for what it worth, all my graveld tanks do as well as my sanded ones, I just prefer the look of the sand. but they will grow well in both
Real Plants in Standard Aquarium Gravel
- Thread starter MVandenberk
- Start date
well thats the first time i ever heard anyone ever say something like that
adding lighting up to 3wpg might give them more plant options but they will prob have to add co2 and ferts and be well stocked with plants. not everyone wants to deal with that.
i am guessing you have t12 bulbs. t8 bulbs give off more light and use less watts.
Can you have a medium stocked tank without CO2 added and ferts? Haven't looked into those items a whole lot, so i'm not sure what's all involved.
I guess I would be looking at adding a few plants at a time and go from there.
I guess I would be looking at adding a few plants at a time and go from there.
I don't understand this statement. Any and everytime I have tried to grow anything, even something as simple as anacharis or hornwort with incadesant lighting it was a total disaster. Florescent lighting is a much better option than incadesant lighting but better yet are t-5 lighting that I find to be very effective for growing plants in my aquarium or power compacts that also do a superb job as well. Keep in mind that if you get past 3 wpg then co2 injection becomes almost a necessity.
Marinemom
well, the idea is if you can handle the heat in the end they might be better .. For freshwater only of course, incandescents produce almost no blues except for on the far end of the spectrum (UV).
You can probably fit 1000W of incandescent in a place where at most you can fit 200W of compact flourescents (4 CFs or 10 incandescents). Flourescent are more efficient for light output but incandescents have a higher CRI on average, even the flourescents with a high CRI have trouble matching an incandescent. CRIs of 99 aren't uncommon with an incandescent, theyr'e about as close to sunlight as you can get unless you spend quite a bit on an MH system.
Even if the incandescent require 4Xs more energy for the same lumens the UV to watt ratio is a bit better than that, probably about 1.5x's on the liberal end and 2.5x's being conservative. Plants need UV and flourescent (except for the lower bands, actinic for example) are actually designed to almost completely block out UV.
my 10G was the best example, with 200W of incandescent lighting the plants exploded. I could have fit maybe 50W with CFs or NO flourescents in that hood. Normally you would say flourescents are about 4x's as efficient with the best lamps and best ballasts compared to an incandescent plugged directly into the wall.
The big problem is that the efficiency goes for heat too. 400W of incandescent will put out about as much heat as a 1000W metal halide. Having 6+ under an aquarium hood isn't the safest thing you can do.. but it doesn't hurt to add one or two to an aquarium that can fit them without the lighting getting so hot it can melt plastic or boil your aquarium water.
T5s are pretty awesome though, they take up so much less space than a flourescent. In fact, I just started reading about them last night and I got excited figuring how many I could fit into my aquarium hood.
In my niece's Nano I put a T5 in place of the incandescent it had (picked it up online and used a cheapo electric 20W ballast and endcaps from t8/t12 lamps, before I knew T5s were so cool), brightest aquarium I've ever seen.. even beat out my 29G reef with 300W of compact flourescent in overall 'wow' factor.
edit; to make myself clear without overcomplicating..
incandescents produce much more UV and as much (or more) light than a flourescent per square inch. They use as much as 4x's as much power and in turn as much as 4 times more heat per lumen.. 200W of incandescents on a 55G aquarium is flat out cheap and easy to set up and will produce as much as a 40W flourescent with a higher CRI and more UV output... plus they take up far less space. 4 will produce 4 times as much as a single 40W flourescent and still take up less space while costing only a fraction of what a multitube flourescent system would cost.
You can probably fit 1000W of incandescent in a place where at most you can fit 200W of compact flourescents (4 CFs or 10 incandescents). Flourescent are more efficient for light output but incandescents have a higher CRI on average, even the flourescents with a high CRI have trouble matching an incandescent. CRIs of 99 aren't uncommon with an incandescent, theyr'e about as close to sunlight as you can get unless you spend quite a bit on an MH system.
Even if the incandescent require 4Xs more energy for the same lumens the UV to watt ratio is a bit better than that, probably about 1.5x's on the liberal end and 2.5x's being conservative. Plants need UV and flourescent (except for the lower bands, actinic for example) are actually designed to almost completely block out UV.
my 10G was the best example, with 200W of incandescent lighting the plants exploded. I could have fit maybe 50W with CFs or NO flourescents in that hood. Normally you would say flourescents are about 4x's as efficient with the best lamps and best ballasts compared to an incandescent plugged directly into the wall.
The big problem is that the efficiency goes for heat too. 400W of incandescent will put out about as much heat as a 1000W metal halide. Having 6+ under an aquarium hood isn't the safest thing you can do.. but it doesn't hurt to add one or two to an aquarium that can fit them without the lighting getting so hot it can melt plastic or boil your aquarium water.
T5s are pretty awesome though, they take up so much less space than a flourescent. In fact, I just started reading about them last night and I got excited figuring how many I could fit into my aquarium hood.
In my niece's Nano I put a T5 in place of the incandescent it had (picked it up online and used a cheapo electric 20W ballast and endcaps from t8/t12 lamps, before I knew T5s were so cool), brightest aquarium I've ever seen.. even beat out my 29G reef with 300W of compact flourescent in overall 'wow' factor.
edit; to make myself clear without overcomplicating..
incandescents produce much more UV and as much (or more) light than a flourescent per square inch. They use as much as 4x's as much power and in turn as much as 4 times more heat per lumen.. 200W of incandescents on a 55G aquarium is flat out cheap and easy to set up and will produce as much as a 40W flourescent with a higher CRI and more UV output... plus they take up far less space. 4 will produce 4 times as much as a single 40W flourescent and still take up less space while costing only a fraction of what a multitube flourescent system would cost.
Last edited:
