sh wrote:
It was just becasue of the problem of diff test conditions
that the feds set up a standardized method for the stated
fuel economy ratings.
Nevertheless I really think the lumens and spectral distributions
are easier to quantify than just looking at Karen Randalls
aquariums?
I also strongly believe that the lumens-ratings are not made
up, and even if they are measured differently between
different manufacturers I would guess they're off by
a just some percent - about the same error as your
Karen-measurements would be? ;)
These numbers are not for noobs to be anal about, but
it's interesting to make a calculation on a bulb someone
says is good for growth and see if that is somewhat
, off by some percent, true. Or if the persons is lying
you right in the face.
It is also interesting because if you really get the
calculations behind the scenes you will have deeper
understanding whats going on both in the bulbs and in
the plants. You will understand why the lumens-
measurement can't be used, alone, to estimate if the
bulb is good or not for plant growth. You will know
why the lumens-measurement together with the wattage-
rating can be used in conjunction with the spectral
distribution to make a rather good estimate how good
the bulb light is for growing plants. With this knowledge
I can kick back, forget about the lights and just see to
that the plants isn't shading each other and start to fiddle
out my dosing regime and put all the efforts where it
should have been from start: On CO2.
Then I, as a noob, will have pretty good growth, off
by some percent.
// Daniel.
_______________________________________________
Aquatic-Plants mailing list
Aquatic-Plants at actwin_com
http://www.actwin.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/aquatic-plants