Lux readings

[john.m.cole3]

It's the one you or mcarroll recommended. Tondaj LX-1010B

 

[john.m.cole3]

This

 

[KJoFan]

Since I'm adding sps to my tank soon, I should probably just look at upgrading the A160 to the A360 and move on with life.

 

[KJoFan]

So, I picked up a lux meter just to see what kind of readings I actually get as I felt the lux app for the iphone wasn't giving an accurate reading.

At peak intensity of 100% I am getting right at or just shy of 30,000 lux directly under the light. Overall it averages 15,000-25,000 most of the rest of the surface. It will drop off to 8-10,000 at the far corners.

I actually feel like these are generous readings. I wouldn't expect it to be that high, even at 100%. I've been running 100% for at least a couple weeks now (maybe 3) and nothing has gotten upset. This is partially why I feel those numbers are generous, but maybe I'm wrong.

So, with plenty of surface agitation and the light probably 10" off the water and my sps 5-6" below the surface of the water am I in the ballpark for successful sps?

 

[mcarroll]

Most corals should be just fine under that. Might be borderline for true light-hogs like clams....but that's not "most corals".

 

[KJoFan]

So, as long as I'm ok with 100% intensity (and why not?) probably no need to upgrade the 160 to a 360 probably.

I am seeing some die off on one sps frag from the base up. Not sure if it resulted from gluing it in place and possible damage, but it seems to slowly be working it's way up. Or, could be an alk issue. 11/29 alk tested at 9.1, tested tonight and it was 7.7 Which isn't a drastic drop so not sure that's it either.

 

[saltyfilmfolks]

So, I picked up a lux meter just to see what kind of readings I actually get as I felt the lux app for the iphone wasn't giving an accurate reading.

At peak intensity of 100% I am getting right at or just shy of 30,000 lux directly under the light. Overall it averages 15,000-25,000 most of the rest of the surface. It will drop off to 8-10,000 at the far corners.

I actually feel like these are generous readings. I wouldn't expect it to be that high, even at 100%. I've been running 100% for at least a couple weeks now (maybe 3) and nothing has gotten upset. This is partially why I feel those numbers are generous, but maybe I'm wrong.

So, with plenty of surface agitation and the light probably 10" off the water and my sps 5-6" below the surface of the water am I in the ballpark for successful sps?

Most corals should be just fine under that. Might be borderline for true light-hogs like clams....but that's not "most corals".

Most leds so far in my research have a lux par conversion constant of 60.

You can also do a constant of 55 and 5o and it will give you a pretty good range.
30,000/60 is about 500. So its likely your around 300+ par on the acros(depending on depth and placement), and many would say that's about right.

 

[KJoFan]

Most leds so far in my research have a lux par conversion constant of 60.

You can also do a constant of 55 and 5o and it will give you a pretty good range.
30,000/60 is about 500. So its likely your around 300+ par on the acros(depending on depth and placement), and many would say that's about right.

Well heck, I might actually be doing something right! All acros seem to be doing just fine, barring the one with the tissue loss at the base.

 

[mcarroll]

In branching corals, light intensity usually drops by an order of magnitude from the tip of the branch to its base. I learned that today. Consider that they grow with that form on purpose. Way cool.

 

[saltyfilmfolks]

Well heck, I might actually be doing something right! All acros seem to be doing just fine, barring the one with the tissue loss at the base.

and other theories on light requirements are still abound among many other things. Its soo hard to say from coral to coral what issues are.

 

[KJoFan]

and other theories on light requirements are still abound among many other things. Its soo hard to say from coral to coral what issues are.

I imagine sps are like all other corals, some just do better than others with no real rhyme or reason. Zoas and palys seem that way as well. Some do fine, while others melt. Some do fine for awhile and then suddenly go down hill.

 

[KJoFan]

These readings were at 100% intensity, when I just checked it now at 75% intensity readings are 18,000 or so. So, the question is, how long should I be running at 100% intensity to give those acros the most light?

 

[Velcro]

Since I'm adding sps to my tank soon, I should probably just look at upgrading the A160 to the A360 and move on with life.

I would just add another 160. Way better spread and prevention of shading.

 

[KJoFan]

I would just add another 160. Way better spread and prevention of shading.

Probably a good option, I'm just not sure how I would mount it The Biocube really only allows for one gooseneck to be attached.

 

[Daniel@R2R]

Cool discussion!

Since I'm adding sps to my tank soon, I should probably just look at upgrading the A160 to the A360 and move on with life.

I would recommend upgrading. I think most people are finding the 160 to be inadequate.

 

[KJoFan]

Cool discussion!


I would recommend upgrading. I think most people are finding the 160 to be inadequate.

Do you think the single light would have too much shadowing as suggested? Or, do I try to find a way to add a second 160? As stated though, I would find it tough to add a second fixture to the setup being a Biocube with really only one available spot for a gooseneck to attach. There is the option to suspend it from the ceiling but I'd really rather not. Am I missing any obvious solution on that front?

 

[Daniel@R2R]

Do you think the single light would have too much shadowing as suggested? Or, do I try to find a way to add a second 160? As stated though, I would find it tough to add a second fixture to the setup being a Biocube with really only one available spot for a gooseneck to attach. There is the option to suspend it from the ceiling but I'd really rather not. Am I missing any obvious solution on that front?

Not that I can think of. I was recommending the 360 over the 160 (I think I'd do that whether you go with 1 or 2 fixtures), but if you've got an issue with being able to mount 2 lights to the tank, suspending from the ceiling or some other type of frame is really the only option I can think of. Otherwise, you could look at a completely different fixture that would offer more spread?

 

[saltyfilmfolks]

Do you think the single light would have too much shadowing as suggested? Or, do I try to find a way to add a second 160? As stated though, I would find it tough to add a second fixture to the setup being a Biocube with really only one available spot for a gooseneck to attach. There is the option to suspend it from the ceiling but I'd really rather not. Am I missing any obvious solution on that front?

getting back on track, did you wind up getting a handheld meter?
That fixture "should" be fine for that tank.
What are your nutrints? No Po
and can we see the corals your not happy with.

 

[Velcro]

Not that I can think of. I was recommending the 360 over the 160 (I think I'd do that whether you go with 1 or 2 fixtures), but if you've got an issue with being able to mount 2 lights to the tank, suspending from the ceiling or some other type of frame is really the only option I can think of. Otherwise, you could look at a completely different fixture that would offer more spread?

2 360s on a biocube?

 

[Daniel@R2R]

2 360s on a biocube?

Sorry. I'll clarify. I think 1 360 is probably sufficient if placed at the right height, and I'd go with 1 360 over 2 160's. If spread is still an issue, add another one (I don't think it will be necessary, but we all have our own preferences. )