Watts per gallon rule

[RubenD]

Everyone says the reference point to get lights are base on watts/gallon.
My question is how tall does the tank has to be in order to use that rule.

Does 3 W/G become 6W/G when you place the coral in the middle. For example
if you tank is 18" tall and you place the coral at 9" will you double the
light on them? how about at 15" up?

I ask because I've been seeing those nano cubes with 18-30 watts with nice
coral set up.

TIA

Ruben

[Wayne Sallee]

When you figure watts per gallon, you are figuring the
well being of everything in the tank at all levels. But
yes if you don't have as strong of a light you can move
the corals up higher, but it's just so much easier to to
have plenty of light, and not have to worry about moving
the corals higher to get enough light.

With lower light levels you can do soft corals instead of
the higher light corals.

Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets



RubenD wrote on 12/24/2006 4:45 PM:
> Everyone says the reference point to get lights are base on watts/gallon.
> My question is how tall does the tank has to be in order to use that rule.
>
> Does 3 W/G become 6W/G when you place the coral in the middle. For example
> if you tank is 18" tall and you place the coral at 9" will you double the
> light on them? how about at 15" up?
>
> I ask because I've been seeing those nano cubes with 18-30 watts with nice
> coral set up.
>
> TIA
>
> Ruben
>
>

[kim gross]

RubenD wrote:
> Everyone says the reference point to get lights are base on watts/gallon.
> My question is how tall does the tank has to be in order to use that rule.
>
> Does 3 W/G become 6W/G when you place the coral in the middle. For example
> if you tank is 18" tall and you place the coral at 9" will you double the
> light on them? how about at 15" up?
>
> I ask because I've been seeing those nano cubes with 18-30 watts with nice
> coral set up.
>
> TIA
>
> Ruben
>
>
Ruben,

Watts per gallon is the worst measurement for light just because of the
reasons you list. It does not take into account the depth of the tank
or where in the tank you are putting the creatures.

What you need to look at is how much light the coral needs and how much
light you have. A nano cube with 30 watts of light (say a 12 gallon) is
only 2.7 watts per gallon or so, while my 180 with 2 400 watt lights is
4.4 watts per gallon. Both of which are very low according to the watts
per gallon rules of thumb. My 180 is setup as a SPS tank and really has
intense lighting on each end of the tank, with no light in the middle.
While my nano has moderate light on the whole tank.

As for the depth, you are correct in that if you move the coral up in
the tank you will increase the amount of light on the coral but you do
not change the watts per gallon.

Kim

[RubenD]

> Watts per gallon is the worst measurement for light just because of the
> reasons you list. It does not take into account the depth of the tank
> or where in the tank you are putting the creatures.

What is the best measurement for lighting then?

I supposed the coral under the bulb is the winner regardless of the
watts/gallon rule or the size of the tank, but how much light would be
acceptable? If I place the coral under the 30watts bulb, he'll be getting
not 6w but 30w, right?

What you think?

[kim gross]

RubenD wrote:
>> Watts per gallon is the worst measurement for light just because of the
>> reasons you list. It does not take into account the depth of the tank
>> or where in the tank you are putting the creatures.
>
> What is the best measurement for lighting then?

There is no good measurement for hobbiests. If you had the equipment
you could measure the par in different places in your tank and then see
if the coral you were looking at would survive with that amount of par.

>
> I supposed the coral under the bulb is the winner regardless of the
> watts/gallon rule or the size of the tank, but how much light would be
> acceptable? If I place the coral under the 30watts bulb, he'll be getting
> not 6w but 30w, right?

Close but not quite. If the light was a point light source, with a
perfect reflector then yes the coral would be getting all 30watts of light


The best thing I can say is post on here what size of a tank you are
setting up and what specific corals you want to keep and where at in the
tank you want to keep them.



>
> What you think?
>
>


Kim

[Wayne Sallee]

While the watts per gallon rule is not perfect, I find it
interesting when people knock it as being of no value, and
then they can't even come up with anything better.

Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets



kim gross wrote on 12/30/2006 5:51 AM:
> RubenD wrote:
>>> Watts per gallon is the worst measurement for light just because of the
>>> reasons you list. It does not take into account the depth of the tank
>>> or where in the tank you are putting the creatures.
>>
>> What is the best measurement for lighting then?
>
> There is no good measurement for hobbiests. If you had the equipment
> you could measure the par in different places in your tank and then see
> if the coral you were looking at would survive with that amount of par.
>
>>
>> I supposed the coral under the bulb is the winner regardless of the
>> watts/gallon rule or the size of the tank, but how much light would be
>> acceptable? If I place the coral under the 30watts bulb, he'll be
>> getting
>> not 6w but 30w, right?
>
> Close but not quite. If the light was a point light source, with a
> perfect reflector then yes the coral would be getting all 30watts of light
>
>
> The best thing I can say is post on here what size of a tank you are
> setting up and what specific corals you want to keep and where at in the
> tank you want to keep them.
>
>
>
>>
>> What you think?
>>
>>
>
>
> Kim

[Add Homonym]

RubenD wrote:
>>Watts per gallon is the worst measurement for light just because of the
>>reasons you list. It does not take into account the depth of the tank
>>or where in the tank you are putting the creatures.
>
>
> What is the best measurement for lighting then?
>
> I supposed the coral under the bulb is the winner regardless of the
> watts/gallon rule or the size of the tank, but how much light would be
> acceptable? If I place the coral under the 30watts bulb, he'll be getting
> not 6w but 30w, right?
>
> What you think?
>
>

Watts is not a measure of lillumination. LUX is the measurement of
illumintation. Lumens is a measurement of light output.

therefore it makes no sense to ask if a coral would be getting "30w" of
light.

The difference between lux and lumens can be illustrated thusly:
LUX will decrese with distance from bulb. How much a decrease there will
be needs to take many factors into account - distance from bulb, what is
in between (ie: water, glass, etc) and even the spectrum of bulb.

LUMENS will NOT decrease, since the bulb is still just as bright no
matter how far you are from it.

Lumens is how much light gets put out, LUX is how much light is reaching
what you are trying to illuminate.

What we SHOULD all be using is LUX. It would make sense to say things
like "this crocea clam needs about 32000 lux", but I have never seen
that used.

[Add Homonym]

Wayne Sallee wrote:
> While the watts per gallon rule is not perfect, I find it interesting
> when people knock it as being of no value, and then they can't even come
> up with anything better.


OK, here is something better - LUX, on a per organism basis. IE: This
acropora needs X lux, that maxima clam needs y lux, etc.

Then one can use any old light meter... er... make that any old WATER
PROOF light meter, to see if the spot they plan on placing the organism
in their tank gets enough light.

Next best thing after that would be lumens per gallon. (I know you said
lumens is percieved light (or something similar) a few posts ago, but
that ain't EXACTLY so. Lumens can be looked at measure of light output
in the visible spectrum -- more correctly called "luminent flux") Lumens
per gallon would indeed be better than watts per gallon.

I would even be OK with the watts per gallon were it to be based on the
radiant flux wattage of the light, rather than the electical consumption
of the light. In fact, this would be the best overall method, since it
would show the true light output of the bulb. But usually, when you see
"watts" listed with a bulb, they are talking about electrical
consumption, not radiant flux.

[Wayne Sallee]

Obviously the total light output (as long as it's a
quality spectrum) is better than watt's per gallon, but no
bulb gives that information.

Lumens is a start, but it falls short, and if people are
told to get a number of lumens per gallon, then people
will discount actinics, as they have low lumens output.

1 lux is 1 lumen per square meter, so lux has the same
flaw as lumen.


Add Homonym wrote on 1/2/2007 4:31 PM:
> Wayne Sallee wrote:
>> While the watts per gallon rule is not perfect, I find it interesting
>> when people knock it as being of no value, and then they can't even
>> come up with anything better.
>
>
> OK, here is something better - LUX, on a per organism basis. IE: This
> acropora needs X lux, that maxima clam needs y lux, etc.
>
> Then one can use any old light meter... er... make that any old WATER
> PROOF light meter, to see if the spot they plan on placing the organism
> in their tank gets enough light.
>
> Next best thing after that would be lumens per gallon. (I know you said
> lumens is percieved light (or something similar) a few posts ago, but
> that ain't EXACTLY so. Lumens can be looked at measure of light output
> in the visible spectrum -- more correctly called "luminent flux") Lumens
> per gallon would indeed be better than watts per gallon.
>
> I would even be OK with the watts per gallon were it to be based on the
> radiant flux wattage of the light, rather than the electical consumption
> of the light. In fact, this would be the best overall method, since it
> would show the true light output of the bulb. But usually, when you see
> "watts" listed with a bulb, they are talking about electrical
> consumption, not radiant flux.

[Add Homonym]

Wayne Sallee wrote:
> Obviously the total light output (as long as it's a quality spectrum) is
> better than watt's per gallon, but no bulb gives that information.
>
> Lumens is a start, but it falls short, and if people are told to get a
> number of lumens per gallon, then people will discount actinics, as they
> have low lumens output.
>
> 1 lux is 1 lumen per square meter, so lux has the same flaw as lumen.
>

It shares ONE of the same flaws, being that it is specific to visible
spectrum.

However, LUX still has the advantage of being a measure of the visible
light falling on a particular area, and therefore would be vastly
superior to lumens for figuring out if there is enough light for a
particular organism.

[kim gross]

Wayne,

Someday you need to learn how to read. There is a good measurement that
will give usable info PAR or PUR, the only problem is that the tool to
measure it is to expensive for most hobbiests.

Watts per gallon is meaningless.


Let me give you an example. I setup a 125 gallon tank for a friend of
mine that has 150 watts of light on it. What corals can he keep in that
tank?




Wayne Sallee wrote:
> While the watts per gallon rule is not perfect, I find it interesting
> when people knock it as being of no value, and then they can't even come
> up with anything better.
>
> Wayne Sallee
> Wayne's Pets
>
>
>
> kim gross wrote on 12/30/2006 5:51 AM:
>> RubenD wrote:
>>>> Watts per gallon is the worst measurement for light just because of the
>>>> reasons you list. It does not take into account the depth of the tank
>>>> or where in the tank you are putting the creatures.
>>>
>>> What is the best measurement for lighting then?
>>
>> There is no good measurement for hobbiests. If you had the equipment
>> you could measure the par in different places in your tank and then
>> see if the coral you were looking at would survive with that amount of
>> par.
>>
>>>
>>> I supposed the coral under the bulb is the winner regardless of the
>>> watts/gallon rule or the size of the tank, but how much light would be
>>> acceptable? If I place the coral under the 30watts bulb, he'll be
>>> getting
>>> not 6w but 30w, right?
>>
>> Close but not quite. If the light was a point light source, with a
>> perfect reflector then yes the coral would be getting all 30watts of
>> light
>>
>>
>> The best thing I can say is post on here what size of a tank you are
>> setting up and what specific corals you want to keep and where at in
>> the tank you want to keep them.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> What you think?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Kim

[kim gross]

Add Homonym wrote:
> Wayne Sallee wrote:
>> While the watts per gallon rule is not perfect, I find it interesting
>> when people knock it as being of no value, and then they can't even
>> come up with anything better.
>
>
> OK, here is something better - LUX, on a per organism basis. IE: This
> acropora needs X lux, that maxima clam needs y lux, etc.
>
> Then one can use any old light meter... er... make that any old WATER
> PROOF light meter, to see if the spot they plan on placing the organism
> in their tank gets enough light.
>
> Next best thing after that would be lumens per gallon. (I know you said
> lumens is percieved light (or something similar) a few posts ago, but
> that ain't EXACTLY so. Lumens can be looked at measure of light output
> in the visible spectrum -- more correctly called "luminent flux") Lumens
> per gallon would indeed be better than watts per gallon.
>
> I would even be OK with the watts per gallon were it to be based on the
> radiant flux wattage of the light, rather than the electical consumption
> of the light. In fact, this would be the best overall method, since it
> would show the true light output of the bulb. But usually, when you see
> "watts" listed with a bulb, they are talking about electrical
> consumption, not radiant flux.


Lux and Lumens are not great either, only because they do not weight the
light for photosynthisys. Not all light colors are equal when it comes
to photosynthisys. That is where PAR and PUR comes in. Only problem is
the cost of the devices to measure PAR and PUR>

Kim

[kim gross]

Add Homonym wrote:
> RubenD wrote:
>>> Watts per gallon is the worst measurement for light just because of the
>>> reasons you list. It does not take into account the depth of the tank
>>> or where in the tank you are putting the creatures.
>>
>>
>> What is the best measurement for lighting then?
>>
>> I supposed the coral under the bulb is the winner regardless of the
>> watts/gallon rule or the size of the tank, but how much light would be
>> acceptable? If I place the coral under the 30watts bulb, he'll be
>> getting
>> not 6w but 30w, right?
>>
>> What you think?
>>
>>
>
> Watts is not a measure of lillumination. LUX is the measurement of
> illumintation. Lumens is a measurement of light output.
>
> therefore it makes no sense to ask if a coral would be getting "30w" of
> light.
>
> The difference between lux and lumens can be illustrated thusly:
> LUX will decrese with distance from bulb. How much a decrease there will
> be needs to take many factors into account - distance from bulb, what is
> in between (ie: water, glass, etc) and even the spectrum of bulb.
>
> LUMENS will NOT decrease, since the bulb is still just as bright no
> matter how far you are from it.
>
> Lumens is how much light gets put out, LUX is how much light is reaching
> what you are trying to illuminate.
>
> What we SHOULD all be using is LUX. It would make sense to say things
> like "this crocea clam needs about 32000 lux", but I have never seen
> that used.


As I stated in another responce on this thread. There is a problem with
lux. It does not weight the light according to photosythisys, IE yellow
and red add to lux but do not add much to photosynthisys. But it is a
much better measurement than watts per gallon since as long as you know
the spectrum of the lights or you are using a full spectrum light source.

Kim

[Wayne Sallee]

Since you think that watts per gallon is not the best way
to go, then tell us what method that *you* think hobbiest
should use?

Please define this in such a way that any hobbiest can use
your method to see if they have enough light :-)

Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets



kim gross wrote on 1/4/2007 6:00 PM:
> Add Homonym wrote:
>> RubenD wrote:
>>>> Watts per gallon is the worst measurement for light just because of the
>>>> reasons you list. It does not take into account the depth of the tank
>>>> or where in the tank you are putting the creatures.
>>>
>>>
>>> What is the best measurement for lighting then?
>>>
>>> I supposed the coral under the bulb is the winner regardless of the
>>> watts/gallon rule or the size of the tank, but how much light would be
>>> acceptable? If I place the coral under the 30watts bulb, he'll be
>>> getting
>>> not 6w but 30w, right?
>>>
>>> What you think?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Watts is not a measure of lillumination. LUX is the measurement of
>> illumintation. Lumens is a measurement of light output.
>>
>> therefore it makes no sense to ask if a coral would be getting "30w"
>> of light.
>>
>> The difference between lux and lumens can be illustrated thusly:
>> LUX will decrese with distance from bulb. How much a decrease there
>> will be needs to take many factors into account - distance from bulb,
>> what is in between (ie: water, glass, etc) and even the spectrum of bulb.
>>
>> LUMENS will NOT decrease, since the bulb is still just as bright no
>> matter how far you are from it.
>>
>> Lumens is how much light gets put out, LUX is how much light is
>> reaching what you are trying to illuminate.
>>
>> What we SHOULD all be using is LUX. It would make sense to say things
>> like "this crocea clam needs about 32000 lux", but I have never seen
>> that used.
>
>
> As I stated in another responce on this thread. There is a problem with
> lux. It does not weight the light according to photosythisys, IE yellow
> and red add to lux but do not add much to photosynthisys. But it is a
> much better measurement than watts per gallon since as long as you know
> the spectrum of the lights or you are using a full spectrum light source.
>
> Kim

[Tristan]

The lfs here does not go by watts per gallon either. Its something
along the lines of watts per inch or something like that. He was
trying to explain it to a person one day and I overheard him and it
totally confused me.......I'll have to see if he can give me a
condensed version of what he was trying to say. I really do not have
issues with lights as I tend to lean to critters that do not require
such intense lighting. There is more than enough corals to create a
reef tank with lots of diversity using HO or VHO or PC lights, and
what I have and can keep more than satisfies my desires...


-------
I forgot more about ponds and koi than I'll ever know!

[RubenD]

I appreciated the comments, but can anyone give me a realistic way to
measure the amount of light necessary for a reef tank based on distance and
wattage or lumens?
There has to be a way, I pressume...


Ruben

[KurtG]

kim gross wrote:
> Someday you need to learn how to read.

By all means, share *your* opinion, but let's keep the personal attacks
to a minimum.

--Kurt

[George Patterson]

Tristan wrote:
> I'll have to see if he can give me a
> condensed version of what he was trying to say.

Please do that. I'm still trying to decide on a system for my tank. I intend to
keep soft corals, with no hard corals, but I don't want to rule out clams either.

George Patterson
Forgive your enemies. But always remember who they are.

[kim gross]

RubenD wrote:
> I appreciated the comments, but can anyone give me a realistic way to
> measure the amount of light necessary for a reef tank based on distance and
> wattage or lumens?
> There has to be a way, I pressume...
>
>
> Ruben
>
>
Ruben,

There is not a way. For one reason the specific bulbs you run will
effect the light output you get without changing the wattage. A 6500K
iwasaki bulb at 250 watts in JBNY's testing give 605 par. While an
XM15K on the same ARO electronic ballast only produced 171 par. Less
than 1/3 usable light from the same watts.

Lumens will work better but lumens do not take into account if the light
is usable by the corals. You could have a bright red light, with lots of
lumens that would not keep any corals alive since the light would not be
usable by them.

Lighting is one of the most difficult items to decide on for a tank.
The best suggestion that I can give anybody is find tanks that are
similiar to yours with the same corals you want to keep and use there
lighting for a base. Or find people you know you can trust and ask them
for advice. Do not take the advice of any one person as gospel.

Kim

For some info on metal halide bulbs and PAR readings compairing the
amount of usable light check out this web site, it has most 250 watt
bulb/ballast combos listed.

http://www.cnidarianreef.com/lamps.cfm

[Add Homonym]

George Patterson wrote:
> Tristan wrote:
>
>> I'll have to see if he can give me a
>> condensed version of what he was trying to say.
>
>
> Please do that. I'm still trying to decide on a system for my tank. I
> intend to keep soft corals, with no hard corals, but I don't want to
> rule out clams either.
>
> George Patterson
> Forgive your enemies. But always remember who they are.

Wide variation in light need for clams. Derasa's can do just fine under
PC's, while crocea's and maxima's need light comparable to what would be
needed for most sps corals.

On that note, had a baby maxima get ripped up by a blue leg 3 days ago.
****es me off to no end when a 50 cent crab takes out a 50 dollar clam.

Came home from work, and caught the SOB in the act - was on top of the
clam, which was trying to close up, but couldn't because the crab had a
hold of its mantle and was pulling it - I actually witnessed it rip.

Poor clam hung on for 2 days, opening less and retracting its mantle
more and more until it was just shriveled up.

I think the hermits are gonna all come out of that tank - I think I can
just rely on the snails.

[Wayne Sallee]

You simply need to purchase lights made for reef
aquariums, and have a total of 3 to 5 watts per gallon, 3
being on the low side, but good enough for soft corals,
and 5 being where you really want to aim, and 6.6 being great.

People often ask "should I put this coral at the bottom,
or up top". The simple answer is that if you just have
good intense lighting, you don't have to worry about it.

Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets



RubenD wrote on 1/4/2007 7:04 PM:
> I appreciated the comments, but can anyone give me a realistic way to
> measure the amount of light necessary for a reef tank based on distance and
> wattage or lumens?
> There has to be a way, I pressume...
>
>
> Ruben
>
>

[Wayne Sallee]

hehehe I see that I have not gotten an answer from Kim on
this :-)

Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets



Wayne Sallee wrote on 1/4/2007 6:32 PM:
> Since you think that watts per gallon is not the best way to go, then
> tell us what method that *you* think hobbiest should use?
>
> Please define this in such a way that any hobbiest can use your method
> to see if they have enough light :-)
>
> Wayne Sallee
> Wayne's Pets
>
>
>
> kim gross wrote on 1/4/2007 6:00 PM:
>> Add Homonym wrote:
>>> RubenD wrote:
>>>>> Watts per gallon is the worst measurement for light just because of
>>>>> the
>>>>> reasons you list. It does not take into account the depth of the tank
>>>>> or where in the tank you are putting the creatures.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What is the best measurement for lighting then?
>>>>
>>>> I supposed the coral under the bulb is the winner regardless of the
>>>> watts/gallon rule or the size of the tank, but how much light would be
>>>> acceptable? If I place the coral under the 30watts bulb, he'll be
>>>> getting
>>>> not 6w but 30w, right?
>>>>
>>>> What you think?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Watts is not a measure of lillumination. LUX is the measurement of
>>> illumintation. Lumens is a measurement of light output.
>>>
>>> therefore it makes no sense to ask if a coral would be getting "30w"
>>> of light.
>>>
>>> The difference between lux and lumens can be illustrated thusly:
>>> LUX will decrese with distance from bulb. How much a decrease there
>>> will be needs to take many factors into account - distance from bulb,
>>> what is in between (ie: water, glass, etc) and even the spectrum of
>>> bulb.
>>>
>>> LUMENS will NOT decrease, since the bulb is still just as bright no
>>> matter how far you are from it.
>>>
>>> Lumens is how much light gets put out, LUX is how much light is
>>> reaching what you are trying to illuminate.
>>>
>>> What we SHOULD all be using is LUX. It would make sense to say things
>>> like "this crocea clam needs about 32000 lux", but I have never seen
>>> that used.
>>
>>
>> As I stated in another responce on this thread. There is a problem
>> with lux. It does not weight the light according to photosythisys, IE
>> yellow and red add to lux but do not add much to photosynthisys. But
>> it is a much better measurement than watts per gallon since as long as
>> you know the spectrum of the lights or you are using a full spectrum
>> light source.
>>
>> Kim

[kim gross]

Wayne Sallee wrote:
> hehehe I see that I have not gotten an answer from Kim on this :-)
>
> Wayne Sallee
> Wayne's Pets
>


Wayne,

I have answered this multiple times but for some reason you can't read
the answer.

The best measurement is to measure the par in your tank and then see
what corals will survive with that par level. The only problem with
this is that a par meter is not cheap.

Now will you answer my question what corals can I keep in my 125 gallon
tank with 175 watts of light on it?

[Wayne Sallee]

You still have not answered my question. Reread my question.

Here I'll post it again:

*********
Since you think that watts per gallon is not the best way
to go, then tell us what method that *you* think hobbiest
should use?

Please define this in such a way that any hobbiest can use
your method to see if they have enough light :-)
*********

Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets


kim gross wrote on 1/6/2007 5:31 PM:
> Wayne Sallee wrote:
>> hehehe I see that I have not gotten an answer from Kim on this :-)
>>
>> Wayne Sallee
>> Wayne's Pets
>>
>
>
> Wayne,
>
> I have answered this multiple times but for some reason you can't read
> the answer.
>
> The best measurement is to measure the par in your tank and then see
> what corals will survive with that par level. The only problem with
> this is that a par meter is not cheap.
>
> Now will you answer my question what corals can I keep in my 125 gallon
> tank with 175 watts of light on it?

[kim gross]

I will try this one more time. There is no good hobbiest measurement to
determine if they have enough light. Watts per gallon is meaningless.
The only valid measurement is to measure the par.

Since you think watts per gallon is a great measurement what corals can
I keep in my friends 125 gallon tank with 175 watts of light on it?




> You still have not answered my question. Reread my question.
>
> Here I'll post it again:
>
> *********
> Since you think that watts per gallon is not the best way to go, then
> tell us what method that *you* think hobbiest should use?

Try to read this this time. Get a PAR meter and measure the PAR in the
tank at the level you wish to add the coral, then find out if the coral
will survive or thrive with that PAR amount.


>
> Please define this in such a way that any hobbiest can use your method
> to see if they have enough light :-)

As I have said many times. There is no way that you can come up with
any method that any hobbiest can use to see if they have enough light.
Your watts per gallon method does not work.

> *********
>
> Wayne Sallee
> Wayne's Pets
>
>
> kim gross wrote on 1/6/2007 5:31 PM:
>> Wayne Sallee wrote:
>>> hehehe I see that I have not gotten an answer from Kim on this :-)
>>>
>>> Wayne Sallee
>>> Wayne's Pets
>>>
>>
>>
>> Wayne,
>>
>> I have answered this multiple times but for some reason you can't read
>> the answer.
>>
>> The best measurement is to measure the par in your tank and then see
>> what corals will survive with that par level. The only problem with
>> this is that a par meter is not cheap.
>>
>> Now will you answer my question what corals can I keep in my 125
>> gallon tank with 175 watts of light on it?

[Wayne Sallee]

So are you saying that watts per gallon is the best thing
available for the average hobbiest?

Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets



kim gross wrote on 1/7/2007 5:44 AM:
> I will try this one more time. There is no good hobbiest measurement to
> determine if they have enough light. Watts per gallon is meaningless.
> The only valid measurement is to measure the par.
>
> Since you think watts per gallon is a great measurement what corals can
> I keep in my friends 125 gallon tank with 175 watts of light on it?
>
>
>
>
>> You still have not answered my question. Reread my question.
>>
>> Here I'll post it again:
>>
>> *********
>> Since you think that watts per gallon is not the best way to go, then
>> tell us what method that *you* think hobbiest should use?
>
> Try to read this this time. Get a PAR meter and measure the PAR in the
> tank at the level you wish to add the coral, then find out if the coral
> will survive or thrive with that PAR amount.
>
>
>>
>> Please define this in such a way that any hobbiest can use your method
>> to see if they have enough light :-)
>
> As I have said many times. There is no way that you can come up with
> any method that any hobbiest can use to see if they have enough light.
> Your watts per gallon method does not work.
>
>> *********
>>
>> Wayne Sallee
>> Wayne's Pets
>>
>>
>> kim gross wrote on 1/6/2007 5:31 PM:
>>> Wayne Sallee wrote:
>>>> hehehe I see that I have not gotten an answer from Kim on this :-)
>>>>
>>>> Wayne Sallee
>>>> Wayne's Pets
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Wayne,
>>>
>>> I have answered this multiple times but for some reason you can't
>>> read the answer.
>>>
>>> The best measurement is to measure the par in your tank and then see
>>> what corals will survive with that par level. The only problem with
>>> this is that a par meter is not cheap.
>>>
>>> Now will you answer my question what corals can I keep in my 125
>>> gallon tank with 175 watts of light on it?

[kim gross]

Again,

NO watts per gallon is meaningless. If it means anything what corals
can I keep in a 125 gallon tank with 175 watts of light on it?

Can I keep Reef Crest Acropora corals in the tank, will Maxima Clams
survive?








Wayne Sallee wrote:
> So are you saying that watts per gallon is the best thing available for
> the average hobbiest?
>
> Wayne Sallee
> Wayne's Pets
>
>
>
> kim gross wrote on 1/7/2007 5:44 AM:
>> I will try this one more time. There is no good hobbiest measurement
>> to determine if they have enough light. Watts per gallon is
>> meaningless. The only valid measurement is to measure the par.
>>
>> Since you think watts per gallon is a great measurement what corals
>> can I keep in my friends 125 gallon tank with 175 watts of light on it?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> You still have not answered my question. Reread my question.
>>>
>>> Here I'll post it again:
>>>
>>> *********
>>> Since you think that watts per gallon is not the best way to go, then
>>> tell us what method that *you* think hobbiest should use?
>>
>> Try to read this this time. Get a PAR meter and measure the PAR in
>> the tank at the level you wish to add the coral, then find out if the
>> coral will survive or thrive with that PAR amount.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Please define this in such a way that any hobbiest can use your
>>> method to see if they have enough light :-)
>>
>> As I have said many times. There is no way that you can come up with
>> any method that any hobbiest can use to see if they have enough light.
>> Your watts per gallon method does not work.
>>
>>> *********
>>>
>>> Wayne Sallee
>>> Wayne's Pets
>>>
>>>
>>> kim gross wrote on 1/6/2007 5:31 PM:
>>>> Wayne Sallee wrote:
>>>>> hehehe I see that I have not gotten an answer from Kim on this :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> Wayne Sallee
>>>>> Wayne's Pets
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Wayne,
>>>>
>>>> I have answered this multiple times but for some reason you can't
>>>> read the answer.
>>>>
>>>> The best measurement is to measure the par in your tank and then see
>>>> what corals will survive with that par level. The only problem with
>>>> this is that a par meter is not cheap.
>>>>
>>>> Now will you answer my question what corals can I keep in my 125
>>>> gallon tank with 175 watts of light on it?

[KurtG]

Wayne Sallee wrote:
> So are you saying that watts per gallon is the best thing available for
> the average hobbiest?

Wayne, why do I get this feeling that you have several ex-wives?

--Kurt

[George Patterson]

KurtG wrote:

> Wayne, why do I get this feeling that you have several ex-wives?

Why do you think that several women would marry him? :-)

George Patterson
Forgive your enemies. But always remember who they are.

[Wayne Sallee]

LOL I'm still single :-)

Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets



KurtG wrote on 1/8/2007 11:09 PM:
> Wayne Sallee wrote:
>> So are you saying that watts per gallon is the best thing available
>> for the average hobbiest?
>
> Wayne, why do I get this feeling that you have several ex-wives?
>
> --Kurt

[Wayne Sallee]

You keep saying that "watts per gallon is meaningless",
but you have no better answer. So that means that your
statement is meaningless, because you obviously don't have
an answer for hobbiest on how to decide on how much light
to get. I, unlike you, do have an answer for hobiest on
how to decide how much light to get.

Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets



kim gross wrote on 1/8/2007 10:36 PM:
> Again,
>
> NO watts per gallon is meaningless. If it means anything what corals
> can I keep in a 125 gallon tank with 175 watts of light on it?
>
> Can I keep Reef Crest Acropora corals in the tank, will Maxima Clams
> survive?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Wayne Sallee wrote:
>> So are you saying that watts per gallon is the best thing available
>> for the average hobbiest?
>>
>> Wayne Sallee
>> Wayne's Pets
>>
>>
>>
>> kim gross wrote on 1/7/2007 5:44 AM:
>>> I will try this one more time. There is no good hobbiest measurement
>>> to determine if they have enough light. Watts per gallon is
>>> meaningless. The only valid measurement is to measure the par.
>>>
>>> Since you think watts per gallon is a great measurement what corals
>>> can I keep in my friends 125 gallon tank with 175 watts of light on it?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> You still have not answered my question. Reread my question.
>>>>
>>>> Here I'll post it again:
>>>>
>>>> *********
>>>> Since you think that watts per gallon is not the best way to go,
>>>> then tell us what method that *you* think hobbiest should use?
>>>
>>> Try to read this this time. Get a PAR meter and measure the PAR in
>>> the tank at the level you wish to add the coral, then find out if the
>>> coral will survive or thrive with that PAR amount.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Please define this in such a way that any hobbiest can use your
>>>> method to see if they have enough light :-)
>>>
>>> As I have said many times. There is no way that you can come up with
>>> any method that any hobbiest can use to see if they have enough
>>> light. Your watts per gallon method does not work.
>>>
>>>> *********
>>>>
>>>> Wayne Sallee
>>>> Wayne's Pets
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> kim gross wrote on 1/6/2007 5:31 PM:
>>>>> Wayne Sallee wrote:
>>>>>> hehehe I see that I have not gotten an answer from Kim on this :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wayne Sallee
>>>>>> Wayne's Pets
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Wayne,
>>>>>
>>>>> I have answered this multiple times but for some reason you can't
>>>>> read the answer.
>>>>>
>>>>> The best measurement is to measure the par in your tank and then
>>>>> see what corals will survive with that par level. The only problem
>>>>> with this is that a par meter is not cheap.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now will you answer my question what corals can I keep in my 125
>>>>> gallon tank with 175 watts of light on it?

[kim gross]

Wayne Sallee wrote:
> You keep saying that "watts per gallon is meaningless", but you have no
> better answer. So that means that your statement is meaningless, because
> you obviously don't have an answer for hobbiest on how to decide on how
> much light to get. I, unlike you, do have an answer for hobiest on how
> to decide how much light to get.
>
> Wayne Sallee
> Wayne's Pets
>
>

Wayne,

If watts per gallon gives you information on amount of light. What
corals can I keep in a 125 gallon aquarium with 175 watts of light on it?

[Add Homonym]

kim gross wrote:
> Wayne Sallee wrote:
>
>> You keep saying that "watts per gallon is meaningless", but you have
>> no better answer. So that means that your statement is meaningless,
>> because you obviously don't have an answer for hobbiest on how to
>> decide on how much light to get. I, unlike you, do have an answer for
>> hobiest on how to decide how much light to get.
>>
>> Wayne Sallee
>> Wayne's Pets
>>
>>
>
> Wayne,
>
> If watts per gallon gives you information on amount of light. What
> corals can I keep in a 125 gallon aquarium with 175 watts of light on it?

HAH. Good point. Going by the rule of thumb, nothing dependant on
sybiotic algae will survive well (this is only slighty more than 1 watt
per gallon)

However, if part of that 175w were, say for instance, a 150w metal
halide, you could likely keep prteyy much whatever corals you wanted, if
they are close enough to that light.

[kim gross]

Add Homonym wrote:
> kim gross wrote:
>> Wayne Sallee wrote:
>>
>>> You keep saying that "watts per gallon is meaningless", but you have
>>> no better answer. So that means that your statement is meaningless,
>>> because you obviously don't have an answer for hobbiest on how to
>>> decide on how much light to get. I, unlike you, do have an answer for
>>> hobiest on how to decide how much light to get.
>>>
>>> Wayne Sallee
>>> Wayne's Pets
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Wayne,
>>
>> If watts per gallon gives you information on amount of light. What
>> corals can I keep in a 125 gallon aquarium with 175 watts of light on it?
>
> HAH. Good point. Going by the rule of thumb, nothing dependant on
> sybiotic algae will survive well (this is only slighty more than 1 watt
> per gallon)
>
> However, if part of that 175w were, say for instance, a 150w metal
> halide, you could likely keep prteyy much whatever corals you wanted, if
> they are close enough to that light.


Exactly. This is a 6 foot long 125 that has a single 175 watt mh
mounted in the middle of the tank with a single coral bommie under the
light. It has mostly SPS corals in the tank that are doing fine. But
if you use Waynes rules of course, it will not keep any SPS or clam
alive, let alone any soft corals.

But since it does not support Waynes watts per gallon rule he ignores it.

[Add Homonym]

kim gross wrote:

>
> Exactly. This is a 6 foot long 125 that has a single 175 watt mh
> mounted in the middle of the tank with a single coral bommie under the
> light. It has mostly SPS corals in the tank that are doing fine. But
> if you use Waynes rules of course, it will not keep any SPS or clam
> alive, let alone any soft corals.
>
> But since it does not support Waynes watts per gallon rule he ignores it.

The first part of Wayne's point seems to be that the watts per gallon
rule is flawed, and I am sure he'd be the first to admitit in this case.

The second part of his point is that any alternatives (ie: measuring
PAR, etc) are simply not practical to the average hobbiest.

Perhaps we could come up with something X number inches away from X
number of watts, or something like that. But even that won't work that
well, given the difference one would see between say a 130 watt PC hood
and a 76w MH pendant, for instance. Obviosuly a clam 8 inches under a
70w metal halide will do a lot better than the same clam 8 inches under
a 130 watt PC hood (if only because the HM pendant is a more of a
"point" light source")

[kim gross]

Add Homonym wrote:
> kim gross wrote:
>
>>
>> Exactly. This is a 6 foot long 125 that has a single 175 watt mh
>> mounted in the middle of the tank with a single coral bommie under the
>> light. It has mostly SPS corals in the tank that are doing fine. But
>> if you use Waynes rules of course, it will not keep any SPS or clam
>> alive, let alone any soft corals.
>>
>> But since it does not support Waynes watts per gallon rule he ignores it.
>
> The first part of Wayne's point seems to be that the watts per gallon
> rule is flawed, and I am sure he'd be the first to admitit in this case.
>
> The second part of his point is that any alternatives (ie: measuring
> PAR, etc) are simply not practical to the average hobbiest.
>
> Perhaps we could come up with something X number inches away from X
> number of watts, or something like that. But even that won't work that
> well, given the difference one would see between say a 130 watt PC hood
> and a 76w MH pendant, for instance. Obviosuly a clam 8 inches under a
> 70w metal halide will do a lot better than the same clam 8 inches under
> a 130 watt PC hood (if only because the HM pendant is a more of a
> "point" light source")


You are exactly right. Watts per gallon is meaningless and there is no
good practical way to check the light levels. So the best thing for a
new hobbiest to do is to talk to somebody that is knowledgable about
there setup and what corals/creatures they want to keep to see if they
have enough light. Telling somebody that they need 5 watts per gallon
is completely wrong and then trying to justify the watts per gallon by
saying that there is nothing better just shows that the people know
watts per gallon does not work.

Kim

[Wayne Sallee]

So if you did this, and you concentrated that light in say
a 35 gallon area, then you would have 5 watts per gallon,
but if you were to spread that light evenly over the
entire 125 gallon tank, you would have a hard time keeping
that tank as a reef tank, so the watts per gallon rule
still works.

Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets



Add Homonym wrote on 1/10/2007 10:25 AM:
> kim gross wrote:
>> Wayne Sallee wrote:
>>
>>> You keep saying that "watts per gallon is meaningless", but you have
>>> no better answer. So that means that your statement is meaningless,
>>> because you obviously don't have an answer for hobbiest on how to
>>> decide on how much light to get. I, unlike you, do have an answer for
>>> hobiest on how to decide how much light to get.
>>>
>>> Wayne Sallee
>>> Wayne's Pets
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Wayne,
>>
>> If watts per gallon gives you information on amount of light. What
>> corals can I keep in a 125 gallon aquarium with 175 watts of light on it?
>
> HAH. Good point. Going by the rule of thumb, nothing dependant on
> sybiotic algae will survive well (this is only slighty more than 1 watt
> per gallon)
>
> However, if part of that 175w were, say for instance, a 150w metal
> halide, you could likely keep prteyy much whatever corals you wanted, if
> they are close enough to that light.