500G (84X48X30)- NOW REAL !

Dennis: I look at it differently (and sorry to derail your thread Sanjay!).

I see tanks of similar volume using 12 - 400W lamps whereas I am using only 3 - 1000W lamps, two of which are on light movers. My tank is 35" deep so using 400W lamps would be on the low-end of penetration. Because I only use the three lamps, I think I am actually saving money electrically, and they cost $150 each to replace. What I have found is that many LPS, ricordia etc. do not grow well in my system, and acropora are doing very well. And because two of the lamps are on movers, I think the corals get a more natural spread of light, encouraging them to grow out rather than toward the light. Just my opinion of course, and that's why I am interested in Sanjay's ability to test these lamps.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10042349#post10042349 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by TropTrea
an interesting thing I have observed in just about every light study I have seen is that as wattage increases actual effeciency decreases.

However there is another way of looking at it say 2 400W units put out as much "light" as a single 1000W you still might have some advantages with the 1000 watt unit.
1. the single unit will have the light more concentrated in a smller area therefore giving you more penetration.
2. The single unit requires 1/2 the hardware as compared to the two lights would, reducing initial cost by probably around 40%

Dennis

As wattage increases actual light output decreases? I havent seen any such data, got a link or something? Sorry, but I disagree. Look at the PARs on comparable bulbs at various wattage levels... a HQI for example. A 250wattHQI bulb in the same line seems to double in output from 150watts to 250watts, and then again from 250 to 400! Doubling in output for a 60% wattage increase in both cases seems like a good deal to me.

I think the problem that has happened in the past more is that mfg's dont have the same quality bulb at all levels (unless you are Ushio or some company that is larger). This seems to be the problem with most 1000 watters. Their just isnt alot of demand, so their isnt alot of R&D put in. The last data I saw from a mfg of a new 20,000K bulb had the 1000watter pegged at only twice the output of a single 400watter... which is odd, because 20,000Ks seem to get more and more efficient as you go up in wattage, esp at the 400 level... must be all the daylight they put out with the blue that evens the odds. The other problem then is selection... try finding places that sell 1000watters even.

Gotta correct you on this one though...
"1. the single unit will have the light more concentrated in a smller area therefore giving you more penetration."

This is just not true. The system with the greater dispersion wins every time (as long as its built well). Look at a Lumenarc vs a mini-pendant for example. The smaller, more concentrated light source will be brighter near the reflector, but thats it. The more spread out light, in this case, the dual 400's, will penetrate more than the single 1000watter due to better spread. Its counter-intuitive, but its how light works. If you look at how the dispersion fields look, then it makes sense, but in this case, dual 400's will provide better penetration.

I had a 1000 watt setup. The drawbacks are: less dispersion means less spread... as in, more 'beaming' light and shadows. This is great for 'shimmer lines', but using a single 1000watter to light a cube tank will leave most of your corals with a very dark pigmented side, and then a lighter, bleached side from all the shadows. In jnarowe's case, a light mover is the best solution, but still, the dual 400s will produce more usable light... I mean... what corals actually need light that is in the 4000 micrimol range? You would have to raise the reflector up alot, and then you are losing alot of light anyways, where the dual 400s can be closer to the tank. So in the end, the 400s make more 'usable' light. They may have a lower peak up top, but 'who needs it?', and they will penetrate further.

The other problem is availability/cost. Unlike the rationale of getting a 250 instead of a 150 (because the bulbs are $5 more, the ballasts and reflectors cost the same, and there are more 250watt bulbs made), once you get above 400 watts, the bulb selection gets very limited... and components are expensive. A 1000watt HQI ballast cost me about $250... and needs a 220v line to operate. Even a regular probe start ballast is expensive. And then there are the bulbs... $250 isnt uncommon. Heck, I can get two 400s for that much. So their is really very little cost savings, if any.

For another opinion, look at REEFER714's 48x48x24... he started out with a 1000watter, then added a light mover, then switched to dual 400s on a light mover and had more light, etc...

IMO, the only place for 1000watters is with tanks that are over 6' tall, where you need the concentration up top of 1000watt bulbs to reach down into the tank.
 
So jnarowe, I hate to say it to you now, but yes, replacing the 1000s with dual 400s would result in more light getting to the bottom of the tank. But at a certain point, I do understand... having a dozen bulbs over the tank can be a PITA. Thats why when I move, and I start setting up a 500g monster (just have to decide on 6'x6'x2'h or 10'x4'x30"h), I will be using sola-tubes or skylights for primary lighting. No bulb replacement costs there!
 
Well, mine are closer to the water than most people would mount them, and that I think has its drawbacks if a reefer wants to build a mixed reef. BUT, I always get comments from experience reefers that really enjoy the look of my tank, and since I am using Diamond reflectors I get a nice dispersion.

Somehow in my mind, I cannot reconcile getting more penetration from two 400W 20K lamps than from a 1000W 20K lamp. That just seems counter-intuitive to me. Right now I have nearly zero spillage due to how my reflectors are utilized, but I do have more light on the tank sides than I would like.
 
Its all about dispersion fields. Let me present it to you like this...

The inverse square law, as presented by Sanjay himself on p19 of the Lighting Updates thread:
"If you have a point source of light, (a source is approximated by a point source if the distance of measurement is greater than 5 times the size of the source), then you can assume light follows the inverse square law.

According to the inverse square law, the intensity of a point source of light decreases inversely as the square of the distance from it. So if you were to double the distance the light intensity would drop to 1/4 of what it was.

A MH has the light source size of about 1.5-2", whereas a 4ft FL lamp has about 4ft of light source. So to really measure a 4ft FL as a point source you would have to be about 20ft from it.

Measuring FL lamps is kind of tricky at short distance.. since the light source is quite long. A FL would spread the light over a larger area. So if we assume we have a FL lamp and MH lamp generating the same number of photons/sec, they would be spread very differently, resulting in very different values of PPFD if single point reading was taken. I have not found an easy way to compare the FL with MH that I feel would be acceptable to the reefing community. Hence I have not ventured into testing FL lamps. The best caparison in my book would be to compare the output of FL lamp fixtures, in a manner similar to what I did with reflectors. Since what we really want is the spread distribution.

On a 4 ft fixtures, this woould mean collecting even more data points than what I did with the MH reflector using a 3ftX3ft grid, and several (6-8hrs) of just data collection if we go with larger grid. It would need a whole new setup and hell of lot more time than I am willing to put into it right now."

Simply put, the more spread out light source react less like a point source until a certain distance is reached.

Think of is this way... as you start up at the top of the tank, right under one bulb, you get very little benefit from the other bulbs... but as you go deeper in the tank, the light fields overlap. Now, compared to a single larger bulb, the light field between those two bulbs is not spherical, but 'flatter'... so as the photons travel away from the source, they spread out, but they also intersect with photons from the other source.

Another way to think of it is how the Lumenarcs work. By spreading out the bulb's output up top, sure, you are giving up some peak values close to the bulb... a mini-pendant with a 250watt bulb in it might peak at over 4000 with a 10,000K bulb, and that same bulb in a lumenarc might only peak at 2500 close to the bulb, because the reflector isnt concentrating the light so much up top. But further away, the larger reflector carries further... and that mini-pendant might only have 1/2 the output at the bottom of the tank compared to a lumenarc style reflector. So, by that same reasoning, if you were to spread out the light from one lumenarc into two... you would have even better penetration.

Its one of the reasons why T5s can spank halides as far as penetration goes. You may not get the same peak values up at the top as with the halide... but what corals need PAR levels in the 700 range anyways? You can pretty much replace dual 250wattDEs (running pheonix 14,000Ks) with an 8x54wattT5 unit, and get the same amount of light at the bottom of the tank, if not more. Penetration is all about the spread really. A single source that is very bright just wont carry that far because it is a point source... so it diminishes faster.

Then, there is also the factor of height above the water. A larger bulb usually gets placed further above the water... so those peak levels that a halide can produce are often nagated by distance, and then the light lost due to that distance. So multiple smaller lights used to cover the same area can be mounted closer to the water, and you get a higher peak area anyways... just more spread out.
 
you're making me mad hahn! :lol: I looked into T5s for my system but really didn't feel that they would be adequate for a 35 inch deep tank. Now you're saying that they would...oh well, maybe next time.

Oh yeah, and IIRC, you were one fo the few people who supported my getting the 1000W 20K lamps! I wish I still had that PM...
 
Last edited:
but T5's need to be replaced every 6 months where the better halides can go much longer.

in my case i am going to have a skylight over the whole tank and want as few objects blocking the light as possible so T5's are out and 400 watt MH are in.

Carl
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10046042#post10046042 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by carloskoi
but T5's need to be replaced every 6 months where the better halides can go much longer.

in my case i am going to have a skylight over the whole tank and want as few objects blocking the light as possible so T5's are out and 400 watt MH are in.

Carl

I hate to put my two cents in here and take Sanjay's thread farther off track but I thought t5s were supposed to last longer...
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10046042#post10046042 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by carloskoi
but T5's need to be replaced every 6 months where the better halides can go much longer.

in my case i am going to have a skylight over the whole tank and want as few objects blocking the light as possible so T5's are out and 400 watt MH are in.

Carl

Since when is that true? 6 months? Are you joking? I think you have been fed some propaganda. Sure, there are some people out there who are overly worried and when their lights have that initial 5% drop off in intensity that happens in the first few months, they freak and replace them again and again. Then there are those with retros in canopies and Tek fixtures... where there are no fans to keep the bulbs at 95 degrees C, and the bulbs overheat daily. I experienced the same. I lost something like 15% in my first 3 months with a Tek light... black rings formed and all. Then I added a cross-flow fan and some ductwork as it came to light that a cooling solution was needed for T5s. My output went up by 20%, and my bulbs have lost only 5% of their output in the past year now. Im on month 18 now, and no end-of-life in sight for these bulbs yet. Im going to be say that conservatively, T5s will last you a good year, and up to 2 years if you dont mind a little additional drop-off. Its all relative, of course, to the length of time, and the drop-off that you find acceptable in that time... but T5s last better than halides for sure. You just need to keep the phosphors cool. At that, some last longer than others. For some reason, the blue+ and actinic + bulbs seem to be the longest lasting. They also seem the least sensitive to heat buildup. Then the daylights, then the actinics. But those blue+ bulbs... wow... they last forever it seems. While my aquablues are dropping off at a steady rate, and are quick to drop in output if I stop the fans... the blue+ barely vary at all.

Doing skylights and T5s is rather easy to do still, you just need to plan for it. There was an installation I helped design in Chicago... a 1500g tank (8x8x3'h) lit with a bank of skylights that added up to 6x6' in the center of the tank. Now, we ended up with so much extra light that we simply added a blue & purple film to the central skylight and that gave a blue tint to the light. Originally, we were going to add 4-6qty. 1000 watt 20,000K bulbs to the tank, but after seeing the narrower output and coverage potential of the blue T5s, we went that route. I ended up retrofitting T5s into the aluminum light rack above the tank.. about 36qty. 54wattT5 blue+ bulbs into the top of the tank. In the end, another 12 T5s were added for just super actinic bulbs to bring up the purple a bit. This provides 'after hours' viewing, as well as additional light in the winter, when things are exceptionally yellow to begin with... and of course, it tints the viewing light throughout the day from the 6'x6' aluminum lined light shaft (its in an old warehouse, and the light shaft was already a major architectural feature, so it was easy to do). The T5s are around the edge of the tank, and dont block much light at all really. For my next tank, I am thinking 'huge', but with four sola-tubes. This will allow me to flank the 'tubes' with T5s all around, and still be able to reach into the tank easily. Just saying... it is easily possible to combine T5s with skylights.
 
I guess this thread is dead !!!

time to give it some CPR :D

Well, I am back after travelling half way around the world for 2 weeks. The 2/3rds of the tank looks good. The other third is showing signs of stress and some coral partial coral bleaching.

the main problem : One of the lights was not working !! Just before leaving, I had taken the lamps out for testing and one of them did not sit in the socket properly. I tested it to make sure it fired up after putting it back in, and it did. But I guess a few days later it lost the connection and did not turn on. So a third of the tank was without light. I took the lamp out and put it back in last night after I got back, and it fired up. So basically the left end of the tank was without lights for several days (max of 14 days). The corals on that side look pale and some of them have partial bleaching due to zoox die off, but the polyps are fine, so I think that they will eventually recover in a couple of weeks.

The person feeding the fish and looking out for any major disasters could have had no way no easily knowing if the light was supposed to be ON, since he was comming in the evening.

Next time, I will post the light schedule and ask him to check if the lights are ON during scheduled hours.

The one coral that I did loose is the baby elegance. It fell into the sand face down and seems to have no hope for survival. I had glued it down on a rock, but one of my digging fish tipped the small rock.

Other than that the tank seems to have made it fine.

This was a major test for my systems, and everything seems to have worked well, except for the stupid human mistake once again. I always tell people not to fiddle with tank at least 3 days before leaving and I used to stick to this rule myself. I broke it this time and may end up paying for it, if the corals don;t make it back.

sanjay
 
Is the switch to turn on the lights easy to use? Perhaps just have the 'tank nanny' flip on the lights quick to take a look and make sure all is well.
 
Hi Sanjay,
Hope your trip went well. I ordered 2 of the Aus. elegances. I will send you pics and you can choose. I also ordered some acans and micros. I will send you pics when they get here. I am also getting some cool Maximas and Teardrops if you are interested.
Steve
 
VikeBron, I have been hearing people talk about the Aus elegances alot lately (it seems). Are they hardier (more likely to survive) in a captive reef than the current elegances we have in the trade ?
 
It seems that way but I think it is a little too early to tell. They are a beautigul animal and hopefully within the next year or so we will see. We need to get a bunch in real healthy systems to find out if they will fare better than their counterparts.
Steve
 
sherm71tank just got a killer purple tip brought in by our LFS...he's good with them so I am very optimistic that it will flourish.
 
Got a new toy recently - AQUACONTROLLER III from Neptune, and finally got it installed and working with some minimal functionality right now.

I already have the tank running smoothly with the minimum automation I put in, and avoiding central point of failure. I thought the aquacontroller would provide me the monitoring functions that I was lacking and would be a nice feature, as well as allowing me to layer another level of redundancy in the system.

Here it is installed with the DC8 unit that gives me 8 controllable outlets. Right now only the temp probe is hooked up.

aqua-controller.gif


I really liked the ethernet and web capabilities this provides and wanted to play with this. Unfortunately, I realized that I should have wired a ethernet port to my tank when I did the wiring. It was not going to be easy to run the cable there without tearing up some of the wall/ceiling. Should have done this when all the wiring was being done. Lesson learned for the next time - wire a ethernet port near the tank. !!!

Since the controller has no wireless capability, after looking at the various options, I decided to get the Linksys powerline Ethernet adaptor - yet another toy to play with !

powerlink-ethernet.gif


Installing and using this was easy, and I was able to quickly connect the Aquacontroller to my home network and access it from my PC using the internet browser. Cool !!

So now I have access to the controller through my computers. I also downloaded Aquanotes Lite and was able to connect to it from my pc in the office via the ethernet. I have all the internal networking piece working properly.

Now I need to figure out how to access this from outside my home. Anyone using this functionality with Comcast or any other internet provider ? My one attempt to do this did not work. All I ended up with was access to the router and nothing further. So any help will be appreciated.

In the little playing around I have done with this, I can see the usefulness of this controller. I am sure as I explore and play with its capabilities I will appreciate it even more.

sanjay.
 
Back
Top