New Lumen Bright Reflector. ... any info on them - Page 30

IRISSERVICE · 02/28/2008, 02:59 PM

http://www.reefspecialty.com/product...roducts_id=232

JRaquatics · 02/28/2008, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sirreal63
Interesting...I haven't seen anything that shows LB's are a good fit for 36" coverage. Can you show me what you have seen that does show them to be a good fit for covering 36". I know of someone who just set up a 36x36 cubish tank with 2 LB's and the coverage is more like 24".

Off hand Mike's Acropora nut tank is 10ft x 30hx 32w (4"shy of 36) and he gets great coverage and doesn't even have them up high enough due to ceiling height.

psteeleb · 02/28/2008, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sirreal63
Interesting...I haven't seen anything that shows LB's are a good fit for 36" coverage. Can you show me what you have seen that does show them to be a good fit for covering 36". I know of someone who just set up a 36x36 cubish tank with 2 LB's and the coverage is more like 24".

Personally I think the luminarcs are better for the wider light distribution, but, from a display I saw at one of our LFS the full size (20") lumabrights did a good job on a wide tank. I'll ask the owner and see what his running oppinion is and see if he can send me a picture.

did the person with the 36X36 use mini's (16")?

no doubt the LBs are more like a spotlight vs the LA's being like a floodlight (if this is even a good analogy). Still a full size LB at 20" is going to only need 8" more horizonal spread on each side. Granted, if mounted lower, it's still going to be brighter in the center, so it really depends on what your after. The question was will they work, sure they will, and they may even save on some wattage for penetration vs the LA's. But, if you want more evenly distributed light front to back & side to side the LAs may be the better choice.

Also depends a lot on how high a person intends to keep them. If you want to keep them a little higher, still get penetration and keep some heat off the surface the LBs would be my choice.

psteeleb · 02/28/2008, 03:31 PM

one more thing I've noticed with the LB's; the MH shimmer is definitly better.

sirreal63 · 02/28/2008, 03:57 PM

It is just more focused light, minimal spread. Remember our eyes are not very good at judging light intensity. The cube looked well lit when you looked at but once you see a pic of it you see where the beam of light is and where the corners are very dark. Narrow and tall tanks can make very good use of the LB's where you need straight down punch but for covering evenly the LA's still are the best. I'll see if the cube owner will allow me to share the pics...it is amazing at how the tank looked well lit until you see the pics of the dark corners...dark enough that little more than mushrooms would be happy. If it is more than 24" depth don't rely on a LumenBrite to cover the tank.

I have to look hard at lighting again as I am getting close to doing a DSA Neo 185 which is 60x30.5x25 My LAIII Mini's may not do the trick. It is becoming obvious that LB's won't do it either. I may be back to the original LumenArcs. Lighting is so much fun.

grisha · 02/28/2008, 04:09 PM

hi
need your advize guys
my tanks foot print is 48x24 and it is 28" high.....what is the best choice for me...LB or LAIII ? full size or minis
thanks

JRaquatics · 02/28/2008, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sirreal63
If it is more than 24" depth don't rely on a LumenBrite to cover the tank.

???? what?

sirreal63 · 02/28/2008, 04:16 PM

No top to bottom but front to back.

JRaquatics · 02/28/2008, 04:30 PM

So I take it you have done par ratings to test your theory? This is the only way to truely tell what kind of light is reaching certain areas.

sirreal63 · 02/28/2008, 04:38 PM

No and I don't plan on it either. After seeing the effect on a 36" depth and the spotlight effect directly under the reflector I don't need to. The LB is a great reflector for throwing light straight down but doesn't spread light evenly over the coverage area. I know you have LB's...try this...make your water a little murky and take a pic of it. You will see what I saw...a narrow beam of light and not spread out. The LB does a great job at focusing light, it shines greatly there but it is not as adept at covering a wide area. Too bad too because the price is right on them. I'll keep my LA's...I don't have to hack up my canopy to get them high enough to cover. If I ever buy a 150 tall tank I'll get the LB's.

JRaquatics · 02/28/2008, 04:46 PM

Take a look back at the light readings You can see the spread with one reflector and the par reading. This is also just the 250 w in the LB Minis, not the larges.
http://reefcentral.com/forums/showth...&pagenumber=17

Here are the reading on Mikes tank which is 10ft x 30hx 32w also used 400ws in minis at the time.
http://reefcentral.com/forums/showth...&pagenumber=12

Rickyrooz1 · 02/28/2008, 04:55 PM

I agree, the spread isn't great with the LB's. Looks at the first link. Directly under the edge of the reflector on the left side of the tank the PAR is 86. The PAR on the right side at the same height is 168. There is too a big margin for error in these values. Yes, it's a 250w bulb but the PAR is crap on the corners. The angle the reflectors are positioned at on the LB's are too steep to have good spread.

JRaquatics · 02/28/2008, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by grisha
hi
need your advize guys
my tanks foot print is 48x24 and it is 28" high.....what is the best choice for me...LB or LAIII ? full size or minis
thanks

2 250w SE in LB minis would work perfectly on your setup.IMO

JRaquatics · 02/28/2008, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rickyrooz1
I agree, the spread isn't great with the LB's. Looks at the first link. Directly under the edge of the reflector on the left side of the tank the PAR is 86. The PAR on the right side at the same height is 168. There is too a big margin for error in these values. Yes, it's a 250w bulb but the PAR is crap on the corners. The angle the reflectors are positioned at on the LB's are too steep to have good spread.

The left side was lower because the nipple was faced down. The other 2 were faced upward. I wanted to show how nipple orientation does make a difference.

herostar · 02/28/2008, 10:31 PM

I'm looking for a recommendation. I want to choose a reflector for my tank which is 30x18x20h. Which reflector should I use? The bulb is a 175w iwasaki 15k.

LooseHip · 02/28/2008, 11:30 PM

I just got one of these from reefspecialty as well. Mike is great to deal with. Anyway, it is for a 40 breeder which is 36" long 18" deep and 16" high. My breeder isn't up and running yet but I did hang it over my current 46 (36" length) bowfront to get an idea of what it would look like, and I was pretty impressed. Although it is a little dim in the corners it is not bad. A good place for lower light corals and I personally think it looks kind of cool lit that way. I may mount it on a sliding track so I can slide it back and forth we will see.

I had it about 16" off the water and adjusted it down to 12". 16" had too much light spill.

Los · 02/28/2008, 11:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sirreal63
Interesting...I haven't seen anything that shows LB's are a good fit for 36" coverage. Can you show me what you have seen that does show them to be a good fit for covering 36". I know of someone who just set up a 36x36 cubish tank with 2 LB's and the coverage is more like 24".

I think you are right. I've researched it a bit more and 36" wide is WAY too wide for the lumenbrights. Lumenarcs appear the way to go for these. Don't get me wrong; LBs are great reflectors and if I had a thinner/deeper tank - that's what I would get.

Hahn, are you monitoring this? You seem to be one of the more analytical folks out there and I'd love your thoughts on what is the cut-off width at which you'd definitely go with the Lumenarcs.

TIA,

Los

Robert Patterso · 02/29/2008, 06:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Los
I think you are right. I've researched it a bit more and 36" wide is WAY too wide for the lumenbrights. Lumenarcs appear the way to go for these. Don't get me wrong; LBs are great reflectors and if I had a thinner/deeper tank - that's what I would get.

Hahn, are you monitoring this? You seem to be one of the more analytical folks out there and I'd love your thoughts on what is the cut-off width at which you'd definitely go with the Lumenarcs.

TIA,

Los

I'm not Hahn but I can tell you I use the Lumenarc on a 36" long tank and have full coverage. I am putting 2 Lg Lumenbrites on 48x24x29tall tank. hth

rbc1225 · 02/29/2008, 06:34 AM

A quick question here to make sure I am understanding the difference here. Looks like the Lumenbrights are more direct than the Lumenarcs, so that being said, I am working with a 220 gallon tank 6'x2'x30" deep and have a canopy over my tank. My current light inside the canopy is approximatly 5 to 6 inches off the surface of the water. This is due of course to the limited height that I have to work with inside the canopy. Now it looks like the Lumen brights work well if the lights are say 16" off the water surface but since mine are 5" to 6" off the water the Lumenarcs might be a better choice do to the spreading they provide? I will be using 3 of the reflectors as I currently have 3 400w XMs at 20k running.

Thanks
Rusty

Los · 02/29/2008, 06:46 AM

Thanks Robert. I appreciate your input.

Los

psteeleb · 02/29/2008, 08:23 AM

Rusty - think of the LBs creating a column of light and the LAs creating a wide cone. As you move the LA's up the spread becomes more. When you move the LB's up the spread is some but not nearly as much. As you are keeping them close to the surface, I would think either would work just fine. The 400's may be an overkill on the LBs though

nreefer · 02/29/2008, 10:26 AM

I wonder if you were to do par tests on the LB's at the recommended hieght and then LA's at the recommended height if the LB's would still come out on top?
You have to have the LB's so much higher off the water and that extra height will decrease the PAR in the tank, correct?

ganjero · 02/29/2008, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by nreefer
I wonder if you were to do par tests on the LB's at the recommended hieght and then LA's at the recommended height if the LB's would still come out on top?
You have to have the LB's so much higher off the water and that extra height will decrease the PAR in the tank, correct?

Incorrect, you actually have to hang them high to decrease par so you wont fry your tank. That is why these reflectors are good, you hang them high and will get the same PAR as other reflectors that need t be closer to the water, and by hanging them higher there is less heat going into the tank and more room for you to work in your tank.

That was explained several times in this thread.

rbc1225 · 02/29/2008, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by psteeleb
Rusty - think of the LBs creating a column of light and the LAs creating a wide cone. As you move the LA's up the spread becomes more. When you move the LB's up the spread is some but not nearly as much. As you are keeping them close to the surface, I would think either would work just fine. The 400's may be an overkill on the LBs though

hmmm just wondering if I did decide to use the LBs if I could cut back to 250s.

nreefer · 02/29/2008, 10:47 AM

Ok. The test that was done a few pages back with the 36" wide frag tank. Were both the LA and LB hung at the same height?

02/28/2008, 02:59 PM	#726
IRISSERVICE Registered Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Beechhurst,New York Posts: 620	http://www.reefspecialty.com/product...roducts_id=232 __________________ Tank-125G Starphire Lighting- 4x 60" Reefbrites Skimmer- H&S A200-1250 MRC Sump Refugium---Circulation Tunze Wave Box---Main Pump - Seq3200 3phase W/ VFD Cooling Current Tank Info: 125 gallon Starphire euro braced

02/28/2008, 03:57 PM	#730
sirreal63 Go Spurs Go!!! Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Meadowlakes Texas Posts: 13,357	It is just more focused light, minimal spread. Remember our eyes are not very good at judging light intensity. The cube looked well lit when you looked at but once you see a pic of it you see where the beam of light is and where the corners are very dark. Narrow and tall tanks can make very good use of the LB's where you need straight down punch but for covering evenly the LA's still are the best. I'll see if the cube owner will allow me to share the pics...it is amazing at how the tank looked well lit until you see the pics of the dark corners...dark enough that little more than mushrooms would be happy. If it is more than 24" depth don't rely on a LumenBrite to cover the tank. I have to look hard at lighting again as I am getting close to doing a DSA Neo 185 which is 60x30.5x25 My LAIII Mini's may not do the trick. It is becoming obvious that LB's won't do it either. I may be back to the original LumenArcs. Lighting is so much fun. __________________ Jack No One has ever been seriously injured by using the search function. Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be a convenience store, not a government agency. Current Tank Info: Reefing the Pentagon.

02/28/2008, 04:16 PM	#733
sirreal63 Go Spurs Go!!! Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Meadowlakes Texas Posts: 13,357	No top to bottom but front to back. __________________ Jack No One has ever been seriously injured by using the search function. Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be a convenience store, not a government agency. Current Tank Info: Reefing the Pentagon.

02/28/2008, 04:38 PM	#735
sirreal63 Go Spurs Go!!! Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Meadowlakes Texas Posts: 13,357	No and I don't plan on it either. After seeing the effect on a 36" depth and the spotlight effect directly under the reflector I don't need to. The LB is a great reflector for throwing light straight down but doesn't spread light evenly over the coverage area. I know you have LB's...try this...make your water a little murky and take a pic of it. You will see what I saw...a narrow beam of light and not spread out. The LB does a great job at focusing light, it shines greatly there but it is not as adept at covering a wide area. Too bad too because the price is right on them. I'll keep my LA's...I don't have to hack up my canopy to get them high enough to cover. If I ever buy a 150 tall tank I'll get the LB's. __________________ Jack No One has ever been seriously injured by using the search function. Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be a convenience store, not a government agency. Current Tank Info: Reefing the Pentagon.

02/28/2008, 04:55 PM	#737
Rickyrooz1 Acropora Nut Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Newtown, PA Posts: 2,453	I agree, the spread isn't great with the LB's. Looks at the first link. Directly under the edge of the reflector on the left side of the tank the PAR is 86. The PAR on the right side at the same height is 168. There is too a big margin for error in these values. Yes, it's a 250w bulb but the PAR is crap on the corners. The angle the reflectors are positioned at on the LB's are too steep to have good spread. __________________ 120 Gallon Acropora dominated tank, barebottom, APEX Controller, ATI Sunpower 8x54w, Skimz SM163, Jebao DCT 6000 return pump & two Jebao OW-40. Current Tank Info: SPS Dominated

02/28/2008, 03:31 PM	#729
psteeleb Registered Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: DFW Texas Posts: 5,249	one more thing I've noticed with the LB's; the MH shimmer is definitly better.

02/28/2008, 04:09 PM	#731
grisha Registered Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: brooklyn ny Posts: 271	hi need your advize guys my tanks foot print is 48x24 and it is 28" high.....what is the best choice for me...LB or LAIII ? full size or minis thanks

02/28/2008, 04:30 PM	#734
JRaquatics Awaiting Email Confirmation Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: On RC Posts: 3,609	So I take it you have done par ratings to test your theory? This is the only way to truely tell what kind of light is reaching certain areas.

02/28/2008, 04:46 PM	#736
JRaquatics Awaiting Email Confirmation Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: On RC Posts: 3,609	Take a look back at the light readings You can see the spread with one reflector and the par reading. This is also just the 250 w in the LB Minis, not the larges. http://reefcentral.com/forums/showth...&pagenumber=17 Here are the reading on Mikes tank which is 10ft x 30hx 32w also used 400ws in minis at the time. http://reefcentral.com/forums/showth...&pagenumber=12

02/28/2008, 10:31 PM	#740
herostar Registered Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Denver Posts: 1,024	I'm looking for a recommendation. I want to choose a reflector for my tank which is 30x18x20h. Which reflector should I use? The bulb is a 175w iwasaki 15k. __________________ Do a good turn daily. Current Tank Info: 58g Oceanic (Est. 2007)

02/28/2008, 11:30 PM	#741
LooseHip Foaming Conehead Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: CO Posts: 1,002	I just got one of these from reefspecialty as well. Mike is great to deal with. Anyway, it is for a 40 breeder which is 36" long 18" deep and 16" high. My breeder isn't up and running yet but I did hang it over my current 46 (36" length) bowfront to get an idea of what it would look like, and I was pretty impressed. Although it is a little dim in the corners it is not bad. A good place for lower light corals and I personally think it looks kind of cool lit that way. I may mount it on a sliding track so I can slide it back and forth we will see. I had it about 16" off the water and adjusted it down to 12". 16" had too much light spill.

02/29/2008, 06:34 AM	#744
rbc1225 Registered Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Lees Summit, MO Posts: 179	A quick question here to make sure I am understanding the difference here. Looks like the Lumenbrights are more direct than the Lumenarcs, so that being said, I am working with a 220 gallon tank 6'x2'x30" deep and have a canopy over my tank. My current light inside the canopy is approximatly 5 to 6 inches off the surface of the water. This is due of course to the limited height that I have to work with inside the canopy. Now it looks like the Lumen brights work well if the lights are say 16" off the water surface but since mine are 5" to 6" off the water the Lumenarcs might be a better choice do to the spreading they provide? I will be using 3 of the reflectors as I currently have 3 400w XMs at 20k running. Thanks Rusty

02/29/2008, 06:46 AM	#745
Los Registered Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Salisbury, MD - 2 hrs from DC Posts: 819	Thanks Robert. I appreciate your input. Los __________________ ~~~~~ / ^ ^\ \| 0 0 \| .\ ~ / The Big Mo' - in honor of Trey and Matt Current Tank Info: 360 reef / 700 system with 4xSfiligoi XR6s, Sfiligoi XR4, BubbleKing 300 Deluxe Internal, Deltec PF601s, PM Kalk, Deltec FR616, Deltec FR509, AquaController APEX, Tunze 6305, 2x6205, 2x6101, 6100, 3xDart Golds, Barracuda, Snapper, 2xOceans Motions

02/29/2008, 08:23 AM	#746
psteeleb Registered Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: DFW Texas Posts: 5,249	Rusty - think of the LBs creating a column of light and the LAs creating a wide cone. As you move the LA's up the spread becomes more. When you move the LB's up the spread is some but not nearly as much. As you are keeping them close to the surface, I would think either would work just fine. The 400's may be an overkill on the LBs though

02/29/2008, 10:26 AM	#747
nreefer Registered Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Canada Posts: 362	I wonder if you were to do par tests on the LB's at the recommended hieght and then LA's at the recommended height if the LB's would still come out on top? You have to have the LB's so much higher off the water and that extra height will decrease the PAR in the tank, correct?

02/29/2008, 10:47 AM	#750
nreefer Registered Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Canada Posts: 362	Ok. The test that was done a few pages back with the 36" wide frag tank. Were both the LA and LB hung at the same height?