# Bit lost in the Luminaire Jungle, new Project



## eoto (2 Jul 2009)

Hello Folks,

im looking for a Luminaire for my new Project, few Facts here.

Tank Size: 60 x 30 x 36 cm, 60 Liter
Will be an Iwagumi so mostly only one Plant like HC, Glosso maybe add an other one but maxium 2 Plants.
2x24W Lighting T5 (might be fine for that Tank, correct me if im wrong)

So what should i go for? The Arcadias seem good but theyre not that cheap.


----------



## Dave Spencer (2 Jul 2009)

Try EQJ Trading on eBay.

Dave.


----------



## samc (2 Jul 2009)

i have a fluval osaka luminaire which is 2x24w which i picked up on ebay for Â£20 posted so keep an eye out as there are some bargains on there


----------



## Nelson (2 Jul 2009)

hi,
as dave said  http://stores.shop.ebay.co.uk/EQJ-Tradi ... ec0Q2em322 .

german site.i think the same. http://stores.shop.ebay.co.uk/Aquaristi ... ec0Q2em322


----------



## davidcmadrid (10 Jul 2009)

Has anybody tried these luminaires ? 
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/T5-AQUARIUM-OVERH ... 1|294%3A30 . They are sold as Marine with 10 K kelvin bulbs and they sent me the follwing chart for output. The legs are plastic and not metal but the spare legs are cheap so perhaps worth having. They also do a kit to hang it over the tank for 26 pounds.


----------



## ceg4048 (10 Jul 2009)

All that chart tells you is that the light will more than likely be bluish rather than yellowish. If the legs are strong and well built there shouldn't be any problems.

Cheers,


----------



## Nelson (10 Jul 2009)

hi david,
i've got one.hailea,all the way from china    .i had a problem with two tubes not coming on.they/brett sent a new switch first.not switch.so he replaced it no problems.also broke one of the legs  was before they had new sets available so he sent one from another box  .
ok since then,april.
did get new tubes from http://www.lampspecs.co.uk/Light-Bulbs- ... 8Ta38Pchn0

i would say not the best quality but ok.cheap and cheerful  .
also only one power lead.


----------



## davidcmadrid (10 Jul 2009)

ceg4048 said:
			
		

> All that chart tells you is that the light will more than likely be bluish rather than yellowish. If the strong and well built there shouldn't be any problems.
> 
> Cheers,



I thought you could get more from spectral analysis than a determination of the colour of the light ( which comes from the Kelvin value ) ,, specifically you could find out how much light is sent out in the frequencies at which plants like to photosynth at best ? Im referring to this article http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/lighting/38014-lighting-spectrum-photosythesis.html I was thinking the blue and red are good for plant growth and the green spike would be good for giving the plants a bright green enhancing look.


----------



## davidcmadrid (10 Jul 2009)

nelson said:
			
		

> hi david,
> i've got one.hailea,all the way from china    .i had a problem with two tubes not coming on.they/brett sent a new switch first.not switch.so he replaced it no problems.also broke one of the legs  was before they had new sets available so he sent one from another box  .
> ok since then,april.
> did get new tubes from http://www.lampspecs.co.uk/Light-Bulbs- ... 8Ta38Pchn0
> ...



Nelson,

Thanks , the legs are the bit i was worried about ( so was thinking about hanging it instead ) do you find any flicker with it ( know the ballast type ? ) and aside from the legs do the reflectors and build quality seem good. I am still looking about here but it seems this , the T5 hagen glo or the Arcadia jobby. Appreciate the feedback.


----------



## Nelson (10 Jul 2009)

hi david,
they did flicker a bit when i first got them.not anymore though.don't know the ballast type,i guess no name chinese.
reflectors seem ok.build quality ok,not great.
if you've got the money get an arcadia.


----------



## ceg4048 (10 Jul 2009)

davidcmadrid said:
			
		

> ceg4048 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well it's a very nice article with tons of very good information in it. Unfortunately, the author misses a key point that render spectral analysis redundant. Plants manufacture what is known as "auxiliary" pigments which, when struck by non primary colors, transfer their energy to the primary pigments such as Chlorophyll A, B and so forth. In this way plants can use whatever spectral quality is available in that particular environment since they have no choice in the availability. The spectral quality of the ambient light in any natural environment changes dramatically from dawn to dusk, reddish/yellowish at the endpoints of the photoperiod and blue/violet during the middle part. Many plants even get shaded and are only able to absorb within a restricted gamut of colors based on reflections and so forth. There are even very harmful wavelengths, such as UV which the plants must develop pigments to reflect (or convert) in order to mitigate damage to cell structure. There is potpourri of various pigments that act as light absorbers, light converters and light reflectors and these pigments develop based on the existing conditions. So no matter what bulbs you use, the plants will adapt to the spectrum provided by developing the necessary pigmentation to optimize growth and food production. One bulb therefore grows plants as well as any other simply because of the adaptations that the plants make.

It is not really a valid notion that somehow, only algae "like" wavelengths in the 500/600 range. I can assure you that algae will form just as easily under any wavelength based on the algae trigger mechanisms of photon flux density and other environmental factors. A lot of this data comes from marine studies which show that symbiotic phytoplantonic life forms (many of which are algal species) are adapted to ocean depths where most other wavelengths are absorbed except for blues. This data is then extrapolated to freshwater environments where they may not be as valid.

Many people assume that because plants look green then it means that they do not use green wavelengths but they forget that a plant can reflect a combination both yellows and blues, which, when those wavelength combinations reach our retina, our visual cortex perceives as green. So just because plants look green it doesn't necessarily mean that they are green. There's plenty of photon energy in all visible wavelengths and plants have amazing adaptability. One should therefore get bulbs that have a spectral quality that you find pleasing, and not worry about what is "optimum" for plants. This is yet another method of propaganda that vendors use to charge high prices for bulbs. Your plants will grow just as well with 10,000K marine bulbs as they will with bulbs from Tesco. The only difference will be whether you find the light pleasing or not. In fact if you study the latter portion of that article you'll see that the author is saying the very same thing actually.

Cheers,


----------



## davidcmadrid (10 Jul 2009)

ceg4048 said:
			
		

> Well it's a very nice article with tons of very good information in it. Unfortunately, the author misses a key point that render spectral analysis redundant. Plants manufacture what is known as "auxiliary" pigments which, when struck by non primary colors, transfer their energy to the primary pigments such as Chlorophyll A, B and so forth.



Is that less efficient ?


----------



## GreenNeedle (10 Jul 2009)

davidcmadrid said:
			
		

> ceg4048 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No idea but thats nature 

At the end of the day you bought a luminaire.  The manufacturer sent you a chart showing you what the tubes do.  You will replace the tubes eventually.

AC


----------



## ceg4048 (11 Jul 2009)

That's right. And besides, the photosynthetic efficiency of plants is already extremely high.The difference in growth and food production is not going to be seen in real terms. There are a lot more things that will have direct and palpable differences in the growth of your plants. A simple adjustment of CO2 injection rate will have far greater consequences than any differences you'll see by trying to optimize spectral efficiency, that's for sure. Can any bulb maintain it's spectral output over a few months? No chance. They start to degrade/shift almost immediately. Think about all the various reflections and spectral changes from substrate, neighbouring plants, and even from the surface. Chasing spectral efficiency or optimization for a planted tank is another illusion of The Matrix. Concentrate more on CO2, nutritional requirements, flow and maintenance and you'll reap very real and substantial benefits.

I'll mention something else about those spectral charts. Do you see where those peaks are? Vendors try to convince us that, for example having a red peak actually means that you get a substantial amount of red, which is of course, hogwash. These are simply individual wavelength energy readings. It's the area under the curve that has meaning because each wavelength adds photons as they strike the chloroplast. So you have to look at the sum total of the wavelengths to add all the photons together. Look at the area under the blue. Even though the blue peak is a lot lower than the green peak, the amount of blue/cyan photons striking the chloroplast molecules are much higher then the number of green or red photons striking them. A single high peak is completely meaningless. So this bulb has mostly blue energy, which we would see as being dim, because we are not very sensitive to blue. The green level is used as probably a "luminance" level so this peak allows the bulb to appear even brighter to us, but it is still useful energy for the plants. If that green mountain were wider, the bulb would appear very bright to us because our eyes are optimized for sensitivity around that wavelength.

Each time a single photon strikes the chloroplast a single electron is liberated from it's orbit due to added energy. Since blue is a higher frequency more blue photons strike the chloroplast per second than green or red photons whose waves strike at a lower frequency. So the fundamental energy level of blue radiation is higher _and_ it delivers more photons per second. 

Blue energy, in general, stimulates  amino acid production (which are later assembled into proteins). Red light, in general, stimulates glucose/sucrose production. Ultimately, it is the number of photons striking the chloroplast per second that powers plant life. Each strike moves electrons and it is these electrons that are used in the various chemical reactions of photosynthesis. The plant regulates and allocates the pigments to perform whatever functions necessary manage the electron flow without any optimization schemes from us. Control the level of photon flux, i.e the wattage, and you will have done your part. Leave spectral efficiency to the plants. They will figure it out.

Cheers,


----------



## davidcmadrid (11 Jul 2009)

SuperColey1 said:
			
		

> davidcmadrid said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hi,

I havent bought the luminaires yet,  I am just looking into this at the moment before ordering  them for the tanks. Im learning and unlearning. When i first put plants in the tank years ago the they  all didnt look so great after a while. The shopkeeper told me it was because we had a tungsten lamps in the tanks so gave m the mindset that the type of light was important. Im sort of of the mindset now that it was nutrients lacking when i think about it.


----------



## davidcmadrid (11 Jul 2009)

Thanks Ceg 4048, very interesting reading. I can see now also how from the spectral graph you can take a stab at the kelvin value of the bulb. In this case  the Blue portion of the bulbs spectral graph contains most of the volume so the energy appears low frequency or high kelvin ? This implies that contrary to what is propogated in the lfs kelvin and frequency are linked?


----------



## ceg4048 (11 Jul 2009)

Yes, false correlation is the single most insidious flaw of this hobby. There are many variables which contribute to plant health, and indeed the health of the tank as a system. You can do something today and not see it's effects for a week, the day after you do something completely unrelated. It then becomes easy to blame the unrelated action for the effects observed. That's why we have to adopt the mindset of being systematic and to question the results until we can reliably and repeatable produce those results to draw valid correlation between cause and effect.

Frequency is the inverse of Wavelength (F=1/W and W=1/F). Blue light has a low wavelength therefore it has a high frequency. The energy of radiation is inherent in its frequency, which, when you think about it make sense. The more frequently something hits you the more damage it will do. As the wavelengths get shorter (frequency gets higher) you'll find that we move out of the visible spectrum and into progressively more seriously damaging radiation. UV then X-rays, then Gamma rays which will fry you to a crisp, even though you can't see them. A photon energy packet rides on each single wave, so a single ray of green wavelength, say of 500 nanometers (500 X 10E-9) would deliver about 2 million photon packets per second, but a single ray is actually composed of two individual rays which are perpendicular, so this means 4 million photon packets per second per ray. When you increase the wattage you increase the number of individual rays. The way that a plant "sees" light is not as a continuous "glow" but as a cosmic hailstorm of photon torpedoes and at the same time as ocean waves crashing against rocks. Too much light actually can cause damage and can curtail photosynthesis. This is called photoinhibition.

As far as the apparent Kelvin temperature, check that APC link again at the C.I.E chromacity space map. You'll see that as the theoretical black body heats up, the color changes from a red glow, to white hot, to blue hot. So red is a lower Kelvin temperature, a lower frequency (higher wavelengths) and thus a lower energy level, while blue represents a higher energy level, a higher frequency (lower wavelength). So a 10,000K bulb should appear whitish/bluish, which is consistent with the higher blue/violet/cyan space depicted on the spectral graph you provided. Whether the bulb will actually show that is another story, but that's what is should show theoretically. Again, for the marine reefer types this probably has much higher relevance since their symbiotic Zooxanthellae, which do photosynthesise are finely tuned to specific spectral qualities, or at least their visible pigmentation is. Whether this has an effect on food production I can't say.

In any case, yes, that's all I did was to look at the relative color areas and then to take a stab at what it ought to look like.

Hope this makes sense.

Cheers,


----------



## davidcmadrid (11 Jul 2009)

ceg4048 said:
			
		

> Too much light actually can cause damage and can curtail photosynthesis. This is called photoinhibition.
> 
> Cheers,



Yes it makes sense , wavelength being the inverse of frequency, been  a while since i used my physics   Out of curiosity what lumens value .. since i gather WPG is kind of defunct depending on the efficency of the bulb 15W in one is not the same in the other e.g. t5ho @30 W gives more light / photons than a T8 at 30w ?  is considered to cause photoinhibition ? I believe you could go into lux or PAR and what not but a rough guide , is there something to update the WPG rule of thumb ? Eg lumens per gallon Â¿ I am thinking of  leaving the existing 2xt8s ( no reflector ) at the back of the tank and putting twin t5hos 2x39w with the Hagen glo reflectors at the front ( thinking that as im going to aim for a carpet the stronger lighting is needed at the front ). I did experiment with a 70 liter tank firing an ungodly amount of light into it  ( upwards on 180 +W  5000K studio modelling  lamp )  dosing EI ( no fish ) and it looked almost like a fizzy drink there was that much pearling  from some plants but slight problems in others ( brown spots on one in particular ) with some others showing nutrient deficency ( Mg )  if i did not keep up. I could never find out what the brown spots were ( not diatoms there was no algea in the tank at all i believe ) . so I am guessing you really have to put a lot of light into the tank to reach photoinhibition,, is there a buffer between useful light and photoinhibition. where its just a waste of light before you start killing things ?

I am not having any algae problems save 1 spot in the main tank at current light values ( appx 1.3 WPG with  T8s )  , so i installed the second filter which now has the lot swaying and cut out the effected leaves and at the time i introduce the higher light i will also be using an external reactor for CO2 on the main filter. Then im going to start trying to tame the jungle and recape the tank.


----------



## GreenNeedle (11 Jul 2009)

A better model of calculation based on actual PAR values is being worked as we speak but may take a few months to assimilate as the input is coming from many sources.  It will not be highly accurate because it will of course not be able to take into account differences between ballasts, reflectors etc.  It should basically be a rough guide that a Tn tube of nW will give PAR of n at n distance etc.

It will however be much better than the WPG rule.

You shouldn't really enter into the Lumens argument.  Although manufacturers push the Lumens count as a marketing tool to sell tubes to you and I that is of no real consequence over the aquarium.  Possibly even less accurate IMO than the WPG rule.  Lumens are the human's perception of brightness.  A manufacturer will tell us our lamp has a third more lumens than our competitors.  We take it home and indeed it is brighter.  Doesn't mean it has a third more PAR though.  It doesn't mean it has as much PAR even.

LEDs are a fine example where per watt the Lumens are much much lower than flouro.  They are substantial amount lower than MH.  However they produce much much PAR then both of them.

A case of watch this space but the work is being done and is long overdue 

It is currently looking like rather than trying to blast sections that have supposed 'highlight plants'  it is better to try and get as even a spread as possible and as many seperate light sources as possible which is why LEDs work so well.

In Flouro terms it means that 4 T8s would be better than 2 T5HO.  That would not mean a higher PAR but less hot spots and less dead spots within thetank.

AC


----------



## davidcmadrid (11 Jul 2009)

Thank, didnt realise i was entering an argument    Just roughly trying to gauge by adding t5hos x2 how much more light i was adding as I deducted  relatively speaking that I was adding more juice  with T5hos than t8s of the same wattage.  Im not into it enough to get a PAR meter    but roughly speaking trying to gauge  things. My first " Scape " is going to be a " copy " of somebody elses , reverse engineered just to kick me off  which will have a kind of mountain at the back growing up and hopefully forward a little bit so my idea was to shine the Hagen Glo towards the rear a little bit with it sitting on the front of the tank. My laymans idea is that will prevent one plant crowding the other out for light and produce healthy growth vertically through the front of the vertical extent of the plants. One of the things i noted moving the lights around in my experimental tanks was that certain plants seemed to want to grow towards the light and i could put bends in the stems if i played tricks with the plants ) i also know that this is unstable light so can bring on algae on the leaves depending on the type of plant leaf) . Tom Barr said that plants grow towards to the surface to find CO2 abundance but it seems to me that as they cant sniff where the CO2 is they assume its at the light source and grow towards it. Your notion of creating balance gives me pause to think more about that plan.

But yes I do get the idea that the manufacturers are doing their best to create a standard whilst at the same time trying to figure out  a way of saying mine is bigger than yours. Any idea on what Kelvin Value humans percieve as the strongest?


----------



## ceg4048 (11 Jul 2009)

Well, there is always an "argument" which consists of determining the relative merits of one idea versus another. The term argument should not be automatically construed as being associated with hostility. We are using logic, rationale and science to determine the proper course of action, therefore we must depend on logical, rational and scientific arguments.

In general, very roughly, T5 are claimed to output around 50% higher energy levels over the equivalent wattage T8 bulb. If reflectors are being used the output will be magnified. Again, very roughly a 20 watt T5 bulb may appear to be as bright as a 30 watt T8 bulb (of the same phosphor rating of course). So yes, you'll be adding more juice by way of T5. Don't hold me to these numbers - I'm just using them as instructional :!: Based on the explanations given previously this virtually doubles the amount of photon bombardment. So the implication is that for a higher energy light source your nutrient, flow and CO2 requirements will be more stringent. If you did have a PAR meter, as SuperColey mentioned, you would be able to do a precise photon flux density count and to compare the actual output of the two bulb types. I believe the point he was trying to make was that in the absence of a PAR meter, or other quantum measurement device, we can only roughly judge the amount of photonic energy being seen by each leaf. Someday, when PAR meters become commonplace, we will no longer need to talk about watts. We will talk in terms of the number of photon energy packets moving across one square centimetre of leaf surface per second. This is described in terms of a Mole. One mole of particles is 6.023 x10E23. One micromole is 1 million times smaller so a "umole" 6.023x10E18. PAR values are expressed in terms of umoles. Therefore we can accurately describe the lighting in a tank as "I have 100 umoles at the surface declining to 30 umoles at the substrate level". This more or less describes a low light tank. What wattage of what bulb and what lumen value the bulb is rated to, and what Kelvin value it has can then be ignored completely because we have a direct count of the number of electrochemical reactions caused by our lighting. And this is what photosynthesis is about, not about lumens or Kelvin or any of these other time wasting parameters that have stifled our thinking for the past 30 years. SuperColey's "argument" is that you need to change the way you perceive light so that you think in terms of umoles/cm/second  of photons and not lumens, which are totally and utterly irrelevant.

I also think that you cannot engineer your scape as you propose without a great deal of work. As SuperColey suggests, just get a nice even lighting across the tank at the energy level that pleases you and get on with it. Of course plants grow towards the light, that is their nature. What Barr was saying is that many people assume that when their plants grow stringy this means that it needs more light. Carpet plants are notorious for this behavior. People add more light to try and get them to grow laterally and this just creates more problems. Barr is saying that adding more CO2 satisfies the plants needs at the submersed level so they do not seek to grow upwards to get to the surface where CO2 is. I'm fairly certain you've confused these two concepts.

Cheers,


----------



## GreenNeedle (11 Jul 2009)

Indeed.  I should clarify however that I do not have nor have access to a PAR meter. My input is from observation only with no way to prove anything.  Others are doing the actual testing and there are several people all comparing lights they have with what they can borrow and then trialling different spacings and different heights to see how it affects the overall PAR.

then those multiple sources can be gathered together and once the difference in ballast / reflector is taken into account we should be able to weight the 'average' towards the most common place used items rather than just a mean average of the figures of people who are testing 'top end' stuff. that would give false info.  We need rough guidelines for standard performance items.

No good giving an average based on 3 x Ice cap units and 1 x cheapo.  People buying a cheapo would then be thinking the 'mean' average is going to be attained when they are way off 

As a guide, when Tom tested some ADA competition placed tanks with lush carpets of HC in them the PAR at the substrate levels was 50ish.  As per what Ceg said above, that is surprisingly low light for a plant the majority tell you needs super highlight to carpet 

The next big bang in the hobby is just around the corner and it could be more destructive to the commonly 'known' thinking as the Phosphates DO NOT cause algae breakthrough.

AC


----------

