Lighting

I've been looking for lights that will be adequate for a 55-gallon reef and was wondering does intensity matter? I'm thinking about getting VHO's and didn't know how the intensity played into how much light you need. I know i will need at least 6 wpg. Thanks for any replies.
Peace
 

bobber

Member
What do you plan to keep in this tank? I think this plays a more important role in what type of lighting you can have to keep the inhabitants healthy. Intensity is very important when it comes to lighting. VHOs are very nice and work very well for SPS corals. MH and VHO combos work great if you plan to keep anything you want. I would say research what you want to put in the tank and get lighting to acommidate them. Forget the WPG rule.--Bob
 

burnnspy

Active Member
I do not recommend using VHO only systems for SPS corals, only MH with VHO support has enough intensity for maintaining colorful SPS corals.
BurnNSpy
 

sonny

Member
Metal halide is still the best lighting for a reef. The newer lamps available look great, and you can't get any more light for the amount of space and energy consumed. For a 55 gallon, you could go with 150 or 175 watt MH, with 2 lamps. You can buy that setup for $300 or less including some lamps. You'll need to do some of the wiring and build your own canopy for that price though. One thing to take into account is the cost of replacing lamps. VHO lamps need replacing at least once a year, most reef fanatics say every 6 months. MH lamps last 12-18 months. You need at least 2 VHO lamps to put out the same light as one 175 watt MH. Over a 55 gallon tank, you'd want to have 3-4 VHO lamps. Add the cost of re-lamping, and divide by the number of months you get out of them, and I think you'll see that MH lamps will be cheaper in the long run. They also look great!
Sonny
 

tnreef

Member
Sammy THANK YOU
I have been saying that for ages IT IS PAR That determines what you can keep WATTS PER GALLON HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH IT!!!!
The watts per gallon is great for someone trying to start but when we get in to high light corals that is thrown out the window. Not only is intensity important so is usable intensity. Research what you are wanting to keep and go from there!!!!!! ;)
IMO Darryl
 

burnnspy

Active Member
Sammy, most if not all of those low light corals you listed are almost impossible to keep except by experts and require massive phytoplankton and zooplankton feedings, which would pollute any regular reef system. None of those corals are recommend for any non-experts as far as I know, even Tubestra requires some aquatic skillz.
To tell a everyone that they dont need good light for non-photo corals could also have them running out to buy gorgians and sun corals to kill for lack of quality information on non-photosynthetic corals and lack of tank specialization for there feeding requirements.
Most of these lighting and coral questions would be moot if potential purchases were studied first, as we all agree.
BurnNSpy
 

adrian

Active Member
What a post :) Im not even going to comment on the WPG, except WPG=BS. Not aonly do I think that rule is a bunch of crap, I think a lot of other rules are a bunch of crap. For example everytime someone asks about VHO and sps someone shoots them down and says it cant be done or they arent colorful. I know for a fact that sps can be kept under VHo, and true they may not have the colors of specimens under 400 watt MH, they can color up nicely and grow very well also. There has even been some recent talk about some sps that ill actually brown under bright illumination. You would get shot if you sad that a year ago. I think a whole mess of things come into play when talking about lighting, I definetely think intensity matters a lot more than watts, but things light current, alk and Ca, position, and water quality also can play an important role. We all have to realize this is an ongoing experiment, and rule change all the time, or shall I call them opinions. Coralline can grow at very low light levels and very high light levels, thats usually why you only see one dominant species in any given tank. At lower lights you get deeper purples and as the light gets brighter light shade of pink will be present. Another thing that bugs me, while we are venting, is that a lot of people try to push "their rules" on everyone else. There are so many different ways to do this and more than just a couple work. Some work better then others, but I feel a reefer should start at the bottom and work his/her way up. How much can you possibly learn about keeping a reef if you are told from the get go that it must be done this way and no other way works. As for the non photosynthetic corals, by the way the other day at work my boss let me break down a tank that had been established "his way" and set it up "my way" and upon moving a few peices of rock out I discovered an awesome dendrophyllia that had attached and was looking very healthy, I was totally shocked because all the specimens he has ever ordered have died in a matter of weeks and of course I have read all the stuff that they are impossible to keep and should not be attempted. Anyway these corals may be demanding, but isnt any coral? I went out of pocket to get halides and a reactor in order to keep sps because they grow better with bright lights and a high Alk and Ca. I feed my anemones, gorgonians, and my tubastrea because they demand feeding. So far the overall trend in this hobby is to set up a tank with the brightest light possible, the best filtration possible, and so on. Would it not be just as fun and challenging to set up a tank for corals on the other end of the spectrum? We know what they need, and Im sure phyto is cheaper than halides and reactors :) We have to remember that 10 years ago a lot of the stuff we have thriving in our tanks today were considered impossible and it only takes a little trial and error to find out what a certain genus needs in order to have them thrive as well.
 

bayouguy

Member
Right on Adrian!
Personally, one thing that attracts me to this hobby is the fact that there is so much controversy and nobody has quite figured it out. This makes me excited about trying new techniques (nothing stupid hopefully, and nothing that kills stuff, but sooner or later, someone will figure out the "formula" for certain tank configurations and I like that right now, nobody really has it down - so maybe it will be me? Hehehe).
I've followed the advice of the majority on this board and it has served me well. On the lighting issue, the jury is still out. I have a mega-lighting setup on my tank and I'm not sure if it's making a difference just yet.
 

tonka

Member
I'm am so tired of hearing people say that you need MH for SPS corals!!! That is completely wrong! I am proof. I have SPS,and clams that do great in PC lighting. Yeah, it may be brighter in MH but they still grow great in PC. BurnNSpy in your tank that I've seen, you would have no problems with PC lighting! MH's are overpriced for what we(anybody with 75g or less) need. Don't get me wrong, anything over 75g, I would say go with MH.
 

burnnspy

Active Member
Tonka you miss quote me bro, I don't think I ever said you need MH for all SPS corals to survive. What I said and know is that you need MH for most SPS corals to do well and 400watt MH for the most demanding SPS corals to thrive(the brightest colors).
A good amount of SPS corals will probably survive on VHO; A human will survive on bread, candy and water. Would you want to just survive, it would be a lot cheaper.
Tank size actually has nothing to do with the intensity of light your corals need to thrive, since I chose to keep from the beginning to keep a few acroporas in my reef I needed MH so I wouldnt be limited when the time came to get them. Upgrading your lights for livestock purchases in the future is a waste of money and I don't wanna hear that, I'm not cheap just efficient.
BurnNSpy
[ May 17, 2001: Message edited by: BurnNSpy ]
 

ironreef

Member
I know a few pl in my area with 29g who had pc lighting. Now have halides the corals growth is much better and sps have better color. I experianced the same with a bigger tank. http://www.fitermania.com/aquarium/ halides are accually cheaper or the same in the long run. the bulbs last longer and it takes less to equal the same results. IME I never had good luck with sps & clams under vho. slow growth poor color, clams starved. That was in my 55g. MY 120g has halides and vho corals are colorful fast grows clams grow fast. LSP split JME
[ May 17, 2001: Message edited by: Ironreef ]
 
So I was thinking about going with pc but after hearing abot the advantages of mh i'm going to go with mh. Thanks for everybodies replies.
Peace
 

tonka

Member
BurnNSpy,
Hey I do agree with what you're saying but I believe tank size and placement of corals makes a HUGE difference. Not to pick on you(I think you are very knowledgeable)but you do advacate MH's way to much for smaller tanks that will do fine with PC's. As for price, if people check around and you will find that PC lighting is alot cheaper in the long run. Thanks
 

ironreef

Member
I will agree pc and vho you can have a nice reef. But I would say 95% of the reefers I know who started with florecent ended up with halides. So which is cheaper when you buy again? pc do cost almost as halides. halides cost more when you need multiple. But when its just one halide for a small tank IME cost the same and is cheaper for the amount of light if you buy vho or pc to equal the output. But it just depends on what you want.
 
Top