[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [APD] Aquatic-Plants Digest, Vol 25, Issue 50
Thomas Barr wrote:
> I never discounted a controlled study, I've done them on lights and can suggest a very easy and simple way to do this(see above), not with 600-2000$ or more light meters.
Without light meters, the study isn't of much use to anyone. How are you
proposing to quantify the results of such a study so that the results
can be applied to arbitrary bulbs and setups? If you do this study using
a light kit from AH Supply, how will this knowledge correlate with ODNO
setups, or MH? You can't do it without measuring. Measuring is the basis
of all empirical knowledge, and without measurement there is no real way
to apply the knowledge to a new and unique situation.
If conducted the same study, but measured PAR in some standard way, that
instantly makes the results applicable to any bulb for which the PAR
ratings are known as long as other variables are the same. That seems
much more useful to me.
This all gets to my original point that there needs to be some sort of
standardization. All of this hodge-podge of knowledge and anecdotal
experience is making it much more difficult to advance the body of
knowledge in this hobby than it needs to be. This lack of
standardization and definitive, quantitative analysis is the whole
reason there are prolonged debates about this lighting and that. It
doesn't have to be that way. There is a definitive answer on the minimum
light required, or the most PAR per dollar/watt, and just about any
other topic involving a result that can be measured empirically. Just
because we don't know the answer yet doesn't mean there isn't one.
Aquatic-Plants mailing list
Aquatic-Plants at actwin_com