Steve Tyree's chat the other night

[DJ88]

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.

[Delphinus]

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]

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]

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 [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[DJ88]

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? [img]smile.gif[/img]

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]

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]

Please tell Jamie.. share your ideas.

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

[StirCrazy]

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.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">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]

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

[StirCrazy]

and how did I know that was comming :D , Brad, WAKE UP and get with the moderen times [img]smile.gif[/img] oh and I had water in the tank last night [img]smile.gif[/img] 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