Testing screw in fluorescents

Charles wrote:
On Sun, 6 Mar 2005 03:45:08 GMT, (Richard Sexton)
wrote:


For my 2.5 G tanks I use 13W bulbs. Each tank gets half of an
AHSUPPLY 26 watt bright kit. I just build a new hood from rain gutter
parts, I like it so far.

Seven watter per gallon ought to work :-)




the watts per gallon does sound outrageous, but I don't see it as too
bright. In one tank some dwarf sagitaria does really well, in another
anubius grows about normally (slow), java moss survives, Echinodorus
tenellus barely lives and algae grows, but not too badly. There must
be a scale factor working here, but I don't understand it.

Agreed. I'm getting Rotala indica growing about 1/2" a day on the 2
gallon tank with 14 watts but that's about like 2 wpg on a larger tank.
Many years ago, when small CF bulbs were not available I tried a 4
watt CF fixture designed for closets. That's 2 wpg, yet I could barely
keep Anubias alive.

I suspect that there is a minimum number of lumens required for aquatic
plant growth. In smaller tanks, we need more than 2 wpg to reach the
magic number.

--
__ Elaine T __
__' http://eethomp.com/fish.html '__

In article ,
the watts per gallon does sound outrageous, but I don't see it as too
bright. In one tank some dwarf sagitaria does really well, in another
anubius grows about normally (slow), java moss survives, Echinodorus
tenellus barely lives and algae grows, but not too badly. There must
be a scale factor working here, but I don't understand it.

Watts per gallon is a rough metric. Watts of energy going in
does not always produce the same lumens or lux (quantity) of
light coming out, and the shape of the bulb and and type or absence
or a reflector also matters.

What is significant is aht emount of light measured at the gravel.
And old photographic light meter in a plastic bag can measure this.

Small tanks and small bulbs are really a boundry condition for the
"watts per gallon" ruls and forumulas, especially imprecise ones
don't work well at boundry conditions.

Sounds fine to me.

--
Need Mercedes parts ? - http://parts.mbz.org
http://www.mbz.org | Mercedes Mailing lists: http://lists.mbz.org
633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | Killies, killi.net, Crypts, aquaria.net
1970 280SE, 72 280SE | Old wris****ches http://watches.list.mbz.org

On Sun, 6 Mar 2005 18:26:11 GMT, (Richard Sexton)
wrote:

In article ,
the watts per gallon does sound outrageous, but I don't see it as too
bright. In one tank some dwarf sagitaria does really well, in another
anubius grows about normally (slow), java moss survives, Echinodorus
tenellus barely lives and algae grows, but not too badly. There must
be a scale factor working here, but I don't understand it.

Watts per gallon is a rough metric. Watts of energy going in
does not always produce the same lumens or lux (quantity) of
light coming out, and the shape of the bulb and and type or absence
or a reflector also matters.

What is significant is aht emount of light measured at the gravel.
And old photographic light meter in a plastic bag can measure this.

Small tanks and small bulbs are really a boundry condition for the
"watts per gallon" ruls and forumulas, especially imprecise ones
don't work well at boundry conditions.

Sounds fine to me.


All good to me, but no way am I going to put my light meter in the
tank, plastic bag or no. I wonder why no one has yet built a light
meter with a submersible sensor. I'm happy with those lights on those
tanks, so I am not going to do anything about it anyway.
--
Charles

Does not play well with others.

On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 04:23:13 GMT, Charles
wrote:
(snip)

I wonder why no one has yet built a light
meter with a submersible sensor.

I found out, they do. Got a Petsolutions catalog today, it fell open
at that page.
--
Charles

Does not play well with others.

Charles wrote:
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 04:23:13 GMT, Charles
wrote:
(snip)


I wonder why no one has yet built a light
meter with a submersible sensor.


I found out, they do. Got a Petsolutions catalog today, it fell open
at that page.

Gotta love serendipity! If you get it, please share your results!

--
__ Elaine T __
__' http://eethomp.com/fish.html '__

On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 05:48:50 GMT, Elaine T
wrote:

Charles wrote:
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 04:23:13 GMT, Charles
wrote:
(snip)


I wonder why no one has yet built a light
meter with a submersible sensor.


I found out, they do. Got a Petsolutions catalog today, it fell open
at that page.

Gotta love serendipity! If you get it, please share your results!


Probably won't. $102.99 US is a bit much for a toy that I wouldn't
use much. (not to say it would be the first.)

:-)


--
Charles

Does not play well with others.

Well I think the results may be in for this test. I have explosive
growth on the 6500K side of the tank....and the same thing on the 3500K
side. I forgot that two days before I changed the lights I started C02
injection.

So what did I learn? Well if you have adequate light to begin with then
adding C02 is more effective than a 0.6 watt per gallon difference in
light. As evidenced by the fact that both sides of the tank are growing
at the same rate despite the light difference - obviously C02 was more
of a limiting factor for my tank than light. I'm going to leave it the
way it is for at least a week just to be absolutely sure but in the end
I think I'm just going to go with the light that looks better. That
would be the 6500K - I don't think it's any better for the plants, but
it does look more natural. The "soft whites" reflect off of some orange
rocks I have in the tank rather harshly because of their orange
tendancy.

-Daniel

In article .com,
dfreas wrote:
Well I think the results may be in for this test. I have explosive
growth on the 6500K side of the tank....and the same thing on the 3500K
side. I forgot that two days before I changed the lights I started C02
injection.

So what did I learn? Well if you have adequate light to begin with then
adding C02 is more effective than a 0.6 watt per gallon difference in
light. As evidenced by the fact that both sides of the tank are growing
at the same rate despite the light difference - obviously C02 was more
of a limiting factor for my tank than light. I'm going to leave it the
way it is for at least a week just to be absolutely sure but in the end
I think I'm just going to go with the light that looks better. That
would be the 6500K - I don't think it's any better for the plants, but
it does look more natural. The "soft whites" reflect off of some orange
rocks I have in the tank rather harshly because of their orange
tendancy.

Yup, this all sounds about what I'd expect. One thing soft whites are
good for is to make already red plants look much more red.

This works when you're eyeballing them in real life or in photos.
These for example were shot under 80W of CF warm white:

http://images.aquaria.net/plants/Hyg...sperma/sunset/

--
Need Mercedes parts ? - http://parts.mbz.org
http://www.mbz.org | Mercedes Mailing lists: http://lists.mbz.org
633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | Killies, killi.net, Crypts, aquaria.net
1970 280SE, 72 280SE | Old wris****ches http://watches.list.mbz.org

Richard Sexton wrote:
In article .com,
dfreas wrote:

Well I think the results may be in for this test. I have explosive
growth on the 6500K side of the tank....and the same thing on the 3500K
side. I forgot that two days before I changed the lights I started C02
injection.

So what did I learn? Well if you have adequate light to begin with then
adding C02 is more effective than a 0.6 watt per gallon difference in
light. As evidenced by the fact that both sides of the tank are growing
at the same rate despite the light difference - obviously C02 was more
of a limiting factor for my tank than light. I'm going to leave it the
way it is for at least a week just to be absolutely sure but in the end
I think I'm just going to go with the light that looks better. That
would be the 6500K - I don't think it's any better for the plants, but
it does look more natural. The "soft whites" reflect off of some orange
rocks I have in the tank rather harshly because of their orange
tendancy.


Yup, this all sounds about what I'd expect. One thing soft whites are
good for is to make already red plants look much more red.

This works when you're eyeballing them in real life or in photos.
These for example were shot under 80W of CF warm white:

http://images.aquaria.net/plants/Hyg...sperma/sunset/

Nice shots. I wish I could get sunset hygro (or even regular hygro) in
Califonia, but it's an illegal noxious weed. *sigh*

--
__ Elaine T __
__' http://eethomp.com/fish.html '__

Very nice. I wish I could get my red plants to look as good. For some
reason the red plant I put in my tank immediately lost most of its red
and then stoped growing. Not that I have a ton of experience there -
I've tried two both of the same species (can't recall the name at the
moment). Neither died - they just refuse to grow. Some sort of red
sword plant - in fact it may have even been sold as "red sword."

-Daniel