# 5500K Bulbs ok?



## EdwardUI (Aug 11, 2011)

I am looking at different lighting solutions. Are bulbs at 5500K suitable for a planted tank?


----------



## they call me bruce (Feb 13, 2011)

dont waste your time -they are ok but if you truly want the best and less alge problems
you want T5s that are 6500k or 6700k thats perfect


----------



## Steve001 (Feb 26, 2011)

EdwardUI said:


> I am looking at different lighting solutions. Are bulbs at 5500K suitable for a planted tank?


They'll do just fine. I'm going to get one of these. 
http://www.lightbulbemporium.com/eiko_05622ek_sp50_955k.asp

This type of bulb has a high color rendering index of 93. It approximates noontime Summer sunlight.
Why they would be useful http://eiko.com/Products.aspx?CatID=94


----------



## EdwardUI (Aug 11, 2011)

I was looking at some daylight bulbs from home depot. The key for me right now is it's much easier on the wallet then 4x T5 216W fixture. lol. If it works, I'll try it. If not, I'll use them to light my kitchen and try something else. Just needed to know if 5500K is going to be detrimental. I can work with algae for now.


----------



## lauraleellbp (Feb 3, 2008)

They'll support plant growth just fine. They'll just probably make your tank look pretty yellow.

I'd mix and match them with some bulbs with a much higher kelvin if possible to "balance" out the colors in the tank better to your own eye.


----------



## BBradbury (Nov 8, 2010)

*Planted Tank Bulbs*

Hello Ed...

Ace Hardware has a new "Aquarium Plant" bulb. I believe I have the name right. Don't know the dimensions of your tank, but I have 55 G low light/low tech tanks and am trying a bulb that's 48 inches long, 6500 K, 40 watt, T12. So far, I'm very satisfied with it. I just use one bulb and it cost less than $10.00. The plants seem good with it.

B


----------



## Jadelin (Sep 30, 2009)

I have the Home Depot daylight CFL in my tank right now. The light is more yellow than some (still much more blue than 'warm' CFL). The plants seem to be growing fine, and I've been using them for around a year.

I've also bought some daylight bulbs from Target that look more blue; if you look around you can find daylight CFL that have different kelvin ratings. 
(These were more expensive because I couldn't buy them in the multipack like at Home Depot; I'm using the HD ones because I bought them, but I like the look of the ones from Target better). I don't remember the Kelvin rating of the Target ones for sure, but I think it was 6000K.


----------



## xmas_one (Feb 5, 2010)

I ran a mix of 5000k chroma 50's and Phillips cool white 6500k on my tanks for years. Tastes great, less filling.


----------



## Mandalawi (Aug 14, 2011)

> I'd mix and match them with some bulbs with a much higher kelvin if possible to "balance" out the colors in the tank better to your own eye.


 My Question will be related to this statement.

I just set up a 60 gal. that is going to be planted with Koi Angels. Lighting is a dual t5 N/O strip that i retrofit into an old strip light lined with foil. Now the stock HD bulbs were 3000k. Going by the lighting chart that i looked at depth to the substrate is about 20 in. 
I should be able to pull off Low light. Now my question. 

If i change out one bulb for a 6500k bulb and one for a higher Kelvin will it change my lighting parameters making it harder for me to achieve low light?
(I don't want to much yellow or orange lighting with the Orange Koi's were going to get)

And i do apologize if it seems i'm highjacking the thread, that is not my intention.


----------



## BlueJack (Apr 15, 2011)

lauraleellbp said:


> They'll support plant growth just fine. They'll just probably make your tank look pretty yellow.
> 
> I'd mix and match them with some bulbs with a much higher kelvin if possible to "balance" out the colors in the tank better to your own eye.


^yep


----------



## BlueJack (Apr 15, 2011)

Mandalawi said:


> My Question will be related to this statement.
> 
> I just set up a 60 gal. that is going to be planted with Koi Angels. Lighting is a dual t5 N/O strip that i retrofit into an old strip light lined with foil. Now the stock HD bulbs were 3000k. Going by the lighting chart that i looked at depth to the substrate is about 20 in.
> I should be able to pull off Low light. Now my question.
> ...


No, it won't move you from having low light. Pick your bulbs based on how you like your tank to look. Some people like a more natural look, some like a blueish 'reef tank' look...

Here's a good site that will help you decide on what color you want your tank to look...

http://akvateka.hu/wera/garnela/akvariumfenyek/index.html


----------



## Mandalawi (Aug 14, 2011)

Excellent site, Thanks Jack. roud:


----------



## Jadelin (Sep 30, 2009)

Mandalawi said:


> Lighting is a dual t5 N/O strip that i retrofit into an old strip light lined with foil. Now the stock HD bulbs were 3000k.


I would definitely recommend changing out your bulbs, as 3000K doesn't have much usuable light for plants; 5000K is really the lowest recommended. 

Also, just FYI, it has been found that aluminum foil doesn't make a very effective reflector. Mylar or just painting the inside of your fixture white helps reflect more light. I was very surprised at how much brighter my tank looked after I painted the inside of the fixture white.


----------



## Mandalawi (Aug 14, 2011)

Yeah i had read that also. But didn't have the paint when i first re-assembled it. Not that it can't come apart very easily.


----------



## xmas_one (Feb 5, 2010)

Apparent K values have little to do with pur.


----------



## Jadelin (Sep 30, 2009)

Mandalawi said:


> Yeah i had read that also. But didn't have the paint when i first re-assembled it. Not that it can't come apart very easily.


Yeah, I didn't paint it when I first DIYed it, but later I decided to, and it made a visible difference.


----------



## Mandalawi (Aug 14, 2011)

> Apparent K values have little to do with pur.


 I'm assuming you meant par. ? I agree you are totally right. The "K" value does not affect the "amount" of light. My concern was the amount of "Usable" light. i.e. my 3000k bulbs don't have much "usable" light for plants, Therefore i was wondering if your using a 6500K and a 10000K bulb are you technically still using a 2 bulb fixture as only one bulb really has that "usable" light for plants. Were catering more to our visual tastes. 

Therefore would i still look at the chart as though i'm using a 2 bulb T5 NO fixture or would i use the values for a single bulb.? That's where i was taking this. Personally I'll change to a mix of bulbs that balance each other and don't make things look washed out and that don't add an over abundance of reds. No biggie just my possibly tired brain drumming up questions that don't really matter. :icon_bigg


----------



## BlueJack (Apr 15, 2011)

Plants use wavelengths from 400nm-680nm almost equally. Blues and reds just a fraction better than greens and yellows.


----------



## Jadelin (Sep 30, 2009)

Mandalawi said:


> I'm assuming you meant par. ? I agree you are totally right. The "K" value does not affect the "amount" of light. My concern was the amount of "Usable" light. i.e. my 3000k bulbs don't have much "usable" light for plants, Therefore i was wondering if your using a 6500K and a 10000K bulb are you technically still using a 2 bulb fixture as only one bulb really has that "usable" light for plants. Were catering more to our visual tastes.
> 
> Therefore would i still look at the chart as though i'm using a 2 bulb T5 NO fixture or would i use the values for a single bulb.? That's where i was taking this. Personally I'll change to a mix of bulbs that balance each other and don't make things look washed out and that don't add an over abundance of reds. No biggie just my possibly tired brain drumming up questions that don't really matter. :icon_bigg


Plants can use light from a 10000K bulb; 5000K-10000K is the standard range you usually hear. Most fluorescent lights will fall in this range without having to worry about it. Is your 3000K bulb fluorescent? I've never heard of one so low unless it was a 'warm' CFL.



BlueJack said:


> Plants use wavelengths from 400nm-680nm almost equally. Blues and reds just a fraction better than greens and yellows.


This goes again everything I've ever heard about the light plants absorb (reds and blues). They can't be absorbing very much green light, since the reason they appear green is that they're reflecting it to our eyes (not absorbing it). If you look at a graph of plant absorption by wavelength there is always a large peak in the purple/blue wavelength (10000K-8000K) flat through green and yellow, and another smaller peak in the reds (~2000K).


----------



## BlueJack (Apr 15, 2011)

Jadelin said:


> This goes again everything I've ever heard about the light plants absorb (reds and blues). They can't be absorbing very much green light, since the reason they appear green is that they're reflecting it to our eyes (not absorbing it)


McCree did a study on algae in 1973 showing high absorption rates in the blue and red end of the spectrum for chlorophyl a & b. I think this is where most people get that information. He later proved this was not correct for higher aquatic plants. Plants have a couple tricks up their sleeves for absorbing light from other wavelengths. Phycoercythrin and phycocyanin are two of them.












Jadelin said:


> If you look at a graph of plant absorption by wavelength there is always a large peak in the purple/blue wavelength (10000K-8000K) flat through green and yellow, and another smaller peak in the reds (~2000K).


Something like this? This is a measure of oxygen produced(a direct by-product of photosynthesis) at a specific wavelength. Blue and red light is only slightly more efficient than other wavelengths. Also, red light dissipates quickly in water, leaving shorter/stronger yellow, green, blue wavelengths to penetrate to any real depths.


----------



## Jadelin (Sep 30, 2009)

Except that Phycoerythrin is "present in cyanobacteria, red algae and cryptomonads,"(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phycoerythrin) and "Phycocyanins are found in Cyanobacteria," (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phycocyanin). It doesn't say anything about them being found in higher level plants in either article. 

What I've heard is that algaes can use light in the yellow/green range better than plants because they use different chromophores that can absorb and use that light and will out compete plants if only that color light is given. 

Could you give a reference for that response graph so I can see it in context? Because it shows that plants grow the best in yellow-green to orange light, which goes against what you said before: "Plants use wavelengths from 400nm-680nm almost equally. Blues and reds just a fraction better than greens and yellows." This graph showing them growing (or responding) better in yellow-orange, then blue, then green, then red hardly at all.
(This is the graph I'm using to compare to colors







(http://www.giangrandi.ch/optics/spectrum/visible-a.jpg))

The fact is that chlorophyll is the dominate light absorbing pigment in higher level green plants. They are able to absorb some other wavelengths due to other pigments (e.g. carotenoids, which, however, allow them to absorb a wider range of blue light more effectively). This is an interesting subarticle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorophyll#Why_green_and_not_black. And logically I still maintain that plants can't be using green light very well or they wouldn't appear green.

I'm not saying you're wrong; I'm just saying I can easily find things that contradict your statements, so more explanation is needed to reconcile everything.


----------



## BlueJack (Apr 15, 2011)

Jadelin said:


> Except that Phycoerythrin is "present in cyanobacteria, red algae and cryptomonads,"(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phycoerythrin) and "Phycocyanins are found in Cyanobacteria," (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phycocyanin). It doesn't say anything about them being found in higher level plants in either article.


I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply plants and algae are different....algae is basically a plant. What I meant by that was, Mcree did a study on algae and came out with a graph looking something like this.










Most people used this to justify plants only use this type of light, but there are also other accessory pigments to chlorophyll that plants can use to help gather light....phycocyanins, phycoerythrin, xanthophylls, cartenoids, anthocyanins, phycobilins, lutein, lycopene....there are many others. Higher plants (and I guess algae?) can use almost all visible light for photosynthesis. Each creating different accessory pigments based on their unique evolution. 



Jadelin said:


> What I've heard is that algaes can use light in the yellow/green range better than plants because they use different chromophores that can absorb and use that light and will out compete plants if only that color light is given.


I don't know enough about chromophores to answer this. This may be true. Under any single wavelength though, any plant will become unhealthy and distorted. All red light...all blue light....all green light. They need light from the entire visible spectrum to do well.



Jadelin said:


> Could you give a reference for that response graph so I can see it in context? Because it shows that plants grow the best in yellow-green to orange light, which goes against what you said before: "Plants use wavelengths from 400nm-680nm almost equally. Blues and reds just a fraction better than greens and yellows." This graph showing them growing (or responding) better in yellow-orange, then blue, then green, then red hardly at all.
> (This is the graph I'm using to compare to colors
> 
> 
> ...


It's a quantum response graph..don't know where I got it from. Most sites that sell PAR meters will have something like this. Every spectrum line I've seen is different...I'm not sure how accurate that one you posted is. Here's another, I don't know how accurate this one is either, just wanted to show you the variations. I think though we can say 500-550 is green light which is the lowest quantum response on the chart. Blue light is a little better and red light is maybe 2/10th better. That's just a fraction to me.












Jadelin said:


> The fact is that chlorophyll is the dominate light absorbing pigment in higher level green plants. They are able to absorb some other wavelengths due to other pigments (e.g. carotenoids, which, however, allow them to absorb a wider range of blue light more effectively). This is an interesting subarticle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorophyll#Why_green_and_not_black. And logically I still maintain that plants can't be using green light very well or they wouldn't appear green.


You answered yourself. Some plants appear green because chlorophyll is the dominant light absorbing pigment. Chlorophyll is green. Doesn't mean there aren't any accessory pigments working also....they're just not as dominant.



Jadelin said:


> I'm not saying you're wrong; I'm just saying I can easily find things that contradict your statements, so more explanation is needed to reconcile everything.


Same here...it's good to share what we've learned. I'm no expert and always like learning new things. Thanks for posting those articles roud:


----------



## kamikazi (Sep 3, 2010)

This book says to use 5000K-1000K range with around 6500 being ideal. The reason it says is that aquatic plants photosynthesize better in that range which helps them out compete algae.

Alot of people like to combine 6500K and 10000K.


----------



## Mandalawi (Aug 14, 2011)

Now that's a Helluva lot of good reading for a plant newb like me. Didn't think it was going to get that deep. lol

Also while i was poking around the interwebs i came across this. Now it's a crazy long read but if you haven't seen it take a look. It's a pretty good read. 
http://www.americanaquariumproducts.com/Aquarium_Lighting.html


----------

