Radium vs Hamilton 20k spectrum

[aabjones888]

This conversation is awesome tbh. I just received my first MH setup today and spent my lunch break mounting it above my tank. So seeing discussions about different ballasts and types of them and how they affect different bulbs is awesome to read about.

IMO that's best best thing you could of ever done, u will love halides!

 

[jda]

Well I finally bit the bullet and bought a Apogee MQ210 underwater PAR meter from BRS a few minutes ago and can finally stop guessing what my light output is. I will post the PAR output on both the Geismann 14k and Radiums running on M80 ballast in case anyone would b interested in the results. The Geismann are about 5 months old and the Radiums are about 6 months old. Can't wait to get my new toy.

This meter will severely underestimate the output from either of those MH bulbs - it does not capture blue very well and almost no UV. This sensor is not alone - they all stink at this. There are some correction factors that you can apply to your readings to put them on par (wow - what a pun) with output from sources that deliver more in the readable range.

 

[Reefanatik]

This meter will severely underestimate the output from either of those MH bulbs - it does not capture blue very well and almost no UV. This sensor is not alone - they all stink at this. There are some correction factors that you can apply to your readings to put them on par (wow - what a pun) with output from sources that deliver more in the readable range.

Where would I find the "correction factor" so I can get the correct PAR readings?

 

[Reefanatik]

This is the only correction factor I have found. It states that the mq210 already has a correction factor applied but I think it is for use underwater and not the blue and uv correction factor you speak off. Either way I think I can at least get a measurement of my bulb when new and will be able to determine when it's time for a replacement.

*The MQ-210 and MQ-510 Underwater Quantum Meters already apply the immersion effect correction factor to the meter readings througt the meter firmware. Additionally, the SQ-420 and SQ-520 have an "Immersion Setting" that applies the immersion effect corection factor to the sensor readings through the ApogeeConnect Software. These sensors do not need post-measurement corrections applied to their measurements.

 

[oreo54]

This sensor is not alone - they all stink at this. There are some correction factors that you can apply to your readings to put them on par (wow - what a pun) with output from sources that deliver more in the readable range.

True UV is excluded "by definition"..
As to blue...some are quite adequate..

 

[Ztrain]

IMO that's best best thing you could of ever done, u will love halides!

Well so far I don't know if my corals are loving them lol.

Elegance - unchanged.
Pocilapora - mostly unchanged pollups not extended.
Chalaces - unchanged
Cipastria - some parts turning blue other turning whiter.
Purple sponge - edges a bit lighter and the shimmer parts have moved a bit.
Purple blue acro stick - white forming at top other then that unchanged.
Green birds nest - mostly unchanged still dying.
Monti - cant tell if it's bleaching or start to change to it's blue color from the red color. It's red on the growth parts and then the center of the colony is dark blue at the store. My frag was almost all red.
Rose Bubble tip. If it could climb out of the water and hug the light I think it would.

Will see how things play out over the next few days.

 

[Centerline]

How do you like them ? Any changes to acros colors compared to radium ? And did you get more growth ?
I heard they have amazing life or may be I am wrong - Its the megachrome crystal that are claimed to have 2+ years of lifespan.

Regards,
Abhishek

I ran the megachromes for a while - very nice light and very good growth.

 

[jda]

Why is UV excluded by definition? This is not smart and is very important to excitation, energy and emission. IR is also important to excitation and energy perhaps up to 850nm.

This is just my own opinion and findings comparing my Apogee 510 with a $40K spectrometer in an integrating sphere, but the area to the left and right of the red lines won't likely be seen by the Apogee, but are very important to coral. The blue spike is harder to capture with a straight line and I am unsure about it. Graph is courtesy of Dr. Joshi and reefs.com.

 

[Abhishek]

I ran the megachromes for a while - very nice light and very good growth.

Was it the 17.5k crystal or 14.5 k bulb that you ran ? Was there a purple tint to the tank ? Asking because the spectral graph in BRS shows a huge spike in the purple/ violet region on the left which intrigues me .

Regards,
Abhishek

 

[A. grandis]

Went full Reefbrite setup. I was at Aquatic Experience show and they had a pendant on all day and the guy was like touch it. It wasn't cold but not hot either just kind of warm with a 250 bulb going in there. But I've heard for the last few years from BRS that "MH is for people that care only about results." so when I saw that it wasn't going to turn my tank and room in to a furnace decided to really start looking at MH.

Got the 15" 175-400 watt pendant with the 2 XHO strips mounted to it which are awesome. Never seen my frags look like that. Ballast is their 175 watt Apex ready controllable ballast. I don't know if I'll actually bother with the dimming features on it. With the bulb I went with the 10k/20k twin arc so I can switch between the tank looking 10k or 20k. At my local store they have this same setup over their 500 gallon show tanks and it looks awesome. They're using Radium bulbs and I don't know exactly how Reefbrite 20k is vs the Radiums but so far it looks really good.

Still have a lot of hair algae that I've been fighting off but it's getting there. Put Zeovit on the cube 2.5 months ago. When I started every surface was covered in long hair algae with nitrates over 100 and phosphate over 1ppm. Nitrates are now usually undetectable and phospate ranges from .03-.08 while the algae has been dying off and receding. So if I can fix up the cube before I buy my new tank in a couple months I should be good. Fist got the nutrients under control with Zeovit, then getting the water quality fixed with triton dosing and testing, now I'm finishing up with lighting. If over the next months the frags start taking off and everything is good I should be ready to upgrade to a 55-75gal.

So far I've detected no raising of the water temp with this fixture granted only been running one afternoon we'll see how things are tomorrow. Spread and brightness are amazing with the 175 I don't know if when I upgrade to the new tank I'll need another fixture with another 175 setup or if I can just center pendant and raise it a bit and run it at 250. If the 10k bulb really shows growth I'll keep using twin arc's. If the 10k doesn't seem to do much I may pickup a Radium if I go the 250 watt route in the future. Also in a thread I saw the Hamilton 20k has almost the same spectral graph as the radium and they offer it in a 175 watt bulb so if I stay with 175 I may try the Hamilton 20k and see how that compares. Maybe I'll just end up using exclusively Reefbrite lamps too haven't decided yet. But now is the time to experiment before I setup the new tank.

That seems impressive and promising to me!
I opened a thread to know more about them:
https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/reef-brite-halide-system-users.337885/
Please post some nice pictures here.
Thanks.

Grandis.

 

[A. grandis]

Why is UV excluded by definition? This is not smart and is very important to excitation, energy and emission. IR is also important to excitation and energy perhaps up to 850nm.

This is just my own opinion and findings comparing my Apogee 510 with a $40K spectrometer in an integrating sphere, but the area to the left and right of the red lines won't likely be seen by the Apogee, but are very important to coral. The blue spike is harder to capture with a straight line and I am unsure about it. Graph is courtesy of Dr. Joshi and reefs.com.

Could you please let us know a bit more about the IR and excitation/energy? Any references?
Thanks.
Grandis.

 

[jda]

IR moves energy from PSII to PSI. Dana has some posts about it - you can search or I can find a link when I get back home (sorry). Orhpek also has started doing this and there is some info on their website for the V4 which has 850nm diodes in it.

 

[oreo54]

Why is UV excluded by definition? This is not smart and is very important to excitation, energy and emission. IR is also important to excitation and energy perhaps up to 850nm.

This is just my own opinion and findings comparing my Apogee 510 with a $40K spectrometer in an integrating sphere, but the area to the left and right of the red lines won't likely be seen by the Apogee, but are very important to coral. The blue spike is harder to capture with a straight line and I am unsure about it. Graph is courtesy of Dr. Joshi and reefs.com.

apogee SQ500 will slightly over-sample your peak at 450..
your chart is way off..AFAICT. for the 200 not the 500 series
Even the 100 series will sample 90% of 450nm light..dropping to 70% by 400nm

As to PAr definition.. ask the universities that established it..ONLY includes visible light w/ an agreed upon cutoff of 400nm and 700nm.
400-700 nm range .. by definition.. some instruments do go to about 350nm
UV (all B,C, some A) is almost universally described as more damage than benefit but like a good sun tan.. adds "color"..

also:

Water absorbs almost all of the infrared energy from sunlight within 10 centimeters of the surface.

 

[jda]

UV (all B,C, some A) is almost universally described as more damage than benefit but like a good sun tan.. adds "color"..

Why would you purposefully confuse everybody by putting B and C in the same boat as A? ...and then say "some A." All that anybody is talking about is that "some A." There are proteins in nearly every true coral that excite and get energy below 400n in the UVA range - this is not even debatable. Nobody is saying that B and C are helpful or should even be measured, so why even bring them up except to confuse or mislead? I know that you know that some amount of people will just skip over the first few word and focus on the "more damage than benefit part" and you will accomplished something, but I don't know what it is... which leads me to below...

I have asked this before and I will ask it again: do you even have a tank or participate in the hobby? We all know that you like to link other people's work and opinions, but do you have any of your own? Have you rented or used any high end equipment and done your own tests that might be of value (nearly every University near me with an engineering school has high precision spectrometers and meters and they geek-out if you call and ask them to help you measure stuff). I think that it is only fair for folks to know where you are coming from with your posts since they seem to mislead and confuse more than the help sometimes. As Dana has told you before, the stuff that you link about plants and stuff is not the same as what we are doing.

 

[oreo54]

Is what I say any more confusing than people saying 410nm violets are UV?
I present facts from people who have already done the work..and am more than happy if someone presents more contemporary analysis.
I have tanks and a degree in botany w/ a fascination for the light/photosynthesis aspects..and build my own light fixtures..
NONE of which means much really..

What people skip over is their problem..

UV (all B,C, some A) is almost universally described as more damage than benefit but like a good sun tan.. adds "color"..

Is a completely reasonable statement ....and I do "ask" others.. so to speak.. see below:

Abstract

In this report, we provide a perspective on how zooplankton are able to respond to present and future levels of ultraviolet (UV) radiation, a threat that has been present throughout evolutionary time. To cope with this threat, zooplankton have evolved several adaptations including behavioral responses, repair systems, and accumulation of photoprotective compounds. Common photoprotective compounds include melanins and carotenoids, which are true pigments, but also mycosporine-like amino acids (MAAs) and several other substances, and different taxa use different blends of these compounds. It is not only the level of UV radiation, however, that determines the amount of photoprotective compounds incorporated by the zooplankton, but also other environmental factors, such as predation and supply rate of the compounds. Furthermore, compared to taxa that are less pigmented, those taxa with ample pigmentation are generally less likely to exhibit diel migration. The photoenzymatic repair of UV damages seems to be more efficient at intermediate temperature than at low and high temperatures, suggesting that it is less useful at high and low latitudes, where UV radiation is often extremely high. While predicted future increases in UV radiation are expected to substantially affect many processes, recent studies show that most zooplankton taxa are well adapted to cope with such increases, either by UV avoidance behavior or by incorporation of photoprotective compounds.

http://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2009/pp/b908825c#!divAbstract

Or this.. more food for thought..:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&ved=0ahUKEwi3s-Gd0cbXAhVQ1WMKHcSXBHwQFghUMAY&url=http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.867.7964&rep=rep1&type=pdf&usg=AOvVaw2uqiII9suOuSYGwEV01lNh

 

[oreo54]

It's always... "complicated"..

 

[jda]

Is what I say any more confusing than people saying 410nm violets are UV.

Is this an admission that you are being coy and deceptive, or just that you are not any worse than some other folks? I am not sure, which is probably the desire. Nobody should say that either. A greedy LED manufacturer is not a high bar, but I will excuse the public who blindly recite their BS because they often phrase things to confuse or mislead with statements like the above.

Your link to a paragraph about zooplankton is also misleading, at best. Comparing creatures in Animalia to Dinos? You have been on the posts where Dana has shown you about the importance of UV in corals, the proteins that use and depend on it and how helpful it is. Was this another attempt to mislead hoping that people skipped over the "Zooplankton" part, or just a misunderstanding?

 

[oreo54]

Is this an admission that you are being coy and deceptive, or just that you are not any worse than some other folks? I am not sure, which is probably the desire. Nobody should say that either. A greedy LED manufacturer is not a high bar, but I will excuse the public who blindly recite their BS because they often phrase things to confuse or mislead with statements like the above.

Your link to a paragraph about zooplankton is also misleading, at best. Comparing creatures in Animalia to Dinos? You have been on the posts where Dana has shown you about the importance of UV in corals, the proteins that use and depend on it and how helpful it is. Was this another attempt to mislead hoping that people skipped over the "Zooplankton" part, or just a misunderstanding?

no, no misunderstanding corals are "hybrids" and can't swim away though..
Many biological systems have common components.. Producing pigments to attenuate their light environment is almost "universal"...
Never said UV didn't "do stuff" though one needs to consider what is a "benefit" and what is a "detriment"..
Same on the FW world.. bombarding aquarium plants w/ high light producing colored pigments..Same plant under a less unfriendly environment will produce less pigments (stay green) and "possibly" grow better..
Like in that world UV is "arguably" unnecessary..for the most part.
Honestly can't think of an organism that, removed from all high energy photons would "suffer" ...
now training characteristics w/ them is another story.

Will have to look over Dana work. Only am familiar w/ a few papers..

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2004/8/aafeature

Results

Baseline yield and post-exposure yield are shown in Figure 5. If UVR causes photoinhibition, it would be apparent as reduced quantum yield of Photosystem II after sufficient time is allowed for recovery after exposure to UVR. Schreiber (1997) contends that 40 minutes is sufficient time for recovery, and depressed yield at this time will indicate photoinhibition. In this case, yield is depressed even after 60 minutes, strongly suggesting that UVR caused photoinhibition.

nice title:

Feature Article: Playing With Poison - Ultraviolet Radiation

Where would the reef aquarium hobby be without debate? Everyone has an opinion, and I have certainly embraced certain theories. One such theory is that artificially-produced ultraviolet radiation (UVR) has potentially harmful effects on marine invertebrates. While the evidence of natural ultraviolet bandwidths and intensities is more than enough scientific documentation to prove detrimental effects (see Gleason and Wellington, 1993 and a host of others), there is much less data supporting similar effects of artificial light sources on captive marine invertebrates (but see Masuda, et al., 1993) . I've speculated that UVR is potentially detrimental for a number of years now, and have finally worked out an experimental protocol to test the hypothesis.

Maybe he changed his mind. don't know.. THAT's why I "say stuff"..
to find out.. you haven't helped btw..

I promise to look into it more..


sorry if you find it confusing..

 

[sghera64]

@oreo5457 and @jda, inquiring minds want to know (e.g. all the other former contributors to this thread): Are you two married, divorced, or using this thread as a sort of couples counseling? ;-)

If this wasn’t such a geeky topic, we might be able to get you a spot on the Bravo channel. (Just kidding).

 

[oreo54]

LOL.. no relation.. carry on.. it's already quite o/t..

though UV does apply more to MH than most other lighting..

UV-A is radiation just below the violet portion of the visible spectrum and consists of those wavelengths between 320 and 400 nanometers (nm). UV-A is invisible to the human eye and is the least destructive.

UV-B wavelengths (280 – 320 nm) are biologically destructive and, through overexposure, cause erythrema (sunburn).

http://www.aquarium-design.com/reef/uvlighting.html