Go Back   Aquarium Advice - Aquarium Forum Community > General Aquarium Forums > General Hardware/Equipment Discussion
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 09-30-2005, 09:38 AM   #11
Aquarium Advice Addict
 
revhtree's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Rossville. Ga
Posts: 4,500
IMHO...Humble opinion.....

The reason I have a tank is for my enjoyment. I believe if I am not doing anything to harm the inhabitants of my tank, then I am going to get what looks good to me.
14k or 15k is not going to kill your corals. They will grow slower maybe, than with the 10k. Then again if my water conditions are better than yours with the 6500k, I am going to get better growth with the 15k anyway...

Now I know this didnt address your question exactly, but to me it boils down to what I am going to be happy with. You had mentioned you wasnt sure you would like that yellow color.....You need to be happy with what it looks like. Whats the point in growing faster corals if everytime you look at the tank you think, "man that yellow sure is ugly."

I also deeply understand where Steve is coming from. It is a choice that you must make and be able to live with. For Gosh sake man, it's your reef were talking about here!!! :P
__________________

__________________
Remember to Keep Christ First!
revhtree is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-30-2005, 11:14 AM   #12
steve-s
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by DragonForce
Not to hijack the thread, but steve, do you think 20 watts of actinic supplementing would give me a nice look in addition to my 175 MH 10k in a 37 gal as well as be sufficient for corals?
I wouldn't use an NO type bulb personally. You will end up with the same/similar spectrum shifts as the kelvin rated bulbs. Go with the appropriate VHO, PC true actinic or T5 bulb suitable for your tank length. You'll get much better "umf" as the NO will have a tough time competing with the intensity of the MH. Don't worry about the output of a higher wattage actinic in relation to the MH usage, it's impact overall will be minimal. Just be sure the tank gets photo acclimated if adjusting the intensity upwards.

Cheers
Steve
__________________
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-30-2005, 12:17 PM   #13
Aquarium Advice Activist
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 192
Thank-you very much for all of your valuable opinions. I really like the blue look but want to take good care of my reef. I will go to several different LFS and examine what their tanks look like under different color MH bulbs... I guess that I'll need to study them first hand. Coral growth seems very slow with my present 20,000K MH. If I go with the 10,000K and it is too yellow, I can always replace my 10,000K PC with another set of actinics. One more question... if I do change to 10,000K or 14,000K MH, what type oy photo acclimation procedures should I use (if any)? The "screen method"? or is photo acclimation even necessary when switching to a lower color temp, yet same wattage bulb?
__________________
IndyReefMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-30-2005, 12:34 PM   #14
AA Team Emeritus
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 7,224
Send a message via Yahoo to Hara
I sometimes wonder if slower coral growth is really such a bad thing. ...If the corals are healthy and "big enough" for you, what is wrong with slowing the growth and having a tank you like the appearance of?
__________________
Hara is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-30-2005, 05:13 PM   #15
Aquarium Advice Activist
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 192
Quote:
I sometimes wonder if slower coral growth is really such a bad thing. ...If the corals are healthy and "big enough" for you, what is wrong with slowing the growth and having a tank you like the appearance of?
Very good point. After having my reef set-up for just over a year now, it still looks like a mountain of live rock with corals just sitting on display. In other words, it doesn't look very natural. I want a little more growth so that the corals will start to "fill-in" and look like a more natural reef. I picked up a book called "ultimate marine aquariums"-- a fantastic book for those of you not familiar with it. Those folks have gotten their reefs to look very natural. I just haven't had the growth to be able to do that. Then again, it's only been set-up for a year. Maybe I'm just being impatient.
__________________
IndyReefMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-30-2005, 10:56 PM   #16
Aquarium Advice Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: philadelphia. PA.
Posts: 2,679
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hara
I sometimes wonder if slower coral growth is really such a bad thing. ... what is wrong with slowing the growth and having a tank you like the appearance of?
I see what your saying, but it is always nice to have a frag to exchange for a credit at the LFS. I would love for my tank to be partially self sufficient cost wise...maybe some day lol.
__________________
Mike
MT79 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2005, 10:29 AM   #17
Aquarium Advice Addict
 
lando's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Savage, MN
Posts: 7,889
Interesting thread. I just order a MH fixture with 2x175watt 20K bulbs and 2x96watt Actinic CF. I am very worried this will be too blue for my tastes. Appearance aside, is there anything detrimental about using 20K bulbs?
__________________
Some people are like slinkies...they serve no real purpose yet can still bring a smile to your face when you push them down the stairs!:p
Have a great day! Brian
lando is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2005, 10:33 AM   #18
AA Team Emeritus
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 7,224
Send a message via Yahoo to Hara
I loved the look when I had all three 250 watt bulbs being 20k.
__________________
Hara is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2005, 11:00 AM   #19
Aquarium Advice Addict
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Central Kentucky
Posts: 6,015
Send a message via AIM to greenmaji
When Steve said 6500-6700K I was thinking planted tank and was a bit taken back with it.. I personly think that 6500K looks a little blue (I actually wouldnt mind and might like the look).. I still thought that the coarls needed the 03 for growth or heath sake. If not, is it just for the viewing the floresence? The HQI 6500K Iwasaki MH bulb seems to be a great performer from the posts (to articles) Ive seen here, is it the color of it that keeps people from using it more often (they dont make a 175W version of the Iwasaki from what I can tell but if it performs so well PAR wise couldn't you go with a 150W instead)?
__________________
greenmaji is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2005, 01:51 PM   #20
steve-s
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by lando
Appearance aside, is there anything detrimental about using 20K bulbs?
Not really no. Other than reduced coral growth, the health of the coral is generally not impacted although coral coloration may vary. It is extremely important that when increasing kelvin as with intensity the corals are allowed to adjust gradually over time. The "screen" method being the most effective. It allows the photoperiod to remain the same but the corals are given the opportunity to adjust to the changes otherwise gradually without significant impact. Kelvin increases can be just as damaging as light intesity increases. Bluer kelvins are not the same as actinic in that regard.


Quote:
Originally Posted by greenmaji
I still thought that the coarls needed the 03 for growth or heath sake. If not, is it just for the viewing the floresence?
Actinic lighting is purely ascetic, there is little to no benefit to photosynthetic life other than added light intensity. Tanks without 03 supplimentation are no worse or better off without it. It's merely a matter of preference. Reef hobbyist tend to augment the light to their taste over that of the corals though in terms of MH K's.


Quote:
The HQI 6500K Iwasaki MH bulb seems to be a great performer from the posts (to articles) Ive seen here, is it the color of it that keeps people from using it more often (they dont make a 175W version of the Iwasaki from what I can tell but if it performs so well PAR wise couldn't you go with a 150W instead)?
More commonly it's a visual preference that keeps people from using the lower kelvin bulbs. If using strictly MH without 03 supps, the light output is very yellow and can make a tank look dank & dingey. This is where people often opt for higher K's to offset the yellow color. It terms of the corals preference, the 6500 will provide the best environment for coral growth and often color. It's easy enough to add the necessary 03 supps to alter the "visual" perspective so the hobbyist can enjoy it as well. Cost is usually the only limiting factor.

Cheers
Steve
__________________
  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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
20,000k MH with no actinic? anthony.grimes General Hardware/Equipment Discussion 8 08-07-2007 04:58 PM
20,000K lights steve r Saltwater & Reef - Identification 2 11-26-2004 03:05 PM
MH 250W 14,000K Salttanker Saltwater Reef Aquaria 2 10-25-2004 07:52 PM
6700K VS 10,000K saltynewb Saltwater Reef Aquaria 7 09-03-2004 11:26 AM
10,000K vs. 20,000K Halides Electrobes Saltwater Reef Aquaria 7 12-18-2003 02:23 PM







» Photo Contest Winners








Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:45 PM.


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