Disappointing MH PAR numbers?

[Knapp870]

Using 3 250 watt halides and a actinic sbar knock off on my 220 gal. Par is extremely lower than I anticipated. Do I need better reflectors or time to rethink lighting? I ditched led as I didn't feel they were reaching and had the spread I needed (only 3 over this tank) and I wanted to try old school. Overall everything is healthy but I'm focused on growth and color and worry I'm missing... 250ish par at water line!? 2 radiums and 1 Hamilton 10k

 

[ludnix]

How old are the bulbs? I think those numbers are low for fresh bulbs but have a long way to drop if you let them age too far.

 

[leepink23]

What ballast are you running? I have heard m80 increase the output of MH compared to electronic ballast.

 

[Knapp870]

How old are the bulbs? I think those numbers are low for fresh bulbs but have a long way to drop if you let them age too far.

6 months

 

[Knapp870]

What ballast are you running? I have heard m80 increase the output of MH compared to electronic ballast.

Lumenarc on super lumen and hqi modes

 

[leepink23]

Lumenarc on super lumen and hqi modes

@jda is an expert at this so maybe he can give insight.

 

[jda]

There is almost no chance that it is that low.

What PAR meter are you using? If it is a Seneye, then forget it and get an Apogee.

For example, 250w Radium 20k on m80 Ballasts on my tank are over 1300 PAR just under the surface... and in some places more like 1500. Super Lumes and HQI are still not this strong, but they should be close. The 10k Hamilton should put out even more PAR than this, especially if you are using it on HQI or Super Lumens mode too.

 

[Knapp870]

There is almost no chance that it is that low.

What PAR meter are you using? If it is a Seneye, then forget it and get an Apogee.

For example, 250w Radium 20k on m80 Ballasts on my tank are over 1300 PAR just under the surface... and in some places more like 1500. Super Lumes and HQI are still not this strong, but they should be close. The 10k Hamilton should put out even more PAR than this, especially if you are using it on HQI or Super Lumens mode too.

It's the apogee mq-210 rental from BRS

 

[jda]

I just went down there at got between 1094 and 1162 about an .5-1 inch under the water. It would be higher if I was not holding the sensor with my hand and had the wand attached. It is hard to hold the sensor, balance the meter and take a photo, so sorry for the range.

Tell us more about the setup. Are you using any glass lids? There has got to be an easy explanation for this.

I am using a MQ-510.

 

[rockskimmerflow]

@Knapp870 Yeah those numbers seem low to me. Unless something is visibly wrong with the bulbs- as in they seem to burn inconsistently relative to one another or one has significantly different output than another I'd say you've got PLENTY of photons going into a 220 gal regardless of whatever the PAR meter told you. Heck I've got SPS growing nearly everywhere in a 7' x 3' raceway with just 2 x 250W radiums in Cayman Sun pendants. They're hung about 20 inches off the water too. I'd take 200PAR under a Radium over 300 PAR under a Radion any day of the week, but that's just my personal preference.

Your tank looks like it has a nice even light field in the pic you provided so I wouldn't freak out at the PAR numbers. There's some serious juice going into that system.

 

[Knapp870]

I'm totally perplexed. No glass lid. Crappy square "reflector" that was built into the fixture that I know better reflectors would help but not 900 par.... 14" off water...

 

[Knapp870]

@Knapp870 Yeah those numbers seem low to me. Unless something is visibly wrong with the bulbs- as in they seem to burn inconsistently relative to one another or one has significantly different output than another I'd say you've got PLENTY of photons going into a 220 gal regardless of whatever the PAR meter told you. Heck I've got SPS growing nearly everywhere in a 7' x 3' raceway with just 2 x 250W radiums in Cayman Sun pendants. They're hung about 20 inches off the water too. I'd take 200PAR under a Radium over 300 PAR under a Radion any day of the week, but that's just my personal preference.

Your tank looks like it has a nice even light field in the pic you provided so I wouldn't freak out at the PAR numbers. There's some serious juice going into that system.

Agree on your radio photon sentiments. My zoanthids struggle and reach on the sand bed which had me worried along with slower seeming growth of sps[emoji2369]

 

[Knapp870]

At surface

 

[jda]

FWIW, those numbers on mine are on Lumenbrite 16" Pendants about a foot off of the water (bulb). They are REALLY dirty right now, but otherwise are pretty good, I think.

Can you lower it down? It will help.

 

[Knapp870]

FWIW, those numbers on mine are on Lumenbrite 16" Pendants about a foot off of the water (bulb). They are REALLY dirty right now, but otherwise are pretty good, I think.

Can you lower it down? It will help.

Not really. I wouldn't be able to get in the tank I don't think. Could the ballasts be crap? Idk. I've replaced two of the ballasts already due to some random turning off then refiring

 

[jda]

That meter will need a correction factor if used out of the water. It is made to have the sensor submerged.

That being said, the reflector probably is a lot of the problem.

What kind of ballasts are they? If they are cheap Chinese knockoffs, then they could stink. If a brand name, then they are probably OK.

 

[Acroporaaddict]

New radium bulb on my 250 hqi setting gives me 400 par at 10" deep with am mq510 par meter. It's even higher when I ran it on an m80 ballast, closer to 500 par at same depth if memory serves me correctly

 

[jda]

The sensor on the 210 misses a lot of blue and all red and IR, which are useful to most coral. The PAR numbers for MH and some T5 are always higher than what the meter says. You can eyeball the chart here:
https://www.apogeeinstruments.com/quantum-sensor-faqs/

 

[Knapp870]

That meter will need a correction factor if used out of the water. It is made to have the sensor submerged.

That being said, the reflector probably is a lot of the problem.

What kind of ballasts are they? If they are cheap Chinese knockoffs, then they could stink. If a brand name, then they are probably OK.

Lumenarc Selectawatt and one is an ARO

 

[Rocks reef]

It appears very dull for using three MHs. Looks like there is significant light loss, there isn't much being reflected back into the water with the square reflector. If I were to take a picture of my MH bulb when its on, it would just be a big white spot on my photo. You wouldn't be able to see the bulb in the picture. Also, are you sure you have the correct watt ballasts? Those bulbs look VERY dim.

 

[Rocks reef]

Check all wiring connections. Can you take a pic of the ballasts? Reflectors would definitely help, but I'm trying to find out why the bulbs look dim even in photos. If you look at JDA's photo, you wouldn't be able to see the bulb in his reflector if you took a picture of it or look at it.