sps lighting advice

[dmilne85]

Hey everyone,

Right now i have (2) 250 watt hqi's and 2 96 watt attinic pc's, and ive always wanted to make the jump to 400 watt halides but dont want to deal with the heating issues and higher electricity cost....
however i was thinking of instead of running my current (2) 250 watt set up, i could switch to (1) 400 watt on one of those moving light racks. anyone have experience with these? also, this would be on a 120gallon thats only 4 ft long? do you think i would get the benifit of a 400 watt setup without having to get 2 400 watters?

i realize these moving light racks are not that popular, so anyone that has one i sure would appreciate hearing your input on this device.

[MCsaxmaster]

I think you'd get a higher electricity bill, but no significant benefit from switching lights. I'd keep what you have. That will provide pleanty of light to pretty much anything you want pretty much anywhere in the tank.

cj

[specsirl]

The problems with a light rail on your display tank is that there's always a part of the tank that is darker and you don't get to view the corals in full lighting best colors without chasing the light. A light mover would be great over a frag tank setup imo...but not worth it over a display tank.

[Nanook]

I concur with my colleagues here. With the display, you will not be able to appreciate the corals for any length of time dt the moving light. I would opt for the lower wattage bulbs.

[GSMguy]

i disagree

with some actinic suppliments and a good reflector a single 400w would use less power than 2x250 and would grow your corals well.

i think it would look cool. and the actinics would light the parts of the tank that the single halide isnt reaching.

[dmilne85]

ive seen tanks with the light rails, althought it was much larger(1,000 g) i thought it looked pretty cool but this would be on a much smaller tank so maybe you guys would be right. im mostly just brain storming and this seemed like a good option. i dont have AC in my house and i dont want to heat it up anymore than it is, and my chiller is already working pretty good to keep the temp down, so i dont think (2)400 watters would be realistic.

[MCsaxmaster]

What benefit do you think 400 watt halides will get you that 250 watt DE halides won't???

[aquarius77]

No AC in Arizona?

You have got to be working that chiller to death.

[SENSIREEF]

Keep in mind that, there is not one spot in the ocean where corals are either shadowed or experience intervals of darkness or heavy suspensions in the water columns and reef biotopes, therefore using a 400w on a light rail would be optimal, with the supplemental t5's, you would well rounded coloration on your SPS due to the fact the reflective bend of light moving across the water will cause lumens to hit at different angles in your tank, causing an overall better color variation and coverage. 2 250's are great, but can you honestly say that there is that much light at one time, at one place in the ocean for a full photo period, if you do, you should go diving, or even open up a children’s science book, its not bias information its facts. I agree with the rest of the light rail supporters. One 400w would be effective and efficient, 2 250's are great for fake tanks that are seeking un healthy and over extended growth rates, which casue weak and brittle colonys. I believe in replicating nature as much as possible per say, but that’s just my two cents. Every one has there opinion, but the facts are facts. Good luck to you choosing Your lighting setup!

[SENSIREEF]

OH yeah check out the Lumen Max 22''x22'' from Sunlight Supply. Great Reflector!!

[MCsaxmaster]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10469088#post10469088 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by SENSIREEF
Keep in mind that, there is not one spot in the ocean where corals are either shadowed or experience intervals of darkness or heavy suspensions in the water columns and reef biotopes, therefore using a 400w on a light rail would be optimal, with the supplemental t5's, you would well rounded coloration on your SPS due to the fact the reflective bend of light moving across the water will cause lumens to hit at different angles in your tank, causing an overall better color variation and coverage. 2 250's are great, but can you honestly say that there is that much light at one time, at one place in the ocean for a full photo period, if you do, you should go diving, or even open up a children’s science book, its not bias information its facts. I agree with the rest of the light rail supporters. One 400w would be effective and efficient, 2 250's are great for fake tanks that are seeking un healthy and over extended growth rates, which casue weak and brittle colonys. I believe in replicating nature as much as possible per say, but that’s just my two cents. Every one has there opinion, but the facts are facts. Good luck to you choosing Your lighting setup!

That kinda came out of left field didn't it. What makes you think that constant illuminiation over a day (something corals in nature definitely don't see, no argument there) is unhealthy or undesirable? What makes you think that growth rates will be "over extended?" What makes you think that constant illumination will cause "weak and brittle colonies?" Yes, replicating the beneficial things nature provides is a plus, but should we replicate everything? I'm not sticking a crown of thorns starfish in a tank, are you going too? ;) I'm not going to allow a tropical deluge to drop the salinity in the tank in half and kill most everything, are you? ;) I think you understand my point.

cj

[dmilne85]

thanks for the input so far. i feel going to a 400 watter, the increased par and being able to run a 20 k, instead of a 10, or 14 k in 250 will provide me the growth i want and the blue spectrum that im looking for in a light.

and yes, I do live in arizona with no AC, but i also live at 7,000 ft above sealevel... so its not as hot as you would think. the hottest it gets in the summer is about 90, and at night the temp significantly drops to a nice comfortable temp.

[Rovert]

One thing you might consider is that having one 400 watt lamp traversing equally over the two sides of the tank effectively divides the amount of light that the extreme left and right sides will get for the amount of time the lamp is on the opposite end of the tank.

So, the way I figure it, you're trading in 250 watts for 200 watts on the far left and right sides and in the middle where there's overlap between the two lamps, you're trading 500 watts for 400 watts. That doesn't sound like an improvement to me.

[seta45]

Reef tanks require alot of work... why add a daily lighting adjustment?

What would be your additional energy cost for two 400W from your current set-up... probably $7.00 a month plus or minus a buck.

Heat will be an issue but there are strategies to lower heat without going to a chiller... fans blowing over the water surface can reduce 8-10 degrees.

Go for a pair of 400W!

[dmilne85]

Seta45, the light rack im talking about is completely automated and would require no more work then a normal set up.

haha, yeah i would love a pair of 400 W's and i would get the (2)400 watters, however heating up my house is the main concern... not the tank, i know using fans works great. the heat has to go somewhere..... and since i got my tank in the house with my current light set up, the house is alot warmer, and i dont want to make it anymore uncomfortable.

[SENSIREEF]

That kinda came out of left field didn't it. What makes you think that constant illuminiation over a day (something corals in nature definitely don't see, no argument there) is unhealthy or undesirable? What makes you think that growth rates will be "over extended?" What makes you think that constant illumination will cause "weak and brittle colonies?" Yes, replicating the beneficial things nature provides is a plus, but should we replicate everything? I'm not sticking a crown of thorns starfish in a tank, are you going too? I'm not going to allow a tropical deluge to drop the salinity in the tank in half and kill most everything, are you? I think you understand my point.:rollface:

It’s not what I think it is what I have experienced and its facts, dont be so closed minded becasue you cant afford a light rail!! Both with personal propagation and aqua farms,lighting with a photo period of 2 250's stationed over a tank for "well let’s just say 7 hour photoperiod", will not cause brittle or weak colonies? Of course that is suffiecnt colonies to survive and even thrive, but this is not the best lighting available. This tells me that you have not had any experience with lighting other than your 2 250's, you say you have been in the hobby for 6 years now, I’m not saying that your not experienced, all's that I am saying is that 1. This never happens in nature, 2. This can cause over growth rates, which "may" lead to weak and brittle colonies, and 3. Just by your reply shows that you have not done experimentation for your self, and you just feed off of what people say or enlighten you with, as far as information on growth rates and photo periods. After working with many tanks and propogation facilites, "in my experience" I have noticed along with many of my fellow hobbyist, that tanks that are well illuminated with oscillating and varying light, cause more well rounded growth rates, better coloration, " not shadowed corals like yours probably are, from being illuminated from a stationary light source, and thicker and broader colonies. Your practices are your ways, I respect that, I am just providing the facts and my experience for the man with the big question on lighting, :eek1: :eek1: I’m not here to argue I’m just telling you basically that with oscillation in light and bending wave lengths will cause overall better growth patterns and your corals more importantly will not be as shadowed as they would be with stationary lights. Your ways are your ways, but don’t tell me something that you have not experienced, plus both of our colonies and setups are weaker than any colonies that would be wild caught, so were both wrong! I try to make my aquarium as realistic as possible with all the benefits, and leave out all of the downfalls and mishaps that happen in nature. Floods, star fish.... :rollface: :rollface:

[MCsaxmaster]

It’s not what I think it is what I have experienced and its facts

So these are facts that you present? Care to show me the documentation?

dont be so closed minded becasue you cant afford a light rail!!

Pardon?

Both with personal propagation and aqua farms,lighting with a photo period of 2 250's stationed over a tank for "well let’s just say 7 hour photoperiod", will not cause brittle or weak colonies? Of course that is suffiecnt colonies to survive and even thrive, but this is not the best lighting available.

Ok???

This tells me that you have not had any experience with lighting other than your 2 250's

This isn't my tank. I've used just about every type and combination of lighting used over reef tanks, besides perhaps 1000 watt halides. I've never used those ;)

you say you have been in the hobby for 6 years now, I’m not saying that your not experienced, all's that I am saying is that 1. This never happens in nature, 2. This can cause over growth rates, which "may" lead to weak and brittle colonies, and 3. Just by your reply shows that you have not done experimentation for your self, and you just feed off of what people say or enlighten you with, as far as information on growth rates and photo periods.

1. I said I agree, this never happens in nature, 2. May I see some documentation?, 3. What in the world are you talking about???

After working with many tanks and propogation facilites, "in my experience" I have noticed along with many of my fellow hobbyist, that tanks that are well illuminated with oscillating and varying light, cause more well rounded growth rates, better coloration, " not shadowed corals like yours probably are, from being illuminated from a stationary light source, and thicker and broader colonies.

Ahh, I see. The facts that you proport to give us are your "experiences" and opinions. Why not simply state that in your experience this seems to happen, or in your opinion that tends to happen instead of call beliefs facts when they obviously are not.

I'll reiterate: why would constant light intensity cause overextended growth or weak and brittle skeletons? How would constant illumination prove harmful to the corals in any way?

cj

[seta45]

Here is an interesting artical I came across on issues with static lighting by Calfo...

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/oct2003/feature.htm

Enjoy!

[seta45]

Here is an interesting article by Anthony Caflo on issues with static lighting....

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/oct2003/feature.htm

[dmilne85]

thanks, thats a good read. now i really want a new lighting system! ahhhh. when will i ever be happy with what i got...?

[dhnguyen]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10468918#post10468918 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by aquarius77
No AC in Arizona?

You have got to be working that chiller to death.


Nevermind the chiller. I'm surprise he is still alive in AZ without AC.

Lived there for 1.5 years. 1.5 years too long IMO.

[nwrogers]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10468624#post10468624 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by MCsaxmaster
What benefit do you think 400 watt halides will get you that 250 watt DE halides won't???

Exactly! None!! This is a classic example of the grass is always greener syndrome. Your 250s are more than enough light so leave the lighting alone!! If you really want to help your tank and make your corals look better do a water change. Water quality is far more important that lighting anyway. This is coming from a guy that had 2 400W bulbs and switched to two 175s and couldn’t be happier! My corals have just as good color and I have an extra $50 to spend on coral every month :D

[SENSIREEF]

Thank you STETA 45, the articles you provided are right on the money. In fact that is one of the articles that I was reading the other day on light and light variances. As far as my dispute with this other reefer, The only conclusion to end this conversation, is basically to state the fact that how I came up with the conclusion that stationary light can lead or produce "brittle and weak colonies" is by comparing two separate tanks, set up with two different lighting methods. Last year I set up two tanks one with a 400W on a light mover over a 48" tank, and the other was setup with a 400w on a 48" tank that was stationary. After a year of use, I compared the two colonies that I had fragged, from a previous colony of the same species, which was a Seriatopora guttatus, this acro was fragged at the same height of 2 inches, with adequate branching and actually very similar in size, "the best of my ability to acquire similar pieces", To make a long story short, the tanks were setup with the same body of water, all linked to one sump, ect ect. The only difference was the lighting variable. The overall growth with the light mover, was greatly predominate, stronger color variations, fully colored, not shadowed, and by mass, was bulkier and stalker. The other colony was "good" but it was elongated and thinned out almost that it was reaching for the light, looked to be "brittle":eek1: and fragile:eek1: , no where near to the appearance to the other colony, as far as overall girth, coloration, meaning full coverage, not being shadowed, "as bad" which was the exact same coral in the same body of water. So this is my actual documentation, and my experience, if you don’t want to use it to your advantage, it’s not my loss. There are many articles widely available and tons of information available at your local reefer nettings. Check it out and if you agree or disagree, the focus here should be improving the hobby and success of housing these species. Not complaining because you can’t afford to house you corals properly. IT’S ok! :rollface: Try it then, come talk back. :rollface:

[SENSIREEF]

nwrogers good call on that one, water quality is very crucial to the success in this hobby, check out Marine Chemistry by CR Brightwell, great book understanding the relationship and harmony of water properties.

[MCsaxmaster]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10492852#post10492852 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by SENSIREEF
Thank you STETA 45, the articles you provided are right on the money. In fact that is one of the articles that I was reading the other day on light and light variances. As far as my dispute with this other reefer, The only conclusion to end this conversation, is basically to state the fact that how I came up with the conclusion that stationary light can lead or produce "brittle and weak colonies" is by comparing two separate tanks, set up with two different lighting methods. Last year I set up two tanks one with a 400W on a light mover over a 48" tank, and the other was setup with a 400w on a 48" tank that was stationary. After a year of use, I compared the two colonies that I had fragged, from a previous colony of the same species, which was a Seriatopora guttatus, this acro was fragged at the same height of 2 inches, with adequate branching and actually very similar in size, "the best of my ability to acquire similar pieces", To make a long story short, the tanks were setup with the same body of water, all linked to one sump, ect ect. The only difference was the lighting variable. The overall growth with the light mover, was greatly predominate, stronger color variations, fully colored, not shadowed, and by mass, was bulkier and stalker. The other colony was "good" but it was elongated and thinned out almost that it was reaching for the light, looked to be "brittle":eek1: and fragile:eek1: , no where near to the appearance to the other colony, as far as overall girth, coloration, meaning full coverage, not being shadowed, "as bad" which was the exact same coral in the same body of water. So this is my actual documentation, and my experience, if you don’t want to use it to your advantage, it’s not my loss. There are many articles widely available and tons of information available at your local reefer nettings. Check it out and if you agree or disagree, the focus here should be improving the hobby and success of housing these species. Not complaining because you can’t afford to house you corals properly. IT’S ok! :rollface: Try it then, come talk back. :rollface:

So, a sample size of n = 1 is irrefutable proof? Please consider, anything can happen once...or twice, or perhaps even thrice ;) Replication is critical to suggest any sort of cause an effect relationship. If you repeated this, what is there to make you think you would get the same result next time? What would lead us to think you wouldn't get the oppsite result next time? There is nothing, because all we can say as that you observed X happen, once.


Check it out and if you agree or disagree, the focus here should be improving the hobby and success of housing these species. Not complaining because you can’t afford to house you corals properly. IT’S ok! :rollface: Try it then, come talk back. :rollface:

So, that I asked you a few questions--that I asked for you to provide evidence that what you are saying is true--this means that I am "complaining because [I] can't afford to house [my] corals properly"? Do you mean to come off as insulting as you are doing?

Chris

[glassbox-design]

sensireef,

try being a little more polite once in a while. chris could teach us all a thing or two.

[SENSIREEF]

Ok so based on my results, I will continue to use my light mover method; I will continue to document information on this style of lighting since my experiment is still in the infant stages although the first trial seemed to be hands down unsurpassed success with the light mover. As I progress with solid documentation i will continue to update information and pictures. I have done it successfully one time, with outstanding results, that are good enough for me, I will continue to use this method once again, and succeed with great results. Is there anything else you would like to ask princess? We all know you disapprove already, and that my variables don't meet your expectations on a science level. This has been practiced by many, this is my second trial run and I am sure it will be as successful as the first, if not better, with the upgrades i am going to enhance with my light mover and variables. This thread is here to share our experiences and knowledge; this is my experience and my knowledge. If you don’t like it, don’t read it, that’s all. I will continue to propagate and harvest my SPS under these lighting conditions, until someone can prove to me a better method, and yours is not looking so good. I hope that you are not too upset at the conversation we have had, just don’t be so bias? Have you used a light mover? :eek2:

[cashman95]

I dont understand how a light mover would benefit your corals any? If you have one bulb that moves from left to right over a full days time...then isnt that the same as having two bulbs with say Lumenarc reflectors stationary??????? Dont those reflectors have such good broadcast abilitys that you get great coverage? Maybe I am speaking in an ignorant manner here, but it just seems like a different way of getting the same results. I know I am going to get slammed here, but I got to say this: I am a laborer, and work with many engineers daily. They always seem to make a mountain out of a molehill, just to get the same results. Its almost like some of them are so smart that they constantly chase their own tail! (NOT ALL OF THEM, for anyone whom this might offend!) Can anyone relate?

BTW good discussion here!

[SENSIREEF]

Cashman 95, you're not going to get slammed, I respect your reply, I see where you coming from, it is true, what you say about the luminosity of the reflectors today, and there overall efficacy, actually they are getting better and better as time goes on. The difference is that a light moving over a surface, offers variables in light paths and bending reflections that stationary lights cannot, well at least to many of its users, have noticed better overall coloration, girth, and instead of shadowed corals we are aquiring well rounded coloration. I completely understand your stand point, did you read the article provided above? There is a very interesting article that was posted, about light on light movers. This technology and standpoint is fairly new in this hobby, it’s been around for a while, but is not well documented on its benefits to coral growth and overall health. This is an ongoing progression, that will continue to gain pace, as this hobby has for the past 2 decades, We are just trying new ways of approaching this hobby, and are seeking to find the ultimate reef to benefit all of us, and keep us well informed. Maybe truth maybe fiction, but it is something worth seeing for your own eyes, let alone the aesthetics of seeing a light source sway back and forth over a tank. That is only one of the many benefits that come with a light mover. Just be open to try new things, thanks for your post, keep on reefing!!

[MCsaxmaster]

Ok so based on my results, I will continue to use my light mover method; I will continue to document information on this style of lighting since my experiment is still in the infant stages although the first trial seemed to be hands down unsurpassed success with the light mover. As I progress with solid documentation i will continue to update information and pictures. I have done it successfully one time, with outstanding results, that are good enough for me, I will continue to use this method once again, and succeed with great results.

Ok, but I don't think you're understanding. Anything and everything can and does happen once. An observation that ocurrs once without follow-up is useless. There's no way you can possibly know or claim that any differences you saw were due to the light mover vs. anything else. If you haven't repeated this many times with the same result every time, you have no idea what is leading to any differences.

Is there anything else you would like to ask princess?

Hmmm, I might ask you to act like an adult. That would be nice :rolleyes: I mean really, do you intend to come off like a jackarse?

We all know you disapprove already, and that my variables don't meet your expectations on a science level.

I only diapprove of jumping to conclusions based on nothing. I'd very much like to see you testing the idea out (effect on growth and skeletal density of constant, stationary light vs. intermittent light on a light mover). If properly done, the results would be very interesting.

This has been practiced by many, this is my second trial run and I am sure it will be as successful as the first, if not better, with the upgrades i am going to enhance with my light mover and variables.

How are you defining "successful" though? Is successful getting the result you want to get, because that is what it sounds like?

This thread is here to share our experiences and knowledge; this is my experience and my knowledge. If you don’t like it, don’t read it, that’s all. I will continue to propagate and harvest my SPS under these lighting conditions, until someone can prove to me a better method, and yours is not looking so good.

What is my method? Did I ever mention anything about the way I grow corals? Did the topic ever come up at all? What are you talking about?

I hope that you are not too upset at the conversation we have had, just don’t be so bias? Have you used a light mover?

If by biased you mean that I should stop having a bias for accepting claims that have evidence behind them over those that offer no evidence to support them, I don't think I'm planning to give up my bias ;)

No, I have not used a light mover. I do have some understanding of how corals calcify though. The claims you made contradict some of the basic properties of this calcification, hence my questions of what caused you to believe X, Y, and Z. Apparently a "how do you know" question has become offensive these days.... How it ever did beats me.

I dont understand how a light mover would benefit your corals any? If you have one bulb that moves from left to right over a full days time...then isnt that the same as having two bulbs with say Lumenarc reflectors stationary??????? Dont those reflectors have such good broadcast abilitys that you get great coverage? Maybe I am speaking in an ignorant manner here, but it just seems like a different way of getting the same results. I know I am going to get slammed here, but I got to say this: I am a laborer, and work with many engineers daily. They always seem to make a mountain out of a molehill, just to get the same results. Its almost like some of them are so smart that they constantly chase their own tail! (NOT ALL OF THEM, for anyone whom this might offend!) Can anyone relate?

I think light movers could be beneficial to the extent that they more evenly illuminate all sides of a coral over the course of a day, but over a tank with many bulbs and reflectors with good spread one would think that the effect shouldn't be that dramatic. Also, with a light mover the corals are recieving intermittant light, instead of constant light. Why would that prove benefial to the corals??? All the evidence suggests it would be just the opposite.

Chris