I am becoming feeble minded to be certain. The triangle of sway is certainly good as well.
Yes, slides suck.
Colors and details are nicer though.
I think "driving" the system is one more biochemical or enzymatic way to look at photosynthesis.
It is a pathway. The End result is hopefully, plant growth. Yes, we say the same things, but tell a it differently.
Yes, we just did not have enough light back in those days really and few had PAR meters.
I used the Hamiliton MH's and had really high light on my 90 Gallon tank.
That was about as high as it got back in the 1990's.
The leaner dosing and lower CO2 from back in those days..........reflected the lower light most had.
Those same ppm's and CO2 persisted with many people even till this day.
Even though they added 2-4x as much light
That's wasteful and asking for more work and headache.
That's not a "balanced" view/philosophy frankly. With the pathway, you can show that pretty easily.
As Caesar once sad: "people freely believe what they want to believe, not what is the truth".
Like me, and those Venn diagrams, hehe.
LED's are a troublesome complexity. They can be very point source like MH's, or they can have many many tiny smaller sources that come closer to a FL tube, we say those from A&H supply and from Finnex at the AGA meeting.
Those where impressive and better than many of the Cree 3 W DIY projects. I did a couple DIY Cree's, but I've not been happy with the evenness of the light spread or the colors from the plants. The DIY and the Cree generally are nice for the reefs.
I use them there.
I use only 1.2 W/gal of T5's on this 350 Gal nature style tank:
Another tank is 28" deep and the lights are 18-20 inches above the water's surface, well over 1 meter away.
This uses a pair of TEK fixtures, the ATI fixtures would add about 50% more light.
I can double the lighting, but then the Gloss becomes really weedy. The light in this tank is pretty close to the ADA tank's averages as far as PAR.