# All confused now...!



## lowfi (Apr 18, 2007)

Alright everyone,

First off, I apologize for my nonsensical rambling..

OK..I was all set and ready to go with the Coralife 1x65w 24" fixture for my 20H. After the light has traveled, reflected, been absorbed, wherever it goes...am I really getting the majority of the 65w into the tall tank?? Because of these natural flaws, now I am thinking (well...you all got me curious from previous posts) about the T5HO and the geismann bulbs. I know that they are more expensive...but would it be enough light (or better light). I cant seem to figure out the lighting thing, especially pertaining to differences when switching back and forth from T5 to compact fluorescent, etc. The only 24" fixtures (retrofit)...on reefgeek...are 48w's which is equivalent to 2.4 wpg (or is it more due to HO??) If so would that make the Coralife a better option???? I have also heard that the 65w coralife runs a little yellow/green?? is this true? The other retrofit kit possibility would be on ahsupply.com but that is only 55w of power. I cant seem to put my finger on what is better...i guess, what is more "effective". There is a large amount of price jump and the fact that with the retrofit kits i would have to build a housing unit (because i dont have an old unit for the 20 gallon that i could mount, or "retrofit" the lights in). Is all of this worth it? Should I just go with the coralife...my original plan??? Any help you could give would be awesome. It would definitely clear up the air. I was literally minutes away from placing the order. *BUMMER *

Thanks ahead of time...

Sean


----------



## Paul Higashikawa (Mar 18, 2004)

I still think the best way to find out what works for you personally is to experience these different types of lighting yourself. For the 20H, the *1X65W Coralife* will do just fine. Also, I would just get what your budget will allow you. For me, it has been a journey of trying out different things and discovering what worked best for myself. I've gone from using the regular old NO fluo, to compact, to metal halide. So far, I like what I see with the MH.

With that said, also take note that not all same wattage bulb will look the same and that is because of the color spectrum from the different K readings. Coralife looks yellow, and I assume you are referring to the 65 W 6500K bulb. It does appear to look somewhat yellow. If that doesn't look okay with you, you can always switch to 65 W bulbs of other K readings(10,000K, for instance). I use both 10000K and 6500K and I like the resulting combination. Coralife sells diffferent K reading bulbs.

Right now I am using 2X36W ADA compact bulbs and I have to say I love the appearance of the light. It is not too yellow, green, nor white. Just right in my opinion.


----------



## Newt (Apr 1, 2004)

Coralife bulbs are rather pissy for planted tanks. They do have a huge green spike that will cast a green hue over your tank and the blue and red (actually orange in this case) peaks are rather weak. Red and blue light is what is needed for good photosynthesis to take place. There are so many better bulbs available. Try something in the 5000/5500K area to get more red light.

Below is the spectral output of a 6700K Coralife bulb:


----------



## riverrat (Sep 6, 2005)

Confused?  

Happens to me all the time. It sounds as though this is your first planted aquarium. If so are you planning on it being a high tech pressurized co2 diffused plant growing machine? 


Slow down and think it out a little. More light (wpg) does not mean better plant growth ect......
More light to me means more demands from the caretaker. I am sure some may disagree with me.

All the lights you list will grow plants. Yes some bulbs are different colors but all will grow plants fine. 
I would ask yourself if you are going to be using this light forever? If you find you like keeping a planted tank will you eventually decide to upgrade to a larger tank. If so you will eventually be changing you light fixture to a larger one.


In the end I think you should go with you own instinct and budget. Do you want to build an enclosure or have a ready made fixture? 


I have had a coralife and they do fine. All in all the three choices you are talking about may all put the same amount of light into the aquarium even though they have different wattages. Choose the one you want because they will all grow plants. Especially the easier plants which if this is you first tank are the ones you should begin with. If in the end you want to change your light fixture you can always sell yours on the swap and shop or ebay to recover some of your money.


Good luck,

riverrat


----------



## Newt (Apr 1, 2004)

Yes, MOST lights will grow plants. BUT some grow them better than others - much better. You also need to determine the asthetic goal of your tank, i.e. how do you want it to appear (to you) with the lighting you choose.


----------



## lowfi (Apr 18, 2007)

Would the 65w coralife PC be enough light for the 20H or should i get a higher quality bulb? I was thinking about adding a reflector (like AHsupply) to the coralife unit...is this possible? Thanks 

Sean


----------



## Snow Prince (Jul 22, 2007)

Short answer to your question is: Yes.

Long answer includes other factors, such as nutrients via liquid and/or solid fertilizer, addition of CO2, substrate, temperature, water chemistry, etc... 


As for adding the reflector to the Coralife, I think you might have to do some cutting of it before it can be properly fitted into the Coralife unit. I do have both AHS reflectors and Coralife units, but for the crying Jesus, I cannot remember whether they will fit or not. I guess I am happy with the newer units I got I don't even mess with these things anymore


----------



## elaphe (Aug 24, 2006)

I went from a 1 x 65W Coralife to Reefgeeks 2 x 24W T5HO with Giesmann Midday bulbs. If you have the money, go for the T5's! Even though they are less "watts per gallon", they are MUCH brighter and much better quality.

I was running the Coralife 10 hours with an All-Glass 1 x 55W with a GE9523 bulb for about 3 hours (noon burst). This is the only time my plants would pearl (during the noon burst). It was also the only time that the fish didn't looks washed out and "bland" against the plants.

The Giesmann 2 x 24W bulbs with individual reflectors is as bright to my eyes as the 1 x 65W AND 1 x 55W CF during the "noon burst". I've actually had to cut my photo period back to 9 hours with the T5's.

My plants now pearl all day long and I'm experiencing much more growth. There are nice colors coming out of my plants where they always looked green before (probably from the Coralife bulb).

They are more expensive, but worth it if you have the cash.

Brian


----------



## ingg (Apr 8, 2007)

I'd love to see someone compare the new Nova Extreme 2x HO fixtures to those Coralifes.

I'm in this same thinking about it mode for a 26g bowfront, and don't know if I should get a Coralife 65w fixture or the Nova 2x24 fixture.

I know it won't hold up to an individual reflector model, but the 36" one I have is nice (It is the only light I've ever had that wasn't a DIY mess, so in terms of competitive fixtures I've nothing to really compare it to!)


----------



## Brilliant (Jun 25, 2006)

I will have the chance to compare a 36" 96w PC based Orbit to the 36" Freshwater Nova 2x very soon. Comparing the 65w single PC fixture to the 24x2w dual T5HO fixture would bring same results I expect. T5HO wins hands down.

Now when we start to talk about AH supply or PC with good reflectors then I could see a closer comparison. But then I would find it fair to compare those PC to T5HO with individual reflectors. Keeping things fair T5HO owns PC.


I would buy the 24" Current USA Freshwater 2xT5HO over the Coralife 1xPC unit.


----------



## lowfi (Apr 18, 2007)

Alright how bout this curveball?

Instead of the 1x65w coralife FW, what about the 2 x 36w Coralife fixture with a ~10,000k bulb and the other bulb more red or lower K...like perhaps 5500k? Would this be a good solution because it would possibly give a nice look to MY eye and pretty good growing properties and power for the plants. Would this setup have too much wattage for the 20H and would there be "dead spots" in the tank because of the two bulb setup. It seems that with 2 bulbs you have a lot more flexibility with mixing and matching what lights work for you. I am a little worried that I am pushing the wattage thing. Has anyone thought about this possibility??? Or would this be a pointless endeavor ($ wise) because after adding 2 new bulbs and paying $84.99 for the 2-bulb fixture, should I just go spend the money and go with the ~$140 T5HO retrofit kit w/bulbs @ reefgeeks.com and build my own wooden fixture...only because i dont have a mount to "retrofit" the lights into. The link below is the 2-bulb Coralife fixture. Any comments would be great...the first few definitely helped!

Thanks!
Sean

http://www.bigalsonline.com/BigAlsU...life24aqualightpowercompactstriplight2x36watt

PS: elaphe; what did you mount your T5HO fixture into and what did you buy on reefgeeks.com for your 20H??? I am trying to figure out the difference between the "Icecap" and "sunlight supply"


----------



## riverrat (Sep 6, 2005)

Not sure if it matters but they do make a 65 watt bulb in a dual 10000 6700 combo. I am not sure if they both have the same pin arrangement (straight or square pin) might be worth a look. I think around 25 buck for the bulb so might end up being 75 bucks and you would have the spare bulb. Don't have time to check cause my pizza is ready to pick up. 

just a thought.

T5's are the best imho but money may be on your mind. Maybe and upgrade to larger tank in several months may be on your mind also


riverrat


----------



## lowfi (Apr 18, 2007)

just bought the new nova extreme T5HO 2x light system and am stoked! should i put geismanns in it??? hmmmm do you think the 48w will be enough???? thanks!


----------



## elaphe (Aug 24, 2006)

lowfi said:


> just bought the new nova extreme T5HO 2x light system and am stoked! should i put geismanns in it??? hmmmm do you think the 48w will be enough???? thanks!


I'm not familiar with that fixture, but if it has good reflectors, 48W of T5HO will be more than enough. I'm growing a gorgeous lawn of Glosso in my 20H with this amount of light and the Geismann Midday bulbs.

Brian


----------



## lowfi (Apr 18, 2007)

Does anyone know if the geismann lights can fit this fixture? is there any way to find out the pin arrangement etc.? I couldnt seem to locate it on the currentusa site.


----------



## rs79 (Dec 7, 2004)

You're worrying this to death. Any color and any bulb will work. It's just personal preference as to what color the bulb makes your tank look. Intensity matters to your plants, color doesn't.

I use whatever's on sale. Mostly warm white.


----------



## Newt (Apr 1, 2004)

rs79 said:


> You're worrying this to death. Any color and any bulb will work. It's just personal preference as to what color the bulb makes your tank look. Intensity matters to your plants, color doesn't.
> 
> I use whatever's on sale. Mostly warm white.


eeerrrrrr......the estimated kelvin color value doesn't matter but the color available in the spectral output from the bulb does matter. Without red and blue light in the spectral output the plants won't be able to photosynthesize. Yes, intensity of the red and blue peaks does matter. The fact that "any bulb will work" theory is because most bulbs have red and blue light in the spectral output, but not all; and not all have energy output peaks at the proper nanometer to optimize photosynthesis.


----------



## lowfi (Apr 18, 2007)

sorry guys..i just dont have a lot of cash and I want to get it right the first time. Ive already messed around with DIY before and its a pain. Thank you all for all your help!


----------



## Snow Prince (Jul 22, 2007)

Really, if budget is your main concern, then go and get the best your money can possibly buy at this point. Then later, when you have more money, just do an upgrade. It's kindda like upgrading computers. You don't need to be on top of technologies at all time; just upgrade every couple of years or so. Same philosophy applies here. 

If your budget only allows you to get the 1X65W Coralife, then so be it. You can still grow lots of plants with no problem. Like I said before, there are other factors affecting plant growth besides lighting. You CAN grow plants with this lighting unit. I've been there and I know. Don't feel discouraged by whatever things come your way. 


Good luck and keep at it! I know you can do it


----------



## riverrat (Sep 6, 2005)

Did you buy the T5 nova fixture? If so you can buy any T5HO bulb that is 24watt. Pin configuration pertains to compact fluorescents only.


----------



## rs79 (Dec 7, 2004)

"Without red and blue light in the spectral output the plants won't be able to photosynthesize."

Nope. Try it. You can grow plants under nothing but green light.

Chlorophyll in a test tube reacts most strongly to red and blue but plants aren't chemicals in test tubes.

If you were to try, say side by sude equal tanks with gro lux (LOTS of red and blue) and warm white (mostly green) over them you find very very little difference in the result. In fact you just might find (as others have) the warm whites work better.

I spend years looking at this and researched everything I could find. I wrote the "Aquarium Lighting FAQ" in the 80s. I've got spectral charts from all the major manufacturors. I've tried everything.

There's a scientific paper out there somewhere where they tried a bunch of things and in the middle of it they blithely point out "because of the incereased luminous flux of warm white they seem to grow better plants than any fancy bulb we've tried".

I use warm white for expensive (CFL) tubes and fancy ones for cheaper fixtures. Warm white works just great and it shouldn't. It's for all intents and pusposes green. But it does.

Light *intensity* matters. Light *color* does not.

You can take the fanciest bestest tube you can get and I'll use two warm whites and my plants will grow faster than yours.

I know it's heresy, but if you try it you'll see it's true.

Google the APD archives for more evidence.


----------



## lowfi (Apr 18, 2007)

WOW

rs79......

....you just blew my mind 

So pretty much what you're saying is I could get anything and it would be cool? That's comforting in a way. Sorry I wasted my time hahaha! I guess i gotta see what looks best to me. Since I am going to be running 2x24w T5HO bulbs I think I am going to mix and match a lower "warm white" and a high 10000K bulb to make my plants GROW and look pretty . You think that with this wattage, being T5HO, I will be able to grow a proper low foreground with whatever foreground I choose (HC, glosso, etc.)? I will have ~2.4 wpg, but it will be HO, with decent reflectors. I am hoping that a tank like this (20H, deeper than normal), I can grow the foreground I am hoping for, without too much light being absorbed/lost before it reaches the bottom. Will I also be able to grow a wide variety of plants with this light setup???


----------



## Newt (Apr 1, 2004)

rs79 said:


> Try it. You can grow plants under nothing but green light.
> 
> Chlorophyll in a test tube reacts most strongly to red and blue but plants aren't chemicals in test tubes.
> 
> ...


Seems you reject all of the scientific data done by orgs like the Journal of Plant Physiology.

A green plant is green because it is reflected light and reflected light not being absorb can not produce photosynthesis.

Besides who wants to look at a tank with a green light cast over it like a Coralife bulb does.

Post a link to this work. You won't find it because it's urban myth.

BTW, cool whites are not mostly green light and yes they will grow plants as they have a good amount of orange and red with an ample amount of blue with spikes in the blue at ~430nm and ~450nm which matches chlorophyll a and b peak absorbtion for blue light.
GE Cool White









GE Warm White









Being an engineer I look for scientific evidence and not empirical evidence.


----------



## ruki (Jul 4, 2006)

Yippee, I get to pick on Newt's summary sentence. 



Newt said:


> Being an engineer I look for scientific evidence and not empirical evidence.


I think a better way to put this is:

As an engineer I look for valid empirical evidence to support the theoretical (scientific) models I use to model reality.

The problem here is this appears to be a claim with bogus empirical evidence.


----------



## ruki (Jul 4, 2006)

rs79 said:


> "Without red and blue light in the spectral output the plants won't be able to photosynthesize."
> 
> Nope. Try it. You can grow plants under nothing but green light.
> 
> ...


As in the friendly card game, I call out "bull****". 
You've started out with the claim "nothing but green light" and did a sleight of hand trick into "mostly green light". But even this is misleading since the tubes mentioned produce light mostly light that is not green as the spectrum charts clearly demonstrated.

To back up this claim, you need to grow something with only green light. Put a green filter on the top of the aquarium, paint the sides of an aquarium black, keep black plastic in front of the aquarium and let us know if and how well plants grow under only green light.



> I spend years looking at this and researched everything I could find. I wrote the "Aquarium Lighting FAQ" in the 80s. I've got spectral charts from all the major manufacturors. I've tried everything.
> 
> There's a scientific paper out there somewhere where they tried a bunch of things and in the middle of it they blithely point out "because of the incereased luminous flux of warm white they seem to grow better plants than any fancy bulb we've tried".


I doubt this because the traditional cool white tube has always been more efficient in total light output than warm white. It's almost as if the shorter wavelengths have been attenuated to give it a red color at the expense of total light output. So, one should get better results with cool white than warm white.

"scientific paperout there somewhere"? If you are serious about this, find this reference. And if it does exist, it has be evaluated in the context of all the papers that don't agree with it.



> I use warm white for expensive (CFL) tubes and fancy ones for cheaper fixtures. Warm white works just great and it shouldn't. It's for all intents and pusposes green. But it does.


warm white SHOULD work OK. It is NOT for all intents and purposes green. Warm White does produces light useful for plants from the traditional perspective of reds and greens. http://www.aquabotanic.com/lightcompare.htm



> Light *intensity* matters. Light *color* does not.
> 
> You can take the fanciest bestest tube you can get and I'll use two warm whites and my plants will grow faster than yours.


Now this is another extraordinary claim. Have you done side-by-side comparisons? You know, something like:

(1) cool white and warm white tank
(2) grow-lux and 6500K tank (In theory this should work really well)
(3) Philips Advantage fluorescent, 5000K F32T8/ADV850 and Philips Aquarelle 10,000 K fluorescent for freshwater aquaria. (By the plant bulb comparisons, this should work really well)

Have warm white and cool white came out on top like you claim? If you haven't done this, I must call out "bull****" again.

There is one source I know where they tried mixing tubes and weighing the aquatic plant matter produced. It's on page 180 of Walstad's book.
1st place was cool white and a VitaLight
2nd place was cool white and cool white
3rd place was VitaLight and VitaLight
4th place was cool white and warm white
...
10th and last place was warm white and warm white.



> I know it's heresy, but if you try it you'll see it's true.
> 
> Google the APD archives for more evidence.


Empirical evidence needs to directly address your two claims. You have the burden of finding this evidence not us Googling to see if there is anything valid that supports your claims.

It's very possible that aquatic plants have developed some ability to utilize green light, but what you've posted doesn't support this at all. I would love to see valid evidence to support this, then we could update our theoretical model on how aquatic plants grow. Unsubstantiated claims do not count as valid evidence.


----------



## rs79 (Dec 7, 2004)

"Lighting for plant growth" Kent State Press. It is the PhD thesis, written up as a book by the guys that intestigated color of light ane how it affects plants. THe grow lux bulb came out of their research. It was the optimal light spectra based on their work.

Thing is though, see, chaep warm whites and cool whites do almost the same thing by their own results - their new phosphour formulations were only a big better.

And you can try grolux or warm white yourself and see what kind of difference you get. For 35 years I've seen poeple grow great plants with just these too - cool white contains a bit mroe blue and warm white contains a bit more red but they'te still mostly green.

I'm an engineer too and I used to believe in charts and graphs and photosynthetic peaks, but plants don't behave like that in real life. This has been discussed to death on the APD and you can look there for plant biologists and lighting engineers that explain how and why plants use, say, green light.










This tank is over two feet tall and those Cordata-complex Crypts have been grown under warm white/cool white since 1953. Numerous other examples abound. There's two 40W T12 fluorescents over a 125 gallon tank in this picture. There's another tank of these plants with a gro lux light. They don't grow any better (or worse).

I've tried every tube imaginable. I just haven't noticed that much difference. The brighter the tube the better plants grow is what I've seen.

Theory is fine, but if you try some of this stuff you'll see the plants may not have read the same papers you did, and grow regardless.

Poeple always get pissed off when I breing this up. But until you've tried it is hard to beliieve; that's understandable.

Belief in this stuff sure sells a lot of $30 and $40 tubes. But if you try $3 ones you might be very surprused at what you fine. You certainly can do no more than guess until you try.


----------



## ruki (Jul 4, 2006)

Sorry,

but that does not provide anything of substance to your claims that plants can grow in only green light, warm white is better (or equal) to any other tubes, and that warm white consists of mostly green light. 

Just scroll up and look at the charts and it's pretty obvious that the last claim is wrong. I have a portable spectrometer and can also agree that there is considerable non-green light in those tubes.

I didn't say that cool white would not grow plants well enough. It's just other tube combinations should do better. For many people two cool white tubes will be good enough. But, if you get tubes producing light optimal to photosynthesis it will do better than two warm white tubes. However, even two cool white tubes should be better than two warm white tubes. This has been demonstrated in at least one experiment and it's summary carried forward in an aquarium book for the hobbiest.


----------



## rs79 (Dec 7, 2004)

" It's just other tube combinations should do better."

Yeah they should. I've found they don't though. For 30 years.

Try it yourself and see what happens in your tanks.


----------



## rs79 (Dec 7, 2004)

The other thing to think about is diminished returns.

A cool or warm white tube is $2. A C50 is $7. Is it 7X better? No. Maybe 1-5% better. A $30 or $40 tube? Is it 15x or 20X better?

If you're really looking for "optimal" you need to be looking at HID lamps, not screwing around with fluorescents. There's some cheap HPS and Hg "sercurity" lights than you can get cheap and rig up

20,000 lumens of the wrong light compared to say, 12,000 lumens of the right light is no contest.


----------



## Brilliant (Jun 25, 2006)

Hi,

To sum this all up for the common folk  Lights grow plants because of diverse spectrum. Green, red, blue the predominant color means nothing in terms of plant growth or so it is said and reasoning behind the notion all bulbs grow plants. This because these lights are not only green, red or blue but create a broad amount of light in different colors.

With that being said. Lighting with spectrum peak that targets what plant wants is more efficient. It would be ideal to choose a bulb based on its spectral output and 'test tube' results.

Hopefully Ruki can agree with my lamens terms


----------



## rs79 (Dec 7, 2004)

Taken from "Ecology of the Planted Aquarium: A Practical Manual and Scientific Treatise for the Home Aquarist" by Diana Walstad

Page 181
Quote:Aquatic light is unique. This is because the water itself absorbs red light, while DOC (Dissovled Organic Carbon) absorbs blue light. What's leftover for plant photosynthesis is mainly green-yellow light. Aquatic plants may have adapted their photosyntheic manhinery (over the course of evolution) to use green-yellow light fairly efficiently. 

Page 180
Quote:The fact that plants did very well with Cool-White, which produces mostly green-yellow light was an unexpected result of this study. 

Buy what's on sale. There is no "wrong" bulb.

Don't spend a lot of money on a fancy bulb. There is no study you can point to that shows they work any better.

Intensity matters, color doesn't.


----------



## Homer_Simpson (Apr 2, 2007)

Brilliant said:


> Hi,
> 
> To sum this all up for the common folk  Lights grow plants because of diverse spectrum. Green, red, blue the predominant color means nothing in terms of plant growth or so it is said and reasoning behind the notion all bulbs grow plants. This because these lights are not only green, red or blue but create a broad amount of light in different colors.
> 
> ...


Hmmmm...interesting. Okay common folk like me seek to be educated, so a question for all the light gurus out there. Lights grow plants because of diverse spectrum. That being said do all lights also assist the growth of algae or are there differences here relative to spectrum. I have read mixed things about Penn-Plax aquari-lux fluorescent tubes for example. The manufacture "claims" the tubes "stimulate plant growth with low algae build up!" I have read that these tubes will retard plant and algae growth and are best avoided for a planted aquarium.

The spectral graph on the cardboard encasing shows that the tube would produce blue spike in the 400 nn wavelength, 430 nn wavelength in the dark green wavelength, 440-500 nn in the slightly lighter green wavelength, 510-540 dip in the yellow wavelength, 600-640 nn in the orange wavelength, with a red spike at the 650 nn wavelength, and a red dip ending in the 700 nn wavelength.

Okay somebody help me interpret this in Homer Simpson language. Would this tube stimulate plant growth with minimal algae as per penn-plax's claim, or is this just hog wash!

Thanks


----------



## hoppycalif (Apr 7, 2005)

Homer_Simpson said:


> Hmmmm...interesting. Okay common folk like me seek to be educated, so a question for all the light gurus out there. .......
> 
> Okay somebody help me interpret this in Homer Simpson language. Would this tube stimulate plant growth with minimal algae as per penn-plax's claim, or is this just hog wash!
> 
> Thanks


If plant growth is good, or stimulated, algae growth will be minimized. That will be true whether it is good or stimulated by fertilizers, CO2, light, or green thumbs. So, I vote that the statement is true, just misleading.


----------



## snickle (Apr 8, 2007)

My take is as long as you lights are in the 5K to 10K range you should be okay with most plants. Don;t go higher or lower.

Algae likes any light range so the goal is to optimize what plants like.


----------



## rs79 (Dec 7, 2004)

Bad advice. Tritons, which are very very bright and grow plants very very well are very below 5K. So are high pressure sodium. They may look like crap (yellow) but they put out the most light per watt of any technology. Offset one with with a mercury lamp and they look daylight-ish.

Show me some study that proves light color makes any significant differnece, I dare you.


----------



## Newt (Apr 1, 2004)

rs79 said:


> Taken from "Ecology of the Planted Aquarium: A Practical Manual and Scientific Treatise for the Home Aquarist" by Diana Walstad
> 
> Page 181
> Quote:Aquatic light is unique. This is because the water itself absorbs red light, while DOC (Dissovled Organic Carbon) absorbs blue light. What's leftover for plant photosynthesis is mainly green-yellow light. Aquatic plants may have adapted their photosyntheic manhinery (over the course of evolution) to use green-yellow light fairly efficiently.
> ...


Sorry, but if this is an exact quote from her book then Diana is wrong as she has you believe that the water absorbs ALL the red light and DOC absorbs ALL the blue light. I dont think she has a strong background in this area and it appears to be empirical evidence and not scientific data. This is very misleading AND cool-white bulbs are not mostly green-yellow.

Yes, cool whites (4100K) will grow plants but there are better bulbs that can be used and when money is no object one should buy something alot better.


----------



## rs79 (Dec 7, 2004)

Ok, show me a study that says even the most expensive ($20. $30. $40) bulb grows plants even 5% better than cool or warm ($2) whites. Can you say "diminished return" ?

Maybe you can find one. I've looked... there dont seem to be any.

I once tried two fancy ass coralife 35W power compact tubes where I used to have 40W warm white. The 40W warm whites worked much better - and they were old and the coralife tubes were new.

There are charts showing how much light is absorbed as a function of depth. I think it's about 3' whereby nearly all the red light is absorbed.

Why do you say cool whites are not mostly green-yellow?


----------



## SPC (Dec 6, 2007)

rs79 said:


> Show me some study that proves light color makes any significant differnece, I dare you.


Hi all,

While researching bulb choices I came upon this thread and wondered why this discussion didn't continue. If there is indeed no scientific data that shows any significant difference in color as it relates to plant growth, then isn't this a rather important point for this hobby? Personally, if I can get very close to the same plant growth by using a $5 bulb (easy to find at the Hardware store) vs a $15 bulb (may not be easy to find locally), then this makes quite a difference in which bulb I will choose.

Comments?

Thanks,
Steve


----------



## hoppycalif (Apr 7, 2005)

SPC said:


> Hi all,
> 
> While researching bulb choices I came upon this thread and wondered why this discussion didn't continue. If there is indeed no scientific data that shows any significant difference in color as it relates to plant growth, then isn't this a rather important point for this hobby? Personally, if I can get very close to the same plant growth by using a $5 bulb (easy to find at the Hardware store) vs a $15 bulb (may not be easy to find locally), then this makes quite a difference in which bulb I will choose.
> 
> ...


It isn't easy to prove or disprove that a specific bulb causes much better plant growth. First, there are so many different bulbs available, and the "color temperature" of a bulb does not really define the light put out by that bulb. If someone had a bank of 20 or so 30 gallon tanks, and had the skill to set them up and keep them all growing exactly alike when the same light is used on all of them, then that person would be in position to do comparative testing that could mean something. But, then you would run into the fact that there are hundreds of different plants involved, and they might not all react the same way to different lights. So, maybe Vals would prefer one bulb, but Crypts another, and Ludwigia's another, etc.

One fact that can't be disputed is that people have been successful with planted tanks using a variety of light types and color temperatures, so there have to be many lights that will work fine for growing plants. Is it really necessary to seek out the very best of those lights?


----------



## Mr. Fish (Oct 24, 2007)

If you havent bought your light yet I have a 24" Coralife 65 Watts for sale...
it does great over my 29 gallon tank with good growth.... Still new, Just upgraded
my tank so I went wit the Orbit Lighting...let me know


----------



## Mr. Fish (Oct 24, 2007)

hoppycalif said:


> It isn't easy to prove or disprove that a specific bulb causes much better plant growth. First, there are so many different bulbs available, and the "color temperature" of a bulb does not really define the light put out by that bulb. If someone had a bank of 20 or so 30 gallon tanks, and had the skill to set them up and keep them all growing exactly alike when the same light is used on all of them, then that person would be in position to do comparative testing that could mean something. But, then you would run into the fact that there are hundreds of different plants involved, and they might not all react the same way to different lights. So, maybe Vals would prefer one bulb, but Crypts another, and Ludwigia's another, etc.
> 
> One fact that can't be disputed is that people have been successful with planted tanks using a variety of light types and color temperatures, so there have to be many lights that will work fine for growing plants. Is it really necessary to seek out the very best of those lights?


See this is what I dont understand... If all these plants come from the same place,
arnt they use to all the same light provided by the sun ? Also how do these plants get
nutrients and Co2 in the wild ?


----------



## hoppycalif (Apr 7, 2005)

Mr. Fish said:


> See this is what I dont understand... If all these plants come from the same place,
> arnt they use to all the same light provided by the sun ? Also how do these plants get
> nutrients and Co2 in the wild ?


In the wild plants experience varying light intensity due to weather, and plants are able to adjust to various light qualities anyway. Our aquariums don't even come close to duplicating in-the-wild conditions, nor would we want them to. Our goal is healthy, nice to look at plants. Nature's goal for plants is to reproduce.


----------



## Tex Gal (Nov 1, 2007)

SO lowfi - if you were confused before all this discussion - how do you feel now?!!! I think there is 1 more opinion out there than hobbyists to express it!!! I guess I just say if there are that many people out there saying that much stuff - you will succeed at this on some level no matter what you do! ...is the question really just how confused do you want to be?


----------



## SPC (Dec 6, 2007)

hoppycalif said:


> It isn't easy to prove or disprove that a specific bulb causes much better plant growth. First, there are so many different bulbs available, and the "color temperature" of a bulb does not really define the light put out by that bulb. If someone had a bank of 20 or so 30 gallon tanks, and had the skill to set them up and keep them all growing exactly alike when the same light is used on all of them, then that person would be in position to do comparative testing that could mean something. But, then you would run into the fact that there are hundreds of different plants involved, and they might not all react the same way to different lights. So, maybe Vals would prefer one bulb, but Crypts another, and Ludwigia's another, etc.


Thanks for the response, hoppy, and I understand the point you are trying to make, however it seems to me that these variables would only make the whole color issue even more illusive.

*One fact that can't be disputed is that people have been successful with planted tanks using a variety of light types and color temperatures, so there have to be many lights that will work fine for growing plants.*

I agree, but I did not get this impression from some of the posters to this thread.

*Is it really necessary to seek out the very best of those lights? *

Well I just took down my 7 year old reef tank...and you know how anal us reefers are.

Steve


----------



## SPC (Dec 6, 2007)

Mr. Fish said:


> If you havent bought your light yet I have a 24" Coralife 65 Watts for sale...
> it does great over my 29 gallon tank with good growth.... Still new, Just upgraded
> my tank so I went wit the Orbit Lighting...let me know


Thanks for the offer Mr Fish, but I have my lighting (6 x 6' VHO URI Aquasun on my 180 gallon tank). I will need new bulbs shortly, and knowing that the bulbs I currently use are 10000 K, I was trying to make sure that a different mix might not work better for plants.

Steve


----------



## SPC (Dec 6, 2007)

hoppycalif said:


> Our aquariums don't even come close to duplicating in-the-wild conditions, nor would we want them to.[/B]
> 
> I agree with this, that big old water bug I removed from some plants I got out of the wild the other day, could sure wreak havok with the fry in my tank.
> 
> ...


----------



## hoppycalif (Apr 7, 2005)

SPC said:


> hoppycalif said:
> 
> 
> > Our aquariums don't even come close to duplicating in-the-wild conditions, nor would we want them to.[/B]
> ...


----------



## hoppycalif (Apr 7, 2005)

One last comment about lights: Some lights are better than others. Some have spectra that are better for growing plants. I don't think that is disputable. But, rarely should we be seeking the very best of any aquarium equipment, but rather we should seek what will work, giving us the results we want, at a reasonable price. By that criteria, most fluorescent bulbs work fine, from T12 to T5, and with any of several color temperatures.


----------



## SPC (Dec 6, 2007)

hoppycalif said:


> SPC said:
> 
> 
> > A large number of the plants we use do their reproducing above the water, growing a flower or flowers that extend out of the water. Many spend as little time under water as it takes to reach the surface to begin their real growth. Those plants we don't want to duplicate their natural life cycle in our tank.
> ...


----------



## Cliff Mayes (Jan 29, 2007)

There has been very little if any direct experimentation for our Hobby. There is not enough money in it.

Two ways of learning help us in the Aquatic Creature Hobby. One is to borrow information from other fields that have been gathered for reasons that make it worthwhile to do. Secondly experienced hobbyists over time learn what works.

What works, passes for Theory in our world. Practical experience is not to be sniffed at because it is arguably the most important tool of learning we have. Many of the things that we assume as Theory, are nothing more than common wisdom that becomes Theory, because it works. Maybe somebody wrote it down long enough ago that no one remembers, and it becomes a "known fact." Any groups of experienced aquarists are usually the best source of information for our Hobby. I too have been taken in by something being picked up and repeated many times until it takes on a life of its own. Be careful. Question everything.

The Scientific Method is thought by some to be another Philosophy. Experiments are very expensive and just formulating a Hypothesis to question and formulate an Experiment is difficult. Our Hobby is young and poor. It is unusual in our world to find pure research being done just because of somebodys curiosity. There are some institutions that have huge endowments but even those institutions tred very carefully. Information and knowledge can be very dangerous.


----------



## hoppycalif (Apr 7, 2005)

SPC said:


> hoppycalif said:
> 
> 
> > Isn't this just one of the way's some of these plants might reproduce? Correct me if I'm wrong, Hoppy, but dosen't a sword plant and some others reproduce both by seed as well as runners?
> ...


----------



## Mr. Fish (Oct 24, 2007)

hoppycalif said:


> In the wild plants experience varying light intensity due to weather, and plants are able to adjust to various light qualities anyway. Our aquariums don't even come close to duplicating in-the-wild conditions, nor would we want them to. Our goal is healthy, nice to look at plants. Nature's goal for plants is to reproduce.


Thanks Hoppy although this does not direct my question about how the plants
in the wild get access to Nutrients such as potasium in particular or how
they are geting their Carbon Dioxide source ?


----------



## hoppycalif (Apr 7, 2005)

Mr. Fish said:


> Thanks Hoppy although this does not direct my question about how the plants
> in the wild get access to Nutrients such as potasium in particular or how
> they are geting their Carbon Dioxide source ?


Natural bodies of water will have fertilizers present just as el natural type tanks do. "The substrate" in a natural body of water is very likely to be nutrient rich. Bodies of water that get much of the water from springs will have CO2 in the water, although not nearly as much as the 30 ppm we try for. And, rain water will have CO2. For that matter any stream that has heavy rippling at the surface picks up CO2 from the atmosphere.

Remember, we aren't trying to duplicate nature in our aquarium. We are trying to get optimum growth, as we define it, from the plants. So, just as farmers fertilize heavily to get good crop yield, we fertilize heavily to get optimum growth rates.


----------

