Hey guys, I have been researching and debating this issue for awhile. I have a 45 gallon hex tank, which is about 23 inches from light to sand bed, I have since moved this to about 28 inches for experimentation purposes. I am running a K2-viper 150 HQI MH with 16k phoenix bulb. I haven't notice much growth in my rics although they have been in the process of splitting for awhile. I have also had some problems with zoas and keeping them healthy. However, my yellow starbursts grow like weeds. I recently bought an XL aussy elegance. After about a day it opened up beautifully, I placed it on the sand bed at the edge of the rockwork. I then fed it a silverside one day and since then it hasn't been opening fully. I'm not sure if it is my lighting or the fact that I fed it. I ran through my water tests and did a water change. It has only been like this for a few days, so I was wondering if you thought the 150 was enough, or if I should supplement with an actinic, or if i should move the 150 up a ways. Thanks in advance!
Do you think I need more or Less light?
- Thread starter knapp870
- Start date
thereefersspot
Member
how many watts per gallon? and how long have you been waiting for the rics to split
LPS_Blasto
Member
Thats about 3.3w per gallon. You should be able to keep zoas and mushrooms under that light. The elegance.. I'm not sure. The old rule of thumb was minimum 4w per gallon. If you stepped up to a 250w light you'd be up in the 5.5w per gallon range. Thats better IMO.
KodiakBear
Active Member
jumping in on this one: how does the Watt per gallon "rule" apply to an array of LED's?
LPS_Blasto
Member
No idea. Never even seen an LED setup
TylerHaworth
Active Member
Watts per gallon is an outdated and irrelevant rating that really can't be applied to modern aquarium lighting... One would be far better off to just ignore it altogether, and search for PAR ratings instead.
LPS_Blasto
Member
I disagree.
Watts per gallon has been used as a general rule of thumb for many many years. It still has relevance when considering MH, PC or T5 lighting.
Watts per gallon has been used as a general rule of thumb for many many years. It still has relevance when considering MH, PC or T5 lighting.
jpsika08
Well-Known Member
Consider how much light will penetrate to the sand bed, as Eric stated above, 250 watts is the minimum for your tank, 150 watts are for a height up to 18"
Here is a good read,
Lamp Size Guide
Here is a good read,
Lamp Size Guide
TylerHaworth
Active Member
"We do it this way, because we've always done it this way, and don't know why" comes to mind here.
T5's - T5 lighting is far more dependant upon reflectors and cooling than it is upon bulb wattage.
PC's - Sure, I guess this could still be relevant, because PC's always have been operated under the concept of "More power = better"
Metal Halides - MH's are extremely high wattage by nature... I've got 270 watts of T5 above my 75 gallon, under the concept of "watts per gallon" I could just run a single 250w Halide above it and get the same results, right?
LED's - 135w LED fixtures have higher PAR than 250w metal halides... 'nuff said
My entire point: With the different types of lighting available to the aquarist today - watts per gallon is out dated and obsolete when making comparisons because all lighting is NOT equal... PAR readings are comparable however, because they are comparison of light output, not power input.
I think watts per gallon is still a good rule for beginners. As you learn more about light and understand it then I feel that rule should go out the window and you should be able to use Par values to determine your lighting conditions.
As for the posters question. I feel you should up the lighting to a more appropriate 250MH, but that all depends on what you want to keep. And to get some SPS corals to color up better the use of actinic supplementaion would be suggested.
As for the elegence, I had mine for 3yrs and it did best under moderate lighting (comparable to your current lighting), low flow and above average nutrients.
As for the posters question. I feel you should up the lighting to a more appropriate 250MH, but that all depends on what you want to keep. And to get some SPS corals to color up better the use of actinic supplementaion would be suggested.
As for the elegence, I had mine for 3yrs and it did best under moderate lighting (comparable to your current lighting), low flow and above average nutrients.
LPS_Blasto
Member
I totally understand the arguments made above. But can you understand that telling somebody to concentrate on PAR levels is like telling them to concentrate on 10 dimensional string theory? PAR levels ARE NOT available to the average hobbyist.
For example:
Where would a person find the PAR values of a 150W 14K MH single ended Phoenix bulb penetrating 16" of water??
How about a (6) bulb combo of T5's - 12" above the water surface - penetrating 12" of water. Bulbs are 24w - not over driven - (3) 10k and (2) actinic plus and (1) 12K?
How about (3) 18w PC bulbs over a 10g frag tank?
I don't think anybody will be able to come up with PAR numbers for ANY of the above scenario. Why? You know anybody with a PAR meter?
See my point? tomato - tomatoe
I'll stick to watts per gallon. It worked for 2 decades.
For example:
Where would a person find the PAR values of a 150W 14K MH single ended Phoenix bulb penetrating 16" of water??
How about a (6) bulb combo of T5's - 12" above the water surface - penetrating 12" of water. Bulbs are 24w - not over driven - (3) 10k and (2) actinic plus and (1) 12K?
How about (3) 18w PC bulbs over a 10g frag tank?
I don't think anybody will be able to come up with PAR numbers for ANY of the above scenario. Why? You know anybody with a PAR meter?
See my point? tomato - tomatoe
I'll stick to watts per gallon. It worked for 2 decades.
GlassMunky
Active Member
On that logic though, everyone would still be using wet/dry filters on their reef tanks.........
Although, i do agree with you that its hard if not impossable to find PAR reading for most lights. and because of this, people really need to research what they are buying first. they need to understand these differences to make an informed decision.....
My point was exactly that. It is difficult because most manufactures dont give the PAR readings. This is because the wattage seem to sell it for now. And there can be many variables such as the reflector used, distance from surface and even the circulation pumps used will all effect the par levels. If you have the patience you can find enough info to help you make a good decision
In most clubs there is some one who has a light meter and will most often borrow it to you to check your readings.
LPS_Blasto
Member
Right, so if we can't find PAR readings, how on earth are we supposed to use that as an indicator for lighting our reefs?
I'm not AGAINST using PAR readings. I agree that it's a much more accurate way of determining how much light we can get out of an XX style XX watt bulb. I'm just saying you have to be realistic and understand that PAR readings aren't really available. This sounds especially frustrating when we're talking to a complete newbie on the subject. Somebody asks how much light to use and we tell them to go look at PAR readings? Might as well tell them to calculate the fuel load on the space shuttle. You're going to scare a newbie off. At the very least you're just going to frustrate them..... telling somebody to go search for information thats not there. beat_dead_horse
I say - DOWN with PAR readings!! Watts is where it's at.
I'm not AGAINST using PAR readings. I agree that it's a much more accurate way of determining how much light we can get out of an XX style XX watt bulb. I'm just saying you have to be realistic and understand that PAR readings aren't really available. This sounds especially frustrating when we're talking to a complete newbie on the subject. Somebody asks how much light to use and we tell them to go look at PAR readings? Might as well tell them to calculate the fuel load on the space shuttle. You're going to scare a newbie off. At the very least you're just going to frustrate them..... telling somebody to go search for information thats not there. beat_dead_horse
I say - DOWN with PAR readings!! Watts is where it's at.
LPS_Blasto
Member
I just want to clarify that at this point, I'm just screwing around... having a little fun with you guys.
I'm not trying to make anyone angry or start a war in this thread. It's hard to see the silly grin on my face when I'm sitting here behind this keyboard.
I'm not trying to make anyone angry or start a war in this thread. It's hard to see the silly grin on my face when I'm sitting here behind this keyboard.
jpsika08
Well-Known Member
So, if we took the watts per gallon method (As the rule of thumb since who knows when), how would you apply it to LED's which have less "Watts"?
For example, a Sol 12" AquaIllumination fixture outputs 75 watts, though it's equivalent to a 250watt MH (Or even more), how would you measure this if it was not with PAR measurement?
With new light technology which only goal is to reduce power consumption delivering the same amount of light intensity as a MH, the old rule has to change, at least the amount per gallon number, just my 0.02 cents
For example, a Sol 12" AquaIllumination fixture outputs 75 watts, though it's equivalent to a 250watt MH (Or even more), how would you measure this if it was not with PAR measurement?
With new light technology which only goal is to reduce power consumption delivering the same amount of light intensity as a MH, the old rule has to change, at least the amount per gallon number, just my 0.02 cents
Juan - if I understand the info. on Reef Geeks correctly the 12" AI Sol LED fixture is supposedly comparable to a 400 watt halide.
http://www.reefgeek.com/lighting/LE...ight_System_w!_Controller_by_AquaIllumination
http://www.reefgeek.com/lighting/LE...ight_System_w!_Controller_by_AquaIllumination
