# Recommendations, please!



## John P Coates (21 Feb 2014)

Hi folks,

This is my first post on this forum.

I am in the process of setting up a brand new tropical freshwater aquarium with fish and plants. In the past, I have used T8 fluorescent tubes in combination with CO2 injection with very good results.

Now, LED lighting is making major strides in aquatics. However, I am not prepared to pay the silly prices that LED lighting often commands. As an Electronics Engineer myself, LED lighting is simplicity in itself and the individual LED chips are inexpensive. In the end, it boils down to PPP (Pounds per PAR).

So, would anyone care to suggest which lighting method I should go for? Fluorescent, LED or other alternatives? Even better if someone is able to suggest specific products. I should add that my tank is fitted with a wooden hood so luminaires are not a viable option.

Thanks in advance.

JPC


----------



## dw1305 (22 Feb 2014)

Hi all, 
I think that linear "daylight" 6500K T5's will still gives you the best PPP (Pounds per PAR). If you don't mind a bit of DIY,  I've painted the inside of the hood with gloss white paint, and used "cabinet link lights" successfully, or you could buy a ballast,  an enclosure to put it in and water proof (IP67) end caps for the tubes. 

cheers Darrel


----------



## BigTom (22 Feb 2014)

I only use luminaires really so don't have a specific product to suggest, but don't forget to factor in electricity costs over the lifetime of a product. I justified buying a (second hand) Kessil LED fixture on the basis that it would pay for itself in saved electric within 2 years compared to the metal halide it replaced.


----------



## John P Coates (22 Feb 2014)

Thanks, guys. I appreciate the feedback.

With reference to energy saving and potential reduction in running costs, I can see that it would be significant if you compare LEDs with metal halide lamps. Indeed, manufacturers of LED lighting are keen to push cost savings in their sales blurb. But, if we compare LED lighting with fluorescent lighting, it is debatable if there would be* any *savings. Just compare the total power consumption of each lighting_ type.

I wish that more LED lighting manufacturers would tell us what we need to know in order to use their products successfully. I'm talking, of course, about photosynthetically active radiation (PAR). There are three fundamental things I want to know when buying lights for my aquarium - PAR, colour temperature and colour spectrum. If this information was readily available, we could make informed decisions. Would anyone buy an amplifier for their HiFi system if the manufacturers didn't quote power output?

JPC_


----------



## Vazkez (22 Feb 2014)

Hi Jhon,

I do not know if this helps you but Hagen Glo is very easy way to upgrade your light. Sorry I am not really techlight guy but...

Vaz


----------



## ceg4048 (23 Feb 2014)

John P Coates said:


> In the end, it boils down to PPP (Pounds per PAR).


No it doesn't. It boils down to how many problems you will generate in the tank by having too much PAR. Hobbyists inevitably have plant health problems the moment they upgrade their lighting, and that's due specifically to trying to maximize PAR per pound.

At the end of the day, when purchasing an LED unit (or DIY'ing it) if the assembly comes with a dimming control, then it really doesn't matter how powerful the total output is, because you will have control via the dimmer.

Cheers,


----------



## bogwood (23 Feb 2014)

Being a very recent LED convert, i was greatly influenced by no noticeable  heat being generated,and the shimmer effect.
Also the dimming control, ramp up,and ramp down, small and compact, perfect for me.
Presently using a variety of TMC tiles,with controllers.

When i think of the various lighting i have used over the years.........simple light bulbs, T8, T10, Halides T5s and a mix of DIYs


----------



## John P Coates (28 Feb 2014)

ceg4048 said:


> No it doesn't. It boils down to how many problems you will generate in the tank by having too much PAR. Hobbyists inevitably have plant health problems the moment they upgrade their lighting, and that's due specifically to trying to maximize PAR per pound.
> 
> At the end of the day, when purchasing an LED unit (or DIY'ing it) if the assembly comes with a dimming control, then it really doesn't matter how powerful the total output is, because you will have control via the dimmer.
> 
> Cheers,


Thanks for the reply.

I want to better understand what points you are making. Why do people have plant health problems when maximising PAR? What sort of health problems? Is it that PAR is increased but CO2 is not increased accordingly? Is it that the aquarium contains plants with a very diverse range of lighting requirements? Do the plants grow straggly, stunted, lacking in vibrant colour or what?

Let's simplify this. The amount of light, measured in PAR units, will either be just right, too little or too much. If we are about to make a significant investment in aquarium lighting, how can we scientifically determine what lighting is required before parting with hard-earned cash? I'm simply trying to eliminate some of the guesswork/trial and error, which can prove very expensive if we get it wrong. From my point of view, I'd rather get the lighting just right or have too much. With LED lighting, it's generally a matter, as you say, of incorporating a dimmer.

Over to you.


----------



## dw1305 (28 Feb 2014)

Hi all,





> how can we scientifically determine what lighting is required before parting with hard-earned cash? I'm simply trying to eliminate some of the guesswork/trial and error


 I'm not sure we can eliminate the guess work. Most high tech users on this forum use EI,  ~30ppm CO2, and a fairly short photo-period with relatively low lighting intensity, using LED, T5 etc. This is a technique that works for many with healthy plants and low algae levels. 

I use a totally different approach, where I use whatever lights I have to hand (mainly various T5 grow-lights, but including HPS 400W SON-T etc.) on a 12 hour day, without added CO2 and with relatively low nutrient levels. My technique is to use a large plant mass with floating plants and use plant health as an indicator of when to feed. The main outcome of this is that if I have very bright lights I have a very large plant mass. This also works as a technique, but limits you to keeping "jungles".  

cheers Darrel


----------



## John P Coates (28 Feb 2014)

dw1305 said:


> Hi all, I'm not sure we can eliminate the guess work. Most high tech users on this forum use EI,  ~30ppm CO2, and a fairly short photo-period with relatively low lighting intensity, using LED, T5 etc. This is a technique that works for many with healthy plants and low algae levels.
> 
> cheers Darrel


Hi Darrel,

Thanks for your reply, which I find very interesting.

As I have a lot to learn about this subject, I am not familiar with the abbreviation 'EI'. Please explain.

Thanks.


----------



## Vazkez (1 Mar 2014)

Hi 

EI = Estimative Index

please follow the link below or use searche on this forum for more info...

The Estimative Index (EI) Dosing with Dry Salts | UK Aquatic Plant Society


----------



## ceg4048 (1 Mar 2014)

John P Coates said:


> I want to better understand what points you are making. Why do people have plant health problems when maximising PAR? What sort of health problems? Is it that PAR is increased but CO2 is not increased accordingly?


Yes, that is correct. It's very easy to pummel a tank with photonic energy. Photons move at, well, the speed of light, and they carry high energy into the chlorophyll molecule. The job of the chlorophyll is to absorb the energy and to use this energy as a slingshot for electrons. The electrons are then used to strip CO2 of Carbon and to re-allocate the Carbon into a type of Phosphate sugar. This sugar is what the plant eats, and that's how plants grow - by making their own food.

If you dump too many photons into this system at too fast a rate, without also having an appropriate amount of Carbon to process the electrons then the electrons spew out uncontrollably at a high rate and effectively cause radiation poisoning. The electrons are charged particles and if they are not allocated to Carbon fixing they then combine with any nearby object, often forming something called "Reactive Oxidative Species" such as Ozone and Hydrogen Peroxide. These are deadly to the plant tissue. They can even destroy the Chlorophyll itself. Then the plant is unable even to process the PAR energy and it starves to death. Damaged tissues due to "oxidative stress" appears as translucency, rotting, black spots, brown spots or brown edges. If the oxidative stress is only mild, the damage tissues become fodder for algae, and so we see problems such as hair/filamentous algae, and some Red Algal forms such as BBA.

If there is sufficient CO2, but insufficient nutrient levels then the high PAR causes other types of damage because production of required proteins and enzymes will be throttled. These other types of damage also cause cell death which becomes fodder for other types of algal species.

So there is an entire array of problems encountered when people only think about light, without thinking about the chain of events and the other resources required to process the energy and to turn it into something useful.




John P Coates said:


> Let's simplify this. The amount of light, measured in PAR units, will either be just right, too little or too much.


No. The idea of just right is irrelevant. This is another problem in the hobby where we oversimplify the complicated things and over-complicate the simple things.

There is no such thing as just right. The analogy I prefer use is that of an automobile. The position of your throttle pedal determine the speed of the car. Is there such a thing as an ideal speed? No. Higher speeds consume more resources such as petrol, oil and rubber as a penalty, but the destination is reached more quickly. Lower speeds consume less of the resources, but the destination is arrived at more slowly. "Just right" therefore is only a function of the drivers values, goals and objectives.

The penalties of high PAR are that CO2 must be excellent, nutrition high and maintenance a top priority, but the rewards are higher plant growth rates. Low PAR achieves the same goal but does so more slowly without the consumption of as many resources. Middling PAR achieves a compromise between the two extremes.

The problem is that most people using high PAR have no idea how to also allocate the resources. As I mentioned, getting lots of PAR energy into the tank is easy, but getting sufficient CO2 to the plants is THE single most difficult aspect of the hobby because gasses do not move very efficiently in water. Most tanks therefore have plants that suffer for gas exchange difficulty, and this difficulty is the root of almost all problems.

Therefore, the best approach is to invest in lighting in which you have some control over PAR. In this sense, LED are superior in that most commercial units, although expensive, have a dimming controller. T5 or T8 or Halide lighting can be used but one has to be more careful in selecting the power levels, or one has to also invest in serious CO2 and distribution infrastructure in order to accommodate the uncontrolled higher lighting. There are PAR charts which provide basic guidelines for these types of lighting units. It really is not a difficult task once you are aware of the charts. I refer to the chart in the thread Dymax Tropical 36 watt | Page 4 | UK Aquatic Plant Society very often and the link has a discussion that is very useful.

Cheers,


----------



## John P Coates (5 Mar 2014)

Vazkez said:


> Hi
> 
> EI = Estimative Index
> 
> ...


Many thanks for your reply.


----------



## John P Coates (5 Mar 2014)

ceg4048 said:


> So there is an entire array of problems encountered when people only think about light, without thinking about the chain of events and the other resources required to process the energy and to turn it into something useful.
> 
> The problem is that most people using high PAR have no idea how to also allocate the resources. As I mentioned, getting lots of PAR energy into the tank is easy, but getting sufficient CO2 to the plants is THE single most difficult aspect of the hobby because gasses do not move very efficiently in water. Most tanks therefore have plants that suffer for gas exchange difficulty, and this difficulty is the root of almost all problems.
> 
> ...


Hi ceg,

Many, many thanks for your detailed reply. You obviously know your stuff. Although my expertise is in electronics, I have just enough plant biology background to enable me to understand the points you have made. And it all makes sense.

I take your point about being able to control the intensity of the lighting. I will check out the link you have provided but, given that I will be using CO2 injection and Tetra Complete Substrate, what PAR reading should I aim for, given that I normally keep the CO2 level at around 20ppm? I intend to have a range of plants in the aquarium whose positions will be matched according to the lighting levels throughout the tank. Water chemistry will be GH = 10 degrees dH, KH = 7 degrees dH and pH = 6.5. It is a community tank with fish chosen to be most at home in these conditions.

Once again, thank you.

JPC


----------



## ceg4048 (5 Mar 2014)

Hi John,
              If you check the chart in the link I provided at the bottom of post #12, you will see immediately that the 3 colors are labled blue=low, pink=medium and yellow=high. The range of plants that you have in the tank have really nothing to do with the lighting levels that you provide. Any plant in the tank that is situated in a blue location will simply grow at a slower rate than if it were in a location where the light is pink or yellow.

You would best be served by thinking about plant requirements in terms of how much CO2 they need, because that is really the main difference that characterizes the ability of the plant and the difficulty of growing that particular plant. The so-called "lighting requirements" of plants are strictly an illusion.

That means if you have a plant located in an area of the tank where the PAR value is in the yellow zone then you will need to ensure that the CO2 at that location is much higher than if the same plant was located in an area of the tank whose PAR level was in the blue zone. So the same plant can thrive in the blue zone where the CO2 concentration is lower, but if that plant is placed in a yellow zone and if the CO2 in the yellow zone is not higher than what it is in the blue zone then the plant will suffer. You should always keep in mind that there is a very tight relationship between the incident light intensity and the requirement for CO2.

Also you really need to forget about numbers like 20ppm CO2. You really have no idea whatsoever what the concentration of CO2 is in the tank, especially since the concentration is NEVER uniform in any tank. More often than not, you may have a distribution of something like 30-40ppm a short distance from the water's surface and in the plant beds you will have 3-4ppm. That's the usual scenario, and that's why many people observe CO2 distress in their fish while at the same time the plants suffer from CO2 deficiency.

That's why you need to pay much more attention to the method in which you dissolve the gas, the total pumping throughput of your filtration and most importantly, the manner and efficiency with which you distribute that throughput energy.

A standard policy is to try and keep the PAR values at the substrate level within the blue zone combined with proper attention to CO2/flow/distribution. The "20ppm" is such a gross oversimplification as to be almost entirely irrelevant.

Also, the fact that you are adding CO2 to the tank means that the pH will vary cyclically throughout the day as the CO2 concentration level varies. You need therefore to forget about maintaining some arbitrary pH value. This also is completely irrelevant because neither fish not plants care about this.

Cheers,


----------



## John P Coates (6 Mar 2014)

Hi ceg,

Many thanks for the additional info. I have a couple of questions/observations:

(1) How important is it that the light spectrum contains those wavelengths corresponding to chlorophyll A and B, namely, 430 - 450nm and 640 - 660nm?

(2) It would appear that Hoppy's chart does not include LED lighting nor does the graph specify which reflectors were used with the fluorescent tubes. Perhaps I need to look at the original article where s/he published the graphs. Would you provide me a link, please?

Thanks again.

BTW, I have deduced that your name is possibly Clive. Rather than saying 'Hi ceg' in future, I will change this to 'Hi Clive'. Is that OK?

JPC


----------



## ceg4048 (6 Mar 2014)

John P Coates said:


> (1) How important is it that the light spectrum contains those wavelengths corresponding to chlorophyll A and B, namely, 430 - 450nm and 640 - 660nm?


Hi John,
             It is not important at all. Check the thread Hygrophila polysperma alternative? | Page 2 | UK Aquatic Plant Society
Couple more threads if you suffer from insomnia:
PL-11 Tubes | UK Aquatic Plant Society
growlux bulbs | UK Aquatic Plant Society
actinic lighting vs algae growth | Page 2 | UK Aquatic Plant Society


John P Coates said:


> (2) It would appear that Hoppy's chart does not include LED lighting nor does the graph specify which reflectors were used with the fluorescent tubes. Perhaps I need to look at the original article where s/he published the graphs. Would you provide me a link, please?


Here you go.  PAR vs Distance, T5, T12, PC - New Chart




John P Coates said:


> BTW, I have deduced that your name is possibly Clive. Rather than saying 'Hi ceg' in future, I will change this to 'Hi Clive'. Is that OK?


Yes, Clive will work. No problems mate.

Cheers,


----------



## roadmaster (6 Mar 2014)

"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain" for he is really a plant which speak's.
(just teasing).


----------

