New Metale Halide setup

I bunch of Softies and LPS, Those all do great for me even under florescent. I will start in the SPS for the new setup but probably nothing crazy. Maybe just start out with 5 - 10 different species and slowly let it grow out. My 75 is totally packed so even after the upgrade i'm sure it will be full within 6 months. I'm not so sure on clams yet bc. they don't excite me much. However i'm a huge fan of the maze Brain coral so that is a possibility.
Basically nothing all the crazy. I just want a full tank. I'm going to aqua-scape it as 2 huge reef walls to hide the overflows and have the middle filled in by branching corals, plate corals, and zoos growing off of branch coral that will be sticking out into the middle. SO the middle will be covered in a random hang over setup. Not an actually full wall like many people have but more like 2 huge mounds with plenty of open caves. It seems that studies are proving that sand is more beneficial than rock so i'm going to keep the rock around 200lbs. Nothing to crazy. Full fuge of course

thx again

 

jtReef, I think you're initial thoughts on MH wattage would be fine. I wouldn't go over 250 watts, which would be fine for a 24" depth aquarium. In my opinion, 400watts is overkill for that depth, unless you're planning on a 30" depth tank later and want to reuse your lights on it. Three MH's, 250 wattage each or a couple 175s on the sides of a middle 250, will rock for you. Grow the sps corals that need intensity higher in the aquarium and/or in the middle 2 feet under the 250 watt setup. Go to 14k MH bulbs and you can cut back on the VHOs as well. Just my two cents. Here's a nice dual 250 watt retro kit, too. They have others as well:

Aquauniverse.com - 2 X 250 Watt Metal Halide Retr

Peace.

 

If you are going to be basically keeping soft corals(octocorals) and lps's, you don't need to really have 400 watt halides. These corals don't require intense lighting. This being said however, think of how much light is transmitted from the sun to our coral reefs.
The intensity of light is a measurement of how much light energy(photon flux), is available. It is commonly read as microEinsteins per meter squared per second, but to you and I, it is commonly referred to as irradiance. The amount of light reaching a given area over a certain period of time, and is described in units called lumens.(one lux equals one lumen per square meter). Light can also be measured in terms of (PAR)photosynthetically active radiation, and (PUR)photosynthetically usuable radiation. (PSR)photosynthetically stored radiation is an important measurement of light to us and corals(plants) for that matter because it defines how much light is actually harvested and converted into chemical energy through photosynthesis.
Enough of this introduction-basically why i'm bringing this up is that the irradiance at the waters surface of a coral reef is about 75,000 lux. At midday, the intensity without cloud cover exceeds 120,000 lux.
Obviously the value drops the deeper the water gets. At 30 feet, the lux drops to about 20,000 lux.
The light intensity reaching the corals Zooxanthellae is usually substantially above the saturation rate for photosynthesis, which leads to excess oxygen and bleaching of corals. What this means is that for most sps's have a saturation level somewhere between 20,000-30,000 lux range. Medium light corals fall somewhere around 5,000-6,000 lux range.
Ok, enough of this information for now...
To conclude this post, I just want to express something based on this above information. The light that we use for our tanks, for the most part, doesn't come close to the intensity of the suns rays radiating down on our reefs. However, again we now know that corals don't require or use all the lux from the suns irradiance for photosynthesis.
Therefore, when trying to decide on wattage for metal halides bulbs, you could go either way. 250 or 400watt bulbs are both suitable for most corals. These bulbs don't come close to the intensity of the suns rays either but again we are trying to capture the most light we can for zooxanthellae to use for photosynthesis as well as the success of our corals. There are people out there using 1000watt bulbs for their tanks or higher, though for much bigger tanks mainly.
I still think you are better off by going with the 400 watt bulb to compliment your 250's. Therefore, you have some freedom to place lower light corals under the 250 watt bulbs, and the high intensity corals like Acropora and Montipora sp. under the 400 watt bulb.
I hope this helps you and isn't to lengthy or complex for you...

 

Good post, coral_reefer. We may differ on opinions of wattage, but I see we both like the Hamilton Reefstar Pendants.

 

I can see where you are coming from as to wattage and don't get me wrong, i'm not really disagreeing with you. I think you are taking the variable of heat generation, electric bill and money into consideration. Basically all i'm trying to say is that having a 400 watt bulb wouldn't be out of the question for a tank of that size. Alot of the vivid colors of some corals can only be achieved by high intensity bulbs-ie. Montipora Denae(superman montipora) for example would benefit by being under a 400 watt metal halide bulb(preferrably HQI). Again remember the suns intensity compared to our lighting, that is all i'm trying to express.
I just wish metal halides were as cheap as standard flourescent bulbs!

 

You said it very well, too! I liked your points and that's what great about reef keeping...there's no one clear way to do it in most cases. You're points were spot on, I guess I was just being a bit more conservative in the approach and sympathizing with his confusion. Guess I was trying to support another view as a positive way as well, you know?

I was also just smiling when I read a prior post from you about loving the Hamilton Reefstars like I do. As you're in this hobby for awhile and get some experience with MHs, those pendants and their advantages look more attractive. They are very versatile.

Yeah, I was a little concerned about the heat issue under that canopy even with fans and remote ballasts for a 400w setup. I've seen 400w setups at a small premium above 250w setups, so the initial cost wouldn't be so bad for 250s vs 400s in a retro or pendant setup, but the electric bill would be noticeably different over time, unfortunately. At least, here in San Diego, it would.

The 400w MHs definitely have their advantages for the intensity lovin' SPS corals and, though not mentioned earlier, clams. So yep, they are entirely in the running on a 180 with 24" depth as you said. Good point!

Yep...the MH's are painful on the wallet compared to fluorescents. It's painful to see 80 watts of fluorescent light in a shop light fixture priced at $10 at Wal-Mart, knowing I just spent $280+ for a 250watt MH rig. I keep trying to figure out a way to make them work! LOL

 

Hey guys. Sorry for bring this post up again but check out the sale at Hamilton Directly.
Specials - Aquarium supplies & Aquarium lighting by Hamilton Technology
Just like you said CoralReefer. about 250 per 250w setup.
REEFSTAR 2 LOW PROFILE REFLECTOR ONLY - MOGUL BASE VERSION
for 90 + 14k light at 75 + ballast at 90 all 250w
to do it all at 400w instead it is only 15.

Does anyone have any input on the Electronic ballast compared to the regular ballast?

Thanks again

 

The electronic ballast's are supposed to be more energy efficient than the magnetric ones. There are only a few bulbs out there that put out more light intensity on a magnetic vs electronic. XM is one of them. It also wouldn't hurt to email the manufacturer and ask the same question... If they have a good customer service department they will reply with an answer that makes sense

Jim