400watt Overkill!!

[Leviathan]

Am I the only person on here that thinks 400 watt halides are a bit overkill for smaller system with depths of less than 24 inches.

Lately I have seen numerous post with people suggesting that the only way to keep most SPS ( if not all ) that are available, would only be possible using 400 watt bulbs. To me personally & IME tanks 21" deep and less can run well using 250's or even 175's ( like I run myself ). This is without lose of coloration or slowed growth rates.

Just seems lately there is some BALLAST ENVY going on out there, and I hate to see people getting into the hobby feeling their only alternatives to lighting are theses high end ballast systems. A quick VHO search will prove to most that many SPS can even thrive without halides at all.


Anyone else notice this or is it just me?

[MAS]

No your not the only one, I also feel its overkill, but there is no denying that SPS and other high light corals will grow like crazy under this much light potentially. Just dont expect many pretty colors. Corals normally turn a brownish tan or plain pink color under this much light. I prefer 250's,175's and 150's for tanks 24" deep or less.

[Leviathan]

but there is no denying that SPS and other high light corals will grow like crazy under this much light potentially

Power-growing corals seems to be the "In" thing theses days.

Thanks for respomding, thought I was the only one.

[Steven Pro]

I also agree. There are far too many blanket recommendations for MH's of increasingly higher wattages without first identifying what exactly this new reefer wants to keep.

[Merkur]

400 watt iwasaki's run of PFO ballasts rock and i won't run anything else.

for all the non believers, thank you for conserving electricity so my reef can have it!!

speaking of overkill, i'm also running 31x tank turnover rate through my sump and closed loops.

overkill rocks.

[TrevDog]

I'd agree that it can be overkill on a small tank, especially given the fact there are some fantastic SPS tanks lit with 250 watters. I was running Iwas over my 90, and they were INTENSE (the color wasn't so good though). Now I run Radiums which appear to have only half the intensity and all the heat. I don't feel it is to much light....

TrevDog

[MAS]

I am also actually a big fan of overkill, but a 31x turnover rate is not overkill. Still not even close to natural ocean currents!

People who have no concern of electricity,and want maximum growth with no regard to coloration, of course 400's are the way to go. But why stop there when you can go to 1000 watt units???

[Nanook]

Power-growing corals seems to be the "In" thing theses days.

Sure, why not? Actually, our little reef lights compared to the sun at the equator are like dim candles. Lighting is totally a personal preference, if you like the dimmer lights (175w or 250w) and they work for you, then cool. I prefer to have enough intensity for growth and coloration...a combo of 250w sakis with any 400w bluer bulbs looks good. Then again, you can not beat a combination of 10K 400w Ushios and Actinics, or can you?


Nanook

[Merkur]

personally, i had excellent color under my saki's. as good as i have scene with anybody elses lighting combo's.

its impossable to make a blanket statement on this kind of thing!

[AcroSteve]

Originally posted by MAS
Just dont expect many pretty colors. Corals normally turn a brownish tan or plain pink color under this much light.

Is this a common opinion?

[Nanook]

It would be interesting to look at the rate of calcification on the reefs versus our dimly lit tanks.


Nanook

[Leviathan]

I prefer to have enough intensity for growth and coloration

Thats exactly my point, in tanks with depths 24" or less( Minus DSB if present ) you can have wonderful coloration and growth( I know from personal experience, as well as other systems I have seen, online & in person ). The 400's and 250's are just not needed for tanks of this size. I agree deeper tanks do need the higher wattage, but I cant see telling someone that they cant have a thriving "colorful" system with good growth rates without using the higher wattage in systems so small.

Im not against using 250's & 400's.

Lighting is totally a personal preference

To some extent I agree totally, as long as the requirments are meet for your inhabitants. BUT, when personal preference is being pawned off as scientific to an uninformed newbi trying to get some help, in a decission on what light system to go with. This is where I see a problem.

[Leviathan]

Originally posted by Nanook
It would be interesting to look at the rate of calcification on the reefs versus our dimly lit tanks.


Nanook

I agree,

However I dont see anyone promoting the pratice of putting their tanks out in the sun during daylight hours to exactly match the natural lighting of oceianic reefs.

[Nanook]

BUT, when personal preference is being pawned off as scientific to an uninformed newbi trying to get some help, in a decission on what light system to go with.

Most of the information exchanged on Reef Central is of the personal preference variety. Very few of us are scientists or lighting researchers. Sure, it is good to use lower wattage bulbs if that is your preference. But remember this, a lot of newbies with shallow tanks now are going to be upgrading to larger and probably deeper tanks in the future. In that case, that 175w bulb will often become obsolete for their purposes. Hence, recommending 250w or 400w bulbs, which are perfectly suited for lighting reef aquaria, will save that person $$$ down the line.

I would definitely move my tank out in the sun if it were practical...but unfortunately it is not in Missouri.


Nanook

[MAS]

It would be interesting to look at the rate of calcification on the reefs versus our dimly lit tanks.

I wouldnt call alot of our tanks dimly lit. As it is a proven fact that we can oversaturate our corals even past natural lux levels found in the sea. I used to run a pair of 400 watters over a small 65g tank with a 36"x18" footprint. at 12" depth I was pulling lux numbers similiar to what you would find at the equator at midday with clear skies. Most all tanks in this hobby are under 30" in depth. Its not hard to produce natural sunlight level and spectral balance for shallow tanks such as these.

As for 250's being overkill in a 24" depth tank, no way. 400's can be, but 250's are excellent lights for moderate to high lighting level situations.

[Nanook]

used to run a pair of 400 watters over a small 65g tank with a 36"x18" footprint. at 12" depth I was pulling lux numbers similiar to what you would find at the equator at midday with clear skies.

My point exactly! Dual 400 watters over a 65g tank=matching lux numbers at the equator.


Nanook

[Leviathan]

Most of the information exchanged on Reef Central is of the personal preference variety. Very few of us are scientists or lighting researchers.

I realize this, and I for one try to use words like IMO or IME as do a lot of the helpful members on this board. I am refering to when its stated that you " have " to have or you " cant " do it without statements.

But remember this, a lot of newbies with shallow tanks now are going to be upgrading to larger and probably deeper tanks in the future

I agree with you on this one as well, I dont think or opinions on this subject are really that much in difference to each other.

I would definitely move my tank out in the sun if it were practical...but unfortunately it is not in Missouri.

This is where swimming pools can come in handy.

[TrevDog]

personally, i had excellent color under my saki's. as good as i have scene with anybody elses lighting combo's.

its impossable to make a blanket statement on this kind of thing!

Merkur - I wasn't making a blanket statement. As Nanook so aptly put it "Most of the information exchanged on Reef Central is of the personal preference variety". I don't prefer the color of the Iwas. My belief is not so much that the color is bad, but that the intensity of the bulbs on a small tank drowns out the color of the corals under them.

TrevDog

[Nanook]

This is where swimming pools can come in handy.

Hmmmm, I haven't been in it but once this year...that would be a great reef tank, except in the winter.


Nanook

[pyranha]

Some people just need to "compansate", or overkill, to feel good.
I am waiting for the 1000W grow lights to make their way to the aquarium world :-) Should not be too long.

[Todd G.]

just wondering...
Are there any tables or graphs that someone has done that give the color temp values AND lumens taken from reefs at varying depths?
Sort of a "natural base line" to shoot for when recreating artificial lighting?
Of course, the intensity varies throughout the day cycle,
but still, I would be interested in any data on this that can be translated to apply to the reef aquarium.
It would be illuminating!
(oooh-- sorry)

Thanks
Todd

[pyranha]

This should "shed some light" on the subject :-) Sorry....couldn't resist the pun.

http://www.oceansonline.com/light_in_the_sea.htm

[Leviathan]

Originally posted by pyranha
This should "shed some light" on the subject :-) Sorry....couldn't resist the pun.

http://www.oceansonline.com/light_in_the_sea.htm

Great Link, Thanks for sharing it.

[MAS]

1000 watt growing lights are already available for our tanks. They just arent needed unless your tank is deeper than 36".

[MAS]

Also thats a great article posted. I just put it into my favorites for future reference.