Go Back   Aquarium Advice - Aquarium Forum Community > Saltwater and Reef > Saltwater & Reef - Getting Started
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 07-19-2002, 12:16 AM   #11
Aquarium Advice FINatic
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Western NY
Posts: 610
Send a message via ICQ to Bang Guy
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefrunner69
One thing I do not know, nor has anyone (yes I've asked you, Guy) ever explained to me, is PAR. I know it is very important, but I also know that it isn't printed on the label of the bulbs, or is it? I know the initials are an acronym for photosynthetic ???? Radiation.
PAR = Photosynthetic Active Radiation. Unfortunately it's not listed on the bulb or in any bulb specs. You have to find someone with a PAR meter that is willing to give up some time to test a bulb.

When explaining lighting to a new hobbiest I like how you do it Kevin, just say yup that should work or nope I don't think so. Anyone wanting to grow Acropora at the bottom of a 2' high tank is just going to have to use MH 400+ watts. Anyone wanting intense light in a 20 gal is just going to have to use PC. All lighting that I've seen has a great use and I don't believe any of them work best in all situations. Watts per gallon is a WAG pretty much like anything else. Anyone who has had reef tanks in the past probably already know what they're looking for next.

Back to PAR but first... I used to be a really big fan of PUR - Photosynthetic Useable Radiation. PUR has two peaks one near 430nm and the other at 670nm. I've since discovered (through the works of several modern Coral scientists) that these two peaks are only slightly higher in quality for corals, specifically Zoox. (Kevin spelled that word for me once but I'll never remember it!)
Zoox can redily adapt to any light in the PAR range it's just that light in the PUR range is easier to convert to energy.

PAR is light including all in the visible range and just a little beyond. about 420-680nm. This range corresponds to the light that can be used by Zooxanthelle (sp?? LOL) according the the latest research.

My problem with Lumens is this. Take two bulbs; bulb one puts out all light at 550nm (theoretically) The other, bulb 2, puts out light at two peaks 430 and 670nm. They will look similar in color, the second will look dimmer and have almost NO Lumens. The first will register on a Lux meter as being 100 times brighter. They both put out the same amount of PAR but the second will have 100 times more PUR.

This is why I'm such a big fan of URI VHO bulbs and the Iwasaki Mercury Vapor bulbs. That does NOT mean I think this type of lighting is better... it just means I like it better for MY tanks.
__________________

__________________
If you wake up breathing CONGRATULATIONS!!! You get another chance to do it right.
Bang Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2002, 07:45 AM   #12
AA Team Emeritus
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,256
Send a message via ICQ to fishfreek Send a message via AIM to fishfreek Send a message via MSN to fishfreek Send a message via Yahoo to fishfreek
Thanks for that explnation.

Personally I dont think I have ever heard of PAR or PUR used in the context of lighting.

I would have to ask this question then. If one was to compair 10K bulbs of each type would that be a fair representation? If a chart could be done showing the output of different types of 10K bulbs. Either try to make the intensities match or make the wattage match as best as possible and show how different bulb's have different intensities at the same or less wattages.
__________________

__________________
Remember dont tap the glass, your fish will think you're an idiot -Anonymous mother

Check out our articles area. 30+ Aquatic articles for your enjoyment
Are you in or around the Shenandoah Valley area? If so click here to join our regional forum.
fishfreek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2002, 08:26 AM   #13
AA Team Emeritus
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,256
Send a message via ICQ to fishfreek Send a message via AIM to fishfreek Send a message via MSN to fishfreek Send a message via Yahoo to fishfreek
This is another page from the link that blueabyss posted. It talks about PAR and other stuff. In your options is this accurate in what its saying?

http://www.coralreefecosystems.com/l...nical_data.htm
__________________
Remember dont tap the glass, your fish will think you're an idiot -Anonymous mother

Check out our articles area. 30+ Aquatic articles for your enjoyment
Are you in or around the Shenandoah Valley area? If so click here to join our regional forum.
fishfreek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2002, 09:55 AM   #14
Aquarium Advice Regular
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Western PA
Posts: 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishfreek
I would have to ask this question then. If one was to compair 10K bulbs of each type would that be a fair representation? If a chart could be done showing the output of different types of 10K bulbs. Either try to make the intensities match or make the wattage match as best as possible and show how different bulb's have different intensities at the same or less wattages.
All bulb comparisons from manufacturers, IMO, need to be taken with a grain of salt.

In order for a comparison to have ANY meaning, more information must be presented as to how the tests were preformed.

Color temps and wattages of all the bulbs should be matched as closely as possible. Comparing a 6500k Iwasaki to a 20,000k Radium is nonsense.

Operating temperatures must be controlled. All bulbs have a temperature window where they operate most efficiently. While maintaining this temperature in the real world may be nearly impossible, some attempt should be made to at least equalize a temperature during testing so as to simulate real world conditions.

Ballasts.... ballasts have the biggest impact on light intensity. The same bulb run on 3 different ballasts will give off 3 entirely different readings. Close attention must be paid to the ballast factor rating provided with all fluorescent ballasts. This will determine whether the bulb will be over or under driven.

Just for the record, I'd like to say that, I have never used an Icecap, I don't know how they work, and to be perfectly honest, I would never spend the money that they want for them.

Presently, I'm using MH's, NO fluorescents, overdriven NO fluorescents, VHO fluorescents and PC's. The only preference I have, is that I like the way the MH's look over all the others. Other than that coral and plant growth seem to be great with any kind of lights.
__________________
Bob Ashcraft
Bob Ashcraft is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2002, 10:08 AM   #15
AA Team Emeritus
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,256
Send a message via ICQ to fishfreek Send a message via AIM to fishfreek Send a message via MSN to fishfreek Send a message via Yahoo to fishfreek
I am curoius about where you saw a compairson of 6500k Iwasaki to a 20,000k Radium is nonsense.

The only place I can remember seeing this was on the link that blueabyss posted but that page was intended to show color differences and nothing else.



Kevin and myself would be more than willing to post a better compairson if we can find one or if someone could point us to one on the web. If there is one on the web I will pesue getting permission to either link to it or to repost it here.
__________________
Remember dont tap the glass, your fish will think you're an idiot -Anonymous mother

Check out our articles area. 30+ Aquatic articles for your enjoyment
Are you in or around the Shenandoah Valley area? If so click here to join our regional forum.
fishfreek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2002, 10:18 AM   #16
Aquarium Advice Regular
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Western PA
Posts: 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishfreek
I am curoius about where you saw a compairson of 6500k Iwasaki to a 20,000k Radium is nonsense.

The only place I can remember seeing this was on the link that blueabyss posted but that page was intended to show color differences and nothing else.
This was my point. I should've expanded more.

A comparison between these 2 bulbs for anything other than visible color would be nonsense.
__________________
Bob Ashcraft
Bob Ashcraft is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2002, 01:55 PM   #17
Aquarium Advice FINatic
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Western NY
Posts: 610
Send a message via ICQ to Bang Guy
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishfreek
This is another page from the link that blueabyss posted. It talks about PAR and other stuff. In your options is this accurate in what its saying?

http://www.coralreefecosystems.com/l...nical_data.htm
Yep. That's great information! i wish they went a bit further in the definition of lumens but that wasn't their purpose.

They didn't list the actual bulbs used unfortunately but I believe it's accurate for comparison purposes between PC and VHO.

I like it. I hope someone expands on their starting point.
__________________
If you wake up breathing CONGRATULATIONS!!! You get another chance to do it right.
Bang Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2002, 05:19 PM   #18
Aquarium Advice Apprentice
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Posts: 30
Send a message via ICQ to BlueAbyss Send a message via MSN to BlueAbyss Send a message via Yahoo to BlueAbyss
we have used it alot, to explain to people why if they want a MH the ones at lowes just aren't "right" for aquariums. what are they 4200K or so. and how big of an impact lighting can make on how your tank looks. Sorry if the chart caused some confusion, I didn't mean for it to do that. We like our tank white, with a hnt of blue. I've seen the pinkish bulbs in catalogs but aside from on there have never seen one in use. has anyone else?
__________________
Jenn & John Durden
Blue Abyss Aquatics
Tallahassee, FL
http://www.blueabyss.net/
BlueAbyss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2002, 07:01 PM   #19
AA Team Emeritus
 
reefrunner69's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Cedar Key, FL
Posts: 1,663
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Ashcraft
All bulb comparisons from manufacturers, IMO, need to be taken with a grain of salt.
Agreed, it says so on the chart.

Quote:
In order for a comparison to have ANY meaning, more information must be presented as to how the tests were preformed.
While I agree that for any comparison to have significant meaning it needs more info presented, I do not agree that it will have no meaning. As stated in a previous my intention in posting the lighting comparison chart, was to debunk the "watts per gallon" lighting method that is so popular in this hobby. I think it does that to an extent.

Quote:
Color temps and wattages of all the bulbs should be matched as closely as possible. Comparing a 6500k Iwasaki to a 20,000k Radium is nonsense.
I said as much in the disclaimer on the chart.

Quote:
Operating temperatures must be controlled. All bulbs have a temperature window where they operate most efficiently. While maintaining this temperature in the real world may be nearly impossible, some attempt should be made to at least equalize a temperature during testing so as to simulate real world conditions.
I did not realize the light was a product of the heat, but that the heat was a byproduct of the light, the more light, the more heat.

Quote:
Ballasts.... ballasts have the biggest impact on light intensity. The same bulb run on 3 different ballasts will give off 3 entirely different readings. Close attention must be paid to the ballast factor rating provided with all fluorescent ballasts. This will determine whether the bulb will be over or under driven.
What should be looked for, what will be the consequences of overdiving the bulb (aside from increased intensity) or underdriving?

Quote:
Just for the record, I'd like to say that, I have never used an Icecap, I don't know how they work, and to be perfectly honest, I would never spend the money that they want for them.
I have found Icecap ballasts to be one of the most versatile and reliable ballasts on the market today, but whatever works for you. I am interested to know how you are overdriving you NO flos. I seem to remember a post about this on another board, but didn't quite follow it.....
__________________
Kevin

Visit Nature Coast Photography
reefrunner69 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2002, 07:10 PM   #20
AA Team Emeritus
 
reefrunner69's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Cedar Key, FL
Posts: 1,663
This thread has been upgraded to a sticky, so it will stay on the front page of the general discussion forum and a link to this thread has been placed in the original Lighting Comparison Chart, as well as more disclaimer info.
__________________

__________________
reefrunner69 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
light, lighting

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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Lighting comparison ohsnapzitzmeng General Hardware/Equipment Discussion 2 05-20-2009 12:50 AM
comparison of compact fluorescent lighting fixtures Island Boy Freshwater & Brackish - Planted Tanks 6 08-09-2005 08:38 PM
lighting comparison vho vs. power compact skennelly Saltwater Reef Aquaria 12 11-21-2004 06:24 PM
Lighting comparison: T-5, PC, HO, NO, VHO...need advice Patwa General Hardware/Equipment Discussion 1 10-04-2004 07:04 PM
New Bulbs, lighting comparison pics Hara Saltwater Reef Aquaria 8 11-23-2003 01:55 PM







» Photo Contest Winners








Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:33 PM.


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