just_got_tanked Posted November 6, 2003 Share Posted November 6, 2003 I see some awesome lighting in some of these tanks. However how necessary is it. It seems like people are in competition to have the most lighting in there tanks. I want to see some facts about these nanos. Link to comment
fishbabies Posted November 7, 2003 Share Posted November 7, 2003 depends on what you want to keep.... i have a 10gal tall with a 32w 50/50. this works fine for my shrooms, candycanes, rics, zoos and xenia. shrooms and rics are sometimes more colorful under more intense lighting. if i wanted to keep maxima or crocea clams tho...i would have to triple the wattage.....at least. Link to comment
dickie52 Posted November 7, 2003 Share Posted November 7, 2003 Hey ESPI........ Is this one of the Oct. rookies you mentioned??? http://www.nano-reef.com/articles/?article=13 Link to comment
Fant Posted November 7, 2003 Share Posted November 7, 2003 There is no BS about lighting.. If u want clams and acros get some halides. If you want to #### and moan about the cost of halides, get the dinky Pcs and keep zoanthids and stuff.. although things are the most colorful under high wattage 20k metal halide lamps.. Do a search for LUnchbuckets nano.. serious wattage.. but some bad ass lookin coral. Link to comment
just_got_tanked Posted November 7, 2003 Author Share Posted November 7, 2003 By the way I am not saying anything is wrong with alot of lighting Im more just asking the question Link to comment
just_got_tanked Posted November 7, 2003 Author Share Posted November 7, 2003 Here is my point. The closer that the pieces are to the light the more intense the lighting is. The 3-5 watt per gallon rule in jmo is BS. Link to comment
caja Posted November 7, 2003 Share Posted November 7, 2003 Dickie....nice one. SCORE!!!!!!!!!! Link to comment
Physh1 Posted November 7, 2003 Share Posted November 7, 2003 It is....no many follow it. Lighting is preference. Every tank is different. I've got 500 watts on a 75 gallon and have had 150 on a 7 gallon. You could have 175 watts of MH and 175 watts of PC and the MH is ideally better. I'm really lost as to what your really trying to get at here.... Yes, lighting is of course more intense the closer to the surface you are. Remember....all corals live under the sun. If you want shallow water corals like SPS you need substantial lighting to keep them.... 3-5 watts a gallon has never been a rule in my book but a basis or starting point to work with. Like I said I'm not sure which direction to go with this....besides saying that the 3-5 rule is BS (not to mention you didn't really make a point till your 3rd post) you haven't asked one specific question.... Cameron Link to comment
mattie Posted November 7, 2003 Share Posted November 7, 2003 lighting is the golden key to succes in the marine reef world. that doesn't you need mh lighting but good lighting makes all the dif in the long run and what you can put in the tank. many nice things have high lighting requirements Link to comment
tinyreef Posted November 7, 2003 Share Posted November 7, 2003 many nice things have high lighting requirements good lighting is important even beyond the direct users of such intense light (i.e. photosynthetic livestock). you also have indirect users (i.e. feeders/predators of those very same photosynthetic livestock). intense light is the foundation of the reef biotope, hence the fact that most reefs are found in the equatorial zone (cancer/capricorn). the intense light energy powers the entire system so that everything derives something from the light, directly or indirectly. true, while this is the case with just about 99.9% of the organisms on the planet, the intensity of the light over the reefs is what creates its unique biotope makeup. lighting, good lighting, is the 'secret' to reefing imo. Link to comment
dickie52 Posted November 7, 2003 Share Posted November 7, 2003 Tiny...... Very well said...... I'm impressed..... Did you copy that from somewhere ??? Link to comment
tinyreef Posted November 7, 2003 Share Posted November 7, 2003 Did you copy that from somewhere nope, but i'll take that as a compliment. i shoulda been a lawyer with my talents. spotting thongs and piling it high. ::sigh:: probably could've retired by now. X) Link to comment
aggiereefer Posted November 7, 2003 Share Posted November 7, 2003 the engineer in me just came out so I did a little research. When the sun is directly overhead at the earth's equator, there is 1368 watts / meter. Now I dont know how much of this 1368 is light and how much is heat, but it gives you the idea that the sun is putting out some serious light. To figure out how many watts/meter you have, take the footprint of your tank, the length and width, this will give you the area. Most likely this is gonna be in square inches and it will need to be converted to square meters. just find a conversion calculator on the net. so then take the wattage of your lights divided by the area you came up with and wala. so lets see, i have 10 gal tank, L:20" W:20" sq inches: 200 sq meters:0.129032 square meters watts/meter: 96 / 0.129032 = 744 so with my 96 watt'r on my 10 gal, i have the equivalent of 774 watts/meter, roughly half the power of the sun. Link to comment
aggiereefer Posted November 7, 2003 Share Posted November 7, 2003 also one more thing to take into consideration is depth, water filters out light greatly. The top of your tank is recieving much more light than the bottom. I ll have to find out what rate seawater filters out light, i know at 300-400 ft its pretty much dark. Link to comment
Paulc Posted November 7, 2003 Share Posted November 7, 2003 Power = Energy/Time 1 Watt = 1 Joule/Sec So watts are a measurement of the total energy output / per sec this includes the heat generated by the light source. Incandescent light sources give out more energy as heat than light. Just compare a Normal 60W domestic bulb with a 40W Flourescent tube and compare the light output to see the difference. IMO the important value is the amount of energy that is generated in the frequencies that are required by the photosynthetic life forms not just the total power output of the light source. Link to comment
tinyreef Posted November 7, 2003 Share Posted November 7, 2003 aggie, another thing to consider is the albedo. surface refraction/reflection on the ocean is much greater (surf/waves) than our relatively still tanks. probably up to 30% of the sun's light is lost (ok, that one i looked up ), so you're probably a lot closer in equivalent light-energy emitted and received than you think. water clarity tho is another important factor to consider. any tinting of the water will significantly reduce light transmission no matter the light source (fluorescent, metal halides, or nuclear fusion). another reason i run carbon 24/7 and mechanical filtration. "omg! i need 1.21 gigawatts to light my tank! marty, i'm sorry but i'm afraid you're stuck in the softies." Link to comment
aggiereefer Posted November 7, 2003 Share Posted November 7, 2003 yeah i realized that after I did all that, that lights have different efficiencies, how much light per watt is produced. I know that fluorescents are alot more efficient than incandescent but I dont know any exact numbers. itd be cool if someone could come up with system saying this coral needs this specific amount of light instead of just vaguely saying it needs low light or its needs alot. Link to comment
mattie Posted November 7, 2003 Share Posted November 7, 2003 watts watts light is not meadured in watts in is measured in lumes sounded good though a 70 mh puts out more lumes than a 96 pc Link to comment
aggiereefer Posted November 7, 2003 Share Posted November 7, 2003 when i meant light per watt, what u said, so MH's are pretty efficient? or do they just create more light at the "important" wavelengths Link to comment
MrConclusion Posted November 8, 2003 Share Posted November 8, 2003 BUMP! I LOVE this thread. aggiereefer and Paulc... mad props. Incandescent is about 6-9% efficient, with Halogen at the high end. NO Fluorescent is rather more efficient, with 25-35% depending widely on bulb type. I mean, you have everything from 6 inch up to 12-foot bulbs to consider here! Interestingly, T8-36inch is considered to be the most efficient NO bulb available. T12 VHO Fluorescent is a bit less efficient, approacing or barely exceeding 30%, but has useful higher output. PC & T5HO Fluorescent are over 30% efficient. MH gets more efficient with larger bulb size. The smallest are about 30% efficient, larger (1000 watt MH) can approach 40%! Link to comment
Chamkeeper Posted November 8, 2003 Share Posted November 8, 2003 Hey, will you guys cut the BS?! Link to comment
darwin604 Posted November 8, 2003 Share Posted November 8, 2003 Aggie: Hows that 96w coralife fixture working out on your tank? I've got the 28 watt version of that fixture (so far with my softies its working great) . . I want to get some sps frags in there soon . . is the 96w overkill on a 10g or does it work out okay? I'm thinking it may be time for an upgrade for me in a month or two . . any feedback on it would be great. A pic would be even better d. Link to comment
aggiereefer Posted November 8, 2003 Share Posted November 8, 2003 welllll my tank has only been running a week, but I like the 96 watt'r so far, lots of light, i have it on legs and it makes a light show from the dorm room, lol. I dont have a problem with the tank heating really bad. I have glass cover over the water to help control evap. Once I got my heater dialed in correctly, I run a steady 80 degrees. Link to comment
Physh1 Posted November 8, 2003 Share Posted November 8, 2003 And the originator of this thread is nowhere to be seen..... Link to comment
Quash Posted November 8, 2003 Share Posted November 8, 2003 Looks like he just got tanked! Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.