[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [APD] Aquatic-Plants Digest, Vol 25, Issue 57
Jerry, there is a disconnect, but with you personalizing this.
Little physicist refer to little Einstein's, the units for PAR, although I do prefer micro moles personally. You assumed, and you assumed incorrectly, it was a personal name calling.
You did not ask if it was a personal attack, you assumed it was.
> The race car pace of growth in a 75G with 220W of
>AH Supply lighting was a bit much for my taste though.
Well here we have something I can help you out with.
You want efficency, you want less light and good growth still, try this: 2 x 54 T5 lights with reflectors.
See? That was not that hard now was it?
>I didn't claim to have empirical evidence, I asked where that evidence
And I responded saying the w/gal rule has worked wonderfully for me nearly 15 years and many tanks, and I'm certainly not the only one. Many other folks have been using it for many years. There is your evidence.
You claim it's not so hot and we could do better. You still, and this is umptheth time I've asked you a direct question, have not addressed why the watt/gal rule is bad and why this is better.
I've stated why and the practical applications to support the w/gal rule.
Over the years folks have blamed their lights for everything from algae, poor plant growth, you name it, it's "gotta to be the light". Now today folks are doing much better not so much with balancing the light with a new rule etc, but ruling out the other factors........CO2/nutrients.
If you seek less growth, try switching species, add more rock and wood decore(which adds more peramance to the design and less pruning).
We did not solve some many problems folks have by doing light measurements, we solved them by addressing the other potentially confounding factors.
Folks have far fewer algae issues, better plant health etc today and they know why.
They know the species of algae, they know what to do to get rid of it, they can use algae as a bioindicator etc. If you read the older post here, you'll see all the uncertainty folks had back then.
>It is you who are making the positive assertion that watts per
>gallon is the most useful way to determine required light levels.
>I asked what empirical evidence this is based on and you turn around and
>call me a "little physicist," and call the discussion "heehaw."
Jerry for the record, you are no micro Einstein, nor do I see how you equate yourself with being a micro Enistein, even if you were, I would think it to be a complement personally. Heehaw is rehashing over the same stuff once every 6 -12 months on the APD, these same type of things pop up over and over...... ad nauseum. "Here we go again.........."
It's okay, you'll figure it out. Folks have been ragging on the W/gal rule but I've never seen an issue with it.
Is there a better way?
Sure, teach folks how to grow using the CO2/(or non CO2 method) and nutrients.
Folks struggle with this a great deal more than their min light requirements.
But light is still going to be tough to predict what someone needs, that is where a combination of a general rule and experience comes in very handy.
Can they get away with more or less? Sure we can tweak things a little more here and there.
There is no one error free rule.
Is this PAR rule etc any better?
Perhaps, but is the w/gal rule causing issues/problems for folks realistically?
Tell the truth......:-)
I think the main thing is making it simplied and easy for the new person to understand.
2 to 4 Watts to the gallon is pretty simple.
If you can come up with the PAR so that it's as easy or even if it's a tad less easy, then you'd have a winner.
I'll discuss this in another header.
>I was able to show that lumens are more correlated with PAR than watts -
>at least for the bulbs listed at aquabotanic.com.
Yes, and I agreed with that, but that is a theoretical thing like w/gal.There is going to still be variation and the rule will need to be very flexible. Even if you achieve a slightly better R^2 value, translating that into real world application is a key issue.
>That should be an
>indicator that watts per gallon is probably not the best way to describe
>light levels in a way that is useful for plants.
Why not? It's worked well for me for 15 years. If you want to push the limits at the far ends of the watt/PAR spectrum, then it might become more useful to use the PAR. But you still have user variation, a lot of user variation........
That is not going to go away either.
So the basis for improving it, really gets muddled unless you find a better assumption to work with in addressing the light issue.
I went the other way, I focused on the other variables, CO2/Nutrients and I was quite successful at solving most folk's issues with their plant health, algae, etc........
Then I went back and looked at the lighting. I looked at what many other folks are using(and still do), the times, the color temps, brands etc.
>Instead of accepting
>that you choose to say that it doesn't matter because "most folks think
>in watts per gallon." Did it ever occur to you that they think in watts
>per gallon because people keep telling them that this is the proper way
"....Must obey the TV and polls......"
I've challeneged some big issues in marine and FW planted tanks over the years that folks had accepted as fact and the basis of everything they were trying to do. Oh i got poopooed, but I don't care if I'm right.
Most bulbs have the wattages on them, they do not have PAR and many do not have Lumens or even color temps. So with the ease of finding the information and suggesting it, the w/gal rule seems pretty good.
Most folks know what watts, or at least can go find a 40 w light bulb.
Find a 2150 lumen light bulb?
Find a 55 umol light bulb?
See the difference in the units yet???
>Do you really think a newbie has more of a problem reading the lumen
>rating off of a bulb box than they do reading the wattage?
Yes I do, see above. Ask a basic newbie to go get any one of the following and see which produces the most questions and uncertainly.
Seems like plain common sense to me.
>I am willing
>to bet that lumens or watts are equally esoteric measurements to a newbie.
I would not put money on that bet.
>> My measurement is now now done. If I have issues with the lighting, then I need to focus >>on the plant species or the CO2/nutrients since Bob was able to do it with new bulbs.
>And what are those measurements?
1.5 w/gal of tritons on a 55 gal works swell with the plants he likes to grow.
Plain experience. And it works.......
>You propose that not measuring anything other than watts per gallon and
>raising or lowering lights presents less variables rather than more? I
>can't believe you are being serious.
I'm not sure what you are saying here.
You can run different lighting schedules as well, 8-9-10-11-12 etc.
You can run staggered lighting times, 2w/gal for 10 hours and then 5w/gal for 4 fior a midday high light effect.
Raising the lights upwards reduces the intensity, this can be used to find the min light.
The distance can easily be measured.
>> Well if $$ is the issue here, good CO2/nutrients etc, less light(more is not better), using >>high efficency lights such as HQI's, PC's, T5's etc will go a long way.
>This line of reasoning is not sound. Let's apply it to something else
>and see how it sounds:
>Of course, what good are recipes? Everyone's oven is different, the
>ingredients are different brands, they may mix the batter for longer or
>shorter than someone else, who knows what the chickens that laid their
>eggs ate ... it's just too many variables to draw any useful conclusion.
>There's no point in trying to measure the flour exactly when everything
>else will just change the result anyway.
I actually am quite the baker.
Now you suggested my line of reasoning was not sound: yet ............I suggested w/gal, like flour and using a cup to measure it, I can do pretty good with my baking. Now if I used a scale(like your PAR example), perhaps I could make it more consistent but would the average person use a food scale and have one handy? Perhaps a few. Would the cookies come out better? I doubt it.
You have built in error for this type of thing with the W/gal rule.
The same needs to be true with the PAR rule. Even scientist have issues with using the same units with light, let alone aquarist.
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 10:42:24 -0700 (PDT)
From: "S. Hieber"
Subject: Re: [APD] Aquatic-Plants Digest, Vol 25, Issue 50
To: aquatic plants digest
Have you tried Rubins?
--- urville wrote:
> i totally agree. i just want to grow plants so big that
> one day i'll
> have to ask myself. "Did that plant eat my cat?"
> Vaughn Hopkins wrote:
> >It looks to me like you can enjoy this hobby in many
> different ways.
> >If you like tinkering, "inventing", making your own
> equipment, you can
> >enjoy that activity, as I do. If you enjoy aquascaping,
> making the
> >artistically "perfect" arrangement of plants, rocks,
> wood and fish, you
> >can enjoy doing it that way. And, if you have a
> scientific bent, and
> >enjoy research, you can buy lots of meters, gages, test
> kits, etc. and
> >enjoy that part. I don't see any of those approaches
> being superior,
> >but just different ways of finding enjoyment in a hobby.
> Tom Barr is
> >unique in having many years of experience, both at his
> job and at this
> >hobby, and, as a result, offers information that I
> haven't seen
> >anywhere else. His approach may not appeal to everyone,
> and it
> >doesn't, in fact, but the information he provides is
> certainly very
> >helpful to everyone. Now, as to light levels, I really
> would like to
> >see more empirical data on the effect of light on plant
> health and
> >growth, and an improvement to the watts per gallon
> standard would be
> >very interesting indeed. (Not that I would necessarily
> change anything
> >as a result.)
> >Vaughn H.
> >On Sunday, September 18, 2005, at 09:42 PM, Liz Wilhite
> >>On 9/18/05, Jerry Baker wrote:
> >>>. 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.
> >> There is a definitive answer for every combination of
> CO2 level, pH,
> >>nutrient level and species of plant. That's thousands
> of definitive
> >>each equally valid. I've done enough years of research
> in a lab to walk
> >>gingerly around the edges of that size problem space.
> >> I suspect the real reason the pursuit of the ultimate
> in fine grained
> >>knowledge doesn't interest a lot of people is that the
> beauty of a
> >>tank has almost nothing at all to do with the rate of
> plant growth,
> >>more to do with basic health, fauna, artistry, color
> and texture,
> >>preferences of growth habit and design. It's not that
> no one cares,
> >>its just
> >>that it is not necessary to enjoy the hobby for most
> >> Liz
> >>Aquatic-Plants mailing list
> >>Aquatic-Plants at actwin_com
> >Aquatic-Plants mailing list
> >Aquatic-Plants at actwin_com
> Aquatic-Plants mailing list
> Aquatic-Plants at actwin_com
Aquatic-Plants mailing list
Aquatic-Plants at actwin_com
End of Aquatic-Plants Digest, Vol 25, Issue 57
Yahoo! for Good
Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.
Aquatic-Plants mailing list
Aquatic-Plants at actwin_com