400w over 250w MH's - What are the advantages?

[frank88]

to you ...
consider tanks 24 inch high max for SPS keepers
... in addition to the heat output and the increased electrical cost...
the 400 watts are actually more efficient / earnings of 250 watts????
With the 400 is easier to achieve good results? If so why?
Maybe with the 250 watt should be more careful in the management of the tank?
Because if there is no "obvious" benefits and advantages, may as well have the 250 watt ...

 

[250G]

u won't likely "upgrade" from a 400W MH.....

 

[frank88]

u won't likely "upgrade" from a 400W MH.....

24 inch is not right with 400 watts? and why?

 

[250G]

400W is right on any SPS system....to much light just raise your lights a little

the number of people who like sps and upgrade from 250 up to 400 far exceed those who go down from 400 250

24 inch is not right with 400 watts? and why?

 

[allsps40]

400w MH are best used on larger or deep tanks. 250w MH will be fine even on a tank as deep as a standard 90 gallon. Of course you could not keep sps at the very bottom but mid to high is great.

 

[SDguy]

I think people need to be more specific with terminology when discussing this topic. I grow sps perfectly fine on the bottom of my 30" tall tank with 250W... on electronic ballasts, no less. Can I grow yellow finger porites? Nope... but montis do just fine.

 

[ryanjiang]

400W is right on any SPS system

250G , isn't it only true when other factors are in harmony? Such as nutrient/flow/Chemical parameters etc...

In another word, if the system is not optimized enough, too strong light might not be good thing ?

I am just learning.

 

[atlantisaquari]

the stronger the light .. the more important all the other factors become.

 

[ryanjiang]

That's what I thought. At least to say, corals are not able to utilize that much light if other factors are not harmonized.

 

[frank88]

I'm trying...

+ light =

- increased coral growth
- more PAR and more coverage of the surface (with same reflector)
- more water oxidation, the transformation of organic matter occurs more easily.
- increased pigmentation of corals better brilliance and intense colors
- greater penetration into the water
- greater assimilation of coral

.....Have you ever tried the 400 watt?

 

[250G]

For your SPS tank the 3 most important components for ideal color, growth and health (Peter feel free to chime in) are:

1. Water Quality
2. Lighting
3. Water Movement

Without good water quality it does not matter how strong your lighting is. The importance of proper (random and adequate quantity) is only realized once your SPS tank matures.

The thing about 400W halides is that you will essentially be able to put any coral anywhere you like and it should get adequate light. I was always a little weird that way, but I would never run an SPS tank without 400W MH, that's just me.

At the same time , as peter noted above, 250W halides will be just fine. You can not argue with the results he acheives!

I'm trying...

+ light =

- increased coral growth
- more PAR and more coverage of the surface (with same reflector)
- more water oxidation, the transformation of organic matter occurs more easily.
- increased pigmentation of corals better brilliance and intense colors
- greater penetration into the water
- greater assimilation of coral

.....Have you ever tried the 400 watt?

 

[JamesJR]

Also, keep in mind the bulb choice you make can make a very large difference.

 

[gofor100]

I live in CA, and the electricity costs here blow big time... hence, I run 250-watt MH on all my tanks... corals are happy, clams are happy... my electrical bill is happy

If I lived somewhere else where the costs were not a big deal, then I would probably run 400-watt for the reasons stated above (mainly, you can put SPS anywhere in the tank).

 

[Alex T.]

I run 400 watt radiums with Galaxy ballasts on my 6 foot, 27" deep 150. I like a minimalist rock structure with plenty of open water at the top of the tank which means all my sps start at the halfway up mark. Because of this I went with 400 watters. I also have clams on the sand bed doing great.

I think that 250 watt bulbs when paired with the right ballast/bulb combination can be just as effective but with some caveats.

If I were to switch to 250 watt bulbs on my tank I would probably run a 10k bulb. After reading through Sanjay Joshi's lighting tests about ballast/bulb combinations it was clear that a 400 watt 20k XM on most ballasts won't have higher PAR than a 250 watt 10k XM. You have to look at all the variables.... ballast, bulb, reflector, turbidity, stable water parameters. Like others have already stated, there are a wide range of SPS corals requiring different amounts of light intensity. I feel that with a cooler looking bulb like 14 - 20k there is a larger margin for error in the 400 watt category. 10k 400 watt bulbs can pump out a lot of PAR and do a lot of damage if other parameters and light acclimation aren't stricly adhered to. Growth can be phenomenal with these warmer temperature bulbs, but it may not be the look you want as most of us like more blue.

Not that I've applied any science to what I myself have noticed, but here is my humble personal opinion....If you feed your fish a lot, then you shouldn't have the highest intensity bulb. My feeling and personal observation is that sps corals will slowly adapt to stronger lighting, but will then take in less food from the surrounding nutrients available, which may in turn cause excess nutrients and unwanted nuisance algae from the high feeding and high light. When lighting is moderate to borderline too little there may be another food requirement necessary to keep the corals thriving, which in turn can allow you to feed more. Again, this is just a theory based on experience in my own tank. So, to make a short story long....it depends. If you want to grow anything anywhere in your tank with a 250 watt bulb and it's a deep tank you may need to consider using a 10k bulb. If you want a more blue look but also want to grow sps near the sand bed like me you should look into 400 watt bulbs if your tank is deeper than 24 inches.

Hope I was clear.

 

[Alex T.]

I run 400 watt radiums with Galaxy ballasts on my 6 foot, 27" deep 150. I like a minimalist rock structure with plenty of open water at the top of the tank which means all my sps start at the halfway up mark. Because of this I went with 400 watters. I also have clams on the sand bed doing great.

I think that 250 watt bulbs when paired with the right ballast/bulb combination can be just as effective but with some caveats.

If I were to switch to 250 watt bulbs on my tank I would probably run a 10k bulb. After reading through Sanjay Joshi's lighting tests about ballast/bulb combinations it was clear that a 400 watt 20k XM on most ballasts won't have higher PAR than a 250 watt 10k XM. You have to look at all the variables.... ballast, bulb, reflector, turbidity, stable water parameters. Like others have already stated, there are a wide range of SPS corals requiring different amounts of light intensity. I feel that with a cooler looking bulb like 14 - 20k there is a larger margin for error in the 400 watt category. 10k 400 watt bulbs can pump out a lot of PAR and do a lot of damage if other parameters and light acclimation aren't stricly adhered to. Growth can be phenomenal with these warmer temperature bulbs, but it may not be the look you want as most of us like more blue.

Not that I've applied any science to what I myself have noticed, but here is my humble personal opinion....If you feed your fish a lot, then you shouldn't have the highest intensity bulb. My feeling and personal observation is that sps corals will slowly adapt to stronger lighting, but will then take in less food from the surrounding nutrients available, which may in turn cause excess nutrients and unwanted nuisance algae from the high feeding and high light. When lighting is moderate to borderline too little there may be another food requirement necessary to keep the corals thriving, which in turn can allow you to feed more. Again, this is just a theory based on experience in my own tank. So, to make a short story long....it depends. If you want to grow anything anywhere in your tank with a 250 watt bulb and it's a deep tank you may need to consider using a 10k bulb. If you want a more blue look but also want to grow sps near the sand bed like me you should look into 400 watt bulbs if your tank is deeper than 24 inches.

Hope I was clear.

 

[frank88]

I run 400 watt radiums with Galaxy ballasts on my 6 foot, 27" deep 150. I like a minimalist rock structure with plenty of open water at the top of the tank which means all my sps start at the halfway up mark. Because of this I went with 400 watters. I also have clams on the sand bed doing great.

I think that 250 watt bulbs when paired with the right ballast/bulb combination can be just as effective but with some caveats.

If I were to switch to 250 watt bulbs on my tank I would probably run a 10k bulb. After reading through Sanjay Joshi's lighting tests about ballast/bulb combinations it was clear that a 400 watt 20k XM on most ballasts won't have higher PAR than a 250 watt 10k XM. You have to look at all the variables.... ballast, bulb, reflector, turbidity, stable water parameters. Like others have already stated, there are a wide range of SPS corals requiring different amounts of light intensity. I feel that with a cooler looking bulb like 14 - 20k there is a larger margin for error in the 400 watt category. 10k 400 watt bulbs can pump out a lot of PAR and do a lot of damage if other parameters and light acclimation aren't stricly adhered to. Growth can be phenomenal with these warmer temperature bulbs, but it may not be the look you want as most of us like more blue.

Not that I've applied any science to what I myself have noticed, but here is my humble personal opinion....If you feed your fish a lot, then you shouldn't have the highest intensity bulb. My feeling and personal observation is that sps corals will slowly adapt to stronger lighting, but will then take in less food from the surrounding nutrients available, which may in turn cause excess nutrients and unwanted nuisance algae from the high feeding and high light. When lighting is moderate to borderline too little there may be another food requirement necessary to keep the corals thriving, which in turn can allow you to feed more. Again, this is just a theory based on experience in my own tank. So, to make a short story long....it depends. If you want to grow anything anywhere in your tank with a 250 watt bulb and it's a deep tank you may need to consider using a 10k bulb. If you want a more blue look but also want to grow sps near the sand bed like me you should look into 400 watt bulbs if your tank is deeper than 24 inches.

Hope I was clear.

very very clear ...

but...
we are sure that the PAR is the reference indicator of better growth and color?
in this case ...
Why i should pay 400 watts of power for a 20,000 k having a yield much lower?
then I pay for a 400 watt 10,000 Kalvin ... ..

 

[gofor100]

I personally am going to run a lower kelvin 250-watt MH, and add supplemental T-5 to get a similar blue look... that is, when I upgrade and have more room in my canopy.

A lot of people here in CA seem to do the same thing (if not just run T-5 only) to save some on the electrical costs (if you figure a 2X39-watt T-5 is 88-watts vs. replacing just one of your 250-watt bulbs with a 400-watt is a 150-watt difference... it adds up).

 

[ryanjiang]

Not that I've applied any science to what I myself have noticed, but here is my humble personal opinion....If you feed your fish a lot, then you shouldn't have the highest intensity bulb.

I have different opinion: coral need to feed more and feed right in order to capitalize the stronger light, in terms of converting all sort of energy into good result, which is fast growth and vivid color. It is far more complicated to feed corals right than providing strong light. For one, the tank need to provide diversity of food sources available for corals, corals adapt to learn what to eat and how to eat in each different tank, not all corals are equally good at eating certain single food source. For two, the tank need to have good flow to bring food source to corals. For three, water params has to be in check and stable, otherwise corals are unhappy and would not eat.

That is why I think, strong light is only useful when all factors are in harmony. Let's assume one's tank has in-check and stable water params, which is basic for SPS keeping, but flow and food source has not been optimized enough, or corals have not adapted enough to learn how to feed efficiently in this tank. It might be better with 250W cause you might end up with slower growing but relatively colorful corals v.s faster growing but brown corals.

Another side of story is certainly for seasoned SPS keepers and SPS tanks, the stronger the light, the better. It might not be much costly cause doing 6 hours of 400W cost similar to 8 hours 250W. Plus a huge advantage as 250G said one end up with more placement freedom, esp. in big tank.

No offending Alex, just for open discussions.

 

[ryanjiang]

very very clear ...

but...
we are sure that the PAR is the reference indicator of better growth and color?
in this case ...
Why i should pay 400 watts of power for a 20,000 k having a yield much lower?
then I pay for a 400 watt 10,000 Kalvin ... ..

For one, people generally prefer tank look in higher Kalvin, guess this is out of the impression of blue ocean.

For two, people generally prefer the coloration coral developed under higher kalvin. Which I question now if it is directly related to the color temp of the light, or this is because most tanks are not able to handle that much PAR.

 

[frank88]

I live in CA, and the electricity costs here blow big time... hence, I run 250-watt MH on all my tanks...

here in Italy electricity costs 0,30 dollar x kw....:mad2:

and the average salary of a italian is more less of a american... :sad2: