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.

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.

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.

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