Steve Tyree's chat the other night

[DJ88]

Steve,

I still don't find PC's are as intense as a point source light. They may be bright(which I know they are) but they don't do the same for me as a MH.

PC actinics. If they are 03's like is claimed then they are a violet actinic. As are the phillips and the URI VHO's. They peak at 470nm. not 450. That puts them in the violet range not blue. I want blue. Hence the MH blue bulbs. I don't know how accurate this is but blue is more readily useable by corals than violet or other wavelengths with all the reading I have done. Actinics are violet. Close but no cigar.

As it stands now I am even concidering trying the 150W 50KK that Adam reminded me existed. The ballast is easy to get to run these puppies and they have the highest blue peak of any MH I have seen.

In the end I'll still go MH above PC. I want to ditch ALL the fluorescent lamps in my hood. Save maybe one phillips 03 for 1/2 hour before and after all the MH turns on.

MH just has something that fluorescent doesn't have. Point source intensity.

For the most part all of this curiosity is for asthetics and my own eyes. But a small part is due to the spectrum make up of my 65KK. If I can fill in the one area it is lacking in who knows what may happen. :D

[One_Divided]

Darren, let me know about any other interesting tidbits you might find on those 50ks.. I'm interesting in trying them out as well.

When you look in the ocean, the light shimmers and ripples on the bottom.. PC light is distirbuted along the whole length of a tube and doesn't create this effect.. I don't see PCs as being a very good supplement. Same goes for Fuorescents.. IMO a variety of different kelvin halides is the best route to go.

[One_Divided]

MH just has something that fluorescent doesn't have. Point source intensity.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Darren, exactly my point.. Steve, I'm just thinking about light from natures prespective.. Why try to question that? And I'm not acusing you.. I'm acusing PC bulbs!

[ 06 June 2002, 22:13: Message edited by: One_Divided ]

[StirCrazy]

Originally posted by DJ88:
Steve,

They peak at 470nm. not 450. That puts them in the violet range not blue.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Darren, Violet is from ~380nm to ~430nm blue is from ~440nm to ~500nm so if it peeks at 470 it is in the dead middle of BLUE country [img]smile.gif[/img]
No problem it was just a suggestion, if you want real blue then J&L has what they call actinic PC's (really 7100 blue PC's) for cheep. If you want violet you have to order from the US pretty much, unless of course J&L is carrying the others now.

Adam, you confuse me sometimes. You will still have your "shimmer" because you have your MH, the PC will not get rid of it. We are talking supplement lighting here... not primary lighting.
The article said that the Iwasaki bulb was lacking in "blue" and could use some supplement blue lighting.

I am going to go aside for a sec here and if people want to flame me go ahead (I have my fire proof undies on [img]smile.gif[/img] ) if you look at the sun itself it is a point source, but by the time the light gets to us it is not focused anymore, it is greatly diffused and diminished to the point that it acts as a diffused lighting. The shimmers are not caused by light rays from the sun but rather from intense light being reflected off ripples and particles in the water.

what was my point, my point is that even a florescent source (if intense enough) can create this same effect, Victor reported seeing it off over driven NO's, I have seen it on tanks being driven by a bunch of PC's and I have seen it on tanks with MH bulbs, BUT I have not seen it in every tank that has a MH bulb, intact some tanks I have seen that have had the "shimmer" did not have it at other times. Other MH tanks I have seen had no "shimmer" what so ever... so there is no way that you can tell me that by adding a MH you are going to have "shimmer”... I don't think it is that easy and that there has to be some other factors to go along with the lighting.

This is not fact or conjecture, just my humble observations.

Now that that is over I think personally that the best lighting I have seen on a tank uses all different types of lighting. This is the bases I am trying to set mine up on, I will have NO actinic for dusk and dawn, PC actinic and 10K for morning and evening lighting, and PC for the afternoon intensity. Oh and now that eLightmaster is controlling my X-10 I will have a moon light bulb that will be phased to match the moon cycle... Now I just need water :D :D

Steve

[Troy F]

Posted by Steve: BUT I have not seen it in every tank that has a MH bulb, intact some tanks I have seen that have had the "shimmer" did not have it at other times. Other MH tanks I have seen had no "shimmer" what so ever... so there is no way that you can tell me that by adding a MH you are going to have "shimmer”... I don't think it is that easy and that there has to be some other factors to go along with the lighting.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Has a lot/all to do with the amount of surface agitation. I've never seen a MH tank without glimmer lines unless the water was calm at the surface. I've seen faint lines with VHO but nothing like the beautiful lines you get with MH.

[ 06 June 2002, 23:13: Message edited by: Troy F ]

[DJ88]

My mistake Steve,

Typo, actinics are 420-430 nm. So violet.

My preference is to shy away from any fluorescents right now. The only actinics I will run is the phillips 03's. One 20W 03 is looking as good as three 95W URI VHO actinics looked on my tank. This is after running those URI's for almost a year. Waste of cash IMO. I'd rather have no fluorescents at all.

Anyways I want blue. Not violet. 450nm is where I wanna go. hence the bluer MH's. No fluorescent has this. Close. but no cigar.

;)

As for shimmer,

never seen a MH tank that didn't have it.

It all comes down to preference. After all the tanks I have had running and have seen running all kinds of setups for lighting, I'll still go MH anyday. It looks better IMO IME. Works better IMO IME. Maybe I don't need it as strong as I have it on my small tank. But my corals grow like weeds and I get colors that I like to see. I am happy, they are happy. Discussions can go on and on about PC and VHO and Overdriven NO's. I am not going to go away from what I am happy with. Call me crazy.

[ 06 June 2002, 23:31: Message edited by: DJ88 ]

[Mak]

Originally posted by DJ88:


PC actinics. If they are 03's like is claimed then they are a violet actinic. As are the phillips and the URI VHO's. They peak at 470nm. not 450. That puts them in the violet range not blue. I want blue. Hence the MH blue bulbs. I don't know how accurate this is but blue is more readily useable by corals than violet or other wavelengths with all the reading I have done. Actinics are violet. Close but no cigar.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">On my 75g I used a 400w Iwasaki with 2 55w Hamilton True Actinic's, these PC's are blue almost the same as the Marine Glo Actinic ( IMO these bulb's are sweet, especially when overdrivin ). 2 or even 1 of the Hamilton's would rock in your tank. I personally like the blue of these bulbs. I currently run 2 55w 10K PC's, 1 OD Marine Glo Actinic and 1 OD Zoomed Coral Sun (which is Violet), the lighting looks awesome and the Corals are doing great :D , damn can't wait to get a cam.

[ 06 June 2002, 23:55: Message edited by: MAKAVELLI ]

[reefburnaby]

Hi,

Actinics tend to be centred around 420nm and they spread between 400nm to 490nm (at least that's what Hagen says). Hence...this lamp spans between the purple and blue fluoescent areas. I bet ya that an old actinic will tend to produce more blue than purple.

The paper mentions that certain corals have certain light collecting pigments. But corals do adapt....and IMHO they will adapt to what is optimal for the given conditions (like lighting). If we are blue deficient...does that mean it is bad ? Well...we don't know. But we do know that if we provide more intesity (i.e. light energy) in the right spectral areas (i.e. light than it can use...not reflected), then the coral will do better in general. The spectral spikes and holes will be adapted by the coral.

MH vs tubes...probably doesn't matter in the big picture. Lighting is not the only thing that is need to keep corals well.

- Victor.

[Delphinus]

LOL -- don't you at some point have to go out and get an actual job?? How you gonna pay for that hydro bill!!

:D

[One_Divided]

Darren why not use two 150w 50k iwasakis? J&L can get the bulbs in for $130.. You'd pay nearly $200 for a 175 raduim or sunburst..

Some interesting bulb comparisons:

http://www.coralreefecosystems.com/