|
| |
|
FAQs about Fluorescent Light and Lighting for Marine
Systems, Fixture Selection
Related FAQs: Fluorescent
Light 1, Fluorescent Light 2,
Fluorescent Light 3, Normal Output (NO),
High Output (HO), Very
High Output (VHO),
Compact
Fluorescents (CFs, PCs), Compact Fluorescents
2, T5, TN Fluorescent Lighting, & FAQs
on Fluorescent: End Caps,
Ballasts,
Regular and High-Output Lamp Selection, PC
Lamp Selection, T-5 Lamp Selection,
Lamp
Life-Span Issues, Power Consumption Issues,
Installation-Wiring,
Troubleshooting/Repairing,
By Make/Model/Manufacturer:
&
Metal
Halide Lighting, Lighting
Marine Invertebrates, LR
Lighting, Tridacnid
Lighting, Small System Lighting,
Related Articles: Fluorescent
Light & Lighting, Spectral
Quality of Various Fluorescent Lamps by Dana Riddle,
T5 Fluorescent Lighting,
Coral
System Lighting,
|
Watts per gallon... is a very slippery measure of how much
"light" is necessary, desirable... Real quanta of use-able spectra, ones
goals (growth, color, reproduction, maintenance), and costs fixturing,
power... all need to be taken into consideration. |
I've been told that you can use VHO fluorescents on tanks up to about
24"deep, but more than that you need metal halides. Does it go the other way, too? I mean, if you have a tank that is only 12" tall, can you use
regular full-spectrum fluorescents and still have a successful reef?
To a large degree yes; though an answer to this sort of query must delve into
a few statements of fact, definitions and qualifiers to be of real use. First,
let’s agree that the intensity of light (number or quanta of photons)
is the principal difference between full-spectrum fluorescents (FSF) and metal
halide (MH) lighting sources. That is, both types produce adequate amounts of
light in necessary and desirable (function and aesthetic) wavelengths to support
and showcase captive reef life. MH is more intense, and thus able to penetrate
to greater depths and provides more light to shallow ones.
Whether this is critical or something you want though depends on two further
major considerations: the type of life you intend to keep, and how much you
want to "push" it. In aquariums as in the wild, there is a broad
range of benefit and tolerance to more light. For example, Corallimorpharians
(coral anemones), most of the photosynthetic gorgonians and soft corals (Order
Alcyonacea) available to hobbyists get along quite well on FSF and compact
fluorescents (CF) in the deepest of hobby aquariums. On the other hand, several
of the popular true or stony corals (Order Scleractinia), do poorly unless
provided either a roost in a shallower setting (with FSF, CF), or MH in greater
depths.
The "pushing" issue is a consideration of how much you want to
enhance your organisms metabolic rates. Lighting, along with nutrient
availability, conscientious filtration, and current are principal inputs to this
physiological "driving". Do you want your Acropora for instance
to grow about as fast as possible? Maybe it will become more spindly, less
colorful, more short-lived as a consequence... Perhaps the cost of water
testing, dosing and amelioration is only "worth it" up to a point.
Each aquarist must ask themselves this question; "Per the species/specimen
and environmental settings, what do I want my livestock to do?"|
Obviously all light-affected life needs to be accommodated within its
environmental tolerance; hence you must study and provide at least the minimum
or at most the maximum amounts of light per that species/specimen in your
setting. Such information is invaluable, and often more than just a matter of
reading and chatting with other reef hobbyists and dealers. A tried and true
approach for new introductions is initially placing them further down or away
from the most intense light area, and moving them "toward the light"
as they display a propensity for it.
One last element of this "how much light will do/is too much"
question I’d feel remiss to leave out is the effects of dissolved (mainly
colored) material in the systems water. The cleanest of seawater absorbs,
reflects and diffracts light; more and more with depth. The presence of
suspended solids and various chemicals has an additional, often pronounced
effect on diminishing photo strength. In practical terms, and for more than light
penetration reasons, you want to keep concentrations of this matter to a
minimum; principally through skimming, water changes and possibly the use of
chemical filtrants. This is an area of discussion that merits much more emphasis
and investigation. |
Re: Stocking, Questions in
general, reef 11/17/08
Scott,
Thanks again for your
help.
<Welcome.>
Just one more question. What I'm looking to do is
add frogspawn, torch, or hammer corals to my tank.
Do you think the
lighting I have now would be efficient, if the coral is about 12" from
the light, or should
I replace the Coralife t-5 with another dual
55watt t-5 light, giving me a total of 220 watts?
<If adding light
is an option, I would. What you have is on the low end as it stands.>
And would this be efficient for this type of LPS?
<Yes.>
Thanks
again, I did read through the FAQs, but it seems a little dated, not
much about t-5s, and the ones that do, aren't the same tank size, or are
stocking different corals.
Marc
<Welcome, Scott V.>
Comment on Light Posting,
fluo. fixt. choices 11/18/08
Dear Scott,
<Hello
again Andy.>
I was reading Today's Questions and saw a snippet of a
post about the TEK vs. Aquactinics lights. Unfortunately, I couldn't
find the original post/answer, so forgive me if I'm way off base here.
The post/answer was:
"Re: Lighting for 55 gallon reef 11/16/08
Thanks Scott.
<Welcome.>
With bulbs and all, they were very close
in price. It seemed that the Tek light was the better deal, but with the
Aquactinic rep I wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something.
<Nah, same basic thing except the extra bulb.>
dean
<Scott V.>"
I assume the poster/you were talking about the TEK 6 light HO T5 versus
the Aquactinics TX5 fixture? <Yes.> I have seen/observed both of these
in action, and I can tell you that there is a pretty significant
difference between the two fixtures, IMO. The difference in output/light
quality/brightness is pretty astounding, with the Aquactinics being the
superior fixture. I'm not poo pooing the TEK, which is a fine fixture,
but the 5-bulb Aquactinics I've seen produces a much better/brighter
output than the 6-bulb TEK. Maybe it's the reflectors, maybe it's the
ballasts, maybe it's the bulbs that were being used--I don't know. I've
been told that the TEK runs very hot, which I'm also told reduces the
efficiency of the fixture/bulbs. Although I don't always subscribe to
this way of thinking, I honestly believe there is a reason the
Aquactinics fixture is more expensive--because it is hands down a better
fixture. My LFS uses both, and the difference really is impressive. I'm
sure you/others have a lot more experience with light fixtures, and
maybe these models in particular, but I just thought I'd share my
impressions/$.02.
<Thank you for your input, I do have to say I
myself have not seen the difference. There are so many factors to
consider: bulb type/spectrum, age of bulbs, fixture maintenance
(reflector cleaning), and even the perception of light put out. Both of
these fixtures use HO T5 bulbs with individual reflectors. I do
appreciate your comments and this will be posted for others to make a
more educated choice. Thank you.>
Andy
<Talk again soon, Scott V.>
Re: Lighting for 55 gallon reef
Further Comment on Light Posting, fluo. fixt. choices 11/18/08
Hey,
<Hello Dean.>
I was reading the dailies and saw a response to my post. I have
comment of my own.
<Okay.>
Scott and Andy,
I did choose to go with the
Tek 6 HO light for a couple of reasons. I agree that the Aquactinics TX5 has
some performance characteristics over the Tek 6 Light, but the Tek 6 has some as
well.
The Aquactinics has better reflectors and active cooling, and both
contribute to the fixtures performance. From my research, the TX5 can penetrate
better. My tank however is only 20" deep, with a DSB also in the mix, so I
cannot take full advantage of the reflectors. If my tank was a 65, 36x18x24 it
would be a different story.
As for active cooling, I saw my third snowstorm
of the season today, My place doesn't get that warm, and I can always add a fan.
In the end what was the deciding factor was the sixth bulb. Not because extra
wattage, but because a sixth bulb give me more flexibility in mixing bulbs and
tuning the spectra.
<A good point not yet mentioned.>
My bulbs are:
Back
ATI Blue Plus
ATI Korallin Zucht Fiji Purple
Giesemann Midday
ATI Blue Plus
UVL 72.25
ATI Blue Plus
Front
The TX5 may be the
better fixture, but the Tek 6 made more sense in my situation as it turns out. I
would have had to give up my 75.25 and I really wanted that to pull out the reds
in my firefish and coralline.
But thanks for the help! This has been very
educational for me. Y'all rock.
Dean
<Thank you for the further input
Dean. My stance re has already been
posted. Glad you are happy with your
choice. Scott V.>
The post was:
*Comment on Light Posting, fluo.
fixt. choices 11/18/08*
<Hello again Andy.>
I was reading Today's
Questions and saw a snippet of a post about the TEK
vs. Aquactinics lights.
Unfortunately, I couldn't find the original post/answer, so forgive me if I'm
way off base here. The post/answer was:
"Re: Lighting for 55 gallon
reef 11/16/08
Thanks Scott.
<Welcome.>
With bulbs and all,
they were very close in price. It seemed that the Tek light was the better deal,
but with the Aquactinic rep I wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something.
<Nah, same basic thing except the extra bulb.>
dean
<Scott V.>"
I
assume the poster/you were talking about the TEK 6 light HO T5 versus the
Aquactinics TX5 fixture? <Yes.> I have seen/observed both of these in action,
and I can tell you that there is a pretty significant difference between the two
fixtures, IMO. The difference in output/light quality/brightness is pretty
astounding, with the Aquactinics being the superior fixture. I'm not poo pooing
the TEK, which is a fine fixture, but the 5-bulb Aquactinics I've seen produces
a much better/brighter output than the 6-bulb TEK. Maybe it's the reflectors,
maybe it's the ballasts, maybe it's the bulbs that were being used--I don't
know. I've been told that the TEK runs very hot, which I'm also told reduces the
efficiency of the fixture/bulbs. Although I don't always subscribe to this way
of thinking,
I honestly believe there is a reason the Aquactinics fixture is
more expensive--because it is hands down a better fixture. My LFS uses both, and
the difference really is impressive. I'm sure you/others have a lot more
experience with light fixtures, and maybe these models in particular, but I just
thought I'd share my impressions/$.02.
<Thank you for your input, I do have
to say I myself have not seen the difference. There are so many factors to
consider: bulb type/spectrum, age of bulbs, fixture maintenance (reflector
cleaning), and even the perception of light put out. Both of these fixtures use
HO T5 bulbs with individual reflectors. I do appreciate your comments and this
will be posted for others
to make a more educated choice. Thank you.>
Andy
<Talk again soon, Scott V.>
Mercury/CF Lamps – 07/14/08
Hi Bob,
Am wondering how many aquarists are aware of the higher mercury content of
Compact Fluorescent and T5 lamps.
<Doubtful many>
One T5 lamp contains 3mg of mercury and Compact Fluorescents even more. As you
know, mercury is a potent neurotoxin and handling these lamps should be done
with care to avoid breakage which leads to mercury contamination of the area.
There are some states that have made it illegal to dispose of these lamps in
normal trash pickup...they must be recycled.
Have a nice day, James (Salty)
<... Will post, share... B>
Aesthetic Fluorescent Supplementation, Marine Tank 03/23/07
Howdy Crew, quick one for you.
<Hello.>
I am running 2, 250 HQI 14.5K bulbs on my reef tank, but I don't get the "pop"
colorwise without running actinics.
<They are "neat" looking....and yes neat is a scientific term....maybe.>
Could I get away with adding 2 standard 40W actinics with a reflector?
<It's just for color/aesthetics so yes...won't hurt anything.>
Will they make a difference visually, even though they only total 80 watts?
<Visually yes, but as you know they won't make a difference par rating wise.>
I do have VHO's but I really don't want to use them since its wastes more
electricity and generates extra heat, not good.
<I understand.>
What are you opinions.
<N.O. fluorescents are fine, but you can also look into T-5's, and not just the
high output versions either but the normal output as well...they are low
wattage, don't impart much heat onto the water.>
Thank you for your time.
<Of course.>
Paul
<Adam J.>
Overdriven fluorescents and anemones – 03/17/07
Hello.
<Hello Mark, Brandon here tonight.>
I have a long tentacle anemone, probably a Macrodactyla doreensis, but possibly
a Heteractis crispa in a 30 gallon tank with two small maroon clowns and a
couple of torch corals.
<For either of these species of Anemone this is too small a volume. Please
consider an upgrade.>
Water quality is good, except for 2-4 ppm nitrates. I've had the anemone for
six weeks, and after staying put in the first month it's now taken up wandering
aimlessly. I fear for the corals and worry about the anemone's well-being.
<This is common with all anemones. It is recommended to never place an Anemone
with other Cnidarians.>
Might the lighting be a problem?
<This is always a good possibility.>
I have four 20 watt NO, two 10000K and two actinic, all of them 2X
overdriven. I haven't been able to find anything definitive about light output
from overdriven NO vs. compact fluorescents.
<I will be honest with you, I would not keep an Anemone of any sort under PC or
overdriven NO. The minimum I would use would be four, four foot 110 watt VHO
lights. Two Actinic 03, two Full Spectrum 10000k. Better still, (and what I
currently use) would be HQI double ended 10k MH. All of this is rather
dependant on the size of your tank. I will assume that you have a normal 100
gallon (by this I mean rectangular.) In this instance I would use one 150 watt
HQI MH fixture.>
Just from eyeballing, it looks like I get the same light output per watt from
both, so I'm guessing my 80 watts 2X overdriven is about the same as 140-160
watts from compact fluorescents. Is that adequate, do you think?
<You can’t guess by eyeballing. Light levels can be deceiving from outside the
tank. The only sure way to tell is with a Lux Meter. But at a guess, no it is
not the same, and I would not think with the Anemone moving like this, that the
light is adequate. Additionally with the overdriven NO’s you will have a very
short bulb life, say one - four months, as opposed to six - a year with the PC’s
or MH. Please do some reading here,
http://www.wetwebmedia.com/marlgtganthony.htm.>
On the assumption that its a doreensis, I've had it on the sand bed, 3-4 inches
deep, with live rock surrounding a bare area 2-3 inches in diameter. According
to the usually reliable LFS, it will dig its base into the sand and probably
attach itself to a buried rock. Is that true?
<It should dig into the sand yes. It would help if you could send a picture, as
this will lend to a positive ID.>
It doesn't seem inclined to attach itself to a rock anywhere. There is a nook
currently occupied by a torch at the top of the aquarium. Might it be worth a
try moving the coral and putting the anemone there?
<I would not move it. It will go where it wants to. Right now it is looking
for an area that suits it‘s needs and is not finding one. I would seriously
look at upgrading my lighting in the next few days or so. If you decide to go
higher in output do try to slowly acclimate your critters using a piece of
screen over the top of the glass or a shortened light period. Much more on this
on WWM.>
How likely is a doreensis or a crispa to attach itself to rock, as opposed to
substrate?
<See above Re: picture.>
Thanks so much. Without forums like WetWebMedia, I don't think reef aquaria
would exist, even with the hardware and technology of the last decade.
<Thank you for the kind words. I am proud to be a part of an organization that
allows this much free exchange of ideas and information like this.>
It means an awful lot to me that at the end of the day I can leave the rat race
and chill for a bit with a hundred gallons of Nature and beauty. Sort of gets me
centered again.
<Agreed. Good luck with this. Please try to send an image. Brandon.>
Mark
Re: Stacking fluorescent lighting 12/20/03
Crew,
First off, a big thanks: WWM and TCMA have been indispensable sources
of information.
<Glad to hear you have benefited!>
I'm researching possible lighting solutions for a 120 gal
reef tank. I'd like to keep tridacnid clams (derasa, gigas or
Squamosa) and
compatible soft corals.
<The clams that you listed are the least light demanding, so read on
for what will probably be a pleasantly surprising solution to your
dilemma.>
Is it possible to stack fluorescent lamps within a
canopy? (provided I
solve ventilation and lamp support issues) I am assuming this
isn't advisable since I've only seen canopies that feature
lamps flat on a single plane parallel to the water's surface.
<Stacking the lamps will lead to almost no additional light reaching
the animals in the tank. An unlit lamp is nearly opaque, and
although it isn't intuitive, so is a lit one. The lower set of
lights will essentially shade the tank from the lamps above
them. But on to the good part.... If you get four
full length lamps over the tank, you can keep any of the three listed
species of clams if you keep them in the upper half of the
tank. If you can jam six lamps in (shouldn't be too hard), you
can keep them anywhere in the tank (assuming all of their other needs are
met). Don't expect outrageous growth rates, but they should
remain quite healthy.>
Thanks in advance,
<always a pleasure! Adam>
Jon (drawing attached) |
|
|
Reef lighting
How many watts of lighting does a reef tank need per gallon. I have a 75
gallon tank.
>>
The watts consumed or rated is not much to go on when guesstimating needed/desired illumination for aquariums... for a few obvious and maybe a couple of unknown reasons... Turns out, different means of producing light are more/less efficient in terms of apparent and actual (useful) light yielded per watt (kilowatt hours actually) of electrical consumption... Further, the wattage-required if you will varies in the way of depth, other qualities of system water...
And importantly, there is a wide range of what sorts of light/wattage-required depending on the types of light, and what you want it "to do" with a given system... Fish Only systems can be barely lit, SPS Corals, Giant Clams require intense lighting...
Now getting down (finally) to some sort of answer... for your 75... probably
somewhere in the 160 to 500 watt range... depending on... Just lighting a FO system on the low end... to midway for Fishes with Live Rock and maybe some low-light-using life to the Corals and Clams mentioned on the high end...
Could you "use" even more "wattage"? Yes, to drive photosynthesis, growth, even reproduction of some life forms... are you willing to put in all else that this "driving" requires? Manipulation, testing of water, addition of biominerals...
Bob Fenner, who will gladly help you develop an algorithm to explain this answer mathematically
Lighting
Once again I seek knowledge...
I read your article on wetwebmedia.com about lighting in the aquarium and did some research on the web. I checked out the Dura-test webpage and couldn't really find a way to order just a few vita-lite bulbs for my tank.
<They're manufacturers... who don't sell to the end-user...>
It seems everything that could be ordered was in mass quantity. Also in the area on their page where it talks about use with pets, the bulb it recommended was 20 watts. Is this really enough for a 125 gallon tank, even if I used a couple?
<No, but they do sell larger lamps, larger wattages, power twist (tm) types...
The statement you saw probably referred to small mammals, birds...>
I know that the spectrum of light is important, but I also thought that wattage was as well.
<Yes, as interpreted as intensity... lumens... and per kilowatt energy
produced...>
I was thinking about using metal halide bulbs, but the cost and the heat factor seem to be keeping me from going that way.
<These are downsides>
Plus, you didn't rate them too well in your article.
<MH are appropriate, even the best available, most appropriate technology for
very deep (relative to hobby use) systems... with high-intensity light using
organisms like SPS corals, tridacnid clams... but the modern Compact Fluorescent
light technology can outdo them for function, cost of installation/use,
safety.... in almost all cases... most public aquariums are switching to CF's or
have done so...>
I suppose a disadvantage too would be to have no top on your tank whatsoever when you hang the light from the ceiling. Even so, these bulbs seem to be less expensive than the compact fluorescent bulbs. Sheesh! Talk about forking out a lot of cash!!! I want to have more power than the two standard 30 watt 36" fluorescent bulbs I'm using now, but the choices seem rather confusing. I do plan to get an anemone down the road, and there does seem to be some coral growth on my live rock (it looks like two brown hairy flower buds that haven't opened yet, with tiny circular red mouths) so better lighting seems like the right way to go.
Will 20 watt vita-lite bulbs actually work better than compact fluorescents?
<No...>
How many would I need? How would I get them? Uhh...
my brain is about to explode again, so I guess I should stop.
<Don't explode... take a look at the CF retrofit kits FFExpress.com is
offering... save up, and install these... this is the best route to go for your
125>
Oh yeah, one more thing. I'm trying to get my 3-stripe damsel out of the tank, but having 90 pounds of live rock in there doesn't help. Do you suggest any special way of coursing the fish into the net? Or should I use 2 nets? Any advice would be helpful, and thanks again.
-Matt Lindstrom
>>
Always use two nets... one to drive the animal, one to lift it from the water...
but good luck... maybe training this animal to eat above a "permanently
installed net" might work...
Bob Fenner
Fluorescent lighting: Best type?
Bob,
I Have gone through the FAQ's and other responses and have a couple of questions for lighting. I am planning on a having a heavily stocked reef only system. (maybe a few clowns and smaller fish).
1. I understand that I should use 3-5 watts per gallon. But is 3 watts per gallon like
Microsoft saying that WindowsNTserver will run on a 486 with 24 megs of Ram? (yes it will but it kills the system operator and it really sucks) I already have 2 units 48 inch with two bulbs each (total 4 bulbs) at 40 watts each. Ready for my new 55gal(std aquarium size here) reef tank that has recently matured. Will this be enough? or is it really a trying to run a fortune 500 company on a 486? I have thought of changing them to the CF but did not fully understand the cost
benefit of changing.
<Like your comparison, and yes, it is quite apt on a few counts... more, much more to this "story"... The CF's would be better, even at par comparison of watts consumed or produced in lumen equivalence... the useful light produced by these different formats is not the same... sort of like the Intel CPU's with limited cache...>
1. In ranking the least to greatest beneficial usable light output where do CF's fall when comparing them to normal
fluorescents, then HO and last VHO. I get different stories from my LFS.
<CF's are at the top in terms of production (by watt-production, kilowatt consumed, overall cost per lumen/useful photon... of all these formats>
Thanks,
Sean Warren
Could you respond back to this email so that I may read this while I am traveling.
We must decide what we will do in the brightness of day before the night falls and the storms set in
<Bob Fenner, who feels like he's in India with the above stmt.>
Still unclear on lighting?
I am still in need of a little help on the ACTINICS lights. I usually think
of them as only as for looks only but in your response to another you
recommended them are they of any real value in a FO tank or Reef tank?
Here is the case were you recommended them. Pasted from your site.
<Actinic lighting refers to certain wavelengths ("life-engendering", embodying "actinism", if you will) that are more specifically supplied by "actinic fluorescent lamps"... Are these useful to hobbyists, culturists? Minimally... as enough intensity/lumens/photons of this EMR are provided by most all other lighting modes... For some, mainly deeper-water (collected) organisms that hobbyists utilize, such specialized light production can be worthwhile... but is it "cost effective" relative to "higher Kelvin rated" light sources? Almost always never. Put another way, for the cost of acquisition and operation, neglecting esthetic considerations, actinics are by and large a waste of money for home aquarists. Why are they sold may be your real question? To make money. Why would I (or anyone) reply in a general way to a home hobbyist that they might/should add this sort of lighting? Because I/we have no idea of what they might now or later add to such a system... and yes, some animal groups (tridacnid clams, some
Acroporids,
Pocilloporids, Faviids...) do demonstrate discernible improvement with accentuating these wavelengths... plus a few other "reasons"... Bob Fenner>
> We have just purchased a 110 gallon aquarium, with wet dry filter, protein
skimmer and an additional power head. We have also just purchased live rock
uncured and cured from FFE. My question is two part (we are novice) 1st I eventually want to add lighting for soft coral, etc. what would you
recommend for this size tank.
> <If only live soft corals, VHO fluorescents, possibly VHO and Compact
Fluorescents (some of actinic, some whites of 5k, 10k temperature)... to
Just CF's... If you might go the SPS coral and tridacnid clam route,
possibly the addition of two, or even three Metal Halides in addition to
some CF actinics...>
> #2-The live rock will be coming today, since the tank has been running for
over a week, can I cured the live rock in this tank? Please give me your
opinion.
> <Yes, do cure the live rock in place... see the articles on this and
related topics stored at www.wetwebmedia.com>
> Its great to know that their are professionals who are there to help
> Thank you, Connie
> <You're welcome! Bob Fenner>
Lighting?
We're the fish men YEAH!
Bob I have read your book and carefully the section about lighting. My questions is this. After finishing I thought that the blue Actinic were of no value except to the human eye. However in the following response you gave you encouraged actinic. I have pasted it here. I am a little confused. I have a 125 (standard
measurements.) and a 55. I'm planning the 55 to be a reef tank. Will 4x 48inch reg. 40 watt bulbs and the name brand
recommended most in your book be fine for the 55?(the name slips me now but you really spelled it out very clearly).
<Probably Dura Corp. (RIP) "Vitalites"... and time marches on my friend... these were the best lighting (to my knowledge) when the section was penned, later published in CMA (in the mid-90's)... compact fluorescents are far better functionally, aesthetically now... and in a few years? Beware of linear thinking and logic in this universe>
Also the 125 is fish only with 60lbs of Fiji live rock. would 4 of the 40 watt bulbs be enough. (of course the name and model that you mention in your book.
<Not in my opinion... look to the CF technology>
Your humble Acolyte,
Sean Warren
PS. I would hope that this does not appear that I am being anal in taking what you say below here and using it to compare to what you say in the book. It is just that I have tried to consume every thing I can with your name on it, paying attention to every detail that I can. On a funny note I refer to you in virtually every sentence and I start out every part of a
conversation with "BOB says ....." and my LFS said," Hey he is not GOD and does not know everything". I disagreed.
Lighting
<You are seeing things not there my young friend. I am only another struggling human. Of limited capacities, understanding and vigor. Life to you. Bob Fenner>
Fluorescent Lighting
Hi Bob,
I have a 72 gal bow front marine aquarium. It is a fish only tank with 2
standard fluorescent tubes. 1 - Hagen Power-Glo 48" 40w T10 ( Lumens 2200,
Lux 180, Kelvin 18000K) The other is a Hagen Marine-Glo 48" 40w T10 Actinic
Blue (Lux 105)
<Okay>
Is this lighting adequate? If not, what in your opinion is a better choice?
<Adequate for? A fish only system? Yes... for one with live rock? No, you need about two-three times the amount of intensity (useful
illumination) as stated. For most of the types of photosynthetic life folks keep? No, you need about three to four times the amount... For the higher/est photosynthetic life like many of the SPS corals, tridacnid clams...? No, you need at least four times this amount and five or six more times would be better/optimum... Please read over the "Light", "Lighting" sections on the marine index on our website: www.WetWebMedia.com and all the associated FAQs files here... You should come to understand the underlying science and technology and your options for getting the intensity and quality of light energy you're looking for such a size, shape system and purposes you intend, with what livestock you're considering...>
Thanks always for your help.
Ed
<Study my friend. Bob Fenner>
Lighting for reef tank
Bob,
I am interested to maintain a 36 x 18 x18" tank with live rocks and under
gravel filtering system.
I plan to keep a wide range of mushroom corals, shrimps and macroalgae
and clay fish also.
<Clown?>
As for fish I like the flame angel or African clown fish.
<One's from Africa?>
But I AM concern about lighting and the LFS only offer 2 type only.
1) 3' Coralife High Intensity Purified Super Daylight Lamp ( 10,000 k )
2) 3' Solar Nature Full Spectrum Color Lamp ( 6,000 k ) from Germany.
My question is which is most appropriate for reef tank and how many are
needed for my case???
Thank you in advance. David.
<Hmm, both would work... In fact I would use both, maybe one of #1 and one or two of #2 myself for the anemones that you may end up trying. Also do look into compact fluorescents for your new system. Much more on your lighting options can be found on the site: www.WetWebMedia.com under the "Marine Index". Be chatting my friend. Bob
Fenner>
Marine aquarium lights
Hi Bob, I have a tall 27inches high 60 gal octagonal tank with three 15
watts fluorescent lights, one full spectrum, one Actinic and one 50/50.
There is no room for more lights so I hope this is enough. Is this the right
choice or should I have 2 full spectrum and one Actinic instead? I have a
few fishes and I would like to get a few anemones if it is possible.
<No to the anemones (if the popular photosynthetic types... you don't have near enough light). And the lighting you have is fine for fishes... if you wanted high-light need livestock, you might consider a single 175 watt pendant type metal halide... but I wouldn't do this in such a shaped system... very hard to control heat-wise>
Also there is a glass between the lights and the water I know you suggest
removing it but doesn't it protect the lights from corrosion?
<Yes. Many folks use water-proof end caps over their lamps in such settings>
or maybe it
helps keeping the heat from the lights away from water, it's hard enough
keeping the water temperature constant I'm worried that if I remove it the
temperature changes will be greater when the lights are on then off.
thanks so much for your help.
Marc
<Methinks you're ready for a larger system my friend... Bob Fenner>
Re: marine aquarium lights
Thanks Rob,
so you would say even with my system it's much better to remove the glass
between the lights and water?
<Yes, almost always the case>
as far as heat from the lights you mean it
makes no difference with our without the glass?
<Makes some... actually in the vast majority of circumstances, this improves overheating... from evaporation>
you seem to think that octagonal shaped system is difficult, why? -Marc
<The "foot stamp" or surface area versus volume relationship... relative to more "stock" rectangular shaped systems... harder to aquascape, keep filtered, gaseous distribution hindered... Bob
Fenner>
|
Shop Lights?|
Have a question about lighting. I want to add more light to a 100 gallon tank. I'm thinking about using a shop light that you would get at the hardware store. I have a large oak canopy that covers the tank so the lights are not visible. I want the light for fish only and some live rock do you see any problems with going this route.
<nothing dreadful, although the fixture is not designed or warranted for applications near water. Although many folks safely use them, they can be a bit of a hazard. Rather than buy three new
fixtures in two years because they keep rusting out or shocking you... take a little time to look for a good price on a proper normal output (SO) fixture new, or even search locally for a used one in the paper or the
LFS. Did you look online at some of the vendors in the links and beyond?> Thank
You, John
<regards, Anthony>
Reef Lighting
Aloha,
<Greetings.>
I have a 75 Gallon tank. I am not wanting to take a shortcut on lighting. I want
to keep some SPS and clams. I keep my house cool (about 70 degrees) I will have
4 - 4" fans in my custom enclosed canopy over the tank (hanging pendant- style
out of the question unfortunately). My canopy will be about 8 to 12 inches over
the tank. I plan to purchase a sheet of polished aluminum and line the entire
inside with it. <I'd get it at least coated with something... aluminum and
saltwater don't mix well.> On to the lighting... I would like to retrofit 2 -
175watt 10,000K metal halides. Complementing that, I can either buy an
Icecap
430 and run 2 110watt actinics, OR I can purchase a 660 and run 2 110watt
actinics PLUS 2 110watt 10,000K bulbs along with the halides. Is this overkill?
<Hard to discern... you probably don't 'need' the extra 10K fluorescents.>
Again, I would like a T. maxima or T. crocea in the near future. But I don't want to
burn the SPS corals. <Make shady areas with the rock work OR drop one of the metal
halides and light with the other on one side of the tank only, and then perhaps
use the 10K VHOs on the side that doesn't have the MH lighting.> OK, if
you're
still with me, back to the MH. I have heard about UV rays, so I assume I will
have to build some sort of UV lens for my MH. <That is correct.> Is this a
special type of material or could I use a piece of acrylic? <I would use
glass - acrylic will likely melt being that close to a lamp. Glass is available
with a UV-filtering coating.> I could build a " box" over each bulb
with it. Not sure if the bulb would melt it though. <It would.> I really
don't want a piece of glass or acrylic over my entire water surface. I want
evaporation for Kalk top-offs and cooling factor (with the fans blowing across
the top of the water). <You might need to rethink this, with fans sucking hot
air out of the canopy.> I am trying to come up with a plan to where I do not
have to use a chiller, but get sufficient lighting. <I'd skip the canopy and
instead light from above with adequate space for more fans. You will soon see
that the canopy becomes a trap for heat, and you largest problem will be getting
the heat out of the collector.> I have so many ideas in my head so if you
could blindfold me, spin me around 15 times and point me in the right direction,
that would be super cool groovyrific!! <Again... if SPS is part of your
goals, then skip the second MH. Light that side with only fluorescents. You will
still have issues with heat... you may need more fans or you may even need a
chiller. Time will tell.> Mahalo,
Jason
<Cheers, J -- >
Lights for a FOWLR
Hi Guys,
First off, your website is awesome!!! Most informative, especially for the
novice marine aquarist, but sometimes since I'm a novice, it makes my decision
making difficult, so I'm going to ask the pros. Anyway, I've got a 46 gallon
bow-front, that is 24" deep and 36" wide. I am currently using the factory bulb
issued with the aquarium hood. I'm interested in getting a couple of pieces of
live rock to provide some natural grazing ground for my Kole Tang and Yellow
Tang. I also have a couple of clowns and a Brazilian Gramma, and will
eventually be adding some cleaner shrimp and hermit crabs, etc. What are the
lighting needs to just support live rock? << Well basically none in terms of
biological filtration. But the more light (and I think the more blue light) you
have the more you can grow. So if it is for herbivory then I'd say as much
light as you can get. >> I would like to continue to use my factory hood (which
only supports one bulb), but which bulb should I be using? I was looking at a
Zoo Med Reef 50/50 Bulb, but it's only 25 watts. Your advice is much
appreciated.
<< Well that is a fine bulb, but I'd consider taking apart the light and gutting
it out to hold either a VHO light or multiple pc lights. If not, you are really
limited on what the live rock will grow. However, even without light, live rock
is excellent to have. >>
Once again, love your website!!!
The Novice
<< Blundell >>
| |
|
