# PAR Data-Spiral Power Saver Bulbs, lighting question



## AirSong

Original title: Hemianthus Callitrichoides and Blysa in 2.5g, lighting question

I am trying to grow these in a 2.5g. My lighting is currently provided by a desk lamp that contains a 5w flourescent bulb that according to package gives off 25w of light.

If you want to see the details, it's THIS ONE.

Is that enough for them or should I get something stronger?


----------



## kid creole

Your 5W bulb gives off 5W for the sake of tank light calculations.


----------



## AirSong

So stronger then :icon_redf ? how much light do I need?


----------



## prototyp3

I'm growing HC and blyxa in a 2.5 with 8w of LED lighting. I'd definitely go with something higher powered, maybe two of those bulbs would work? But then you'd be adding another fixture..


----------



## AirSong

I could just get a 10-15w bulb if I need double power, right? why would I need a new fixture?


----------



## fishstoregirl

You certainly could get a higher watt bulb, but some fixtures are only rated for a certain wattage so make sure before you change bulbs. I am currently growing Blyxa and HM in a 5.5 gallon with 27 watts of compact fluorescent and they are both thriving, if that helps you gauge how much light you may need... Good luck, I'm sure it will look great!


----------



## pandapr

prototyp3 said:


> I'm growing HC and blyxa in a 2.5 with 8w of LED lighting. I'd definitely go with something higher powered, maybe two of those bulbs would work? But then you'd be adding another fixture..


could you post more info on where to get them? experiences? thanks


----------



## AirSong

Just checked my lamp, I am allowed up to a 60w bulb, so 15 is more that doable, I will try to get a 13 though, that way my wattage will be similar to yours fishstoregirl


----------



## ESK07

also you dont want a 2700k bulb like the one you linked too, go with a 6500k they are readily available at the hardware stores


----------



## AirSong

Yes, thank you! :3 did get one of those, the blyxa is doing just fine with that light and excel, the HC, however, all died. 

The person that sold it to me said I should at least install DIY Co2 system if I want the HC to take off. Anyone know if this will really fix the problem?


----------



## ESK07

HC loves co2 like alot of plants but what temp is the bulb you have?


----------



## AirSong

It's a 6500k, so it's fine, right? will adding more CO2 help then?


----------



## jmontee

Yes 6500 is fine.

Adding more CO2 will help any plantd tank. HC is especially picky and I would say it is almost a necessity. 

You can also get a 27w 6500k CF desk lamp at Home Depot. Its around 20 dollars and I have only heard good things about that lamp. Remember that adding more light without increasing the available nutrients, ie ferts, for the plants will only give you an algae farm. Also without the right amount of CO2 or ecel you will also be limiting the plants and algae will be more than happy to make up te difference.


----------



## AirSong

The tank has been running for a few months now and I still have not had any algae problems. 

The lamp I have can actually handle up to a 60w bulb (was bought at Home Depot BTW). 

I rather like the low light, anything else would be too much for my small room. I do have dry ferts, but I'm still trying to figure out exactly how much to dose in such a small tank before actually adding any. :icon_redf


----------



## Hilde

Could you provide a picture of the tank?

What is the gh, kh, ph and co2 of the tank. There is always Co2 in the water. 

How about just trying a different plant. Four leaf clover would probably work. I have it growing in my low tech 29 gallon tank. I had 65 watt of PC bulb and 20 watt T8 bulb. Now just went down to 2 - 20 T8 bulbs. No Co2, dosed with flourish comprehensive daily and sodium bicarb when doing water changes.


----------



## AirSong

gh: 30 dH - 530ppm+ (liquid rock)
kh: 1 dKH
pH: 6.2

Maybe my test kits are wrong (the gh and kh one), I'm using the JBL ones. Both results seem kind of extreme.

I have nothing right now that can help me measure Co2.

I have looked for the four leaf clover, but it seems no one has it here in Mexico. I was recommended Ranalisma Rostrata by the same person that sold me the HC, but I'm not sure how that one looks in a nano.

Other carpet plants I can get (through mail) are, Glossostigma elatinoides, Lilaleopsis, Eleocharis acicularis (dwarf hairgrass ?), Eleocharis vivipara and a variety of mosses.

The blyxa (top right) and the parrot feather (right besides it) are both doing fine though, they all arrived at the same time since I got the from the same seller. 

The blyxa has new leaves which took a nice green, and the parrot feather which arrived brown, nearly all dried up (it was a gift so I did not complain), has done a complete recovery and is now looking bright green.


----------



## i4x4nMore

Hi, AirSong... I'd like to make a few comments on your tank and your quest for lighting. I keep small tanks like yours myself with good success - and I thought I'd share a few ideas with you and also dispel some half-true statements that are constantly being echoed among hobbyists. 

I'm glad to see that you are targeting the light. This is very important as it is the one thing that drives the biology in your tank. Most people fail from the start by not really assessing the light in their tank. They like to apply rules like watts per gallon etc, but that is not really assessing the light. 

Your original HC died because it wasn't getting enough light to photosynthesize. Even if it had been given enough light, it would have died because of lack of nutrients (given the picture in your last post).

People will tell you that you need injected co2 to grow HC, glosso, riccia etc. but it simply is not true. I grow them, and I grow them well in non-co2 tanks, they create nice carpets. But there's a lot of accumulated knowledge that goes into it and you can't just follow everyone's "rule of thumb" to achieve success. You have to put more attention into knowing about your light, and you have to know exactly what kind and how much nutrients you are providing. Then you will have a much better chance of success.



*YOUR LIGHT*

You say that you "like the low light, and anything more would be too much for your room". You can't use this a basis for your tank if you want to grow HC or glosso etc. I would also tell you to forget about anything you've heard about the "watts per gallon" rule. It's antiquated and it holds no meaning.

WPG rules would only work if everyone used the exact same kind of light, with the exact same kind of efficiency, placed exactly the same height above the same size tank. You've already encountered that the light you wanted to use didn't fall neatly into everyone's rule of thumb. Also, just because one person used 27watts of a certain bulb on a similar sized tank doesn't mean it's going to work in your situation... for many reasons.

What exactly is low light? What exactly is high light? The amount of watts isn't going to give you the answer. Here's an example: I have 100 watts of metal halide lighting above my 5gal tank (really). That comes out to be 20 watts per gallon. Is that high light? Or could it be low light?

Many would say that's definitely high light. But, the answer is that it is low light, _given the way it is set up_. And you can only know that if you measure the light in a different way: a PAR meter. A PAR meter doesn't measure LUX or Lumens, those are human vision quantities and don't mean anything to plants. A PAR meter measures the amount of light that is available for photosynthesis. It has a funky unit of measurement because it counts the number of photons that strike a surface over time.

Now, I know you probably don't have a PAR meter. But, I do and I'd be interested in helping you determine exactly what bulb might give you enough light, given your fixture and distance from the water. I can tell you immediately that you're going to have to have more than 15watts of the bulb that has been mentioned earlier. If you're interested, send me a private message and we can work out the specifics, I have an idea.



*YOUR SUBSTRATE*

After you get your light worked out, I would concentrate on the substrate next. Based on the picture of your tank, I would not consider that to be a adequate substrate on a couple of levels: one, it is too coarse for small rooted plants like HC and glosso; and second, it effectively is inert and provides no nutrients to the plants.

There are so many philosophies on what kind of substrate to use, but whatever philosophy you choose, you'll have better success if you choose one that actively provide nutrients to the plants, like soil for example.

Personally, I use a layer of yard soil in the bottom of all my tanks topped with a fine grain gravel - and I think is an important aspect of a non-co2 tank. Diana Walstad's book covers the mechanics of aquarium soil quite extensively, if not intensely.

I would highly recommend using real soil. Some claim it is messy, causes cloudiness, and is generally a pain - but I do not find this to be so. The hardest part is finding the CORRECT source of soil. And for small tanks it's nice because you don't need that much... only a 1/2 inch layer on the bottom.

But, even if you decide that soil is not in your interest, then at least use a fine grain clay fractured substrate: the fine grain helps tiny roots, the clay fractured aspect allows better bacteria colonization.


*YOUR NUTRIENTS*

Especially if you don't use soil, you have to provide water column nutrients. Fish waste and uneaten food will provide some nutrients, but it is better to supply a consistent source; and more nutrients than you need (to a point). The idea is to not limit the nutrients to the plants. Once your plants become limited in any aspect, you are setting the stage for algae. So supply more than they need, and they will always be growing. Please don't fall into the trap of thinking that excess nitrates and phosphates causes algae. Read about Estimative Index to learn more. 

Even in my non-co2 soil tanks, I dose 10ppm nitrates and 2ppm phosphates and 0.2ppm iron each week.

Whatever the method, you will have to actively sit and look at your setup and ask yourself: How are my plants getting nutrients? 

In my opinion, light and nutrient deprivation is the BIGGEST reason people fail at growing HC, glosso, and riccia in non-co2 tanks. As far as nutrients go, this is why soil is good because it supplies a steady slow flow of nutrients to the plants.

In a very small tank, it is better to use your dry ferts to create dilute nutrient solutions that you store in bottles. Then you can dose small amounts of the solution into the tank. To create the solutions, all it takes is an accurate gram scale, storage bottles, a pipette for dosing, and a little bit of math.

Don't be afraid, unleash that inner chemist... at least a little.

Here are some pictures of my tanks... Can you tell me which one is non-co2?































Cheers!


----------



## Homer_Simpson

Absolutely beautiful tanks i4x4nMore. I would be interested in how exactly you determine approriate light levels if not watts per gallon. I know you mentioned using a par meter. Is that what you do? I would be more interested in learning about your methods. You stated that nutrient deprivation is the biggest reason that people fail at growing HC, glosso, and riccia in non-c02 tanks. However, IME I have seen riccia grow like a weed(even when tied to rock) in my high tech and low tech non-c02 tanks, but in the same tanks Hairgrass has died off and HC has failed to grow at all(even with ADA Aquasoil II and water column dosing). What is your explanation for this? Light intensity over c02? I have reservations about shining too intense light on a tank. Even experimenting with a 10 gallon where c02 tested ideal, water parameters were ideal, fert dosing was ideal, and even plant growth was explosive with only 30 watts fluorescent lighting(6500K daylight) that tank was literally raped by just about every algae imaginable. BGA, followed by black brush, followed by clado, and even green dust algae. The single biggest change that resulted in the algae disappearing was a reduction in light intensity from 30 watts total to 20 watts(6500K daylight)


----------



## o snap its eric

very interesting, I believe light is a big factor in HC growth. Recently i upgraded my lighting system from 108w to 216w at the same amount of height above my tank and boom, GW! However, the HC was growing like mad, spreading faster than ever. Too bad i couldnt see the plants with my gw and uv sterilizer did not help. So i raised my lighting and so far the gw is slowly going away but my HC isn't growing as well anymore. 

Although i fail to mention one thing is that during all this my CO2 diffuser broke so my CO2 distribution is varying from a ceramic diffusing to directly injecting co2 into my canister. I believe once i get my new ceramic diffuser in the mail HC should grow better but not as fast or lush as it was when the lighting was lowered.


----------



## 2wheelsx2

This is an interesting thread. I was under the suspicion that my lack of CO2 use in my 15 gallon long was causing my HC to disappear, but based on this, it may be my lighting. I am using a Coralife NO T5 (28 watts), Eco-complete, and Excel along with EI dosing. From a significant swathe of HC, I'm now down to 2 patches, but they are very low growing and appear to be healthy. Maybe it's time I though about more light.


----------



## i4x4nMore

*Follow-Up: Household CF Bulbs, Growing HC, and Non-CO2...*

I wanted to follow up to this thread to share some more ideas on lighting with household CF bulbs. AirSong originally had posted asking how much light she should use to light her 2.5gal non-CO2 tank... She was interested in growing HC or other carpeting plants. To her, I answered that she would probably need more than 15 watts. I didn't want to leave it at that however. I set out to investigate and find the right answer. As such, I duplicated her setup: tank size, fixture type, water depth, distance of light from the water, etc... and then took some measurements.

The answer is that you can use anything from 14 watts to 27 watts, and beyond. It all depends on how you set it up...

I personally believe that many hobbyists underestimate the need to accurately quantify their light - especially when they are plagued by unexplained algae or dying plants. The growth in non-CO2 tanks is quite slow and getting feedback takes too long. It's good to know from the start that your lighting is in a good range, so you can eliminate it as a variable if your tank is "less than desirable". 

As I discovered, these CF bulbs (14-23 watts) seem fairly tame, but how you use them can mean the difference of not having enough light, and having way too much. And believe it or not, that difference can manifest itself just by moving the light up or down a few inches.

I created a several slides to show what I'm talking about. I hope this will help illustrate how things like reflector type and distance make a big difference, and can't be overlooked - it is also the reason one person's success with a particular bulb may not be your success.

(Hopefully, you've turned off that pesky "image resize" in your user preferences - if not, make sure to unscale for readability. )


*Diagram1 - Household CF Bulbs*








.
.
.

*Diagram2 - Measuring Household CF Bulbs*








.
.
.

*Diagram3 - 19W, 5500K Example*








.
.
.

*Diagram4 - Does Color Temperature Matter?*








.
.
.

*Diagram5 - 23 Watt Extremes*








.
.
.

*Diagram6 - Reflector & Orientation*








.
.
.

*Diagram7 - 14 Watt Example*








.
.
.

Cheers!


----------



## Homer_Simpson

Wow, very interesting! Thanks for taking the time to do this and share your findings. The question is which setup is minimally needed to grow carpeting plants like HC without c02 or in a non-c02 tank?


----------



## i4x4nMore

Homer_Simpson said:


> The question is which setup is minimally needed to grow carpeting plants like HC without c02 or in a non-c02 tank?


In my non-CO2 tanks, the HC really grows thick in about 60 umols/m2/s of light (PAR) - and that's measured at the bottom of the tank where the HC is growing. So in the graphics above, any setup that shows PAR values in a range of 60-70 should be "sufficient" light. It doesn't mean you can't go higher. But in going higher, you may be over driving your soil's ability to provide enough nutrients. And even if you dose the water column, the higher light will start to give algae a good environment in which to grow.

In my non-CO2 tank with an average of 60-80 umols/m2/sec, I never change the water, I dose nitrates-phosphates-traces each twice a week, I have a soil substrate, and I don't have algae buildup anywhere in the tank.

But that wasn't always the case... During the first two months I had several patches of different kinds of algae. But I just let them run their course without attempting to fight them, and then did a removal when they seemed to be dying off. It's never come back. Also added snails and 5 amano shrimp... I was amazed at how they started to clean up the tank.

Did any of the above answer your question about the minimal setup required?


----------



## Homer_Simpson

i4x4nMore said:


> ...Did any of the above answer your question about the minimal setup required?


Yes, absolutley! Thanks for a very thorough explanation. I would never have guessed that 60 umols/m2/s of light would be sufficient to grow carpeting plants like HC. I would have guessed 120-220 minimum. This is good to know. When I test emersed with mineralized topsoil, I am going to go with the 60 umols/m2/s of light to grow HC or dwarf hairgrass after flooding. I did not have a par meter and even if I did, I would never had the experience of growing carpeting plants and measuring the minimal light levels needed to grow them. This helps a lot. Again, many thanks for sharing your experience and findings. And sorry for the thread hijack, but this was just so fascinating I couldn't resist.


----------



## i4x4nMore

Homer_Simpson said:


> ...sorry for the thread hijack, but this was just so fascinating I couldn't resist.


 
Friends don't let friends kill HC. 

I don't think AirSong minds you hijacking. 




Homer_Simpson said:


> You stated that nutrient deprivation is the biggest reason that people fail at growing HC, glosso, and riccia in non-c02 tanks.


 
To be clear: light AND nutrient deprivation. 

I've seen that many people view low-tech, non-co2 tanks as dark, murky places that have plants with spindly growth where anubias, crypts, and java fern reign king. They are overly cautious about having extra nitrates, phosphates, and iron in the water column. And they gravitate toward plain gravel or other DIY substrates that are essentially inert and don't have good CECs (Cation Exchange Capacity).


But some are brave, and they do try to grow things like HC, hairgrass, glosso, and riccia etc. However, they apply the same low-light, nutrient thin philosophies - because that's what a low-light, non-co2 tank is... right? And when the plants eventually die off, they begin to think that such plants can only be grown with CO2 injection, high light, and heavy dosing routines.


To me, a low-light tank is this: It's a tank in which the natural, biological nutrient supply is able to keep up with the demands of the plants, and that demand is driven by the light. Nothing more, nothing less. It's a tank that relies on biology to create CO2... and these bio-chemical rates, albeit slower, are able to keep up with the plants. Surely there is a range of light intensity that works well... and how do you know what the top-end of that would be?


You can't guess this range just by making sure that you have 1-2 watts per gallon. I have disliked this rule-of-thumb ever since the first day I got into this hobby. It never made sense to me - Photosynthetic energy is what is important, not watts. I've seen people trying to grow various plants in a 20 gal tank, a gravel substrate, and a trusty bottle of Seachem Flourish; And I measured their PAR values to be around 15-25 umols/m2/s (far from 60-70 umols/m2/s). To me, it's no surprise why they are having trouble: insufficient light, and no viable nutrients (and maybe a lack of CO2 generation).


Even when they kick up the light a notch, it's not enough to fix the problem. In a non-CO2 tank, you still need CO2 and a consistent nutrient supply. To my knowledge, that CO2 comes from a robust substrate that's filled with healthy soil bacteria. 


I've read so many times that you'll never see "pearling" in a low-light, non-co2 tank. This is another one of those "things" that is simply not true. The Riccia and HC in my non-CO2 tanks pearl quite a lot at the height of the day. How could this be without CO2 injection and high light? Well, it's because of a strong, healthy environment, good substrate, and sufficient photosynthetic energy. And maybe "low-light" can be higher than you previously thought... or were conditioned to think by other hobbyists.

And this is all without algae. If you _really_ assess your lighting, and you _really_ assess your nutrient supply, and you have a viable substrate, algae problems really become minimal.




Homer_Simpson said:


> However, IME I have seen riccia grow like a weed(even when tied to rock) in my high tech and low tech non-c02 tanks, but in the same tanks Hairgrass has died off and HC has failed to grow at all(even with ADA Aquasoil II and water column dosing). What is your explanation for this?


Well, to start, I would put Riccia in it's own class since it strictly derives its nutrients from the water column. Riccia is generally undemanding and if you're dosing the water column in both cases, I would expect it to do moderately well in both cases.

HC and Hairgrass, however, interact heavily with the substrate. My guess is that you can't just dose the water column and expect these plants to ignore the biology in their root system. Question: In the non-co2 tank, is the substrate able to generate the kind of bio-chemical activity that's needed to support the rooted plants? Sure, it's "ADA AQUASOIL:icon_excl", but how do you KNOW what it's capable of? What's it's CEC? What is the ratio between sand/silt/clay? How rich is it? What were your PAR values?

I know you don't have a PAR meter. I'm just saying that these are the things you CAN know and remove them from the "variable" list. Personally, if I really wanted to use ADA's Aquasoil, I'd pay the $50 and send it off to a lab to have it analyzed. 

That's where I'd start: Determine your photosynthetic energy, and provide a substrate of known quality and content. Only then can you begin to say anything about the success or failure of a particular plant.




Homer_Simpson said:


> I have reservations about shining too intense light on a tank. Even experimenting with a 10 gallon where c02 tested ideal, water parameters were ideal, fert dosing was ideal, and even plant growth was explosive with only 30 watts fluorescent lighting(6500K daylight) that tank was literally raped by just about every algae imaginable. BGA, followed by black brush, followed by clado, and even green dust algae. The single biggest change that resulted in the algae disappearing was a reduction in light intensity from 30 watts total to 20 watts(6500K daylight)


Here again: phrases like "too intense", "only 30 watts", "30 watts total to 20 watts"... they are all ambiguous. They say nothing about actual photosynthetic energy that you are supplying. Small tanks like 10gal, 5gal, etc are tricky because it's so easy to screw up the light, either high or low. If anything, this is what I wanted to illustrate with the slides I created earlier in this thread. Overall they show how a simple change in the distance and reflector type can make huge differences in the photosynthetic energy. And if you don't know what you've got, it's setting the stage for failure (or algae, if you equate the two).

Also, another factor is the life-cycle of the tank. In my experience with using a soil substrate, all new tanks experience some form of algae as the bio-chemical processes are kickstarted after you set it up. This period can last several months. But it goes away as the plants take hold and the substrate kicks into high gear.

If you KNOW that the photosynthetic energy of your lighting is in a good range, and you KNOW that you have a robust substrate, then you can have some confidence in allowing algae to move through it's life cycle without trying to fight it.

But if you don't KNOW those things, you may be consistently supplying an environment that benefits algae and not plants. And then it will never go away. You'll be scraping and removing until the end of your days.

Just my thoughts.


Cheers!


----------



## AirSong

Homer_Simpson said:


> And sorry for the thread hijack, but this was just so fascinating I couldn't resist.


Hijack as much as you want. I'm learning a lot from all the questions and answers.:biggrin:

I'll go back to reading now roud:


----------



## CL

excellent data! :thumbsup:


----------



## Homer_Simpson

clwatkins10 said:


> excellent data! :thumbsup:



Agreed! This should definitely be a sticky!! Mods???

Just a few questions i4x4nMore if you don't mind.

(1) You mention fine gravel as cap over the soil. Could you post pictures to give an idea of grain size of the gravel you mean. Have you ever experimented with different caps and noticed any positive or negative experiences or one working better than another. For instance, pool filter sand, Schultz Aquatic Soil, Soil Master Select, tahitian moon sand vs pea size gravel. 

(2) What photoperiod do you run your lights and have you noticed any positive or negative effects on plants or algae with different photoperiods. If so, what photoperiod would you recommend.

(3) How long have your tanks been running? Have you noticed and effects of substrate nutrient depletion(via plant nutrient deifciency symptoms) and the need to add more water column ferts over time. 

(4) Do you follow the 1 inch per gallon rule of stocking when it comes to fish/snails/shrimp. Do you generously stock your tanks or keep stocking to a minimum? How frequently do you feed your fish?

(5) Finally, what is your water change schedule like and how much(% of total tank water approximately) water do you change?

Thanks.


----------



## gpwap1

wow, just by mouting CFLs vertically you seem to get a lot more light!


----------



## i4x4nMore

Homer_Simpson said:


> (1) You mention fine gravel as cap over the soil. Could you post pictures to give an idea of grain size of the gravel you mean. Have you ever experimented with different caps and noticed any positive or negative experiences or one working better than another. For instance, pool filter sand, Schultz Aquatic Soil, Soil Master Select, tahitian moon sand vs pea size gravel.


Here's an image comparing the different gravel caps that I've used. I have not used any of the ones you mentioned. For me, as long as the gravel size is paired well with the root size, I'm not too critical about it. I have never gone below a gravel size of 1-2mm in size. 









.
.



Homer_Simpson said:


> (2) What photoperiod do you run your lights and have you noticed any positive or negative effects on plants or algae with different photoperiods. If so, what photoperiod would you recommend.


Nothing special here... 12 hours. I have not experimented with different intervals.



Homer_Simpson said:


> (3) How long have your tanks been running? Have you noticed and effects of substrate nutrient depletion(via plant nutrient deifciency symptoms) and the need to add more water column ferts over time.


Most of my tanks run for a year or more. Not that they couldn't run longer... I just want to try new things. I did experiment with running a non-co2 tank at about 100 umols/m2/sec of light and it did great for about 10 months without algae - then, all of the sudden at the 10 month mark, it totally went south. All the plants turned pale and algae became dominant. I attributed it to the soil finally giving out - but can't say for sure.

With my current non-co2 tanks with soil substrates, I have been dosing using EI. I dose it the same way as I do my CO2 tanks, just less frequent. It's too early for me to tell how this will extend the life of the soil.



Homer_Simpson said:


> (4) Do you follow the 1 inch per gallon rule of stocking when it comes to fish/snails/shrimp. Do you generously stock your tanks or keep stocking to a minimum? How frequently do you feed your fish?


I keep stocking to a minimum. In general, I prefer relatively few fish, with heavy plants. I feed them only once a day, and sometimes skip a day. I only feed them live or frozen foods. No flake foods.




Homer_Simpson said:


> (5) Finally, what is your water change schedule like and how much(% of total tank water approximately) water do you change?


In my non-co2 tanks, I never change the water. Periodically, I check the nitrate and phosphate levels to modify my EI dosing routine.

On the CO2 tanks I change 50-70% of the water every 1-2 weeks.



Cheers!


----------



## Homer_Simpson

:thumbsup: Great information i4x4nMore. Thanks. It was just what I was looking for.


----------



## milesm

thanks Jeremy for the very informative reply. i also think it should be made a sticky.

one final request, if i may. could you provide lighting data for the three tanks. that is, how are your bulbs oriented/kind of reflector, types of bulbs, wattage, k, distance from light to bottom of tank, size of tank. i think it would be instructive to look at. thanks.


----------



## skratikans

wow, this truly gives a whole new meaning to a non co2 injected tank, So I have to ask, were all three tank pics non co2? Amazing..


----------



## i4x4nMore

milesm said:


> one final request, if i may. could you provide lighting data for the three tanks. that is, how are your bulbs oriented/kind of reflector, types of bulbs, wattage, k, distance from light to bottom of tank, size of tank. i think it would be instructive to look at. thanks.


Yes, I can do this once I'm back in town... currently traveling.




skratikans said:


> wow, this truly gives a whole new meaning to a non co2 injected tank, So I have to ask, were all three tank pics non co2? Amazing..


I was wondering when someone was going to ask that... The top and bottom tank were run as non-co2, the middle tank was co2 injected (as is evident from the drop checker hanging on the side of the tank <_wink_>).

The bottom tank has a CO2 system, but I only used it in the beginning of that particular setup. I found that it was growing way too fast. I couldn't keep up with the plant trimming. So, I slowed the growth rate down... Since it has a soil substrate, I stopped the co2 and reduced the light from 120 umols/m2/s down to 60 umols/m2/s using a photographic neutral density filter on a piece of glass directly below the lights. That's another way you can control your lighting if removing a bulb is not an option or if you can't change the distance.


The reason I showed all three tanks together was that I wanted to illustrate that a non-co2 tank doesn't have to be the ubiquitous anubias/crypt/javafern style tank. I prefer brighter, sparkling tanks with verdant growth ;-)

My successes are modest, and I'm not claiming to be a master of this. But I hope to attract others with the same mind set and share our experiences and methods.


Cheers!


----------



## epicfish

Hey Jeremy,

Any way we could get shots of the reflectors used in your tests? ie: The one for the vertically mounted bulb and the horizontally mounted bulb. 

Thanks.


----------



## rrrrramos

I think this is one of the most helpful posts I've read on here. I read it before lights on on my 2.5g tank, that's had somewhat of a halt on the HC growth, and the leaves were starting to get a little pale. I raised the light 1.5" before lights on and it looks nice and green like it should again!


----------



## Hoppy

That is some really great PAR data for power saver bulbs. I plotted the data on log log paper to see what kind of relationships are there. It looks like the light intensity drops a little faster than if it were just an inverse square drop off. I'm not at all sure why that would be. Also the relationship between intensity and bulb wattage isn't quite linear, with the intensity increasing a bit faster with power than if it were linear. That is understandable because there is more area radiating light with the higher wattage bulbs and less dark area of tube. Also, at equal distances between the light and the sensor, the vertical mounted bulb gives about 55% more intensity than the horizontal mounted bulb. That is probably from less restrike.

The data also has a lot of practical use for guesstimating how many of what wattage bulbs will give a 100 micromol (for example) intensity at the substrate for any given tank size.

Thank you very much for doing this.


----------



## kozlany

I really enjoyed those illustrations too. Made it easily understood to a non techy person.


----------



## skratikans

yeah I must of not seen that drop checker..lol..I was so focused on checking out those foreground plants...lol, will the tanks by be small...I still love the meaning behind them, it's nice to know something like that is possible


----------



## i4x4nMore

kozlany said:


> I really enjoyed those illustrations too. Made it easily understood to a non techy person.


Cool, I'm glad. That's what I was aiming for. Was quite fun to do. If we all talked in terms of PAR instead of watts, it would eliminate a lot of variables in diagnosing setups. I do wish the meters themselves were cheaper, I know that is the main barrier for hobbyists. 



Hoppy said:


> That is some really great PAR data for power saver bulbs.


 I also was a little surprised at how useful they could be.



Hoppy said:


> I plotted the data on log log paper to see what kind of relationships are there. It looks like the light intensity drops a little faster than if it were just an inverse square drop off. I'm not at all sure why that would be.


Raising or lowering the reflector over a small tank like that is going to change the light distribution and also reflect off the side glass differently. That divergence from the inverse square relationship basically indicates how the reflector shape and material comes into play. Additionally, the water itself absorbs the light in addition to the inverse square law, no?



Hoppy said:


> Also the relationship between intensity and bulb wattage isn't quite linear, with the intensity increasing a bit faster with power than if it were linear. That is understandable because there is more area radiating light with the higher wattage bulbs and less dark area of tube. Also, at equal distances between the light and the sensor, the vertical mounted bulb gives about 55% more intensity than the horizontal mounted bulb. That is probably from less restrike.


I also think that restrike is a huge factor in limiting the radiating light in the horizontal configuration. But that's what is great about using the PAR meter... if you reconfigure your lighting, you can see in realtime what the effect is going to be in terms of photosynthetic energy for the plants. That 55% increase is not very noticeable to the naked eye, yet it is there.



Hoppy said:


> The data also has a lot of practical use for guesstimating how many of what wattage bulbs will give a 100 micromol (for example) intensity at the substrate for any given tank size.


Yes, a virtual PAR meter of sorts. The thought had crossed my mind... but without accounting for reflector types, light distribution variations, water depth, turbidity, and brand of bulb, you're still back to not knowing exactly how my photosynthetic energy you really have.



Hoppy said:


> Thank you very much for doing this.


You bet. 



epicfish said:


> Any way we could get shots of the reflectors used in your tests? ie: The one for the vertically mounted bulb and the horizontally mounted bulb.


Sure, however, there's not much left to the imagination concerning those two fixtures shown in the diagrams. The metal dish reflector is the exact same material on the inside. The desk lamp is simply painted white on the inside. However, I can photograph the interiors when I get back in town.



rrrrramos said:


> I think this is one of the most helpful posts I've read on here. I read it before lights on on my 2.5g tank, that's had somewhat of a halt on the HC growth, and the leaves were starting to get a little pale. I raised the light 1.5" before lights on and it looks nice and green like it should again!


I have no doubt that raising your lights caused a visual difference to you, but the real question is "what was your photosynthetic energy before you raised the fixture, and what was it after?" Such a change in the lighting would take a bit of time to see the results in terms of the growth of your plants - especially with non-co2 - probably on the order of weeks. By raising the light a couple of inches, you are effectively reducing the photosynthetic energy being supplied to the plants... that will, in turn, reduce the demand for nutrients. If there is less demand for nutrients, then your substrate may have a better chance at providing them through normal bio-chemical reactions. 

By using this PAR meter, the idea here is to remove the notion of "how much light/watts do I need?" Instead, we focus on how much photosynthetic energy (PAR) is being supplied to the plants. This is not something you can determine just by looking at the setup, or knowing how many watts you have. Maybe you were overdriving the bio-chemical system in your tank, maybe not. A PAR reading would give us a better answer. 

If you were already in a good range, then maybe your paling HC is because of a lack of nutrients overall. Do you see how this conversation would be a lot different if you said "I am providing X amount of photosynthetic energy to my plants, but the HC hasn't been doing well." ? Then we could immediately know if your lighting was at fault or not, and then move on to other factors.




skratikans said:


> yeah I must of not seen that drop checker..lol..I was so focused on checking out those foreground plants...lol, will the tanks by be small...I still love the meaning behind them, it's nice to know something like that is possible


Yes, I understand, totally 


Cheers all!


----------



## Hoppy

i4x4nMore said:


> Cool, I'm glad. That's what I was aiming for. Was quite fun to do. If we all talked in terms of PAR instead of watts, it would eliminate a lot of variables in diagnosing setups. I do wish the meters themselves were cheaper, I know that is the main barrier for hobbyists.
> 
> I also was a little surprised at how useful they could be.
> 
> 
> Raising or lowering the reflector over a small tank like that is going to change the light distribution and also reflect off the side glass differently. That divergence from the inverse square relationship basically indicates how the reflector shape and material comes into play. Additionally, the water itself absorbs the light in addition to the inverse square law, no?


The water absorbs almost none of the intensity at these depths, and actually tends to focus the light due to the refraction at the surface. I suspect and my data indicates that there is very little difference in the intensity whether the water is there or not. Reflection off the front and back glass has been shown to be significant by others, but the exact contribution I'm not sure of.



> I also think that restrike is a huge factor in limiting the radiating light in the horizontal configuration. But that's what is great about using the PAR meter... if you reconfigure your lighting, you can see in realtime what the effect is going to be in terms of photosynthetic energy for the plants. That 55% increase is not very noticeable to the naked eye, yet it is there.


Too bad it is so much more difficult to design a multiple bulb fixture with each bulb having a reflector like that. Intuitively I have thought it would be more efficient, but I haven't figured out how to design that.


> Yes, a virtual PAR meter of sorts. The thought had crossed my mind... but without accounting for reflector types, light distribution variations, water depth, turbidity, and brand of bulb, you're still back to not knowing exactly how much photosynthetic energy you really have.


We don't really need to know the exact PAR value, just a good approximation. Even that is hard to do, with all of the variables involved.


> Sure, however, there's not much left to the imagination concerning those two fixtures shown in the diagrams. The metal dish reflector is the exact same material on the inside. The desk lamp is simply painted white on the inside. However, I can photograph the interiors when I get back in town.
> 
> 
> I have no doubt that raising your lights caused a visual difference to you, but the real question is "what was your photosynthetic energy before you raised the fixture, and what was it after?" Such a change in the lighting would take a bit of time to see the results in terms of the growth of your plants - especially with non-co2 - probably on the order of weeks. By raising the light a couple of inches, you are effectively reducing the photosynthetic energy being supplied to the plants... that will, in turn, reduce the demand for nutrients. If there is less demand for nutrients, then your substrate may have a better chance at providing them through normal bio-chemical reactions.
> 
> By using this PAR meter, the idea here is to remove the notion of "how much light/watts do I need?" Instead, we focus on how much photosynthetic energy (PAR) is being supplied to the plants. This is not something you can determine just by looking at the setup, or knowing how many watts you have. Maybe you were overdriving the bio-chemical system in your tank, maybe not. A PAR reading would give us a better answer.
> 
> If you were already in a good range, then maybe your paling HC is because of a lack of nutrients overall. Do you see how this conversation would be a lot different if you said "I am providing X amount of photosynthetic energy to my plants, but the HC hasn't been doing well." ? Then we could immediately know if your lighting was at fault or not, and then move on to other factors.
> 
> Cheers all!


----------



## i4x4nMore

Hoppy said:


> The water absorbs almost none of the intensity at these depths, and actually tends to focus the light due to the refraction at the surface. I suspect and my data indicates that there is very little difference in the intensity whether the water is there or not.


I respectfully disagree with this statement. By using the meter, I have measured a loss of about 20 umols/m2/s just by measuring immediately above and below the water surface. Whether this is due to a lens effect, surface reflection, or simple absorption I'll leave open for debate. But there is a significant loss due to the water. I can follow up with more precise measurements when I return from my trip.




Hoppy said:


> We don't really need to know the exact PAR value, just a good approximation.


I think even with the meter, you're only getting an approximation of PAR to start with. In the realm of quality spectrometers, the meter I use is a lower quality meter. So why approximate it further than that? If we attempt to do that, we're just back to the same problems associated with using watts-per-gallon as a metric for photosynthetic energy. Too much guessing.




Hoppy said:


> ... [Good approximation of PAR] - Even that is hard to do, with all of the variables involved.


Precisely - that is the main reason for my involvement in this thread. I wanted to illustrate that you can't take someone else's setup and apply it to your situation with out accounting for all the variable factors. Or, put another way, you can't get a good approximation of PAR values unless you attempt to duplicate, in every aspect, the setup that produced those PAR values.

I originally set out to answer AirSong's original question of how much light she needed over her 2.5gal aquarium. But I worked backwards... I duplicated _her_ setup and showed what kind of PAR she could get out of it by varying distance and bulb wattage.

Unlike most, you have an ability to correlate data mathematically to show trends; which allows you to extrapolate the data and make further assumptions so that you can apply it to a different situation. But, I suspect that most of the hobbyists here find that pretty daunting. And ultimately, it pushes them away from what PAR is and why it's better to use when discussing lighting for plants. It doesn't have to be that complicated. In my opinion, the mechanism of a simple meter reading is the only way PAR will ever be embraced by hobbyists, not through log plots and approximation functions. 

The results presented in this thread will help people that want to set up something similar to AirSong's setup, using the same size tank, and the same type of light fixtures and bulbs. I just provided a few extra variations showing how easy it is to affect the photosynthetic energy provided to the plants.


Cheers!


----------



## Hoppy

Those of us fortunate enough to belong to a local aquatic plants group can urge that group to make a group purchase of a PAR meter for all members to use. Then we can do as you say - just measure what we have and make the changes needed to get what we want. Those who aren't that fortunate have to either spend $250 or so on a PAR meter, find someone willing to loan one, made a wild guess, or go by an approximation that gets them close. That is the only value of plotting the data and extrapolating it. Without that, we are stuck on watts per gallon.


----------



## AquaVu

Thanks so much 4X4. This is absolutely the best and most informative I've read on this forum. Let's make this a "sticky" right away


----------



## Hilde

i4x4nMore said:


> Even in my non-co2 soil tanks, I dose 10ppm nitrates and 2ppm phosphates and 0.2ppm iron each week.


I have found that you can't always just use ferts others are using, for the gh and kh of the water will determine nutrients that need to be added. I find it easiest to add ferts in the substrate. My favorite at present is natural charcoal.

I would like to know your water parameters i4x4nMore


----------



## 2wheelsx2

Hilde said:


> I find it easiest to add ferts in the substrate. My favorite at present is natural charcoal.


Where do you get natural charcoal? Not the activated carbon for filters, or the bbq briquets, right? And how do you use it? just insert into the substrate like root tabs?


----------



## Hilde

2wheelsx2 said:


> Where do you get natural charcoal? Not the activated carbon for filters, or the bbq briquets, right? And how do you use it? just insert into the substrate like root tabs?


I found it at Ace Hardware Store. It cost $9. It is a good source of carbon and iron. You can crush it up and put it under the substrate or just put some in a fabric bag from pet store and push it behind the filter. If you want to crush it you have to let it soak in water for at least 24 hrs, then wrap it in a towel or window plastic and hit it with a hammer etc.. I got the idea from Zer0zaz at APC 

I emptied my aquarium of all but the substrate and dug holes in the substrate for the charcoal. Some floated up after I moved the substrate around. Also I put some in a cotton bag and put it behind the filter, for new plants are struggling to adapt to my non co2 tank. Since I added the Ludwiga has started growing.


----------



## 2wheelsx2

Awesome, thanks for the tip, I will have to try that in my low tech tanks.


----------



## Hilde

If that doesn't improve things try to make some mineralized soil. 

After seeing people, like Hoppy, whom all of the high tech gadgets I have come to think growing plants is difficult if you have no minerals in the water column.

So how many tanks do you have and what styles are they.


----------



## 2wheelsx2

Yeah, I dose the water column EI style in all my tanks. The biggest problems I have had is BBA when there is some sort of imbalance. My tanks are:

CO2, 65W PC 20 gallon, with Florabase
CO2, 140 W T5 125 gallon with inert gravel
non-CO2, excel, 28W 15 gallon long with Eco Complete


----------



## Hilde

2wheelsx2 said:


> Yeah, I dose the water column EI style in all my tanks. The biggest problems I have had is BBA when there is some sort of imbalance. My tanks are:


How about a picture?

If it gets real bad I found taking the plants out and spraying them with excel helps. Then rinse them in water with conditioner. Also contrary to experienced 1s KNO3 helped it from coming back in my tank. Thus I wonder if you increased dosing if KNO3 if it would balance your tank. Experience 1s say BBA due imbalance of Co2 and per circulation in the tank.


----------



## 2wheelsx2

Yup, it's a CO2 problem and circulation. I start to have problems whenever the tank gets overgrown. It's mostly my laziness in pruning that starts it.


----------



## Hilde

2wheelsx2 said:


> Yup, it's a CO2 problem and circulation. I start to have problems whenever the tank gets overgrown. It's mostly my laziness in pruning that starts it.


What do have growing in that tank? 

Then cut back on light and Co2 so you don't have to prune as often.


----------



## 2wheelsx2

I had a lot of jungle Val, which I have mostly culled or given away. Also some Bacopa Carolina. The rest are slow growing plants like the L. Arcuata, the L. Aromatica, Anubias ,etc.

The light is already raised by legs. I think what I need to do is adjust the location of my diffuser, which I am going to experiment with this weekend.


----------



## Hilde

2wheelsx2 said:


> I had a lot of jungle Val, which I have mostly culled or given away. Also some Bacopa Carolina.


I have seen Bacopa grow out of the tanks at site of seller. You may just have to toss it to keep it promoting algae conditions. Anacharis may be a good replacement for it. It is a floater but can be planted and good for absorbing toxins.


----------



## 2wheelsx2

Mine don't grow that fast...compared to the jungle Val. I don't like the look of the Anacharis. I just need to prune back the plants enough and change the circulation pattern. The reason for the problems is that we've been renovation the house and we have a second kid coming (in 3 weeks) and I'm changing jobs, so I just haven't had a lot of time to spend on the tanks (I have to move a tank at work home because of that too). I hope to have it under control next month with some serious changes. Thanks for all the suggestions.


----------



## Hilde

2wheelsx2 said:


> we've been renovation the house and we have a second kid coming (in 3 weeks) and I'm changing jobs,


You sure have a lot on your plate. 

I wonder if an extra air stone on a dead spot would help the consistancy of Co2 through out the tank. Just perhaps a quick fix.


----------



## 2wheelsx2

Hilde said:


> I wonder if an extra air stone on a dead spot would help the consistancy of Co2 through out the tank. Just perhaps a quick fix.


Possibly. I just moved the diffuser under the Koralia nano instead of under the Fluval outlet, so I'll wait to see what happens.


----------



## hbosman

It might be interesting to see a comparison between white painted reflectors vs. metallic colored or mirrored reflectors. I've read that some europeans think white is just as effective as the high tech mirrored ones we prefer.


----------



## teban

HI jeremy (i4x4nmore) I am really impressed with your research regarding PAR values. I would just like to know though, most of the people I talk with compare the efficiency of different type of bulbs (in terms of the light it produces against the consumption) in order to have the best lighting in the cheapest electrical bill. 
Do you have any research comparing different type of light bulbs using their PAR value against electical consumption so that we may also know which type of bulb is best.

Thanks in advance!


----------



## CuLan

Hoppy said:


> That is some really great PAR data for power saver bulbs. I plotted the data on log log paper to see what kind of relationships are there. It looks like the light intensity drops a little faster than if it were just an inverse square drop off. I'm not at all sure why that would be. Also the relationship between intensity and bulb wattage isn't quite linear, with the intensity increasing a bit faster with power than if it were linear. That is understandable because there is more area radiating light with the higher wattage bulbs and less dark area of tube. Also, at equal distances between the light and the sensor, the vertical mounted bulb gives about 55% more intensity than the horizontal mounted bulb. That is probably from less restrike.
> 
> The data also has a lot of practical use for guesstimating how many of what wattage bulbs will give a 100 micromol (for example) intensity at the substrate for any given tank size.
> 
> Thank you very much for doing this.


Hoppy,
Do you mind sharing your log plots? It would greatly helping us to guesstimate our lighting needs. Thanks.


----------



## CuLan

Hilde said:


> I found it at Ace Hardware Store. It cost $9. It is a good source of carbon and iron. You can crush it up and put it under the substrate or just put some in a fabric bag from pet store and push it behind the filter. If you want to crush it you have to let it soak in water for at least 24 hrs, then wrap it in a towel or window plastic and hit it with a hammer etc.. I got the idea from Zer0zaz at APC
> 
> I emptied my aquarium of all but the substrate and dug holes in the substrate for the charcoal. Some floated up after I moved the substrate around. Also I put some in a cotton bag and put it behind the filter, for new plants are struggling to adapt to my non co2 tank. Since I added the Ludwiga has started growing.


Hilde, can you provide the brand of your charcoal @ Ace? It would be a good reference in case I cannot find natural charcoal in my area. Thanks.


----------



## Shiro335

*Hello*

Just want to say THANKS to Jeremy Squires for sharing the great info and taking the time to setup the tests and post the amazing analysis! Finally I found another person thats not stuck on WPG!


----------



## sewingalot

Homer_Simpson said:


> Agreed! This should definitely be a sticky!! Mods???


Granted. roud: Edit: changed title to Hoppy's suggestion. Hope you don't mind, Airsong.


----------



## plantbrain

i4x4nMore said:


> I think even with the meter, you're only getting an approximation of PAR to start with. In the realm of quality spectrometers, the meter I use is a lower quality meter. So why approximate it further than that? If we attempt to do that, we're just back to the same problems associated with using watts-per-gallon as a metric for photosynthetic energy. Too much guessing.


Agreed.
Where the PAR meter really comes in handy is making sure the light is the same over time, and between treatments. It gives a decent standard to compare many different aquariums equally for the most part.

No fancy schmancy equations and spread sheets are going to save folks from all that.



> Or, put another way, you can't get a good approximation of PAR values unless you attempt to duplicate, in every aspect, the setup that produced those PAR values.


Which is pretty much impossible........



> Unlike most, you have an ability to correlate data mathematically to show trends; which allows you to extrapolate the data and make further assumptions so that you can apply it to a different situation. But, I suspect that most of the hobbyists here find that pretty daunting. And ultimately, it pushes them away from what PAR is and why it's better to use when discussing lighting for plants. It doesn't have to be that complicated. In my opinion, the mechanism of a simple meter reading is the only way PAR will ever be embraced by hobbyists, not through log plots and approximation functions.


Ahhh, :thumbsup:
Someone has seen the light.



> Cheers!


Let me add to this thread in the context of how light and CO2 enrichment/Excel can be factored into all this.

By adding a bit more light, say 40-50 to 60-70, now you have a plant that can now allocate more rsources to the CO2 rather than the luight gathering.

If you added CO2 gas, Excel etc, you could use LESS light and the plant would have more rsources to allocate to the gathering of light.

This is counter intuitive to most hobbyists and to the advice I see on line.
Most suggest more light= CO2 gas.

This is true in general, but if you have a PAR meter, you can dial in the light very precisely(well, far more than ANY watt/gal rule) and see the difference say 20 extra micromols makes.

This tank has 40-50 micromols:










Without CO2, the tank would require more light.

At the lower ends of CO2 and light, there is a relationship that allocates the resources, however, the plants and system does need adaption time, this takes a few weeks.

It is expensive enzymatically to jump between high low CO2, takes time to adjust to specific low light(needs to make lots of Chl a, carotenoids etc to catch more of the little available light. So unstable CO2/carbon status plays havoc on Plant growth, does not matter if it's CO2 enriched, or non CO2, or Organic Carbon sources.

Non CO2 tanks are just as resilient when it comes to dosing errors and adding a lot of NO3/PO4, the algae appears for many of the same reasons, but at a much slower rate, unless you mess with the CO2.
Water changes mess with the CO2 in non CO2 planted tanks.
We know it's not nutrients, we can measure and dial in light very accurately.
Not much is left at that point as far as a physical chemical parameter.

CO2 can be tricky for some folks, I've suggested non CO2, but many keep think more is better, more light light is better etc.

In support of what I've said about light and allocation with different CO2 and light intensities: Tropica did this long ago:

http://www.tropica.com/default.asp

You get the most out of light if you use CO2, so the min levels are lower than without CO2 gas. If you use non CO2 methods, then you need a higher light value (not too much there, you are asking for it) to make up for lower CO2 use efficiency.

So low light + CO2, or low light, a tad higher, for non CO2.

The values discussed here seem pretty good and about right.

My various non CO2 tanks did quite well on water column(no one ever tried that, so I wanted to see). It's very easy to do even with plain sand. However, we all know that enriched sediments are a good option, this is true for non CO2 and CO2 enriched systems. So using both methods seems wisest for both methods of Carbon enrichment.

You also have a decent model as far as light intensity now to work with.
So a simple once a week, or even every 2 weeks water column dosing and a rich sediment(ADA AS or MS) will provide excellent results for non CO2.

For CO2, add 3x a week dosing or daily, use the same low light ranges.

Makes keeping aquariums very easy if...........you dial in the light correctly, provide stable CO2/stable nutrient supply.

Too many believe more light is better. HLD.........

I do not think there is much CO2 from the sediments, there is some, but it's not as significant as many make it out to be. All the CO2 MUST come from O2 derived from plant roots and the water column above, so there's only 5-7ppm available and fish etc need some and decomposition rates are rather slow(MS has been mineralized/oxidized already after all..........)

If you have too much decomposition, then you have no O2= dead fish , anaerobic conditions etc, this is very rare, so this is not going to be that significant for a supply, rather, the plants adapt well over time to low CO2.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## CL

plantbrain said:


> By adding a bit more light, say 40-50 to 60-70, now you have a plant that can now allocate more rsources to the CO2 rather than the luight gathering.
> 
> If you added CO2 gas, Excel etc, you could use LESS light and the plant would have more rsources to allocate to the gathering of light.


I get it! So, if a plant has plenty of CO2, it can focus on nutrient and light gathering, while if there is more light, it can focus on nutrient and CO2 gathering and so on. So plenty of CO2 means less light needed.
Very interesting.


----------



## plantbrain

clwatkins10 said:


> I get it! So, if a plant has plenty of CO2, it can focus on nutrient and light gathering, while if there is more light, it can focus on nutrient and CO2 gathering and so on. So plenty of CO2 means less light needed.
> Very interesting.


Yes, when resources for either CO2 or light are low and near limiting........adding a little more allows you to get by with less light, or less CO2.


Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## Hoppy

CuLan said:


> Hoppy,
> Do you mind sharing your log plots? It would greatly helping us to guesstimate our lighting needs. Thanks.


If I can find them I will share them, but as I recall, I did this on paper, not on the computer. Now that I know more about PAR vs various lights, I might go back and revisit the data to see if useful plots could be made of them. Just keep in mind that the data was taken with the bulbs in polished metal reflectors, which would increase the amount of light from the bulbs that reaches the tank. Just pointing a bulb down at the tank, with only a flat surface reflector behind it isn't likely to give as high a PAR reading.

Of course it is unlikely that any of us will ever be able to come up with a handy chart that gives exactly the light intensity you will get from whatever light fixture/ bulbs you want to use. But, we all face the same problem when we first set up a tank - what lights to use. For years we "solved" that problem by just multiplying the gallons of water in the tank by 2 or 3 and used that as the needed wattage. That just doesn't work, and probably never really did work.

My goal is to find a different, and much more reliable way to solve that problem. I think I am close to doing so for T5HO lights, but not yet there. And, this data is good for getting close to doing so for screw-in power saver bulbs. Personally I like being able to get close to an answer and not just having to guess at it, or rely on finding someone with very much what I want so I can copy what they did.


----------



## Hoppy

The first chart shows the effect of having the bulb vertical, in a "flood light" type reflector, so that for a 23 watt bulb you can get a good idea about how much PAR you will have at a given distance from the reflector.










The second chart shows the effect of bulb wattage, distance from the reflector, and vertical vs horizontal bulbs. For the three sizes of bulbs shown you can get a good idea about how much PAR you will have at a given distance from the reflector, when the bulb is either horizontal (in a desk lamp type reflector) or vertical (in a flood light type reflector).

















The PAR numbers shown are what you should get directly under the bulb, and the PAR will drop off as you move away from being directly under the bulb, except that some light will be reflected from the front and back glass to increase the PAR close to the glass. To get good uniformity of light along the whole length of the tank you would need more than one bulb for any but cube type tanks.


----------



## CuLan

Much thanks, Hoppy. You are always very helpful.


----------



## djbrist

Oh Man! Thank you to all who are supplying such exhaustive FREE information to a "toddler" of a hobbiest. 

My Best, Dave


----------



## hoa101

*Hoppy:*

Based on your graph if umol/m^2/s in your post here, am I correct that a single T5HO bulb at about 20 inches from the substrate would be sufficient for my 36" long, 16" tall tank? I have some HC I want to grow up there, which is probably the most demanding species. I tried it, and it just looks so different and dim. Maybe you have to get used to it.

Since the front-to-back distance is only about 12", the light distribution shouldn't be terrible. My reflectors are the cheapo type, though - the NOVA fixture has bent "parabolic" rather than an actual parabola. So that is a minus.

Do you guys think I'm better off running both my bulbs and raising the fixture to something like 24" or running one (or two??) at about 20"?

I am looking for rough estimates here, based on your experience. Thanks a ton. I am an open book here... I don't want to buy into the wpg hype that is so rampant.

Oh, and for reference, I am running pressurized C02 as high as my fish seem okay with (Amano-style) and doing a modified EI dosing schedule to (hopefully) not limit any type of nutrients my plants would need.


----------



## Hoppy

There are some compelling benefits to using a two bulb or more fixture and suspending that fixture higher over the tank. For one thing, that just about guarantees good uniformity of light all over the substrate. But, even better, it greatly reduces the variation of intensity from substrate level to water surface. And, it allows you to always be able to increase the intensity if you find a good reason to do so. Last, but not least, it gives you more room between the light and the top of the tank to make routine maintenance easier.

About the only disadvantages I see are the extra light spill over on the floor, and the greater power usage. I'm assuming cost of the fixture isn't an issue.


----------



## hoa101

Thanks for the response, Hoppy. I figured you would say that actually. I managed to rig up something using 2x4s that would "extend" my legs about 7-8 inches higher than their default length. It is extremely ugly, but hanging something from the ceiling in my apartment here isn't practical at the moment.

I am very excited to see the results! (or in the case of algae, _not_ see)

Edit: I have some initial results after two full photoperiods. It looks like the stemmed plants are straightening themselves out in an attempt to "reach" for the light. Before they were sortof happy to be bowed over, etc. Using 10 hour photoperiod for now.


----------



## Harry Muscle

Thought I should share this ...

Since I don't have the money to afford a PAR meter I did a bit of searching to figure out if there's some cheaper way (and most likely somewhat less accurate way) to figure out PAR readings using a cheaper lux or foot candle meter. Turns out there is. If you can get your hands on a foot candle meter (which is very cheap, ie: $20), here's what you do:

To convert foot candles to lux, multiply the foot candles by 10.764. Then to "roughly" convert from lux to PAR, you need to multiple by one of the following numbers that most closely matches what kind of lighting you are using:

Metal Halide Lamps
AB 150w 6,800 K- 0.02000
Coralife 175w 10,000K - 0.02128
Coralife 175w 20,000K - 0.02128
Coralife 250w 10,000K - 0.01887
Coralife 400w 10,000K - 0.02041
Hamilton 175w "True 10K" - 0.01852
Iwasaki 400w "Daylight" - 0.01754 (using CWA ballast)
Osram 150w 5,600K PowerStar - 0.01818
Radium 400w "Blue" - 0.02083

Fluorescent Lamps
Hamilton Compact Fluorescents (4x55w, 2 Daylight / 2 Actinic Combo)
0.02000
Sylvania PowerCompacts (4x96w, 2 daylight/ 2 actinic combination)
0.01852
URI VHO Fluorescent Lamps (4x110w, 2 daylight / 2 actinic combination)
0.02083

Sun - 0.01812
Incandescent lamp - 0.02041
Cool white - 0.01269
Vita-Lite - 0.01592
Gro-Lux - 0.02702
Gro-Lux Wide Spectrum - 0.01815
HPS - 0.01200
MH Lamp - 0.01342

As you can see there's some decent amount of variation between different light technologies and how much PAR they produce based on their lumen output (or lux which is lumen per area). So obviously this method will give us only a rough estimate of PAR values.

What would make it more accurate though is if people with PAR and lux meters would add to this list of values so that we have more light bulb choices to choose from with exact conversation values.

Hope this helps someone,
Harry

P.S. My sources of info for this were primarily from: http://www.thekrib.com/Plants/Tech/par-moles.html and wikipedia.


----------



## Hoppy

I can't say whether or not those conversion factors are accurate, but I can say that we will never know the light intensity with any more accuracy than about +/- 10-20%. And, that is being generous. So, assuming those numbers are correct, you can just divide the lux by 50 to get PAR (micromols per square meter per second), no matter what type of lighting you are using.

Always remember that a PAR or lux number has to be associated with a distance from the light, because all light intensity from all sources drops with the square of the distance from the source. This means you can't specify a light as a 100 lux light, for example. It could only be a 100 lux at 10 feet light, which would be a 316 lux at 1 foot light. This also means that you can't accurately say that your tank is lighted at 100 PAR unless you say at what level in the tank that 100 is measured - substrate level, mid tank level, water surface level, substrate at the front glass level, etc.


----------



## mmelnick

Does anyone have any more info on this natural charcoal? Is that just plain old coal?

I can get a few handfuls of coal from a mine near my house. And is that something that I should look into when settung up my tank?


----------



## mmelnick

Bump. Any input on this ^^^

I'm just curious hare.


----------



## Hoppy

The question is so far off subject I doubt that anyone is sure what the question refers to. Can you elaborate a bit?


----------



## lake_tuna

i4x4nMore said:


> In my non-CO2 tank with an average of 60-80 umols/m2/sec, I never change the water, I dose nitrates-phosphates-traces each twice a week, I have a soil substrate, and I don't have algae buildup anywhere in the tank.


I'd like to get some clarification regarding the complete lack of water changes. Is there anything living in that tank? How large is the tank?


----------



## comatoast

Hearing only crickets in answer to this I posted on a thread in this section. Only slightly off topic:

_While I realize that the human eye isn't a reliable instrument for measuring light intensity at the substrate level (or anyplace else, for that matter), I just replaced two reasonably new Aquatic Life T5HO bulbs (one roseate, one 6700K) with two Giesemann bulbs (one aquaflora, one midday), and the difference is remarkable. So much so, that it makes me wonder if there isn't a very measurable difference between the two. Has anyone tested different manufacturer's bulbs, or know of any like studies with the expensive equipment to verify (or discount) my suspicions?_


----------



## zan1132

Does anybody know where to get a hanging fixture similar to the one posted earlier in this thread?


----------



## Hoppy

comatoast said:


> Hearing only crickets in answer to this I posted on a thread in this section. Only slightly off topic:
> 
> _While I realize that the human eye isn't a reliable instrument for measuring light intensity at the substrate level (or anyplace else, for that matter), I just replaced two reasonably new Aquatic Life T5HO bulbs (one roseate, one 6700K) with two Giesemann bulbs (one aquaflora, one midday), and the difference is remarkable. So much so, that it makes me wonder if there isn't a very measurable difference between the two. Has anyone tested different manufacturer's bulbs, or know of any like studies with the expensive equipment to verify (or discount) my suspicions?_


Our eyes see in LUX units, while the plants "see" in PAR units. Much of the light the plants "see" is nearly invisible to us. So, bulbs can be great for plants, but seem dim to us. And, our eyes/brain automatically adjust light intensity and color to look like it is supposed to look, making it even harder to use our eyes to judge brightness.

It is hard enough to get good PAR data on a specific type of light, T5 for example, for different reflectors and fixtures, but trying to do that and differentiate between different manufacturers bulbs would be a job that would have to be done by someone else, someone with access to many different manufacturers bulbs, both new and after several months of use.


----------



## Hoppy

zan1132 said:


> Does anybody know where to get a hanging fixture similar to the one posted earlier in this thread?


Cheap "work lights" from Home Depot are hanging fixtures like that, when you remove the clamp from them, an easy job.


----------



## zan1132

Sweet. I was hoping for something like that.

Thanks Hoppy.


----------



## RickRS

I'm collecting stuff for a 20 gal long I have; going with two clamp lights, and spiral CFL in a DIY fixture. Setup will be some time in the future: prepping MTS and the the high humidity and cool weather of a Florida Panhandle winter and my inattention to the task is making it a slow process. 

The Eco brand 23 watt daylight CFL at Home Depot are 5000K temp. Any idea if 6700K CFL are available in stores? Brands? 

This is just a cheap replacement for a ancient single 24" T12 black plastic hood that's rusted out, so the Eco 23 watt twin pack for ~$8 is the current bulb of choice.


----------



## Racine Vice

Daylight CFL's are available in stores. Walmart always has them, they are GE brand, either 6500K or 6700K. I have also periodically seen some at Menards, various brands.


----------



## RickRS

Was back at Lowes today; their Bright Effects brand CFL Daylight was listed as 6700k, so that's one. Lots of CFL packages don't list the light temperature, so I'm slowly finding what I can. Like at Home Depot, the EcoSmart brand has CFL light temperature, but the Philip brand doesn't say, just Warm, Cool, Daylight.


----------



## HolyAngel

RickRS said:


> Was back at Lowes today; their Bright Effects brand CFL Daylight was listed as 6700k, so that's one. Lots of CFL packages don't list the light temperature, so I'm slowly finding what I can. Like at Home Depot, the EcoSmart brand has CFL light temperature, but the Philip brand doesn't say, just Warm, Cool, Daylight.


Yeah Phillip brand is pretty standardized with their bulbs.
Warm ~ 3300k
Cool ~ 8000k
Daylight ~ 6500k
Most of the time that's roughly what the terms mean


----------



## thelastlife

does anyone have an idea of what the PAR reading for a LED light would be at a depth of 18 inches, with 3 inches of space from light to water?


----------



## Hoppy

thelastlife said:


> does anyone have an idea of what the PAR reading for a LED light would be at a depth of 18 inches, with 3 inches of space from light to water?


A "LED" light doesn't define any specific light. There are bulbs made with LEDs, strips of LEDs, panels of LEDs, aquarium specific LED lights, DIY LED lights, etc. And, those can be with 5 mm LEDs, one watt LEDs, 3 watt LEDs, etc. An LED light can be designed to give just about any PAR at any distance that you want.


----------



## cervantesmx

lake_tuna said:


> I'd like to get some clarification regarding the complete lack of water changes. Is there anything living in that tank? How large is the tank?


Yea, if anybody can answer this it would be very appreciated. How do you get away without doing water changes?


----------



## PaulG

Rather than start a new thread.

I'm trying to get low light over my 6 gallon tank, using one 27w cfl bulb on it's side. Does that sound about right? I've tried following the guide posted in this thread, but as my tank is bigger....


----------



## wheatiesl337

I am currently running a 29gal tank as my first tank (seemed like a good beginner size, but wish I had gotten something in a wider style rather than tall).

I've been getting some great growth running CFLs with a temporary set-up. I was considering building a more permanent fixture using an AH reflector and t5ho bulb. After going through this thread more extensively, I am wondering if I can do something just as effective and cheaper with CFL's and the shop hoods (I already have at least 1 shop hood not being used).

I have a few questions if anyone could offer some input. I am considering building a frame of some sort that the hoods will hang from and allow me to adjust heights. For a 29 gal, about 30 inches long, should 2 bulbs be enough, or should I aim for 3?

Also, I noticed the par readings for the CFLs with hoods were taken with about 7.3 inches of water. I am looking at 14-15 inches of water. One of the PAR readings was recorded 11 inches above the water, for about 18 inches total. This put the par at a good low-light range. How much, if at all, does water reduce PAR? Does this indicate I might need to look for more powerful bulbs if I want much height to work with above the tank?

Thanks in advance for any advice. If it seems like this will work, I will document and post details about the project.


----------



## extrame

HolyAngel said:


> Yeah Phillip brand is pretty standardized with their bulbs.
> Warm ~ 3300k
> Cool ~ 8000k
> Daylight ~ 6500k
> Most of the time that's roughly what the terms mean


hello sir,
what about this CFL from Philips? 
http://www.philips.com.ph/c/energy-...D08EAE505B98ADD3.app101-drp3?t=specifications
what does it mean when it says 18W = 100W?
does that mean i could use this kind of light in a bigger tank?
thanks


----------



## kevmo911

Anybody know (or have an educated guess) as to whether the smaller-diameter Sylvania "micro" CFL bulbs would produce more or less PAR than a normal-sized spiral CFL, given the same wattage and same size brooder lamp-style reflector?

Similarly, I've seen the brooder lamp reflectors come in 2 sizes - something like 8 1/2" and 10". Any ideas on the differences regarding intensity or spread?


----------



## Hoppy

I can't see any way that the smaller spiral CFL bulbs could give less light than normal sized ones. If anything, the smaller size should make reflectors more effective, and reduce restrike problems. But, I don't have any comparative data to back that up. As far as reflector size is concerned, I think the larger reflector spreads the same total lumens out over a larger area, so the PAR should be lower, but over a larger area with the bigger reflector. You can do a mental experiment to "verify" this - just imagine the same bulb in a 10 foot diameter reflector. Clearly, for that case, the PAR would be much less.


----------



## ReluctantHippy

Amazing lighting comparisons 4x4! Some of the most helpful info I've found so far. Thanks so much!

Regarding the CFL position. I don't believe that restrike is the cause of the lower PAR but instead the designed directionality of the bulb. 

CFLs are designed to cast directionally downwards - when placed horizontally (especially with a short reflector like in the experiment) more than half of the light is reflected versus when posited vertically where only the tail end is reflected. 

Here is GE's 23w CFL's cast pattern:










If you notice almost all light starts from the bulbs ballast area and is emitted forward and outward from that point. 

If the bulb is hung vertically most of the forward cast light never needs to be reflected with only small bits of the side cast light hitting the reflector. 










If you placed the bulb horizontally more than half of the direct light is hitting a reflector and with a short nosed reflector like the one used in the tests about half of the forward facing light is reflected directly back at the bulb.










Size of reflector alone can make huge differences. I tested the lux of a 10" clamp on light versus the 8 or 8 1/2 inch reflector and the difference was huge. Kind of like the 3x brighter T5 fixture in Hoppys chart.

I've found that when mounting CFLs horizontally you want a much more obtuse angle for the reflectors versus mounting then vertically.


----------



## kamikazi

sooo...Which reflector will get the most out of household CFL bulbs?
http://www.lowes.com/pd_203198-1373...4984_10_?Ns=p_product_price|0&facetInfo=Bayco
or
http://www.lowes.com/pd_203213-1373...4984_10_?Ns=p_product_price|0&facetInfo=Bayco
or
http://www.lowes.com/pd_203216-1373...4984_10_?Ns=p_product_price|0&facetInfo=Bayco
or
http://www.lowes.com/pd_203219-1373...4984_10_?Ns=p_product_price|0&facetInfo=Bayco


----------



## Hoppy

The first one will probably give you the highest PAR, but the larger ones will give you good PAR over a bigger area. And, it is possible that the differences are small, too. The ones I used were about 8 inches in diameter, as I recall, and they easily covered a 12 inch front to back tank - both a 10 gallon and a 15H.


----------



## kamikazi

Hoppy said:


> The first one will probably give you the highest PAR, but the larger ones will give you good PAR over a bigger area. And, it is possible that the differences are small, too. The ones I used were about 8 inches in diameter, as I recall, and they easily covered a 12 inch front to back tank - both a 10 gallon and a 15H.



I have 3 of the first ones clipped onto the back of a 40 that is 36x15x16 and the bulbs are about 3.5 inches above the water surface. 3 inches of substrate.

23 watts on either end and and a 13 watt in the middle.


----------



## WingoAgency

thelastlife said:


> does anyone have an idea of what the PAR reading for a LED light would be at a depth of 18 inches, with 3 inches of space from light to water?


This chart may help you. The LED in this chart is a PAR38 60 degree lens 6,700K 15x1W


----------



## WingoAgency

kamikazi said:


> sooo...Which reflector will get the most out of household CFL bulbs?
> http://www.lowes.com/pd_203198-1373...4984_10_?Ns=p_product_price|0&facetInfo=Bayco
> or
> http://www.lowes.com/pd_203213-1373...4984_10_?Ns=p_product_price|0&facetInfo=Bayco
> or
> http://www.lowes.com/pd_203216-1373...4984_10_?Ns=p_product_price|0&facetInfo=Bayco
> or
> http://www.lowes.com/pd_203219-1373...4984_10_?Ns=p_product_price|0&facetInfo=Bayco


There is no way to tell from the pic! To determine the reflective ability depends on two major things: first, the curvature of the reflector and second, the material surface finishing.


----------



## wGEric

In i4x4nMore 2nd slide are those par ratings accurate? Reason I ask is Hoppy's charts indicate that 25-55 is low light, 55-80 is medium and 80-120 is high which is a lot lower than what is in the slide.


----------



## forddna

Hi guys. I'm done with high light and want to go back to lower light. I am debating between a DIY CFL and going back to AH Supply PCs. The problem with the PCs is that I'm doing this with a corner tank, so getting even coverage is hard with long strips rather than smaller, round bulbs..

So. My tank is 22" tall, approx 19" substrate to top of water, and another I think several inches to the top/inside of canopy.

I just want to grow crypts, easy swords, bacopa c, anubias, etc. I want a plant it and leave it tank again. Do you guys think I can get enough PAR for a tank this tall from CFL spiral bulbs?


----------



## Hoppy

If the bulbs are mounted vertically, in good reflectors, like http://www.homedepot.com/h_d1/N-5yc...splay?langId=-1&storeId=10051&catalogId=10053 you can get about 40 micromols of PAR with 23-25 watt CFL bulbs. It takes an unusual light hood to hide these, but it works very well, and by changing bulb wattages you can change the light intensity easily.

Here is another way to use these: http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/lighting/153195-my-inexpensive-cfl-light-solution.html


----------



## forddna

I'm not sure I can get a reflector like either of those in there. What kind of par do you think I could expect if I used no reflector at all? I do have aluminum foil tacked to the insides of the canopy..if that makes any difference at all..I mostly did it to try to make the tank look less dim, not for PAR. 

Like I said..just weighing my options. AH Supply pc's were good in this tank before, and I had similar reflectors and bulbs in my old 120g with results I was happy with. But I'm super curious about CFLS, especially with the unique shape of a corner tank.


----------



## Gold Finger

I have seen a post somewhere in TPT where a guru said not to use CFL's over 27 watts, but never said why. I would like to mount three CFL's in those nice, cheap, ugly 8" diameter Home Despot metallic vertical reflectors but need over 27 watt bulbs to get where I want to be over my 70 gallon tank (low/medium light). Why should I not use higher wattage bulbs?


----------



## Hoppy

forddna said:


> I'm not sure I can get a reflector like either of those in there. What kind of par do you think I could expect if I used no reflector at all? I do have aluminum foil tacked to the insides of the canopy..if that makes any difference at all..I mostly did it to try to make the tank look less dim, not for PAR.
> 
> Like I said..just weighing my options. AH Supply pc's were good in this tank before, and I had similar reflectors and bulbs in my old 120g with results I was happy with. But I'm super curious about CFLS, especially with the unique shape of a corner tank.


I don't know how much light you get from those bulbs, mounted vertically, but without reflectors. My guess is that you get less than half what you get with the reflectors. Since this is a planted tank forum, advice here is almost always related to what the plants need. "Less dim" is only about what you perceive in looking at the tank. Depending on what you are expecting to see, that could be any light intensity.


----------



## forddna

Yes, like I said, the inside of my canopy is dark colored, so I added tinfoil to make it less dim looking. I don't expect it to actually reflect light to the plants. It's for aesthetics only.  But if it does help, bonus.


----------



## junko

If one were to go with CFL floodlights, would reflectors still be necessary/helpful? My thinking is that the reflector is sort of "built in" to these.


----------



## Hoppy

Someone needs to do some PAR meter testing of those CFL floodlight bulbs before we can know what PAR they give vs distance. Or, if someone has a burned out bulb, they could carefully disassemble it to see what the reflector is like.


----------



## herns

This is the second most helpful thread I have read after the Victor CO2 regulator by Left C.

I'm glad this was made sticky. I have printed hard copies for easy reading.
Thanks Jeremy!


----------



## joekidwell

Hoppy said:


> Someone needs to do some PAR meter testing of those CFL floodlight bulbs before we can know what PAR they give vs distance. Or, if someone has a burned out bulb, they could carefully disassemble it to see what the reflector is like.


I bought a 26 watt cfl flood light, it looks like its just silver paint on the inside of the glass globe around the cfl...without opening it up that's my best guess. Their pretty bright, it over powers my t5s when right on the surface.


----------



## joekidwell

joekidwell said:


> I bought a 26 watt cfl flood light, it looks like its just silver paint on the inside of the glass globe around the cfl...without opening it up that's my best guess. Their pretty bright, it over powers my t5s when right on the surface.


UPDATE: the cfl flood light has turned my ludwigia ruben blood red once again and the rotala rotundifolia beside it has stopped growing up and is now growing sideways at a 90 degree angel, im gonna have to fix that....appears to still be pretty bright 18" below at the substrate.


----------



## binxer

I have a couple questions about the work done by i4x4nMore earlier in this thread. These are not judgmental questions, as I believe he knows exactly what he's talking about from the pictures of his tanks.

1) In the follow up thread where he measures and compares PAR for different scenarios, his 2nd picture shows what PAR corresponds to what light intensity for plants. How do we know that 40-70 is equivalent to low light? Based on this article the PAR for low light is 20-30. Which one should I be aiming for? 

2) I thought the best temperature range for plants was approximately 6500K. His results not only shows that 3200K is essentially equivalent, it actually has a PAR that's slightly higher! Is everybody being told the wrong information? 

Again, I'm not trying to troll here, these are just questions I would like answered honestly. I'm trying to research and used these methods to light my 29 gallon tank with CFLs and I guess I'm getting confused. If the lights are raised about 20" off the substrate, it's looking light I should probably be using around 25W CFLs. Is this correct?


----------



## Hoppy

There really is no hard definition of "low light", so people use a different PAR number for it, and as we all learn more, we tend to adjust our thinking accordingly. Today I think "low light" is around 20-30 micromols of PAR. I view "low light" as that which is very near the minimum you can use and still expect to grow several types of plants. Others may have a different idea about what "low light" is.

Plants need light between 400 and 700 nanometers wave length. That is the range of light that is photosynthetically active radiation or PAR. So, if you have enough PAR you have enough, what ever the color temperature rating of the light bulb is. But, most of us find that bulbs labeled as 6500K make the tank look better than other bulbs.

If you want to achieve 30 micromols of PAR with the bulbs horizontally mounted, you probably will need 40 watt (real wattage, not equivalent wattage) bulbs. But, if they are vertical and in good reflectors about half of that is all you need.


----------



## binxer

Hoppy said:


> There really is no hard definition of "low light", so people use a different PAR number for it, and as we all learn more, we tend to adjust our thinking accordingly. Today I think "low light" is around 20-30 micromols of PAR. I view "low light" as that which is very near the minimum you can use and still expect to grow several types of plants. Others may have a different idea about what "low light" is.
> 
> Plants need light between 400 and 700 nanometers wave length. That is the range of light that is photosynthetically active radiation or PAR. So, if you have enough PAR you have enough, what ever the color temperature rating of the light bulb is. But, most of us find that bulbs labeled as 6500K make the tank look better than other bulbs.
> 
> If you want to achieve 30 micromols of PAR with the bulbs horizontally mounted, you probably will need 40 watt (real wattage, not equivalent wattage) bulbs. But, if they are vertical and in good reflectors about half of that is all you need.


Thanks for the information Hoppy. Are you saying 30 micromols of PAR if the lighting is at the level of the top of the tank? From what I understand, if you increase the distance (raise up the lights) the PAR decreases.


----------



## Robert H

BTW, the article you linked to, was written by Hoppy, so you are asking the right person!


----------



## Hoppy

binxer said:


> Thanks for the information Hoppy. Are you saying 30 micromols of PAR if the lighting is at the level of the top of the tank? From what I understand, if you increase the distance (raise up the lights) the PAR decreases.


No, I always mean the PAR at the substrate level in the tank. That is the place where all plants start their lives, and that is when they need the light the most. Almost all tanks have high light at the water surface, even with low light at the substrate.



Robert H said:


> BTW, the article you linked to, was written by Hoppy, so you are asking the right person!


No, I didn't start that thread, nor was I the one to discover that CFL bulbs work much better when they are vertically mounted. The original work and data came from i4x4nMore and I consider it to have been a breakthrough discovery.


----------



## SNAKEMANVET

I just added a 15 watt 6500k in a 5 1/2'' clamp light to my 2.5 gallon.I haven't added any substrate or water yet,but the bulb will be approx 4'' from water surface. I really like the color and seems pretty bright.


----------



## forddna

I just shut my T5HO's and HQI off a few weeks ago and threw a couple of NOFL strip lights over the tank about one week ago. One is approx 25w and one is even less than that. My tank is 22" high and the strips are sitting on the trim. I started seeing new grown on my Crypts immediately.

Hope this helps someone wanting to know about minimum wattage. Again, these are normal output cheap old crappy strip lights like this:


----------



## forddna

BTW, these were just a temporary means of lighting the tank, just so I could see my fish. I did not expect them to grow plants.

This really has me fired up to pull the trigger on a 3 bulb CFL setup in a triangle shape over my corner tank!


----------



## GxneFishing

Forddna, I myself have a 36gal Bowfront corner tank. Im currently working on a lighting system to get rid of the stock 2lamp 15w T8 hood light. This lighting thing is really tricky. Your previous post says you did away with your t5ho lights? and went back to the stock hood? http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/diy/163470-diy-cfl-light-fixture.html I built this 
for my 20gal high. It works great on the 20 gal and it seems the spill off is minimal, resting on the aquarium glass hood. well great in the algae growing dept. My plants seem to like it as well. 
I took this fixture across the living room to my 36 and set it on top, replacing the 2 outside lamps (13w 6500k). With 2 23w 6500k lamps. moving this fixture around on the top glass of the 36 I can see that it has a narrow pattern sliding it on diffrent angels lights diffrent portions of the tank better. 
Im in the process of building a stainless box for the top of the 36 24"x11"x7" high. That way I can mount a few cfl's horizontally and hopefully the stainless will make a decent reflector surface. Do you have any pictures of the hood you created? whats the reason you did away with it? 
If anyone else has input on the subject im all ears. Im still in the learning process of this planted tanks. Wasserpests seems to be the the only other corner tank ive seen on the forum.


----------



## mike1v

Gxnefishing, if you can I think it would be best if you could angle the sides of your next box, that would direct the light form the sides of the bulb down at angles, the one you built I believe would produce a lot of restrike.


----------



## Hoppy

The ideal angle for the sides is like \_/, perhaps with the angles a bit farther from 90 degrees. You can always determine the best angle by looking up at the bulb to see if you see an image of the bulb on each side of it. Each image is like another bulb lighting the tank. This is more effective if the bulbs run the length of the housing and not at right angles to the length. 

It also isn't very hard to use thin aluminum, like sold for flashing, to make individual bulb reflectors shaped like that. I know those double the light output of each bulb.


----------



## GxneFishing

Thanks guys, I have got the reflector material on hand just have to bend it and mount it. Ill keep you al posted on how this goes. I also built a hood for my 36 corner bowfront. I built a square stainless box 24l x11w x7" high. Big enough to house 23w CFL spirals mounted verticle. Does anyone have an idea of a verticle refletor for cfl's? or isnt this necessary since they were designed to be run verticle? It sounded like a good idea until I built the box in the shop. Now im scratching my head asking myself why did I just build this big ugly thing it wont work...


----------



## Ozydego

Utility light reflectors or depending on how close you grouped the lights, triangle stock at the base of the lights in a square pattern... it would be tough to get anything round, so square is the next best... or if you have enough lights, no reflectors necessary


----------



## bigd603

I am really interested to see how this could work on a larger tank. Im considering using CFL's on a 30gal tank (not 29gal, i don't like how tall they are) with some of the shop type lamps shown earlier in this thread. Do you think a few CFLs could provide sufficient light, or would i be better of getting T5HOs? If the cfls are fine, why whould anyone spend the extra money on expensive t5 units?


----------



## Ozydego

smaller footprint, more consistent light... looks cleaner than clamp lights... but if covered by a hood... not that much difference, light is light....


----------



## Mike Hawk

could someone tell me the wattage i need on a 10 gallon, lights are Horizontal, 3 inches from the surface, 10 inches of water to the substrate. I'm using aluminum duck tape as a reflector. I want high light to grow Hc and some other high light plants i picked up yesterday at my LFS.


----------



## Mongerman

Hi guys, thanks for the research. Was wondering if you have carried out experiments on u shaped CFLs, or are the results similar?


----------



## Hoppy

Mongerman said:


> Hi guys, thanks for the research. Was wondering if you have carried out experiments on u shaped CFLs, or are the results similar?


I haven't seen any PAR measurements with those U shaped CFL bulbs. I suspect the results would be similar for horizontal bulbs, but possibly not for vertical bulbs.


----------



## Cochepaille

Hello all,

I'm new to planted tanks, and I've been getting quite a bit of help on planning my tank in the general forum, but I have a question about CFL application.

I'll be getting a 100-150 gallon tank soon, and I've decided to build my own hood. This gives me the luxury of creating my own light fixtures. I plan on installing 6 circular reflectors, all evenly spaced along the top of the tank; however, I would like to set up the reflectors at the proper height and wattage.

So, let's say I go with the most powerful bulbs for the money, 6x 23W (100W equivalent), 5,000K CFL's... if I'm going for medium lighting (what I understand to be 50-100 PAR), about how far should i put the fixtures away from the top of the tank if the tank is 20" tall?

I already waded through the hundred or so posts here and couldn't find an answer, so I'm hoping someone can help me out. Thanks in advance!


----------



## youknowho

Take a look at this PAR data for spiral CFLs thread (Hoppy posted very helpful graphs 2/3 down the page) for distance/PAR values.


----------



## Cochepaille

Thanks... I must have overlooked that post!


----------



## nosebleed

I have a 17" high tank and planning to hang the hood 6" above the tank. I'm using two cfls diy hood and mounted it horizontal. What wattage should I be using for med light? It seem like two 20 watt is not enough from that height.


----------



## Hoppy

nosebleed said:


> I have a 17" high tank and planning to hang the hood 6" above the tank. I'm using two cfls diy hood and mounted it horizontal. What wattage should I be using for med light? It seem like two 20 watt is not enough from that height.


Practically speaking, you can't get there from here! The bulbs would be about 20-21" from the substrate, and being in a row, the bulbs wouldn't add their light output together. Each bulb would be lighting about half the tank. It would take something like 55 watt CFL bulbs, which would be large in diameter, and probably not fit in the hood. Put it right on top of the tank and maybe 25 watt bulbs would do it, if they have good reflectors. Vertically mounted bulbs are the best way to do this.


----------



## PattyCakes81

I have a 20H gallon tank. So that makes it 16" high. My fixture as 3 bulbs horizontally in a row. 

It will be placed directly on the glass canopy.

How many watts does each bulb need to be in order to grow plants like: anubias, java fern, Java moss, Vals and maybe water sprite?

The water level is going to be up to the bottom of the black frame thingy.


----------



## Hoppy

PattyCakes81 said:


> I have a 20H gallon tank. So that makes it 16" high. My fixture as 3 bulbs horizontally in a row.
> 
> It will be placed directly on the glass canopy.
> 
> How many watts does each bulb need to be in order to grow plants like: anubias, java fern, Java moss, Vals and maybe water sprite?
> 
> The water level is going to be up to the bottom of the black frame thingy.


14 to 19 watt bulbs will give you 20-30 micromols of PAR, which is low light, good enough for those plants. With DIY CO2 the plants will grow faster and better.


----------



## PattyCakes81

Hoppy said:


> 14 to 19 watt bulbs will give you 20-30 micromols of PAR, which is low light, good enough for those plants. With DIY CO2 the plants will grow faster and better.


 Thank you Hoppy for the speedy response. It is greatly appreciated! Now to get some bulbs.


----------



## nosebleed

Hoppy said:


> Practically speaking, you can't get there from here! The bulbs would be about 20-21" from the substrate, and being in a row, the bulbs wouldn't add their light output together. Each bulb would be lighting about half the tank. It would take something like 55 watt CFL bulbs, which would be large in diameter, and probably not fit in the hood. Put it right on top of the tank and maybe 25 watt bulbs would do it, if they have good reflectors. Vertically mounted bulbs are the best way to do this.


If I added two extra bulb totally 4 and staying with in 15-20 watt per bulb would that approve the par?


----------



## Hoppy

nosebleed said:


> If I added two extra bulb totally 4 and staying with in 15-20 watt per bulb would that approve the par?


To get more PAR by using extra bulbs, the light from the bulbs has to be overlapping a lot. Of course that is possible to do and do very well. But a standard incandescent light hood with CFL bulbs installed doesn't do that at all. If you DIY your own light fixture you can do whatever you want - bulbs running from front to back with many side by side bulbs across the length of the tank, for example. Or, two rows of bulbs, or 3 rows, etc.


----------



## nosebleed

Hoppy said:


> To get more PAR by using extra bulbs, the light from the bulbs has to be overlapping a lot. Of course that is possible to do and do very well. But a standard incandescent light hood with CFL bulbs installed doesn't do that at all. If you DIY your own light fixture you can do whatever you want - bulbs running from front to back with many side by side bulbs across the length of the tank, for example. Or, two rows of bulbs, or 3 rows, etc.


Thanks for the info.


----------



## PhilZ

Hello, I need some help with this.
I cannot get this lighting right. I have a 12 gallon Biocube that i converted to freshwater. It is med planted and want it densely planted. The tank measurements are L14x W14x H13. The light is 13 inches from the gravel. I cannot adjust the heights because of the hood. I am using one stock coralife PC 10000k 24watt and think that is med light? Some plants like HC is not doing great. I added Tensor 27watt 6400K full spectrum compact fluorescent and in three days running both I noticed algea growing so I think I had too much light but the plants looked better. I also bought Sun Blaster 6400K 13W compact fluorescent full spectrum light so I am thinking i should replace the 27watt with the 13 watt. :confused1:


----------



## DogFish

i4x4nMore said:


> *
> Diagram6 - Reflector & Orientation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> .
> .
> 
> *


*

This alone was worth visiting this thread. Thank you very much for posting this info.*


----------



## m00se

Bump to renew awareness of this thread (which I think should be a sticky)


----------



## Hoppy

m00se said:


> Bump to renew awareness of this thread (which I think should be a sticky)


It is a sticky, but the way sticky's are shown has changed. Now, most forums have a single first thread that contains just a listing of sticky threads. The one here shows:


----------



## m00se

Oh, thanks for pointing that out to me Hoppy!

Cheers


----------



## Requality

Has anyone used those 40 watt CFL bulbs?


----------



## gregor

Hey all, first post.

What do you guys/gals think of (4) 26w 6500k spiral CFLs in brooder lamps above a 60 gallon tank? Will be sitting directly on a glass top. Looking for low-ish light. Will be using Excel.

The tank is ~24" tall, 48" wide.

I know it won't be exact, just looking for anecdotal information here from someone with a similar setup.

Thanks!


----------



## m00se

gregor said:


> Hey all, first post.
> 
> What do you guys/gals think of (4) 26w 6500k spiral CFLs in brooder lamps above a 60 gallon tank? Will be sitting directly on a glass top. Looking for low-ish light. Will be using Excel.
> 
> The tank is ~24" tall, 48" wide.
> 
> I know it won't be exact, just looking for anecdotal information here from someone with a similar setup.
> 
> Thanks!


Check this thread for more ideas too:

http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/lighting/153195-my-inexpensive-cfl-light-solution.html


----------



## gregor

m00se said:


> Check this thread for more ideas too:
> 
> http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/lighting/153195-my-inexpensive-cfl-light-solution.html


That's exactly where I got the idea actually.  It's low rent, but I don't mind. My concern is penetrating the 22" (after substrate). 

I see you recommend here:



m00se said:


> Clamp lamps will work just fine on a 55. I think 4 would be ideal, since a 55 is 48" long and you can get 10" clamp lamps. I would *strongly* suggest you start with 13w CFLs rather than 23w because your aquarium will be new and you will struggle with the various algaes that pop up. 13w will be more than ample for your needs. I can't emphasize this enough. The #1 mistake people make is over-driving with light.



...that the guy with the 55g should start with the 13w bulbs instead of the 23w, which seems like sound advice. But I wonder, would you recommend that for me given I need to penetrate roughly 3 more inches of water than he does?

thanks!


----------



## m00se

Yea that thread has some interesting ideas doesn't it? Well, here is my thinking on the topic of wattage vs. penetration to the substrate etc.... If you have a new tank and you are still setting up your fertilization and CO2 methods and you don't currently have any high light plants, then starting at the low end and going up is better than starting bright and then dealing with the headache that will inevitably create, IMO. The price of CFL bulbs is so reasonable that swapping them out for higher or lower wattages is trivial really.

Look, the bottom line is that we want beautiful tanks, with healthy inhabitants, right? We all know that light drives the need for all other requirements. Ferts, CO2, animals, algae (and it's control) are all determined first by the amount of light energy available. I personally have a high light, CO2 driven, EI dosed, hugely productive (like major trim every week) 36" long tank with (3) 23w CFLs on it. Right next to it, I have a 15 gallon Aqueon kit tank with the 18" fluorescent bulb it came with, no CO2, no ferts, and 5 fish in it. I cull my trimmings from the bigger tank and plant that tank with them. I get as many compliments on that tank as I do the larger one. No, I can't grow HG or other high light plants in it (I think - I haven't tried but someday I might!) but the stems and moss and ferns are healthy and growing. I'm just not in there weekly with scissors. So, I guess it comes down to what you really want to do. Sometimes I wonder whether I would be happier with a super low tech tank with darned near no maintenance other than water changes... 

Just keep in mind that if you're not OCD with your tanks, that the higher amount of light you put over it the more time and energy it will REQUIRE daily and/or weekly.

(big breath) So, to answer your question! I would start with 13 watt 6500k, and go from there.

HTH - Cheers


----------



## m00se

Almost forgot - I like to repeat this URL as much as I can because I personally think these dome lamps are A+++ WILL BUY AGAIN!!! for CFLs. They're more money than brooder lamps but they also keep light spill way down, which is my main b!tch with them. If you can hang them and not lay them down on your glass you could also put higher wattage bulbs in them to compensate the distance. I think they're a good product, and that price is half what the big box pet stores want for them.

Also, if you do want to go higher wattage than 23w, check e-bay for bulbs that photographers use. They have plenty of wattages you won't find at Lowes, etc..

http://goo.gl/Rh0BJ


----------



## gregor

That's very helpful, thanks! I'm going to take your advice and grab 4 10" domes (if I can find them, 8.5 seems readily available) and put 4 13w 6500k bulbs in them right atop the glass.


----------



## gregor

Got the 8.5" lights, and found Philips 13w 6500k bulbs. Four pack only $8.97 at HD.

It's bright lol. I'm glad I went with the 13w for now, without water or anything in the tank there is a lot of light spillage on the sides of the tank. The whole wall is lit up.

I'm going to black out the back of the tank somehow then probably spray paint the outside of the reflectors black.


----------



## m00se

Aight! Lookin good! When you fill it with water the spillover won't be as bad. Black background A+

Cheers


----------



## Hoppy

Are those reflectors sitting on a glass or acrylic cover over the top of the tank? If so, they may overheat badly. If not, they may fall into the tank. I would hang them so there is room for air to circulate into the open end of the reflectors, and so they can't fall into the tank.

There will be less light going out through the sides and ends of the tank, once you put water in the tank. Much of the light will reflect off the glass back into the tank.


----------



## gregor

Hoppy said:


> Are those reflectors sitting on a glass or acrylic cover over the top of the tank? If so, they may overheat badly. If not, they may fall into the tank. I would hang them so there is room for air to circulate into the open end of the reflectors, and so they can't fall into the tank.
> 
> There will be less light going out through the sides and ends of the tank, once you put water in the tank. Much of the light will reflect off the glass back into the tank.


They are sitting directly on top of a glass top. There is a little rubberish bar that serves as a hinge, and they make contact with that.

With these 13w bulbs, everything seems reasonable as far as the heat goes. After leaving them on since I bought them, nothing they are in contact with is hot. Barely even warm to be honest. The reflectors themselves get warm, but I wouldn't call them hot either.

Also, there's no way to fall in the tank unless the glass top was shifted way off the tank, and they are quite difficult to move.

I had concerns over the heat also, and I'm going to keep an eye on it. So far, so good.


----------



## rininger85

awesome thread, tagging along just for future reference, the diagrams over the different lighting over the 2.5gal is hopefully going to help me with setting up my new 10 gal, been trying to decide on bulbs to put in my stock hood, so I think based on looking at what you have with one 14w spiral CFL horizontally mounted 3" above the water line I should be able to use two 13-14w spiral CFL's horizontally mounted 2-3" above the water line on my 10 gal in the stock hood and stay in the low-med light range... I'm setting the tank up to take to work and want to plant it to keep it low maintenance, and haven't made the investment to go CO2 on my tank at home, so definitely can't do it on my work tank...


----------



## i4x4nMore

rininger85; said:


> ...10 gal, been trying to decide on bulbs to put in my stock hood, so I think based on looking at what you have with one 14w spiral CFL horizontally mounted 3" above the water line I should be able to use two 13-14w spiral CFL's horizontally mounted 2-3" above the water line on my 10 gal in the stock hood and stay in the low-med light range...


Yes, you get it; It would scale that way for a 10gal. Just make sure that your stock hood has a reflector in it... Not just black plastic.

For a low maintenance office tank, I've found mosses, liverworts (fissidens, pellia), c. Parva, and Anubias to work well. They grow slow enough so you don't have to do so much trimming. I really like using c. Parva as a foreground carpeting plant. It fits the scale of a 10gal nicely. 

Good luck,
Cheers.


----------



## pwu_1

I bought some CFl bulbs that are marketed for aquarium use. They are twin U shaped (straight) tubes instead of spiral shaped and fit inside of a standard incandescent hood fixture. The 20 watt bulb is 8 inches and the 10 watt bulb is 5.5 inches overall and 4.5 inches and 3.5 inches respectively for the lighted tube section.
Here is a link to one of the bulbs I'm talking about-->
Amazon.com: Coralife Energy Savers ACL54200 Colormax Mini Comp.Bulb, 20w: Pet Supplies 

I'm guessing the PAR values of these mounted in the hood should be similar to the horizontal mounted Spiral bulbs but maybe with better light distribution/better coverage along the length of the aquarium?

I'm using 1 20 watt bulb on the left socket and 1 10 watt bulb on the right socket. Hoping this would push the left side of the aquarium to medium light so I can grow a micro sword(lilaeopsis brasiliensis) carpet and then have low light on the right side of the aquarium to grow anubia, c. wendtii and c. parva and some flame moss.
Would that work to essentially try and split the aquarium into 2 light zones to grow different plants or is that a bad idea?


----------



## rininger85

I think you're OK, the lighting will be slightly different with the U shape vs. the spiral shape I would guess, but should be fairly close I would think. This isn't an exact science, so the best we can do is get a good estimate unless you spend the money to get your own PAR data to run the tests on your specific set up. 

I'm running a similar split, I have a 13W spiral CFL in my left and an 18W spiral CFL in my right (because I originally bought 2 of each and had the 18W's in but one of the 18W bulbs burned out within a day, must have been a bad light...) so I'm running 31W total vs. your 30W. 

I am getting some pretty rapid algae growth though, so I might back down to two 13W bulbs because my tank is still cycling so can't add anything to help with the algae yet...


----------



## charliey

i4x4nMore said:


> *Follow-Up: Household CF Bulbs, Growing HC, and Non-CO2...*
> 
> I wanted to follow up to this thread to share some more ideas on lighting with household CF bulbs. AirSong originally had posted asking how much light she should use to light her 2.5gal non-CO2 tank... She was interested in growing HC or other carpeting plants. To her, I answered that she would probably need more than 15 watts. I didn't want to leave it at that however. I set out to investigate and find the right answer. As such, I duplicated her setup: tank size, fixture type, water depth, distance of light from the water, etc... and then took some measurements.
> 
> The answer is that you can use anything from 14 watts to 27 watts, and beyond. It all depends on how you set it up...
> 
> I personally believe that many hobbyists underestimate the need to accurately quantify their light - especially when they are plagued by unexplained algae or dying plants. The growth in non-CO2 tanks is quite slow and getting feedback takes too long. It's good to know from the start that your lighting is in a good range, so you can eliminate it as a variable if your tank is "less than desirable".
> 
> As I discovered, these CF bulbs (14-23 watts) seem fairly tame, but how you use them can mean the difference of not having enough light, and having way too much. And believe it or not, that difference can manifest itself just by moving the light up or down a few inches.
> 
> I created a several slides to show what I'm talking about. I hope this will help illustrate how things like reflector type and distance make a big difference, and can't be overlooked - it is also the reason one person's success with a particular bulb may not be your success.
> 
> (Hopefully, you've turned off that pesky "image resize" in your user preferences - if not, make sure to unscale for readability. )
> 
> 
> *Diagram1 - Household CF Bulbs*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> .
> .
> 
> *Diagram2 - Measuring Household CF Bulbs*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> .
> .
> 
> *Diagram3 - 19W, 5500K Example*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> .
> .
> 
> *Diagram4 - Does Color Temperature Matter?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> .
> .
> 
> *Diagram5 - 23 Watt Extremes*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> .
> .
> 
> *Diagram6 - Reflector & Orientation*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> .
> .
> 
> *Diagram7 - 14 Watt Example*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> .
> .
> 
> Cheers!


Is the scale ur using for what is low, medium, in high light different because from what i have seen: 
Values between 10-30 are considered low light.
Values between 30-80 are considered medium light.
Values between 80-120 are considered high light.


----------



## KribsDirect

This has been sooooo helpful. Thanks to all who put the time in to help newbies like myself have much better chances of success. My tank journal will credit this thread. I am building a rising fixture for my shop lights tomorrow! 

I didn't realize it would ressurect this thread to the top of these forums and bump others down, sorry heh.


----------



## Hoppy

charliey said:


> Is the scale ur using for what is low, medium, in high light different because from what i have seen:
> Values between 10-30 are considered low light.
> Values between 30-80 are considered medium light.
> Values between 80-120 are considered high light.


There is no widely accepted scale for low, medium, high light. I like to characterize light intensity by the PAR at the substrate, which will always be a lower number than if you rate it by average PAR in the tank. And, I like to consider what is low, medium, and high light by the need for CO2. Low light - you don't have to use CO2 to be successful. Medium light - you should use CO2 or you aren't likely to be satisfied. High light - you have to use CO2, and very likely at a concentration near that which is harmful to the fish, to be assured of a satisfactory experience. As far as I know, that is just my way to evaluate the light, not generally accepted by others. For that way of evaluating light I currently like these ranges:
low - 20-35 PAR
medium - 40-60 PAR
high - above 60 PAR
too high - above 90-100 PAR

I may change my mind next week, next month, etc.


----------



## rininger85

just a little feedback... I used the basic information presented in this thread to decide on my lighting for my 10 gallon work tank... 

I'm running (1) 13W spiral CFL bulb and (1) 18W spiral CFL bulb in my stock hood (horizontally mounted, with aluminum foil glued on the inside of the hood to make it reflective). Running no CO2 (although I have been dosing a cap full of flourish excel once a week), currently lightly stocked and running for about 6 weeks or so since I planted it. Lights are on a timer to come on from 7am - 12pm then off for an hour (lunch time) then back on from 1pm - 4pm. Substrate is miracle grow capped with gravel capped with Tahitian moon sand (didn't like the brown gravel look after I made a mess planting)

I have DHG, HC, dwarf onion, vals, and a couple others that I can't remember the name of... the vals just melted (original leaves), but has new healthy growth and good roots growing on a couple plants that I can see the root growth from the side of the tank under the substrate.

Here are a couple pictures to show the growth...

first pic 10/22 just a day or so after planting, second pic was 12/3... the DHG is spreading nicely and starting to fill in. The HC I accidently siphoned some up which has been floating (trying to grow roots that I can replant it), but from what is still planted I don't think it has really spread, but it looks much healthier than it was in the first picture (it had been in my 55 for a couple months before transplanting in to this tank). I think it might be slowly spreading, it is on the side of the tank with the 18W bulb.

Nothing huge, but still pretty nice growth I think for a low tech tank (only my 2nd attempt at planting a tank, and its doing better than my 55 that I planted first).


----------



## fjord

*Quad Tube*

So, I'm wondering if the screw in Quad Tube design might offer better PAR than a spiral tube in a horizontal position. Great thread!

As I don't know how to insert a photo, here is a link to what I'm talking about:

http://www.elightbulbs.com/catalog_product_list.cfm?cat_num=1022&list_by_color_temp=6500

Another attempt at pasting an image:


----------



## B16CRXT

fjord said:


> So, I'm wondering if the screw in Quad Tube design might offer better PAR than a spiral tube in a horizontal position. Great thread!
> 
> As I don't know how to insert a photo, here is a link to what I'm talking about:
> 
> http://www.elightbulbs.com/catalog_product_list.cfm?cat_num=1022&list_by_color_temp=6500



Just put







and it should become an embedded pic...

EDIT, it didn't work on your link. You have to right click the image you want, go to properties and copy the picture url when you want to embed it into your post. I can't access that website at work for some reason, so try doing what I suggested to get the image URL, then put it between









If you're using Chrome, its as easy as right click, copy image URL.


----------



## Hoppy

The reason the photo didn't show up is that you had


----------



## B16CRXT

fjord said:


> http://www.elightbulbs.com/General-00252-CF25W-4U-DL-Triple-Tube-Screw-Base-Compact-Fluorescent-Light-Bulb[IMG][/quote]
> 
> fixed for you. I had to go to the url you tried to make an image of, right click the pic, some copyright popup stops the initial right click, clear that popup and my right click menu shows up. Then just copied the image url and inserted it between [img].
> 
> 99% of all pictures you insert this way, the link ends with .jpg or some other image extension - just fyi. If it doesn't, you grabbed the wrong link.


----------



## Hoppy

fjord said:


> So, I'm wondering if the screw in Quad Tube design might offer better PAR than a spiral tube in a horizontal position. Great thread!
> 
> As I don't know how to insert a photo, here is a link to what I'm talking about:
> 
> http://www.elightbulbs.com/catalog_product_list.cfm?cat_num=1022&list_by_color_temp=6500
> 
> Another attempt at pasting an image:
> 
> http://www.elightbulbs.com/General-00252-CF25W-4U-DL-Triple-Tube-Screw-Base-Compact-Fluorescent-Light-Bulb[IMG][/quote]
> 
> Why would a straight tube design give more light than a spiral tube design? If the built-in ballast is comparable, they should give about the same light, since they both have about the same amount of restrike. Someone would have to test them with a PAR meter to be sure.


----------



## fjord

*Another Thread*

There is another thread here that suggests spiral bulbs provide more PAR in a vertical position than a horizontal position. I simply wondered if the tubes were straight, might they produce better PAR in a horizontal position?

The thread I'm referring to is here:
http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/showthread.php?t=85667


----------



## Hoppy

fjord said:


> There is another thread here that suggests spiral bulbs provide more PAR in a vertical position than a horizontal position. I simply wondered if the tubes were straight, might they produce better PAR in a horizontal position?
> 
> The thread I'm referring to is here:
> http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/showthread.php?t=85667


In the horizontal position about half of the straight tubes would be pointed up, away from the water, about the same as with the spiral tube version. It may be that the straight tube version has a better built-in ballast, which may let it produce more light, since I think those are more costly bulbs.


----------



## KenP

Hoppy a question. If a cfl is used with a good reflector in the horizontal position would the par be equivalent to to vertical with a 10 " reflector?


----------



## Hoppy

KenP said:


> Hoppy a question. If a cfl is used with a good reflector in the horizontal position would the par be equivalent to to vertical with a 10 " reflector?


No, the data in this thread was taken with good reflectors. But, it may be that a reflector could be designed for a horizontal CFL that was good enough to give you the PAR that a vertical CFL gives. I don't know what that would look like, but I suspect it would be an elongated W shaped reflector.


----------



## KenP

The reason i questioned this is the note on the graph indicates "desk" reflector. My desk reflector is white painted metal while the reflector for the cfl is mirrored trapezoid shape. The w or m shaped you mentioned i have seen for hps reflectors. My PL Systems hps lights have a m/w reflector.


----------



## FriskyBetta

You have saved me soo much trouble with setting up my new tank! Bravo i4x4nMore! I've also learned that I was about to drop a lot more money for lighting that wasn't necessary. I need to look into getting a quantum meter as well if I plan on getting more serious about this hobby.


----------



## m00se

He does some nice stuff doesn't he... 

I think the most important thing to keep in mind when designing a new light system is "how much time am I willing to dedicate to this aquarium and how much money will it cost me over time". I think the time thing is overlooked if you go with the biggest baddest setup you can afford. If every time I look at my high light CO2 driven IE'd tank and see another 2-3 hours of trimming in my future, FOR ME it takes away from the enjoyment and the zen of having the thing in the first place. For me an aquarium is all about the relaxation it provides me, and the interaction of the critters in it with me and each other. So after 2 years of high tech and low tech tanks, one on my left and one on my right, I can say that the low tech tank does what I hoped a tank would do and I tend to pay more attention to it, while the high tech tank, although beautiful, and it scratches my intellectual itch, is more the one that I'm scrutinizing rather than just kicking back and enjoying. More More More is not necessarily Better - gnomesane?

I hope that makes an iota of sense


----------



## rininger85

rininger85 said:


> just a little feedback... I used the basic information presented in this thread to decide on my lighting for my 10 gallon work tank...
> 
> I'm running (1) 13W spiral CFL bulb and (1) 18W spiral CFL bulb in my stock hood (horizontally mounted, with aluminum foil glued on the inside of the hood to make it reflective). Running no CO2 (although I have been dosing a cap full of flourish excel once a week), currently lightly stocked and running for about 6 weeks or so since I planted it. Lights are on a timer to come on from 7am - 12pm then off for an hour (lunch time) then back on from 1pm - 4pm. Substrate is miracle grow capped with gravel capped with Tahitian moon sand (didn't like the brown gravel look after I made a mess planting)
> 
> I have DHG, HC, dwarf onion, vals, and a couple others that I can't remember the name of... the vals just melted (original leaves), but has new healthy growth and good roots growing on a couple plants that I can see the root growth from the side of the tank under the substrate.
> 
> Here are a couple pictures to show the growth...
> 
> first pic 10/22 just a day or so after planting, second pic was 12/3... the DHG is spreading nicely and starting to fill in. The HC I accidently siphoned some up which has been floating (trying to grow roots that I can replant it), but from what is still planted I don't think it has really spread, but it looks much healthier than it was in the first picture (it had been in my 55 for a couple months before transplanting in to this tank). I think it might be slowly spreading, it is on the side of the tank with the 18W bulb.
> 
> Nothing huge, but still pretty nice growth I think for a low tech tank (only my 2nd attempt at planting a tank, and its doing better than my 55 that I planted first).


just a follow up to my earlier post. I showed a picture of my tank in December (originally set up in October-November time frame), here it is in april. This thread is a great tool if you use the data provided and make some simple assumptions about how it is going to scale to your tank size.


----------



## B16CRXT

Have you had any problems with nitrogen bubbles or other toxins in the tank using miracle grow? I've read that soil-based substrate can build up toxic pockets of nitrogen or something and will kill fish. That's the only reason I haven't tried it out yet. Btw your tank looks great for just dosing a little excel! What are your water parameters?


----------



## rininger85

B16CRXT said:


> Have you had any problems with nitrogen bubbles or other toxins in the tank using miracle grow? I've read that soil-based substrate can build up toxic pockets of nitrogen or something and will kill fish. That's the only reason I haven't tried it out yet. Btw your tank looks great for just dosing a little excel! What are your water parameters?


I haven't noticed anything, I do get some bubbles but from what I've read its likely just oxygen bubbles, not anything dangerous - there is no smell to the tank to alarm me to anything dangerous coming out of it, and I have not had any fish showing signs of stress or dying (not since I first set it up, then I had a couple die but they died immediately after adding them, I lost a betta within the first week of adding it and a neon tetra within the first few days of adding 6 of them, but I take the betta loss as the quality of the store I bought it from - the grocery store down the road, I added my gold algae eater at the same time as the betta and the algae eater is still alive and growing and I added 6 neons all at once the other 5 are still going strong)

I honestly can't tell you what my water parameters are... what parameters are you looking for? Ammonia and nitrites are always zero on any of my tanks that I've tested before (after initial cycle), nitrates and phosphates I could test, but plants eat nitrates and phosphates so it will probably give a false reading, and I just have an API phosphate test which is known for being inaccurate anyways. water temp is about 76-77F... I do run a small filter on the tank but mostly for water movement - I rarely clean/change the filters in it (only when it starts to bypass the filters or I hear snails getting chopped up in the filter... then I take them out and rinse them several times before I pitch them and put a new one in). I have never tested the pH in this tank, but I assume it is probably pretty close to 7.0 because I cycled the tank with RO/DI water then drained it and moved it to work and refilled it with RO water and I just dump my water bottle of whatever is left that I haven't drank in to the tank to top it off every day (from bottled RO water). 

I'm not a particular fan of testing water parameters except for the initial set up or if something goes wrong / something dies / doesn't look good etc. then I might test to try and figure out what is wrong (but I don't honestly remember the last time I tested my water... probably November when I was trying to decide if it was safe to add fish yet...)


----------



## B16CRXT

I was concerned mostly about your Ph level mostly. It can have an effect on plant growth like anything else. I have a 10g low-tech tank with plants and its ph was around 5.5 until I added crushed coral to help buffer. Plants don't grow well and when I dosed excel in that tank I would get lots of GDA. I wonder if lining the light housing with aluminum foil would be better than the reflector already in the hood?

I'm with you in that I don't check parameters unless something goes wrong (cloudiness, dead fish, etc) also. my 39g has been setup for a couple years with no problems. why bother checking parameters if everything is going well?...


----------



## rininger85

I don't even own a regular pH test kit, I have a high pH test kit, but it only goes down to 7.4, seems how I'm using RO water I doubt it would even register... 

My stock hood had very little reflective surface so I lined mine with aluminum foil because otherwise it was just black and would absorb most of the light... so I figure even if the aluminum foil is 50% effective its a huge difference between that and nothing...


----------



## B16CRXT

I see. My 10G is VERY old and they probably made things better then. The reflector isn't very mirror-like, but it's at least something.


----------



## rabidrider

I do have a question I currently have a double bright led system on my 75 gallon (spanning the tank) and a 30 watt CFL (not sure what spectrum of light it is as its a uv light for my turtles). I added some pickerel weeds under where the uv light goes for my turtles. I am unsure about the led system for a planted tank and was thinking of leaving it in (mainly for the nightlights) to hang 4 8.5" reflectors off of and running 23 watt 6700K CFL. Depth is about 16" to the substrate but I was planning on adding another inch to inch and a half of sand in there. You think that is enough or to much. I am not looking to run CO2 (at least not at this time). I can always change bulbs later if I change my mind.

I also do have a 4 bulb T5ho fixture I used to run on my reef tank I could use but its getting old and bulbs are not cheap. I have a canopy over the tank so I could go this route. I figure I would have the bulb about 2" above the surface.

Excellent thread by the way.


----------



## rabidrider

Hoppy said:


> The ideal angle for the sides is like \_/, perhaps with the angles a bit farther from 90 degrees. You can always determine the best angle by looking up at the bulb to see if you see an image of the bulb on each side of it. Each image is like another bulb lighting the tank. This is more effective if the bulbs run the length of the housing and not at right angles to the length.
> 
> It also isn't very hard to use thin aluminum, like sold for flashing, to make individual bulb reflectors shaped like that. I know those double the light output of each bulb.


Another thing I have used in the past for reflectors on standard florescent tubes was those disposable turkey pans at walmart. There thin and east to from and cheap. Got pretty decent reflective qualities. Just a thought


----------



## Cochepaille

Reviving an old thread because I still can't tell whether my intended setup will be overkill and I'm hoping someone here can give some advice. I'm about to finish building the hood for my 110g tank w/ a custom light setup, and I intend to use CFL's with 8.5" aluminum reflectors. Here's my concept:










My tank is 22" tall (floor to water line), I plan on having 3" of substrate and hanging the lights about 5" from the water line. The bulbs I picked up are the daylight 23w CFL bulbs. 

My question is this: based on that setup, am I going to achieve enough lighting for low light plants? I feel like 8x 23w CFLs is going to be overkill, but everything I've read on this thread suggests otherwise. Just as an FYI, it's not too late for me to adjust the distance from the bottom of the reflectors to the water line, nor is it too late to return the bulbs and get dimmer ones. My preference would be the latter as I'd like to avoid toying with the lights/wiring once it's installed.

Thanks in advance for any help


----------



## Hoppy

Cochepaille said:


> Reviving an old thread because I still can't tell whether my intended setup will be overkill and I'm hoping someone here can give some advice. I'm about to finish building the hood for my 110g tank w/ a custom light setup, and I intend to use CFL's with 8.5" aluminum reflectors. Here's my concept:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My tank is 22" tall (floor to water line), I plan on having 3" of substrate and hanging the lights about 5" from the water line. The bulbs I picked up are the daylight 23w CFL bulbs.
> 
> My question is this: based on that setup, am I going to achieve enough lighting for low light plants? I feel like 8x 23w CFLs is going to be overkill, but everything I've read on this thread suggests otherwise. Just as an FYI, it's not too late for me to adjust the distance from the bottom of the reflectors to the water line, nor is it too late to return the bulbs and get dimmer ones. My preference would be the latter as I'd like to avoid toying with the lights/wiring once it's installed.
> 
> Thanks in advance for any help


One bulb at about 24 inches should give you about 20 PAR. Most of the tank areas will get light from 4 bulbs, so the maximum PAR should be 80. But, the bulbs are separated enough that you won't get anywhere near full overlap of the circles of light, so my guess is you will get an average of about 40-50 PAR. That is more than enough for low light plants. But, it is also possible that you will get even less PAR, perhaps as low as 30 PAR. And, that would be a good level for low light, non-CO2 plant growing.


----------



## hplowe

gregor said:


> Got the 8.5" lights, and found Philips 13w 6500k bulbs. Four pack only $8.97 at HD.
> 
> It's bright lol. I'm glad I went with the 13w for now, without water or anything in the tank there is a lot of light spillage on the sides of the tank. The whole wall is lit up.
> 
> I'm going to black out the back of the tank somehow then probably spray paint the outside of the reflectors black.


 This looks JUST like the tank I own, I have a Marineland 60g, it is 48" long x 12" wide by 24" tall, I currently have 4 23w 6500k CFL's in my stock hoods. If I go to 4 of these reflectors like you have pictured, How can I determine what kind of lighting I am getting?


----------



## burr740

hplowe said:


> This looks JUST like the tank I own, I have a Marineland 60g, it is 48" long x 12" wide by 24" tall, I currently have 4 23w 6500k CFL's in my stock hoods. If I go to 4 of these reflectors like you have pictured, How can I determine what kind of lighting I am getting?


There's some charts on page 2 that might help - http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/showthread.php?t=85667&page=2


----------



## Cochepaille

Hoppy said:


> One bulb at about 24 inches should give you about 20 PAR. Most of the tank areas will get light from 4 bulbs, so the maximum PAR should be 80. But, the bulbs are separated enough that you won't get anywhere near full overlap of the circles of light, so my guess is you will get an average of about 40-50 PAR. That is more than enough for low light plants. But, it is also possible that you will get even less PAR, perhaps as low as 30 PAR. And, that would be a good level for low light, non-CO2 plant growing.


Well we were both way, way off! I was expecting about the same result, but here's what I got with the 8" reflectors hung 2" from the water line with 23w (100w equivalent) "daylight" bulbs and the PAR meter placed on the bottom of the tank (no substrate). Also, for those of you who don't want to skip back to read previous entries, my tank is 18" wide, 60" long and 22" from waterline to floor. Note that I only measured PAR data for 1/2 the tank because, well, I would hope that the results on the other side would be a mirror image!


----------



## kzeller

Hoppy said:


> ... The ones I used were about 8 inches in diameter, as I recall, and they easily covered a 12 inch front to back tank - both a 10 gallon and a 15H.


What ones did you use?


----------



## Hoppy

kzeller said:


> What ones did you use?


I used "work lights" from Home Depot, but as far as I can tell, there aren't any significant differences among the thin aluminum dome type reflectors from various stores. Only the diameter and the prices are different.


----------



## jraculya

Please forgive me for posting on an old thread. 

After looking at the slides that 4x4 created, my question is: Is PAR more important than Kelvin or are they equally important?


----------



## i4x4nMore

If your interest is lighting "intensity", then PAR is what you need to consider. The color temperature of the light source is not a critical factor for general growth in aquariums. It can be shown that typical aquarium plants thrive in a very wide range of color temperature ranging from 2800K to 15000K. Getting the light intensity (PAR) right for your aquarium setup is much more crucial than knowing which wavelengths (CCT Kelvin) are present in the light source... assuming it is a broad spectrum light source.

CFLs and all fluorescent sources, generally have a descent range of wavelengths which will contribute to photosynthesis. However, they are not smooth continuous sources like the sun, incandescent, or metal halide sources etc. As such "color temperature" has a very loose meaning for them. Generally, the manufacture is trying to convey how warm or cool the "color" of the light is when they list the color temperature on the bulb. A lot of people target 6500 kelvin (CCT) in an attempt to mimic "daylight". But, unfortunately, fluorescent technology doesn't even come close to mimicking the daylight frequency spectrum of the sun. Any technology that uses UV light to excite phosphors is going to have this quality... but it just goes to show that plants really don't care as long as there is enough "intensity" to the light source.

If your aim was to study the plant's physiological response to different frequency spectrums, then color temperature would have more importance. But, even then, you'd need to use a spectrum analyzer to look at the frequency content in your source. Color temperature is only truly meaningful for light sources that are "black body radiators"... think, anything that glows from red, to orange, to yellow, to blue, to white as it gets hotter and hotter. Fluorescent tubes and LEDs do not do this!

If one was studying plant growth and trying to achieve some kind of "maxium growth", or flowering, or some other expression of the plant, then the frequency spectrum of the light source could probably come into play. But has a hobbyist, just trying to get good growth, the color temperature is not an important factor.

Cheers,

-Jeremy

Bump: Glad to see those CFL slides are still kicking!

(Probably time to update the PAR ranges for low, medium, and high... )

Cheers,

-Jeremy


----------



## jraculya

Thank you for the quick response! I wish I had found this post 6 months ago. There is so much conflicting info to wade through, that it is rather daunting for a first timer! I just started my first planted tank and this would have been very helpful during setup.

Now I need to see if I can find a PAR meter in Dallas.

Thanks again!


----------



## Hoppy

jraculya said:


> Thank you for the quick response! I wish I had found this post 6 months ago. There is so much conflicting info to wade through, that it is rather daunting for a first timer! I just started my first planted tank and this would have been very helpful during setup.
> 
> Now I need to see if I can find a PAR meter in Dallas.
> 
> Thanks again!


You can buy a $20 digital lux meter from several different online stores, including Ebay and Amazon. If you prop your aquarium light across a couple of chairs, then measure the light intensity, in lux, with the meter at the same distance your aquarium light will be from the substrate. Divide that number by 70 and you will have a reasonably good estimate of the light intensity in PAR. You get about the same reading when you measure PAR in water as you do in air, for the distances we are concerned with (2 feet or less), so you don't need to correct this number for the effect of the water. If you were planning to write a research paper based on your readings you would want to use a real PAR meter instead of this method, but we hobbyists rarely do research papers.


----------



## i4x4nMore

jraculya, if you're bent on finding a PAR meter, try the Dallas/Ft. Worth aquatic plant club. The Aquatic Gardners Association also has lot of members in Dallas. Either group might have a PAR meter which could be borrowed. Also worth checking out the groups themselves! - lots of nice, knowledgeable people there. 

If you can borrow a PAR meter, or afford one, it really is an invaluable tool; especially if you go off the beaten path and come up with your own DIY lighting setup. Approximating will only get you so far. And it won't show you the immediate effect of changing some aspect of your configuration. It also won't show you the "dead spots" in your tank, or the effect of grow-in, as your plants start to shadow each other. 

I guess it depends on how much you care about it.... If you're just a dabbler and want to throw some plants in tank and know that you are in the ballpark with your lighting, then maybe hoppy's approximation will fit the bill - provided you can apply it to your situation. 

For me, it would be nice to know, without a doubt, that my chosen lighting was "just right", then I could move on to fertz and water chemistry knowing that one variable was out of the equation. Especially as a beginner...

You don't need to be writing a research paper in order for a PAR meter to be an invaluable tool when setting up a new tank. A $400 PAR meter arguably gives you more ammunition over time than a $400 CO2 setup. (Yet, people have no problem dropping cash on the latter!) If you can track down a PAR meter, it's much better than dividing by 70 and crossing your fingers.

(Sorry Hoppy, no disrespect.) Just my opinion that the "right" answer is always preferable to an approximate answer if one is serious and success is the driving factor. 


Cheers, 


-Jeremy


----------



## Hoppy

i4x4nMore said:


> jraculya,If you can track down a PAR meter, it's much better than dividing by 70 and crossing your fingers.
> 
> (Sorry Hoppy, no disrespect.) Just my opinion that the "right" answer is always preferable to an approximate answer if one is serious and success is the driving factor.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 
> -Jeremy


I never cross my fingers!0

Seriously: I have found it extremely difficult to get a PAR reading that I feel is right on. Today we have LED lights, which use 660nm red LEDs for some of the light, and near UV LEDs for some of the light. But, the Apogee Quantum PAR meter only captures a fraction of those parts of the spectrum, so it is very likely to give too low readings for that type of light. Even for conventional fluorescent lighting it is critical that we keep our hands and arms out of the tank when taking a reading, or the reading will be off due to either the shade from our arms or reflected light from our skin. I was surprised at how easy it was to see that effect. Also, fluorescent bulbs don't produce a constant intensity from the time they are turned on. The PAR readings will get higher for a few minutes, then drop some over the next few minutes, before settling down to a near constant reading. Older bulbs will give a lower reading than newer bulbs.

Just because a PAR meter says we have 27 PAR doesn't mean we have that. It is only accurate to about +/-5%, so 27 means we have from 26.5 to 27.5 PAR, due to the number of digits we get, and from 25 to 29, with the inaccuracy considered, even if there are no other errors. So, it best to round that reading off to 25-30. This begins to make me wonder if my "divide by 70" estimate is about as good as it is going to get.

When you are really serious about light, and want to hold the light intensity to within a narrow band for each plant, then a good PAR meter is the only way you can get it. But, what about the difference in PAR at the base of the plant and the top of the plant? Those who want to know as accurately as possible what light their plants get should still use a good PAR meter, and they should factor in the variation in light over the whole plant. Most of us, who just want a beautiful planted tank, and the confidence that they have a light level that is consistent with the fertilizing, CO2 injection, and plant species they have, can in most cases do that with a cheap lux meter.


----------



## jraculya

Until I can find a PAR meter to borrow, I think the LUX meter will have to work. Evidently, my children require food and clothes. =) 
I checked out the DFW club, it doesn't look like they are still active, at least that is the impression I get from their site and the fact their email seems to be down. Are there any members on this forum?


----------



## robchang

Hoppy said:


> Someone needs to do some PAR meter testing of those CFL floodlight bulbs before we can know what PAR they give vs distance. Or, if someone has a burned out bulb, they could carefully disassemble it to see what the reflector is like.


Thanks for all the knowledge shared in this thread i4x4 and Hoppy! I am revisiting this thread yet again to determine if there has been any research done about flood lights? I just saw this deal at Home Depot and trying to figure out an economical way to light several small planted tanks. 

TCP 65W Equivalent Day light BR30 Non-Dimmable LED Flood Light Bulb (6-Pack)-LBR301050KND6 - The Home Depot

It seems the best bang for the buck proven by this thread is a clamp light + 23w CFL which would be around $9 + $4 = $13 per light

I'm wondering if a CFL or LED floodlight is used + cheap fixture would give similar/better results. For example a 13w CFL = 800 lumens and a 10w LED flood (like the one in the link) is 700 lumens, but has the "built in reflector". So how does clamp light + 13w CFL compare to a 10w LED flood light + cheapo light fixture?


----------



## jraculya

robchang, did you try those lights?


----------



## GrampsGrunge

robchang said:


> Thanks for all the knowledge shared in this thread i4x4 and Hoppy! I am revisiting this thread yet again to determine if there has been any research done about flood lights? I just saw this deal at Home Depot and trying to figure out an economical way to light several small planted tanks.
> 
> TCP 65W Equivalent Day light BR30 Non-Dimmable LED Flood Light Bulb (6-Pack)-LBR301050KND6 - The Home Depot
> 
> It seems the best bang for the buck proven by this thread is a clamp light + 23w CFL which would be around $9 + $4 = $13 per light
> 
> I'm wondering if a CFL or LED floodlight is used + cheap fixture would give similar/better results. For example a 13w CFL = 800 lumens and a 10w LED flood (like the one in the link) is 700 lumens, but has the "built in reflector". So how does clamp light + 13w CFL compare to a 10w LED flood light + cheapo light fixture?


They uprated the Non-dimmable TCP daylight 60 watt equivalent A19's they're now considered to be 850 lumens. Mine are certainly real bright.


----------



## robchang

jraculya said:


> robchang, did you try those lights?


Actually what I decided on was the phillips 23w CFL that are 6500k. I have one lighting a 3 gallon that is about 10" to substrate and I'm growing glosso that is spreading like a carpet and not growing tall. 

Sent from my XT1094 using Tapatalk


----------



## jimclassic

i4x4nMore said:


> *Follow-Up: Household CF Bulbs, Growing HC, and Non-CO2...*
> 
> I wanted to follow up to this thread to share some more ideas on lighting with household CF bulbs. AirSong originally had posted asking how much light she should use to light her 2.5gal non-CO2 tank... She was interested in growing HC or other carpeting plants. To her, I answered that she would probably need more than 15 watts. I didn't want to leave it at that however. I set out to investigate and find the right answer. As such, I duplicated her setup: tank size, fixture type, water depth, distance of light from the water, etc... and then took some measurements.
> 
> The answer is that you can use anything from 14 watts to 27 watts, and beyond. It all depends on how you set it up...
> 
> I personally believe that many hobbyists underestimate the need to accurately quantify their light - especially when they are plagued by unexplained algae or dying plants. The growth in non-CO2 tanks is quite slow and getting feedback takes too long. It's good to know from the start that your lighting is in a good range, so you can eliminate it as a variable if your tank is "less than desirable".
> 
> As I discovered, these CF bulbs (14-23 watts) seem fairly tame, but how you use them can mean the difference of not having enough light, and having way too much. And believe it or not, that difference can manifest itself just by moving the light up or down a few inches.
> 
> I created a several slides to show what I'm talking about. I hope this will help illustrate how things like reflector type and distance make a big difference, and can't be overlooked - it is also the reason one person's success with a particular bulb may not be your success.
> 
> (Hopefully, you've turned off that pesky "image resize" in your user preferences - if not, make sure to unscale for readability. )
> 
> 
> *Diagram1 - Household CF Bulbs*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> .
> .
> 
> *Diagram2 - Measuring Household CF Bulbs*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> .
> .
> 
> *Diagram3 - 19W, 5500K Example*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> .
> .
> 
> *Diagram4 - Does Color Temperature Matter?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> .
> .
> 
> *Diagram5 - 23 Watt Extremes*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> .
> .
> 
> *Diagram6 - Reflector & Orientation*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> .
> .
> 
> *Diagram7 - 14 Watt Example*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> .
> .
> 
> Cheers!


Thanks for such an informative post for CFL lighting. So after all the experiments, I just have one question. If selecting a CFL light for double holder, how many watt light is required for a tank of 24x12x18 inch. 18 is height.


----------

