[Sar315]

Lets say I am going to light for total 10 hours a day.

Is it OK, if instead of (for example) two 5 hour intervals with several hour between them I'll have 10 one hours intervals with 5 minutes of increasing and decreasing light at the start and end

For example

8:00 - 8:05 light goes from 0% to 100%
8:05 - 9:05 light stays at 100% for an hour
9:05 - 9:10 light goes from 100% to 0%

9:30 - 9:35 light goes from 0% to 100%
9:35 - 10:35 light stays at 100% for an hour
10:35 - 10:40 light goes from 100% to 0%

and so on - 10 intervals total.

 

[Raymond S.]

Plants take aprx 3.5 hrs to "ramp up" to full growing. This light timing would
wreck them.
Typically you have a break in the middle somewhere that is supposed to hinder
algae growth by interrupting it's supply of light. Because algae has no way to store
energy like plants do. Some say that you need at least 4 hrs of no light for it to
hinder the growth of the algae.
I have no idea if that has anything to do with the reason you asked about that light
timing you suggested. But your suggested light timing would completely mess up a plants ability to grow anything like normal.

 

[roadmaster]

I'm on board with Raymond.
Stability is what plant's need.
Try the lighting siesta's and or on off times with house plant's ,outdoor plant's,and the aquatic plant's, and one can realize that this messing about with lighting period's and intensity level's does not improve growth or help combat algae to any measureable degree in the aquarium.
Better in my humble opinion to have straight 8 to 10 hour photo period for stable condition's with plant's and fauna alike.

 

[AutumnSky]

Your time schedule seems incorrect.

If you have the light on for 5 or 6 hours / off 3 hours and on 5 - 6 hours. This helps reduce / break up the algae growth period and will work for a tank NOT using CO2.

Edit: the growing period will not work for plants in a one hour light on as referred to above.

 

[theatermusic87]

It is my understanding that the"siesta " allows natural co2 in the water to build back up in addition to being detrimental to algae... never had much luck with it

What you are suggesting send more like a cloud simulation on one of the higher end lighting controllers, those don't normally din down 100% but instead go 40-50% for few minutes at a time. Does not seem to cause any issues that I've heard of, though i have to ask why you're doing it that way

 

[AWolf]

Here is my problem; I have read that it takes a couple of hours of light for plants to ramp up, and they do the greatest amount of intake of CO2 much later in a daylight period than most people think. But then, I've seen some threads on lighting periods that show graphs where as soon as the lights turn on, the CO2 uptake is almost immediately in full steady uptake by the plants until the lights go off.

How do we mention another poster in a thread? I want to mention Raymond in the earlier threads on this topic, and the other posters on this topic sometimes, and I don't know how. (Nevermind, found out.)

At any rate, I think both of the above scenarios sound credible. But which one is more accurate?

The first scenario is more like real daylight, slowly ramping up, as do the plants. So I'm of the opinion that it is better. The second sounds more like a typical indoor grow situation, instant full blast light periods, and because it is 'instant full on', it will require more adjustments to ferts/Kelvins/period/etc.