Are Metal Halides Making a Comeback?
- Thread starter ReefBum
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2015
- Messages
- 6,514
- Reaction score
- 6,511
I'll be honest. At first I had a difficult time figuring out what kelvin spectrum I should shoot for. Then I realized my walls are painted white, why not replicate the color I need on to the walls? 14k? 18k? 20k? It's emitted all on my walls.
BoneXriffic
GO BLUE!
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2016
- Messages
- 1,525
- Reaction score
- 1,192
Just stahp, lol
BoneXriffic
GO BLUE!
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2016
- Messages
- 1,525
- Reaction score
- 1,192
Might as well be a million at that point
Reef Pets
Bioprospector
I think I was quoted 38k wholesale through Orphek. But I wouldn't have to change bulbs ever again was their selling point.
Well at the rate I change bulbs it would take me over 35 years of bulb changing to make up for the price of the LEDs. Hmmmm
mcarroll
10K Club member
I must say there're a few folks with rosy glasses on saying that halides are effortless and you can't go wrong, etc.
History!
Anyone who's set up a halide system in the last 5 years may not have any idea...wverything about using halides was practically 100% hear-say up until Sanjay's halide lighting tests started coming out....I don't even remember when that was anymore. Around 2000?
Even then, his tests weren't very comprenesive at first as well as being hard to find for a while.
Plus nobody was using any kind of meter to set anything up. So there was still a large measure of guesswork going on or following what the last guy did when you set up a new halide system.
Same mostly holds true today, only Sanjay's (and others) halide test results are easier to find.
So I definitely dig if someone like halide results better than LED and want to hear all about why, but I like to remember the history of halides as it was.
And if you're willing to allow for the learning curve, I don't see any reason to avoid LED as a technology. I understand the price tag avoidance being mentioned...but that's not the same thing.
History!
Anyone who's set up a halide system in the last 5 years may not have any idea...wverything about using halides was practically 100% hear-say up until Sanjay's halide lighting tests started coming out....I don't even remember when that was anymore. Around 2000?
Even then, his tests weren't very comprenesive at first as well as being hard to find for a while.
Plus nobody was using any kind of meter to set anything up. So there was still a large measure of guesswork going on or following what the last guy did when you set up a new halide system.
Same mostly holds true today, only Sanjay's (and others) halide test results are easier to find.
So I definitely dig if someone like halide results better than LED and want to hear all about why, but I like to remember the history of halides as it was.
And if you're willing to allow for the learning curve, I don't see any reason to avoid LED as a technology. I understand the price tag avoidance being mentioned...but that's not the same thing.
itll be the same as my first post.
metal halides are awesome. they just work. there is no dialing a mh in. its like a fairy touched every MH and said "work little photon... just work". and they did.
then came along energy efficiency. leds. they were close but just werent there. manufacturers stated to add 15% so they would feel better about their purchase.
"pay no attention to those meters. we just need 15% more and then we will be on the ssme playing field as mh". except that wasnt the case. many led guys got burned and the new comers knew no better.
ill say this. mh works. its plug and play and everyone who has them loves them.
you cannot state the same about leds. it isnt about the tech though. its about the marketing.
LEDs STILL need to shake out. however... when they do, i think itll be a no brainer.
Last edited:
I must say there're a few folks with rosy glasses on saying that halides are effortless and you can't go wrong, etc.
History!
Anyone who's set up a halide system in the last 5 years may not have any idea...wverything about using halides was practically 100% hear-say up until Sanjay's halide lighting tests started coming out....I don't even remember when that was anymore. Around 2000?
Even then, his tests weren't very comprenesive at first as well as being hard to find for a while.
Plus nobody was using any kind of meter to set anything up. So there was still a large measure of guesswork going on or following what the last guy did when you set up a new halide system.
Same mostly holds true today, only Sanjay's (and others) halide test results are easier to find.
So I definitely dig if someone like halide results better than LED and want to hear all about why, but I like to remember the history of halides as it was.
And if you're willing to allow for the learning curve, I don't see any reason to avoid LED as a technology. I understand the price tag avoidance being mentioned...but that's not the same thing.
this post has a lot of truth to it as well.
mcarroll
10K Club member
My DIY led's cost almost as much as one bulb upgrade for my old halide fixture.
My jaw was on the floor when I first ran the math and figured out that I could build, use and throw away a brand new DIY led fixture every 6 months and not be any worse off money-wise than running the halides.
(Being out of work at the time, money was the primary concern.....the halides were not going to stay on.)
Once I realized that was the math involved, I stopped shopping for commercial fixtures and placed my gu10 bulb order for my DIY. (it was a rough transition from halide though...had not learned about lux meters yet and it was a very, very low-nutrient tank. That's a whole other story.)
A few years later I did put a Maxspect Razor over that tank and moved the DIY to a second tank that had been running unlit.
yes sir Running all three for sure, individually. I've pretty much had the same success under all three as well. Minor trade offs but nothing that would make me say one is far superior.
Similar threads
