Examining the Kessil A360 Tuna Blue deeper than ever before! | BRStv Investigates

[Flavio]

Having used most lighting out there, I'm a fan of the kessils, I run 2 x 160 on a 48" x 18" x 16", my initial concerns were that they wouldn't be enough, not so, no shadowing, corals growing fantastic, I personally like the simplicity of them and kessil controller.
For a non sps tank I couldn't ask for more
.

 

[Ryanbrs]

Ryan, I watched video twice and I don't think you ever mentioned the intensity setting. Should we just assume 100%? Please clarify.

yup , all 100% and 50% color except the one series where we call out 50% power directly.

 

[randyBRS]

@randyBRS Would you recommend an A160 to light an IM Nuvo 20, given 6-8" height that Kessil recommends for the 360's? I know they're two different lights, but I'm sure the logic doesn't fall too far from this scenario. I have mainly zoas, LPS, and a few easy SPS in my tank. I would just like adequate spread, but reasonable PAR to be able to grow anything I can keep in that small a tank.

Honestly, we have a couple of the Nuvo20's around the office here and I'd have to say that the A360 is the much better fit for full coverage with adequate PAR. Otherwise, (2x) A160s would be enough as well. Our marketing director, Valerie, has this exact tank with a single A360 on it!

-Randy

 

[Rip Van Winkle]

If Kessil recommended 24" and they put them at 6-8", I would agree with you. Yet, BRS said they contacted Kessil and they recommended 6-8".

I feel like you misunderstood JamesP's point. If UL's recommendations are different than what Kessil recommends then yeah, I agree it's silly forced. No?

....putting them at the UL height against both Kessil's recommendation and 3-4x above the height where they provide the designed coverage seems more wrong.

I agree with you MrMicheal that it seems more wrong but isn't that a contradiction to what you just wrote above it?

UL's safety recommendations should match Kessil's recommended installation height, or else something's wrong.

And just saying, I also really like Kessil lighting.

 

[HolisticBear]

I feel like you misunderstood JamesP's point. If UL's recommendations are different than what Kessil recommends then yeah, I agree it's silly forced. No?

I don't consider UL the final word or a more educated source. Do you leave the tags on your mattress because it's the law? BRS should test lights per the manufacturer recommendation and they did. I suspect the UL recommendations are different than the manufacturers recommendations for many things. If Kessil is recommending a light position that is dangerous, that is an issue, but after 4-5 years, I suspect we'd know about it by now and the manufacturer would be liable.

 

[Fitzreefer]

Btw:. I contact Kessil a few months back and they advised 8" - 12". I was at 6.5" and got too much salt spray on the lenses and I felt like too much of the spot light effect, which is mentioned in the BRS vid. I moved it up 8.25" to get a better spread and have been transitioning intensity up. I am now at 95%. I suspect in another week or 2 I will be at 100% at my peak hrs. I also have zero salt spray on the fixtures at this height.

 

[Dana Riddle]

As I stated in another thread, a commercial coral farmer told me they grow their corals at a PAR value of 25, using Kessils. This is probably a case where we could view PAR numbers in a less favorable light than PUR calculations. Perhaps I'll get my hands on a Kessil one of these days and look at zooxanthellate Photosystem II electron transport rates...

 

[Alfrareef]

Go for it Dana. Following!!!

 

[Confuse]

Honestly, we have a couple of the Nuvo20's around the office here and I'd have to say that the A360 is the much better fit for full coverage with adequate PAR. Otherwise, (2x) A160s would be enough as well. Our marketing director, Valerie, has this exact tank with a single A360 on it!

-Randy

I just read this today. I got a good deal on an AP 700. It's probably the most overkill setup in history, but I am really enjoying the look. lol This will be my 3rd AP 700.

 

[Scorpius]

^ Better have been a killer deal for that amount of lighting overkill.

 

[JamesP]

I just read this today. I got a good deal on an AP 700. It's probably the most overkill setup in history, but I am really enjoying the look. lol This will be my 3rd AP 700.

Lol that's intense

 

[Rip Van Winkle]

I don't consider UL the final word or a more educated source. Do you leave the tags on your mattress because it's the law? BRS should test lights per the manufacturer recommendation and they did. I suspect the UL recommendations are different than the manufacturers recommendations for many things. If Kessil is recommending a light position that is dangerous, that is an issue, but after 4-5 years, I suspect we'd know about it by now and the manufacturer would be liable.

Meh,.. People pretty much do what they want, it's true. I think 6" is kinda low for many reasons, that's why I was agreeing with JamesP that it seems pushed but I know opinions vary. Just sayin' that I didn't really get your original post back on page 1. Water under the bridge now (or under the lights? )

Here's a small explanation for UL certification:
http://blog.all-spec.com/what-is-ul-certification/

On another note for BRS, one thing that I wanted to mention was putting the lights in a staggered position over the top of the tank and what about not necessarily pointing them straight down? I think the PAR results might be different (increased) if the Kessil fixtures were not arranged in a straight line above the tank. One a little forward from center and the next fixture placed a little back from center, in a staggered pattern like that for 4 lights for example. Lights closer to the front could also be aimed slightly backwards, maybe 15* or 20* off center. Has this been tried?

 

[Old Glory]

My new Kessils

 

[JamesP]

It's a good looking light for sure. You're going to have to push those a lot closer to the water though if you want any sort of PAR at the bottom. It's probably 50-75 at the bottom at that height based on what I was getting when I ran those lights at around that same height.

 

[Old Glory]

It's a good looking light for sure. You're going to have to push those a lot closer to the water though if you want any sort of PAR at the bottom. It's probably 50-75 at the bottom at that height based on what I was getting when I ran those lights at around that same height.

They are about 8 inches off the water. I'm not doing an SPS heavy tank. It will be mostly LPS with some nems and some softies. With lots of fish. Plan on some nice mushrooms at the bottom and some zoas.

 

[JamesP]

Cool. They look sharp.

 

[Old Glory]

Thanks James! While I am enjoying the looks and the simplicity of control I can see where people think they are lacking with being able to manipulate individual colors and spectrum. I always have like a more white look so they work for me.

 

[joekool]

Can anyone confirm if they tested the we and not just a w a360? He said w. Most people say we if it in fact is one.

 

[Ryanbrs]

It's a good looking light for sure. You're going to have to push those a lot closer to the water though if you want any sort of PAR at the bottom. It's probably 50-75 at the bottom at that height based on what I was getting when I ran those lights at around that same height.

I often put my hand next to the tank and lower the light until I see limited spill onto my hand. I think this is generally around 6.5 to 8" with an a360.

 

[Ryanbrs]

Can anyone confirm if they tested the we and not just a w a360? He said w. Most people say we if it in fact is one.

It was a W-E . I should have been more clear : )