# Sticky  Lighting Spectrum and Photosythesis



## Newt

The most common mistake people make with planted tanks is to not understand photosynthesis and the visible spectrum of lighting that affects plant growth. Most people choose lighting solely based on the Kelvin temperature of a bulb. This tells you very little about what type of light within the spectrum is being emitted and at what strength. Visible light is on a scale in nanometers (radiated wavelength) from 400nm (violet) to 700nm (red). Simple matter of photosynthesis: plants can only utilize light that is absorbed. Bright light is essential yet only a portion of this white light is used for photosynthesis. The blue and red zones of the visible spectrum are the most beneficial to plants. Green plants appear green because it is reflected light. How "bright" a light appears has more to do with how much light is output in a given area visible to the human eye, with "brightness" being at a maximum in the green spectrum (middle of visible spectrum, or around 550nm).










Lighting for a planted tank should not be chosen on color temp alone. It is true that 'full spectrum' bulbs are referred to as bulbs between 5000 Kelvin (K) and 6500 K and are considered to be best for planted tanks. Yet this does not indicate what wavelength in nanometers the bulb is actually emitting. If you want to optimize plant leaf development (blue light) and stem elongation and color (red light) you need light in both the blue and red spectra for photosynthesis. You need a mix of blue and red for your plants, and green for you (brightness as perceived by humans). If your lighting looks extremely bright and your plants seem ultra-green, it means that you have lighting that outputs strongly in the green spectrum. Do not equate this with good lighting for your plants, because plants don't use light in the green spectrum for photosynthesis. Sunlight peaks in the blue spectrum at 475 nanometers (nm). This is a shorter wavelength than red light and is used by both plants and algae. As light passes through water the intensity decreases. The shorter wavelength blue light penetrates water better and more quickly than red, which is slower and absorbed more quickly. Chlorophyll, the photosynthetic pigment used by plants traps blue and red light but is more efficient with red light at 650 - 675nm. Blue is used at the same rate as red because it is more available for reasons mentioned above.

For green plants the lighting peaks that are most important:
Chlorophyll-a: 430nm/662nm 
Chlorophyll-b: 453nm/642nm 
Carotenoids: 449nm/475nm 
Red pigmented plants use more light in the blue area of the spectrum.










Beyond choosing lighting that is optimal for photosynthesis, as above, you should choose lighting with the color temperature that best suits the aesthetic goals of your tank. So, don't obsess about color temperature beyond how you want your tank to look. From a color temperature standpoint, blue-colored light will enhance blues in your fish. Green-colored light will make the tank look bright to humans and enhance the green color of your plants. Red-colored light will enhance the reds in your fish, and any red plants.

Lux is lumens/square meter, so they are similar. They are both defined in terms that are meaningful to human perception of light - not plants. They stress the amount of energy in the green band to which humans are most sensitive - not plants.

Artificial light sources are usually evaluated based on their lumen output. Lumen is a measure of flux, or how much light energy a light source emits (per unit time). The lumen measure does not include all the energy the source emits, but just the energy with wavelengths capable of affecting the human eye. Thus the lumen measure is defined in such a way as to be weighted by the (bright-adapted) human eye spectral sensitivity.










Lumen ratings are usually available, but when you use them you have to keep in mind what they mean. Lamp A can have a higher lumen rating than lamp B and appear brighter to you, while lamp B provides more useful light for plants. Compare the lumen ratings for cool white and GroLux bulbs of the same wattage and you will see what I mean. A 40-watt cool white bulb is rated at 3050 lumen; a 40-watt GroLux bulb (not the wide spectrum) is way lower at 1200 lumens. The big difference is because GroLux lamps provide very little green light and cool whites provide a lot of green light. I have found it best to provide a mix of lighting to a planted tank. The GroLux bulb is perhaps the best plant bulb available but it has very little green light so the visual effects of your tank will look dim and purplish. Yet if you add some other lighting such as a Philips 6500K the effect is more pleasing to the eye and still beneficial to the plants. I find that the GroLux along with a GroLux wide spectrum (89 Color Rendering Index) has a great effect for use as dawn/dusk lighting. (A Sylvania rep. told me it was best to use both together.)










Kelvin rating and lumens does not equate for plants. The Kelvin scale is more of how your tank will look to you/us and is totally subjective. It is true that the lower Kelvin ratings like 3000K will have more red light and a 10,000K will have more blue light. Lumens are meaningless for plants, as green plants do not utilize green light for photosynthesis. A higher lumen rating at the same wattage often means greener light. Lumen is a rating weighted entirely towards human perception. It has little to do with the value of a light for either growing or viewing plants.

The Kelvin rating is an indication of color temperature. The higher the temperature, the more blue the light. Here's a rough scale:

- Reddish/Yellowish Endpoint -
Incandescent Light: 2700K
Daylight: 5500K
Blue Sky: 10,000K
- Blue Endpoint -










Don't be fooled by color temperature as an indication of what wavelength of light may or may not be present. The emitted wavelengths of light for two bulbs with the same color temperature could be wildly different. Therefore, color temperature is not what you should use to determine useful light for growing plants. It will, however, give you an idea of how things in your tank will look. For example, the sky has a color temperature of 10,000K and looks blue. Lighting that has a higher color temperature, indicating that it is bluish, does point to the fact that blue wavelengths are dominant. This, in turn, just means that it will activate green plants in the blue range, which is a good thing, and enhance blue fish. Red photosynthetic pigment is less efficient at utilizing light and requires stronger light as a result. The less efficient red carotenoid pigment must rely on blue and some green light as well as more intense lighting. There are some plants that that are able to change the pigment they use for photosynthesis depending on available lighting. We see this in red-leaved plants that turn green if the lighting is too low, not enough blue and/or green light. Alternatively, some green leafed plants produce red foliage when closer to the light source or with overly bright lighting.

The Kelvin color designation of a particular bulb is not always true to the black body locus line on a CIE Chromaticity map. This is why some 5000K bulbs look yellow and others white, especially when trying to compare a linear fluorescent with a CF or MH. This is where Kelvin ratings of bulbs can fall prey to marketing schemes/hype.










The standard measure that quantifies the energy available for photosynthesis is "Photosynthetic Active Radiation" (aka "Photosynthetic Available Radiation") or PAR. It accounts with equal weight for all the output a light source emits in the wavelength range between 400 and 700 nm. PAR also differs from the lumen in the fact that it is not a direct measure of energy. It is expressed in "number of photons per second". The reason for expressing PAR in number of photons instead of energy units is that the photosynthesis reaction takes place when a photon is absorbed by the plant; no matter what the photon's wavelength is (provided it lies in the range between 400 and 700 nm). In other words if a given number of blue photons is absorbed by a plant, the amount of photosynthesis that takes place is exactly the same as when the same number of red photons is absorbed. This is why it is so important to get the spectral output of a bulb before deciding if is a 'good plant light'. You may need to add/mix bulbs to get a lighting that has good visual effects for the human eye and proper light for plants because 'plant bulbs' tend to be purplish. There is an additional term called "Photosynthetic Usable Radiation" or PUR which takes in to account blue and red light only.

I don't understand why people insist on distinguishing between lamps on the basis of their color temperature. No lamp renders color correctly or looks natural unless its Color Rendering Index (CRI) rating is very high. When CRI is over 90 the color temperature shouldn't make much difference; colors rendered accurately will always look about the same regardless of the Kelvin rating. Many bulbs render red and orange colors poorly and give you a look with very flat color contrasts. Other bulbs produce a lot of green light and don't render either blue or red very well at all.

CRI or Color Rendering Index is an indication of how close the light is to daylight (full spectrum) on a scale from 0 to 100 with respect to how it makes objects appear. In the case of the Philips PL-L 950, the CRI is 92, so it has pretty good color rendering properties. Two bulbs with the same Kelvin temperature but different CRI ratings can produce very different appearances. Compare a 5000K that has an 80-something CRI with a 5000K that has a 90-something CRI. The 80 CRI bulb is very bright, but it renders greens with a distinct yellow cast. The 90 CRI bulb is dim, but it renders rich colors across the whole spectrum.

Whether or not a bulb looks "natural" to you is totally subjective. It depends in part on what you're used to. If you only see the world under cool white fluorescents then that is probably what looks natural to you. If you live somewhere with frequently hazy or overcast skies then you may be accustomed to "natural" light having a color temperature near 7000K. If you live somewhere with clear skies and infrequent cloudy days then your natural light might have a color temperature closer to 5000K. If you are used to north skylight then maybe a color temperature close to 10,000K seems more natural. In any case of actual natural light the light will render colors pretty well. That is usually not the case for fluorescent lamps with a high Kelvin temperature rating. If you want a high K lamp that does render colors accurately then you might try finding the Philips C75. It has a 7500K color temp and a 90+ CRI. It could be hard to find and a bit pricey.

Plants will grow with ordinary bulbs as they tend to have both some blue and red emissions. The problem is that they also have wavelengths between 500 and 600nm, which algae likes. Green algae and green plants use the same pigments for photosynthesis (chlorophyll a/b & carotenoids). So, light that helps one helps the other. The algae that are different are the blue-green algae (cyanobacteria), which contain Phycocyanin and absorb light heavily in the low 600nm (orange-red), which is unfortunately present in most standard fluorescents. In the planted aquarium artificial light should ideally peak (or be stronger) in the red area of the spectrum. The tanks' appearance can be compensated (balanced) with blue light and some green light for brightness to the human eye. Strong blue light will cause plant growth to be more compact and bushy and will also tend to promote algae growth. So remember to balance 2/3 red to 1/3 blue light emissions.










Bulbs sold as generic plant/aquarium bulbs usually have OK energy in blue and not much in red. A bulb sold as a generic "sunshine" bulb may or may not have some useful red, depending on the bulb. You can put any fluorescent lighting on your tank and do OK, but if you want to maximize plant growth, it's best to compare lighting options and, if possible, try to find the graphs/data for spectra output, rated life and output decay over time. Unfortunately, CF bulbs haven't caught up with linear bulbs in the ability to offer light (tri-phosphor type) in the proper areas of the spectrum.

Fluorescents lose efficiency over time. Some lose more than others - some bulbs may only suffer 10% drop in output, while others may drop 30% or more in the same time frame. The less the drop over time, the less you have to replace them, depending on your application. Linear fluorescent tubes should be changed out every six months and compact fluorescents every year.

Fluorescent bulbs marketed for aquaria are often more expensive and not necessarily better than generic versions. They are also not necessarily marketed correctly. Many bulbs offer spectral output graphs. However, many of these graphs are measured in relative power on the Y-axis rather than a known reference like watts per nanometer per 1000 lumens. All that 'relative power' lets you know is that 100% is the highest peak at a given nanometer and all other peaks are relative to this. So, don't be fooled by nomenclature and packaging (marketing hype).

Aquatic plants quickly respond to changes in light conditions and are more highly evolved than algae and are able to regulate photosynthesis more quickly than algae, which are biologically less advanced. Therefore, creating a 'siesta' period in the middle of the lighting period is effective at curbing algae. Plants are able to start photosynthesis once there is sufficient light. Algae need a long and uninterrupted lighting period to function properly. Intensity and duration will also be detrimental to algae growth. Create an hour dawn/dusk lighting period at the start and end of the lighting period to simulate natural lighting with the 'siesta' period in the middle of the intense lighting period. Duration depends on many variables such as type of lighting, size tank, intensity of the lights, etc. The point of this is to say that algae prevention is not a black art that involves estimation of color temperature. There are a few specific things that cause algae, mostly including excess nutrients (phosphate, nitrate) combined with light that is useful for photosynthesis. Fix the water chemistry and you should be able to get rid of the algae without impairing the total light available to your plants in areas of maximum activation for photosynthesis.


----------



## zig

This is a very interesting post Newt, although Im not quite sure of the need to change the bulbs every 6 months to a year or so, also the proof or need that a siesta period is beneficial in reducing algae may be questionable in a lot of peoples eyes and experience running planted tanks.


----------



## Newt

There are several methods to control/curb algae and a siesta period is one. It may not be the best but it does reduce the growth. I am only stating several options and didn't mean to suggest it was totally necessary.

Fluorescent tubes: linear tubes experience cathode tube decay over time and the spectrum can shift and the light output drops off dramatically. I believe the Interpet Triton tube claims theirs is the same until it goes dead; althou I haven't seen any data to back this up.










The T5 technology in CF/PC tubes enables them to be effective for twice as long but they have the same issues as the linear. So if you wish to have the same intensity of light and the designed spectral output change them out.


----------



## erik Loza

I'm in direct sales for a living and have seen a fair number of guys come and go through my company. Interestingly, there seem to be one common denominator among the guys who couldn't hack it and fell off the board: Ego. 

Ego manifests itself many different ways among each of us and is normal to varying degrees, but when it gets in the way of communicating with another person (customer, in my case, or fellow forum member, in the case of APC), then the person who ends up on the short end of the stick is ALWAYS the one doing the talking. In the case of sales, it means no production. In the case of the internet, it means not being taken seriously. 

These are some guidelines that have been very helpful for me, and I try to keep them in mind when wanting to get a point across to someone else.

1.) Nobody likes a know-it-all. No matter how accurate the point that is trying be made might be, if the person across the table from you feels like they are stupid, the wall goes up immediately you're done for the day.

2.) Offer advice out of concern for the other person, not just to hear yourself talk: "How can I help you?"/ "Maybe my experiences can benefit you"/ "I was in your situation once and this is what worked for me"/ "I hear the problem. What do you think the answer is?" 

3). People wil not listen to someone they can't relate to. In other words, be real. How credible would it be if I changed my handle from my real name to "Big Bird", and put my location as "Somewhere over the Rainbow", then started telling the whole forum what they didn't know about lighting, fertilizing, or whatever? 

If the title of the thread is "My experiences with different types of lighting over planted tanks", I'm going to read it. When it starts saying "should", "don't", and "I don't understand", and the the rest of reads like some sort of analysis of mistakes I'm told I'll make, hitting "back" on the browser is next. Just my 2-cents, which you are free to accept/reject.


----------



## Tsquare

I kinda skimmed over the post looking for a bulb that was best for planted tanks, but saw none. So what's the point for the average person?
Gene


----------



## Newt

I thought this was a site for people to learn from. Most of the posters here are picking lighting based on kelvin temps alone. I have read many articles in The Journal of Plant Physiology and thought I would impart some knowledge I have gained (not my ego shouting) so that people here would understand what makes plants grow rather than streach out some chicken entrails and see what bulb it tells them to use. If I thought that where I reside made a difference as to the the accuracy of what I wrote I would have given my GPS coordinates. Sorry you were offended and while you gave your two cents I gave my $100.


----------



## Gary Greguire

great post Newt lots of good info Thanks....


----------



## eklikewhoa

Very informative post!


----------



## Moment

*Thank you Newt*

I want to show my appreciation for you knowledgeable post Newt. It was just what I was looking for.

I have been trying to have a decent topic discussion over at Aqua hobby. Great site, I love the people. But no one wants to talk specifics like this though. Everyone is happy to be told "use this bulb", but no one wants to make an educated decision.

This was the topic here for you to browse and you can see what I was trying to accomplish. Some were at least curious but I met with a little resistance. I don't want to rewrite the whole thing here obviously.

http://www.aquahobby.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=42783 Lighting topic

Would you read through this topic Newt and offer your advise on my reasoning and logic.

It started over in this topic.

http://www.aquahobby.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=42708

This was actually a really good topic, over 300 views in 3 days and almost 30 replies. Was a good time. When I started to get specific it died out that's why I started on the Lighting specific one.


----------



## Newt

Hi Moment,

You have a good thread started there.

I dont think you mean relative power in areas of blue and red. A lot of companies market bulbs with spectral output graphs based on 'relative' power and not a meaningful measurement such as watts per nanometer per 1000 lumens, as other companies do. This is probably because the former companies dont want you to know how little intensity is actually being emitted at a given nanometer. Relative power is only measuring the various outputs to the highest peak which they call 100%.

As for the second post (first to your original): "white light at 5000K looks terrible". This could be a combo of issues: first, the bulb manufacturers basically pick a kelvin rating somewhere near the bulbs actual kelvin temp because they want to market it as a 6500K bulb and not say 7245K, or whatever it may really be. The second issue could the a lower Color Rendering Index of the bulb. I use 5000K Philips PLL-950's (along with other bulbs) and the CRI is 92 which is very high. It is definitely a very white light. But I bet if I were to put it next to say a 5000K MH with a 98 CRI it would look yellow.

As for your resistance to your thread, just look how mine started. Most people are only going to choose based on kelvin ratings and that is too bad. They may have good luck doing that but wont know what they can really accomplish if they tried this approach. I find it curious that the Dutch and other Europeans choose lighting at around 3500K and as high as 5000K with only a few using say 6500K. They use a lot of Philips PLL 840s and 860s as well as some Osram bulbs similar to those. Here in the US hobbistes are going form like 6500K to 10,000K. Part of the issue is alot of bulb manufactures do not provide spectral output graphs and most of the ones who do use the relative power to describe the output intensity. If you choose a bulb that has a high CRI the kelvin doesnt play into it so much. So many people I see are using Coralife 6700K. They have good marketing but the bulb has an dominant spike in the green and casts a green hue on the tank. Perhaps they like this as it makes their plants look very green. Then you have people using the GE 9325K that only has a 67 CRI yet people love them. I used them awhile back and they grow plants well but the red region is more in the orange and not up near 675nm. I don't think they are that close to a 10,000K anyway. I had one side by side a Philips C75 (7500K). The Philips had a blue tone and the GE had a pinkish/red tone. You would think the GE would have looked more blue. I prefer a nice white light.










The GE 9325K:









I hope this has helped.


----------



## Newt

Are they T5 linear tubes or T5 CF/PC bulbs? Can you get spectral outputs for what you are thinking of using? T5 is the most efficient and will give you more light penetration required for taller tanks. A lot of the German hobbists are using T5 but they dont always tell the brand name.


----------



## Moment

It's so much better to know why you are doing something the way you are doing it than to just hope blindly it works out right. That's why I started digging though all the information I could find. 

I'm really trying to justify the amount of money that my T5 setup cost me, and I want to make sure I got the right bulbs considering the cost.

So I guess given all you know about this, and that I am only starting to cobble it together, I will ask you a question. Which should I have bought?

I bought Hagen T5 linear bulbs based on the relative power that is shown in the spectrum. Thing is... as you said and I understand now, they do not necessarily reflect what the bulb actually puts out. The bulbs I bought were 18000k. The show large blue spike at 430 with smaller mound in blue around 450. Then they show red spike around 600 with smaller red mound around 650. They are Hagen Powerglo. I felt that since it was showing lots of red and blue they would be good for plants. I didn't buy Hagen 6700k Lifeglo because the peak was all in green and I knew that to be why the lumens were so high (3000 per 39watt bulb), and that green had no part in plant growth.

What do you know the Hagen bulbs aside from the fact that they poorly market there bulbs? Do you know where to get an actual spectral graph of their bulbs? One bulb comparison page I referenced in my forums actually showed that Powerglo had rather high Par efficiency. I feel good about this but still wonder based on the high color temp. Obviously it would be strong in blue but what about red? That last question was rhetorical...lol


----------



## boink

This is an excellent thread with actual data backing up the post as opposed to just comments on how it grows plants. Ive been looking around for a thread like this since i am thinking about changing my bulbs.

Thanks Newt


----------



## Newt

Hagens are a bit pricey. Attached are the graphs for the PowerGlo, LifeGlo and AquaGlo. The AquaGlo is probably the better plant bulb. It is somewhat like the GroLux but lower power. I also attached two graphs of normalized spectral plots so that you can see the output intensity at a given nanometer in true relation to each other. You can go to HomeDepot and get some T5 Philips 6500K that will balance out the lighting and make it more pleasing to the eye.

PowerGlo:









LifeGlo:









AquaGlo:


















Hagen spectral graphs:


----------



## Newt

Thank you, Boink

Great User name.


----------



## boink

would you by any chance have spectral graphs for coralife 6700 and 10k bulbs? those are what i have now and i was curious

thanks


----------



## Newt

The end of page one of this thread is the Coralife 6700K (Trichromatic). I will see if I can get one for the 10,000K Coralife.


----------



## Newt

Boink, here is the 10,000K bulb:


----------



## John S

i find that useing the GE 9325 k grows plants the best out of all the cf that i have used


----------



## Leonard

really good thread!! 
I thought I should gice you some links, then I don't need to write so much =)
Some links might be telling things that allredy have been told here, but that's gooder than contrary.

http://www.aquabotanic.com/lightcompare.htm
http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2006-04/sj/index.php
http://defdac.googlepages.com/ (I think its on swedish, but its anyway good for us then  )
http://saurama.aqua-web.org/


----------



## Newt

John S said:


> i find that useing the GE 9325 k grows plants the best out of all the cf that i have used


Yes, they do grow plants well. I have used them and many people use them and like them a lot. There is a good 'sticky' thread on the 9325 bulb in this forum.

What other CF's have you tried?


----------



## PiL

*Re: Lighting for the Planted Aquarium*

wow excellent thread... it's about 3 years since the last response!

anyways... having trouble finding info about 20k tubes. i wonder if you got any info in that scrapbook of yours on the subject, newt.

hope you guys are still alive!:boxing:


----------



## Aen

*Re: Lighting for the Planted Aquarium*

Seems like Takashi Amano reccomends green light over blue and red.

*Quoted from Aqua Journal:*
In the tropical streams where aquatic plants grow, sunlight are filtered through many vertical layers of tree canopy. The upper layer receives as much as 25% to 100% direct exposure to sunlight. This is scientifically known as the euphotic layer. In the lower parts of the forest and streams below, where low light conditions occurs, this si known as the oligophotic layer where a mere 1-3 percent of light is made available to plants. This small percentage of light are filtered through the forest green canopy and reflected as incidental light, thus the natural wavelengths are dramatically altered. Aquatic plants have evolved millions of years to adapt to greenish light available to them. The NA-Lamp adopts a fresh green ulothrix fluorescent to reproduce nature's green irradiance wavelength in your aquarium.

Here's the spectral distribution of NA-Lamps.










So I guess land plants or those that get sunlight all teh time like red and blue, while those at the bottom and in water have evolved to make use of green better.


----------



## nemenem

Great thread this!

Does anyone know where to find the spectrum data for power compact fluorescents?

I bought a light hood that came with two generic CF 24W 10,000K bulbs in it (so I was told), photo:










Light hood is about 35cm long. The problem is that my red plants have all turned green and glosso is growing vertically, despite high CO2 levels, good water quality and good fert routine. At over 6W per gallon there should be plenty of light......so I have put it down to the output of the bulbs themselves.

Any help would be greatly appreciated,

Thanks.


----------



## hoppycalif

You apparently have about an 8 gallon tank (48 watts giving 6 watts per gallon), so the "watts per gallon" rule isn't of much value for that size tank. Looking at the photo of the light fixture, it looks like there isn't room in there for much of a reflector. If that is true, the bulbs aren't supplying as much light to the tank as an AH Supply light kit, with it's great reflector would. The fixture is also mounted on legs, higher above the water than a standard, rest on the tank, light would be, which also reduces the amount of light the plants get. I suspect that with that fixture you have moderately low light intensity now.


----------



## nemenem

Thanks hoppycalif, appreciate your input.

The tank is actually only 7 gallon, made a mistake in the conversion from litres, which makes it 6.8W/gallon. The hood sits about 8cm above the surface of the water, and is mirrored internally. I understand what you are saying about the reflector though, which is about 50% blocked by the lamps themselves.

If anyone could give me some data on the available CF lamps I am looking for it would be fantastic.


----------



## ZakkWylde

Nice read Newt, appreciate it. I took botany 2 years ago and we never really got down to the nitty gritty of light and photoysynthesis unfortunately.


----------



## gotcheaprice

I'm studying photosynthesis in AP bio right now I'll read up on this post when I have free time. This week is a crappy week xD (SAT SUCKS!)


----------



## Tentacles

I have 2 x 20W dayglow flourescent tubes over a 2ft cube, 6700k, and I was complaining about visible penetration to the depths, but from what I can see in this thread, the green light should be the most penetrative.

The shop I got the light from said all I could do was buy an actinic tube to put in. I'm not sure what this is... I suspect blue light?

Personally, I'm thinking of buying another light and running 80W above it and possibly getting the red end of the spectrum working with different tubes as well.

It's a NPT with low light plants, so it's not all about rapid growth.


----------



## hoppycalif

Don't bother getting the actinic tube for a planted tank. Actinic tubes don't produce light that is of much value to the plants. If your tank is 24" x 24" x 24", it holds about 60 gallons of water, and you only have 40 watts of light over it. That isn't enough to grow any plants in good health. Even low light plants need more light than that. 80 watts would just about be the minimum for low light plants.


----------



## Tentacles

Thanks for your quick response. That was my first thought. I've got another 50W helping it out at the mo in the form of 2 other odd-sized lights (from the side I see, pale teal, pink and yellow... I think I'm covering the spectrum).


----------



## "B"

hi
i hope i don't ask a old question but how does this relate to using energy saving bulbs
http://www.lightbulbs-direct.com/variant_detail.asp?var=3296
or even better this smaller one
http://www.lightbulbs-direct.com/variant_detail.asp?var=3526

i'm planning on growing plants in lower shady light in my channa set-ups
it all is supposed to be very economical
i could use plastic plant and use cheaper energy savers that cost a lot less but real plants help with waterquality and also looks so much nicer

to give you an idea of my set-ups
its all in a rack
reflectors could be added. custom made of course


----------



## ruki

"B" said:


> hi
> i hope i don't ask a old question but how does this relate to using energy saving bulbs
> http://www.lightbulbs-direct.com/variant_detail.asp?var=3296
> or even better this smaller one
> http://www.lightbulbs-direct.com/variant_detail.asp?var=3526


Compact Fluorescent are an energy efficient replacement for the traditional round, screw-in incandescent light bulb. When comparing lumens per watt, the light output is 3 to 4 times greater than incandescent light. The tube is spiraled to make it longer, since a tube is not very bright at the ends. Also, it's to replace a round bulb, so it has to keep that basic shape.
These also work OK in the old-style incandescent bulb aquarium hoods since the original incandescent bulbs may produce too much heat and not enough light to grow plants well. These also produce more blues that help plants grow as compared to an incandescent bulb.


----------



## Newt

BTW, incandecent bulbs are so inefficient they are being phased out and soon will no longer be available. The screw-in, spiral CFs will take their place.


----------



## defdac

Here is a calculator where you can add spectral distributions and get the PUR-efficiency and also calculate the lux/PAR/PUR on the bottom of an aquarium:
http://82.183.138.227/GTKTest/GTKTest.html


----------



## Koi-fantast

defdac said:


> Here is a calculator where you can add spectral distributions and get the PUR-efficiency and also calculate the lux/PAR/PUR on the bottom of an aquarium:
> http://82.183.138.227/GTKTest/GTKTest.html


Hi mate! Didn't you have a problem with the formula in that program?`Cheers


----------



## defdac

Koi-fantast said:


> Hi mate! Didn't you have a problem with the formula in that program?`Cheers


It's the same calculations as in the Ivo Busko article over at the aquabotanic-site, are they wrong?


----------



## Muirner

I have a question, i currently run 4 T8 flurescent tubes in my hood and the bulbs are Philips Daytime Deluxe. These bulbs are nice but they seem to put off a yellowish light, or at least the tank is looking that way. When i recently switched from incandecent bulbs in my 10G hood to spiral CF bulbs i found i liked the lights better. They gave off a brighter light making the white rocks look nicer and the overall apearnance of my 10g look better. So my question is. Do i add some 100watt clip on CF lights to the side of my tank or should i get some more linear flourecent tubes to replace the philips daytime deluxe ones? I have at my avaiability (at a local store) 10k, 18k, and 20k. I'm leaning to trying a 10k or 2, but i'm looking for opinion. I'm unsure of the brand but they peak in the blue, red, and green spectrum. By the way the tank the T8's are on is a 55g.


----------



## Newt

Above is the spectral output for the Philips Daylight Deluxe 6500K bulb. It is 84CRI; which is not bad at all.
I used to use these along with Sylvania GroLux Std bulbs. I felt they were too green; but these were the T12 version. I dont think there is any appreciable difference. You may want to try using them with a different color spectrum and/or higher CRI bulb.

Let us know how you make out.


----------



## joyban

Hi Newt

Could you please post the original link to that SPD graph please..

Regards

Sujoy


----------



## Newt

I got it from the Philips site:
http://www.nam.lighting.philips.com/us/ecatalog/fluor/pdf/P-5136-A.pdf


----------



## hedson_25

it's such a good thread, i haver a question...
i have a 60cm aquarium and use a coralife 2x65 watt but my red plants never turned red at all...
i suposed it's enouht light for a 70 liter tank...
wich 65 or 55 pc lamps could help me to have red plants?
i have fertz and co2 presurised...
i have now just one 55 67k the other one is broken...need to replace it...


----------



## Newt

This link has 3 CF bulbs that would be good. However, I personally use the Philips PLL-950s and I find them a nice white light and the high CRI makes for good color rendition.

http://www.1000bulbs.com/Full-Spectrum-55-Watt-4-Pin-2G11-Base-Compact-Fluorescent-Light-Bulbs/

The website has them as 5300K which is the older version. The new ones are 5000K.
Also, the CRI is 92 not 82. I have purchased some from this site and shipping was quick.
The price has gone up on all of hem recently............well, what else is new.

P.S. I'd like to visit your location. LOL


----------



## mats808

*Re: Lighting for the Planted Aquarium*



Aen said:


> Seems like Takashi Amano reccomends green light over blue and red.
> 
> *Quoted from Aqua Journal:*
> In the tropical streams where aquatic plants grow, sunlight are filtered through many vertical layers of tree canopy. The upper layer receives as much as 25% to 100% direct exposure to sunlight. This is scientifically known as the euphotic layer. In the lower parts of the forest and streams below, where low light conditions occurs, this si known as the oligophotic layer where a mere 1-3 percent of light is made available to plants. This small percentage of light are filtered through the forest green canopy and reflected as incidental light, thus the natural wavelengths are dramatically altered. Aquatic plants have evolved millions of years to adapt to greenish light available to them. The NA-Lamp adopts a fresh green ulothrix fluorescent to reproduce nature's green irradiance wavelength in your aquarium.
> 
> Here's the spectral distribution of NA-Lamps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So I guess land plants or those that get sunlight all teh time like red and blue, while those at the bottom and in water have evolved to make use of green better.


Hi Newt,
I've been reading this thread and have found it relatively interesting. I stopped keeping fish several years ago. At that time there weren't as many options. I used Triton bulbs 100% of the time to grow plants and I felt that they did a good job. This was over 6 years ago. People were starting to use compacts but at the time I felt like they were overkill. Metal hallides were also being used, mostly for reef tanks but also by some freshwater hobbyist....I felt that this was overkill as well. Now, I see the need for such lighting, especially with some of the stem plants that are being grown these days.

I've just starting keeping aquariums again and I'm amazed at all the different options. Just out of curiosity, in your opinion what is the best bulb to grow aquarium plants assuming a normal 48in. T12 shop light? I've noticed that you seem to like Gro-lux bulbs but I still wanted to ask the question. Also, what is your opinion on Triton vs. Gro-lux?

Lastly, can you please address the quote above? All the things you've said makes sense and is pretty much how I've viewed aquarium lighting for years now. Without thinking too much about it, Amanos quote also seems logical and makes sense. I would really like to hear your opinion of this quote.

thanks,
aaron


----------



## DysproAgent

Newt,

After spending a lengthy amount of time online searching for documentation on what matters in plant growth, I'd have to say that your posts have given me a lot of insight. Now I understand what matters most.. thanks .

Since your emphasis is to obtain certain bulbs with ideal peaks for photosynthesis, am I safe to assume that your reasoning behind it is because a household T8 15watt output does not emit enough blue and red (forgive my layman) for sufficient plant growth?

If that's true, then here's a more important question: Can you double a household T8 fluorescent in wattage, consequently doubling the intensity in the red and blue ends to compensate for lack of both? The reason I ask this question is because I would like to retain a conservative-looking temperature rather than a disco-ball tank with several colored bulbs.

Again, thanks for your informative posts! Please reply soon 

If your answer is yes, then basically I'm going to get very strong Powercompact lighting to compensate for weak red and blue ends.


----------



## defdac

It isn't true that green plants prefer green light, and it is too easy to test with the range of aquarium bulbs the average/above average aquascaper have at home.

Change from a greenish/yellowish bulb like Osram Biolux to a blue bulb like Aquarelle/Aquastar/Trion/PowerGlo and watch how the photosynthesis explode.

If you spent any amount of time searching for PAR, PUR and such you will see that every photosynthesis action spectrum has a clearly marked dip in the green-yellow range. That is - such light is clearly much more innefficient than blue and red.

Also take a look at the chlorophyll sensitivity. No accessory pigments in the world will make it more efficient to transport light from to the chlorophyll than actually hitting it directly.


----------



## defdac

*Re: Lighting for the Planted Aquarium*

(The reason for Amano recommends his light with extra green is probably because it looks more natural. It has nothing to do with it being more efficient growing plants)


----------



## mats808

defdac,
Like I said in my earlier post....I pretty much agree with most of what has been said by "Newt" in regards to lighting spectrum, photosynthesis, etc. I have been growing aquarium plants for over 20 years now so I really don't need a lecture on what plants need in order to grow.

I'm not saying that Mr. Amano is right or wrong. However, if you read his quote carefully you'll see that he is in no way talking about making the plants look more natural. He's talking about how very little sunlight (1-3%) reaches the forest floor and that as this light is filtered through the forest's green canopy and reflected as incidental light its natural wavelengths are dramatically altered. He also says that aquatic plants have evolved millions of years to adapt to greenish light available to them. The NA-Lamp adopts a fresh green ulothrix fluorescent to reproduce nature's green irradiance wavelength in your aquarium.

Because I actually read and understood Amano's quote I thought about it and it kind of makes sense. I would make one change and say that this might apply more to lower light forest plants (Cryptocorynes, Bolbitis, Microsorum species, Anubias, etc.) and not so much higher light plants. There are many different kinds of plants with all different kinds of requirements. If some plants like high intensity light while others don't why is it not possible that some plants could appreciate 'green light'? I think after reading the quote it's pretty clear that Amano designed his bulbs to grow plants and not for aesthetics like you mentioned. 

Personally I think that sometimes "Amano" is overhyped but I must say that it does seem like he has put a lot of thought into his products and they seem to work quite well. In some ways his books as well as his products have created a kind of aquatic plant renaissance. I think it would be foolish to quickly pass judgement and assume that Amano's theories on aquatic plant lighting are totally wrong.

Now maybe this quote is outdated and Amano has changed his stance and is no longer making these bulbs because they suck. Or maybe this quote was taken out of context and so it is misleading. All I know is that the quote that Aen provided seems to make sense....although it is counter to the conventional view of aquarium lighting. And if Amano says it works that has to be at least as good as 'defdac' saying it doesn't.

So I guess my point is although Amano's bulb goes against what I thought was proper aquarium plant lighting I'm going to go out on a limb and say that it probably works just fine.


----------



## niko

Wow, what a long thread!

To anybody willing to practically experiment on how the light spectrum affects plant growth I strongly suggest getting some Giesemann Midday T5HO bulbs. Each bulb must have an individual reflector.

What you will immediately notice is the amazing color of the light. Cool, but bringing the reds and greens out.

Also you will find that you can use 1/2 the wattage of what you previously used and have not just the same growth, but better one. And I mean 1/2 the wattage of a CF, not only a fat T12 or T8 bulbs.

So far I've done about 10 tanks with these bulbs and every time the results are outstanding.

--Nikolay


----------



## Newt

Green light/green plants......hummmmm.

The Amano article doesnt really say that green light is better than red or blue, simply that plants have adapted to utilizing a portion of green light available to them. Diana Walstad has also made similar claims in her book. However, I have seen no scientific data to support this nor have I read anything to dismisss this either. A majority of my reading has been in the Jounal of Plant Pysiology and other related university studies.

Most bulbs (for freshwater use any way) have a green peak so you get your green light anyway. I like to avoid the large heavily weight green ligt as it makes the tank look unnatural and even gawdy (my opinion).
Here is the photopic curve showing plant action spectrum and the human eye sensitvity:









mats808: I really like the GroLux Standard and GroLux WS for dawn dusk lighting. The Standard has a great peak of red at approx 660nm which you wont find in most bulbs as the red phosphour they use is quite expensive. If you have shop lights then you can mix them with Philips 6500K (F40DX) available at Home Depot. I would also get some reflective mylar for the fixture. The cheapest place I know of for GroLux lights is www.saveonlighting.com
You'll most likely have to buy a box of six.

Agentkhiem: I dont think its possible to double the wattage of a bulb and if you could I'm not sure that would increase the peaks of red and blue.

Niko: Giessmann Midday T5HO are becoming quite popular and are great bulbs - and quite pricey for someone like me who changes out T12's every six months and all others annually. I will be converting to T5HO soon. I buy my bulbs in bulk so I have a number to go thru. I will still use the GroLux for dawn/dusk lighting. I will also use them in conjuntion with Aqua-Medic Planta T5HO bulb (bottom graph):http://aqua-medic.com/t5_bulbs.shtml


----------



## mats808

I apologize to eveyone for my last post being so long. I was a little upset because I was simply asking Newt a question and I didn't appreciate defdac's condescending tones.

Thanks Newt for the info.


----------



## DysproAgent

Newt said:


> Agentkhiem: I dont think its possible to double the wattage of a bulb and if you could I'm not sure that would increase the peaks of red and blue.


Sorry, I meant to ask if it's possible to compensate for low red and blue peaks by using above average 6700k lighting. For 40 watts of 6700k in a 10 gallon leader, would that not be enough for reasonable plant growth for Riccia and Amazon Swords? My goal is to achieve enough blue and red parts of spectrum while keeping enough green light for the eye. I hope this is making sense.


----------



## Newt

You need to refer to each bulb's spectral output graph. The most effiecient bulbs with strong blue and red peaks are the Philips Aquarelle 10,000K freshwater bulb (european - mite have trouble finding them) and the Philips ADV850 a 5000K bulb.

www.aamsco used to carry the Aquarelle. Last I inquired you needed to buy a box of 25 and they were going for $10.50 or so. The Interpet Triton (has a new name now and it escapes me) is also a good bulb but pricey.

I always buy online and in bulk to save $$$.


----------



## DysproAgent

Newt said:


> You need to refer to each bulb's spectral output graph. The most effiecient bulbs with strong blue and red peaks are the Philips Aquarelle 10,000K freshwater bulb (european - mite have trouble finding them) and the Philips ADV850 a 5000K bulb.
> 
> www.aamsco used to carry the Aquarelle. Last I inquired you needed to buy a box of 25 and they were going for $10.50 or so. The Interpet Triton (has a new name now and it escapes me) is also a good bulb but pricey.
> 
> I always buy online and in bulk to save $$$.


The problem is that I have a square pin 20" Satellite power compact fixture, which came with 17" 460nm/10K 40 watt lighting. I know that it doesn't provide ample red end, so I was thinking of getting the Current USA Sunpaq 17" 40 watt 6700K as a compromise. 








Yes, the red end is still weak, but wouldn't the bulb's intensity make up for the little red? 
There doesn't seem to be any other alternative Power compact square pins out there..
BTW, thanks for being patient with my replies.


----------



## defdac

> The Amano article doesnt really say that green light is better than red or blue, simply that plants have adapted to utilizing a portion of green light available to them.


Just because plants have adapted to utilizing very low light and light of inefficient frequencies like green, does it mean that they prefer it?


----------



## Newt

defdac said:


> Just because plants have adapted to utilizing very low light and light of inefficient frequencies like green, does it mean that they prefer it?


I agree.


----------



## Newt

Agentkhiem said:


> Yes, the red end is still weak, but wouldn't the bulb's intensity make up for the little red?
> There doesn't seem to be any other alternative Power compact square pins out there..
> BTW, thanks for being patient with my replies.


Sorry, when you mentioned40watt I automatically thought 48" T12 or T8.
Not to keen on square pin. I do believe there are adapters available to go to straight pin. I will look into. Then you could use several good CF's available and reduce the amount of green you are getting with your existing bulb.

You are not able to tell how strong the emissions are with your bulb as the graph's Y-axis is in relative power and not watts/lumens or some other meaningful number. It is in relative power which takes the strongest/highest peak and that is labeled 100% (in your bulb's case - green); everything else is relative to that point.

I'll look around for adapters and get back to you. Either ahsupply or Rexx Grigg may have them.


----------



## Newt

I was able to find several being sold on eBay.

When I get home I will attach a link that has 3 good CF's straight pin.
Do you know what you have for a ballast?

http://search.ebay.com/compact-squa...ZR40QQssPageNameZRC0021QQ_trksidZp1638Q2em120


----------



## DysproAgent

Newt said:


> I was able to find several being sold on eBay.
> 
> When I get home I will attach a link that has 3 good CF's straight pin.
> Do you know what you have for a ballast?
> 
> http://search.ebay.com/compact-squa...ZR40QQssPageNameZRC0021QQ_trksidZp1638Q2em120


Yeah, I read somewhere about these things.. but I can't find a good 40 watt power compact 17" that's not too blueish, not to mention there aren't any dedicated plant growth bulbs that I see out there even with straight pins. Do I really have to retrofit a T5 plant bulb in there?](*,)

My ballast? It's electronic starting and it's a Satellite fixture.. is that what you mean?


----------



## Newt

I was wondering if your ballast could power a 55 watt CF.
Also, how much room do you have? A 55w is approx 21" plus the adapter.
This is where I was going with this.

Here is the link:
http://www.1000bulbs.com/Full-Spectrum-55-Watt-4-Pin-2G11-Base-Compact-Fluorescent-Light-Bulbs/
Any of these are good but I personally use the Philips PLL-950


----------



## DysproAgent

Newt said:


> I was wondering if your ballast could power a 55 watt CF.
> Also, how much room do you have? A 55w is approx 21" plus the adapter.
> This is where I was going with this.
> 
> Here is the link:
> http://www.1000bulbs.com/Full-Spectrum-55-Watt-4-Pin-2G11-Base-Compact-Fluorescent-Light-Bulbs/
> Any of these are good but I personally use the Philips PLL-950


I have a 20" Satellite fixture, so I can't..


----------



## mats808

Hey guys, 
I realize that adapting is different than preferring but.........

When a plant adapts to a certain habitat, eventually this becomes the type of habitat it prefers, right? Sometimes that species might eventually require this habitat, right? Now, after 50,000 years or so of living in this habitat and thriving with this 'green' light at what point does this become the type of light that it prefers? Are you guys saying never? 

I understand that at first, plants may end up growing in these lower light habitats because there might be less competition.....but at some point I think this just becomes it's habitat. And if we assume that what Amano is saying about the whole green light in the forest thing is correct I would think that the green light becomes part of their habitat as well. Then I think that after thousands of years, eventually a plant might even prefer this 'green' light.

Just a few thougths. But it kind of seems logical, i think. What do you guys think?

aaron


----------



## DysproAgent

mats808 said:


> Hey guys,
> I realize that adapting is different than preferring but.........
> 
> When a plant adapts to a certain habitat, eventually this becomes the type of habitat it prefers, right? Sometimes that species might eventually require this habitat, right? Now, after 50,000 years or so of living in this habitat and thriving with this 'green' light at what point does this become the type of light that it prefers? Are you guys saying never?
> 
> I understand that at first, plants may end up growing in these lower light habitats because there might be less competition.....but at some point I think this just becomes it's habitat. And if we assume that what Amano is saying about the whole green light in the forest thing is correct I would think that the green light becomes part of their habitat as well. Then I think that after thousands of years, eventually a plant might even prefer this 'green' light.
> 
> Just a few thougths. But it kind of seems logical, i think. What do you guys think?
> 
> aaron


Depends on if you believe/reject Micro or Macro evolution. But that's another topic of it's own


----------



## defdac

mats808 said:


> Hey guys,
> I realize that adapting is different than preferring but.........
> 
> When a plant adapts to a certain habitat, eventually this becomes the type of habitat it prefers, right? Sometimes that species might eventually require this habitat, right? Now, after 50,000 years or so of living in this habitat and thriving with this 'green' light at what point does this become the type of light that it prefers? Are you guys saying never?
> 
> I understand that at first, plants may end up growing in these lower light habitats because there might be less competition.....but at some point I think this just becomes it's habitat. And if we assume that what Amano is saying about the whole green light in the forest thing is correct I would think that the green light becomes part of their habitat as well. Then I think that after thousands of years, eventually a plant might even prefer this 'green' light.
> 
> Just a few thougths. But it kind of seems logical, i think. What do you guys think?
> 
> aaron


Can you grow your aquatic plants in high light?
Do they grow faster under high light?
Do they prefer lower light or high light?

Can you grow some species in low light that is green? Yes. Do they prefer it? No.


----------



## defdac

.. and yes. In a world designed to work exactly like you want to, like make believe, we can make believe green plants will adapt to only use green light.

But it's kindof pointless..


----------



## mats808

maybe you're right. But it amazes me that you are so positive that there is absolutely no way that you could be wrong.

First of all to answer some of your questions. Maybe it's just the way you write so I am misunderstanding you but it seems like you are implying that plants grow faster under high light and so they therefore prefer high light.

I don't think that all your assumptions are true. There are many plants that prefer low light and if grown under too high of a light they will eventually die. If they are able to adapt to this higher light some of these plants start growing weird. An example would be Bolbitis heudelotii. This is a plant that I believe is often grown with way too much light. True it does grow faster but the leaves get all contorted and crinkly looking and they don't lie flat. Before you say anything contrary please remember that the bottom line is that this is a low light plant that is found in very shady spots under the forest canopy. Actually you should try growing your Bolbitus with low light, I guarantee you that you'll be amazed. This plant is very pretty when grown in the dark. The leaves tend to be quite flat and nicely layered all facing parallel to the ground. It grows slower though but it's much prettier. Typical human nature though to take a plant that comes from the dark, grow it with bright light, not notice that it's growth form has changed (for the worse), only recognize that it grows a little faster, and assume that it prefers this.

I think that you are really underestimating the whole evolutionary process. Trees are plants. Some prefer colder weather some prefer warmer weather. Some can adapt to many climates, some can't. If you try to grow a Japanese Maple in the Sahara it will die. No matter how much water, fertilizer, etc. you give it. It will die. It will die because it's too hot. Plants adapt to a certain environment, eventually they require that environment. Temperature, soil, light, they are all part of the environment. 

A lot of Cryptocorynes will die unless the soil/water is very acidic (pH4.5-5.0). They not only adapted to these conditions.....they now require it. Why do you think that light is so different?


----------



## defdac

mats808 said:


> There are many plants that prefer low light and if grown under too high of a light they will eventually die.


Show me one aquatic plant that will die under sun light.



> If they are able to adapt to this higher light some of these plants start growing weird. An example would be Bolbitis heudelotii. This is a plant that I believe is often grown with way too much light. True it does grow faster but the leaves get all contorted and crinkly looking and they don't lie flat. Before you say anything contrary please remember that the bottom line is that this is a low light plant that is found in very shady spots under the forest canopy.


I grow Bolbitis under high light without distorsions, it seems to prefer it. The leaves in the darker regions get black, distorted and ugly:











> I think that you are really underestimating the whole evolutionary process. Trees are plants. Some prefer colder weather some prefer warmer weather. Some can adapt to many climates, some can't. If you try to grow a Japanese Maple in the Sahara it will die. No matter how much water, fertilizer, etc. you give it. It will die. It will die because it's too hot. Plants adapt to a certain environment, eventually they require that environment. Temperature, soil, light, they are all part of the environment.


Ofcourse, but that does not prove your point.

The plants we have in our aquariums all prefer higher light to a degree where most hobbyists can't provide enough.

I've seen the nicest Java ferns, moss, and Anubias grown directly under the strongest MH there is.

Chlorophyll is green. Green reflects green light, otherwise it wouldn't be green.

That proves my point.


----------



## defdac

To not own you too much I will reach out a hand and give you that the chlorophyll might evolve in a million years to become another color and thereby sensitive to other colors than blue and red.

You can wait until then and grow pink plants that uses green light.

Until then, let's see more green aquascapes =)


----------



## mats808

hey defdac,

First of all let me say that you grow really nice plants and I'm sure that you're really good at what you do. I just felt like you were attacking me when I was simply asking a question and we got off to the wrong foot.

I didn't really want to say this but part of the reason I brought the Bolbitis thing up is because I visited your 'blog' and I saw your Bolbitis. Notice how the ends of many of the leaves curl downward and the leaves have a somewhat ruffled look. The tips of your leaves are also all pointing toward the light or top of the tank. I believe that they are shielding themselves from the light and thus facing the least amount of surface area toward your light source which is primarily coming from above.

Granted this is personal preference but when grown in the 'dark':
1. it grows slower 
2. the leaves are really pretty flat. No curled tips or undulation to the leaves 
3. the leaves also face the light. As a result they kind of all grow parallel to the light source which comes from above forming a nice layered look (picture a deck of cards fanned out in your hand of course very sporadically). Really quite pretty.

Please understand that I'm not cutting down your culture in any way. In fact I see many/most Bolbitis grown this way. It's great because it grows so much faster. But just try growing it under much darker conditions. Just try. I think you'll like it.

The reason I know this is that I started growing Bolbitus around 1990ish thanks to a friend who introduced me to less common plants. I know Bolbitis is common now but it wasn't as popular in 1990. At that time I had no CO2. Not too many people were using CO2 back then compared to these days. I was taught to grow the plant in the 'dark' because that's how it grows in the wild. Also with really clean water so the 'pores' don't get all clogged. The plant grew how I stated above. Later after the 'Amano Revolution' I got a CO2 system (1995ish). I've grown Bolbitis in much brighter light with the addition of CO2 and fertilized (macro/micro) on a regular basis. You are right....it grew much faster. However the growth did change. Like I said this may be personal preference but I've grown it both ways and for myself I can tell you that I prefer its growth habit when grown under very low light conditions.

Now about the other thing, maybe Amano is wrong about the whole green light thing far below the forest canopy. All I said is that if we assume that he is right and there is mostly only green light available then it seems logical that plants that grow solely in these 'green light' environments have not only adapted to these conditions but after 50,000 or so years actually prefer these conditions.


----------



## mats808

I forgot to address one of your questions. Try growing Cryptocoryne bogneri in direct sunlight. It will die. I don't know where you live but I live in Hawaii. The sun gets pretty bright here. Not as bright as in the true tropics where many of these plants grow but still pretty bright. Actually many species of Cryptocoryne will die in direct sunlight if you live anywhere near the equator.


----------



## mats808

Here is a picture of what Bolbitis looks like when grown under low light conditions. This is not my pic but i hope it's ok since the photographer's name is printed on the bottom right corner.

It's not the best example since it only shows a single leaf and not the whole plant but it's the best I could find. Notice that the leaf is growing outward, facing the light, and not up towards the light and that it's really quite flat. The leaf is also dark green opposed to a much more transluscent yellow green. There is some variation that I've seen with different clones but in my experience even with different clones you will see the traits I mentioned much more when the plants are grown with less light.

Picture a Philodendron growing up the side of a tree with all of its leaves growing outward, facing its greatest surface area up towards the light. Can you picture the layers of leaves all facing the same direction? Like when a magician says pick a card and fans the deck out for you. It really is super pretty. 

In fact, a lot of plants change their growth habit when they get more light than they are accustomed to. Many orchids do this. When many species of shade loving orchids get too much light their leaves that normally face the sky start to grow very upright in an attempt to face as little of their surface area toward the sun possible. A kind of self shading. Their green leaves also become much more greenish yellow and eventually yellowish green. Orchid growers sometimes do this on purpose to 'stress' their plants enough so that they flower.


----------



## defdac

I think you're talking about growing Crypts over the water then? I'm mostly aquascaping and growing them under the water.

I also think we have to define "lower light". In a sense all our aquariums, including the "high light" ones, can be considered shady compared to direct sun light.

We're also mostly growing weeds, including the fancier plants harder to come by. As they are weeds they are not that picky about their light levels and very few hobbyists, if any, can manage to dish out the 600 micromoles/m^2/sec where the plants gets light saturated. When they get light saturated they just keeps photosynthesize on their highest level. Under water plants have enough humidity and stable temperatures to keep going at it as long as there are CO2 and nutrients.



> Please understand that I'm not cutting down your culture in any way


Well you just did, and frankly I could care less since you haven't shown anything that comes close yourself. You seem to be the typical sci-fi-dream-talker, and I'm more of the pragmatic scientist that loves to share ups and downs of my hobby. Put you money where you mouth is and show us your beautiful tanks instead. That will shut me up and make me crawl down under my stone for sure =)

But let's get back on topic. We seem to agree that green light is not as efficient growth speed wise.

So let's talk about evolution and how green plants adapt to grow in the shade under canopies with green light. They get leggy and strive to get up to the blue light as fast as possible. I've read up on how plants know they are shaded. They look at how much far-red irradiance there is around them. Under canopies there are alot of far-red light.

When they reach the blue light with relatively lower amount of far-red then will spread out and try to shade their competitors.

This growth pattern is fairly easy to see for an above average aquascaper that have their closet full of different light bulbs with different spectral distributions. Some bulbs, often with less blue and more red, will get the plants very leggy. Other bulbs with more blue, less red, will grow them very horizontal and making them hug the ground.

This is an evolutionary adaption to overcome the problems associated with not getting enough light.

And again. Most hobbyists hovers around very low irradiances, mostly below 100 micromoles/m^2/sec usable radiation, where the problem is getting enough light to break even and even reach the compensation point where respiration=photosynthesis.

And then comes the somewhat idiotic idea to spend more electricity on dishing out more green, unusable, light? Come on =)


----------



## mats808

What you say about plants searching for more light under the canopy is true of many species. Many of these plants actually prefer higher light and are simply competing in a race for more light. With many species it is a race to the top where the light is more abundant. 

The thing is that these are only some, actually most of the plants. You are forgetting about all the plants that like the forest floor. The plants that have evolved to live there. The plants that really don't like bright light and actually prefer the shade. 

So yes you are right that some plants, maybe even most plants will get leggy, and search for the light. But this is not true of all plants. and these are the plants that Amano was talking about in his quote. He wasn't talking about plants that are forced to grow in lower light until they can reach the top of the canopy and bask in the sunlight. He was talking about the plants that actually like where they have evolved over tens of thousands of years to live.

Have you ever hiked in a tropical/sub-tropical rainforest? If you did you should have noticed that there are certain species of plants that will only grow in the shade. You can actually see them growing along a wall of rock.....nicely down the line....and then all of a sudden the line stops because there is too much light in this section. Then you go a little further and the shade returns and so does the nice little line of that particular species. Although you find it so hard to believe, certain plants prefer the shade.

As far as offending you, again, even though you don't care....i apologize. I don't know if you noticed but I did mention that it is a personal preference of mine. I also mentioned that bright light is great as Bolbitis does grow faster. 

As far as me not showing anything....unfortunately because of work and other things in my life I choose to keep but a few tanks. With these few tanks, I choose to keep breeding pairs of wild Bettas. I am keeping Betta macrostoma and Betta pallifina. My male macrostoma is my avatar. I actually have fry right now. If you like when they grow a bit I could send you some if you are interested. Unfortunately I do not currently have a 'display tank'. It actually saddens me a bit but with the little time I have I have chosen to focus on breeding fish instead of creating beautiful aquascapes. I am currently keeping a few plants that I really like but these plants are kept because of rarity or simply because they're some of my favorites and not for aquascaping purposes. Like you mentioned I have a few emersed Cryptocoryne species that I really like. I am growing two pieces of Cryptocoryne cordata 'Rosanervig' submersed. And I have a Microsorum species that is 'fingered' if you will.


----------



## defdac

I think we agree on pretty much everything. 

There are of course some species better adapted to cope with less light - as we mostly have in our tanks.

"Beginner" plants like ferns, anubias and moss.

They will grow beautiful with the meanest hood you can get though - you will not have anywhere near sunlight anyway.


----------



## nosoop4u246

As difficult as it was for me to read though this whole thread, dogging my way through pages 5, 6, 7, and 8 of Defdac attacking Mats, I did manage, and thoroughly agree with Newt. With as much as I found myself disliking Defdac by the end of the post, he did make a (singular) good point: if the plants are green in appearance, they are reflecting green light, and if they are reflecting green light, they are not using it. If any of the commonly kept aquatic plants are using green light, it would be the _Ammania senegalensis_, the _Alternanthera reineckii_, the _Nymphaea rubra_-- the reds. I use a mixture of bulbs in a fairly unconventional way to get the reds and blues in, and I'm sure I'll take some flak for it, but halogens work very nicely in conjunction with any strongly blue-peaking bulb (I have Coralife's 10,000K bulb).

"Standard" halogen:


----------



## defdac

Yes I was a bit harsh perhaps hm..*blush* That kindof defeat the purpose of forums, and I really like discussing lighting. Sorry for coming out a bit rough hm..


----------



## Commodore 64

Well, I think sometimes written thoughts seem more harsh when read. 

For me, I'm a complete nub...I'm just trying to grow hornwort, java moss, java ferns, moneywort, banana plant, swords, crypts and some grasses in my aquarium. I really have no clue what my lighting really is, as it's a shoplight, on a homemade little frame of stained oak. So I doubt I get optimal reflecting of the light. I do know that I've got 2 T8 6500k 32w bulbs, one overdriven x 4 and the other overdriven x 2 on a 55g, 19 inches above my substrate.

I read threads like this and the other stickied ones which talk about lumens per watt, PAR, PUR and whatever....and I really can't figure out a way to correlate that with my ODNO lights (or any lights). It truly does seem to be an art as much as it is a science.

This whole lighting thing seems so cryptic and complicated when you look at it at such depth as this thread...and that doesn't even factor in ferts and CO2!

I guess I'll let my plants tell me what my lighting conditions are (i.e. see what grows). The dwarf hairgrass doesn't seem to be doing anything, it is slowly atrophying. The hornwort is going ape**** but that seems to be the norm.


----------



## Martin

good post!

A note on the Amano quote.
He seems(his company, I doubt much of the "thoughts" behind his products are actually his, personal) to envelop most of his technical data in wonderful poetry, which diffuses the actual data, and makes for wonderful dreamy reading 

I would agree with a spectrum that also has a spike in the green, for humand eyes, but not for plants.

As written over and over, green light is reflected. 

As I read the quote, it is surmised that the 1-3% light that filters down to the plants (plants growing in the forests) are mostly light that penetrates leaves high above, and therefore takes on a more green spectrum?
I hope I am just misreading the statement cause if not he's just being silly.
I am a firm disbeliever in Amano's products, and find that 80% is merely hype, so of course, I'd have to disbelieve his quote on light.

a side note to #4: I really cannot understand why this poster even posted. The post is pointless, and only disrupts a good read. Maybe a personal grudge? because it has absolutely no relevance to the posts above. 

Def: your posts do come out harsh, rude and demeaning, but I know you better that these few posts, and believe that your intentions are different. (when you write: to not own you completely; you are being very rude)

anyway, #1 and all posts related to lighting are excellent, and I truly appreciate the level of thought being giving to this topic!

I'd like to suggest that you look into the Narva brand of T5 tubes. They are a strong competitor to Giesemann's 'Midday'


----------



## xavierj123

Thanks Newt for your informative post. I think I will have to read it three times to comprehend as I am a slow learner. Not only that but I think the quality of anyone's tank is not only "light" but water quality, temperature, location, and the needs of specific plants. I don't think even Mother Nature can provide perfection.


----------



## Newt

I agree with your theory. I have always said that what works for one person may not work for someone else as water parameters can vary so widely. It all starts with the water. You can cheat/get by with the lighting. If I was writing this again I'd change a few things.


----------



## Cthulhu

First off, thanks to everyone who contributed all the great information to this thread. It was very informative and I learned more about aquarium plant lighting in the last 10 minutes than I have the past week researching online.

My question is what would *any* of you recommend for a bulb on my older 36" fixture/w reflector? (It takes a single full length 25-30 watt T-8 tube)
I have looked at many different brands and basically want a tried and tested product that yields good results for the planted aquarium, since I do not have the newer compact fluorescent or T-5 HO fixtures.
I was looking at getting this one http://www.1000bulbs.com/F30T8/34029/ what do you all think?

Currently I just have some Java Fern and Java Moss growing in the tank but would like to get some other plants in the future.
All opinions/recommendations welcomed.


----------



## Martin

Cthulhu said:


> First off, thanks to everyone who contributed all the great information to this thread. It was very informative and I learned more about aquarium plant lighting in the last 10 minutes than I have the past week researching online.
> 
> My question is what would *any* of you recommend for a bulb on my older 36" fixture/w reflector? (It takes a single full length 25-30 watt T-8 tube)
> I have looked at many different brands and basically want a tried and tested product that yields good results for the planted aquarium, since I do not have the newer compact fluorescent or T-5 HO fixtures.
> I was looking at getting this one http://www.1000bulbs.com/F30T8/34029/ what do you all think?
> 
> Currently I just have some Java Fern and Java Moss growing in the tank but would like to get some other plants in the future.
> All opinions/recommendations welcomed.


out of the ones available in the link, the one you're looking at is clearly the best.
The other 6500K tube has a CRI of 75, and the 4200K (which I would've recommended before I saw the CRI) has a CRI of a low 62. Horrible.

6500K will give you very bright white/bluish light. It is a personal preference, and differs from person to person. I am into the 5500K bulbs, but they're difficult to get.


----------



## Eugene

It seems a big mistake to speak about light for water plants using the investigation of spectrum distribution in water (as Amano did it).
Because:
1. Light energy of Sun billion times more than aquarium lamp can give. Even in shadow areas.
2. Lot of aquarium plants in nature are amphibias (can grow not only in water).
3. And most important - they are coloured in the same way, as other plants.

What it mean? The same pigment system. The same physiology. The same "reflected green" - what we see as _colour_.

It's understandible if a man or a company manufacture something and selling something.  
It is no doubt that green lamp can work for plants - in it's spectrum there are red and blue too... And if it's plenty of light (as recommed now, as it is "default" for planted tank) - spectral distribution is secondary, it is "additional question".

And it is also the answer, how bolbitis, or something like it (what normally prefer shadow) "beutifully grow under strong green light and wery poor in shadow" - because physiological power of green lamp is not high.

It's a billion of ways or approaches in aquariumistik.

But at least one is wrong from any side: the changing of scientifical knowledge for "industrial knowledge", which is sometimes starts together with some "special" aquarium stuff.


----------



## hubbathejut

*Powerglo question then.. please*

so ... here i stumble across this great post After i went out and bought TWO Powerglo´s.

A friend of mine convinced me they were the best bulbs for plant growth. It says 18´000k on the packaging , but assuming that was its range i looked at the drawing of they´re spectrum estimate on the packaging.

Would be better off with a 6500 and 3500 combo than using the Powerglo at all ?

My vendor only carries Harden , so any advice on two fluoros from Harden for my aquaplantarium would be immensly appreciated .

Thank You kindly...i really dont know who else to ask

jut


----------



## Bettatail

Newt, I agree, and the info is really helpful, I learn some basic theories of relationship between light waves and plant photosythesis. 
But, about the lights, I have a simple question, what is human eye conception of red light + blue light.
It looks green, isnt it(visual scale, not traditional blue-yellow-red)? 
plants under a 6500k light may look more green but doesn't necessarily mean the light bulb is wasting energy. Its light waves distribution is around green light, of course, may peak at the green. Plants would still benefit from 6500k since the distribution of light around green is most sufficient than other lights bulbs with different K. That is why a 6500k bulbs are always called "day light" bulbs in store


Visual (red-green-blue) color wheel


----------



## Bettatail

My mistake, blue + red looks purple on the visual scale:frusty:


----------



## geezer

I'm thinking of getting two of these










Odyssea 65W Compact Fluorecent Bulb (6400k/ Color Enhancing Spectrum)

----

And also getting two of these.










Odyssea 65W Compact Fluorescent Bulb (50/50)

----

After reading a bit, which is hard for me to understand. A bit of blue and red is needed. Would this suffice for my 95 gallon tank, money is a big issue at the moment. I have a coralife fixture but wishing to change the bulbs. They take 65 watt straight pin ones (x4)


----------



## Newt

If that last picture of the blue and white bulb is an actinic then pass on by. Actinic doesnt do much if anything for FW plants. You can get a good CF that has a good spectral output without using a colored bulb.


----------



## geezer

Newt said:


> If that last picture of the blue and white bulb is an actinic then pass on by. Actinic doesnt do much if anything for FW plants. You can get a good CF that has a good spectral output without using a colored bulb.


Yep the last one is half Actinic blue, 99% sure of it anyway. Can I ask what is a CF is?

If I used 4 of them pinky/red ones instead, would that be an issue?

I've heard of the 9235k ones on here, but unsure it would fit into my fixture. It takes 21inch, 4 pin bulbs. Most I can have is 65 watt in each one.

It's been so long since I've upgraded my lights, about 15+ months. Before I just went by WPG but this thread changes it for me, but baffled still  . I've recently started the PPS pro so want to start afresh


----------



## Newt

CF = compact fluorescent. Same thing as PC = power compact.

The 9325s are 55watt but if you have 4 pins straight in a row it is a 2G11 base and is the same size.
The Philips PLL950s are nice or Sylvania studio or Dulux 54 (both 55 watt).


----------



## geezer

Would 55watt be strong enough for me? for a 95 gallon tank I could fit 4 of them in.

I'm guessing the lights I have at the moment are useless. 2 lots are daylight and the other two have blue tint. They cost me near 250 dollars


----------



## Newt

I think the 220 watts is enough for most plants. Your tank may be a 95 gal but the amount of 'open water' is less. You need to account for the inside dimensions minus volume of substrate and decorations, etc.


----------



## hinoone66

Thank you very much Newt. Like I told you in my private messages, I was a salt water geek for years. I had a very nice coral tank set up for years (75 gal). I dug out my 48 inch flour. bulbs, I used 4 of them. I did some research on them, 2 bulbs had a cri of 96, and 2 acri of 86. The color was awesome on the coral. I did not know about lighting. I used the bulbs because my petstore guru, talked me out of spending hundreds of dollars on a fancy lighting system. Your thread was awesome. Made me do alot of reading on lighting to understand what you were getting at. To me thats a good thing. A gain thank you very much for your fast replies on my private messages. Hope to see some new threads from you on other topics in the future.


----------



## geezer

Newt said:


> I think the 220 watts is enough for most plants. Your tank may be a 95 gal but the amount of 'open water' is less. You need to acount for the inside dimensions minus volume of substrate and decorations, etc.


I have this tank










just a totem head, bit of bog wood and two small pipes thats all i have really. my lights are on clamps if that makes any difference, i have no lid

Are the 9325's considered daylight bulbs? Just trying to understand a bit more. I'm so clueless.

If you recommend me 4 bulbs for my tank I'll go and buy them online, you seem to be a brainiac at them all  I only really have polysperma, bacopa monnieri, anubias, sagitaria, java fern's and some other weed stuff. I've had bad luck with exotic or hard growers so far, but willing to go for it again


----------



## Newt

Cool looking tank!

I dont by any means know all lighting or lights.

A lot of people love the 9325s. I used to use them but didnt like the low CRI and at the time wasnt able to find replacements for a good price. So I went to the Philips PLL950s.

With the four slots you could do (2) 9325 and (2) bulbs with a high CRI like a Philips PLL950. Its 5300K and a CRI of 91 or some other day light bulb. The 6500 to 6700k bulbs tend to all have too much green. Yuck.


----------



## geezer

Newt said:


> Cool looking tank!
> 
> I dont by any means know all lighting or lights.
> 
> A lot of people love the 9325s. I used to use them but didnt like the low CRI and at the time wasnt able to find replacements for a good price. So I went to the Philips PLL950s.
> 
> With the four slots you could do (2) 9325 and (2) bulbs with a high CRI like a Philips PLL950. Its 5300K and a CRI of 91 or some other day light bulb. The 6500 to 6700k bulbs tend to all have too much green. Yuck.


Thanks man!! and thanks for your advice too. If I find a site with them two on, I'll let you know. I don't know why they are so expensive to buy here, so much cheaper ordering from the states, but then they stick 45 dollar delivery charge on, but yet it still works out cheaper


----------



## Newt

The Philips bulbs should be easier to get in the UK than here in the States. They are made in Poland.

Philips Ecotone 55 watt CF
PL-L/950/4P HF
5300 K; 91 CRI: 3800 lm
UPC# 8-711500-633842
Order Code: 633842

Try www.atlantalightbulbs.com for the GE9325s:
http://www.atlantalightbulbs.com/ecart/10Expand.asp?ProductCode=F55BX.AR.FSGE


----------



## geezer

Newt said:


> The Philips bulbs should be easier to get in the UK than here in the States. They are made in Poland.
> 
> Philips Ecotone 55 watt CF
> PL-L/950/4P HF
> 5300 K; 91 CRI: 3800 lm
> UPC# 8-711500-633842
> Order Code: 633842
> 
> Try www.atlantalightbulbs.com for the GE9325s:
> http://www.atlantalightbulbs.com/ecart/10Expand.asp?ProductCode=F55BX.AR.FSGE


Thanks mate. I am in Canada now no longer in the UK at the moment, so the Atlanticbulbs.com can be done. I'll probably ring them to ask about shipping. The top link you gave with order code, is there a site with that one?


----------



## Newt

That's the Philips order code.

Open this link and enter in the data and ask them for the closest Philips dealer to you that carries that bulb.

http://www.feedback.philips.com/lighting/support/?

If you can't find anyone I have 4 new ones in the box I could sell you. I could get a price to ship to you. PM me if interested. I got a TEK T5HO 4x54w light for Xmas and dont use the CFs anymore.


----------



## geezer

Newt said:


> That's the Philips order code.
> 
> Open this link and enter in the data and ask them for the closest Philips dealer to you that carries that bulb.
> 
> http://www.feedback.philips.com/lighting/support/?
> 
> If you can't find anyone I have 4 new ones in the box I could sell you. I could get a price to ship to you. PM me if interested. I got a TEK T5HO 4x54w light for Xmas and dont use the CFs anymore.


Thanks for the link mate I'll check it out. If I have no luck I will let you know in private message, i'm very interested in them bulbs!

I think I'll get the two others from atlanticbulbs first off the bat, hopefully they'll knock off some of the shipping. Everywhere charges me $40 or so


----------



## supersmirky

This has been the best post for learning what to look for in lighting.

I have a 72" long tank by 18" wide and 25" deep. With about 3" of substrate

I just upgraded to a 72" t5ho fixture by Nova Extreme Pro. 12 T5HO's in total (36" bulbs)

Anyone have a recommendation on the best mixture of T5HO's at a good price that would be decent for my plants? 

I plan on doing the dawn dusk period along with the "SIESTA" period lol. 

Any ideas would help me out a lot!


----------



## Newt

I'm using GroLux Stanard and GroLux WS for my dawn/dusk and Giesmann Midday as my regular lights.


----------



## supersmirky

Did you pick yours up locally or online? I am having the hardest time finding a place that carries t5ho.


----------



## Newt

I got my T5Ho Midday at www.reefgeek.com when I purchased my TEK light fixture.

Do a search on the Giesmann Midday as some other member found them for about $19 each for 48".

Reef Geek does offer discounts when you purchase in lots. I have the info for the breakdown(s) if you are interested.


----------



## supersmirky

Thanks Newt and thanks for all your help along with the VERY informative post regarding lighting. It helps ALOT!


----------



## supersmirky

Okay, I have my bulbs ordered for my nova extreme pro 72" (6x36" bulbs on each side)

I ordered 8 Giesemann midday and 4 Giesemann aqua flora.

Switch 1 - controls 4 bulbs total (2 on each side....1 in front and 1 near the back on each side) 

Switch 2 - Controls the 8 others (4 on each side)

To set up my siesta and both the dawn/dusk. HOw would you suggest I have my bulb configuration?

I assume the switch one with only 4 bulbs controlled will be my dawn/dusk as well as for my siesta period while switch 2 will be on for most of the day (around 9 hours I suppose). 

Tank is 72x18x25 with 3" of substrate.


----------



## Newt

I'd use the aquafloras as the dawn/dusk lights.


----------



## supersmirky

It's what I was thinking since they are slightly less intense. Thanks again


----------



## CuLan

Great info. I learned a lot about lighting. Thanks, Newt.
A question. What measurement would tell us about how deep the light can penetrate the water?


----------



## ecotanker

Yes. Thanks Newt! for an informative and helpful post.

Now, I have a question. We know that light of different color penetrate at different depths. My question is has there been any measurement of which color light actually get to the plants under different water "chemistry", soft vs hard, amount of DOC and other factors like that?

I would love to see a study along this line.


----------



## uaerc

Hi 

I dont have much choice to get specific bulbs in this part of the world.........so after a lot of research and findings the best i could pick from my market was the Osram 70w MH Powerstar HQI - TS DAYLIGHT...... specs below. 

I want to use this for the Glossostigma project i am planning to start soon......tank size will be small - med. mostly in the range of 60x40x40..... Do you gurus out there think that this bulb will do the job? co2 injecting is available (DIY pressurised. FEx. setup), nutrients will be acquired from ADA.

CRI is 85 on the bulb with a 5200k ...... more specs in the attachment.......cheers.


----------



## Vasudeva

Hi, this is a great post i have learned a lot, but i am just bit confused on kelvins and nanometers. can i have a bulb with 10,000k and still have a spike in 650 nm? where do Kelvins and nanometers come together? are kelvens just measuring what color i see? thanks for the great informational post!


----------



## defdac

Vasudeva said:


> Hi, this is a great post i have learned a lot, but i am just bit confused on kelvins and nanometers. can i have a bulb with 10,000k and still have a spike in 650 nm?


Yes, that is correct. To have cooler, bluer, colors (higher color temperature) the blue part of the spectrum needs to be relatively higher than that red spike though.



> where do Kelvins and nanometers come together? are kelvens just measuring what color i see? thanks for the great informational post!


When you heat up an idealized piece of matieral known as a "black body" it will emit different colors depending upon it's temperature: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body#Black-body_simulators

The relation between kelvin and the spectral distribution colors (nm) is a bit complicated. You can calculate the kelvin from a spectrum, but not the other way around since many spectrums will generate the same color:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/specrend/


----------



## Shad0w

defdac said:


> The relation between kelvin and the spectral distribution colors (nm) is a bit complicated. You can calculate the kelvin from a spectrum, but not the other way around since many spectrums will generate the same color:
> http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/specrend/


Totally lost 
I was always thought that color temperature (kelvin) based on the combination of R, G, B spectrum. Depending on intensity of each spectrum you have different kelvin.

Now If I understand you correctly, you can get the same kelvin with different R, G, B intensity combination. How could that be? By the way your link is way to heavy for me.


----------



## defdac

> Totally lost
> I was always thought that color temperature (kelvin) based on the combination of R, G, B spectrum. Depending on intensity of each spectrum you have different kelvin.


Just to be clear: A light source can only have *one* spectrum, not several.

But you're still somewhat correct - the spectrum in most fluorescents consists of three or more spikes in their spectrum. Most often one spike in the red part of the spectrum (R), one green (G) and one blue (B).

Each spike comes from one phosphor inside the tube and there are often three main phosphors in aquarium fluorescents, and that is why they often are referred to as "Triphosphor"-tubes.

The amount of each phosphor will as you have figured out tune the exact color of the lamp and from this color we can then deduce it's kelvin.

You can compare it with TV-screens: They also have three colors and out of these three colors they produce a range of human visible colors (the space of all the producable colors in the monitor/TV is called it's gamut, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamut )



> Now If I understand you correctly, you can get the same kelvin with different R, G, B intensity combination. How could that be? By the way your link is way to heavy for me.


Good question. If all different lightsources/lamps in the world were made up of the exact same three RGB-spikes in their spectrum you're *almost* correct - then you would have a more direct mapping between the RGB-values and kelvin.

But lamps are not made up of the same RGB-spikes in the same part of the spectrum. There are many different blue phosphors for example: ZnS:Ag,Cl (460 nm spike) or BaMgAl10O17:Eu,Mn (450 nm spike).

But that's not all. One kelvin measure, for example 10000K, can have a "tint"! Everyone with cameras that produce RAW-files knows what I'm talking about. When you set the white balance of a RAW picture you have one kelvin-slider and one tint-slider (Adobe Camera RAW and Lightoom for instance). When you drag around the tint slider the picture will change it's hue to more green or more purple.

This shows that there are more than one RGB-setting for every kelvin measure.


----------



## defdac

(This also makes it painfully clear that one kelvin-measure says absolutely nothing about what color a lamp has.. All you know is in what area in the gamut the lamp will be, but not what exact color it will have: It can be greenish, white or purple for every single kelvin degree..)


----------



## Vasudeva

so if i have a fixture with four bulbs is it better to have 4 bulbs that spike equelly in in ech color or to have each bulb specialize in a diferent color?


----------



## davemonkey

Vasudeva said:


> so if i have a fixture with four bulbs is it better to have 4 bulbs that spike equelly in in ech color or to have each bulb specialize in a diferent color?


Go with bulbs that have spikes in the Photosynthetic range, but you can get four very distinct bulbs that fit that to give you the balance you want. Chosing bulb "color" is a matter of trial and error (within reason) trying to find the look you want. The main thing is to get good quality bulbs with red and blue spikes at the proper wavelengths.

-Dave


----------



## Vasudeva

I have noticed that bulbs do not vary much in spikes, but in kevlins. So is the challenge to find that right "look" and geting the lights for your plants is not that hard?


----------



## defdac

> I have noticed that bulbs do not vary much in spikes, but in kevlins. So is the challenge to find that right "look" and geting the lights for your plants is not that hard?


Yes that is correct. Some bulbs are also better at pushing down foreground plants (Aquarelle/Aquastar comes to mind), and some bulbs produce leggy growth (GroLux comes to mind)

That said, you can calculate how much photosynthesis a bulb will produce and that varies a bit from bulb to bulb. It does not only depend on how the light are spread within the spectral distribution, but also how good the phosphors are converting electricity to light. For example GroLux have a spectrum that fits very will with the photosynthesis action spectrum, but is not able to push very hard at it (low blue and red intensity).

Most non-yellow/green triphosphor tubes will hit fairly hard at the chlorophyll and push down the plants, so then it's mostly matter of taste.

And since it is taste it would be good if the manufacturers had a better color definition than kelvin..


----------



## Vasudeva

so how can a certain bulb promote bushy growth or elongated growth specifically if all bulbs spike similairly? I know that blue light promotes bushy growth but are there bulbs that spike in specific regions? if this is so i have heard that a 1/3 blue with 2/3 red ratio is good.


----------



## Newt

all bulbs do not spike similarily


----------



## flwrbed

i just read this thread. all pages, one sitting.
man my head hurts.
im setting up a new 135gal tank. im building my own stand and hood. i want to have a dutch looking tank. im calling it my collection tank. i want to have as many differnt plant as possible and still look nice. what would be the best bulbs to use. im thinking i like t5s but i love the ripple effect you get from metal halide. im breaking the bank on this tank so i want the best.( i cant afford leds)
please help, im open to all opinions.
thanks
flwr


----------



## Newt

Go with the light you like the looks of best. As long as the light puts out red and blue emissions you should be fine with the plants. Good Luck. 
How's that Riccia working out?


----------



## endgin33

I would like to thank everyone who put alot of thought into this and explained this challenging (to us non science types) subject. I am theoretically receiving a 150w MH fixture for x-mas this year (I am not supposed to know...) and am trying to figure out what bulb would be ideal for the planted application. I have done a little initial legwork trying to find the spectral outputs on this type of bulb, but as of yet I haven't had a alot of luck. Any suggestions on where to find that data in one of those nifty spectral graphs of different brands and models?


----------



## Newt

Giesemann has a good one.

http://www.giesemann.de/76,2,,.html


----------



## Martin

Giesemann buys their tubes and bulbs from the company Narva, and just puts their own logo/brand on it.. so if you can find Narva bulbs.. you might be able to save a few $$


----------



## HVS

I spent all of last weekend, all my free time this past week, and all day (Christmas day inc. Christmas Eve) so far reading and trying to figure out lighting for a new 55g that I will be setting up. I've been stuck on lighting for this long. 

Thank you Newt for creating this thread and all posts within. This one thread has single handedly taught me more in one sit down and read it all than all else combined that I've read so far around the internet. I've been trying to find a compromise in lighting. My initial plan was to do a low tech (no co2) planted 55g community tank. I considered normal output T5 @ 2x28 watts. I considered shop lights with T8. I considered and still am considering T5 HO x4 and running 2 bulbs at a time and perhaps raising it above the aquarium to control the intensity to see how plants do prior to committing to co2. This way, should I decide to do or discover I need co2 I'll at least have the fixture and lighting to handle it. Why buy a normal output T5 then turn around and get a HO light? I might enjoy going to co2. I also like the fact co2 can bring down the ph where a lot of tropical fish thrive. 

If you don't mind a question Newt. Can the Gro Lux and Gro Lux WS be had in a T5 HO? I like your suggestion of using those bulbs for dawn/dusk, although Gro Lux in a HO for dusk/dawn seems inappropriate (too bright) and using mid day bulbs to simulate a natural day of sun. Not sure if I'll need two different fixtures: As in one T8 fixture for the Gro Lux bulbs and a T5 HO fo mid day or exactly what I have to do. It's a 55g so I don't have enormous width for massively wide fixtures.

Thanks all. This is fascinating reading. Great post Newt. Just awesome.


----------



## Newt

I have seen pictures of T5 linear GroLux from Sylvania but only in the european market. I am not sure if they are HO. I would suspect they are. Also, the spectral output is NOT the same at all.

If you install T5HO you will need CO2 to ward off algae.

I still use the T12 GroLux Std and WS in a twin strip tube. I buy them in boxes of 6 from www.saveonlighting.com. When I run out of these I will be using my 2X55watt CF fixture and run GE9325 for awhile on my 75. This is in addition to my other lighting which is currently 2 x 38 watt Philips T8 Aquarelles and 1 x 54watt GE Starcoat T5HO. The GroLux come on one hour before other lights and go off one hour after. I have them on the front half of the tank and it gives a nice warm glow to the tank. Mostly because the WS is 3400K (89 CRI). The Standard bulb does not come with a kelvin rating as they say it does not apply. If I had to guess from its purple/lavender color I would place it up around 18000 - 22000K.










Merry Xmas


----------



## suratsampah

Just what I was looking for NEWT! 
K, CIE, nm, CRI and ALGAE. 

Thank you!

3000K, ~610nm, 63CRI, no Algae!


----------



## suratsampah

thank you! excellent post! 
ss


----------



## Danielle

Any ideas where I can find 9w CF bulbs that will work well for plants, not cause much algae and not look horrible to my eye?

I have two tanks.. One has a cheap 7w clip light that came in a kit with a 1g acrylic tank and a little HOB filter. It's made by Meiko corp or something like that. The bulb just says PLS 7w 6500k 120v on it and nothing else. On this tank plants grow extremely well with no algae at all.

The other tank has a Tom aquatics 9w clip light. The light that came with it was super bright and very very blue. Most of their other lights are 10k/actinic so I figured that's what came with it. I could not find any 9w lights for the life of me... other than a coralife 6700k 'freshwater' bulb. It's very green and doesn't grown plants very well... but it does grow algae!

I managed to find a 2nd Meiko corp 7w light on Ebay but it makes fizzing noises from the plug in wall wart ballast thing when you turn the light on and the bulb looks to be close to end of life. So not much I can do with it.

Is there any where I can find lamps for these? If I knew who made the 6500k lamp inthe meiko I'd by a 7w and 9w version and be happy... but I have no idea.

I found 9w lamps at catalina aquarium and commodity axis 'helios'

I don't know which if any are any good for freshwater plants though as neither provide much info

catalina has 7 and 9w 7200k full spectrum lamps


> Ultra bright Triphosphor fluorescent light combines 7200k triphosphor with actinic 03/blue to create a full spectrum lamp that enhances color and clarity while providing aquarium inhabitants with the proper light required for essential biochemical functions. The actinic 03/blue light in combination with the triphosphor bathes the aquarium in a white light, enhancing the vibrant colors of exotic fish and providing essential light for photosynthesis.


The helios lamps have more to choose from
Rapid Grow (12,000k Marine Blue/7,100k Daylight)
Ultra Grow (12,000k Marine Blue/8,000k True Grow)
8,000k True Grow
Grow Plus (8,000k True Grow/7,100k Daylight)

http://www.commodityaxis.com/ProductData.aspx?id=75

Any help?

Or any ideas of what I should do lighting wise?

Each is on an ADA Do! Aqua 2gallon cube (8x8x8")


----------



## victork

Just want to say that this is a great thread on lighting spectrum and aquatic plants. But something still bugs me:

Why do we need red light at all. Whats wrong with just blue light? Now i know Newt said that blue light causes plants to be more compact and bushy and promotes algae growth. I dont necessarily doubt what he is saying but I have yet to read anything to explain why this is the case.

So the first thread by Newt showed a graph below which shows that chlorophyll A and B can both absorb blue adn red light, except it absorbs blue light better. Since nothing else exists on that side of the spectrum whats wrong with just pure blue light since it is used by everything plants need and steers clear of that Phycocyanin region. So other than aesthetics, is there a reason you cant just have blue light and have healthy and efficient plant growth since its easy to put in high powered led's that just emit in that very narrow spectrum?



Newt said:


> Plants will grow with ordinary bulbs as they tend to have both some blue and red emissions. The problem is that they also have wavelengths between 500 and 600nm, which algae likes. Green algae and green plants use the same pigments for photosynthesis (chlorophyll a/b & carotenoids). So, light that helps one helps the other. The algae that are different are the blue-green algae (cyanobacteria), which contain Phycocyanin and absorb light heavily in the low 600nm (orange-red), which is unfortunately present in most standard fluorescents. In the planted aquarium artificial light should ideally peak (or be stronger) in the red area of the spectrum. The tanks' appearance can be compensated (balanced) with blue light and some green light for brightness to the human eye. Strong blue light will cause plant growth to be more compact and bushy and will also tend to promote algae growth. So remember to balance 2/3 red to 1/3 blue light emissions.


----------



## Newt

*Plant stem elongation and color > red light*

This article was written a long time ago when T12s were the norm, CFs had just become popular and T8s were up and coming. Obviously, if I was working on a lighting topic today it would have more info on T5HOs.


----------



## victork

Hi Newt, 

Yeh just looked at the time stamp and realise that this thread has been around for a while. I've currently got T5's but they really are the same as t12's and t8's etc just more energy efficient. 

So is there a reason that plant stem elongation and colour is promoted by red-light? Or has this just been tried and tested?


----------



## UNV_Rasta

What an informative thread! Saw Walstad's claim about the green light being better for plants and what not, and just stumbled upon this thread. So thank you for dispelling that!!!!!


----------



## ecotanker

I don't think this thread dispelled what Diana Walstad said about lighting for underwater plants. 
Red and blue light within certain frequencies are the most efficient growth stimulating colors for terrestrial and plants near the surface of the water. For aquatics plants when water and various chemical compounds can absorbed the blue and red frequencies, these frequencies may not reach the plants for their use. For our shallow tanks with clear water, red and blue are probably the best. But there is some evidence saying otherwise. A hobbyist conducted an experiment on several species on plants and macroalgaes and found that cool white, which is mostly yellow and green light grew aquatics plants better than a grow bulb, putting out mostly blue and red. The result of the experiment, conducted by Richard K was reported in Freshwater and Marine Aquarium July issue of 1987, p 16-20 in case people are interested.

I would love to see a repeat of this experiment on the effects of different spectrum on aquatics plants to see which is really the case.


----------



## defdac

> A hobbyist conducted an experiment on several species on plants and macroalgaes and found that cool white, which is mostly yellow and green light grew aquatics plants better than a grow bulb, putting out mostly blue and red. The result of the experiment, conducted by Richard K was reported in Freshwater and Marine Aquarium July issue of 1987, p 16-20 in case people are interested.


This is also supported by calculating PUR-efficiency with, for example, my light calculator here: http://www.defblog.se/LightCalculator/

The reason for cool whites being better growing plants than grolux-bulbs have surprisingly little to do with the actual spectral output of the bulb.

The main reason seems to be that GroLux-bulbs have less efficient phosphor mixes that is much less efficient in producing the blue and reds, compared to ultra efficient triphosphor mixes in cool whites.

The blue intensity peak in cool whites is much greater than the corrisponding blue peak in groluxes.

This makes comparing spectral distributions only a completely useless task.

That is why PUR-efficiency (or PAR-efficiency if you like that better) a much better foundation of comparing light sources since it takes into consideration the efficiency of how much electricity is actually converted to usable radiation.

You will find that there are bulbs with strikingly different spectral distributions with similar PAR and PUR-efficiencies, and they will grow plants with similar efficiency.

Also note that HE (high efficiency)-bulbs will grow plants much better than HO (high output) - if you compare how much energy you spend vs dry plant matter produced.


----------



## ecotanker

thanks defdac for perspective and for your calculator! Now I just need to find some HE T5 lamps close by.


do the HE T5 lamps required a different ballast?


----------



## Newt

ecotanker said:


> A hobbyist conducted an experiment on several species on plants and macroalgaes and found that cool white, which is mostly yellow and green light grew aquatics plants better than a grow bulb, putting out mostly blue and red. The result of the experiment, conducted by Richard K was reported in Freshwater and Marine Aquarium July issue of 1987, p 16-20 in case people are interested.
> 
> I would love to see a repeat of this experiment on the effects of different spectrum on aquatics plants to see which is really the case.


"found that cool white, which is mostly yellow and green light "
Not true. Here are some spectral output graphs for GE cool white and warm white bulbs.

Cool White>









Cool White Delux>









Warm White>









Warm White Delux>









You can see they have a full spectrum with peaks in the blue and yellow/orange/red regions.

Defdac, Which GroLux bulb are you talking about? The T12 GroLux Standard or the T5 version they have in europe?
I worked for Sylvania for a bit and I can tell you the red phosphour is very expensive and this is one reason most bulb manufacturers choose the cheaper type that is more orange (625nm). Efiiciency is more to do with factors like the cathode design and how it interacts with the mercury and inert gases to excite the phosphours.


----------



## defdac

> I worked for Sylvania for a bit and I can tell you the red phosphour is very expensive and this is one reason most bulb manufacturers choose the cheaper type that is more orange (625nm). Efiiciency is more to do with factors like the cathode design and how it interacts with the mercury and inert gases to excite the phosphours.


That was interesting and news to me. Thanks for the info.

When I talk about "GroLux" in general I mean the kind of bulbs that have a disproportional low amount of green - mostly blue and red. Or in other words mostly blue and red phosphors.

PUR/PAR-wise I guess that it doesn't matter much if it is more orange than red. The real gripe I have with these bulbs is that they seem to denaturate much faster than for example triphospors and seems to have really low efficiency in general - that is they seem to be bad at exiting photons as hard/much as triphosphors.


----------



## defdac

Btw, I've also seen many denote really highly efficient triphosphor tubes like Aquarelle/Aquastar as "GroLux"-bulbs since they are a bit purple. I think that is a faulty notion since they are much more like ordinary triphosphors in general, with a little less green phosphors.

It's a huge step to the kind of GroLux-bulbs I mean when I talk about GroLux-bulbs that is very purple and unefficient PUR/PAR-wise - they are also percieved much dimmer by us humans.. loose-loose situation.


----------



## Newt

Gro-Lux is a Sylvania trade mark name for their plant grow bulbs. There are 2 T12 versions, the Standard and the Wide Spectrum.

GroLux Std>


















I'm still running T8 Aquarelles and the ADV850s from time to time.
You just cant seem to kill the Aquarelles. They still have good punch after 2 yrs. I'd put both those bulbs up against any 55w CF out there.


----------



## Lakeplants

This is a fantastic thread Newt. Great information and graphics.


----------



## Borgholio

So I have an Eclipse 2 deep tank and finding a retrofit kit is kinda hard for it, so I decided to play around with the lighting setup so that the limited (30w) amount of light available would be put to good use for the plants. After doing a bit of research on photosynthesis I determined that the best lighting for a plant tank is an even mix of blue and red bulbs. So I put a 420nm actinic and a pink gro-lux plant bulb.

First off, I know some people don't like the color of a tank with heavy actinic, but I love it. Combined with the pink bulb the tank is a hauntingly beautiful rich purple / blue, and the colors of the fish just pop out at you. The plants don't seem to mind but it's too early to tell for certain. During my research, I asked around and a surprising number of people popped up to say that actinic won't do squat for freshwater plants. Even Current USA recommends a pink + white bulb for plants.

I am confused...based on the photosynthetic curve, blue and red light should be perfect for plants. A white bulb would include yellow and green which is mostly useless for plants. Am I missing something?


----------



## defdac

If it has PAR it will do squat for plants..


----------



## Borgholio

defdac said:


> If it has PAR it will do squat for plants..


That's what I thought. The Actnic does blue at 420nm, right in the middle of the blue spectrum for absorption. The grow lux has a large spike in the red and a smaller one in blue. Thanks!


----------



## ray-the-pilot

Newt said:


> I'm still running T8 Aquarelles and the ADV850s from time to time.
> You just cant seem to kill the Aquarelles. They still have good punch after 2 yrs. I'd put both those bulbs up against any 55w CF out there.


My feeling is that after 2 years they are less than 50% of their original light output. I bet if you replaced them, you would see a very noticable increase in light.
I can't say that replacing them will necessarily improve you aquaria. In fact you may have an algae bloom.

I replace all my lamps about once a year and I notice an improvement in light output every time.


----------



## Newt

ray-the-pilot said:


> My feeling is that after 2 years they are less than 50% of their original light output. I bet if you replaced them, you would see a very noticable increase in light.
> I can't say that replacing them will necessarily improve you aquaria. In fact you may have an algae bloom.
> 
> I replace all my lamps about once a year and I notice an improvement in light output every time.


Ray,

I normally replace T8s annually. I didnt mean to say I use my Aquarelles for 2 years - althou I did just as an experiment. When it comes to the European Philips Aquarelles they are one of the most efficient T8s out there and last MUCH longer than all other T8s. The energy output in microeinstiens is tremendous. I agree that 50% deminished after 2 years use but even at 50% they will put out more energy than alot of new T8s and certainly T12s.


----------



## davemonkey

Newt said:


> ...I agree that 50% deminished after 2 years use but even at 50% they will put out more energy than alot of new T8s and certainly T12s.


What about lighting spectrum/PAR output after that time? (I'm jumping to t-5's now, so maybe not and apples-to-apples comparison. ) I have a t-5HO fixture that is due for new bulbs (they are about 2 years old now) and the thing that made me realize the need for new bulbs was actual color output. Of the 4 10000K bulbs that came with the fixtures, I now have 4 different colors (similar, but noticeably different) and I bet that none matches their original color. Even the 2 6700K bulbs are slightly different from one another now.

I may post a pic of it tonight for reference.


----------



## Newt

The spectral output can shft in some bulbs especially if the ballast isnt a good one. I dont own a PAR meter and PUR is much more important to growing plants. They were definitley dimmer than new ones but still manage to produce pearling.

A good T5HO can last up to five years, cheaper ones about 2. If the ends are turning black then the cathode tube is kaput and the bulb needs changing. A good ballast is key to good bulb performance.


----------



## JeffyFunk

Newt said:


> A good T5HO can last up to five years, cheaper ones about 2. If the ends are turning black then the cathode tube is kaput and the bulb needs changing. A good ballast is key to good bulb performance.


Newt, given that you state that a good ballast is perhaps the most important factor in getting the most out of the T5HO Light bulbs, what brand(s) of T5HO lighting fixtures and/or ballasts would you recommend? Are there any brands that you would not recommend based on either your own experience or the experience of others?

On a side note, is the same also true for Metal Halide bulbs? (i.e. If the ballast is the most important component, what brand(s) of metal halide fixtures and/or ballasts would you recommend? Not recommend?)


----------



## davemonkey

Here's a pic of the bulbs I was talking about. The fixtures with 2 bulbs have a 6700K and a 10000K, but if you compare all the fixtures, you'll see 4 distinct colors of 10000K bulbs. These are right at 2 yrs old. Cheap bulbs, and probably cheap ballasts.


----------



## Newt

JeffyFunk said:


> Newt, given that you state that a good ballast is perhaps the most important factor in getting the most out of the T5HO Light bulbs, what brand(s) of T5HO lighting fixtures and/or ballasts would you recommend? Are there any brands that you would not recommend based on either your own experience or the experience of others?
> 
> On a side note, is the same also true for Metal Halide bulbs? (i.e. If the ballast is the most important component, what brand(s) of metal halide fixtures and/or ballasts would you recommend? Not recommend?)


I can only comment on what I have used. I like the Advance ballasts. They are used in TEK fixtures and are huge and run 2 bulbs. I have an Advance Centium ICN-4S54-90C-2LS for when I do my main fixture over. I also like the Fulham ballasts even thou not quite the quality of the Advance they dont have the big price either. The Workhorse 5 will do some many 4 ft bulbs and 55w CFs. I do not like Sunpak and those in that quality catagory.

I know very little about MH.


----------



## Newt

@ DaveMonkey,
Save up for some Giessmann Midday and Aquaflora. Good deal thru AquaCave.


----------



## ray-the-pilot

*OK, I don't know WTF I'm doing so please reply!*

I have eight different fixtures with nine different lamps. I don't know squat about lighting so what I do is this:
If a lamp goes out, I replace it with another equivalent lamp. If the replacement goes on, I buy a new lamp, if not, I replace the gizmo inside (ballast). 
Every year I replace all my lamps. I know from experience that this will improve (restore) the lighting in my aquaria.
OK how can I do better by buying different fixtures/lamps. Will I save money? Grow better plants? Get better lighting? Buy fewer lamps/parts?
Thanks for your help!


----------



## Newt

@ray-the-pilot,

To maintain optimum performance from your bulbs I have found:

T12 - every 6 months
T10 - every 8 to 10 months
T8 - one to two years depending on brand and particular bulb
CF/PC - annually
T5 - annually
T5HO - as long as 5 to 7 years for quality bulbs; 2 years for cheap brands

Any time the tube begins to turn black at the cathode it's kaput.

Also, resist the urge to overdrive bulbs. It shortens the life by half or more and can shift the spectral output once the phosphours begin to degrade.

Resist the heavily marketed cheapo brands that have lots of green in the spectral output and bulbs that emit a lot of yellow and yellow/orange. The better the red and blue emissions, the better the plant growth. Better reflectors help get the light into the tank. Better ballasts drive the bulb more accuratley so the bulb performs as designed.

What are you currently using?


----------



## Gumbie

Newt

Thank you for the very informative last post. Petsmart had some of their bulbs on clearance, so I bought the following 24” T8 20W GLO bulbs:
Flora-Glo 2800˚K “Freshwater Plant Growth Aquarium Bulb”
Aqua-Glo 18000˚K “Fish Color Enhancing Aquarium Bulb”
Power-Glo 18000˚K “Super Bright Aquarium Bulb”
Life-Glo2 6700˚K “High-noon spectrum for aquariums, terrariums, and vivariums”

Hagen was good enough to provide the Wavelength/Relative Power chart on the boxes and indicated the bulbs were “Ideal for Planted Aquariums” (except the Life-Glo2.) I just spent hours reading the lighting stickies. Your comment in this post about the colors of spectral output makes it seem so simple. Now I know which bulbs to return. Thanks again.


----------



## barclaya

Hi, I have 29G tank and I use coralife t5ho 31W. one 6700k and one colormax(only $10 for 2 petco clearence) . I buy/use quicktronic T5 ballast regular output 2 lamp 2x 28W. (because of the price only $3.00). but everything run OK.

my question.
1, did I use the correct bulbs for the heavy planted tank. is that enough W.
2. will I get the good output of the bulb because the ballast is non HO. how long will the bulb last. Installed since Feb 2011 without any problem. I do get some algae problem.

Thank you,


----------



## Newt

barclaya,
If your ballst isnt matched to your bulb they will not be as bright as they were designed to be and the spectral output may be quite different. 

So you are saying you are driving T5HO bulbs with a T5 ballast?


----------



## barclaya

Newt, 
corrects, I am driving 2x 31W T5HO with T5 ballast 2x28W. it a little bit hot but I put small computer fan.
I want buy fulham 5. but it is (rapid start). mine is (programed rapid start). I read on wikipedia. (PRS) is better( make a bulb life longer) than (RS).
is coralife colormax bulb have a benefit for plant? some webstore say: for aquarium with fish only. I am so confused.

Thanks,


----------



## Newt

I'm not big on Coralife products but the spectral output has both red and blue emissions and not overly heavy with green like a lot of their bulbs. It should do a good job on plants.

Here's a product link: http://coralifeproducts.com/product/lamps/

I think you mean they are 39w not 31w. A Fulham Workhorse 5 ballast would work with 2 of these. It is a good ballast at a good price.


----------



## essabee

I somehow missed this thread when the discussions were hot and I was engaged in re-doing my tank lights - a couple of years ago and in that process struggling with all the matters raised in this thread. 

While deciding for myself on the way to go - I concluded to go with as high a CRI bulb as possible and use the K temperature to err towards the > 6500 so that I do have extra blue spike. My logic was that CRI indicated the percentage factor of the bulb's spectrum which produced a balanced white spectrum and the Kelvin rating indicated the colour of the combination of the extra spikes beyond the the balanced white spectrum.

My result assures me that I did not do much wrong - but what I want to know is how faulty was my reasoning


----------



## barclaya

Newt said:


> I'm not big on Coralife products but the spectral output has both red and blue emissions and not overly heavy with green like a lot of their bulbs. It should do a good job on plants.
> 
> Here's a product link: http://coralifeproducts.com/product/lamps/
> 
> I think you mean they are 39w not 31w. A Fulham Workhorse 5 ballast would work with 2 of these. It is a good ballast at a good price.


after two month using these bulbs, I notice it is good for plant. it is 2 x 31w not 39w. how do think! do I need to adding more light.


----------



## Corsa

Hi i`m a new member, been out of Aquarium plant growing for a long while.Just restarting.Found this excellent thread. Had a look at what lamps i was using maybe 10 yrs ago and found a NEC FL65SSBR (58w T8 ), not seen it mentioned,whats your thoughts.Spectral graph looks pretty good,in advertising.

In fact just relooking at the start of this thread appears very similar to an Hagen aqua-glow, but less expensive (here anyway).


----------



## drewbot

I am trying to achieve a light flux of 500 mmol/m-2*s-1 which is not a lot, so I went with a single bulb solution (Gro-Lux T12 40W 1200 lumen 4' narrow spectrum). Can anyone help me with a ballast suggestion, reflector efficiency, distance, and flux calculation? IOW how many sq ft. coverage? I don't have any other spatial design restrictions except for that the light is going to reflect downwards.

I used an online calculator to get 17241 lux from 1550 mmol/m-2*s-2 here:
http://www.fb.u-tokai.ac.jp/WWW/hoshi/env/light.html
or use the conversion factor 0.029 for grolux bulbs (i guess?!)

then I got 1602 lumen/sqft from this calculator here:
http://www.unitconversion.org/illumination/lux-to-lumens-per-square-foot-conversion.html

true lazy dude way to do it. So at 12000 lumen/bulb that's 7.5 sq. ft. The bulbs are 47.78 long so that's 20" wide at 89% efficiency. if the reflector angle was 120 degrees it would place the light source sqrt(20^2-10^2)= 17.3" from plants. If the bulbs are spaced 10" apart then that doubles the flux correct?


----------



## Nachos

I need some help figuring out what this graph actually represents as far as growing my aquatic plants. The light is a 30 watt spiral compact (equiv to a 110 incandescent).

1. If using this light will I be able to see deficiencies in my plants that correlate to the spectrum displayed?

2. Is this an acceptable spectrum for growing aquatics?


----------



## Newt

Hi Nachos,

Thanks for posting the gif of the bulb's info. 

The bulb is very heavy with green light, but does have peaks in the blue and red regions that are typical for fluorescents but the blue is weak. At 131 microwatts/nanometer it has average power output - nothing spectacular. I would say you would be better off with a linear T5 bulb.

What type of reflector are you using? The best for spiralCFL's are the very wide reflectors.


----------



## Nachos

Newt said:


> I would say you would be better off with a linear T5 bulb.
> What type of reflector are you using? The best for spiralCFL's are the very wide reflectors.


Hi Newt,

I don't have any t5 fixtures so I'll have to make due with these CF's for now. The 6500K CF's are in 10.5" reflective "dome" clamp fixtures that are placed on top of eggcrate over the tank, that's all I have ATM. When 'extra' funds become available I guess a lighting upgrade will be in order, unless there is a better spectrum CF recommended that I can purchase?


----------



## Newt

I would have expected more blue in a 6500K but thats also why the green spike is so big.
It sounds like you have the correct type of reflector.


----------



## AQUADWELLER

Since there is some interest in the LED world. I thought I add this information to this thread. Newt, if you can expand on it and add it to your original post it would give everyone a broader spectrum. (no pun intended).


----------



## Newt

Sorry for the delay Buddy.

I took a look at the spectral graphs and it appears that LEDs are hard to develop spikes at a specific nanometer. They have curves thru the spectrum so they pick up a lot of green, yellow and orange along the way from blue to the red region. The only one that has sufficient red emissions is the 2600 - 3700K CCT (red line). However, most people will not like the looks of their tank with that low of a kelvin.

My opinion on LEDs remains the same: They are not there yet for planted tanks.
Plenty of great T5HO bulbs and, yes, they will use more power to run.


----------



## krcsasha

Newt said:


> The most common mistake people make with planted tanks is to not understand photosynthesis and the visible spectrum of lighting that affects plant growth. Most people choose lighting solely based on the Kelvin temperature of a bulb. This tells you very little about what type of light within the spectrum is being emitted and at what strength. Visible light is on a scale in nanometers (radiated wavelength) from 400nm (violet) to 700nm (red). Simple matter of photosynthesis: plants can only utilize light that is absorbed. Bright light is essential yet only a portion of this white light is used for photosynthesis. The blue and red zones of the visible spectrum are the most beneficial to plants. Green plants appear green because it is reflected light. How "bright" a light appears has more to do with how much light is output in a given area visible to the human eye, with "brightness" being at a maximum in the green spectrum (middle of visible spectrum, or around 550nm).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lighting for a planted tank should not be chosen on color temp alone. It is true that 'full spectrum' bulbs are referred to as bulbs between 5000 Kelvin (K) and 6500 K and are considered to be best for planted tanks. Yet this does not indicate what wavelength in nanometers the bulb is actually emitting. If you want to optimize plant leaf development (blue light) and stem elongation and color (red light) you need light in both the blue and red spectra for photosynthesis. You need a mix of blue and red for your plants, and green for you (brightness as perceived by humans). If your lighting looks extremely bright and your plants seem ultra-green, it means that you have lighting that outputs strongly in the green spectrum. Do not equate this with good lighting for your plants, because plants don't use light in the green spectrum for photosynthesis. Sunlight peaks in the blue spectrum at 475 nanometers (nm). This is a shorter wavelength than red light and is used by both plants and algae. As light passes through water the intensity decreases. The shorter wavelength blue light penetrates water better and more quickly than red, which is slower and absorbed more quickly. Chlorophyll, the photosynthetic pigment used by plants traps blue and red light but is more efficient with red light at 650 - 675nm. Blue is used at the same rate as red because it is more available for reasons mentioned above.
> 
> For green plants the lighting peaks that are most important:
> Chlorophyll-a: 430nm/662nm
> Chlorophyll-b: 453nm/642nm
> Carotenoids: 449nm/475nm
> Red pigmented plants use more light in the blue area of the spectrum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Beyond choosing lighting that is optimal for photosynthesis, as above, you should choose lighting with the color temperature that best suits the aesthetic goals of your tank. So, don't obsess about color temperature beyond how you want your tank to look. From a color temperature standpoint, blue-colored light will enhance blues in your fish. Green-colored light will make the tank look bright to humans and enhance the green color of your plants. Red-colored light will enhance the reds in your fish, and any red plants.
> 
> Lux is lumens/square meter, so they are similar. They are both defined in terms that are meaningful to human perception of light - not plants. They stress the amount of energy in the green band to which humans are most sensitive - not plants.
> 
> Artificial light sources are usually evaluated based on their lumen output. Lumen is a measure of flux, or how much light energy a light source emits (per unit time). The lumen measure does not include all the energy the source emits, but just the energy with wavelengths capable of affecting the human eye. Thus the lumen measure is defined in such a way as to be weighted by the (bright-adapted) human eye spectral sensitivity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lumen ratings are usually available, but when you use them you have to keep in mind what they mean. Lamp A can have a higher lumen rating than lamp B and appear brighter to you, while lamp B provides more useful light for plants. Compare the lumen ratings for cool white and GroLux bulbs of the same wattage and you will see what I mean. A 40-watt cool white bulb is rated at 3050 lumen; a 40-watt GroLux bulb (not the wide spectrum) is way lower at 1200 lumens. The big difference is because GroLux lamps provide very little green light and cool whites provide a lot of green light. I have found it best to provide a mix of lighting to a planted tank. The GroLux bulb is perhaps the best plant bulb available but it has very little green light so the visual effects of your tank will look dim and purplish. Yet if you add some other lighting such as a Philips 6500K the effect is more pleasing to the eye and still beneficial to the plants. I find that the GroLux along with a GroLux wide spectrum (89 Color Rendering Index) has a great effect for use as dawn/dusk lighting. (A Sylvania rep. told me it was best to use both together.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kelvin rating and lumens does not equate for plants. The Kelvin scale is more of how your tank will look to you/us and is totally subjective. It is true that the lower Kelvin ratings like 3000K will have more red light and a 10,000K will have more blue light. Lumens are meaningless for plants, as green plants do not utilize green light for photosynthesis. A higher lumen rating at the same wattage often means greener light. Lumen is a rating weighted entirely towards human perception. It has little to do with the value of a light for either growing or viewing plants.
> 
> The Kelvin rating is an indication of color temperature. The higher the temperature, the more blue the light. Here's a rough scale:
> 
> - Reddish/Yellowish Endpoint -
> Incandescent Light: 2700K
> Daylight: 5500K
> Blue Sky: 10,000K
> - Blue Endpoint -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be fooled by color temperature as an indication of what wavelength of light may or may not be present. The emitted wavelengths of light for two bulbs with the same color temperature could be wildly different. Therefore, color temperature is not what you should use to determine useful light for growing plants. It will, however, give you an idea of how things in your tank will look. For example, the sky has a color temperature of 10,000K and looks blue. Lighting that has a higher color temperature, indicating that it is bluish, does point to the fact that blue wavelengths are dominant. This, in turn, just means that it will activate green plants in the blue range, which is a good thing, and enhance blue fish. Red photosynthetic pigment is less efficient at utilizing light and requires stronger light as a result. The less efficient red carotenoid pigment must rely on blue and some green light as well as more intense lighting. There are some plants that that are able to change the pigment they use for photosynthesis depending on available lighting. We see this in red-leaved plants that turn green if the lighting is too low, not enough blue and/or green light. Alternatively, some green leafed plants produce red foliage when closer to the light source or with overly bright lighting.
> 
> The Kelvin color designation of a particular bulb is not always true to the black body locus line on a CIE Chromaticity map. This is why some 5000K bulbs look yellow and others white, especially when trying to compare a linear fluorescent with a CF or MH. This is where Kelvin ratings of bulbs can fall prey to marketing schemes/hype.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The standard measure that quantifies the energy available for photosynthesis is "Photosynthetic Active Radiation" (aka "Photosynthetic Available Radiation") or PAR. It accounts with equal weight for all the output a light source emits in the wavelength range between 400 and 700 nm. PAR also differs from the lumen in the fact that it is not a direct measure of energy. It is expressed in "number of photons per second". The reason for expressing PAR in number of photons instead of energy units is that the photosynthesis reaction takes place when a photon is absorbed by the plant; no matter what the photon's wavelength is (provided it lies in the range between 400 and 700 nm). In other words if a given number of blue photons is absorbed by a plant, the amount of photosynthesis that takes place is exactly the same as when the same number of red photons is absorbed. This is why it is so important to get the spectral output of a bulb before deciding if is a 'good plant light'. You may need to add/mix bulbs to get a lighting that has good visual effects for the human eye and proper light for plants because 'plant bulbs' tend to be purplish. There is an additional term called "Photosynthetic Usable Radiation" or PUR which takes in to account blue and red light only.
> 
> I don't understand why people insist on distinguishing between lamps on the basis of their color temperature. No lamp renders color correctly or looks natural unless its Color Rendering Index (CRI) rating is very high. When CRI is over 90 the color temperature shouldn't make much difference; colors rendered accurately will always look about the same regardless of the Kelvin rating. Many bulbs render red and orange colors poorly and give you a look with very flat color contrasts. Other bulbs produce a lot of green light and don't render either blue or red very well at all.
> 
> CRI or Color Rendering Index is an indication of how close the light is to daylight (full spectrum) on a scale from 0 to 100 with respect to how it makes objects appear. In the case of the Philips PL-L 950, the CRI is 92, so it has pretty good color rendering properties. Two bulbs with the same Kelvin temperature but different CRI ratings can produce very different appearances. Compare a 5000K that has an 80-something CRI with a 5000K that has a 90-something CRI. The 80 CRI bulb is very bright, but it renders greens with a distinct yellow cast. The 90 CRI bulb is dim, but it renders rich colors across the whole spectrum.
> 
> Whether or not a bulb looks "natural" to you is totally subjective. It depends in part on what you're used to. If you only see the world under cool white fluorescents then that is probably what looks natural to you. If you live somewhere with frequently hazy or overcast skies then you may be accustomed to "natural" light having a color temperature near 7000K. If you live somewhere with clear skies and infrequent cloudy days then your natural light might have a color temperature closer to 5000K. If you are used to north skylight then maybe a color temperature close to 10,000K seems more natural. In any case of actual natural light the light will render colors pretty well. That is usually not the case for fluorescent lamps with a high Kelvin temperature rating. If you want a high K lamp that does render colors accurately then you might try finding the Philips C75. It has a 7500K color temp and a 90+ CRI. It could be hard to find and a bit pricey.
> 
> Plants will grow with ordinary bulbs as they tend to have both some blue and red emissions. The problem is that they also have wavelengths between 500 and 600nm, which algae likes. Green algae and green plants use the same pigments for photosynthesis (chlorophyll a/b & carotenoids). So, light that helps one helps the other. The algae that are different are the blue-green algae (cyanobacteria), which contain Phycocyanin and absorb light heavily in the low 600nm (orange-red), which is unfortunately present in most standard fluorescents. In the planted aquarium artificial light should ideally peak (or be stronger) in the red area of the spectrum. The tanks' appearance can be compensated (balanced) with blue light and some green light for brightness to the human eye. Strong blue light will cause plant growth to be more compact and bushy and will also tend to promote algae growth. So remember to balance 2/3 red to 1/3 blue light emissions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bulbs sold as generic plant/aquarium bulbs usually have OK energy in blue and not much in red. A bulb sold as a generic "sunshine" bulb may or may not have some useful red, depending on the bulb. You can put any fluorescent lighting on your tank and do OK, but if you want to maximize plant growth, it's best to compare lighting options and, if possible, try to find the graphs/data for spectra output, rated life and output decay over time. Unfortunately, CF bulbs haven't caught up with linear bulbs in the ability to offer light (tri-phosphor type) in the proper areas of the spectrum.
> 
> Fluorescents lose efficiency over time. Some lose more than others - some bulbs may only suffer 10% drop in output, while others may drop 30% or more in the same time frame. The less the drop over time, the less you have to replace them, depending on your application. Linear fluorescent tubes should be changed out every six months and compact fluorescents every year.
> 
> Fluorescent bulbs marketed for aquaria are often more expensive and not necessarily better than generic versions. They are also not necessarily marketed correctly. Many bulbs offer spectral output graphs. However, many of these graphs are measured in relative power on the Y-axis rather than a known reference like watts per nanometer per 1000 lumens. All that 'relative power' lets you know is that 100% is the highest peak at a given nanometer and all other peaks are relative to this. So, don't be fooled by nomenclature and packaging (marketing hype).
> 
> Aquatic plants quickly respond to changes in light conditions and are more highly evolved than algae and are able to regulate photosynthesis more quickly than algae, which are biologically less advanced. Therefore, creating a 'siesta' period in the middle of the lighting period is effective at curbing algae. Plants are able to start photosynthesis once there is sufficient light. Algae need a long and uninterrupted lighting period to function properly. Intensity and duration will also be detrimental to algae growth. Create an hour dawn/dusk lighting period at the start and end of the lighting period to simulate natural lighting with the 'siesta' period in the middle of the intense lighting period. Duration depends on many variables such as type of lighting, size tank, intensity of the lights, etc. The point of this is to say that algae prevention is not a black art that involves estimation of color temperature. There are a few specific things that cause algae, mostly including excess nutrients (phosphate, nitrate) combined with light that is useful for photosynthesis. Fix the water chemistry and you should be able to get rid of the algae without impairing the total light available to your plants in areas of maximum activation for photosynthesis.


Thanks for this post! Can I find LED with proper spectrum for plants?


----------



## treker5

Good reference point Newt. It will help me to decide which bulbs to use when it's time to replace them. I am currently running 6 Aquatic Life T5 HO bulbs for my 120 gallon tall aquarium: (1) 420/460 NM Dual Actinic 54watts, (3) Roseate 54watts, (2) 6K 54watts. 

Is this a good line-up for aquatic plants?


----------



## LAKE

Great read!
Just what I was looking for, thanks!

I have left a very in depth link others may find very helpful.
More specific application comparisons of various lighting types.
Many of the links within are just as useful.

http://www.americanaquariumproducts.com/Aquarium_Lighting.html


----------



## Newt

treker5 said:


> Good reference point Newt. It will help me to decide which bulbs to use when it's time to replace them. I am currently running 6 Aquatic Life T5 HO bulbs for my 120 gallon tall aquarium: (1) 420/460 NM Dual Actinic 54watts, (3) Roseate 54watts, (2) 6K 54watts.
> 
> Is this a good line-up for aquatic plants?


Actinic are SW bulbs. The 460nm is doing nothing for your plants. 
I'd go with 3 each of the roseate and 6K or (2) roseate and (4) 6K; it all depends on how it looks to you.


----------



## treker5

Where can I get a 453nm blue T5 HO bulb or is there such a thing? I like a blue color bulb that will balance out the redness of the roseate.


----------



## Newt

Why dont you try a FijiPurple. You can get them thru www.reefgeek.com and www.aquacave.com. They have nearly double the output of most other T5HO bulbs. They use true red phosphourus in these.


----------



## Estraven

Dear Newt I am from Argentina, I study biology.I found most interesting your post on lighting because when I took botanic no one mentioned light temperature, in fact blue light was almost dismissed when we studied photosynthesis, since we only focused on the effects of red light. So anyway I am currently starting a new 100 litres aquarium. So far I only have two general electric helicoidal bulbs , 6500 K, 32 and 20 Watts each, I know that linear are better, but that's what I got now. I want to purchase a new linear bulb, but I can't decide wich brand and model. I need to choose the correct bulb in order to compensate the poor quality my helicoidal bulbs give. I thought it should be a bulb that can offer a high red light output. In Argentina we have these bulbs available:

Yinko Grolux 
Degenbao Natural Red Lamp 
Degenbao Blue Marine 
Sylvania Grolux 
Osram Grolux Fluora 77 
Sylvania AquaStar 
Philips Aquarelle 
Philips Actinico AquaCoral 
Hagen PowerGlo 
Hagen MarineGlo 
Hagen FloraGlo 
Hagen AquaGlo 

I was considering buying a sylvania aquastar because it has it's maximum peak on red and it's higher than other brands. Am I right?


----------



## Newt

I dont have any info on the Sylvania Aquastar so I'm not familiar with it and cant comment one way or another. Not sure which Sylvania GroLux you have; the T12 is old technology but does have spikes in the correct places. The Philips Aquarelle is an excellent T8 and has a more powerful output than many T5 bulbs (T5 not T5HO). I have no info on the rest so I cant comment on those either.

".......I found most interesting your post on lighting because when I took botanic no one mentioned *light temperature*, in fact blue light was almost dismissed when we studied photosynthesis,............"

We are not talking light temp (Kelvin); it is the wavelength of the light in nanometers. These are two very different scales and terms.


----------



## Estraven

Yeah, yeah I know It's just my poor sintaxis. When I started I never understood why would anyone care about colour temperature, if the real thing that matters to plants is light spectrum, so why labelling in kelvins and not in nanometres? . That's what surprised me most. And everyone seems to base their decisions on kelvins and not on spectrum. What I meant by blue light, was that when we studied the effects of light on pigments, Calvin cycle, Rusbisco,etc, the blue peak was ignored and we focused on the red peak of the light spectrum. At least with angiosperms. I will research more on the matter, but I suspect blue light is not as useful as red light for plants, and maybe that's why it was not mentioned.


----------



## Newt

One photon of blue or red light produces the same amount of photosynthesis.


----------



## Estraven

No. Blue light is less effective than red light, as it was discovered in the 70's. And green light is significant only in thick leaves, where green light can reach deeper in the leaf's mesophyll. This is measured in terms of carbondioxe fixation. Not in term of molecular fluorescense, excitation,etc of the pigments. This doesn't mean that blue light is useless.

sources:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0002157171900227
http://pcp.oxfordjournals.org/content/50/4/684.full
http://jxb.oxfordjournals.org/content/60/8/2283.full


----------



## xavierj123

Newt reminds me of a college professor who is very knowledgeable but unable to talk in layman's terms. I prefer the KISS principle---KEEP IT SIMPLE STUDID---just be like Consumer Reports and tell me what bulbs you found most satisfactory. I have zeroed in on the 6700K Daylight and don't have any problem with algae at all. My tank is a 55 gallon with an Eihiem filtration system. I stopped using Eihiem medea and just use charcoal & 100% polyester. I don't even buy the polyester at the pet store, instead I buy a big ole pillow on sale that's the exact same polyester. I think the trick is to change the polyester about twice a year. It works for me.


----------



## Kyomax

thanks for sharing,reasl helpful


----------



## Newt

xavierj123 said:


> Newt reminds me of a college professor who is very knowledgeable but unable to talk in layman's terms. I prefer the KISS principle---KEEP IT SIMPLE STUDID---just be like Consumer Reports and tell me what bulbs you found most satisfactory. I have zeroed in on the 6700K Daylight and don't have any problem with algae at all. My tank is a 55 gallon with an Eihiem filtration system. I stopped using Eihiem medea and just use charcoal & 100% polyester. I don't even buy the polyester at the pet store, instead I buy a big ole pillow on sale that's the exact same polyester. I think the trick is to change the polyester about twice a year. It works for me.


Well, I thought I explained it enough so that others could determine what was good. It's a very old article and the bulbs at the time were mainly T12, T10, CF/PC and some T8s. We are now past T12 and most T8s and onto T5,T5HO and LED. IMO, LEDs are a few years away from where they need to be. I could tell you what I like but others may not be happy with the looks of the tank; as everyone has their opinion. I did find the following T8 combo to be very effective: Philips Aquarelle, Philips ADV and Allglass 8000K. I always use Sylvania T12 GroLux Standard and Wide Spectrum: more for dawn/dusk effect than for growth. I now use some T5HO bulbs and an Aquarelle. I like to mix bulbs both for effect and growth.
Regards, Dr Newt


----------



## RJSimoneaux

Need to replace my 4 (2+2) power compacts, 55 or 65 watt is what I have on the 75gal. In the past I have used 2ea 9325K or Colormax, in combo with 2ea 6700k and have like the red they bring out in my Ammania Gracilis and Limnophilia Aromatica(sp?). 

Any suggestions on what might come close to those today. I just need to replace the bulbs at this time. Would love to move up to LED but, cannot afford them.

TIA,
Ray


----------



## Newt

It's been so long since I've had to deal with biax bulbs (except for my shrimp tank) That I really don't know what's good out there. Don't bother with LED yet. They aren't there in development for planted tanks yet. You would be better served going T5HO.

Are the colormax no longer available?

I've always found that mixing bulbs of diff kelvin produces the best results. Like 8800K w/ 5000K.


----------



## matav

*Confused*

NEWT!!! I loved your article man.
Well... Honestly, i have read many articles before and got near about the same info (in bits and pieces) but this thread of yours is really good for those who want to get technical.

And, I hope you can answer my queries cuz i am seriously confused right now as I am planning to start a planted fish tank.
Basically, i am confused on whether to go for for SHO CFL or T2 lights? (LED is out of the question cuz frankly, i am broke)
Or should i just go for T5HO lights?
Also, i have some confusion regarding the Kelvin Rating.

*SHO CFL*
SHO CFL's are used in hydroponics!!! Like... quite a few people grow radishes and tomatoes and what not under SHO CFL lights.
This is pretty cool to know cuz if you can grow an onion with this then it's pretty reliable 
The WPG* rule for a SHO CFL i came across was:
a. 2 to 2.5 wpg for freshwater setup
b. 2.25 to 2.75 wpg for marine setup
*i know the WPG is not to be taken seriously but i take it as a beginner's guideline.

*T2*
T2's are ultra-thin
The WPG rule for T2 that i came across is:
a. 1 to 1.25 wpg for freshwater setup
b. 1.5 to 1.75 wpg for marine setup
*this seems good for me as i want to minimize the energy i consume cuz i run up hefty electric bills easily :/

*T5*
T5's are thin. It maybe old technology but is still quite popular & selling.
The WPG rule for T5 i believe is 2-3wpg (although the 2-4wpg was for T8 and 2-5 wpg was for T12. i just dunno why the lower limit is same for all  )
and T5HO being Higher Output lights must be near SHO-CFL's WPG requirement (i am guessing)

Now, whether i select SHO CFL or T2 lights, what's next?
See... i think i have understood why Kelvin Rating OR Lumen per Watt are NOT to be considered solely before deciding on the light.
BUT... i am still confused with the Kelvin Rating part.
To elaborate, say i take a 6500k T5 light without checking other parameters.
I could have easily made a mistake cuz this light may:
1. have weak PUR/PAR output
2. have a dominant green wavelength spike (which the plants don't need)
This would mean that the light is not very efficient (from the plant's perspective, although from our perspective it looks nice & bright)
So basically, a 6500k light should have a good PUR output & have red &/or blue wavelength dominant spikes instead of green wavelength dominant spikes.
(Reason being that underwater plants have evolved to utilize mostly the red & blue light wavelengths rather than the green light wavelength)

Now this leads to a confusion.
A 6500k light is supposed to be white & since it's white, it should technically give out equal quantities of red, green & blue wavelengths.
Right?
Why then do wavelength spikes occur?
Can the wavelength spike alter the color of the 6500k?
If a wavelength spike does alter the color, won't it contradict the concept of Kelvin Rating?
(cuz you know... a 6500k must look white and not greenish or orangish or pinkish or whatever)

After noting the models of available SHO-CFL/T2/T5 lights available in my country, where can i get details such as:
1. Dominant wavelength output graph
2. Wavelength of light system giving (in nm's)
3. PUR/PAR output

--
other sources:
http://www.americanaquariumproducts.com/aquarium_lighting.html
http://www.tropicalfishkeeping.com/...bs-6500k-rating-make-95749/page2/#post1009402
http://www.myfishtank.net/forum/aqu...10-000k-little-lesson-light-temperatures.html
http://science-edu.larc.nasa.gov/EDDOCS/Wavelengths_for_Colors.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_temperature


----------



## Flear

dono where T2 fits
T5HO vs LED, where lumens rates, ... 
T5HO beat LED arrays of the same size in watts per lumen. (what people see)
unfortunately this doesn't mean anything with PAR or PUR (what the plants use)

Matav.
for Flouresent lights and their color spikes, ... the visible light part of the electromagnetic spectrum includes red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet (ROYGBIV), the human eye i think really makes all it's colors based off red, green, blue, being more sensitive towards the green/yellow.

we see orange just fine, based on how much red & how much green and the brain interprets the rest. (i'm going by really really old memory, so it might be beyond fuzzy)

as for "white" light, ... it appears white for the same reason, ... the balance of everything, a generally balanced whole, but it's a balance. if the reds and the blues are heightened or diminished equally things will still appear "white" to us. just dimmer.

it's like scales, if the right and the left aren't balanced it tends to shift one way or the other

spikes are somewhere between intentional by design and intentional for marketing.
plants don't make much use of green, but our eyes do, and without that spike it's going to look dark to us regardless of the benefits to the plants, and marketing is scared of loosing sales.

for google searches on light spectrums of various bulbs, (5500K and higher) they can nail the blues, and the spikes the plants crave. the reds the plants want, ... it seems like they're all shifted, slightly towards yellow/orange.

a google search for a 6500K bulb









this has a balanced spectrum, but i notice the sides tend to be a little less than the middle. for everything i've read, this would give a good balance and be very bright, ... well bright to us, the reds & blues as they've taken a hit, and as these are the wavelenths the plants crave more, ... it's a good bang for your buck if you want to light a room, but for your plants, ... your money could be spent better elsewhere


----------



## Czech Mate

Newt said:


> Why dont you try a FijiPurple. You can get them thru www.reefgeek.com and www.aquacave.com. They have nearly double the output of most other T5HO bulbs. They use true red phosphourus in these.


I just want to point out that the spectral analysis .jpg's that you posted ARE NOT correct for the Fiji Purple. Actually KZ does not post this data and are very protective about it for some dumb reason, but I have taken an accurate spectral readout of the KZ Fiji Purple and can tell you that there is absolutely NO red wave bands past 630nm and most of the red in them is just your normal tri-band phosphor which peaks at 610nm.

The Fiji Purple is actually an Actinic type of T5 with about 95% of it's energy dedicated to the 400nm-485nm region and peaking at 435nm and 457nm where most Actinic T5 lamps peak.

If you want me to post the correct spectral graph for the Fiji Purple let me know! Also, the ATI purple plus is EXACTLY the same lamp wavelength for wavelength so do yourself/selves a favor and save a few bucks and buy the ATI. The lighting industry is good at scamming people. It's what they do best. Also, ZooMed sells some real nice products for half the price as the competition out there.


----------



## Newt

That would be great info to post.
Sylvania is the actual manufacturer of the bulb.

Yes, ZooMed has some nice bulbs.


----------



## Czech Mate

Well, I tried to post the graph, but it says awaiting moderation, that was 2 days ago. Maybe this forum isn't really happening anymore?


----------



## Czech Mate

imageshack.us/a/img41/7444/fijipurplesa.jpg


----------



## Czech Mate

so that's the graph I took. the forum wouldn't let me link the image directly so you will have to copy and paste it to see, but that is the spectral output for the Fiji Purple.


----------



## OTPT

Let me try posting it. The reason you couldn't might be because 
you didn't have enough postcount.

Did you measure it with a spectrophotometer?


----------



## Czech Mate

I measured the T5 with a $2000 spectrometer from RGB Laser Systeme Germany. Really handy device, it's the size of a USB drive. Just a little expensive. It has been one of the best purchases ever of mine. I've taken sun measurements throughout the day to see how the spectrum changes from morning to afternoon and have also taken measurements of many other T5s and combinations of them. What's very interesting is the fact that there is absolutely difference between expensive T5s and cheaper T5s spectrum wise. Thanks for re-posting my images for me. Hopefully a moderator can fix my account so I can post images in the future if needed of other spectral reading.

The forum wouldn't even let me quote your post with my image because of the fact that there is an image in your post, LOL, do you know someone that can get this fixed? I would greatly appreciated it, makes it really hard to provide any helpful information for anyone.


----------



## OTPT

A device like that is always nice to have, to see other things a PAR meter can't.
Too bad we mostly have to rely on what manufacturers/distributors tell us.

I checked the forum's "user manual" and saw no restriction for a new member.
So you may have to try posting your problem in the support section.
http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/apc-forum-support/


----------



## Czech Mate

Czech Mate said:


> I measured the T5 with a $2000 spectrometer from RGB Laser Systeme Germany. Really handy device, it's the size of a USB drive. Just a little expensive. It has been one of the best purchases ever of mine. I've taken sun measurements throughout the day to see how the spectrum changes from morning to afternoon and have also taken measurements of many other T5s and combinations of them. What's very interesting is the fact that there is absolutely difference between expensive T5s and cheaper T5s spectrum wise. Thanks for re-posting my images for me. Hopefully a moderator can fix my account so I can post images in the future if needed of other spectral reading.
> 
> The forum wouldn't even let me quote your post with my image because of the fact that there is an image in your post, LOL, do you know someone that can get this fixed? I would greatly appreciated it, makes it really hard to provide any helpful information for anyone.


There is a typo in this post of mine. I meant to write, "There is absolutely NO difference between expensive T5s and lesser expensive ie, ZooMed FloraSun Vs Sylvania Gro-lux. The ATI Pro-Color that was discontinued also fits in this category. There is slightly a bit more deep red in the Pro-Color but not enough to make any real difference.


----------



## TropTrea

Czech Mate said:


> I just want to point out that the spectral analysis .jpg's that you posted ARE NOT correct for the Fiji Purple. Actually KZ does not post this data and are very protective about it for some dumb reason, but I have taken an accurate spectral readout of the KZ Fiji Purple and can tell you that there is absolutely NO red wave bands past 630nm and most of the red in them is just your normal tri-band phosphor which peaks at 610nm.
> 
> The Fiji Purple is actually an Actinic type of T5 with about 95% of it's energy dedicated to the 400nm-485nm region and peaking at 435nm and 457nm where most Actinic T5 lamps peak.
> 
> If you want me to post the correct spectral graph for the Fiji Purple let me know! Also, the ATI purple plus is EXACTLY the same lamp wavelength for wavelength so do yourself/selves a favor and save a few bucks and buy the ATI. The lighting industry is good at scamming people. It's what they do best. Also, ZooMed sells some real nice products for half the price as the competition out there.


Yes I can confirm this on two counts.

1st off I used to work in quality control for a lighting manufacturer and will say that made virtually the same light bulb with the exception of the brand stamp on it very often. Looking at various pricing between the brands if you would know the exact spectrums of all of them you could easily find the same the same bulb with a different stamp on it for a wide range of prices.

2nd of the Fiji Red and the Purple plus are extraordinarily similar from my research. I ran plots about a year and half ago on the purple plus and compared them to someone elses plots on the fiji purple. There were minor (less than 10%) differences in the peaks were some were higher on one and lower on another peak but within 10%. Interestingly if you shifted our plots by roughly 10nm on the short wave lengths to 15nm on the longer wave lengths you would have all the peaks line up perfectly. This 10 to 15 nm shift could easily be caused by different batches of bulbs or a differences in the calibration of our equipment. The same individual (Pacific Sun) that did the evaluation on the Fiji Red also posted a plot for the Purple Plus that showed identical peak wavelengths but similar difference in intensities between the two at the various peaks. I do believe these are the same bulb but can only make that as an assumption from this data.


----------



## TropTrea

Flear said:


> dono where T2 fits
> T5HO vs LED, where lumens rates, ...
> T5HO beat LED arrays of the same size in watts per lumen. (what people see)
> unfortunately this doesn't mean anything with PAR or PUR (what the plants use)


If youur looking at Data from 5 years ago this is correct but just in the last year LEd's have come a long way. The quality LED manifactrers are reaching 120 LUMs per watt on regular bases now for almost a year now. They are also projecting that the next generation which should be out mid this year could be exceeding 200 Lums per Watt.

On my reef tanks I run roughly 1/2 the wattage of LED light that I do with HOT-5's and my results are very simular to slightly better growth and much better color with the LED's.



Flear said:


> Matav.
> for Flouresent lights and their color spikes, ... the visible light part of the electromagnetic spectrum includes red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet (ROYGBIV), the human eye i think really makes all it's colors based off red, green, blue, being more sensitive towards the green/yellow.
> 
> we see orange just fine, based on how much red & how much green and the brain interprets the rest. (i'm going by really really old memory, so it might be beyond fuzzy)
> 
> as for "white" light, ... it appears white for the same reason, ... the balance of everything, a generally balanced whole, but it's a balance. if the reds and the blues are heightened or diminished equally things will still appear "white" to us. just dimmer.
> 
> it's like scales, if the right and the left aren't balanced it tends to shift one way or the other
> 
> spikes are somewhere between intentional by design and intentional for marketing.
> plants don't make much use of green, but our eyes do, and without that spike it's going to look dark to us regardless of the benefits to the plants, and marketing is scared of loosing sales.


You are correct in this aspect however you are overly simplifing it. What the eye sees is reflective light off the object that gives it its color. If the surface of an object reflects light at say 500 nm and there is light hitting the object at 500nm it has no light to reflect back at us. You can create a white light with 3 LED's peaking at 470nm, 550nm and 640 nm that will look white to you reflected off a white peice of material but if there is an object that only reflects cyan light at 500nm it will look black to you since it has received no light it can reflect back at you.



Flear said:


> for google searches on light spectrums of various bulbs, (5500K and higher) they can nail the blues, and the spikes the plants crave. the reds the plants want, ... it seems like they're all shifted, slightly towards yellow/orange.
> 
> a google search for a 6500K bulb
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> this has a balanced spectrum, but i notice the sides tend to be a little less than the middle. for everything i've read, this would give a good balance and be very bright, ... well bright to us, the reds & blues as they've taken a hit, and as these are the wavelenths the plants crave more, ... it's a good bang for your buck if you want to light a room, but for your plants, ... your money could be spent better elsewhere


Yes there is some truth to this. Very little light is utilized in the green spectrum for photosynthesis. Most of the green light is not absorbed by the plants but is reflected back at us which is why many plants look green to us. You could create a light source especially with LED's that has peaks just at the wave lengths that are utilized by photosynthesis and be able to get in thory a light that is extremely efficient. You could even individual tune this light for a specific plant only creating light that it absorbs for photosynthesis.

However if your not giving it any light that it is not absorbing then it has no light that it can reflect back at us. How do you think the human eye would see this plant? It would appear black or near black with only the excess light it could not absorb reflecting back at us.

I say this in theory as most plants also have a low level of florescence in them. You can see this florescence in corals where you might light a reef tank with light at 455nm and the result might be a bright red coral standing out as it absorbs the 455nm light and emits 660nm light. Many fresh water plants also do this but to an extremely less extent.

The bases of goo reef lighting is to provide enough blue light 400nm to 500nm to make the corals grow than add enough full spectrum light to make the observers eye happy. For fresh water plants it is simular only the red and the blue light are important.

When I was heavy into planted aquariums I found that the best combination of lighting was a combination of Chroma 50, 5,000K lights and Daylight 6,500K lights. I had truied lower K rated bulbs but found with them it was nearly impossible to keep algea under control because of abundance of red light.


----------



## David G

Newt said:


> The most common mistake people make with planted tanks is to not understand photosynthesis and the visible spectrum of lighting that affects plant growth.


Wow! This was an awesome collection of science info clustered around solving problems of planted tanks and generally about designing light sources for plants. Thanks and really this is one of the best collections of info on the subject--I've read quite a few over the last year.

PS--ignore the bullies and their attacks disguised as "helpful comments". As a teacher of 27 years I recognize bullies and I recognize deep understanding. Please keep participating in forums, we need your knowledge.


----------



## hoppycalif

TropTrea said:


> ........ Very little light is utilized in the green spectrum for photosynthesis. Most of the green light is not absorbed by the plants but is reflected back at us which is why many plants look green to us. .....


I know this is a pretty old post, but I do think it should be corrected:

If you look at the illustration in the first post here, that shows the spectral range for lumens, which are intended to be close to normal human eye spectral response, you will see that our eyes are most sensitive, by far, to green light. And, much less sensitive to red and blue light. So, if we were to look at light with a perfectly flat spectrum from 400 to 700 nm, we would most likely see green light. So, the fact that we see plants as green is mostly because that's the color we see most intensely.

It is true that plants use more red and blue light than than green light, but they use more than a trivial amount of green light. Complicating this is the fact that we see a variety of spectral mixes of light as green, not just light of a wavelength associated with green.

To standardize our data on light, I think it is best to just use photosynthetically active radiation intensity as our measure of light (PAR - miicromoles of photons per second per square meter). No method within reach of hobbyists allows us to measure that with great accuracy, but even very cheap PAR meters are useful for judging how intense our aquarium lighting is, and the standard Apogee meters are even better, but still no where near perfect.

The light intensity in an aquarium varies widely, as much as from 20 PAR at the center, at the substrate to 100 PAR at the water surface to 10 PAR at each end of the tank at the substrate. So, to be useful I like to specify light intensity by the PAR at the center at the substrate level, and just accept the variation as the way it is. That lets us use a simple and useful set of PAR readings as a measure of low light, medium light, high light. And, we can define what low, medium and high mean several ways.


----------



## DutchMuch

Thanks so much newt for this article!


----------

