help with my lighting
- Thread starter jhale
- Start date
maroone i dont think you have a shi&%&%ty tanks =-D better then mine hehhe. Dude i saw the guy on RC that had so much SPS with 2 150DE really awsome. that was acually something, but something lower light intensity quickly drops the amount of par. with the icecal german SLR M shape design you will need 3 inches of width and hopeing to fit at least 8 light. evenly spread around. maroone i was just commenting T-5 is new and yes i believe one day new stuff will take over. But, we can use what's safter out there right now. there's been reports on serveral ocasions ppl's tank started RTN, but that's because they went from VHO to T5.
http://reefgeek.com/products/categories/lighting/104599.html
should be their same design for the parabolic but SLR is slightly better. check them out. BTW i see awsome tanks with OVDR NO bulbs are 8x 120MA ballast
http://reefgeek.com/products/categories/lighting/104599.html
should be their same design for the parabolic but SLR is slightly better. check them out. BTW i see awsome tanks with OVDR NO bulbs are 8x 120MA ballast
continuing the vho t-12 to ho t-5 discussion. for my purposes I can't have more t-5's than t-12's due to icecap's limitation of 2 t-5's to each ballast. I have 2 430 icecaps.
so I'm comparing 4 110w vho's to 4 80w t-5's.
to switch over to t-5's will be $300, that's if I get the reflectors from reef geek. I like the idea of using t-5's, the upfront cost is high though. if i use the vho's for now that money for the t-5's could be put towards a calcium reactor, which I also need.
the new MH will be about $300 as well. so for the present time it seems using the vho's that I have and adding the MH is the best option. I'll add the t-5's in the near future. If I find a deal on used equipment I may be able to get everything at once. I'm looking.
why would changing from vho to t-5 cause the coral harm? was it too much light? if the vho and t-5 is just supplementing MH's how much of a difference will they make to the coral.
and, thanks for the advice Rich.
[ March 27, 2005, 09:28 AM: Message edited by: jhale ]
so I'm comparing 4 110w vho's to 4 80w t-5's.
to switch over to t-5's will be $300, that's if I get the reflectors from reef geek. I like the idea of using t-5's, the upfront cost is high though. if i use the vho's for now that money for the t-5's could be put towards a calcium reactor, which I also need.
the new MH will be about $300 as well. so for the present time it seems using the vho's that I have and adding the MH is the best option. I'll add the t-5's in the near future. If I find a deal on used equipment I may be able to get everything at once. I'm looking.
why would changing from vho to t-5 cause the coral harm? was it too much light? if the vho and t-5 is just supplementing MH's how much of a difference will they make to the coral.
and, thanks for the advice Rich.
[ March 27, 2005, 09:28 AM: Message edited by: jhale ]
suppliment no, but i readed sites and log ppl changing from VHO to T-5 and then back to VHO. T-5s will be greater in the future no doubt about it. maroone once again i think your tank is awsome ^^ i wasnt arguin about it. Lighting debate is been done over and over again. please dont take it personal
"so I'm comparing 4 110w vho's to 4 80w t-5's"
Dude, don't stress it. It really doesn't make much of a difference. The T5's are more energy efficent so if you want to save $ every month but drop $300 to start it up.....that's a fine choice.
I like the VHO's as actinic supplementation because they do make the corals colors pop a bit more. If you kept the VHO's, payed more for electric each month, and saved the 300 bucks, that's also a fine choice.
If you think about it, it will take quite some time before you save $300 in electrical costs from switching to T5's, so is it worth it?
My advice would be to stick to the VHO's, but performance wise its all the same crap.
You may want to speak to Cali_reef about the luminarcs, I know he uses them.
Dude, don't stress it. It really doesn't make much of a difference. The T5's are more energy efficent so if you want to save $ every month but drop $300 to start it up.....that's a fine choice.
I like the VHO's as actinic supplementation because they do make the corals colors pop a bit more. If you kept the VHO's, payed more for electric each month, and saved the 300 bucks, that's also a fine choice.
If you think about it, it will take quite some time before you save $300 in electrical costs from switching to T5's, so is it worth it?
My advice would be to stick to the VHO's, but performance wise its all the same crap.
You may want to speak to Cali_reef about the luminarcs, I know he uses them.
I was thinking about getting one of the kill a watt's
http://www.drsfostersmith.com/Product/Prod_Display.cfm?pcatid=12106&inm=1&N=2004+113030+2035
I'd be curious to see what the difference is between the vho's and t-5's. I also want to know how efficient my pumps are.
for the moment I'll use 4 vho tubes, since I'm set up for that.
I'll see how much heat they add, and eventually I'll switch over to the t-5's.
In the meantime I'll add the extra 250MH as Shaun suggested, and figure out which cal rec I'm going to get.
--------60"vho---------
--------60"vho---------
175----- 250------- 175
MH-------MH------- MH
------48"vho------
------48"vho------
so I have 600 watts of MH and 500 watts of VHO. that should be good, for now.
well I think I went back and forth enough times on this question
[ March 27, 2005, 01:19 PM: Message edited by: jhale ]
http://www.drsfostersmith.com/Product/Prod_Display.cfm?pcatid=12106&inm=1&N=2004+113030+2035
I'd be curious to see what the difference is between the vho's and t-5's. I also want to know how efficient my pumps are.
for the moment I'll use 4 vho tubes, since I'm set up for that.
I'll see how much heat they add, and eventually I'll switch over to the t-5's.
In the meantime I'll add the extra 250MH as Shaun suggested, and figure out which cal rec I'm going to get.
--------60"vho---------
--------60"vho---------
175----- 250------- 175
MH-------MH------- MH
------48"vho------
------48"vho------
so I have 600 watts of MH and 500 watts of VHO. that should be good, for now.
well I think I went back and forth enough times on this question
[ March 27, 2005, 01:19 PM: Message edited by: jhale ]
I love these lighting discussions.
IMO, best bang for the buck in both long term operating cost and short term acquisition will be SE 250W MH for your size of tank and intended inhabitants, if you didn?t have any lighting right now. Since you already owned a dual 175W, I recommend getting one more 250W for the center of the tank and use two tubes (VHO or T5) for actinic\blue supplement, you can buy one more 250W setup once you realize you don?t like what the 175W MH are doing for you.
T-5 or VHO supplement is really a personal preference. I liked VHO the best after trying PC and T-5? as well, the actinic bulbs in these format just don?t make the corals ?glow? as well, this is really a personal preference because I don?t think the corals would care that much. All the discussion about T-5 vs, VHO intensity is somewhat confusing after a while, I think the main advantage is T5 being a skinny tube and that makes it a fairly good bulb to use a reflector on, hence you can put more over a tank and concentrate MOST of the light energy into a 180 deg plane down into your tank, VHO is not as efficient in doing the same. Everyone also states T5?s runs cooler than a MH, yes and no, just think each bulb acting as a heatsink, the bigger the surface area the cooler it appears to be, however, they will put out similar amount of total heat. MH will spot heat more due to all the light being directed more efficiently on to the surface of the water, but that is why you put lights over your tank. As far as the suggestion of using only T5?s and referring to the tank of the month on RC being a T5 success story, the tank runs eight 54W T5?s and he didn?t say if they are over driven, most likely he is, and all this lighting is only covering a 48x24 area with a depth of 22 inches. You can cover the same area with two 250W bulbs costing a lot less in initial cost, and possible long tern operating cost with a lot more intensity. Heating of the tank will be about the same if the hood is vented properly, in the summer, you?ll need a small chiller if you don?t want to use your AC to keep you room at a steady 75 degrees.
With all the choices in 250W SE bulbs available, you can get away without actinic supplement bulbs if you are trying reduce power consumption and heat resulting from it. I personally run my MH for 11 hours a day and the two VHO super actinic is only on for about 3 hours while I am staring at my tank in the evening.
BTW, I love my Luminarcs but I don?t think they will work as efficiently over your tank. I also have tested the intensity of all the bulbs I have mentioned with an Apogee PAR meter, so my option to lighting is based on experience, not something I read on RC.
IMO, best bang for the buck in both long term operating cost and short term acquisition will be SE 250W MH for your size of tank and intended inhabitants, if you didn?t have any lighting right now. Since you already owned a dual 175W, I recommend getting one more 250W for the center of the tank and use two tubes (VHO or T5) for actinic\blue supplement, you can buy one more 250W setup once you realize you don?t like what the 175W MH are doing for you.
T-5 or VHO supplement is really a personal preference. I liked VHO the best after trying PC and T-5? as well, the actinic bulbs in these format just don?t make the corals ?glow? as well, this is really a personal preference because I don?t think the corals would care that much. All the discussion about T-5 vs, VHO intensity is somewhat confusing after a while, I think the main advantage is T5 being a skinny tube and that makes it a fairly good bulb to use a reflector on, hence you can put more over a tank and concentrate MOST of the light energy into a 180 deg plane down into your tank, VHO is not as efficient in doing the same. Everyone also states T5?s runs cooler than a MH, yes and no, just think each bulb acting as a heatsink, the bigger the surface area the cooler it appears to be, however, they will put out similar amount of total heat. MH will spot heat more due to all the light being directed more efficiently on to the surface of the water, but that is why you put lights over your tank. As far as the suggestion of using only T5?s and referring to the tank of the month on RC being a T5 success story, the tank runs eight 54W T5?s and he didn?t say if they are over driven, most likely he is, and all this lighting is only covering a 48x24 area with a depth of 22 inches. You can cover the same area with two 250W bulbs costing a lot less in initial cost, and possible long tern operating cost with a lot more intensity. Heating of the tank will be about the same if the hood is vented properly, in the summer, you?ll need a small chiller if you don?t want to use your AC to keep you room at a steady 75 degrees.
With all the choices in 250W SE bulbs available, you can get away without actinic supplement bulbs if you are trying reduce power consumption and heat resulting from it. I personally run my MH for 11 hours a day and the two VHO super actinic is only on for about 3 hours while I am staring at my tank in the evening.
BTW, I love my Luminarcs but I don?t think they will work as efficiently over your tank. I also have tested the intensity of all the bulbs I have mentioned with an Apogee PAR meter, so my option to lighting is based on experience, not something I read on RC.
thanks cali_reef, that's great info.
you can buy one more 250W setup once you realize you don?t like what the 175W MH are doing for you.
haha, that was in the back of my mind. I'll see how the coral likes the light. if they want more I'll have to make them happy.
you can buy one more 250W setup once you realize you don?t like what the 175W MH are doing for you.
haha, that was in the back of my mind. I'll see how the coral likes the light. if they want more I'll have to make them happy.
Cali_reef, excellent post, THANKS
!
To keep the discussion going, would you have any comments on a comparison between the available SE 250W MH and the available DE HQI 250W MH?
Did you ever compare par with your meter between the two?
[ March 27, 2005, 04:27 PM: Message edited by: solbby ]
To keep the discussion going, would you have any comments on a comparison between the available SE 250W MH and the available DE HQI 250W MH?
Did you ever compare par with your meter between the two?
[ March 27, 2005, 04:27 PM: Message edited by: solbby ]
I have used Reefoptix III and PFO minis with a few different brands of bulbs driven by PFO HQI and IceCap ballasts, PFO ballast have higher par comparing to IC electronic ballast. As far as bulbs go, it is really up to the individual on the color he\she like to see the corals under. The more bluish colored bulbs give out less par and the yellow gives out more but you need to add more actinic to make it look pleasing. I personally like the AB 10,000K bulbs but you?ll need some blue\actinic supplement or everything looks yellowish. Sanjay?s website gives you an accurate PAR reading with different ballast and is a great tool to figure out which bulb you should try for the intensity you are looking to put over your tank.
I taken some reading in my tank with the DE?s and they are comparative to the SE in a Luminarc reflector, however, comparing the light intensity under the same point and distance would be ?none conclusive?, the DE will give more par close to the center of the bulb, but the coverage area is also smaller. The Luminarcs gives a bigger coverage area with the same wattage bulb, so even though the par maybe a little less at the center of the pendent, the covered area is bigger. Again, Sanjay had wrote a few articles with testing results of available pendants and reflector, which IMO offers you a great understanding of coverage vs. intensity. I would use PFO DE pendants if the tank is less than 24? wide (front to back) and I didn?t mind paying 20-30% for bulb replacements and the little extra for the pendant.
I taken some reading in my tank with the DE?s and they are comparative to the SE in a Luminarc reflector, however, comparing the light intensity under the same point and distance would be ?none conclusive?, the DE will give more par close to the center of the bulb, but the coverage area is also smaller. The Luminarcs gives a bigger coverage area with the same wattage bulb, so even though the par maybe a little less at the center of the pendent, the covered area is bigger. Again, Sanjay had wrote a few articles with testing results of available pendants and reflector, which IMO offers you a great understanding of coverage vs. intensity. I would use PFO DE pendants if the tank is less than 24? wide (front to back) and I didn?t mind paying 20-30% for bulb replacements and the little extra for the pendant.
- Location
- The Big City
cali_reef
On the heat issue with the T-5, I was running 2-55w PC with fans over my 35hex, which is about 22" accross, and when I switched over to T-5 6 bulb setup no fans, I was excepting the temp to raise but it actually went down to the point where I had to place a heater in the tank. Also when you touch the T-5 bulbs and fixture it was alot cooler than the PC.
On the heat issue with the T-5, I was running 2-55w PC with fans over my 35hex, which is about 22" accross, and when I switched over to T-5 6 bulb setup no fans, I was excepting the temp to raise but it actually went down to the point where I had to place a heater in the tank. Also when you touch the T-5 bulbs and fixture it was alot cooler than the PC.
Marrone,
I agreed with that.
T5 will run cooler than PC's, PC are the one of the worst lighting in terms of efficiency and heat source for light generated.
However, enough T5's over a tank will still increase the temperature to a point which cooling of the water will be required.
[ March 27, 2005, 09:20 PM: Message edited by: cali_reef ]
I agreed with that.
T5 will run cooler than PC's, PC are the one of the worst lighting in terms of efficiency and heat source for light generated.
However, enough T5's over a tank will still increase the temperature to a point which cooling of the water will be required.
[ March 27, 2005, 09:20 PM: Message edited by: cali_reef ]
this was brought up on RC, if you have a bulb with a higher PAR rating can you run it for less time?
how much time do the coral need to complete the photosynthesizing for each day. is it continuous, or do they stop at some point?
I'm reading on RC that people are cutting back the time their MH are on and see better results in the coral.
any ideas?
how much time do the coral need to complete the photosynthesizing for each day. is it continuous, or do they stop at some point?
I'm reading on RC that people are cutting back the time their MH are on and see better results in the coral.
any ideas?
Sponsor Reefs
We're a FREE website, and we exist because of hobbyists like YOU who help us run this community.
Click here to sponsor $10:
