down his throat, and tell him he sucks.

Regards,
Craig Tuchon


----------



## prototyp3 (Dec 5, 2007)

Tuchon35 said:


> Tom,
> I respect your opinion. A punk kid, I am not.


You might want to reread that post of Tom's. I think he was referring to himself as a punk kid when he started in the hobby decades ago. I don't think he was name calling.


----------



## Tuchon35 (Feb 9, 2009)

My bad, I misread, but I will not delete it. Instead, I will appologize, if I mis interpretted it.


----------



## bbaker (Jan 18, 2008)

plantbrain said:


> An option would be to place the MH on a rail and move it back and forth, but that's now an engineering issue, something my landlord would not care for:icon_redf


Ikea sells a system intended to be used in place of curtains. It's a rail (or rails) that you can screw into the ceiling, from which you can hang and slide fabric panels. The whole thing is modular - you can buy more or fewer mounts to secure the railing to the ceiling, more or fewer rails &c. The potentially weak link is the plastic clips that slidably couples whatever it is you're hanging from the rail to the rail.

I've found that the minimum setup (one rail, two mounts, a box of clips: $20 - $25) is sufficient to support my FishNeedIt 70W MH. Granted, this fixture is very light. I'm not sure how I'd feel about using the stock hangers to attach a heavier fixture. But for twenty or so bucks I have my fixture slidably suspended from the ceiling (and it looks nice - Swedish deisgn and all that). Not bad.

As for the MH itself... I do wish that more bulb colors were available. And I miss the moon light on my old CF light. But, I like the shimmer effect, _love :redface: _having a completely open top, and if there's a dollar or two premium I spend on electricity I neither notice nor am I bothered. It's suspended ~14 inches above a 60P. I don't know whether growth is "optimal," but it's growing everything I want to grow. 

Tuchon, I think you're going about this the wrong way. Rather than get a thread going about the advantages or disadvantages of one system or another, I think the PT way is to start your own "pimp thread." :thumbsup:


----------



## ColeMan (Mar 9, 2008)

Light rails are really quite common - they come in all shapes and sizes, for all sorts of (undoubtedly) nefarious applications. I've seen some that actually have attachment for 3 separate lights; they circle around like a children's mobile. 

Normal:http://www.wormsway.com/results.asp

Nefarious:http://www.hydroponicsbuff.com/hydroponics_lighting_movers.htm


----------



## Tuchon35 (Feb 9, 2009)

I appologize once again. Light rails, not uncommon in the reef world. I know a few people in our reef club that run light rails. Like he said, it may not be apartment friendly. Most setups with rails have the lighting system behind closed doors. Aestically it would be a miracle to have a nice looking railing system. Especially the MH cord slack. Even if it is run above on a pully system, it still causes strain on the cord that these lights aren't built for.

Yeah, I know I can over react, but I appologize, I have my own issues. I know I took it wrong, i can't do anything about it. I respect Tom Barr in this hobby more than I respect anyone else, with maybe the exception of Don Matkis, but he doesn't blog


----------



## MarkMc (Apr 27, 2007)

Ok, I have MH pendants over my 55g. They are pretty old-mid 90's vintage. I tried a home-made vho fluorescent fixture but it was a pita to take it off the tank to do maintenance. I made the switch to vho because I erroneously thought the mh was the cause of my algae problem-then I switched back to MH because I thought the vho was causing my staghorn algae problem. LOL My nitrate and phosphate remover wasn't working lol-this was a long time ago-it was thought back then that nitrate and phosphate caused algae-imagine that. Anyway they did not have the nifty pc and t5 fixtures back then with the stands to set them up from your tank. If I was starting over I probably would go that direction although I do like the looks of a tank with mh pendents


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

Tuchon35 said:


> Tom,
> I respect your opinion. A punk kid, I am not. I am a 100% disabled Marine Corps combat veteran of the Iraq war, and I find the hobby therapeutic. I maybe igonarant but i'll be the first to admit it, as I have. Simply trying to gain insight into the hobby, is not starting a debate. Did I ever claim to know anything or everything?


Well, you assumed I was talking about "you". 
I am speaking about myself.
For clarification (which is unfortunate I even need to point it out) I am ignorant, was a punk kid and a bone head.

Careful not to misread things.



> Instead using your knowledge to educate me, you thrash me. Ignorant interest, is still interest in the hobby. I think you lost sight of that.


Go back and *read*. 
My vision and intent are fine, that's the irony here.



> So, why do think there is a stigma attached to metal halide users?
> 
> Don't give life lessons to a combat veteran, especially a Marine. Stick to your guns, I don't care what you have to say outside of the aquatic world. Its useless to me. Put that in your signature. You are the punk.


Get real. I cannot speak for you, _only myself._

I do not think there is a stigma towards MH's users, never have. Most like them that have seen them on tanks etc. They might want to buy them etc, but few argue the aesthetics. I like a mix of both, not "either or".

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

prototyp3 said:


> You might want to reread that post of Tom's. I think he was referring to himself as a punk kid when he started in the hobby decades ago. I don't think he was name calling.


You got it right.

:thumbsup:

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

Tuchon35 said:


> My bad, I misread, but I will not delete it. Instead, I will appologize, if I mis interpretted it.


Accepted. Realize that a lot is lost on the web, such miscommunication rarely if ever would occur face to face. Anyone that knows me off line in person would agree. I rag on myself and my own ironic life all the time. 
There's plenty of irony for everyone, irony has no limit.

There's plenty more for me:icon_redf

BTW, I tend to get along well with vets, many think I am, or a cop etc. In person, it's likely we'd get along pretty well.

Many post get fired off fast, I'm no different. So I might not be as clear as need be in many cases. For that I apologize.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

bbaker said:


> Tuchon, I think you're going about this the wrong way. Rather than get a thread going about the advantages or disadvantages of one system or another, I think the PT way is to start your own "pimp thread." :thumbsup:


Perhaps consider the dis/advantages in a different way, see where you can get both the advantages and less of the negative trade offs.

Rather than 300+$ for ADA:



















However, a T5 system with 16 x 39W T5 bulbs(8 per 3 ft length) would also span this same width(15-16" over a 24" wide tank), giving a nice spread still for both hood types. This a Coralife aquatic pro, 3x 150 HQI + 4 x 96 W PC lights. I did finally fine some 8800K CLS old stock bulbs which has the nicest color of all the 96W PC's. 

I went with a pair of 4x54 (8 bulbs total) for my 120gal recently.

I do not like the look of the pair of fixtures.
Wish I'd spent the $ for the Tek 8 x 54 W.
I can sell them I suppose.
Anyone wanna buy 2 fixtures with 4x54 Watt bulbs and 3-4 bulbs for each for 130$ each?:redface: 

I like the HQI(8000K) + 8800K PC range the best as far as in tank look
The 9235 GE bulbs are nice, but only available in straight pin, and then only for the 21" bulbs. Does me no good for 3ft lengths.
The 8800K look better in the 2ft lengths to me anyway and I have plenty of them, just not the 96W bulbs

So that's my trade off.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## sewingalot (Oct 12, 2008)

epicfish said:


> I just might have to quote Barr in my signature.


Actually, you'd be quoting Alexander Parker's Musical Relativity in the Space Time Continuum http://www.soundportfolio.com/tutor...usical-relativity-in-the-space-time-cont.html :hihi:


----------



## Tuchon35 (Feb 9, 2009)

Mr. Tomm Barr I recognize the fact you do need to defend yourself in these forums against someone like me, but it means a lot to me. Thank you.

Perhaps the technology you are thinking of exists. I am in love with GIESEMANN. All of my reef tanks are lit by them. Be obliged to look at Giesseman's System 400 Dimtec - Dimmable Metal Halide Pendant Units. Track lighting seems obsolete. In tandem with the proper number of lights, one could virtually replicate a sunrise to sunset effect with these lights.

Well, I appreciate the vets part. Honestly though, screw 95% of them. 1st Marine Division all the way 2/7!!!!!


----------

