PAR in the wild.

[Bruce Spiegelman]

PAR in the Wild at Depth

So I have this article about PAR and BTA/bubble time anemones / entacmaea quadricolor at depth. I'm especially interested in this chart. Am I interpreting it correctly in saying: - PAR in open water at 0m is like 1800 (as we generally measure this in the reef hobby) on a presumably clear...

www.reef2reef.com

 

[sfsuphysics]

So.... just "here's a link go read another site" without adding any context yourself?

I mean I was going to post a Dana Riddle article about what he did in Hawaii, except reefs.org seems to be down at this moment, and he also chimed in there.

 

[Bruce Spiegelman]

I thought “Pat in the Wild” in the title was pretty good context.

 

[Coral reefer]

I don’t really think we really get corals from either of the locations they are talking about.

 

[iCon]

I don’t really think we really get corals from either of the locations they are talking about.

I only get corals from your tank. Still waiting on a video!

 

[Coral reefer]

I only get corals from your tank. Still waiting on a video!

Of my tank? I don’t know how to post them in here. Seems like they want me to use YouTube but that seems like a hassle...

 

[sfsuphysics]

I thought “Pat in the Wild” in the title was pretty good context.

No I get that, I'm just wondering why you didn't lead with any comments of your own. Like what's your thought on it? Seems odd to post a thread from another site, and that's the end of it, not even so much as a "So do you think we're under lighting our tanks?"

 

[JVU]

I think it’s interesting from a scientific point of view but without much practical use. Or at least not adding to what we already know for practical use. Scientifically interesting is enough for me though

 

[JVU]

No I get that, I'm just wondering why you didn't lead with any comments of your own. Like what's your thought on it? Seems odd to post a thread from another site, and that's the end of it, not even so much as a "So do you think we're under lighting our tanks?"

So your contribution to the discussion is that Bruce didn’t contribute enough to the discussion?

I personally like it when members find something interesting to them from another site and tell us about it. I don’t see any value in bugging them about it.

 

[Bruce Spiegelman]

I think it’s interesting from a scientific point of view but without much practical use. Or at least not adding to what we already know for practical use. Scientifically interesting is enough for me though

Yep. I kind of thought it stood on it's own and it was interesting to share. However, since my point of view was solicited heree it is:

"It's interesting enough from a scientific point of view to share."

 

[sfsuphysics]

So your contribution to the discussion is that Bruce didn’t contribute enough to the discussion?

I personally like it when members find something interesting to them from another site and tell us about it. I don’t see any value in bugging them about it.

Honestly, I was more than willing to contribute to it, I saw the title, and the gears in my head were already cranking over what it could be about, points and counter points, then upon clicking the post all of that went away when I didn't see any input from the "content creator" on it.

Now sure I obviously was misunderstood the initial posting was "here's an article" and not a "what do you think about it" posting. As to the value in bugging Bruce about it, well I've been socially isolated for the better part of one and half months now, other than my wife and kids there's not been much "out" for me, so yeah I'm chomping at the bit here about wanting to engage with others instead of just reading a book. So I apologize if Bruce thought I was attacking him, I wasn't... much, but yeah.