swishyfishies
Aquarium Advice Activist
Refresh my memory, how many watts of light per gallon do you need just to get growth on LR. (no corals) Isn't it something like 2 or 3?
watts per gallon
- Thread starter swishyfishies
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone with an interest in aquariums or fish keeping!
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
G
Guest
Guest
I would say 5 to 7
swishyfishies
Aquarium Advice Activist
I've never heard it that high before
G
Guest
Guest
I am only going experience and recent readings. The older books didn't mention much about this, but it takes a good amount of UV for coralline to grow amongst other photosynthetic algaes...I say that, because I had 160 watts on my 55 and that was not enough. I went to 384 and wow what a difference. Very noticeable. So, just from experience and recent publications, I say 5 to 7...and even 10 if feasable.
d9hp
Aquarium Advice Addict
Man, that is more than you need for shrooms isnt it?
swishyfishies
Aquarium Advice Activist
Well I'll never ever reach 10 & right now we don't even have the money to do more than 4-5. But on my last tank I was getting some decent growth with the 4-5.
d9hp
Aquarium Advice Addict
I think 3-4 is good enough, but hey. If you can do 4-5 do it
reefrunner69
Aquarium Advice Addict
If I were to go with a WPG, which I don't like, I'd say 3, but it really depends on the type of light.
If the question is how much to keep live rock with out any corals then I would say it would be on the low end of the scale if there really even is a scale for it.
If your looking at softies and other such corals that are usually consitered lower light then it would be on the lower end of the scale. If your talking about looking at some of the hard stonie corals then it would be to the upper end of the range.
If yoru looking to go SPS and clams then shoot for something above the upper range.
One reason WPG is not the best factor is that only florecent lighting will cover the entire tank. If you have MH lighting and a tank that is longer than 2' then your not going to get the full wattage over the entire tank. For example if you have a 4' long tank and you put a MH bulb in the center you will have 1' on either end that is somewhat light with less light than the center 2' area.
WIth a watts per gal calculation if you have 1 175W MH bulb on a 55 gal tank that would equate to 3.18Watts per gal. But most of the light would be in the middle and very little would be on the ends. If you put 175W of florecent lighting on the tank the tank would be evenly light across the entire tank but the intensity at any one given spot would be lower than the center area of the tank that was light with 1 MH.
So to properly light a 55 with MH you would need two 175W bulbs to give even light plus you would probably go with some actinic lighting also. If you go with florecent lighting you would probably go with a couple VHO bulbs or a couple power compact bulbs.
If your looking at softies and other such corals that are usually consitered lower light then it would be on the lower end of the scale. If your talking about looking at some of the hard stonie corals then it would be to the upper end of the range.
If yoru looking to go SPS and clams then shoot for something above the upper range.
One reason WPG is not the best factor is that only florecent lighting will cover the entire tank. If you have MH lighting and a tank that is longer than 2' then your not going to get the full wattage over the entire tank. For example if you have a 4' long tank and you put a MH bulb in the center you will have 1' on either end that is somewhat light with less light than the center 2' area.
WIth a watts per gal calculation if you have 1 175W MH bulb on a 55 gal tank that would equate to 3.18Watts per gal. But most of the light would be in the middle and very little would be on the ends. If you put 175W of florecent lighting on the tank the tank would be evenly light across the entire tank but the intensity at any one given spot would be lower than the center area of the tank that was light with 1 MH.
So to properly light a 55 with MH you would need two 175W bulbs to give even light plus you would probably go with some actinic lighting also. If you go with florecent lighting you would probably go with a couple VHO bulbs or a couple power compact bulbs.
MR294
Aquarium Advice Regular
reefrunner69 said:
Agreed.
G
Guest
Guest
I think the reason why we think watts per gallon is that it makes picking the right lights somewaht an easier chore. Most of the inhabitants excluding fish require light intensity and not so much watts per gallon though.
When using flourescent bulbs, the intensity is nowhere the same as MH because the MH gives off a better UV rating and lumen, CRI index which is most important to anemones, corals, and photosynthetic animals. This is why you can have 2 - 175 MH and have more usable light than 4 VHO's. The direct intensity of MH has been proven to out perform flourescents many times over, and it will continue to. There is no getting around that. The CRI index of MH is 94 - 96 which is as close to sunlight or correct light you can get right now. Flourescents are 10 below at 84 brand new and then in the 60's shortly thereafter. This is why watts per gallon is somewhat neccessary with Flour's...
For instance lets say 3 watts per gallon is ok:
4 - 40 watt tubes = 160 watts = roughly 3 watts per gallon on a 55 gal tank. but put that on a 75 gal tank and you have 2 watts per gal. go to an 80, and you have less than 2 watts per gal...nowhere near enough light to generate enough intensity.
4 - 110 watt VHO's = 440 watts = 8 watts per gallon on a 55. go to 75 gal tank and you have 5.8 watts per gal. go to an 80 gal tank, and you then have 5.5 watts per gallon and though this will give you good results, there is still a lot of lost intensity.
Now, go with
2 - 175 MH accented with 2 NO 40 watt actinics and you have 430 watts wich gives you 7.8 watts per gallon on a 55 and 5.7 watts per gallon on a 75 gal tank and 5.3 watts per gal on an 80 gal tank. This will be an excellent option on any tank and you can up the intesity and wattage by getting higher rated bulbs. e.g 250, 400 watt etc... This will up the watt per gallon and also up the intensity to a 94 to 96 CRI.
Watts per gallon is a matter of personal preference really and it is still debated if it holds any weight. I use it because I use flourescent bulbs. When I go to MH it won't matter much. I hope this is useful to anyone who is interested in the theory...
This is all on me and not the opinion of the masses...
When using flourescent bulbs, the intensity is nowhere the same as MH because the MH gives off a better UV rating and lumen, CRI index which is most important to anemones, corals, and photosynthetic animals. This is why you can have 2 - 175 MH and have more usable light than 4 VHO's. The direct intensity of MH has been proven to out perform flourescents many times over, and it will continue to. There is no getting around that. The CRI index of MH is 94 - 96 which is as close to sunlight or correct light you can get right now. Flourescents are 10 below at 84 brand new and then in the 60's shortly thereafter. This is why watts per gallon is somewhat neccessary with Flour's...
For instance lets say 3 watts per gallon is ok:
4 - 40 watt tubes = 160 watts = roughly 3 watts per gallon on a 55 gal tank. but put that on a 75 gal tank and you have 2 watts per gal. go to an 80, and you have less than 2 watts per gal...nowhere near enough light to generate enough intensity.
4 - 110 watt VHO's = 440 watts = 8 watts per gallon on a 55. go to 75 gal tank and you have 5.8 watts per gal. go to an 80 gal tank, and you then have 5.5 watts per gallon and though this will give you good results, there is still a lot of lost intensity.
Now, go with
2 - 175 MH accented with 2 NO 40 watt actinics and you have 430 watts wich gives you 7.8 watts per gallon on a 55 and 5.7 watts per gallon on a 75 gal tank and 5.3 watts per gal on an 80 gal tank. This will be an excellent option on any tank and you can up the intesity and wattage by getting higher rated bulbs. e.g 250, 400 watt etc... This will up the watt per gallon and also up the intensity to a 94 to 96 CRI.
Watts per gallon is a matter of personal preference really and it is still debated if it holds any weight. I use it because I use flourescent bulbs. When I go to MH it won't matter much. I hope this is useful to anyone who is interested in the theory...
This is all on me and not the opinion of the masses...
swishyfishies
Aquarium Advice Activist
fishfreek said:
Thanks, I understand what your talking about. I have 4-55 watt conacts from Custom Sea Life but I would like to get away with using just two. In order to use all 4 I have to replace one of my retrofit kits ($60 that I'd rather not spend), on the other hand I could take two out of the canopy & move the other working one in the middle of the open row & still use 3 of them. I'm really trying to save money on lighting (I do plan on splurdging for an Aqua C Remora)
Similar threads
