starting my tank

[chez]

I just wanted to show my new tank, and tell about the great deal I got on 300 plus lbs of liverock for only $100.00. I didn’t belive it either until I went to pick it up, and he didn’t ask for any more money. The best part is that there is no aptasia on any of it, some of the coralline algae died because he didn’t keep it under lights. Now I have about 450 plus lbs of liverock I put alot of it in my sump, I need to figure how in going to aquascape my tank now. I still haven't found a skimmer, looking for a good deal...I should be ok since i don't have any livestock yet right?

 

[XxKnuckleheadxX]

great deal.

 

[dskirtech]

Awesome deal for sure. Good luck. You should be ok for a while with just LR. When you cycle grab a CUC and take some more shots!

Dane

 

[chez]

Will the coralline algae grow with just 3 65w power compacts on them? I dont want to put on the 250w mh yet...trying to save energy.

 

[KidJ57]

Will the coralline algae grow with just 3 65w power compacts on them? I dont want to put on the 250w mh yet...trying to save energy.

Unfortunately, probably not, but it doesn't really start to grow till after the tank has been cycled for a little while...I hope that you have more than just one 250W mh and a couple of 65W PCs planned for the future? with a 300gallon tank, you're gonna need at minimum 600W shining on that bad boy, but are probably going to want anywhere from 1200 to 1500W.

 

[chez]

Right now I have 2 250w mh and 4 pc retro's but i want to add t5 ho...thinking about like 16 total on the sides and inbetween the mh for more lighting without all the heat. So I hope...

 

[KidJ57]

:shock: right on...my only thing there is that if you're trying to save electricity, you may actually end up using more with all those T-5's and their individual cooling fans, where as if you use something like Odyssea Metal Halide System (maybe from someone more reputable if you'd prefer), not only would your lighting system be less cumbersome, but may in fact be more efficient. When it comes to lights, wattage rating is used wattage (250 watts of MH and 250 watts of T5 is still 250watts used), but typically manufacturer's don't include the wattage used by their cooling fans so we tend to leave that out of the equation. Simply put though, if you have more cooling fans but the same light wattage output, you're going to be using more power.

 

[chez]

good point!!

 

[project5k]

Simply put though, if you have more cooling fans but the same light wattage output, you're going to be using more power.

no sir, not by a long shot! This type of generalazation can confuse people, so lets set a couple things straight.

dont forget to factor in the losses in the ballasts, and conversion to heat. if you have a more efficient ballast, and use more fans, you could end up using just as much wall power as a system with a less efficient ballast, and fewer fans.(though this is logically backwards cause a less efficient ballast would produce more heat that would need to be dissapated.

further more, to measure light output in WATTS is a mistake. we all do it, i'm guilty as well, but technically speaking, watts is a unit of power, not light. light is measured in lumens and candle power.

for the average person, the easiest way to know the true power usage of a device, would be to get something like a kill-a-watt meter, and compare the 2.

something like a MH produces lots of heat, so depending on the rest of that particular system's efficiencies, it may or may not be overall more efficient than a flourescent system of equal LIGHT output.

not to mention that you would also have to factor in the hvac system where the lights are as well, if you add 1000W of MH light, its going to have more of an impact on your airconditioning than a flourescent system with equal input power.

conservation of energy, no energy can be lost, only converted.

 

[chez]

So let me make sure I understand...it's not the watts I should be concerned about, it’s the power that is being consumed that is the problem. So a whole unit may seem to be more efficient simply because it’s all in one but the truth is that it may use more power because of the ballast is working harder so to speak. When you have the individual units the ballast is more efficient. Just may produce more heat. I think I got it?

 

[KidJ57]

no sir, not by a long shot! This type of generalazation can confuse people, so lets set a couple things straight. I was attempting to minimize the possibility of an informational overload, but I like where this is going :fechten2::mrgreen:

dont forget to factor in the losses in the ballasts, and conversion to heat. if you have a more efficient ballast, and use more fans, you could end up using just as much wall power as a system with a less efficient ballast, and fewer fans.(though this is logically backwards cause a less efficient ballast would produce more heat that would need to be dissapated. One, typically, could uprgrade to a more efficient ballast; secondly, I merely gave the "Oddyssea Fixture" as an example of design not as a model of efficiency. You are absolutely correct.

further more, to measure light output in WATTS is a mistake. we all do it, i'm guilty as well, but technically speaking, watts is a unit of power, not light. light is measured in lumens and candle power. That was something I was trying to not get into, as I wasn't attempting to explain lumes to watts, I was merely stating that using watts is using watts as, yes, using watts does not mean producing lumens by any extent. Furthermore, most lighting discussions I have read discuss the ussage of watts per gallon but do not specify how many lumens per gallon which would actually be more useful as then one could more easily make comparisons to lighting systems.

for the average person, the easiest way to know the true power usage of a device, would be to get something like a kill-a-watt meter, and compare the 2. That's if they want to purchase a kill-a-watt meter and both devices in order to test both devices and their entire systems; plus one should also be testing lumen output at this time to make sure that a similar and consist lumen output is being achieved by both.

something like a MH produces lots of heat, so depending on the rest of that particular system's efficiencies, it may or may not be overall more efficient than a flourescent system of equal LIGHT output. true, no arugment; however, in this case we are also attempting to conserve space, and, typically, a system can be upgraded/retro-fitted to be more efficient.

not to mention that you would also have to factor in the hvac system where the lights are as well, if you add 1000W of MH light, its going to have more of an impact on your airconditioning than a flourescent system with equal input power. Also a good point, but then one could also argue that this would have the reverse benefit in the winter.

conservation of energy, no energy can be lost, only converted. Well said

I really don't have any arguments, these are all good points and well said; I just didn't want my previous answer to essentially be "Well, it depends", which if you were to condense down this whole conversation the answer to Chez's question is: ":dunno: It depends". To be honest, the most efficient lighting system you could install would an LED system with a large lumen output powered by Solar Power...since that would be LARGELY expensive, at the moment you have ask yourself, how much money, time, and space do I want to spend researching loads and usage in order to save x amount of energy? If space and moeny are large determining factors than your choices become smaller and, thus, easier. If using these least amount of electricity is your ultimate goal then this process will cost you time, money, and space.

 

[project5k]

well, thats not quite right either, ballasts, combined, or sepperated will have thier own specific efficiencies, not knowing much more about MH other than i know that they produce a TREMENDOUS amount of heat, and therefore, the amount of power put into the unit, does not directly equate to the amount of light you get out.

If your interested in saving money on your power bill(and thats what it sounds like cause you said that you were trying to save energy) then i would consider sticking with the flourescents. you can measure all the parameters if you want, but i think that you will find that by using flourescents, you will bet more lumens output per watt input than you will with any other light system(except LED's)

when we say you need 5 watts per gallon, we assume that 5 watts of MH vs 5 watts of PC is roughly the same, and thier just not, they have very different lumen outputs, and thats really what makes the difference, its the # of lumens, the actual count of photons striking the target object, that matters.

the bottom line is, that if you are like me, and you need to actually see the #'s then your gonna need a way to measure the input electrical energy, and a way to measure the amount of light getting to your target(a coral or the bottom of your tank or whatever)

then you need to sit down and do the math and figure out if you have to add more flourescent units, if the losses and inefficiencies in the ballasts is more or less than the MH's.

What you will find, is that for lumen output per watt input, flourescent is more efficient, meaning that if the MH and the Flour. put the same amount of light on your target, that the flour will consume less power from the wall, and thus will cost you less on your electric bill.

Not to mention that with the flour. bulbs, they give off less heat, so thats just that much less heat that your airconditioner will have to move from the inside of your place to the outside.

EDIT:

apparently kid and i were typing at the same time and he hit post before i did, so lots of the above is now moot with his reply, so, rather than just trash everything i just typed, i'll leave it here, but with caveot that i think that kid and i are on the same side on this one, we just went about originally explaining it differently, and that causes a miscommunication that has now been cleared up.. i think...

 

[KidJ57]

:Buds:BFF?

:lol:

 

[project5k]

hehehe ok, but your the one that fell down... :D

 

[project5k]

so, chez, i think that kid and i both agree, that based soley on your electric bill, that just using the flourescents will be your best bet, but there are other factors that you should consider in the overall bigger picture, before making your final decision....

 

[KidJ57]

hehehe ok, but your the one that fell down... :D

Hell ya, I am! :mrgreen:

so, chez, i think that kid and i both agree, that based soley on your electric bill, that just using the flourescents will be your best bet, but there are other factors that you should consider in the overall bigger picture, before making your final decision....

+1 Project :mrgreen:

 

[project5k]

+1 Project :mrgreen:

so are you being sarcastic again? hehehe

 

[yote]

so, chez, i think that kid and i both agree, that based soley on your electric bill, that just using the flourescents will be your best bet, but there are other factors that you should consider in the overall bigger picture, before making your final decision....

I dont know:D
The last time I figured what my fixture cost me to run,it only came up to about 10 or 15 bucks a month more than when I was running T-5s.
I'm running the 72" version of this Champion Lighting & Supply :: Lighting :: Metal Halide :: Metal Halide Fixtures :: Outer Orbit HQI Hoods :: 72" Outer Orbit 3x250 w/ T5 Lamps

BTW Chez,that was a hell of a deal on the rock,and the tanks looking good.
And I'd be burning those halides you got.:D

 

[dcantucson]

no sir, not by a long shot! This type of generalazation can confuse people, so lets set a couple things straight.

dont forget to factor in the losses in the ballasts, and conversion to heat. if you have a more efficient ballast, and use more fans, you could end up using just as much wall power as a system with a less efficient ballast, and fewer fans.(though this is logically backwards cause a less efficient ballast would produce more heat that would need to be dissapated.

further more, to measure light output in WATTS is a mistake. we all do it, i'm guilty as well, but technically speaking, watts is a unit of power, not light. light is measured in lumens and candle power.

for the average person, the easiest way to know the true power usage of a device, would be to get something like a kill-a-watt meter, and compare the 2.

something like a MH produces lots of heat, so depending on the rest of that particular system's efficiencies, it may or may not be overall more efficient than a flourescent system of equal LIGHT output.

not to mention that you would also have to factor in the hvac system where the lights are as well, if you add 1000W of MH light, its going to have more of an impact on your airconditioning than a flourescent system with equal input power.

conservation of energy, no energy can be lost, only converted.

What did you say? :lol:

 

[KidJ57]

What did you say? :lol:

roughly translated: ":dunno: hard to tell/could go either way" :lol: