Conflicting opinions on lighting--what do you think?

[Jan]

OK, here we go again...

I bought a lighting retrofit kit from HelloLights.com for my 120 tank. I said I wanted SPS and clam/s but also didn't want to fry up my softies.

I bought upon their recommendation a kit that includes
2- 175 watt, 15K Iwasaki halides (excellent PAR rating)
2 - T-5 actinic, 48 " (my tank is 60" long so these are staggered in the canopy).
The actinics have individual reflectors but the halides are mounted in a single piece reflector with ~ a 2 inch folded-down edge.
The halides are oriented parallel to the length of the tank.

I received a recommendation from someone I trust, that I would greatly enhance the light penetration of these halides by re-orienting them to be perpendicular to the length of the tank, and to install different reflectors such as luminarcs or some kind of parabolic reflector (second choice).

I called the HelloLights company back and told them this plan, so as to improve light penetration. I was told that to do this would be a detriment to the actinics as it would block the light from them. And that the current parallel orientation of my halides is perfectly fine....I would only want to change them if using a parabolic reflector which he said was not a good idea.
So basically opposite advice. Oh yeah; he said I should paint the inside of the canopy a bright, high gloss white and that would do more for me than installing new reflectors, etc.

Which advice is better, person A or vendor B? I know in general that we are not to trust vendors, it's just so hard for me to accept that they are either stupid or lying. They're supposed to be the experts in their products! And I know person A isn't stupid or lying, so...????

 

[DonW]

Perpendicular to the tank would be my pick along with a good reflector. The actinics are just for looks and honestly I never would have got them to begin with. Also I would have gone with 3 250w bulbs.

Don

 

[Scooterman]

I agree with Don on the amount of lights used & for the most part the orientation of the reflectors but not sure on your exact reflector, It may be by design to be mounted parallel but most MH reflectors are curved to some sort & you usually mount them perpendicular because of the reflector design, you want that curved portion to reflect that light into the tank & not on the outside edges, which will happen when mounted the other way, also it is very concentrated light that is gathered at this point. LIII's are tested by SanJay as producing the best results as far as reflectors go but these are huge & you need 19"Wx25"Lx8"D space for each, they do make a mini size but for the price & would go with the spider or PFO reflector & save a few coins. The Helo lights guy is right also because with antics your relying on that to color offset the Iwaski's some & with the reflectors like that would block the H.O. T5's but there are ways around this if you have a larger hood & can accommodate higher stand-offs. You will also come into the issue of having the MH heat up the fluorescents & that won't be good for them either, so you have to try & avoid getting the MH too close to them. Me I would do three smaller PFO or spiders, using 250W MH & the Reeflux 10k's, electronic ballast. If you need fluorescents, then add the T5's but probably wouldn't need them. Why use the smaller reflectors? The length of your tank is at odds with the large LIII's, not going to fit, you could easily get three 250's with the spider types & have plenty of overlap. ON average with LIII's you cover a 2x2 foot square, depending on the mounted heights, spiders make more of a rectangle area of coverage so it works out slightly less.
JMO

 

[Jan]

Thanks, both of you. I happen to have a 250 MH w/ballast and reflector that I got from Scott. So I could add a third MH. If I added it, I would have the one 250 in 10K and the 2 175's in 15K. At that point I might need to buy a chiller though and I was hoping to avoid needing one of those...

I do like having actinics for the soft blue dawn and dusk look rather than the abrupt transition from darkness to bright light. Amd I understand your point about not wanting to get the end of the MH bulb too close to the actinic bulb.

I'm not sure where that leaves me...I did get one suggestion to start over from scratch and try to sell what I just bought. That option is still on the table...

Scooterman, to clarify my current reflector is the entire length of the canopy, and flat across, maybe 16 inches wide with the 2" lip folded down on each side. The sockets came already positioned on this reflector, facing parallel to the long side of the tank.

 

[jezzeaepi]

Hey Scoot, I am curious why you recomend 3 250's for the length and not 2? Last time I talked to you about lighting a 5 foot tank you recomended against me getting 3 250's.

 

[beemer]

Jan,
Just my 2 cents here but i certainly would send the 175's back and go with 250's. I currently have a 120 with twin 400's on and my softies love it (only have 2) Nepthia, yellow toadstool, up fairly high though. I do love the look of actinics in the morning and night. But I would still put the lights perpendicular. Most manufacturers actually specify this type of setup. You should be able to fit it all in.
Sounds like you are doing it right though and asking questions first. Good luck
Jerod

 

[Scooterman]

Hey Scoot, I am curious why you recomend 3 250's for the length and not 2? Last time I talked to you about lighting a 5 foot tank you recomended against me getting 3 250's.

I don't remember why I said that, could be several reasons, if you can find the thread it will help me remember. Some reflectors can cover more area, or maybe you were looking to keep sps & other corals mixed or supplemented with fluorescents in a way that the lights didn't get blocked, saving the cost of running an extra light. One thing to consider is exactly what are your goals with lighting, it isn't mandatory to have high performance lighting to be successful; each case could vary depending on needs or goals. We say three to get maximum coverage, can you go with two yes as long as you’re aware of that & the outer edges you place the right corals under that area. The 5ft tank is border line & could easily go either way & still keep just about anything you want, you may just need to locate the lights farther outward or closer together & whatever isn't covered would be used for other types of corals. I would really have to consider what I was wanting to do with my tank, If I was planning on keeping strictly sps, clams all high light demanding coral, then the three would probably be my choice, If I wanted to save money & not go all out or keep other types of coral yes I would probably use two mh & supplement, I apologize for not being clear on that, lighting can & will be a topic as it changes constantly, who knows what will happen if we all start using LED's one day.

 

[Scooterman]

Jan, one thing with your three mh is you cold start them in sequence, one one first for about an hour or so, then maybe the other end, then last the middle & all three for maybe 4 hours then reverse sequence turning them off. You can accomplish your affects & not need supplementing, another Idea.

 

[Jan]

Jan, one thing with your three mh is you cold start them in sequence, one one first for about an hour or so, then maybe the other end, then last the middle & all three for maybe 4 hours then reverse sequence turning them off. You can accomplish your affects & not need supplementing, another Idea.

THis is an interesting idea. When you say, "accomplish your affects and not need supplementing," what do you mean by "supplementing?" Supplemental lighting (actinics)? Or are you talking about the chiller? I have ordered an aquacontroller jr., so maybe I could program the lighting this way. I will need to buy 3 reflectors this way, though...

Man, I am anxious to get this resolved...unfinished business, you know how that is....

 

[Skimmy]

o.k.,, i admit it!! im person "A"...
i was very unimpressed with this retro hellolights suggested for jan...
a 2 x175w for a 5' long tank??....(WTF??, im thinking to myself)

"hellolights,....1993 called, and they want their m.h. retro back"

first off, this retro has a really bad reflector, totally flat and a little flap on the edge, which i know gets very little light energy to the bottom of tank, so that to me is wasteful.
second, i dont know how 2 x 175w is really "enough" for having sps in a mixed tank that is 60x18x24, which i know jan wants to have in conjunction with her lps and softies as well.
third, the bulbs are mounted the wrong way in the reflector, but the reflector is so bad i guess it doesnt matter much anyway..
the only redeming quality from this retro is the tek brand t5ho actinic lights they use with the nice reflectors, which i thought we should keep and just replace the crappy m.h. reflector with dual lumenarcs and call it good, another $250 investment, or return the entire thing to hellolights or sell it and replace with this:
http://www.aquatraders.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=333

which i thought would allow her to do both sps right under the bulbs, and lps/softies by having some shaded spots on the ends/middle, and it included moonlights as well.
i know the lumenarcs are better, but im just thinking of offering cost effective alternatives here

 

[Scooterman]

2- 175 watt, 15K Iwasaki halides (excellent PAR rating), these lights produce really high PAR, more than most 250W 20K's which is usually horrible, so be careful in how lights are compared, If you read the test that were don on them compared to the H.O. T5's you will see they blow them out big time, also you have to consider how much light is needed @ these high levels, because even though we get around 12hours of daylight over the reefs, not all day is it that intense. That is the tricky thing about lighting, so many variables to consider.
Yes Jan actinic, with three mh lights you can get a good color mixture. I personally don't know how blue the 15K Iwasaki put out but I bet it is fairly nice. One last thing I didn't mention is the tank dept that has to be considered also. It may be the case of getting better reflectors & maybe a higher K lamp for the middle, 250 mh.
Skim dood read that comparison in the link I'l provid below.

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=925100&highlight=t5+vs+mh+par

 

[Skimmy]

i was also thinking i could mount the lumenarc reflectors with eyelets on the top with a metal rod that is mounted to the canopy top running through them so she could slide them from side to side for tank access without taking the canopy off, because the lumenarcs take up so much space.
the other thing i was thinking was like the sunlight supply reef optic 3 reflectors which are in a little external parabolic fixture with a glass cover wich is much smaller than the lumenarcs but $10 more each...
what do you guys think???

 

[Scooterman]

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2006/2/review

Check this out Skim Dood!

 

[Jan]

"hellolights,....1993 called, and they want their m.h. retro back"

ROFL! :lol:

I like the look of the light from my Iwasaki 175's, and since it has such good PAR that is of value.

I also need to consider that my husband invested some time in helping me install this lighting, and it may not be in my best interest to discount the time he's invested by replacing my lighting with something completely different.

Mark, are you thinking about the Luminarc mini's that are 6" deep or the larger units? And based on your reading of the Iwasaki 175 reviews, what do you think about the suggestion to add the 250 10K in the middle, and cycle the timing for all 3 lights? Would it still be "chiller time?" I still need to look at the the other reflector you mentioned.