Help, they are laughing at me Anthony :)

[PUGroyale]

The gist of the issue here is that the (improved) focus of light by the egg-grate offsets the (minimal) loss off light blocked by its thin profile.

Put another way... the loss of light from (typical) spread is reduced significantly by the use of a focussing grid ala egg-grate.

Are you talking about putting the eggcrate on top of the tank or on the bottom of the fixture? I guess I could see how it might work if it was on the bottom of the fixture by focusing angled light that would otherwise escape downward. Is this what you mean? Sorry about my previous post. Yours seemed a little sarcastic though.

edit: what if I made an eggcrate border of say three rows of the squares that encircled? [ensquared :lol:] the perimeter of the fixture but left the middle open? Any thoughts?

 

[Jamesurq]

"it chides me when clearly intelligent people rest easy and play armchair QB" "I did not think you were so much of either"

Ok - so you basically just told me you think I'm stupid and that I'm a troll.

"I could be wrong" doesn't discount the insult as much as you would like it to.

 

[Anthony Calfo]

No worries Dave... I often allow my dry wit to stray sarcastically. Glib, sarcastic... all true at times. Your read is/was fine by me. I do hope to take as well as I give

You make an excellent point: indeed... for folks with halide fixtures that are rather high off the water, the egg-grate or like apparatus would need to be under the canopy itself just at (or only slightly beyond) the extension of the reflector to focus more of the light downward.

But for folks using fluorescents... the egg-grate can simply rest on top of the aquarium since fluorescent lamps themselves need to be very(!) close to the water (no exaggeration here... anything more than 2-3" off the surface of the water with fluorescents is a serious loss of light (intensity). Truly severe... the light meter does not lie

 

[Anthony Calfo]

naaaa.. not 'stupid and a troll', James... 'lazy and a troll'

I know that you are quite intelligent and I said so above.

But if you make a habit of stirring the pot for the sake of stirring the pot (posts for your own pleasure... hence the troll remark) with comments that don't amount to much more than pot shots without backing them up... you may need to concede that I (others) could be right. Or... maybe I'm just not reading your best work

I must admit, you are not reading mine right now.

I do apologize for that.

But I also will not pull punches on wasteful behaviors/posts... sigh... as this very one of my own has become.

Please make your parting comments James and it can/will rest there if you'll kindly let it.

 

[CH]

You say anything more than 2-3" off the water for fluorescents is a serious loss in intensity. I agree this is probably true, and have often wondered how much better my lighting would be if I could move it closer to the water. Right now, my lights (VHO) are about 8" from the water. It's hard to move them any closer, just because of the way the hood is made (I wouldn't have room to get my hand in the tank with the lights lower) but i know I would be better off if I could. Do you think if I were to mount a piece of eggcrate right up under the bulbs, it would help significantly? In theory it seems like it would, but I'm thinking I still need to lower the bulbs somehow (maybe I need a contraption for raising and lowering!)

 

[gobygoby]

part 1.
Has anyone used the reflective egg grate? and does the reflective material flake off after time?

part 2
In laymens terms(IE: yes or no, for us idiots) is putting the grate worth it, or is it just for fun. I mean does it really matter?

Thanks!
Goby

 

[Anthony Calfo]

Hmmm... tough to say on the higher mount fluorescents. At issue is the type of lamps (NO, VHO, PC, T5) and their intensity with additional consideration for their age. While more light can be focussed by using the egg-grate here... my bigger fear is that the height of the lamps off the water is unduly handicapping you above all. It really is a big deal. I've heardsome (reef) lighting experts say that if the fluorescent lamps are higher than 3" off the water, they are doing little more than aesthetics

Testing my own lamps through the years... the drop inch after inch from the lamp on the approach to the water alone was amazing (in a bad way )

 

[Anthony Calfo]

the reflective egg-grate is used by aquarists... but the coating does not hold up over time very well.

As for the value of using egg-grate or not, I obviously (as stated previously, believe that there is a net benefit with it. I'll post data from Riddle laboratories as soon as I get it.

 

[CH]

That was my fear. I kind of always knew I needed to lower them, but everything has been doing good, including some Montipora. I would expect though that things will start doing great (as opposed to good) if I lowered them, especially considering its a 75 gallon with 3 - 48" VHO bulbs (330W) - not a ton of light to begin with.

So does anyone out there have a fancy contraption or idea to keep the lights low, but then raise them when I need access?

 

[Jamesurq]

maybe I'm just not reading your best work

Please make your parting comments James and it can/will rest there if you'll kindly let it.

Probably

No need for parting comments.

BACK ON TOPIC:

I did some searching on Dana's original work and from what I'm inferring the biggest part of the added light equation is that the light that normally hits the water at a 45 degree angle would be reflected OFF the surface of the water. With the eggcrate, the light doesn't reflect as much.

Not sure why you just didn't say that in the first place... making me have to actually research and read stuff... jeez... and you said I was lazy

 

[captbunzo]

Ok, maybe I am little bit lost here. Maybe someone can clarify some things for me:

1. What exactly is a troll?
2. What do you feed one?
3. Does it have a certain set of lighting requirements?
4. Will it eat my favorite [FILL IN THE BLANK]?
5. If it gets stuck in my protein skimmer, will my tank overflow or explode?
6. And most importantly, if I have a dark, blurry picture of one, can you please tell me what species it is?

Sorry, I just couldn't help myself........

(disclaimer added: This post was meant to cause offense to nobody - or perhaps everybody, I don't really remember. There must be another hermit crab stuck in my ear. Hmmnn..... The diatoms! GOD HELP US!!! THE DIATOMS ARE BACK!!! Ahhhhhhhh... Gurgle gurgle gurgle...)

 

[Steven Pro]

Just as a second opinion, I used the silver eggcrate for almost two years without flaking before changing my lighting around, part of which consisted of better reflectors so the eggcrate was less necessary. I did not experience any flaking. Perhaps I got a particularly good piece. I don't know if the silver is any better at focusing the light versus the cheaper white though, but it is shiny and sexy looking. Sort of like a champagne colored Lincoln with gold trim accents.

 

[Puffer Queen]

Got to love those lincolns Steve - you have one on order, right?

Kelly

 

[ktani]

you people are sick. There is nothing sexier than a hot red Yugo.

Now we are talking sweet.

Seriously, I am going with the Diamond Lumenarcs and was thinking of not using eggcrate. Thoughts?

Also, it was great to see everyone at MACNA and also Steve, was a great privilege meeting you and hearing your excellent presentation.

Thanks.

Kip

 

[Anthony Calfo]

a fast response from Dana (big thanks to him for the effort in a very busy schedule of his own!)

but the gist of it is as we (proponents) remembered:

- his charts show an increase of 25% in the focussing area
- the egg-grate (parabolic louver) must be positioned properly: 2.5-3" from the pointsource of light/halides
- he did not see any significant improvement with fluorescents high off the water
- the egg-grate (obviously) does block some light

And (my) Cliff's notes version of the topic is (still) the same: egg-grate under typical/practical applications is a net benefit overall to most aquarists.

Plus it keeps more of your fairy wrasses inside of the tank

Paul... special thanks for the levity

 

[captbunzo]

Ok - for a serious question - how does this compare with using glass?

 

[ktani]

Anthony,

is the implication then that the flourescents do little for the corals except perhaps flourescence?

Also, if the distance is increased, say for example by using the Lumenarcs does that negate some of the value?

Thanks.

Kip

 

[Anthony Calfo]

glass somewhat to significantly reduces light (variously depending on the type of glass... some total light/intensity... others selective for X wavelegths/UV, etc.). All glass is not equal by any stretch of the imagination. Its not all bad either. Some glass lenses are needed under some lamps and/or over some corals to filter, eg, excessive UV. No easy answer here.

 

[Anthony Calfo]

another tough one Kip... fluorescents run the gamut in potential relative to type (NO to T5 and everything in between... SHO, VHO, PC), age of lamps... then slight impediments which severely reduce output (more than with halogens) such as salt creep, dust, debris... discoloration to the water.

Overall though... we know that halides have the best punch/penetration generally for amount of light penetrating the water at depth relative to watts consumed.

And we knw that it takes little to negate most fo the value of most fluorescent style lamps such as age over 6 months old, thick plate glass lenses/canopies, height over 3" off the water or any visible discoloration to the water. All severe handicaps to the amount of useful light produced versus watts of electricty consumed.

That all said... and presuming your lamps fit any of the above common scenarios, I'd say that yes... typical flourescents are "poor values" and even fab reflectors will not change that. Such flourescent lamps are aesthetics at that point.

 

[Jamesurq]

- his charts show an increase of 25% in the focussing area

I'm having trouble figuring out this statement.

Is he saying that the area of focused light was increased by 25% or in a specific area of focus the actualy intensity was 25% higher?

Assuming it's the 2nd interpretation - did he say where that area of focus was?