[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[APD] watt/gallon rule
>This comment tells me that there is a breakdown in communication
>somewhere. I am not saying that there is something "wrong" with the
>watts per gallon rule, nor am I saying that I have all the data I wish
>to obtain (like the minimum light levels you suggested I should have
>values for before I make any measurements). What I am saying is, how do
>you know for certain that the watts per gallon rule is the best rule of
>thumb in terms of accuracy? Did somebody do some measurements and
>determine that lumens per gallon, PAR per gallon, lumens per square
>inch, or PAR per square inch (just to offer some examples) were inferior
>measures when compared to watts per gallon? Now, you're going to ask,
>"who cares?" I do, and we all should.
Here' some new ones that might work for you:
1) Lumens per square foot one foot deep.
2) Trips to Camadian Tire per gallon.
3) Trips to Goodwill per square foot.
4) eBay purchases per tank
5) Dollars per gallon
6) Pontifius posts per plant produced (The 5p rating;
0 bad, 100 good)
And if Booth is still subsedizing the German economy by
buying that Dupla stuff you can probably derive one
To answer the question:
>>What I am saying is, how do
>>you know for certain that the watts per gallon rule is the best rule of
>>thumb in terms of accuracy?
"The absence of any more finely grained metric in popular usage"
FWIW, a year ago I haganged Barr im private email with the "wpg
ain't good enough" mantra. Today I think it's probably more accurate
than we need. Of course I have a lot more proper plant growing experience
now than a year ago. All of your theoretical examples don't get you
wuch trade in allowance at the local fish store.
/"\ / http://lists.aquaria.net
\ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN / Killies, Crypts, Aponogetons
X AGAINST HTML MAIL / http://new.killi.net
/ \ AND POSTINGS / http://images.aquaria.net
Aquatic-Plants mailing list
Aquatic-Plants at actwin_com