MH FOR CHEAP 250,400 [Archive] - Canreef Aquatics Bulletin Board

StirCrazy

10-02-2002, 07:51 PM

Well I was going to stay out of this and Stephane probably wishes I did but I don't agree with some of the statements made here. first all I want to agree that yes this is a Iwasaki made bulb and Hortilux is one of there biger plant growing brands (specificly made for the hydroponic industry) but there are also 3 different main brands of hortilux bulbs and depending which one it could range from a yellow to a white color the 2100K's will be real yellow (I think thatis the spectrum that AJ posted, and the 4100K will actualy be fairly white. having said that I have never heard of 10K or 20K hortilux and I would be skeptical of them.. maby e-mail iwasaki themselves and inquire about that.

People seam to be hung up on actinic light for our corals.. well they don't need Actinic light.. yes it works but so does any other light in the 360nm to 780nm range.. it just happens that the lower numbers penatrate better than the higher thats why everyone thinks you need actinic to make the corals grow. Well in the 18" to 3' of water our tanks contain you are not filtering out any significant amount of the light and any light in the previous mention wave lenght range WILL stimulate photosynthis.
there for if you have a high PAR value in the green range like this bulb you should be able to grow stuff like a hot damn :D BUT, and this is a big BUT it will not look as good to the eye as it would if you have some blueish lights on there to make thing "Glow" so with this bulbs it comes right down to you.. if you want the corals to grow and don't care much about how apeasing the tank is to your eye then get them (mind you some people actualy like the way iwasaki's look on there tank. it will be more realistic loking than a bunch of actinics on it) the other option is if you want your tank to glow and have a blueish look to it add some VHO actinics with these bulbs.

if there is any more doubts as the ability of your coral to grow under thease lights.. even Erik Borneman says

" You can grow corals well using only actinic light - if there is enough of it - same as any light source since corals can use all the wavelengths and will photoadapt to maximize use of whatever wavelengths are present."

here is the thread whare he says that
http://www.reefcentral.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=116423

I have seen the 4100K bulbs in the local hydroponic shops and they look quite white there .. I imagin a couple VHO actinics or true 03 PC actinics would make it quite nice.

what about this one? could it be this?
http://www.eyelighting.com/img/metalacespectral.gif

or this one

http://www.eyelighting.com/img/superhpsspectral.gif

unless we know which line of Hortilux he is talking about we can't be sure if they are bad or 1/2 deicent so lets not jump the gun and say they are crap befor we know the info :D :D

Steve

[ 02 October 2002, 16:59: Message edited by: StirCrazy ]

AJ_77

10-02-2002, 08:19 PM

[ 02 October 2002, 17:57: Message edited by: AJ_77 ]

mutabaruka

10-02-2002, 08:46 PM

This all began when one of my customers showed me some MH equipment he gets for his Hydroponics biz. I thought I would investigate the differences or similarities between what he was buying and what we in this hobby use, since there was HUGE difference in the price. He showed me reflectors, sockets, ballasts, water pumps etc at prices 1/3 to 1/2 what is being charged at LFS stores.

I figured there must be some differences otherwise hobbyists would be already buying them there. I spoke with the manufacturer's rep to get more info on the bulbs. They are available in 250W and 400W models; 23,000K initial and 14,400 mean over their lifespan. Their spectrums tend to the yellow and white end. I am not an expert, I know very little about these things and am not offering anything as such. I merely thought that if people were interested they were really cheap at hydroponic supply stores. To me it was obvious that since they were intended for hydroponic use, they would be intended for photosynthetic lifeforms.

In reading the many BB's and sites I have perused in the year and a half I prepared to get into this hobby, there is a wide variety of opinion on what spectrum/intensity/modality light is best,required or recommended.

If you are interested in checking these lights out, check out a local hydroponics store. Please stop emailing me and telling me to get my info straight. I should have known better than to start this after what Stephane went through.

StirCrazy

10-02-2002, 08:58 PM

Originally posted by mutabaruka:

Please stop emailing me and telling me to get my info straight. Hmm there is no reason anyone should be
e-mailing you with that as they can ask the stuff here.. thats just down right rude. It is pretty cool that we can find a lot of stuff at hydroponic stores but they are also starting to catch on.. the average price of a Magdrive 12 jumped 80.00 on the island here last month..

Steve

[ 02 October 2002, 22:31: Message edited by: StirCrazy ]

Skimmerking

10-02-2002, 10:25 PM

well actually Brian .Sorry that this went this way. I was just trying to help you out ,Due to that, i know its hard to get things for a good price. you trusted me when you bought my skimmer and i thank you.. I'm just tired of people trying to rip us reefers off with this crappy prices ,Any way i was just trying to help out a friend ,if you have to email somone to tell them to get things straight. please email me i like a good scrap. LOL tongue.gif
And I promise I'm not so nice to talk to..
so feel free to call me ..1-204-728-0342 :mad:

[ 02 October 2002, 18:28: Message edited by: asmodeus ]

Bob I

10-03-2002, 12:48 PM

Maybe we should move some of this thread to another forum because it is getting away from the original post. I would like to add that I have had the feeling for some time that we reefers are playing into the hands of manufacturers and resellers of bulbs. On the basis of daylight in the tropics being 6500K, I have long felt that people are heading in the wrong direction when they discard bulbs after a few months because they feel that the color has shifted. I have a horrible feeling people are throwing out perfectly good bulbs. I myself am still using TWO year old 9325K PC bulbs. The light is still bright, and the color is fine. I have found the same with a 5500K MH bulb which is more than a year old. I am looking forward to some more well documented discussion on this, but for now I will continue to use old wrong color bulbs. :D

stephane

10-03-2002, 08:39 PM

Originally posted by mutabaruka:
I spoke with the manufacturer's rep to get more info on the bulbs. They are available in 250W and 400W models; 23,000K initial and 14,400 mean over their lifespan. Their spectrums tend to the yellow and white end. if the bulb is realy a 23000k it will be very far from yellow white but completly in the blue spectrum

Ask your rep that he give you the number of the bulb I will ask direct Iwasaki japan I have a contact there. lost rep. dont even know wath they talking about

[ 03 October 2002, 16:54: Message edited by: stephane ]

StirCrazy

10-03-2002, 09:56 PM

Steph, I think the 23,000K is a mistake.. it looks like the lumeen ratins.. 23,000 lumins inital 14,00 mean..

Steve

pocilipora

10-03-2002, 10:39 PM

Bob Ipema, you couldnt be more wrong. And Im sure other experienced reefers, and coral farms would disagree. You need to change lights to keep colors viberant. That is if every other water perameter is in balance in your tank.
But if your using Coralife Id change to a different brand.

Delphinus

10-04-2002, 12:22 AM

I don't know if I should admit this, but, I'm using a more-than-two-year-old 10000K Hamilton over my 20g which houses my green saddle carpet. If growth and colour of the anemone is any indication then as far the anemone is concerned it couldn't care less that it has an old bulb. I think, the higher the Kelvin rating, the faster the bulbs wear out and thus the emphasis on a regular replacement schedule .... but, some bulbs definitely continue to be useful after the prescribed interval .... Of course, I wouldn't go and recommend that anyone be as lazy as me when it comes to replacing bulbs, the basic rule should be whether you feel the bulb is working for you or not. If you have a lot of algae nuisance growth, or, you feel the light just isn't as bright as it once was ... by all means the bulb could be at fault.

pocilipora

10-04-2002, 12:50 AM

So how do you know things could not be better if your not changing bulbs? Just because you dont have nusance algae is not a good indicator. That anemone could have out grown that tiny 20gal.

Canadian Man

10-04-2002, 02:13 AM

So how do you know things could not be better if your not changing bulbs? Just because you dont have nusance algae is not a good indicator. That anemone could have out grown that tiny 20gal. pocilipora ,
I don't think that anenome could look any better then it is. The color is outstanding and the anenome takes up the whole 20g so it's growth seems to be great.

I have to agree with Tony and Bob, Both these guys have beautiful tanks with beautiful creatures that I and many others have seen in person. If they had tanks full of brown sps, well then yes maybe they sould change their bulbs if they want bright colors out of those corals but the softies, lps and anenomes that are housed under these "old" bulbs are gorgeous.

I typed these things with a smile on my face and no mad thoughts in my mind. Just agreeing with their messages. smile.gif

AJ_77

10-04-2002, 02:13 AM

pocilipora:
Perhaps if Tony tried one of the bulbs flogged in this thread, he would have better luck with his anemones. :rolleyes: Is this what you're suggesting, or are you so far off topic that your seemingly foul mood is affecting your responses? tongue.gif

Few people I've even heard of have had half the success he has keeping anemones. His are amazing, you should really see them. As well, Bob's tank lit with PC's looks quite good, you'd be surprised I think. These are the GE bulbs, after all. ;)

So better than using sodium grow-lamps, these guys are doing a pretty good job by their charges. Until they see a compelling reason to change their bulbs, take it easy.

AJ

[ 03 October 2002, 22:16: Message edited by: AJ_77 ]

Canadian

10-04-2002, 02:42 AM

Alberta v.s. BC - Round 1. Ding!

:D

EmilyB

10-04-2002, 02:45 AM

Wow....AJ....
:eek:

So much for Dana Riddle and Steve Tyree.. tongue.gif

I have bulbs for sale, btw...

One_Divided

10-04-2002, 03:02 AM

Before I changed my 175 10k hamiltons/ushio, I definately started to see effects of the spectrum shift. These bulbs were 12-14 months old. I had an acro that was growing very steadily for months that had started to lighten up on the upper branches, slowly bleaching. I had also noticed significant colour loss in some of my other sps.. Colours have regained now, but I almost didn't notice before since it was so gradual..

Here's the visual difference in spectrum shift.. Old on the left and new on the right.. I asked Allen at J&L and he said there was no change in the manufacturing of the bulb.. (though he could be wrong). Does seem quite significant to me..

The way it looks to me, is that spectrum shift will effect sps corals first. I saw no change in my LPS after the bulb change..

http://members.shaw.ca/limestone2/ushiovs.jpg

Bob I

10-04-2002, 01:32 PM

Exactly my point Pocillapora. I posted this in the hope of receiving DOCUMENTED evidence that old, or different spectrum bulbs gave problems. I wanted to hear someone say that their corals died because the bulbs were old, or not blue, NOT that the colors were less vibrant as that is cosmetic , and totally immaterial. My purpose is verification of what I am doing or for someone to PROVE that I am wrong. I am in no way interested in opinion.As someone said in a movie "The facts ma'am, only the facts". :D :rolleyes:
The above comment about the SPS versus LPS is very interesting. I only have one SPS coral, and have only had it for a few weeks. That proves of course that I know nothing about SPS corals, and I am happy to admit that. :D

[ 04 October 2002, 09:50: Message edited by: Bob Ipema ]

pocilipora

10-04-2002, 03:57 PM

Who exactly are you looking for evidence from? Have you tried looking yourself? The answer is out there! You must have a beautiful tank concidering you dont care about the light source. May as well throw some incadecents on there. Couple 100 waters should do it. :D

One_Divided

10-04-2002, 03:57 PM

I gave you evidence..The Zooxanthelea on the coral I mentioned did not recover and the coral slowly whithered away.. I should have replaced the bulbs sooner, but I couldn't bring myself to dish out the cash right away..

I remember a good quote from Darren. "Always strive for the optimal environment, not the minimal." err something like that.

If you are cheaping out on your bulb change, you are going minimal. Before I changed my bulbs, yes 99% of my corals were perfexctly happy, but they look so much better now..

[ 04 October 2002, 12:01: Message edited by: One_Divided ]

StirCrazy

10-04-2002, 05:00 PM

Originally posted by EmilyB:
I have bulbs for sale, btw...no you dont ;)

Steve

EmilyB

10-04-2002, 06:08 PM

Troy F

10-04-2002, 07:40 PM

I've often used DaleD's absolutely stunning 90gal lps/softie tank as an example of what is possible with lower than the commonly excepted lighting qualifications. Dale lit the 90 with a single 175W 10000K Aqualine Bushe(Bushke?) and (I think) one 40W actinic. This tank was stunning (I've never seen a better looking tank). He had the bulb for at least 18 months or 3x's older than is generally excepted. Point? Don't have one tongue.gif , back to the fence I go.

Aquattro

10-04-2002, 08:28 PM

Originally posted by Troy F:
Point? Don't have one tongue.gif , back to the fence I go.You just get back on that fence right now tongue.gif

Troy F

10-04-2002, 09:02 PM

Good thing it ain't barb-wire!

Acro

10-04-2002, 09:04 PM

Perhaps the people advocating old bulbs and lower kelvin bulbs could post pics of their tanks. Then people advocating newer bulbs and higher kelvin bulbs post their tanks. This way we'll let the pics do the talking. I myself like the newer high k bulbs and as long as I want the best for my corals, I will always replace bulbs at or before a years time. The reason I like the higher k bulbs and keeping my bulbs new are for one reason only... Visually its clear, my corals are healthier. If your keeping less light demanding animals then sure your able to get away with less longer and perhaps do just fine. Those raising high light animals will I'm sure agree with what pocilipora is saying. Again a pictures worth a thousand words. Put those pics were your mouth is everyone.

pocilipora

10-04-2002, 09:51 PM

[ 04 October 2002, 21:39: Message edited by: pocilipora ]

Doug

10-04-2002, 10:10 PM

Whooaa, nice looking pics. :D

You guys have a very interesting lighting thread going on here. To bad its in the for sale forum. Hard to move though, with the first half being there.

My 2 cents worth. I think as others, running bulbs for extended periods on soft coral tanks is fine. As for acros, we shall see soon. My pink birdsnest had no love for old bulbs.

I ran my 250 watt Iwasaki on my soft coral tank for over two years. As for comments on low colour bulbs, I have tried the 175 watt 43K halide, purchased at the local lighting store.

Ugly yellow, excellent for refugiums, butt ugly on reef tanks, even with actinic, but corals grow fine under them. Many corals have drab colour though. And BEWARE, the algae. smile.gif

Aquattro

10-04-2002, 10:36 PM

We could probably handle the pics being a bit smaller :D

Delphinus

10-05-2002, 01:13 AM

I would never dream of trying to keep SPS or clams under old bulbs. And if you read my post carefully, I said that particularly with higher Kelvin bulbs, an increased replacement schedule is called for. When I was playing with 14000Ks/12000Ks I found they were useless after 6 months.

I don't know why my carpet doesn't seem to care about an older bulb. But, it doesn't. I base my assessment on a number of factors, not the least of which are colour and growth. I'm sorry I don't mean to sound arrogant, but, in the many years I have been at this, I have learned how to tell how an anemone is doing. (There are many things about a great many things I have still to learn about the hobby as a whole, but anemones, I know what I am seeing when I see it.) As we all should know by now, there are factors in addition to light that are equally as important as lighting (if not pontentially -more so- in some cases) such as water movement, feeding schedule, what to feed, and appropriate substrata for the species and age of anemone.

Unfortunately, I cannot post pictures of my "baby" at this time because 1) I am about 2000 miles away from my tanks and not due back until at least Tuesday :( and 2) I don't have a digital camera anyways so I would have to impose on someone to come over and take pictures for me. :(

...

Very nice pictures, Chris. A little too large, though. For future, can you please try to reduce them to 640x480 if at all possible? They'll fit much nicer into the text based threads then.

...

I should also mention, I would never dream of trying to keep my ritteri under bulbs that were too old, it is far too light-demanding. It all depends on your goals, and your results. Remember, I said, is your bulb working for you? That's the only valid criteria. If it stops working for you after three months, or six months, or six years, is going to depend on a number of different variables, and I generally don't question anyone's own assessment over their setups. If you feel you need to replace your bulbs twice a year, well then, you probably need to replace your bulbs twice a year. I don't question that, and furthermore I don't dare criticize anyone's setup and certainly would never do so if I've never SEEN the whole setup. That would just be rude. If your tank makes you happy then I am sure it is a nice setup. Don't ever tell me that my setup is no good when you haven't seen it. Whether it is, or isn't ... isn't for someone else to decide, unless I ask for their assessment beforehand.

...

Now, how about everyone stop taking their grumpy pills from now on, and chill out. I can't beleive how hostile this board is getting. It's not fun. Smarten up, people. It's a HOBBY, people, it's supposed to be FUN.

[ 04 October 2002, 21:32: Message edited by: delphinus ]

Aquattro

10-05-2002, 01:39 AM

Originally posted by delphinus:
Now, how about everyone stop taking their grumpy pills from now on, and chill out. I can't beleive how hostile this board is getting. It's not fun. Smarten up, people. It's a HOBBY, people, it's supposed to be FUN.Best advice I've seen here in a while.

AJ_77

10-05-2002, 02:39 AM

I can't beleive how hostile this board is getting. I disagree, but it does get testy. As in, teste, as in "testerone." I for one am sorry to have been a walking dick here in this thread.

On Topic: though sodium lamps are great for growing weed (or so I've heard through my prison visitation program), I don't think they would turn anyone's crank here.

Also, I have no SPS and cannot have any. You guys seem to be concentrating on those, so I'm out of my league.

Cheers.

pocilipora

10-05-2002, 04:44 AM

Blue and white light has been shown to promote greater skeletal growth in both LPS corals and SPS corals. With the addition of a healthier population of zooxanthellae within the coral tissue. "one should not overlook the importance of asthetics. A tank should be both functional and beautiful!"Delbeek and Sprung

Troy F

10-05-2002, 06:57 PM

Ironic post Bob.

AJ_77

10-05-2002, 07:09 PM

Originally posted by Troy F:
Ironic post Bob.I'm sorry, but L-O-freaking-L ! (I have to go pee now.) Humour is where you find it, I guess.

;)

[ 05 October 2002, 15:10: Message edited by: AJ_77 ]

pocilipora

10-05-2002, 07:46 PM

Bob, Bob,Bobin in the water. Why do I bother!!LOL http://www3.telus.net/public/montipor/Anemone.jpg http://www3.telus.net/public/montipor/LeftTank.jpg http://www3.telus.net/public/montipor/BlueMontiCap.jpg http://www3.telus.net/public/montipor/RightSide.jpg You want a reason to change your lights, I think you just gave it Bob!!!

Bob I

10-05-2002, 08:18 PM

Very nice indeed. Much more than I will ever attempt. I am just a poor pensioner :eek: . Could you post some details somewhere? such as size of tank, lighting, and inhabitants?

Samw

10-05-2002, 08:20 PM

Holy cow. I just stumbled into this thread.

A PC light comparison photo from July follows. The new PC bulb is on the left and the 6 month old PC bulb is on the right. It is noticeably dimmer on the right side.

I think a 6 month PC bulb does have some useful life but I would not use them if they were the main bulbs in the tank. As my PC bulbs are the main and only light source in my tank, I choose to change them every 6 months as I think the animals will be happier and it also looks better for my viewing pleasure. If they were supplemented by more PC bulbs or if they themselves were supplements to main MH bulbs, I wouldn't change them for 2 years.

For people with multiple high powered MH lights over their tanks, they may have success with 2 year old lights because they have so much light in the first place, a decrease in intensity isn't going to affect the health of their animals.

Chris, very nice. Very interesting to see differences in our BTA clones under different lighting conditions.

http://www.hyperdream.com/~samw/reef/2002-07.Album/gevsoldge.jpg

[ 05 October 2002, 16:36: Message edited by: Sam W ]

Bob I

10-05-2002, 10:09 PM

I am going to be eating a bit of crow today. You will find a picture below of my 33 gallon tank. The left side is lit with Sam's six month old GE 9325K PC bulb. The right is my almost two year old same bulb. I will replace the right one as soon as this post is done. I will then observe that BTA to see if it looks better. It looks like I will still continue to buy your six month old bulbs Sam.
http://www.therockies.com./rcipema/newbulb.jpg

Bob I

10-06-2002, 04:16 AM

Well we certainly have many replies. Some of which appear to be well thought out, and very useful. Sadly enough some replies appear to just plain dumb. But that is the problem with written communication. It is impossible to really tell what the writer wants to say. I therefore ignore all replies that seem dumb, and cast aspersions on me and my methods. I am sure the writer of those comments is not anywhere as dumb as it appears. Now for Jamie Cross who wanted pictures. I have just updated my site with lots of pictures. And for Tony, please have a look at this Anemone pictures and tell me if it looks alright.
http://www.therockies.com/rcipema/anemoneone.jpg I have no knowledge of them so anything would help. As to someone coming over to take pictures of your tank. I would be happy to do so although I do not have the best camera in the world. :D :) :lol:

[ 05 October 2002, 14:30: Message edited by: Bob Ipema ]

Acro

10-06-2002, 10:46 PM

Bob,

Yes I have seen some shots of your tank. I feel brown is not at all a hard color to acheive. I geuss everyone is intrested in different things in this hobby and as long as your acheiveing what you wish continue doing what your doing.If I know anything about corals, I feel the deep brown color in your animals are causes by less then adequate lighting. This causes your animals to host as much zooxanthalle as possible to substain life. Yes I'm sure they will life. As healthy as possible? From my experience I'd say no. But at the end of the day this is a selfish hobby and if your happy then that is what matters. Myself am not happy unless I'm pulling the best colors as possible out of my animals. As much as other things play a roll, lighting is one of the major contributers. That is why I feel the way I do about the kelvin and life of my bulbs.

Bob I

10-06-2002, 11:53 PM

Yes I have seen some shots of your tank. I feel brown is not at all a hard color to acheive.
I would like you to go to my site, and click on to my email link. Then tell me which picture in particular looks brown. The top eight are lit with a 15000K MH bulb. The pics on the bottom row are lit with older 9325K PC bulbs. They look pinkish in real life. :?:

Acro

10-07-2002, 12:13 AM

Bob,
I was looking at the anenome in particular. Camera's are some times not the best to judge from. If everythings pink then your doing just fine. Keep up the good work.

Bob I

10-07-2002, 02:38 AM

Yes you are quite right, that anemone is brown under any light. It is brown even in daylight. Maybe that is why its former owner called it "Buttugly" :D

EmilyB

10-07-2002, 02:49 AM

BTA's (the regular variety) are brownish under most light, greener under actinic. I think Butt needs more flow also.

pocilipora

10-07-2002, 03:33 AM

Bob has it ever had buble tips? Mine I cant get rid of them whats your secret?http://www3.telus.net/public/montipor/AnemoneWClown.jpg

Acro

10-07-2002, 03:38 AM

Chris,
Can you take a pic of your BTA please. I'd like to see the difference.

Delphinus

10-07-2002, 04:02 AM

BTA's don't really change colour. If it's one colour then it typically stays that colour (although the exact hue may differ over time due to differing conditions). Brown is pretty typical. They're brown even in the wild. The only ones I ever saw in the wild were brown. (Although they can come in reds, pinks, oranges, greens, maroons even bi-colour varieties). In shallower water I found more with "bubble tips" and in deeper water less so. I think this makes sense, if you look at the ratio of surface area to volume of a sphere compared to that of a cylinder or cone.

Considering that you likely have your anemone under very intense light, Chris, this would be my guess why yours stays bubbled. However lighting is not the be-all-end-all answer to why they bubble up sometimes and sometimes not. Ultimately it's still a bit of a mystery. I've had clones right next to each other where one would bubble up and the other not.

Chris how big is your BTA? Have you had it long -- or has it split recently? What and how often are you feeding it?

pocilipora

10-07-2002, 04:24 AM

The anemone is 5'-6' across, Ive had it about 3months. You would have to confirm this with Sam. And I dont feed it the Sebae Clown does once in a while. When the tips do deflate they turn a glowing red color and that is usualy right after it eats.
Sam maybe you could post a pic of yours? It would be an interesting comarison, as they do seem to be the same anemone.Tony do you also have pics of these anemones your talking about?

Acro

10-07-2002, 04:35 AM

well now I'm out of my area of knowledge. From the picture Bob posted of his anenome it sure seemed deep brown. Sure their are many animals that are brown. The brown is usaully a lot lighter in color and at some level almost transparent. It also seems like the tentacles are very lanky to me. Again I'm no anemone expert. I do feel lighting is one of the major factor in a healthy and thriving reef. That is another reason I will not run old bulbs as if something does go wrong in my system I can always rule out lighting as a problem. From the many bulbs I've change out, if I have pushed them to their limits, I've always seem big and worth while improvments in my animals. Trust me I would love to spend the 500+ dollars a year I spend on lighting else were.

EmilyB

10-07-2002, 05:06 AM

I am again taking crappy pictures at night after lights out, but wanted to share this, since I have two different BTA's. ( I am mostly just posting these for the appearance differences, they also exhibit color differences, although under the same lighting)

One, my original, spawned ButtUgly. Notice the elongated tentacles. They always have been, I really don't recall bubble tips even under the 2 X 250w.

http://members.shaw.ca/bhadford1/BTA1.jpg

This one is a BTA as well, but much different, I didn't use the flash there.

http://members.shaw.ca/bhadford1/BTA2.jpg

All under 175w MH and in the same tank in identical conditions.

pocilipora

10-07-2002, 05:15 AM

Looks more like a LTA, are you sure its aBTA?

EmilyB

10-07-2002, 05:28 AM

I have an LTA, and there is no comparison. I believe Tony will agree it is a BTA. :)

pocilipora

10-07-2002, 06:46 AM

Does it get bubble tips? :)

EmilyB

10-07-2002, 06:50 AM

One, my original, spawned ButtUgly. Notice the elongated tentacles. They always have been, I really don't recall bubble tips even under the 2 X 250w.

Pay attention Pocil... :P

pocilipora

10-07-2002, 06:52 AM

Pay attention your self, no bubble tips. Not a BTA :lol:But I do agree its Buttugly :DSo what makes you think its a BTA enlighten me :roll:

EmilyB

10-07-2002, 06:54 AM

That is hysterical.... :lol:

EmilyB

10-07-2002, 07:06 AM

Stop editing your post.... :roll: so I can keep up.. :lol:

Hmmm, it looks like nine of Mitch's BTA's and four or so of Tony's....

And it doesn't look like my LTA, and it isn't a ritteri....but I am open :P

EmilyB

10-07-2002, 07:35 AM

LMAO....

this thread (http://www.canreef.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1732&highlight=bubbletip)

Acro

10-07-2002, 04:24 PM

Emily,
Please help me understand what makes a BTA a BTA. Again I know little about them so this is intresting. I'm curiuos to how one knows.

Samw

10-07-2002, 04:46 PM

Emily,
Please help me understand what makes a BTA a BTA. Again I know little about them so this is intresting. I'm curiuos to how one knows.

I don't have an answer on IDing Anemones other than to say that it looks like a BTA because it looks like mine. And I know mine's a BTA because the Pet Shop told me so. :) Also, I believe BTA's split to reproduce and not all anemones do that.

Poci, the one you have is the clone on the left. This is what yours use to look like. I think yours is all bubbled up now because you have too much light..and its making itself smaller. :lol: j/k I have no idea what is too much or what is just right.

http://www.hyperdream.com/~samw/reef/BubbleTip/200207/113-1328_img_2_std.jpg

MORE PHOTOS (http://www.hyperdream.com/~samw/reef/BubbleTip/)

.

.

Acro

10-07-2002, 05:11 PM

Ok, now to me the pics Sam just posted the anemones look more on the tan side then the deep brown from Bob's. They are different so I geuss its tough to use these as examples. Clearly Sam and Chris's are the same animal. Though very different in their different homes. One of these days perhaps we'll have to get the deep brown one out this way and see what happens. Although this thread has shifted all directions. It's very intresting. I joined it as I felt some of the talk on lighting was misleadind and IMO wrong. What do I know though? Perhaps nothing. Forsure very little on were this thread has now gone. Hopefully I'll know a little more by the end of the thread.

reefburnaby

10-07-2002, 06:28 PM

Hi,

http://biodiversity.uno.edu/ebooks/ch1.html#entac

Also, shape of the anemone may change once the anemone has adapted to captive tanks (like the bubble tip may disappear).

- Victor.

Bob I

10-07-2002, 08:18 PM

This is really great. The thread has wandered all over the place. I have about six hours a day where I have time to think deeoly. From the posts, and further reading I have drawn some conclusions. I will not share them on this thread as it will probably become 100 pages long. I have also come up with more questions, but those are more technical in nature, and I am not sure at this time who could answer them. It would have to be someone with theoretical lighting knowledge :?: :?:

Delphinus

10-07-2002, 08:19 PM

Hi, very quickly since I have to go catch a plane. BTA's can be without "bubble tips." Victor's link is to Daphne Fautin's and Gerald Allen's book (the online version of their book). This is a very worthwhile read if you have any interest in this topic beyond which we can talk about here. They are the world's foremost authorities on the topic of Pacific species of hosting anemones.

Anyways what makes a BTA a BTA and not a ritteri or a carpet. Things to look out for are the density of tentacles, ratio of size of oral disk to height of oral disk, taper of tentacles, presence of verrurcae on the pedal column, it's habit and choice of substrate. Colour hues can sometimes give a clue too, but that's VERY subjective (basically a "brown" BTA will be a different shade of brown than say a "brown" LTA). It's difficult to enumerate, but each species has its own subtleties that once you know what you're looking at, you can see it, but it is difficult to explain in a hurry (kind of like trying to explain how to "See" those 3-d images in those stereograms). The presence of bubble-tips is typically a clincher, but, the absence of them does not indicate it is not a BTA. Basically there are traits for each species that are sometimes there but not always. For example, LTA's can hold their tentacles in a spiral shape (which explains another common name for LTA which is "corkscrew" anemone). Looking at several example of each, it gets easier to understand what you're seeing. One particular problem I have, for example, is sebaes H. crispa vs. H. malu. I have seen so many photographs that I would swear are the same anemone but some labelled the one and others the other. It suggests to me that even the "experts" have to rely upon a subjective gut feeling at times, but ultimately it must still be guesswork at some level.

Jamie, I never meant to dispute what you said about lighting. When anyone looks at your setup, there can be no doubt in anyone's mind as to whether you know what you're talking about or not. For the record: I would never suggest to anyone that it's OK to use a two-year old bulb. If the animals are photosynthetic, then it's a game of Russian Roulette. Your (and Chris's) advice are sage: always keep your lights new. Unless you have a "Very Good Reason" not to (but as you say, it's an investment to eliminate "possible" damage from old lights.)

Anyways I really, really have to run, would like to talk some more on this topic but it will have to be tomorrow. Thanks guys, talk to you soon.

Bob I

10-07-2002, 08:52 PM

Here's a recent picture of old "butt". It was taken a few minutes ago with no light on in the tank. It is daylight supplemented with flash.
http://www.therockies.com/rcipema/buttugly.jpg

pocilipora

10-07-2002, 10:28 PM

Emily you just pointed to a post where the anemone didnt have bubble tips and then it did so whats your point? I now have that anemone. You have given no reason to make me or anyone think that yours is a BTA.Its all speculation and a guess. Why dont you ship a clone over here when you get one and see what happens. I seem to have prety good luck at making the one I got from Sam expand quite a bit. Ill pay shipping.

Bob I

10-07-2002, 10:34 PM

Play nice now Pocillapora. You have to put smilies in when you are mean like that. :) :) :) :)

pocilipora

10-07-2002, 10:37 PM

:D :D :D :D :roll: :D

reefburnaby

10-07-2002, 10:39 PM

Hi,

Theoretical lighting knowledge ? No problem Ask away.
- Victor.

Bob I

10-07-2002, 10:43 PM

I am only an ordinary electrician so I do not have all that theory. I will try to put up the post when I get it all straight in my mind. :)

Samw

10-07-2002, 11:05 PM

Poci, you can check out CanadaWest's BTA. It looks just like everyone else's. He recently upgraded to MH so maybe he'll be be kind enough to show us what it looks like now.

canadawest

10-08-2002, 12:43 AM

My BTAs look nearly identical to Sam's, and photos are available on my website (link below in signature line). I will try to get some updated photos posted in a couple days, but both of mine are HUGE now compared to the older photos on the website. The website photos are pre-MH.

In regards to the MH upgrade, it hasn't really affected the BTAs as the MH is mounted in the center of the tank, and the BTAs are off to the left side under a combo of 2 NO 6500K lamps and 2 VHO atinics on my Icecap 660, which was the lighting the BTAs have been living under (and successfully I might add) for the previous 9 months before the MH addition.

I think the increased expansion I've noticed over the past few months could be due to the BTAs enjoying the MH intensity coming from the center of the tank, but neither BTA has bothered to move under the MH lamp in the 6 months I've had it running, so that leads me to believe they do not need to be directly underneath it to be happy, otherwise they would have moved there by now, right? :|

And as an aside, neither of my BTAs have ever shown dominant "bubble tips" since I've had them, and that's been 15 months for the parent and 10 or so months for the split. Both continue to grow at a rapid pace and look very healthy. Both are also active hosts to my pair of Percula clowns, so perhaps hosting is a factor in non-bubble-tip formation?

Just opinions based on observations I have made of the animals in my own tank, as I am certainly not an expert in anemone species.

EmilyB

10-08-2002, 12:55 AM

LOL, well, poc, obviously I have been hopelessly brainwashed by seeing so many of the damn things being called that ! :lol: And no, you will have to pay for your BTA clone just like everyone else :D

Here's an interesting addition:

Before you buy a bubble-tip anemone, you need to distinguish it from other clownfish host anemones. — Fortunately, this isn’t difficult. One way is to look for the bulbs or bubble tips. This feature is unique to E. quadricolor and serves to differentiate it from other clownfish host anemones, although the bubble tips are not always present. Another distinguishing feature is the column. The column of E. quadricolor is smooth and without verrucae (the warty protuberances that appear along the column of all large symbiont anemones, with the exception of E. quadricolor).

and article (http://www.animalnetwork.com/fish2/aqfm/1998/aug/features/2/default.asp)

StirCrazy

10-08-2002, 01:05 AM

I am only an ordinary electrician so I do not have all that theory. I will try to put up the post when I get it all straight in my mind. :)

is this going to be a while? :shock: :lol:

Steve :wink:

Acro

10-08-2002, 02:48 AM

Emily, What are the chances of you getting a nice close up of your bta? I would like to see the zooxanthalle structure in the tentacles. Also if Bob could do the same.

Bob I

10-08-2002, 03:24 AM

OK Jamie this is the best I can do. I only have a HP 315. Four pics at 640x480. The last one was taken in daylight, and supplemented with flash.
BTW you can see the blunted ends on some tentacles, and the column is smooth. Thus it should be E. quadricolor ?
http://www.therockies.com/rcipema/anemone2.jpg
http://www.therockies.com/rcipema/anemone3.jpg
http://www.therockies.com/rcipema/anemone4.jpg
http://www.therockies.com/rcipema/anemoneone.jpg

EmilyB

10-08-2002, 05:07 AM

OOPS...

http://members.shaw.ca/bhadford1/WhatThe.jpg

Guess it's bedtime...I'll try tomorrow for a macro.

Smaller pics Bob...

Bob I

10-08-2002, 08:23 PM

I posted that one big picture because I do not have macro capabilities, but it was better deleted. :) :roll:

Bob I

10-08-2002, 08:29 PM

StirCrazy

10-08-2002, 10:03 PM

is this going to be a while?
The trouble is one question leads to another, and some conclusions lead to others. I can't figure out how to ask without the post getting too long. But here is the first of a number of questions.

Is there any relation between degrees Kelvin, and actual illumination (Lux)?

I ask this because I am confused. Light at noon over the tropical oceans is about 150,000 lux, and 5500K (John Tullock). As you go deeper into the ocean the shorter wavelenghts get filtered out eventually leaving blue, but the Kelvin goes up. The question is this blue light of lesser intensity or not (lux again). When we get this straightened ot I will tell you where this is leading. :?

tell me about it Bob :)

anyways to kinda answer your question about kelven and lux, the temp of a bulb is made up of dfferent amount of various colors, the highest in Lux (or intensity being green) so the more green a bulb has in its make up the more intensity the bulbs has.. whare as the more "blue" or "red" the less intensity. that is why the Iwasaki is so high as it has a large portion of the green spectrum.

Steve

reefburnaby

10-09-2002, 12:00 AM

Hi,

The relationship between lux and kelvin isn't very crystal clear. Lux is a measure of lumens per square meter. Lumens is the measure of intensity at a wavelength of ~550-600 nm (or green).

Kelvin colour is not really related to the lux. Let's suppose that an MH only produces three spikes of light - one at green, blue and yellow. It is fairly common for MH and fluorescents to do this due to the nature of the technology. If the blue spike moves to the violet...the kevlin increases...but the intensity stays roughly the same. The kevlin increases because the averaged wavelength of the light output is shorter -- which means a higher kelvin light. In other words...the light output has shifted to a blue tone. The green spike is what determines the lux intensity and the green spike stayed the same in both cases.

As for why the water is blue. This has to do with many things. This includes the reflection for the sky and blue-green algae in the water. But, RO/DI water is blue too ...this is actually a chemical property. Water is only semi-transparent at visible light wavelenghts. Its semi-transparency gets worse with longer wavelengths. So, long wavelengths get absorbed faster than short wavelengths in water. Hence, the blue light, which have shorter wavelengths, go through the water deeper than red lights. A similar argument can be made for why the sky is blue.

Hope that helps.

- Victor.

EmilyB

10-09-2002, 02:56 AM

LOL, what a thread.....

Anyway...pic as requested...this probably doesn't offer much, I can get different pics with different lighting and different camera settings...

http://members.shaw.ca/bhadford1/BTAOct8.jpg

reefburnaby

10-09-2002, 04:34 AM

Hi,

Okay...let me try this again since I totally missed the entire question...

Does intensity change with depth (in nature) ? Yes. At deeper and deeper water depths, more and more red light is filter. The yellow/green is not as filtered as red. And the blue/violet is the least filtered. To answer the third question, yes the blue is of lesser intensity; however, the filtering effects of 10m of water is not too bad for blue light. I would say that 75% of the blue still makes it through 10m of water. Red/Yellow and green are non-existant. In this example, depth does change the kelvin of the lighting -- deeper equals higher kelvin and lower intensity (PAR for example). For MH and NOs, it is not quite the same story because the light spectrum is in bands while sunlight is full spectrum.

- Victor.

Bob I

10-09-2002, 03:35 PM

Thanks for that Victor. That to me leads to an inescapable conclusion, (which was confirmed by more reading). That conclusion is that we only need to supply FULL SPECTRUM lighting for the biological health of the creatures we keep. This needs to be of adequate intensity. Full spectrum (5500K) has all the wavelengths, and is all the creatures need. It seems to me that all the actinic supplementation we do is for our own benefit, as we have eyes and corals do not. There might be a downside to just having high intensity full spectrum lights. That is it seems nuisance algaes do better when all wavelengths are present. That however, is just my own obsevation, and may be incorrect. :D
Actually when I look back to very early in this thread, I am only confirming what Steve has already said. :D

Acro

10-10-2002, 12:18 AM

Quote from Steve Tyree's Book RBSC

A light field that was primarily blue would mirror what the corals experience in clean ocean waters at depths from 10 meters and deeper. At depths from 5 to 10 meters, the light is mostly blue/green.

The zooxanthellae within these corals all contain caroteniods which only absorb blue light and of course also contain the chlorophyll's that absorb much more blue light then red.

And one more.

The study also determined that low levels of blue light can acheive rates of light-saturated photosynthesis(peak operation) that are equivalent to those reached by corals grown in full sunlight.

Bob I

10-10-2002, 02:42 AM

Quote from Steve Tyree's Book RBSC

A light field that was primarily blue would mirror what the corals experience in clean ocean waters at depths from 10 meters and deeper. At depths from 5 to 10 meters, the light is mostly blue/green.

Of course you are indubitably right, but the point I am making is that FULL SPECTRUM light contains that blue light it is just that the rest of the spectrum is NOT being filtered out by the water. Thus the conclusion I have come to is that blue supplementation is not required for the health of the corals. It just pleases our eyes. :D

pocilipora

10-10-2002, 02:48 AM

I think that Jamie is saying that the more blue you pump into your tank the better. But to get a pleasing color to your eye you have to add other colors of the spectrum. Blue is deffinatly most needed for skelital growth and a healthy zoz population.... :lol:

Canadian

10-10-2002, 03:00 AM

Here, read this as opposed to getting information written for hobbyists:

http://www.cbl.cees.edu/~mattia/SMProject/background.html

Acro

10-10-2002, 03:01 AM

Bob,
What I'm reading is that the coral is using the blue light. There for if your supplement blue light the coral is using it. I don't think it gets any clearer. If I'm going to put a bulb over my reef I want it to have the spectrum that is most usable by the animals I keep. And by this statement it's blue light.

The study also determined that low levels of blue light can acheive rates of light-saturated photosynthesis(peak operation) that are equivalent to those reached by corals grown in full sunlight.

reefburnaby

10-10-2002, 04:55 AM

Hi,

Ah...its the blue light special theory. :D

But seriously, I think its a pretty nice theory. Only problem is....how do you know your lights are the right blue and violet ? If you have compared the spectrum of brand X MH with the nature's spectrum of light at 15m, then you'll realize...I don't even think they are similar at all. The banding effects you get from MH cause all sorts of problems and it leaves certain wavelength with very low blue-violet light. If the Zoox happen to like a specific wavelength that your lamps have a null ...opps.

Blue light special works pretty well for some corals...and not so well for other corals. Anybody heard of a bunch of reefers say that their Toadstool's colours are beyond belief when they switch from Iwasaki to Radiums ? In the same breath...you hear another reefer saying that his blue tip acro is more happy in is Radiums than his Iwasaki. Yah..I know its a extreme example...but seriousily, some corals are affect by the blue light special while others are not. So why is this ?

My personal theory is that corals will change to what every conditions are present in the tank. It is natural for organisms to do this since it is written in to their DNA. Some corals are able to adapt and survive, while others die because they can not. When we apply blue light to a purple monster, it changes to something we find rather pleasing. There are many types of pigments and zoox on a coral. My theory is that certain light bands cause certain pigments and zooz to dominate. So, blue light causes a group of Zoozs to dominate and it is what causes the purpleness in the purple monster. Green light will cause another group to dominate and so on. So...does this mean certain groups of Zoox (or colour) mean better health. I don't know, but I am leaning towards it does not. If the same number of energy producing Zoox that are in the brown Purple monster and the "true" purple monster, then both corals should be just as happy. The only difference is colour...like our skin colour -- okay maybe that's going a little too far, but I think you get the idea.

So those are my thoughts...what are you thoughts on this subject ?

- Victor.

Acro

10-10-2002, 06:04 AM

Victor,

Your comparing two different things here. Coral pigment is different then algae pigment. What was stated in my above post was the effect of blue light on zooxanthallae not coral pigment. Which is a whole nother issue that is not well understood. The type and intensity of light will cause different shades of brown in the coral do to how the zooxanthallae react to the given light. This is why people with low light reefs seem to have darker corals then those with higher lighting. I know other things play a part as well but we are talking lighting here, so I'll stick with that. I'm sure we all agree no matter what you do with your lighting you won't pull purples out of a toadstool. I suppose that the purple monster your refering to could very well be happy or healthly wether it's brown or purple. What does matter though is that it has a healthy zooxanthallae population to feed the coral in question. And IMO if the PM was in good health and growing it would have no chose but to be purple.

Also I think an Iwasaki has a much larger spike in blue light then a 5500k.

Acro

10-10-2002, 03:16 PM

Perhaps I'm getting lost in my opinion of coral health through appearance and growth rate. Because corals don't speak I have no other judge. I do feel that the health of the zooxanthallae through reproduction and byproducts determin the health of the coral. So healthy and growing zoox=healthy and growing coral. Do corals need to grow I'm not sure. I would assume though that in the wild they would disappear with so many predators if the did not grow. Whats a healthy growth rate? I'm not totally sure.

Bob's thought was all the corals need as far as spectrum would be in a 5500k bulb. I geuss I would agree with that. As its been done and is being done. Is it the best? IMO no but I geuss I wasn't asked that.