co2 setup - paintball version

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.
IMO get a aquatek reg slap a paint ball tank on it and call it a day.
 
Where do you get this awesome info?

This is the one ive been eyeing
AquaVibrant


The Ray 2 is cool... but the Planted+ might look better due to the supplemented red diodes in it. Are you growing all green plants? If so, go with the Ray 2. Or are you thinking of throwing in some red plants too? If it's the latter, I suggest getting the Fugeray Planted + in about a month.

Here are some links to check out:

ULTIMATE PLANT LED: Finnex FugeRAY Planted+ LED ...coming soon
Finnex FugeRay Planted+ first impressions

Finnex Fuge Ray Planted Plus Review - YouTube
 
But from what im it seems the plant+ is gonna have a 30% drop in par? Why would they do that. Why not keep the current ray2 and add the reds to it?
 
But from what im it seems the plant+ is gonna have a 30% drop in par? Why would they do that. Why not keep the current ray2 and add the reds to it?

The drop in par is because the ray 2 have a blue peak which penetrates deeper in water. Red doesn't pack as much of a punch but is needed for a full spectrum light. Having a light with peaks in red and blue is overlooked and in my opinion just as important as par. I would say to take his advice and wait on the planted + fixture. With a ray 2 by itself your tank is going to look somewhat dull in color and your plants will all be green even your red ones
 
Well just because the Ray 2 has higher PAR doesn't necessarily mean it's better (might be on a different application). The PAR from a Ray 2 on a semi-shallow tank like your 20g Long will be REALLY HIGH... so you're going to experience algae if you don't either suspend the fixture or run the light at a reduced photoperiod (this means less tank/fish viewing time for you). You'll also have to crank up that co2 too. Plus that really bright (blue heavy spectrum) is going to wash out the colors in your tank a bit... I'm talking from first-hand experience.. It's not totally bad or anything, but it's not the most appealing once you've experienced otherwise. Once I started using LED lights that supplement reds in it, I've noticed a better color production/reflection off of colorful plants and fish/inverts. Just looked more vibrant and dynamic -- not muted. It's up to you.. but that's my opinion. :blink:

With the Fugeray Planted+ , in terms of PAR, you'd get (source):
9": 88
12": 61


Your tank is only 12" tall, minus a few inches of substrate, you're already in high light territory.

Dig around online, especially in TPT... you'll see others complain about the colors being washed-out and stale with just a Ray 2 (Some people are fine with it though, you might be?). After they supplemented the light with the Monster Ray (RGB LED), they liked it much better. So the Planted+ has the potential to do the same but as a stand-alone light without having to buy two fixtures as with what the Ray 2 + Monster Ray people are doing.

That's why Finnex developed this light as their "newest" version of the Ray fixtures. They are answering the call of the market analysis on how people are commenting on the color rendering of their tanks.

FYI... PAR is less on the Planted Plus because red light doesn't travel and penetrate as deep as the blue spectrum. That's another reason the Ray 2 has such a high PAR value... if you look at the spectrum analysis graph, it's heavy on the blue and lacking the "full spectrum" you'd get out of a T5HO. Blue can penetrate depths more easily. That's why when you SCUBA, everything looks really blue the deeper you go. Colorful fish and corals look monochromatic. LED is a new technology in terms of aquariums... they're learning new ways to utilize the technology more efficiently and effectively. Plants respond better when their is full spectrum availability. They'll grow with just blue spectrum but not as good (from what I've researched) when reds and greens are in there too... reds more so than green.

They probably don't add more reds to the Ray 2 because it would make the price-point less palatable for the consumers... is what I'm guessing.

Here's a spectral graph of the Ray 2 on the top... The bottom is a full spectrum T5HO midday bulb... notice the lack of red spike and green in the Ray 2? Although there's no spectral graph available with the Planted+ yet, I would assume that it has to be better in the red spectrum.
img_2655697_0_7e07fefb6fa0f54b1e2a9f6cb320f89c.jpg


Take for instance the spectral graph released by Finnex of their small clip light called the Fugeray-R (R for Red)... It has that spike in the red:
voc22h.jpg


Sorry for the long post... I guess I got carried away. It wasn't easy to answer that question. :oops:
 
The drop in par is because the ray 2 have a blue peak which penetrates deeper in water. Red doesn't pack as much of a punch but is needed for a full spectrum light. Having a light with peaks in red and blue is overlooked and in my opinion just as important as par. I would say to take his advice and wait on the planted + fixture. With a ray 2 by itself your tank is going to look somewhat dull in color and your plants will all be green even your red ones

Haha... thanks Toby! You responded before I did... before I finished writing my book! :oops:
 
You should be a salesman! I want it but I imagine they are gonna sell quick. I hope they stay in budget too. It does make total sense about the red too. I guess even green plants benefit from reds. The main red plant ill be doing is a red tiger lotus. Either way, this is my goal. Ive been talking about awesome pressurized co2 and ferts and an awesome light to my wife for years but never acted on it so nows the time!

Edit! I think its funny how you convinced me to spend almost 200 dollars. I envy your tactics! I couldnt sell water to a thirsty man!
 
Haha... I think I just have too much time on my hands... but I've been intrigued with LED's, well the consumer ready type. I need to learn DIY, eventually.. lol

Go with what you like, though. I'm just spreading what I've learned. At one point, I had 3 Ray 2's so I'm just sharing my experiences. I like those lights, but the added color spectrum is a welcomed addition.

Toby has a Ray 2 and recently bought a RGB LED light to supplement it. He'll know what's up. :)
 
Haha... I think I just have too much time on my hands... but I've been intrigued with LED's, well the consumer ready type. I need to learn DIY, eventually.. lol

Go with what you like, though. I'm just spreading what I've learned. At one point, I had 3 Ray 2's so I'm just sharing my experiences. I like those lights, but the added color spectrum is a welcomed addition.

Toby has a Ray 2 and recently bought a RGB LED light to supplement it. He'll know what's up. :)

Yeah I hear ya. I wish I had more time but then I'd wish I had more money to blow. I believe you on the red spectrum for sure. Its my wife I have to convince truthfully! I love LEDs as well. I wanna learn how to build them but I know its complicated stuff and the cost of the LED is alot. The people who mass produce have the conections or custom build theirs
 
The Fugeray planted plus is said to be priced less than the Ray 2. So I'm actually conniving you to spend less! Haha
 
[citation needed]



First, Finnex measures their PAR in air, not water, so attenuation of water would be a further theoretical reduction in PAR in addition to the reduction in published values. Additionally, you don't get that much absorbed in the first 1-2 feet.

Second, if two LEDs have identical efficiency (ie, they both emit the same amount of energy as light), then the blue heavy LED will have less PAR than a red bulb due to the (quantum) physics of light. This is because PAR is effectively the number of photons (measured in mols) moving through an area (measured by an area), hence the units are umol/m^2. As blue light had a higher energy per photon than red light (1.3x to 1.5x, depending on how one defines red and blue), 54w of an actinic bulb will be ~50% less PAR measured, but the same amount of energy transfer. This represents a potential breakdown of the PAR system, although whether plants can 'harvest' the energy as efficiently (or more efficiently) is a valid concern.



TL;DR: It's less light, no matter how you go about it.
 
How accurate would you consider this statement by Hoppy on TPT?

" You will get more PAR with water in the tank than with air. The water slightly focuses the light, concentrating it a bit, and it lets light reflect off the glass/air interface on the sides of the tank, also increasing the PAR a bit. You can assume about 10-20% more PAR with water."

Source:
http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/showthread.php?t=167250
 
I remember aqua chem had already made a similar statement on another thread. I don't think he mentioned a percentage, but he did claim more par through water.
 
How accurate would you consider this statement by Hoppy on TPT?

" You will get more PAR with water in the tank than with air. The water slightly focuses the light, concentrating it a bit, and it lets light reflect off the glass/air interface on the sides of the tank, also increasing the PAR a bit. You can assume about 10-20% more PAR with water."

Source:
http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/showthread.php?t=167250

It's true, and its based on a combination of snell's law and impedance mismatch (and probably other laws, its not an area I'm overly familiar with). It's also experimentally verified with waterproof PAR meters.
 
^ hence the reason for his avatar...

I feel like I'm back in school all over again... Confused as all he**... :lol:


Honestly, its a concept I've never seen discussed on other forums, but I'm very confident in its veracity. It's another reason for my intense skepticism of the 'actinides don't help plants' guideline.
 
Honestly, its a concept I've never seen discussed on other forums, but I'm very confident in its veracity. It's another reason for my intense skepticism of the 'actinides don't help plants' guideline.

You state that blue light has a higher energy per photon than red, so why would blue light produce less par?
 
You state that blue light has a higher energy per photon than red, so why would blue light produce less par?


Light is a bit complicated because it follows the concepts of quantum mechanics. Rather than just being a slough of energy, it's actually composed of many, many single discrete packets of energy called photons. Each photon has a wavelength/frequency, with higher frequency/low wavelength photons having more energy than low frequency/high wavelength photons. A single photon of blue is a high frequency/small wavelength/higher energy photon, while red is an example of the opposite. Therefore, a number of blue photons carry more energy than the same number red photons. Because PAR is purely a measure of number of photons, it gives you a measurement irrespective of the frequency/energy of the individual photons. As such, a 54w Actinic bulb and a 54w daylight bulb use the same amount of electricity and likely produce a similar amount of light energy, but actinics use high-energy blue light, so they produce less total photons and hence less PAR. For comparing full spectrum to full spectrum, these differences are largely a wash, but if you compare actinics to full spectrum or rosettes to actinic, etc, you would see a difference.

Let's put this into simpler terms. Lets say it's your job to measure how many people cross a bridge on a given day. Trucks fit 2 people, but SUVs fit 3. How do you measure how many people pass over the bridge in a day? In this example, people are energy, trucks are red photons, and SUVs are blue photons. More people can fit in a SUV than fit in a truck, so they are 'higher energy' in that they can move more people. PAR is the equivalent of simply counting the number of vehicles crossing the road and assuming a more or less constant ratio of the two. If it were 1:1, you would multiply the number of cars by 2.5 to get the total number of people.


Example A) Normal day, 50/50 mix of SUVs and trucks. 100 cars pass. 100 cars * 2.5 = 250 people

Example B) There's a Toby Keith concert today (I love me some Toby Keith). The traffic is 90% trucks and 10% SUV, 100 vehicles in total. 90*2+10*3=210 people total, less than previously.

Example C) Good powder on the mountain, so people are going skiing. 90% SUVs and 10% trucks now, still 100 people. 90*3 + 10*2 = 290 people total.


In the case of the high SUV Actinic analog, there was more people (more energy) but the same amount of vehicles (PAR) than the 50/50 day with the same amount of cars (PAR) but less total people (energy).
 
Back
Top Bottom