Low maintenance planted tank ... 48" bulbs x2 or x3 over 55G

Harry Muscle · Joined: 16 Aug 2007 Posts: 2

In my quest to finally get my 55G planted tank up and running, I'm
going to shell out the cash and just buy the hood that maches my
All-Glass tank instead of making one. However, I'm not sure if I
should choose the twin tube (2 x 48" T8 tubes with electronic ballast)
or the triple tube (3 x 48" T8 tubes with electronic ballast) strip
light.

I would like to achieve a fairly low maintenance tank (ie: prune once
every month or two). I won't be using any CO2, however, I was planning
on using Excel and fertilizers on a regular basis. I'm perfectly happy
sticking to low and medium light plants but I definately want enough
growth to not get much algea.

But I can't decided on how much lighting. If I go with 2 bulbs I get
1.45wpg (counting 40 watts per bulb ... I know they only use 32 watts,
but they are equivalent to a 40 watt T12 bulb in light output which is
what was around when the wpg rule first started, so I'm assuming
counting them as 40 watt bulbs makes more sense). However, is 1.45 wpg
a little on the low side?

If I go with three bulbs I get 2.18wpg (again counting 40 watts per
bulb), which makes me think that I might have to start using CO2 in
order to avoid problems in the long term.

So what would you recommend?

Thanks,
Harry

Archived from group: rec>aquaria>freshwater>plants

Mr. Gardener · Joined: 16 Aug 2007 Posts: 28

On 3 Mar 2006 12:23:53 -0800, "Harry Muscle"
wrote:

>In my quest to finally get my 55G planted tank up and running, I'm
>going to shell out the cash and just buy the hood that maches my
>All-Glass tank instead of making one. However, I'm not sure if I
>should choose the twin tube (2 x 48" T8 tubes with electronic ballast)
>or the triple tube (3 x 48" T8 tubes with electronic ballast) strip
>light.
>
>I would like to achieve a fairly low maintenance tank (ie: prune once
>every month or two). I won't be using any CO2, however, I was planning
>on using Excel and fertilizers on a regular basis. I'm perfectly happy
>sticking to low and medium light plants but I definately want enough
>growth to not get much algea.
>
>But I can't decided on how much lighting. If I go with 2 bulbs I get
>1.45wpg (counting 40 watts per bulb ... I know they only use 32 watts,
>but they are equivalent to a 40 watt T12 bulb in light output which is
>what was around when the wpg rule first started, so I'm assuming
>counting them as 40 watt bulbs makes more sense). However, is 1.45 wpg
>a little on the low side?
>
>If I go with three bulbs I get 2.18wpg (again counting 40 watts per
>bulb), which makes me think that I might have to start using CO2 in
>order to avoid problems in the long term.
>
>So what would you recommend?
>
>Thanks,
>Harry

Buy the 3 tube appliance and if you don't like it, remove a bulb. You
can subtract from a 3, but you can't add to a two. 3 tubes might also
provide wider dispersal of the light, and it will leave you more
options when mixing and matching colors of tubes.

-- Mister Gardener

NetMax · Joined: 16 Aug 2007 Posts: 614

"Mr. Gardener" wrote in message @4ax.com...
> On 3 Mar 2006 12:23:53 -0800, "Harry Muscle"
> wrote:
>
>>In my quest to finally get my 55G planted tank up and running, I'm
>>going to shell out the cash and just buy the hood that maches my
>>All-Glass tank instead of making one. However, I'm not sure if I
>>should choose the twin tube (2 x 48" T8 tubes with electronic ballast)
>>or the triple tube (3 x 48" T8 tubes with electronic ballast) strip
>>light.
>>
>>I would like to achieve a fairly low maintenance tank (ie: prune once
>>every month or two). I won't be using any CO2, however, I was planning
>>on using Excel and fertilizers on a regular basis. I'm perfectly happy
>>sticking to low and medium light plants but I definately want enough
>>growth to not get much algea.
>>
>>But I can't decided on how much lighting. If I go with 2 bulbs I get
>>1.45wpg (counting 40 watts per bulb ... I know they only use 32 watts,
>>but they are equivalent to a 40 watt T12 bulb in light output which is
>>what was around when the wpg rule first started, so I'm assuming
>>counting them as 40 watt bulbs makes more sense). However, is 1.45 wpg
>>a little on the low side?
>>
>>If I go with three bulbs I get 2.18wpg (again counting 40 watts per
>>bulb), which makes me think that I might have to start using CO2 in
>>order to avoid problems in the long term.
>>
>>So what would you recommend?
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Harry
>
> Buy the 3 tube appliance and if you don't like it, remove a bulb. You
> can subtract from a 3, but you can't add to a two. 3 tubes might also
> provide wider dispersal of the light, and it will leave you more
> options when mixing and matching colors of tubes.
>
> -- Mister Gardener

Hi Harry, following Mr.Gardener's advice, check to see if the canopy will
operate with one tube missing (some have the bulbs in series). If there are
two ballasts, one for the dual and one for the single, then you're laughing.
You could even put the 3rd tube on a separate timer and use it as a night
light or transition light.

I suspect 1.5wpg will suit your purposes, but if you start getting the lower
plants shaded by upper growth (and bulbs do dim with time), then having the
3rd position gives your more options.
--
www.NetMax.tk

Mr. Gardener · Joined: 16 Aug 2007 Posts: 28

On Fri, 3 Mar 2006 16:37:03 -0500, "NetMax"
wrote:

>"Mr. Gardener" wrote in message
>@4ax.com...
>> On 3 Mar 2006 12:23:53 -0800, "Harry Muscle"
>> wrote:
>>
>>>In my quest to finally get my 55G planted tank up and running, I'm
>>>going to shell out the cash and just buy the hood that maches my
>>>All-Glass tank instead of making one. However, I'm not sure if I
>>>should choose the twin tube (2 x 48" T8 tubes with electronic ballast)
>>>or the triple tube (3 x 48" T8 tubes with electronic ballast) strip
>>>light.
>>>
>>>I would like to achieve a fairly low maintenance tank (ie: prune once
>>>every month or two). I won't be using any CO2, however, I was planning
>>>on using Excel and fertilizers on a regular basis. I'm perfectly happy
>>>sticking to low and medium light plants but I definately want enough
>>>growth to not get much algea.
>>>
>>>But I can't decided on how much lighting. If I go with 2 bulbs I get
>>>1.45wpg (counting 40 watts per bulb ... I know they only use 32 watts,
>>>but they are equivalent to a 40 watt T12 bulb in light output which is
>>>what was around when the wpg rule first started, so I'm assuming
>>>counting them as 40 watt bulbs makes more sense). However, is 1.45 wpg
>>>a little on the low side?
>>>
>>>If I go with three bulbs I get 2.18wpg (again counting 40 watts per
>>>bulb), which makes me think that I might have to start using CO2 in
>>>order to avoid problems in the long term.
>>>
>>>So what would you recommend?
>>>
>>>Thanks,
>>>Harry
>>
>> Buy the 3 tube appliance and if you don't like it, remove a bulb. You
>> can subtract from a 3, but you can't add to a two. 3 tubes might also
>> provide wider dispersal of the light, and it will leave you more
>> options when mixing and matching colors of tubes.
>>
>> -- Mister Gardener
>
>
>Hi Harry, following Mr.Gardener's advice, check to see if the canopy will
>operate with one tube missing (some have the bulbs in series). If there are
>two ballasts, one for the dual and one for the single, then you're laughing.
>You could even put the 3rd tube on a separate timer and use it as a night
>light or transition light.
>
>I suspect 1.5wpg will suit your purposes, but if you start getting the lower
>plants shaded by upper growth (and bulbs do dim with time), then having the
>3rd position gives your more options.

Hi Netmax. You know, if Harry had purchased that 3 tube fixture and
decided to remove one and the other two stopped working as well,
Mister Gardener's name would have been detritus. Not just little guppy
poo, either. Knowing the price of those light fixtures, we would be
talking about big ugly oscar detritus.

Just goes to show, you can't believe everything you read on the
internet.

-- Mister Gardener

Richard Sexton · Joined: 16 Aug 2007 Posts: 210

First choice would be to retrofit compact fluorescents. They're SO much better
than T12 or T8 it's just not funny. You'll never go back if you try them.

What you could do t is instead of adding a third tube, rig up a fixture
with a bunch of incandescent screw in sockets and use 23W screw in
fluorescents. Inefficient, but with enoug of them it'll make a difference.

--
Need Mercedes parts ? - http://parts.mbz.org
Richard Sexton | Mercedes stuff: http://mbz.org
1970 280SE, 72 280SE | Home page: http://rs79.vrx.net
633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | http://aquaria.net http://killi.net

George Pontis · Joined: 16 Aug 2007 Posts: 6

Harry Muscle wrote:

> In my quest to finally get my 55G planted tank up and running, I'm
> going to shell out the cash and just buy the hood that maches my
> All-Glass tank instead of making one. However, I'm not sure if I
> should choose the twin tube (2 x 48" T8 tubes with electronic ballast)
> or the triple tube (3 x 48" T8 tubes with electronic ballast) strip
> light.
>
> I would like to achieve a fairly low maintenance tank (ie: prune once
> every month or two). I won't be using any CO2, however, I was
> planning on using Excel and fertilizers on a regular basis. I'm
> perfectly happy sticking to low and medium light plants but I
> definately want enough growth to not get much algea.
>
> But I can't decided on how much lighting. If I go with 2 bulbs I get
> 1.45wpg (counting 40 watts per bulb ... I know they only use 32 watts,
> but they are equivalent to a 40 watt T12 bulb in light output which is
> what was around when the wpg rule first started, so I'm assuming
> counting them as 40 watt bulbs makes more sense). However, is 1.45
> wpg a little on the low side?
>
> If I go with three bulbs I get 2.18wpg (again counting 40 watts per
> bulb), which makes me think that I might have to start using CO2 in
> order to avoid problems in the long term.
>
> So what would you recommend?
>
> Thanks,
> Harry

Those hoods are quite inefficient, especially the three tube models. If
you consider that much of the light is trapped above the lamps or
bouncing between the lamps, you can see that most of the light will not
reach the water. The three lamp fixture is worse because the lamps are
spaced too close together. This would be a low light situation with
either fixture.

An efficient design would have the tubes more widely separated, and a
partial wrap-around reflector associated with each one.

Given that you prefer to purchase rather than build, perhaps you could
consider using a clear glass versatop, and a power compact hood sitting
on top of it. The price may not be much different, but this solution
would put much more light into your aquarium. The Coralife Aqualight
48" with two 65W power compact lamps is a nice modern design. Just over
$100 at HelloLights.com.

George

--

Harry Muscle · Joined: 16 Aug 2007 Posts: 2

But wouldn't a compact lamps hood like the one you mention put me close
to Medium-High lighting, getting ever closer to requireing CO2 and more
work in order to keep things balanced?

I've always assumed that in order to have a farily low maintenance tank
I should be sticking with Low-Medium lighting.

Thanks,
Harry

George Pontis · Joined: 16 Aug 2007 Posts: 6

Harry Muscle wrote:

> But wouldn't a compact lamps hood like the one you mention put me
> close to Medium-High lighting, getting ever closer to requireing CO2
> and more work in order to keep things balanced?
>
> I've always assumed that in order to have a farily low maintenance
> tank I should be sticking with Low-Medium lighting.
>
> Thanks,
> Harry

The 130 watts of PC lighting over a 55 gallon tank would be just a
little over 2 WPG, so lighting-wise that is in the medium range. It
would increase the variety of plants that you could grow successfully
compared to the stock hood. It would also make the colors of everything
in the tank look more vivid.

The downside is that anything you do to increase light can also spur
the growth of algae. That is not to say that you will have an algae
problem, just that it will be more of an issue with any increase in
light.

If you want to scale back the amount of light, you might find a T5 or
even a 2 lamp T8 fixture that at least has a decent reflector. Then at
least you will get your money's worth from the electricity that goes
into firing up these lamps.

As far as adding CO2, it is not necessary to do so to keep things in
balance. Just imagine a natural pond under direct sunlight. That would
have even more light and yet it maintains a nice balance without added
CO2. We usually add CO2 to increase the rate of growth, because the CO2
level in the water is limiting in almost all cases with this amount of
light. If you are satisfied with the plant growth that you get then
this is a perfectly good condition to maintain.

George

--

Mr. Gardener · Joined: 16 Aug 2007 Posts: 28

On 07 Mar 2006 04:43:05 GMT, "George Pontis"
wrote:

>Harry Muscle wrote:
>
>> But wouldn't a compact lamps hood like the one you mention put me
>> close to Medium-High lighting, getting ever closer to requireing CO2
>> and more work in order to keep things balanced?
>>
>> I've always assumed that in order to have a farily low maintenance
>> tank I should be sticking with Low-Medium lighting.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Harry
>
>The 130 watts of PC lighting over a 55 gallon tank would be just a
>little over 2 WPG, so lighting-wise that is in the medium range. It
>would increase the variety of plants that you could grow successfully
>compared to the stock hood. It would also make the colors of everything
>in the tank look more vivid.
>
>The downside is that anything you do to increase light can also spur
>the growth of algae. That is not to say that you will have an algae
>problem, just that it will be more of an issue with any increase in
>light.
>
>If you want to scale back the amount of light, you might find a T5 or
>even a 2 lamp T8 fixture that at least has a decent reflector. Then at
>least you will get your money's worth from the electricity that goes
>into firing up these lamps.
>
>As far as adding CO2, it is not necessary to do so to keep things in
>balance. Just imagine a natural pond under direct sunlight. That would
>have even more light and yet it maintains a nice balance without added
>CO2. We usually add CO2 to increase the rate of growth, because the CO2
>level in the water is limiting in almost all cases with this amount of
>light. If you are satisfied with the plant growth that you get then
>this is a perfectly good condition to maintain.
>
>George

How about beginning with a couple of ten dollar shop lights and
inexpensive bulbs. The cool blue are a buck and GE makes a nice plant
and aquarium tube for around five dollars. Both at your friendly
hardware store. They make a nice mix. with two shop light fixtures,
you can try mixing and matching from 40 to 160 watts, and have a
better idea of what works for you before shelling out the big bucks
for the CF fixture. I lit my aquariums with standard flourescents for
decades, 80 watts in a shop light was fine for my 55. I focused on
fish, my plants were the usual swords, crypts, and stem plants. It was
only very recently that I changed that for a 130w cf, because I wanted
to get into more plants. My other tanks will continue to sport regular
flourescents, both tube style and screw in.

I think we, as a hobby, are going CO2 crazy. It's a great addition to
our resources, and it creates some fabulous results when used by very
knowledgable hobbyists. But most of us don't need it. In spite of what
pet stores and magazine advertisements may tell us, most of us can
grow perfectly good plants without it. CO2 is for those who have
mastered the other aspects of aquarium keeping, water quality, fish
health, general plant care, all those skills, which take years to
master, that keep a tank healthy and beautiful for years with minimal
weekly care.

-- Mister Gardener