Steve Tyree's chat the other night [Archive] - Canreef Aquatics Bulletin Board

View Full Version : Steve Tyree's chat the other night

DJ88

06-06-2002, 02:20 PM

Anybody take a read of this? VEERY interesting. A must read for those who like to go a bit deeper into learning about light and the corals they own.

Looks like I may try out running my Iwasaki with some sunburst 12000K's.

Turns out Actinics with the Iwasaki don't add mcuh at all as far as useable light energy for corals. Only for our eyes. There already is a big spike with the violet specturm. Boosting the blue is recommended. As they are deficient in that frequency.

As well 250W is concidered moderate light.. lol.

here is the article.
Steve Tyree's chat. (http://www.reefs.org/library/talklog/s_tyree_060202.html)

Delphinus

06-06-2002, 03:06 PM

I haven't really been following the topic of Dana Riddle's "potential point of diminishing returns" for lighting intensity. It seems to me that from reading this article here, there may be some issues with those findings?

DJ88, why go with the Sunbursts over the Radiums? Do you want to stay in the 250W range perhaps?

I wonder how it would be best to mount differing bulbs over the footprint shape of a typical tank, without getting differing colour zones. It's almost like more of us should get those lighting tracks for hydroponics (I know some people do this already). This way, even though we may stil get the "zones", no one place in the tank gets a disproportionate amount of one over the other?

DJ88

06-06-2002, 03:22 PM

Whoops. Forgot to put the radiums in there too.

I have read Dana's article and now this one. Seems that there needs to be some studies done where it is decided what exactly we as reef keepers can properly supply our corals and to what level is to omuch or too little.

With Dana when you get up to 400W you are going too much. But only with PAM if I remember right. But with Steve 400's are concidered strong lighting and 250's are moderate. Only 1000's are intense.

oh well glad I don't sit and study this stuff for a career.

I have thought about putting different temp MH's over this tank. Was thinking about two 175W on either side of the 250W in the middle. Ditch the VHO's and just have two actinics that come on for sun up sundown and shut off once the 175's kick in. After reading this I may to exactly that. As long as I can find a 175 bulb that is a blue spectrum. I am going to look into the 14KK's now. See where they spike. If it helps with growth and proper light specturm being given to the corals it's worth it IMO.

If I had a large enough tank I'd do the track lighting and have it run the length over the course of the day. No doubt in my mind. Not only would you not get areas of different colors that are constant, but you'd get the higher intensity light hitting all areas of a coral head. like in nature when the sun moves. Just can't do it on a 24" tank. ;)

I think it would look cool having 600W of MH over my tank anyways. :eek: lol

I can't seem to find much info on those 14KK's as far as spectral analsis goes. hmm. the 10KK's at J&L are ushios. and not AB's.. hmmm Time to go digging. I know what to look for now. a big spike at 450nm. :D

Whatcha think Brad?

[ 06 June 2002, 11:34: Message edited by: DJ88 ]

Aquattro

06-06-2002, 03:43 PM

Darren, I think you need to go back a few weeks where you had comments about my 400ws!! :D
Personally, I'm saying to hell with all this; I'm moving to Fiji and putting my tank outside on the patio!
Seriously, I have considered putting a 175w Radium over my tank to supplement the blue. The problem with lighting is by the time I order the bulb, get it in the mail and install it, the trend will change again and the "experts" will be telling us to use green HPS bulbs!!
My honest opinion on lighting is this;

If you are happy with the look of your tank, your corals grow at a rate synonomous with their natural growth rate(skeletal mass included), the colors are something found in nature(and some of my nicest corals are brown), then you have the right lights. Always trying to get the "best" is a waste of time, money and energy. If what you have leads to the above results, you've already found the best. Spend the extra money taking your spouse out for dinner! They deserve it for tolerating our hobby tongue.gif

DJ88

06-06-2002, 03:48 PM

Here is what I have found as far as a spike at 450nm. 175W only tho.

The Xanium2
Coralife 20000K
Blueline 10000K
Red Sea 10000K
Aquatic Lighting Systems 12000K

So anyone else curious about this lighting topic?

I find it interesting to actually have an idea now where my lighting is lacking with regards to the full spectrum. Anyone willing to try and fill the gaps? smile.gif

Give my pocket book enough time to recover from setting up a new system and I might do it.

Oh I know Brad. :D I know. Knew that was coming. ;) LOL!

And I agree with you about finding what you enjoy or works for your system. That is why my tank is staying as it is. I was thinking about ushio 10KK(and tried one for looks) but found my 6500 looked as good with twice the intensty IMO.

Even before this article tho I was thinking about throwing 2x175's with a bluer spectrum on instead of actinics. Still curious about it. Bet it would look nice. If it fills gaps in my lighting hey so be it. I wouldn't mind seeing a tank where higher K bulbs are used to supplement a higher intensity bulb. In person that is. I have seen pics. But I know first hand how misleading those are. Look at the shots of my tank with the 10KK and 65KK on it. They look identical.

I don't have a spouse.. All the money goes to me. :D hee hee. And I enjoy messing around with this tank and other little projects. You should know that. Now that school is done it will get worse. :D

[ 06 June 2002, 11:57: Message edited by: DJ88 ]

Acro

06-06-2002, 06:18 PM

I watched and read the chat on Sunday. It was very intresting. Steve has put alot of time into research. So has many others in this hobby. It seems to be what ever direction a person is studying that is what makes or breaks a reef at that time. There are so many right and wrong answers out there. It's a very debatable hobby. I talked with Steve on the phone the other day about this. He had losts to say that was very intresting but some I would tend to disagree with. Also plenty that got me thinking. Some of what I beleive in others would say no way just from something that they experienced. So it a tough subject to say that this is better and this is worse.

DJ88

06-06-2002, 06:20 PM

Please tell Jamie.. share your ideas.

I haven't had a good discussion with you since Marc's a few months ago.

StirCrazy

06-06-2002, 09:45 PM

Originally posted by DJ88:

With Dana when you get up to 400W you are going too much. But only with PAM if I remember right. But with Steve 400's are concidered strong lighting and 250's are moderate. Only 1000's are intense. Hey Darren, going to stir your brain and make you think a bit. with the statement above you kind missed something that might be a viable option, 175's 250's and PC's were all grouped together with the week to moderate class, now having said that, it seams that what is finally being said is that PC bulbs are right up there in intensity with 175's and such. This has been stated in other tests and such so it is no big surprise to me to see this coming out now (although people will continue to ignore this fact).

Now here is the other option, conceder this, 2 96 watt TRUE 03 PC's they are real heavy in the violet and blue (which is what the Iwasaki's need help with). To me this would be way cheaper than getting two 175 watt MH bulbs and be a lot more efficient, especially sense a WH7 will run 2 96 watt PC's just fine.

Steve

Aquattro

06-06-2002, 09:58 PM

Steve PCs are old technology for people without water in their tanks!!
Go MH, Darren. I've decided to do the same.

StirCrazy

06-06-2002, 10:33 PM

and how did I know that was comming :D , Brad, WAKE UP and get with the moderen times smile.gif oh and I had water in the tank last night smile.gif had to clean it up ;) seriously though, if you are concidering 175watt MH you might as well look at PC also.. never hurts to check out all your options.

Steve

DJ88

06-07-2002, 01:42 AM

Steve,

I still don't find PC's are as intense as a point source light. They may be bright(which I know they are) but they don't do the same for me as a MH.

PC actinics. If they are 03's like is claimed then they are a violet actinic. As are the phillips and the URI VHO's. They peak at 470nm. not 450. That puts them in the violet range not blue. I want blue. Hence the MH blue bulbs. I don't know how accurate this is but blue is more readily useable by corals than violet or other wavelengths with all the reading I have done. Actinics are violet. Close but no cigar.

As it stands now I am even concidering trying the 150W 50KK that Adam reminded me existed. The ballast is easy to get to run these puppies and they have the highest blue peak of any MH I have seen.

In the end I'll still go MH above PC. I want to ditch ALL the fluorescent lamps in my hood. Save maybe one phillips 03 for 1/2 hour before and after all the MH turns on.

MH just has something that fluorescent doesn't have. Point source intensity.

For the most part all of this curiosity is for asthetics and my own eyes. But a small part is due to the spectrum make up of my 65KK. If I can fill in the one area it is lacking in who knows what may happen. :D

One_Divided

06-07-2002, 02:06 AM

Darren, let me know about any other interesting tidbits you might find on those 50ks.. I'm interesting in trying them out as well.

When you look in the ocean, the light shimmers and ripples on the bottom.. PC light is distirbuted along the whole length of a tube and doesn't create this effect.. I don't see PCs as being a very good supplement. Same goes for Fuorescents.. IMO a variety of different kelvin halides is the best route to go.

One_Divided

06-07-2002, 02:10 AM

MH just has something that fluorescent doesn't have. Point source intensity.
Darren, exactly my point.. Steve, I'm just thinking about light from natures prespective.. Why try to question that? And I'm not acusing you.. I'm acusing PC bulbs!

[ 06 June 2002, 22:13: Message edited by: One_Divided ]

StirCrazy

06-07-2002, 03:00 AM

Originally posted by DJ88:
Steve,

They peak at 470nm. not 450. That puts them in the violet range not blue. Darren, Violet is from ~380nm to ~430nm blue is from ~440nm to ~500nm so if it peeks at 470 it is in the dead middle of BLUE country smile.gif
No problem it was just a suggestion, if you want real blue then J&L has what they call actinic PC's (really 7100 blue PC's) for cheep. If you want violet you have to order from the US pretty much, unless of course J&L is carrying the others now.

Adam, you confuse me sometimes. You will still have your "shimmer" because you have your MH, the PC will not get rid of it. We are talking supplement lighting here... not primary lighting.
The article said that the Iwasaki bulb was lacking in "blue" and could use some supplement blue lighting.

I am going to go aside for a sec here and if people want to flame me go ahead (I have my fire proof undies on smile.gif ) if you look at the sun itself it is a point source, but by the time the light gets to us it is not focused anymore, it is greatly diffused and diminished to the point that it acts as a diffused lighting. The shimmers are not caused by light rays from the sun but rather from intense light being reflected off ripples and particles in the water.

what was my point, my point is that even a florescent source (if intense enough) can create this same effect, Victor reported seeing it off over driven NO's, I have seen it on tanks being driven by a bunch of PC's and I have seen it on tanks with MH bulbs, BUT I have not seen it in every tank that has a MH bulb, intact some tanks I have seen that have had the "shimmer" did not have it at other times. Other MH tanks I have seen had no "shimmer" what so ever... so there is no way that you can tell me that by adding a MH you are going to have "shimmer”... I don't think it is that easy and that there has to be some other factors to go along with the lighting.

This is not fact or conjecture, just my humble observations.

Now that that is over I think personally that the best lighting I have seen on a tank uses all different types of lighting. This is the bases I am trying to set mine up on, I will have NO actinic for dusk and dawn, PC actinic and 10K for morning and evening lighting, and PC for the afternoon intensity. Oh and now that eLightmaster is controlling my X-10 I will have a moon light bulb that will be phased to match the moon cycle... Now I just need water :D :D

Steve

Troy F

06-07-2002, 03:12 AM

Posted by Steve: BUT I have not seen it in every tank that has a MH bulb, intact some tanks I have seen that have had the "shimmer" did not have it at other times. Other MH tanks I have seen had no "shimmer" what so ever... so there is no way that you can tell me that by adding a MH you are going to have "shimmer”... I don't think it is that easy and that there has to be some other factors to go along with the lighting.Has a lot/all to do with the amount of surface agitation. I've never seen a MH tank without glimmer lines unless the water was calm at the surface. I've seen faint lines with VHO but nothing like the beautiful lines you get with MH.

[ 06 June 2002, 23:13: Message edited by: Troy F ]

DJ88

06-07-2002, 03:31 AM

My mistake Steve,

Typo, actinics are 420-430 nm. So violet.

My preference is to shy away from any fluorescents right now. The only actinics I will run is the phillips 03's. One 20W 03 is looking as good as three 95W URI VHO actinics looked on my tank. This is after running those URI's for almost a year. Waste of cash IMO. I'd rather have no fluorescents at all.

Anyways I want blue. Not violet. 450nm is where I wanna go. hence the bluer MH's. No fluorescent has this. Close. but no cigar.

;)

As for shimmer,

never seen a MH tank that didn't have it.

It all comes down to preference. After all the tanks I have had running and have seen running all kinds of setups for lighting, I'll still go MH anyday. It looks better IMO IME. Works better IMO IME. Maybe I don't need it as strong as I have it on my small tank. But my corals grow like weeds and I get colors that I like to see. I am happy, they are happy. Discussions can go on and on about PC and VHO and Overdriven NO's. I am not going to go away from what I am happy with. Call me crazy.

[ 06 June 2002, 23:31: Message edited by: DJ88 ]

Mak

06-07-2002, 03:49 AM

Originally posted by DJ88:

PC actinics. If they are 03's like is claimed then they are a violet actinic. As are the phillips and the URI VHO's. They peak at 470nm. not 450. That puts them in the violet range not blue. I want blue. Hence the MH blue bulbs. I don't know how accurate this is but blue is more readily useable by corals than violet or other wavelengths with all the reading I have done. Actinics are violet. Close but no cigar.On my 75g I used a 400w Iwasaki with 2 55w Hamilton True Actinic's, these PC's are blue almost the same as the Marine Glo Actinic ( IMO these bulb's are sweet, especially when overdrivin ). 2 or even 1 of the Hamilton's would rock in your tank. I personally like the blue of these bulbs. I currently run 2 55w 10K PC's, 1 OD Marine Glo Actinic and 1 OD Zoomed Coral Sun (which is Violet), the lighting looks awesome and the Corals are doing great :D , damn can't wait to get a cam.

[ 06 June 2002, 23:55: Message edited by: MAKAVELLI ]

reefburnaby

06-07-2002, 03:58 AM

Hi,

Actinics tend to be centred around 420nm and they spread between 400nm to 490nm (at least that's what Hagen says). Hence...this lamp spans between the purple and blue fluoescent areas. I bet ya that an old actinic will tend to produce more blue than purple.

The paper mentions that certain corals have certain light collecting pigments. But corals do adapt....and IMHO they will adapt to what is optimal for the given conditions (like lighting). If we are blue deficient...does that mean it is bad ? Well...we don't know. But we do know that if we provide more intesity (i.e. light energy) in the right spectral areas (i.e. light than it can use...not reflected), then the coral will do better in general. The spectral spikes and holes will be adapted by the coral.

MH vs tubes...probably doesn't matter in the big picture. Lighting is not the only thing that is need to keep corals well.

- Victor.

Delphinus

06-07-2002, 04:30 AM

LOL -- don't you at some point have to go out and get an actual job?? How you gonna pay for that hydro bill!!

:D

One_Divided

06-07-2002, 04:32 AM

Darren why not use two 150w 50k iwasakis? J&L can get the bulbs in for $130.. You'd pay nearly $200 for a 175 raduim or sunburst..

Some interesting bulb comparisons:

http://www.coralreefecosystems.com/

DJ88

06-07-2002, 04:38 AM

Pensions Tony.. Pensions. :D

Adam,

I'll look into that one. Thanks. smile.gif

Do you know what the specturm for those things are off hand?

Found it.. thanks again Adam.

[ 06 June 2002, 12:39: Message edited by: DJ88 ]

StirCrazy

06-07-2002, 10:44 AM

Hey Darren, like I said no problem, I just wanted to throw the idea out there :D .

Troy, I totally agree, IMO the main cause of "shimmer" is surface agitation. If I ripple up the surface of my fresh water tank I can get it, very faintly but I can get it :D

Victor, I agree with you about there adapting but, I think the idea of the article is what we need to do to get the specific colors. For example to get a UV fluorescing pocilloporin to fluoresces a violet/blue light (400 to 470 nm), we need to provide it with light from 310 to 380 nm (UV-B and UV-A).

I used this pocillopori as an example for a reason, no where have I read or heard how much UV we should have or how much, is too much.

Steve

Delphinus

06-07-2002, 11:27 AM

If one was considering going a blue 150W halide, it seems to me the choices would be the DE/HQI Radium 20k, or the Iwasaki Aqua (aka "50k").

According to this analysis (http://www.coralreefecosystems.com/ltg_technical_data.htm#Output%20Analysis:) the Iwasaki Aqua seems to show a spike at 450nm.

I can't find a similar spectral analysis for the 150W Radium. Does anyone know of one they can point me to?

I wonder which one of those two is the "more blue."

(Can you tell, I have a 150W ballast? :D I still haven't decided what to do with it. Supposedly it can do both the DE's and the mogul's though.. so hence the choice between the two bulbs for me.)

..

So DJ88, have you figured out yet which blue bulb you're leaning towards (the Sunburst 250W or the Radiums)?

It seems to me, that the 400W Radiums, if used on the 430 HPS ballast with starter (ooops pardon me, I mean the "HQI" ballast) or the Bluelines, are good enough to be used on their own, with a PPFD almost equivalent to 250W Iwasakis. Supposedly, if used on a conventional 400W MH ballast, the bulbs are just "blue" and probably should only be supplemental (except that 400W is a lot of juice for a "supplement").

Don't know much about the Sunbursts. Or the 14k's (whoever makes those). I used Hamilton-stamped 14's (175W) over my tank for the first year of me using halides, and I didn't much care for them at the time. They were spent at 6 months, on a 6-hour photoperiod, and at that point seemed to be only good for growing hair algae and cyano. The corals never did much under them (although they sure "looked" good, but the stoneys had very little, if any, growth during that time). So definitely not good enough as the primary light source, but maybe not bad as a supplement to the Iwasaki's...

DJ88

06-07-2002, 02:03 PM

Tony,

I can't find anything on 150W radiums either. Spectral data that is.

You have a 150W ballast huh? It's a start right?

I did some pricing for the Iwasaki Aquas. around $140-150 a pop. and you need the medium socket as well. No biggie. gives a bit more room to fit it right? ;)

What I want to do and why I want to do it is as follows.

I want to ditch my VHO's and other fluorescents over my main tank. If I can get my mitts on some 150W electronic ballasts. :D ;) I will put two Aquas in my lid on either side of the Iwasaki 65KK. Or maybe on in front focused to the middle with a reflector. The main reason is for asthetics. I think it will give a better light as the main area of weakness in the 65KK's spectrum is around 450nm. If I can fill that void I wouldn't need to supplement with VHO's or NO's. plain and simple. As an added bonus I will get MORE PAR with a MH than a VHO or NO. Hands down. If this aids on growth or coloring so be it. Bonus.

Personally I am sick of having to supplement my main light with fluorescents. It isn't that bad for needing supplementation but it needs a touch, not like the old Iwasakis. The problem is that it can't be beat by any 250W for intensity a lot of 400W for that matter. I tried a 10KK ushio and it was dim. :rolleyes: So I'll go for the aquas. If it is pleasing to my eye I will use it and that is all that is important. I already know that my 65KK keeps my corals healthy and growing in conjunction with how I look after the water quality. Now I am filling my needs.

Does that answer your question about where I am leaning Tony? lol

I'd love to get a blueline ballast and throw a 400W radium on my tank. The changes of that happening right now are slimmer than me winning that 34 million super seven the other week.

Another reason I am leaning to the Aqua's now is tank size. I only have a 2'x2' footprint. If I was running my 120 I'd have no problem setting up a dual 400W radium with a center 250W Iwasaki. Dream tank. so space is of a premium for me. I'd rather have two/three MH bulbs and maybe one 03 for a sunrise/set effect than the setup I have now.

As a bit of an aside since we are chatting about 150W MH. I was talking to Fulham yesterday and again today. Looks like the price they will be selling the new High Horse HID 150W ballast for is about $70US. They will be coming out in about three months. I'll start saving now. smile.gif I wonder how this puppy will run an aqua. ;) I am already hooked on the workhorse ballasts over anything else available so who knows. :D

[ 07 June 2002, 12:23: Message edited by: DJ88 ]

One_Divided

06-07-2002, 03:54 PM

Steve, all I was saying is that pc bulbs and fluorescents are an "unatural" source of light as a supplement becuase they don't create the natural shimmer that a metal halide supplement will. It is unatural to have a static light source of any kind. Do the corals care? Who knows, but I have a feeling they do..

BCReefer

06-07-2002, 05:08 PM

I am the 1st to admit that most of what you guys are saying really goes over my head. I have read Sanjay’s article in the 2002 USA Marine Magazine and I understand part of what he is saying, same goes for what most of you have written down. My understanding of lighting is as such:

1. We need to supply lighting that closely as possible duplicates that sun on the ocean.
2. We have basically 3 types of lighting that comes close to it, MH, HQI, VHO.
3. Each type of lighting has a wattage, the wattage is used primarily to indicate the depth that the light would reach and the strength of the light if a coral was lets say 12” from the bulb.
4. Each bulb has a Kelvin rating - which is the colour spectrum of the bulb. Now my understanding is that the sun has a Kelvin rating of around 5500 – 6000 kelvins.

Now if I was to plan on a new tank, say 4’ x 18” depth x 18” width I would use the above information to make my plans.

1. Based upon Sanjay’s article I would use the 2 - 150W HQI 6500K as it seemed to have the best PPFD, (of course I don’t totally understand what PPFD is but I believe it how we measure the bulbs?).
2. I would use 2 VHO’s 96 W to help supplement the lighting since from my basic experience MH seems to have the brightest point directly below the bulb.
3. 1 would use 2 high wattage actincs 45 – 60 W, to supplement the other lighting in the blue colour range. I understand that some people like the blue look so they might have more actincs to show that on their tank.

Does my logic make sense or do I have to much lighting? I currently have a 175W 6500 K system (1 month old bulb) with 2 30W actinics ( 4 months old), but I have a yellow tinge to my water. I would like to make it more brighter so I thought of adding 2 small compact lighting that we discussed a few months ago. I am not really looking at the new lighting to add to my colour spectrum, more of a look to the tank. Does this make sense?

My last question. Does one form of light interfere with other lighting. Lets say we have a 400W 10K system on my 33G. If the lighting is not giving enough light from a particular colour spectrum and I supplement it with actincs. Would the 400W, be so powerful that it would block the rays from actinics.

Sorry guys, hope I haven’t taken this off to a different path?

Thanks
Patrick

DJ88

06-07-2002, 06:16 PM

HI patrick,

I try to answer your questions. Hopefully more will jump in.

1. We need to supply lighting that closely as possible duplicates that sun on the ocean.
2. We have basically 3 types of lighting that comes close to it, MH, HQI, VHO.
3. Each type of lighting has a wattage, the wattage is used primarily to indicate the depth that the light would reach and the strength of the light if a coral was lets say 12” from the bulb.
4. Each bulb has a Kelvin rating - which is the colour spectrum of the bulb. Now my understanding is that the sun has a Kelvin rating of around 5500 – 6000 kelvins.
1. Yes. well we need to supply enough so that the corals we buy will stay alive. I prefer to give mine enough to thrive and grow. Others seem to be happy with keeping them alive. Your choice.
2.I'd say two unless you were in a fairly shallow tank. Then it's four. MH & HQI for really intense or deep tanks(even then it depends on wattage), with VHO and PC for shallower tanks.
3.Wattage is the power that the lamp is rated at. How much power it consumes from the ballast basically. Using wattage ratings to decide how deep you can go with corals is misleading. You can have 440W of VHO over a tank and 400W of MH lighting. I'd say you can keep higher light requiring corals in a 24" deep tank no prob with the MH but you'd be really pushing it with the VHO. It's more the intensity that will determine how deep of a tank your lighting is suitable for. That and what kinds of corals you want to keep. If you want low light corals VHO may even be overkill, with SPS and clams getting down to 24" with VHO may be pushing it.
4. Kelvin is the color temperature of a bulb. The color temperature of light refers to the temperature to which one would have to heat a "black body" source to produce light of similar spectral characteristics. Low color temperature implies warmer (more yellow/red) light while high color temperature implies a colder (more blue) light. Color spectrum is a different thing. That is a breakdown of the actual wavelengths of the light. Or frequencies. Thw two are a bit confusingly similar with colors to say the least but they are different. The sun is actually 5500 degrees Kelvin at noon.

The problem with measuring the kelvin temperature of a bulb is that it doesn't actually mimic the kelvin temp it is associated with. This is due to the fact that a bulb may emit more energy in one frequency of light that overpowers the others making you think that it is a different kelvin temperature. It fools your eyes. The Iwakasi 6500K does this. You think it is a very yellow bulb which is similar to the sun for temperature. You woudl think it only has spikes in the red/yellow wavelengths. Where it also infact has spikes in the violet and green. Very green. For this reason the colors given a bulb are approximate and not exact color temps. If you do some searching you will find that certain 10KK bulbs may appear to be of a higher temp than 10KK or a 14KK may appear lower than the 14KK. From what I have read the Iwasaki Aqua 50KK is more a 20KK or 14KK bulb. Anyways when you look at a 10KK bulb it looks white. not the blue that 10KK is in fact.

Now if I was to plan on a new tank, say 4’ x 18” depth x 18” width I would use the above information to make my plans.

1. Based upon Sanjay’s article I would use the 2 - 150W HQI 6500K as it seemed to have the best PPFD, (of course I don’t totally understand what PPFD is but I believe it how we measure the bulbs?).
2. I would use 2 VHO’s 96 W to help supplement the lighting since from my basic experience MH seems to have the brightest point directly below the bulb.
3. 1 would use 2 high wattage actincs 45 – 60 W, to supplement the other lighting in the blue colour range. I understand that some people like the blue look so they might have more actincs to show that on their tank.
1. PPFD is Photon Photo Flux Density. This is the measurement of the number of photosynthetically active photons striking a given area in a given time(one square meter per second). This measurement is done between 400 & 700nanometer wavelengths. These wavelengths are what photosynthetic plants and animals use to create energy from light. PPFD is the same as PAR which you will also see. The higher the (PPFD)PAR the more useable light energy is being transmitted by the bulb or lamp.

150W HQI's are bright bulbs. The thing is if you were to read Sanjay's article you will notice that the 150W HQI's were mearured with a reflector where all the others weren't. Most people seem to skip by this point. With a reflector you are measuring close to 100% of its emitted light energy(PPFD) where without a reflector you will only measure the light that is transmitted from the bulb directly to the sensor. So a very small percentage. Throw a reflector on the other bulbs tested and you will probably find that the PPFD readings of the other MH's climb significantly. I know the 150W HQI won't appear near as bright with out that reflector. For saftey reasons you need that refector as it is also a UV shield. Mogul MH bulbs have the UV shield included in the assembly.

2. With a 4' tank since the spread of a MH is usually about 2'. Normally a VHO is used to fill in the color gaps. ie URI super actinics with an Iwasaki 6500K. Unles syou wanted only one area of intense light in a smaller area then lower light corals outside of this area. then you go exactly the route you described. Andrew has this set up now. Allowing him to keep a wider variety of soft/LPS/SPS corals in his tank than I can with the lighting set up I have. This will all depend on what you are wanting to keep in your tank. To me that is the important thing. Don't buy the lights to fit the tank first. Buy the lights to fit the corals you want to keep. My VHO's and NO's are to fill color and for when my MH isn't on. Not to fill gaps in light in the tank.

3. Buying actinics to supplement blue will depend on what you want the color of your tank to appear. Some like lots of blue. Some don't. There really isn't any one recipe for success with lighting. Figure out what you want to keep. Then pick the main lighting and look at other tanks to decided waht colors you want to see as far as lighting goes. Right now I am running one 20W actinic, 2x75W 10KK VHO's and my 250W Iwasaki. I love the look of it. While some people would go ICK. I had a 10KK bulb on here and I didn't like it. Not enough intensity for me. Maybe I'd be happy with the 400W 10KK but who knows. I am happy(for now ;) )

Does my logic make sense or do I have to much lighting? I currently have a 175W 6500 K system (1 month old bulb) with 2 30W actinics ( 4 months old), but I have a yellow tinge to my water. I would like to make it more brighter so I thought of adding 2 small compact lighting that we discussed a few months ago. I am not really looking at the new lighting to add to my colour spectrum, more of a look to the tank. Does this make sense?
Your tank is a 33 right? Well if you find it yellow right now(175W 6500K's are yellower than the 250W) try adding another actinic. That is one option. Another is buy a 10000K bulb and throw it in. See if anyone near here runs this bulb and will loan it to you for an hour to see it with your own eyes on your own tank. If you want to add more "whiter" lights I say go for it. You can't really have too much IMO.

My last question. Does one form of light interfere with other lighting. Lets say we have a 400W 10K system on my 33G. If the lighting is not giving enough light from a particular colour spectrum and I supplement it with actincs. Would the 400W, be so powerful that it would block the rays from actinics The only time light blocks or interferes with itself is with coherent light sources. All of our lighting is incoherent. So if you were to throw a 400W 10KK on your tnak all that it would do is overpower the actinics through sheer intensity. THe actinic(420nm) of your actinic lamps would mix in with the same wavelength of the MH.

Did that answer everything?

An no worries. any discussion is a good one. :D

PS if there is spelling mistakes in here so be it.. My fingers hurt now. :D

[ 07 June 2002, 14:18: Message edited by: DJ88 ]

Delphinus

06-07-2002, 07:04 PM

Fantastic info, DJ88.

Just to add a few points. PAR is "photosynthetically active radiation." These are the wavelengths of light, that provoke the most photosynthesis activity in chlorophyll. The more PAR you have, the more photosynthesis is possible.

We measure PAR in units of PPFD (photo-something flux density). Sorry, don't really remember what both P's are for offhand.

So, more PAR == more growth of corals.

But PAR isn't the whole story. You don't really get the spectacular colouration with PAR. (Unless you consider "brown" spectacular :D ). To get really cool colours, you need to have so much intensity of light, that the coral grows pigments to reflect away unnecessary light. What people are now finding that the more blue light there is, the better colour they have on their corals.

So, what to make of this? If your goal is "growth but don't care about colour" then go for a high PAR bulb. If your goals is "colour but not necessarily growth" then go for the blue bulbs. If your goal is "both growth AND colour" then you need a mixture of both bulbs.

We are now finding out that if run on certain ballasts, the Radium 20000K's bulbs in the 400W size give both a decent PAR (or PPFD) output, and a nice blue light for colouration.

What a lot of people have misinterpreted in the MFA2002 article by Sanjay is that they now think a 150W DE bulb gives better PPFD than a 400W bulb. The only point Sanjay was trying to make with this finding is that the efficiency of a bulb can be greatly improved with a proper reflector. You cannot compare a 150W bulb to a 400W bulb. The intensity and spread will be completely different.

DJ88

06-07-2002, 07:24 PM

Tony,

Thanks for filling a few blanks I left empty. smile.gif I appreciate it.

Good info as well. smile.gif Great actually.

You have just stated in one paragraph 1/2 of the reason I want the 50KK aquas for my tank.

So, what to make of this? If your goal is "growth but don't care about colour" then go for a high PAR bulb. If your goals is "colour but not necessarily growth" then go for the blue bulbs. If your goal is "both growth AND colour" then you need a mixture of both bulbs. One thing to keep in mind Patrick is that light isn't the only part of the equation for corals. It is one of four IMO. I was going ot say three but forgot one. :D

1. Light
2. Food
3. Water quality
4. Water motion.

We can't recreate #2 yet to mimic nature so we overdo the others IMO. Light with the big MH bulbs(PAR and Color temp), water quality we skim or run other methods of waste removal(refugiums, ATS's), water flow we put powerheads, pumps and other assorted devices to carry away wastes and carry food to the corals.

Hopefully someday we can recreate all the foodstuffs corals get in nature but till then we have to make up for the areas lacking by our equipment.

stephane

06-07-2002, 08:59 PM

I quote part of the study from Steve Tyree

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Iwasaki 6,500 K is the only bulb classified as a Full Spectrum Green bulb. This bulb emits the highest percentage of its light within the green and yellow parts of the spectrum. It also emits significant amounts of violet, blue, orange and red light. About 60 % of the total light emitted by this bulb is either green, yellow or orange light. That type of light is not primarily absorbed by the chlorophyll and peridinin pigments within the algae.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Freeking no.... if we refer to this in fact the iwasaki is bright but 60% of is light is not absobed by the coral. So in fact 40% is the only part that are absobed and the 60% rest is only there to make the coral look less colored (if I understand well)

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Radium/Osram 20,000 K and Sunburst 12,000 K are both classified as Super Blue bulbs. Super Blue bulbs emit the vast majority of their light within wavelengths from 440 to 460 nm (high energy blue). They also emit small amounts of violet and green light. The narrow emission of this bulb happens to be located within an area of the spectrum where chlorophyll_a, chlorophyll_c2 and the peridinin pigments can absorb and utilize the light. The vast majority of the emitted light energy from the Super Blue bulbs is photosynthetically useable by the algae. These bulbs can actually benefit from a boost within the violet area of the spectrum. Most aquarists however will be adding daylight fluorescents to counter the very blue visual appearance of the bulbs. These bulbs will intensely stimulate the blue, green and yellow fluorescing pocilloporin pigments. Red fluorescing pocilloporin will be moderately to strongly stimulated. Super Blue bulbs only provide a weak amount of light that can be absorbed by the pink pocilloporin pigment. The 400 watt version of the Osram/Radium and the 250 watt version of the Sunburst lamps are both useable for shallow water stony corals.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That why if I understand well even if that lamps look more Dim
all the light that it produce is absorb by the coral. Suplementing this bulb whith an Iwasaki is not very the best you could do and the best supplement to it could be an Ushio to boost the violet but but it is not require if Im right again

Finaly

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Ushio 10,000 K and Aqualine Buschke 10,000 K are Full Spectrum Violet bulbs. The spectral output of these bulbs is characterized by a large emission of violet light along with a secondary emissions of green, yellow and orange light. As Sanjay Joshi noted these bulbs trick the human eye into thinking there are emitting significant amounts of blue light. The significant violet light emission will provide plenty of light for the chlorophyll_a pigments within the algae. These bulbs will really benefit from supplemental blue light. Full Spectrum Violet bulbs will moderately stimulate the fluorescence of the green, yellow and red fluorescing pocilloporins. They will strongly stimulate the fluorescence of the blue and linked red fluorescing pigments. These bulbs only provide a weak amount of light that can be absorbed by the pink pocilloporin pigment. The 400 watt version of the Ushio and Aqualine Buschke are acceptable bulbs, while the 250 watt version of the Double Ended HQI and Aqualine Buschke are also acceptable. Actinic bulbs or Super Violet bulbs are best used as supplemental lights for bulbs that are deficient in violet light emission.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If Im right those 10k bulb are not realy the best and need to be supplement by super blue light

So my conclusion here is that the best light you could have by there own is the radium or even a sunburst but the sunburst are dim

The best Combo could be Radium or sunburst + Ushio or AB 150W

If I stick to Steve we do exacly the oposite of what he clame we suplement whith blue he said
get blue and supplement whit small 10k :confused:

stephane

06-07-2002, 09:23 PM

sorry Daren I just see that you have give the link of the entire tread I quote :D

Here is the spectral analisis of the radium 20k 150 watt direct from my radium catalog in fact this bulb is a 160 watt and not a 150 and the 400watt is a 360w
http://www.reefcentral.com/vbulletin/attachment.php?s=&postid=620817

[ 07 June 2002, 17:47: Message edited by: stephane ]

ron101

06-07-2002, 10:18 PM

Hmmm... Now Im wondering if those 'untrue' PC actinics that are more blue than violet would be of use for us 10K Ushio/AB users. Any thoughts?

StirCrazy

06-08-2002, 12:36 AM

Originally posted by DJ88:
The thing is if you were to read Sanjay's article you will notice that the 150W HQI's were mearured with a reflector where all the others weren't. Most people seem to skip by this point. You are right, but the people that don't miss it tend to blow it out of proportion also, if you add in the amount a really nice reflector would increase the 400 watt Iwasaki the test shows that it will beat the 150 watt AB DE bulb, but the Ab bulb will still lay waist to any 250 watt bulb out there :D but, this is not the important thing. the fact is that a 150 watt AB DE bulbs seams to provide Iwasaki power with a 10000K color and that its effectiveness is some where between a 250 and a 400.

Delphinus stated that PAR isn't everything, well he is right but what else exactly is needed is all speculation, some say it is intensity where others say high intensity over a certain level is a waist of energy as the corals can only use so much. Others say UV (in a controlled amount) is what gives the corals there colors... again no proof. if you look at the so called blue/violet bulbs sure you are getting the intensity of a MH bulb and at 400 watts that is a lot of punch, but you are also getting a increase in UV also, So if you take a 400 watt radium for example, is it the blue color, the violet color, the pure intensity or the increase in UV that is coloring up the corals. I don't know the answer to this and as far as I know unless the big guys are keeping secrets neither do they

Steve

BCReefer

06-08-2002, 12:53 AM

Thanks guys, especially you Darren. I really am starting to get the hang of the lighting and other aspects of marine aquariums. I am also tackling the DT's issue to the tanks.

I must admit I am coming up to my 1 year aniversary for my marine tank and as the old cig commercial saying goes "You've come along way baby!"

Can't wait until the 22nd.

Patrick

stephane

06-08-2002, 01:21 AM

Originally posted by StirCrazy:
but the Ab bulb will still lay waist to any 250 watt bulb out there :D but, this is not the important thing. the fact is that a 150 watt AB DE bulbs seams to provide Iwasaki power with a 10000K color and that its effectiveness is some where between a 250 and a 400.

[/QB]NO! NO! NO! Stir dont forget AGAIN that the mini DE reflector concentrate the light in a small beam dont compare a 250 iwasaki whit a 150 DE the 250 will sipmly blow away any 150 in SIMILAR reflector put the 150 DE in a spider and then you could compare other than that any comparison is useless and false

This is a tread from the mouth of of sanjay imself maybe now it will make the ting clear

Originally stated by Sanjay Joshi:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi,

Just thought I should respond this discussion, especially relating to the 250W and 150W DE 10KK lamps.

The 250W lamp was tested without any reflector, whereas the 150W was tested in the PFO mini hood. When testing these lamps without a reflector, the lamp is basically sticking out with absolutely nothing on top so no light emited from the top is reflected in the downward direction and almost none of that gets measured - since the test is performed an a room with walls painted dull black and really high celing. Since all the tests were performed in a similar manner, this allows direct comparison of the lamps against each other.

However, when a reflector (or in the case of the 150W the mini hood) is thrown in to the mix, the data cannot be easily extrapolated for comparison. To use 50-75% increase due to reflector is most likely not correct, since in the case of the mini hood most of the light was being reflected in a downward direction and hence being measured, and throwing off the comparison based on extrapolation of the data from the 250 tested in a very different manner.

[ 07 June 2002, 21:23: Message edited by: stephane ]

StirCrazy

06-08-2002, 01:53 AM

Steph, I am not talking about that test anymore.. the 150 has been tested against a 250 in identical fixtures..

Besides, if you re-read that statment you quoted by him in its entirity, you will find that he was talking about the comparasons between the 150 watt HQI agains the 250watt HQI, people were saying that the 150 was just as good as the 250 but they didn't realize that the new test on the 250 was done with a bare bulb.

it doesent matter though because the AB 150 is way to expensive for my blood (unless you have a good deal in the works :D ) but I think the 250 AB DE would be a better bulb.

I did recive a e-mail back from AB today and they only listed one place in Canada as a outlet for there bulbs.. to bad usaly that means they will be very expensive as there is not compatition.

Steve

stephane

06-08-2002, 03:51 AM

Originally posted by StirCrazy:
Besides, if you re-read that statment you quoted by him in its entirity, you will find that he was talking about the comparasons between the 150 watt HQI agains the 250watt HQI, people were saying that the 150 was just as good as the 250 but they didn't realize that the new test on the 250 was done with a bare bulb.

SteveBetter now!
So you agree that the AB250 DE as more par than the AB150 DE Right ?

OK Im about to make you self change you mind on that 150 (I hope) If you look at 2002 the anual marine and fish 2002 SANJAY have quote the Iwasaki 250 watt 130 PAR
and the AB250 DE 110 PAR

and those measure are made in equal condition none have reflector

So a 150 DE is very far from bite a 250 iwasaki

I hope this will close the loop on the 150 DE mith

No flame here stir I only do this to stop people
trowing there money out for a miracle new gadjet ;) HQI DE very far from being that miracle bulb some clame. From all the 10k I
tink the only one who is an improve over an
iwasaki for the color are the AB BUT the price are simply ridiculous IMO

dont forget that the Iwasaki are in fact 7200k
+ both need actinic supplement and most 10k look prety similar when suplement whith actinic + those DE need UV shield and expensive projector
so Iwasaki 150 and 250 are still IMO two of the best bulb on the market for your $ The realy improvement look will not come from a 10k but from a 20K radium all people who have switch to them only dream about them and all said they never go back + now that It's possible to have those 20k and ballast for the price of an iwasaki
and skip the VHO + have the best color ever and realy good grow what do you want to ask more?

StirCrazy

06-08-2002, 04:54 AM

No prob Steph, I have always said that the Iwasaki is a bright bulb but you always want to compare apples with oranges smile.gif if you want to compare a 10K bulb... compare it against another 10K bulb. Or got out and get a 6500K DE and use that. The iwasaki bulb is not a satandard bulb in the sence that it puts out way more light than even bulbs of the same color temp this makes it not a good bulb to base a comparason on as it is a exception not the standard. If you look at other 250 watt MH bulbs they are all less that 1/2 the out put of the Iwasaki it is the same as trying to compare a 6500K PC against a 10000K PC, the 6500K will have more PAR but the 10000K looks better.

Now if we go with the numbers Sanjay got from his test is was 140PPFD/PAR for the 250 iwasaki and 128.8 PPFD/PAR for a Ushio 10000K HQI NOT a AB DE as you stated. in fact the 110 you reported for the AB was for a normal AB 10000K MH bulb not a DE HQI.

The AB DE bulbs are to HQI, like the Iwasaki bulbs are to normal MH bulbs.. I don't know if that made any sence but after talking with AB and my family in Germany that use the AB (and for some time now) that is the impression I am left with. Still at 180.00 cdn for a 150 watt bulb and god knows how much for a 250 watt bulb they are way out of my reach so I think I will settle for a 250 watt Ushio 10000K HQI sence they have almost as much out put as a Iwasaki with out the yellow IMO.

here is the link for the down and dirty data :D
you will find that there were only 2 HQI bulbs tested the first was the AB 150 DE HQI (tested with reflector and glass) the second was a Ushio 10000K HQI DE tested bare.

TEST RESULTS IN A NICE TABLE (http://www.geocities.com/justinbaldwin/Sanjay.html)

when Darren posted his pic's of his tank with the iwasaki and the 10000K bulb on it I liked the 10000K bulb better, from the pictures there wasn't much difference in brightness but if you look closly his corals are floressing a little harder under the 10000K.

The one thing I like about the idea of using a DE bulbs is that by varing the thickness of the glass under it you can controle how much UV is entering your tank, this way if UV is a large contrubiting factor to the color of corals you will be able to find that perfect balance by using different thickness glass.

Steve

[ 08 June 2002, 00:56: Message edited by: StirCrazy ]

canadawest

06-08-2002, 05:48 AM

Originally posted by BCReefer:

I must admit I am coming up to my 1 year aniversary for my marine tank and as the old cig commercial saying goes "You've come along way baby!"

Can't wait until the 22nd.

PatrickAwwwww.... And I remember when you were just a newborn! tongue.gif

Doug

06-08-2002, 10:00 AM

As Stephane and I have already talked about on RC, I have always had a preference for the 12K flanked by a pair of 10K bulbs.

I have run almost every combination of lighting to see the corals response & people looking at the tanks.

The 400 watt 12 over the center, with a 175 watt 10K German on each side, seems to give the best look and still a nice growth rate.

As I said on the 20K thread, I am going to try them also. Alone on the 170 and as the center bulb on the 180, {after the 12K bulbs are finished though}.

For sure, as we have argued in the past, bulb replacement costs are a big issue, esp. with us here in Canada. Thats why Iwasaki makes so much sense for us. But now with costs of higher "K" bulbs coming down, why not use them.

I purchsed several 175 watt 10K bulbs from Jayson for a hundred bucks each. How the heck can ya beat that. :D I just purchased a 400 watt 20K for $160, still pretty good and going to get some more even cheaper yet. ;)

I say whoo-tee-doo, :D , its about time we here in Canada, recieved a break on our marine supplies. Gettin tired of paying through the nose for everything.

stephane

06-08-2002, 12:16 PM

How can you tell me that I alway try to copmapare iwasaki whith other? you did. I only try to show you that you are rong. in stating that a 150 will
blow away any 250 watt + comparing as you do a 150 whith a reflector to a 250 whitout on is comparing orange whith orange?

Originally posted by StirCrazy:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by DJ88:
[qb] but the Ab bulb will still lay waist to any 250 watt bulb out there :D but, this is not the important thing. the fact is that a 150 watt AB DE bulbs seams to provide Iwasaki power with a 10000K color and that its effectiveness is some where between a 250 and a 400.
SteveI have show you from the mouth of Sanjay that this is copletly false but you dont want to admit

As for HQI refering to DE HQI vs mogul a MH is completly false HQI is a trade mark from Sylvania
from bulb that are not even DE but mogul, but all europeen call there bulb HQI single ended or DE double ended. Same compagny DE or mogul are the same bulb but whith different socket DE are made for Europe home and comercial mogul are made for industrial That the only difference but most of the time american run mogul whith regular ballast and those bulb are not made for this they should be run whith the exacly same ballast that a DE.

as for the other 250w bulb like mogul sunburst, radium blue line and ALS you can not commpare them either because they are not true 10k but super blue bulb

the only other bulb that last are BLV Ushio and
Aqualine DE or mogul those are from the same class

Now if we go with the numbers Sanjay got from his test is was 140PPFD/PAR for the 250 iwasaki and 128.8 PPFD/PAR for a Ushio 10000K HQI NOT a AB DE as you stated. in fact the 110 you reported for the AB was for a normal AB 10000K MH bulb not a DE HQIDo you have the anual 2002? I tink you should point your nose in those number are from there but you are right the AB was a mogul but it will be same result whit a DE
they are the same bulb

[ 08 June 2002, 08:27: Message edited by: stephane ]

StirCrazy

06-08-2002, 01:05 PM

Originally posted by stephane:

As for HQI refering to DE HQI vs mogul a MH is completly false HQI is a trade mark from Sylvania
from bulb that are not even DE but mogul, but all europeen call there bulb HQI single ended or DE double ended. Same compagny DE or mogul are the same bulb but whith different socket DE are made for Europe home and comercial mogul are made for industrial That the only difference but most of the time american run mogul whith regular ballast and those bulb are not made for this they should be run whith the exacly same ballast that a DE.yup this is true, HQI's can be had in either DE or SE and both use a HQI ballast.

(for the record HQI is a tradmarked name by Sylvaina, but I will use it to refer to all bulbs that use the same technology weather they are single ended or double ended as this is what the aquarium indistury is doing.)

Thats not the point though, both Ushio and AB make NON-HQI standard mogal MH bulbs and they were used in the tests also. if you look at the page I posted in my last post Steph the only two HQI bulbs tested were the Ushio 250 HQI and the AB 150. All the other AB and Ushio bulbs were everyday ordnary MH bulbs, the 400 watt Ushio and AB are a good example of this.

as for the other 250w bulb like mogul sunburst, radium blue line and ALS you can not commpare them either because they are not true 10k but super blue bulb [/QB]ahh yes but they are advertizing as 10K are they not? if you want to say something is a 10K then you can compare it against other 10K's

Do you have the anual 2002? I tink you should point your nose in those number are from there but you are right the AB was a mogul but it will be same result whit a DE
they are the same bulb[/QB]Yes I do Steph and there was no 250 HQI tested in there, I think you are being confused by the testing of a Aqualine 250 10000K and it being real close to a 250 watt Iwasaki. this bulbs is not a HQI but just a satandard MH bulb designed to run off a standard MH ballast.

Steve

stephane

06-08-2002, 05:59 PM

Originally posted by StirCrazy:
Thats not the point though, both Ushio and AB make NON-HQI standard mogal MH bulbs and they were used in the tests also. if you look at the page I posted in my last post Steph the only two HQI bulbs tested were the Ushio 250 HQI and the AB 150. All the other AB and Ushio bulbs were everyday ordnary MH bulbs, the 400 watt Ushio and AB are a good example of this.
This is where you are totaly wrong ushio mogul or DE is the same exact bulb but without UV shield and different socket they are the same exact inside technologie and made to run on the same exact ballast same as ALL europeen MH bulb HID HQI or what ever you want to call them

Aquarium compagny could tell you wathever you want to sell you someting please dont beleive whatever they said to sale you someting go on the ushio site and compare lumen from DE to mogul of the same watt and kelvin you will be very surprise my friend.

what have made the ting the more confuse is people have import mogul europen bulb and have put them right in there old fixture and ballast but without having matching the ballast. then they clame mogul bulb are not good, this in not the fact THEY ARE TO NUTS TO RUN THEM ON THE RIGHT BALLAST

stephane

06-08-2002, 06:06 PM

Originally posted by stephane:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by StirCrazy:
Thats not the point though, both Ushio and AB make NON-HQI standard mogal MH bulbs and they were used in the tests also. if you look at the page I posted in my last post Steph the only two HQI bulbs tested were the Ushio 250 HQI and the AB 150. All the other AB and Ushio bulbs were everyday ordnary MH bulbs, the 400 watt Ushio and AB are a good example of this.
This is where you are totaly wrong ushio mogul or DE is the same exact bulb but without UV shield and different socket they are the same exact inside technologie and made to run on the same exact ballast same as ALL europeen MH bulb HID HQI or what ever you want to call them

Aquarium compagny could tell you wathever you want to sell you someting please dont beleive whatever they said to sale you someting go on the ushio site and compare lumen from DE to mogul of the same watt and kelvin you will be very surprise my friend.

what have made the ting the more confuse is people have import mogul europen bulb and have put them right in there old fixture and ballast but without having matching the ballast. then they clame mogul bulb are not good, this in not the fact THEY ARE TO NUTS TO RUN THEM ON THE RIGHT BALLAST<hr /></blockquote>Originally posted by StirCrazy:
ahh yes but they are advertizing as 10K are they not? if you want to say something is a 10K then you can compare it against other 10K's

YOU want to compare aple with aple Them compare identical spectre Those are mono cromatique bulb same exact spectre as the radium (who is in fact
not a 20k but a monochromatique blue bulb and definitivalie not made for aquarium bulb)

Aquarium compagnie put all kind of name to all kind of product just to made more profite on you
you just have to be brighter than them :D

DJ88

06-09-2002, 12:50 AM

ok this is gonan be a long one. Go away for a day and look what happens. :D

You are right, but the people that don't miss it tend to blow it out of proportion alsoSeems both sides do. I look at the numbers as I see them. The 150DE had a reflector the others didn't. Concidering that a reflector can give you up to 75% increase* in power(more in this case IMO since the reflector was built for this bulb) I don't see the 150DE laying waste to the Iwasaki 250W. It equals it. Or very close. The 400W 65KK lays waste to the 150WDE. Big time. With a reflector. This really needs to be reinforced. The 150W DE was tested with a reflector specifically built for that bulb. Enclose an Iwaskai in that style enclosure and I bet you'd be rethinking that thought. That enclosure also focuses the light emitted in a mich smaller beam pattern than a standard reflector. Apples and oranges are being compared. Well one orange to a bunch of apples. And that orange isn't as juicy as everyone seems to think. :rolleyes:

*This fact has been tested by Sanjay and he found that a good reflector will increase light emitted to a source by 50-75%. Fish and Marine annual 2002.

I think this pic says it all. 400W on the left 150W on the right. The intensity difference is obvious.
http://www.reefcentral.com/vbulletin/attachment.php?s=&postid=600337

the 150 has been tested against a 250 in identical fixtures..
Where? How can you test a DE HQI in an identical fixture to a mogul? I follow lighting threads very closely and haven't seen this anywhere. Can you get this data for me? Thanks. Or do you mean the 250W HQI?

if you want to compare a 10K bulb... compare it against another 10K bulb. But you weren't doing this earlier. :confused:

when Darren posted his pic's of his tank with the iwasaki and the 10000K bulb on it I liked the 10000K bulb better, from the pictures there wasn't much difference in brightness but if you look closly his corals are floressing a little harder under the 10000K One thing I didn't say which I now know I should have is that my camera did a HUGE adjustment to get that exposure with the Iwaskai so that shot looked equal to the 10KK. They are no where near similar. The exposure for the 10KK was 1/60th of a second where with the Iwasaki it was 1/250th of a second. I can't remember the F-stop but it was a lot higher for the Iwasaki. With my eyes I can say there is at least 2x's the light. Yes there is a color difference in the pics. But once again it is misleading because of the camera. With the slower exposure speed and lower Fstop used it has made the corals look like they are flourescing more as it is letting more light in to achieve a proper picture. When I had the bulbs running the 10KK was a bit whiter. But no diff in coloration. Honest.

One thing that needs to be said about EVERY photo online comparing tanks before and after is that unless the camera is set to the exact same settings for both shots the pictures will be and are decieving.

I have always had a preference for the 12K flanked by a pair of 10K bulbs.
Hmm interesting combo Doug. I have a 400W ballast. Maybe this is the route I need to go. It is in essence what I want to do with the 6500K and the 50000K. Thanks for passing that on. smile.gif

Gettin tired of paying through the nose for everything I hear ya. I still don't mind paying, but woudln't mind a break if ya know what I mean.

ahh yes but they are advertizing as 10K are they not? if you want to say something is a 10K then you can compare it against other 10K's With lighting it is an approximation as to what the Kelvin is. Do you honestly believe the Iwasaki Aquas are 50000K? From what others have said they more closely resemble a 14000K. Even then they don't know if a 14000K is actually 14000K. All kelvin ratings for lighting, MH, fluorescent et. al. are an approximation. It is not exact. Due to the fact lights emit so many different levels and intensities of different wavelengths. 6500K's look yellowish white yet they are actually concidered a Green bulb. It is for this reason all kelvin ratings for bulbs are approximations. And are IMO misleading. Bulbs should be rated for colors by what the differnet peaks are with the differnet wavelengths. That is too difficult tho so we get kelvin ratings that are approximations. Anyways if I remember right the max you can go is about 35000K for a true black body temperature. I am going by memory tho. I'll try to find the physics site I had been reading a while ago that talks about highest black body temp.

With all of this another thing to concider with the Iwasaki is that they are being tested on balalsts made to run MH bulbs. The Iwasaki runs optimally on the MV(EYE) ballast. It is even whiter and more punch to it than I have now.

IMO all the comparisons are moot for the most part. More an more each day I realise this. Kind of like a light bulb turning on. ;) You can cut and paste all you want from the net or magazines. Extrapolate what you want or don't want from the info contained. All too often people misread this data anyways and only see what they want to see.

What it boils down to is this. If you find a combo that works. Go for it. Asthetically I like the Iwakasi but want to try a blue bulb instead of the actinics and VHO's. Nothing more. As an added bonus I will get a bit more PPFD with two more MH's than the VHO's and NO's I currently have. If this gives me more growth or color, fabulous. I'll be estatic. But in that event I can't sit and say that it is due to bulb A and bulb b. There are too many variables in these tanks. Water, food, etc etc. Light is only one part of the big equation. A part of the equation that has so many possible combinations that we can't say what is best or isn't best(for the most part). Peoples ideas of what is best or not is almost entirely dependant upon what the experts say. Steve Tyree feels that bule bulbs are what makes for a successful tnak. A few months ago no one was really interested in 20KK radiums. Now you can't find anyone who doesn't want to use em. lol ;) I can show you a 100+ gallon tank that is running only 175's and it is fabulous. Then find another tank that runs 400's and isn't quite as nice so on and so forth. Lighting is one part but no one light is the final answer.

Comparing one bulb made by one manufacturer to another made by someone else is once again. Apples to oranges. All that you really can compare is data you can accurately measure. ie. PPFD, Lumens, spectral analysis et al. Kelvin isn't something that can be compared. I have seen two different manufacturers 10KK's and they didn't look anything alike. Because they aren't. Kelvin ratings are approximations given by a manufacturer. Nothing more.

man my fingers hurt again. I need a beer. lol

[ 08 June 2002, 20:54: Message edited by: DJ88 ]

Troy F

06-09-2002, 01:44 PM

One thing I've mentioned when the lighting debate came up recently is that the manufacturers of bulbs change. What may be a quality bulb one year may not be the next. AB has switched a few times as has Coralife. I can't find my reference but it is somewhere on Fishnet and a point is made by Richard Harker that sums it up well.

As for prices, they are seeming to be a lot better. Enough so that I considered buying new MH ballasts so that I can switch bulbs if I want. But, the longevity of the Iwasaki is still one of it's best features. 109 bucks for over a year compared to $180 for 6-9 months. Basically the cost of the higher K bulb is $360. That is a lot of scratch per year.

stephane

06-13-2002, 01:55 AM

This is RC tank of the month look what kind of light this guy have ;)

http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2002-06/totm/index.htm

Look the result I tink as a reefer have coral that color is the ultimate I have the saki and have good looking coral but no way compare to those :( Those pic result IMO worth a lot more than any magazine or scientific test. You dont need to be a scientist to know what you want and that what I want so bye bye saki hello radium :D

http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2002-06/totm/images/TracyGrayPic31.JPG

http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2002-06/totm/images/TracyGrayPic5.JPG

http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2002-06/totm/images/TracyGrayPic0top.jpg

[ 12 June 2002, 22:13: Message edited by: stephane ]

stephane

06-13-2002, 02:19 AM

As for prices, they are seeming to be a lot better. Enough so that I considered buying new MH ballasts so that I can switch bulbs if I want. But, the longevity of the Iwasaki is still one of it's best features. 109 bucks for over a year compared to $180 for 6-9 months. Basically the cost of the higher K bulb is $360. That is a lot of scratch per year.[/QB]What about a radium the price of a saki and for her shelf Dr mac and other change them each 12 month + dont forget the save on all those fluorescent tube useless with those bulb!
;)

DJ88

06-13-2002, 02:41 PM

Stephane,

It is agreat looking tank and all. But you can't say that it is the bulbs and the bulbs alone that is getting the results that we are seeing in those pictures. I highly doubt it is the bulbs alone. Anyone who says coral growth and coloration is due to a bulb intensity and kelvin and nothing else is full of it IMO.

First off, there are too many factors in a reef tank to say for certain it is the bulbs. We can't do that. The more I think about this the more I think it has more to do with many things. And the end result of all the parts is a good looking tank.

Secondly,

Digital Cameras are decieving when it comes to reef tanks. They enhance certain colors and distort what the colors actually are. This is after years of digital photography. With a camera I can make almost any tank look spectacular for color and you wouldn't even notice or know I had done it. I'd say that 95% of all tank shots we see are digital or more. And every camera works differently. Enhancing certain colors, etc etc. I took shots of my tank with one camera, then with a different brand the same night. They looked like two coempetely different tanks due to the intensity of the colors in one of them. I will place money on the fact that some of the amazing colors you see in most reef tank pics are due to this happening.

Until someone can prove without a shadow of a doubt through testing waht bulb is the absolute best for coral coloration and growth all in one and can keep that bulb consistent in production from year to year for a long period of time then I will say go for it. This bulb is the be all to end all.

Until then.. nope.

The colors are enhanced with the 20000K bulbs, and the 10000K bulbs and that is it. They won't be visible, or barely visible(probably visible as they are naturally) with a proper full spectrum light that has a broad band even strength throughout the specturm to balance it out as white light. Not the peaks at violet, blue, green, red etc etc etc. Put a color under 400-470nm wavelength light and it flouresces and glows brighter then natural. That is all we are doing. Enhancing it.

Having all these fancy high kelvin bulbs is for our eyes only IMO. EYe candy as it were. Most guys see eye candy as a great looking woman. We see it as corals.. ;) There may be some benefit for having higer peaks at certain wavelengths but we don't know for sure. One expert says 400W MH is too much, another says it is barely enough. One says this bulb is best in a few months it will be another bulb. Not for purely scientific reasons but due to the fact he/she likes its look. Once again saying that it is the bulb alone doing miracles in a tank is a crock. It is the whole combination of lighting, water quality, water movement and feedings. If a person is cheap on one thing or doesn't do enough of one thing they aren't going to get the results that someone who puts the time, effort and necessary steps in does.

For example. Water quality is something you have to have for a successful reef tank. Whether that is by mechanical means(good skimmer) or natural means(large enough refugium or ATS). Along with water quality is stability. Having your water stay at the levels the corals need to grow properly is essential.

There are too many things to say that just one is doing it all.

I have seen great tanks with 250W & 400W 6500 Iwaskais, 400W 10000K's, 250W 10000K HQI's, 175W 10000K's. All different combinations. With those four combos alone you see that it isn't just one bulb that makes for a successful reef tank. It's a lot more things that that.

IMO the facy bulbs make the tank look pretty. SOme have enough energy to allow the corals to grow as well as look pretty. Some don't.

What is right? who knows. Find what you like. But don't say that this bulb will make your tank look like some of the tanks we see online nowadays. Cause it is more than just one bulb that will make or break your tank.

Delphinus

06-13-2002, 03:27 PM

Personally I think the only way to really tell is to experiment on your own. We can read people's experiences but they're always anecdotal. We can read testing results such as Sanjay's but they're always theoretical. Now the theory behind the Radium sounds good. According to test they show a PPFD value almost comparable to Iwasaki. So growth should be OK. And they're blue, so colour for our esthetics should be OK. But really, the only way to tell for sure if you'll like 'em is to try 'em for yourself.

I was absolutely convinced that Iwasaki's were the way for me, based on what I've read over the years. Now that I finally have them ... I must say the one real disappointment I have is they really do not do reds any justice. I see fantastic reds under, say, 250W HQI 10000K and in my tank they're just a wee pink. So... once these Iwasakis are spent, in a year or whenever, I might give the radiums a very serious think. Since that will be an option somewhat affordable (comparatively speaking), because, while the HQI option sure looks nice, I definitely can't afford that unless I came into a lot of wealth (still waiting... :rolleyes: ). The radiums, at least they're mogul so more DIY options available and the bulbs seem only marginally more expensive than, say, Iwasaki. (Someone said $150? My Iwasaki's ran me about $100 each, well, hmm, maybe more like $90 each.)

[ 13 June 2002, 12:07: Message edited by: delphinus ]

stephane

06-13-2002, 05:34 PM

It is agreat looking tank and all. But you can't say that it is the bulbs and the bulbs alone that is getting the results that we are seeing in those pictures. I highly doubt it is the bulbs alone. Anyone who says coral growth and coloration is due to a bulb intensity and kelvin and nothing else is full of it IMO.
for the grow you are right here this not a miclacle bulb and there no receipe for miracle put those coral in
fresh water they will not trive even under that bulb I agree :D

Having all these fancy high kelvin bulbs is for our eyes only IMO. EYe candy as it were. Most guys see eye candy as a great looking woman. We see it as corals.. There may be some benefit for having higer peaks at certain wavelengths but we don't know for sure Yea but that exacly whatI want I have my reef for six years 10 years in salwater now and have grow and maintain a lot of coral now what I want after all those years is not a tank that only grow coral and look beautiful but a show tank that
will make you scream and there no way IMO and whit my experience I could achieve this whit
my saki and VHO.

Digital Cameras are decieving when it comes to reef tanks. They enhance certain colors and distort what the colors actually are. This is after years of digital photography. With a camera I can make almost any tank look spectacular for color and you wouldn't even notice or know I had done it. I agree here and at first I was septical for the radium but this bulb is there for a long time
and all I have heard is HO wow! from people who have reef for a long time so now I tink they could not be all rong or lies + I have hard time imagine someone buying a 150$ US bulb (couple of years ago) and clame that this bulb enhance color if not. Knowing people on those board they will all have cry that they have been rip off. IMO
the radium have made the proof that it give candy color to coral + now it seem that it grow them either maybe not as the saki but I dont care I want a show tank not a coral farm so Im in the bandwagon.

For example. Water quality is something you have to have for a successful reef tank. Whether that is by mechanical means(good skimmer) or natural means(large enough refugium or ATS). Along with water quality is stability. Having your water stay at the levels the corals need to grow properly is essential I agree... who could not? this is the basic but I tink I have all this

What is right? who knows. Find what you like. But don't say that this bulb will make your tank look like some of the tanks we see online nowadays. Cause it is more than just one bulb that will make or break your tank.
I agree here to but as you say you need all the ingredian and one of the missing is the bulb I dont pretend to have a tank like him but I will never have one if I dont do what I need to acheive it ;)

Dont get me rong as far as grow and maintain the saki are perfect + they look great + sheap, most of the time accusing falsy to be yellow BUT It time for me to have more and grew up

I want a purple coral that is fluorecent puple and pink birdnest that are PINK not pale Yes they are beautiful pale but I want them to be pefecr pink blue and red like if I have painted them

[ 13 June 2002, 13:36: Message edited by: stephane ]

stephane

06-13-2002, 06:30 PM

Originally posted by delphinus:
Personally I think the only way to really tell is to experiment on your own. We can read people's experiences but they're always anecdotal. We can read testing results such as Sanjay's but they're always theoretical. Now the theory behind the Radium sounds good. According to test they show a PPFD value almost comparable to Iwasaki. So growth should be OK. And they're blue, so colour for our esthetics should be OK. But really, the only way to tell for sure if you'll like 'em is to try 'em for yourself.

I was absolutely convinced that Iwasaki's were the way for me, based on what I've read over the years. Now that I finally have them ... I must say the one real disappointment I have is they really do not do reds any justice. I see fantastic reds under, say, 250W HQI 10000K and in my tank they're just a wee pink. So... once these Iwasakis are spent, in a year or whenever, I might give the radiums a very serious think. Since that will be an option somewhat affordable (comparatively speaking), because, while the HQI option sure looks nice, I definitely can't afford that unless I came into a lot of wealth (still waiting... :rolleyes: ). The radiums, at least they're mogul so more DIY options available and the bulbs seem only marginally more expensive than, say, Iwasaki. (Someone said $150? My Iwasaki's ran me about $100 each, well, hmm, maybe more like $90 each.)100% agree that why I end whith the radium I want a good bulb but dont want to do it whit a 180$ bulb and a 500$ fixture that even need actinic I
dont choose that bulb for notting I do intense research