Go Back   Aquarium Advice - Aquarium Forum Community > Saltwater and Reef > Saltwater Reef Aquaria
Click Here to Login

Join Aquarium Advice Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Please support our sponsors and let them know you heard about them on AquariumAdvice.com
 
Old 09-26-2003, 03:48 PM   #21
Aquarium Advice Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: wis
Posts: 1,433
Send a message via MSN to alrmc4
as a ps to my already long post i bought a clam last night that better do well under my lights 8O and i love the light so far completely satisfied will let you know if i ever feel it was not the best choice for me.
__________________

__________________
-------------------------------
lor
like pictures? visit
http://www.shutterbugs-gallery.com/forum/portal.php
alrmc4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2003, 04:35 PM   #22
Aquarium Advice Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Cleveland, Oh. USA
Posts: 2,158
Send a message via AIM to ReefRaff Send a message via MSN to ReefRaff Send a message via Yahoo to ReefRaff
speaking of clams, futuretence, if I wanted to penetrate 13" of water from 4-6" off the surface with a metal halide, enough to support a clam on the sand bed, would I need a 150,175, or 250w MH?
__________________

ReefRaff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2003, 04:48 PM   #23
AA Team Emeritus
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 7,224
Send a message via Yahoo to Hara
Glad your lights are working well for you alrmc4. I am sure it was the right choice for you and what YOU want for your tank.
__________________
Hara is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2003, 04:56 PM   #24
AA Team Emeritus
 
reefrunner69's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Cedar Key, FL
Posts: 1,663
Quote:
Originally Posted by gooyferret
So lets think, we have the sun millions of miles away. Is it more a MH or a T5HO, i know what your thinking its a MH because of the single point of light. 8O Oh im digging myself in the hole now but wait its not a MH its more like a T5 because of the fact is
#1 the distance
#2 and it covers millions of square miles of ocean light is distributed evenly acrossed.

Heres another thought:
I have not seen any photometric reports on a MH for aquarium fixture use from my work or never have seen it on the net.
but what i have gotten is:

400 watt MH puts out 26,200 lumens.

6 bulb 54watt T5HO puts out 30,390 lumens
First off the comparison with the sun is utter and total hogwash!! Provide the MH with enough wattage and raise it high enough off the tank....it is oviously a closer mimic to the characteristics of the sun. Neither will ever compare in intensity to the sun. BTW, the lumens are barely more than worthless, unless you know the par of each individual bulb...you cannot say which is "better", if there is such a thing. It is important to remember that with each lighting breakthrough, it adds another tool in our arsenal. Each has a use, some are suited to certain things better than others. It is my opinion that any tank over 24" tall should have nothing less than 400W MHs on it, if you want to keep corals, anemones or clams that have any need for moderate to high light. For shallower depths, the choices just keep getting better and more abundant.

Quote:
Im sorry but i would have to disagree and let me explain. The first part is talking about depth of tank, well depth will matter and the water is the factor of that, not the lighting or lumen output. I know what your trying to argue but its still not relevant. Lets think about the sun for a minute for me to better explain. We all know the sun is the most abuntant and powerful light source their will ever be
The depth of the tank is extremely relevant, as well as the distance of the light from the water. Both the distance from the water and the depth of the water will reduce the amount of light that reaches the bottom of the tank.

A pinpoint source of light will penetrate further into the water than light that is spread out along 4ft of bulb. You want to use lumens...400W MH 26,200 lumens, 6 t5 hos does 30,000 (at lower K ratings which will provide more lumens, your figures are wrong), at the bottom of a 30" tank....the MH will provide more PAR and more lumens than the t5 hos. Simply because that is what it is designed to do.

FWIW, clams can be done in PC, VHO, t5 ho (I assume) or MH, provided the intensity is high enough. Most recommend MH only for clams.

Joey, if you want MH and you only do one...pick which side you want to put it on, 55g has a center brace that will cast one hell of a shadow with one MH centered over the tank. With centerbraces it's 2,3,4 whatever it takes to provide tank coverage.
__________________
Kevin

Visit Nature Coast Photography
reefrunner69 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2003, 04:58 PM   #25
AA Team Emeritus
 
reefrunner69's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Cedar Key, FL
Posts: 1,663
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReefRaff
speaking of clams, futuretence, if I wanted to penetrate 13" of water from 4-6" off the surface with a metal halide, enough to support a clam on the sand bed, would I need a 150,175, or 250w MH?
In 13" of water you could probably get away with a 70W MH. So any of the above...
__________________
Kevin

Visit Nature Coast Photography
reefrunner69 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2003, 05:02 PM   #26
Aquarium Advice Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: wis
Posts: 1,433
Send a message via MSN to alrmc4
thanks hara exactly what i was saying a personal choice for me so far great still holding off final opinion because have only had them a few months imo time will tell.
__________________
-------------------------------
lor
like pictures? visit
http://www.shutterbugs-gallery.com/forum/portal.php
alrmc4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2003, 05:18 PM   #27
Aquarium Advice FINatic
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 643
Send a message via MSN to possum Send a message via Yahoo to possum
Thanks kevin. And everyone else. I hate to say it but now my wife has decided to convert the 125 to our saltwater tank 8O 8O
__________________
possum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2003, 07:03 PM   #28
Aquarium Advice Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: wis
Posts: 1,433
Send a message via MSN to alrmc4
smart lady 8)
__________________
-------------------------------
lor
like pictures? visit
http://www.shutterbugs-gallery.com/forum/portal.php
alrmc4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2003, 11:18 PM   #29
Aquarium Advice FINatic
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Mankato MN
Posts: 863
Send a message via MSN to gooyferret Send a message via Yahoo to gooyferret
I am in total agreement with reefrunner, ya im totally off on the sun aspect of light but i was merely using that as an example that light is scattered more by a metal halide than a flouresent. From what i have understood in my work and dealing with bulb companies is that HO are measured from the inch of perspective when testing the lumen output of a bulb. JIME
Quote:
The depth of the tank is extremely relevant, as well as the distance of the light from the water. Both the distance from the water and the depth of the water will reduce the amount of light that reaches the bottom of the tank.
I also agree that distance from water and depth of tank are relevant and have never said differently.!
Quote:
A pinpoint source of light will penetrate further into the water than light that is spread out along 4ft of bulb. You want to use lumens...400W MH 26,200 lumens, 6 t5 hos does 30,000 (at lower K ratings which will provide more lumens, your figures are wrong), at the bottom of a 30" tank....the MH will provide more PAR and more lumens than the t5 hos. Simply because that is what it is designed to do.
One thing i dont think anyone has taken into consideration is the reflection effects of MH though. A MH could lose up to47% of light entering the water because of the pinpoint fact that RR has brought up. A T5HO and all flourescents wont loss near as much considering the fact that they spread across the tank giving it a hugher difference on light entering the tank.
http://www.seafriends.org.nz/phgraph/water.htm
Quote:
You want to use lumens...400W MH 26,200 lumens, 6 t5 hos does 30,000 (at lower K ratings which will provide more lumens, your figures are wrong), at the bottom of a 30" tank....the MH will provide more PAR and more lumens than the t5 hos. Simply because that is what it is designed to do.

This depends on what bulbs your stating and talking about. And MH where never designed for aquarium use they were first introduced for manufactures not aquarium use. Granted MH bulbs are now being produced for aquarium use as kelvin stand point, but not strictly made for aquariums.
HTH
JME
__________________
" 'TAP TAP TAP'...Here fishy fishy fishy"
gooyferret is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2003, 11:41 PM   #30
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Ok, I have read this and I have to disagree with the Flourescents being good because of, as it has been put "even" output... Whether T5, NO, CF, HO, VHO, the fact still remains the same that Metal Halide gives off the better PAR and intensity we strive to get, even at 30" depths... Please relax your mind and read this Feature article at Advanced Aquarists web site...It might fill in some of the gaps...BTW it does not mention T-5's but still has valuable data and gives a good reference to make a decision on buying the right lighting...

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issu...03/feature.htm
__________________
  Reply With Quote
Reply

Please support our sponsors and let them know you heard about them on AquariumAdvice.com

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off








» Photo Contest Winners








Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:31 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.