[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [APD] Re: Lighting

--- Daniel Larsson <defdac at hotmail_com> wrote:

You bet. And nice to have the measurement research, leg
work and number crunching that's been done so far. 

And we are probably talking at cross purposes here -- my
fault. I'm not trying to criticize what you have said but
to make an additional point, given the info that you've
presented -- perhaps nothing more than a footnote.

Basically, I wouldn't want any newbie confused about how
small a mistake it might be to buy one bulb rather than
another, especially since there are few standards for how
manufacturers develop some of their ratings, outside of
watt consumption -- and even that, I think, varies with
ambient temps and over the life of the bulb as some of the
mercury inside the bulb becomes "trapped" in the glass. The
ceterus paribus clause will snag us every time ;-)

Hmm, so I guess I have two points. 1) that the results
don't (might not) quite tell us which bulbs are best
because there are some unavoidably large underdetermined
assumptions and 2) that assuming they do, it is easy to
overstate the diffs they will make to many gardeners,
especially less advanced gardeners.

In any event, more research and info can help us understand
better. I'm in favor of more research and info, especially
when it is conducted in such an organized manner as Ivo's
excellent examples.

It would be nice to have an acutal results test, where
how-the-plants-grow-under-the-diff-bulbs is actually
measured -- to heck with what the manufacturers claim; how
do that darn things grow plants? I can easily imagine that
there might be some stark diffs between very bad and very
good bulbs. Then again, control conditons might be so
difficult to maintain that diffs in plant growth would be
hard to attribute to bulb diffs. I do not know or say that
it so, I only suspect that it might be.

To put my second point in some perspective -- however I
might be overstating the case with the analogy:

I'd hate for a newbie to be confused that precise (say,
to-the-microgram) measurements of lab grade KNO3 are
necessary for good aquatic gardening, although lab grade is
certainly better than adulterated stuff. Such refinement
can be useful in the hands of a more advanced gardener with
special purposes but not something every gardener need
worry about.

Scott H.
> It's just nice to be able to get a bulb that conforms to
> the
> photosynthesis action spectrum rather good and
> also have nice color rendering and also are efficient
> growing plants, that's at least what I use the numbers
> for. 

Plant your feet in Washington, D.C. and touch the moon -- at the National Air & Space Museum. 
And learn the art of aquascaping Senske style at AGA2K4. 

Speakers, field trip, Ray "Kingfish" Lucas, and more. . .
The Annual AGA Convention, 2004, November 12-14.

Convention Details/Registration at aquatic-gardeners.org & gwapa.org
Aquatic-Plants mailing list
Aquatic-Plants at actwin_com