anyone else done this or is it just me?

[keelaydafishguy]

I have a sps dominated 20g nano reef system connected to a 33 gallon fish only with a 15 gallon sump, 2.5 gallon refugium, berlin x-1 skimmer(which im using a mj 1200 that works better than the stock pump) phosban reactor w/carbon and a diy auto top off. The interesting part is the lighting; I have successfully built a diy light fixture utilizing (3) Home Depot 6500k 27w CFL bubs and (4) 13 watt blue "party" bulbs that can successfully keep and grow SPS corals! i have a few corals from a friends tank that crashed and killed half of the coral, now they are growing like mad! this light bulb combination, i think, rivals metal halides for a small aquarium, MINUS ALL THE HEAT! will post pics soon..

[ferret768]

From what I understand SPS are often propagated under 55-6500k light for faster growth rates then moved to 20000k lighting to color up before selling. It might be that the tower color temp bulbs are encouraging the growth, but I don't know if you're getting as much benefit from the party bulbs as you could. I'm interested in pics though, I have a multitude of tanks lying around and love pushing the normal limits of reefkeeping. sounds like a cheap and fun experiment.

[keelaydafishguy]

haha it is wicked cool.. i have been going along with experiment for almost a year now, the blue bulbs are used to balance out with the white. i have had corals die from too much of the white, and have since added more blue until i have reached light output of about 10-12000k.. there is a nice pink ring around my scroll monti and sadly some small bits of xenia that came in on some live rock have grown..

[rtbm]

I have a 70 watt halide on my coral qt tank and I couldnt keep sps colors in there if you paid me under that. They are healthy and grow but are not colorful and definantly not thriving.
I cant imagine sps could thrive under 27 watts of pc and a "party bulb"

how long have the sps been in there under those?

I think led's may rival halide in small aquaria, but pc's? Not likely

it must just be you

[ferret768]

I can easily see SPS being happy under PC's if you have the right species. I have some caps at the very bottom of a 110 that are thriving under ONLY 2x96w 420/460 dual actinics. So much for the halide theory. Other species are more demanding and will need higher output lighting. I'm just wondering if there might be any benefit (besides aesthetics) from the party bulbs.

[rtbm]

ok you're right. Power compact's are just fine for sps.

[keelaydafishguy]

i have had these corals in the tank for only a few months but they seem to be growing rapidly.. i have 3 27 watt lights and 4 13 watt blue "party" bulbs.. this is a total of 133 watts of lighting. each 27 watt bulb claims to have an equivalent light output of a 100 watt bulb.. and each blue bulb claims the light output of a 60 watt bulb.. in theory, i have 324 watts of light output with 133 watts of actual lighting power.. i find these lights a great system for small aquariums and refugiums. my 20 reef is simply a grow out tank, so once these corals reach the size i like they will go into my display aquarium that will be lit with 14000k metal halides, and the 20 will remain a frag tank in the same system.

[keelaydafishguy]

@ferret768 the effect of the party bulbs is somewhat important somehow, as when i did not have them the corals wouldnt color up at all, and i also like the use of the dawn dusk effect.. i have experienced some color increase in my montis, such as the pink ring that is showing more now on my scroll monti, and the growth of my spongodes has increased dramatically since the "party bulb" additions

[flare1185]

also interested in some pictures and how often do u changed the bulbs?

[keelaydafishguy]

i change them every 6 months..next change is in january

as for pics i will post some soon

[lotsoftats]

Really like to see some pics myself...might try this on my 10g nano

[TenKreefer]

After I was shown pictures of a garage aquarium grow out system I can believe it.

There were HUGE (HUUUUGE) healthy colonies of SPS growing under T8's and 3500k street lamps.

[ferret768]

Oh thank God I have company on the fluorescent vs halide front. God forbid you suggest something other than halides and ppl get all in a tizzy.

Keelay, be careful how you're calculating your light output in your tank. While a CFL bulb may have the same light output as a 100w incandescent bulb (the most horribly inefficient bulb money can buy) it will have less output than, say, a 24w T5-HO, and even three CFL's will not come close to the output of a 70w halide. Furthermore much of the light a helix style CFL bulb produces is wasted because not all of it will be directed down into the tank. All of this is to say that it is not so important to measure how many watts you use to light the tank, rather the actual amount of light energy that is directed into the water. It would be extremely interesting to place a lux meter in your tank and see how much light your corals are growing under. It might raise a few eyebrows.

Also, as far as rivaling halides for a small tank, consider this... you're using more than double the energy of a 70w halide to light your tank. Just a thought.

[rtbm]

Originally Posted by ferret768

Also, as far as rivaling halides for a small tank, consider this... you're using more than double the energy of a 70w halide to light your tank. Just a thought.

Is this directed at me? IF so can you please explain that argument.


thanks

[keelaydafishguy]

That statement was directed at me.. And I agree, as this was just an experiment to see if the lights were capable of growing stonies.. Pics up later today..

[ferret768]

Yes, argument was directed at keelay, a halide would be more efficient.

If it makes you feel better rtbm I can explain my thoughts on his setup.

I would estimate that the current rig produces somewhere in the range of 7800 lumens (perhaps a bit optimistic), though much of that is wasted because it cannot be directed down into the tank. A 70w halide on the other hand would produce anywhere from 5000-8000 lumens if you were using a good balast/bulb combo. Most of that could be directed down into the tank with a good reflector, though not very evenly. That's why I'd love to put a lux meter in both tanks and see exactly how well the two fixtures would compare. Now when it comes to t5-ho bulbs you could fit 4 24w bulbs over a 20g and potentially produce upward of 10,000 lumens, and direct most of that into the tank with parabolic reflectors and get perfectly even distribution, and fewer heat problems. I'm a fan of that.

[ferret768]

cant wait to see pics. I scrounged around and found 5 old incandescent sockets and a 20g tank. If I can find time I might try to replicate your setup with reflectors and get some numbers. This is exactly why I get addicted to the hobby.

[keelaydafishguy]

i second that reason ferret!!! i am a diy'er at heart as I am only 16 and id rather find new ways to do things and new methods to make the hobby more fun! heres one pic, its the spongodes..

[keelaydafishguy]

umm it says the pic files are too big.. can somebody help? sorry its my first time posting pics on RC

[uncleof6]

Just a couple of ignored points:

Kelvin temperature ratings are based on the behavior (light energy emitted by) of an Ideal or Theoretical Black Body Radiator.

When describing a light source as having a Kelvin rating, it refers to a light source that emits energy (uninterrupted) across the entire visible range from 300 to 700nM. Sunlight and incandescent lamps are very good "Black Body Simulators"- they behave in a manner very close to the predictable spectral distribution of the "Theoretical Black Body Radiator." With these light sources, one need only measure the energy at two places in the spectrum - red and blue - to determine the Kelvin. However, when the light source has an "interrupted" (skips wavelengths) spectrum - as do all fluorescent and gas discharge lamps - it is not correct to describe that light source as having a Kelvin temperature.

Once upon a time, the term "Apparent Color Temperature" was used to describe light sources that "looked like" but did not behave exactly like a certain Kelvin. The use of the term "Apparent Color Temperature" was a warning that this was not an accurate description but only a guide. Unfortunately this useful description has been dropped and often replaced with "Correlated Color Temperature" (CCT) - (read "Apparent Color Temperature.") My objection to the use of this language is that it no longer suggests the warning. Even worse, since Correlated Color Temperature is a mouthful, lamp manufacturers will just describe a light source with an interrupted spectrum (all fluorescent and gas discharge lamps) as having its color temperature in a factor of Kelvin. This is a misuse of the Kelvin temperature scale, and it is very misleading as it in no way indicates the suitability of a light source for photosynthetic purposes: because it says little of the quality (spectral distribution) of the light, only how it appears to the human eye.

Watts, lumens, and lux:

Ferret had it pretty close, however it is not just the actual amount of energy that is directed into the tank, it is is more the amount of energy that is photosynthetically active that counts. This is determined by the spectral distribution of the emitted light. Since this is not predictable with gas discharge (metal halide) and fluorescent lighting, Kelvin scale cannot be used. Further, Lumens and lux are measurements of how the human eye perceives light ( how bright it appears-- yellow light weighted,) they are also not useful as a measure of a light sources suitability for use concerning photosynthesis.

Photosynthetic organisms "see" light differently than we do. Our eyes respond the greatest to yellow (green) light, and far less to red and blue light. This is why red and blue light appear to be dimmer, when in fact it is just as "bright" or even "brighter" (same or higher radiation of energy) Photosynthetic organisms respond more to blue and red light than yellow light. Exactly opposite. So a light that appears very bright (lumens per watt or lux) will not necessarily be optimal for photosynthetic "growth."

Since photosynthesis is greater due to radiation in the red and blue portions of the visible light spectrum, you need to know the amount of energy radiated in these wavelengths, rather than in the yellow portion of the spectrum. The PAR (Photosynthetically Active Radiation-- light energy in specific regions of the visible spectrum) meter measures this radiation. So any meaningful discussion of light and photosynthetic organisms (not the corals themselves but the symbiotic organisms that live in the corals tissue) must relate the PAR the light source is providing at depth to the organisms. (More accurate is the Photosynthetic Photon Flux Density-- but that is a whole new ball game.) The rest is just rather meaningless-- regardless of how it is spun, or interpreted.

The "ideal radiator" (light source other than the sun) for photosynthesis will have an interupted spectrum, will have "high" peaks in the red and blue range of the specturm, (something a TBB radiator, or simulator, cannot do) and a smaller peak in the yellow/green range of the spectrum. This source would have a lower lumens per watt (appear dimmer,) or LUX, however would have a higher PAR, or PPFD. E.G. concentrating its energy output in wavelengths where it will do the most good. E.G. the most efficient use of the input energy.

In terms of Lumens per watt, Low Pressure Sodium lamps win--hands down. Question: (rhetorical) Why are LPS lamps not used?

CFLs? No comment
Energy efficiency? No comment
Which type of lighting is best? No comment

[rtbm]

alas, the voice of reason.

thanks for the info/lesson

[keelaydafishguy]

thanks for the input uncle!

[salty joe]

Originally Posted by uncleof6

In terms of Lumens per watt, Low Pressure Sodium lamps win--hands down. Question: (rhetorical) Why are LPS lamps not used?

Light from a LPS lamp is real yellow, isn't it? Who would want that on a DT?
I have seen a sodium lamp growing Chaeto like there was no tommorrow.

[uncleof6]

Originally Posted by salty joe

Light from a LPS lamp is real yellow, isn't it? Who would want that on a DT?
I have seen a sodium lamp growing Chaeto like there was no tommorrow.

Yes the LPS lamp is very yellow = high lumens per watt, with less in the red and blue portions of the spectrum. It will grow chaeto or most likely any photosynthetic organism. Photosynthetic response is not absent in the yellow/green part of the spectrum, the response is less than in the blue, and the response in the blue is less than in the red. So the LPS is targeting the part of the spectrum where photosynthetic response is least. So you take that same amount of energy, and shift it to the blue end or the red end-- or both with some yellow/green left in it and the photosynthetic response curve says the response will be greater = higher growth rate. This light would be very white appearing, rather than yellowish, bluish, or redish.