![]() |
Watts per gallon rule
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 |
Watts per gallon rule
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 |
Watts per gallon rule
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 |
Watts per gallon rule
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! |
Watts per gallon rule
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 |
Watts per gallon rule
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 |
Watts per gallon rule
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. |
Watts per gallon rule
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 |
Watts per gallon rule
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. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:41 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FishKeepingBanter.com