Steve Tyree
Premium Member
Yes, some actinics could be utilized, but I am dealing with the specific case of not using anything but the 1,000 watt bulb for a hypothetical reason.
Photoperiod for 1,000 Watt Halides
- Thread starter Steve Tyree
- Start date
newreefman1
Premium Member
GOt it. .Love those hypothetical situations 
I do think though that 18 hrs of nothing is a bit much...but then again more than 6 hrs could be overkill for the corals.
Seems like a catch 22 in some sense.
I do think though that 18 hrs of nothing is a bit much...but then again more than 6 hrs could be overkill for the corals.
Seems like a catch 22 in some sense.
JerseyReef
Premium Member
Steve,
I thing I would also like to add. With a short photo period being used, I would recommend that the corals food needs be supplemented by higher food/feed rates, either by live culture feeding or by indirect feeding of the fauna by use of GP's or DT's.
I was one of those reefers who believed that a majority of the corals food demands could be made by lighting alone...I was soooo wrong... Increased feeding of live cultures and GP's has made a huge difference in color, growth and overall health.
IMO, IME
I thing I would also like to add. With a short photo period being used, I would recommend that the corals food needs be supplemented by higher food/feed rates, either by live culture feeding or by indirect feeding of the fauna by use of GP's or DT's.
I was one of those reefers who believed that a majority of the corals food demands could be made by lighting alone...I was soooo wrong... Increased feeding of live cultures and GP's has made a huge difference in color, growth and overall health.
IMO, IME
steve have any good small staghorn corals up there? tapioh told me to get a hold of you last time i was at his house.. just slipped my mind.. well in regards to newreefman1 that fish store seems to run them that much and still starts to bleach them. i say 4 to 5 hours... let me know if there are any good little stags at DE ...
Steve Tyree
Premium Member
Yes, perhaps supplemental feeding would help in that situation. However in normal situations sps corals dont need to be directly fed. We proved that in the mid-90's when fully stocked SPS reefs did fine with no direct feedings of the corals. SPS corals satisfy their nitrogen demands externally, but they dont need large food particles to get it. Now there are other amino acids and such that might be needed, but natural growth rates have been achieved in captivity with no direct feeding. Thats been photodocumented.
OrionN
Moved on
I plan to use a 1000 W for my cube tank 30X30X30. I will have it high enough to light an adjacent refugium with mangrove in it. I will have this tank up and running in a few months. I plan to light this tank for 12 hrs everyday. I guess I will adjust the lighting depends on how the tank looks once it is up and running.
I think Minh inadvertantly hit it on the head. Photoperiod is best determined by the intensity and the corals ability to handle the excess light. For instance, at the current average height of 6-12 inches, 6-8 hours a day could be ideal, and likely too much. Raise the lamp another .5-1 foot, and running 12 hours a day seems less likely to damage the coral. The validity of the application is going to vary with height, spread, luminaire utilized...ect.
Thats not even taking into account temp issues....
I plan on using them in the future.
Thats not even taking into account temp issues....
I plan on using them in the future.
I was for awhile running three bulbs at 5 hrs a day trying to toy with Dana Riddle's theory of photo saturation. My bulbs are 6 inches above water surface. Corals looked great and there were no adverse effects from the fact that the corals had a 19 hour night. But I loved to experiment and said the heck with it.....the corals will prolly love it more if I ran them a little longer. No problem so far and the corals grow like mad and are as colorful as ever. As long as you can alleviate the heat, i think you can run the lamp for 8 hrs. Just depends if the reefer wants to pay for the electricity.
Steve Tyree
Premium Member
I agree that photoperiod is related to intensity. The stronger the light the less you should run the bulbs. However, some corals seem to be able to adapt to 7 to 8 hours of 1,000 watt light. In fact I think the brightly colored Acropora humulis, A. gemiffera and tables from fiji shallow waters can probably be placed right under a 1,000 watter for 7 hours a day as soon as they arrive from fiji. The problem is adapting corals that have been growing under 400 watters to the 1,000 watters.
To really analyze saturation you need to give the corals about 2 to 4 weeks to fully adapt. That is more or less impracticle to do within oxygen testing chambers.
Steve Tyree
To really analyze saturation you need to give the corals about 2 to 4 weeks to fully adapt. That is more or less impracticle to do within oxygen testing chambers.
Steve Tyree
OrionN
Moved on
IMO, coral does have photo-saturation point. Once we reach this point any additional light intensity will not help with photosynthesis. I presume that right under a 1000 W MH, under 10 inches of water, we will reach that point. That is the season that I will put my light high and use 12 hrs and lower it as I see how things developed. I think, but have not confirmed this with experiments yet, that the maximum intensity will help with coloration while long photoperiod will help with the photosynthesis for corals.
In my current reef, I have all 6X400 W MH on for only 2 hrs of the days, the noon effects. Most of the other time, only four lights are on, while early AM and late PM, only two lights are on. The total photoperiod of my current tank is 13.5 hrs. This is a 400 g 8 foot tank. IMO, my tank is doing well right now, but I need to change light bulbs. These bulbs are 1.5 year old.
In my current reef, I have all 6X400 W MH on for only 2 hrs of the days, the noon effects. Most of the other time, only four lights are on, while early AM and late PM, only two lights are on. The total photoperiod of my current tank is 13.5 hrs. This is a 400 g 8 foot tank. IMO, my tank is doing well right now, but I need to change light bulbs. These bulbs are 1.5 year old.
PetConnection
New member
Steve,
This post brings several things to mind...One of which, last year's MASM (Michigan) conference in which Richard Harker said something to the effect of "One foot under a 1000wt. MH closely approximates noon on a coral reef." (not an actual quote!)
The other item this post brings to mind is that I believe you said (at the same conference), that once you can detect damage to a coral from too much UV (as from new bulbs) it is already too late to avoid damage! So in order to avoid this, it is best to acclimate corals over a period of several weeks to the light regime...
Although I have no experience w/1000wt bulbs to report it seems that most reefers are making a jump from 400 wt to 1000 wt. It seems it would be especially prudent in this case to ramp up the photoperiod over a month or so...
Obviously the nature of the sun and our electrical bulbs are quite different. The sun is constantly changing spectrum and intensity as clouds pass overhead (I thought i heard somewhere you have done some moving of halides around on your tanks during the course of a day??).
Just a guess but I think the physics of light passing through water (aka, glitter lines) would warrant a 1000wt. photoperiod of at least 3-6 hrs. The tropical sun is quite strong from 10am- 4pm, and even though intensity and spectrum change, the physics of water magnifying light may keep the intensity quite stable throughout the photoperiod? Tell me what you think!
This post brings several things to mind...One of which, last year's MASM (Michigan) conference in which Richard Harker said something to the effect of "One foot under a 1000wt. MH closely approximates noon on a coral reef." (not an actual quote!)
The other item this post brings to mind is that I believe you said (at the same conference), that once you can detect damage to a coral from too much UV (as from new bulbs) it is already too late to avoid damage! So in order to avoid this, it is best to acclimate corals over a period of several weeks to the light regime...
Although I have no experience w/1000wt bulbs to report it seems that most reefers are making a jump from 400 wt to 1000 wt. It seems it would be especially prudent in this case to ramp up the photoperiod over a month or so...
Obviously the nature of the sun and our electrical bulbs are quite different. The sun is constantly changing spectrum and intensity as clouds pass overhead (I thought i heard somewhere you have done some moving of halides around on your tanks during the course of a day??).
Just a guess but I think the physics of light passing through water (aka, glitter lines) would warrant a 1000wt. photoperiod of at least 3-6 hrs. The tropical sun is quite strong from 10am- 4pm, and even though intensity and spectrum change, the physics of water magnifying light may keep the intensity quite stable throughout the photoperiod? Tell me what you think!
PetConnection
New member
Interesting remarks Minh Nguyen,
But do you think that if coral has a photo-saturation point (the point at which no further beneficial photosynthesis can occur), that coral can also have a further point, in which pigments and natural sunscreens are generated? I think most aquarists have observed that an identical coral can have different coloration in the same tank with differing amounts of light... So if we go past the photo-sat. point, then we get better color out of our coral? Or at what point do we get better growth? I'm sure this depends partially on the coral's genes for light tolerance.
Sounds like a big experiment...get a 10 ft high reef tank...put about 20 frags of the same coral every 6 inches, close to identical water flow, and see which ones have the highest growth rate compared to the best coloration!
Aaaaiighh to have a billion dollars and a mad scientist coral lab!
But do you think that if coral has a photo-saturation point (the point at which no further beneficial photosynthesis can occur), that coral can also have a further point, in which pigments and natural sunscreens are generated? I think most aquarists have observed that an identical coral can have different coloration in the same tank with differing amounts of light... So if we go past the photo-sat. point, then we get better color out of our coral? Or at what point do we get better growth? I'm sure this depends partially on the coral's genes for light tolerance.
Sounds like a big experiment...get a 10 ft high reef tank...put about 20 frags of the same coral every 6 inches, close to identical water flow, and see which ones have the highest growth rate compared to the best coloration!
Aaaaiighh to have a billion dollars and a mad scientist coral lab!
petconnection i have a halide on a light mover.
its the star trac model by ACI hydroponics.right now i only have a 175 watt 55k coralife in a 26"supernova reflector and 2 160 watt actinics on a 135gal.
ill be switching to the 1000watt 20k coralife in a coulpe weeks.
ill also be moving the 135gal and replacing it with a 180gal
this my be a little off subject but
this light mover can be adjusted to stop anywhere on the trac and also at each stop you can adjust it to pause from 0-50sec
the speed can also be adjusted from fast to very slow
right now i have it pausing at each end 50sec and moving fast between stops
i plan to run the 1000watt halide 12 hours
intensity can easly be adjusted by moving the reflector up or down
if dave morgavi at pfo would get on the ball with the 1000watt hqi ballast id use the 20k radium
thats the last upgrade i plan to make
only the 0ption isnt avalible yet mabey if i call him enough ill be one of the first to get the ballast
its the star trac model by ACI hydroponics.right now i only have a 175 watt 55k coralife in a 26"supernova reflector and 2 160 watt actinics on a 135gal.
ill be switching to the 1000watt 20k coralife in a coulpe weeks.
ill also be moving the 135gal and replacing it with a 180gal
this my be a little off subject but
this light mover can be adjusted to stop anywhere on the trac and also at each stop you can adjust it to pause from 0-50sec
the speed can also be adjusted from fast to very slow
right now i have it pausing at each end 50sec and moving fast between stops
i plan to run the 1000watt halide 12 hours
intensity can easly be adjusted by moving the reflector up or down
if dave morgavi at pfo would get on the ball with the 1000watt hqi ballast id use the 20k radium
thats the last upgrade i plan to make
only the 0ption isnt avalible yet mabey if i call him enough ill be one of the first to get the ballast
one other thought i had is to run a single 400watt radium on the light mover like 16 hours on my 180gal
it would have to be adjusted by coral placment and speed between stops
this way id only have to buy 1 ballast and 1 bulb
but when i found out there was a 1000watt 20k radium i knew that was the set up for me
so ive set the closest thing up to it that has the proper bulb ballast match
a sunlight systems 1000watt ballast and 1000watt 20k coralife
ill also try the 1000watt 12k with this ballast
until the 1000watt HQI ballast is out
i still plan to try a 400watt iwasaki on a light mover over a prop vat
ill probably light it 16 because the vat will be 8ft long
it would have to be adjusted by coral placment and speed between stops
this way id only have to buy 1 ballast and 1 bulb
but when i found out there was a 1000watt 20k radium i knew that was the set up for me
so ive set the closest thing up to it that has the proper bulb ballast match
a sunlight systems 1000watt ballast and 1000watt 20k coralife
ill also try the 1000watt 12k with this ballast
until the 1000watt HQI ballast is out
i still plan to try a 400watt iwasaki on a light mover over a prop vat
ill probably light it 16 because the vat will be 8ft long
Steve Tyree
Premium Member
Yes, some reef aquarist are thinking about the 1,000 watt bulbs. The experience I have had with them though shows that you cannot run them for long photoperiods. Also, only intense light corals will do well under them. Strong light corals (under 400 watters) need to be slowly adapted to them. I dont fully recommend the bulbs, but there are applications where they are useful. For example, in lighting a large area with a single bulb and for maintianing intense light shallow water corals. Its not a very efficient way to keep a reef though. Monthly operating costs will be very high. Better to stick with 400 watters and stay away from the intense light corals. Unless of course you got money to burn.
"Its not a very efficient way to keep a reef though"
I am not shure I understand this. Perhaps I am looking at efficiency the wrong way, but I would think that using one 1000W bulb instead of two 400W bulbs would be more efficient and, by virtue of the cost difference between two vs one bulb, more cost effective as well.
I have been thinking about a new setup with a 1000w bulb as the best way to run a reef. The range in light output from center to sides would allow the appropriate placement of corals that have different light demands.
Fred.
I am not shure I understand this. Perhaps I am looking at efficiency the wrong way, but I would think that using one 1000W bulb instead of two 400W bulbs would be more efficient and, by virtue of the cost difference between two vs one bulb, more cost effective as well.
I have been thinking about a new setup with a 1000w bulb as the best way to run a reef. The range in light output from center to sides would allow the appropriate placement of corals that have different light demands.
Fred.
Steve Tyree
Premium Member
Well, its cheaper to run 800 watts then it is to run 1,000 watts. But you could also replace a 1,000 watter with one 400 and a 175 in tandem. Much cheaper electrical costs. The biggest cost per year is the electricity, at least here in California it is. The other advantage is that you can get much better quality light by mixing two different bulbs. Much better then the output from any single bulb currently on the market.
newreefman1
Premium Member
I agree with the better light with 2 bulbs..makes perfect sense..but confused as well with 575 watts..
I think you meant 2x400 and 2X175?
Hmmmm.
J
I think you meant 2x400 and 2X175?
Hmmmm.
J
Similar threads
