# Lighting System for 125g



## Catch and Release (Oct 31, 2006)

Hello,

I am currently in the process of setting up a 125 gallon tank (~72"x18"x22") and I'm hoping to make my own hood due to cost considerations. I was looking on Home Depot's website and I saw they had compact fluorescent lamps (screw-in type) for pretty reasonable prices. The light I've been considering specifically can be seen here:

Home Depot

They are 27W bulbs with a 6500K rating. I was thinking of using around 15 of these bulbs in 3 separate hoods (~24" each, ~5 bulbs each) to produce about 405W for the tank.

Is there any reason anyone can think of as to why this wouldn't work? It's over 3W/gallon and the lights *should* produce light in the ideal spectrum for plants.

Any help/advice/suggestions are much appreciated.

Sean


----------



## attack11 (May 5, 2006)

wiring that setup would suck. for that price, why not buy something designed to be above an aquarium? you'd also need individual reflectors.


----------



## Catch and Release (Oct 31, 2006)

attack11 said:


> wiring that setup would suck. for that price, why not buy something designed to be above an aquarium? you'd also need individual reflectors.


I don't believe the wiring is going to be very difficult and the price is way cheaper than buying a setup (unless I'm looking in the wrong places). Regular sockets are dirt cheap and wiring them together is pretty easy as far as I'm aware. The whole setup should cost me under $250 including all the lights - can I produce 400W+ cheaper somewhere else? If so, I'd definitely explore that avenue. 

Based on what they were looking to charge me at the fish store (Big Als), I was looking around $500 for similar output. Then replacing the bulbs on a regular basis would cost hundreds of dollars every year or so, which is not very feasible for me.

Thanks for the reply.


----------



## attack11 (May 5, 2006)

just hang a 48" 4x54 t5ho fixture above the tank and you're done. $220+ depending on the fixture/reflectors, or go with 2 x 36" for about $100 more.


----------



## attack11 (May 5, 2006)

btw, 400w does not mean you're delivering par/pur to the sandbed; it just means you're using a lot of electricity daily 

watts per gallon is not a useful measurement, unless you're looking at your electrical bill.


----------



## spypet (Sep 15, 2006)

Catch, let's discuss the cost of your plan.

say you wanted to take a 6"x6' plank of wood ($6)
add 15 cheap screw in porcelain fixtures ($3ea)
add 15 30watt 6500k compact fluorescent bulbs ($5ea)
add 15 generic cone reflectors for each bulb ($5ea)
add 200' of wiring and hanging hardware ($20)
to achieve over 400watts or 3wpg over your tank.

your costs would be nearly $250 not including
any tax, shipping and labor to put this together.
you'd have an ugly and heavy fixture 6" wide, 10" high
that would have to be suspended from your ceiling.

since you now have in essence 15 ballasts instead
of one or two, you will be generating about 5 times
the amount of heat burdening your A/C all summer.

also a spiral bulb with a cone reflector does not
deliver light as effectively as a flat bulb and a
flat concave reflector, so you'd probably have to
do 20 bulb sets to get the same total light as you
would on a traditional flat 400watt HO fixture.

your plan is not bad, it just may not be worth it,
when you can find 72" 400w under $500 delivered.


----------



## Catch and Release (Oct 31, 2006)

attack11 said:


> just hang a 48" 4x54 t5ho fixture above the tank and you're done. $220+ depending on the fixture/reflectors, or go with 2 x 36" for about $100 more.


Is there a way to avoid a hanging fixture? The ceiling above the tank is about 15' high. I was hoping to get a fixture that could sit on the glass lids (3, 2' sections) is this impractical/impossible? 

How does 4x54W produce more plant-usable light than 15x27W? What is the wattage of the 36" ho bulbs? Can all of this stuff be purchased at Home Depot or a similar store? How much are the bulbs that you are suggesting and how long do they last?

Sorry for the million questions, but I think I may be more confused than ever! :help:


----------



## RoseHawke (Mar 10, 2004)

Well, gee, , I get to say it first. Try these folks:

96 Watt Bright Kits

I've spoken with a couple of other folks on the board that are happy with a 2x96 over a 125 (my planned next tank) and seem quite happy with it.


----------



## Catch and Release (Oct 31, 2006)

spypet said:


> Catch, let's discuss the cost of your plan.
> 
> say you wanted to take a 6"x6' plank of wood ($6)
> add 15 cheap screw in porcelain fixtures ($3ea)
> ...


Everything looks about right (based on my original thinking) except the reflectors, I was assuming I could get one reflector for each (3) hood. I was also not aware that spiral bulbs aren't as effective as regular HO bulbs - thanks for the heads up.

The whole "$500" thing is a little too pricey for me and I was hoping (realistically or not) to get a reasonable plant lighting system in the $200-300 range.

As a side note for discussion sake - let's say I bought that $500, 400w 72" setup, would I still need another system to introduce CO2? Is there any way to avoid needing a CO2 system in addition to "3W/gallon" - be it hardier plants or other alternatives?


----------



## crazie.eddie (May 31, 2004)

I use Coralife Lunar Aqualight Deluxe Series-72" (4X96W) with 5- 3/4W Blue-Moon-Glow LED Lamps on my 125...



You can get adjustable mounting legs, which let you tilt the lights back like this...










Or just use regular mounting legs.


----------



## Catch and Release (Oct 31, 2006)

RoseHawke said:


> Well, gee, , I get to say it first. Try these folks:
> 
> 96 Watt Bright Kits
> 
> I've spoken with a couple of other folks on the board that are happy with a 2x96 over a 125 (my planned next tank) and seem quite happy with it.


Thanks for the heads up. I actually checked out this site last night, but my newbiness thought I would need a 4x96W system. By the time I got that shipped to Canada with 4 bulbs, I was looking at $450+ USD which by the time it's at my door would be well over $500 CDN. And that doesn't even include the hood itself! *ouch*

If a 2x96 system is suitable than it could totally be an ideal solution. The question I have is, how is 2x96W enough? I know the watts/gallon thing is kinda bogus, but it's only about 1.5W/gallon. Can anyone offer an explanation to this?


----------



## spypet (Sep 15, 2006)

Catch, spend some time reviewing our Low Tech Forum;
http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/low-tech-forum/
where they discuss lower light, no Co2 aquariums that
often rival many high light Co2 pressurized display tanks.


----------



## Catch and Release (Oct 31, 2006)

crazie.eddie said:


> I use Coralife Lunar Aqualight Deluxe Series-72" (4X96W) with 5- 3/4W Blue-Moon-Glow LED Lamps on my 125...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I take it you aren't using Actinic bulbs for freshwater, are you?

Definitely looks like a really nice setup, but it says it costs $550 on their Canadian site. Damn....


----------



## Catch and Release (Oct 31, 2006)

spypet said:


> Catch, spend some time reviewing our Low Tech Forum;
> http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/low-tech-forum/
> where they discuss lower light, no Co2 aquariums that
> often rival many high light Co2 pressurized display tanks.


Will do! Thanks!


----------



## attack11 (May 5, 2006)

Catch and Release said:


> Is there a way to avoid a hanging fixture? The ceiling above the tank is about 15' high. I was hoping to get a fixture that could sit on the glass lids (3, 2' sections) is this impractical/impossible?
> 
> How does 4x54W produce more plant-usable light than 15x27W? What is the wattage of the 36" ho bulbs? Can all of this stuff be purchased at Home Depot or a similar store? How much are the bulbs that you are suggesting and how long do they last?
> 
> Sorry for the million questions, but I think I may be more confused than ever! :help:


before you buy light you should look at par tests for what you're considering. house lights aren't designed to grow plants. metal halide/t5 deliver more par/pur (photosynthetic active and usable radiation; what plants use to perform photosynthesis) than cf/incandesant/etc.

in most cases, t5no/ho will give you about the same par as a metal halide of twice the wattage.

if you go lowtech, you could get a double t5no strip for a little over $100 at 48" (2 x 28w), i dunno what a 72" would cost. i currently have two 36" over my reef and it's quite fine at 80w.

since you're in canada, i'd go with the 2x 36". i picked mine up for $109each. coralife t5 aqualight fixture. there's a freshwater model that comes with the bulbs you want.


----------



## Catch and Release (Oct 31, 2006)

attack11 said:


> before you buy light you should look at par tests for what you're considering. house lights aren't designed to grow plants. metal halide/t5 deliver more par/pur (photosynthetic active and usable radiation; what plants use to perform photosynthesis) than cf/incandesant/etc.
> 
> in most cases, t5no/ho will give you about the same par as a metal halide of twice the wattage.
> 
> ...


So you're using 2, 36" coral life fixtures that you bought for $109each? A total of 4 bulbs x 20W a piece? 80W for how many gallons? Where did you find that deal? I think Big Als tried was charging ~350$ for a 4x65W coralife fixture - are these totally different fixtures or is Big Als just a ripoff?


----------



## crazie.eddie (May 31, 2004)

The coralife I posted is a CF (compact flourescent) model, what attack11 posted was more likely just a flourescent model.


----------



## attack11 (May 5, 2006)

t5 is not "normal" fluorescent 

i have the 2 fixtures on my 36" reef tank, to replace a 150w metal halide fixture that's off for repair. what's in that tank needs more light than any plant you'll grow 

i'm actually tempted to get 1 or 2 48" fixtures for my 4ft planted tank that i'm restarting very soon. i got them at a local reef shop, which i expected to be selling them for 1.5x the msrp. usd they retail for $99.

for usable light, the stacking order based on power consumption/price goes something like this

t5ho
metal halide
t5no
cf
vho
----
below this is a waste of time


----------



## Catch and Release (Oct 31, 2006)

crazie.eddie said:


> The coralife I posted is a CF (compact flourescent) model, what attack11 posted was more likely just a flourescent model.


For a low-tech 125g, do you think the 2x96W bright light system from AH supply is enough? It's less than 2W/gallon, but it seems that 2W/gallon is normal for low-tech aquariums.


----------



## Catch and Release (Oct 31, 2006)

attack11 said:


> t5 is not "normal" fluorescent
> 
> i have the 2 fixtures on my 36" reef tank, to replace a 150w metal halide fixture that's off for repair. what's in that tank needs more light than any plant you'll grow
> 
> ...


So it that where you found the t5 coralife fixtures for $109? Sounds like a great place! How much are the bulbs and how often do they need to be replaced? Do you happen to know if Big Als carries them? If so, are they even close to the same price there?

Thanks in advance.

Just found this at Big Als, is this similar?

Coralife S/W T-5 Aqualight Double Strip Light-36" at Big Al's Online


----------



## attack11 (May 5, 2006)

that's what i have. the bulbs are the usual annual replacement. i would've ordered from there if i didn't need the light that day 

you want the freshwater fixture though; the actinic03 bulb is designed for spectral peaks of marine life. it's not as useful as a full spectrum bulb for freshwater plants.

those on your tank would qualify as low tech. if you want red plants or a nice carpet you need to go t5ho, metal halide or stack on the cf. my water volume is 1/4 of yours, i have it concentrated in a small area so it works in my setup as a high light option.

although, you could always add more later if you want to grow something else. they're tiny


----------



## Catch and Release (Oct 31, 2006)

attack11 said:


> that's what i have. the bulbs are the usual annual replacement. i would've ordered from there if i didn't need the light that day
> 
> you want the freshwater fixture though; the actinic03 bulb is designed for spectral peaks of marine life. it's not as useful as a full spectrum bulb for freshwater plants.
> 
> ...


You've been a great help, thanks again.

So with 2 of those on a 125g, I would be 'okay' for a low-tech planted aquarium? Considering it's only 80W for 125g, isn't that extremely low? Would my plant options be very limited? 

How would that system compare to the 2x96W bright light system from AH supply? They are both around the same cost, but the AH one I'd have to wait a couple weeks for (not a big deal).


----------



## attack11 (May 5, 2006)

watts is a measurement of electricity/power not light. par and pur are the measurements you want, and for those you'd need a par meter or find someone that benchmarked the ah kit. i've never seen those numbers anywhere.

t5ho has been benchmarked quite well based on ballast/bulb combos by some reef keepers on other forums. low wattage doesn't mean low light.

that t5no setup on your tank would be fine for low tech.

btw, you can't see par/pur. you see lumens; and that's why people pile on the cf light. a brighter tank isn't always a more efficient tank. you need to balance par with co2 and nutrients.

if you're ok with a low tech tank, i'd go that route. if you might want to grow something that needs more light, i'd go t5ho. the nutrients/co2 requirements go up with more par.


----------



## deleted_user_7 (Jul 7, 2003)

I've got a 440 watt VHO setup for sale right now. Over a 125, it would be 3.52 wpg.


----------



## Catch and Release (Oct 31, 2006)

attack11 said:


> watts is a measurement of electricity/power not light. par and pur are the measurements you want, and for those you'd need a par meter or find someone that benchmarked the ah kit. i've never seen those numbers anywhere.
> 
> t5ho has been benchmarked quite well based on ballast/bulb combos by some reef keepers on other forums. low wattage doesn't mean low light.
> 
> ...


Do you still need to introduce co2/nutrients to a low-tech aquarium on a regular basis? I was under the assumption that low-tech meant no co2.

Does coralife sell a similar light fixture (to the one you previously mentioned) in a HO version? If so, are they significantly more expensive?


----------



## Catch and Release (Oct 31, 2006)

justlikeapill said:


> I've got a 440 watt VHO setup for sale right now. Over a 125, it would be 3.52 wpg.


What's the ballpark price? Georgia's quite a hike from Toronto!


----------



## attack11 (May 5, 2006)

coralife doesn't do ho; current-usa has a nice middle range t5ho fixture called 'nova'. a 48" 4x fixture is $220usd. it's 1 reflector vs individuals of say, a tek so it's not as efficient as the best, but it's great bang for the buck.

with low tech, you don't dose nutrients or inject co2 and rarely do water changes. you ideally provide just enough light for plants to grow under those conditions.

you can have a ton of par on your tank and you won't have algae problems if there's no food for the algae. it gets tricky because it depends on your water and substrate, bioload from the fish, etc. low tech with lots of light is possible, just a little harder to do well.


----------



## deleted_user_7 (Jul 7, 2003)

I'll pm you 

If anyone else is interested, pm me.


----------



## Catch and Release (Oct 31, 2006)

attack11 said:


> coralife doesn't do ho; current-usa has a nice middle range t5ho fixture called 'nova'. a 48" 4x fixture is $220usd. it's 1 reflector vs individuals of say, a tek so it's not as efficient as the best, but it's great bang for the buck.
> 
> with low tech, you don't dose nutrients or inject co2 and rarely do water changes. you ideally provide just enough light for plants to grow under those conditions.
> 
> you can have a ton of par on your tank and you won't have algae problems if there's no food for the algae. it gets tricky because it depends on your water and substrate, bioload from the fish, etc. low tech with lots of light is possible, just a little harder to do well.


Okay, the "rare" water changes might be a big problem for me. The tanks main inhabitants are probably going to be young discus and I'm looking at close to daily water changes with them. Does this screw everything up? I'm glad you mentioned that before all is said and done.


----------



## attack11 (May 5, 2006)

you can't do a low tech discus tank 

well, in the classic sense. there's no real rule set for a low tech tank. i do large water changes rountinely on mine without cause for concern. if you stayed with plants that have low care requirements you could do it.

if you're not injecting co2 and dosing nutrients weekly; you're basically a low tech tank. light is irrelevant. if you clean the gravel once a month or so, you should be fine.


----------



## Catch and Release (Oct 31, 2006)

attack11 said:


> you can't do a low tech discus tank
> 
> well, in the classic sense. there's no real rule set for a low tech tank. i do large water changes rountinely on mine without cause for concern. if you stayed with plants that have low care requirements you could do it.
> 
> if you're not injecting co2 and dosing nutrients weekly; you're basically a low tech tank. light is irrelevant. if you clean the gravel once a month or so, you should be fine.


You do large water changes on a low-tech tank or is it high-tech? What is your main concern with a low-tech discus tank - the water changes? What if I did a bare bottom tank with potted tanks, does this help any?

Thanks again!


----------



## attack11 (May 5, 2006)

well, i don't have a concern. to most people low tech means little to no water changes.

if you don't dose anything, you should be fine due to the amount water changes discus require. you'd be cleaning out the excess nutrients constantly right?

i'd go with a good substrate, and some plants that'll grow under the conditions you'd like. there's a lot to choose from.

i personally do large water changes on everything. it just means my filter is cleaner at the end of the month when i put in new media  in september i changed atleast 120gl worth of water out of my 40gl tank, which is much more than i usually do because i moved it twice. prior to that i changed the water once a month or so (about 10gl). it made no difference to the plants inside, and i think my fish look better with the constant supply of clean water.


----------



## Catch and Release (Oct 31, 2006)

attack11 said:


> well, i don't have a concern. to most people low tech means little to no water changes.
> 
> if you don't dose anything, you should be fine due to the amount water changes discus require. you'd be cleaning out the excess nutrients constantly right?
> 
> ...


Sorry for my newbiness, but what do you mean by "dosing"? Adding fertilizer/co2?

In your experience, do you think it would be better to go bare-bottom with potted plants or a eco-complete/gravel mixed floor? (Assuming that I'd want to clean the bottom thoroughly on a regular basis?)


----------



## attack11 (May 5, 2006)

yes to your first question.

bare bottom just looks bad to me; but it's personal aesthetics. when you add nutrients/minerals, either by dosing or using a designer substrate you'll need to match the co2 needs of the plants or you'll run into algae issues. this might be possible thru large water changes that the discus require. it's hard to say, and is based around the plants you choose.

plain gravel of 1-3mm size would be your best choice if you want to stay low tech.


----------



## Catch and Release (Oct 31, 2006)

attack11 said:


> yes to your first question.
> 
> bare bottom just looks bad to me; but it's personal aesthetics. when you add nutrients/minerals, either by dosing or using a designer substrate you'll need to match the co2 needs of the plants or you'll run into algae issues. this might be possible thru large water changes that the discus require. it's hard to say, and is based around the plants you choose.
> 
> plain gravel of 1-3mm size would be your best choice if you want to stay low tech.


I agree with you regarding the aesthetics of a bare-bottom tank. I'd definitely prefer to have a gravel bottom tank - I'm going to research this more further.

As far as low-tech lighting systems go, is there a point where you can have too much light? Obviously nothing too extreme, but is the 3W/gallon range becoming too much?


----------



## attack11 (May 5, 2006)

depends on the nutrients/minerals and co2. light and water won't give you algae. if you have more available than your plants need, you could potentially get algae growing. it's not a simple answer really; depends on a lot of variables.


----------



## Catch and Release (Oct 31, 2006)

attack11 said:


> depends on the nutrients/minerals and co2. light and water won't give you algae. if you have more available than your plants need, you could potentially get algae growing. it's not a simple answer really; depends on a lot of variables.


So basically, I'm screwed! :icon_lol: 

If you're talking a low-tech system, where you don't add any co2/fertilizer, where does all the nutrients/minerals/co2 come from?


----------



## attack11 (May 5, 2006)

fish poop and the plants themselves. daylight = o2 production, night = co2 production. the minerals come from the water. co2 also comes from water changes. eventually the substrate goes live sand sorta like in a reef; but without the micro organisms that are fun to watch.

my gf's dad has guppy tanks that are self sustaining and gotta be 10+ years old. so ugly, yet impressive.


----------



## Catch and Release (Oct 31, 2006)

attack11 said:


> fish poop and the plants themselves. daylight = o2 production, night = co2 production. the minerals come from the water. co2 also comes from water changes. eventually the substrate goes live sand sorta like in a reef; but without the micro organisms that are fun to watch.
> 
> my gf's dad has guppy tanks that are self sustaining and gotta be 10+ years old. so ugly, yet impressive.


Can you get "live substrate" with regular gravel? Or do you need to use some eco-complete type product for that?


----------



## attack11 (May 5, 2006)

well, any substrate will turn into that given enough time and life in the tank. i dunno how long it takes a freshwater tank to achieve that maturity. i'd assume you need to introduce the micro organisms also, sand from a stream/lake/etc.

the substrate in the guppy tanks i mentioned is definitely alive, but those were setup long before i saw them. they're basically a complete biotope at this point.

designer substrates are packed with minerals plants need to perform photosynthesis so you don't have to dose as much.


----------



## Catch and Release (Oct 31, 2006)

attack11 said:


> well, any substrate will turn into that given enough time and life in the tank. i dunno how long it takes a freshwater tank to achieve that maturity. i'd assume you need to introduce the micro organisms also, since freshwater is much simplier in it's chemical makeup compared to saltwater.
> 
> designer substrates are packed with minerals plants need to perform photosynthesis so you don't have to dose as much.


You mentioned before that I shouldn't use designer substrates, is this because in a low-tech system there won't be enough light to balance the amount of nutrients causing algae to go crazy?


----------



## attack11 (May 5, 2006)

no. if you went with a designer substrate and a lot of light you'd need to inject co2 so the plants can do their thing; otherwise it's a buffet ready for algae.

light + water = nothing
light + water + minerals/nutrients = potential for algae/plants
light + water + minerals/nutrients + co2 = plants out compete algae when in balance

plain gravel doesn't offset the balance of co2/minerials/nutrients. when minerials/nutrients are present in the water column from the substrate or dosing and you have more light than you need to grow the plants; you create a scenario for algae to start outcompeting the plants due to lack of co2.

the bioload will naturally create the fuel needed for the plants or algae over time in a low tech tank, so you just need to provide enough light since it's an aquatic setup.


----------



## Catch and Release (Oct 31, 2006)

attack11 said:


> no. if you went with a designer substrate and a lot of light you'd need to inject co2 so the plants can do their thing; otherwise it's a buffet ready for algae.
> 
> light + water = nothing
> light + water + minerals/nutrients = potential for algae/plants
> ...


Makes sense, thanks. Basically it comes down to co2 or no co2, if I go with no co2 system, then the plants will grow slowly using the co2/nutrients/minerals found naturally within the water/tank. If I go with a co2 system, I need to give the plants more "food" to balance the excess co2. 

All said, if I just rely on natural minerals/nutrients/co2, how do you determine how much light you'll need? It seems like something that you can't really determine until everything is said and done and problems arise.


----------



## attack11 (May 5, 2006)

pretty much. t5no will give you enough par to grow low/medium light plants without putting too much into the tank for a low tech setup; while lighting the tank so you can see everything.

when you pile on the light you can eventually run into algae issues if you don't keep the water/substrate clean or have excess nutrients/minerals. i had staghorn start up in my lowtech tank because i didn't clean the substrate for months and my fish poop a lot.

excess co2 doesn't cause algae, it can actually be used to kill certain kinds and will kill fish if the ppm is too high. the plants need carbon for photosynthesis. you need to inject it if you have high nutrients/minerals and (any) light.

water changes will introduce co2. your plants will eventually find equilibrium in a lowtech tank.


----------



## Catch and Release (Oct 31, 2006)

attack11 said:


> pretty much. t5no will give you enough par to grow low/medium light plants without putting too much into the tank for a low tech setup; while lighting the tank so you can see everything.
> 
> when you pile on the light you can eventually run into algae issues if you don't keep the water/substrate clean. i had staghorn start up in my lowtech tank because i didn't clean the substrate for months and my fish poop a lot.


The t5no system we talked about earlier? The 2, 36" coralife (4x20W) setup (except with no blue bulbs)?

I think that's where I'm heading at the moment, either that, or the 2x96W setup from AH supply. Both will cost in the $200-250 range - I guess the biggest question at this point is determining which produces more par.

Thanks a ton for all your help.


----------



## attack11 (May 5, 2006)

np. t5no will give you more par. the cf will probably give you more lumens, and more than twice the operational cost. it's really a toss up.


----------



## Catch and Release (Oct 31, 2006)

attack11 said:


> np. t5no will give you more par. the cf will probably give you more lumens, and more than twice the operational cost. it's really a toss up.


So you're confident that 80W worth t5no's will produce more par than 192W worth of cf's?

Using the t5no's will the tank still look bright to the human eye?


----------



## attack11 (May 5, 2006)

well, it won't be bright. it'll be illuminated. something like a single strip t8 fixture.

the par output is good enough. i have medium light lps and soft corals, along with a bta (bubble tip anemone) under 2 strips, but like i said .. smaller area so it's different than how it'd be on your tank.

i'd go to a bigals and demo them if it's an option; or i could take a couple of pics so you can get an idea of what one looks like vs two. two in my tank is very bright; along the lines of what 192w cf would be on yours.


----------



## Catch and Release (Oct 31, 2006)

I found a good deal on a T5 Nova Extreme 4x56 and ended up buying the thing (over the Internet). It's coming with 2 actinc and 2 10000k, so I'm not sure if I should run it just with the 2 10000k or buy 2 more 10000k and run it with 4 of them. My biggest problem might be rigging something up to support it on my tank considering it's designed for a 48" tank and mine is 72". I'm thinking something along the lines of 2 separate cross braces from the front glass to the back glass for the legs to sit on, but not exactly sure....


----------



## RedIrocZ-28 (Oct 24, 2006)

Wow, I'm surprised no one really latched on to the hardcore DIY ideas here. 

I'll give you the scenario I used for my 55gal tank. 

$17 Ballast and (Regular) Fluorescent socket kit.
$30 - 3 bulbs in the right Spectra.

90 watts of light over the tank for less than $50. Now, these are only 36" bulbs, and were I to have gone with 48" bulbs it would have been more.

For a different project, Last night, myself and a fellow member here went to home depot and picked up Fluorescent shop lights to use for the ballasts and sockets. They cost $8 - 48" model. We then got some GE 6500k T8- 48" bulbs. $6.59/pack of 2. All total we spent $15 to create 64 watts. Now, if you were doing this with 72" lights, you could do a whole lot more than we did, and be WELLLLLL under $250. But thats up to you. 

Just a suggestion.


----------



## TWood (Nov 1, 2005)

Catch and Release said:


> I found a good deal on a T5 Nova Extreme 4x56 and ended up buying the thing (over the Internet). It's coming with 2 actinc and 2 10000k, so I'm not sure if I should run it just with the 2 10000k or buy 2 more 10000k and run it with 4 of them.


Try running it with the actinics, you might be surprised how well it works. You might not like the light color, it will be very blue, but it should grow plants just fine. You can always replace the actinics later.


----------

