Mixed Bag - Page 5

Weatherman · 04-23-2006, 05:07 PM

Maybe a vote of confidence?

April 15th:

April 23rd:

gman0526 · 04-23-2006, 06:51 PM

You can see some growth, on the left hand side of the picture is more evident. I would say that it has been an overall success.. too soon I know but the pics don't lie.

How do you feel about it Jack?

Wiskey · 04-23-2006, 07:14 PM

Looks great, I hope it continues that way for you. How did acros generally look after that much time before you made the changes?

Your new coral is really sweet as well! Good luck with it.

Thanks,
Whiskey

Weatherman · 04-23-2006, 07:56 PM

From March through August of last year, that kind of growth was pretty common from the few Acros I put in the tank. After Katrina and Rita and Wilma, things were completely different. A new coral would just turn dark brown with no growth at all and then, after a few weeks or maybe a couple of months, it would die.

I’m not going to make any final judgments for a couple of months, but it is nice to see healthy growth again. If it turns out the use of NSW was the cause of my problems late last year, it will be unfortunate. I may have to join those who say it’s just not worth it to get the natural stuff. The synthetic stuff is just too clean and, if you get a good mix, too consistent in quality not to use (especially if you use zero-TDS RO/DI water).

gwaco · 04-23-2006, 09:36 PM

i am very happy for you jack

! i can't wait to see that turbinaria in a few months ! i can tell you are a happy camper once again

.have you looked at my pond yet

? any bets on how long it is before it all gets covered in algae ? soon the summer rains will come and so will the heat ! the lastest pic of yours sure shows some promise .

Weatherman · 04-23-2006, 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gwaco

have you looked at my pond yet

? any bets on how long it is before it all gets covered in algae ? soon the summer rains will come and so will the heat !

Your pond looks like a very interesting project. I bet if you swap out water often enough (or let the July and August rains do it for you), it shouldn’t be too difficult to keep clean. It is important to keep the water surface a little agitated or the skeeters will just love you.

Is the pond shaded in any way? I’m thinking full summer sunshine along with the humidity could easily push the water temps above 90 if there isn’t enough shade.

Weatherman · 04-28-2006, 10:46 PM

I got my set of new T5 bulbs today. After trying a few combinations I decided the following looked the best:

1 Daylight
2 11,000K Aquablue Plus
1 Actinic/Blue Plus

Taking out my quantum meter, it looks like 440 PPF right at water surface with all lights on. Light intensity drops rapidly with depth. On the top back shelf, 9 ½ inches below surface, PPF drops to around 85-90. Front rock slope, PPF around 30-40. I didn’t bother measuring the light on the bottom of the tank.

It is a nice supplemental light source and the fixture remains remarkably cool.

Wiskey · 04-29-2006, 01:15 AM

With 4 T5's? That is not much light from something that is supposed to replace MH, even with 8 you are only looking at 80 on the front rock slope? Does your fixture have the indivdual parabolic reflectors?

It will make a great dawn/dusk effect though, now you can watch your tank for a few more hours a day

Thanks for the report,
Whiskey

Weatherman · 04-29-2006, 02:24 PM

The fixture does not have individual reflectors. You might be able to argue a 40% in increase in light with them. You'd also get more PAR by having all four Daylight bulbs, rather than a mixture of Daylights, Aquablues and Actinics.

When you think about it, four 54-watt bulbs is only 216 watts. Just one of my PFO Minis chews up 300 watts.

bap · 04-29-2006, 02:39 PM

Actually, I have seen figures thrown around that the individual reflectors increase PAR by up to 400% over a bare bulb and up to 200% over a flat reflector. I've seen similar readings to manufacturers claims posted on ReefCentral using the same meter as Weatherman.

Here is a link to a manufacturers claims:
http://www.sunlightsupply.com/aquari...tcomparo.shtml

Weatherman · 04-29-2006, 06:47 PM

Since the reflector in the Nova Extreme is curved, especially at the front and back, it should perform better than a flat aluminum reflector. But, there’s no question you’d get better performance with individual bulb reflectors. Let’s say double the light?

That would give you 880 micromoles/m2/s at the water surface and around 180 micromoles/m2/s at 9” below the water surface. Certainly respectable numbers for 216 watts of light.

BTW, I can’t let too much time go by before asking my canary if it’s still ok with my decision to try IO instead of NSW…

Wiskey · 04-30-2006, 01:05 AM

Your canary looks great!!!

I remember at one point you had said that you prefer to have 250-300 par at the bottom of your tank, or at every stony coral. (Is this correct or am I mis-quoting?)

So if we are correct in thinking that the parabolic reflectors would double the light then we are looking at 180 PPF, 9 inches down like you stated.

Then if we had 8 bulbs we are looking at 360 PPF at 9 inches down with 432 W,... your tank is 24 inches deep.

Now if we take the water surface reading, and the 9 inches down reading and extrapolate out to what the reading would be at 18 inches down (assuming it is linear, which it likely isn't but it gives us a baseline comparison) we get 72 PPF with 8 bulbs using 432W.

Couple that with the fact that they loose 30% par over a 9 month span (according to Iwan in his great thread), and that it is 8 bulbs to buy.

I think all this adds up to T5's being great accent lighting, spectacular for dawn/dusk effect, and even a great replacement for PC's on planted tanks but IMHO not a viable replacement for halides.

I should have something even better to add tomorrow, as I am going over to a club member's house with my LUX meter to test out his T5's over his 75 gallon tank. We are going to do a test now, and one in 6 months to see how much the output has dropped off, but I am interested in the base line reading just as much.

Whiskey

Weatherman · 04-30-2006, 02:42 AM

A quote from The Grim Reefer himself:

"Fluorescents cannot provide as broad a spectrum of light output as a halide. Nor can they match the PAR output. On any tank 6 foot or longer Halides are cheaper to install and run. Say you had a tank 6 feet long and 2 feet wide and tall. You would either want to run 16 36" T5's (2 sets of 8 side by side) or 8 80 watt T5's (60" long) staggered end to end. 3 250-watt halides are a lot less moving parts to install and maintain."

I would add that if you put those three 250-watt halides in PFO Mini or Reef Optix III pendants, the balance shifts even more in favor of metal halide light.

Wiskey · 04-30-2006, 03:46 AM

I agree.

What about the lumanark reflectors? I plan to use 2 of those, with unsuplimented XM10K over the 120 I will build somewhere around next January.

I did quote you right on the 250 to 300 Par right? Because now that my tank has stabilized I am lowering my lighting down and trying to shoot for your reccomendation. So far I have had nothing but positive effects from the change.

Right now I am getting about 17,000 lux where most of my stony coral is, and nothing is getting below 10,000 so I am ranging from about 229 Par, to about 135 where some of my LPS are, as a ruff extimate using the caculator websight you posted.

Thanks,
Whiskey

Mike O'Brien · 04-30-2006, 09:50 AM

Wow unsupplimented XM 10 k's. That's a really yellow look. How about something like Fauna Marin 12.5k wich is bright as a 10k with out the yellow, or the Reeflux 12k wich is getting great feedback. I'm using the Fauna Marin bulb and it's the best looking bulb I've seen. IMO the coral's need that hint of blue for the color's to really pop.