Not liking 10,000K MH bulbs

[Anonymous]

Good points, but within a certain range, it's preference. I've seen tanks that are just BLUE, and tanks that look white. Corals grow well in both. I run 10K 250w DE's supplimented with a few small actnics. It doesn't look that blue at all to the eye, but SPS's, clams, etc grow well and show good color. On the other hand many tanks just look blue, and things do well too. Sunlight just doesn't look like that though, even under 12' of water.
There is certainly a range where choices can be made.


Jim

 

[dkedrowitsch]

reefnutz: What you say makes perfect sense. I do plan on growing this system in to a reef and that's the main reason I went with 10,000K MH w/Actinic 420 T8s. The extreme blue this system had when first turned on Saturday evening shocked me a little. By last night, the MH seem to have settled into a blue white, not just strong Actinic blue. It now looks much more like I expected it too. Very strong white/blue. It really reminds me of what it might look like to look through a submarine window into the deep blue coral reefs. Truly amazing. I am very happy with the way it turn out. I guess the bulbs just needed a little time. However, if one were to go with 12000K or 20000K I cant see 175W being enough light at this spectrum. I would probably want at least 250w and probably would go strait to 400W if I were to run any bluer of a bulb. Luckly I have my T8 actinics for that.

Speaking of T8, I have a pair of brand new 32W 48" T8 Coral Sun 420s. I've read that running these on an Icecap ballast would render greater lumens then VHO with these bulbs without significantly hurting their useful life span. Anyone tried this? I'm running them on a Sylvania T8 electronic ballast now and they look pretty bright. I'm waiting for a new ballast with a 114% ballast factor to come off back order from businesslights.com. I got it for $17 but they won't have them till sometime this week. I will run this one for a while but would be interested in upgrading to the Icecap if it's really worth it, or maybe even CF Actinics although I hear CF Actinics are not quite as good a spectrum as regular T8 or VHO.

 

[krullulon]

when i was cruising around member sites last night, i found joe burger's cnidarianreef.com site that has a really good MH lighting study with great pictures of different brands of lights over the same reef with a bunch of associated metrics... good gravy, he's thorough! i'm jealous of that kind of commitment (and equipment budget!).

http://www.cnidarianreef.com/lamps.cfm is the specific page, and http://www.cnidarianreef.com is the main site.

joe's site actually kinda convinced me to give the XM 10ks a try to see if I can get a bit more blue from them than my Ushio 10ks give...

 

[DaisyPolyp]

joe's site actually kinda convinced me to give the XM 10ks a try to see if I can get a bit more blue from them than my Ushio 10ks give...

I think the trend in our hobby is definately going in the blue direction for lighting. I couldn't agree more with reefzutz statement regarding photosynthetic activity. The mistake I see made in most of these "informal studies" is that they measure PAR which is not an accurate metric for use with monochromatic photosynthetic creatures (read coral). The closer you get to the 440-480nm range the better off you are (actinics are ~420nm). I'll attach my standard chart: :wink:

 

[Unarce]

Nice chart! I haven't seen one that complete before.

 

[dkedrowitsch]

I figured out why everything looks so blue. It looks like the bulbs I got are infact Blueline 10000K bulbs. According to a little study that was done comparing tons of MH bulbs, the Blueline 10000Ks were about as blue as some 20000K bulbs and have the lowest PAR of all of them. This was a comparison of 250W bulbs, but I find the same things about the Blueline 10000K 175W bulbs.

If you look at the bulb picture, it's identical to mine in every way, even the text. Except mine says MH175W not MH250W.

See this (hint: go down to BL10K):

http://www.cnidarianreef.com/lamps.cfm

So this might explain everything. These pictures look exctly how my tank currently looks, with and without the actinics it's an exact match. Searching this site and Reef Central for opinions of Blueline 10000Ks shows that everyone has the same complaints I had.

Regardless, I got them for free....so no problem! The register girl at That Fish Place tried to "test" the bulbs before letting me leave with them and put them on the wrong ballast. I got halfway home when I decided to pull them out of the box to take a look and the inner bulb jackets had black scortch marks inside and blobs of melted metal from the electrodes inside. I turned around and asked for them to be replaced without them "testing" them and they gladly exchanged them. After I got home and filed the receipts, I noticed they credited my account for the cost of the bulbs but never recharged me. A quick check of my online account balance shows the credit but no recharge. Oops! I called and they said not to worry.

Anyway they still seem to be a little whiter then when first used on Saturday. I'll stick with them and see what happens.

Dieter

 

[dkedrowitsch]

Hmm, I sent That Fish Place an email to see if they could tell me who makes their 10000K bulbs. This was the reply:

"I am afraid I cannot tell you the manufacturer of the bulb. It's proprietary information. I can tell you that they are not Blueline or Sunaquatics. I do agree with you that they are bluer than Coralife or Iwasaki 10,000K bulbs. I do not know where they are made but they are made according to the German standard."

So, their not Bluelines or Coralife. Any other ideas? Wish I could find out who makes these so I can stop wondering! I'm starting to wonder if someone like GE or Venture makes them...

 

[ChrisRD]

Nice chart! I haven't seen one that complete before.

Apparently the corals haven't seen that chart either as they seem to respond really well to 10000K German and 6500K Iwasaki halide lamps in countless reef tanks the world over. Curiously, those lamps don't concentrate their energy in the magical 450nm range, but they do produce a lot of that "useless" PAR...

Sorry for the razzing - all in good fun.

I like the look of 20K lamps and use them myself, but, admittedly, I got better growth under 10Ks (and better coloration in certain SPS corals). I may switch back to 10Ks (or compromise with 14Ks) with my next lamp change...

IMO there's a lot more to the story than certain wavelengths of light. Photosynthetic corals are, after all, highly adaptable critters. Even the experts don't have it all figured out yet - just ask Eric Borneman et al...

JMO...

<edit to correct miswording >

 

[Unarce]

Nice chart! I haven't seen one that complete before.

Apparently the corals haven't seen that chart either as they seem to respond really well to 10000K German and 6500K Iwasaki halide lamps in countless reef tanks the world over. Curiously, those lamps don't produce much of their energy in the magical 450-500nm range, but they do produce a lot of that "useless" PAR...

Sorry for the razzing - all in good fun.

I like the look of 20K lamps and use them myself, but, admittedly, I got better growth under 10Ks (and better coloration in certain SPS corals). I may switch back to 10Ks (or compromise with 14Ks) with my next lamp change...

IMO there's a lot more to the story than certain wavelengths of light. Photosynthetic corals are, after all, highly adaptable critters. Even the experts don't have it all figured out yet - just ask Eric Borneman et al...

JMO...

At first I though you were trying to get a rise out of me. :lol: I just like going against the grain (skimmerless reefer like Borneman) sometimes.

I wasn't trying to abolish traditional methods. It just makes more sense to go 20K. 10000K and 6500K have been around for awhile, so of course they'd have success the world over. The market for 20K is really just getting started. I've used all 3 myself. I know I've never said PAR was "useless", just that the staple kelvin ratings consisted too much orange, green, and yellow. Wavelengths that aren't conducive for photosynthesis. Apply 20K at high PAR level (like HQI) and you're money.

I agree that there's much more to it than light when it comes to growth (like food and current) but what I've witnessed is similar or better growth under 20K. When it comes to color, 20K wins tenfold. 20K spectrum provides peak levels of photosynthetic activity, allowing a broader and more colorful range of different zooxanthellae strains in coral. Remember, mass coral bleachings are often caused by intense light. They will certainly adapt to 10000K and 6500K, but 20K is much closer to what they're used to in the wild.

 

[DaisyPolyp]

The debate is useful to the hobby and I would always encourage a healthy skeptisism as it forces theories to be repetedly tested and validated... we are after all "experimenting" with living breathing animals.

 

[ChrisRD]

At first I though you were trying to get a rise out of me. :lol:

Nah - just having a bit of fun with you guys...

Apply 20K at high PAR level (like HQI) and you're money.

This is what I'm currently doing and I really like the look. Apparently the AquaConnect 14K and Iwasaki 50K lamps have the bulk of their output in the 450nm range too (much like the Radium and XM 20Ks)...

They will certainly adapt to 10000K and 6500K, but 20K is much closer to what they're used to in the wild.

I follow what you're saying in this thread, but why do some corals grow faster and color-up differently (sometimes better) under the higher PAR, broader spectrum lamps? I'm talking about people switching lamps on the same tank mind you, so there shouldn't be too many other variables coming into play...

 

[DaisyPolyp]

I follow what you're saying in this thread, but why do some corals grow faster and color-up differently (sometimes better) under the higher PAR, broader spectrum lamps? I'm talking about people switching lamps on the same tank mind you, so there shouldn't be too many other variables coming into play...

Excellent question ...I have a theory about that. My take on the situation is most people have tanks that are too clean. By that I mean that they rely on corals to get most of their sustinance from photosynhesis, but we know this isn't true. With a bulb in the higher PAR ranges and warmer kelvin temps, you encourage rapid reproduction of phytoplankton in the water column. This phytoplankton is what causes the improvement in growth and color, not the bulb's effect on the coral's photosynthetic rate. I wasn't think along these lines until Reefnutz mentioned he runs a "skimmerless" system. He has experienced excellent results with the 20,000K as I have, and I also run an "offline" system. So again, very prelimanry thoughts here, but if the phytoplankton levels can be sustained in a tank with the 20K bulbs which are better for coral photosynthesis then you have the best of both worlds.

 

[Unarce]

With a bulb in the higher PAR ranges and warmer kelvin temps, you encourage rapid reproduction of phytoplankton in the water column.

Excellent point.

This would explain the ability of even soft corals and clams to adapt to low kelvin lighting. They would feed profusely on phytoplankton. You will need a strong pod population for SPS to benefit, as they will mostly feed on their larvae.

color-up differently (sometimes better) under the higher PAR, broader spectrum lamps?

I've never come across that scenario, but that would really depend on personal perception.

 

[ChrisRD]

I've never come across that scenario, but that would really depend on personal perception.

I'm not talking personal perception, I'm talking corals going from purple, blue and green to brown and tan. When I switched from 10Ks to 20Ks in the same wattage this happened to me (not initially, but over months it was a steady decline). Growth rates dropped off too. Nothing else about the system changed, including maintainence and feeding schedules.

Sanjay has tested the types of lamps I was using and looking at his work, the 20Ks put out TWICE as much intensity in the 450nm range as the 10Ks I was using, but they have less than half of the PAR. Regardless, the corals seemed to suffer and some looked light starved (over extended polyps). Going back to a higher intensity lamp brought back the colors and growth. That doesn't seem to jive with the chart and logic above...<shrug>

Check out some of the discussions amongst SPS keepers on other boards. It's not uncommon at all. In fact, there's a thread going-on right now in the SPS forum on RC where a few people are switching back to 10Ks after losing coloration under AC 14Ks (very large output spike in the 450nm range - more than most 20Ks in fact).

Again, I like the bluish-white look of HQI 20Ks, but I'm not sure I'd try telling anyone that it's clearly the "best" reef lighting... ...I think "best" depends on what you're after, and possibly other environmental factors in the system...

 

[ChrisRD]

...I have a theory about that...

The idea has occurred to me in the past that coral coloration and growth rates may be some sort of balancing act between nutrient levels and lighting intensities/spectrum.

The reason I say that is because I've seen a few frags from the same mother colony in my tank color-up and grow faster in other tanks that had both more and less intense lighting than I have. Some clearly had higher nutrient levels (algae problems) and some lower too. Obviously there are lots of other variables... ...sorta tough to draw any conclusions...

I never thought of the phytoplankton thing. Can't say I know enough about it to buy into it, but it's an interesting theory none-the-less.

 

[DaisyPolyp]

I never thought of the phytoplankton thing. Can't say I know enough about it to buy into it, but it's an interesting theory none-the-less.

...I just keep thinking that it has to be something other than the corals themselves because so many studies have shown that the pigments in their tissue reflect light in the higher wavelengths.

 

[Unarce]

I never thought of the phytoplankton thing. Can't say I know enough about it to buy into it, but it's an interesting theory none-the-less.

...I just keep thinking that it has to be something other than the corals themselves because so many studies have shown that the pigments in their tissue reflect light in the higher wavelengths.

The phytoplankton theory may hold true. Phytoplankton, which is the base of the oceans food chain, thrive on the long wavelengths of light found at or near the sea surface which they inhabit.

 

[mark78]

Companies that propogate corals for thier livley hood often use 6500K bulbs. Corals grow faster under a 6500K bulb then a higher K.

The reason could be due to the higher PAR you would get out of the 6500K compared to a 10000 or higher K bulb of the same wattage.

All goes back to my point of its mostly personal preference.

If you think about it logically using the sun...they say that 5500K is the sun over a reef at noon. Water absorbs red/yellow/green spectrums first, making the water look blue and changes the appearance of color the deeper you go. SPS corals are found near the surface, where there is the most 'other' colors in the light, compared to LPS corals which are often found at 30 feet and below, and are more accustomed to a bluer, dimmer light.

I really think a lot of the debate between lights is the fact that the higher K bulbs put out less PAR to the corals when you try and compare two bulbs of the same wattage. Maybe it would be more fair to compare a 175w 5500K bulb to a 250w 20000K bulb...

 

[Unarce]

Companies that propogate corals for thier livley hood often use 6500K bulbs. Corals grow faster under a 6500K bulb then a higher K.

On the contrary, most companies nowadays use higher Kelvin for better coloring and overall health.

The reason could be due to the higher PAR you would get out of the 6500K compared to a 10000 or higher K bulb of the same wattage.

Long standing debate, but there's no scientific proof that the higher PAR of 6500K or 10000K leads to better growth or photosynthetic activity.

If you think about it logically using the sun...they say that 5500K is the sun over a reef at noon. Water absorbs red/yellow/green spectrums first, making the water look blue and changes the appearance of color the deeper you go.

If you admit that, than you've made my point. The longer wavelengths you described (except red) offer little or no photosynthetic benefit to corals.

http://www.science.uts.edu.au/des/Staff ... hesis.html

SPS corals are found near the surface, where there is the most 'other' colors in the light, compared to LPS corals which are often found at 30 feet and below, and are more accustomed to a bluer, dimmer light.

Corals are hardly ever collected near the surface. SPS are usually collected or farm-raised, 25 to 50 feet below the surface. Areas that resemble the 14K to 20K spectrum. LPS will be found in similar or deeper depths but in calmer/lagoonal environments. When you consider that 60% of the long wavelengths are gone after just 3 feet, most corals are accustomed to the bluer spectrum.

I really think a lot of the debate between lights is the fact that the higher K bulbs put out less PAR to the corals when you try and compare two bulbs of the same wattage. Maybe it would be more fair to compare a 175w 5500K bulb to a 250w 20000K bulb...

There's still a great fixation on PAR. I do feel that a minimum should be met, but there's no scientific reason to support that the high PAR levels of 6500K or even 10000K are the directly result in increased growth.

Here's a sample of Walt Smith's practices.

 

[DaisyPolyp]

damn, that dude is buff!