Lumenarcs.

[CAReefer ZEOhead Find all posts View Profile Close CAReefer]

Is anyone out there in Zeo land using a lumenarc set up? After reading a thread over on that "other" bb, They really look interesting for those of us with wider tanks (30"+). Would be nice to be able to dump the 5 DE's and go with just 3 SE on HQI ballasts, with much better coverage. Price is a little steep for the reflectors but should pay for itself in saved 'lectricity. With a 19.5"x19.5" reflector, 3 of them will cover roughly 60x20 of tank surface area and spread expotentially into the tank. Squeeze a 24" T5 in between for Actinics and should be quite the lighting set up.

Just looking for thoughts on this
CAReefer

[Aged Salt ZEOhead Find all posts View Profile Close Aged Salt]

Marshal, if one has their bulbs higher over the surface water, than LA3's are best for there is a minimal "hot spot" with a nice even light reflection. If one needs the light closer to the surface, it's hard to beat the PFO reflectors. BTW, PFO has just come out with their version of LA3--"Illuminator" reflector, but it's like 26", compared to the 20" in LA3. I have two of those coming next wk. Bob

[CAReefer ZEOhead Find all posts View Profile Close CAReefer]

Hey Bob, I have to disagree on the PFO reflectors, that is if your refering to the "Minis". I found the RO III to have a much better spread on my tank. I had to run the PFO's Nearly 12" off the surface to cover the centered live rock pile and still had shadows in the rear and front. The RO III's are 9" off the surface and minimal shadowing. Other than gauging spread, how would one know the distance necessary off of the water's surface? In the absence of a chiller, I need at least 9" to keep water temp controllable. I am contemplating going to 3 400 watt SE in a lumenarc style of reflector, I hadn't heard of PFO's impending "Illuminator". I will check into that. The 26" reflector won't pose a problem for me as tank surface is 72x30. Only prob I see is only being able to run actinic supplementation under the reflectors, potentially blocking some of the light, Especially if using the T5 set up with reflectors.

Marshal

[Aged Salt ZEOhead Find all posts View Profile Close Aged Salt]

Sorry for the confusion, Marshal Why can't you read my mindPlz. don't answer that one;D In some set-ups, the light intensity will dictate the bulb being closer to the water surface. If this situation exists[decreased wattages], the "fanning-out effect" is detrimental, ie. less concentrated. I hope I made my point more clear. I think for your situation, the DLA3's to be your best choice. Bob

[GTR Rubberman Find all posts View Profile Close GTR]

Marshal... adding the actinic will be a challenge for sure. As you know if it's under the reflector it will shadow the MH. That shadow IMO will not be visible but will be stealing some of the PAR you are trying to provide.

SteveU

[ricka ZEOhead in Training Find all posts View Profile Close ricka]

I just got a couple of LA3's. They are awesome. I percieve at least a 20% increase in output vs my spider reflectors I was using. I opted for the air cooled option to try to cool down the tank room. Here are comparitive tank shots.

Before:



After:



--Rick

[nyfireman3097 ZEOhead Find all posts View Profile Close nyfireman3097]

WOW
Nick

[CAReefer ZEOhead Find all posts View Profile Close CAReefer]

Great pix Ricka, does your tank have a center brace across the top? The shadow is the reason I ask. If so, looks like a heck of an argument for Eurobracing. I think a little more than a 20% increase. What is the footprint of your tank?
CAReefer

[OUinLA ZeoHead Find all posts View Profile Close OUinLA]

I can promise you that is more than a 20% increase.

The way the eye works (unless you are really keen at noticing light levels) is if you can see an increase in brightness, you've increased the brightness quite a bit.

What you could do, if interested, is see if your camera stores exposure information in the jpeg file. If so, set the camera to those settings (if possible) and take another pic and see the difference. Or just look at the information from both pics, and I can tell you exactly how much of an increase you are seeing.

[OUinLA ZeoHead Find all posts View Profile Close OUinLA]

From looking at the pics I would say you increased it by at least 75%. But, I don't know how the camera compensated for the different light levels so I would't be surprised if you at least doubled the amount of light.

[Baboo Taiwan ZEOhead Find all posts View Profile Close Baboo]

Very nice!

[CAReefer ZEOhead Find all posts View Profile Close CAReefer]

Think i'm gonna have to get me some of them. I have the SLS Magnetic HQI ballasts, can I run SE bulbs on them? I know that the life span will be shorter. I also have a set of the IceCap new style MH ballasts, better on those? Again, bulb selection? actinic supplementation?

[ricka ZEOhead in Training Find all posts View Profile Close ricka]

Great pix Ricka, does your tank have a center brace across the top? The shadow is the reason I ask. If so, looks like a heck of an argument for Eurobracing. I think a little more than a 20% increase. What is the footprint of your tank?
CAReefer

The shadow is caused by my sea swirls. Here a picture to illustrate:



I can fix it by placing a third bulb in the middle, but just decided not to put any corals there.

My tank is 60 x 18 x 24. I really had to work hard to squeeze these bad boys in there because the reflectors are almost 20" wide.

--Rick

[ricka ZEOhead in Training Find all posts View Profile Close ricka]

From looking at the pics I would say you increased it by at least 75%. But, I don't know how the camera compensated for the different light levels so I would't be surprised if you at least doubled the amount of light.

My bulbs are three inches higher off the water now vs before. The whole thing is quite spectacular . BTW, these are 400W radium bulbs on CoralVue e-ballasts.

Here is the info from the camera about the two photos:

Before picture:

W:\fish\gallery\5-1-2005>c:jhead DSCF2991.JPG
File name : DSCF2991.JPG
File size : 1562242 bytes
File date : 2005:05:01 17:45:28
Camera make : FUJIFILM
Camera model : FinePix S7000
Date/Time : 2005:05:01 13:21:52
Resolution : 2848 x 2136
Flash used : No
Focal length : 7.8mm (35mm equivalent: 37mm)
CCD width : 7.61mm
Exposure time: 0.0067 s (1/150)
Aperture : f/2.8
ISO equiv. : 200
Whitebalance : Manual
Metering Mode: matrix
Exposure : program (auto)

After picture:

W:\fish\gallery\5-22-2005>c:jhead DSCF3189.JPG
File name : DSCF3189.JPG
File size : 841370 bytes
File date : 2005:05:22 10:50:02
Camera make : FUJIFILM
Camera model : FinePix S7000
Date/Time : 2005:05:22 10:49:59
Resolution : 2016 x 1512
Flash used : No
Focal length : 7.8mm (35mm equivalent: 37mm)
CCD width : 7.66mm
Exposure time: 0.0083 s (1/120)
Aperture : f/2.8
ISO equiv. : 200
Whitebalance : Manual
Metering Mode: matrix
Exposure : program (auto)

I'm not a camera genius so I don't really know what these numbers mean, I just bought an expensive camera. My wife is really into digital photography.

--Rick

[ricka ZEOhead in Training Find all posts View Profile Close ricka]

Think i'm gonna have to get me some of them. I have the SLS Magnetic HQI ballasts, can I run SE bulbs on them? I know that the life span will be shorter. I also have a set of the IceCap new style MH ballasts, better on those? Again, bulb selection? actinic supplementation?

Radiums would probably rock on that ballast. I love my radiums.

You also might want to check out the LA4 reflectors. Here's a link with some pictures:

http://www.pacificgardensupply.com/p...age/index.html

--Rick