The truth about lighting

[mojoreef]

Well see thats kinda the concept I am trying to bring to this forum. I could just come out and say 10K ushio ore the best, and DSB's are better then sliced bread, anyone could and has done that. But if we dig a little bit deeper, and explain what the corals needs are or how the things work inside of each aspect, then no one has to give an opinion, the facts are laid out, anyone can look at them and make a simple educated choice. All things come with pros and cons, from lighting choices to filtrations methods and so on. If you know how to they work, then you can have a better understanding how how to pick them, maintain them, and have them work for the betterment of your creatures. Its as simple as that.

MIke

 

[tankgirl]

Mike, I trust your 'opinions' more than most people's 'science'.

 

[Maxx]

I don't he looks kinda shady to me.:lookaroun
I think I saw Mike w/ an Aqua-ecolizer the other day........
*Things that make ya go Hmmm......*
Nick

 

[dgasmd]

Actinics do provide some measure of light that is usefull to corals. I think one of the points Dana Riddle may have been trying to make is that actinics do more for us than for the corals in the grand scheme of things. Regardless of the MH used for growth (well, almost) the corals will grow the color it has. You switch lighting and they look either better of worse to your eyes. The pigments that flouresce and cause colors perceived by our eyes have been there all along. The difference is that now the different MH kelvin rating may make them flouresce more or less. That is why actinics always make corals look so much better. It is not that they have some magic that make the corals produce more colors, they just bring them out because it allows then to flouresce more. I know this because he gave a talk to our local club about 1 year ago and he went over this and it caused a lot of questions and such. By the way, as you can see, he made it out of the meeting alive though.
Of course, even if you don't use actinics, you will see a change. In some corals faster than others. It does take time for the coral to adjust its priduction of pigments and other things based on what lighting it has. Once it gets adjusted to it again, the colors seem to settle and continue.

 

[Scooterman]

Originally posted by dgasmd
perceived by our eyes have been there all along. That is why actinics always make corals look so much better. It is not that they have some magic that make the corals produce more colors, they just bring them out because it allows then to flouresce more..

And they fluoresce more also...LOL Oh yea, he just said that.
Using fluorescent Actinic as a supplement was the way to go once upon a time but now a new breed of MH's (XM,10k,15k 20k etc.) allows us to have the best of both worlds but still can't be dimmed. Creating a dusk and dawn with PC (HO T5 is a PC by the way), VHO Is nice.
Mike, I like your way of thinking, I'm lucky to of discovered the people of RS. Maybe I'm wrong but thinking one local group of threads the cover the basis of what you just posted would be ideal. I mean a place I can tell a newbie ok, start here for the beginning, for there with just a minimal of links as not to throw then off to much, make it gradual in steps of learning, so when the time comes I can build my new tank, oh I mean the newbie's can have a written set of guidelines to see for themselves like you stated but this would cross over from basic set-ups, then BB or DSB etc..then Lighting, other equipment filtration chemicals & testing etc, BUT all is started at one common point, the beginning, with just one line to the next step (of information) etc.. Call it The Steps!

 

[tankgirl]

Did anyone answer that earlier question about; if actinics do nothing for corals why do they stay open when only actinics are on?

Also, if actinics don't do anything, why are we supposed to change them every 6 months?

:columbo:

 

[Boomer]

Scotter

The only testing I've seen is hobbyist related as for as PAR ratings, seems the manufactures make these and can't actually state a complete data sheet of their products, they always seem to leave off part of the total performance ratings.

I kn0w what you mean but you have to remember something. 99.9 % of the **actual manufactures** could care less about PAR values, as it as 0 merit to them. The only ones interested in such vaues is us and we occupy about < 1 % of all light bulbs sold. There has been a actual manufactrue here or there that has had PAR levels, as they are trying to direct these lights towards reefers. Furthermore, measuring PAR is not an easy task, one needs to know what they are doing and the equipment is not cheap. Many of the tests you have seen in artilces is from rented equipment. We are lucky to have guys like Jb, Harker, Sanjay and Dana around. Finally, a SED (Spectral Energ Distibution) curve pretty much tells you what you get.

TG

Did anyone answer that earlier question about; if actinics do nothing for corals why do they stay open when only actinics are on?

Yes, I did

Maxx

I think I saw Mike w/ an Aqua-ecolizer the other day........

Mike has always been my partner in crime But no more, he has gone to the dog :explode:

UPS has arrived

 

[tankgirl]

Boomey, Thanks! I went back but still couldn't find it? Found only this;

Actinic lights were not introduced into this hobby to make the tank look nice, that is a myth. The were brought in for the reason that they produced blue light, based on the fact that most of the light is absorbed in the first meter of water, leaving mostly blue behind. This however, is more on the order of the deep ocean where the water is blue.

So, you're saying that corals DO use actinics light, right?

 

[mojoreef]

Boomer the equalizers are for my wife, they help alot with wrinkles....Hmmm man I hope she dont see this post or your delivery will be the least of my problems rofl

Mike

 

[Boomer]

Yes. The purpose of the lights was to suppliment lights that were low in the blue spectrum. Back then, ,"olden days" we only had MH with about 5000K. Some fluors's were 6500K. JB (John Burleson) the American Reef God was th first to use them. They came from the photgraphic industry. Later came the 5500K Venture MH, to replace lower K MH and 6000K MV. Two or three years later I helped Dr. Perry Thraser, from Light Sources, introduce his Tri-Phosphor fluoro's in the late 80's. You know, the ones that everyone sells with the built in relector, they were all made by his company. They also make actinics. Shortly after, I introduced the Iwasaki MH Still King of the MH. And Perry's lights are still being sold by the ton. These lights were first introduced/sold by Ultraviolet Resources International, along with the Vossloh waterproof end caps I found. No, I did not make any money, I just wanted this stuff avalible to the hobbist. UR does not make lamps, many of their lamps are LS with their name on them, just as other Tri-Phosphor lamps made by LS have their name on them.

Ligfht Sources

Ultraviolet Resorces International

 

[Boomer]

MIke

Hmmm man I hope she dont see this post or your delivery will be the least of my problems rofl

:laughroll :laughroll :laughroll :laughroll :laughroll

Oh yes for sure.

You gave me her work number once, let me go look for it ........................

 

[Scooterman]

Ahh, now I know where my Tanning bed lights come from!

 

[ScottT1980]

No, I did not make any money, I just wanted this stuff avalible to the hobbist.

Boomer, I am glad you are on our side!

I still haven't had a chance to really LEARN what I need to as far as this discussion is concerned. I know you spit out a number of sources earlier Boomer but can you give me the best source which gives P-max values for corals and the various PARs needed to reach this P-max (I don't know if there is one source for this)? I might have to buy it or at least find it in our library...

Very basic but what I am getting at is, if I know the PAR for my lighting, I know the p-max, and I know what PAR it takes to reach this P-max for a given coral, then I should be able to get growth rates at the opitimal level (a number of other factors of course but pretty solid as far as lighting is concerned).

Any speculation as to why VHO studies have not been done, well, at least not to the extent of Halides? Simply because there is a shift in the hobby towards MH or because SPS are the most light needy and MH are the most intense lights we use? Perhaps just an expense thing (isn't it always)?

Thanks again everyone for the ongoing discussion, sorry I have drifted off. It is tough when you are in the midst of thesis writing in one subject and are trying to learn other things for fun in an entirely different realm.


Take er easy
Scott T.

 

[mojoreef]

Scott I managed to round up some info for you. here are the spectrum/intenciy of some of the new t5 lighting
T-5 actenic blue bulb aquastik

t-5 Aquablue bulb aquastik

the T-5 straight blue bulb

and the T-5 Sun bulb

hope it helps

MIke

 

[mojoreef]

Oh and something on intencity, according to testing on the T5 lights
-two 39 watt t5 bulbs with no reflector puts out about 8.3 lux
-two 39 watt t5 bulbs with a standard reflector os around 18 lux
-and with the best reflector both bulbs put out about 36.6 lux
these are 4 foot bulbs. now my math is crappy so Boomer step in and correct me if I am out to lunch, but a 250 watt iwasaki would be the equavilant to ......oh man BOOMER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL


Mike

 

[Scooterman]

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Hills/2637/spectra.html

 

[Scooterman]

Just a little interesting relational information.

http://www.thekrib.com/Plants/Tech/par-moles.html

Plants have evolved over many eons through natural selection (except maybe in Kansas) to use the energy available to them in Sunlight as efficiently as possible. This part of the spectrum which plants use is defined as Photosynthetically Active Radiation (PAR).

Human eyes have developed to utilize different wavelengths for vision as seen in the (rough) graph which shows the relationship between the daylight spectrum that reaches the Earth and the wavelengths used by plants and humans. As you can see, plants only use certain wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum, peaking in the blue and red regions, while the human eye can best see light in the yellow area, with the "Lumen" being used to relate the amount of light put out by bulbs that the human eye can see.

 

[ScottT1980]

Thanks for all the info and links Mike and Scott!

 

[Boomer]

Mike

Ouch, that hurts , as Boomer picks himself off the floor, after falling out of his chair. And that is hard from a recliner

about 36.6 lux

My pocket flashlight with dead batteries puts out more light than that. Ok, I'll let you slide today........I think........You mean 36,600 LUX or did you just forget the "K" 36.6 K LUX.
An Iwaskia 250 W MH ( you know it is really kinda a MV and not a true MH),puts out 18,200 LUMENS, so to convert to LUX;

LUMENS x 10.76 = LUX

18,200 x 10,76 = 195,832 LUX

OK, don't get lost here. This is at the bulb. Any radiation source follows the Inverse Square Law ( in air not water). Which means that the radiation decreases by the square of its distance form the radiation, source to the object that is to be radiated upon. So, at 2 meters from the bulb and the square of 2 being 4 or lets just say to be simple 2 x 2 = 4 and we need its reciprocal, which that is any number dived by 1. So, it = 1/4 or 25 % of light it had at the bulb. Thus, 195,832 LUX x .25 = 48,958 LUX 2 meters from the bulb or 1/2 of 19,832, 1 meter from the bulb = 97, 916 LUX. The sun on a clear day is 100,000 LUX at the ocean surface.

So the answer is almost ;

37,000 LUX vs. 200,000 LUX. Iwasaki puts out almost 5.5 times more light.

That T-5 actenic blue bulb aquastik, SED curve is an odd ball one for an Actinic light. Maybe they are just trying to get what some of us call "Actinic" which is not a true ACTINIC. They only have one peak at 420 nm


Scooterman

I see you found Mohan's stuff, so now I don't have to dig it out from my lighting file. It appeared in FAMA magazine a few years ago That first link was also nice, I don't have that one

For everyone reading this. The Krib is a great place, even though it is old.There is allot of data and info there. It is one of my secrete websites, now Scoot has blown the whistle on me Expect your own UPS package tomorrow.

with the "Lumen" being used to relate the amount of light put out by bulbs that the human eye can see.

I believe I said that a few posts back, same for LUX, foot candle, or candela .Even PAR is not the greatest but it is the best we have other than the SED curve.

I might add there is an old book that has some good info;

Light in the Aquarium, by Rolf Kubler

 

[tankgirl]

The purpose of the lights was to suppliment lights that were low in the blue spectrum. Back then, ,"olden days" we only had MH with about 5000K.

Boomy, Thanks so much! They still augment PAR!

Also, wouldn't the inverse-square law be in meters, not feet? And, why doesn't it work for decimals, darn it? 0.22 meters = around 8 inches, right?
(0.22 meters)^2=0.0484, and 1/0.0484= 20.66
Doesn't work?