Acoustic Posted September 8, 2003 Share Posted September 8, 2003 The sun makes light. Link to comment
Acoustic Posted September 8, 2003 Author Share Posted September 8, 2003 Leave me alone. Link to comment
jojopus Posted September 8, 2003 Share Posted September 8, 2003 ideally the perfect light source would have to be an even spread of the entire spectrum, this includes blue, white , red, and even the dreaded yellow. Now, you have to take into account the depth of the water which the animals youre keeping come from and this could tell you what sort of colors are an import part of the spectrum to them in particular. I dont know that your assumption that corals will definitely 'color up' if you include more red in the specturum for them could actually be a universal truth considering some of the deeper dwelling photosynthetic animals can be very colorful, take gigas clams for instance.... they can be found in pretty deep water and still be very colorful. Since red is one of the first colors in the spectrum filtered out by water it stands to reason that red may not be the answer to making all of our photosynthetic friends from the deep nice and pretty. Now, thats not to say what youve stated is not a viable possibility.... just offering my thoughts. Link to comment
Acoustic Posted September 8, 2003 Author Share Posted September 8, 2003 Ya, I left out the part about natural depth of corals on accident. Thanks for bringing it up. It would be stupid to saturate a gigas clam with red spectrum. In general though in the wild most of the corals that we buy are shallow water species. Link to comment
Acoustic Posted September 8, 2003 Author Share Posted September 8, 2003 Anyone have any other thoughts on the topic? Link to comment
RobD Posted September 9, 2003 Share Posted September 9, 2003 Sorry to put you on the spot, but my impression is that most of what you have posted seems inaccurate. It would be a lot of effort to go through and try to address each item. Just like the thing you posted in the other thread about multiplying by 3 the watts per gallon when using PC bulbs. I'd still like to see your source of information for this claim, I don't think it's accurate at all. Link to comment
Acoustic Posted September 9, 2003 Author Share Posted September 9, 2003 OHHHHHHH mmyyyyy!!!! You people are just coming out of the woodwork! If I am wrong then you need to tell several (3) lighting experts and Scripps Aquarium of Oceanography that they are too. Listen......I don't post things out of my a$$. I actually take the time to research and learn from experts like a real boy! Link to comment
RobD Posted September 9, 2003 Share Posted September 9, 2003 Originally posted by Acoustic OHHHHHHH mmyyyyy!!!! You people are just coming out of the woodwork! If I am wrong then you need to tell several (3) lighting experts and Scripps Aquarium of Oceanography that they are too. Listen......I don't post things out of my a$$. I actually take the time to research and learn from experts like a real boy! Alright, I'm sure the "you people" etc is just a drama queen thing, but speaking of talking out of your a$$ where was the reference to the PC lighting x 3 calculation that you had misinformed people with? Link to comment
Acoustic Posted September 9, 2003 Author Share Posted September 9, 2003 I did say almost. The appropriate word should have been approximately. When I posted that first message I knew that it was around 3 but did not want to overstate it. I then took the next day to interview several field experts on this information because I wanted to explain it factually to everyone. So I was wrong by 1.5. You win. Link to comment
RobD Posted September 9, 2003 Share Posted September 9, 2003 Hmm.. ok, so where did you get your 1.5 number from, will you point out tommorrow that this is nonsense also, after being asked a few times? Are you just going to continue to backpedal with other misinformation? How is it that when you "took the next day to interview several field experts " and didn't ask them for any references or reputable websites with some of this information? If you're looking for more of your misinformation to correct, take a look at a box of lightbulbs to discover that "A normal lightbulb produces on average 14 lumens a watt" is wrong as well. And the "I personally feel that an acintic bulb should not be blue.", can you post the names of the "experts" that don't just shake their head or laugh when you spout out some gem like that? If you want to claim them, then name them. By the way, I don't "win", I'm just hoping that no one setting up a tank will have it destroyed by misinformation. Link to comment
Acoustic Posted September 9, 2003 Author Share Posted September 9, 2003 Hey ROBD - I will now bow out of your petty crap. My information is correct. I will not justify it for pickle like you. Post all you want. I see and hear nothing. As for my information. I will give out no more. Just like I used to. You are the reason why people don't help other people. Bye now jerky. Link to comment
pulse13 Posted September 9, 2003 Share Posted September 9, 2003 I don't mean to be rude acoustic, but you have a lot to learn about lighting and how various light sources work. I think you should have done some research before posting. 1) Incandescent bulb: Does not "slowly burn" the filament. Burning is the process of oxidation, and there is no oxidation occurring inside an incandescent bulb. However, the tungsten filament does slowly become vaporized and condense on the bulb glass. This weakens the filament and eventually causes it to break. An incandescent light produces light because the filament is a resistor, and heats up as current flows through it. As it heats up it produces light in the visible spectrum. The Kelvin scale is based on the light spectrum produced from pure carbon at that temperature (Kelvin). Lumens are a measure of the total output of the light. Intensity depends on how the light is reflected and focused and is measured as Lux. This is a measure of the lumens per surface area. 2) A fluorescent light does not produce light from burning gases. The gas in the tube is a low pressure mixture of mercury vapor and inert gases, and phoshors are a SOLID that coats the tube glass. A high voltage current passing through the tube ionizes the gas mixture, resulting in a plasma. This produces mostly UV light which is absorbed by the phosphors and emitted at a different wavelength depending on the phosphor mixture. The kelvin rating is changed in fluorescent bulbs by changing the phosphors. An incandescent bulbs kelvin rating can be changed by increasing or decreasing the temperature of the filament or adding a coating to the outside of the bulb that absorbs a specific spectra of light (reducing efficiency). The efficiency of a bulb (lumens per watt) depends on more factors than the just bulb type, such as wattage and phosphor composition, so you can generalize but its hard to say that a certain type of bulb has a specific efficiency. A good place for some basic answers is www.howstuffworks.com. Link to comment
RobD Posted September 10, 2003 Share Posted September 10, 2003 Hey Pulse, you nailed it. The only thing I'd add would be that the "It is also important to know that the lumen intensity is immediately reduced by 1/2 the second it hits the water. Every cubic foot after that reduces it by the half of that half." is wrong as well. It might have something to do with the reduction of different parts of the light spectrum as light penetrates the water. The short story is, like they say in The Reef Aquarium Vol 1, "It has been shown that blue and white light promote greater skeletal growth in both hard corals and their isolated zooxanthellae, than green or red light (Kinzie et al, 1984)." No mention of "It should be purplish red. " as Autistic claims. hmm..To give credit where credit is due, he did use words to make sentences. Link to comment
Dingo Posted September 15, 2003 Share Posted September 15, 2003 Along the lines of How much wood would a wood chuck chuck.... How many flames does Acoustic take before Acoustic flames out and deletes his post? Link to comment
wetworx101 Posted September 15, 2003 Share Posted September 15, 2003 Boy, you guys make sense, but how does this apply to me and my nano? Are you saying we are all doing it wrong???? Just Kidding. Do we all need to start burning different chemicals to achieve a truer spectrum? Should I line up fire shots of vodka to light my tank? Or should I put my grill upside down on my tank and light the flame to provide a truer blue? Should I mount 20 high intensity LED's over my clams? Hey, I have one of those 1,000,000 candlepower policelights in the basement...would that be good light. Had to say it. But on a more serious note: How about halide ballasts? How about an explaination on the diffs between electronic, pulse start, probe start, core and coil, magnetic, PFO, etc??? I have been researching for a while...what is the real diff? I thought electronic was the best, but recently I haver heard that the 20,000K eurospecs run better colors on another...???? Link to comment
Jahkaya Posted September 16, 2003 Share Posted September 16, 2003 Erospecs? Is that a type of ballast? Wetworx, you forgot about the EYE ballasts. I don't have two pages to write about ballasts, do you? Link to comment
onthefly Posted September 16, 2003 Share Posted September 16, 2003 Plasma................sure about that? Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.