# First large planted tank (180g)



## SoCalSunset (Jun 26, 2004)

Hello everyone,

I'm starting my first large planted tank (my only previous experience with planted tanks are with 10g's with 20w cf lights, no co2 or ferts), and I just want to put my ideas out there as far as lighting goes, and see what you think.

The tank is 24" tall, and 72" long, and 24" wide.

I'm buying a 48" CF strip light that uses 2 x 65w PC bulbs, which I will place towards the back of the tank, probably end to end in the middle, which will leave a 12" space on each end of the tank where I plan to pub large anubias.

Towards the front of the tank, I will place a 48" 40w NO tube.

So, will those two 65w lights be strong enough to grow high light plants in the middle-rear section of my tank?

Will the 40w NO be able to grow different species of crypt and anubias in the front of the tank?

TIA


----------



## dakota15 (Dec 31, 2006)

That's a tough one. You will probably have to experiment. That is a big tank meaning your lighting doesn't have to be as powerful, but 24 inches is deep. My tank is 24" as well (110 gallon) but I'm running about 3 WPG and growing Glosso just fine.

Look forward to seeing some photos.


----------



## attack11 (May 5, 2006)

if your water is clear you'll probably only get low/medium plants growing with that.


----------



## dhavoc (May 4, 2006)

you will need to go with at least 260w for that depth of tank and high light plants. i use 432w on a 120g that is the same depth as yours 24", with 216w for 8 hours a day, and the other 216w for a 3 hour noon day burst. nothing much happens when only 216w is on but everything pearls like mad during the burst photoperiod. see if you can find ho t5 for the back of the tank lighting, its much brighter than t8 or t12.


----------



## turbomkt (Jun 9, 2004)

SoCalSunset,
Consider T5's in that setup. 4x54W T5's may be OK, 6 would probably be ideal. If you did them in banks of 3 or staggered them you could get pretty good coverage.

Otherwise, I might suggest a combination of T5's or CF's with MH lights.


----------



## jpfelix (Oct 10, 2006)

i'm going with 3x 175w mh's for the 180g i'm setting up. the depth is the issue. imo pc's are nearly worthless on deep tanks. t-5's (with good reflectors) or mh are the only options i'd consider. that's just my opinion, based on a little experience.


----------



## CarolF (Dec 6, 2006)

*first large planted tank*

I have a deeper tank in the same dimesions and went with twin 36 inch fixtures, t-5's from sunlight. They promote a lot of light so you could probably get away with less bulbs and more light. I got twin 6 bulb and it is too much for my young plants so I only use 4 on each fixture which is over 320 watts on 210. Once they settle in then I will do the mid day burst with the other ones.


----------



## Rex Grigg (Dec 10, 2002)

Someone answer me this.

Many of you are hung up on the "depth" of this tank. The very common 55 gallon tank is 21" in depth but I hardly ever see anyone get all antsy and hung up on the "depth" of a 55 gallon tank. 

Do you really think that those extra 3" of water make that much difference in lighting a tank?

Get real people. There are tons of people using CF lights on 5e, 75, and 90 gallon tanks. And 90 gallon tanks are even within ¼" of the "depth" of this 180. But I guess that ¼" makes a huge difference.


----------



## Petrus (Aug 15, 2003)

For what it's worth, I have a 125 gal (48"x24"x24") with 5x36W NO fluorescent T8 tubes (180Watts) and my glosso still hugs the substrate (see my journal) as long as they're not shaded by other plants. I've been able to grow almost everything except HC and Java fern (probably not a light issue).


----------



## attack11 (May 5, 2006)

very true.


----------



## SoCalSunset (Jun 26, 2004)

Rex Grigg said:


> Someone answer me this.
> 
> Many of you are hung up on the "depth" of this tank. The very common 55 gallon tank is 21" in depth but I hardly ever see anyone get all antsy and hung up on the "depth" of a 55 gallon tank.
> 
> ...



So then the lights I bought will suffice?


----------



## Rex Grigg (Dec 10, 2002)

Nope. You need more light than that. You have a total of 170 watts with very low intensity. Personally I would want about double that on your tank.

For a tank that is 24" wide I would use AH supply 55 watt kits mounted front to back. But you would need some sort of canopy to accomplish that.


----------



## oblongshrimp (Jul 26, 2006)

I don't think the water absorbs any more of the light in those extra inches but I do think that the light "spreads" out more due to bad reflectors. This spreading is more noticable in a deeper tank since there is a bigger distance between the substrate and the light. Get better refectors and you shouldn't have a problem


----------



## SoCalSunset (Jun 26, 2004)

Thank you everyone for the suggestions, tips, and help. It is greatly appreciated.



Rex Grigg said:


> Nope. You need more light than that. You have a total of 170 watts with very low intensity. Personally I would want about double that on your tank.
> 
> For a tank that is 24" wide I would use AH supply 55 watt kits mounted front to back. But you would need some sort of canopy to accomplish that.


Since I want to keep with CF's (mainly because it seems less bulbs are used), I have researched AHsupply (because I read your guide back when I setup my first planted 10g with screw-in CF lights).

Going over it again in detail, this has to be my favorite quote: "I want to take a minute and talk about a trend I see that really irks me. People that use shop lights over tanks. Sure they are better than a standard strip light but they still suck." :icon_mrgr 

But what I want to ask is what you mean by "mounted front to back"... you mean like so?:










How many 55w's, would you say?


----------



## Rex Grigg (Dec 10, 2002)

I mean mounting the lights so the plugs are at the back of the tank and the end of the bulb at the front. You have them mounted the way most people are forced to mount them which I consider side to side. Turn the lights 180°.

For your 180 and mounting lights front to back I would go with a 6x55 watt kit at a minimum. That will give you 1.83 wpg with great reflectors. If for some reason (canopy lip) can't mount the lights front to back I would still go with the 6x55 and mount them as you have shown. I like the 55 watt kits because there is a greater variety of bulbs available.

For bulbs I personally would go with 6 of the GE bulbs. They can seem a bit pink at first but they give awesome results. If you wanted to you could go with a pair of 6700k or 7800k bulbs in the front if you mount side to side.


----------



## attack11 (May 5, 2006)

oblongshrimp said:


> I don't think the water absorbs any more of the light in those extra inches but I do think that the light "spreads" out more due to bad reflectors. This spreading is more noticable in a deeper tank since there is a bigger distance between the substrate and the light. Get better refectors and you shouldn't have a problem


it can, depending on the clarity (tds). you can lose a lot of par in 4", but if your water is clean it won't make much of a difference.


----------



## turbomkt (Jun 9, 2004)

Actually, Rex means you should turn the lights 90° to run front to back.


----------



## Rex Grigg (Dec 10, 2002)

Ahh... you caught me. I did mean 90°


----------



## SoCalSunset (Jun 26, 2004)

I knew what you meant Rex roud: 

Okay, well, first order of business is to build a canopy then. I guess I wont need glass lids at that point?


----------



## blackfly (Jan 1, 2007)

Your advice seems good, but you forget to tell anyone what the HEIGHT the bulbs are from the water. This is a question I have yet to hear clearly. Do you have the bulbs right at the water surface, or is there a minimum amount of distance (which is important for mix bulbs, flora and white). I respect your opinion, but the WPG BS is fine but I would like to know at what distance the bulb is radiating from.

This sort of figure would greatly help those of us, like I, who have built their own canopies and would love to use such data in figuring the height the bulbs are. I cut my canopy down by 6 inches, but had I known the figures, I would of built my canopy right from the start rather than experimenting. Which is fun but time consuming.


----------



## Rex Grigg (Dec 10, 2002)

You won't need glass covers. I use egg crate (for light fixtures) on top of my tanks to keep the fish in.

blackfly, a couple of inches either way with AH Supply reflectors is not going to make a lot of difference.


----------



## blackfly (Jan 1, 2007)

Alright. A couple of inches from the water or from a mean distance? What is the basic standard of light distance from the water surface as meant as the norm? I don't know, that is why I am asking. And, a couple of inches DOES make a difference, especially with deep tanks where photon penetration is a function of distance. I am not looking for a scientific answer, nor do I expect one, but at least give, say, a 6 inch distance as standard, and then make everything relevant from there. By this, a person could use 5 bulbs for a 6 inch distance, but only need 4 if they are right at the surface. The added bulb at 6 inches makes up for diffusion, heat loss and diffraction. 

I am not about to add the recommend light that you suggest. If I did that on my tank you could cook eggs. I have 5 40W 48 inch bulbs that are 8 inches from the water surface, and I am pushing it adding a sixth. I have no reflectors but a built in boxed canopy so light loss is a minimum. I fail to see how you can equate WPG or any other standard measure when you fail to take into account relative luminosity, lux, water clarity or bulb intensity. I have many bulbs, all 40 watt, but some are measured on the lux scale from 140 to 320 lux, and so the WPG equation does not hold. 5 bulbs of the 320 lux variety and I get a really bright tank. I am using 2 220 lux Flora glow bulbs to supplement the plant spectrum, and they are neither hot or bright. But they do add watts. So what exactly is a HO bulb? Is it high in spectrum, lux or diffraction (apart from reflectors?). Lighting is not so simple unless one takes into account the depth of the tank and the distance the light is from it. You could make, or adopt, a standard of, say, 4 inches above for a 18 inch deep tank, to 6 inches above for a 24 inch deep tank, and then every one can standardize on that. Then, with many questions regarding lights, we could help narrow down parameters.

Just the scientist in me. But if I knew about this from the start, I would not of wasted material, time and cost adjusting something I could of know from the start, rather from trial and error. But I know for the future.


----------



## Rex Grigg (Dec 10, 2002)

The distance a photon travels through the air has nothing do with with how far it will travel though the water. Photons don't lose energy in the air. Otherwise Death Valley would be knee deep in tired dead photons.

A wooden canopy will be at a minimum of 4" above the water. Some of them are closer to 12". If you have glass covers and strip lights then you can have lights within an inch or two of the waters surface. Reflectors have more effect than does distance from the surface of the water when we are talking about inches.

You have lots of light going to waste. At best a T12 bulb with no reflector is 35% efficient. The WPG rule got started with T12 bulbs and basic reflectors. 

It's sad when a self proclaimed scientist can't figure out that a HO bulb means HIGH OUTPUT. A standard T12 bulb gets you about 10 watts of power consumption per foot. A T12 HO bulb gets you about 15 watts per foot and a VHO (very high output for you scientists out there) gets you about 27.5 watts per foot.


----------



## crazy loaches (Sep 29, 2006)

Here is a good read on how water effects light, its a bit technical, but you dont have to read it all. Here is a quote:



> Using the diffuse coefficients for the ocean waters presented above, the amount of light at 700nm absorbed by 2ft of water is 33% of light just below the surface. For light at 400nm this is only 4%.


From Advanced Aquarist's Online Magazine - Feature Article: Underwater Light Field and its Comparison to Metal Halide Lighting

So basically for deeper red light (700nm) 1/3 of its intensity will be lost at a depth of 24" versus right under the surface. Thats not huge, but significant. However shorter wavelengths are effected very little, which is why blue light penetrates deep into the ocean. I am not sure if freshwater yields different results, the above pertains to marine water.


----------

