fumanchu88
Member
I was just wonder if 2.5 watts of light per gallon is enough?
how many watts of light should I have
- Thread starter fumanchu88
- Start date
farslayer
Active Member
Watts per gallon has no meaning. A watt is one joule per second of energy; a 60W bulb requires 60 joules per second to remain lit. The type of lighting is what is important as is the associated PAR values (which can be drastically affected by the reflectors) and the depth of the tank. What are you wanting to keep?
fumanchu88
Member
anemonies
farslayer
Active Member
Ok then, I'm no expert on these guys. Generally speaking, the majority of what I've read indicate that metal halides are going to generally be required for long term health, but some keep them under T5 and VHO as well. Some don't require as much light as others, but best to let an anemone person answer that question.
Next question is how old is your tank? Is it nice and stable with pristine water conditions?
Next question is how old is your tank? Is it nice and stable with pristine water conditions?
fumanchu88
Member
yes the water is good 2 weeks it cycled quick because i used half cycled water and 150 pounds of live sand from a different tank
farslayer
Active Member
Not a chance my friend, 2 weeks is NOT stable water. Stable water is constant for months, not weeks. Take my advice as you're not going to find anybody on here dissenting: wait. You need to get a little bit of success first. Go ahead and get your lights now, maintain some basic livestock such as a fish and maybe a few inverts, eventually some corals. If you can keep that, and your water chemistry maintains stability for a few months (the rule of thumb is 6 months), THEN you can try an anemone.
rbaldino
Active Member
Originally Posted by Farslayer
Watts per gallon has no meaning. A watt is one joule per second of energy; a 60W bulb requires 60 joules per second to remain lit. The type of lighting is what is important as is the associated PAR values (which can be drastically affected by the reflectors) and the depth of the tank.
Watts per gallon has some meaning, and is a good place to start for understanding the basics of lighting. You're not going to get significant PAR values without high wattage, and regardless of bulb type, wattage is still important. No one would say that a 150 watt metal halide is enough light for a 100 gallon tank, which is why wattage still has meaning.
Watts per gallon has no meaning. A watt is one joule per second of energy; a 60W bulb requires 60 joules per second to remain lit. The type of lighting is what is important as is the associated PAR values (which can be drastically affected by the reflectors) and the depth of the tank.
Watts per gallon has some meaning, and is a good place to start for understanding the basics of lighting. You're not going to get significant PAR values without high wattage, and regardless of bulb type, wattage is still important. No one would say that a 150 watt metal halide is enough light for a 100 gallon tank, which is why wattage still has meaning.
farslayer
Active Member
Wattage has no meaning; you are comparing two different types of bulbs and two different technologies. Wattage is a measurement of input energy, which is why "green" bulbs have lower wattage but equivalent or higher lumen values. You could argue a certain wattage of a certain type of bulb, but nothing else. If tomorrow MH bulbs became ten times more efficient, such as a 150W bulb only requiring 15W of power, your watts per gallon figure would drop yet light value would be the same. This is why the important figure is finding the PAR values, tank depth, etc. Also, PAR values drop as color temperature increases, again negating a wpg measurement. It's better to say that you have PC lighting over a 24" tank, then figure how much PC lighting you have as a measure of watts over the dimensions of the tank.
farslayer
Active Member
Actually, this issue comes up quite a bit. A popular magazine has an excellent article about this nonsense "rule of thumb"; I'm not sure if I can post a link here, but suffice to say it is written by Eric Borneman:
Eric Borneman is the author of Aquarium Corals: Selection, Husbandry, and Natural History, and co-author of A Practical Guide to Corals. He is also the co-founder of the Marine and Reef Aquarium Society of Houston and is active in reef conservation efforts worldwide.
I'm sorry, but watts per gallon is nonsense. For a good laugh, search for "pirates global climate" to see an example of how ratios can be statistically correct, yet have no actual value.
Eric Borneman is the author of Aquarium Corals: Selection, Husbandry, and Natural History, and co-author of A Practical Guide to Corals. He is also the co-founder of the Marine and Reef Aquarium Society of Houston and is active in reef conservation efforts worldwide.
I'm sorry, but watts per gallon is nonsense. For a good laugh, search for "pirates global climate" to see an example of how ratios can be statistically correct, yet have no actual value.
pontius
Active Member
"watts per gallon" is not a science, but it is a good rule of thumb to go by when considering what type animals to keep. just as "inches of fish per gallon" is a rule of thumb. of course there are exceptions to these "rules of thumb", but you don't have to be an electrical engineer to understand such things.
and no, 2.5 watts per gallon would generally not be enough light for any anenome.
MH lights are the best because they penetrate deeper, etc. T5 and VHO are pretty good for many coral. PC works mostly for soft corals. the rule of thumb is to try to get around 5 watts per gallon. of course this is not a hard rule and their are exceptions, but you don't have to be the editor of Popular Science to figure out what will thrive with what light and how much.
and no, 2.5 watts per gallon would generally not be enough light for any anenome.
MH lights are the best because they penetrate deeper, etc. T5 and VHO are pretty good for many coral. PC works mostly for soft corals. the rule of thumb is to try to get around 5 watts per gallon. of course this is not a hard rule and their are exceptions, but you don't have to be the editor of Popular Science to figure out what will thrive with what light and how much.
pontius
Active Member
Originally Posted by Farslayer
There's a difference between not being scientific and not being accurate; watts per gallon isn't accurate.
watts per gallon is a general rule that works generally. you're qouting off this unnecessary lighting information when all the poster needs to know, bottom line, is that no, 2.5 watts/gallons is not intense enough light for an anenome. I've read umpteen fish books and none of them were written by Thomas Edison, but all of the authors apparently had lots of success and experience with such things.
There's a difference between not being scientific and not being accurate; watts per gallon isn't accurate.
watts per gallon is a general rule that works generally. you're qouting off this unnecessary lighting information when all the poster needs to know, bottom line, is that no, 2.5 watts/gallons is not intense enough light for an anenome. I've read umpteen fish books and none of them were written by Thomas Edison, but all of the authors apparently had lots of success and experience with such things.
farslayer
Active Member
Uh, Thomas Edison? You actually imply that Edison knew all about light bulbs? You do know, don't you, that he didn't know how they worked?
Sorry, but wpg is bunk; btw, bunk is a term used by Edison quite often. The fellow I quoted is also an accomplished author and conservationist, and he disagrees. In fact, I'll quote him some:
The second consideration is one of logic, albeit a logic rarely employed by the use of the "watts per gallon" rule. A simple example is all that is required to make the obvious even more patently clear. Under the "watts per gallon" rule, for instance, five watts per gallon has generally been assumed to be adequate for most reef tank inhabitants, with higher light corals, such as Acropora spp., requiring perhaps up to 10 watts per gallon. If one has a 10-gallon tank, then, three 18-inch 15-watt bulbs would put the aquarist darn close to an otherwise whopping five watts per gallon. A single 24-inch 95-watt VHO fluorescent light would nearly make the 10 watts per gallon. A single small 150 watt metal halide would put one at a tremendous 15 watts per gallon! Yet, who would attempt to keep Acropora spp., for instance, under a single lowly 150 watt metal halide? Few, I would imagine.
Planted Tank, Courtesy of artgeckoThe point is that bulbs of any type emit a set amount of light. It matters not whether the tank it illuminates is 10 gallons or 10,000 gallons, three 18-inch 15-watt bulbs still will only put out the light of three 18-inch 15-watt bulbs. Conversely, if a coral requires the amount of light put out by a 400-watt metal halide bulb, that same bulb will be needed whether it be over a five gallon tank or a five hundred gallon tank. However, a 400-watt bulb over a five gallon tank will, unfortunately, likely cause tremendous heat problems on a five gallon tank -- unless, of course, the tank has use of a flow-through cryogenic cooling jacket surrounding it!
For this reason, it is again important to evaluate the possibilities of the environment, recognizing that certain limitations on the photosynthetic inhabitants of a five gallon tank will certainly exist - or at least not be easily met. However, these limitations should not be interpreted in such a way that very successful reef aquaria with a diverse array of photosynthetic life are not possible. Indeed, they are. The requirement for success need only involve foresight, understanding, and planning for such an environment.
Finally, there is the third matter of light attenuation with depth. As many probably realize, light loses strength as it passes through water. "Wimpy" bulbs simply do not have the strength to penetrate deep tanks, and the attenuation can be significant even over a matter of inches. Thus, a 30 gallon "tall" tank may not be well-lit enough near the bottom with bulbs that are adequate for a 30 "long." One hundred and fifty watts of 18-inch bulbs will not have the depth penetration of a single 150-watt metal halide, simply because the sum of the wattages doesn't equal the intensity of the single point source bulb. Along those lines, variations of other aspects of bulb types may not factor out equally. Finally, plants which may have sufficient light energy to thrive near the top of a tank may well not have enough light in the middle or bottom of the tank, despite the uniform appearance of brightness throughout the aquarium -- and despite the "watts per gallon" or bulb type.
Sorry, but wpg is bunk; btw, bunk is a term used by Edison quite often. The fellow I quoted is also an accomplished author and conservationist, and he disagrees. In fact, I'll quote him some:
The second consideration is one of logic, albeit a logic rarely employed by the use of the "watts per gallon" rule. A simple example is all that is required to make the obvious even more patently clear. Under the "watts per gallon" rule, for instance, five watts per gallon has generally been assumed to be adequate for most reef tank inhabitants, with higher light corals, such as Acropora spp., requiring perhaps up to 10 watts per gallon. If one has a 10-gallon tank, then, three 18-inch 15-watt bulbs would put the aquarist darn close to an otherwise whopping five watts per gallon. A single 24-inch 95-watt VHO fluorescent light would nearly make the 10 watts per gallon. A single small 150 watt metal halide would put one at a tremendous 15 watts per gallon! Yet, who would attempt to keep Acropora spp., for instance, under a single lowly 150 watt metal halide? Few, I would imagine.
Planted Tank, Courtesy of artgeckoThe point is that bulbs of any type emit a set amount of light. It matters not whether the tank it illuminates is 10 gallons or 10,000 gallons, three 18-inch 15-watt bulbs still will only put out the light of three 18-inch 15-watt bulbs. Conversely, if a coral requires the amount of light put out by a 400-watt metal halide bulb, that same bulb will be needed whether it be over a five gallon tank or a five hundred gallon tank. However, a 400-watt bulb over a five gallon tank will, unfortunately, likely cause tremendous heat problems on a five gallon tank -- unless, of course, the tank has use of a flow-through cryogenic cooling jacket surrounding it!
For this reason, it is again important to evaluate the possibilities of the environment, recognizing that certain limitations on the photosynthetic inhabitants of a five gallon tank will certainly exist - or at least not be easily met. However, these limitations should not be interpreted in such a way that very successful reef aquaria with a diverse array of photosynthetic life are not possible. Indeed, they are. The requirement for success need only involve foresight, understanding, and planning for such an environment.
Finally, there is the third matter of light attenuation with depth. As many probably realize, light loses strength as it passes through water. "Wimpy" bulbs simply do not have the strength to penetrate deep tanks, and the attenuation can be significant even over a matter of inches. Thus, a 30 gallon "tall" tank may not be well-lit enough near the bottom with bulbs that are adequate for a 30 "long." One hundred and fifty watts of 18-inch bulbs will not have the depth penetration of a single 150-watt metal halide, simply because the sum of the wattages doesn't equal the intensity of the single point source bulb. Along those lines, variations of other aspects of bulb types may not factor out equally. Finally, plants which may have sufficient light energy to thrive near the top of a tank may well not have enough light in the middle or bottom of the tank, despite the uniform appearance of brightness throughout the aquarium -- and despite the "watts per gallon" or bulb type.
pontius
Active Member
I'm going to be honest with you, I read 1/3 of that post, and that's it. it's great that you know all that, but it's not necessary. you don't have to have a degree in marine biology and a minor in light bulbs to keep a saltwater tank.
the question was......is 2.5 watts per gallon enough for an anenome. the answer is no.
now, if some new magical bulb came out that was greater than any other bulbs out currently, may be a different story.
the question was......is 2.5 watts per gallon enough for an anenome. the answer is no.
now, if some new magical bulb came out that was greater than any other bulbs out currently, may be a different story.
farslayer
Active Member
Try reading all of it, seriously, it is a very good article. And the answer is not "no", it is "that's not a valid question". 2.5WPG would actually be just fine if that was coming from a single 250W MH bulb over a 100G tank positioned directly over the anemone. Do you see how nonsensical wpg is? With a very simple example, you can see that 2.5 WPG would be very sufficient for an anemone, in that situation.
Seriously, read that article, it is very, very good! It comes from someone who is a coral conservationist and researcher, he knows his stuff.
And no, you don't need a degree to keep saltwater, but you do need one when making factual statements or presenting ratios with scientific tone. That's why we simply rely on the works of others who DO have those degrees and such; we learn from what they learn. Edison's work was continued by others, Newton's work was continued by others (and refuted by Einstein, Bose, Hawkins, guys like them), and the works of today's scientists will be continued as well. We reap the benefits of their works.
Seriously, read that article, it is very, very good! It comes from someone who is a coral conservationist and researcher, he knows his stuff.
And no, you don't need a degree to keep saltwater, but you do need one when making factual statements or presenting ratios with scientific tone. That's why we simply rely on the works of others who DO have those degrees and such; we learn from what they learn. Edison's work was continued by others, Newton's work was continued by others (and refuted by Einstein, Bose, Hawkins, guys like them), and the works of today's scientists will be continued as well. We reap the benefits of their works.
pontius
Active Member
it is very unlikely that someone with only 2.5 watts per gallon gets all that light from a single halide bulb because if someone were actually going to go out and invest the kind of money that it takes for MH, they would generally want more than 2.5 wpg. but let's ask him...FuManchu, does your 2.5 wpg actually come from a halide bulb? if the answer is "no", then the answer to your original question is also "no". and I stick by my opinion that the information you're providing isn't necessary to know whether or not one has adequate lighting.
farslayer
Active Member
Not likely is not a valid argument, the ratio clearly states watts per gallon, no other factors considered. That's the problem, no one would say that watts per gallon is the only ratio to examine, so why use it? Why not say "You need at least VHO to keep that, and it can't be any more than 20" below the light"? That's more accurate isn't it? I mean the longer bulbs are only higher wattage because more watts are required to light the longer tube.
pontius
Active Member
MH are higher wattage and penetrate deeper into the tank and cover a more concentrated area. this is why they are considered better for corals and anenomes.
pc and t5 cover a greater area, but with less wattage and don't penetrate as deep.
now, what's so hard about that? I'm not going to continue to argue this. unless this guy has a single MH bulb that is directly over the spot where the anenome is sitting and the anenome is very close to the water surface, 2.5 wpg is not enough. and I doubt very much that this is the scenario. sometimes you don't have to know all the variables, sometimes you just have to use a little common sense. and that is where that's what you need to use the "watts per gallon" rule accurately.....common sense. of course, if that's something that's lacking, then take a college graduate course in light bulbs.
pc and t5 cover a greater area, but with less wattage and don't penetrate as deep.
now, what's so hard about that? I'm not going to continue to argue this. unless this guy has a single MH bulb that is directly over the spot where the anenome is sitting and the anenome is very close to the water surface, 2.5 wpg is not enough. and I doubt very much that this is the scenario. sometimes you don't have to know all the variables, sometimes you just have to use a little common sense. and that is where that's what you need to use the "watts per gallon" rule accurately.....common sense. of course, if that's something that's lacking, then take a college graduate course in light bulbs.