gone solar

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13384696#post13384696 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by serpentman
He guys, I hate to be nitpicky on the whole PAR debate. However, I respectfully disagree with notion that PAR directly translates to Light intensity.

PAR, by definition, is "Photosynthetically Available Radiation", or light in the range of 400-700nm. Although visible light falls in this range, that is not the intention of this measurement. Without consideration to photosynthesis, either by terrestrial plants, zooanthellae, algae, etc, it is a useless value.

Light intensity in the traditional sense is more correctly measured in lumens which is the unit of measurement of luminous flux or a measure of perceived power of light by the human eye across the visible light spectrum. Basically its measurement of the amount of all available visible light. And finally Lux is perceived visible light intensity that hits a given surface.

Granted, for our purposes in the hobby, PAR is the ultimate goal and is really what should be concentrated on. Although a technicality, PAR really does not really equal light intensity but rather intensity that is experienced by corals, or more specifically zooanthellae.

Given the natural source of energy provided by solar radiation, my bet is the solar tubes actually provide a greater source of PAR across the available light spectrums. Manmade lights although handy, struggle to effectively hit the entire spectrum. Given the available energy, they must specialize at a specific frequency, often at the expense of other areas of the spectrum.

A more elaborate form of what I was getting at.
 
Have you considered trying a sun with a different colour temperature? or would the cost of moving prove to time consuming and cost prohibitive? JK

I love this - its something im really into trying for a future tank - I dont know that being further north should be too great a problem. Calfo talks about it in his book of coral propagation, for natural lighting of greenhouses and he was fairly far north. I guess it may mean more tubes but im interested in trying a DIY approach - maybe using something like one giant air conditioning vent - or some kind of collection dish/reflector system to enhance the amount and duration of light.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13385113#post13385113 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by gnarlyswine
Have you considered trying a sun with a different colour temperature? or would the cost of moving prove to time consuming and cost prohibitive? JK

LOL, wonder what a 20K sun would look like! Pretty trippy!
 
just build your house about 30 feet underwater for the 20k look.

i think you meant AC duct not vent. check out my build thread, little red house above, to see what i did along those lines. works great.

PAR up to 1000 today for a few hours.

Carl
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13384696#post13384696 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by serpentman
He guys, I hate to be nitpicky on the whole PAR debate. However, I respectfully disagree with notion that PAR directly translates to Light intensity.

PAR, by definition, is "Photosynthetically Available Radiation", or light in the range of 400-700nm. Although visible light falls in this range, that is not the intention of this measurement. Without consideration to photosynthesis, either by terrestrial plants, zooanthellae, algae, etc, it is a useless value.

Light intensity in the traditional sense is more correctly measured in lumens which is the unit of measurement of luminous flux or a measure of perceived power of light by the human eye across the visible light spectrum. Basically its measurement of the amount of all available visible light. And finally Lux is perceived visible light intensity that hits a given surface.

Granted, for our purposes in the hobby, PAR is the ultimate goal and is really what should be concentrated on. Although a technicality, PAR really does not really equal light intensity but rather intensity that is experienced by corals, or more specifically zooanthellae.

Given the natural source of energy provided by solar radiation, my bet is the solar tubes actually provide a greater source of PAR across the available light spectrums. Manmade lights although handy, struggle to effectively hit the entire spectrum. Given the available energy, they must specialize at a specific frequency, often at the expense of other areas of the spectrum.

If you are talking about what a photosynthetic cell actually uses (which varies from type to type), then you are talking about PUR... or Photosynthetically Usable/Used Radiation. PAR otherwise, is a measure of light intensity in its rawest form, equal in units to PPFD. The unit measure should tell you that: micromols per square meter per second (of photons).

Now, PAR/PPFD is light intensity. If you have an increase in say... 700nm red photons, you would see an increase in visual intensity. If you see an increase of green, or 420nm violet photons, its not as if you wouldnt see it... you would, because there is more light. Now, if you are saying that 50 mm/m2/s of blue may not 'look as bright' to your eyes as 50mm/m2/s of 500nm green, well, you are right... the photometric scale and our eyes weigh in different amounts proportionally. An increase from 50 to 100 of any color is still going to mean more photometric intensity... an equal amount of blue might not look as bright as an equal amount of red, but its still an increase in PAR and its still an increase in intensity that is proportional. If you have a 3000K bulb that doubles in light intensity, you have also doubled its PAR... so in that respect, PAR/PPFD is a measure of light intensity... maybe not scaled for our eyes, but for our corals, its all that maters anyways... because blue IS an important wavelength.

And I would contest your conclusions about man made bulbs not providing as much PUR (Ill assume this is what you mean). The reason our eyes dont see blue as well is because the sun doesnt make as much. The photometric scale, which is our 'perception of intensity' scale is adapted to the spectrum of the sun rather well. What happens underwater isnt a matter of 'blue being added' but that as you go underwater, all the rest gets filtered out very fast. Red drops off to almost nil within the first 10 meters, etc... What you are left with is very similar to what these 'man made' bulbs put out. And if you look at the PUR spectrums of many corals, you are correct... all the yellow and red spectrums arent very useful... green not so much (why would they rely on what they dont get much of?), but mostly blue shades, because at 30m, thats whats left. So to say that sunlight has more PUR because of its spectrum is not exactly true... alot of those warmer spectrums may be of no use to the corals compared to blue or maybe green.
 
I think we are talking about the same thing but more or less arguing semantics. I did mean PAR. From all the research I have read, PUR or Photosynthetic Usable Radiation is a speculative concept that refers to the spectral composition of light and also varies by organism. Although research shows zooanthellae utilize the 400 to 500 nm waveband (blue-green) and 650 to 700 (red) waveband, I am not sure the verdict is in yet whether they do or don't use any additional spectrum.

Referencing man-made bulbs vs the sun, I can't definitively say one way or the other which is why this thread is intriguing. Given the concept of PUR, I agree man-made bulbs may be more suitable than I give credit. Although it would be interesting to see PAR values from the solar tubes, I am most interested to see how the growth over time is.

If I had to throw down a wager, my bet would be that you will see better growth with the sun.

Sorry to hijack, please keep us posted on the updates. Everybody says LEDS are the future. This may prove them wrong. Now if we were all so lucky to have spouses that would let us poke holes in the roof.
 
Okay, good enough. What made my ears perk up was when you mentioned that you "respectfully disagree with notion that PAR directly translates to Light intensity." Being that PAR IS light intensity... I just wanted to clear that up.

If only we all had spouses that would let us poke holes in the roof... hey... if you just have a glass roof in the first place, its not a problem! Or, who says that the reef has to be indoors, or that the light has to come from above.

If you have a regular side window behind/over a tank, you can mount some reflective aluminum (perhaps bend it into a bow shape) above the tank in that window to capture light and aim it down... the light is just coming in from the side... but in many places, thats not a big problem.

I agree that sunlight is the best option, just not because of spectrum. That seems to be the one thing most people have a problem with... too yellow. But with tinted films and supplimental bulbs... not a problem. I would consider it the 'ultimate' lighting simply because it is natural and it is FREE! Cant put a price on free energy, no more bulbs to buy, etc...lol.
 
PAR, PUR....who cares!!

The most important point is that this thread (in conjunction with my last 3 power bills) has pushed me to make the switch.

The most important question is....Do I go with 3 or 4 tubes? I've got Home Depot pricing. The solatube installer is coming by tomorrow to give me a price.

Is there a significant quality difference between HD and solatube. Based on my telephone conversation, there is about $800 difference for 3 tubes (installed).
 
i would go with as many as you can fit over the tank. one in each bay between the rafters,

my local HD carries Velux which is pricey so solatubes may be less. which one is more in your case? and what caused the $800 difference?

i would want to know what material they use for the shaft and it's spectral reflective qualities. there are differences.

any tube skylight should not be too expensive to install. after all there are only holes at both ends to cut. should be no framing and only a bit of tie in to properly integrate it into your existing roof.

Go for it! you won't be sorry?

Carl
 
SolaTube brand cost about 395.00 per 14" Tube VS 270.00 for a 14" ODL or Velux.. Thats where some of the 800 difference is from. Not sure where they got 800 bucks from.
I find it hard to believe also that the Sola Tube brand tubes are worth that much extra$$ Velux and ODL both say the tubes are made out of 95% reflective metal. Anyone had both or seen both. Any coment on the price difference. Is it just the brand your paying for?
 
HD was cheaper and I believe it was Velux. As for the difference, that is one of my questions for tomorrow. Fortunately for me, the tank runs parallel with the roof joists. Of course, with my luck, there is probably one centered directly of the the tank!!

I don't plan on installing myself. If I am going to have holes cut in my roof, I want a warranty. Tile roof in south Florida, I'm just asking for trouble with the roof flashing.
 
hoboegato

I am planning out my new tank it is 72x48x24 i am thinking about going with the solar tubes 6x 13" tubes what spaceing did you use on center? I have my lights now on my 72" 210 @ 13" 36" 59"
 
tile roofs are a bit harder to flash. is it a flat tile or curved? i would definitely have the professional do it. tile roofs can be more of a pain. tiles are also prone to breaking just walking and working on the roof.

make sure there aren't more broken that when they start. are the installers roofing contractors as the should be or what is their license? here in california you can check on any contractors license online at the CSLB.com website.

Carl
 
Well I looked at a 10" ODL today at home depot and I got to say I wasn't super inpressed with the dome.. The kit looked pretty good though and seemed to include everything you need.. But the dome was very thin and cheap feeling.. It even had a pretty big blemish on the top center from when it was molded.. Looked like the bottom of a plastic bowl. The Velux dome looked better. As in it was crystal clear seemed thicker and didn't have a large blemish from being molded.
The ODL had ridges on one side of it. I guess to help collect sunlight? The Velux was just a clear dome. But the only Velux I could find was a low profile.. The standard ones might have a different dome. There isn't a SolaTube dealer close by to me so I can't see one of those in person :(
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13412406#post13412406 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by 8BALL_99
There isn't a SolaTube dealer close by to me so I can't see one of those in person :(
are you sure? Did you check their website for local dealers? You could also check companies that sell roof supplies, it seems like they all sell some kind of tubes. If you look at the solatubes you will buy it because it is so much brighter. I looked at a solatube and a velux side by side and the solatube blows it away. Solatube dealers also have the reflective samples of all the different tubes.

I already set up 3 flahings for an in wall tank that I'm doing. I am going with 3 14" solatubes.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13412486#post13412486 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by GUILLO1
are you sure? Did you check their website for local dealers? You could also check companies that sell roof supplies, it seems like they all sell some kind of tubes. If you look at the solatubes you will buy it because it is so much brighter. I looked at a solatube and a velux side by side and the solatube blows it away. Solatube dealers also have the reflective samples of all the different tubes.

I already set up 3 flahings for an in wall tank that I'm doing. I am going with 3 14" solatubes.

Yep sorry to say the only dealer I could find is a 2 hour and 30 min drive from my house lol. I wouldnt mind taking a look at them but uhhh a 6 hour trip is a little tough..
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13412150#post13412150 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Reefski's
tile roofs are a bit harder to flash. is it a flat tile or curved? i would definitely have the professional do it. tile roofs can be more of a pain. tiles are also prone to breaking just walking and working on the roof.

make sure there aren't more broken that when they start. are the installers roofing contractors as the should be or what is their license? here in california you can check on any contractors license online at the CSLB.com website.

Carl

5/12 roof, concrete barrel tile, tile are mud set and not screw down. So they break, but not as easily as clay. Fortunately whoever built the house left about 30 to 40 extra tiles in the garage.

Installer is a licensed contractor that specializes in solar tubes, skylights and roof vents.
 
Back
Top