PatriksS

I bilderna nedan ser Maxspect så hiskeligt onaturligt fult lila/rosa i mina ögon. "Please excuse the current condition of the tank - It's been more of a test tank than display tank for the past year with lot's of LED and carbon dosing testing (including the 2 significant over PAR/photo-inhibition events detailed earlier in this thread... *Note - the 24" and 30" measurements are slightly occluded by aquascape and offset about 6" toward the front of the tank. Perhaps the most interesting find was the SOl Blues delivered slightly more PAR at depth. I can only guess this is due to better penetration of the blue spectrum. SOL White = 0% white, 100% blue vs. SOL Blue = 0% Blue, 100% white. SOL White = 100% white, 0% blue vs. SOL Blue = 100% Blue, 0% white. All AIs at 100% compared to Maxspect G2-160 at 100% SOL White = 0% white, 100% blue vs. SOL Blue = 0% Blue, 100% white with G2 for comparison. SOL White = 100% white, 0% blue vs. SOL Blue = 100% Blue, 0% white with G2 for comparison. 100% blue output of 2X SOL Blue units - It's nearly impossible to show the "pop" of these, the color is far more intense than shown in the photo. You can also tell how purple in appearance the Semi-LED Royal Blues are in the G2. I took photos and PAR measurements at other power settings, but it's difficult to distinguish much difference in the photos. The PAR falloff at lesser power settings was mostly linear (50% power yielded about 50% of the reported PAR.) Measurements taken using an Apogee MQ-200 with the electric light settings. Due to variations in measurement accuracy (i.e. hand shake , slight rotation of sensor, rough water surface...) I'd estimate the margin of error at plus/minus ~5% " Källa: http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1841197&page=14

Snyggt, ska försöka följa tråden.

Intressant, tack för infon!

Lite värdefulla synpunkter från killen som kör LEDs i form av AquaIllumination Sol (med mina småmarkeringar) : "I've been 100% LED for about a year, and I'm still learning and adjusting, looking for the optimal levels (as are most that made the early jump to LEDs.) I adjust intensities every couple weeks, and often rotate stock between the DT and FT to see what changes occur between the AI and Maxspect LED coloration. At present, I'm at 36%W/100%B on 2 SOL White units raised 17.5" ATWL. My Acans are 100~150 PAR. My Purple Bonsai also lightened significantly but is steadily recovering from it's near-death bleaching event. As for Red Planet, mine is mostly green with just a hint of pink, although it is just now beginning to improve. Coloration has been the only issue (aside from the initial bleaching due to my ignorance of the PAR output of LEDs.) I've experienced great growth rates from both SPS and LPS. Each time I've lowered light output, coloration has improved overall (although that could be anecdotal and a result of the corals continuing to recover.) I'm watching for the point that no further improvement is gained at lesser light levels, then I'll very slowly work on increasing intensity. As for the Red spectrum, there's much debate regarding whats actually used in the photosynthesis process, vs reflective light. Some studies show red actually retards growth and coloration (most red is absorbed before it reaches the reef.) Some suggest that UV might be the answer, but based on what I've read, Corals pigmentation response to UV is clear, and does not improve coloration. There was even a recent study suggesting that some Zooxanthellae may use IR... At present, the answer is unclear. My "best guess" is along the lines of what AI has done with the SOL Blue pucks, combining the CW/B/RB. I've also seen some new testing using neutral white, adding in a bit of red and cyan that initially looks interesting (reflective) - it's just too soon to know the impact on growth and coloration. I have ordered optics and a variety of newly released color LEDS (red, cyan, near UV...) for the Maxspect that will allow me to continue "playing" with color variations. This is both the boon and curse of LEDs. We're on the cutting edge, just past alpha testing. We know they are hugely efficient at growing corals, we just need to better understand the spectral needs and do some fine tuning to gain the maximum coloration. I expect we'll learn much more over the next couple of years as the DIY pioneers uncover the answers. 1) Is Par=Par? By that i mean is 200Par from MH the same as 200Par from a LED setup? If not, why so? As I understand it - Yes, PAR is PAR. There is also an argument for the use of PUR measurements which purportedly further define the light absorbed by algal and plant pigments, but I know very little about what role PUR plays, nor how to measure it. IMHO, the challenge we have is two fold. a) PAR meters underestimate the amount of PAR emitted by many LEDs. The error rate increases with the "bluer" the light gets. Sanjay had told me a good estimation was ~15% - I beleive it might actually be higher (20%~25%) LEDs are very efficient at producing PAR, with the vast majority of the light being in the 400-700nm range however - to our "eye", at equal PAR LEDs don't look nearly as "bright" as MH or T5. This results in the hobbyist increasing the LED output trying to match the "appearance" of their previous lights...and cooking most everything in their tank (I did this twice.) I believe these two issues combine to create many of the initial coloration complaints from those switching to LEDs. 2)What is a good par to shoot for with LED's when trying to grow SPS? I see a lot of ideas but anyone actually done any studies or have some success and can post their results? This is tricky - lots of variable. Different species of SPS demand different amounts of PAR. Water quality plays the largest role with water movement and light spectrum also being a factor. In the most general of terms, I'm presently shooting for measured PAR of 100~150 on the substrate and 350~400 on the top SPS shelves. This is much less than I initially believed ideal, and my opinion likely will evolve over time as I gain additional experience with my LEDs. A few caveats...Please note, my current tank is new, having only been up for slightly more than a year. As a result - I have more variables than a long-established tank. Most importantly, I'm certainly no expert on lighting or marine biology and have no formal education in either field. My opinions are just that, opinions and are subjective based on my non-scientific observations. So please take my comments and conclusions with a grain of salt. I'm just a hobbyist who's enjoying the learning curve." Källa: http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1841197&page=11

Observera att det finns erfarenhet av blekning av sps under LEDs: "I replaced about 200 watts of MH/T5s with about 70 watts of LEDs (2 AIs running at about 50%) and initially bleached everything. The SPS on the top of the tank quickly bleached, and the LPS on the bottom went pale. The SPS that survived (few ), have taken a long time to recover. The LPS bounced back quickly (a few weeks.) My greatest coloration problem is with Red SPS (ORA Red Planet is my challenge piece.) I'm able to get great coloration out of LPS, including Acans. Here are a few photos of LPS loving LED life... I'm still learning the PAR needs of specific corals - It's compounded by the fact PAR meters don't do a great job of measuring the very blue spectrum. i.e. I've had SPS thrive under 500 PAR MH, yet quickly bleach-out under 450 LED. I also was experimenting with MB7 and carbon dosing at the time, which added another variable in determining what was impacting coloration." Källa: http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1841197&page=11

Där ser du Claes - in med en guling nu!

Tack, bra att veta.

Apogeee QMSS-E par meter. 5'X2'X2' tank using a pair of full size LBs. 400W 12K Reeflux at around 3 months old using Coralvue electronic ballast. Lamps are 10.5" above the waterline and the meter maxes out at the surface. Here many other measure PAR photo I found here in the lumen bright monster post Quote: Raised the lights to where the lamp is at 16" The dark areas in the middle got brighter and I like how it looks now. New par readings: Here is a shot with a black background - it is under 400w however. Källa: http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1841197&page=2

[AquaIllumination] 100% White 100% Blue 40% White 60% Blue Källa: http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1841197&page=8

"I received the MaxSpect G2-160W and hung them 12" above the tank. Without optics, I'll probably need to lower them, but for comparison, they are hung the same height above the water as the AquaIllumination. (sorry for the poor quality photo, I've not yet recovered my DSL.) In this photo, the two AI units (70W ea.) are running 100% Blue and 75% white. The Maxspect (G2-160W) is at 100% on all LEDS resulting in the following measurements... At 12" (water surface) AI - 1105 MXS - 350 Placing the sensor 6" directly below each light with both units at max output resulted in the following... AI - 1650 MXS - 840 *These measurements are probably +-10% as I haven't yet perfected a standardized way to hold the sensor. Although the Maxspect "look" much brighter, the AIs (even with the white LEDS reduced to 75%) are putting out far more PAR and the impact of the 40 degree optics are apparent." Källa: http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1841197 .

"This test has no claim to absolute validity, because of many factors that have helped to build it. But can also be of interest to the measured values we have seen and certainly that should be interpreted. We were a group of friends and aquarium keepers that we were not expecting this test and then we had not even thought to ask what to do in order to better understand the interactions between the various solutions available to us. To begin, we took two tables and place over them a glass plate on which we have laid the various lamps. The measurement was carried out on the floor, about 78 cm away from the glass. The two HQI bulbs were new and were extracted from their respective boxes and then mounted. The measurement lasted for about 10 minutes until the outcome of the gauge of PAR was stable, and therefore it is assumed that the measured value was more or less than the reference. We started with the Diamond Lumenarc III in which we put a light bulb from BLV 400W E40, I do not know at this time the type of ballast used, if I’ll come to know or if someone will tell me I’ll incorporate into the article. The measurement result was as follows: 78 cm from glass, not in a center position, the Lumenarc III and BLV 400W provided a measurement of PAR of 307 µmoli/M2/s. Unfortunately I have not other photos, but I can assure that the value was fairly constant even moving the meter PAR. Then we connected the E-power, with bulb Elos Spectra 10,000 ° K. Note that there were two glass between the bulb and the area of measurement. Then we connected the LED lamp E-lite, with 18 LED 3w for a total of about 64w. In this case there were two glass between the LED and the area of measurement. Finally a commercial lamp with 39W pl, of which I don’t know other features. Also here we had two glasses from lamp to floor. I was surprised by the results. It’s true that long ago I made a test between Lumenarc III and E-power 150w and the values were comparable, but I was expecting more difference between two such different wattages. Certainly we must consider that the Lumenarc parable has a wider range of lighting, while the ePower closer, and throughout his parable, at least in space between the tables, around 50 cm, the value was stable while the E-Power had less power in the center as it had the edge. But in any case the value at the center was equal to that of BLV Lumenarc and at the edges the value was much higher with a light bulb that has 37.5% less power. It would be nice to repeat the test as a function of parameters tested, with different bulbs, and then drawing an hypothetical area of coverage … but the test done in my opinion is very indicative." Källa: http://www.danireef.com/2009/02/18/lumenarc-iii-vs-e-power-vs-e-lite-vs-pl/#lumenarcepowere

Lite mer The top readings were taken just below the surface. All of the other readings were taken directly below the reflectors where possible. Most of the other readings show the depth where it was recorded and the number is shown at the relative position (left to right) where it was recorded. These readings are simply the PAR number the probe showed at that spot in the aquarium. This is a 7g Mini Bow with a Sunpod 70w HQI fixture on the mounting legs. This was using the Ushio 70w 20K lamp which is shows higher PAR than the stock 14K Current USA lamp. Lamps about 5" off the water. 24g Nano Cube with a 150w HQI Sunpod. No glass cover, Current USA 14k stock lamp (less than 3 months old). Note the nano cube glass cover reduces these reading by about 15%. Bulbs 4" above water. Custom 24g tank with 150w HQI Sundial w/ 2x32w dual actinic PC (214w total). 150w HQI lamp is 14,000K Ushio. Electronic ballast and all bulbs are less than 3 months old. Bulbs 6" above water. This is a 30g Cube (Freshwater tank...I know!) with 2x36w compact fluorescent retrofit (72w total), WH5 ballast, reflectors with one 50/50 and one 6,700K bulb (bulbs over 1 year old). This is basically what the 24g Nano cube has. Bulbs 4" above water. At the far end of the low side and for comparison - This is a 15g with a standard fluorescent strip light that comes stock with most starter aquarium packages. 18w T8 tube AGA stock lamp (broad spectrum daylight). Bulbs 3" above water. On the extreme high end for comparision - 125g SPS reef with three 250w Ocean Light Pendants. 14K Ushio HQI lamps are less than 3 months old. Ballasts over a year old. Two 110w VHO Actinic 6-12 months old and two 80w T5 Actinic Blue 3-6 months old. Bulbs 8" above water. Not any T5 nano reefs but I do have a couple larger examples. 72g with 5x54w T5, TEK reflectors, Actinic+, Aquablue, Midday, Pure Actinic, AquaBlue and 1x39w T5, TEK reflectors, Actinic+. All ballasts are Advance spec ballast. These are mounted in a fan cooled canopy about 5" off the water. 125g with 4 rows of 2x39w with a mix of TEK and Ice Cap reflectors (312w Total). The Geisemann bulbs and Advance ballasts are less than 3 months old. Actinic +, Midday, Aquablue, Pure Actinic. Fan cooled canopy with bulbs 5" above water. Källa: http://www.nano-reef.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=168811 .

Våren är nog snart här, vi går mot ljusare tider, LEDs kommer mer och mer och vad kan vara bättre än att posta lite bilder som visar ljusstyrkan på olika ljuskällor? Jag plöjde igenom ett antal trådar på nätet när jag var nyfiken hur mycket par som olika belysningsalternativ ger. De flesta vet säkert redan vad PAR är. Likaså att de flesta sps-koraller generellt sett behöver cirka 200 - 300 PAR/PPFD/ eller mE/m2 som når korallen. Nedan är utdrag från trådar med bilder som visar PAR i olika setups. Tecknet "" betyder inch och är 2,54 cm Gallon är 3,74 liter, grovt avrundat till 4 liter. Out of curiosity, I decided to measure the lighting levels within the greenhouse at Harbor Aquatics during a club field trip back in March 2003. Outside, the light levels were 1330 mE/m2. Inside the greenhouse, the light levels were substantially reduced due to the glass chosen. On the edge of the square tank, light intensity measured 550 mE/m2. Just under the water’s surface, it was 458 mE/m2. In the large rock tanks, light levels were still at 550. Just below the surface, we saw roughly 460 mE/m2. On the bottom of the tank, under approximately 15” of water, the light levels were still a pretty substantial 354 mE/m2. Here is a picture of Harbor’s greenhouse setup for those not familiar with it: Tank setup #1 Doug Lehman’s 75 gallon system June 2002 System: 4 x 96W Compact FL bulbs. Bulbs 5.5” off the water. Reflector: Standard flat mirrored retrofit kit After lighting upgrade Doug Lehman’s 75 gallon system August 2002 System: 2 x 175W bulbs, with 2 x 110W VHO Actinics. Bulbs 5.5” off the water. Reflector: Standard flat mirrored retrofit kit Tank setup #2 Doug Lehman’s 125 gallon system June 2002 System: 6 x 55W CF tubes. Consists of 10,000K, 6,700K and ‘Actinic’. Bulbs 5.5” off the water. Reflector: Standard flat mirrored retrofit kit Tank setup #3 Adam Schneider’s 75 gallon system 2 x 110W VHO with single 250W MH At the time, I believe the reflector consisted of aluminum foil… Tank setup #4 Howard Allan’s 120 gallon tank. Lighting: 2 x 400W Ushio bulbs with 3 x 110W VHO actinics. Brightest tank of any I measured. Under the MH bulbs, just above the water surface, PAR was 1200+. LED-lit nano tank at IMAC Tullio Dell Aquilla had a nano tank set up in his room at the IMAC conference. The tank was lit by just 3 LEDs installed in a hood meant for a compact fluorescent tube. The reflector surface was flat, meaning that the LED essentially acted as a ‘bare bulb’ setup. With proper reflectors, these numbers should go up quite a bit. Total wattage for these three bulbs: 13 Watts Tullio did have some LED bulbs installed in reflectors as well: Bulb color 1 inch from unit 6.5” from unit White 270 mE/m2 11-12 mE/m2 Blue 250 mE/m2 9 mE/m2 IMAC 120 gallon tank Sunlight Supply’s 120 gallon tank Lighting: Two 250W bulbs, one a Mogul Ushio 10K and the other a double-ended Ushio 10K. The double-ended bulb was lit by an HQI ballast. The fixture seemed to put out significantly more heat than the mogul one. It also put out more light, approximately 10-12% more. Bulb Intensity at approximately 6.5” from fixture Mogul 1550 mE/m2 HQI 1750 mE/m2 The bulbs were suspended at different distances from the top of the tank, partially to show off the suspension mechanism, but also to try to make the light fields even. They did surprising well, with the light levels being rather even at the bottom of the tank. Källa: http://advancedaquarist.com/issues/august2003/feature.htm

Ni ser ingen grumling, disighet eller mjölkighet i vattnet med pelletsen?

Jao, en kirurg måste väl vara mycket tjock för att inte få plats i en tvåhundraliters, hehe Skämt åsido - man kan nog skaffa sig en liten en, och sedan sälja när/om den blir större. Det finns värre djurplågeri än att inte ha en två meters balja för kirurger. Bara min åsikt alltså. Jag hade två stycken i mitt 200 liters, de gick väl ihop, inga strider.

Av bilden ovan att döma ser det ut som en zeo-påverkad korall.

De där är ren mums för kirurgerna.

Mmm, då gör vi något tillsammans allihopa och försöker orka posta så inte latmasken tar över helt.

Jag har nu testat med död levande sten två gånger och har den här erfarenheten: Ena gången introducerades en död sten i ett redan inkört akvarium med en del levande sten. Då gick det bra utan några alger (förutom lite kiselalger i 2 veckor) och den döda stenen såg jättefint ut efter en månad, med massa kalkalger på sig. Nu andra gången testade jag att starta hela akvariet med bara död levande sten. Jag lakade ur stenen i någon vecka i sötvatten, sedan körde jag stenen i saltvatten i någon månad med skummare, aluminium fosfatremover och ingen belysning. Trots dessa försiktighetsåtgärder som då pågått under en längre tid så blev den döda stenen helt gröööön och fortsatte att förpesta vatten i flera veckors tid. Rutorna i karet blev kraftigt gröna på en dag med belysning. Till slut kasserade jag stenen, filtrerade vatten och la i riktigt levande sten. Vilken skillnad det blev! Det är möjligt att den döda stenen i mitt första experiment kom från annan källa och kanske innehöll mindre fosfat. Men snarare tror jag att det gick bra första gången för att akvariet var redan stabilt med vanlig levande sten och att det gick bra trots tillsats av den döda stenen. Så, min slutsats är att jag inte vill starta något akvarium med bara död levande sten. Någonsin. Jag tror på kurerad levande sten istället. Blir både billigare och bättre.

Mitt i prick - det är alltid fel hur det än är. För egen del tror jag också att man inte ska söka fel hos varandra eller i bemötande. Hellre tror jag att om alla anstränger sig lite så kan man med egna inlägg göra SG intressant för andra. Om alla försöker bidra (i mån av tid) med informativa inlägg gör man själva guiden spännande och attraktiv för både ung och gammal. Informationen behöver absolut inte vara sensationell, utan kan vara så enkel men ack så värdefull som tips på inköp av billiga cree-leds, någon ny produkt eller dylikt, bara för att ta något exempel.

Med detta inlägg gör jag mig kanske väldigt impopulär, men friskt vågat hälften vunnet, ursäkta ordvitsen. Men är det verkligen så att nya användare faktiskt inte vågar kommentera? Hur har ni kommit fram till det i så fall? Har det gjorts någon omröstning om detta? Typ av "10 nybörjare har 7 någon gång inte vågat kommentera på grund av rå klimat på SG". Och hur har man klassat vem som är nybörjare då? Tänk t ex på Greger som har underskriften "30 år som nybörjare med saltvatten". Med frågorna ovan menar jag att man kanske målar fan på väggen, ser ett problem där det inte finns något och drar alla över en kam bara för att klä någon i offerrollen. Som ny kan jag tänka mig att man kanske helt enkelt avstår från kommentarer för man antagligen inte har så mycket att säga i någon avancerad tråd eller av andra skäl. Jag själv brukar avstå från kommentarer i vissa fall av olika skäl som absolut inte har med våga eller inte våga att göra. Och gamlingarna skriver inte heller. Vågar de inte? Om det är så att man som en anonym användare bakom en anonym alias på ett anonymt forum inte vågar skriva anonymt bakom en skärm många kilometer från alla andra så undrar man ju hur den personen klarar sig i livet i allmänhet, i skolan, på jobbet, i mataffären osv. Då hjälper nog inte sådana här trådar heller.

Antagligen därför en del korallodlare kör med nitrat - för att höja tillväxthastigheten. KNO3 tillsätter en kvävekälla utan tillhörande fosfat, som är fallet om man bara matar fiskarna hårdare.Dessutom är nitratet skitbilligt jämfört med fiskfoder.

Detta gäller då under förutsättningen att fosfaten inte är begränsande, eller?

Har haft samma erfarenhet. Jag undrar om det är bara aminosyror i sig eller är det de övriga komponenter som brukar finnas i aminoblandningar som har denna effekt? FM ultramin s har väl socker i blandningen, och sockret har enligt en del erfarenheter lett till brunare koraller.

De som kör sps brukar ibland vilja ligga på 5-10 ggr vattenvolymen/timme i vattenomsättning.