Lighting question for new setup

Larry Grenier · Post by **Larry Grenier** » Thu Jan 15, 2004 5:47 pm

Hi folks <img border="0" src="smileys/smiley17.gif" border="0"> This is my first post. This web-site looks great! And some of your tanks look awsome! I'm experienced with aquarium fish tanks but have never had a nice planted tank. I'm a PVAS member also.

I'm about to set-up my first serious planted tank. It's 24" X 24" X 24"; about 58 gallons. I was thinking of using a 6700K 96W quad PC plus a higher kelvin 55W PC. Considering the heighth of the tank, would it be better to use 2 96W PCs? That would be about 3.3wpg. The first option would be about 2.6wpg. I want to be able to keep some light demanding plants. Some tall plus short ones which would be over 20" from the lights. What do you think?

<a href="http://www.hellolights.com/96watquad67s.html" target="_blank">Here is a link to the bulbs I'm talking about</a>

Ghazanfar Ghori · Post by **Ghazanfar Ghori** » Thu Jan 15, 2004 6:20 pm

If you want to be able to grow some of the
light demanding plant, and with that depth, I'd
go with 3 - 3.5 Watts/G. However, the size of the
bulbs you're thinking about is only 16" in length.
I may be a little concerned about even light
distribution. Are you going to DIY the hood?
What do you think about using 3 x 65W bulbs?
They're 21"-22" in length and would give you really
even light disribution.

SCMurphy · Post by **SCMurphy** » Thu Jan 15, 2004 6:32 pm

The 55 watt bulbs, which are the same length as the 65 watt bulbs, are easier to find and come in a larger assortment of kelvin ratings. However, you probably don't need to go higher than the 6700 K bulbs, Plants don't benefit from those bulbs in the same way that corals do. The nice thing about the 55's, I think you could get a 4th one above your tank if you wanted more light. You would still have an even distribution of light and you wouldn't quite yet need sunscreen to sit infront of your aquarium.

Ghazanfar Ghori · Post by **Ghazanfar Ghori** » Thu Jan 15, 2004 6:37 pm

Sean, good idea..MORE MORE LIGHT! <img border="0" src="smileys/cool.gif" border="0">

Larry Grenier · Post by **Larry Grenier** » Thu Jan 15, 2004 6:45 pm

Thanks for the response folks. One reason I picked these lights is because I already have the ballasts and endcaps from a former reef tank. If I put these in the middle with a good reflector I believe I would have fairly intense light in the center 18 to 20" leaving only a few inches on each side.

The hood was custom-built for the tank and I would mount the reflectors with clips on the top-piece (with a small spaces to vent heat). This would place the bulbs about 2 to 3" from the water surface.

What's your opinion on using 1 6700K and 1 10000K/Actinic? <em>The 50/50 buld would be for asthetics.</em><edited><editID>Larry Grenier</editID><editDate>38001.7421412037</editDate></edited>

SCMurphy · Post by **SCMurphy** » Thu Jan 15, 2004 6:49 pm

The actinic is a waste of electricity over a planted tank, unless you are racking the tanks and using the heat it generates for something else. You can probably use that ballast and endcaps to run 55 watt bulbs.

Larry Grenier · Post by **Larry Grenier** » Thu Jan 15, 2004 7:04 pm

Yea, I wondered if it might be a waste. I also wondered if it would look good. I'll probably not go with the 50/50.
The folks at HelloLights said this:
<em>
I have several ARO electronic ballasts from you. They each power a 96w PC bulb. I'd like to use one to power a 55w PC. Is this doable and advisable? Any downside to doing this? Thanks much for your advice.

Hi Larry-
Thank you for your email. You could do that, but here's some downsides: 1) they will run hotter, and could cause the rubber endcaps to crack over time, 2) the 55/65W lamps will probably burn out faster, since you are overdriving them. Advantages: 1) the 55/65W lamps will probably run closer to 75-80+ watts each. 2) cost of 55W lamps is cheaper to replace than 96W.
</em>

Ghazanfar Ghori · Post by **Ghazanfar Ghori** » Thu Jan 15, 2004 7:57 pm

Besides the fact that actinic would do nothing for
the plants, I think the colors of the plants would
look a little strange.

I'd simply go with 2 x 96, if you've already got
the ballasts. Overdriving the 55W, IMO, isnt' really
worth it if you're going to go through the bulb
faster.

Jonathan Kalmes · Post by **Jonathan Kalmes** » Fri Jan 16, 2004 12:29 am

Maybe I'm just not remembering correctly, but aren't 96W CFs over three feet long? This would be wasted on a 2 ft tank. But, assuming that I'm mistaken...

One thing no-one seems to have mentioned yet... at that light level (3 WPG or higher), you're probably going to get some REALLY nice algae if you aren't running CO2. 3WPG is a good level to be at in a tank that size (I have a tad more than 3), but I think the CO2 will be a neccessity for that much light.

Ghazanfar Ghori · Post by **Ghazanfar Ghori** » Fri Jan 16, 2004 1:03 am

Jonathan, lookie the link Larry has in his first
post.

At 3 W/G CO2 will be nessesary - I just assumed Larry
was going to rig up a pressurised system.

Lighting question for new setup

Sponsors