Why the WPG system is STUPID...

[Erik765]

IMO “The WPG System� is really a stupid system. Let me begin.

It doesn't matter how many watts for every gallon of water you have, what matters is how much energy the animals require and how much energy they are getting.

Example: A T. Crocea Clam (regardless of it’s size) can live in anywhere from less than .1 to more than 400 WPG. Don't believe me? Think about it. I could put a clam in a 1 gallon milk jug under a 400 watt MH and it would thrive (provided it was being fed, no matter what size it is, but don't get me started on that subject!) But, you say, that’s 400 WPG, yep, it sure is. Now, mes amies, take that same clam and put it in a 4000 gallon tank making sure that both the light and the clam are the same distance from the surface and it will only be getting .1 wpg but, :eek2: oh no you say. BELIEVE IT OR NOT, THE CLAM COULDN'T CARE LESS ABOUT HOW WIDE THE DAMN TANK IS.

"The WPG system" means that there are still as many wpg on the surface and the bottom of any given tank. This is where common sense comes in. Put on your thinking caps, those who wish to comment. LIGHT CHANGES IMMENSELY AS THE WATER GETS DEEPER. So our Mr. Clam at the bottom of this 4' + deep tank would not be getting his Daily Energy Requirements. RIGHT???

Yes "The WPG system" is an all around easy way for LFS owners to sound intelligent, but lets, as reefers, take a stand against the Ignoramuses and try to increase our knowledge about how much light (ENERGY) our ANIMALS need and not how much light our WATER needs.

here is a pic that I saw somewhere which is another, more exaggerated example.
http://users.pomeroy-wa.com/c-hills/wpggraphic.jpg


E
PS. Sorry to sound so rude, I just am getting tired of ignorance.
PPS. I may add to all this as I think of more facts

[WaterKeeper]

Erik,

I think most, if not all, reefers would agree with you. The WPG is just a general guideline and is not intended to suit every need. Variables such as tank height, type of lights and species kept all have a profound effect on the light needed in any reef tank.

I think it is mainly to serve as a guide for the novice who is making the transistion from FW to SW. It gives the neophyte an idea of the much brighter light is needed in the reef environment.

P.S. Love your illustration. :bigeyes:

[MalHavoc]

Yeap, the WPG thing has pretty much died a horrible death around here. Most good books also don't make use of it any more either. I try to make sure that people asking questions here know that WPG makes little sense whatsoever.

Preaching to the choir, dude.

Nice clam :)

[slipknottin]

Theres the whole thing about lighting efficiency also.

incandescent- fluorescent - MH, etc.

[pjr]

I think WPG is a great starting point. It is very useful if you have, let's say for example, a 4 foot wide 75g tank. It's 20" deep, and once you put in a 4" sand bed, any reef light (VHO, PC, MH) will penetrate that depth.

WPG provides a starting point for entering the playing field to properly illuminate a reef. If 5 WPG is the staring line, then a LFS can quickly tell a hobbiest "no, 110 watts of PC on your 50g won't work. You'll need al least 2x96" or something like that.

Now, when you start getting bigger than 75 with the more unique sizes -- a 24" deep tank, or the next step, a 30" deep tank -- you have to look at the variances. In this case, if a specific type of light will support the tank (e.g. will VHO cut thu the depth).

Or width... a MH with a spider reflector may get 3" of spread, while HQI won't cover that amount of area. And depth... with VHO, you likely need 6 bulbs to cover an 18"- 24" wide tank with proper intensity.

Or marine life.... if I'm keeping softies like my rapidly reproducing ultra long polyp pinkish leather, my adjustments to WPG will be a lot different than if I want to keep maxima clams. On a prior setup, 2x95W VHO on a IceCap 430 was plenty for a gold crown toadstool and green tree nepthia in a standard 4 foot 55g. A squmosa would have been ill advised.

All these factors call for adjustments to the basic starting guideline of WPG. Again, if you use WPG as a initial guideline and adjust for circumstances, it's a fine tool. If people are looking for it to be a rigid and scientific rule that is applied for all circumstances, regardless of tank size or animals to be kept, well, it doesn't work. In fact, nothing works... expect a starting point and adjusting for variances.

[Erik765]

Pjr, I agree with most of your comments. However, what most upsets me is the ignorance that is preached troughout the hobby at the expence of many animals. A LFS owner could say "you need x amount of wpg to keep this and this and this" and it's left at that. when there are so many more variables as you mentioned that are never discussed. And the newbie, having no idea, trusts they know all there is to know because "my LFS owner said so". My rant is only to try and make hobbiests see how much more there is to the subject of lighting besides the simple, ever-so-magical wpg rule. I will admit I could have posted a thread that simply said "Do some research before buying that sps!" (But what fun is that? hee hee hee) I stand firm in my opinions about the wpg rule and how it is abused by ignorance. Perhaps the reason I am so strong in this subject is because I lost so many animals on my own wondering why, after my peers in the hobby said "oh yeah, you shouldn't have any problem at all keeping that clam under 7 wpg" they just died.

On a kinder note (from the original post) "Be careful you newbies"

;)

E

[newbie1]

Thanks.....

I guess I just wasted money buying a 250 halide for my 29gal:o

[Erik765]

Do not misunderstand me newbie1. I only intend to help people realize that theres more to it. IMO, a 250 MH is an excellent lighting choice for your 29 gal. I have a 175 (also with PC/VHO) on my 20. Because these tanks are not too deep I wouldn't forsee any problems keeping clams or sps. However, each animal is different as far as it's lighting (and among other) requirements. I would recommend to do some good reading before you purchase your animals. Eric Bornemans' newest book "Aquarium Corals" selection, husbandry, and natural history, is very easy to read and has indepth (pun intended) details about the different requirments of every coral that your LFS will ever have!! The key is, be careful, and you will be succesful, don't give into your impulses unless you know for sure what your getting into. Get opinions, but eventually form your own. (atleast with lighting!!)

;)

E

[pjr]

SO I think we can agree that it's a practical starting point, but in no means a steadfast rule... it must be adjusted for tank dimensions, specific animal needs, and it must not be abused by clueless LFS employees.

[wizardgus®]

Everyone keeps going to tank configuration etc. to prove that this method is unsound. And it is unsound. BUT, the biggest thing here is if your were looking for a X/g. formula as a starting point you should be using lumens or lux. The watts pertain more to energy consumption of the bulb not illumination. Want to test it easy? Look at a 100W incandescent, then look at a 55W PC. Big difference with the 55W being brighter. Now how about something more germain to aquaria? OK, armed with his newfound wisdom of needing 4X55W PC for his 29g. tank the newbie runs out to purchase his "reef lighting". Anyone think the above lighting would NOT be good? How about if 3 are 03 actinic? Or all 4 are those cheap 50/50 bulbs that only give off 40% of their light on the blue side? Have you seen the difference in brightness between a 55W 10,000K Hamilton & a 55W 10,000K $24 generic? It is immense. That is why I think Watts is a greatly misguided attempt. Especially since every defender of this guideling that I have read in this and the other thread, insist that it is a reasonable starting point for a beginner. THAT is why it is bad. For experienced reefers to sit around and discuss their WPG is probably a fine way to pass some time, but arming a newcomer with this faulty wisdom is best left for the LFS.

[dobish]

IMO, a measure of light intensity that is not used enough in this hobby is lux. A waterproof lux meter is fairly inexpensive and is a fairly accurate indication of what light intensity is actually reaching your corals and inverts at the different levels in the tank. Plus a lux meter will allow you to monitor the decrease in light intensity emitted from your bulbs over time -- this should help you determine when it is time to change your bulbs.

From what I recall, according to Eric Borneman, the saturation level of corals is about 20,000 Lux ~ on an average over a days time. On an actual reef light intensity changes with the weather, but on an average this is the maximum average useful energy we should be providing for "high light" inverts. Of course, the lighting requirements decrease from this point for corals that are "medium light", etc.

I agree that measuring reef aquarium lighting on a watts per gallon basis is not an accurate way of detemining whether you are satifying the photosynthetic needs of your animals...for example, my tank is 10.5 watts per gallon, however I am only providing 16,500 lux at the "crest" of my reef (I am working on upgrading my lighting - BTW).

Please, don't take this post the wrong way, I am, for the reason of disscussion, simply putting forth a suggestion to more accurately discuss the photosynthetic requirements of the animals we keep and how we provide those needs. Whether you have one gallon of water or one thousand, if you measure lux 8" below the surface of either of those volumes of water, your measurement should be a fairly accurate and will not be related to volume.

...now, imagine, if we miraculously switch to referring to required light intensity by measuring lux...we can somewhat accurately say an Acropora requires about 20,000 lux while a Euphyllia requires only X,XXX lux......I dunno, it's just a thought.....and, BTW, I think a lux meter is more important than over half the test kits on the market, but should definitely be part of our tank 'testing' procedure.....and, BTW, I don't sell lux meters either. :D

[wizardgus®]

Yes, if you're serious about corals, then this meter is a neccesity not a lux ury!

[Project Reef]

:D If your goal is to :D keep :D:D:D:D:D sps:D :D :D :Dand clams
:D Just stick a 400watter for:D every :D 24":D-30"of:D space
:D or a250:Dwatter:D to :D save :D on :D electricity and you
:D will :D be OK:D WPG:D :D :D :D is :D will usually get
you :D in :D:D :D the :D general :D :D :D :D ball
park, no:D :D :D :Dneed :D to stress my :D :D :D friend.
P.S. Great:D:D :D:D looking :D fern plant :D you got :D there
I hope it's :D not :D the :D illegal kind. :D :D :D:D

[Project Reef]

:rolleyes:

Those ":D " faces where supposed to spell out WPG. Oh well, my happy face typing techniques are as good as your clam drawing, so I guess we're even. :spin1: :spin3:

[pjr]

I posted this on the other thread as well... instead of WPG, here's some other more useful guidelines:

VHO & PC:

- Soft corals: 2 bulbs x tank width
- LPS corals: 4 bulbs x tank width
- SPS/clams: 6 bulbs x tank width

Metal Halide:

...... Depth...... 18" ------ 24" ----- over 30"
- Softies/LPS: 175W --- 250W --- 400W
- SPS &clams: 250W --- 400W --- multi 400W


Assumptions:

1. high quality reflectors are employed to maximize light into tank

2. florescents run the entire width of tank (e.g. 46" VHO on a standard 55g 48" wide tank)

3. florescents have an average color temp of 10K (or apx a 50/50 to 60/40 mix of actinic and day bulbs)

4. one MH is used for every 24"- 30" of width, pending on mounting position and type of reflector

5. If MH setup consists of solely 20K bulbs, up to 50% greater light intensity may be required to make up for the reduction of PAR.

6. If MH setup consists solely of 6500K Iwasakis, up to 25% less wattage can be used due to the increased PAR.

7. Tanks greater than 24" front to back will require extra MH or flor. coverage to compensate for passing the spread capacity of the lighting employed.

[johnydart]

Erik 765 Says:
(Where the sun actually shines more than 2 days a year and thus doesn't have the highest suicide rate in the country!)

Hey, That's great! Considering the hell-hole that eastern WA is, it's little wonder that 85% of the state population lives on the western side! You know, where we get FOUR whole seasons and regular rain.
You see, we have a higher suicide rate because we have these things called "cities" and "urban areas". It's not your fault that the closest thing to a city (other than Spokane) in the "great inland empire" is Yakima... a town whose greatest tourism draw is for the military ordinance trainees, or Ellensburg... a town devoid of anything once the school year and rodeo are over....

PS, Based on your choice of words I'm not clear what you mean... is it the sun that doesn't have the highest suicide rate...?

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go kill myself now.

[Erik765]

Hell hole? Wow Mr. ignorant, that one was hard to come up with. FOUR whole seasons? You can hardly call your 6 month, rainier then hell season, with NO snow (without everyone freaking out and not driving) a winter.

How come Spokane with a met. Pop of over 500k. doesn’t even come close in it’s suicide ratings to any other city over there? Because, over there the sun never shines and people live in a foggy doom and gloom their whole lives.
Yes, it rains here, just enough to have the biggest wheat crop in the world (of course, you probably don’t eat anything with bread in it anyway right?). And yes, you can wait 45 minutes on the freeway to go 5 miles, but never 2 hours. And yes, you can store things in your garage for more than a week because they wont start to rust and mold. If it’s trees you like, Starting at Spokane, NE. WA has just as many.

To add to your list of more E. WA cities, the tri cities is the fastest growing met. Area in the state.

I will say there is one nice thing about living on the coast, you don’t have to add make up water to your tank right?!!

PS, no, when the sun shines, people are happier. It’s a proven fact. And if you’d get out of your big W. WA box every now and then and come over to our four season hell hole and observe a new phenomenon (called the sun) you might be too. Just don’t stay long, ‘cause it’s another proven fact the coastals are in high disregard around here.

I could go on, and on, but I have more important things to do. Like, go snowmobiling without having to drive 4 hours to the nearest 10,000’ elevation.

;)

E

[johnydart]

I grew up over here, the "Doom and gloom" doesn't bother me... as a matter of fact both Boston and NY get more anual rainfall than Western WA does... It's the CA transplants to the NW who are driving up the suicide rates... they move up after seeing our gorgeous summer weather then freak out when they see a little rain.
While spokane county is close to 500,000 strong, the city istself just slipped to third in pop. behind my home town, Tacoma....

[DgenR8]

Hmmm, Wasn't this thread about lighting and Reef tanks?? :rolleyes:

[pjr]

Thanks guys! After listing to these posts about rain, suicide, and the like, I guess I have it pretty good after all! I can now be proud about living in the metro Detroit area. We rule compare to WA! :D

[Erik765]

I'd say you better check your pop. numbers again. Looks to me like Spokane is still a hair bigger than Tacoma, just like it's always been.

;)

E

[Project Reef]

Dgen, do you have any idea on how I can "unsubscribed" from a thread?

[pjr]

Originally posted by Project Reef
Dgen, do you have any idea on how I can "unsubscribed" from a thread?

Yep!

1. From the munu up top, go to "RC Home."
2. Look under the "Subscribed Threads" section and find this thread under the list. You'll find a link next to the thread that allows you to unsubscribe from it. I'm headed there too...

[Project Reef]

:)