Re: [APD] Re: WPG RULE

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

--- John Wheeler <jcwheel76 at yahoo_com> wrote:

> 
> > Who cares how many watts they are
> > or how many exact gallons your tank is unless it's? 
> > 
> 
> >>Okay, now I'm pretty sure I disagree. 

> 
> This (my) "rule of thumb" takes for granted that
> you're using CO2. Other than that, it doesn't matter
> as long as you're using somem manner of flourescents.
> I thought I said that I don't have any real experience
> with HID's:) I made the initial statememt while
> thinking about small tanks, but it works otherwise as
> well. People who use lots of light AND have trouble
> with algae are likely dosing too many macros or not
> enough micros.... or some unbalanced fert schedule.
> 
> That's what this is really all about right? Algae
> control. I guess some one will make the point of
> growth rates...

You bet.  Maintenance is a big issue for a lot of us. And
that has to do to pruing, planting, for many, aquascaping,
etc.

> 
>  

> >>>However, I find that with my tanks, all of them
> conentional in size in shape, I have the option of
> adding more or fewer rows of bulbs, greatly altering
> the WPG, plant growth.<<
> 
> So, you're overlapping coverage.

So the rule is minimal to get coverage?

> >> I can put one or two 55w PCs on my 29 gallon and
> the coverage isn't much better with two (it's almost
> all entirely overlap)<<
> 
> With AHS reflectors? That's not right. There are
> severe dark spots when using 1x55w on a 29g tank.

Not on my substrate.
 
> 
> >> but it's a lot brighter and the plants seem to
> "know" it. I could add a third and it would be more of
> the
> same -- too much for my meager skills).<<
> 
> What does that mean? Meager skills? That tells me that
> your current schedule for dosing ferts doesn't work.

It means I don't want to fuss with plants growing htat fast
in that tank. I have a faster tank but I don't want all of
them to be like that.

> 
> 
> >>I could put on a
> pair of NOs and get equallly even coverage and the
> plant
> growth would would be nearly the same as with the 2
> 55w
> PCs.<<
> 
> Bull.
> 
> 
> >>This makes me think mere coverage isn't as useful
> rule of thumb.<<
> 
> That's fine. What you're doing seems to be working for
> you. I wouldn't switch. What wpg are you running on
> your 150 and what plants aren't able to survive? 
> 
> >>As for Amano, heckm I wouldn't expect to do as well
> as Amano at 7 wpg (or much of anything else he does
> with aquatic gardening :-\  )<<
> 
> Why?! His main claim is arranging plants not growing
> them!
> 
> >>I'd agree about 2wpg -- I'd call 2 wpg *low* light.
> George thinks it's plenty, but I'm pretty sure he's
> referring to PCs with really good reflectors and not,
> what did he call them, "sucky bulbs".<<
> 
> Agreed. Low light.
> 
> >>Generally, an important thing to remember is that
> it's not a situation where there is some right or
> wrong amount of
> light (within a really broad range). And it's
> certainly not a case of more is better, less is worse,
> or vice versa.
> Down at one end you tend to have slow growth and are
> more limited in plant selection and have less
> maintenance. At the other end, things are just the
> opposite. If you want to know where you setup is
> likely to come out in terms of plant growth and
> maintnenance, wpg works pretty well (don't know about
> the coverage rule yet) and it's much handier than
> those other measures that would be better if they were
> at hand.<<
> 
> Those are nice blanket statements. The bottom line is
> that folks who are able to grow really nice plants at
> a reasonable rate use bulbs that fit and cover the
> tank footprint.

Ouch! Or to put it another way. You say I have dark spots
on my 30, so I don't have really nice plants in there?
Ouch.

> The bulbs that provide that wpg's on
> smaller tanks don't get the job done like the longer,
> more efficient bulbs.

Yep. The 9-13 watters run on mag ballasts.  there's a
version that runs on electronic ballasts, but they're hard
to find.  They cover pretty well though, despite the lower
electrical efficiency.
 
> Have you or George/Karla ever tried a smaller tank? 

Can't speak for them but my smallest has been about 1g.
I've done 5gs. The 150g is the biggest I've done. I have a
150g now; also have 6g (my smallest now) and several
inbetween.  Some have lots of light, some have little light
and there are some inbetween. I like them all; the
"personalities" are diff and that's interesting to me.


sh

=====
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