Lighting ?'s

[Dozer]

I have some questions about lighting. I've been searching around lately, here and on reefcentral, and have found a TON of info. I guess I'm hoping to get some personal real life experiences from some local folks. Has anyone ever attempted overdriving NO flourescents using VHO ballasts/caps? Like this: http://www.icecapinc.com/rev1.htm . Or if not attempted, happen to know a lot about it?

Anyone like to throw out opinions on this? Pros, cons, etc...

I'm planning out my future (hopefully near future) upgrade. I'm pretty sure it will be a standard 120L. For a while I will only want to keep fish, live rock, softies, maybe a BTA. (I keep all of these things now under 240W NO in a 55, so I know I can handle them but definitely want better lighting with the new tank). However, eventually I am nearly certain I would like to give SPS corals a try. I am debating between this idea of using VHO equipment to overdrive NO flourescent bulbs, or just going metal halide. Here are a few things I can think of based on some early research:

6-8 NO lamps on 2 IceCap660's:
-cheaper than Halides- both up front and ongoing. 6500K NO bulbs can be bought at Home Depot for about $5, for example.
-less energy use and heat output than halides. This point is debatable and I would like some opinions on this.

3 250W halides.
- Better coverage on a 6 foot long tank. I'm thinking one halide for every 2 feet. The NO bulbs are 4', which would be an obvious problem.
- Deeper penetration from more focused lightsource, all the way to bottom of the tank. Although I suppose in some cases this could be a bad thing, such as some corals that prefer some lower light areas.
- much easier to get 3 MH fixtures above a tank than 6-8 NO bulbs! And just the thought of rigging up some type of reflector system for all those NO bulbs makes me cringe...

Those are a few things I've thought of, but I'd love to hear from others who actually have experience with these things, and/or have researched it also. Also, perhaps I missed some better possibilities? T5's (not leaning that direction), or maybe 400W MH? Any feedback would be really helpful!

[Ed]

Mike,

I have no experience overdriving NO bulbs. Maybe someone else will chime in.

You might consider starting with 2 MH and adding a third in the future to keep startup costs down. You can retro two 250W halides for about the same $$ as the two Icecaps. Just a thought.

-Ed

[obtusewit]

The helios T-5 all in one fixtures are great. They are cheap (36" is 18.99), cool, available in 10K, Actinic, daylight, and pink??, I think, and can be had from 12" to 48". The fixture and lamp is about 1" by 1", comes eith mopunting clips, can be daisy chained up to 4 fixtures. I am using 8 on a 46 oceanic bowfront, 4 10K and 4 actinics and my crocea on the substrate is growing, my birdsnest and othe sps at the top is growing and everyone seems happy. The sps is not growing as fast as halides might provide for but the heat a power consumption is a much better situation and I am not overgrowing my tank. My zoos, yumas, palys, discos etc are splitting and spreading well and I have no complaints about the price, itz nice!

[GaryP]

I don't have any experience with PC, but have used VHO and MH. From everything I have read, MH have the "punch" that lack in PC's for sps. My SPS tank has MH with VHO actinic supplements.

One advantage to MH is that they only need to be replaced once a year. So there is a long term savings. Also, they are more efficient from a power consumption basis so that helps keep your electric bill lower. Admittedly they have a high up-front cost as far as initial cash lay-out. With MH you will also have to take cooling into consideration. MH will require more cooling fans than with VHO or PC.

Gary

[prof]

I love MH. I run 250watt bulbs and really like the color and growth that I get. I use PC bulbs to balance the color of the MH. For example: I run 2 250watt 10000K Ushios on my 58g tank with 2 96watt PC actinics. I get a crisp white color with enough blue to not wash out the color of my corals.

PC produce great color but IMO they lose their spectrum faster than MH. I like to use them for color supplementation.

I really don't like to use NO or VHO if I can avoid it. They are just too bulky. That said, I have a 3 bulb VHO setup for my 40g softie tank and use normal aquarium light strips for smaller tanks when necessary.

Check out the PFO ballast at www.premiumaquatics.com. I also like hellolights. Get electronic ballasts if you can afford them.

[Dozer]

Thanks for the responses so far! This is great info.

[StephenA]

I love my MH lights. They cost too much but worth it.

[Dozer]

Check out the PFO ballast at www.premiumaquatics.com. I also like hellolights. Get electronic ballasts if you can afford them.

I was just looking around at both online, lots of good stuff. Just to make sure I've got it straight, electronic would be better because:
1) use less energy
2) quieter- less "hum"
3) run cooler
4) bulbs last longer

Are those all true of electronic vs. standard MH ballasts? If so they might be worth the extra money. Any advantages that standard ballasts have over electronic?

StephenA- What have you liked most- just looks?- and what were you running before?

Ed- Good suggestion, I may do exactly that. Who knows, I may even decide 2 is plenty for my needs and never get the third...

Obtuse- Sounds like you're saying the SPS probably prefer the Halides, but do you think it's possible the softies actually prefer the flourescents? This could impact my decision. Basically if Halides will work for all I'm leaning that way, to avoid redoing lighting 6 months later or something.

Gary- If I were to hang the halides as pendants rather than mount in a canopy (which is what I actually would rather do given how I'm thinking of setting up my new tank), do you think that would take care of the cooling issue?

Thanks again guys, it's good to hear all these opinions when trying to decide on certain things!

[matt]

The most obvious advantage of mh lighting is that it looks much more natural than florescent lighting. You get glitter lines like sunlight and much more natural shadows in your tank.

[StephenA]

I've had PC's in the past, still do on my smaller tanks. I like the overall output, look, color (I have 1 10K and 20K). I keep them about 10" off the water. Heat is an issue. I keep an open tank too. My wife made the decision on which fixture to purchase. She picked the Nova II for the style in our den. Most people that look at my tank comment on the lights.

[Instar]

I have pc's but will not use them on another tank. The color spectrum is terrible on the 10K's and some blue zoos loose all their blue colors under these. The pink birdsnest wasn't real well colored under these either and most colors of montipora either brown out or fail to thrive under them. I have not had or seen the same with either VHO or MH. Both of those used in combination have great color spectrums. The PC's are very flat and dull colored by comparison to my eyes regardless of what brand they are. If you overdrive a NO bulb, what spectral shift does it provide, how often do you have to change the lights (at least every 3 to 4 months at most) and how much does it boost your power bill? Those were not answered by the person looking for what I guess was good lights for minimal investment. You get back out of this what you are willing to invest. I wouldn't chop on lights if it was me. Its not worth the dissapointments that will likely follow IMO. By the time you get done with it, the cost will be at least as much as the T-5 mentioned above. I have used a commercial single balast for a NO from HD. Those boost the output by 20% wihtout any cross wiring if NO is what you want.

[kaiser]

You might wnt to look at these guys. www.diyreef.com

[BA]

well i have VHO and PC's on my reef tank, and frag tank and love them. I have always wanted to get MH's so i could upgrade to different types of corals. The one bad thing IMO is that with the strong power of the MH, means heat, which means you might have to get a chiller, and some people aren't ready to spent a lot on MHs and then some on the chiller

[BA]

wow, Kaiser thx for the link, i might be getting a whole lot of new stuff... :-D :)

[BA]

i was looking on the site, and i know NOTHING about MHs whats the main difference between XM and CV bulbs???which one is better?

[kaiser]

Different brands. CV=Coralvue, XM's seem to get the better reviews. I know a lot of guys here use the XM's and love them. That is what I am going to get.

[Tim Marvin]

I hate the DE 250 XM! I switched to geissman Megachromes and am getting nice rich colors out of the acros. Purple, blue, teal, pink, it doesn't seem to prefer certain colors! These have been a really nice switch!
Double ended, DE, put out the same par as the 400watt bulbs but with much less heat. A DE fixture will probably put out slightly more heat than a bunch of VHO or PC packed over the top of the tank. I have 2 VHO actinic and 2-250w DE's in the garage proptank and with 2 small fans the tank has been holding at 77-79 degrees.

[StephenA]

My tanks temp is fine with my MH, we keep the house at 78 in the summer and the tank has only hit 83-84 maybe twice. I have thought about getting a chiller though.

[kaiser]

I was refering to the mogul socket XM's. Sorry I guess is should have specified that.

[obtusewit]

Technically speaking....

As an electrical engineer, I want the 'numbers'. Lighting techniques have always been an area of reefkeeping supported by personal experience, educated guess, voodoo 'it worked for me' science, supplier marketing efforts (the BIGGIE), and some techno-biological information about corals and their little algae friends (of which there is little concrete data). New reef keepers are told that Metal Halide is the definitve technology by those people wanting to sell them a thousand bucks worth of lighting, experienced reefers evolve into technologies which work, but there is no definitve data that one lighting system is the definitive 'best'. Aside from asthetics, there is precious little definitive data, and a lot of conflicting opinions about what is the best route.

While there is no doubt that metal halides work well, so would a heated piece of iron at the right temperature - "hold this while I get the torch, wouldja?" And here is the science of light

FACT 1- Light is light, no matter what the source. Photons are not particluar about the source of their birth. Photons have more intensity in the middle areas of the visible spectrum, the yellow/green area, but overall photon density is what we want.

FACT 2 - CRI (color rendition index) is concrete data, measurable and repeatable. Natural sunlight falls somewhere around 5500 Kelvin to 6500 Kelvin, which is the average CRI of the total spectrum

FACT 3 - PAR (photosynthetic active radiation) is the most important thing to a coral, this is not something which is universal across the board, every coral has its on needs. Photosynthetically Usable Radiation, PUR is actually a more useful number. Estimating PUR requires knowledge of the spectrum of light and the absorption spectrum of the algae.
(for those with no life and a need to know there is some data - PUR: Morel, 1978, Deep-Sea Res. 25:673-688).

FACT 4 - LUX The total Illuminance i.e. A lux equals one lumen incident per square meter of illuminated surface area.

When LUX is combined with PAR (actually PUR) and CRI we can approximate what a coral needs to survive.

LUMENS are a measurable quantity, too. A lumen is the true measure of the efficiency of a lighting source. If you burn a 60 watt light bulb, only about 3 watts are converted to lumens, the other 57 watts are heat. Since we want to get rid of heat and increase the PAR or PUR we need to look at the total LUX at a given CRI.

A typical 250 watt Metal Halide bulb has an initial output of approximately 19,000 lumens with a mean lumen rating of 12,530 over the useful life of the lamp given to be 6,000 hours, a 39 watt flourescent T5 has an initial output of 3800 lumens with a mean lumen rating of 3640 lumens over the same period of time. (Lamp and lumen data from GE, that mega corporate conglomerate that actually rules the free world and most of the known universe. a Little known fact for all you trekkies, the Federation is actually a subsidiary of GE.) If you say "But I change my lamps every year! the numbers are 13,460 and 3700

Doing the math
the 2 year plan
MH = 12530/250 = 50.12 lumens/watt
FL = 3640/39 = 93 lumens/watt
Ratio - 93/50.12 = 1.86

the 1 year plan
MH = 13460/250 = 53.84
FL = 3700/39 = 94.87
Ratio = 94.87/53.84 = 1.76


which means that over the 1 year life of the lamp a T5 florescent will produce 1.6 times as many lumens per watt as a MH.

Watts being watts and lumens being lumens and using the mean lumen rating (initial rating have little significance since we don't change out bulbs after 10% of their life)

13460/370 = 3.63 lumen ration

Soooooooo 3.63 39 watt T5 fixtures equal one 250 watt metal halide

39 watts x 3.63 = 141 watts

Therefore a 250 watt MH will yield 109 watts of additional heat at the same LUX.

CRI is, as the old saying goes, the "beauty in the eye of the beholder", but we can approximate any CRI in any lighting source. Corals certainly need a certain spectrum, that of natural daylight, but higher wavelengths (blue) penetrate water deeper than lower wave lengths (red) so balancing the CRI for the spectral needs of coral and the reefer who doesn't want that yellow tank is only a matter of balancing the CRI of light sources.

I personally think T5 is a new technology which has distinct advantages over MH. Heat and expense being the caveats. I have 8-T5 39w (4 10K and 4 Actinics) over a 46 bow front and my birdsnest is pink and my SPS corals grow. My Crocea is growing well and is happy as a clam sitting on the substrate.

When I had my 300 I used MH and VHO actinics and they worked well for me. When I set up this 46BF I wanted to try something different so I opted for T5 technology. I have ordered a very good LUX/PAR light meter and have access to a CRI meter (not finding one on ebay and not wanting to spend the 20 grand). As I further investigate the light debacle, I will post results (yes I read the Morel study on PUR - I am a single parent and an engineer i.e. I have no life)

Youuuuuuuu, you light up my life, is that a new coral, tell me, what is it's price...

[obtusewit]

BTW, I guess I should add this footnote, when I win the Mega millions and can afford the 15,000 gallong reef tank, I will use metal halides just for the convenience of fewer reflectors to clean

Step lively lads and reef the sails before the reef prevails! Or, tack to port and pass the ale!

[dan]

WOW THAT WAS AN EYE OPENER. yes do send more post. very interesting. one thing i'm fighting right now is heat. i had to buy a window unit just to keep that room a little cooler, and i mean a little. T5 hmmmm

[Instar]

That was a very detailed way to say "I like my T-5's"! :o :lol:
Interesting discussion, but, what about the penetration and effective PUR to the depth of the 46BF by the different K temps with the T-5's? How far from the water are your T-5's? How deep is your Pink Birdsnest? Do you use carbon to keep the water crystal clear?

[obtusewit]

I absolutely use carbon to keep my system clear. I run carbon approximately one week out of the month and my T5s are approximately 5 inches from the water. My birdsnest is about 4 inches below the water. My crocea is sitting on the bottom, approx. 28 inches below the lights.

I was not trying to get fancy in my support of T5, I was just trying to show a relationship between MH and T5 devices. Both are viable technologies, but there has been a lot of what I like to call "metal halide superiority complex". i.e "My BMW gets you to the store much more effectively than your Chevy becauses its a BMW". The marine aquarium world is so ripe with 'junk science', esecially about lighting, I thought I would throw out some hard data about light rather than allow the metal halide fallacies to persist. If you look at the science of lighting, nowhere will you find a measurable parameter called "punch". It is just a word used to try a justify that metal halide is superior and it has no basis in fact. I will admit that the area directly beneath the arc tube of a metal halide has more photon density, but areas at the top of the tank to the side of the tube have less.

Photometric charts - Metal halides 'punch' but not over the entire tank

[obtusewit]

BTW, the distances for the photometric charts above are 24 inches from the arc tube