Elevated Ecosystems
Community Member
Which ones does everyone recommend?
Best par meter?
- Thread starter Elevated Ecosystems
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Itc parwise or seneye depending what pc or mac phone you have because some meters don’t work on all platforms, but those two I listed are as good as any.
Don’t forget meters can be rented too, from local fish shops etc
Don’t forget meters can be rented too, from local fish shops etc
Most reviews I have seen aren't basing their results on an actual standard, but on the deviation from an Apogee MQ-510. This means it is possible that there are better options available, but we simply don't know, because the Apogee readings are taken as "the absolute truth".
In other words, these are your options:
1. Find a PAR meter that has been evaluated with an actual scientific standard.
2. Get the MQ-510 and hope it lives up to the < 5% measurement uncertainty it promises and less than 2% yearly drift.
3. Buy something else of which you have no idea how well it measures the truth and rent a PAR meter that actually shows accurate readings. You can then take multiple measurements with both to learn how to translate your PAR meter's readings to accurate readings (hoping that the rented PAR meter is correctly calibrated). Note that these things lose calibration over time and you would have to do this "regularly" for accurate readings.
4. Rent a PAR meter and hope it's well calibrated.
5. See if the manufacturer of your lights has a chart correlating water depth to PAR levels and approximate from there. Cheapest option, but doesn't account for degrading light over time and only gives a rough idea.
In other words, these are your options:
1. Find a PAR meter that has been evaluated with an actual scientific standard.
2. Get the MQ-510 and hope it lives up to the < 5% measurement uncertainty it promises and less than 2% yearly drift.
3. Buy something else of which you have no idea how well it measures the truth and rent a PAR meter that actually shows accurate readings. You can then take multiple measurements with both to learn how to translate your PAR meter's readings to accurate readings (hoping that the rented PAR meter is correctly calibrated). Note that these things lose calibration over time and you would have to do this "regularly" for accurate readings.
4. Rent a PAR meter and hope it's well calibrated.
5. See if the manufacturer of your lights has a chart correlating water depth to PAR levels and approximate from there. Cheapest option, but doesn't account for degrading light over time and only gives a rough idea.
I don't know about the best and have nothing else to compare it to but I have no regrets for buying my apogee 510.
I have an Apogee and as stated you obviously need to have faith in the readings. That is no different than all of the calibrated equipment used. Even any Calibration checkers have to be taken at face value such as fluid for refractometers . So where would it ever stop. This forum would be full of nothing but opinions as one person put it . It would become a popularity poll nothing more. That being said I have to take the readings on mine as being accurate. However it also seems that there is not a " perfect " lighting intensity required seems to be a large spread . So did I go overboaed ? Maybe but I always have had the opinion that you get what you pay for longevity of accuracy is worth it. There is also the option of turning it into a professional tool as there is an app to create charts with it. Another option is a Lux meter I bought one for $165 made by Milwaukie Tools lol. Maybe ok for pot growers. So the above statement regarding having 2 if I am reading it correctly, makes no sense to me as it would include multiple assumptions then 2 pieces of garbage following that logic. As to Manufacturers charts . How do they know that their piece is accurate , and do they check every one ? Or just batches ? Were does the faith start ? Anyway like I said seems to me that the required spread is generous. I like to have one to find dead spots which can literally be inches away from a good one because of an overhang above that does not cast a visual shadow that we can see. I spent a lot of money on a tool I use rarely. But I like it for reasons stated. As to light claims by Manufacturers to claim those readings They should publish the findings and explain the exact procedure used just like an experiment would , and have it verified by a unbiased observer. Otherwise I take all stated claims with a grain of salt let me just leave that there
I agree and maybe could have worded my previous response more appropriately: One of the ideas was to buy an affordable PAR meter and calibrate it with a rented high-end device.
You are right that this gives 2 measurements of unknown accuracy, but the idea is to trust a high quality device and translate the readings of your own PAR meter accordingly. I don't think it's the best option, but it wouldn't make sense not mentioning it, as it is actively done (see for example https://humble.fish/community/threads/par-meter-comparison.22472/). If this is actually a good approach is debatable (you need multiple calibration points, you don't know how old the device it and when it was last calibrated, etc.)
The major difference between PAR meters and other tests is that there are many cheap alternatives to verify your test kits: ICP, another test kit from a different brand, in some cases a DIY tritration, etc. This gives you an idea whether your test results are plausible. For PAR meters this will be more difficult and expensive.
In the end it probably doesn't matter too much if your corals get a PAR reading of 290 or 310 and you don't necessarily need a PAR meter at all or require +95% accurate readings.
Yes I did not mean to pick your statement apart but just to point out we are chasing unproven and maybe unattainable perfection for no reason . Like I said I do like finding dead spots when placing Coral , which I was not able to with my naked eye. Even then with all the research you can do there is no proven intensity for all Coral. Randy Holmes- Farleys situation may be the best example , knowing the actual natural behavior of a certain Coral. Assuming The LFS website I used to implant my Coral was correct resulted in failure. If all other conditions were good it gave me a general flow , care level, and light level required. Yet I still lost about 5 or 30%. I have been looking for reasons , and trying lots of different things to save some that are stagnant while some are flourishing for months. So Par is far from the go to factor to me , however nice to know your in the ball park so you can go into a different approach. So far its been very elusive , which is why I would like it if Coral care were logged by the obvious success of others. Instead of lots of people chasing their tails
Apogee for the win!
You have to change your user name because it is not frugalApogee for the win!
All good, no worries :)
The criticism was justified that's why I wanted to clarify my idea a little bit.
I myself chose to simply get an Apogee. Rather than caring much about the absolute values, I will use it to compare old lights to new ones. This way I can ensure to not accidentally fry my corals with too much light when upgrading :D
Similar threads
- Price: $375
- Shipping Available
