Lighting layout dilemma

Mike N

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
Mar 21, 2017
Messages
1,777
Reaction score
1,592
Location
Houston, TX
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I had decided that the recommended spread (24" X 36") of the Kessil AP700's would cover the footprint of the tank perfectly.
However, I wasn't taking the bracing into consideration. Oops

upload_2017-10-3_12-0-13.png

Trying to figure out a plan B that doesn't involve spending a ton more. Any advice would be appreciated.
 
Have you lit it up and looked at it yet?

Just sayin. I've spent a week setting up a stage and changed it twice before it was turned on and then went back to the original plan.

The lights do not appear to be drawn to scale. Am I correct?

A simple fix would be to turn them 90 degrees. And if you have to, stagger them
 
A simple fix would be to turn them 90 degrees. And if you have to, stagger them
Yeah, I havent looked at it yet, still designing the bracket to mount the lights to. Lights themselves aren't scale, but the spread is.
Try 3 of them turned 90 degrees?
The problem with turning them 90 degrees is that they will only cove 24" of the 36" width of the tank. No go.
 
Yeah, I havent looked at it yet, still designing the bracket to mount the lights to. Lights themselves aren't scale, but the spread is.

The problem with turning them 90 degrees is that they will only cove 24" of the 36" width of the tank. No go.
Yes, I see that now.
 
K well that's odd. I metered them in person on a 24 x 48 tank. It was dead even.

The way you have them oriented now will cover 48". Front to back.

I do forget. Is the fixture 24in?

And is the brace black?

Edit. I would make the light to scale and place the pucks to scale as well.
 
K well that's odd. I metered them in person on a 24 x 48 tank. It was dead even.
I'm only going by the recommended manufacturer spread which is 24" x 36". I havent taken any par readings whatsoever.
It is likely going to be an SPS dominant tank and I want to make sure im providing more than enough par to the entire width of the tank.
The ap700 panels are 20" x 6.5"
Yes, braces are black.
 
Understood. Oh yea. You'll have power to spare.

Myself, I'd get out the pencil and draw the puck position to scale and then add the circles of overage.

Then draw the front view and draw the circles in. And also draw the converging lines of the light and the angels they are coming in from the fixture.

I don't know the depth of the tank (nor width of the brace) nor the plan for the aqua scape , but the area under the brace on the left will be lit by the light on the far left. And the far right as well as top light from the fixture above it.

IMO , the brace will naturally create an area of slightly lower par , but it's likely to not be seen visually. In a tank with those challenges really , it would take multiple small pucks spread out all over the place or several very large sources. (Large mh reflectors , photons etc)

So it actually may be a non issue.
 
Understood. Oh yea. You'll have power to spare.

Myself, I'd get out the pencil and draw the puck position to scale and then add the circles of overage.

Then draw the front view and draw the circles in. And also draw the converging lines of the light and the angels they are coming in from the fixture.

I don't know the depth of the tank (nor width of the brace) nor the plan for the aqua scape , but the area under the brace on the left will be lit by the light on the far left. And the far right as well as top light from the fixture above it.

IMO , the brace will naturally create an area of slightly lower par , but it's likely to not be seen visually. In a tank with those challenges really , it would take multiple small pucks spread out all over the place or several very large sources. (Large mh reflectors , photons etc)

So it actually may be a non issue.
Good idea about sketching it out.
The depth of the tank is 30"
Besides adequate PAR, I'm also afraid of shadowing. The middle pair of panels are really close to the braces, you don't think that will cast a shadow?

Ok, here is a new option. It involves buying another ap700, but its the boss's money lol
What do you think?
upload_2017-10-3_14-40-5.png


upload_2017-10-3_14-39-49.png

Edit: Or would I be better turning the middle panel horizontal like the rest? Ugh... I'm so indecisive.
 
Lol.

My first instinct was three across the front and two in the back. But that's not knowing the scape.

Is It a peninsula ?

Def do the front of the tank and angels sketch.

What's the hanging height?
 
Yes it is a peninsula. (so might be better having the single panel on the overflow end)
Hanging height will be adjustable from 4"-12"
Last image didn't come through:
upload_2017-10-3_14-57-43.png
 
I’d do 6 to 8 fixtures mounted 8-12” above the water. This is entirely for shadowing. Could also go with 4 and 12-16 48” t5
 
I’d do 6 to 8 fixtures mounted 8-12” above the water. This is entirely for shadowing. Could also go with 4 and 12-16 48” t5
Yeah I think 6 would fit perfectly, however that is another $1,800 that I have to explain to the boss.
I think I will be ordering one additional ap700 to make this configuration: (thanks @saltyfilmfolks for your help)
upload_2017-10-3_15-21-47.png

I'll have access to a PAR meter this weekend and I can see what the actual numbers say.

 
If you want LED I would do six Radions or Hydra 52's instead, maybe LX7's. My OCD wouldn't let me have different setups in each third :p
 
In that case I’d get 6 2 bulb 48” t5 retrofits

This is where I was leaning, I would probably just run three AP700's and if it's an SPS build would supplement with T5's. Mix reef probably just run the three of them alone.
 

IF YOU HAD TO TAKE A REEFING EXAM, WOULD YOU PASS?

  • Yes!

    Votes: 32 45.7%
  • Not yet, but I have one that I want to buy in mind!

    Votes: 9 12.9%
  • No.

    Votes: 26 37.1%
  • Other (please explain).

    Votes: 3 4.3%
Back
Top