Yet another lighting question.

AquatiCreations

AquatiCreations

Registered something or another...
Feb 25, 2008
640
0
0
Hey Guys,

I know this has probably been discussed a million and one times here, but I'll just give it another ask.

From what I've read in various places, there seems to be a watt per gallon thing going on, 4-10 watts per gallon from my understanding. Is this information up to date? Does it apply differently to each type of bulb(FL,CFL,HO,VHO,MH)?

And is there a difference(other than heat and power consumption wise) between all the bulb types, for example. 100wCFL vs. 100wMH of the same color spectrum? I know a vast majority of people favor halides, I'm just wondering what the crucial difference is, if the wattage is the same, and the kelvin is the same.

I'd like to be able to keep SPS on down the line,I've currently got a 15g(10g footprint but higher) FOWLR, and after I make a change in lighting I'd like to set it up with some small coral frags most notably Acropora.

Any Help appreciated!-
AC
 
The watt-per-gallon rule has become largely defunct. We have found that 250w of one form of lighting does not necessarily equal the intensity of the other. In particular, LED lighting has been dramatically smashing the old rule with incredible efficiency ratings which equate to far more light output per watt vs energy lost as heat. Better reflectors have made metal halide even more efficient than ever, taking advantage of similar ideas that are used with T5s (and resulting in a very similar efficiency per watt). This also means that the heat produced is also the same between metal halide and T5 (only T5 heat is more diffuse). Contrast all of this with normal flourescents or compact fluorescents and you simply won't get nearly the intensity, even with the same amount of watts. This is where PAR or, more appropriately, PPFD comes in handy. It's is basically a measure of the intensity of light within the spectra that is conducive to photosynthesis. The higher the PAR, the faster the rate of photosynthesis and the faster carbon can be fixed as a form of energy (very basically, of course, without naming any other factors involved). That translates into a better energy budget and more room for growth and reproduction, not counting prey capture in corals, anemones, clams, etc.
 
Ah I see, so,T5(VHO), and metal halide produce a more intense light than other bulb types, even though wattage and kelvin are the same correct?

I'd like to provide my corals with an ample supply of light to thrive on, but do not want to burn or bleach them from too much intensity. Although my target species being Acropora, I'd like to keep some soft corals as well. Is there any way to tell how much light is too much?

And with my tank having such a small footprint would considerable heat transfer be a problem with MH?

Edit: I'm aware of the extreme performance put out by LED's but, the current low availability and high price tag, have put them out of my reach for now.
 
I prefer the WPG just becuase its easy. To get par you need an instument and you actually have to have the light allready. to get WPG you need a calculator or a light piece of math in your head. It's by far not the most accurate because of so many advances in the hobby with everything from the light bulbs to the reflectors to the depth of the tank and water clarity but it will get you in the ball park at least for everything except LED's and plasmas
 
Jstdv8 said:
I prefer the WPG just becuase its easy. To get par you need an instument and you actually have to have the light allready. to get WPG you need a calculator or a light piece of math in your head. It's by far not the most accurate because of so many advances in the hobby with everything from the light bulbs to the reflectors to the depth of the tank and water clarity but it will get you in the ball park at least for everything except LED's and plasmas
Click to expand...

While PPFD meters will give you a more exact measurement of the intensity on individual tanks, one isn't required to make better lighting choices. There is a wealth of information available that makes it possible to make good decisions without a meter. Again, for many forms of lighting, WPG can still be misleading. Another example: in a given area and depth, a 250w halide can be much more intense than T5s. Within the same spread of the halide, however, a T5 setup may be more intense elsewhere, as they have a more even output. So, if you have a small enough area to cover, you may get more useful intensity out of the halide. Of course, a lot of this is application-specific, which can also make WPG misleading. For moderate-sized, normally proportioned tanks, WPG may be okay to use, especially if you are using higher intensity forms to begin with. Then again, it may be too much light. Say a site says 5 wpg minimum and you have a 75g with T5 lamps. That's more than a 6 lamp setup, which is adequate for just about anything. Much more and you may have trouble acclimating things unless it is done very carefully and slowly.

I agree with DoctaQ in that such a setup would be roughly the same in terms of price and comparable (or better in many cases) intensity.
 
Amphiprion said:
I agree with DoctaQ in that such a setup would be roughly the same in terms of price and comparable (or better in many cases) intensity.
Click to expand...

Really? It's been a while since I last checked on LED's, but if I remember correctly they we're running anywhere from $400-$1000+, atleast while they were available, and then they were even taken off the market due to a copyright violation. Did they make a comeback?
 
many commercial units are just terrible imo and are a disgrace to leds.

making it yourself if you have the time and skills will tailor the light to your tank shape and requirements, be cheaper and more powerful and could last longer.

12 leds could be enough for you especially if you want a lower light sandbed
 
DoctaQ said:
many commercial units are just terrible imo and are a disgrace to leds.

making it yourself if you have the time and skills will tailor the light to your tank shape and requirements, be cheaper and more powerful and could last longer.

12 leds could be enough for you especially if you want a lower light sandbed
Click to expand...

This sounds very interesting, especially if it doesn't get "too" technical, I see that you have a 15 long, and the pictures look like that setup is doing your coral justice.

As for the lower light sand bed, that's exactly why I chose the 15 high, so I could keep the SPS up top, and the softies in the bottom.

When you say 12 LEDs should be enough, do you mean 12 daylight, or are actinics included there?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
AquariaCentral.com
Top Bottom