[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Metal Halide
- To: Aquatic-Plants at actwin_com (Aquatic-Plants)
- Subject: Re: Metal Halide
- From: "David W. Webb" <dwebb at ti_com>
- Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 18:26:38 -0500
- Conversation-Id: <BMSMTP878602814183a0206807 at dsks52_itg.ti.com>
>Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 11:23:42 -0900
>From: Charles Rogers <crogers at akcb_com>
> Do people on the list believe that the only lighting that will
>work on a planted is the Metal Halide? I was reading a magazine article
>that said "the only lighting that works is the Metal Halide" My
>hesitation is that I don't want to make pea soup out my water....Any
>advice would be appreciated.
Shhhhhhh! Don't tell my plants. They've been doing so well for years
under just FL tubes. I don't want them to know that that magazine says
they can't grow unless I buy MH lighting.
Seriously, was it an article, or was it an advertisment for MH lighting? I
can't imagine a responsible aquarium magazine editor (within the last 2
years) allowing an article to say that you can't grow plants without MH
lighting. That's like saying that the only form of dietary fiber is oat
bran. Sure, MH lighting is a very good way to intensely light your tank,
but it's not the only way.
Perhaps the article suggested that with a tank deeper than 30", MH lighting
is the "only" way to ensure adequate brightness at the substrate? Even
with this, I'd disagree, but this sounds more plausible since MH may very
well be the least expensive way of lighting a deep tank (unless you like
big skylights ;-).
David W. Webb Texas Instruments
(972) 575-3443 (voice) http://www.dallas.net/~dwebb
(214) 581-2380 (pager) 2145812380 at alphapage_airtouch.com