sticky this! and give this man a noble prize!
Thank you very much for the explanation. I understand what you are saying. The air-water interface focuses light somewhat like a magnifying glass does (maybe an odd shaped one) and light reflects off of the sides, front and back somewhat like a mirror. The disparity between the front to back measurements are understandable.When light shines into an aquarium the air-water interface slightly focuses the light. Beams off center are refracted towards the center. This is why the PAR around the center of the tank goes up when you add water. Near the glass at the front, back, and ends, there is considerable reflection of light back into the tank from the glass-air interface, which increases the PAR near the glass. But, if the glass is less than perfectly clean on either side of the glass the amount reflected back into the water is decreased. As I recall I did those PAR measurements in a 10 gallon tank, which I didn't take pains to clean thoroughly. The glass must have been non-uniformly dirty. This was a few years ago, so my memory of that isn't perfect.
I don't have a 30" tank running either, but I read a lot of posts from people that have them. 30" is somewhat of an odd length when looking at lighting options. It seems that lighting is basically designed in one foot or 12" increments, like 24", 36", 48", 60" and 72". This makes 20" and 30" length tanks having fewer lighting choices. 60" fixtures and bulbs for them may be somewhat of an oddball length too.I don't have either a 30 inch long tank, nor a 24 inch long light to do PAR tests with. Most of the data I have comes from others who either post it or PM it to me. Someone with the right tank and light, and access to a PAR meter, needs to do that testing. One thing I do know is that if you raise the light far enough above the top of the tank a short light can light up a tank well enough for our purposes. In fact one good way to light a tank is to use a short, but very bright light (4 bulb T5HO, for example) suspended a foot or more above the tank. That greatly reduces the difference in PAR between the water surface and substrate level, and gives relatively uniform light over the substrate.
Yes, a lot more than I do know.:icon_mrgris there anything this guy doesnt know about lighting?
The main argument that Daniel suggested in a debate I've had over the years was that with higher PUR, we get more growth per watt.PUR = photosynthetically usable radiation, a concept I haven't yet seen a good reason to dig into. Plants use light from the whole spectrum between about 400 and 700 nanometers wave length. Unlike what many people believe, they also use green light, just not as efficiently as they use blue and red light.
If it was hard to get enough light to grow our plants, we would want to get every advantage we could, and look for bulbs that wouldn't waste any light in the green wave lengths, which, if you think about it, would leave us with very drab looking plants. But, the bigger problem we now have is avoiding too much light, not getting enough light. So, why bother with PUR?
I know your position on PUR measurements, so my suggestion was only half serious. I think your charts are a good general guide because all manufacturers of lights fairly much use the same three phosphors, the caveat, but in varying proportions even though they have access to as many as 20 I believe.PUR = photosynthetically usable radiation, a concept I haven't yet seen a good reason to dig into. Plants use light from the whole spectrum between about 400 and 700 nanometers wave length. Unlike what many people believe, they also use green light, just not as efficiently as they use blue and red light.
If it was hard to get enough light to grow our plants, we would want to get every advantage we could, and look for bulbs that wouldn't waste any light in the green wave lengths, which, if you think about it, would leave us with very drab looking plants. But, the bigger problem we now have is avoiding too much light, not getting enough light. So, why bother with PUR?
But, the bigger problem we now have is avoiding too much light, not getting enough light. So, why bother with PUR?
CRI remains a bit mysterious to me. Recently I read that incandescent light gives a CRI of 100 - perfect. That was because the color rendering index is designed so that perfect color rendering is that of incandescent light. I doubt that anyone reading this wants an aquarium to look like it has incandescent bulbs lighting it.Aesthetics (CRI) is another matter for a separate discussion.