# Success with shoplights



## panaque (Jan 21, 2004)

I was wondering how many people out there use just plain old shoplights on their tanks. What kind of bulbs work best and what ones you will avoid. I am a frugal aquarist and havent upgraded to T-5 compacts, but still get very nice plant growth out of six 40 watt bulbs. I use 4 grolux and 2 daylight bulbs, but havent gotten the kind of reds in my plants I would like. But my tank is over 3 wpg...shouldnt things be redder? I cant imagine that PC bulbs and ballasts would make that much difference. Am I wrong?


----------



## joephys (May 9, 2006)

The biggest issue with shop lights is that they aren't designed to focus light down into a tank. They are designed to light up an entire room. If you modify them to focus their light down, you will need less bulbs to accomplish the same thing, costing you less in bulb replacement and electricity.


----------



## fredyk (Jun 21, 2004)

I have very good success on a 55 gallon with one HD shop light. It is placed directly on a sheet of glass on top. Light is on 12 hours with CO2. I like the slower growth, grow all types of plants well. Hairgrass is struggling, but growing. blyxa A is throwing up flower buds. There aren't really any stem plants.

Mark


----------



## Mud Pie Mama (Jul 30, 2006)

I use 6 t-8 bulbs above a 75 gallon with pressurized CO2. The t-8's are 32 watts each; compared to t-12's which are 40w, this gives me 192 total watts - or 2.56wpg. The t-8's are almost identical to the t-12's, just narrower. It's easier to fit more in the same space; you also have a little more open space between bulbs. With a shiny reflector more light can reflect down. T-8 bulbs will fit in most fixtures that t-12's do. There is also not as much heat built up.

I think it does matter what spectrum your bulbs are made to put out. Plants can best use the far ends of the spectrum in the blues and reds. Sometimes it's not just which fixture and/or how many watts but what bulbs are in the fixture.

I am extremely happy with the growth in the tank and the colors are outstanding! I use a blend - half & half - alternating every other tube: A - B - A....B- A - B. 
Tube A: "Aquarium Spectrum Lamp" 8000K by All Glass Aquarium. 
Tube B: "Flora Sun" 5000K by Zoo Med.

Even if you did'nt change all four tubes, even if you just tried switching two for one's with stronger plant spectrums you might be happily surprised with the results.


----------



## MatPat (Mar 22, 2004)

Like Mud Pie Mama, I also use 6 T-8 lamps over my 75g growout tank with pressurized CO2. I don't see the need for more light than this as the plants pearl very well shortly after light on and grow very well.

I use a mix of Zoo Med Flora Sun (8800K despite the 6500K claims on some websites) and Coralife Nutrigrow bulbs over the tank. I'm not sure on the K rating for the Nutrigrow but they are in the 5000K to 6500K I'd guess. Seems to work very well as the Flora Sun highlight the red fish and plants and the Nutrigrows keep the Flora Sun's from making the tank look too "pink".

The lack of "redness" in the plants may be something as simple as supplementing more iron or reducing the NO3 levels a bit. Red colors are also highlited by bulbs such as GE Fresh and Saltwater (9325K) or Zoo Med Flora Sun (8800K). 

One of these days I will get around to instaling the DIY hood I have for the tank and overdriving all of the T-8's. T-8 lamps seem to work even better when overdriving, at least in my opinion.


----------



## redstrat (Apr 3, 2006)

panaque said:


> I cant imagine that PC bulbs and ballasts would make that much difference. Am I wrong?


You can't compare Compact Flourecent (CFL) bulbs to Normal Output (NO) T-8 / T-12 Flourecents watt to watt for output... thats similar to comparing a 175w Metal Halide output to a 175w CFL. Its just not an apples to apples comparison. To do an output comparison of these bulbs you need to know the Lumen Output for each bulb your using... A NO bulb is less efficient watt for watt than CFL and the same goes for CFL to MH. I beleive even the T-5 flourecents aren't a direct comparison either allthough they are close to CFL. I wish bulb manufacturers published lumen output for their bulbs or at least made the information a little easier to find. We should really be using a lumen per gallon rule instead of WPG, I think it would clear up some confusion.

I guess what I'm trying to say is although 3wpg from NO bulbs is bright and you will get good plant growth no doubt about it, its not the same as 3wpg from CFL bulbs. This being said, I have to agree with MatPat in saying that you could probably maximize your red plants coloration by altering your fert regimine. Most red plants will still be red with less than 3wpg CFL so they should be fine with 3wpg from NO.

Try adding a little more Iron and a little less Nitrogen, just play with it and see if you get any results after a week or two.


----------



## panaque (Jan 21, 2004)

I think you hit it on the head Davis. Lumen output is actually the amount of light that is produced so it makes sense that it would be an important number to know. And Joe, the comment about reflectors for the lights is a good one too. I have a 75 gallon so my tank is relatively deep and all the light reflected down is definately a big help. Thanks for all the input! I think I will check on the ferts forum for some tips...currently I use Flourish Iron once a week with a 30% water change. I use 7.5 mL per dose weekly. Maybe I need more... I also use a DIY co2 setup and have heard that a 75 needs a presurized system. I use 2 two litre bottles teed together to a ceramic airstone under my canister filter intake. I guess I am a true do it yourselfer and really like building my own contraptions for my tanks so I am a bit reluctant to go high tech with lighting and co2. But maybe I can get different results with a different fert regimen. What are you all using for ferts and bps for the co2?


----------



## ruki (Jul 4, 2006)

davis.1841 said:


> You can't compare Compact Flourecent (CFL) bulbs to Normal Output (NO) T-8 / T-12 Flourecents watt to watt for output... thats similar to comparing a 175w Metal Halide output to a 175w CFL. Its just not an apples to apples comparison. To do an output comparison of these bulbs you need to know the Lumen Output for each bulb your using... A NO bulb is less efficient watt for watt than CFL and the same goes for CFL to MH. I beleive even the T-5 flourecents aren't a direct comparison either allthough they are close to CFL. I wish bulb manufacturers published lumen output for their bulbs or at least made the information a little easier to find. We should really be using a lumen per gallon rule instead of WPG, I think it would clear up some confusion.


Yes, watts per gallon is a very rough estimate, not a rule. It's +/- 50 percent, especially when one considers efficiency of reflector. Some of your details are off, so here's what I end up posting this info every week on this forum 

In order of efficiency:
* T5's are the most efficient in terms of light output per watt. Also have best chance at having good reflectors.
* T8's are almost as good, but need larger enclosure for a good reflector.
* T5 HO supercharged version of T5. Wastes some energy to get the greater intensity, but useful when you want lots of light in a small space. Same reflectors as T5 of course.
* Power Compact, but these need a fan, so they are not as efficient by just light output. Reflectors can not be as good since tube is bent back against itself.
* T12 -- original lamps from decades past. Need larger reflector than T8.
* T12 VHO -- the original supercharged fluorescent. Good for it's time, but that time has past.

Also, lumens are for human eyes, so it isn't completely accurate for plants. 
PAR is better, but it isn't perfect either... I think all plant bulbs should list PAR since it's probably the best we have for thinking about plants.


----------



## redstrat (Apr 3, 2006)

are you trying to say that watt for lumen or even par efficiency of a T-8 lamp is better than that of a cfl?? i'm confused, I surely dont profess to be a lighting professional or even expert but that sounds odd to me??? could you clarify?

light intesity of a 40watt NO T-8 bulb is greater than a hypothetical 40watt CFL??


----------



## ruki (Jul 4, 2006)

davis.1841 said:


> are you trying to say that watt for lumen or even par efficiency of a T-8 lamp is better than that of a cfl?? i'm confused, I surely dont profess to be a lighting professional or even expert but that sounds odd to me??? could you clarify?
> 
> light intesity of a 40watt NO T-8 bulb is greater than a hypothetical 40watt CFL??


You question does not parse very well to me. There isn't a popular 40 watt NO T8 bulb. 40 watt is the most popular wattage for the T12 tube.

T8 tubes were designed to maximize efficiency in a way that could retrofit decades-old fixtures. Bulbs were plug compatable with the old 40 watt NO T12 bulbs. They come in 32 or 34 watts and produce more light per watt than the thicker T12 tubes.

Europe came up with the T5 tube, which was more efficient than the T8, but is taking longer to catch on outside of Europe because of the ubiquitous 48 inch tube fixture.

Compact Fluorescent tubes were desined to supply more efficient fluorescent light in space restricted locations typically utilizing incandescent lamps. To do this they bent or spiraled the tube. (Really short flourescent tubes don't produce very much light, since the ends are much dimmer than the middle of the tube.) But, when you bend the tube, you waste light since some of the light will be directed back at the tube itself instead of away from the fixture. This also messes up reflector efficiency. So, all things being the same, a bent tube fluorescent tube will send less light away from the fixture than a linear tube, which means less efficiency.

For getting alot of light from the same sized tube, you can pump more current though the tube and modify the gases and phosphors in the tube. This produces more light, but at a lower efficiency.

For T12 tubes, there was the VHO option.

For T8 tubes, hobbiests are overdriving them with NO tubes.

For T5 tubes, there is the HO option. These HO tubes were designed to be more efficient when they ran at a higher temperature and not shorten the tube life when you do this. (2 years instead of 6 months.) It still produced less lumens per watt, but they were really bright and very powerful with a good reflector.

The compact flourescent lamp used in aquarium fixtures is something like a bent T5 HO lamp, but not quite as bright. Also, these lamps weren't designed to run well when warm, so they need a fan which further wastes energy. These are not really optimal for longer aquariums, especially 48 inch long aquariums!

There really should be some Compact Fluorescent lamps that are designed to run warm like the T5 HO, but I haven't seen any yet. Instead what I see are many tube shapes with too many base pin configurations which lead to proprietary bulbs and fixtures which reduces competition and increases costs, which might explain the marketing efforts behind such aquarium fixtures.


----------

