# Planted Tanks > Beginners' Corner >  Difference between normal household FL lights and aquarium lights.

## Newbiebetta

As stated above, what are the differences between both?

----------


## Philosophos

So long as it's the same system (T-5, T-8, or CF) the only real difference is the spectrum of the bulb. A good plant bulb tries to keep UV spectrum light to a minimum since algae makes use of this spectrum. At the same time, it helps by keeping a large part of its output in the 420-510nm and 640-680nm ranges to stimulate chlorophyll types a and b, plus carotenoids. When buying a bulb, K rating can be used for a first examination, but full graphs showing the nanometers and intensity will be much more helpful.

-Philosophos

----------


## Verminator

> So long as it's the same system (T-5, T-8, or CF) the only real difference is the spectrum of the bulb. A good plant bulb tries to keep UV spectrum light to a minimum since algae makes use of this spectrum. At the same time, it helps by keeping a large part of its output in the 420-510nm and 640-680nm ranges to stimulate chlorophyll types a and b, plus carotenoids. When buying a bulb, K rating can be used for a first examination, but *full graphs showing the nanometers and intensity will be much more helpful*.
> 
> -Philosophos


Assuming you can make use and understand them, something i'm yet to manage. Although i get the basic principles in light wanted, and light we'd rather avoid. Understanding what the best balance is, and what bulbs will give me the desired affect is where i look at these graphs and just pick at random. Something in the future i'm hoping to understand more.

I was under the impression that normal household bulbs are predominatly just white light. Obviously with colours in, but nothing like that of whats in an aquarium bulb? Maybe that's just me being naive, i don't know?

----------


## Philosophos

> Assuming you can make use and understand them, something i'm yet to manage. Although i get the basic principles in light wanted, and light we'd rather avoid. Understanding what the best balance is, and what bulbs will give me the desired affect is where i look at these graphs and just pick at random. Something in the future i'm hoping to understand more.
> 
> I was under the impression that normal household bulbs are predominatly just white light. Obviously with colours in, but nothing like that of whats in an aquarium bulb? Maybe that's just me being naive, i don't know?


If you can handle wikipedia when it gets full of science, read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorophyll
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosy...tive_radiation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carotenoid

These links will give you far more information than I can fully grasp. If you want the easy explanation as a primer for this stuff, read on.

Well, when you look at PAR (photosynthetically active radiation) graphs, you'll see all these spikes over something like a bumpy mountain scape. This lets you know something about the waves of radiation that the light produces. Some kinds of chlorophyll use one frequency, others use something different, and there's a lot of overlap. If it helps, think of resonance frequencies with noise. Drink half a beer, blow over the rim of the bottle and listen for the sound it makes. Drink the rest and do it again. Same idea.

So then, within these types of chlorophyll, we've got A and B to be primarily concerned about, followed by carotenoids. Chlor. A is used by a lot of organisms. Algae, plants, it's all the same. Chlor B. is used primarily by plants. Both are needed for plants to survive. Carotenoides are a pygment produced by plants, algae, fungus and bacteria. They make things red. If you want red plants, it probably wouldn't hurt to stimulate the same NM that carotenoides use a little more.

Carotenoides are a topic of interest for me; they're some times a mystery for plant keepers, and an important part of bringing the colors out in your fish. BGA uses it, but then at the same time we feed our fish dried BGA for the beta carotene to bring out their colors, because fish can't produce it them selves. In some cases, it comes from capcaisin-related compounds found in chili peppers, too. It's a lovely little paradox of a chemical.

For a little help with what I'm talking about in this previous paragraphs, look at this graph:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...n_spectrum.gif

After that, we're on to the algae-only chlorophylls; c1, c2 and the cyanobacteria favoring chlor. d. From my memory, c1 and c2 find an advantage when the UV spectrum output of a light gets too high. Chlor. D from the bit i've been reading, seems to like light around the lazy 700nm range.

I hope this helps a little. The entire topic gets pretty involved, and I'm skimming the surface. When it comes to buying a bulb in practical terms, I'm a cynic. I assume the advantageous spikes will go away in 6 months, and the lumps will be all that is left if I keep the bulb for a year. This causes me to weigh them equally in my mind. I assume this because I'm willing to bet that the marketing department of a company will make the engineering department change the chemistry behind the lighting to make a very high level, short-term output of the light look good. I wish I had the equipment to test this theory.

Anyhow, enough cynicism. To really make it simple, I'm willing to bet that you could take sunlight, filter out the UV and end up with something that'll favor plants over algae if you fert right. This is going on my expanding list of ideas to test. It might be worth turning to pond-keepers for advice on this one. I like the idea of taking 50&#37; of the wattage and putting it in to what's efficient, then taking the other 50% and dumping it in to what looks good but doesn't stimulate algae too much.

-Philosophos

----------


## Newbiebetta

nice!  :Well done:  :Well done:  should be stickied.

----------


## Philosophos

I would be honored if it were. As it is, I'm waiting for some one to make a massive post about ~520 to ~650nm light in situ, and it's application for aquariums.  :Knockout: 

-Philosophos

----------


## NingNing

does this mean that its not advisable to use household FL lights in aquariums? 

i dun understand wats being explained... i really really dun...

----------


## Shadow

Interesting, based on the graph, to utilize Chlor b we need the light with spectrum of around 450nm-500nm(Blue) and 500-650nm (Orange). violet (400nm) and red (650nm) actually will be utilize by Chlor a. I'm looking at Chlor a and b crossing point.

Does it mean if my light only output 450nm-650nm would be free of algae?

I seen people suing sunlight without much of the algae problem. In other word, light spectrum might help but it is not what cause algae in the first place. So if you can stop what cause algae in the first place, then household FL lights and aquarium lights would be very much the same.

----------


## Philosophos

> Interesting, based on the graph, to utilize Chlor b we need the light with spectrum of around 450nm-500nm(Blue) and 500-650nm (Orange). violet (400nm) and red (650nm) actually will be utilize by Chlor a. I'm looking at Chlor a and b crossing point.
> 
> Does it mean if my light only output 450nm-650nm would be free of algae?
> 
> I seen people suing sunlight without much of the algae problem. In other word, light spectrum might help but it is not what cause algae in the first place. So if you can stop what cause algae in the first place, then household FL lights and aquarium lights would be very much the same.


I don't like to get below 420nm peaks; bulbs that output this low still skim in to UV ranges (starting at 400 and going down) a bit more than others. That might be different where you are; brands vary between continents.

450-650nm still works for photosynthesis in situ; hence my comment. Once you get deeper inside the leaves, there's still usage of the green spectrum. It's just not as good for growth per watt, meaning you'd have to buy more lighting for the same effect. At the same time you'd have less definite control over which form of chlor you're stimulating.

To illustrate extremes, there's something around a 9375k bulb put out by General Electric. People dedicated to pushing plant growth high seem to swear by it in terms of CF bulbs. I've used similar bulbs, and I can honestly say that I don't like it when my tank looks yellowish-pink.

On the other side, ADA puts out very green bulbs. They're inefficient, and you need to use a higher wattage to get the same PAR out of them. At the same time, they can look pretty good.

Think Fuji Vs. Kodak SLR film for spectrum, except Kodak thinks that hot pink is the next big fad in this case.

I sit some where inbetween with a fairly light dual 6700/10,000k that shows off edges. The human eye favors yellow, so you don't notice the yellow that it puts out so much as the full white. This works great so far for growing plants and spotting problems fast, but it sure isn't forgiving. The yellow of plant defects isn't washed out by more yellow, and it isn't pushed back in to more of a green/grey by using blue/green light. Maybe if I take my pictures in monochrome it'll all be okay  :Opps: 

-Philosophos

----------


## Shadow

ADA light bulb is interesting, they are using more blue spectrum rather than red. They also added green for visual purpose. Based on Aqua journal online, the reason is because red spectrum travel short distance under water. Also all those study are done on terrestrial plants. ADA light bulb is different than other aquarium lights.

----------


## illumnae

Based on what I can google on the Arcadia Original Tropical Lamp, it shows the highest peak at ~430nm (blue) and other rather high peaks at ~550nm (green) and ~660nm (red/orange) (based on visual estimation). This seems like a good mix for plant growth (~430nm and ~660nm) and visual purposes (~550nm). Anything below ~410nm and above ~690nm is negligible. Does it induce algae too?

On the other hand, Osram 6500k bulb shows the highest peak at ~540nm (green) and other peaks at ~440nm (blue) and ~610nm (red). Seems to be more focused on visual purposes with plant growth being not too bad too.

----------


## Philosophos

> ADA light bulb is interesting, they are using more blue spectrum rather than red. They also added green for visual purpose. Based on Aqua journal online, the reason is because red spectrum travel short distance under water. Also all those study are done on terrestrial plants. ADA light bulb is different than other aquarium lights.


I've seen the color fade while scuba diving my self. It takes quite a few meters down, or a lot of kicked up solids for it to get noticeable. On small tanks, it doesn't apply so much as large. You'll notice higher average K ratings for bigger tanks. Aquariums should have fewer variables to refract light than the average aquarium. Also, as stated in the article, the sun doesn't sit at high noon all day. ADA seems pretty green for what I have seen in nature, so I would like to see the research behind it. 

While I will say Takashi Amano is good with plants, his logic in this interview seems a bit off. Saying that plants in green places grow best under green light because they are under green light is a non causa pro causa. People alive in gas chambers don't necessarily live best in gas chambers. I'm sure generations of unhygienic existence for humans wasn't very good either. I'm guessing information is being omitted on purpose to protect his research, or for sake of simplicity in the interview.

I also don't quite go with the European or Asian methods strictly. I can see why recreating nature is neat, and I can see where it's fun to create miniature botanic gardens. I just don't like duality though; It's in my nature to see the two interact and resolve through a myriad of possibilities rather than some simple bivalued we vs. they result. In short, my blood pressure rises every time stereotypical Dutch rows of neurosis, or ADA-brand wabi-sabi win a competition for their originality marks.

-Philosophos

----------


## Shadow

> In short, my blood pressure rises every time stereotypical Dutch rows of neurosis, or ADA-brand wabi-sabi win a competition for their originality marks.


Those competition is just a matter on how to make Judges say WOW with your scape  :Laughing: 

Honestly, it is refreshing to hear some one have different opinion than whatever big company said  :Grin: 

Back to lighting stuff  :Opps:  below graph is taken from ADA aquajournal online. If I'm intepret it correctly, red light spectrum loose 50% intensity at 0.3 meter under water.

----------


## Philosophos

I'm glad they provided a graph at least. It seems to contradict what happens when I pull my plants out of the aquarium though. I would definitely say they do not look 50&#37; more red out of water. While the human eye does have a certain bias for yellow/red, I'm not sure that this alone would count for it. Then again, the graph is also just giving color without specific nanometers of light, so that also makes it hard to judge. Turbidity is also going to change things.

I think some research from a neutral source needs to be found; it's never easy to believe what a company says about the principles behinds its own product. Issues like feric iron gluconate come to mind here. I wish I had my PADI book with me; they covered stuff like spectrum dissipation. I'll have to do some digging.

-Philosophos

----------


## illumnae

Just as an addendum to my above post, i'm adding the image links to the arcadia graph (aquarium lights) and the osram graph (normal household lights).

Arcadia:
http://www.swelluk.com/img/shop/orig...pical-Lamp.jpg

Osram:
http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/1870/860osramoy6.jpg

To the naked eye, the arcadia bulb is pink and the osram bulb is yellowish-white. Which would you say is better for aquarium use and viewing purposes?

----------


## Shadow

Giesemann Megachrome tropic (MH)

http://www.giesemann.de/sitemanager/...0310182631.jpg

Giesemann Aquaflora T5
http://www.giesemann.de/sitemanager/...1909144734.jpg

Giesemann Midday T5
http://www.giesemann.de/sitemanager/...1909123559.jpg

----------


## CK Yeo

Intensity is more important than spectrum. I understand that the spectrum shifts over time anyway.

Household daylight FL lights works. Coolwhite warmwhite works too. Metal halide, mecurcy vapor even incandescent bulb has been demonstrated to be able to grow plants. I have 1 tank that just use sunlight.

Is it cost vs effectiveness? How about personal preference? What is "good" for your plants might not be pleasing to your eyes. So are you a gardener, scientist or aquascaper?  :Idea: 

ck

----------


## illumnae

Haha very true CK. The arcadia bulbs are supposed to be very good for plant growth (expensive too!), but they're too pink to be visually pleasing to me in a planted setup

----------


## Shadow

That is why ADA put green spectrum on their light bulb, for color rendering

----------


## Philosophos

Spectrum is more about visual preference and price than anything. Price usually becomes an issue, because it might cost 50-100&#37; more to use a larger number of inefficient bulbs. Most of the time a nice look can be ballenced with fairly good spectrum, in my experience. The exception would be bulbs that throw out a lot of UV you're kind of shooting your self in the foot with that one

Spectrum shift isn't such a big deal if you replace the bulbs regularly. I think I may consider buying the same ballast/pin retrofit for terrestrial growth of HC and a few other plants, so that the old bulbs can still be used once their spectrum is off.

-Philosophos

----------


## illumnae

> That is why ADA put green spectrum on their light bulb, for color rendering


But if you look at the graph for arcadia, there's a peak at green too. same for the osram

----------


## Shadow

On other brand, the green spectrum start at ~500nm. Arcadia start at ~450, 520nm is yellow. Either I'm color blind or Arcadia color spectrum is shift. If you corect the shifting, you should see that blue and red are dominant compare to Osram light spectrum.

----------


## CK Yeo

"Inefficient" bulbs that grow plants nonetheless at a fraction of the cost? I will go with that anyday. Inefficient in what way? Let's see some real data. I agree if we are comparing between different systems i.e. incandescent bulbs vs FL or CF. 

Specialized bulbs cost 5-10times more than household daylight bulbs. Even if plants photosynthesize at 80% of their maximum, so what? Sure, maybe it is not *optimum* but I can live with that.  :Smile: 
I think Diana Watsland did some comparsion and there are some real data on this. Does anyone have it off their fingertips?

Agree on changing regularly. If their spectrum is off, their intensity would have faded too. Not so sure about UV though. Plants worry about getting tanned?  :Grin:  Plants have their mechanisms to protect themselves from UV radiation. Are cheap bulbs giving off enough UV for us to be concerned? 

Yes, ADA bulbs have a greenish tint to it. Yucks. Again, personal preference. 

ck

----------


## Shadow

by the way, is there any study on the impact of the bulb life time and plant growth? Will the plant grow slower or it die off? and when you change to new light bulb, does the plant able to adapt immediately?

----------


## Philosophos

First I will say that UV is a concern because of algae growth stimulation. UVA is what we're dealing with. Previously thought to be harmless, it's turning out to be more and more dangerous to humans. But that's besides the point. UVA is something algae uses, and is stimulated by far more than plants:
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=14153234

Compare PAR:
http://www.efn.org/~k_mccree/Professional/FigPAR.jpg


So with that out of the way, here's my comparison of lighting type.

I'm going to keep pics in links, otherwise this will turn in to one very long thread. I'm also going to be using coralife since it's a popular brand around here that I can find good graphs for. I wish there were better ones of sunpaq online; they make a superior light IMO.

First off, I'm taking regular incandescent off the list. They get fewer hours of light, and they use a lot of power. Check out the chart:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...tbulb_type.svg

While lumens != milimoles, the spectrum offered by CF and regular fluoro are obviously superior, and the cost is far lowwer.

Next, lets compare price of fluorescent vs. compact. I'm going to use google's shopping search to find the best prices possible, so that it's verifiable to all of us. I'll be using bulbs suited to a 24'' tank, since that seems to be the standard around here.

Here's Coralife's 6700K CF:
http://www.google.com/products?q=21%...+compact&hl=en

Here's Sunpaq's 6700k:
http://www.google.com/products?q=sun...+compact&hl=en

I find a reasonable price to pay is about $25. I can buy either one at the same price around here in a retail store. On sale, it'll go as low as $20.

So a CF 21'' 6700k bulb costs about $0.384/W or as low as $0.308

Coralife's regular 24'' fluorescent:
http://www.google.com/products?q=24%...orescent&hl=en

The going rate is usually about $10-$15 in my experience: $0.417-$0.625

Regular household fluorescent:
http://www.google.com/products?q=24%...orescent&hl=en

Prices are usually $7-10 around here for a 20W 24'' That's: $0.292-$0.5

The regular spirald compact fluorescents:
http://www.google.com/products?q=65w...orescent&hl=en

$20 seems a fair price. I'll ignore that cheap german specialty CF for plant growth for $16 to be nice  :Wink: 

65w @ $20 = .307

So then, the comparison between CF and regular prices around here isn't much different. Between what I find on sale, plus the extra time and cost of rigging/modifying a ballast, etc. I might as well have gone with a CF. The spiraled CF have a pretty nasty spread pattern for rectangular tanks; a lot of light is lost from the circular spread pattern. I also like how CF takes up less room over the top of the aquarium than a row of three fluorescent lights.

Now then, lets compare CF Coralife vs. household fluorescent for spectrum:

Coralife 6700k:
http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s...C/Colormax.jpg

Cool White Osram:
http://www.coollights.biz/articles/a...ctrum3200k.jpg

3000k General Electric:
http://ledmuseum.candlepower.us/seventh/cflbl2.gif


Look at the 400nm UV, Look at where the nanometers spike. Your prices may be different than where I am, but for me, grow light CF's are much more worth my time.

-Philosophos

----------


## Shadow

I'll be damn, what do you think of this:

Green Light Drives CO2 Fixation Deep within Leaves

I have not read the whole article, but the title make me re-think my believe  :Razz:

----------


## illumnae

your colormax doesn't spike at the red spectrum. didn't you say in your first post in this thread that most of the light should be at the blue and red spectrums?

----------


## StanChung

ADA MH[white]+pl combo's look the best IME. 
Grows well enough so no complaints. I don't like the green MH-too sickly looking IMO.

Household bulb like Phillips 865 is quite good for price/performance/colour.

----------


## Philosophos

> I'll be damn, what do you think of this:
> 
> Green Light Drives CO2 Fixation Deep within Leaves
> 
> I have not read the whole article, but the title make me re-think my believe


Ya, Tom Barr landed this one on his site a couple days ago. It's getting a lot of attention, and I have a feeling my view won't be popular. In any case, here we go:

What's not being accounted for here is what &#37; of the radiation is dissipated in the top 10-20%, and how much of that is green spectrum. Also of interest would be how much additional energy is required to fixate the CO2 vs. the energy used in the upper layers of the leaf.

This again is where I don't think one can contradict PAR; if plants grow better with proportionately less green light, then when would green light within the source be more important? Why would it be advantageous to be non fruit bearing for reproduction and have green leaves, unless carbon fixing requires proportionately less green light?

I also quietly wonder about the differences between spinach and ludwigia  :Confused: 

-Philosophos

----------


## Shadow

Can you share Tom Barr link? would be interested to follow

The journal isn't free  :Razz:

----------


## Philosophos

> Can you share Tom Barr link? would be interested to follow
> 
> The journal isn't free


He links to the exact same page in the thread:
http://www.barrreport.com/general-pl...light=fixation

And then some other paper. The other paper seems to show longer shoot length under green light, but less branching and wet/dry weight, which is kind of what we're after.

*edit* the whole article and its discussion has annoyed me enough to leave a post on the site asking about it.

-Philosophos

----------


## illumnae

My brief unscientific test:

When I ran 2x 11w Arcadia tubes, my HC started pearling ~4 hours after lights on. Today, I switched to 2x 11w Philips 865 tubes and my HC started pearling 1+ hours atfer lights on.

Don't know if it means anything, and I probably missed out alot of controls, but that's my layman observations

----------


## boxedfish

a question. let's say i have a choice of 2 PL tubes with choice of 6500k or 4000k or 3000k or 2700k to choose for my planted tank, which tubes should i use? should i mix and match with different k or use same k tubes? hoped to have some suggestions.

----------


## StanChung

> He links to the exact same page in the thread:
> http://www.barrreport.com/general-pl...light=fixation
> 
> And then some other paper. The other paper seems to show longer shoot length under green light, but less branching and wet/dry weight, which is kind of what we're after.
> 
> *edit* the whole article and its discussion has annoyed me enough to leave a post on the site asking about it.
> 
> -Philosophos


This is no surprise. Amano has said while diving in the blue green depths of the sea where there are corals, he noticed photosynthesizing corals. He took some light measurements and what not. That's part of the idea for his 'green' lighting other than making it look greener/fresher. Of course I'm oversimplifying.  :Razz:

----------


## StanChung

> a question. let's say i have a choice of 2 PL tubes with choice of 6500k or 4000k or 3000k or 2700k to choose for my planted tank, which tubes should i use? should i mix and match with different k or use same k tubes? hoped to have some suggestions.


Stick to the 6500K's if they're very white.
The warm colour of the other tubes are not pleasant for a planted tank. Makes all the 'vegetables' look yellow and wilted.  :Grin:

----------


## boxedfish

> Stick to the 6500K's if they're very white.
> The warm colour of the other tubes are not pleasant for a planted tank. Makes all the 'vegetables' look yellow and wilted.


thanks for the input

----------

