TOO much light!

[mxpro32]

why does the size of the tank matter at all. if you have a two billion gallon tank and the coral is 12 inches below water level and light source it would be exactly the same as a 5 gallon tank where the coral is 12 inches below water level.

[luv2jeep]

Originally posted by mxpro32

why does the size of the tank matter at all.  if you have a two billion gallon tank and the coral is 12 inches below water level and light source it would be exactly the same as a 5 gallon tank where the coral is 12 inches below water level.

 

Don't read into it that much. And I'd love to see where you can find a tank like that!

 

It's common sense, when the tanks get larger, they get deeper ...

 

Geez...:|

[OscarBeast]

Just wanted to "shed some light" on a mis-conception around this board. Everyone in here says "More Light, more light" ... WRONG!!!

 

Correct, you can have too much light for a given system, depending upon what you are stocking. You can saturate a coral with more light that is required with the least efficient zooxanthellae (the pretty kind we like). You get a cookie! Thanks for bringing this topic up.

 

I changed my 10-gallon from a single 32W (too little) to a 96W Quad. Over the past 2 weeks, I watched my corals degrade, algae explode, and heat rise.

 

To make a long story short, 96W on a 10G is WAY too much light!!!!

 

You get that cookie taken away now. You have formed a conclusion based upon your obvious mistake.

 

You didn't properly acclimate you system. These corals were used to a 32 watt PC in your system and had adjusted to that. Then you suddenly more than doubled your lighting? This will result in exactly the things you mentioned. Does this mean that there is too much light? No. It doesn't prove your case either way actually, because it was your mistake that has caused these issues.

 

If you had properly acclimated your corals to this lighting, and they did not do well after an extended period of time, you might have proven something.

 

I have since replaced it with a JBJ 2x28 Formosa and almost instantly, corals look better, heat down and algae ... time will tell.

 

Well duh. You have somewhat corrected your mistake by shoving in a much lower increment of lighting on while the corals were trying to compensate for the rapid increase. This would logically result in the reduction of stress on your system and of course the corals would look better after the stress you have put them through.

 

I don't care what people on this board say, I'm sticking with the age-old 4-5W per gallon. Screw your lumens, your lux ... I'm going back old school! Never had a problem before with that rule of thumb!

 

So based on the fact that Anthony Calfo said that you CAN have too much light, and the fact that you didn’t acclimate your system, you are using a 4 – 5 watt rule that I am quite sure that Anthony Calfo would laugh at your for using? I know Eric Borneman thinks that the watts-per-gallon rule is complete “hogwash”.

 

mxpro32, pretty much hit the nail on the head, with the exception that glass walls will bounce some light around and slightly reduce the amount lost, as can the substrate. This is also what Anthony Calfo and Eric Borneman would tell you. If you disagree, Eric can be found on reefcentral and I am sure we might be able to get a hold of Anthony Calfo.

[luv2jeep]

You guys can laugh at the 4-5W rule all you want. My point is that in the 6 reefs I have kept, I used that rule and NEVER had a problem! Even had success keeping clams in a shallow tank!

 

My 75 Gallon had closer to 7W/Gal, but with dual 10K 250W MH.

 

My original point is that when is enough enough? I originally posted about a recommendation from the people on this board that had 10-Gallon tanks. I said I was thinking 2x32W CSL's and people said that was not enough!

 

... to that I say Bull-puckey!

 

As far as acclimation, NO, I did not acclimate them properly. As I stated before ... and will state again ... I have NO space to raise the light to use the height method. In a 12" deep tank, what good is moving them to the bottom then up slowly going to do ... NOTHING! And as for the screen method, that would have worked great! I just heard about it 2 weeks too late!

[OscarBeast]

My original point is that when is enough enough?

 

Highly depends on what you are doing.

 

Here is a post you might like. http://www.reefcentral.com/vbulletin/showt...ight=saturation

 

Eric has done quite a bit of testing as far as when enough is enough (AKA the saturation point of the zooanthellae for many corals).

 

What to know what is best for YOUR tank? I would do a search, or just ask about the corals you have in your tank. This would be the logical way to go about it.

[JIM27]

Originally posted by luv2jeep

As far as acclimation, NO, I did not acclimate them properly.  As I stated before ... and will state again ... I have NO space to raise the light to use the height method.  In a 12" deep tank, what good is moving them to the bottom then up slowly going to do ... NOTHING!  And as for the screen method, that would have worked great!  I just heard about it 2 weeks too late!

 

You could have also just turned the light on for maybe 1-2 hours a day, then increased it back to your normal photoperiod over a week or so. Thats what I did when I upgraded my 2x36w PCs over my old ten to a 150w DE mh. NOTHING died or even looked like anything was wrong when I did this.

[quiksilver5768]

I would like to start off by saying, well done OscarBeast. You basically sumed up the whole argument that was happening.

 

Secondly, we all see the arguments put forth in this thread and no one is disagreeing with the things that are being said. A 10 gallon tank can be kept beautifully with EITHER 36 watts of PC OR 96 watts of PC. Before i moved into my 20 gal, i was keeping a 10 gal with 110 watts of PC (2x55) and everything grew and grew (I mostly have softies and a few LPS). Thats why i moved into my 20 gal and I now have 175 watts of MH. The thing is, yes nanos can be kept with low OR high light, it just depends on the other factors that are going into your tank...such as chemicals, food, water quality, etc...Dont blame a failure just on the simple error in the change of light intensity without acclimation. Yes your tank is still looking good with your original lighting but it could look just as good with the 96 watts if given proper acclimation time. Im not saying that you need more light to make things grow faster...its the proper balance between your light, chemical additives, and water quality that make things thrive.

[ekudl]

Yes indeed this is an interesting post. I agree with most people that more lighting is better. I have a 20Gl High tank with 165W of PC lighting and it is doing great. What I don't understand from these threads comes from BCOrchidGuy.

 

BCOrchidGuy, you claim that you personally wouldn't go above 64Watts of power on a 10 Gl tank. But yet you have a 20 Gl tank with 400W of lighting if I do the math correctly that is still 20W/Gl versus 6.4W/Gl, whats up with that?

[BCOrchidGuy]

I keep my 20 gallon in my Orchid room where I have a Warm Deluxe 400 watt metal halide specifically for my Orchids. My 20 gallon is actually about 4 1/2 feet away from the MH but it still supplies a fair amount of light to the 20.

 

Light drops off at an exponential rate and a bulb is rated for how much light it gives off over a white reflective object 1 foot from the bulb. My bulb is rated at 40,000 lumens @ 1 foot, at 2 feet that drops to 20,000 lumens at 3 feet 10,000, at 4 feet it is 1/9th the lumens and at 5 feet it is 1/18th.

 

That is a simplified way of judging light intensity but I hope it helps, sorry to have confused you.

 

1foot = full power

2 feet = 1/2

3 feet = 1/4

4 feet = 1/9

5 feet = 1/18

[Dave ESPI]

BCOrchidGuy's math adds up to a hill of beans

Light drops off at an exponential rate and a bulb is rated for how much light it gives off over a white reflective object  

That is a simplified way of judging light but I hope it helps,  

 

1foot = full power

1 feet = 1/2

What EXACTLY is the differance in 1 foot and 1 feet? ???

 

A decent thread, but some of it makes no sense at all.

 

Someone said out their butt....

Bigger tanks are deeper......

 

Uhhhhhh the height diff between a 125 and a 29 gal ? nothing. cept the 125 is longer and wider..... Kinda blows a huge hole in that lame theory.

 

Basicaly "in a nut shell" Your lighing is dependent on what you intend to keep. You can keep shrooms and softies under NO, but not SPS, but then again you can. It is the INTENSITY of the lighting that is important not the wattage no matter what kind you have. I and others have made mention of this exact concept in another decent thread elsewhere. There is no solid "RULE" to lighting. Well.... 'cept that nearly all corals AND LIFE ON EARTH for the most part, need it.

[Crakeur]

Originally posted by Dave ESPI

What EXACTLY is the differance in 1 foot and 1 feet? ???  

 

 

 

I know this. Foot is singular and Feet is plural. In the case of one foot versus one feet, the plural is misused. One can say you put your foot in your mouth, meaning one foot. One cannot say I will shove one feet in your ass if you don't shut the hell up. It just doesn't work. In the literal sense, you would shove two or both feet in said ass. However, if I shoved both feet in your ass I wouldn't be able to stand and I might hurt myself.

[Dave ESPI]

Crakeur made Dave spill his coffee.

However, if I shoved both feet in your ass I wouldn't be able to stand and I might hurt myself.

 

Foot is singular and Feet is plural

so 2 foot = 1 feet.

you have both feet "in"

 

Would that = 4 foot?

 

Steve.. you rock !

[BCOrchidGuy]

Doh

 

1 foot = full power

2 feet = 1/2

3 feet = 1/4

4 feet = 1/9

5 feet = 1/18

 

Sorry for confusing ya again

 

Like I said don't forget that is a real simplified way of calculating light intensity (in air). Don't forget water is denser than air so those figures could be out by a ton.

[Pikelet]

This watts per gallon thing doesn't want to lie down does it.

 

Get a big stick and kill it!

[tanakiye]

wow, you guys are all fired up.

 

I had a small 5 gallon hex with a 13 watt 10000/03 PC light. I kept red mushrooms, ricordia, and xenia in it no prob, they were actually spreading like crazy. Keep i mind that this hex tank was under 12" tall. I got sick of trying to maintain a hex tank (god, what a pain), so I transfered everything over to an all-glass standard 5 gal. tank. I retrofitted the hood included with the tank with 2 13w 10000/03 bulbs. Now this tank is the same depth as the hex, it just has a more convienient shape. So i guess the point is, I've got 26 watts less than a foot above my corals, and they seem quite content, colorful, and grow rather quickly. I'm sure I could squeeze in another PC if I really felt the urge, but so far the light seems adequate for the softies I keep, and Im a starving college student so Im always broke. Is this setup theoretically sound, or do I actually need more light?

[luv2jeep]

Your lighting is FINE! If anyone tells you otherwise, ignore them. If you choose not to ignore them, I'll sell you a 96W PC Quad!

 

It comes down to:

 

A - How much do you wanna spend for bragging rights on how large of a light you can throw over a small tank and be successful...

 

B - The animals you keep. As long as you avoid SPS and clams, you'll be just fine.

[tanakiye]

thats what i figured. I've never even considered keeping sps or clams. they are beautiful, but i feel they're better off in the ocean. I added the second 13 watt light more for aesthetic reasons...(i.e. now i can have dusk/day/dawn type thing going on), but the corals do seem to enjoy the few extra watts. anyways, i'm working on getting my digcam back (it was dropped) so hopefully i can post some pictures soon, and if you know anyone with frags to trade, let me know!

[BCOrchidGuy]

Sounds like your corals are okay with that amount of light. You wouldn't do well with corals that have high light demands though. If your 5.5 is the same depth as your hex and they did well in there then you probably will find they do just as well in the glass..... One question though... 5.5 here is almost 2x the price of a 10... why did you go with the 5?

[tanakiye]

actually, the 5 is a little more than an inch shallower than the hex..makes up for the larger footprint, i suppose. I went for the 5 simply 'cause i like the cuteness of tiny little tanks. I've got a hundred gallon in the living room that keeps me real busy, and its a pleasure to work on such a small tank, almost like having a bonsai tree, ya know? Plus it looks cute on my nightstand. I paid 25 bucks for the kit which included the 5 gal glass tank, hood (which has an awesome feature where the whole hood is on hinges and flips up), filter and a small heater (which will most likely never get used..this is florida for cris'sakes). the ten gallon kit ran about 20 bucks more and didnt really appeal to me as much.

[tanakiye]

the only corals I'd considered keeping in a tank this size are softies (rooms, xenia, gsp, zoos, etc..) I've got the big tank to play around with if i ever do get an itch to keep anything more demanding like sps or clams.

[Pikelet]

Originally posted by tanakiye

I'm sure I could squeeze in another PC if I really felt the urge, but so far the light seems adequate for the softies I keep, and Im a starving college student so Im always broke. Is this setup theoretically sound, or do I actually need more light?

 

 

Use your judgement. If your corals are looking good and growing at an acceptable rate for the size of the tank, relax and enjoy it. Sometimes doing nothing is the right option.