Freshwater Plant Light upgrade, metal halide or mercury vapor
con...@tiac.net
I have a 50 gallon tank, 33" by 18" deep and 24" tall. I need to
upgrade my hood which currently has two 78 30 watt bulbs. I have an
automated co2 injection system, and am definitely lacking light, I
want to add a new lighting system. My first choice would be a single
Coralife Pendant light, for around $250, I think this will give enough
light 175watt to the tank. What other kinds can I go with, I really
want to go "topless" and keep it open, allowing the plants to grow
out, also I had considered mercury vapor and a homemade kind, and help
is appreciated. Money is definitely an object and I really would like
to spend around $300 or less is better. Thank you very much, Please
reply via email and here if possible, Thanks
Chris
control@tiacnet
Kudzu
Let me ask a question along this line. I have been pricing hoods, fixtures
and looking at all the options for lighting a planted tank. Being a DIY'er
I have just finished building a wooden hood for my 60(?) gallon. (36x18x24)
This weekend I went looking at lighting options for it.
Due to the cost I eliminated the bulb ends and ballast's sold mail order. I
decided to price regular shop light fixtures. Home Depot had 2 bulb 36"
fixtures for about $18 then bulbs were $5 each. Well I need two of these
and that came to a ball park of $60 for 140 watts of light. Having only
spent about $20 for the wood and piano hinge for the hood this seemed a bit
steep.
So I strolled the aisles looking for an idea. I found that for about $10
dollars (or less) I could buy 4 standard porcelain light bulb bases and
short 40 watt clear ceiling fan light bulbs and have 160 watts of light.
All I need to add is a switch and wire.
Now I know that there will be a lot of heat built up in the hood so I have
found a small used computer fan. I need to add a hole on the back and mount
the fan. This will bring my total cost to about $20 for the lights or $40
complete. Granted I already had the wiring and switches.
My question is has anyone else tried to grow plants with incandescent
light? I read somewhere about someone that combined this with fluorescence,
has anyone tired this? After all Metal Halide is a type of incandescent.
I'm sure the color temp. is a lot different. Any input?
Jeff
Kudzu at airnet dot com
David Whittaker
Go with the Home Depot 36" fixtures. They will provide the plants
with much more useful light, ie. light that can be used to drive
photosynthesis. Metal Halide is not a type of incandescent lamp.
This type, as well as fluorescent lighting, is about eight times
more efficient than incandescent.
--
Dave Whittaker
ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.ca
Nestor10
> Michael, the number you gave was quite different from what I get from the
Krib.
Gee, kinda like statistics, eh? It depends quite a bit on the lamp whose
numbers you are quoting.
F'instance:
> HPS, GE White Lucalox, 4160 lumens, 95 watts, 44 lumens/watt
whereas the HPS I use, the Regent LU70M, gives 6,300 lumens across its 70
watts = 90 lumens/watt.
> HPS, GE Deluxe Lucalox, 9135 lumens, 150 watts, 61 lumens/watt
Were I to move up to the 150 watt, which produces 16,000 lumens, the "magic
number" becomes 107 lumens/watt.
Nice thing about HPS - normal lamps have an output that spike out at about
600 nm. Since vegetative growth and chlorophyll synthesis response maxes out
between 610 - 620 nm, you can get a more dramatic response from HPS as
opposed to MH = more bang for the buck. Most efficient, lowest operating
cost available in all the lamp types short of LPS. Too bad most people think
the color "too red".
See, experience with hydroponics can teach you a few things...
-Y-
nest...@mindspring.chkr.com
"chkr." is for mail-bots
Louis Lin
Not to dispute the fact that different bulbs have different efficiency,
but Michael wasn't even listing the bulbs when he gave the lumens/watt
rating. The number just sound plain wrong when he listed the lumens/watt
for fluorescene at 22 lumens/watt, unless he was picking on a speciality
bulb such as actinic.
BTW, what plants you were keeping with HPS? How are they doing?
Louis Lin
In article <65vm72$r...@camel21.mindspring.com>,
Nestor10 <nest...@mindspring.chkr.com> wrote:
>
>Were I to move up to the 150 watt, which produces 16,000 lumens, the "magic
>number" becomes 107 lumens/watt.
>
>Nice thing about HPS - normal lamps have an output that spike out at about
>600 nm. Since vegetative growth and chlorophyll synthesis response maxes out
>between 610 - 620 nm, you can get a more dramatic response from HPS as
>opposed to MH = more bang for the buck. Most efficient, lowest operating
>cost available in all the lamp types short of LPS. Too bad most people think
>the color "too red".
>
>See, experience with hydroponics can teach you a few things...
--
---------------------------------------
Louis Lin lhc...@aw.sgi.com
"Plan B: Dilbertize the enemy."
Nestor10
> BTW, what plants you were keeping with HPS? How are they doing?
Well, I've since moved from terrestrial plants to aquatic ones. Now, the
HPSs allow me to start with but one or two specimens and eventually end up
with as many as I need in a short amount of time.
When researching for a hydroponics project, the various options available in
lighting were far more limited than they are now. The concept of high
intensity lighting for hydroponics came about when it was noticed that
plants in the general vicinity of street lamps acted quite differently than
their naturally illuminated counterparts - especially in temperate climate
zones. The plants underneath the street lights experienced differing cycles,
in both vegetative growth and flowering/fruiting cycles which could only be
explained by the constant exposure to light. Considering the amount of
illumination produced by mercury vapor and metal halide lamps, it was
determined possible to grow and control plants indoors and to do so cost
effectively. Development of HPS stretched the dollar to harvest ratio out
even further.
Initially, when high pressure lighting was brought indoors, there were only
two voltage options also.
The original lamps were wired for 440 volts, but the non-municipal
customers, who more frequently ran their commercial systems on 220 volts,
were able to "pressure" manufacturers into re-wiring the lights to run off
the lower voltage. No problem - one type of transformer just took half as
many windings as the other, so the simplest solution was to just to provide
two taps off of the same set-up. Not that the manufacturers really minded -
it allowed them to greatly increase their sales and the number of units in
use. Now, of course, we have windings that will run on just about any
commercially available power input, as well as lamps that produce various
spectra and use differing operating voltages also.
My initial research indicated, as I've stated in other posts, that there are
two main points of activity regarding plants - phototrophic response and
chlorophyll's carbohydrate synthesis. The greatest phototrophic response
occurs at a wavelength of about 440 nm. Vegetative growth is maximized
across a double peak of wavelengths, the saddle of which falls at about 614
nm, which is between one peak of just off 610 nm and a slightly higher one
at just short of 620 nm.
Looking at those response peaks and comparing them to the spectral output of
the then available types of lighting, we noticed an interesting analogy. 440
nm fell almost exactly at the point of the most intense spectral output of
standard mercury vapor lamps, but in that range vegetative growth is only
about 45 - 55 % efficient. So you could get plants to follow the light with
good response, but less than optimal growth patterns. Metal halides at the
time had a spectral output in the mid to high 500s, with secondary spikes at
just above 455 nm. Good overall response, but neither growth nor
phototrophic responses were at their most effecient. HPSs, as I said, put
out a major spike at about 600 nm, giving about 85 - 90 % efficiency in
growth patterns but obviously not the optimum pattern to get the plant to
open up to the light.
So, depending on the application at hand, we used one of two combinations.
Where cost was more of a concern than total output, metal halides were
recommended as the best overall single source. Where growth and fruition
were the overriding factors, a combination of large, highly efficient HPSs
supplemented with smaller, less cost effective mercury vapors were used. But
then, that was ten years ago - now you can get "tuned" systems, mostly in
metal halides.
In moving to aquatic plants, I figured phototrophic response was less of a
concern than vegetative growth. Of the three readily available types (after
all, I no longer had a commercial concern available to purchase the systems
for me), I remembered the output of HPS to be more conducive to the goals I
had in mind - maximum growth at the lowest running cost. Since the basic
systems all were within the same price range, the concern was the cost of
keeping the system in operation.
I had also considered the point that most of the aquatic plants favored for
a fresh water tank come from shallower waters - they're certainly shallow in
my tanks. Hence, the absorption of the red end and penetration of blue would
be minimized, if even a factor at all. Now the only concern was to provide a
lower light level for plants like crypts, or those from white/brown waters
as opposed to black, more transparent water.
So I keep what is basically a "holding tank" for my plants - a large wading
pool, the bottom covered with enriched marine sand, filtration by an
air-driven sponge filter, and two 70 watt HPS lamps. All new specimens go
into the pool until, by cutting and replanting, I have enough to use in my
tanks. It also holds plants I want to keep, but aren't currently being used
for aquascaping. The two lamps are spaced across one end of the pool, the
other end of the pool covered with strips of thin green garbage bag plastic
to reduce the intensity.
I'd be more than happy to use HPS on my tanks, but I cut back on the plants
more than I care to already just using flourescents. Besides, that's one
whole lotta light in the living room ;-)
Louis Lin
Thanks Nestor10 for the response. The reason I asked is because
HPS is not commonly used in planted aquariums. Most of the setups
used either fluorescene or metal halides. Your HPS lighting is
certainly interesting.
>Well, I've since moved from terrestrial plants to aquatic ones. Now, the
>HPSs allow me to start with but one or two specimens and eventually end up
>with as many as I need in a short amount of time.
I like to bug you again since my previous questions were not
very clear. What species of aquatic plants you are keeping
under HPS light? How are they doing compared to fluroscene
or metal halide? How does the tank, plants and fish look
aestheticly?
>So I keep what is basically a "holding tank" for my plants - a large wading
>pool, the bottom covered with enriched marine sand, filtration by an
>air-driven sponge filter, and two 70 watt HPS lamps. All new specimens go
>into the pool until, by cutting and replanting, I have enough to use in my
>tanks. It also holds plants I want to keep, but aren't currently being used
>for aquascaping. The two lamps are spaced across one end of the pool, the
>other end of the pool covered with strips of thin green garbage bag plastic
>to reduce the intensity.
What is the size of the tank under two 70 watt HPS lamps?
Thanks again.
Louis Lin
patrick timlin
Louis Lin (lhc...@alias.UUCP) wrote:
: Thanks Nestor10 for the response. The reason I asked is because
: HPS is not commonly used in planted aquariums. Most of the setups
: used either fluorescene or metal halides. Your HPS lighting is
: certainly interesting.
Most use those two types of lighting more or less because those are the
two options that give you good color. I.e. looks good to humans. You
can get both Metal Halide and fluorescent tubes in different kelvin temps
and CRIs.
HPS on the other hand, probably works very well for most aquatic plants.
Its draw back I believe is that these types of lights are very yellow
with a poor CRI so plants and fish might not look good to most people.
Just like you can certainly grow aquatic plants under lots of cool white
tubes, most people do not because to most of us, cool whites look
crappy, washed out, yellowish, etc. This is probably the maindrawback to
sodium lights.
Patrick Timlin http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/4742/
pti...@geocities.com
Nestor10
The "holding tank" is of the put-together wading pool variety, with stiff
sidewalls holding a thick vinyl liner. It is 8 feet (2.44 meters) in
diameter, standing 16 inches (~41 cm) tall. The bottom is covered with about
400 lbs (180 kg) of white marine sand mixed with 5 boxes of crushed Tetra
Initial Sticks for iron supplementation, giving a substrate depth of ~2
inches (5 cm). The water depth is 13 inches (33 cm). If I remember the
volume of a cylinder correctly (pi x r^2 x h), then the total volume of the
contained water is 3.14159 x (48^2) x 13 = 94097 in^3. Divide that by 231
in^3/gal = 407 gallons, or about 1540 liters. (It just struck me as I was
determining the volume - that's almost 2 tons of water and sand! Good thing
it's on a concrete pad!)
Plants currently contained in the "holding tank" are:
Bacopa caroliniana
Cabomba caroliniana (North American Cabomba)
Cabomba piauhyensis (Red Cabomba)
Cerotopteris thalictroides (Water Sprite, Indian Fern)
Cryptocoryne affinis
Cryptocoryne wendtii (Red Wendtii)
Cryptocoryne willisii (C. nevillii)
Echinodorus amazonicus (Slender Leaved Amazon)
Echinodorus bleheri (HUGE Amazon)
Echinodorus parviflorus (Short Leaved Amazon)
Echinodorus tenellus (Pygmy Chain Sword)
Elodea densa (Egeria/Anacharis)
Eleocharis vivipara (Hair Grass)
Hydrocotyle leucocephala
Hygrophila difformis (Water Wysteria)
Lilaeopsis novaezelandiae (New Zealand Pygmy Chain)
Ludwigia repens
Myriophyllum aquatica
Rotala rotundifolia
Vallisneria asiatica (thought it was originally V. spiralis, but does too
well in very soft water)
Vallisneria sp. (Jungle Val) (definitely not V. gigantea, haven't pinned it
down yet)
Most of these were plants that I brought with me when I moved to Florida
towards the end of May. The water depth seems sufficient for most of the
plants, although some are quite massive and take up considerable room (E.
bleheri, for example). The Cabomba, Myriophyllum, Water Sprite and Wysteria
have to be cut back constantly, and between the growth and the branching I
have to throw out a considerable amount. The only local store that sells
plants is the Petsmart, and they aren't interested in buying their plants
from local growers.
I use to feed the plants with supplements, but gave that up in favor of
simply keeping some Mosquito Fish in the "pond". The only supplementation
now is a feed from a 3 liter yeast and sugar bottle for carbon dioxide. The
fish are kept to a low population (~ 20 - 24) so that ammonia/nitrates are
provided to the plants but the water doesn't have to be constantly checked
and cleaned. Between the fish waste and fish food, they seem to be well
enough fed. Heat is provided by 2 100 watt submersibles set for about 72 F
(~ 22 C), filtration by two air-driven sponge filters, mainly for
circulation.
Perhaps the biggest reason HPS is not more common in the hobby is its
color - being more toward the red end of the spectrum, the light is a golden
hue compared to MH, reminiscent of evening glows rather than mid-day bright.
Most people, using flourescents, seem to turn away from "warm" lamps because
of their reddish hues. I go so far as to use "Kitchen and Bathroom" lamps,
which intensify the "warmness" even further, not only because of the
increased reds but the way they seem to enhance the reds and greens in my
tanks.
The 55 gallon in my living room is lighted by a 4 foot GE Plant and
Aquarium, a 4 foot GE Kitchen and Bathroom, and a 2 foot P and A for a total
of 100 watts flourescent. Perhaps the most light-intensive plant in that
tank is the E. bleheri, and it's at the dimmer end of the tank. Its leaves
measure at 24 inches long (with stem) and 3 to 3-1/2 inches wide - even
under flourescents it grows to be a large plant. Substrate is sand over
kitty litter with Initial Sticks for iron (just as in the pool) and again,
CO2 is provided.
I first started becoming interested in the plants as much as the fish a
couple of years ago. Until then, most of my plants were afterthoughts. It
took me a bit of time to build up a good selection of plants, and there are
others that I'd like to obtain now that I seem to be capable of growing just
about anything I'd care to. Right now, funds are more than a little tight,
but my next project, when able, will be a large-scale paludarium set-up that
will be built to fill a 3 meter wide empty space in the living room. Since I
plan on allowing the plants to grow above the water (and hopefully flower),
I will be bringing the HPSs indoors also.
Nathanael Henderson
: fixtures for about $18 then bulbs were $5 each. Well I need two of these
: and that came to a ball park of $60 for 140 watts of light. Having only
: spent about $20 for the wood and piano hinge for the hood this seemed a bit
: steep.
:
: So I strolled the aisles looking for an idea. I found that for about $10
: dollars (or less) I could buy 4 standard porcelain light bulb bases and
: short 40 watt clear ceiling fan light bulbs and have 160 watts of light.
Uh-oh--another victem of the wattage fallacy. Wattage isn't a
measurement of how much light a bulb produces--only of how much
electricity it uses. Because incandescents produce a lot less light per
watt of power used that 160W incendescent setup will actually produce
perhaps 1/4th as much light as the 160W flourescent setup! REALLY, bite
the little bullet and plunk down the cash for the flourescents. (Besides,
incandescents tend to explode if you splash water on them. :-) BTW, when
you see reccomendations for planted tanks like "2-4 Watts per gallon" they
specifically mean flourescent, MH, or other high-efficiency types of
lights, not incandescent.
Nathan H.