Radion pro not up to par. Whaaat?

[smokin'reefer]

Long story short, I have two xr30 pros on a red sea 450(5ftx20") tank. I've. Built a shelf 7"below water line for sps and acros. According to a radion pro calculater it's not enough par for acros. Would I be better of
(a) adding another radion
(B) adding retro t5s
(C) scrap the pros and get an Ati or Geisselman fixture.
Anybody have these lights and have exp with acros? I have some acros doing ok and some haven't shown much color but only been in tank a couple of weeks now. All other corals di good in tank including birdsnest and a tricolor acro along with other lps and softies. Any opinions are welcome and appreciated.

 

[DLHDesign]

How far above the surface are your lights?

I'm running XR15's located ~6" above the water and am only running them at 50%. PAR 6" deep has been measured around 500. What PAR are you looking for?

 

[smokin'reefer]

They are on the ecotech mounts at 8" above water. I am running the coral lab program that gives me about 65%. I am trying to have enough for acros which what I can guess is about 800 par(?).

 

[smokin'reefer]

Here's the reason I am sceptical.

How accurate this is idk. Just wantad to see what everyone elses experience is. I prollyneed to break down and get a par meter. But with such a common light there should be some opinions.

 

[bhuyett]

They are on the ecotech mounts at 8" above water. I am running the coral lab program that gives me about 65%. I am trying to have enough for acros which what I can guess is about 800 par(?).

You don't need 800 PAR to grow Acros. Anything in the park of 350-500 is more than enough.

How far down is your shelf under the water line?

 

[smokin'reefer]

You don't need 800 PAR to grow Acros. Anything in the park of 350-500 is more than enough.

How far down is your shelf under the water line?

7 inches. The chart above is what was giving me doubts. I just bought a small group of acros and seller said that I might not get full potential out of leds. I tried a lumen meter(phone app) and got 10,000 at water level.

 

[Waters]

I found those numbers supplied by that chart to be way off....if I went by what it recommended, I would have burned all of my coral....especially those that were directly under the lights. I ended up picking up the wide angle lenses and increasing the intensity. Got rid of the hot spots and supplied more coverage.

 

[david p.]

hi,
i have the 2x xr30 pro on my 48x20x20, i am running the coral lab also, i have sps dominant tank. i run at 65% overall intensity (left slide bar) (if you look on the graph it shows 42% !?!?).
i jsut borrowed a PAR meter and took mesurement like 10 min ago. i will do a second round of mesurement tomorrow, because first time using that apogge PAR meter aand value were fluctating a lot.
based on these value, i will start a ramp up to reach 100%. i will also take mesurement with the wide lens.
at 6'' in water:

at coral level 65%:

at coral level 100%:

just to give you an idea here's a FTS, value at 15'' are near the bottom, those at 5'' top and 10'' mid

 

[smokin'reefer]

I found those numbers supplied by that chart to be way off....if I went by what it recommended, I would have burned all of my coral....especially those that were directly under the lights. I ended up picking up the wide angle lenses and increasing the intensity. Got rid of the hot spots and supplied more coverage.

Thanx. I thought about the wide angle lenses also.

 

[smokin'reefer]

hi,
i have the 2x xr30 pro on my 48x20x20, i am running the coral lab also, i have sps dominant tank. i run at 65% overall intensity (left slide bar) (if you look on the graph it shows 42% !?!?).
i jsut borrowed a PAR meter and took mesurement like 10 min ago. i will do a second round of mesurement tomorrow, because first time using that apogge PAR meter aand value were fluctating a lot.
based on these value, i will start a ramp up to reach 100%. i will also take mesurement with the wide lens.
at 6'' in water:

at coral level 65%:

at coral level 100%:

just to give you an idea here's a FTS, value at 15'' are near the bottom, those at 5'' top and 10'' mid

Thanx also. Definitely reassuring. Great looking corals in your tank. These lights weren't cheap so it was discouraging trying to go by that chart. Everything I have put in my tank winds up looking better than at lfs or our local coral shop.

 

[mcarroll]

7 inches. The chart above is what was giving me doubts. I just bought a small group of acros and seller said that I might not get full potential out of leds. I tried a lumen meter(phone app) and got 10,000 at water level.

The chart shows the problem (whether the numbers are accurate or not)....there's almost no coverage close to the surface due to how packed in the emitters are. There's a good reason the mfg.'s seem to always show bottom-spread!

So your lux meter was correct and your experiences match.

10,000 lux will keep them alive – especially if flow and nutrients are favorable – but performance will not be great.

Keep using you meter and just find out places in the tank with better light – >15,000-20,000 lux – and move corals.

Or...consider this:

There are a number of thing confounding you in the current situation. One, these lights aren't a great fit for long, skinny tanks anyway. Two, you're limited by the tank mount to one height. With those mounts, they really want you to have three or four fixtures and the wide-angle lenses.

With the default 80º lenses, you'd want those lights about 10" off the water for more ideal coverage...but I think even that would leave you with some wide-open unlit spaces near the top.

Visualizing definitely helps:

Switching lenses and nothing else gets you this:

Thats's better than the default lenses – note the increase in spread, but reduction of intensity – and probably worth a try since it sounds like you're not too budget-strapped. But for the money in the whole system, I think I'd consider switching gears to something more like this:

That is a CurrentUSA Orbit Marine Pro...it's a nice strip-format light, but any strip-format light will produce a nice, even light field similar to this. Most others use no lenses though, so two to four strips are usually needed.

 

[mcarroll]

These side-views might also help:

 

[reefwiser]

Actually I am doing C in your list of options. Getting Giesemann fixture for my tank can't use the radion and t5 and make it look good on my tank. So just getting a MATRIXX II will do great on my tank.

 

[david p.]

The chart shows the problem (whether the numbers are accurate or not)....there's almost no coverage close to the surface due to how packed in the emitters are. There's a good reason the mfg.'s seem to always show bottom-spread!

So your lux meter was correct and your experiences match.

10,000 lux will keep them alive – especially if flow and nutrients are favorable – but performance will not be great.

Keep using you meter and just find out places in the tank with better light – >15,000-20,000 lux – and move corals.

Or...consider this:

There are a number of thing confounding you in the current situation. One, these lights aren't a great fit for long, skinny tanks anyway. Two, you're limited by the tank mount to one height. With those mounts, they really want you to have three or four fixtures and the wide-angle lenses.

With the default 80º lenses, you'd want those lights about 10" off the water for more ideal coverage...but I think even that would leave you with some wide-open unlit spaces near the top.

Visualizing definitely helps:

Switching lenses and nothing else gets you this:

Thats's better than the default lenses – note the increase in spread, but reduction of intensity – and probably worth a try since it sounds like you're not too budget-strapped. But for the money in the whole system, I think I'd consider switching gears to something more like this:

That is a CurrentUSA Orbit Marine Pro...it's a nice strip-format light, but any strip-format light will produce a nice, even light field similar to this. Most others use no lenses though, so two to four strips are usually needed.

i think your representation of light spred for the radion is a bit simplified, there are 2 pucks per Radion, the light coverage is relatively even at 6 inch underwater excpet on the side where it drop a bit, i will take mesurement tonight with the wide lense to get real data. The spectrum of the radion is also better then the current USA. you seem to REALLY like the Orbit Marine;)
my 2cents

 

[smokin'reefer]

These side-views might also help:

Thanks tons for the detailed info. I'll go ahead and get the tlr lenses and see how it goes. If my growth and colors aren't wh where I hope to be I'll look at upgrading. I think cashing out with these lights has been hurt by the new G4s. They are already discounting these by $150 new, so selling used market will surely crash.

 

[mcarroll]

Thanks tons for the detailed info.

My pleasure. :)

Any time - I love this stuff! :)

i think your representation of light spred for the radion is a bit simplified, there are 2 pucks per Radion, the light coverage is relatively even at 6 inch underwater excpet on the side where it drop a bit, i will take mesurement tonight with the wide lense to get real data. The spectrum of the radion is also better then the current USA. you seem to REALLY like the Orbit Marine;)
my 2cents

:rolleyes:
You can like whatever you want and think whatever you want....we're just talking here. ;)

I like good lights. Especially ones that fit the tank they are lighting. There are lots of strips out there, these happen to be very nice ones.

If you'd like to critique the strips, go ahead. Just saying something else is better is a hollow statement.

If you'd like to critique me, go ahead. I'm not sure what you were insinuating here so please clarify.

But why mix up criticizing me AND the light? All I'm doing is making examples. What are you doing?

Nobody said you had to like these diagrams. :)

Nobody said they were perfect, I said mathematically correct. :)

I took my own time to make them to contribute to the discussion. What have you done? :)

If I sound partisan, I would suggest you haven't read many of my posts AND there are a lot more Radion partisans – point your critical mind that way too thank you very much. :)

Thanks for reading.
:rolleyes:

 

[smokin'reefer]

Actually I am doing C in your list of options. Getting Giesemann fixture for my tank can't use the radion and t5 and make it look good on my tank. So just getting a MATRIXX II will do great on my tank.

That is probably where I'll wind up also. I'm going to do everything I can to see what I can get out of the radions first. Already placed an order for tir lenses at Marine Depot. I appreciate everyone opinions and $.02.. The real test is if I can realize full potential out of corals. One thing I am understanding about this hobby is some things work better for some and not for others tanks. Thats why I love getting the full spectrum of opinions here on R2R.

 

[david p.]

That is probably where I'll wind up also. I'm going to do everything I can to see what I can get out of the radions first. Already placed an order for tir lenses at Marine Depot. I appreciate everyone opinions and $.02.. The real test is if I can realize full potential out of corals. One thing I am understanding about this hobby is some things work better for some and not for others tanks. Thats why I love getting the full spectrum of opinions here on R2R.

if you want i can share my reading that i will do tonight with the wide lens.
i'll do 6'' underwater and at my coral level in the tank (top is 6-8'' from water, mid 12-14'' , bot 18''). If yo uwant me to test something for you let me know.
I have an Apogee PAR meter .

My pleasure. :)

Any time - I love this stuff! :)




:rolleyes:
You can like whatever you want and think whatever you want....we're just talking here. ;)

I like good lights. Especially ones that fit the tank they are lighting. There are lots of strips out there, these happen to be very nice ones.

If you'd like to critique the strips, go ahead. Just saying something else is better is a hollow statement.

If you'd like to critique me, go ahead. I'm not sure what you were insinuating here so please clarify.

But why mix up criticizing me AND the light? All I'm doing is making examples. What are you doing?

Nobody said you had to like these diagrams. :)

Nobody said they were perfect, I said mathematically correct. :)

I took my own time to make them to contribute to the discussion. What have you done? :)

If I sound partisan, I would suggest you haven't read many of my posts AND there are a lot more Radion partisans – point your critical mind that way too thank you very much. :)

Thanks for reading.
:rolleyes:

sorry, i did not ment to critisize you, you defend your points, i defend mine. You probably have the Orbit ligth i have the radion, we try to make our point, at the end of the day, there are a tons of lights out there that can grow corals. You posted similar info on one of my tread regarding the wide lens, and i thank you for that.
As for what i did ... i took actual measurments. i did not beleive those theoritical /mathematical model, i felt they were off a little. As mentionned, for the radion with the 2 pucks, distribution of light is not well represented on your graph IMO. Again it's jsut an opinion, not a critic.
I don't want to derail that thread, so i'll stop here, just hope you understand that i did not want to make this 'personal'. My first langage is french, maybe my wording is not perfect, so it sounds rude :(

 

[smokin'reefer]

if you want i can share my reading that i will do tonight with the wide lens.
i'll do 6'' underwater and at my coral level in the tank (top is 6-8'' from water, mid 12-14'' , bot 18''). If yo uwant me to test something for you let me know.
I have an Apogee PAR meter .
Yes, please do share any info. One question though on your first post.
i run at 65% overall intensity (left slide bar) (if you look on the graph it shows 42% !?!?).
I am running 100% on left slide which gives me 65% max on full graph. i assume this is because last 3 channels are not at 100%. (24% with lab program I run). If you are getting those posted reading at 65% I should be blasting mine at 100%. Is this a correct interpretation?

 

[smokin'reefer]

Don't know how I screwed that response up. Smh. Her is my current setup.

If you can see I am at 65% output but 100% on left slider.