gone solar

[melev]

I think that dropping the tubes into the water would completely eliminate any ripple / shimmering effects. The reason we see them is because the light has to pass through those little waves and ripples.

The only way to answer your question specificially enough would require owning a PAR meter. For all we know, the tank has plenty of PAR already. This is just guesswork at the moment.

 

[GoBigOrGoHome]

I realize that this would eliminate the shimmering effect.. In rethinking this, however, the cons might outweigh the pros. On one hand, you've got higher par as a result of no shimmering, but you've also probably got some pretty stagnant water where the tube comes into the water, which might develop into a film at the surface, thus causing additional light depletion, and we also might get A LOT of algae growth on the inside of the tube, as it is sunlight penetrating into still water. That, and the shimmer effect is really cool.

 

[psteeleb]

I totally agree with Marc here. The shimmer is the result of direct light being focused and diffused alternately by the waves. It's very evident when diving on sandy bottoms about 6' deep. Basically take away the waves, no shimmer. Diffuse the light and the shimmer lessens. Putting the tubes into the water would stop the waves where the light penetrates (in the tube), you may get some reflected affect but it would be diminished tremendously.

As far as other tubes reflectors etc; the light after going through the long tubs is going to be pretty polarized or straight. Certainly with the super shiny interior you get reflected light off the sides but most of it is going to be light that doesn't have to bounce off the walls a bunch of times to get to the other side. The most intense light is coming in very straight or at minimal angles so the light is bound to be very focused. Totally unlike a MH bulb that is tossing light in all direction except through the mogul base. A good reflector tries to redirect the light in one direction with minimal absorption. In the case of the tubes the light has already been redirected. Reflectors would do very little in comparison with a bulb or very short tube.

It's kind of like a shotgun blast, the shorter the gun barrel the wider the spread. longer barrel more focused. Light rays work very much the same way. Now, think of putting a funnel on the end of a gun nozzle.

HTH

 

[brokentusk]

Love the idea!

Wish I could do it, but with my schedule I would never see the tank lit up except on weekends.

 

[jnarowe]

OK...seriously you guys are kidding right? Having the tubes in the water? Any idea of what problems would result?

How about massive over-heating of the system?

How about metal contamination?

How about algal growth on the tube itself?

Plus it won't be diffused over a wide area. You would need several tubes to get any kind of coverage.

Aluminum doesn't oxidize in salt water? :lol: Aluminum is HIGHLY reactive to salt water and electricty. Any stray voltage would literally destroy the aluminum in very short order.

 

[GUILLO1]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13374497#post13374497 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by jnarowe
OK...seriously you guys are kidding right? Having the tubes in the water? Any idea of what problems would result?

How about massive over-heating of the system?

How about metal contamination?

How about algal growth on the tube itself?

Plus it won't be diffused over a wide area. You would need several tubes to get any kind of coverage.

I hear ya, its a ridiculous idea.

 

[Reefski's]

ya, what he said plus working in the tank might be a bit of a problem.

go solar!! it really does work.

 

[GoBigOrGoHome]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13374497#post13374497 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by jnarowe
OK...seriously you guys are kidding right? Having the tubes in the water? Any idea of what problems would result?

How about massive over-heating of the system?

How about metal contamination?

How about algal growth on the tube itself?

Plus it won't be diffused over a wide area. You would need several tubes to get any kind of coverage.

Aluminum doesn't oxidize in salt water? :lol: Aluminum is HIGHLY reactive to salt water and electricty. Any stray voltage would literally destroy the aluminum in very short order.

Basically everything you said here, I already pointed out could be a problem. I said a plastic extension tube, because aluminum could cause problems(and aluminum won't oxidize in saltwater nearly as much as most other metals) and either more tubes or a slightly deeper tank. Also, ace already said that the solar tubes don't put off much heat at all, especially in proportion to metal halides. Then I said that a couple cons would be that algae would grow in the tube, and the still water within the tube would grow stagnant.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13373566#post13373566 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by psteeleb
I totally agree with Marc here. The shimmer is the result of direct light being focused and diffused alternately by the waves. It's very evident when diving on sandy bottoms about 6' deep. Basically take away the waves, no shimmer. Diffuse the light and the shimmer lessens. Putting the tubes into the water would stop the waves where the light penetrates (in the tube), you may get some reflected affect but it would be diminished tremendously.

As far as other tubes reflectors etc; the light after going through the long tubs is going to be pretty polarized or straight. Certainly with the super shiny interior you get reflected light off the sides but most of it is going to be light that doesn't have to bounce off the walls a bunch of times to get to the other side. The most intense light is coming in very straight or at minimal angles so the light is bound to be very focused. Totally unlike a MH bulb that is tossing light in all direction except through the mogul base. A good reflector tries to redirect the light in one direction with minimal absorption. In the case of the tubes the light has already been redirected. Reflectors would do very little in comparison with a bulb or very short tube.

It's kind of like a shotgun blast, the shorter the gun barrel the wider the spread. longer barrel more focused. Light rays work very much the same way. Now, think of putting a funnel on the end of a gun nozzle.

HTH

I also agree with Marc! I said that you would lose the shimmer, and that would be how more par value could be achieved, because the light wouldn't be bouncing off of ripples in the water, because there would be no ripples beneath the tubes.

Everyone here is ganging up on me without reason! I don't want to start an argument, especially in a thread that isn't my own. People are arguing with me on points that I have already covered and that they haven't taken time to realize that I am saying the exact same things as they are. Let this be settled at that "while tubes extending into the water could increase par value, they would create an issue with light distribution and algae growth, and you would lose the aesthetics of the shimmer effect." Sound good?

 

[melev]

I'm not arguing, hopefully.

According to the book Corals by Eric Borneman, PAR is actually greater in each glimmer line that passes over the reef. That sudden spike of light actually benefits most corals, and thus the ripples are a good thing and not something you want to avoid.

 

[GoBigOrGoHome]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13375023#post13375023 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by melev
I'm not arguing, hopefully.

According to the book Corals by Eric Borneman, PAR is actually greater in each glimmer line that passes over the reef. That sudden spike of light actually benefits most corals, and thus the ripples are a good thing and not something you want to avoid.

Now, that is an interesting piece of information. I appreciate it. That basically says, now, that eliminating shimmer might increase light intensity, but not PAR. Case closed... I think.

 

[CleveYank]

Ok great case closed now,


I could give a hoot. If I didn't have a tank with shimmer I wouldn't do that setup type anyway. When I go diving the light dances on the reef and when I look at my tank it better do the same. It makes me feel warm and fuzzy all over.

 

[Reefski's]

as long as the light is not spilling out of the tank, wasting the light, it doesn't make a difference in the PAR if the tubes go to the tank or not.

on my light shaft i am wasting light as the light spills out during part of the day because i don't have the doors yet over the last two feet at the tank to reflect the light back in. this will be more of a problem as the winter approaches.

 

[sfsuphysics]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13375116#post13375116 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by GoBigOrGoHome
Now, that is an interesting piece of information. I appreciate it. That basically says, now, that eliminating shimmer might increase light intensity, but not PAR. Case closed... I think.

Well I'll reopen the case here.... granted this is a "I just woke up" thought process so bear with me. The closer the tubes the more "PAR" you will get out of it, it's a simply matter of physics, the light exiting the tubes doesn't come down a perfect cylindrical beam (if it did however, then closer tubes wouldn't do anything to PAR), it'll actually spread out. Now how much it spreads out depends upon how much light intensity you'd "lose" by being further away, it is possible that most of the light is coming straight down (simply look at the tubes from an angle and see how bright it looks) so how much increased par you get might not be worth the effort to move them closer.

IMO, I wouldn't worry about increased PAR by getting them closer, unless they were flush to your ceiling over your tank.

 

[hahnmeister]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13375116#post13375116 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by GoBigOrGoHome
Now, that is an interesting piece of information. I appreciate it. That basically says, now, that eliminating shimmer might increase light intensity, but not PAR. Case closed... I think.

Uh, PAR = light intensity.

If you look at some suveys of PAR levels in nature, you will sometimes see the readings be something like 2500 just above the surface, but as soon as you go under the water, you might see a charted reading of 2000-3000 at 0m, 1800-2200 at 1m, etc. This is because of the ripples in the water that cause the light levels (PAR) to be concentrated to levels higher than above the surface, or lower... just like a big magnifying glass.

The thing is, I know the frequency of the 'shimmer' in nature is much lower than in our captive reefs... its pretty much a strobe light in our tanks, unless you have a very large tank. This 'flickering' might be too much to actually provide a benefit like in nature.

 

[hahnmeister]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13375543#post13375543 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Reefski's
as long as the light is not spilling out of the tank, wasting the light, it doesn't make a difference in the PAR if the tubes go to the tank or not.

on my light shaft i am wasting light as the light spills out during part of the day because i don't have the doors yet over the last two feet at the tank to reflect the light back in. this will be more of a problem as the winter approaches.

Thats pretty much the catch here though, isnt it >>> "as long as the light is not spilling out of the tank". The higher up the tubes are above the tank, the more the tubes will light the room, and less of the tank.

 

[CleveYank]

This amazes me.

This amazes me.

You guys take a really cool thread and turn it into a stupid debate.

IF the tubes are high enough for you to get your arms in and the growth is good. And you have taken the expensive part and most importantly the Non-green or non-eco friendly aspect of our hobby and created a natural element it's just fantastic!!!!

And what hieght or nit picking about par vs shimmer debates is stupid. If it works and things grow and you can access the tank and protect the tubes from being eaten up by the salt then you're good.

And FWIW, Do some real testing of high vs low in two tanks if you want to be the guy with the exact right answer then. Otherwise it just reads like speculative bickering. If it's pure speculation and not a concrete test...who cares?

 

[hahnmeister]

^^^ it seems you are in favor of not discussing options or planning before just doing something. I suppose asking questions, research, and reading Advanced Aquarist articles are off your 'to do' list.

 

[hobogato]

ok, maybe this will help.....

upon finishing the installation of the tubes, they were at the ceiling. lots of light spread out over the tank and the light going into the tank was not as bright.

i tried a 2' tube extension to see what would happen and i got a spot light effect - the 2'x2' area that one tube should light completely had a shadow around the perimeter.

then, i put on the current 1' extension which lit the entire 2'x2' area required with minimal light loss over the top of the tank. once i added the bell shape on the end of the tube, the rest of the light was reflected into the tank. IMO, this was the best way to get as much light to cover the entire 2'x2' area that had to be lit by each tube.

as far as the shimmer, it is very natural looking (i grew up on the texas coast and spent LOTS of time fishing and at the beach) - almost looks like the shimmer you see at the bottom of a very clean swimming pool. the intensity of the light in the bright parts of the shimmer is MUCH higher than the light when i turn off all circulation to make the surface smooth (eliminates shimmer).

 

[CleveYank]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13377598#post13377598 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by hahnmeister
^^^ it seems you are in favor of not discussing options or planning before just doing something. I suppose asking questions, research, and reading Advanced Aquarist articles are off your 'to do' list.

Hahn,
You don't know me well enough to even imply that I am an uneducated non-methodic knuckle dragger!!! But thanks for making that leap Sir.

The problem or the question has been out there for 1 1/2 pages. What more is there to debate? Test it. Turn problem and the speculation of shimmer vs tube distance from the water surface into a detailed proof then. It seems a very reasonable aspect to prove or disprove. As a test it's also a logical positive addition to this thread. Not a speculative tennis match.

hobogato, a couple folks that I have talked to from C-Sea (our local club) your little thread is the big buzz. Nice work.

 

[hahnmeister]

No, I didnt imply that. I think you are jumping to that conclusion on your own. But I am implying that you are not a person who cares to discuss things, regardless of intelligence. If other people want to discuss 'shimmer lines' or have a healthy little debate regardless of what you may deem 'substance', I dont see what position you are in to tell others what they can and cant talk about. Last I checked, its a free country. I think that is what I should have mentioned more than your lack of personal interest in what others might want to talk about. The only 'stupid debate' here is the one that you are bringing to the table. Otherwise, this all seems like good conversation to me.