Alright Newbie; Let's shed some light on this subject.

[Dr4g0nf1y]

Those are great but only cover MH and HQI. I meant a review of the pros and cons of MH vs VHO vs CF vs NO vs T5

[WaterKeeper]

Originally posted by Dr4g0nf1y
Those are great but only cover MH and HQI. I meant a review of the pros and cons of MH vs VHO vs CF vs NO vs T5

Why would we share that information with someone who only uses four, NO fluorescents to light their tank? I bet they are warm whites too.

Gentle Readers,

I just wrote a new post for this thread but my puter tells me I have a bad FAT on the disk. As soon as I get the disk on a diet I'll post the next installment. Sorry.

[Scuba Oz]

Originally posted by Dr4g0nf1y
I wonder if anyone has honesly ever done a review of Lighting like they've done of different Salt mixes?

http://www.cnidarianreef.com/lamps.cfm

[Dr4g0nf1y]

Ok dumb question 3 for me. Actinic 450 vs Actinic Blue 7100, is one just a BLUE painted bulb and the other is an actual "Actinic"?

[silkchaos]

I am actualy curious what makes it Actinic as well.

[WaterKeeper]

To be a true Actinic it mush produce considerable light in the 400-450 nm range with a peak at 420 nm hence the name Actinic 450. Such bulbs have a color temperature of around 7100 K. That's where the Actinic Blue derives the name 7100. True actinic lights produce their unique spectrum through the phosphors used in the bulb. Some actinic whites are mainly a 10,000 K or higher bulb with some actinic phosphors thrown in for good measure. The color of the glass tube has nothing to do with the true actinic output of the lamp.

[WaterKeeper]

Now you are not going to settle for just a "Plain Jane" photographer's light meter are you Newbie? If you really want to know the output on those new lights you're gonna need a spectroradiometer. An item at the top of the list of any new reefer's stock of equipment.

And at less than 7 grand these days you can't really afford to be without one.

One of the things about lighting is there are about a million ways to measure it. The drawback of a standard light meter is that it only measures light in a very narrow range. A range so narrow it excludes most of the light that is important to your tank's inhabitants.

Fortunately, there are all sorts of science geeks out there who have taken this problem under consideration. Calling it photosynthetic active radiation (PAR), photosynthetic usable radiation (PUR), or photosynthetic photon flux (PPF) this unit includes light measured over the broad wavelength of 400-700 nm, an area that does include light used in photosynthesis. The unit used in this measurement is umols of photons per square meter per second. It is unofficially called the Einstein which I imagine is some sort of German beer mug.

Now let's see, all one needs to do is count up the number of micromoles landing on a meter of surface. Childs play until you realize there are 602,300,000,000,000,000 photons in a micromole. Man 'O man; that can keep one busier than a democratic poll watcher recounting ballots in Ohio or Florida after a presidential election.

Coming to our rescue is a little light meter on steroids, called a Quantum meter. This is just a light meter that can measure light over a broad spectrum range. In the past they too cost a bundle but lately have dropped in cost to a couple of hundred dollars. They are also nice since many come with a remote sensor that is waterproof and can be used directly in your tank. Armed with one of these you can get a very accurate idea of how different lights perform over the same conditions.

So what's the poop WaterKeeper? Do I rush out and buy one?

In my humble opinion no. You're going to have much expense in setting up a new tank so something like a Quantum meter is a luxury item that you can easily do without. And besides, there are plenty of people out there that have done much of that work for you.

Spacefish provided some links to articles that provide much information on this topic. Sanjay Joshi is perhaps one of the most prolific in this regard. Not only does he have a spectroradiometer but has just about every MH lamp and ballast ever made. He has extensive lists of lamps ranked by output and also information on ballasts and reflectors. As a newbie you can save money and let those that have the equipment and time do the testing.

So why all this stuff about lumens, lux, PAR, PPE etc? Well as you read these articles you will want to remembers these terms so you can tell how that author conducted his tests. If one guy uses lux and another uses PPE it is very hard to evaluate test results between the two authors. The comparison is perhaps good in the individual article but not useful in doing a comparison between authors.

Another thing to be aware of in evaluating lights; Lux and things like PAR are measured at a distance. As I said earlier in this thread the light reaching a surface diminishes over distance. To compare lights they need to be placed the same distance from the measuring device. Also, as light passes through space it is affected. A lamp checked in air cannot usually be compared to one measured with the sensor under water. The lights themselves change with time. A MH bulb when first bought needs a burn-in period before it reaches full illumination. This requires about 4 days if the light is left on.

Let's start getting to more practical information in the next installment to this thread.

[Pistonkev]

Originally posted by Jiddy
Whose Thomas Edison?

Not sure but I think he is a mod here.

[Sanjay]

Originally posted by WaterKeeper
To be a true Actinic it mush produce considerable light in the 400-450 nm range with a peak at 420 nm hence the name Actinic 450. Such bulbs have a color temperature of around 7100 K. That's where the Actinic Blue derives the name 7100. True actinic lights produce their unique spectrum through the phosphors used in the bulb. Some actinic whites are mainly a 10,000 K or higher bulb with some actinic phosphors thrown in for good measure. The color of the glass tube has nothing to do with the true actinic output of the lamp.

Hey Tom:

A good set of posts, nicely done. Let me point out a couple of things and get out of your way.

Actinics do not have a color temp of 7100K. They are way to monochromatic a light source to have a color temperature. Yet another lighting myth propogated by the aquarium industry.
Sunlight is 5500K-6500K, so 7100K would be quite "white".

One thing people do not realize is that energy in has to equal energy out. Laws of thermodynamics. So light is basically conversion of electrical energy into light and other forms of radiation, ranging from UV to infrared. At best this conversion rate of electrical energy to light energy is between 20-25%. The electronics ballasts draw less energy than a conventional magnetic ballast and have lower heat losses in the ballast, but in almost all tests I have done they have also produced less light. Some of them have ballast losses in the form of radio waves instead of heat like the convnetional ballasts and hence may feel cooler to touch... but watchout for interference with your TV or X-10 controls.

Keep up the good work, explaining the concepts.

sanjay.

[Scuba Oz]

And here I thought the key on the string was confusing (never did figure out how that key stayed there)

Keep it coming Tom, great job!!!!

[BrianPlankis]

I recently put two URI VHO super actinic bulbs (220w) over my tank. I thought they were just to make the corals and fish look pretty. After reading this thread, it looks like I just added 220w of lights that will help my corals grow too?

B.

[WaterKeeper]

Like wow!!! Sanjay actually reads Newbie threads. Not often my threads get visited by the Brass.

Thanks Sanjay and I agree about the K myth on actinic lighting. I don't know where that value came from in the first place. However, I did leave out Lord Kelvin in most of this discussion. Now Lord K must have been envious of Celsius having a temperature scale named after him so he invented one too but it is just the Celsius's scale with the starting point at absolute zero. In a discussion about lighting the Kelvin temperature is used as a measure of the apparent color of that light. Keeping in mind that Sanjay is reading and critiquing this I'll explain how it works.

Imagine you are out on the range after a long day rounding up the cattle and settled around the campfire soaking up the ambiance with your fellow buckaroos. You pull your trusty branding iron out of your saddlebag and put it into the fire. Now it is real cold out that evening and that branding iron is close to absolute zero or 0ºK. It appears black and hence we get the term "black light".

Now as it heats in the fire it gets warmer and warmer. First it glows red, as it heats to around 1000-2500ºK. Getting hotter, the color becomes orange than yellow as it hits around 5000-6000ºK. Soon it is "white hot" as the temperature hits 8000-10,000º and finally bluish white as temps climb past 10,000ºK. Obviously you are going to need a lot of fire wood to hit some of these temperatures but I hope you get the science behind the K scale of color temperature.

Let's get back to talking about the lamps themselves. Sometimes you smart@ss newbies vex my mind by asking a worthwhile question. Not too long ago someone asked, " Why are T-5 fluorescents so much brighter and better than T-12?" Normally I can kind of wing it in these threads but, since I really didn't know the answer, I had to do some, sin of sins, research. Indeed, there were claims of "new technology" surrounding these new "you can"t do without them fluorescents" but what was the story?

If you have followed this thread you know by now that all fluorescent tubes are similar, that is, they are a phosphor coated tube, an inert gas doped with mercury inside and a filament at each end. Usually the claim made for an improvement in a fluorescent is that they contain a "new improved secret" phosphor. This was true of PC fluorescents when they first came out. As time went by it became apparent that this was not the case and they used the same phosphor blends as most high output fluorescents. With the T-5 it wouldn't make sense that the phosphor was the "secret" as, if you can coat a 5/8 inch tube with a phosphor, why not an 1.5 inch?

In the past there have been some changes in the fill gas. First there was a reduction in mercury to satisfy the EPA, then a switch from argon to krypton fill gasses to reduce energy consumption. I guess the T-5's could use radon but I don't think the Office of Homeland Security would like that idea.

One can change the filaments and here was a lead. The T-5's produced their highest output a 95º F rather than 77ºF as in T-12's and T-8's. This might have some effect but again you could do this with the other size tubes. As it turns out this was done as you can pack more T-5's into a fixture and the resulting heat inside that fixture is higher.

None of these things would indicate the "secret" to the brilliance of a T-5. Now one thing that came to light when PC tubes first appeared; they did look much brighter than a T-12 when placed beside one. This is true but is also somewhat of a illusion.

Take one of those handy M-33 fragmentation grenades you all carry and place it in a 12-foot diameter sewer pipe and set that baby off. Now do the same with a piece of 10' and another piece of 7.5'. Now our blessed military has such tight quality control on its weapons that each grenade produces the exact same number of fragments. If you examine the holes the fragments made in the pipes you see a trend, the smaller the pipe the closer the pattern of holes. So be it with a thinner fluorescent tube, more electrons hit the coating per square inch in a thin tube than a wider tube. This makes the light appear brighter but it really does not increase the overall output, just the brightness to the observer.

Clearly there was more to this mystery and as all good mystery writers I leave you hanging to my next installment.

[kbmdale]

Originally posted by WaterKeeper

Gentle Readers,

I just wrote a new post for this thread but my puter tells me I have a bad FAT on the disk. As soon as I get the disk on a diet I'll post the next installment. Sorry. [/B]

LMAO...better put it on the NTFS diet and fast...lol

[WaterKeeper]

Sorry I couldn't add an installment today. I'm working on my own calcium supplement. It uses calcium carbide so I can add calcium while illuminating the tank without using costly electricity.

[Warnberg]

So to summerize.... a watt is a watt is a watt?


Dave

[Scuba Oz]

watt? I did not hear you

[Scuba Oz]

Okay Tom, I have read up on these wonder T-5's and from what I read and hear from other reefers is that they are not good unless you have a fancy reflector for each bulb? So why cant there be fancy reflectors for the t-12's and PC's? I understand the grenade theory and secret info and all that, so really does it come down to how much reflection is going into the tank?

[Warnberg]

When are we going to continue this? This is some good stuff... remindes me of some of my EE courses in College.

Thanks Dave

[Dr4g0nf1y]

Tom's probably out working on that DIY substation.

[Scuba Oz]

Hopefully he is testing my thought a few post ago!! J/K

[WaterKeeper]

Today we talk about spit shining. The only way to get something REAL shiny.

That darn Wizard of Oz is jumping the gun. Reflectors require some heavy duty solid geometry calculations and I was going to ignore them and save myself the math.

Remember that Maglite thing we did. The bulb in the Maglite is more or less a point source and radiates light in all directions. To get a beam of light we need to focus the light in some manner. A lens is one method and a reflector is another. Both work in similar ways in that they take light and redirect it.

Now I know a lot of you hang out at the sleazy pool halls around the base so you know a little about reflection, commonly called a bank shot. Probably some hustler told you one time that the angle of incidence equals the angle of reflection in setting up a bank shot. That is, if the ball strikes the cushion at 45° it bounces off at 45° in the opposite direction.

This ability to be reflected is indeed an important function in selecting lights. In our Maglite we have a type of mirror known as a parabolic reflector. This is a very effective type reflector for controlling light. By moving the source of the light inside a parabolic reflector we can adjust where the light is focused. We can move it so we have a tight beam with most of the light imaged at the center or a wide beam with the light spread more of less evenly over a large area. The advantage of a tight beam is that we have more lux in a small area while a broad beam produces less lux but illuminates a larger area.

Now many people have one of those fluorescent shop lights hanging in the basement. Its reflector is just a white piece of metal with the end slightly bent down at the sides. The major purpose here is to catch the light emitted from the top of the tube and redirect it down to the work surface. The bends do the same with light coming from the sides of the tube, redirecting it toward the area we wish to illuminate. Most aquarium hoods for T-12 lights are like the shop light. They redirect the light back toward the tank but are really an inefficient design. Much of that light ends up illuminating the floor around the tank.

Now a T-12 hood usually has 4-5 tubes in the enclosure. If we can use T-5 then we can have as many as 10 in the same area. What we are now doing is adding additional points of illumination to our tank. Another benefit is that the slimmer tube allows for better reflector design. We can use semi-parabolic reflectors for each tube allowing us to get more of the emitted light to a smaller area. This increases the brightness of the light reaching the interior of the tank. Less is lost because we can focus it better. As Oz pointed out, "the secret to T-5 is that they allow more efficient redirection of light".

Well, I need to be somewhere at 2 pm so I'll stop here. I finish this part up Monday.

Here is a new salt mix study to ponder in the mean time Salt Mix

[Warnberg]

Can we continue? I am patiently waiting to see if my small fortune in lights for my 240 is the right choice....
I'm really looking forward to the next one

Dave

[Warnberg]

opppsss sorry about that.... posted at about the same momoent.. go figure..

[RichT]

^ Lacking a sence of hummor I guess

[bigfrank]

Originally posted by fishboysv
Water keeper, you're an ***. Moderators shouldn't allow insulting posts like this to continue, but apparently, some folks here find this amusing. People new to the hobby come here for advice, not abuse from some jerk who probably asked the same questions when he started out. There are many other forums out on the 'net and I guess inexperienced hobbyists should spend their time else-where since their questions are un-welcome here. What a shame. I used to like this site.

look at waterkeepers occupation, he could be boring us to death with info that that makes little or no sence at all. he is keeping it as simple to understand as possible. reef keeping is a hobby and supposed to be fun so lets have some fun and learn something at the same time. the only reason im this far in this thread is i've had a lot of questions about lighting but would rarely get past the first post(either didnt get it or to boring) from other people trying to explain it.if you are martha stewart i'm sure he was just making a joke, please dont take it personal i also dont understand your question problem,you only posted 1 time here and it wasnt a question it was a rant and tottaly uncalled for.a lot of stuff i read on reef central makes me smile and sometime i even lol. waterkeeper your doing a great job please continue. fishboys, not trying to chase you away or get you po'd