MH Lighting

[renman303]

No expert, just doing some research. I've purchased a lot of stuff from "Live Aquaria" and Dr. Foster and Smith. Reading the most recent catalog it stated (which is true) that you can't go by Kalvin for obtaining a proper MH light that LUX (Lumens) or light output is more accurate as Kalvin is "Color Temperature" and "LUX" is the standard rating for light OUTPUT.

Anyway....the oxymoron is their own catalog does NOT tell you the "LUX" of each of the MH lights that they carry nor does their web site. They do suggest using a light meter (great idea) but, still does not give the shopper any idea of how to narrow down the field of a hundred+ MH lights out there.

I found this site to be of great help. Great prices as well.

www.businesslights.com

Check out this light: Ushio 400W 10000K Mogul Base Metal Halide Lamp

[601860]

$99.90

UHI-S400AQ 400 watt 10,000° Kelvin Aqualite Metal Halide Lamp

400 watt Aqualite™ lamps have a high color temperature from a single point source which simulates the appearance of sun light in ocean depths of approximately 5 meters. The superior spectrum balance of the Aqualite™ lamps make for ideal lighting conditions for reef systems including fish, coral, other marine fauna and flaura, and plant growth.

Required Ballast: M135 pulse start metal halide

Wattage: 400

Base: E39 Mogule Base

Operating position: Universal

Initial Lumens: 18,500

10,000° Kelivin - 90 CRI

Average Rated Life: 8000 hrs

It even gives you the light spectrum which you can enlarge as well.

Just thought it was cool info.

Best Regards,

Dave "RenMan"

www.nonnas.net

Nonna's Mediterranean Fusion Cuisine

"If you don't know who we are, you don't know what you're missing!"

[Wryknow]

OK - I'm going to confuse you a bit more. I agree that the lux reading is more useful than the wattage because wattage just measures total power consumption. Lux is a measure of total light output, but that can be misleading too because what we really care about is how much PAR (Photosynthetically Available Radiation) is actually striking our corals.

Let me give you an example:

A 400W bulb with a lux output of X in a tank without a reflector may have much, or most, of the light absorbed by the canopy, reflected off of the water, absorbed by discoloration in the water (dissolved organics, water bubbles, etc) and the total light received by the corals may only by 40% of potential output of the bulb in a given spot in the tank. If you had a top quality MH reflector and good water quality, this tank can easily be 50% more efficient and deliver 50% more PAR with the same power consumption and lux output.

This is why I like T5 bulbs so much - the narrow profile allows very efficient parabolic reflectors and a higher percentage of the potential energy is actually available for the corals to use.

I guess my point is that no one can tell you how much light you actually have without a PAR meter reading of your specific tank at the specific depth that the specific coral that you are interested in is at. The reflectors, water quality, and distance and position of the coral relative to the light source is at least as important as the bulbs that you are using. If you optimize your controllable variables then you can use much less power and achieve the same results with aquarium lighting.

[Headless_donkey]

WORD! Nice explanation! I think T5 is the way to go. More efficient, less heat, cheaper, more reliable,...the wave of the future!

[Enigma13]

Sanjay's page on lighting is probably one of the most informative references for the quality of bulbs/ballasts and the PAR they deliver.

http://www.reeflightinginfo.arvixe.com/

He has conducted numerous tests on many of the popular bulbs and ballasts.

T-5 are a great addition to the hobby, but I do not think they are a replacement for MH in all circumstances. In fact, I think the two technologies complement each other well for combined use in many applications.

[renman303]

This is great, people! I think while most of the Marine reef setup is subjective (bio-balls, live rock, refugium...) the lighting issue to me makes the least sense. I've never heard a good explanation of why MH lighting is the best. The bulbs vary in spectrum and light output so greatly that just to say, "MH is needed" is totally untrue. I too, have a Nova Extreme T5 setup on my 55 gal with 2 54w 10k bulbs and 2 54w 460nm actinics. My corals thrive. "Wryknow" hit the nail on the head...it's a lot more than just Lux, or wattage or Par even. I would probably be better off investing in about $200 of individual icecap reflectors for my T5 setup to redirect the light then $900 for MH lighting for my size tank.

Again, if color temp of a particular MH light is equal to what my T5 setup is producing (and with a lot less energy consumption and heat output)...why even bother with MH? If we are trying to duplicate the Sun's rays, why not put in a "sun tunnel" in your home directly over your tank and forget the lights altogether? I've seen this done before as well.

Sorry for beating this to death...just need to hear some logical explanation.

Best Regards,

Dave "RenMan"

www.nonnas.net

Mediterranean Fusion Cuisine

"If you don't know who we are, you don't know what you're missing!"

[GKarshens]

Actually PAR is what you should go by. That determines how much usable light your corals are getting. The reason most people go with MH is depth penetration. I have seen a couple beautiful tanks done by T5 but they were all in Europe where they have higher wattage T5s than we can get. On a 55g tank you don't have to worry as much about the depth as you would on something over 100g. Where the lighting gets confusing and subjective is balancing the need for PAR and the desire for "good" color. If we all wanted just the best PAR we would run 5700k bulbs. They are hideously yellow though. The Solar tubing is a great idea and I have heard of tanks being done successfully that way, but I think that would also be more yellow than most people would like.

[Wryknow]

Good point Gabriel! A lot of the issues with lighting come down to aesthetics - what's best for the corals is not necessarily what's best to look at in the minds of most people. A 6K bulb is going to produce a ton more PAR than a 20K bulb but a lot of folks prefer the bluer look of the higher K bulbs. To be honest, the blue look is much more natural (as any scuba diver can tell you!)

I don't want anyone to think that I'm knocking the metal halide systems either. They certainly have a proven track record and can get the job done. Many people like the metal halides because of the shimmer lines and, as Gabriel pointed out, the metal halides have a very intense light and that can be more easily focused to reach deeper into a tank.

Personally, I'm sticking with T5s and I will recommend them to others because of their efficiency. Excellent T5 systems are available in the US and are certainly cost competitive with metal halide systems. I can't say that I can argue with someone that wants to use metal halide systems though.

The good news is that reefers can use the same principles to optimize metal halide performance!

- high quality reflectors

- attention to water quality

- coral placement relative to the light source

Please note that nowhere in this discussion has the term WATTS PER GALLON been used. This little "rule of thumb" is the cause of 99% of all of the lighting confusion suffered by newcomers to the hobby IMHO. If it were up to me it would be banned from use. Coral does not care how many gallons of water it is sitting in. An SPS coral that is 8" from a 250W MH bulb in a 125 gallon tank gets the same PAR as it would if it were sitting 8" away from the same set-up in a 500 gallon tank! Use the light you that you need but don't waste energy and money lighting things that don't need it.

Jason

[caferacermike]

Jason, I'm in the middle of setting up a 400g tank, yes Gabe it does exist even though it wasn't at the house, I'm debating putting up 2x 250MH DE 12K side by side in one corner to hook up a 2'x3' area as my main reef "corner" with 2 more 250w MH DE in 14-20K on the "fish only" side. The tank is massive and out of my budget to to add 4,000w of halide to balance out 10wpg like I have over my 75g tank. The measurements are 7' l x 32" w x 36" h. Then I was planning to add VHO actinics wherever they will fit for color enhancement. I've heard a few people say T5 will be perfect. I'm hesitant. Any thoughts?

[Wryknow]

I like the idea of using a "reef corner" in a big tank. You're absolutely right about only needing to light the portion that you're using for corals. (If it were me though, I would think about doing a reef "island" rather than corner. The pillars look very cool and fish can swim around it. Plus the spill-over light will be more evenly distributed and you won't have as many dark shadows, but I digress.)

You can certainly use T5's for the island or corner that you're envisioning but you will need to place SPS high up in the water column, close to the lighting. I would recommend an ICECAP 660 with 4 x 39W (3') 10K bulbs with SLRs for the "spotlight" plus a couple of 6' VHO tubes for actinic supplementation in the tank (and to light up the rest of the tank a bit.) You can keep SPS under the T5s probably to depth of 12" IMHO, so you would need to be cognizant of this when you were placing the corals.

Of course, MH tends to lend itself very naturally to "spotlights" just by the shape of the bulbs and reflectors. A single 250W HQI with a good reflector will light up a 2' x 2' area effectively so you could certainly consider this as well. I could easily envision a tank with a single 6.5K MH bulb to pump up the PAR on a reef pillar and then using the 6' actinic VHOs to light up the rest of the tank.

Anyway you slice it you're going to have a hard time lighting this whole tank effectively because of the depth and the size of the tank. Using a small section of reef for corals and confining your lighting to that area seems like a very good idea to me and will create some interesting effects. A reef pillar with a small school of tangs swimming around it would be very cool indeed!

[caferacermike]

Sounds like the T5's won't quite cut what I'm looking for. I'll be planning upon sticking to the Mh's at about 1,000- 1,600w or so.

But since you seem really excited about T5 technology I'll ask you another question. I was told several times that VHO lighting produces the highest quality actinic lighting. I'm not to sure about that as I've only had PC actinics and was marginally impressed. I was thinking about gutting my PC's on my 75 and convert to T5. This would also apply on the 400 if I switched my plan from VHO to T5. Are T5 actinics a good product? I've heard a few runors that PC actinics are more of a blue light then a true actinic bulb. I'm wondering if the same is true of T5? I was told that not many "true" actnic bulbs are made for T5.

[renman303]

Mike,

I've heard the same for VHO lighting in terms of output. for example; a 48" T5 has an output of 54w while a 48" VHO has an output of 110w. But, T5's are 5/8" in diameter and VHO's are T12's which are 1.25" in diameter each much like the florescent lights in an office. Therefore you can cram twice as many T5's in the same amount of space alternating bulbs like 460nm and 10k.The T5 lighting also comes in a multitude of spectrums, Actinic, 420mn, 460nm, 50/50, Ocean White, Ocean Blue, Daylight...

Here is some more to convelute the lighting situation...

Why not Halogen lighting if you are just looking for light output to reach the depths of your tank, as these need no huge ballest like 300W T-3 halogen- 5950 lumens, 2000 hours. Massive light output, cheap at about $19 and at 8 hours a day would burn for 250 days.

Again, I still don't think I've heard a logical explanation to why "MH" lighting is best suited?

Dave "RenMan"

[Wryknow]

W is a unit of power consumption, not light output. Just because something consumes more power doesn't mean that it necessarily creates as much useful light. Three big reasons I like the T5s are: their slender profile allows very efficient parabolic reflectors to reflect a greater percentage of light into the tank, the bulb temperature is much lower than the MH bulbs so they create a LOT less heat in the tank, and HO T5 bulbs can be over-driven by the ICECAP ballast to create about 50% more PAR per bulb (with a similar increase in power consumption.)

I do not use the T5 actinics myself. When I bought my set up (about 1 year ago) the actinic bulbs available on the market were really pretty crummy - more like weak 14K bulbs than true actinics IMHO. That's why I use the 6' VHO bulbs for the actinic supplementation - it's more for appearances than PAR anyway. I have read some reports from other reefers that the new true actinic bulbs are much better than they used to be but I plan sticking with my VHOs for now.

[GKarshens]

From my understanding Halogen lights do not put out the necessary radiation (UV) that the corals need. It is not just a matter of lighting the tank. It is supplying the corals with what they need to grow. MH have the highest PAR with depth penetration. T5 and VHO will work but not as well on deeper tanks.

[caferacermike]

Agreed that halogen bulbs are not right at all. They are like 2K instead of at least 6.5K. You'd never compensate for the yellow.

The plan then is to stick with VHO for actinics and halides for brightness.

[renman303]

That I agree with now that I see the Kalvin rating. So, the best I can figure is if you have the Kalvin color correct and ample wattage, that is what is most important...the type of bulb you are using.