Lighting or Skimming Oh my!!!!!!

[Deanos]

May be he meant to say, "All needlewheel skimmers must be..." :scratch:

 

[foxgarden]

a better skimmer .


jean

 

[Sean]

I'm still sticking with my original opinion of getting lights first.

I don't understand why you would want to set up the tank then have to move coral around after adding better lights. It doesn't sound like a good plan to me.

I could set up a kick a$$ reef tank without a skimmer and great lights
But I could not set up a nice reef tank without lights and a kick a$$ skimmer

 

[masterswimmer]

Same page as Sean!

master

 

[kimoyo]

I'm still sticking with my original opinion of getting lights first.

I don't understand why you would want to set up the tank then have to move coral around after adding better lights. It doesn't sound like a good plan to me.

I could set up a kick a$$ reef tank without a skimmer and great lights
But I could not set up a nice reef tank without lights and a kick a$$ skimmer

That also depends on what you think great lights are. You could have a tank running off only t5's (which are cheaper than halides) and be cool. I'm not convinced that a person needs halides to have an awesome sps tank. I would even go a step futher and say that it might be easier in regards to coral placement because the t5's will give a uniform intensity of the entire length of the tank.

I know there are methods to keep nutrients down without a skimmer but lets say a person is not using those and just has a crappy skimmer. With higher nutrients a person is more likely to have browner corals, so when they eventually get a better skimmer and lower nutrient levels, the corals will lighten and might have to be move anyway.

So IMO either way, skimmer or lights, the corals might have to be moved.

 

[nycmat]

any advice on a top of the line skimmer under $1000 ??

I am getting the skimmer 1st becasue i have live stock with no skimmer presently that is why. also i have to do more research on buying a lighting. as of now i know i need 3 250's maybe 12k bulbs or 10 k -- undecided. i am trying to save money so i would hope to buy retro fits

 

[nycmat]

also my tank is 30" deep so minimum lighting is 250's t' 5's arent deep enough to make it to the bottom

 

[masterswimmer]

also my tank is 30" deep so minimum lighting is 250's t' 5's arent deep enough to make it to the bottom

You are absolutely right about T-5's not being adequate for a 30" height tank. However, you are also pushing the limit with 250w MH's on a 30" tank. It can and does work, but your PAR down low is not going to be very good. You would still have to place sps middle to upper with only 250's.

At 30", 400w starts to become the standard......JMO.

master

 

[joseney21]

russ you're a t5 man right???how do you like it??i saw some of your posts on RC.

 

[masterswimmer]

I love my T-5's. I'm just very very excited that URI is coming out with their line of actinics. That's the only thing I've been missing, the actinic POP. Hopefully the URI actinic will rival their standard T12 actinic and then there'll be no stopping T-5's.

Russ

 

[nycmat]

any word on a skimmer?

 

[kimoyo]

You are absolutely right about T-5's not being adequate for a 30" height tank. However, you are also pushing the limit with 250w MH's on a 30" tank. It can and does work, but your PAR down low is not going to be very good. You would still have to place sps middle to upper with only 250's.

At 30", 400w starts to become the standard......JMO.

master

Most people have their lights 9 - 12" above the water. Assuming one has good water clarity, couldn't they just lower the lights 6" in a 30" tank?

 

[Tonyscoots84]

that would def. cause the water to heat up considerably... the extra 3 - 6" helps out with heat if you have fans sucking and taking in air... a chiller would prob. be needed at that height which is another great cost... just my opinion..

 

[kimoyo]

that would def. cause the water to heat up considerably... the extra 3 - 6" helps out with heat if you have fans sucking and taking in air

I don't use fans on my lights but couldn't they blow heat from the lights anyway with 3"? Like fixtures that have fans built into them.

 

[kimoyo]

any word on a skimmer?

Here was another thread on skimmers today and you should look thru the skimmer thread. Best thing for you to do is read, understand and make your own decision.

 

[masterswimmer]

Most people have their lights 9 - 12" above the water. Assuming one has good water clarity, couldn't they just lower the lights 6" in a 30" tank?

Paul, I see another reason other than heat issues. With MH being a point source of light, the lower they are to the water the more shading you'll have up high off to the sides. Granted, you'd get a bit better PAR down low, but you'll sacrifice the 'better' PAR up high on the sides. Just picture a pyramid (from one side, just the triangle). The higher up the point source of light, the more the light spread will be up high.

Cooling and splashing are definitley an issue too. Cleaning the splash guard will definitely need to be addressed a lot more frequently.

JM $.02
Russ

 

[kimoyo]

Okay, check this out.

There's heat coming off the fixture is from the bulb and reflectors. This heat you can take care of with a fan if you want.

But non-blue light heats up water and this is the real reason why bodies of water look blue. So you could have the most organic-free water and your non-blue bulbs will be directly adding heat to the water. Similar to when the sun shines on your arm and it gets warm.

As far as the MH bulb being a "point" source with a spread I think this is just something people have to consider when buying lights. As you go out from the center you will get less par. If you notice, many Japanese tanks use spot lighting which collimates the light and focuses it on specific areas. If you plan on keeping corals with similar lighting requirement on the same plane over the entire tank then maybe t5's aren't so bad because they also don't have that MH spread.

 

[masterswimmer]

Most people have their lights 9 - 12" above the water. Assuming one has good water clarity, couldn't they just lower the lights 6" in a 30" tank?

Sounds like we are in agreement Paul. I was responding to your comment above.

Russ

 

[kimoyo]

Sounds like we are in agreement Paul. I was responding to your comment above.

Russ

Yeah but either way something is going to suffer. Either the lower edges and bottom will get less par (lights raised) or the upper edges will get less par (lights lowered). So why not lower the light, save electricity and have corals closer to the bottom.

 

[masterswimmer]

Yeah but either way something is going to suffer. Either the lower edges and bottom will get less par (lights raised) or the upper edges will get less par (lights lowered). So why not lower the light, save electricity and have corals closer to the bottom.

You've seen my tank. I prefer diversity. Having the lights raised, to me allows a more natural look, with the higher light demanding corals up high. Just a personal preference. Of which there are soooo many in this hobby. Allows for more than one way to do things right.

:hug:
master