Refugium Light Spectrum

[FraggledRock]

High pressure sodium bulbs contain mercury, So if you run them you better not bust one in your tank.

Halide would be a safer option. But an inexpensive incandescent or flouresent bulb from Home Depot would work and use less energy.

Ahh I think knowing my luck coupled with clumsiness, I will stay clear of them for now! haha I appreciate the input and warning =P

 

[ca1ore]

My experience with Chaeto is that if the water conditions are conducive, it will grow well under just about any kind of light. FWIW, I have to supplement iron in my tank in order to get good growth.

 

[FraggledRock]

My experience with Chaeto is that if the water conditions are conducive, it will grow well under just about any kind of light. FWIW, I have to supplement iron in my tank in order to get good growth.

interesting. LOL I might as well just use TAP water haha

 

[reefchase]

most people use 6500k light fr cheto

 

[FishN00b83]

I use a Phillips 65w LED daylight flood light in a Home Depot clamp fixture and I need to take a 5g bucket full of cheato out every 2 weeks. I have a 125 with a 40g sump. my fuge is only 11g

 

[DamonG]

High pressure sodium bulbs contain mercury, So if you run them you better not bust one in your tank.

Halide would be a safer option. But an inexpensive incandescent or flouresent bulb from Home Depot would work and use less energy.

Lol, halides and florescents also contain mercury (there is a combination of gases in them) Any bulb that contains a gas is a risk of you are careless. But no need to scare anyone.. Lol


And also, if you would take a look at the power consumption of the low wattage models and fixtures (i love when people don't know what they are taking about on forums), the energy consumption is just about the same, but, when you factor in the power of the bulb, to get the equivalent, you need to have many more incandescent(highly ineffective means of lighting that wastes most of its energy in heat) and tons more florescent bulbs(very low power comparison, great for a few inches, but the power level drops off massively after a few inches, and the bulbs require much more frequent replacement, and, above all of that expensive).

Yes, you can buy a cheap florescent fixture from Home Depot not designed purposefully for growing plants, spend 30.00 on it, and in 6 months after minimal (and I'm mean minimal) growth and nutrient extraction, replace 20.00 in bulbs, or you can buy a cheapo cfl that may grow ok, but same thing, while using the exact same electricity.

Or you can but something with some power(, replace the bulb for 10.00-15.00 in two to three years (only when it will fire and turn off), grow "great" (too many times, people say "Oh it will grow" but what type of growth rate), spend 65.00 and be done with it, and on top of that, have the ability to use it in an upgraded system, grow great, without any additional purchase?

Is up to the individual of course, but I'm one to buy something sensible" once" and be done with it. Simply put, short of a full blown led fixture such as a photon, hydra, radion(as i have tried to use all the other mentioned methods on this and other threads) or, the mogul based cfl systems around 200 watts, the sodium, for cheato cannot be compared.. And lol, until you use one (lol, check out d2mini's crazy cheato ball), have experienced it, and can compare, lol, you really don't know.

And oh, lol, on my current system, i too tried the cheap method(as suggested here) and could not get growth. I then tested adding iron. Yes, it grew slow and didn't die, but then i thought to myself "why should i have to add anything when I'm trying to extract" and also "you've done this before, why in the world are you listening to them when they haven't".. After all, that's the goal, effective extraction of nutrients through growth..

Added the sodium, stopped the iron, bam! Exploded growth and massive nitrate drop, as it always does.. The more light you throw at it, the more energy the plant (in this case cheato) will extract nutrient levels that under less energy, it cannot do. And because it's under water, you don't have to worry about sun spots, etc.

I just upgraded my sump, and when you start growing cheato good, you really find the limiting factor is sump size, as you produce so much and it pulls that much nutrient(add to that, as it gets used to the light, it just grows faster and faster). My cheato is a "natural" bubble trap. I pull a fresh stuffed(i think they are the 2 gallon size) ziplock bag every 10 days at least, and even then, that's not a dent in what i have.


My recommendation comes out of experience and lots of wasted money(and time) attempting to get good growth that will allow me to extract cost effectively(honestly, if your thinking about the pennies your spending running this thing versus an incandescent bulb when you factor in all that a tank uses as far as electricity, you're in the wrong hobby) and not need to keep upgrading over and over again, thus, utterly wasting money..

 

[DamonG]

My experience with Chaeto is that if the water conditions are conducive, it will grow well under just about any kind of light. FWIW, I have to supplement iron in my tank in order to get good growth.

Basically what your saying is your water conditions, or better yet, the conditions in general are non condusive to good growth. But my challenge is, what if you have a very well maintained system with low nutrients that you just enjoy growing? Then, you will begin to look at the whole picture. You don't have to (never should have to) add additional elements to make, what grows as basically a weed, grow. All your doing is adding more to the mix that "potentially" could affect something else (iron addition is sort of a band aid that can, cause algea growth everywhere, not just in the sump). I do not want that unnecessary risk, or that additional dosing chore(i dose enough as it is with calcium, mag, alk and nitrogen consumption)..

My system, i have to add nitrogen to it because of this light.. I am not talking about a system that has 10ppm,5ppm or even 2ppm nitrate. Mine "stays" at zero! And has since i added this thing. It really is beautiful.. The cheato consumes approx 2ppm nitrogen a day in my 18*12 fuge area. I recently just discovered this interesting tidbit.. Before adding the lamp, I was getting 2 ppm nitrate every test.. And the nitrate drop coinsided with the purchase and initial growth spurt(approx 10 days) with this light. I am now dosing nitrogen simply for coral color and bacteria food(i will take adding nitrogen and keeping it controlled at 0.5ppm over having higher levels uncontrolled any day).
But this one purchase decision can and does make that massive of a difference..

 

[fermentedhiker]

My problem with HPS lights is cost of operation. Most of what you see out there are 150-400W fixtures. These generate far more output than can be used in a sump situation. For example a 150W HPS fixture is rated at 16000 lumens! Not sure what the par would be but I have to think it would be similarly through the roof high. Your going to spending money generating wasted photons IMO.

Now if you drop down to something more normal like a 50W HPS(2500 lm) and compare it to a 2700K 42W CFL(2600 lm) it starts to look more reasonable. The CFL is slightly more efficient and has a lower cost of operation, but if you factor in 6 month bulb changes the HPS probably wins out. I just don't see many of those small wattage HPS around(at least with decent reflectors as opposed to the wallpack units for going over exterior doors).

It would be worth trying if I could find the fixture cheap enough. Otherwise I'd just spend the money up front for an LED based fixture and accept that it'll take a couple years to pay me back for the increased purchase price.

 

[DamonG]

Hi

My problem with HPS lights is cost of operation. Most of what you see out there are 150-400W fixtures. These generate far more output than can be used in a sump situation. For example a 150W HPS fixture is rated at 16000 lumens! Not sure what the par would be but I have to think it would be similarly through the roof high. Your going to spending money generating wasted photons IMO.

Now if you drop down to something more normal like a 50W HPS(2500 lm) and compare it to a 2700K 42W CFL(2600 lm) it starts to look more reasonable. The CFL is slightly more efficient and has a lower cost of operation, but if you factor in 6 month bulb changes the HPS probably wins out. I just don't see many of those small wattage HPS around(at least with decent reflectors as opposed to the wallpack units for going over exterior doors).

It would be worth trying if I could find the fixture cheap enough. Otherwise I'd just spend the money up front for an LED based fixture and accept that it'll take a couple years to pay me back for the increased purchase price.

Lol, i beg to differ and i think those using them would also.. Your not wasting at all.. Conversely, that is the "traditional" thinking i would say. We aren't plants, so let the plants decide. And honestly, no matter what you buy, your going to waste in some way, whether light spill, etc. I would prefer to "waste" on growth. Actual growth.. The light (footcandles, par, lux, etc) is not wasted at all. This is a mindset that land based plant growers that are tech savvy, let go of long, long ago.. It's simple :more light equals more growth, with all other things being equal. So it's far from wasted. My fuge area i replaced, it was 6*12*6 and it grew it great! That, is a small fuge, and it certainly was not wasted.. It is more technical and i guess "less logical" to a person not into plants, but it's just the simple truth. It is the fundamental element to indoor growing that just happens to apply exceptionally well to aquariums also,but with added benefits to the rest of the system.. Co2 absorption and hence oxygenation, increased and stabilized pH, thus positively impacting alkalinity, calcium consumption and other things, that ultimately benefit our animals and life.. Not too mention, the pod and life population is utterly insane(so increased food production)..

And lol, how much cheaper per month do you really want? I'm only taking about 150 watts.. Lol, that's nothing! If you even have say a 300 gallon system with an underneath sump, these lights now are "tiny" and can fit almost anywhere.. Moving up to higher wattage, that's only i would think needed when you decide to do say large areas(over maybe 3*3 feet). All you have to do is look at the specs on the lights, they are rated for growth..

And I guess I'm just not that pressed for a few bucks when honestly, I'm throwing wattage away on pumps, other lights, a heater, fans, etc. Not too mention consumables like salt, etc. I am in this hobby to enjoy, not micro manage. That would completely ruin it for me, if i had to keep track of every little thing. Like i said though, I'm not one for upgrading a million times when i don't have to. But I understand everyone isn't in that mindset.. However, there really is no way to punch holes in this light debate if you know anything about plants and plant growth (accelerated indoor growth)..

And me personally, I wouldn't even mess with a 50 watt sodium, what's the point? Your using these for growing and not reading a book: more light wins.. I have done too much with plants to only "get by". And the same with aquariums. When i first began, only 400 watt hid fixtures and up were available and it has trickled down slowly over the decades. 150 watt, energy consumption is nothing, heat is nothing, but it still has that "HID punch" power to it, that not even the small halides have. If they came out with a 50 that had some kick (like over 8000 lumens/footcandles and the fixture was designed right, i might try it, but i like what the 150 does.. And it's cheap to both buy and run..

And lol try putting that 50 watt(or better yet, a 42 watt cfl) on a mat 6" deep of cheato and see how it grows and looks on the bottom.. That's why people talk about tumbling it, there is no power behind their light! You don't "have" to tumble anything (unless you just want to for effect) with enough light strength..

 

[ca1ore]

Basically what your saying is your water conditions, or better yet, the conditions in general are non condusive to good growth. But my challenge is, what if you have a very well maintained system with low nutrients that you just enjoy growing? Then, you will begin to look at the whole picture. You don't have to (never should have to) add additional elements to make, what grows as basically a weed, grow. All your doing is adding more to the mix that "potentially" could affect something else (iron addition is sort of a band aid that can, cause algea growth everywhere, not just in the sump). I do not want that unnecessary risk, or that additional dosing chore(i dose enough as it is with calcium, mag, alk and nitrogen consumption)..

My system, i have to add nitrogen to it because of this light.. I am not talking about a system that has 10ppm,5ppm or even 2ppm nitrate. Mine "stays" at zero! And has since i added this thing. It really is beautiful.. The cheato consumes approx 2ppm nitrogen a day in my 18*12 fuge area. I recently just discovered this interesting tidbit.. Before adding the lamp, I was getting 2 ppm nitrate every test.. And the nitrate drop coinsided with the purchase and initial growth spurt(approx 10 days) with this light. I am now dosing nitrogen simply for coral color and bacteria food(i will take adding nitrogen and keeping it controlled at 0.5ppm over having higher levels uncontrolled any day).
But this one purchase decision can and does make that massive of a difference..

I suppose I'd trot out the old saw 'every reef is different' in terms of what makes sense and what does not make sense. The reality is that regardless of what your test kits say, there is nitrate and phosphate in every system. I do my testing due diligence as well, and my measures come back at 'zero' too, yet I am able to grow algae on my ATS and chaeto in my refugium - just by using a bog standard LED bulb from HD for the latter. Whether one wishes to dose beyond the 'big three' is, of course, a matter of personal preference. All has been discussed in the Reef Chemistry forum for years; suffice it to say, that there are circumstances where iron supplementation may be warranted - remember, corals need algae too.

 

[ca1ore]

interesting. LOL I might as well just use TAP water haha

Yes, I suppose there is some irony to the fact that we take all this time to strip everything from our source water, and then proceed to add back a whole load of crap :lol:

 

[fermentedhiker]

I'm not trying to start something but fyi all the lol's etc... is patronizing and is little more than a passive aggressive insult. If you can't be respectful of people who have a different opinion why be on a public forum where everyone has an opinion.

I'm sorry but the idea that you can't waste light on plants is just plain wrong. All plants including algae have growth limiting factors. Depending on the system it might be light, Phosphate, Nitrogen, CO2, or iron and on and on. Once you hit the upper limit of one or more of those factors adding more light doesn't accomplish anything.

The fact that I don't completely agree with your statements doesn't mean I'm not into plants or have experience with them. On the contrary I spend a lot of time working on getting my freshwater planted tanks to grow well. I have an orchard and a garden as well. While I don't claim to be an expert in any of these areas I think I still have something to add to the discussion.

Your setup works for you and that's great. That doesn't mean there aren't viable options out there.

 

[Kenmx10]

DamonG.

I stand corrected on the Mercury content and need to retract my statement. In the past I remember a debate that the HPS bulbs had a much higher mercury content and MH for the most part was very minimal, and that because of this the Halide was the choice for aquarist.

But I can't find this information anywhere, or any data to support this statement. In fact I may have been confused with a Mercury Vapor Bulb. It appears that the problem with the sodium bulb was the poorer color rendering and coral growth. Corals had minimal growth and algae grew like crazy. Which is exactly the opposite of what people want in their tank. But what many people want in their sump.

 

[DamonG]

I suppose I'd trot out the old saw 'every reef is different' in terms of what makes sense and what does not make sense. The reality is that regardless of what your test kits say, there is nitrate and phosphate in every system. I do my testing due diligence as well, and my measures come back at 'zero' too, yet I am able to grow algae on my ATS and chaeto in my refugium - just by using a bog standard LED bulb from HD for the latter. Whether one wishes to dose beyond the 'big three' is, of course, a matter of personal preference. All has been discussed in the Reef Chemistry forum for years; suffice it to say, that there are circumstances where iron supplementation may be warranted - remember, corals need algae too.

I guess, i don't get your point? If there is something about hps lamps and growing cheato "recently", that compares or contrasts to what i am proposing, please share the link. I am all ears..

I still stand by my recommendation to the OP..

 

[DamonG]

I'm a happy person and enjoy sharing. I do find things funny, i am a human and humor is part of living. Nothing passive aggressive about it. Just facts. I am sorry that you took it that way because i basically explained "a few" things about light, that you wandered into. I didn't force you to reply in this public forum, so please, don't take my comments out of context and make them personal and an excuse to attack.

Now, since my joking nature was taken as passive aggressive, i know this is gonna floor you and I'm gonna be blunt.. Lol, and yes, i said Lol because I look back on things, when someone like yourself says "limiting factors about plants" i always, always ask, well, those limiting factors, have you personally enriched or pushed anything, or, are you just going off of just watering plants with tap water and some miracle grow under a florescent shop light. The latter is not me by a long shot.

Since you broke down your experience, i will share a bit of mine. I am 40,have been keeping aquariums since I was 8,delved into saltwater at 19,and at that same time, i took off into hydroponics and beer brewing. The latter two fundamentally changed my knowledge and experience level with plants, lighting, water, oxygen and it's effects, etc.. I worked at a hydroponic and beer needing store for two years where i became very, very interested in co2 for its properties and effects on plants. Respiration(plant) was and still is another interest of mine. I began grafting plants at 21 and making my own nutrient formulas. My favorite system route was and still is aeroponics, for the speed and native oxygen rich environment that plant roots live in (much like nft systems). Buy now, if you've read, you should have a clear understanding of where I'm going with this. If not, many, many things with aquariums and hydro systems overlap.. And because hydroponics is very, very controlled and accelerated growth, you can indeed both reap the benefits and also bend the "theoretical" rules..

All the while, I was forced to be exposed to light and lighting. It's effects, it's drawbacks, each mediums strengths and weaknesses. I am not an arrogant person by any means, but if i am going to soak on something, it's only from experience. My goal, always, and most people's goals are one in the same. Mine may be more or less aggressive and technical. But the thing is, until you hit a limit on something (which you will know that you have with plants, be it underwater or above, the will be clear indicators). Therefore, until you have exhausted all means (and a small amount of c02 injection i would take in order to assimilate more light over adding another element), the "limit" of light is very, very far away. The contrary in this case is pretty accurate. Light 9/10 of the time.. Let me specify, "the correct light, quantity of light and correct spectrum, along with photoperiod" is what is lacking in our systems, not nutrient by a long shot..

And ultimately, whether or not the op takes my suggestions, there is "sound theory" behind a decision, and not just "Oh, it will do".. And no one said a single thing about not having a point of view. But you included yourself upon" my" suggestion saying it's wasting light and unless you have some knowledge that i do not, or I'm totally missing something, you, if respect and aggression were to be brought in, brought it in with a lack of knowledge that someone else has that you do not.Me saying that is not a disrespect or any sort of passive aggressive of any means. It just sounds like the fact. And sorry that Lol offended you.. And i also would suggest that, if you cannot take an opposing viewpoint that might enlighten you, maybe, just maybe you shouldn't say something is "wrong" or a "waste", because in actuality, you don't know.

But the thing to keep in mind with "any" growth.. Any type of growth at all, is environmental factors determine the outcome. These factors can be manipulated, this bringing about different outcomes. I and others bent the rules with lighting our fuges and the results are fantastic. Doesn't detract from anyone doing something less aggressive, but when someone tries to say something as "matter of fact", that person better and should honestly know what they are talking about..

 

[DamonG]

DamonG.

I stand corrected on the Mercury content and need to retract my statement. In the past I remember a debate that the HPS bulbs had a much higher mercury content and MH for the most part was very minimal, and that because of this the Halide was the choice for aquarist.

But I can't find this information anywhere, or any data to support this statement. In fact I may have been confused with a Mercury Vapor Bulb. It appears that the problem with the sodium bulb was the poorer color rendering and coral growth. Corals had minimal growth and algae grew like crazy. Which is exactly the opposite of what people want in their tank. But what many people want in their sump.

No problem dude (or dudette). Honestly, a ton of the actual bulb stuff, i forgot and it comes back to me in bits and pieces. And not sure on the content, but yes, a sodium(and lower kelvin halide also) I'm sure would make coral look horrible, and growing almost next to nothing probably.. And exactly what you got on is the reason it actually works well..

 

[ca1ore]

I guess, i don't get your point? If there is something about hps lamps and growing cheato "recently", that compares or contrasts to what i am proposing, please share the link. I am all ears..

I still stand by my recommendation to the OP..

Ah, yes, research ....... not a lot of that to be found unfortunately as relates specifically to chaeto.

Sorry if I was unclear. Simply stated, I do not believe it necessary to go beyond a standard 5000K (or 6500K) LED bulb to get chaeto to grow. And if it doesn't grow under such lighting conditions, I believe one should look elsewhere for the reason. Nothing wrong with HPS lamps. Used Dupla HPS lamps over my FW tanks back in 1985 and they do indeed grow plants well, I just think there are better options now.

 

[DamonG]

Ah, yes, research ....... not a lot of that to be found unfortunately as relates specifically to chaeto.

Sorry if I was unclear. Simply stated, I do not believe it necessary to go beyond a standard 5000K (or 6500K) LED bulb to get chaeto to grow. And if it doesn't grow under such lighting conditions, I believe one should look elsewhere for the reason. Nothing wrong with HPS lamps. Used Dupla HPS lamps over my FW tanks back in 1985 and they do indeed grow plants well, I just think there are better options now.

And you know dude, "technically" i agree. I actually think you don't "need" it either just to grow. But, it grows better with that lower kelvin. I ran the mogul cfl at 6500k and also 2700k(200 watts each) on my old sump . There was a distinct difference in the growth of the 2700 area. It was tighter, grew faster and the color was much brighter until it got to the last 1/2" at the bottom.

I was, thinking, according to my experience that the lower k would make it more stringy, but it was just the opposite. Given, under the higher k, the cheato color was much darker green to green/blue, but besides that, there was nothing else that compelled me to continue using it. The sodium, i just looked at the footcandles /lux the first time and said I'd try it. Worse case scenario, i could use it for some determinate tomatoes or hot peppers. But the unit passed with flying colors! I, also tried a 165 watt breeder manual led fixture. I had to turn the blue all the way down to off and the white channel all the way up to get maybe half of the growth i was getting with the mogul cfl bulbs. The clip on lights with various wattage cfl home depot or Lowes flood lights, they were ok, but they actually produced the most heat transfer to the system and the plants, probably because of non purpose reflectors.. Not sure..

But i agree with you, there may be better options somewhere, and id entertain .. But it's really have to see and experience it, because these sodium fixtures are downright insane..

And the other thing is bulb and other technology has come a massively long way in the last couple years with horticulture. The levels my unit puts out, I purchased a 175 halide about 5 years ago, and even with a hortilux bulb, it only put out i believe 8k lux. It's worth giving a revisit or at least talking with someone about..

 

[Relethg]

DamonG, sure would like to see picture of your sump.

 

[DamonG]

DamonG, sure would like to see picture of your sump.

Not a problem..

Big one is the new(my first that i have built), small one is the old. And the big one is when i first set it up last week, with cheato transferred from the old. I will take another in a bit when i get out of bed. The small one shows dates of progress. And the bowl is my first harvest. I am getting double that now..