The Poor Man’s Reef Tank Lighting thread

[speckledmind]

Hi everyone,

It's come time for me to share a few things, before I take my 50 Gal. reef tank project down, and move on to a bigger 75 Gal. reef tank.

Before I spill the beans on my lighting, I will tell you this, it's been a controversial road to say the least, I have shown my system to several people, most of witch have been into reef keeping for a good while, not to say many years, and it's still very difficult for some to admit that it works.

I have pretty much heard it all, including that my Coral coloration would be better under different lighting condition such as Metal Halide, I don't have enough wattage, the lumens factor is off, the temperature of my lighting is not accurate, and that my tank will crash.
Well ! it has not,  and the ones doing the same thing as I am, don't have any issues either ( it includes many people off reef central ).

Remember one thing, keep it simple, the bigger and more powerful does not mean better.

I did tons research, backed up and tested everything to start on a smaller 15 Gal. tank, then moved onto a large 30 Gal. tank ( with Sylvain as a full partner on this project ), then moved to my present 50 Gal. my " Poor Man's Reef Tank ".

Several lighting professionals have been involved from the start on this project feeding me the information needed, they all knew what the lighting was intend for, but I spoke to them on the grounds that I needed simple and bare bones fact, and everything had to be proven out.

One of the professionals in question is Sandy the owner at Buckanan Lighting, great fella that I owe tons of tanks to for helping me out, doing some research, supplying me the info, and putting up with my many visits that lasted hours on end.

I even went to several lighting professionals that deal with Hydroponics ( and more ), who better suited to talk lighting, than a person who deals with Metal halide, plant growth, and the pursuit of happine$$ ; )

The boring / Techno Bit.


Color temperature ( Color Temperature is the measurement of color expressed in Kelvin " K) " )
5000 - 5400 K: Daylight - Sun direct at noon
6500 K: Daylight - Bright sunshine with clear sky.
( There is a substantial difference between initial light output, and normal output, of witch is measured in Kelvin (K) )

Lumen
A unit of measure used to describe the amount of light that a light source produces or emits.

Color Rendering Index (CRI)
Ameasure of a lamp's ability to render colors accurately. The scale ranges from 1 ( low pressure sodium) to 100 ( the sun). A CRI of 85 is considered to be very good in a reef tank environment.

Light penetration
- by 1 meter about 60% of the light is absorbed ( 1 meter is 39 + - inches )
- by 10 meter about 85% of the light has been absorbed.
-  You should not even be concerned with, or be worried about, anything under 20 inches in height for a reef tank, higher lighting requirement happen at 24 inch in height for a tank, that 4 extra Ich makes all the difference.

Fact
- The most beneficial light in a reef tank is 6500 K ( and that occurs between 1 pm and 2 pm in real time ), it is also the light that promotes and builds up Coraline, and Coral Growth ( fish don't need light ).
- When supplying a reef tank with 6500 K of light on a 10 hour period, you are actually giving it more than it would get in nature.

I have kept it simple and basic, for every one interested to follow the above Tech BIt.

Let's get down to the Layman's terms, and have some fun.

Remember ! when I started my " Poor Man's Reef Tank ", I said " it's all about making compromises ", so here are a few ( and there only a few ).
- It's a build your own for now.
- You can't keep SPS's ( hard Corals ), and I have not tried.
- Not all rules are meant to be followed, meaning you don't have to place a Coral at the bottom, if you or it likes it at the top.
- Don't believe everything you read on the Net, if I would have, I would not have tried this Poor Man's Lighting.
- it's not recommend to keep Clams, but I will eventually try it at the top of the tank ; )
- Your going to have to walk into something other that a fish store to buy your bulbs.
That's pretty much it ( but I do expect some to want to limit this )

I will follow up.
As Sandy from Buckanan lighting said, ' when talking about a compact light or fluorescent, a watt is a watt ", follow the CRI and your on your way.

I use and have used the following on my " Poor Man's Reef tank " from the start ( june 4 2007 ) I have lots and lots of Coraline, my Coral are growing like crazy, my tank is healthy and it's not going crash.

Bottom line is this,
I use Ge Screw in's twisties 
Here are the specifications, for those who will want to know.
GE
T3 Bulb
Wattage 26
Equivalent wattage 100 W
Initial Lumens 1600
Color temperature is 6500 K
CRI 85
WallMart $9.95 pre two pack 
See pict attached for packaging.

I built my Canopy to hold 4 lights ( plus moon light ), I opted to use 2 x 100 W bulbs = 200 W, I can or could use 4 x 60 W = 240 W, and it has the potential to grow in the 4 x 100 W = 400 W plus.
After doing some testing, I found that 2 x 100 W was sufficient as it's presently set up.
I never finished building my canopy, as I did not want to make any changes, in order that no one could tell me that mmy testing had been skewed, buy changes.

I also use 2 X Marine Glow 36" inch Actinic tubes, plugged into one of the ballast systems you can buy at a fish store, since SuperPet liquidated them at ridiculously low prices, I did not even bother building my own.

A " Man's Reef Tank Lighting " is doable, easy to build and fun.
See diagram.

There are tons of Corals to chose from to make your Reef tank happen.

Here is an open offer.
Any time someone would like to come over to my house and see my tank, your welcome.

If you have any questions, simply ask.
If you want to put my project down, keep it to yourself.

Keep it simple, and keep it fun, it's the only place where things can be fishy : )

Cheers,
Denis

PS : I'm also involved in the reptile business, and I can tell you that large companies such as Hagen have there eye on this lighting, there presently doing it with the reptiles and talking in terms of UVA / UVB, and they are trying to do it with fish as well. I'm not the first one who has done all this research and testing, but here in to repackage the lighting, and sell it for way more.

[attachment deleted by admin]

[Adam]

All watts are not created equal...

Take for example two T8 tubes...32W x 2 = 64W.  Then take a metal halide fixture, 70W.  Or even take a 2 x 36W power compact bulbs.  Some bulbs are more efficient at converting the energy that would otherwise be used as heat into useable lumens.  The lumens/watt is what counts.

Many people have success with the bulbs you are using because they emit a decent amount of lumens.  But you're just growing softies and LPS?  These can survive and thrive under low light conditions. No need for big expenses on light, which most people go overboard on.

- When supplying a reef tank with 6500 K of light on a 10 hour period, you are actually giving it more than it would get in nature.

Really depends on how much 6500K light you are giving it.  You can't compare the sun at 6500K in a shallow reef, and a compact fluorescent bulb at 6500K.

[groan]

you  would also get more light penetration if you had a reflective surface in the hood, even lining hte inside with the shiny side of Aluminum (not being a hot source of light this would not be a problem).

Do ytou not find it a bit dim to look at? the actinics seem to be just as bright as the white lights...

[assiegordon]

Very nice.  GARF has a "bulletproof" reef system, proving that it does not have to complicated or costly to work.

http://www.garf.org/BulletProofReef/3rdbeginner.html

Love it, keep up the good work!

Jim.

[kennyman]

You are really leading people astray by attempting to convert the wattage(power consumption) of a spiral powercompact into the wattage (power consumption) of an incandescent bulb. It is giving the people that read this the impression that one of those spirals at 26W is somehow comparable to a 100w tube. In actual fact the 26W spiral is less luminosity than a 26W tube because of restrike.

The reason a spiral is equivalent to 100w incandescent is because the incandescent uses most of the wattage to produce heat as opposed to light. 26w fluorescent is only equal to 26W fluorescent.

You have more light from your storebought actinic than you do from your diy system. And I am not trying to discourage you Dennis. I have done the very same thing you have in the past. I just want to point out that your bringing the wattage of incandescent light into this is not a good idea.

[kennyman]

As for coral selection. I am sure if you tried a Monti-cap you would be surprised at your success with a sps. They are not light intensive. And for clams. Perhaps we can incourage Ray to dig up some Squamosa for us as that clam has much less light requirements than the more commonly sold  blue ones 

[veron]

youv'e not shown us anything really new? we've been using pigtail lights in refugiums since they were introduced. your also not keeping
SPS corals from what I can tell?
some SPS can be kept under medium lighting but many need more lighting [uv] to color up or keep colors.

LPS and leathers and zoos etc,, can absolutley be kept with your lighting, its just when you start to become an SPS junky is were you realize that point source lighting and high output flourecents
really pay off. ever see a 20k MH lit tank with SPS. you'd never ever get that coloring with $9 lighting

[speckledmind]

I have a lot of work on plate ( meaning I'm very buzy with my work at home ), but I will answer the questions one at a time.

[speckledmind]

All watts are not created equal...

Fluorescent light Watts are.
A Watt is a Watt, I only make reference at anything that is a fluorescent, be it compact, in a tube or Twisty.
Actinic is different, so is MetalHalide

You wrote " But you're just growing softies and LPS?  "
Yes I am.
Is there anything wrong with that ?
Will I enjoy my tank less because I don't have any SPS's,
No !
Part of the compromises I made, was to only have LPS's softies, it's also what I enjoy the most.

[speckledmind]

Very nice
Jim.

Thanks Jim.

[speckledmind]

You are really leading people astray by attempting to convert the wattage(power consumption) of a spiral powercompact into the wattage (power consumption) of an incandescent bulb

I'm not trying to misslead anyone.
No matter what type of fluorescent light you take and compare, be it a tube or a power compact or twisty, the wattage output is the same, simply follow the rating.

As Sandy from Buckanan has said and proven, a Watt is a Watt is a Watt, it's all the same.

Example :
Take a Coralife power compact strip light fixture with 4 X 65 W tubes, it equals 260 W in total.
I can achieve pretty much the same with the Twisties, by settling up 4 X 60 W, it will equal 240 W in total.

[speckledmind]

As for coral selection. I am sure if you tried a Monti-cap you would be surprised at your success with a sps. They are not light intensive. And for clams. Perhaps we can incourage Ray to dig up some Squamosa for us as that clam has much less light requirements than the more commonly sold  blue ones 

Thanks kennyman,

I'm still experimenting with a lot of things, and with different Corals, if any of you care to make suggestions, or help out, I am more than willing to try them out, as long as the Corals has a fair chance.

I did talk with Pat ( redbelly ) some time ago, and he did mention one Clam that may have a fair chance, I need to get back to him on that, and see if he can supply me one for my testing ( I would pay for it of course ).

I also want to get Ray involved ( again ) as he sold me my first corals and inverts, he knows his stuff, and maybe able to reccomend some Corals to try, and see how far I can go with this project.

My only goal in posting this thread, was to show you what I have done with my project, and that it is possible to build a reef tank with LSP ( softies ), grow them well, and enjoy a reef tank that does not cost you an arm and a leg in Lighting.

CHeers,
Denis

PS : I also just added some more Corals to my tank today ; )

[kennyman]

But Dennis what you have written is that your 26W fluorescent tube is equivalent to 100w. You ARE comparing fluorescent light to incandescent light. Your 26W spirals are only 26W NOT 100W. The 100W only comes into play to show people that by using the pigtail in place of an incandescent the can drop the power consumption from 100W to  26W and keep the same amount of light.

As an example. The 40W T12 tubes I use on my planted tank produce 3050 lumen at a temp of 6,500K and a cri of 75. They are only 40W.

I do not intend this to criticize you in any way Dennis. I think what you have done is a good thing, but you Have made a mistake in misinterpreting what the value of the 100W stands for on your bulbs packaging.

[speckledmind]

I do not intend this to criticize you in any way Dennis.

No problem Kenny, I don't feel criticize at all, we are having a simple exchange in order elaborate on the subject.

I'm stepping out for dinner, an when I get back, I will dig out my notes and see if I can make sence of the lingo mumbo jumbo I was given on this wattage thing.
Waht I wrote initially, came from Sandy at Buckanan, and he is the one who took me through the ride of the wattage, lumens and CRI's the techy way.

I may not be the best person to explain it, but I will try.

Later Bud.

[mdugly]

Example :
Take a Coralife power compact strip light fixture with 4 X 65 W tubes, it equals 260 W in total.
I can achieve pretty much the same with the Twisties, by settling up 4 X 60 W, it will equal 240 W in total.

But those "60W" twisties are really just 15W (as per the pics u posted).

[babblefish1960]

They are in fact only 15 watt and 24 watt lamps.  The total wattage over your tank, not including the pair of actinics, amounts to 78 watts.  As kennyman keeps trying to point out, you are comparing a 15 watt fluorescent pigtail to a 60 watt incandescent lightbulb, the only comparison you can truly make is in the apparent appearance of the light, side by side, insofar as how it looks to your eye.  If you have these four bulbs over your aquarium, there are still only 78 watts total over the water.

The other important point kennyman was trying to make, was that being a twisted compact fluorescent, there is a total loss of actual light as these bulbs suffer terribly from what is called "restrike".  It is restrike in these bulbs that make them less than what the package declares what wattage they emit and what light actually reaches the water surface.  Which is to say, the light that comes out of one part of the tubing, and doesn't go past another interfering part of the tubing because of the twisted bulb shape.  This is one reason straight tubes with shaped reflectors such as seen in most hoods are preferred.

[veron]

very well put BIGDADDY. just the shape of the bulb alone would lend itself to a good loss of directional light towards the water. plus those lamps realy don't have a good color to start off with. you should always try to get the best colored lamp first then add actinics if need be. T5 and T8 lighting are quite affordable

[darkdep]

My 2 cents...

A watt is not a watt.  Watts are a measurement of electricity usage; not light output.  Fluorescents are more efficient at converting electricity into light, thus a 15watt CF bulb produces the same light output as a 60w Incandescent.  Incandescents use so much power because they convert most of the electricity into heat; the light is a side effect.

[az]

Deni's tank is doing good IMO(could be better)and these days hydroponic stores are selling 150 - 400 watt spiral bulbs for plants (uses mogul socket), 150-200 watt with proper reflectors should work i think.

[speckledmind]

But those "60W" twisties are really just 15W (as per the pics u posted).

In Wattage consumption only.

That's where the big problem occurs.
Most people compare the Incadescent light, to the compact that uses less power ( Including the fluo tube ), what you should be looking at, it what it pushes out, in Wattage, Lumen's, and color temperature.

Red my folling post.

[speckledmind]

I'm not going to go into a techno battle, because I doubt I would come out alive, it's controversial to say the least, but !, I did my research, consulted with professionals and did my testing, it works, and it works well.

In layman's terms.
- A compact light / twisty uses less energy 26 Watt, but it pushes out a full 100 Watt with 1600 lumens in a full spectrum of UVA and UVB, that equals 6500 K: Daylight - Bright sunshine with clear sky.

- A normal Incacdesent lighbulb uses it's full 100 Watt in consumption, and pushes out it's 100 Watts, it's UVA base only with a color temperature of under 3000 K, it's not a full spectrum.

Check everything out on the GE site.
Basic Incandescent 110 W light = Initial Lumens 1710
Compact twisty 100 W light = Initial Lumens 1600

GE Basic A19
GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS
Lamp type Incandescent - A-line
Bulb A19
Base Medium Screw (E26)
Filament CC-8
Bulb Finish Inside frost
Wattage 100
Voltage 120
Rated Life  750 hrs
Bulb Material Soft glass
Primary Application Standard
PHOTOMETRIC CHARACTERISTICS
Initial Lumens 1710
Nominal Initial Lumens per Watt 17

The link
http://genet.gelighting.com/LightProducts/Dispatcher?REQUEST=CONSUMERSPECPAGE&PRODUCTCODE=41034&BreadCrumbValues=General%20Purpose_Standard_,0&ModelSelectionFilter=FT0010:General%20Purpose_Standard

GE Daylight Long Life Energy Smart™ Spiral
GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS
Lamp type Compact Fluorescent - Self-Ballasted
Bulb T3
Base  Medium Screw (E26)
ENERGY STAR® Qualified Yes
Bulb Finish Daylight
Wattage 26
Equivalent Wattage  100 W
Voltage 120
Rated Life  8000 hrs
Starting Temperature (MIN) 5 °F (-15 °C)
Total Harmonic Distortion (THD)
120 %
Primary Application  Standard; Facilities; Retail Display; Hospitality; Office; Restaurant
PHOTOMETRIC CHARACTERISTICS
Initial Lumens 1600
Mean Lumens (Vert) 1315
Nominal Initial Lumens per Watt 61
Color Temperature 6500 K

The link.
http://genet.gelighting.com/LightProducts/Dispatcher?REQUEST=CONSUMERSPECPAGE&PRODUCTCODE=89095&BreadCrumbValues=&ModelSelectionFilter=FT0001:Energy%20Smart™^FT0007:Daylight

I have absolutelly no expectations
I never dreamed this to go over easy on the Forum when I posted it, it never did on Reef Central, a lot of people got opposition when they tried to publish, that why they went there won way.

Apart from this one
I have simply posted this thread, in order to show what I did, and maybe, just maybe some others will want to follow suit and try it out.

Cheers,
Denis

[speckledmind]

Deni's tank is doing good IMO(could be better)and these days hydroponic stores are selling 150 - 400 watt spiral bulbs for plants (uses mogul socket), 150-200 watt with proper reflectors should work i think.

Couple of things.

A ) Yes you have seen my tank, so answer the following questions,
- why do you say it could it be better ?
- have you ever tried the bulbs I'm using, in what parameters did you test them in, what was the outcome of your testing ?
- How much experience do you have in " years " running reef tanks ?
We have had some long conversations me and you, so I would love to get all the questions answered.

B ) You wrote " hydroponic stores are selling 150 - 400 watt spiral bulbs for plants ".
Yes they are.
Many industries are changing, and a lot of myths are being pushed aside because some people have forged ahead, tested out some controversial products, and it works very well.

[speckledmind]

It is restrike in these bulbs that make them less than what the package declares what wattage they emit and what light actually reaches the water surface.  Which is to say, the light that comes out of one part of the tubing, and doesn't go past another interfering part of the tubing because of the twisted bulb shape.

Got you Babble.
I am trying to answer the initial question asked by kennyman, and you going more in dept into the question, so I'm doing a follow up.

I'm well aware of restrikes, and why people preffer the straight tubes with shaped reflectors.

My testing as you can see from the inside of my hood, was pretty much pushed to it's limits, I did not paint the inside of my Canopy, nor did I even install any reflectors ( simple home foil could have worked ), I really wanted to experiment exactly what you are mentioning about " less than what the package declares what wattage they emit and what light actually reaches the water surface ", and see if it had fact.
Well !
I left the restrike paranoya aside and moved forward.
At $9.95 per two pack with no reflector at all inside my canopy, my tank as some very nice corals that are growing very well.

[speckledmind]

My " Poor Man's Reef Tank " is what is is.

What I did with Lighting, or what I am about to do  may not be for everyone, It's meant to prove one thing, and one thing only, " You don't have to spend an arm and a leg for saltwater lighting, you can grow some pretty nice Corals on a low budget ", and enjoy reef keeping with everyone else.

I'm still testing along, different Corals, at different depths, to see how much of a myth the " It is restrike in these bulbs that make them less than what the package declares what wattage they emit and what light actually reaches the water surface ".

Even If I change my bulbs every 6 months ( $9.95 ), it's still a very nice way to enjoy reef keeping, at a reasonable cost 

That being said.
Don't get me wrong, I will never put down that extraordinary beautiful limited edition Tek lighting system xenon had, and Ray is selling, It's a Damn nice set of lights, and of course I would want one.
But !
It just did not fit into my Poor Man's project 

PS : I'm still drooling over those lights 
I kept the Pict 

[attachment deleted by admin]

[mseguin]

Your mistake is comparing wattages. Yes, the 26W Spiral is equivalent to the light produced by a 100W incadescent bulb. So is the light produced by 26W of straight fluorescent. So 26W spiral = 26W fluo tube = 100W Incan (all other factors like restrike, etc aside). In other words, let's say I wanted to create a hood roughly equivalent to the 260W Power compact hood. I could use 6x40W Fluo tube, 10x26W Spiral fluo, or 10x100W Incandescent. To produce the same amount of light, the incandescent bulbs will be using 4 times as much energy, as compared to the fluorescent lights, but the fluo or power compact bulbs have roughly the same light output per wattage (again ignoring restrike, etc)

[kennyman]

It is working Dennis and that truly is the point. You managed to keep some decent corals with very low light and I don't think anyone wants to detract from that. But your reasoning behind why you kept it might be a little off and we only point that out so that you will be best able to present your success.

Perhaps the info listed here will give you some direction in your research and help to realize that the 26W pigtail you have is only equivalent to its self and not the incandescent comparason used to market them.

[sniggir]

I would like to point out that not to many people use incondecent bulbs, I am happy to see that you are enjoying your self with your project. I would like to point out that you keep on asking people how long they have been into SW... well I would like to point out that it has only been like 7 months for you. I am happy for you in the factthat you are enjoying doing reasurch and such. I would also like to point out that yes the bulbs are cheap, bit you can build a T5 fixture without reflecto for very cheap aswell, and that as mentioned before using these pig tail bulbs is not new at all I know tons of people that use them, they generaly use them in there frag tanks and such but hey aslong as you are sticking to the softies and shrooms all the more luck to ya.

[Vallely4]

"After doing some testing, I found that 2 x 100 W was sufficient as it's presently set up.
I never finished building my canopy, as I did not want to make any changes, in order that no one could tell me that mmy testing had been skewed, buy changes."

So currently this is what is in your existing canopy right, 2x26watt twisties for now?
Im trying to grasp all these numbers   If so, thats pretty impressive still in 20"depth with 52w of CF. If its going good for you, i'll be doing similar DIY set-up, in the very near future
Myself i'll probably modify with 4x26w twisty in the canopy, over my 20g(16"depth)
Where do you find blue bulbs tho -actinic twisties?   And actinic, are they necessary? (I'm no pro)

Good work.
I'm loving the idea of not sacrificing any of tank inhabitants well-being, for a budget savvy light system. If your tank is thriving with these softies and such, my tank should do just fine.  Thanks,

[speckledmind]

I would like to point out that you keep on asking people how long they have been into SW... well I would like to point out that it has only been like 7 months for you

Correction my dear friend on one thing.

You should go back in the thread, as I have asked only one individual on the amount of years he has been in reef keeping. I asked those specific questions, because of what he comented as the following,

Deni's tank is doing good IMO(could be better)

And I posted the following asking for answers.

" Couple of things.
A ) Yes you have seen my tank, so answer the following questions,
- why do you say it could it be better ?
- have you ever tried the bulbs I'm using, in what parameters did you test them in, what was the outcome of your testing ?
- How much experience do you have in " years " running reef tanks ?
We have had some long conversations me and you, so I would love to get all the questions answered.".

My question do have a purpose, and I'm still waiting for straigh and honest answers to all the questions asked ( and I do mean all ).

[speckledmind]

As for me.
Yes, I have been in reef keeping for 7 months.

I'm no scientist, nor do I have special expertise beyond my research.
My " Poor Man's Reef Tank "project was put together because I could not get past the 20 Gal. nano tank that would cost $1000.oo

I have been researching reef keeping high and low for more than one year before even getting into it, read everything I could put my hands on night and day, including pretty much everything on Reef Central, and believe me, if you go through that site and read all you can, it will take over a year to do so, then add some for the rest of the material that I have researched and read.

It still does not make an authority on reef keeping, but it sure gave me all the tools needed to start my " Poor Man's Reef Tank " project.

You can believe or understand what ever you wish, I'm not here to convince you or any one else of anything.

Simple common sense should tell anyone that it's impossible to even keep Corals alive with 2 X 26 W in a 36" long x 20 inch deep tank, yet alone keep them in a vegetating state.

Since I have Corals that are growing, Coraline growing and coming out all over the place, dare to look past the numbers, and past what other state as what you should see as the obvious in my lighting being 2 x 26 W, look at where tank is, and what I have achieved.

I'm not here to convert any one, nor to prove anything.

Take what you want, and push aside what ever you don't want to accept, You are your own person, and have all the powers in the world to chose.

From this project's stand point.
Not everyone has the ability to see, let alone understand the contreversy, look past the prejudices.

If limitations was the only thing the world knew and had grown on, life would simply have not evolved.

PS : Sylvain was right ; )

[speckledmind]

So currently this is what is in your existing canopy right, 2x26watt twisties for now?

No
Look past the power comsumption, I run 2 x 100 W twisties, that push out 1600 lumens each, at 6500 K with 85 CRI's

Im trying to grasp all these numbers   If so, thats pretty impressive still in 20"depth with 52w of CF. If its going good for you, i'll be doing similar DIY set-up, in the very near future

Dare to look past the numbers.
Better yet, look so far past the numbers that you can come and see my tank up close, and judge for yourself my project.

Cheers,
Denis

[sniggir]

just a ? are you confused or am I you said your self you are running 26w twisty... big difererence..like me saying I am running 175... but calling it a 400...

anyway no worries last post...

[Adam]

Fluorescent light Watts are.
A Watt is a Watt, I only make reference at anything that is a fluorescent, be it compact, in a tube or Twisty.
Actinic is different, so is MetalHalide

You wrote " But you're just growing softies and LPS?  "
Yes I am.
Is there anything wrong with that ?
Will I enjoy my tank less because I don't have any SPS's,
No !
Part of the compromises I made, was to only have LPS's softies, it's also what I enjoy the most.

I wasn't trying to belittle softies and LPS.  It is what I have the most of myself, and prefer them over little sticks in most cases.  The qualifier 'just' was in regards to lower lighting thresholds, not 'OMG you're JUST growing softies and LPS?  noob.'

I think the point here is that you are successful in keeping your coral under your lighting conditions.  However, your method of explaining power consumption and light emittance is not entirely correct.  But the others have explained this already.

[Vallely4]

So you are running 2x26w (twisty)bulbs tho right? . I'm sure you mentioned it yourself.   ...Aswell your corals can withstand lowlight, not to mention are nicely positioned quite a distance up the tank
-Yes the way you have explained/interpret power consumption seems skewed
Im sure it pushes all the right lumens and its the right Kelvin rating, but its the same as if it were 2 long 26wcompact-tubes im certain thats what these folks are saying??
(Still much much easier on the wallet in terms of bulbs. Tubes are pricey)

Does anyone think its fine I can go ahead tho and plan with 4 bulbs over my 20g? Its totally feasible still...correct?  it'll be atleast 52w or 104w twisties   ...-maybe even 6 bulbs

[veron]

have you try'd any marine lamps or seen a T5 setup? maybe you ''think'' your tank looks awsome but you'd have to add ALOT of actinic just to get a decent color.
also, saltcreep will eventualy probaly eat those sockets up.
and 7 months is not a success but if your happy thats what counts.

[speckledmind]

have you try'd any marine lamps or seen a T5 setup? maybe you ''think'' your tank looks awsome but you'd have to add ALOT of actinic just to get a decent color.
also, saltcreep will eventualy probaly eat those sockets up.
and 7 months is not a success but if your happy thats what counts.

I have seen all sorts of set ups, Coralife brand compact light strips, T12, T10, T8, T5, Metal Halide, in various reef tanks, I have also refereed to them while doing my research and testing, to compare several things.

When looking at a reef tank ( the over all light visual aspect only ), I offer this for you to consider.
- The over all look of a reef tank can differ greatly from one individual to the other, some prefer the cleaner 6500 k sunlight look with very little Actinic showing through, others want that full Actinic look only, so when looking at a tank, you can't judge what the other person likes or dislikes, I know I can't.

- Since you have only seen poor Pictures of my tank, of witch came from my inconsistent bad camera ( and lack of photographic skill ), don't know it until you have seen it up close for yourself, if it's not to your licking, it's no big deal, at least come over and see it before judging from my bad Pict's.

If the saltcreep does eat those sockets up, big deal, that means it's eaten through my glass top, now that would be my concern. lol

And as you say, I'm happy, and that's what counts.

PS : If any one asks, I'm partially color blind ( very low level ), my eyes don't differentiate certain colors when they are to close to one another, but my eye where not the ones used to judge the over all effect of my tank and testing lol I had a partner to reffer to, and I let him tell me when and if I was off. lol

[speckledmind]

just a ? are you confused or am I you said your self you are running 26w twisty... big difererence..like me saying I am running 175... but calling it a 400...

anyway no worries last post...

I am some times confused.
So ! let me check.

I quoted the manufacturers notes in the GE site,
" GE
T3 Bulb
Wattage 26
Equivalent wattage 100 W
Initial Lumens 1600
Color temperature is 6500 K
CRI 85
WallMart $9.95 pre two pack 
See pict attached for packaging. "

Any one yet pay attention to what the manufacturer writes in his specs and on his site  " Equivalent wattage 100 W "

and wrote the following.
" - A compact light / twisty uses less energy 26 Watt, but it pushes out a full 100 Watt with 1600 lumens in a full spectrum of UVA and UVB, that equals 6500 K: Daylight - Bright sunshine with clear sky. ".

If some would feel better if I said 26 Watts, ok, 26 Watts 

[speckledmind]

I wasn't trying to belittle softies and LPS.  It is what I have the most of myself, and prefer them over little sticks in most cases.  The qualifier 'just' was in regards to lower lighting thresholds, not 'OMG you're JUST growing softies and LPS?  noob.'

I think the point here is that you are successful in keeping your coral under your lighting conditions.  However, your method of explaining power consumption and light emittance is not entirely correct.  But the others have explained this already.

No Prob Adam,
I was pulling your leg 
Sorry 

As in many Hobbies, some people in reef keeping will not recognise any others as having a reef tank, if they don't keep SPS's ( hard corals ), they reffer to them as FWLR ( fish with live rock ), they see themself as purist, I see them as a little fanatic.

On me not explaining this correctly, I can see that.
It's still not a problem 

[jeffd]

When I started reading this thread i kept in mind the title. Not having seen the lighting in person and just the pics posted I'm impressed with the look. For those wanting to keep non light intensive corals, are on a budget and don't have tons of cash to dump to ottawa hydro but still would like to keep a marine reef system this solution obviously does the job.

As already stated, colour is a personal liking, and as for salt creep eating sockets over time who cares...what is the cost a year or so down the road if they need to be changed? peanuts is the cost. If i were to try an inexpensive solution like this I personally would use a shallow tank 12-18" max in depth and If my eyes likes more blue I would add 2 NO flourecent actinics or even a t5 retro. All of this at a fraction of the cost of a store bought
light like a coralife dual pc and the cost to replace those pc bulbs.

Depending on what the reef keeper is wanting to keep in the tank, I believe this is an excellent, inexpensive, DIY project that anyone can afford.

Theres nothing high-end about this DIY, but hey I guess thats why its titled "The Poor Man's Reef Tank Lighting Thread"

Good job and thanks for sharing! I personally would love to see this in person someday,

cheers, Jeff

[speckledmind]

Thanks jeff,

You have summed it up very well, and got full comprehension of where I wanted this to go.
Put aside the techno Babble.
It's low cost.
Easy to build.
and it works.

Anyone can try reef keeping without handing out tons of Cash, and I sure hope my project will bring more people into reef keeping.

As for seeing my tank up close and personal, no problem, I was planning on a little gathering for those interested, stay tunned.

PS : Life if simple, people make it complicated 

[speckledmind]

Last but not least.

My testing was not limited to what I am presently using, be very careful with these lights, and don't use them ( or judge them ) on the basis of them being only 26 Watts, there way more than what certain people are referring to.

If you use to much wattage, or to many of light ( call it what ever you wish, but I reffer to my lights as 100W output ), you will flood your tank with to much light, and end up with a lot of algae you don't want.

I stated off with lesser wattage that what I am using now ( in previous testing on other tanks ), and grew the wattage to where it is on my tank, I stopped at what I am now using, for many reasons.

Algae feeds on light, to much light and your algae will take over, be cautious, be prudent.

[darkdep]

Denis...

You cannot look at a bulb which says "26 watt, Equivalent wattage 100watt" and say you're running a 100watt bulb.  That "Equivalent" comparison is to an INCANDESCENT bulb.  Have you ever seen someone using Incandescent bulbs over a tank?  No...they're using Fluorescent.  You need to forget that "Equivalent" value as it has no meaning in your current application.  You're running 2x26watt, which is 52watts.  You're running 52 watts of Fluorescent lighting. 

There are cost advantages to the way you're doing things.  Yes, nobody is disputing that.  But your belief that you have more light than you do is troubling.  A single T5HO bulb, which at 34" utilizes 39w, may appear brighter on your tank just due to the lack of restrike.  A DIY T5HO Setup, as an alternative, can also be done for very little money (just off the top of my head, by getting deals on components you can do a 2x39watt setup for about $100).  This would, I think everyone would agree, give you better results and more flexibility.

That being said, if it is working for you, go with it.  There are very few hard and fast rules in this hobby.

[speckledmind]

Denis...
A single T5HO bulb, which at 34" utilizes 39w, may appear brighter on your tank just due to the lack of restrike.  A DIY T5HO Setup, as an alternative, can also be done for very little money (just off the top of my head, by getting deals on components you can do a 2x39watt setup for about $100).  This would, I think everyone would agree, give you better results and more flexibility.

That being said, if it is working for you, go with it.  There are very few hard and fast rules in this hobby.

Hey Dark,

Got ya.
No prob.

Yep, I could do a low cost DIY T5HO Setup, but I will not, it's not part of my plans, nor is it part of my Poor Man's Reef Tank project.

I can also build you a low cost Ice Cap look alike / act alike.

I can use some T8's and the propper ballast, over drive the whole thing and get tons of light for cheap, but I will not, again, it's not part of my plans, nor is it part of my Poor Man's Reef Tank project.

I can actually build you a very low cost full spectrum light set up ( full UVA / UVB ), by combining in pairs low cost off the shelf at Canadian Tire, the local Reno store T8's Fluo tubes, of warm white and cool white.

I can set you up with such a low cost / cheap Metal Halide set up, you will not believe it, think outside the box, just do some research, then head towards some stores that sell used stuff ( Cohen and Cohen, or similar ), this is Sylvain's bit 

I did way more reseach on lighting than this simple Twisty thing thread leads some to believe ( I also communicated directly with the lighting manufacturer ), I may not communicate my fidings and facts in the right way, but who really cares if it works 

Why do what everyone else is doing, that's not fun 

As you say " There are very few hard and fast rules in this hobby ", and that's what I am having fun with.

Keep it fun, it's the only place where things can be fishy 

[kennyman]

Any one yet pay attention to what the manufacturer writes in his specs and on his site  " Equivalent wattage 100 W "

As Sandy from Buckanan lighting said, ' when talking about a compact light or fluorescent, a watt is a watt

Yes and we keep pointing out time and time again that the 100w is NOT with respect to other fluorescent lighting. Follow what your buddy Sandy says and compare fluorescent with fluorescent and not to incandescent. And to further elaborate on this because you have imagined that the pigtails were somehow giving you a magical light gain you have underestimated the impact of the fluorescent tubes you have installed in there. Even though the luminosity is lower for them they are producing better PAR. Lumens are only a measurement of vissable light but PAR (Photosynthetically Active Radiation) is of widerscope. The lumens of the pigtails might be higher but you are getting some extra par out of the fluorescent tubes.

[sniggir]

Denis I think everyone is happy for you and your findings, I think it is more that there are alot of people beguining out into salt that may see you saying you have 200w with 2 twisties, and that is more what we are pointing out... as people have already said compare proper bulb's and then make the comparison.


again... all that matters is that you like your tank.

[redbelly]

Hey Denis,
Good for you for doig this project. I used to keep two 6500K 26W CF over a 20g about a year and a half ago. Personally i did not find that the cf bulbs kept or brought out the colours that i was looking for however but you may have better results than I did or different coral.

You cant compare the 26W cf's to 100W incadesant and then in the same sentence say that it is equal to 100W of T5 lighting. Although your testing on your tank is very good this comparison is wrong. You also keep mentioning watt output on your lights. Watts are consumed. Lux, Lumen and Par are measure of output but not watts. This is why your comparison falls apart and your thread is generating a lot of posts with regards to these details. If you want sometime when i have a couple min to spare (dont ask me when that will be currently...) I could bring my Lux meter over and measure the lux output of your lighting setup. Lux is NOT as accurate of a reading as the Par but i could afford a lux meter to play around with.

[BigDaddy]

very well put BIGDADDY. just the shape of the bulb alone would lend itself to a good loss of directional light towards the water. plus those lamps realy don't have a good color to start off with. you should always try to get the best colored lamp first then add actinics if need be. T5 and T8 lighting are quite affordable

Ummmmm.... I haven't posted in this thread until just now 

Taking restrike, colour temperatures, and comparisions out of the equation.

How long have those particular corals been sitting under that lighting?  What determines if your project is a success or not is the long term results.  Half a year in a saltwater tank is barely a drop in the bucket from a timeline perspective.

[speckledmind]

If you want sometime when i have a couple min to spare (dont ask me when that will be currently...) I could bring my Lux meter over and measure the lux output of your lighting setup. Lux is NOT as accurate of a reading as the Par but i could afford a lux meter to play around with.

Hey Pat,

Thanks for the follow up and input, I was kind of hopping you would jump in.

Yep, I'm expressing myself all crooked 
I'll blame it on my age, and being on the verge of being senile 
Let me know if I'm getting away it  .

I'm not trying to ( although it sure seems I did ), say in the same sentence that "compare the 26W cf's to 100W incadesant and then in the same sentence say that it is equal to 100W of T5 lighting ", so before I stick both my feet side ways in my mouth ( if it' not already done ), I will quit while I'm behind 

I would love to take you up on your offer, and gather more info on this little project of mine, it will share the results with all interested parties ( thread / posting ).

Just let me know when you can come over, I'm right across the bridge from you in Hull, and real easy to find.

As I mentioned previously in this thread ( I think I did ), I would also like to add a few more Corals to my tank, and test out this lighting potential, I'm not looking for freebies or hand outs, I will buy the Corals as anyone would do, it's your input and expertise I'm looking for.

I will add this ( Ya I know, I write a lot, I have big fingers ).
When I started this Poor Man's Reef Tank project (my initial thread http://ovas.ca/index.php?topic=17539.0 ), I hinted and wrote that I was looking to have more people get into reef keeping if they where ready to make some compromises.

As I said in my original Thread ( The Poor Man's Reef Tank ), I have absolutely nothing to sell, but I sure think that everyone who are selling reef related items ( and fish ), will benefit by having those who where holding back because of the related cost, dip there toes into into salt.

I did say some where along the line ( some where ), that I would like to put together a low cost 33 Gal. Reef prototype starter package using the Poor Man's Reef Tank KISS ideas ( watch my ideas get stolen lol ), anyone interested can ask what, where and how, any and all help is welcome, and I will give credit where credit is due ( Names, stores, items and so on ).

My KISS project is far from being perfect, but it's doable and accessible, not everyone want to spend $1000.oo on a 20 Gal. Nano Reef Tank, let alone $5000.oo in a 75 Gal. one, so if no one puts my project down, rides the info and shares some input in a positive way, we ( OVAS ) should all benefit from this.

Here is the zinger an my close for today lol
I'm about to kick it up a notch.
I'm going all out and transferring all this simplicity ( LR, fish, Corals and lighting twisty research ), and building a 75 Gal. Reef Tank on the same KISS basis, I want to see how far I can ride this puppy, and enjoy Reef keeping al low cost.
Remember, it's all about compromises.
It's never been done, and I want to do the grown breaking, I'm waiting for the Boxing day tank sale on a 75 Gal. tank to keep it low cost, and in line with my Poor Man's Reef Tank scenario.

Everyone wanting to share, help and enjoy is welcome.

Cheers,
Denis

PS : If I would have had the guts in May of 2007, I should have made all of this happen in the 75 Gal. new tank I had sitting in the living room 

[speckledmind]

How long have those particular corals been sitting under that lighting?  What determines if your project is a success or not is the long term results.  Half a year in a saltwater tank is barely a drop in the bucket from a timeline perspective.

Hey BigD,

The tank was put together on June the 4 th., the Torch when it three weeks later, and other frags followed soon after, you can make up your own mind on where you think this project is, or where it's going.

Time is irrelevant in this world ( Time is a matter of perspective ), and can be debated in all sorts of ways, non stop.
So can everything else 

[mseguin]

Time is not irrelevant, coral colonies take years to grow, and growth and reproduction, not suvival, is the far more important gauge of success for any animal. Not saying you won't do well, just that that's why some people would want to wait longer before trying the same thing.

[BigDaddy]

Hey BigD,

The tank was put together on June the 4 th., the Torch when it three weeks later, and other frags followed soon after, you can make up your own mind on where you think this project is, or where it's going.

Time is irrelevant in this world ( Time is a matter of perspective ), and can be debated in all sorts of ways, non stop.
So can everything else 

As Matt already pointed out, time is completely relevant.  I can build the most beautifully planted tank using clippings from all the healthiest tanks and put them in a low light tank.  A week or two later it will still look fantastic.  A month later, however, everything will be dead.

Since corals and salt water systems in general take a significantly longer amount of time to develop and mature, measuring your SW setup at 6 months is like comparing my "planted tank" on week one.  It has absolutely nothing to do with the big picture.

Quite frankly, beginners to this hobby need to be guided in the tried and true methods.   Just as I would never advise a beginner apisto keeper to try keeping several hundred apistos in a 20 gallon full of leaf litter (which can be done), to advise someone who has never kept salt to look at this as an alternative is also a mistake in my opinion.

[redbelly]

Hey Denise,
My advise would be to not switch the tank. If you want this test to prove something to the reefkeeping comunity then this project needs more time. Once you prove that this works on your tank for a year or two more people will listen. If you could afford it, it might be very interesting to set up a smaller tank like say a 20g with the same corals in it and see how they do over a long period of time. Will they colour up more? Will they grow bigger? Faster? If you put one head of frog spawn in each how big will each of them be in their respective tanks?

An amazing test would be to have two tanks of the same size, plumbed in together to ensure that water quality if both was the same and have different lighting on each. One could be your screw in cf's and one could be a home made t5 setup. Then you would have a control and experimental. Then you could compare the growth of the corals in each over time.

[cn]

It's good for you that your tank is doing well with these twisted CF bulbs but if i were a salt beginer i would rather spend a little bit more money to get a low cost T5 high output setup. This proven low cost T5 setup will provide decent amount of light to benefit the corals. I know salt water is expensive but you really can't go cheap on lighting either. And by the way T5 lighting will provide much better colour overall IMO.

[speckledmind]

Pat,
If only I had the space, then the time 

If I had the money and the floor would hold, I would have a 6 foot long tank in my living room, throw out the Boob Tube ( TV ) and enjoy.

There is a good reason behind my Twisty thing, it has to do with versatility, having limited size of Fluo and cost related issues.
There is also a good reason for a 33 Gal. tank prototype, it's a nice 36" standard size to convert if one wants to, into a T5 set up down the line, and a beautiful tank to start with, I have not limited my ideas to what I showed, I offer a start, then you can growth if you choose to go that way 

BTW : This is not my last tank, and I don't intend to stay on the Poor Man's concept for ever, I simply wanted to have some fun.

BigD,
I'm not out to prove to the community, and I'm not out for medals or taps on the back either, I have proved one thing to myself and my partner in crime Sylvain, and now willing to share, " we " where right, my tank is growing under the condition it's in.

just that that's why some people would want to wait longer before trying the same thing.

Yep !
Your right.
Some people ( most ) wait all there lives, and stay in the side lines fully content of doing so, ( this one is deep, and may affect some ).
You can wait all your life if you chose to, including on this one.

As I wrote, everything can be debated in all sorts of ways, non stop.
Since this is very controversial, I can see the writing on the wall, but I really don't care, I'm having fun enjoying my tank at low cost.
That's what the hobby is meant to be.

The torch was purchase with 5 heads and about to split, it now has 7 and it's about to split again, I have no doubt that some one will want to disapprove this lol

Time is irrelevant, it's a matter of perspective.

Even if this project would have run for 5 years, I would still have opposition, read the same debate and controversy, not everyone is willing to think outside the Box, explore, and do things differently, let alone accept those who have ( Read my signature, you may grow from it ).

There will be no last word on this project, if it dies in the process, I will follow my original idea, I will take everything out, clean and sterilize everything, then start all over again, it's that simple, and it's that much fun.

Life is simple, people make it complicated ( my quote, from a life of living, not waiting ).

If anyone wants to follow my ideas and try it out, buy small frags, keep it low cost, your going to have fun, isn't what this hobby is all about, If you have any mishaps, it's not that much of a lost.

I have no more time for replies.
I'm skipping school ( Work ) today and playing hooky, sorry, but I'm calling a time out, and going outside to play with the kids in the snow.

It's been fun, but it's time to move on 

Cheers,
Denis

[darkdep]

Actually, if your project ran for 5 years I think you would have far LESS opposition.

I'm not 100% sure what your actual goal here is...to prove that you can run a reef tank at low cost?  Nobody is disputing that... there are many ways to lower the cost of a reef tank.  I think the idea of using CF lighting is getting flak from many because of the general belief that A) there are better ways to save money on a reef tank, because B) This method has many Cons for the amount of money saved. 

You know what?  If this method works, why not expand it?  Put in 4 or 6 CF bulbs; then you're talking.  Then you'd be trying to produce a "properly" lit SW setup with common off the shelf components...that would be interesting to many I'm sure.

I know you think you're venturing into uncharted territory but I'm not sure that's the case...As others have pointed out, all your livestock is known to live in low-light conditions.

[speckledmind]

Actually, I will tel you what.

How about I drop the whole thing, sharing doesn't seem to be a motivating factor, I think I'm posting on the wrong Forum.


You should read your own intro.
to further the study of all forms of aquatic life, 
to promote interest, exchange ideas, and distribute information concerning the hobby, 
to encourage breeding and displaying of aquatic life, 
and to work toward the conservation of endangered species.

[kennyman]

I don't have any opposition to his project. Heck he is growing stuff with WAY less light than he thinks he has 

Its just the presentation of the data leading to a misrepresentation of where exactly the light in his tank is coming from. Don't forget he has a pair of tubes running in there beside the pigtails. Those tubes are getting short changed because all the attention is focused on 48W of twisties.

BTW Dennis a single 40 watt tube for a standard fluorescent system puts out as much light at those two pigtails combined. Check it out for you next project. A member on here ran a fully stocked Reef tank with a pair of shoplights over it. It was crammed full of stuff and ran for years

[darkdep]

I don't have any opposition either.  I would agree I think it's just the presentation.  Hell, Denis, if you can prove a reef tank can run with so little light, go for it. 

[93GTCANADA]

my brother in law had shop lights over his tank and even had anemonies for years. he had no filters. only 2 hang on backs for flow. with nothing inside. a cheap ass heater. crushed coral. didnt pre mix before water changes did it right there in buckets and pored it right in. sometimes 6 inches of evaporation on his 55 gal before he would even top it off. always used tap water with no prime or anything. his tank ran beautifully for 3 plus years. he even had a mandarin dragonet for 2 plus years with no problem. he THE BASIC TANK. and it worked. not saying its the right way to go about things. but it does work.

[dan2x38]

Denis I am a FW guy only no SW experince what so ever. I applaud your efforts, research, and detail. But I think you would receive similar posts in any forum. I have researched some considering a nano reef myself. The one thing I have learned that will be most valuable considering this venture is the knowledge in this forum of the saltwater ppl.

There are many valid facts that to me make common sense made by these old salty dogs. What I've read else where is only echoed by the OVAS SW knownledge base. The light needs to be delivered to the reef. The distance the lighting is from the water, the direction of the light affecting loss, intensity, etc. are just common sense facts to me. No matter which lighting is used. Debating the use of reflectors which can be created from several things would seem a great "Poor Man's" lighting component. Also a way to enhence your lighting set-up.

The wattage of the light as I understand it is the amount of power used to create the lights ouput intensity?

Like Bigdaddy says in comparision of a FW planted tank... I set-up a new tank add some great plants from pots, clippings, wherever and it looks great but use low tech lighting. Until the plants have used up all their nutrients from the water, the substrate then the poor lighting takes its toll and they die that is a shorter cycle... Do these reef animals not take decades to grow and develop? How long does it take them to die? Is there any research regarding this life cycle?

I would not disclaim your findings being a non-salty but would think by posting you'd be willing to accept the input of those that are. You opened your post by saying, I know this will be contriverserial. Any new research opens it's self to review and dispute. The newer the ground the more researching, testing, & prove is needed to make the findings valid.

For sure I will build a SW project. It will be a Nano reef. For sure I will listen & learn from everyone, everyone!!! I will continue to follow this thread but I too am a spectic and believe me I am do not always go the norm. I do not always like criticism but I invite it... in that way I will always learn...

[mseguin]

There are two issues I have, the second one of which I've been keeping quiet about but now must voice.
Any researcher must be open to criticism of their data and conclusions. It's part of the scientific method. As has been explained, there was a flaw in your conclusions, i.e. that your lights are not putting out as much light as yuo claim. As has also been explained, this is a flaw because it is misleading when comparing to other methods of lighting. Your results do not change, just one of the premises surrounding the repeatability of the experiment (a very basic premise of a good experiement).
The other thing that bothers me is the notion of trying to get away with the bare minimum when dealing with living things. I've been working in pet retail for a while, and I get so very tired of people looking for quick fixes, whether its people unwilling to spend the time to train their new dog, or people who can't be bothered to clean their tank but wonder why all their fish die. Your tank seems to be doing well so far, and I hope it continues to, but the "bare bones" approach that seems to be so popular these days is just irresponsible, from an ethical and ecological point of view. I'm not saying everyone needs to spend thousands of dollars on all the latest gadgets or fancy retail systems, but there is a certain amount of money and effort one needs to expect when taking care of a living thing, be it buying a good dog food, or providing appropriate living conditions for yuor fish. This becomes even more important when dealing with SW tanks, since most of the creatures available are wild caught. You have a duty to the animals in your care, not only to allow them to survive, but to thrive and reproduce. Anything less is ecologically irresponsible. Again, I hope this system works out for you, but sometimes, looking for the "poor man's " solution is the wrong approach.

[speckledmind]

I will end everything here and now with the following.

First, I would like to thank all of  those who have commented, dared to question, added some input on a positive note, and said, way to go if it work, I would like to see your tank.
I respect that, and with that kind of thinking, your going to have some fun.

As I wrote " I could see the writing on the wall ", but ! " c'est la vie ", at least I tried.

A ) I'm not a scientist, I simply wanted to share.
Now kill me for it lol
Since I'm not mainstream and controversial, I better keep it to myself, and to any others interested parties ( read at the bottom ).
Man ! Sylvain was so right on this one lol

B ) I wrote it out aloud in plain English, my Picts are not good, the coloration is way off, I use a cheap camera that doesn't take two identical Picts in the same setting, even if I don't change a thing, on top of that, I'm a BAD Photographer.
That being said.
Some made it a point to say my colors where off, and my Corals would be better represented with a different lighting scenario ie; T5's.
Before you knock it, come and see it.
Then again, why don't you keep doing what works for you, keep judging from a distance, it's better than getting involved, and it's way safer to criticize, than participate.

C ) I also said it plain and simple, don't cut these lights short, if you put to many of them, you will flood your tank with light, to much light leads to algae problems, as algae feeds on light.
If you want to stop it at calling them 26 Watts, don't worry, and be happy.

D ) followed closely with the Tim the Tool Time Talor approach " More Power ", put more lights, 4 or 6, then you would prove something.
I would prove nothing, except that I have flooded my tank with light, and I have a lot of Algae problems
Read Part " C ", it's been tried, why do you think I mentioned it.

**(Point E Removed by the Webmaster due to inappropriate content)**

I have not even scratched the surface of what I tested, and how you can save some money, lighting is only one aspect, but once all the components would been put together, that it where it would have counted.

It's all about compromises.

I don't offer a miracle, I'm not GOD nor do I pretend to be, I offer a possible start on a low budget.
Sharing in a positive way was my only intention, not run for office, get medals, or taps on the back, I will leave that to interested parties, there doing a great job at it lol

If you dare, here is a glimpse on what you can save, and get your reef tank going ( It's all been done, but not with my lighting lol )
- Substrate, use Chicken Grit ( COOP )
- Live Rock, check out Redbelly's home made LR, or we will mix out our own batch and have some fun.
- You don't NEED 1 lb of LR per gallon of water to start, that's a bunch of BS, start with less, and grow your system if you wish.
- You don't need a Skimmer either, do water changes.
- Try a simple hang back it helps.
- You really want a skimmer, try a counter current, it's low cost, and it will help your tank some.
- Build a simple stand, DIY and low cost, we can build it together if you don't have the skills, that's what sharing is about.
- You don't need RO to start, try your Tap water and see if it can be used, or go buy distilled and run with that idea, or ask someone politely if they could sell you a 5 Gal. container now and then, kind of $5 a pop.
It goes on and on, and on, and on. BTW, I am using tap water, and have always done so lol

If anyone want to know a little bit more about this Poor Man's Reef Tank in the same lines I have followed, start there won project on a ow budget, send me a PM, better yet, send me an e-mail, I can send you bad picts as a start, if your opened minded enough to have communicated with me, I'm sure you will get past my bad Picts, and will want to see my tank up close.

As a Close.

I'm not the only person wanting to help and share, a lot of other want the same things, there simply held back by politics, and rather concentrate on the hobby, I don't blame them one bit.

Now you can do as it's often been done, edit my thread / Post ( or Posts ), then lock the thread.
Kick me out if you wish, I will have proven a long term Fact.

I'm going back to my hobby, and having fun, that's what it's all mean to be.

Keep it fun, it's the only place where things can be fishy lol

Cheers,
Denis

[darkdep]

Denis, I think you're taking things the wrong way.

Your last post has some valuable cost-saving tips, and a thread about those things would be valued by all.  However, this particular thread started with claims of how your two 26watt CF's were in fact producing the same output as 200watts of Incandescent light, and you pretty much proudly stated that you had made some sort of controversial breakthrough.

However, it is commonly held that a 26w CF produces the same amount of light as a 100w incandescent...that's sort of the purpose of the CF bulb (it has nothing to do with aquatics).  The presentation claimed to be about a revolutionary way to run a low cost reef tank and all you really spoke about (using terms that appeared contradictory or uninformed) was lighting. 

Nobody is going to edit your posts or lock your thread.  We're all happy you're sharing your experiences.  I would suggest that if we all seem to not understand what it is you're presenting, then make us understand.  If you present information on lighting, and then when you're questioned you reply with "I don't understand everything I was told"...well, of course people are going to be skeptical.

From my understanding, a CF bulb is just a small fluorescent light emitter.  What specifically about these bulbs make them ideal for your project?

[artw]

hmm someone deleted my post.  I'll just say it again.
Denis, you have to realize that some people here have more experience than you..   you've only been doing this a short time.

[veron]

to much light = algea problems?? I totally disagree with that statement LOL.  most corals have symbiotic algea cells inside.
actually, low light and shifting spectrum [dying lamps] have been accused of algea spikes [nutrients doesn't help]

I use those same lamps as do countless others for refugiums because there GOOD at growing algea!
but, they suck at coral coloration so there not  great for reef tanks.
also, you need the reflector to help put the light into the tank.
cost is around $40 per decent light setup for these x4 = about $160
for argument sakes we'll say $120

buy some freaking T5's LOL.
POOR MAN and REEF are 2 words that don't belong together
but you can run a cost effective reef but why would you use pigtail lamps with crappy color rendition? borrow a small T5 setup and try ot over that same tank you have, your gonna say ohh! thats how that coral looks

[Julie]

- You don't NEED 1 lb of LR per gallon of water to start, that's a bunch of BS, start with less, and grow your system if you wish.
- You don't need a Skimmer either, do water changes.
- Try a simple hang back it helps.
- You really want a skimmer, try a counter current, it's low cost, and it will help your tank some.
- Build a simple stand, DIY and low cost, we can build it together if you don't have the skills, that's what sharing is about.
- You don't need RO to start, try your Tap water and see if it can be used, or go buy distilled and run with that idea, or ask someone politely if they could sell you a 5 Gal. container now and then, kind of $5 a pop.
It goes on and on, and on, and on. BTW, I am using tap water, and have always done so lol

Not sure if you would have a cycled tank with less than a pound of rock at the start.  I agree no skimmer; but do water changes.  Stand would work provided tank with live rock doesn't end up on floor.  I use tap which likely has alot of phosphates from a well; I get green nuisance algae on the tank walls which the snails eat.  I do not know the long term effect of the tap water and phosphate as my tank has been running for just over 2 years.  I have very little new coralline on the rock which I attribute to phosphates.  Saltwater and electricity make for a shocking combination - happy reefing.

I agree with veron regarding the light, I had compact flourescent and now have MH - there is a significant difference in the overall appearance of the tank and the growth of the coral.   T5 seems economical enough and there are some georgeous T5 tanks with little sps,  mostly lPS, softies and mushrooms. 

[RoxyDog]

Denis, perhaps you should stop and reread some of these posts.  Without getting your back up.  I'm glad you're doing well with your experiment, but that doesn't mean people aren't going to have something to say.  So take it with a grain of salt.  People are trying to clarifiy things, no one is try to put you down.  And if they are, that's sad.  I think it's great you're trying to do a lost cost reef, I don't think people need all those expensive gadgets either.  But (most?) of the people here are trying to make sure "newbies" don't just come swaggering on in and try and do everything bare bones.  YOU researched and tried and experimented and I think people here are just worried Joe Blow ill give it a try and not get the same results.  Possibly kill animals for no reason.  Some were just trying to clarify your lighting specs, and other were just suggesting people (not particularly you) try to do things TOO cheaply and end up treating their pets poorly.     If YOUR reef is working well that way, then that's fantastic, if you're happy with it.  SO, just sit back, smile, and let others give you advice, no one is making you take it.  

[puffer girl]

I will end everything here and now with the following.

First, I would like to thank all of  those who have commented, dared to question, added some input on a positive note, and said, way to go if it work, I would like to see your tank.
I respect that, and with that kind of thinking, your going to have some fun.

As I wrote " I could see the writing on the wall ", but ! " c'est la vie ", at least I tried.

A ) I'm not a scientist, I simply wanted to share.
Now kill me for it lol
Since I'm not mainstream and controversial, I better keep it to myself, and to any others interested parties ( read at the bottom ).
Man ! Sylvain was so right on this one lol

B ) I wrote it out aloud in plain English, my Picts are not good, the coloration is way off, I use a cheap camera that doesn't take two identical Picts in the same setting, even if I don't change a thing, on top of that, I'm a BAD Photographer.
That being said.
Some made it a point to say my colors where off, and my Corals would be better represented with a different lighting scenario ie; T5's.
Before you knock it, come and see it.
Then again, why don't you keep doing what works for you, keep judging from a distance, it's better than getting involved, and it's way safer to criticize, than participate.

C ) I also said it plain and simple, don't cut these lights short, if you put to many of them, you will flood your tank with light, to much light leads to algae problems, as algae feeds on light.
If you want to stop it at calling them 26 Watts, don't worry, and be happy.

D ) followed closely with the Tim the Tool Time Talor approach " More Power ", put more lights, 4 or 6, then you would prove something.
I would prove nothing, except that I have flooded my tank with light, and I have a lot of Algae problems
Read Part " C ", it's been tried, why do you think I mentioned it.

**(Point E Removed by the Webmaster due to inappropriate content)**

I have not even scratched the surface of what I tested, and how you can save some money, lighting is only one aspect, but once all the components would been put together, that it where it would have counted.

It's all about compromises.

I don't offer a miracle, I'm not GOD nor do I pretend to be, I offer a possible start on a low budget.
Sharing in a positive way was my only intention, not run for office, get medals, or taps on the back, I will leave that to interested parties, there doing a great job at it lol

If you dare, here is a glimpse on what you can save, and get your reef tank going ( It's all been done, but not with my lighting lol )
- Substrate, use Chicken Grit ( COOP )
- Live Rock, check out Redbelly's home made LR, or we will mix out our own batch and have some fun.
- You don't NEED 1 lb of LR per gallon of water to start, that's a bunch of BS, start with less, and grow your system if you wish.
- You don't need a Skimmer either, do water changes.
- Try a simple hang back it helps.
- You really want a skimmer, try a counter current, it's low cost, and it will help your tank some.
- Build a simple stand, DIY and low cost, we can build it together if you don't have the skills, that's what sharing is about.
- You don't need RO to start, try your Tap water and see if it can be used, or go buy distilled and run with that idea, or ask someone politely if they could sell you a 5 Gal. container now and then, kind of $5 a pop.
It goes on and on, and on, and on. BTW, I am using tap water, and have always done so lol

If anyone want to know a little bit more about this Poor Man's Reef Tank in the same lines I have followed, start there won project on a ow budget, send me a PM, better yet, send me an e-mail, I can send you bad picts as a start, if your opened minded enough to have communicated with me, I'm sure you will get past my bad Picts, and will want to see my tank up close.

As a Close.

I'm not the only person wanting to help and share, a lot of other want the same things, there simply held back by politics, and rather concentrate on the hobby, I don't blame them one bit.

Now you can do as it's often been done, edit my thread / Post ( or Posts ), then lock the thread.
Kick me out if you wish, I will have proven a long term Fact.

I'm going back to my hobby, and having fun, that's what it's all mean to be.

Keep it fun, it's the only place where things can be fishy lol

Cheers,
Denis

Hi to all
   
           I'm the girlfriend and i can tell that my man work very on this project for more than a years on research before he built the tank .

        I'm not color blind like him, so i can tell for sure that the coral and fish in the tank is very beautiful and coloful .

          If he can save money i'm proud of him .    We now can have some quality time inthe evening for to cuddle and look at the beautiful tank .


Martine
the puffer girl

[Tyler.L]

yeah this thread is just outta control. its to the point where you're whinning cause people are telling you things you dont really wanna hear. this hobby costs lotsa money...thats the bottom line...spend the money in the first place and have it done right so you dont have to go back and wonder why somethings wrong because you cut corners and tank crashes. spend the money on a skimmer its gonna save you alot of grief, get an ro unit, and get quality live rock. you'll need to get a skimmer and ro for tanks over 55 i'd say cause you're pushing it almost. all you can do is read and read and read until you cant read anymore and even then, you dont know enough. and one of the biggest things you can throw money down on is lighting....you can keep everything and dont have to worry about wondering if your lighting is suffcient enough to keep the simplest corals. spend the money instead of cutting corners thats all i can say...

[darkdep]

I've locked the topic.  I think it's just getting personal now, when there is no reason it should be.

Denis, please keep going with your project.  I would personally like to hear about how it's going 6 months from now.