Lighting issue

Joined
26 Oct 2008
Messages
1,646
Location
Cheshire
Gang@ukps

This morning I decided to remove some of my mature and add in some new media ( I am in the process of colonize filter media from my EX1200 into my 2080). Anyway I refilled my 2080 with existing tank water 25 litres or approx. 1.5" was required to refill the filter and for the first time my plants pearled - this got me thinking that by having a reduction in depth of water allowed the light to penetrate deeper so I am right in thinking that I need to improve my lighting - currently I have 2 x 30 watt T8 tube @ 6000K and 1 x 24 watt T8 tube @ 4900K - approx ltr of tank is 217 depth of tank 18". If I renew my lighting system it will have to be a new unit (sits on the side of the tank or a pendant type) or does anybody know of greater wattage tubes with a high K rating (T8) that I can purchase.

Regards
paul.
 
Joined
26 Oct 2008
Messages
1,646
Location
Cheshire
Thx james

Without changing my lighting hood is there any other improvements I can do - I am running Aqua One AR980 hood with Sera lights and added reflectors.

Regards

Paul.
 
Joined
26 Oct 2008
Messages
1,646
Location
Cheshire
Thx Arron

That what I am pondering with - I can buy the same wattage / length of tube but with a high K rating and would this help.

Regards

Paul
 

aaronnorth

Member
Joined
19 Feb 2008
Messages
3,953
Location
worksop, nottinghamshire
Flyfisherman said:
Thx Arron

That what I am pondering with - I can buy the same wattage / length of tube but with a high K rating and would this help.

Regards

Paul
higher K tubes have more blue in them, and blue penetrates the water deeper so it would help, by how much i am unsure of though.
 
Joined
26 Oct 2008
Messages
1,646
Location
Cheshire
Gang@Ukaps

Bought some HC from the TGM today and popped them into the tank still in there pots, looked at them an hour ago and I have tiny bubbles appearing - pots are approx. 1.5" tall and following my early thread (see above) regarding my water level from Saturday morning I am convinced that the depth of my tank 18" is reducing the growth rate of my plants as they are not having enough light - any thoughts.

Regards

Paul.
 

ceg4048

Expert/Global Moderator
Staff member
Joined
11 Jul 2007
Messages
8,966
Location
Chicago, USA
Flyfisherman said:
..This morning I decided to remove some of my mature and add in some new media ( I am in the process of colonize filter media from my EX1200 into my 2080). Anyway I refilled my 2080 with existing tank water 25 litres or approx. 1.5" was required to refill the filter and for the first time my plants pearled - this got me thinking that by having a reduction in depth of water allowed the light to penetrate deeper so I am right in thinking that I need to improve my lighting - currently I have 2 x 30 watt T8 tube @ 6000K and 1 x 24 watt T8 tube @ 4900K - approx ltr of tank is 217 depth of tank 18". If I renew my lighting system it will have to be a new unit (sits on the side of the tank or a pendant type) or does anybody know of greater wattage tubes with a high K rating (T8) that I can purchase.
Paul
None of this seems reasonable. Did you just add a 2080 to this tank which was previously filtered by an EX1200? Are you saying that after starting up the 2080 the water level in the tank then dropped 1.5 inches? And so you're attributing the pearling to a 1.5 inch water drop instead of attributing it to the extra flow that the 2080 provides?

From a light falloff standpoint 1.5 inches of water is completely meaningless unless we're talking about cloudy water. If the water is clear then there is very little difference in light between an empty tank and a full tank.

The problem with 18 inches has less to do with light not reaching the plants than flow not reaching the plants. Isn't that why you opted for a bigger filter in the first place??

aaronnorth said:
..higher K tubes have more blue in them, and blue penetrates the water deeper...
I'd buy this if we were talking about 180 feet, not 18 inches. Spectral penetration differences are also completely meaningless at such small distances.

Before upgrading lighting, one would be wise to maximize the potential of the existing configuration via flow and CO2.

Cheers,
 
Joined
26 Oct 2008
Messages
1,646
Location
Cheshire
None of this seems reasonable. Did you just add a 2080 to this tank which was previously filtered by an EX1200? Are you saying that after starting up the 2080 the water level in the tank then dropped 1.5 inches? And so you're attributing the pearling to a 1.5 inch water drop instead of attributing it to the extra flow that the 2080 provides?

From a light falloff standpoint 1.5 inches of water is completely meaningless unless we're talking about cloudy water. If the water is clear then there is very little difference in light between an empty tank and a full tank.

The problem with 18 inches has less to do with light not reaching the plants than flow not reaching the plants. Isn't that why you opted for a bigger filter in the first place??

aaronnorth said:
..higher K tubes have more blue in them, and blue penetrates the water deeper...
I'd buy this if we were talking about 180 feet, not 18 inches. Spectral penetration differences are also completely meaningless at such small distances.

Before upgrading lighting, one would be wise to maximize the potential of the existing configuration via flow and CO2.

Cheers,[/quote]

Clive
6 - 8 weeks ago I started the running in period of my 2080 with a mixture of media - old media from my Ex1200 and new media from the 2080 - bacteria colonization. Last Saturday 02.05.2009 I decided to remove the all the Ex1200 media and replace it with the rest of the 2080 that had not been used - now the filter is running with eheim media, fill the canister back up with water from the tank which meant the water level in the tank dropped by 25 litres (canister capacity) which means a reduction in overall depth of water by appox. 1.5". I did not top up the water level as I was due to do my 50% that night, so i left it. Prior to changing my water Saturday night,I noticed that my HC was covered in tiny bubbles and my other plants were pearling. Last night @ 18:00 - water level at the correct height no bubbles on HC, More HC added of which I had bought in the afternoon, popped them into the tank, still in their pots and 1 hour later tiny bubbles appeared - 3 hours later they were covered in a mass of tiny bubbles, my water is not gin clear - it has a very slight haze. Co2 levels are o.k - Cal aqua reference solution / indicator solution are identical in colouration in my Cal aqua double drop checker. So the greater the depth of water the more light is required to penetrate through the water - proved this on Saturday with a reduction in water depth / Sunday increase in plant height.

Regards
paul.
 

aaronnorth

Member
Joined
19 Feb 2008
Messages
3,953
Location
worksop, nottinghamshire
aaronnorth said:
..higher K tubes have more blue in them, and blue penetrates the water deeper...
I'd buy this if we were talking about 180 feet, not 18 inches. Spectral penetration differences are also completely meaningless at such small distances.

Before upgrading lighting, one would be wise to maximize the potential of the existing configuration via flow and CO2.

lol, i didnt know how much difference it would make,
 

Nelson

Member
Joined
17 Nov 2008
Messages
2,551
Location
Norfolk
hi paul,
only recently since starting EI.and only on my java ferns and c.balansae.not my hc,blyxa and moss.i am having problems with flow and co2 though.broke my glass diffuser so bodged a diy one viewtopic.php?f=35&t=5599&p=64122#p64122 .last post.also need more flow but skint at the moment.
neil
 

ceg4048

Expert/Global Moderator
Staff member
Joined
11 Jul 2007
Messages
8,966
Location
Chicago, USA
Flyfisherman said:
..6 - 8 weeks ago I started the running in period of my 2080 with a mixture of media - old media from my Ex1200 and new media from the 2080 - bacteria colonization. Last Saturday 02.05.2009 I decided to remove the all the Ex1200 media and replace it with the rest of the 2080 that had not been used - now the filter is running with eheim media, fill the canister back up with water from the tank which meant the water level in the tank dropped by 25 litres (canister capacity) which means a reduction in overall depth of water by appox. 1.5". I did not top up the water level as I was due to do my 50% that night, so i left it. Prior to changing my water Saturday night,I noticed that my HC was covered in tiny bubbles and my other plants were pearling. Last night @ 18:00 - water level at the correct height no bubbles on HC, More HC added of which I had bought in the afternoon, popped them into the tank, still in their pots and 1 hour later tiny bubbles appeared - 3 hours later they were covered in a mass of tiny bubbles, my water is not gin clear - it has a very slight haze. Co2 levels are o.k - Cal aqua reference solution / indicator solution are identical in colouration in my Cal aqua double drop checker. So the greater the depth of water the more light is required to penetrate through the water - proved this on Saturday with a reduction in water depth / Sunday increase in plant height...
Well, I'd have to say that this really doesn't prove anything because fundamentally you have not isolated "distance-from-bulb" as the only changed variable. You are drawing a conclusion from circumstantial evidence.

When you drop the water level you affect flow as well as the amount of time it takes to saturate the water column with CO2. The ejection of oxygen depends on the rate of photosynthesis, which in turn depends on not only light intensity, but nutrient uptake rate as well as CO2 uptake rate. There is only one way to quantify the light intensity level change and that is to measure directly with a PAR meter.

The effect should also be repeatable and it should be magnified by degree of water level change if this is the only factor. So a 3 inch water level drop should perhaps produce either more pearling or pearling sooner (although the hydrodynamic effects wouldn't be known either).

What you could do is to keep the same water level and raise the pots by 1.5 inches or, if possible, drop the light source by that distance.

It's still not clear to me what filters are operating in the tank or were operating in the tank. Is it powered by both a 1200 or a 2080, or both - and has that changed over the last few weeks? There is also mention of media change but it's not clear whether the filter has had a media volume change or just a media swap. Replacing or removing or adding media to a filter changes the flow rate so this will have an effect as well.

Certainly, murky/cloudy water will change the equation but then consider what will happen when the water clears. Would the effect not be canceled once the water clears?

So I can't say for certain whether your conclusion is incorrect, only that the rationale leading to the conclusion is faulty since you have not taken into account all the possible variables associated with a drop in water level. Basing a future lighting upgrade solely on this rationale could cause trouble later on if it in fact turns out that the pearling was not lighting related, and in fact you could be buying yourself more trouble if the factors leading to the pearling are not fully grasped. That's why I advise to maximize CO2/nutrients/flow first. A green dropchecker doesn't necessarily mean that you have optimized your CO2. Try driving the checker into the yellow for example, being careful not to gas your fish! After you've pushed the limits without success then you can say "OK I need more light".

Paul, don't get me wrong. I'm the worst of all the lighting fringe lunatics/extremists. I despise looking at dim tanks. I'm just trying to point out that The Matrix has programmed everyone to think that adding more light solves their problems when in fact just the opposite is true. Sometimes, yes, there's just not enough light to grow some plants in some tanks, but more often than not the limiting factor in a tank is inadequate CO2, flow or nutrition and adding more light simply exacerbates these problems. Now, if you want a brighter tank then by all means go get more light - but you had better have a firm grip on these other factors to be able handle the higher demands of higher lighting. ;)

Cheers,
 
Joined
26 Oct 2008
Messages
1,646
Location
Cheshire
ceg4048 said:
Flyfisherman said:
..6 - 8 weeks ago I started the running in period of my 2080 with a mixture of media - old media from my Ex1200 and new media from the 2080 - bacteria colonization. Last Saturday 02.05.2009 I decided to remove the all the Ex1200 media and replace it with the rest of the 2080 that had not been used - now the filter is running with eheim media, fill the canister back up with water from the tank which meant the water level in the tank dropped by 25 litres (canister capacity) which means a reduction in overall depth of water by appox. 1.5". I did not top up the water level as I was due to do my 50% that night, so i left it. Prior to changing my water Saturday night,I noticed that my HC was covered in tiny bubbles and my other plants were pearling. Last night @ 18:00 - water level at the correct height no bubbles on HC, More HC added of which I had bought in the afternoon, popped them into the tank, still in their pots and 1 hour later tiny bubbles appeared - 3 hours later they were covered in a mass of tiny bubbles, my water is not gin clear - it has a very slight haze. Co2 levels are o.k - Cal aqua reference solution / indicator solution are identical in colouration in my Cal aqua double drop checker. So the greater the depth of water the more light is required to penetrate through the water - proved this on Saturday with a reduction in water depth / Sunday increase in plant height...
Well, I'd have to say that this really doesn't prove anything because fundamentally you have not isolated "distance-from-bulb" as the only changed variable. You are drawing a conclusion from circumstantial evidence.

When you drop the water level you affect flow as well as the amount of time it takes to saturate the water column with CO2. The ejection of oxygen depends on the rate of photosynthesis, which in turn depends on not only light intensity, but nutrient uptake rate as well as CO2 uptake rate. There is only one way to quantify the light intensity level change and that is to measure directly with a PAR meter.

The effect should also be repeatable and it should be magnified by degree of water level change if this is the only factor. So a 3 inch water level drop should perhaps produce either more pearling or pearling sooner (although the hydrodynamic effects wouldn't be known either).

What you could do is to keep the same water level and raise the pots by 1.5 inches or, if possible, drop the light source by that distance.

It's still not clear to me what filters are operating in the tank or were operating in the tank. Is it powered by both a 1200 or a 2080, or both - and has that changed over the last few weeks? There is also mention of media change but it's not clear whether the filter has had a media volume change or just a media swap. Replacing or removing or adding media to a filter changes the flow rate so this will have an effect as well.

Certainly, murky/cloudy water will change the equation but then consider what will happen when the water clears. Would the effect not be canceled once the water clears?

So I can't say for certain whether your conclusion is incorrect, only that the rationale leading to the conclusion is faulty since you have not taken into account all the possible variables associated with a drop in water level. Basing a future lighting upgrade solely on this rationale could cause trouble later on if it in fact turns out that the pearling was not lighting related, and in fact you could be buying yourself more trouble if the factors leading to the pearling are not fully grasped. That's why I advise to maximize CO2/nutrients/flow first. A green dropchecker doesn't necessarily mean that you have optimized your CO2. Try driving the checker into the yellow for example, being careful not to gas your fish! After you've pushed the limits without success then you can say "OK I need more light".

Paul, don't get me wrong. I'm the worst of all the lighting fringe lunatics/extremists. I despise looking at dim tanks. I'm just trying to point out that The Matrix has programmed everyone to think that adding more light solves their problems when in fact just the opposite is true. Sometimes, yes, there's just not enough light to grow some plants in some tanks, but more often than not the limiting factor in a tank is inadequate CO2, flow or nutrition and adding more light simply exacerbates these problems. Now, if you want a brighter tank then by all means go get more light - but you had better have a firm grip on these other factors to be able handle the higher demands of higher lighting. ;)

Cheers,
Clive

6 - 8 weeks ago I removed my Ex1200 filter and replaced it with my Eheim 2080 filter. I initially started it with a mixture of media, all my 1200 media and approx 7 litres of eheim media "bacteria colonization".

Saturday just gone I removed all the 1200 media and replaced it with the other 5 litres of eheim media which was left due to me using the 1200 media - so now I am running full ehiem media - as for flow rate I have not seen any significant decrease or increase in using a mixture or media which was noodles, bio balls and sponges, now its running ehiem noddles & substrat pro. As i stated before the water is not gin clear - has a very slight haze.

One thing I have noticed over the last two weeks that a few leafs are are turning yellow and other leafs have brown spots so I have increased the trace mix - still at 25 mls Sunday & Tuesday - but increased the amount of powder fused from 1.5 tps to 2.0 tps in 200 mls of water. Is it woth increasing the NPK solutions from 50 mls to 60 or slightly more.


Regards
Paul.
 

ceg4048

Expert/Global Moderator
Staff member
Joined
11 Jul 2007
Messages
8,966
Location
Chicago, USA
Flyfisherman said:
..One thing I have noticed over the last two weeks that a few leafs are are turning yellow and other leafs have brown spots so I have increased the trace mix - still at 25 mls Sunday & Tuesday - but increased the amount of powder fused from 1.5 tps to 2.0 tps in 200 mls of water. Is it woth increasing the NPK solutions from 50 mls to 60 or slightly more..
Sure, it's always worth adding more. Yellowing could be due to shortages of Fe as well as shortages of N. As I mentioned though, one needs to find out how much CO2 can be safely added. What this tells me is that you have enough light to drive a nutrient shortfall which means you've got adequate light.

Cheers,
 
Joined
21 Feb 2009
Messages
333
Location
stroud, glos
so roughly 10% less water would mean 10% more co2, right?

also you mention changing your fert mix, so this could have also been a factor to increase your pearling?
 
Joined
26 Oct 2008
Messages
1,646
Location
Cheshire
ceg4048 said:
Flyfisherman said:
..One thing I have noticed over the last two weeks that a few leafs are are turning yellow and other leafs have brown spots so I have increased the trace mix - still at 25 mls Sunday & Tuesday - but increased the amount of powder fused from 1.5 tps to 2.0 tps in 200 mls of water. Is it woth increasing the NPK solutions from 50 mls to 60 or slightly more..
Sure, it's always worth adding more. Yellowing could be due to shortages of Fe as well as shortages of N. As I mentioned though, one needs to find out how much CO2 can be safely added. What this tells me is that you have enough light to drive a nutrient shortfall which means you've got adequate light.

Cheers,
Clive

What would be the net effect by overdosing? and if i have a nutrient shortfall could please advise me by how much to increase it by.

Thx
Paul.
 

Superman

Member
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Messages
1,804
Location
Cheltenham
Could it not just have been that the pots of HC you bought were used to having emmersed growth and stupidly high levels of co2 in the air compared to water. Therefore, they're already photosynthesising (spel) when you put them in the tank.

I did a similar thing when I got my HC from TGM and held them overnight in my 180ltr ready to plant the 14ltr. After a few minutes the pots of HC began to "pearl" and then the next day they weren't pearing as they were getting used to submerged growth.

I just wonder if the water level is just a red herring and that it's down to a new pots of HC that are used to super growth from their hydrophonics setup just getting used to being grown submerged.

I might not form a good argument but I can't seem to put it into words!
 

ceg4048

Expert/Global Moderator
Staff member
Joined
11 Jul 2007
Messages
8,966
Location
Chicago, USA
Yes, exactly. All these factors have a contribution. The lower water volume affects the levels of dissolved gases, (I can't say by what percentage), emersed-submersed transition has an effect and so forth.

Paul, check the EI tutorial which shows you exactly how to prepare the mixtures. There is really no way to say exactly by how much you should increase the dosages. Just try a 10% to 20% increase and see what happens after a few weeks.

Cheers,
 
Joined
26 Oct 2008
Messages
1,646
Location
Cheshire
Superman said:
Could it not just have been that the pots of HC you bought were used to having emmersed growth and stupidly high levels of co2 in the air compared to water. Therefore, they're already photosynthesising (spel) when you put them in the tank.

I did a similar thing when I got my HC from TGM and held them overnight in my 180ltr ready to plant the 14ltr. After a few minutes the pots of HC began to "pearl" and then the next day they weren't pearing as they were getting used to submerged growth.

I just wonder if the water level is just a red herring and that it's down to a new pots of HC that are used to super growth from their hydrophonics setup just getting used to being grown submerged.

I might not form a good argument but I can't seem to put it into words!
ceg4048 said:
Yes, exactly. All these factors have a contribution. The lower water volume affects the levels of dissolved gases, (I can't say by what percentage), emersed-submersed transition has an effect and so forth.

Paul, check the EI tutorial which shows you exactly how to prepare the mixtures. There is really no way to say exactly by how much you should increase the dosages. Just try a 10% to 20% increase and see what happens after a few weeks.

Cheers,
I have postage some pics in the Over dosing thread.

Clive

E.I dosing - NPK is as per your article 100% bang on, Trace mix - Increased the powder mix from 1.5 tps to 2 tps, volume of water is as per your article 100% bang on - this was only carried out following the observation of the yellow leaves and brown spot and reading the attached article:
http://www.aquaessentials.co.uk/index.p ... he56q0rt45


Clark, one thing a can confirm is that the TGM HC plants only have their roots or the pot in water. As you going into the shop, on your left hand side there is a fence and a small gate with a lock on it, behind there is a tent like structure inside are very low growing plants "Carpeting". Running water and a very bright light, you could say mobile Hydroponic room.

This Saturday is my 50% water change, in the morning I will remove 1.5" of water and I will watch to see if the HC starts to pearl, I will also watch it after the 50% water change and keep up posted.

Regards
Paul.
 
Top