Watts per gallon rule
 

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

Watts per gallon rule
 

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

Watts per gallon rule
 

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

Watts per gallon rule
 

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 per gallon rule
 

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

Watts per gallon rule
 

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

Watts per gallon rule
 

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.

Watts per gallon rule
 

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.

Watts per gallon rule
 

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.

Watts per gallon rule
 

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.

Watts per gallon rule
 

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

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.

Watts per gallon rule
 

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

Watts per gallon rule
 

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

Watts per gallon rule
 

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?

Watts per gallon rule
 

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?

Watts per gallon rule
 

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?

Watts per gallon rule
 

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?

Watts per gallon rule
 

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?

Watts per gallon rule
 

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

Watts per gallon rule
 

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.

Watts per gallon rule
 

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

Watts per gallon rule
 

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?

Watts per gallon rule
 

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?

Watts per gallon rule
 

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.

Watts per gallon rule
 

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.

Watts per gallon rule
 

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")

Watts per gallon rule
 

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

Watts per gallon rule
 

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.