lights 101

man you livin dangerous. who was that guy that use to race the enduro's for honda? summers i think his name was. he was on a 500. i use to have a pic of him with his huge trophey in one hand and his 500 up on his sholder w/ him holding it too. loved that poster. lol 500's aint no joke.
trying to be in control of something so radically out of control aint my bag.
fun to watch. some of those guys are amazing, some are just plain crazy. lol i think jeff "the chicken" however ya spell his last name, tried the 500 series for a while before his bad attitude and over driven mouth got him
zero sponsors and out of the race game altogether. i liked that guy. he was great to watch. ok ok ok i know REEF FORUM. :D
 
Scott Summers (XR600R) and Jeff Matiasevich. Matiasevich raced in Japan for a few years... the fans were shocked when they saw his big tribal tats on his back on shoulders... they are a sign of the Japanese Mob. Little PR nightmare for him there.

Summers used to curl his XR600... right at 300 pounds. Mine weighs 227 with one gallon of fuel in it and makes a few more horsepower. :)
 
ah, scott and it was a 600R. thanks for keeping me in check on that.
yes he did try japan didnt he? been a long time since i went to motocross.
i need to go this coming year. ive been once since jeremy retired.
i suck i know. hail the king!
 
Rick-

Barry makes a couple of good points...especially the one about 'not taking his word, as he has only been at this 10 months'...

...I will borrow from that wisdom by qualifying my statements the same way. I have been in the hobby 35 years, am an engineer and well versed in optics, lighting sources, design, yada yada yada... so don't take my word for it either. What I offer here is an informed opinion, at best.

What matters in this hobby, is what works. Anyone that has been in it for any length of time has been humbled, sometimes in spite of their experience, etc. So I encourage you to learn, as much as you can, and have a lot of fun doing so. That being said-

Most of our corals, the photosynthetic ones, contain symbiotic dinoflagellates (also called zooxanthellae) which also happen to contain algae. The zooxanthellae are very small animals that got captured by the corals, and are held prisoner for the purpose of providing food to the coral. The algae within them absorb light and ammonia, and in the process produce sugars which feed both the zooxanthellae and the coral. All that matters to them, is that they get enough of the right kind of light and nutrients, in an environment that is acceptable to them (ie- they can handle chemically and physically).

The link that 'Oldschool' referred you to is, in my opinion, the most comprehensive and balanced single source on reef lighting that I have read on the internet. http://www.americanaquariumproducts.com/Aquarium_Lighting.html">http://www.americanaquariumproducts.com/Aquarium_Lighting.html</a>
It does go into a great deal of detail, and for some that may be a little too much. However, if you want to really understand this stuff, it's all right there.

A few things to consider:

1) all that the coral/zooxanthellae/symbiotic algae really care about is how much of the correct wavelengths of light actually get to them. This is where Photosynthetically Active Radiation (PAR) comes in. PAR is a very good indicator that the spectrum and intensity are sufficient, though not perfect (I will not go into that here for brevity). Without a PAR meter, some use watts, watts per gallon, or other rules of thumb to guide them in selecting lights. Please remember also, that once an organism has adapted to a certain light spectrum and/or intensity, it generally will get upset if you abruptly change those conditions (ie-going from old bulbs to all new bulbs, or a new light system). Change bulbs individually, rather than all at once. Change things gradually!

2) a 'little' science...much less light is needed when the reflector/canopy is designed correctly. As you look at others tanks, notice how much light spills into the room/on the floor/walls, etc. That light does not grow coral! What we want is a canopy/reflector that 'focuses' the light on the bottom of the tank. Light intensity, or 'irradiance' as it is known (watts per square meter), conforms to the "inverse square law".

What does that mean?
Double the distance from light to object (coral), irradiance is 1/2;
Double it again, it is 1/4th;
...then 1/16,
...then 1/32, etc.
This is huge!

3) we all got into this hobby for different reasons, but chiefly among them I will wager it is due to the sheer beauty of the creatures we maintain. I want the light spectrum and resulting colors, to be pleasing to ME. Please keep this in mind when choosing your light sources/bulbs. I really like 6500k bulbs. It gives a good balance of colors, and is able to reproduce reds and oranges much better than 10k-20k bulbs. This is not just my opinion, but backed up by a lot of research as well. Reds and oranges are common in marine organisms, in part because these colors absorb blue and green light (I will not go into that here either). 6500k also, generally, gives the fastest growth rates. I do suppliment with actinic bulbs. In practice this means that the 'spectrum' I am using is no longer purely 6500k, but is 'blue shifted' by the actinic bulbs. I have provided a good source of Red-Orange-Yellow spectrum though, in the process.

Also to consider-
The human eye is most sensitive to green and then decreases as the spectrum shifts toward both the red portion and the blue portion of the light spectrum. The response 'curve' of the human eye looks like a typical bell shape with the peak in the green, falling off toward the reds and blues. Photosynthetic pigments are almost the exact opposite of this. They are least sensitive to green and peak in the blue and red portions.

What does that mean?
By selecting light sources rich in blues-greens and orange-reds you will 'kill two birds with one stone'. You provide the wavelengths that both your eye is least sensitive to (ie-they need), and that the photosynthetic pigments require as well. Good looking colors, with good growth! Win-win! Woo-hoo!!! Life does not offer too many of those. Can it get any better?

4) Evaluate the Color Rendering Index (CRI) rating of each light source you are considering. This is in essence, a color reproduction accuracy rating. CRI of 100 means the bulb reproduces colors the same as a natural or 'full spectrum' light source would (an oversimplification). Your corals will not give a flip about this, but your eyes will. Please refer to #3 above for further consideration.

5) opinions are many, and guarantees are few. As my Doctor told me once ..."this ain't Midas Muffler. There are no guarantees." We all stand on the shoulders of giants here. The 3 secrets to this hobby are to 1) learn 2) learn and 3) learn. Everyone in the hobby has something to share from their experiences. Just be careful in evaluating whether information is valid and/or if it applies to your situation. This applies to 'laypersons' as well as 'experts' and books.

My 2.5 cents, hope this helps...
happy reefing!
 
It sounds like you're on the right track with lighting. The best thing you are doing is trying to learn. Jenn is right with the moonlight thing, if you are adventurous open up your fixture and see if you have a loose connection and if you have a volt meter you can check across the LED. You should get about 12vdc. The LED usually will not burn out but besides a loose connection the power supply could have bit it or the switch went bad, unlikely but possible. And as far as Jenn, even though I've been doing the salt thing on and off for over 3 decades I learn stuff from her all the time, We have discussions on many subjects and sometimes have differences of opinion, but she always is there to help and makes you feel like you've been friends forever and not just a customer.
 
ichthyoid;399551 wrote: Rick-

Barry makes a couple of good points...especially the one about 'not taking his word, as he has only been at this 10 months'...

...I will borrow from that wisdom by qualifying my statements the same way. I have been in the hobby 35 years, am an engineer and well versed in optics, lighting sources, design, yada yada yada... so don't take my word for it either. What I offer here is an informed opinion, at best.

What matters in this hobby, is what works. Anyone that has been in it for any length of time has been humbled, sometimes in spite of their experience, etc. So I encourage you to learn, as much as you can, and have a lot of fun doing so. That being said-

Most of our corals, the photosynthetic ones, contain symbiotic dinoflagellates (also called zooxanthellae) which also happen to contain algae. The zooxanthellae are very small animals that got captured by the corals, and are held prisoner for the purpose of providing food to the coral. The algae within them absorb light and ammonia, and in the process produce sugars which feed both the zooxanthellae and the coral. All that matters to them, is that they get enough of the right kind of light and nutrients, in an environment that is acceptable to them (ie- they can handle chemically and physically).

The link that 'Oldschool' referred you to is, in my opinion, the most comprehensive and balanced single source on reef lighting that I have read on the internet. http://www.americanaquariumproducts.com/Aquarium_Lighting.html">http://www.americanaquariumproducts.com/Aquarium_Lighting.html</a>
It does go into a great deal of detail, and for some that may be a little too much. However, if you want to really understand this stuff, it's all right there.

A few things to consider:

1) all that the coral/zooxanthellae/symbiotic algae really care about is how much of the correct wavelengths of light actually get to them. This is where Photosynthetically Active Radiation (PAR) comes in. PAR is a very good indicator that the spectrum and intensity are sufficient, though not perfect (I will not go into that here for brevity). Without a PAR meter, some use watts, watts per gallon, or other rules of thumb to guide them in selecting lights. Please remember also, that once an organism has adapted to a certain light spectrum and/or intensity, it generally will get upset if you abruptly change those conditions (ie-going from old bulbs to all new bulbs, or a new light system). Change bulbs individually, rather than all at once. Change things gradually!

2) a 'little' science...much less light is needed when the reflector/canopy is designed correctly. As you look at others tanks, notice how much light spills into the room/on the floor/walls, etc. That light does not grow coral! What we want is a canopy/reflector that 'focuses' the light on the bottom of the tank. Light intensity, or 'irradiance' as it is known (watts per square meter), conforms to the "inverse square law".

What does that mean?
Double the distance from light to object (coral), irradiance is 1/2;
Double it again, it is 1/4th;
...then 1/16,
...then 1/32, etc.
This is huge!

3) we all got into this hobby for different reasons, but chiefly among them I will wager it is due to the sheer beauty of the creatures we maintain. I want the light spectrum and resulting colors, to be pleasing to ME. Please keep this in mind when choosing your light sources/bulbs. I really like 6500k bulbs. It gives a good balance of colors, and is able to reproduce reds and oranges much better than 10k-20k bulbs. This is not just my opinion, but backed up by a lot of research as well. Reds and oranges are common in marine organisms, in part because these colors absorb blue and green light (I will not go into that here either). 6500k also, generally, gives the fastest growth rates. I do suppliment with actinic bulbs. In practice this means that the 'spectrum' I am using is no longer purely 6500k, but is 'blue shifted' by the actinic bulbs. I have provided a good source of Red-Orange-Yellow spectrum though, in the process.

Also to consider-
The human eye is most sensitive to green and then decreases as the spectrum shifts toward both the red portion and the blue portion of the light spectrum. The response 'curve' of the human eye looks like a typical bell shape with the peak in the green, falling off toward the reds and blues. Photosynthetic pigments are almost the exact opposite of this. They are least sensitive to green and peak in the blue and red portions.

What does that mean?
By selecting light sources rich in blues-greens and orange-reds you will 'kill two birds with one stone'. You provide the wavelengths that both your eye is least sensitive to (ie-they need), and that the photosynthetic pigments require as well. Good looking colors, with good growth! Win-win! Woo-hoo!!! Life does not offer too many of those. Can it get any better?

4) Evaluate the Color Rendering Index (CRI) rating of each light source you are considering. This is in essence, a color reproduction accuracy rating. CRI of 100 means the bulb reproduces colors the same as a natural or 'full spectrum' light source would (an oversimplification). Your corals will not give a flip about this, but your eyes will. Please refer to #3 above for further consideration.

5) opinions are many, and guarantees are few. As my Doctor told me once ..."this ain't Midas Muffler. There are no guarantees." We all stand on the shoulders of giants here. The 3 secrets to this hobby are to 1) learn 2) learn and 3) learn. Everyone in the hobby has something to share from their experiences. Just be careful in evaluating whether information is valid and/or if it applies to your situation. This applies to 'laypersons' as well as 'experts' and books.

My 2.5 cents, hope this helps...
happy reefing![/QUOTE]

Well Done!
 
Here is another great link for lighting info. This guy, Tom Murphy (aka 'Waterkeeper'), not only does a great job of explaining complex subject matter, but has a great sense of humor too. In this hobby, that is always a good thing (IMO).

http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2007-12/newbie/index.php">http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2007-12/newbie/index.php</a>

Also, I have found that Jenn at ImagineOcean is not only knowledgeable, friendly and balanced/open minded. She has a perspective that few of the rest of us have ever shared. She has had to put food on the table from this 'hobby'. Opinions are much easier to come by when they don't cost anything!

As for your questions on skimmers, here is a good link for that. I am not sure that I agree with everything, but most of this makes a lot of sense to me. I had a chance to buy P. R. Escobal's book-[B][I]Aquatic Systems Engineering: Devices and How They Function</em>[/B], which is mentioned. When I finally decided I wanted it, it was out of publication:( If anyone has a copy, and wants to loan it to me, I would be interested in a 'barter' to make it worth their while. Some of this, unfortunately, does read like a science book.

[IMG]http://www.hawkfish.org/snailman/skimmer101.htm">http://www.hawkfish.org/snailman/skimmer101.htm</a>

When they speak about 'polar and non-polar molecules', think oil and water. Polar loves water, non-polar hates water (like oil). That should keep most people out of the weeds, without having to take Organic Chemistry.

Happy reading!
 
yep this has again become WAY over my head.
im trying to learn not only for myself but one day there might be a newcomer that asks questions and maybe i'll have the answer for once. lol
but the light thing has me a tad confused.
cant wait til i bring up my CFL lights. i know theres mixed opinions on those big time too.
i agree with your comment on jenn. she has her finger on the pulse.
she has helped me more than a few times. as ive said before, good people
there at imagine ocean.
 
It was all over all of our heads at some point. We all learn differently, and we all have different passions/areas of interest.

A couple of pearls that have served me well...

-Knowledge, like cake, is extremely difficult to consume in one bite

-Patience is the MOST important ingredient ever put into an aquarium

As for lighting, I would recommend finding a system that is pleasing for YOU to look at and that keeps the critters happy!
 
I may have missed it and if I did....I'm sorry....but I didn't see anybody note that the sun operates at between 10,000 and 14,000k (depeding on proximity to the equator and time of year, ie...rotation of the earth around the sun) so to best replicate true sunlight...you need to be in at least that spectrum. Don't know if this ancedote is true any longer or not but there used to be a number of watts/per gallon formula. Isn't it somewhere approaching 6 to 9 watts per gallon?
 
ok my 30 has the t5 ho.
its just kinda holding my corals until i get my 50 with the CFL drilled and running. the 30 will end up going back to a fowlr to keep the engineer goby and such. the 50 will house the corals. these two tanks will be my learning tanks. then i'll go big once i feel comfortable with everything.
dont want to spend more money than i have by buying things i dont need.
a bigger tank will have MH's for sure. the 50 is my learning coral tank.
with all the fuss over which lights are best i gotta learn to make what i have already work. the 50 was bought from a LFS used. a doc office that they care for wanted something bigger. they said that the 50 held corals and did very well. the lights inside are 96watt.
 
5800-6700k is generally accepted as atmospheric solar color temp at the equator, depending on cloud cover (Handbook of Physics and Chemistry; also NOAA data). I have seen references of ~7500k for 'polar spectral conditions'. Never seen 12000-14000k referred to (in this context), except underwater after sunlight has been attenuated due to absorption and scattering by the water, minerals and particulates. My references include books on marine algae and seawater published both domestically and at Cambridge U.K. If you have a reference that I may refer to, I would be very interested in reading it. Below are a couple of quick Wiki links on sunlight.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight</a>

[IMG]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_temperature">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_temperature</a>

While I am open minded, I have studied this topic pretty intensively for 12-15 years. If there is valid information/data I am unaware of I would love to read it. I don't claim to be an 'expert', and in fact loath that word. Just looking to learn something new, if possible. Thanks.
 
dawgdude;399759 wrote: I heard it was between 5000-6500ish personally. However, any diver knows that the color spectrum drops off starting in the red end first leaving only blue light towards the end. I am wondering how many reefs are actually deep enough that 20kk lighting isnt actually closets to natural for the light they actually receive.

This is exactly why I supplement with actinics. I use the 'white light' bulbs for both my eyes and the chlorophyll 'A' pigment. Other forms of chlorophyll (b, c, d, e) and peridinin function as 'accessory pigments' and help chlorophyll 'a' be more efficient by utilizing what's available (blue and blue-green underwater). Peridinin is the dominant pigment found in dinoflagellates/zooxanthellae. This is why we could not keep corals/anemones/etc. alive until the 'super actinic bulb' came into use. Primary output 420-430 nanometer wavelength.

a>
 
ichthyoid;399775 wrote: This is exactly why I supplement with actinics. I use the 'white light' bulbs for both my eyes and the chlorophyll 'A' pigment. Other forms of chlorophyll (b, c, d, e) and peridinin function as 'accessory pigments' and help chlorophyll 'a' be more efficient by utilizing what's available (blue and blue-green underwater). Peridinin is the dominant pigment found in dinoflagellates/zooxanthellae. This is why we could not keep corals/anemones/etc. alive until the 'super actinic bulb' came into use. Primary output 420-430 nanometer wavelength.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peridinin">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peridinin</a>[/QUOTE]


It used to be virtually impossible to keep corals/etc. alive, with the exception of using metal halides, of course. The problem I have with metal halides, from an engineering philosophy point of view is, you create 3 problems in order to solve 1 (heat, need chiller, expense/bulb changes). That is not an elegant/efficient solution to the problem of supplying sufficient light of proper spectrum.
 
ichthyoid;399778 wrote: It used to be virtually impossible to keep corals/etc. alive, with the exception of using metal halides, of course. The problem I have with metal halides, from an engineering philosophy point of view is, you create 3 problems in order to solve 1 (heat, need chiller, expense/bulb changes). That is not an elegant/efficient solution to the problem of supplying sufficient light of proper spectrum.

Well, while I see your point, there is an angle to the expense argument. Yes, bulbs are more expensive.... but I can replace my 2 MH bulbs every year a lot less expensively than I can change 6-8 T5 bulbs.

Also, while I do have a chiller, I can keep my tank cool enough with 2 4" fans in the canopy. I only hear the chiller run in the hot summer, and if I didn't set my controller to maintain 80.5 I don't think I would actually need it at all.

Thanks for your input to the thread, it is nice to see people as knowledgeable as yourself help others.
 
Thanks for your kind words. This, to me, is the essence of communities like this. Sharing our knowledge and experiences. Socrates had it right with 'the forum'. It's only taken us 3000 years to rediscover that! I used to belong to the 'Atlanta Aquarium Society' (I think that was what it was called). We used to have Dana Riddle, Albert Thiel and Noel Curry come to meetings regularly. It was a small, but very knowledgeable group. All very giving of themselves and their knowledge. I was in awe!

One of these days I will get my better half to explain to me how PayPal works and I will join up.

What this hobby needs is a high efficiency light source, with well designed lumenaries/reflectors/canopies (whatever you would like to call 'em) and a long bulb life, say 30,000 hours with &gt;80% lumen maintenance.

Hey, here's an idea. Let's try LED's. $3000... not in my budget (I can't afford that AND the divorce lawyer!). But seriously, there are LED bulbs and lamps coming out that are promising to revolutionize reef lighting. 150-300 lumens per watt have been quoted. Cost?...

How about the promised sulfur lamp...have no idea of $$$...

I'm working on 'Induction Flourescents'. No more electrodes to degrade and cause premature lamp failure. Supposed to have both high lumen maintenance and spectral fidelity vs lifetime. Very efficient electrically. &gt;100 lumens per watt. 50,000 hour bulb life, which is 13+ years at 10 hours per day! Not bad, not bad! This hobby may go green yet!

We will see...
 
Back
Top