Lets talk about lighting.....

redwinger · 11-15-2005, 12:43 AM

As with the previous thread on sumps lets chat about this as it is a hot topic now. Lets get into the spectrums of different bulbs, VHO,MH,T5,PC also ballasts would be a good idea for the different wattages and different bulbs. What corals seem to do better under what lighting and what corals must have a certain lighting setup to do well. What is everyone using and why did they decide to go with what they are useing? I know I could use a in depth thread like this as I am about 99% sure I am switching to 400w MH.

clownfishcrazy · 11-15-2005, 12:46 AM

John why do you want to switch to 400 watt? Are you looking for better growth, cause the colors of your corals are awesome?

David Grigor · 11-15-2005, 12:49 AM

Based on all the bulbs and many wattages I have used, of all the MHs, for whatever reasons which I really can't explain, 400W MH 20K Radium seems to be the best of both worlds. SPS seem to do great and LPS/Softies don't seem to mind it either ( in the lower half of a 24+ height tanks ). For all LPS/Softy VHO hands down has given me the best results over the years.

redwinger · 11-15-2005, 12:56 AM

Devin One I am going to run 400w on the upgrade tank when that happens down the road. Two I think that with running the 250w and 20,000k bulbs that yes the colors are great but the growth suffers. Three the brightness is lacking to what I want with the lighting most of which I attribute to the 250w and 20k bulbs. From what I have seen the tank will look brighter with a 400w 20k bulb.

And the faster stuff grows the faster I can justify a upgrade

. It is more a trial and error than anything though. I am going to hang on to the 250w ballasts and bulbs for a while to see if I like it or not.

redwinger · 11-15-2005, 12:59 AM

And why hasn't your name been changed yet?

clownfishcrazy · 11-15-2005, 01:00 AM

I don't know why, Minnreefer probably hasn't signed on yet.

redwinger · 11-15-2005, 01:03 AM

The one month starts from the day it gets changed little man.

Graham · 11-15-2005, 01:10 AM

I have a 120 gallon tank, so my response is tailored to my system...
I think higher K 400W would be OK, but lower Ks would be too intense for my taste.
I've had to scale back my 250s quite a bit to get the results I want. I currently run two 250W 20K XMs for 9 hours and two 250W 10K XMs for 2 hours, along with 220W actinic. Some days I don't run the 10Ks at all.
Corals and their pigmentation (including zoox density) is heavily determined by the maximum intensity they are exposed to. Duration matters much less as long as metabolic (photosynthetic) needs are met. In this respect, I don't see the point of blasting them with mega light for much more than a couple hours. Water quality is also a factor, but is tied into irradiance pretty intimately.

IME: Good water, high light, you're going to get pastel colors. Less zoox in the coral, so the colors appear over more of a white skeleton. Good water and more moderate light and you get deeper colors because there are more zoox in the "background". This whole subject has been discussed pretty heavily on the boards. You're more than welcome to disagree with me. My thoughts are based on what I've read and what's happened in my tank - and those 2 things agree.

I know there are lots of folks in the "400 club", but unless you're running something over 10K, I don't know you couldn't expect washed-out colors. It's already been shown that it's possible to achieve PAR levels 4-5X higher than natural noon sun in a tank with 400W bulbs.
See here

I don't care much about optimizing growth, cause they'll grow regardless.

Sure, some corals will take the 400W better than others, but it really depends on what you have in your tank (and what size it is). This is a very broad question to say the least...

redwinger · 11-15-2005, 01:21 AM

Graham I run mine 250 20k's for five hours a day right now and if I do switch to the 400's I plan on scaleing it back to 4 hours maybe less. I used to run a longer photoperiod of 12 hrs MH a day and since dropping down to 5 hours the colors really improved. Like I said it is more trial and error right now and am going to hang on to all the old lighting in case it isn't to my liking. I am just aiming for that perfect balance of color and growth. I like what I have right now but I think I can improve on it in one area. (growth). If I get the growth but the colors look dramatically different I will switch back to what I know works for me currently. If I do switch I plan on a minimum 3 week acclimation to the new lights and will give it at least 6 months before I decide whether I like it or not.

spazz · 11-15-2005, 01:23 AM

so far the 400w 20k xm's have made a vast inprovement in my corals colors. i didnt see colors like that when i was running the 250's over the tank. plus the tank is brighter and more interesting to watch. i will agree that it is very intense light over a tank but with the lower par ratings of the 20k bulbs i feel its just right for maximum color from my corals. plus the luminarc III reflectors puts out a better spread and not as concentrated as other reflectors.

the one thing i want to know about is moon lights. do they make it less stressful for the fish and corals? or is it just a spawing thing? i got a set the other day and love the look at night. there real bright for LED's

spazz · 11-15-2005, 01:25 AM

redwinger are you running a ca reactor or dosing for ca and alk?

trodder · 11-15-2005, 01:26 AM

I use 400w 20k XMS because you get close to the same growth and color as you would from a Radium but the XM bulbs typically last longer and are considerably cheaper. I have two over a 58 and all is great. If you like I have a ballast or two you could borrow and a bulb or two you could try as well. In fact I have some radium and XM bulbs you could try... just let me know

We can work something out for me to round everything up for you.

redwinger · 11-15-2005, 01:32 AM

Scott I have run the tank with and without the lights and I can say I have not seen any change in coral health with the use of them or without them. They can help in the aid of spwaning from what I have read but I have had a pocilipora that must have spawned at one point that spread all over the tank without moonlights. I think that animals have a different way of knowing when the moon is full or not. My coral banded shrimp and my cleaners before they died in a interceptor treatment would molt consistently within one day of a full moon. This was with no moonlights on the tank. I do like them for the fact of viewing the tank at nightime though.

redwinger · 11-15-2005, 01:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spazz

redwinger are you running a ca reactor or dosing for ca and alk?

I dose nothing I just run the reactor.

Thanks Thoams but I am all set on the ballast and bulb and will be ordering in the next few days. I appreciate the offer though.

David Grigor · 11-15-2005, 10:22 AM

Thomas, The price difference is $9 which IMO isn't really a factor. $69 for the XM and $78 for the Radium. Based on what Casey has told me, the bulb life isn't significantly greater by running the XM. Unless things have changed he still changes his bulbs in the 6-8 month range. Having ran them side by side, the XM is a tad more blue therefore I still prefer the Radium on an e-ballast and 430W HPS. No doubt the results from either bulb is excellent. Overall, I think it is a wash as to which one you choose.........