# Which MH to choose for my 91L (GLA's version of a 90P)?



## CL (Mar 13, 2008)

Ok, I've almost completely made up made mind that I want to use MHs to light my 91L (a 90P except 1 cm longer).








The tank is 3 feet long. I'm either considering one 150W fixture from here or two 70W fixtures. The one 150W fixture would be considerably cheaper, but I don't know how good the spread would be. The fixture(s) would be raised at least a foot to accommodate for emersed plants grown on the top of the drift wood, but I still don't know if one fixture would be enough to ensure that the edges of the tank are well lit..


----------



## babakaty (Apr 10, 2009)

I just bought a 70W MH fixture from the folks at here, and so far I'm very pleased. It's simple, sturdy enough, and a great value assuming it's lifespan is decent. I have it over 1/2 my 90 gal, along with a mongrel collection of PC flourescents. Still searching for the "Holy Grail" of just the right lighting combination....


----------



## CL (Mar 13, 2008)

babakaty said:


> I just bought a 70W MH fixture from the folks at here, and so far I'm very pleased. It's simple, sturdy enough, and a great value assuming it's lifespan is decent. I have it over 1/2 my 90 gal, along with a mongrel collection of PC flourescents. Still searching for the "Holy Grail" of just the right lighting combination....


If you were to hold the light over the middle of the tank, how much dark area would there be on the ends? (I'm assuming you have the standard 4ft 90 gallon tank)


----------



## babakaty (Apr 10, 2009)

I pulled the other lights off and centered the 70W over 1/2 the tank since there is a center brace in my not-as-sexy-as-your-rimless-GLA tank. Hope the picture comes through OK.


----------



## CL (Mar 13, 2008)

Thank you very much for doing that! It looks like the edges would be a little dark on a 3 foot tank, but what would you say?


----------



## babakaty (Apr 10, 2009)

Well, I certainly claim no expertise when it comes to lighting, but I'd say either go with two 70W MH fixtures or one with a couple of T5 or CF's on the side. Have you looked at FNI's T5's? Though I haven't tried it (I plan to) it seems pretty easy to breed their fixtures together.


----------



## CL (Mar 13, 2008)

babakaty said:


> Well, I certainly claim no expertise when it comes to lighting, but I'd say either go with two 70W MH fixtures or one with a couple of T5 or CF's on the side. Have you looked at FNI's T5's? Though I haven't tried it (I plan to) it seems pretty easy to breed their fixtures together.


Yes, I was really interested in the MH/T5HO combo, but that would cost a bit, and the fixture would be wider than my tank. lol (or close to it, maybe one inch less)

How hot does yours get? I expect it to be hot, but I'm just curious _how_ hot. Do they have seperate ballasts, or are they built in?


----------



## babakaty (Apr 10, 2009)

If you look at the way they nest together, it comes out to less than if you just add up all the width dimensions. I expected it to get hotter than it actually does, it's very lightweight and doesn't seem to hold much heat. The ballast is separate. I have mine mounted underneath my stand.


----------



## CL (Mar 13, 2008)

babakaty said:


> If you look at the way they nest together, it comes out to less than if you just add up all the width dimensions. I expected it to get hotter than it actually does, it's very lightweight and doesn't seem to hold much heat. The ballast is separate. I have mine mounted underneath my stand.


That's good news.
It looks like I just might go with 2x70 watters then.


----------



## talontsiawd (Oct 19, 2008)

I like the look of two alot better personally. It just feels like the tank is larger than having a fairly large gap side to side with one. I vote for two off of that, though I have never used a MH. I know that probably doesn't help much but should look really slick. I am thinking of going MH on my next tank for looks alone (emersed growth as well).


----------



## CL (Mar 13, 2008)

Yeah, I was leaning toward using two as well, I just wanted to hear what everyone thought, and if there was any reason why I should do just one 150W other than price.


----------



## babakaty (Apr 10, 2009)

If one is good, two is better, right?! Besides, you didn't get into this hobby to save money, did you?? :hihi:


----------



## CL (Mar 13, 2008)

haha. So true!


----------



## oldpunk78 (Nov 1, 2008)

i voted for 2 but i think it really might matter how high you plan on hanging it. i bet if you got 1 150w 18-20'" over the tank it could work out better than the 2 70w.


----------



## Green Leaf Aquariums (Feb 26, 2007)

What are your goals with this tank? What type of plants do you plan to have? High maintenance stem plant tank? Ferns,anubias etc....

I think either way you cant go wrong. Im a firm believer in less is more  But, thats just my OP


----------



## CL (Mar 13, 2008)

Well I want some ferns and anubias, but I also want some stems, and eleocharis 'belem' as well as cyprus helferii (or however you spell it), but I still want the option of doing higher light.
here's an interesting thread http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/equipment/57808-fish-need-lighting.html


----------



## Green Leaf Aquariums (Feb 26, 2007)

Aquamedic now has a decent pendant you may want to consider. It seems those reflectors(Fishneedit) are sub par


----------



## CL (Mar 13, 2008)

Green Leaf Aquariums said:


> Aquamedic now has a decent pendant you may want to consider. It seems those reflectors(Fishneedit) are sub par


That's what that ashappard said at APC, but I've been searching around on nanoreef and I haven't heard anything bad about the reflectors. I think I'll but the two 70W pendants. Apparently the ballasts are made by Philips.
I also found this over at NR. He said he had the fixture 12 inches above the water.
http://www.nano-reef.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=214091&st=20&start=20#


badbread said:


> Totally disagree on a single MH lamp for 36". When I put the single 250w over my 40 breeder there wasn't a little shading, there was a lot. I was using a SE Lumenarc mini reflector which is suppose to have a lot of spread. Maybe a different reflector would do better but the Lumenarc III mini was a no go.


----------



## ChineseSnooker (May 20, 2008)

My 70w just came in last week and I'm eager to set it up. I just held it over my tank and there seems to be more than enough light.


----------



## CL (Mar 13, 2008)

stuffrider said:


> My 70w just came in last week and I'm eager to set it up. I just held it over my tank and there seems to be more than enough light.


Did you get a fish need it fixture? Does the reflector spread the light out well, or are there bands of bright light, and bands of lower light?


----------



## ChineseSnooker (May 20, 2008)

CL said:


> Did you get a fish need it fixture? Does the reflector spread the light out well, or are there bands of bright light, and bands of lower light?


Yes, it's a fish need it fixture. The reflector is an improvement from other reflectors that I have used, but there is more spill over than I would like. 
Like I said I haven’t had the fixture up and running on my tank, so I can't give accurate info on this matter but, I haven’t noticed any uneven intensity.

imo it will be a good fixture, sleek design, dope hanging kit. Plus you can't go wrong with fishneedit's customer serviceroud:


----------



## CL (Mar 13, 2008)

Just what I wanted to hear!


----------



## Indignation (Mar 9, 2008)

what bulb are you planning on using CL?


----------



## ChineseSnooker (May 20, 2008)

What you will be waiting for...


----------



## CL (Mar 13, 2008)

Indignation said:


> what bulb are you planning on using CL?


I'm going to go with the 8000k.


----------



## CL (Mar 13, 2008)

stuffrider said:


> What you will be waiting on...


Whoa! Hey! It looks like they switched back to the old reflectors! That's excellent news!


----------



## ashappar (Feb 6, 2005)

yes - nice to see they are shipping the hammered reflectors again.
the other ones that I got earlier this year, not so nice.


----------



## babakaty (Apr 10, 2009)

Just like mine; packed bomb-proof. That's also nice to see.


----------



## CL (Mar 13, 2008)

How long did it take for you all to get yours? I think I'm going to order mine right now.


----------



## babakaty (Apr 10, 2009)

It wasn't long. I'm thinking 6 or 7 days, but that wasn't with Xmas backlog and bad weather.


----------



## roybot73 (Dec 15, 2007)

Enjoy your electric bill 
I voted "other". I think the _"ideal"_ fixture would be one that has a single 150w halide flanked by 2 36" 39W t5ho.
Probably pretty expensive...


----------



## CL (Mar 13, 2008)

roybot73 said:


> Enjoy your electric bill
> I voted "other". I think the _"ideal"_ fixture would be one that has a single 150w halide flanked by 2 36" 39W t5ho.
> Probably pretty expensive...


I will most likely be breaking down at least one of my nanos for this tank. 
A fixture like that would probably cost at least $300, more if I were to get brand name


----------



## roybot73 (Dec 15, 2007)

How about this? 

Or this...

:hihi:


----------



## deleted_user_16 (Jan 20, 2008)

either 2x 70w haanging fishneedit pendants or a nice t5ho fixture


----------



## CL (Mar 13, 2008)

roybot73 said:


> How about this?
> 
> Or this...
> 
> :hihi:


I'll just get this http://www.catalinaaquarium.com/product_info.php?cPath=71_156&products_id=1563
and get it over with.


fishman9809 said:


> either 2x 70w haanging fishneedit pendants or a nice t5ho fixture


I was originally going to get a nice T5HO fixture, but I really like the way MH looks. I miss having one over my reef. As 4x4nmore pointed out, MHs blend the different wavelengths of light better than any fluorescent ever can, thus imitating natural sunlight.
Plus the shimmer isn't bad either


----------



## oldpunk78 (Nov 1, 2008)

you should be the Guinea pig for this guy:

http://www.catalinaaquarium.com/product_info.php?cPath=71_167&products_id=1633

54w of led is supposed to = 175w metal halide


----------



## CL (Mar 13, 2008)

oldpunk78 said:


> you should be the Guinea pig for this guy:
> 
> http://www.catalinaaquarium.com/product_info.php?cPath=71_167&products_id=1633
> 
> 54w of led is supposed to = 175w metal halide


I wish! haha. The price actually isn't that bad, and I could treat myself to a nice birthday present on the 27th biggrin
but, 
nah. I could get new lights for my reef and this tank, as well as have some left over for a pico reef for my room.
but that sure is tempting! Too bad it isn't $200 cheaper haha


----------



## deleted_user_16 (Jan 20, 2008)

i do like the looks of the MH output, but i prefer the t5ho, because it uses less energy for the same output


----------



## enzo (Aug 21, 2006)

Hello, I have the fishneedit 150 mh over a GLA 63-s. It looks sweet, I would go with two 70watt units.


----------



## babakaty (Apr 10, 2009)

This light should take care of ALL your needs... self powered, great quality reflector, no problems reaching the substrate, and it's _"very quiet"! _Merry Christmas! :hihi:

They operate on 78 Volts at 150 amps, that's 11,700 watts!.
The effective beam length is 5.6 miles.
The 60 inch parabolic mirror is made of Rhodium plated brass and weighs 180 Pounds.
The generator is powered by a Hercules JXD six cylinder gasoline engine and has a very quiet exhaust system.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

2x70 if you have to go MH's.
That's a lot of light on a small tank.
I wouldn't even think about it.

I'd certainly suggest using a wire suspension to be able to adjust the intensity down by raising the light fixture up. Otherwise you are really going to be forced into a lot of ferts, CO2 and management.

ADA uses a single 150W at a very high distance above the tank for 90cm long tanks, and the light is about 1/2 of the typical MH's output in PAR.

You will have 4x that at least I'd say unless you raise it.

I'd go T5's.


Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## CL (Mar 13, 2008)

The lights will be raised higher than normal, no doubt. Plus I will have some emersed growth on the top of the tank that will shade the water a bit. With that said, it's still a lot of light.

If they don't work out I could always just use them on my reefs.


----------



## CL (Mar 13, 2008)

fishman9809 said:


> i do like the looks of the MH output, but i prefer the t5ho, because it uses less energy for the same output


Not true, necessarily. The isue is about spread. Unless I'm mistaken, MHs put out more light/ watt


enzo said:


> Hello, I have the fishneedit 150 mh over a GLA 63-s. It looks sweet, I would go with two 70watt units.


Nice. I really thought about getting a 63-S. They have awesome dimensions.



babakaty said:


> This light should take care of ALL your needs... self powered, great quality reflector, no problems reaching the substrate, and it's _"very quiet"! _Merry Christmas! :hihi:
> 
> They operate on 78 Volts at 150 amps, that's 11,700 watts!.
> The effective beam length is 5.6 miles.
> ...


That'll do :hihi:


----------



## FSM (Jan 13, 2009)

babakaty said:


> This light should take care of ALL your needs... self powered, great quality reflector, no problems reaching the substrate, and it's _"very quiet"! _Merry Christmas! :hihi:
> 
> They operate on 78 Volts at 150 amps, that's 11,700 watts!.
> The effective beam length is 5.6 miles.
> ...


I think that would need to be stationed on the moon to avoid algae problems.

But wait, combustion doesn't work in space. Bummer.


----------

