Re: [APD] Re: WPG Rule

["S. Hieber" <shieber at yahoo_com>]

Yes. You've gotten to the issue, imo

The issue isn't whether there are more accurate measures of
light output -- even better, take PAR into account.

But how many folks have ready means to measure lux at the
bottom of the tank full of water?

The challenge insn't to come up with a more accurate
measure of how much energy the plants will get, but to come
up with one that's handy.

Wpg is ersatz and handy. And it actually works pretty well
-- probalby part of the reason something better and handy
hasn't been developed.

sh
--- Billinet at aol_com wrote:
> John wheeler said, in part, that WPG " . . .  was a lousy
> rule of thumb", 
> particularly for irregularly shaped tanks.
> 
> I totally agree.  I have been suggesting for years that
> lux measured at the 
> bottom of a tank would be a much better measurement.  
> The main argument 
> against it is that it would be too complicated, given the
> numerous combinations of 
> bulbs and reflectors.
> 
> It would not be easy, but in many cases it would be a
> once and done task.  
> Bulbs and reflectors don't change every week.  The web
> has many examples of the 
> results of much more complex research projects.
> 
> Bill
> _______________________________________________
> Aquatic-Plants mailing list
> Aquatic-Plants at actwin_com
> http://www.actwin.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/aquatic-plants


=====
S. Hieber

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/
_______________________________________________
Aquatic-Plants mailing list
Aquatic-Plants at actwin_com
http://www.actwin.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/aquatic-plants