# Can very high lighting work?



## jude_uc (Feb 7, 2006)

I've seen that coralife makes a 96 watt light fixture which can fit over a 10 gallon tank. I realize that that's an abusurd amount of light, but I'm curious if plants can be made to grow with that much (with a minimal amount of algae, if possible). Does anyone have any experience with extremely high lighting? Does anyone know how it would change fertilization demands? Or will algae always win out over the plants at that level?

-Adam


----------



## Nick (Jan 12, 2005)

See Luis Navarro's aquascape interview in the library-I think he has examples approaching the 9-10 wpg range. I would be prepared to walk a very fine line with that level of lighting though!

Nick


----------



## John S (Jan 18, 2005)

with that much light u will need to keep the co2 up at 30 +ppm at all times


----------



## AaronT (Apr 26, 2004)

If you only turn it on for 6 hours a day you will be fine. Keep up the CO2 and ferts also.


----------



## IUnknown (Feb 24, 2004)

Read through,
http://www.fitchfamily.com/lighting.html

I think I had this tank running with two 36 for awhile,
http://aquascapingjournals.com/journals/10_gallon_aquascaping_journal.htm

The problem with running a tank that high is that on a ten gallon, you are trimming twice a week.


----------



## IUnknown (Feb 24, 2004)

I actaully always wanted to push the limits because Luis talked about how plants look better with more light, they get this waxy sheen. I think you can get the same results with mid-day bursts. My ideal setup would be t-5/mh combo (for 75 gallon). Run the t-5 at all time, four hours during the middle of the day run the mh.


----------



## GraFFix (Feb 24, 2005)

High light works for me...even though I do have to trim more then I would like. I like the way it makes the tank look. Pics dont do it justice thought since I dont have a decent camera. the brightness at the top of the plants is not like this in real life. I just cant get a decent shot with this camera.

Ohh the specs are 20g tank, 130w of lighting, pressurized Co2 @ 45ppm and a terrible dosing schedule


----------



## DelawareJim (Nov 15, 2005)

I wonder if we aren't a bit weak on the lighting as well. I'm running 3.9 W/gal. (2-175 MH, 2-40 watt FL) in a 30 inch deep tank and my smaller foreground plants grow like they're never getting enough light.

Talking with a couple of reefers near home, they're pushing 8-9 W/gal for macro algae, hard corals, and clams with Zooxanthellae (hence CoralLife's 96 watt light for a 10 gal. tank).

They're always referring to the "Inverse Square Law": The intensity of light falling upon an object decreases in proportion to the square of the distance between the object and the light source. So, a doubling of distance between the lamps and the organisms will result in a need for four times the intensity or four times as many lamps for the organisms to grow at the same rate.

Therefore if a 15 inch deep 55 gal is running 220 watts (4 w/gal.), a 110 that is 30 inches deep should be running 880 watts (8w/gal.) to have the same intensity at the gravel.

Then I read Kasselmann's account of the Rio Bonito in the latest TAG magazine where sword plants are developing a pink color and pearling due to the intense lighting (full sun).

It just gets me wondering.....

Cheers.
Jim


----------



## redFishblueFish (Feb 12, 2006)

This a small point, but it becomes relevant when doing calculations - the inverse square law doesn't quite hold with this instance. The inverse square law is true when looking at a point source (the sun is pretty close to a point source :flame: ). If you look at a sphere beyond the point source, it has a much larger surface area than a sphere very close to the point source. The relation between the surface areas of the spheres is inversely related to the difference between the sphere's radii (hence the inverse square law). The part I think is cool is that (theoretically at least), a laser doesn't decrease in energy no matter how far away you are.  

Basically, the amount of light decreases for a given unit area because the energy remains the same but the area that the energy is covering increases. This relationship isn't exactly the same for a tank, because with a fluorescent tube, the light area is traveling outwards in a cylinder. So it would just be an inverse relation rather than an inverse square relation (i think?). Anyways, my two cents.


----------



## jude_uc (Feb 7, 2006)

GraFFix : what exactly is your dosing? I've been battling with how to adjust a dosing regime to fit this intense lighting.... no pressurized co2 yet (diy for now) though I hope to buy the equipment with next pay check.

-Adam


----------



## Zapins (Jul 28, 2004)

I used to run a 55 gal tank with 8 wpg and it had no algae. The rotalla macrandra grew amazingly and so did all the other plants i had. I feel that weekly water changes are very important in this sort of setup since at that light intensity the plants seem to suck up one nutrient or another completely and then become deficient unless the levels of fertilizer are watched closely.


----------



## New 2 Fish (Dec 31, 2004)

I have a coralife 96 watt over my 10g, on for 12 hours a day, with DIY CO2 and had no algae problems, but growth was slow until I tripled my dosing. I just suspended the light from the ceiling, about 10" above the tank, and bba has shown up! I think I was better off with the light directly on the tank, but the fish weren't as happy....


----------



## DelawareJim (Nov 15, 2005)

I have the same problem with my 2.5 gal nano & 18W CF. When it sits on the tank, the plants love it but the shrimp hide. When I raise it, the shrimp are out, but the plants don't grow as well.

Cheers.
Jim


----------



## plantbrain (Jan 23, 2004)

Why spend a ton on a light and be all cheap with CO2?

That is counter intutive and requires far more maintenance, more pruning, less wiggle room in a dosing routine, wasted electrical cost and there's no plants that cannot achieve intense colors at 2-3w/gal.

More is not better and light is a classic case of this notion.

Regards, 
Tom Barr

www.BarrReport.com


----------



## Avalon (Mar 7, 2005)

Tom, you're right on the money there. You can't be cheap on the CO2. But just for conversation's sake, let's say you have a person who doesn't mind pruning and such. Given proper CO2 and nutrients relative to extreme light, what are your thoughts on very high light setups? Would there really be an advantage? How would plant growth be altered?

The reason I ask is that some folks like to use HQI/Halide, and aside from the nifty shimmer effects, I'm not quite sure why they would choose such an intense form of lighting. I've dabbled in extreme lighting (up to about 6-7wpg of CF lighting), and I've noticed larger leaves and faster growth, but I haven't played around enough with it to make any kind of definitive statement. Could you elaborate some about the pros & cons?


----------



## BryceM (Nov 6, 2005)

Ugggh. Again the whole watts/gallon thing is really bugging me. WPG is not even remotely equal to light energy per square inch which is really what matters to the plants. You have to admit that if the WPG unit is useless, then comparisons between one person's 8 WPG and another person's 2 WPG aren't all that meaningful.

An All-Glass 210 gal tank has a surface area of 1728 sq inches (72" x 24"). An All-Glass 10 gal tank has a surface area of 200 sq inches (20" x 10").

The 210 has 8.22 sq inches of surface area / gallon
The 10 has 20 sq inches of surface area / gallon

The difference is a factor of 2.4. This would imply that you need 2.4 times as many watts over a 10 gallon as on a 210 gallon to get the same density of energy / square inch. People might think that 2.4 WPG is OK on a 10 gallon, but that 1 wpg is too little for a 210 when in reality it's probably similar. The 210 is deeper, so it might need more, etc. etc. but I think the point of the comparison being meaningless is valid.

All that aside, lighting at noon on a bright day in the tropics is much, much more intense than in almost anyone's setup. All the variability speaks a lot to the ability of plants to adapt to a variety of conditions.


----------



## jude_uc (Feb 7, 2006)

I guess the question basically comes to this: when I started a planted tank (about half a year ago) I had 28 watts over the 10 gallon tank. I had basically no algae (other than small, hard stuff that adhered around the edges of my anubias) but my plant growth was near non-existent. As I learned more about plants I added a turbo co2 bio system and seachem ferts. I got slightly better but not great growth. Eventually, I made the seemingly ill-fated choice for more light. That also didn't produce much faster growth but also didn't result in more algae until I added another turbo co2 system and started making my own fertilizers. Now my tank is overwhelmed with algae and, based on Barr's advice, it seems I need to go back my 28 watt lighting fixture. 

If there is a way to use my 96 watt and have an overabundance of plant growth but no algae problem, I would do. I really don't mind doing lots of trimming..... It's always been my hope to push my plants to their growth limits to see just how fast the can grow at maximum.

As an addendum, I am planning on starting up a pressurized co2 system as soon as my march paycheck comes. You know the grad student salary.......

-Adam


----------



## New 2 Fish (Dec 31, 2004)

Here here! My CO2 system is being pieced together now...


----------



## DelawareJim (Nov 15, 2005)

Jude;

Growth also depends on your selection of plants. Some plants like Anubias are relatively slow growers no matter what conditions you give them. Boost the light, CO2, and ferts on a tank full of them and all you'll get is a nice carpet of GSA on all your Anubias leaves.

Other plants are very reactive to increased light, CO2, and ferts. I've got an amazon sword that with over 4 watts/gal, proper substrate fertilization, and CO2 puts out a new 12-14 inch leaf every other day....6-7 inches of growth in a day!

With time, questions, and lots of plant experimentation, you learn which plants are the fast growers and which are not. With that, you can then select plants, lighting, and a CO2 and fert regimen that fits what you want to accomplish. 

My tank is a case in point. I've got a 30 inch deep 110 gal tank with 3.9 watts/gal, CO2 injection, and fertilization. I've been doing planted aquariums since the Dupla days back in the late 80's. I can't grow a decent looking stem plant in that tank to save my life. The plants always look better the closer to the surface they get and at about 15 inches tall they always drop their lower leaves. I'd yank them cut off the bottoms, replant, and the same thing all over again. So after years of gorgeous tops and naked stems, I quit stems plants and grow rosettes, rhizomes, creepers, and floaters. I don't have the best eye for a pretty 'scape, but I'll stack the health and growth of my plants up against anyones.

Cheers.
Jim


----------



## BryceM (Nov 6, 2005)

JudeUC,

I'm not surprised that you have nothing but tons of algae. Very high light can produce wonderful results, but you're kind of walking the tightrope doing this. I would never attempt it without very consistent and very high CO2 levels. This is impossible to provide with yeast CO2. With yeast CO2 and ridiculous light levels you'll get lush algae every single time.

You also need to supply every nutrient that the plants need to grow. Any shortage will send the thing into a tailspin. At this light level stem plants will chew through macros and micros very quickly. Don't forget adequate Ca & Mg. You'll need to be religious about your fert program - I'd recommend EI, since this is the perfect tank for it.

The real key to getting algae under control for me was pressurized CO2. Keep raising your bubble count very gradually until the fish show signs of stress. Then, back it off 0.2 or 0.3 pH units. You should be depressing the degassed pH of your water by about 1.0 pH units. This should put you in the neighborhood of 30 ppm CO2. I use an electronic pH meter so I can tell what's going on at a glance. You also need to check your KH frequently to verify that your pH readings are meaningful.

Very intense lighting can really make for a great looking tank once you get it right. For me, I found that getting my nutrients under control by frequent checks with Lamotte kits helped enormously. Others say you never need to check if you're using EI methods. Keep experimenting, make changes slowly, keep a logbook so you can see what you've done before, and have patience. Sometimes it just takes a while for things to settle in. I would also recommend a very large plant biomass. Good luck.


----------



## AaronT (Apr 26, 2004)

I once had my 75 gallon tank setup w/ a T5 HO and MH combo. Two 54 watt T5 HO bulbs were on for 12 hours a day and the 2 x 175 watt MH bulbs came on in addition to them for 8 hours in the middle of the day. I had to dose like crazy, but the plant growth was awesome. I took it down because the MH lights were producing ridiculous amounts of heat. I could have used fans to cool them down, though that would have added to the already high rate of evaporation.


----------



## plantbrain (Jan 23, 2004)

So everyone here says the same thing, too much light= lots of headaches, higher cost, more algae if anything messes up...........

So why do it?
You cannot help but stick your hand in a hornet's nest or what?

I do it because I like to see what the maximum rates of uptake are, but few of you ever do experimentation, most simply dose and observe and hope things go right. Few add things to destroy plants, induce algae on purpose.

You have serious limitations by using observations alone. You often get many things incorrect since you assume observations/correlations for one moment in time = causation. 

Twesting only when things are wrong(often after the fact) is a poor method of testing and you do not learn much. You can test before and after a treatment and learn far more about the treatemnt.

But few ever do this in this hobby.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## jerseyjay (Jan 25, 2004)

I will report back in few more weeks. ...

90G 48x22x20 with 2 x 150W MH + 4 x 65W PC 

I simply can NOT wait  !


----------



## Ibn (Oct 20, 2004)

Can't wait to see it up and running, Jay.

Interested in seeing what kind of results you'll get since I'm running a bit less light than what you have (500W of MH over the 90).


----------



## jude_uc (Feb 7, 2006)

I finally bought Amano's Nature World Aquarium series, and looking at the second book, I see that his 35 liter tanks have 81 watts on them. That corresponds to 8.7 wpg. In fact, one of his small tanks has 108 watts... That's 11.7 wpg. Considering his unbelievable tanks, and several peoples' responses, I'm beginning to think it wasn't unbelievably foolish, just hard. So, while I've maxed out my credit card (because of this hobby) so I can't get pressurized CO2 for at least another two months, I have managed to get DIY CO2 going well enough that I can have a max of 111 ppm CO2 if I'm 'running on all cylinders', though I found out that makes introducing new fish difficult at best. The high CO2 levels nearly killed my new bristlenose pleco (if not for my massive emergency aeration). 

Anyway, while my green fuzz algae on all the plants hasn't gone away, my plants are now growing much faster than the algae. My rotala is has enough new growth that you can't even see the ugly parts anymore, and the ludwigia is on the way to the same place.

If I ever get a halfway decent camera, I'll post a picture. Thanks for all the advice.


-Adam


----------



## GraFFix (Feb 24, 2005)

jude_uc said:


> GraFFix : what exactly is your dosing? I've been battling with how to adjust a dosing regime to fit this intense lighting.... no pressurized co2 yet (diy for now) though I hope to buy the equipment with next pay check.
> 
> -Adam


Well like I said before my dosing schedule isnt the best...But youy asked for it! 
I dose 6ml of CSM+B and 2ml of iron every other day (sometimes i miss a day here and there). Nitrates are at 20-30ppm and phosphate is at 2-5ppm which are both kept up by my fish. (I tend to overstock/overfeed) My co2 is around 50ppm. I dose a 1/4 teaspoon K2S04 when i remember although I dont know how much of an impact it has as I dont test for it. and finally i try to do a 30% waterchange every 2-3 weeks the rest of the time i just top off since i run an open top.
Its not the perfect system and i do have the occasional hair algae on the tops of plants sometimes. Especially when i let them overgrow and sit directly under the light, but its not out of control and the SAE's, oto's and amanos take care of what does grow.


----------



## plantbrain (Jan 23, 2004)

Jay Luto said:


> I will report back in few more weeks. ...
> 
> 90G 48x22x20 with 2 x 150W MH + 4 x 65W PC
> 
> I simply can NOT wait  !


Nice dimensions and a nice light pendent I'd assume.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## standoyo (Aug 25, 2005)

not a fan of the WPG thing either...
surface area/W is better but doesn't take into account depth or PAR[light quality]

anyway good discussion...

the only use for highlight IMO is to speed things up for contests...

i'm a strictly medium light person...


----------



## jerseyjay (Jan 25, 2004)

plantbrain said:


> Nice dimensions and a nice light pendent I'd assume.


Tom,

You can see the progress here:
http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/aquascaping/13840-90g-custom-journal.html

Light fixture are 2 x 24" 150 WATT AQUALIGHT PRO setups. Each fixture includes the following:

* One 150 watt 10,000K double-ended HQI metal halide lamp 
* Two 65 watt compact fluorescent lamps - 10,000Coralife + Colormax Coralife 
*Two 1 watt Lunar Blue-Moon-Glow 470nm LED lamps


----------



## hedson_25 (Sep 20, 2005)

hey what is your opinion on this: 24" FRESHWATER AQUALIGHT W/ 2-65W 6,700K LAMPS STRAIGHT PIN BASE (W/ FANS)
for my 20 g thank having tons of stem plants?


----------



## Avalon (Mar 7, 2005)

Should be fine. Be sure to keep up with your nutrients & CO2. I'm running 55w over a 10g. I'm about to set up a 20g L with a 2x65w fixture.


----------



## John N. (Dec 11, 2005)

Not sure why one would want so much light over the tank, since 1x65 should be enough. But anyways, the 130 watt Coralife will work and make your plants grow at hyper speed in a 20 gallon. Get those ferts and CO2 ready to rock! 

An alternative would be 1x55 watt ahsupply.com kit, or a 2x55. The ahsupply is better than the Coralife in terms of putting out more light, brightness and high light utility.

-John N.


----------



## hedson_25 (Sep 20, 2005)

thanks for the coments, i used to have 130 watt 65 actinic 65 daylight for the same tank i was a sugestion from luis navarro, it worked fine my rotalas were red, and stragrass very nice, but i had problems with brush algae always on the glass also this green spots, was it ...maybe i was dossing too much iron? i used to change 40/50% water a week.
this time i will try to use 6500k in a tank full of stem plants.

























this used to be my tank. when i had 130 watt


----------

