# Two new tubes...



## bugs (16 Oct 2009)

I'm gonna replace the two tubes on my tank with a daylight and something suited to plants - in particular reaching the depths of my rather deep tank. What are people liking these days in the way of brands and tubes? 
Cheers


----------



## aaronnorth (16 Oct 2009)

viewtopic.php?f=50&t=555

most people use lamspecs. 
currently i have a sylvania 865 & osram skywhite 860. It is a bit too warm for my liking so i am wantin gto change for a 10 000k to give a bit more white in there,


----------



## ceg4048 (16 Oct 2009)

That's like asking what brand of ice cream people like. Virtually any light you can buy is "suitable" for plants. See JamesC's sticky at the top of this section for sample colors. Pick a color and get it cheap from Lampspecs

Cheers,


----------



## bugs (20 Oct 2009)

Hmmm... having established that Lampspecs to not stock much in the way of 25w T8's I'm back trying to establish what bulbs look like so I can place an order online.

From James' thread I like:
- the the Phillips Pro 965 + Grolux 




- and also the Osram 880 Skywhite + Grolux combos.




I'm hoping to order for AE cos there's one or two other bits I want to get at the same time. These are the tubes currently available from AE (unfortunately not Grolux):

Arcadia Classica Natural Daylight Lamp 30"
Arcadia Freshwater lamp - 30"
Arcadia Original Tropical Light - 30"
Hagen PowerGlo - 25W		
Interpet Triplus - 30"

I have a hunch that the Interpret Triplus will be similar to the Osram/Phillips tubes but no idea which will mimic the Grolux.

For completeness, these are the tubes that I could get from Lampspecs (which does include the Grolux) so if anyone has any experience of one that will mimic the Osram or Phillips from this list then that's another ordering option.

Any thoughts or suggestions, or better still experience of any of these tubes?

Cheers


----------



## George Farmer (20 Oct 2009)

I've used all those tubes at some point.

The Arcadia Original Tropica is very simialr to the Gro Lux - very pink.

The Arcadia Freshwater Lamp and Classica Natural Daylight Lamp are very similar to the Phillips Pro 965 and Osram 880 Skywhite.

The Hagen Power Glo and Interpet Triplus are very similar to each other and give a white/purple hue.  Similar to the Lampspecs 10000K - http://www.lampspecs.co.uk/Light-Bulbs- ... 8Ta38Rahz0

I hope that helps?


----------



## bugs (20 Oct 2009)

Cheers, George. That's exactly the sort of information I was after. I suspect the Triplus and PowerGlo may be too harsh, which is a shame because I can get the Grolux from Lampspecs all for one P&P. Pondering...


----------



## a1Matt (21 Oct 2009)

Triplus is the new branding for Interpet triton. I mention that in case you have ever had\seen a triton lamp.  They have a noticeable pinky tint to them.  Brings out reds and pinks really good. I like them, but that means nothing as it is so very subjective


----------



## bugs (21 Oct 2009)

Are people still fully signed up to the concept of changing tubes every year (or whatever)? I'm familiar with the theory of the light output dropping over time and note some mention of the spectrum changing. I also realise that the drop in output may not be discernible because it's not necessarily brightness (or some such explanation). But... are we convinced by the timings and/or the real effect on growth? I suspect there may be different opinions for low and high tech?


----------



## bugs (22 Oct 2009)

bugs said:
			
		

> Are people still fully signed up to the concept of changing tubes every year (or whatever)? I'm familiar with the theory of the light output dropping over time and note some mention of the spectrum changing. I also realise that the drop in output may not be discernible because it's not necessarily brightness (or some such explanation). But... are we convinced by the timings and/or the real effect on growth? I suspect there may be different opinions for low and high tech?



Seriously - no opinions, proven facts, etc? Is it the case that nobody knows, or is there such a degree of uncertainty that nobody is prepared to stick their neck out?

It's fairly obvious that I'm unsure about the true effect on plant growth, hence the post.

Maybe it's just a boring subject - which is OK, I can live with that.


----------



## ceg4048 (23 Oct 2009)

No, it's a fascinating subject really, but we've more or less settled on a conclusion based on the evidence of empirical data. There is no point replacing a bulb if it hasn't blown. If you can see the light then it's useful. One would have to do very precise measurements in order to tell the difference in plant growth between a year old bulb and a new bulb, and even so the difference is likely to be related to many other things such as CO2, flow and so forth. We already know that spectrum changes are irrelevant so why spend money on a new bulb when the old one works fine until it goes kaput.

Here's some empirical data for you:
I replanted some P. helferi in this section of the tank. These are sitting at a distance of about 24 inches from the bulb. The bulbs were about 15 months old at the time:




This is the same scene 8-9 weeks later. All the extra growth were strictly from the originals in the first photo pruned and replanted. In fact there was a lot of growth. You can see blyxa starting to muscle in on the right.




Here is the same scene just above the P. helferi a few weeks after the second shot. By this time the bulbs are about 18 months and a couple of them went kaput so I replaced them. Now, please explain to me why I need to replace bulbs before they pop? Spectrum change? Yeah, maybe, but so what?




OK, so those were slow growing carpet plants. How about the effect on stems? Here is the other side of the tank. The tired old bulbs on this side were also around 15 months old and had plenty of miles on them.




Eleven days later with "throw away" 15 month old bulbs. Can you see a difference? So people really need to get real. Test the throw away theory for yourself. See what you can grow with old bulbs and compare with new bulbs.




Four weeks later the red stems have finally caught up. There were several trims during the time. Is this enough growth performance for you? I'm not throwing away my hard earned cash for some myth. That's for sure. 




Cheers,


----------



## George Farmer (23 Oct 2009)

bugs said:
			
		

> Are people still fully signed up to the concept of changing tubes every year (or whatever)? I'm familiar with the theory of the light output dropping over time and note some mention of the spectrum changing. I also realise that the drop in output may not be discernible because it's not necessarily brightness (or some such explanation). But... are we convinced by the timings and/or the real effect on growth? I suspect there may be different opinions for low and high tech?


I don't think I've ever changed mine because of age.  Usually because I've wanted to try out new types.

In my experience plants adapt really well to any light I've given them, even from T5 to LED.  There appears to be a week or so of slower growth during the transistion, I assume as they adapt to new spectrum and intensity.

Photoperiods are an interesting subject too.  The trend is the higher the intensity the shorther the photoperiod, and the lower the intensity the longer the photoperiod.


----------



## bugs (23 Oct 2009)

Thanks, Guys. In the past I have replaced bulbs due to age and it's what I was about to do now. However, in the past I've not noticed any discernable difference in growth etc which I why I began to think more about it.


----------



## andyh (23 Oct 2009)

Clive (Ceg4048)
Sorry a little off topic

Have you ever produced a journal on your tank, I would love to have a read?

I had a quick search but just found loads of your posts to other peoples questions


----------



## ceg4048 (23 Oct 2009)

No mate, I'm not really a journal guy. I just document the results of whatever hair-brained scheme I happen to think about at the time...  

Cheers,


----------



## aaronnorth (23 Oct 2009)

andyh said:
			
		

> Clive (Ceg4048)
> Sorry a little off topic
> 
> Have you ever produced a journal on your tank, I would love to have a read?
> ...




this is about the best of Clive's "journal"   lol.

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=905


----------



## andyh (23 Oct 2009)

ceg4048 said:
			
		

> No mate, I'm not really a journal guy. I just document the results of whatever hair-brained scheme I happen to think about at the time...
> 
> Cheers,


  Shame! I alwats enjoy reading your stuff, as i have two read it twice   (you use big words)

I also like your matrix references!


----------



## andyh (23 Oct 2009)

aaronnorth said:
			
		

> andyh said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thanks aaron, will have a look now.


----------

