ADA 75-P Tank Journal
- Thread starter ngfrazier
- Start date
Awesome start. You've got an impressive canvas to work with. The tank, stand, light, and hardward I can see look top notch. Very well done. Since you asked, I'll put my 2 cents in. This is just an idea I had and take it for what its worth. Many of the tanks like this I've see have what I would call a flow from side to side, as if a current is gently pushing things in one direction or another. You might consider trying to turn the left sided drift wood towards the right. That would give the scene a left to right feel. Don't know how it would work, but its a thought. Maybe try it out. Looks great so far.
This is plainly put, way too much light for such a small tank.
You only need maybe 20-30wats max for this tank in T5 lighting or at most, 24 Watts worth of Cree LED's and adjust those down.
I would not put a 150w/gal on 60 Gal cube, it's too much light there and was way way too much light on a 40 Gal cube.
Algae disaster waiting to happen.
You only need maybe 20-30wats max for this tank in T5 lighting or at most, 24 Watts worth of Cree LED's and adjust those down.
I would not put a 150w/gal on 60 Gal cube, it's too much light there and was way way too much light on a 40 Gal cube.
Algae disaster waiting to happen.
^^I agree. Going by Hoppys lighting chart youre going to have WAY too much light. Id hate to see that beautiful tank succumb to a bad algae outbreak.
I know ADA gets a lot of hate because of the price, but they really do make some amazing tanks and equipment. I was at a pet show a few years back and someone had an ADA tank set up and you couldnt even tell there was any glass there. It just looked like a cube of water floating in the air. If i had the money i would love to play with some ADA gear.
Its looking really good so far man. I cant wait to see how it turns out :thm:
I know ADA gets a lot of hate because of the price, but they really do make some amazing tanks and equipment. I was at a pet show a few years back and someone had an ADA tank set up and you couldnt even tell there was any glass there. It just looked like a cube of water floating in the air. If i had the money i would love to play with some ADA gear.
Its looking really good so far man. I cant wait to see how it turns out :thm:
Wow. The. Actual. Tom. Barr. I am not worthy!
erv:But, to play devil's advocate for a bit.... http://www.projectaquarium.com/plantedTank_gallery.aspxhttp://www.projectaquarium.com/plantedAquarium_Nameless.aspx (Mr. Baliban has the same tank, same wattage light--though WAY more skilled than I).
Also, you can see Mr. Amano's tanks here: http://www.aquahobby.com/tanks/e_tank0412a.php. Plenty of MH lights. However, I think he keeps them suspended fairly high above the tanks (something I will have to do).
Another idea: Let's assume that one 150w MH produces 11-12k average lumens. That amount covers the entire tank (3.6875 square feet). On a clear day, the sun shines down about 10k lumens per square foot. Comparatively, this tank would only be about a third the intensity of sunlight on a clear day.
Perhaps using those other tanks as examples, and compared to the intensity of sunlight as found in nature, it may be possible.
Cordially,
N
So if you have to raise the light up 24" or more.....then what is the point of using all this light to begin with?
Why waste 100 Watts of energy?
The question is not why waste 100 watts or more, the question is can we do it with less and why might that still achieve the goal and look nice, but be MUCH easier to accomplish?
It's like driving 150 miles an hour vs 30 miles an hour, if something goes wrong..........which speed has the least risk?
Which is more efficient using gas?
Same thing here.
We also do not know how high up those lights are in the ADA or with Jason's, nor the PAR, which is the unit used to compare different lighting set ups fairly.
If are a beginning driver, do you think speeds of 150 mph vs 30 mph is better?
You can still maintain and use the ADA aesthetic with much lower light.
Less light => less CO2 demand from plants= less nutrient demand from plants, so both of these parameters are easier to manage and control, any issues are going to occur slow, not fast.
That is the point in suggesting lower light.
I can make nice tanks growing the same plants with 30 watts of LED Cree lighting.
5X less waste of electrical energy.
Aquatic plants do not use but at most 1/4 of the full sun and this is only the weeds, they are LOW light plants, all of them are.........
You should not use nature as the model, because aquariums are not even remotely like nature.
This is an assumption. And often not a good one. It does not suggest what is best, only what the plant is exposed to in nature. Nothing else is implied or what is best for our management and goals.
It's just where that plant can survive in nature at that point in space and time. It does not imply what is best for the plant horticulturally.
This tank below is an ADA tank and won 20th overall in the ADA contest, PAR is about 40-50 micromols of light on the bottom.
Which is about 2400 lumens.
You are suggesting over 4x this amount.
I've used 150 W lights over a 40 Gal tank, it's too much.
I've used them over a 20 gal tank, way too much.
I have a light meter and can measure this stuff easily, accurately and comparatively.
This is the GREAT MYTH: high light helps planted tanks.
No, it makes them harder to manage and more risk with limitations and stress on fish due to CO2 issues.
My tanks?
I'm breeding Sturisoma:
I sell about 2000$ a year worth of plants from this tank.
I remove 200-400 RSC a year.
Light? Same as the ADa tank above, about 40-50 micromols on the bottom. I use less energy though, about 350W 8-9 hours a day.
Once I switch to LEDS on this tank, the wattage will be about 180 W.
3-4x less than you. Maybe you do not care about giving the electric company your $, okay fair enough........
But management wise and helping other new folks, they do not need to fall for this example when they can do quite well on 1/4 the lighting.
You already bought the light, so I seriously doubt you will return it and get something less powerful, so you will use it regardless of what I say.
I understand this.
What you can do is adjust the height. Some adjust the time the light is on. Or both. Then you can see. You will also have a lot of light spill out into the room where the tank is at. You can add house plants around the tank if you wish.
Once you see that with the light some 24" or even higher and the tank does just fine, you might realize you have been fooled by ADA and marketing.
Then you'll know.
Why waste 100 Watts of energy?
The question is not why waste 100 watts or more, the question is can we do it with less and why might that still achieve the goal and look nice, but be MUCH easier to accomplish?
It's like driving 150 miles an hour vs 30 miles an hour, if something goes wrong..........which speed has the least risk?
Which is more efficient using gas?
Same thing here.
We also do not know how high up those lights are in the ADA or with Jason's, nor the PAR, which is the unit used to compare different lighting set ups fairly.
If are a beginning driver, do you think speeds of 150 mph vs 30 mph is better?
You can still maintain and use the ADA aesthetic with much lower light.
Less light => less CO2 demand from plants= less nutrient demand from plants, so both of these parameters are easier to manage and control, any issues are going to occur slow, not fast.
That is the point in suggesting lower light.
I can make nice tanks growing the same plants with 30 watts of LED Cree lighting.
5X less waste of electrical energy.
Aquatic plants do not use but at most 1/4 of the full sun and this is only the weeds, they are LOW light plants, all of them are.........
You should not use nature as the model, because aquariums are not even remotely like nature.
This is an assumption. And often not a good one. It does not suggest what is best, only what the plant is exposed to in nature. Nothing else is implied or what is best for our management and goals.
It's just where that plant can survive in nature at that point in space and time. It does not imply what is best for the plant horticulturally.
This tank below is an ADA tank and won 20th overall in the ADA contest, PAR is about 40-50 micromols of light on the bottom.
Which is about 2400 lumens.
You are suggesting over 4x this amount.
I've used 150 W lights over a 40 Gal tank, it's too much.
I've used them over a 20 gal tank, way too much.
I have a light meter and can measure this stuff easily, accurately and comparatively.
This is the GREAT MYTH: high light helps planted tanks.
No, it makes them harder to manage and more risk with limitations and stress on fish due to CO2 issues.
My tanks?
I'm breeding Sturisoma:
I sell about 2000$ a year worth of plants from this tank.
I remove 200-400 RSC a year.
Light? Same as the ADa tank above, about 40-50 micromols on the bottom. I use less energy though, about 350W 8-9 hours a day.
Once I switch to LEDS on this tank, the wattage will be about 180 W.
3-4x less than you. Maybe you do not care about giving the electric company your $, okay fair enough........
But management wise and helping other new folks, they do not need to fall for this example when they can do quite well on 1/4 the lighting.
You already bought the light, so I seriously doubt you will return it and get something less powerful, so you will use it regardless of what I say.
I understand this.
What you can do is adjust the height. Some adjust the time the light is on. Or both. Then you can see. You will also have a lot of light spill out into the room where the tank is at. You can add house plants around the tank if you wish.
Once you see that with the light some 24" or even higher and the tank does just fine, you might realize you have been fooled by ADA and marketing.
Then you'll know.
The lily pipes, be VERY careful with the outflows, they are so easy to break(been there, done it). I also added a sponge pre filter, mostly to reduce filter clean and also to reduce shrimp from get in the filters.
You also might look up Dry Start Method if you plan more rooted sediment plants.
Save you a lot of work in the start up.
Here's a LED fix that works well on a 10 Gal tank:
http://www.adana-usa.com/index.php?main_page=afa_product_info&cPath=72_74&products_id=496
Not even 5 watts, I've seen the tanks at AFA, they look quite nice. Such lighting is far superior to MH, but some reason, we often think more $$$, more light = better. But this is a myth.
I measured all 6 tanks at AFA, they where all curiously the same PAR on the bottom of the sediment in each display.
W/gal ranges went from 3w/gal down to 1.5 for T5's to 0.5w/gal for LED's.
But the PAR was the same.........
It is easier to scape with less light since the plants are less likely to be limited and grow more consistently, less competition between species, same growth rates.
Regards,
Tom Barr
You also might look up Dry Start Method if you plan more rooted sediment plants.
Save you a lot of work in the start up.
Here's a LED fix that works well on a 10 Gal tank:
http://www.adana-usa.com/index.php?main_page=afa_product_info&cPath=72_74&products_id=496
Not even 5 watts, I've seen the tanks at AFA, they look quite nice. Such lighting is far superior to MH, but some reason, we often think more $$$, more light = better. But this is a myth.
I measured all 6 tanks at AFA, they where all curiously the same PAR on the bottom of the sediment in each display.
W/gal ranges went from 3w/gal down to 1.5 for T5's to 0.5w/gal for LED's.
But the PAR was the same.........
It is easier to scape with less light since the plants are less likely to be limited and grow more consistently, less competition between species, same growth rates.
Regards,
Tom Barr
Hi Tom,
Thanks for responding. I really like your car speed/plant growth analogy--makes it easy to understand. And, as usual, you're spot on.
You captured the issue when you said, "You already bought the light, so I seriously doubt you will return it and get something less powerful, so you will use it regardless of what I say.
I understand this."
Correct. It's too late to return. Gotta make due. (BTW, the fixture was $75.00 on clearance).
I agree with you that ADA sells a lot of fluff. You're the big voice of reason and science in this hobby. And, I do try to follow your advice. (Problem is, MH has a very limited selection of wattages--that's an underreported problem).
Here is my thinking: For most people, this hobby will cause you to waste $$$. Unless we are growing for sale or food, it's waste. I don't plan to do either, so I've made peace with that fact.
But, it gives me pleasure. And, I like the cross-mix of different ideas and disciplines you get exposed to: medicine (metzebaums for cutting, IV drips for plant ferts), industrial hardware (CO2 tanks, regulators, and injectors) and biology and chemistry (your EI and other fert routines). It's a great hobby.
I like LEDs, or at least the idea of LEDs. Problem is, they are still not cost effective for the vast majority of applications versus flourescents. CREEs are great, but expensive. They have a good name because they honestly try to meet the life expectancy claims that most LED manufactuers unreasonably spout.
But, I haven't found an affordable fixture with high powered LED (even factoring energy cost). And, I don't have the skill/time to make a DIY LED light right now (the only affordable option I've seen).
A 150 watt bulb cost $0.08 per day (6 hrs @ $0.102 avg KWH). We spend that much on gas if we hit a bad red light. Worst case is $2.56 a month. Again, compared to the cost of gasoline that we use everyday (say to get a Starbucks), not a big problem. So, let's say it would be $30/year. Most comparative LED fixtures use about 1/2 to 3/4 the energy. So, even assuming the energy savings, the math doesn't add up. If it did, you'd see more LED stuff for the retail stores (Wal-mart, Home Depot, etc...). Those guys run the numbers and it wouldn't pay out for them either.
Considering all those factors, flourescent is king (for now).
I've had T5HO. I like the bulb mixtures (for nice colors). But, it lights the tank too uniformly. IMHO, it's boring in person. I miss the "shimmer effect."(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKFzuFMe0NQ) It's hypnotic (BTW, i know that reef tanks use more light; its a quick example). It greatly adds to the interest of a tank *in person.* You only get that from high powered LED and MH.
Uniformity (one point, versus many smaller spots) and spectrum are also important. In fact, white LEDs are more analogous to Flourescent in the way they emit light (http://www.cpfwiki.com/Wiki/index.php/LED). Color rendition is still worse than MH (http://www.oscars.org/science-technology/council/projects/ssl/technicalinfo.html). That's why I think Amano uses MH almost exclusively.
Since LED is currently too expensive (and its spectrum inferior), that leaves MH. To me, it's worth the dime-a-day to run.
I'll end with your analogy. This is my sports car. Fast? Yes. Practical? No. Good idea for most people? No. A little bit crazy? Perhaps.
Cordially,
N
Thanks for responding. I really like your car speed/plant growth analogy--makes it easy to understand. And, as usual, you're spot on.
You captured the issue when you said, "You already bought the light, so I seriously doubt you will return it and get something less powerful, so you will use it regardless of what I say.
I understand this."
Correct. It's too late to return. Gotta make due. (BTW, the fixture was $75.00 on clearance).
I agree with you that ADA sells a lot of fluff. You're the big voice of reason and science in this hobby. And, I do try to follow your advice. (Problem is, MH has a very limited selection of wattages--that's an underreported problem).
Here is my thinking: For most people, this hobby will cause you to waste $$$. Unless we are growing for sale or food, it's waste. I don't plan to do either, so I've made peace with that fact.
But, it gives me pleasure. And, I like the cross-mix of different ideas and disciplines you get exposed to: medicine (metzebaums for cutting, IV drips for plant ferts), industrial hardware (CO2 tanks, regulators, and injectors) and biology and chemistry (your EI and other fert routines). It's a great hobby.
I like LEDs, or at least the idea of LEDs. Problem is, they are still not cost effective for the vast majority of applications versus flourescents. CREEs are great, but expensive. They have a good name because they honestly try to meet the life expectancy claims that most LED manufactuers unreasonably spout.
But, I haven't found an affordable fixture with high powered LED (even factoring energy cost). And, I don't have the skill/time to make a DIY LED light right now (the only affordable option I've seen).
A 150 watt bulb cost $0.08 per day (6 hrs @ $0.102 avg KWH). We spend that much on gas if we hit a bad red light. Worst case is $2.56 a month. Again, compared to the cost of gasoline that we use everyday (say to get a Starbucks), not a big problem. So, let's say it would be $30/year. Most comparative LED fixtures use about 1/2 to 3/4 the energy. So, even assuming the energy savings, the math doesn't add up. If it did, you'd see more LED stuff for the retail stores (Wal-mart, Home Depot, etc...). Those guys run the numbers and it wouldn't pay out for them either.
Considering all those factors, flourescent is king (for now).
I've had T5HO. I like the bulb mixtures (for nice colors). But, it lights the tank too uniformly. IMHO, it's boring in person. I miss the "shimmer effect."(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKFzuFMe0NQ) It's hypnotic (BTW, i know that reef tanks use more light; its a quick example). It greatly adds to the interest of a tank *in person.* You only get that from high powered LED and MH.
Uniformity (one point, versus many smaller spots) and spectrum are also important. In fact, white LEDs are more analogous to Flourescent in the way they emit light (http://www.cpfwiki.com/Wiki/index.php/LED). Color rendition is still worse than MH (http://www.oscars.org/science-technology/council/projects/ssl/technicalinfo.html). That's why I think Amano uses MH almost exclusively.
Since LED is currently too expensive (and its spectrum inferior), that leaves MH. To me, it's worth the dime-a-day to run.
I'll end with your analogy. This is my sports car. Fast? Yes. Practical? No. Good idea for most people? No. A little bit crazy? Perhaps.
Cordially,
N
Last edited:
Ok, here are some of my ideas for plants.
First, the focal point (where the two threads intersect). I'm looking at ONE of the following reddish plants (copy the name into google search for pictures):
Focal point plant (Background):
Ludwigia Peruensis (Ludwigia peruensis aka Ludwigia glandulosa)
Nesaea Red
Rotala Magenta
Limnophila hippuroides (Limnophila aromatica 'hippuroides')
Foreground:
Pogostemon helferi (Hellfire) - mixed with
Hemianthus callitrichoides (Baby tears)
Not sure about middle ground and the other background plants....
I am also looking at:
Myriophyllum pinnatum
Hygrophila difformis
Hemianthus micranthemoides
Echinodorus Angustifolia 'Vesuvius'
Whadda think?
First, the focal point (where the two threads intersect). I'm looking at ONE of the following reddish plants (copy the name into google search for pictures):
Focal point plant (Background):
Ludwigia Peruensis (Ludwigia peruensis aka Ludwigia glandulosa)
Nesaea Red
Rotala Magenta
Limnophila hippuroides (Limnophila aromatica 'hippuroides')
Foreground:
Pogostemon helferi (Hellfire) - mixed with
Hemianthus callitrichoides (Baby tears)
Not sure about middle ground and the other background plants....
I am also looking at:
Myriophyllum pinnatum
Hygrophila difformis
Hemianthus micranthemoides
Echinodorus Angustifolia 'Vesuvius'
Whadda think?
I do understand and the $$ for the Reef Optix is awesome.
They are cool looking(nicer than the ADA and more efficient).
A Stark LED would have set you back more $, but at 60W of dimmable light, the energy savings would be recouped in 1.5 years and more color variables, the light footprint spread would be ideal for this sized tank also.
Still get that MH shimmer too.
But........you got it now. The other option later, is to sell it to the Reef folks, hehe, I seem to have no troubles doign that with some of on the older stuff I used. I have the coralife aqua light pro's, well only one, but I do not ever use the MH's, just the outer PC lights.
I ran a MH on a tank about the same size as yours:
I liked the look, but the thing was hot and was way way too much light. The PAR meter does not lie.
A 70W is still too much light, if they made a 25 to 40 W HQI....then maybe..........
Yep, you got it right.
Now I realize you got the light fix for 75, heck, I cannot blame you a bit, and like most of us, we gots to learn from experience, even if we know it is counter.
I'm no different myself.
Yep, we all have our rationalizations.
I figured I could make a career somewhat out of the hobby
That was my path.
Most of the ones I've used are relatively cheap now and DIY allows you to make any thing you might need for less. Not 75$ though
Pre made crees are not that cheap, but the Stark ran about 350$ shipped to the door for the 60W versions.
Ideal for the tank size you have.
Something to look into and consider.
If you sold the Reef optix for say 150-200$, then spent another 150-200, you'd save this amount in 1 year on energy at 0.12$ a kW.
So you'd be even after 1 year on a 8-9 hour light cycle.
The economics is not bad really if you factor in cost of energy.
I run MH lamps 2 years easy for planted tanks.
LED's, I know folks have a lot longer than 2 years now.
They are interesting and offer some nice benefits.
Maybe not for you today....but perhaps in your future.
Does not seem like you are going to get out of the hobby anytime soon
Me either.
Stark LED's are 350$ for a 250W MH equivalent.
The spread is reduced vs a 250W MH or even a 150W, but the spread would work well for the 30-45 Gal tank.
I'd rate them 2-2.5X more efficient than the MH and dimming and color additions and mixing is really very cool.
The blues can be removed and add other whites if desired.
The issue is more due to spread of the light vs packed together, the LED's do produce more PAR per watt. This the LED's do not get around. The spread is more focused and limited than the broader MH.
That is the trade off.
But......a correct designed fixture gets away from that depending on the floor of the aquarium and spread.
The pre made Stark would work in your case.
Or a modified version, or a DIY with a more even spacing of the Cree's. That is the beuaty, you can customize the lighting and dim, mix anbd match colors etc.
For any aquarium and run it at 1W/gal or less.
Still, I'd add some nice green house plants around the tank, makes it feel "more planted", they will do quite well.
Yes, I'm hesitant to go LED's but the shimmer is nice, I do like that.
I use about 1.8W/gal of LED's on the new reef I have. Not interested in a chiller.
Yes, the color CRI is going up and up and up recently with newer models of the Cree's coming out. So it's improved. And once you have the system, you can swap out the older colors with newer ones pretty easily actually.
So it's upgradeable without too much tech.
Still, in your case and with the sale on the MH, I'd do it likely myself, I like the Triangle fixture design a lot.
Just start at 24" above the tank when you start the tank and plant/fill it.
Then drop it down to maybe 18-20" later.
Water changes, lots of them for the first 1-2 months(every 3rd day is good), then maybe once a week there after.
The tank size is nice. ADA does not make the sized tanks I wanted, so I ended up having them custom made by LeMar and another guy in Long Beach. Long drive from Sac though
Regards,
Tom Barr
