# Killies Import > Planted Tanks >  'low iron" glass for tanks?

## ruyle

Folks,
I've finally arrived at what size my new tank is going to be: 36"x16"x16Hi.
To have this made using low iron glass on 4 sides is an extra $45USD. I
would like to know if this glass is used in SG and what are your thoughts
about it. The above dimensions of the tank is what the old 40-gallon metaframe tank was, way back when, and these particular dimensions are no longer used for 40 gallon tanks in glass. Glasscages.com is making the
tank for me and I would like to hear suggestions on lighting for it. Thanks.

Bill

----------


## FC

Hi Bill,

When I got my planted tank, I was very inclined to get a 3 footer like you and the height and width was about the same too. It looks just the right size and proportion. After some advises from a veteran, Edward Yeo, I finally decided to go for 4'x2'x2'. It was a big decision for me because this is the largest tank I was getting then. I was concern about the large size and what/how I am going to do with it.

When the tank arrive at my door step, all I have is "wow, that's my tank? It's owesome!". I was the happiest man on earth.

I agree with Edward that 4 footer is idea size because it offers:
1) good space for aquascape
2) wide range selection of lamps (4ft lamps offer the widest choices)
3) the 4ft lamps are also cheaper here
4) allow higher tank height (good proportion vs length) which is important for stem plant growth

----------


## ruyle

> I agree with Edward that 4 footer is idea size because it offers:
> 1) good space for aquascape
> 2) wide range selection of lamps (4ft lamps offer the widest choices)
> 3) the 4ft lamps are also cheaper here
> 4) allow higher tank height (good proportion vs length) which is important for stem plant growth


Freddy, I agree completely, and when we move to Thailand, that is the
size of one of our tanks, about a 120gallon. I don't want to spend that
much on something I would have to sell, or give away when it's time to
permanently move to Thailand. A 4x2x2 is a magnificent size. The one
I want is in proportion to it, just smaller, and was my favorite metaframe
many years ago. I would want to use T5s when we move to Thailand and
I believe they are easily available over there...(?) 4foot NO fluorescents
I don't believe are up to task to light the bottom of a 2foot deep tank. The
40 gallon will be lit by 2x36w or 2x55w cf lighting.

Thanks for your post, the above 4 points you made in choosing the right
size tank should be a "sticky" somewhere.  :Wink:  

Regards,

Bill

----------


## FC

> 4foot NO fluorescents
> I don't believe are up to task to light the bottom of a 2foot deep tank.



This is my setup in Jul 2003. Guess how much light I used?

----------


## ruyle

Freddy,
First off, wow! nice tank. I'd say about 1.5-2 watts per gallon.

Bill

----------


## Pconnieae

Hi all,

Freddy, it is a really nice setup  :Smile:  .

What is the plant on the right in the foreground?

----------


## stormhawk

My guess is _Blyxa japonica_.. and very green too.  :Very Happy:

----------


## ruyle

> My guess is _Blyxa japonica_.. and very green too.


So that's what it looks like when it grows up! (I have a small one that's
growing slowly). I'd say our Freddy has a wet and very green thumb!
Beautiful specimens, all! BTW, Freddy, was I way off in my guess about
your lighting?  :Confused:  

Bill

----------


## timebomb

> I'd say our Freddy has a wet and very green thumb!


Without question, Freddy truly is one accomplished aquatic gardener. His tank is testimony to his skills. I saw his previous aquascape and I'm very sure I have never seen anyone grow the _Elatine triandra_ as beautifully as him. His grows so thick and are so healthy they are several inches in height. Most incredible of all, there's no algae in Freddy's tank. He is the Singapore equivalent of Tom Barr  :Laughing: 

Loh K L

----------


## FC

KL, 
I am flattered by your words. I am far from a good plant guy, my aquascapes are often bad.
For those who do not know, KL was the person who brought me into this hobby. I knew him through his post in thekrib.com which at that time, not many website talks about planted tank. His generousity is way beyond many hobbyists I knew of, Ronnie is being another exception. KL offer lots of help, time, plants, introduce me to Edward, etc. Thank you.

Hi Bill,
I used NO tri-phos tubes 36watts x 4, 36watts x 6 would be ideal.

Yes, the foreground/midground plants are B. Japonica.
Below is the side view.

And this was how it first started


Notice the Narrow Java Fern wall, the best one I ever saw was at "Mr Fish" fish shop's 8 footer.
Notice the Ludwigia Brevipes, the best one was (may be still there) at Sam Yick's Marine Parade shop's 5 footer. It took me 3 months to finally climatise this plant. The photo cannot justify their beauty, at the top where they received the most light, they were pinkish orange - like flower but they are leafs, just breathtaking. It is still my favourite stem plant.

----------


## FC

Bill,
If you are able to find a good light shop, try getting these tubes:
1) Panasonic FL40SS.Ex-D/36 (PA-Look series lamp)
- 36 watts
- diameter 26 mm, Length 1198 mm
- 3,250 lumens, Ra 88, 67K
- lifespan 10,000 hrs
2) Hitachi F40T9/EX-D Hi-Lumic D

- 37 watts
- diameter 28 mm, Length 1198 mm
- 3,350 lumens, Ra more than 85, about 65K
- lifespan 12,000 hrs

They are the "extra bright" tubes. Both are better lamps for planted tank. Panasonic being narrower in diameter will have higher intensiy to penetrate deep water better.

----------


## ruyle

> They are the "extra bright" tubes. Both are better lamps for planted tank. Panasonic being narrower in diameter will have higher intensiy to penetrate deep water better.


Freddy, what I've seen over here is Coralifes, Zoo-Med that are in this
kelvin range. I'm quite impressed with how T-8s can illuminate this
deep a tank. What kind of reflectors are you using with these? Coralife
makes an expandable reflector I've been thinking of using. I'll be looking
for these bulbs and thanks for the info  :Wink:  

Bill

----------


## FC

Hi Bill,
Coralifes and Zoo-Med lamps are, as you knew, purpose built lamps for aquarium. They very expensive here, 5~10 times the price of the lamps I use. I have no experience with them, they should (must with that kind of price) be good. However, in terms of build quality I think the Japan made lamps (getting rare these days) that I am use are as good if not better. The plant-useful light spectrum of the tri-phosphor ("extra bright") lamps that I use should be very close to them, at least 95%, I think. Therefore, I would not pay that money to get that remaining 5%.

I am using the shop light reflector, the buffed aluminium type. I bought the reflector meant for single tube and squeezed 2 tubes in. This is crucial consideration for every planted tank where the tank top has limited space for such fixture. If one keep this humble reflector clean and polish it every 3 months, they will do a good job. The high reflective reflector that you mentioned are readily available here. However, again they are expensive, as part of the design, they have very small area of reflecting panel. Thus, it is less forgiving when comes to maintenance to keep it in top yield.

----------


## felixe

I think that they are not Blyxa japonica...
Sorry...  :Opps:  

http://gene.postech.ac.kr/a_plant/de...?id=6148111003
http://www2.tomato.ne.jp/~shin/spot/4blyxa.html
http://www2.neweb.ne.jp/wc/i-ueno/blyxa.html

----------


## whuntley

> They are the "extra bright" tubes. Both are better lamps for planted tank. Panasonic being narrower in diameter will have higher intensiy to penetrate deep water better.


Sorry, but this is not quite right.

The diameter has nothing whatsoever to do with ability to penetrate deeper tanks. Smaller diameter tubes do tend to have higher brightness (not intensity -- Watts/cm^2, vs Watts) and thereby lend themselves to more efficient direction of the light with mirror-like reflectors.

They have barely above zero advantage in brushed or other non-specular reflectors, and only the higher Einsteins/Watt of the smaller diameter is any advantage (if it is present).

Given a choice, I'd always select a T-5 over a T-8 over a T-12, because the Einsteins/Watt will average higher for any given phosphor, and I can devise a specular reflector design to get more of that energy down into the water. Once there, penetration is unimportant. If the water is fairly clean, the light-pipe effect of total internal reflection at the walls will get nearly all the light at the surface to any of the substrate that isn't shaded by leaves higher up. It is simple optical physics and it works.

Wright
Who used to be an optical engineer until he retired.

----------


## FC

TH Kim,
In the market, the oreintal book and in forums, the plant is often refer to as B. Japonica. I am not sure if your source is reliable. If it is, then it would be the (Ｂｌｙｘａ　ｅｃｈｉｎｏｓｐｅｒｍａ＝ Ｂｌｙｘａ　ｃｅｒａｔｏｓｐｅｒｍａ).

Wright,
My view is based on visual observation by comparing the 2 tubes and the below calculation:
1) Both tubes are having the same consumption wattage (not really important here) and almost the same light output (3250 vs 3350 lumens).
2) The surface area of the smaller tubes are obviously lesser than the bigger one
3) Therefore, there are more lumens per area (I term it as intensity) for the smaller tube.
Or I am wrong (again)?  :Opps:

----------


## whuntley

> 3) Therefore, there are more lumens per area (I term it as intensity) for the smaller tube.
> Or I am wrong (again)?


Almost there, Freddy. Intensity is total energy, usually expressed as Watts (of output, not input). For plants pretty good units are Einsteins, which is a count of photons emitted. You may have noticed that lamp makers don't give a damn about those.  :Very Happy: 

[Lumens have essentially no meaning to anything but the human eye, and particularly not to plants. Lower lumen lamps (e.g., daylight or broad spectrum) usually have more energy out in the red and blue ends of the spectrum that is useful for photosynthesis but may look a bit dim. The human eye is 10X more sensitive to green than to either blue or red. Lumens are biased toward green and heavily discount the red and blue that the plants need. CW lamps have that same bias, BTW.]

Watts per unit area is called brightness, usually, not intensity. Yes. The smaller tubes are a great deal brighter. It is often enough to be obvious to the eye.

Wright

----------


## FC

Hi Wright,

If the smaller (reduced diameter, to be exact) tube is brighter, wouldn't it direct the light better which result in having better capability to penetrate deeper water?

----------


## whuntley

The smaller the source, the easier it is to collimate it (get the light all going in one direction) in a given size reflector. As a result, small diameter tubes can be more efficient in a good reflector design, for the skinny tube intercepts less of the reflected light (known as restrike). Smaller tubes are more efficient users of the phosphors, too.

More light getting past the tube is a good thing, but it doesn't help penetration of deeper water.

Light entering the water is bent downward if it is at an angle to the surface, so inside the water, all light is down at about 45 degrees or more and almost none is hitting the side glass at an angle that will let it get out. At angles greater than the so-called "critical angle" the light is reflected totally by the glass, so a bare tank acts like a huge light pipe. Except for a negligible few percent in the red due to absorption, even a very deep tank will have nearly all light that enters reaching the bottom, unless it hits leaves or substrate that let it be absorbed or reflected out through the glass.

It is an old myth that deep tanks need brighter light because of the depth. Tanks with a lot more plants need more light because the plants create shadows and reflect a lot of light out of the tank. Only if the depth allows more plants to grow taller does depth have anything to do with it.

Lots of algae on the glass can frustrate the total internal reflection, and serious turbidity can increase absorption with depth In both cases, the results are obvious to the eye and the scatter sources make the tank harder to view.

In a tank with a still surface on the water, notice that there is very little light on the table near the tank. When the water surface is disturbed, some light can be beyond the critical angle and flickering light can be seen on the table outside the tank. Normally, most of the light leaving the tank sides is reflected from plants or substrate.

Wright

----------


## felixe

> In the market, the oreintal book and in forums, the plant is often refer to as B. Japonica.


Yep. I already knew that, sorry...
But, I thought that the scientific names must be used more carefully in this water-plant areas, just like the killi-thing.
(Actually, "Tropica" and Holly "ADA" did the same mistakes a few years ago.  :Wink: 
In my humble opinion, it should be called as "_Blyxa_ spp." or simply "short-leaf Blyxa" whatever, not _Blyxa japonica_.





> I am not sure if your source is reliable.


"_B.japonica_"z are live in Japan and Korea as the name refers, and those links that I listed were from reliable persons, IMO...
(One from a famous water-plant hobbyist from Japan, and one from a Korean Botanist who specialize in Korean native vascular hydrophytes... )

----------

