Convince me I dont need a 660 for my T5s

[dvanacker]

Maybe I didnt explain that well but if you have 2 zoo's that reproduce another zoo polyp now you have 3 zoo poylp's reproducing to make 5.....and then 5 to make 8....etc etc.

 

[Horace]

Yeah I understand the exponential growth Idea...The bigger they are the more light they can absorb, the more polyps that can multiply etc etc. Perhaps Im just being impatient, I dont know. But some stuff like my purple tort hasnt grown hardly at all in months which really is dissapointing. It has encrusted a bit (~1/8" or more) all around but thats about all .

 

[dvanacker]

Torts are notorious for slow growth

Get a bali slimer ..they usually grow like make (if you dont already have one)

 

[RichConley]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6849326#post6849326 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by dvanacker
Grim has alread run this test and shown that IC660 ever so slightly more effiecient. Here are the resulsts

I ran the 4x54 watt T5 system with the ballasts plugged into a wattage meter to get a true reading of the power usage.

Dynamic Spec T5 ballasts

Wattage used 232

PAR Produced at Sandbed 135

.58 PAR per watt used


Ice Cap 660

Wattage used 303

Par produced at sandbed 183

.6 PAR per watt used

Grim's "studies" were kind of wacky. That test doesnt really show anything, but a single data point. We need something like Sanjay's light distrobution graphs to make a decision, and in that, I would bet the 6 bulbs do better than the overdriven 4.

 

[dvanacker]

Well this test was 4 bulbs overdriven with an IC660 and then 4 bulbs normal driven with the dynamic ballast and then shows par/watt used.

The distrobution of the light should be pretty close to the same as he used the same setup (reflectors and all) just a different ballast. Nothing is perfect but it's a pretty good test in my eyes. Besides sanjays distrabution graph's are mainly to show differences in reflectors.

 

[mpcart]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6849414#post6849414 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Horace
Did they grow like that even as frags? Many of mine are frags at this stage, and while I see growth, its not super noticable each day thats for sure. I see some decent growth at about 1 week. Im lucky to get 1/8" growth every 2 weeks on pretty much everything. Even my caps which supposedly should be growing like weeds have not really taken off to the point where I would say they are growing "fast".

First, I should point out that my tank is only 1 year old and I've only had SPS for about 8 months. That being said, my experience has been that my frags would take a few months to get used to the tank and encrust. Then, at about 3-5 months they seem to take off and grow fairly quickly. I have no idea if they grow as fast as with MH, but they do grow fast enough that I see a little bit almost every day. I still think water quality and flow contribute as much as lighting.

I think my SPS would be considered easy to care for and moderately fast growers. They are:

Monti caps, Monti digitas, Millis, Tenuis, Bali Slimer, Nana, Porites, etc.

Like I said before, if you want to upgrade lighting then I think MH would be a good step. Otherwise, you should see pretty good growth with the Triads.

Good luck.

-Mike

 

[Horace]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6849815#post6849815 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by RichConley
I would bet the 6 bulbs do better than the overdriven 4.

I would actually bet your incorrect. The total wattage of 4 overdriven and 6 normal driven are almost identical. Given the fact that the overdriven ones will be brighter, I would bet they produce more PAR. They perhaps may not have quite as good coverage though. So I guess I should just overdrive all 6 LOL

 

[JER-Z]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6854418#post6854418 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Horace
I would actually bet your incorrect. The total wattage of 4 overdriven and 6 normal driven are almost identical. Given the fact that the overdriven ones will be brighter, I would bet they produce more PAR. They perhaps may not have quite as good coverage though. So I guess I should just overdrive all 6 LOL

Wouldn't the PAR output of 4 overdriven bulbs have to be over 50% higher than 4 normally driven bulbs in order for 4 over driven to be better than 6 normal driven?

if you look at grim' s numbers posted earlier, the par increase from over driving is less than 50%. Meaning that 6 normal driven will have more PAR than 4 overdriven? Or am i thinking to simply?

 

[Horace]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6854494#post6854494 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by JER-Z
Wouldn't the PAR output of 4 overdriven bulbs have to be over 50% higher than 4 normally driven bulbs in order for 4 over driven to be better than 6 normal driven?

if you look at grim' s numbers posted earlier, the par increase from over driving is less than 50%. Meaning that 6 normal driven will have more PAR than 4 overdriven? Or am i thinking to simply?

PAR is all about BRIGHTNESS. Its not about how many bulbs you have. If you take 6 bulbs which alone each will put out 25 PAR, your not going to get 150 PAR in your tank because those bulbs are spread out over the surface of the tank. However, if you had one bulb capable of putting out 150 PAR by itself and you measured the PAR under it, obviously you would get 150 PAR. So essentially what I am saying is that Fewer bulbs running brighter, is likely going to get you closer to the Ideal of 1 bulb at 150 PAR... as soon as you start putting more bulbs in the mix it starts veering from the ideal. However, you will gain better coverage. it is kind of a give an take thing.

I do think that there will be some overlap, so perhaps the light will be brighter than any 1 bulb can put out themselves, but it certainly is not an additive thing. If each bulb again puts out 25 PAR, you are likely to see 35-40 PAR anywhere in the tank pending how densely packed they are... but definitely dont expect to get 150.

 

[raynist]

Interested to hear what you finally do. I am considering the same thing and actually was able to obtain a brand new 660 ballast for $99.

--Ray

 

[perpetual98]

$99 is a great deal. That's way cheaper than my cost direct from IceCap. You should have bought about 20 of them and sold them. lol

 

[JER-Z]

that makes sense Horace...I have an Icecap 4 bulb T5 retro kit that is going on my new tank. I think it might be enough, but i will probably get another normally driven retro to go on the front and back when those URI actinic T5 bulbs come out.

It should allow me more options with my bulb combinations if can get good supplimental actinic out of those new URI bulbs.

 

[RichConley]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6854944#post6854944 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Horace
PAR is all about BRIGHTNESS. Its not about how many bulbs you have. If you take 6 bulbs which alone each will put out 25 PAR, your not going to get 150 PAR in your tank because those bulbs are spread out over the surface of the tank. However, if you had one bulb capable of putting out 150 PAR by itself and you measured the PAR under it, obviously you would get 150 PAR. So essentially what I am saying is that Fewer bulbs running brighter, is likely going to get you closer to the Ideal of 1 bulb at 150 PAR... as soon as you start putting more bulbs in the mix it starts veering from the ideal. However, you will gain better coverage. it is kind of a give an take thing.

I do think that there will be some overlap, so perhaps the light will be brighter than any 1 bulb can put out themselves, but it certainly is not an additive thing. If each bulb again puts out 25 PAR, you are likely to see 35-40 PAR anywhere in the tank pending how densely packed they are... but definitely dont expect to get 150.

Horace, PAR is Photsynthetically Available Radiation if I remember correctly. It doesnt matter if its coming from a bright bulb or not, and YES, it is an additive thing.

Overlap DOES increase PAR, no, its not additive like that, but we're not trying to deal with 6 25w bulbs vs a 150, we're trying to deal with, its a small difference.
With the 4xOD, you may have some spotts that are brighter than any of the spots in the 6x54w, but in general, IE if you took PAR readings at every spot in the tank, your total par would be much higher in the 6 bulb setup.


THink of it this way: If you put a halide in the middle of a 36" tank, you can't grow SPS on the edges. 18" to each side of the center of the bulb isnt lit well.

Now if you took 2 halides, and put them so their centers were 36" apart, (18 inches from each to the center point) you could grow digi, and some lower light acros fine.

Same as a 400w vs 2x250w setup. The spread IS better, but thats not the point, the AVERAGE PAR at any given point is better.

 

[Horace]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6856309#post6856309 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by RichConley
Horace, PAR is Photsynthetically Available Radiation if I remember correctly. It doesnt matter if its coming from a bright bulb or not, and YES, it is an additive thing.

Overlap DOES increase PAR, no, its not additive like that, but we're not trying to deal with 6 25w bulbs vs a 150, we're trying to deal with, its a small difference.
With the 4xOD, you may have some spotts that are brighter than any of the spots in the 6x54w, but in general, IE if you took PAR readings at every spot in the tank, your total par would be much higher in the 6 bulb setup.


THink of it this way: If you put a halide in the middle of a 36" tank, you can't grow SPS on the edges. 18" to each side of the center of the bulb isnt lit well.

Now if you took 2 halides, and put them so their centers were 36" apart, (18 inches from each to the center point) you could grow digi, and some lower light acros fine.

Same as a 400w vs 2x250w setup. The spread IS better, but thats not the point, the AVERAGE PAR at any given point is better.

Im sorry bro I just dont agree. Light is not additive like your saying. Of course in your example if you have a single 250w lamp over the center the sides wont grow because there is no coverage. However, adding a second 250w halide to the tank is not going to increase your PAR at all. All it will do is create the same PAR over a wider area. On the other hand if you have a single 400w halide over the center of the tank, its going to have a hell of alot more PAR under that portion than will the 250w tank in any part of the system, plus the PAR will reach the bottom much easier. I know for a fact that if you were to take 400 1w halides if they existed would not equal the penetrating power (PAR low in tank) in any one place that the 400w has directly below it. The idea with the overdriven 4 bulbs is you WILL lose a bit of coverage, but not much on a tank as big as mine. However directly under those bulbs the PAR will dramatically increase there is no doubt about it. Like I noted before the overlap is not as big of a feature as you may think...because you only have alot of overlap with the bulbs to your immediate right/left, especially given the fact that bulb 1 and bulb 6 are pretty much on the edge of the tank and more of that light is wasted. Basically it comes down to if 4 bulbs will create enough coverage (which it will) and if the bulbs are brighter (which they are) the PAR will be alot higher inside that coverage area. Adding another bulb to the end of the array will have little if no effect on the PAR in the center of the array.

 

[raynist]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6855148#post6855148 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by perpetual98
$99 is a great deal. That's way cheaper than my cost direct from IceCap. You should have bought about 20 of them and sold them. lol

Unfortunatly they only had one. I figured for that price I could not pass it up...

 

[RichConley]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6856489#post6856489 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Horace
Adding another bulb to the end of the array will have little if no effect on the PAR in the center of the array.

Wrong. I'm going to go dig up documentation now. The spread of fluoro bulbs is not just directly underneath them. There have been studies that have show that under arrays of fluoro bulbs, theyre actually brighter 12 inches away from the bulbs than you are 2 or 3 inches.

WHY? because you're getting overlap from multiple bulbs. The light doesnt just dissapear because theres other light already on that area.

Dont think of PAR, or anything like that. Think of photons. If you have a bulb shining X photons directly down onto an area, the bulb next to it will be shining X/2 (arbitrary number) photons onto the area under the first bulb, so the total amount of photons on that area will be X+ X/2. Its not just X, they dont just stop counting.

 

[RichConley]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6855176#post6855176 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Horace
I have 6x54w T5 Icecap reflector retro. I have 3 Blue+, 2 Aqua blue, 1 GE daylight....Something is just not right.

Thats your issue right there. You're running low Par bulbs.


You want to buy the 660, and you're looking for justification. Just go out and buy it, just dont complain when you dont get any better growth.

 

[raynist]

What is a high PAR bulb that could be run?

 

[perpetual98]

The GE 6500K daylight is the highest PAR daylight bulb out there, but it's pretty yellow, that's why you need lots of blue to supplement it.

 

[RichConley]

Hes running 1 daylight, and 5 actinic bulbs. I think 3 day, 3 actinic would be decent, and be much much brighter.