150w or 70W

wicked1 said:

Halides don't seem to put out as much light as other options in my opinion. You might have a really bright spot right under the light, and put one light loving plant there, but the rest of the tank will seem dim compared to fluorescent.

Click to expand...

I have owned and used halides from 250watt, 175watt to 150watt HQI's with the first 2 under Lumenarc LIII mini's. That statement about halides not appearing to be as bright as other options is so far from the truth. Under crappy reflectors this is true and this is quite common for us to use sub par reflectors cause they are cheap. I did too until I got a Lumenarc and all that one area of the tank statement went through the window, not to mentioned if paired with a high performance ballast and I'm not referring to electronics either. I agree if the wrong color temp is used the plants might seem a bit dull if not downright ugly but halides is the most intense lighting out there.

If you have ever had a really good halide setup you would probably sell it because it just gives too much light for a planted tank especially if you don't wanna be mounting 2ft over the tank... I know I did

Giga, focus your funds on getting pressurized Co2 now, use cheapo lighting now for starters then go get your badazz lighting later :icon_bigg

I guess it's all personal preference and personal observation. My halides do have nice reflectors. I'm not giving advice about something I don't know about. I may not have made many posts around here, but I've had aquariums for my entire life. I started my reef just over 20 years ago, and my freshwater planted aquarium over 10 years ago and have been through all the options (single ended, double ended, magnetic ballasts, electronic ballasts VHO, PC, T5). In all of that time there has been one constant and it is that more light has always equaled a healthier aquarium. Even 1000 watts at the water surface doesn't equal the output of the sun. We are trying to mimic nature here.
Double ended does give you more light in the aquarium than single ended. I'm using the single ended setup on my planted tank because my reef got upgraded about a year ago. I had all the ballasts and sockets and reflectors sitting in a box in the basement so decided to get them out. I've got 5.25 watts per gallon on the planted tank, but it is about 3 feet deep. Like I said in the other thread, nothing changed in my planted tank other than switching from CF's to halides, then more halide, then more halide again, and each time the plants did better. I've never had an algae problem. (The depth of the tank plays a huge role in the dissipation of light, so a tank 1/3 the depth would certainly do better w/ less watts per gallon)
I've got a 12 gallon nano reef in my office w/ a 250 watt halide over it. Thats over 20 watts per gallon.
The watts per gallon rule does indeed go out the window w/ halides, but in my experience, its because you need MORE watts per gallon
I agree w/ aquanut that the 70 might be just enough, but the 150 will give you some great growth.

I agree w/ kookm that if you're just getting started, co2 is probably more important than lighting at this point. I got a pressurized co2 system after I had all of that light in place. Fast plant growth became EXPLOSIVE plant growth. I pull out a grocery bag full of plant trimmings every few days now.

Check hellolights for inexpensive pendants.

And I should mention that I am NOT advising anyone to put 1000 watts over their aquarium. Just that in nature the plants get more intensity than that.

(And I don't mean to sound really defensive.. I might have had one too many sips of coffee this morning.. After following a few basic rules, it is all just personal preference. Lighting just happens to be the thing I like to play around w/ and push to the extremes, and it has always worked out in my favor)