No love for MH?

  • Thread starter Thread starter riche
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users None

Would you ever use Metal Halide lighting again?

  • Yes I use MH lighting now

    Votes: 264 20.5%
  • Yes maybe in the future

    Votes: 319 24.7%
  • No I would not

    Votes: 679 52.7%
  • Other (please xplain in the thread)

    Votes: 27 2.1%

  • Total voters
    1,289
The chemistry of a coral's skeleton has evolved as a protection mechanism from UV as UV was traditionally much higher, as suggested here.

Coral Skeletons Defend against Ultraviolet Radiation

They even grind the skeletons up and it still absorbs UV. So it would seem the coral is going to great lengths to avoid using UV.
It's probably important in small amounts, but should we be concerned we are getting enough?
 
Last edited:
I had a post moderated. I stand by my comment of your 750 watt tank as being insane lol. In context of course, it's now lost it's pizazz.
The post that was moderated, was when you ended it by telling someone to "shut up", while the context of your post was asking for everyone to be polite. Talk about mixed signals.

Glad you stuck to your guns on the 750 watts, but you never took me up on my offer at that time.

No comment on the reflectors & hole blown in the argument, that you said you care about though?
 
The post that was moderated, was when you ended it by telling someone to "shut up", while the context of your post was asking for everyone to be polite. Talk about mixed signals.

Glad you stuck to your guns on the 750 watts, but you never took me up on my offer at that time.

No comment on the reflectors & hole blown in the argument, that you said you care about though?

I knew I would regret responding to you lol.

You said you had a canopy, the fact that you mention this and ignored my comment about brute force lighting reflecting off everything in the room demonstrates that we just aren't going to see things the same way.
I wouldn't expect much shadowing with the ridiculous amount of light you have on your tank, whether your reflector is a white wing or wooden box.
 
I had a post moderated. I stand by my comment of your 750 watt tank as being insane lol. In context of course, it's now lost it's pizazz.

"If you want to carry on, I won't bother reading your post"-
I guess you DID read my post or you wouldn't have replied, just a bit slow on hitting the "edit " again.
 
"If you want to carry on, I won't bother reading your post"-
I guess you DID read my post or you wouldn't have replied, just a bit slow on hitting the "edit " again.

I had a change of heart, as I said, I regret responding to you, whats this like three troll posts in a row? We've moved well beyond your pictures as anything meaningful with regards to the conversation. (Or any picture for that matter)

So now what do you have to offer? It's not UV, it's not your point source light that's not really a point source light because you use a reflector, or you don't use a reflector you use three bulbs as proof of not being a point source.

If you don't need a reflector then you acknowledge that you have too much light by default if you can afford to throw 80% in all directions away from the tank. Right? So I guess by default my comment about your 750watts over a softie tank as being insane is factually accurate? Huh
 
I knew I would regret responding to you lol.

You said you had a canopy, the fact that you mention this and ignored my comment about brute force lighting reflecting off everything in the room demonstrates that we just aren't going to see things the same way.
I wouldn't expect much shadowing with the ridiculous amount of light you have on your tank, whether your reflector is a white wing or wooden box.

I think you made that remark to someone else (hard to keep up with you honestly), but go ahead & check for your own postings, as I'm not going to waste my time. If you did make that comment to me (you didn't) it would still have no relevance as I've always used a canopy because I want the tank to look like a piece of furniture & just don't care for the open top look.

Well at least you agree MHs can produce a ridiculous amount of light- probably the only thing we might agree on.
 
I think you made that remark to someone else (hard to keep up with you honestly), but go ahead & check for your own postings, as I'm not going to waste my time. If you did make that comment to me (you didn't) it would still have no relevance as I've always used a canopy because I want the tank to look like a piece of furniture & just don't care for the open top look.

Well at least you agree MHs can produce a ridiculous amount of light- probably the only thing we might agree on.

Read the post above. Are you not the guy talking about the square canopy from a couple hours ago? I will go look.
 
I could quote your line directed at me earlier - "Oh please spare us the hyper...." but I won't, because you deleted it, so will leave it at that.

When I first used MHs on reef tanks (even mediocre softie ones to quote you again), there were no reflectors, but there was no issue with shadowing either. It didn't matter if this was a tank lit with a single bulb (can't get much more point source than that) or more than one. I fixed a square of flashing to the inside of the canopy to stop the canopy possibly catching fire & didn't care about any reflective qualities the flashing had. When reflectors for MH bulbs started to become popular, there was still debate on if they worked, but could they actually damage the bulb due to re-strike (or whatever it was called at the time). I can't ever remember the issue of dealing with shadowing coming up though.
The one downside to MH being so point source is having to use lights in between aquarium cross braces. I could light my current 6ft tank with 2 MH & have great results, but the cross braces dictate I need 3 bulbs ( I believe you called that insane). I've lit a 4ft tank (no cross brace) with a single 250 MH- now that is insane.

Yep that was you, everything applies whether or not you "care" about the reflective qualities of the metal used to line your hood. Even typing how you think feels silly.
 
Where did you ask me about "brute force lighting reflecting off everything in the room"? Makes no sense, as like I said, I've always used a canopy.
 
You had a brief debate with Bpb about light spiling over into the room, is that what you are going on about?
 
Quick side view of my "softie" tank with "ridiculous lighting" while waiting

20190710_155516_resized.jpg
 
That looks like a normally colored montipora undata if I’m not mistaken.

Well he didn't totally kill it, congratulations.

As mentioned before, I really don't care what you grow with, it all works if you know how to use it.

It is my subjective opinion that this is a mediocre tank. I'm not being mean, he put it out there. He chooses to ignore that it is the ONLY option he chooses to afford.

This is virtually meaningless to show a tank grown with one type of light as evidence of superiority to another. If you want to set up an experiment, I would be interested in that, though probably wouldn't trust it would be performed without bias.

Take that bleached out undata, how long we talking here? See what I mean there is no qualifying information. Is it 6 weeks old, 6 months old or 6 years old? I have a better idea when the last time was he cleaned the pumps then the age of the coral. Let's be realistic here.
 

It is interesting that the 6500K Iwaski has a very similar curve to the 6500K Coralife. Depending on who your point of view, one might say the Iwasaki has a lot of UV, or you could say the Coralife is a weak bulb. Tomatoe tomatoe.

A 10K HQI and a 10K Coralife aren't even remotely similar. With a bit of age, some of these bulbs wouldn't have much UV left to speak of. I don't know anyone brave enough to run a HQI DE without a screen, but I suppose you could replace it with clear glass.

Also interesting is a 400w 20K radium, has less UV then a 10K 250Watt daylight bulb. It also only has 10%-15% more PAR then a 250watt daylight bulb which is somewhat disappointing.
 
[QUOTE="TheGreatWave,
It is my subjective opinion that this is a mediocre tank. I'm not being mean, he put it out there. He chooses to ignore that it is the ONLY option he chooses to afford.
[/QUOTE]
@greatwave I’m interested to see pics of your tank so we can make an educated decisions...are you all talk and no game... or you have game and talk a lot.

I for one am interested in this discussion and the pics help. I have seen some great tanks with all forms of lighting.

@DogsRule that snapshot looks like some good growth. Obviously halide grows coral.
 
I am not interested in being judged by you though. It's a diversion I am not falling for. I don't even have to have a tank.

What you want, has nothing to do with the reality of the situation.

Remember folks the same people that think that undata looked good are the same people that say you must use MH.

I am not saying don't post pictures, please post more.
You guys should probably go start a topic comparing your MH coral against MH coral. this thread is about MH light as you guys have reminded me multiple times in the past.
 
Wow, and you are judging other’s tanks... maybe you could get your negative judgements under control.

The problem is everything you don't agree with is negative. It's quite childish.

I don't even say MH is bad, yet you guys continue to talk like it's this light vs that.

It's been expressed to me multiple times that I am just a passing new person and that my opinion doesn't matter.

If it suits your narrative, lets say I don't even have a tank.

Your theories so far have been blown wide open by a guy without a fishtank. The only retort is some random picture of some random fishtank means you've really got nothing left to debate.

I'm available if you come up with something.
 

IF YOU HAD TO TAKE A REEFING EXAM, WOULD YOU PASS?

  • Yes!

    Votes: 32 45.7%
  • Not yet, but I have one that I want to buy in mind!

    Votes: 9 12.9%
  • No.

    Votes: 26 37.1%
  • Other (please explain).

    Votes: 3 4.3%
Back
Top