Need high light? Not quite, here's an example

Tom Barr

Founder
Staff member
Administrator
Jan 23, 2005
18,696
740
113
resized70galADAwith1.5wgal.jpg


1.5 w/gal of light.

Not an issue.
More light= more CO2 demand, more nutrients demand and more algae growth.

Light is much more steady and controllable than CO2 and nutrients as well, no one's killed their fish with light yet that I know of.

Cost less both initially and long term.
Less space needed and less heat.

Regards,
Tom Barr
 

VaughnH

Lifetime Charter Member
Lifetime Member
Jan 24, 2005
3,011
94
48
85
Sacramento, CA
That photo brings up a question I have been wondering about. Imagine a 50 gallon tank with a top surface that is 2 feet by 2 feet. Put a 2 inch diameter, really bright light, with a parabolic reflector, about 2 inches above the water. Let's say that light is a really compact fluorescent tube of 50 watts. So, we have 1 watt per gallon of light, right? But, the area directly under that bulb has very much more light intensity, so in that area one could grow any known aquatic plant, with no light issues at all. Areas not directly under that light would be very much low light areas, where few plants would grow well. Am I right so far?

The tank you showed has a strip light, mounted close to the water, located over the back half of the tank. I think the area directly under that light is a high light area, with far more than the average 1.5 watts per gallon in effective light.

This has interested me because when I reduced the lighting on my 45 gallon tank from 110 watts to 72 watts, the high light demanding plants acted as if nothing had happened. But, my light, like that in the photo, is over the back half of my tank, so the area immediately under the light must be seeing much higher light intensity that the front half of the tank.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure where this is leading me.
 

defdac

Lifetime Members
Lifetime Member
Aug 25, 2006
95
0
6
47
Linköping, Sweden
If that is a 325 litres tank (ADA-H 1.2x0.45x0.6) then 0.4 watts/litre converts to over 200 mmol/m2 PAR. That is not low light by my standards.

watts per gallon and watts per litres does not scale well for larger and smaller tanks and cause a lot of confusion.
 

Tom Barr

Founder
Staff member
Administrator
Jan 23, 2005
18,696
740
113
defdac;18315 said:
If that is a 325 litres tank (ADA-H 1.2x0.45x0.6) then 0.4 watts/litre converts to over 200 mmol/m2 PAR. That is not low light by my standards.

watts per gallon and watts per litres does not scale well for larger and smaller tanks and cause a lot of confusion.

How about using a light meter and measuring 120micro mols at the water's surface below the lights down to 30micro moles in the front?

Sounds like low light to me.

Nearly 2x less than the conversion factor you supplied.
Hence a very good reason why to use a light meter and measure light in the tank under real conditions.

the trade offs for using the w/gal are the same for the other conversions as well, they are hardly a good measure when comparing things, but it's still something folks use since I appear to be the only person that has a light meter.

Still, it's far less light than many add to their tanks no matter how you slice it, 1.5w/gal on T5 are still pretty bright.

Many use 2x that amount.

Regards,
Tom Barr
 

Tom Barr

Founder
Staff member
Administrator
Jan 23, 2005
18,696
740
113
dapellegrini;18316 said:
How long a photo period do you use with these lights?

10 hours like most tanks.

Regards,
Tom Barr