Looking for ideas on light placement and luminarc size.
- Thread starter canar
- Start date
JRaquatics
New member
Now that is what I am talking about. Reefers helping other reefers.
hahnmeister
In Memoriam
So just because someone quite posting you think they have changed their mind? I stated what is true a long time ago, and I rested my case... no need to keep repeating myself. I find the concentration of the Lumenbright to be very 'unnatural'. The hot spot in the middle which quickly drops off doesnt make for easy coral placement, even with a PAR meter in hand. I have dealt with that problem all too often in the past with PFO mini pendants and their like... and welcome the spread that a Lumenarc gives. I think people are putting waaay too much value on the intensity that the Lumenbright can provide... its much too much for most corals in the center, yet drops off to very little as you move 12" in any direction. Most SPS corals dont even need light intensities more than 200 microMol, 300-400 tops. I would rather have a 24"x24" patch with rather even light intensity than a 12"x12" central bright spot. Using 4 lumenarcs over an 8' long, 3' wide, 3' tall tank, I can get an even spread of 150-200 micromol/m2/s of light intensity anywhere on the sand with 400watt reeflux bulbs. That is useful, and something I wouldnt be able to do with a Reeflux. If I want reflectors for my reef tank, I would go with something like the lumenarc myself. If I want a police searchlight, or a headlight for my car, then I would want a reflector like the Reeflux.
So dont go putting words in my mouth. Just because I dont care to argue doesnt mean your opinion is any truer.
JRaquatics
New member
Jon why wouldn't you want more light in the tank on the corals we are trying to grow instead of diffusing the light with spread and bleeding benneficial light outside of the tank? I am not here to argue with you, I believe there is a place in the reef hobby for LA. But these LB reflectors are giving me higher par numbers without having to use a higher watt bulb. My tank is completly lit up and the concentration of light is to my liking.
hahnmeister
In Memoriam
I never said the Lumenarcs were bleeding light outside of the tank, only providing a more even light spread inside the tank. If you have a relatively narrow tank, I have no doubt that these reflectors are good for you... as a 90g is relatively narrow (18"). But even with a tank that is 24" front to back, you start to see 'drop off' in intensity as you move from side to side.
hahnmeister
In Memoriam
Canar, my biggest suggestion to you would be to ditch the 20,000K halides and look for your blue light through T5s. You can reduce the total amount of halide wattage by just going with the 10,000Ks (in larger lumenarcs, fine), and then supplimenting the blue with rows of ATI blue+ style T5 bulbs. T5s are much more efficient at making blue light than halides... and they wont contribute all that daylight like the 20,000Ks.
You could use Icecap 660 ballasts with 5' T5 bulbs... each ballast running 3 bulbs at 100watts each. On a 10'x3' footprint, using something like 9-12 bulbs would work well, and then you could reduce your lumenarcs to 4. That would mean 4x400 + 1200 = 2800watts... pretty much what you are at now, but brighter because it would be all 10,000Ks and blue+ bulbs (or, you could use ushio/BLV nepturion 14,000Ks and really get your scorch on!...lol).
For your tank, I would stay away from the lumenbrights though... waaay to narrow of a focus. Unless thats what you want... many Japanese reef tanks are like that.
Here is a tank from someone all of you and myself know... Tom Obrecht (TOTM here at RC a while back). Well, here is his new tank, a 500g...
http://www.wisconsinreefsociety.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=422
He is using 4x 400watt reeflux 12,000Ks in his 8x3' footprint tank... and it actually might be too much.
You could use Icecap 660 ballasts with 5' T5 bulbs... each ballast running 3 bulbs at 100watts each. On a 10'x3' footprint, using something like 9-12 bulbs would work well, and then you could reduce your lumenarcs to 4. That would mean 4x400 + 1200 = 2800watts... pretty much what you are at now, but brighter because it would be all 10,000Ks and blue+ bulbs (or, you could use ushio/BLV nepturion 14,000Ks and really get your scorch on!...lol).
For your tank, I would stay away from the lumenbrights though... waaay to narrow of a focus. Unless thats what you want... many Japanese reef tanks are like that.
Here is a tank from someone all of you and myself know... Tom Obrecht (TOTM here at RC a while back). Well, here is his new tank, a 500g...
http://www.wisconsinreefsociety.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=422
He is using 4x 400watt reeflux 12,000Ks in his 8x3' footprint tank... and it actually might be too much.
JRaquatics
New member
I actually have 3 LB minis over my 180 and am getting some awsome spread + light penetration. When I had the LA minis on the tank I lost alot of light into my room and looked dim in my tank. I really don't see a narrow focus at all I just see more light directed in my tank. I am not trying to sell you on these reflectors I am just trying to give you my opinion of what I am observing with these reflectors.
bubbletip2
Premium Member
Talk about putting words into my mouth. I simply stated Hahn that you have been non existant on that thread as soon as everyone saw that Mike's 32" wide and 30" deep tank was lit up like a Christmas tree. 32" not 18" and there is usable light everywhere. I never said that you changed your mind. I don't think we will ever see you change your mind about anything. I think it is important to note here Hahn that you still do not own LumenArcs or LumenBrights but still comment on them as if you have owned them for years. I said I was done posting here but saw that you are back from the dead and would like to continue this in the original LumenBright thread. Please bring your Tom Obrecht picture there so everyone can see what your results are regarding Tom's set up. Are you using a PAR meter or LUX meter? And how far off the surface of the water is Tom's bulbs? I am guessing 8-10 inches. It would be nice to get a picture of Tom's tank with the Lumenarcs to get an idea of how things are set up. It seems you comment on his tank often so I am sure he won't mind. As a photographer myself I have to say it is hard to get an idea of the luminosity of Tom's tank by what you posted. It is awfully blue and really washed out. And by the way Hahn, at this point, I don't have an opinion, I have evidence. Not trying to argue with you, just telling you like it is. Under a 22" Diamond light the decrease in light is 500% a foot and a half away from the bulb.
See you on the other thread.
canar
Addicted to bright lights
Thanks hahnmeister!
I think you are right. As the lumenbrights seem to focus the light more I do not think that is beneficial for my 3 foot wide tank. I will be testing a big luminarc shortly and get back to everyone on my results. I appreciate your input.
Bubbletip... Why not just accept there is not just one way to do things? I think you will find that is the most enjoyable part of this hobby.
Ted
I think you are right. As the lumenbrights seem to focus the light more I do not think that is beneficial for my 3 foot wide tank. I will be testing a big luminarc shortly and get back to everyone on my results. I appreciate your input.
Bubbletip... Why not just accept there is not just one way to do things? I think you will find that is the most enjoyable part of this hobby.
Ted
craftytony
OT Godfather
Great post canar....please fill us in with your findings 
As posted in the other forum, I spoke to the patent owner of the lumenarc, Tom Ghiglieri, and they have never made a 22" version. He thinks you have the lumenmax, 22.5X22.5, since lumenarc doesn't come any bigger than 19.5X19.5. It won't have the same spread as the lumenarc.
bubbletip2
Premium Member
Agreed. There is always more than one way to do things. Sometimes that is enjoyable and sometimes it is not. All depends on how your tank is doing.
Canar,
I already said that Lumenarcs might be your best bet due to your limited canopy space so Obviously I feel there is more than one way to do things. Sometimes you have to compromise.
bubbletip2
Premium Member
The Diamond Lights are actually not mine. I took readings with Justin over at Advanced Aquatics. I will ask Glenn exactly what the model is called. I thought he had told me they were the original Diamond Light design reflector(22"). They were the original makers of the Lumenarc design bought out by Pacific Garden Supply. I don't recall him ever saying they were Lumenmax.
pk1
Active member
Bubbletip--I'm sorry if I am not getting this right, but the reflectors you say lose 500% of PAR, are some other model? Not the lumenARCs that your basically saying don't hold a candle to the lumenBRIGHT? I would say it's pretty obvious that a larger reflector of basically the same design would spread out the light more, thus lowering the PAR readings. Have you tested an actual LumenARC? 19.5 by 19.5?
bubbletip2
Premium Member
I have no problem admitting that I made a mistake and will correct it on both threads. I just talked to Glenn at Advanced Aquatics and he confirmed that this reflector I tested was in fact a 19.5 x 19.5 LumenArc III sold by Pacific Garden Supply. I though he said it was a 22" Diamond Light that I remember made 6 -7 years ago for horticulture. My mistake. Sorry.
But obviously this is even more telling as it is the Lumenarc that everyone will purchase. Ouch - 395 down to 81 - break the surface and the numbers go down.
But obviously this is even more telling as it is the Lumenarc that everyone will purchase. Ouch - 395 down to 81 - break the surface and the numbers go down.
hahnmeister
In Memoriam
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11223175#post11223175 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by bubbletip2
Talk about putting words into my mouth. I simply stated Hahn that you have been non existant on that thread as soon as everyone saw that Mike's 32" wide and 30" deep tank was lit up like a Christmas tree. 32" not 18" and there is usable light everywhere. I never said that you changed your mind. I don't think we will ever see you change your mind about anything. I think it is important to note here Hahn that you still do not own LumenArcs or LumenBrights but still comment on them as if you have owned them for years. I said I was done posting here but saw that you are back from the dead and would like to continue this in the original LumenBright thread. Please bring your Tom Obrecht picture there so everyone can see what your results are regarding Tom's set up. Are you using a PAR meter or LUX meter? And how far off the surface of the water is Tom's bulbs? I am guessing 8-10 inches. It would be nice to get a picture of Tom's tank with the Lumenarcs to get an idea of how things are set up. It seems you comment on his tank often so I am sure he won't mind. As a photographer myself I have to say it is hard to get an idea of the luminosity of Tom's tank by what you posted. It is awfully blue and really washed out. And by the way Hahn, at this point, I don't have an opinion, I have evidence. Not trying to argue with you, just telling you like it is. Under a 22" Diamond light the decrease in light is 500% a foot and a half away from the bulb.
See you on the other thread.
So how am I putting words in your mouth with what I posted? Is that first sentence supposed to just be a diversion because it sure doesnt seem to hold any water. Or do you mean to tell me that there is some other interpretation to this post by you:
Sorry, I dont see any other way to take it, and I dont think anyone else does either. You are insinuating that I have changed my mind because I quit posting in that thread.
And you are right, you wont change my mind. I have seen the 'factual' 2d grid test results (oh, and your memory fails you because I do have lumenarc DE's) and know how to interpret a grid test. I dont have to own a lumenbright... just by looking at it I could see what they were doing when they designed that reflector (and the grid tests confirm it). I have a background in EE/optics I should tell you.
I never said that the lumenbrights were bad reflectors... just that they may not work for people who desire even coverage over a tank that is wider than about 18", maybe 24" with suppliments or if you dont mind the drop-off. Keep in mind that those grid tests are 'open air' and that when you add the water element, the light that enters the water at 45 degrees will be angled downwards at 30 degrees from the density of water. So the 'spotlight' effect is even more intense with water. This is true of lumenarcs as well... but they have cashed in on this advantage rather well, knowing that the water will do the 'focusing' for the reflector once the light rays penetrate the water.
ReefKeepersCorner
Moved On
Let us know what ya find. thanks.
Rod Buehler
New member
Man, this HOBBY sure is enjoyable. :mixed:
There are many ways to do things in this hobby, and they can all work
FWIW, I dont think that any change will make all that much of a difference. Some.. yes/maybe. I think your corals were doing very well before the FW, and will bounce back nicely. Yes, I do agree that the overflow is messing with things a bit, but thats going to be a tough obstacle to overcome (the overflow would be nice behind the wavebox, but thats not do-able ) Maybe 2 smaller double ended fixtures to replace the center lumenarc mini. .. one on each side of the overflow.
Knowing the tank.. if you think an upgrade is in order, I would go with the lumenarc 3 s. ( BTW, I cant get the lumenarcs, but can get the LBs.. so this is not a plug). You cant get the LBs high enough to use them effectively
There are other things that I would concentrate on in your system before messing with lights, but I dont want to derail this awesome thread where people argue and bicker back and forth about lights for a system that many people would love to have the current lighting system.
I would rather read about people that live out in the country and have to have their club meetings with cows and chickens but with no alcohol because the members arent big drinkers. BTW, the meetings are on Sundays with no alcohol while others are drinking a 12 in front of a losing bears team
There are many ways to do things in this hobby, and they can all work
FWIW, I dont think that any change will make all that much of a difference. Some.. yes/maybe. I think your corals were doing very well before the FW, and will bounce back nicely. Yes, I do agree that the overflow is messing with things a bit, but thats going to be a tough obstacle to overcome (the overflow would be nice behind the wavebox, but thats not do-able ) Maybe 2 smaller double ended fixtures to replace the center lumenarc mini. .. one on each side of the overflow.
Knowing the tank.. if you think an upgrade is in order, I would go with the lumenarc 3 s. ( BTW, I cant get the lumenarcs, but can get the LBs.. so this is not a plug). You cant get the LBs high enough to use them effectively
There are other things that I would concentrate on in your system before messing with lights, but I dont want to derail this awesome thread where people argue and bicker back and forth about lights for a system that many people would love to have the current lighting system.
I would rather read about people that live out in the country and have to have their club meetings with cows and chickens but with no alcohol because the members arent big drinkers. BTW, the meetings are on Sundays with no alcohol while others are drinking a 12 in front of a losing bears team
craftytony
OT Godfather
Amen my brutha' !
JRaquatics
New member
Hey Rod have you tried the Lumen Brights? I would be interested to here what you think of them. I think your suggested lighting setup is most fesable for Canars setup.
