Well I think the results may be in for this test. I have explosive
growth on the 6500K side of the tank....and the same thing on the 3500K
side. I forgot that two days before I changed the lights I started C02
injection.

So what did I learn? Well if you have adequate light to begin with then
adding C02 is more effective than a 0.6 watt per gallon difference in
light. As evidenced by the fact that both sides of the tank are growing
at the same rate despite the light difference - obviously C02 was more
of a limiting factor for my tank than light. I'm going to leave it the
way it is for at least a week just to be absolutely sure but in the end
I think I'm just going to go with the light that looks better. That
would be the 6500K - I don't think it's any better for the plants, but
it does look more natural. The "soft whites" reflect off of some orange
rocks I have in the tank rather harshly because of their orange
tendancy.

-Daniel

In article .com,
dfreas wrote:
Well I think the results may be in for this test. I have explosive
growth on the 6500K side of the tank....and the same thing on the 3500K
side. I forgot that two days before I changed the lights I started C02
injection.

So what did I learn? Well if you have adequate light to begin with then
adding C02 is more effective than a 0.6 watt per gallon difference in
light. As evidenced by the fact that both sides of the tank are growing
at the same rate despite the light difference - obviously C02 was more
of a limiting factor for my tank than light. I'm going to leave it the
way it is for at least a week just to be absolutely sure but in the end
I think I'm just going to go with the light that looks better. That
would be the 6500K - I don't think it's any better for the plants, but
it does look more natural. The "soft whites" reflect off of some orange
rocks I have in the tank rather harshly because of their orange
tendancy.

Yup, this all sounds about what I'd expect. One thing soft whites are
good for is to make already red plants look much more red.

This works when you're eyeballing them in real life or in photos.
These for example were shot under 80W of CF warm white:

http://images.aquaria.net/plants/Hyg...sperma/sunset/

--
Need Mercedes parts ? - http://parts.mbz.org
http://www.mbz.org | Mercedes Mailing lists: http://lists.mbz.org
633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | Killies, killi.net, Crypts, aquaria.net
1970 280SE, 72 280SE | Old wris****ches http://watches.list.mbz.org

Richard Sexton wrote:
In article .com,
dfreas wrote:

Well I think the results may be in for this test. I have explosive
growth on the 6500K side of the tank....and the same thing on the 3500K
side. I forgot that two days before I changed the lights I started C02
injection.

So what did I learn? Well if you have adequate light to begin with then
adding C02 is more effective than a 0.6 watt per gallon difference in
light. As evidenced by the fact that both sides of the tank are growing
at the same rate despite the light difference - obviously C02 was more
of a limiting factor for my tank than light. I'm going to leave it the
way it is for at least a week just to be absolutely sure but in the end
I think I'm just going to go with the light that looks better. That
would be the 6500K - I don't think it's any better for the plants, but
it does look more natural. The "soft whites" reflect off of some orange
rocks I have in the tank rather harshly because of their orange
tendancy.


Yup, this all sounds about what I'd expect. One thing soft whites are
good for is to make already red plants look much more red.

This works when you're eyeballing them in real life or in photos.
These for example were shot under 80W of CF warm white:

http://images.aquaria.net/plants/Hyg...sperma/sunset/

Nice shots. I wish I could get sunset hygro (or even regular hygro) in
Califonia, but it's an illegal noxious weed. *sigh*

--
__ Elaine T __
__' http://eethomp.com/fish.html '__

Very nice. I wish I could get my red plants to look as good. For some
reason the red plant I put in my tank immediately lost most of its red
and then stoped growing. Not that I have a ton of experience there -
I've tried two both of the same species (can't recall the name at the
moment). Neither died - they just refuse to grow. Some sort of red
sword plant - in fact it may have even been sold as "red sword."

-Daniel

In article . com,
dfreas wrote:
Very nice. I wish I could get my red plants to look as good. For some
reason the red plant I put in my tank immediately lost most of its red
and then stoped growing. Not that I have a ton of experience there -
I've tried two both of the same species (can't recall the name at the
moment). Neither died - they just refuse to grow. Some sort of red
sword plant - in fact it may have even been sold as "red sword."


A lot of things get sold as red swords. Some actually are swords;
I've seen lillies sold as "red swords".

Things that influence red in plants are bright light (the phots posted were
under 80W of compact fluorescent; the leaves were only 3-4" from the light)

Although, I get decent reds n Ludwigia repens with not much light -
plants are quite variable.

There is some chemistry to it, plants need nitrogen (and magnesium)
to make chlorophyl, so, low values in these two brings the red up.

--
Need Mercedes parts ? - http://parts.mbz.org
http://www.mbz.org | Mercedes Mailing lists: http://lists.mbz.org
633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | Killies, killi.net, Crypts, aquaria.net
1970 280SE, 72 280SE | Old wris****ches http://watches.list.mbz.org

To solve the overheating problems in my rain-gutter strip, I painted
the gutter black (radiates heat better than white) and drilled 4 -
3/16" vent holes per 20W light. The vent holes are behind the
reflector, so no gets out. Stays warm, but no discoloration after 6 mo.

On 2005-03-05, dfreas wrote:
be clear, the side with the 3500K bulb is yellow). However to my eye
the new bulb looks quite a bit dimmer. I guess this is just the
difference between a 25W bulb and a 19W bulb showing up but I'm not
sure which one will be better in the long run.


The reason the soft white bulb seems brighter is because the spectrum
that it emits is more senstive to human eyes than the 6500K bulb.

--
"I have to decide between two equally frightening options.
If I wanted to do that, I'd vote." --Duckman

This is just plain wrong. The peak emission wavelength of a 3500K
blackbody is 828nm while the peak emission wavelength of a 6500K
blackbody is 445nm. The visible spectrum extends from approximately
400nm (violet) to 700nm (red) so 828nm would be outside the visible
spectrum in the infrared section while 445nm would be clearly visible.

Watt for watt a 6500K bulb will always appear brighter to the human eye
than a 3500K bulb. The *only* reason that the 6500K bulb looks dimmer
here is because it is 6 watts lower.

-Daniel