aqua_aaron Posted December 30, 2003 Share Posted December 30, 2003 What is the purpose of the actinic bulb? Is it a requirement for some corals? Link to comment
bgoode Posted January 6, 2004 Share Posted January 6, 2004 I don't think actinics are required for any corals. Most people like the bluer white better than the yellower white colors emitted by lower K bulbs. The also make the corals flouresce, but again, I think that is for human enjoyment rather than necessity. Link to comment
Acoustic Posted January 6, 2004 Share Posted January 6, 2004 bgoode please please please please please please please please please please please please please don't give out advice unless you are sure you are knowledgable about a subject. "Blue" light is suggested to have some extremely beneficial properties - it has been noted to increase rates of protein synthesis in some algae, as well as cause shifts in photosynthetic pigment concentrations in zooxanthellae. Blue light has also been reported to increase rates of photosynthesis (Kinzie and Hunter, 1987). Link to comment
bgoode Posted January 6, 2004 Share Posted January 6, 2004 My mistake. So is it the blue or the actinic that is beneficial? Also, I thought that the Iwasaki 6500k bulb promoted the best growth, but it is lacking in blue light. What do you think about this article: http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/feb...002/Feature.htm ? Just wondering, not trying to start a reference battle. Link to comment
cuteios Posted January 8, 2004 Share Posted January 8, 2004 Now I'm no expert in the matter, but have led to believe that one of our goals in setting up a successful nano is to try and duplicate nature. So the actinics are meant to simulate the bluer light that the corals actually get in their natural environment, that being due to the water and depth. So I would think that the uv and color are really beneficial to the coral...not just for human enjoyment of the florescent effect it seems to bring out in the corals. I'm wondering what would the effect of an all actinic light source be? Has anyone tried it? I know it would be a bit dark but would it be beneficial in some way? Link to comment
HairyClam Posted January 8, 2004 Share Posted January 8, 2004 Although I am nowhere near a lighting expert, here's my .02. In laymans terms... In the ocean, most of the light, especially the lower energy (red) light is absorbed FAST. It barely penetrates the ocean at all. Only about 45% of the light makes it to 3 feet. Most of this energy is absorbed by the BILLIONS of phytoplankton near the surface in the ocean. As you go deeper into the ocean the light is visably more blue. This is because blue light is higher enery. Only about 15% of light makes it to 30 feet. Reefs are usually in the 50-90 foot depth. At that depth, of the 5-10% of light that makes it, about 90% is blue. Because of this I would say that the blue light is very important to the success of our mini-reefs. Link to comment
newbyreef Posted January 17, 2004 Share Posted January 17, 2004 Very well said HairyClam... However the blue light really doesn't have a higher energy, it actually has a shorter wavelength, which are eyes pick up better than others. It's the exact same reason why on clear days our sky looks blue to us. It really isn't blue, but that's the color that reaches our eye. Dan Link to comment
apple_s Posted January 20, 2004 Share Posted January 20, 2004 hi to everyones... newbyreef the blu light has more energy, the wavelenght is short an the frequency is high...so the E energy is E=hf where f is the frequency and h the Planck's costant... Link to comment
HairyClam Posted January 20, 2004 Share Posted January 20, 2004 newbyreef, just trying to explain things basically.... Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.