The Planted Tank Forum banner
1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
674 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I'm not sure if anyone has brought this up before or not regarding the current lighting standards people use.

Instead of basing lighting on WPG, how come people dont use watts per footprint area?

Also instead of saying that your lights are on for X hours a day, wouldn't it be better to say watts per day with an additional averaged watts per hour?

I just thought it would be more specific...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,600 Posts
The watts per area is about as broken as the WPG rule. A 10 gallon and a 15H have the same footprint. There are a lot of tanks that are really tall and the WPA would break down badly on these tanks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
712 Posts
The watts per area is about as broken as the WPG rule. A 10 gallon and a 15H have the same footprint. There are a lot of tanks that are really tall and the WPA would break down badly on these tanks.
how much attenuation is there in a 15H versus a 10R? if negligible, watts per unit area seems perfectly valid.
-snafu
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
674 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
well this was never supposed to be entirely accurate, just more so than wpg, but less than having to buy equipment to measure light output etc.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,880 Posts
Screw it! we could just use LUX!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
766 Posts
Watts per gallon, Watts per square foot, they're both just basic guidelines that also assume you're using 1. flourescents or MHs and 2. decent reflectors. Either one will work, to a degree. Neither one will give you a perfect formula. But they're easy and work well enough with most normal-sized hobbyist tanks.

And I completely don't get the point of Watts per day.
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Top