ComforablyNumb
New member
Yes he said you needed more Kessils. Has the penny dropped?
The penny dropped on you when you said he was only running two kessils. lol
The penny dropped on you when you said he was only running two kessils. lol
Lights... hit me...
- Thread starter Gweeds
- Start date
Potatohead
New member
What?
Dude you are proving our point here. If he ran more than two Kessil's how exactly does that help your argument?
slief
RC Sponsor
PAR is FAR from everything but if comparing a 48" ATI fixture to a pair of Kessil 36's, that is going to be a tough comparison for the Kessils.. I've been using LED's since 2010 and used MH/VHO bulbs prior. I've been keeping reef tanks since the mid 90's. LED's grow coral just fine.. Most coral will grow just as fast under LED as they will under Halide and T5. Sure you can spend more on LED's but having compared both, the savings at the power meter not only due to the consumption of the lights but also due to less heat transfer can make a fairly big difference. Then there is bulb costs. When you factor in the costs of good LED's vs a good fixture or quality ballasts and reflectors, it adds up quick. As for shading, on a smaller tank, it's more complex but on a larger tank, LED's can provide great coverage without shadowing issues. That said, as I said above, PAR is far from everything. Most corals will grow just as fast under Kessils with lower PAR than the ATI's. It's all about the spectrum.
That aside, I better break out some popcorn because this thread has taken a turn for the worse.
ComforablyNumb
New member
I noticed again you did not use the 6' - 8" height that just about everyone who uses kessils employs.
It will be a little while until I unpack that app and find the right chart that shows 2 kessils at 6" which clearly exceeds ATI.
Stand by.
It will be a little while until I unpack that app and find the right chart that shows 2 kessils at 6" which clearly exceeds ATI.
Stand by.
Potatohead
New member
This is just off the charts
It gets even better:
1 Kessil on 2ft:
2 Kessils on 3.5ft:
Both Average the same PAR! Exactly 144, and its not even a 4ft tank, only 40".
Ryan - "The ideal solution, and the one I would personally select, is 4 modules mounted 10" off the tank".
It was a wonderful review, wasn't it?
1 Kessil on 2ft:
2 Kessils on 3.5ft:
Both Average the same PAR! Exactly 144, and its not even a 4ft tank, only 40".
Ryan - "The ideal solution, and the one I would personally select, is 4 modules mounted 10" off the tank".
It was a wonderful review, wasn't it?
Last edited:
ComforablyNumb
New member
It does indeed get better.
One kessil at 6"
2 kessils over twice the area at 6"
3 fixtures ....which is what both BRS and Kessil say you need for the most demanding corals.
One kessil at 6"
2 kessils over twice the area at 6"
3 fixtures ....which is what both BRS and Kessil say you need for the most demanding corals.
ComforablyNumb
New member
I used the charts from how I use them.... and how most kessil owners use them. Mounted 6"- 8" above the surface.
Last edited:
Potatohead
New member
You're posting the 6" water depth numbers. He's posting 12.
It does indeed get better.
One kessil at 6"
2 kessils over twice the area at 6"
3 fixtures ....which is what both BRS and Kessil say you need for the most demanding corals.
Potatohead
New member
You don't even understand the charts the number bottom left is water depth not mounting height :facepalm:
ComforablyNumb
New member
As it turns out, you had BS for him.
ComforablyNumb
New member
ComforablyNumb
New member
You're posting the 6" water depth numbers. He's posting 12.
lol..those arent water depths, they are mounting heights. And the others are the par numbers. lol
And he posted 12" ....when everyone who uses kessils exclusively uses 6"...like me.
He may have fooled himself and you..he did not fool me.
lol..those arent water depths, they are mounting heights. And the others are the par numbers. lol
And he posted 12" ....when everyone who uses kessils exclusively uses 6"...like me.
He may have fooled himself and you..he did not fool me.
ComforablyNumb
New member
You don't even understand the charts the number bottom left is water depth not mounting height
I love the irony. Delicious.
I love the irony. Delicious.
Potatohead
New member
It also clearly indicates 6" depth and Bronx is posting 12". He also posted 6.5" mounting height. You also said this when the referenced photo clearly says 6.5" mounting height.
You're caught... Again. You misread all the charts.
ComforablyNumb
New member
lol...no my ignorant friend, you misread the charts.
The mounting height is clearly identified as are the par numbers.
LMAO
The mounting height is clearly identified as are the par numbers.
LMAO
Potatohead
New member
The number bottom left is the depth in water the measurements are taken and they have been since BRS started posting these types of videos years ago.
You're not putting on a good showing for McGill here.
ComforablyNumb
New member
Yes I am. Those are not water depth numbers, those are par numbers at depth.
lol Are you always this slow?
ComforablyNumb
New member
You don't even understand the charts the number bottom left is water depth not mounting height
I love the irony. Trump U grad? You can get a refund from Donald now. lol
I love the irony. Trump U grad? You can get a refund from Donald now. lol
