Calling All Ei People

[Ginge]

48x15x18

40W Hagen Sun Glow
40W Arcadia Freshwater
30W Arcadia Freshwater

110W 2wpg. HTH

 

[lljdma06]

Thanks James. I've browsed that link before but obviously didn't absorb much info!

I've seen that link too, George, but I have another one that actually gives lumen output for various brands, and the ranges of lumen output for types of bulb. And it has a calculator. I sent it to Sam already, but I thought others might find it useful. I certainly did. When I grow orchids and other terrestrial plants, I still use Lumens/surface area to calculate amount of light needed. I just can't believe I didn't consider using it for aquarium purposes. Duh! You have to just ignore the fact that what is perceived as bright to the human eye may not necessarily be the correct light required by the plant. My Miltassia thanks me for it.

http/woo.gotdns.com/Aquarium/Lighting.htm

As for the subject of this thread. Sam here are the stats of my 15g EI that was in IL. I'll convert to cm for your benefit.

15g "high". Dimensions were 50.8cmL 25.4cmW 30.48cm D. Lighting was Two 24" Coralife twin T5 light fixtures. Each bulb was 14W, giving me 56W total. 3.73WPG.

llj

PS: Sam, is there going to be a portion of your article for people with lower light aquariums? High light is great and I'm glad you're going that route, but it's not the only way to enjoy a planted tank.

 

[Themuleous]

More info! Cool, will get on a try and sort though it all sometime this week and see what I can come up with.

Llj - not sure about low light set ups, as I've got no experience with nano low light tanks, and thinking on my feet a bit here, small tanks need small plants, i.e HC and glosso, so how would a low light nano work? Im happy to add something but I cant guarantee it'll be much good.

Sam

 

[lljdma06]

More info! Cool, will get on a try and sort though it all sometime this week and see what I can come up with.

Llj - not sure about low light set ups, as I've got no experience with nano low light tanks, and thinking on my feet a bit here, small tanks need small plants, i.e HC and glosso, so how would a low light nano work? Im happy to add something but I cant guarantee it'll be much good.

Sam

I know there's a few people here with low-light nanos that are gorgeous and it's not me. Tom Barr, I know has one that's very lovely, you might ask him. I've seen it before, it's great. He may be able to add something. You have to remember anubias, slender-leafed java fern, water sprite, R. rotundifolia, egeria (when it's controlled), etc. There are lots of small-leafed plants that do well with lower light. It can work.

You'll love that article, I'm sure.

llj

 

[Themuleous]

Fair point, well made Llj. Ok will see what I can find. That said I don't think I'll go into plant choice to much as that's up to each person, Just want to give the fact behind nanos.


Sam

 

[George Farmer]

Moss and Anubias nana var. 'petite' look good in low-light nanos.

http/www.fishforums.net/index.php?showtopic=159573&hl=

 

[Themuleous]

Ok Ok point taken!

 

[Kiwigirl]

Themuleous said:

Kiwigirl EI estimative index, have a read of the pinned article at the top of the planted section for more info.

Good stuff, thanks dude

 

[plantbrain]

Nano's:

1.5 gal 7x7x8: 100umols/m^2/sec
2.5 gal 8x8x10: 78
6 gal 18x 10x 11 : 220
10 gal 16x 6x 24 : 22

1600 gal 48 x 60x 144 : 880
150 gal 28Tx18Dx72 L : 100, 22 at the substrate where Gloss grows.

All units are at 10 cm from the light source with reasonably new bulbs(month etc)

These are real units, not those "fake imitation units"
Lumens, lux, and so forth.
The surface area is fine, but where is that surface area being measured?

At the water surface?
How far above the tank are the lights being suspended?
Are you measuring from the bulb at the same distance?
From the bottom of the tank?
With or without water at the bottom, middle, plant tips, top of the water?

Is every spot in the tank the same in terms of lighting?(no way)
Reflectors?
E ballast?
Bulb types?
Age?
Point source bulbs? Distance from these points?

There is huge variation in each of these.
That negates the attempts at "fixing" the so called "created problem" with watt's gallon/liter rule in favor a watt/area thing.

Watts/gallon/liter is easy to use for most folks.
We just put a cavet for smaller tanks, they are hard to find lighting for and anything that works okay and fits is often used. I think that the lights get to a critical mass sizing etc that makes them useful even if they are outside the range, but it seems to be less related to actual photosynthetic radiation(those little micro moles I suggested above).

Such botanical light meters are not cheap though.........

Given all the banter that ensures every few months/years about the issues with the W/gal rule, I do find it curiously odd that such passion is not placed on determinign how low can the plants truely go when they have excellent CO2/nutrients supplied to them?

That's is a test folks can do.
I've grown pearl grass at 54 w on PC lighting on a 24" deep tank, 2ftx 2ft x2ft, 60 gallon total just fine.

That's about .9 w/gal.
I've seen Anubias growing at very slow rates for 8 years at .5 w/gal.

Do folks need that much light as is commonly sugegsted?
No, can they improve their methods with low light using CO2, most definitely.

So many folks carry on and on about limiting nutrients etc, but few ever consider limiting light oddly
Why is that?

Most of Dutch scapes from years past did fine with 1.5-2w/gal at most.

Regards,
Tom Barr

 

[Themuleous]

You've got a point Tom, thanks for posting.

Sam

 

[plantbrain]

Do not get me wrong here, I'm not suggesting what you seek is bad, it's just that the assumptions built in to solving it are many and hard to overcome.

Measuring and quantifying light is tough, not really a hobby based thing in many respects, check out the Reef folks carrying on about it, they adopted the PAR meters long ago to figure things out.
But they seem willing to fork out a lot more $$$ for test kits, calibrations, meters etc to further their hobby, FW plants are a stingey cheap bunch at best.
Even those with the $$ set ups seldom have nice kits/meters for such things.

I just did a little test for a nano vs a a normal set up for lighting.

The 13 w Azoo 7200K light at 4" at the water's surface: 88 umols
The 110 w 8800K zt 4" from the water'
s surface: 390 umol.

W/gal the nano: 13w/1.5 gal => 8.6 w.gal
W/gal for the 20-> 110w/20 -> 5.5 w/gal

But..........we see that the 13 w nano is actually getting 4.4x less actual useable light for photosynthesis even though we are at 8.6w gal.

Both lights are PC's and have reflectors.
Both measurements where taken at 4" from the light at the water's surface

Why is there this huge difference?

I also have a 2.5 gal with the same light, same growth etc, but now the w/gal are 5.2.
Same umols etc.

I agree that the w/gal rule breaks down with smaller tanks, but the light, the PAR out put by smaller lamps appears to be the issue there, for normal sized tanks, say 10 gal and up, things seem fine.
Likewise, on gaint tanks, light seems to spread better and we do not need as much.

So once you get to these extremes, then there are issues, namely ones that appear releated to the actual physical size of the lights etc.

Regards,
Tom Barr

 

[Themuleous]

Interesting, never thought/looked at it that way before. Accepting that there are things going on here that make this venture difficult, would a watt/lumen per unit area 'guide' still be more 'accurate' than the WPG 'guide'?

I'll give it a go all the same and see what happens, after all, you keep tell us we should test things out for ourselves But thanks for the advice, appreciated and duly noted

Sam

 

[lljdma06]

I think all I would want is really just a rough estimate of how much lighting may work better in a nano. It doesn't have to be perfectly accurate. Like WPG is a "guideline", Sam's estimate/article would serve the same function. A ball-park figure really. It's ultimately what works best for the individual. Go for it, Sam!