[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [APD] Re: Lux
Actually, watts per gallon is the *most* useful because,
although inaccurate, it's readily availailable. Othe
measures that woul dbe more accurate are worth a darn
because they generally can be used because adequate info
isn't available to the many if not most hobbyist.
A ight output rating for a fixture/bulb combination would
be best if practical, or one could assume a given fixture
(invoking ceteris parabus) and a given type and size of
bulb. Of course, you'd still have to decide on what kind
of output to measure -- PAR would probably best for
assessing effect on plant growth but not as I think Bill W.
was reminding us, how bright things look or what color they
appear to be.
--- Billinet at aol_com wrote:
> Several years ago I suggested that the best measurement
> of the lighting ability of a particular bulb would be its
> lux measured at various depths, in a tank of clear water.
> A number of people pointed out the practical difficulties
> of implementing this, mentioning such variables as the
> reflector type and ballast, among other things.
> Nonetheless, I think that lux is a far better tool to
> evaluate competing lighting methods. It's certainly
> better than watts per gallon, which everybody seems to
> agree isn't very useful.
> Aquatic-Plants mailing list
> Aquatic-Plants at actwin_com
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
Aquatic-Plants mailing list
Aquatic-Plants at actwin_com