400's vs 250's

tom obrecht

Active member
I'm in the process of analizing my current lighting set up. I currently am running 4-400 watt 12K Reflux bulbs over my 400 gallon reef (dimensions 96"L x 36"W x 28"H). This is a newer set up and will be a sps reef. I'm using Luminarc reflectors with the actual bulb being only about 12" above the water surface. I'm getting some varied feedback from some friends in another thread on this topic. I'm curious what everyone here feels is the route to go? I'm debating of whether to drop down to 3-400 watters or replace the 400's with 250's? If I go with three 400's I do get a bit of shadowing in certain areas. If I switch to the 250's I can use the reflectors I already have, reduce my electric bill a bit further and run the system with less heat. Any thoughts?

FYI I already have some sps pieces in the tank now with a majority of them bleaching out for anything located halfway up the tank or higher. I know there are a number of sps reefers in the area and am wondering what suggestions people might have?
 
Did you properly acclimate the SPS to the light? If you didn't place them on the bottom of the tank and slowly move them up over the course of at least a few weeks that would be your problem. I don't feel your lighting is overkill if you're sticking with higher light SPS.
 
i am a big fan of 250s I personally think you dont no need anything more than that unless you have a really deep tank In my 320 I have 3 250 watt hqi and 6 t5s
I keep Pretty much everything except softies. You should come down oct 6 to the meeting check it out
 
Hey Go Pack, can you tell me the specs on your light set-up? I am considering an upgrade to a 180g reef, and read the spider reflectors with SE bulbs are able to cover the entire tank with only 2 fixtures.....are the HQI's a more focused light? I would keep basic SPS and LPS in the tank.
 
Are you using HQI or mogul base lamps?

Also there was a lot of talk a while back on how inefficient the 400 watt lights were compared to the 250 HQI's. I haven't been keeping up though.

Personally I like the idea of 4 fixtures on a 8' tank with 250 HQI's.

Peter does have a point about acclimation to the light. A lot of stores I've seen have very blue 400 watt mogul end lamps with lousy reflectors about 2' up. Most of the blue light is hitting the floor.
 
I'd be using mogal bulbs in the Luminarc reflectors. I have been acclimating the new corals I get but it seems once I get to the mid point of the tank they just get shocked and bleach. That's why I'm thinking 250's might be better.

A friend recently sent me a response from Anthony Calfo from his system when he was reworking his lighting. Anthony said that lighting is abused in this hobby and that very few people need 400's and that 250's are MORE THAN ADEQUATE. Guess you can't get much higher advice than Calfo.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10820037#post10820037 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by tom obrecht
I'd be using mogal bulbs in the Luminarc reflectors. I have been acclimating the new corals I get but it seems once I get to the mid point of the tank they just get shocked and bleach. That's why I'm thinking 250's might be better.

A friend recently sent me a response from Anthony Calfo from his system when he was reworking his lighting. Anthony said that lighting is abused in this hobby and that very few people need 400's and that 250's are MORE THAN ADEQUATE. Guess you can't get much higher advice than Calfo.

What type of SPS corals did you have bleach and how quickly were you moving them up? I agree that 250w bulbs are adequate for most applications, but that doesn't mean that 400w can't be used with great success.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10820289#post10820289 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Peter Eichler
What type of SPS corals did you have bleach and how quickly were you moving them up? I agree that 250w bulbs are adequate for most applications, but that doesn't mean that 400w can't be used with great success.

I would agree 100%. I admit being new to sps so I am still learning alot of the species. I am keeping mille's, stags montiporas and caps. I have been starting them on the bottom and moving them up after about 7 days but only half way up the tank. Perhaps this is too quick and is probably most of my issues. I am interested however if people think I can get by with 250's and cut back my electrical consumptions and heat.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10820510#post10820510 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by tom obrecht
I would agree 100%. I admit being new to sps so I am still learning alot of the species. I am keeping mille's, stags montiporas and caps. I have been starting them on the bottom and moving them up after about 7 days but only half way up the tank. Perhaps this is too quick and is probably most of my issues. I am interested however if people think I can get by with 250's and cut back my electrical consumptions and heat.

7 days is not long enough IMO and I would leave them on the bottom for 2-3 weeks. Also, going from 28" to 14" is a BIG jump in light intensity so moving them up a little more gradually would be wise. Just because it's an SPS coral does not mean it needs to or can even handle being blasted with light. SPS are very diverse and many occur at pretty substantial depths. Monti caps for instance would do quite well if left near the bottom or your tank, as would many other SPS. I wouldn't try to keep any SPS in the upper half of your aquarium unless you know they are a more light loving specimen and have been acclimated to your light source for at least a few weeks.

If you think you can sell off your 400w fixtures and get 250w without taking much of a hit money wise it's something to consider. However, there is absolutely nothing wrong with keeping your 400w fixtures. You just need to be a little more careful acclimating things to your light source and you'll be shelling out more in electric costs.
 
http://www.wisconsinreefsociety.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=422

Maybe I should restate what I said at your house... you COULD get away with one less bulb... for the time being. The light levels at the top are on the high side... but good high. Those SPS just arent acclimated yet, thats all.

Keep them on the bottom and after a while, then you can start moving them up. By the time the corals start to fill in, casting more shadows on the corals under them, etc... things will be just fine.

I put my SPS on the bottom, around the 200 micromol/m2/s range for the first few weeks as well or they can fry.

Your 400's are bright, esp for '20,000K'ish bulbs. I dont know that you will get a good intensity from 250's though... the output will take a pretty good step down there... like 1/2.

Id keep the lighting as is, or maybe step down to 3 for just a while. Things will fill in.

Also, from what I remember, your alkalinity could use a little boosting.
 
hahn...

Couple more ?'s.

Let's say I keep the 4 lights but drop down to 250's but replace the bulbs with 10K's rather than the 12k's I have now. I really am looking for a "whiter"look rather than the 12K blue I have now. I'm thinking of trying the 10Reeflux to see what that looks like. Do you think this would help the par reading?

I'm also looking to start injecting ozone into the system. Once the water clearity improves won't this also help with light intesity/penetration as well. Guess I'm holding off on the ozone for right now to see what happens with the lights. I don't want to blast everything again with clearer water.

If I currently have alot of intesity 1/2 way on up in the tank, why wouldn't 250's work if I start adding ozone? Won't the two compliment each other?

Your thoughts?

Oh, by the way...once I got the CA reactor set up my levels are currently at: Calcium 480, Total Hardness 34, Magnesium 1260 and Alkalinity 10 dkh.
 
I suppose, 250s would be bright enough if you went with a more 10,000K-ish bulb. G-man 14,500Ks or something like that. Just depends on the specific bulb more. If you go with a more daylight bulb though, I can see you wanting to add on a couple rows of 54watt T5s with blue bulbs though to even things out. I suppose what I am trying to say is that there is no 'happy medium' with halide bulbs that I have ever found. They are either blue as all heck, with almost all the daylight removed... or they are daylight, and with a good amount of yellow.

There is also the 'reverse supplimentation' possiblity. Usually, its not as efficient, since halides are better at daylight, and T5s better at blue, but you can suppliment a bluer bulb with a couple strips of T5 daylight bulbs to even things out. Sometimes, just one row of T5s like this is enough to bring up the daylight to a reasonable level, and since the outputs of many bluer halide bulbs are getting pretty high, the efficiency isnt so bad.

Overall, Calfo is pretty dead on with his summary of 250's and 400's. Usually, 400's are overkill... but it always depends on the specific bulbs. If you were to use Ushio 20,000Ks for instance... you would have less output than many 250w 10,000Ks. But overall, compared to say.... lighting systems that were out there 8-10 years ago (see Rick Boyd), efficiencies have improved the output of the bulbs by at least double. So people that were using 400's back then may only need 250's now... with the better reflectors like lumenarcs, higher efficiency bulbs and ballasts, etc. Yet many people still base their suggestions for lighting on what was out 8 years ago! 400's still have their place... and maybe even on your tank. There are plenty of SPS tanks that people have set up with your wattage and configuration/reflectors. They might use Radiums or even Aquaconnects, and the corals are colored in very intense.

Honestly, I like gopack's setup.... very efficient... but I think in the long run he will either have to drop his light rack down 4-6" or get better reflectors (using hamilton reefstars) because he just doesnt have those 'peak levels' towards the top that some SPS will like. Some SPS live being under light in the 400 range. I have a pink w/ blue tip milli that wont color in unless its under 350-450 light levels. He pretty much knows that new reflectors are something on the shopping list.

My favorite configuration for bulbs is along gopack's setup though. I like the ushio 10,000K/14,000Ks with T5s supplimenting the actinic/blue range at about a 2:1 halide to T5 ratio. Those halides dont really even need actinic, so if you just go with blue (ATI blue+) T5s, the ratio can be more like 3:1 or 4:1. Its a nice full range light (not monochromatic blue like a pheonix bulb or somewhat like the Reeflux bulbs you currently are using), but with enough blue added back in to please the eye.

You could do something like 4x250wattDE/HQI bulbs, with ushio or Giesemann 14,500K bulbs, and add 8x54wattT5s for blue. The thing is, in the end, you will most likely end up with even more light for a couple hundred less watts. The 10,000K 250's may rival your current bluer bulbs in output as it is, and then adding the T5s on makes them even more potent. So I wonder.... is it really worth stepping down in your case? For 400s on up, 20,000Kish bulbs have pretty decent outputs compared to more daylight bulbs. Some of the highest output 400's are 20,000Kish bulbs.. Aquaconnect 14,000Ks being a prime example of a blue monster. And because their output is so high, they actually tend to have a pretty decent amount of daylight built in... you just cant see it with the huge blue spike. I know there are people who have lighting similar to yours (reflector, wattage/output, color) with great results w/ SPS.

Its hard to say what to do in your spot. If it were me, Id just wait and see how things work out with your current lighting. Its really not 'too much' as long as you acclimate your corals better. I can see the aspiration to lower the heat output, but I cant see that happening w/o removing your existing ballasts AND reflectors. If you step down to 250's, I would strongly suggest going with DE bulbs over SE... and that means different reflectors (unless you send them in to PGS to have them retrofitted with DE sockets and sheilds... which I have seen).
 
I don't think it is much a matter of wattage so much as what bulb and ballast your using. Looking at Sanjay's web pages where he compares the par of various bulbs you can easily see where the PAR of some of the 250 Watt bulbs exceeds that of the Par of most of the 400 Watt bulbs.

If your still staying with MH's then or realy even with any other bulb I thing the ideal is get the highest available PAR for the first step in creating your lighting. Once you have your par up there then the next step would be adding secondary lighting to create that color balance that matches your personal eye.

As far as over lighting is concerned I doubt that many people even come close to overlighting a tank. There were studies of actual PAR ratings at various natural reef locations and the PAR values they recorded were extremly higher that most of could even concieve as possible and practical in a home reef tank.
 
To anyone interested, I can send a pdf file with actual values from Dana Riddle of what Corals get. I can tell you that the values at the top of Tom's tank are on the high side, good for corals adapted to live in 5m depths in the ocean. Most of the corals we see in the trade are from the 10-25m depth range, so the peak levels are much lower than the 2200-2500micrimol/m2/s intensity that you see at the surface in the tropics at noon. Also, keep in mind that our photoperiods are constant throughout the day, and even though in the tropics they might get 11hours of sun a day, the photoperiod starts out with little more than ambient lighting, and rises all day until noon, then decreases.

There is a way to calculate the daily exposure, and compare, but to keep things simple, you can just look at Dana's articles on lighting/spectrum from this past year. There, he spells out some of the maximum intensities that corals can tolerate. The highest is some species of porities coral that can take up to about 750 micromols of light. Most other SPS were photoinhibited at the 500 mark.

It is a myth that we, in a home reef, are not close to meeting the lighting levels seen in a natural reef. There are many who are beyond actually, or rather, keeping some specimens under light that is more intense than it would prefer or even get in the wild.

Tom's light levels are good... its just he placed those SPS corals too high to acclimate... so they got scorched.

There is also a 'balancing act' between flow, light, feeding, and chemistry that corals are in. If the light is high, one half of the photosynthetic cycle will outperform another if the flow or feeding is too low. One person may be able to keep a coral in much lower light with more feeding and flow, and another might not have enough flow on a certain coral in more light, and then the coral 'heats up' too much w/o resperation... and it dies. Its a big balancing act between these variables (add temperature as well).

FWIW, almost all of our tanks dont have the flow that comes close to nature... thats for sure.
 
I think hahnmeister has made some very important comments here. It is not so much how much light but it is balance that is the key.

Several years ago I had done some extensive study on fresh water plants. What I had found is that excessive light can be equally as bad as insuifficient light. A balanced time period between photosynthesis and respiration is required and if one half of the cycle is to short or long compared to the other you will have diminishing results. If the nutrements available to the plants are either excessive or insufficient compared to the light cycle it will shift the lighting needs as well as effect the results.

In a freshwater situation the addition of CO2 will allow increased lighting levels to be effective in promoting growth if the other needed nutritional elements are available to the plants. However the lack of any one will decrease the need for the others to the point where you can end up getting a negative return.

In the salt water tank there is no hard reason to assume things are different. Balance is important and for the nutritional balance we have more nutriments to worry about as well as flow to allow the food (nutriments) to be passed within usable reach of the corals.

Where the argument on flow comes in is how much is realy enough. Just because you have two pumps totaling 5,000gph of flow does not mean you have more flow than someone using one pump at 2,000gph. People forget that flow is effected by aquascaping and placement of the pumps. Then there is the point of varing flow but to what degree, and how about varing direction?

Someone could probably write a good sized book on just the subject of flow alone.
 
Just something to consider when selecting MH lighting.

These numbers are from Sanjay's web site

400 Watt Reflex 12000K = PPFD of 125
250 Watt XM 10000K = PPFD of 115
250 Watt Iwa 5400K = PPFD of 110

Considering the difference in wattage there is not a lot of difference in PPFD ratings between these bulbs.
 
As far as effeciency is concerned I would say the 250 are more effecient than the 400's. However you do get a little more light out of the 400 's and even more out of the 1,000's. So there are definatly situations where the 400 or even 1,000 are better than the 250's.

However if your just looking at effeciency the newer HO T5's seem to put a lot more light out there per watt than anything else yet. However they are very very new and some of the experts do have some mixed opinions on them.

I remember when compacts hit the market. They were expensive and everyone thought they would make MH's absolute. Yet after the test of only a short few years they have not proven themselves to there original expectations.

Presently Im slowly converting to T-5's. However years ago I spent a mint on Compacts so don't do it cause I did.

Dennis
 
Back
Top