# general wpg "rule" using T5HO



## Minsc (Jul 9, 2006)

What is your tank size and what are your goals?
With the available t5HO fixtures, there are really no low light options. However, there are some cheaper t5NO fixtures that can do low light very well.


----------



## lauraleellbp (Feb 3, 2008)

I completely agree with Minsc that tank size and goals need to factor in. I run 54-108 watts of highly reflected T5HO on my 90gal. I believe I'd probably have comparable results with a standard 220 watt CF fixture.

IMO it all depends on the fixture, and reflector quality factors in big time. 

With high quality reflectors (individual highly polished) I personally estimate T5HO at 1.5x wpg of the same wattage CF fixture. I came up with this based on some published lumen and PAR comparative studies I ran across some time ago.


----------



## macclellan (Dec 22, 2006)

What one's goals are doesn't change whether or not something is low/mid/high light. What one's goals are changes which one picks.

I've got 216w T5HO [Catalina] (already a standard acronym/abbreviation as far as I am concerned) setup on my 75g. This is 2.88WPG for reference - I'm also using the legs, so it is less intensity than it could be. I started the tank 6 days ago. I've already got bright pink to red tops on my R.wallachii and the stems are a good 12" from the top of the tank - pics forthcoming: this tank is going to be HOT - guaranteed!!!!. :thumbsup: 

I think 2.5wpg and up is "high light", maybe even 2wpg with T5s & Indiv. Reflectors.

I just planted some glosso today, more as a test than a permanent part of the scape. Results forthcoming.


----------



## Left C (Nov 15, 2003)

Hi

This question isn’t about my tank sizes or what I want to do with them. It is much broader than that. We can’t define our planted aquarium goals unless we have some facts to go on so that we can possibly make good decisions to allow us to reach our goals.

Do we need to have a general consensus about the lighting parameters concerning this new technology T5HO aquarium bulb?

We have 4 T5HO bulbs. They are:
- 24” 24w
- 36” 39w
- 48” 54w
- 60” 80w

One 54w bulb over a 75g or 90g is probably low light, but one 39w bulb over a 40g or one 24w over a 20g is probably medium light.

As maccleellan mentioned, 4x54w over a 75g is 2.88 wpg. This is probably a high to very high light aquarium. We may not want to run 4x24w over a 20g. That would be 4.8 wpg

Lauraleellbp mentioned that she uses 1 to 4 bulbs over her 90g. I’m just guessing that she probably runs 2 of her 54w bulbs most of the time. That is 1.2 wpg. That might be medium light.

Do you see where I am going with this? Maybe some people can mention something about their thoughts and experiences with these T5HO bulbs so that we can come up with a good general wpg "rule" for low, medium and high light aquariums.

Let’s say that these T5HO bulbs will be used with good reflectors. NOT5’s shouldn’t be included in this discussion. 

Everyone is welcome to chime in with their thoughts.

Thanks,
Left C


----------



## ingg (Jan 18, 2007)

Left C,

I think an even bigger problem in trying to identify the lighting levels is that there is an incredibly wide array in terms of quality of builds out there.

At the least, I think you need to distinguish between grouped reflectors or SLR, and maybe even beyond that in terms of is it parabolic, what quality is it, and tons of variables.

Example: I run a CurrentUSA 2x39 over a 30 long. It is medium light. I run 4x54 T5 Catalina fixture over a 75g. High light, but not sickeningly so. I run 8x39w in TEK fixtures over a 180g. About as high light as the 75g (yes, this one breaks the WPG rules some due to size, and is also using better bulbs, but still.)

WPG rules are certainly broken - and it is even difficult inside the T5 arena to distinguish. I find myself thinking in terms of specific fixtures, or at the least, quality of reflectors.


----------



## kzr750r1 (Jun 8, 2004)

Defining the goal is part of determining how much light is needed.

As an example. My 55 is using 108w of reflected T5HO.

I can't get Blyxa japonica to grow full and lush unless it's totally un obstructed. But the crypts and swords do fine. Some stems thrive while others are stunted even without being shaded.

If I were a sadist a 216w fixture would take some getting used to but could also be balanced out...

This is why I feel educating yourself on the plant needs and what the intended scape will use are just some of the determining factors.

Rule of thumb changes as the goal is more defined.


----------



## macclellan (Dec 22, 2006)

kzr750r1 said:


> Defining the goal is part of determining how much light is needed.
> 
> ...
> 
> Rule of thumb changes as the goal is more defined.


These two statements are very different - _read them again_ - that was LeftC's point (and mine). Yes, defining the goal determines how much light is needed, *but* the rule of thumb (for T5HO) does not change as the goal is more defined - the rule of thumb explicates how much light will be available to realize predetermined goals.

Thought Process:
Think of Goal > How much light do I need? > What WPG in T5HO gives this amount of light? (appeal to T5HO WPG rule) > Decisions on fixture, photoperiod, etc.

Your two statements changed the order here. Huge difference.


----------



## kzr750r1 (Jun 8, 2004)

I get your point... Just don't like these types of generalities.

This is not rocket science. Were growing aquatic weeds.

When I picked up the Tek back in 03 not too many were going this route. I went conservative with the 108w. These days want more but consider I'll be trimming more often.

Now I use what plants work with this setup and have a nice day. My goals were nebulous to say the least from the start.


----------



## macclellan (Dec 22, 2006)

kzr750r1 said:


> My goals were nebulous to say the least from the start.


This makes things much harder. Buy "overkill" and keep the lights half off most/all of the time? Buy the minimum fixture I might need, and then wish I had more later on? Hard choice...



kzr750r1 said:


> This is not rocket science. Were growing aquatic weeds.


But there are some weeds that can't be grown with certain WPGs, and some that can...that's why "rules of thumb" are useful, albeit less than the level of precision some might like, in say, Rocket Science.


----------



## Left C (Nov 15, 2003)

ingg said:


> I think an even bigger problem in trying to identify the lighting levels is that there is an incredibly wide array in terms of quality of builds out there.
> 
> At the least, I think you need to distinguish between grouped reflectors or SLR, and maybe even beyond that in terms of is it parabolic, what quality is it, and tons of variables....


We can take this discussion to any level that we want. I'm open and I hope everyone will be open too. 

As you said, there is a huge difference in the reflectors used with T5HO's. I was trying to narrow this discussion down some. In my next to last paragraph, I said, "Let’s say that these T5HO bulbs will be used with good reflectors." But, if we want to split the reflectors up into different categories; we can do that. This is certainly a great option that will be useful for many people.

This discussion is for all of us to use in any way that is needed, necessary or even needing to be mentioned only in passing and so forth. Whatever we want to do. It is an open discussion and everyone is welcome.


----------



## lauraleellbp (Feb 3, 2008)

Left C, just for clarification, over my 90gal I'm currently running either an actinic + 10k bulb OR Hagen 18k + 10k depending on which bank of bulbs I decide to turn on for the day. I run the 2nd bank 3x as often as the first. I consider this low light as I'm not dosing CO2 or Excel, and as long as I limit my photoperiod to 8-10 hours/day my algae eaters do a good job of keeping algae in check. I have algae, but as long as it's not killing my plants that doesn't bother me. (I'd actually always prefer to have *some* algae to make sure my Otos and Amanos always have full bellies.)

108 watts with the same fixture over a 75gal might very well be a different story- since the light does not need to penetrate nearly as deep a tank, I suspect that CO2 would probably be needed and I'd consider that a "medium light" tank.

With large tanks it is exceedingly difficult to establish rules of thumb b/c there are so many different footprints and tank heights to take into consideration. If my tank were wider than 18" I strongly doubt that running just 2 bulbs at a time would be able to reach both my background and foreground plants.

So, to summarize my points, with a large tank there are many more variables to take into consideration than when dealing with standard-sized 10-55gal tanks.


----------



## Left C (Nov 15, 2003)

Those are great points.

Do we need to establish the fact that we need one bulb per x" of an aquarium's front to back dimension? Yes. That is a very important part of this discussion. 

How are we going to address the top to bottom dimension?


----------



## combo30101 (Jul 13, 2004)

I am also concerned with the application of WPG rule for T5HO. 

I am considering swapping my MH to T5HO. i currently use three 150w MH pendant, and is planning to switch to a 60" T5HO fixture. (the fixture has six 48" long 52w T5HO bulbs lined up in the center of the fixture. the reflector is highly polished, but not individualized. the tank is 60" long. about 108 gallon. i have pressurized co2)

what do you guys think of the set up? is six 52w bulb really necessary? or should i go for a four bulb fixture?


----------



## lauraleellbp (Feb 3, 2008)

If the bulbs are all arranged in the center of the fixture I'd be more concerned about the lighting at the ends of your tank, seems to me like this fixture will give you too much light in the center of the tank and not enough on the ends. 

I'd go with a fixture with staggered bulb placement for more even light distribution. You could get a retrofit kit with individual reflectors and install them in a canopy. If you go this way I doubt that you'll _*need*_ 6 bulbs, but it wouldn't hurt to have them for a "noon burst" if you like that kind of lighting schedule and want to keep some more light-hungry plants.


----------



## Left C (Nov 15, 2003)

There are 60" T5HO fixtures that use 60" 80w bulbs? Would this be a better option for your 60" 108g aquarium?


----------



## Left C (Nov 15, 2003)

I would like to keep this discussion going if we need too?


----------



## combo30101 (Jul 13, 2004)

i have never seen 80" bulbs, where can i get them?

also, is there a difference in the light bulb between 110v fixtures and 220v fixtures?


----------



## Left C (Nov 15, 2003)

combo30101 said:


> i have never seen 80" bulbs, where can i get them? ...


There are 60" bulbs with 80w. 

There aren't any 80" T5HO bulbs, I believe.


----------



## lauraleellbp (Feb 3, 2008)

combo30101 said:


> i have never seen 80" bulbs, where can i get them?
> 
> also, is there a difference in the light bulb between 110v fixtures and 220v fixtures?


Did you mean a difference between the 108 watt and 216 watt fixtures?

If so, no, they both take 48" 54 watt bulbs.


----------



## jcardona1 (Jun 27, 2008)

this thread has potential, i like it! so far it seems that we have agreed to disagree on the wpg rule for T5HO?? ive had this question since i started researching planted tanks and i could never find a straight answer.

there has to be an easy rule of thumb people could come up with...


----------



## ingg (Jan 18, 2007)

I think you have to split it into aty least two groupings of T5 fixtures.

You have the CurrentUSA Extreme builds, which are roughly on par with their PC counterparts.

Then you have the TEK like fixtures. Catalina doesn't quite get there, but probably in the same league, anyhow.

For depth, I just don't know - I have a 24" deep 180g, and it is zero issue in that tank. From my experience with that 180g, I'd have to say it'd have to be one monster tank, 30"+ deep, to see a big issue.

I also don't see an issue front to back, honestly, unless you talk about really low lighting levels on a very wide tank. 

2 bulbs is going to be a 4-5" fixture. This will almost invariably be used on a 12" tank. Are we trying to say you won't get a 3" light spread to front and rear? (Maybe from a NOVA Extreme, but we're talking good SLR fixtures/setups here - you'll get that spread just by being a couple inches above the water surface.)

4 bulbs is going to take a minimum of an 8" fixture in a good fixture. You aren't running 4 bulbs on a 16" deep tank - as for width sometimes 18", sometimes 24", wide. So are we saying that you wouldn't get spread? I don't think that is real, but maybe I'm wrong - I think it'd spread just fine. Again, I'll use my 180g as a reference - I do get some shaded areas, but they'd be shaded about no matter what - ignoring shading, I get a full light spread. 4 bulbs, 24" width, 24" depth.


----------



## lauraleellbp (Feb 3, 2008)

Ingg- what "wpg rule" would you estimate with Tek-like versus without Tek-like? Would you say that my 1.5x the light of a comparable wattage PC fixture holds true with a T5HO with good reflectors?

You answered 1/2 the question, you said that Current-like fixtures you'd estimate about the same as PC.

I do think that depth needs to be taken into consideration though- especially when talking about the difference reflectors make. I saw some PAR meter tests done with and without good reflectors, and the depth of the water column did make a pretty big difference.

Also, where do T5NO and overdriven T5s fit in?


----------



## Erk (Aug 21, 2007)

I like this convo as well!:thumbsup: 

For whatever its worth, I used to run the 2x96w PC Coralife fixture on my 46gal bowfront (21"high) tank. Now I run a 2x39w T5 fixture with a 1x39w T5 as a "noon burst" (all bulbs have SLRs) and I have to say that with the two bulbs on all day, the light level is very similar to running the 2x96w fixture. The 2x96w actually looks more like low light! haha....but the plants seem to like the T5s better, I have better colors and more compact growth then with the PC fixture. Im not quite happy with the light level yet however.....its too early to tell if the noon burst bulb is doing much, as Ive only started it this week. I would call the 2x39w medium light and hopefully I will figure something out with the burst...I may just turn it on all day. My overall lighting period is 10 hours. and Im def. still learning

Thanks


----------



## Bugman (Jan 7, 2008)

The same issues here exist with non HO T5's, CF or any other kind of bulb. The make and quality of the fixture can be a pretty big swing in the amount of light your plants are getting. This is not a new issue with T5HO's. I think the original point was even though these issues exist a general WPG rule was out there for the other bulbs. Under 2W low tech over 2W high tech with a lot of variables and a lot of arguments over how much was really low and high. 

I liked having a general rule to go by when I started out but in hindsight it probably misled me more than helped because there are variables and as a novice I didn't understand them. IMO a general rule is really there to help the novice, the more experinced know what variables to look for. Does a general rule help more or hinder more? I'm undecided but I guess it is a starting point if you know to ask more questions.


----------



## bsmith (Jan 8, 2007)

Wasnt this discussed before and the end result was that if everyone had a LUX'ometer we would be using LUX per square inch not WPG? 

Because of the simple fact that HQI>T5HO>T5NO>CFL/PC>Fluorescent>Incandescent. In order of intensety per Watt.


----------



## bsmith (Jan 8, 2007)

There it is. :thumbsup: 



Left C said:


> A PAR meter would be better.


----------



## youareafever (Mar 18, 2008)

i think the wpg rule should be thrown out for good.


----------



## lauraleellbp (Feb 3, 2008)

I think "rules of thumb" provide good starting places- and then you make adjustments according to specifics.

As inaccurate as the "inch per gallon" fish stocking "rule" is- I still use it as a starting place when figuring bioloads, then make adjustments based on what I know about the specific species in question... 

They're "tools" and, as with all tools, are only as useful as the skill of the person using them...

I agree with Cecil that we're at least figuring out the questions that need to be asked/factors that need to be taken into consideration; to summarize, here's what I've gathered so far:

Fixture quality, and especially that of the reflectors, is key

Tank size and configuration may factor in

Lighting schedule/ photoperiods, especially with multiple bank fixtures

Bulb configuration/ light spread throughout the tank (especially over very large, or odd-shaped tanks)

Now, something else we haven't even touched on in this thread (yet) is whether or not there really is any performance difference (in terms of plant growth and color) between all the bulb options available. Spectrum peaks, and all of that.


----------



## youareafever (Mar 18, 2008)

^well said.


----------



## ingg (Jan 18, 2007)

> Now, something else we haven't even touched on in this thread (yet) is whether or not there really is any performance difference (in terms of plant growth and color) between all the bulb options available. Spectrum peaks, and all of that.


I'll go out on a limb and say yeah there is. I replaced one of my stock Catalina 6500k bulbs with a Geisemann MidDay. It looks like an HO bulb next to an NO bulb side by side, it is crazy.


As for PAR meter readings at depth - yeah, I've read some of the stuff on salt forums too. I've never seen a comparison to what the sun does - more importantly, what the un does in a confined space like we do, where sunlight is forced to be directional like we are forced. I'm sort of wondering if it performs all that great, to be honestl and more importantly, how important it is. 

Think about it. Seas of vals 10' below the surface. Plants streaming up from 14' below the water. We're talking about the difference between 18" and 26".. I mean, yeah, I know there is a drop, but let's be serious, what are we comparing to in nature? Do any of us know? I don't, and am very curious about it.


----------



## youareafever (Mar 18, 2008)

there are many studies done by marine biologists around the world on PAR readings on reefs. i remember looking at a comprehensive study done by a guy in indonesia who took PAR readings for quite some time. but unfortunently i dont have that link anymore. over on RC there is a guy called green bean or something like that who has a wealth of knowledge as he himself is a marinebiologist. maybe asking him will answer your question. 

and for what its worth i took a par reading in the past right outside of my house around 4pm and got a reading of 1400. my fixtures dont even break 1000.


----------



## SpeedEuphoria (Aug 5, 2008)

youareafever said:


> and for what its worth i took a par reading in the past right outside of my house around 4pm and got a reading of 1400. my fixtures dont even break 1000.


Well get in the swimming pool and take the par reading again, lol.


----------



## youareafever (Mar 18, 2008)

haha, that would be great if i had one of those.....but actually we do have a pond maybe ill stick the meter in there.


----------



## lauraleellbp (Feb 3, 2008)

How much are PAR meters? The only way we'll get some of these answers is if a bunch of us actually repeatedly run these tests and compare the results. I think comparing with pools and lakes and sunlight would be useful data to have. Most of the studies I've seen have been done in SW- and light penetration is likely to differ somewhat from water to water, depending on issues like tannins, algae, etc. How much? We won't know till someone (we?) test it!


----------



## bsmith (Jan 8, 2007)

They arent cheap!
http://www.specmeters.com/Light_Meters/

Thats what im talking about. If we can get enought ppl to measure what their reading are at different depths that would be something to base this on.

It's like I did on a car forum I belong to. I wanted to find out how effective a given intake on a car would lower your IAT's (intake air temp's). Well I got a few ppl to measure theirs and with that info we could extrapolate that this certian intake could actually give you a boost in performance and that this certian one was a $400 waste of money.

We need some cold hard numbers!



lauraleellbp said:


> How much are PAR meters? The only way we'll get some of these answers is if a bunch of us actually repeatedly run these tests and compare the results. I think comparing with pools and lakes and sunlight would be useful data to have. Most of the studies I've seen have been done in SW- and light penetration is likely to differ somewhat from water to water, depending on issues like tannins, algae, etc. How much? We won't know till someone (we?) test it!


----------



## youareafever (Mar 18, 2008)

there is actually a company out there called apogee instruments that makes a really great PAR meter that are water proof and are still within reasonable pricing limits. 

here is there website

the one we want will be the QMSW-SS or the QMSS-S model. i know it seems kinda odd as there is a electrical lamp calibrated model there (QMSS-E) but the sunlight calibrated one have been shown to be more accurate in PAR readings for aquariums. 

in the past someone contacted apogee and got a great deal on a group buy were it went something on the line of, if 10 people buy a meter they get 5% off, if 15 people buy 10% off, and if 40 people buy a meter it was something like 20% off. but im not sure if they will offer that deal again.


----------



## lauraleellbp (Feb 3, 2008)

Poof!

So we need a bunch of people willing and able to spend $300 on some testing equipment... I'm not unwilling, but I won't have that kind of $$ for quite a while, I've got other projects that I need to finish first that are taking all my $. I could do it maybe towards the end of this year?


----------



## bsmith (Jan 8, 2007)

Not for the sake of science... 



lauraleellbp said:


> Poof!
> 
> So we need a bunch of people willing and able to spend $300 on some testing equipment... I'm not unwilling, but I won't have that kind of $$ for quite a while, I've got other projects that I need to finish first that are taking all my $. I could do it maybe towards the end of this year?


----------



## combo30101 (Jul 13, 2004)

woot, just ordered my new T5HO lighting for my 60" tank.
the fixture is 60" with four 80w sylvania 6k bulbs combined with LED moonlight.
the fixture is only $150. made in china. the brand is called komry. 220v electricity needed. 

the fixture also has a six 80w bulb config (with no LED moonlight). but i don't think its really necessary. 

its about the difference between 3wpg with moonlight VS 4.5wpg without.

the build quality is pretty good consider the price....


----------

