Please clear this up for me...

aegiale

aegiale

Member
Hi... I'd really appreciate some answers to my questions :)
I'm just making sure I have this right... I have a 75 gallon tank with one 48" long 110 Watt Super Actinic Blue VHO (420 nm peak) and one 48" 110 Watt Actinic White VHO (12000K). Does this mean I have ~2.9 watts per gallon?
I have about 100 pounds of live rock, since this means there's less water, does that mean there's more than 2.9 watts per gallon?
I've always kept mushrooms, zoos, various polyps, and leathers well (I inherited my tank), but should I upgrade my lighting for them?
If ever I wanted a coral that needs "moderate" light, how much does that mean? Without changing my lighting system, could I just place it near the top of my tank?
Thank you!
 
aegiale

aegiale

Member
I know it's not a fun question to answer, but if you one here will / can answer it, where can I find out? Thanks.
 
nm reef

nm reef

Active Member
220 watts of VHO's over a 75 gal display sounds like 2.9 watts per gal to me...low to moderate on my scale of lighting. Decent enough light to keep mushrooms/leathers/polyps and some softies and LPS types...but depending on the individual lighting requirements of the specific coral you may need to locate them higher up on the reef. I'd think that if all else was in order you could develop a decent reef with your current lighting.
 
wester97

wester97

Member
Yes, that means you have 2.9 watts per gallon. But, I am not sure at what range determines moderate and strong.
 
skirrby

skirrby

Active Member
the rock wont change the watts per gallon.. watts per gallon is a very bad way to measure if you have enough light for the corals you want.... if you really want to get into keeping corals..upgrade your lighting.. if you cant afford metal halide, then at least add 2 more vhos..right now you should have enough for some shrooms and low light soft corals
 
aegiale

aegiale

Member
Thank you for the replies. I thought watts per gallon was how light was commonly measured.
I'm really surprised that with practically a third of my tank taken up my rock, the 55 or so gallons of water space wouldn't be considered higher in wattage. Because if that leaves me with approximately a 55 gallon tank, that's 4 watts per gallon... no?
 
rwhite

rwhite

Member
I would say that its the light penetration that you're looking for. Less wattage may not penetrate the water as well, depending on the depth of the water. I may not be correct, but thats the way I've approached it. Lower light corals near the bottom (shrooms) and more demanding animals near the top (anemone). I'm not an expert by any means, but after lots of moving and searching, finally got the right spot for the shrooms, rics, etc. Everyone seems happy where they are right now. One exception is a green shroom that was loose in the bag that I tried to place without glue,etc. After I lost it, must have found a spot to attach to and is now reaching for light. Happens to be on a base rock, so without disturbing everything, I cant get to it. The good news is that its alive; maybe it will move itself to a better location.
 
lestregus

lestregus

Member
rwhite is correct...watts per gallon doesn't change because it is based on the *size* of the aquarium not the actual # of gallons of water in the tank. i have 4 uri vho's on my 75 and have been very pleased, so if you are thinking of an upgrade i would just add 2 more...
 
aegiale

aegiale

Member
I was thinking of upgrading eventually. There's room for two more VHOs, but one would be suffice. It's odd because my mushrooms seem to do better towards the top of my tank and my ricordia and other anemones for the most part seem to prefer the bottom. My ricordia likes shade, actually.
NM- you said it might be sufficient for some LPS corals. What about a favia/moonstone? I read on the internet and two books I've looked at that they prefer lower light because they're usually found comparitively deep in the wild, as well as a fairly strong current to protect them from algae growth, but not so according to this board.
Thanks everyone, I'm glad I finally know about the wattage now.
 
aegiale

aegiale

Member
The reason I ask about the moonstone is because I got one recently because of my "research" on the internet, thinking it would be okay... but now I'm having second thoughts. Also, how large should I let my tang get before taking him out? I'm going to try to post some pictures, but it doesn't always work and my pictures are poor! It was really in bad shape when I got it... now I'm ready to start building a nice reef. Thanks.
 
nm reef

nm reef

Active Member
Watts per gal is a very general and most often easily understood reference for lighting...not a true measurement. You have a 75 gal display and 220 watts of available light...no matter how much displacement of water you have you still have a general reference of 2.9 watts per gal.
As far as the favia is concerned it may be able to do well in your system...if circulation and water chemistry issues are appropiate combined with the available light you have one may do decent. But the same coral would probably do much better in a more intense lighting system and would do much worse under less lighting...I'd say a favia and/or a favite could do well for you considering what info you have provided and the pics you have posted.:thinking:
 
S

spsaddict

Guest
good luck catching the yt without ripng the reef down..... there a reason most lfs tanks have no lr.... :)
anyway tank looks great. add 2 more vhos and youll be happy... as will your coral.. :)
 
aegiale

aegiale

Member
Thanks :)
spsaddict - catching my yellow tang is very easy... everytime I want a damsel out and do the old coke bottle trick, my yellow tang is the first one in!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top