Led Lighting, really reef adequate?

[vhuang168]

Originally Posted by kenpau

What are your PAR readings? Do you have Acropora?

Zoanthus like moderate lighting, so while you may be getting enough light to bleach them, it may not be enough light for high light demanding corals such as Acropora.

Yup. Stylos n birdsnest (ponape, bird of paradise) have to be put lower or they start to bleach.

[inktomi]

If you haven't already bought your tank, you might look at a 75 gallon instead of the 65. It's longer - but a couple inches shorter. That will make it easier to get light to the bottom.

Kessil makes great lights, but they're very much single point sources. I'd go with 2 or 3 360's if you can, or even the AP700 if you can (when it's out). Both of these fixtures are spectrum controllable which is a great perk that LEDs have over T5 and Metal Halide lights

[DavidinGA]

Yes (to answer the question).

[zoomonster]

You broached probably the most contentious subject in reef keeping and you will have to decide (plenty of opinions either way). I have for years run MH with T5 or VHO. In a perfect world I'd still be running MH but it causes too many issues for me and I switched for this tank.

I agree with D2mini... light specs for most purposes are overrated. I got rid of MH/T5 and went with Kessil 360WE's at three to start since they are rated 24x24 and my tank is 72 x 24 x 27. My first thought was oh **** what did I do. The tank was down right dark even at 100% power. My tank is mixed but about 80% SPS. The layout of my tank with center overflow, cross bracing etc. was such I could add two more and pretty evenly space. I couldn't be much happier with growth, coloration, lack of heat and the fact my E bill and tank/room temps have both gone down. I run several ramp profiles on Apex but my peak setting is 80% power and 77% color. Not only is the tank brighter but the extra two lights cut down on shadowing and excessive shimmer. They are all on goosenecks and I have virtually no light spillage.

[Icefire]

Forget AI prime those are for nano

look for at least 160w per 24x24 coverage

[kenpau]

Originally Posted by vhuang168

Yup. Stylos n birdsnest (ponape, bird of paradise) have to be put lower or they start to bleach.

Exactly what I'm saying. LEDs are so focussed that they can bleach anything directly underneath them so you either lower the intensity at the expense of lighting in other areas or lower your corals. Unless you have enough fixtures of course.

[vhuang168]

Originally Posted by kenpau

Exactly what I'm saying. LEDs are so focussed that they can bleach anything directly underneath them so you either lower the intensity at the expense of lighting in other areas or lower your corals. Unless you have enough fixtures of course.

Not really. You said poor light spread. If I followed your advise on 1 fixture per foot, I would need at least 2 for my 33x18 tank. At the moment, 1 is more than enough.

Light spread can be adjusted by raising or lowering the fixture. If you don't have that option, then lowering the intensity and getting more fixtures is another way to get the similar results.

Blanket statements like "you will need 1 fixture for every foot" is what causes all these questions for people.

If I lowered my light so I don't get as much spread, I can lower my intensity to get the same amount of light for the top and less on the sides n bottom.

And I am planning on doing just that.

[mgraf]

Only an opinion here. I love led lighting. I've had AI fixtures, I e had Rapid LED fixtures, metal halides, and T-5's. I am a mixed reef guy. IMO, hard to beat T5's for a mixed reef. Just my .02.

[jminick2]

Originally Posted by ron reefman

over kill.

Most led fixture suppliers give fairly realistic coverage claims.

-1

[jminick2]

Originally Posted by vhuang168

Yup. Stylos n birdsnest (ponape, bird of paradise) have to be put lower or they start to bleach.

I have a hard time taking your guidance on lighting when you consider stylos and birdnests to be on the same level as acropora when it comes to lighting.

[jminick2]

Originally Posted by reefrefresh

I am reentering the reef tank community. Years ago Led lighting just wasnt an option.
These days I am setting up a standard 65 gallon mixed reef. And I am
pretty sold on purchasing two of the kessil 160 lights. Please tell me
does Led lighting really produce the quality and quantity of light
necessary for my future corals to thrive. I am reading the literature.
But I would appreciate any first-hand experience or knowledge
of the efficacy of these fancy new lights, lol. Are there any specific
corals or inverts that simply won't adjust properly to the leds?
Does anyone actually have a healthy thriving reef under leds?
Any input is welcomed. Thank you.

bottom line...ONE MH fixture is still better than any one single LED fixture hands down no competition.

[Steve Atkins]

I have found LEDs adequate so far, but I am using more LED fixtures than I used MH bulbs and this is on a smaller tank. It is also 40% more LED fittings than the manufacturer recomended (done for coverage as much as anything).

So the capital cost was high but the power consumption is such that the fittings will pay for themselves in about 3 years.

Everything seems to be growing, including a birdsnest sitting in a bottom front corner. Some colours are better than under MH, most are the same and one is worse.

[DavidinGA]

Led+T5's is what I run = best of both worlds and still way less heat than mh (only real reason I'm not running mh).

[kenpau]

Originally Posted by jminick2

I have a hard time taking your guidance on lighting when you consider stylos and birdnests to be on the same level as acropora when it comes to lighting.

+1

Originally Posted by vhuang168

Not really. You said poor light spread. If I followed your advise on 1 fixture per foot, I would need at least 2 for my 33x18 tank. At the moment, 1 is more than enough.

Light spread can be adjusted by raising or lowering the fixture. If you don't have that option, then lowering the intensity and getting more fixtures is another way to get the similar results.

Blanket statements like "you will need 1 fixture for every foot" is what causes all these questions for people.

If I lowered my light so I don't get as much spread, I can lower my intensity to get the same amount of light for the top and less on the sides n bottom.

And I am planning on doing just that.

Of course you can raise your light at the expense of PAR, or you can lower your light at the expense of spread....but people wanting full acropora tanks need both.

Here are my PAR levels from when I was running Hydra52s at 11" off the water surface at 100%

14k100 by kenpau01, on Flickr

At mid tank level I was getting 450 PAR directly below the fixture but 60 on the glass, a massive drop off. For the coral I wanted to keep the light spread wasn't there, I could have raised the lights but would have dropped PAR in doing so. That was with 3 fixtures, by your logic I could raise the lights and run with two for total light spread at high enough PAR to grow Acropora, I'm sorry but after running the tank and putting a Quantum meter on it myself I don't agree.
You're welcome to prove me wrong though, if you can show me a 3ft full SPS dominated reef tank with one Hydra52/Radion/Kessil fixture.

Originally Posted by DavidinGA

Led+T5's is what I run = best of both worlds and still way less heat than mh (only real reason I'm not running mh).

I'm a massive advocate of LED lighting, would never run a tank without them, but I agree after adding T5s there is definitely an improvement in growth and colour results.

[vhuang168]

Originally Posted by kenpau

+1



Of course you can raise your light at the expense of PAR, or you can lower your light at the expense of spread....but people wanting full acropora tanks need both.

Here are my PAR levels from when I was running Hydra52s at 11" off the water surface at 100%

14k100 by kenpau01, on Flickr

At mid tank level I was getting 450 PAR directly below the fixture but 60 on the glass, a massive drop off. For the coral I wanted to keep the light spread wasn't there, I could have raised the lights but would have dropped PAR in doing so. That was with 3 fixtures, by your logic I could raise the lights and run with two for total light spread at high enough PAR to grow Acropora, I'm sorry but after running the tank and putting a Quantum meter on it myself I don't agree.
You're welcome to prove me wrong though, if you can show me a 3ft full SPS dominated reef tank with one Hydra52/Radion/Kessil fixture.



I'm a massive advocate of LED lighting, would never run a tank without them, but I agree after adding T5s there is definitely an improvement in growth and colour results.

1) You asked if I had Acro. I said yes. Then qualified it by noting that SPS with lower light needs HAVE to be put lower or they will bleach. Meaning light up top is enough for Acros and too much for others SPS.

2) What kind of tank did the OP ask lighting for? A mixed reef. NOT a full Acro tank. Does he still need 1 Hydra 52 per foot? Does he want Acros from glass to glass? Does he want acros on top, LPS on bottom? Or Acros top, LPS middle, softy on bottom? Do you know? If you don't, how can you advice how many Hydra 52s he needs?

My point was your blanket statement about needing 1 LED fixture per foot is too broad for ALL tanks. In your case of wanting a full acro tank then yes, you need more than 1 LED fixture to get the appropriate light spread and par.
But not everyone wants a full acro tank. My needs are for a mixed reef, more LPS dominate than anything and 1 Hydra 52 is more than enough FOR ME.

If you want to give advice, then qualify what you advice with relevant data to explain what you mean. Eg, you need 1 LED fixture per foot of tank if you want to have enough par and light coverage to have a full Acro tank. This way, someone wanting a LPS only tank will know that is too much light and think about buying 2 lights for a 36"ish tank and someone wanting a softy tank will know that 1 light will be enough for him. Giving data like your last post would also be very beneficial for someone researching light needs.

Anyone reading your advice of needing 1 light per foot with no qualifiers will think that is what he needs regardless of what he wants to keep which while will be more than adequate, puts off many potential buyers thinking they need to spend that much $ for enough light to keep zoas when he needs to spend only 1/3.

It is posts like yours that breed confusion about LED lighting needs and lead to misconceptions about LED light spreads and power. Who knows how many have 2 Hydra 52 fixtures over a 24"X12"X10" tank to have mushrooms and zoas because that's what he read he needs.

But do what you want. Its a free forum to give advice as you like, relevant or not. And I think we've hijacked this thread enough.

[jminick2]

Originally Posted by vhuang168

) You asked if I had Acro. I said yes. Then qualified it by noting that SPS with lower light needs HAVE to be put lower or they will bleach.

My bad I didn't get all that based on what u said, I misunderstood

Originally Posted by vhuang168

Who knows how many have 2 Hydra 52 fixtures over a 24"X12"X10" tank to have mushrooms and zoas because that's what he read he needs.

well at least if decides to go acros he will be set in the mean time turn the intensity down....

[Hitch08]

These threads cause me to question whether I should just buy a third Radion Pro for my 48x24x24 tank.

Do I really need a third? If so, should I buy it now while I'm making modifications to my canopy (in other words, modify for three now rather than try to switch from two to three later)? Should I do T5's instead? Should I wait - maybe get a newer generation?

Ugh!

[jminick2]

Originally Posted by Hitch08

These threads cause me to question whether I should just buy a third Radion Pro for my 48x24x24 tank.

Do I really need a third? If so, should I buy it now while I'm making modifications to my canopy (in other words, modify for three now rather than try to switch from two to three later)? Should I do T5's instead? Should I wait - maybe get a newer generation?

Ugh!

I have same dimensions I had two g3 pros and it was absolutely not enough to keep sps dominant tank. I now run MH and am much more happy.

[Wazzel]

Originally Posted by Hitch08

These threads cause me to question whether I should just buy a third Radion Pro for my 48x24x24 tank.

Do I really need a third? If so, should I buy it now while I'm making modifications to my canopy (in other words, modify for three now rather than try to switch from two to three later)? Should I do T5's instead? Should I wait - maybe get a newer generation?

Ugh!

It really depends. I ran a single hydra 52 on a 24x24x24 and had good results for about a year. After that the shading started to become an issue. If your scape is short and flat you may be good with two or at least good for longer. I have a couple of steep parts that got covered at 6-9 months in and the corals in those areas suffered. I now run two of the same on the tank and the suffering corals have recovered. Based on my experience, I would say at some point you will more than likely need a third unit.

[alton]

Here is a video (if it works) of a good friend's tank that has LPS, Zoo's and SPS. The tank is 60" x 27" x27" and grows corals very well. He has 6 Hydra 52's on it for an even coverage. He had two AI fixtures on his 65 before moving everything over.

[Johnseye]

Originally Posted by jminick2

I have same dimensions I had two g3 pros and it was absolutely not enough to keep sps dominant tank. I now run MH and am much more happy.

In what way were 2 G3 pros not sufficient for SPS in a 48x24x24 tank?
Did you use the wide angle lenses?

[jminick2]

Originally Posted by Johnseye

In what way were 2 G3 pros not sufficient for SPS in a 48x24x24 tank?
Did you use the wide angle lenses?

yes and acros wouldn't grow they would stay alive but they would not grow except for one, for some reason 1 did grow. they would also lose color and become pale. I can show you an example if you'd like....

[Johnseye]

Originally Posted by jminick2

yes and acros wouldn't grow they would stay alive but they would not grow except for one, for some reason 1 did grow. they would also lose color and become pale. I can show you an example if you'd like....

I would like to see an example. Losing color and becoming pale is an indication of bleaching, too much light not too little. If they became brown they would have had too little light.

[jminick2]

Originally Posted by Johnseye

I would like to see an example. Losing color and becoming pale is an indication of bleaching, too much light not too little. If they became brown they would have had too little light.

they did become brown....AKA pale. listen man my corals are a very nice color now I have literally done nothing different other than change my lights you do the math. I don't need anyone trying to troubleshoot my tank i have no issues.

[jminick2]

new growth....under MH



when I bought it