Canreef Aquatics Bulletin Board - 12000k xenon car lights

Page 2 of 3

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Canreef Aquatics Bulletin Board (http://www.canreef.com/vbulletin/index.php)

- Reef (http://www.canreef.com/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=8)

- - 12000k xenon car lights (http://www.canreef.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=46807)

dabandit

11-26-2008 05:43 AM

It seems a little strange to me that you found the very thing that makes or breaks the use of this lighting and now "you can't find it" :confused

Are you saying this isnt being rude? get bent

superduperwesman

11-26-2008 06:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dabandit (Post 362718)

Are you even reading what I'm typing? I mean really......the info i got was from much research online on one site they showed the par values which is why I mentioned the par value in my previous statement. Go online and look your self at the values;par is higher than mh 70w,10000k+ and wavelength is 430-470nm at 10000k now go check your mh specs,the only place it lacks is in the lumen department which aparently does'nt mean much to corals. There you have it...data....facts..... please show me something to prove otherwise because all I've heard so far is conjecture or one persons failed experience due to faulty wiring PLEASE someone direct me to data that says this cant work,otherwise open your minds!!lol

Actually it's just hearsay

Quote:

Originally Posted by dabandit (Post 362955)

just bothers me when people dismiss something without either trying or researching it first.

I think that's why we're trying to get a link for the PAR ratings that you claim... so we can research such information ourselves

Quote:

Originally Posted by dabandit (Post 362955)

The fella here powering his 5.5 is happy with the light he claims no heat issues and looking at the pic his tank is glowing something fierce,his corals look happy and have good p.e. As for the comment that your corals have p.e even in the dark...well duh but try keeping them in the dark for a week or two (the time he's been running this light) and see what happens lol

The light may continue to work great for him, and I hope it does... but generally I don't like to base success on 1 to 2 weeks

Quote:

Originally Posted by dabandit (Post 362970)

Are'nt you friendly. I've spent a week researching this....think about it before you go accusing me of being a liar AGAIN Par value is the percentage of light that reaches the target after dissipation via heat and such is it not? Now take a mh bulb and compare how far the light goes to a headlight on a car better yet look directly into each because your beginning to annoy me :)

ahah I love it when people point out something like it's a problem and then do exactly the same thing ahah.

For the record I'm pointing out the problem of hypocrisy (which I try to refrain from), not a lack of kindness (which I wouldn't claim to always be or I'd be presently following suit on the hypocrisy). Can't always be friendly, sometimes we have to be cruel to be kind

Quote:

Originally Posted by dabandit (Post 362970)

Through my research I've found what I wanted to know and believe I've provide enough proof that this is a viable technology,if thats not good enough for you thats not my problem try google

Congrats I hope the light works for you, but in the mean time while you continue in your attempt to persuade everyone else as to how great the light will work, the fact that you're self satisfied isn't enough, so unfortunately it is still your problem.

Now hearsay = facts = proof??

Quote:

Originally Posted by dabandit (Post 362970)

then come apologize when your done

Pride always comes before the fall and unfortunately it is generally easier to truly prove something wrong before proving it right so you might have a little work ahead of you... unless self satisfaction is enough?? But that's never any fun because it's too easy to convince yourself... I mean even crazy people don't think they're crazy :)

Finally, it could work great??? I don't have enough information to decide yet...?

dabandit

11-26-2008 06:35 AM

Im new to forums and am trying my best to respond to every comment im sorry I havent met your burden of proof and I dont have time to meet everyones satisfaction. Im not trying to convince anyone,merely to educate myself and who ever wants to tune in. To you its mere heresay but I've seen it with my own eyes and thats good enough for me so Im going to leave it at that. Take my word for it if you want or check yourself

And I dont expect you to base anything on a week but its all theres been at the moment and its a good start. You may not believe me but I've seen k ratings,nm ratings,lumen ratings and par value combined with a sucessfull trial by 2 people who claimed the light emited was usefull thats enough for me. If you feel the need to disprove me thats your perogative not mine but I welcome it.

Cheers

Sebae again

11-26-2008 06:47 AM

For HID aquarium lighting. Info in downloadable manual
http://www.aquaticlife.com/hid/index.html

superduperwesman

11-26-2008 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dabandit (Post 363201)

All I know is that I've been wrong on lots of occasions... which is why I'm hesitant to be fully convince... that doesn't mean that I think you a liar just that you, like any other person, myself first and for most, could possibly be wrong or misinterpreting or misunderstanding something which is why we're hoping to see what you've seen. After all seeing is believing :) and challenging you is how we hope to get that site or make you see?? In either case we'll all be better off but reinforcing what we already knew or by learning something new and quite posibly by being wrong.

Like I said I don't know enough yet to know what I believe but that doesn't mean that I think your a liar.

StirCrazy

11-26-2008 01:41 PM

Ok, personally I think Xenon HID are a waist of time and I'll tell you why.

HID cover all high intensity discharge lights so we have halogen, Xenon, HPS, MH for some of the common ones.

the order I listed are pretty much the order of intensity also.

Halogen only put out about 30% of the power as light, the rest as heat. Xenon is a little better probably about 50-50. HPS is better yet and Mh is even better.

Comparing Xenon against T5 is a waist, it will not have the PAR output but it may be brighter, but the point is it is a different type of lighting. compare apples with apples, look at a 70 watt MH setup..

the reason you can't find any PAR values is why would some one spend the extra money to create a car light bulb that will grow plants good. the amount of PAR light available is small and incidental as they are mostly blending for color not designing the bulb light output for plant growth.

I do agree they will have enough for maybe a nano tank, but for the price compared to a 70 watt MH I don't think it is worth it for the hassles.

Steve

sphelps

11-26-2008 02:04 PM

So let me get this straight...

Quote:

Originally Posted by dabandit

...par is higher than mh 70w,10000k+ and wavelength is 430-470nm...
...xenon produces light more efficientlly than an led...

So basically you can make ridiculous claims with no evidence to support them and everyone should just believe you because you're new to forums

Quote:

Originally Posted by dabandit

please show me something to prove otherwise

And if someone doesn't buy what you're saying, for good reason, they need to prove to you otherwise.

But if someone asks you for the same you say...

Quote:

Originally Posted by dabandit

get bent

Oh I get it now, everything is so clear. Good luck inventing the square wheel!

Whatigot

11-26-2008 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sphelps (Post 362965)

Well keep looking cause that's what we or at least what I would be most interested in seeing. I already knew Xenon lights used the same technology as MH. You should be able to find the site in your browser history. It seems a little strange to me that you found the very thing that makes or breaks the use of this lighting and now "you can't find it" :confused:

Perhaps but it's easier not to be skeptical when bulbs are produced for the sole purpose of use in the aquarium hobby.

you seriously think that t5's and MH were originally built for aquarium use?
sorry to say, but these lighting systems were not invented with this purpose in mind, it took someone who loved the hobby to give it a shot and grow from there.

come on....

sphelps

11-26-2008 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whatigot (Post 363244)

Never said that, I just said they make T5 and MH bulbs for aquariums, they don't make Xenon bulbs for aquariums and why would they when you can get a MH bulb already?

Whatigot

11-26-2008 04:16 PM

and my comment before hand was that there were skeptics when MH and t5 were first brought into the hobby, your rebuttle was that you can afford the be more confident in those technologies because they are specifically made for aquarium use.

I don't get what you were trying to say?

What does confidence in a tech matter when it's already established?...lol
This is obviously something new and not comparable to your confidence level in already proven stuff.

My point was just that you can be cynical all you want but people were cynical about the techs that we consider common place now when they were first introduced into the hobby, like MH and t5.

sphelps

11-26-2008 04:38 PM

All I'm saying is that Xenon bulbs are not made for aquariums and probably never will be as there is no demand. Would you use a street or industrial MH bulb for your aquarium?

No point reinventing the wheel, they already make 70W halides for aquariums and I just don't see the need for anything smaller. So unless xenon bulbs can be proven more efficient than halides in terms of PAR what's the point in pursuing them? Maybe for fun, sure. Nothing wrong with that but don't make false/unproven claims misleading people into a bad purchase.

Whatigot

11-26-2008 05:28 PM

I think dandits whole point is to have more lighting options for a nano tank isn't it?

seems pretty clear to me and a good idea too IMHO.

There are t5's, compacts, mh, LED, vho, fluorescent, you're telling me that there isn't a point in reinventing the wheel?

seems like a lot of co's have made some major dough doing just that to me.

sphelps

11-26-2008 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whatigot (Post 363288)

There are t5's, compacts, mh, LED, vho, fluorescent, you're telling me that there isn't a point in reinventing the wheel?

Not unless Xenon lighting is more efficient than MH which is yet to be proven and is extremely doubtful since they are essentially the same thing. If xenon gas was better they would already use it for other applications, this isn't new technology. I would suspect the main reason these are used in the automotive industry is related to firing capabilities over efficiency, xenon gas is often used in strobe lights and flashes for this reason.

70W halides would work great for a nano, maybe not a 5.5 or smaller but how many people are interested in that? Not much demand. A 70W halide has to be the least commonly used halide which is why they are hard to find and have a limited bulb selection, a 35W would be even worse and would be a poor investment by any company.

You can pursue this as much as you want and we're all entitled to our opinions but Xenon lighting is unproven technology for aquarium applications and stating otherwise is wrong.

Whatigot

11-26-2008 06:32 PM

who was stating otherwise?
some people on this thread were WONDERING at the possibilities but I don't see anyone here saying that it's definite.

My point, again was only that skepticism of anything is the greatest in it's infancy and you may not be aware of this but there are entire communities online to people dedicated to nano tanks.

Where do you get the info that not many people are interested in 5.5 and under?
since you're so adamant about having a basis to prove stated facts?

I have a 5.5 gallon and I could name a number of others on Canreef, let alone nanoreefs or reef central that do as well..

Stating that not many people are interested in 5.5 and under is wrong and in your case, hypocritical.

If a 35w xenon bulb was proven to work for nanos, the argument could easily be that a company could slightly tweak their design and open up their business to a whole new market....sounds like a great business move to me

sphelps

11-26-2008 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whatigot (Post 363313)

who was stating otherwise?
some people on this thread were WONDERING at the possibilities but I don't see anyone here saying that it's definite.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whatigot

My point, again was only that skepticism of anything is the greatest in it's infancy and you may not be aware of this but there are entire communities online to people dedicated to nano tanks.

Where do you get the info that not many people are interested in 5.5 and under?
since you're so adamant about having a basis to prove stated facts?

What percentage of people in the saltwater hobby do you think have a 5.5g tank or smaller? 5% maybe, and that's probably generous. Now what percentage of that 5% would actually spend upwards of $200 on a light fixture? Maybe 25% of the original 5% which means your total market is only 1.25% of people in the hobby. Oh yeah that's a great business move, it would take 100 years to pay for the R&D.

dabandit

11-26-2008 07:09 PM

How many more times are you going to call me a liar? The FACTS do exist I've seen them. A xenon H.I.D is a metal halide H.I.D allmost identical technology why is it hard to beleive their out puts would be very similar?

Whatigot

11-26-2008 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sphelps (Post 363316)

It been stated in this thread and I quoted above, statements where made regarding higher efficiency and higher par ratings than other bulbs. These were also stated and claimed as fact not opinion and no evidence supports the claims.

What percentage of people in the saltwater hobby do you think have a 5.5g tank or smaller? 5% maybe, and that's probably generous. Now what percentage of that 5% would actually spend upwards of $200 on a light fixture? Maybe 25% of the original 5% which means your total market is only 1.25% of people in the hobby. Oh yeah that's a great business move, it would take 100 years to pay for the R&D.

again, you're going out on a limb here and assuming a lot which I thought from your previous posts was contradictory to your nature but now I see it's merely selective depending on if it's you who wants to make a point or someone else.

I like how you can state hearsay as fact, but if anyone else alludes to doing that, you're all over them.

show me the stats man and you have some ground to stand on, if you can't you're in the same boat you put dabandit into by your own words.

Whatigot

11-26-2008 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sphelps (Post 363316)

see?

:lol:

Snaz	11-26-2008 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dabandit (Post 363319)

You may have read something that you take as factual but unless we can ALSO read it, it will not be factual to us.

Definition of FACT: a statement or assertion of verified information about something that is the case or has happened.

Show me the information and let me judge the "facts". Thank you.

Jason McK

11-26-2008 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by i have crabs (Post 362075)

find someone with a par meter to check them out mabey

The Second post in this thread is the most valuable. I can't see any other information in this thread that is factual.

Just chill your talking about annoying car headlights as lights for a SPS aquarium, it's not the end of the world.

sphelps

11-26-2008 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whatigot (Post 363326)

see?

:lol:

Nope sorry I don't see??

Regardless I was asking questions not stating facts and my numbers used where examples, apply what you think the numbers are and you'll still see the same results. The point was you weren't looking at it from a marketing point of view.

But seriously what percentages do you think are accurate?

Whatigot

11-26-2008 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sphelps (Post 363316)

sounds like someone stating facts and not asking questions.
Look at all of those unsubstantiated numbers you threw up there to try and make your point...lol

Give it up, eat your cake or have it, don't try and do both.

mark	11-26-2008 08:57 PM

little surprised with the childish attitudes of some in this thread

The-new-guy

11-26-2008 08:57 PM

here is an article I found on the use of xenon lighting being used for plant growth.

There was way to much technical mumbo jumbo for me to read the entire thing.

There is no right or wrong just what works :mrgreen:

peace out!!

ps. my dad can beat up your dad. LOL

Whatigot

11-26-2008 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mark (Post 363348)

little surprised with the childish attitudes of some in this thread

really mature of you to point that out.
Thank you for the info.

Was under the impression this forum was for everyone, childish included?

That article is a doozy, a serious read for sure but they definitely seem to have addressed the issue of xenon as a substitute for plant required solar spectrum but they seem kinda wishy washy in their conclusion.

seems like SPhelps could probably shed some layman light on it....
?

I'm definitely telling my dad.

superduperwesman

11-26-2008 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The-new-guy (Post 363349)

ps. my dad can beat up your dad. LOL

ahah ahahah

superduperwesman

11-26-2008 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whatigot (Post 363313)

some people on this thread were WONDERING at the possibilities but I don't see anyone here saying that it's definite.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dabandit (Post 363319)

How many more times are you going to call me a liar? The FACTS do exist I've seen them.

I'm confused...? Are you guys on the same team or different ones??

sphelps

11-26-2008 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whatigot (Post 363342)

Quote:

Originally Posted by sphelps

I still don't get it. Those look like question marks to me and all those "maybes" seem to suggest examples not factual numbers. Are you arguing just for the the sake of arguing or what? And for the second time what numbers do you feel would be more accurate??

And if I buy the whole cake I can eat half and keep the rest.

Pescador

11-26-2008 10:57 PM

I'm trying to digest that article on Xenon bulbs.
The ones they tested were long-arc bulbs which according to Wikipedia are "frequently used to simulate sunlight". The bulbs they used were 4500w and 10,000w.

Headlights are short-arc and more from Wikipedia

Quote:

Xenon short-arc lamps are low-voltage, high-current, DC devices with a negative temperature coefficient. They require a high voltage pulse in the 50 kV range to start the lamp, and require extremely well regulated dc as the power source. They are also inherently unstable, prone to phenomena such as plasma oscillation and thermal runaway. Because of these characteristics, xenon short-arc lamps require a sophisticated power supply to achieve stable, long-life operation.

sphelps

11-26-2008 11:01 PM

From the article posted by The New Guy

Quote:

Originally Posted by article

Intro

While most discharge lamps e.g. mercury, sodium, or metal halide lamps emit a more or less pronounced line spectrum, the radiation output of xenon is dominated by a smooth continuum

the continuum is centered around the green spectral range (550 nm)

The present development mainly favours other lamp types, like metal halide lamps and fluorescent lamps for commercial lighting purposes

Results

The radiation penetrating the quartz envelope of a xenon lamp shows an almost flat part with little line structure in the visible range and a pronounced line structure in the IR spectrum
The heat resulting from excess IR absorption by biological tissues will lead to rapid destruction. Excess short-wave UV radiation will also be deleterious to living systems.
Xenon lighting, therefore, requires specially tailored filters which, protect living systems from these spectral irradiances.

xenon lamps should be ideally driven by direct current. This mode, however, results in a reduced lifetime as compared to AC driven xenon lamps.

Metal halide lamps have with regard to the luminous efficiency an advantage of a factor 4 as compared to long arc xenon lamps. This also holds approximately for the PAR region. The main reason is the strong excess IR of xenon radiation.
However, it must be considered that metal halide lighting requires several additional measures, These additional measures reduce the advantage to a factor 2 to 3.

As the IR output of metal halide lamps is much lower, an effective heat control can be achieved by economic glass or water filters. Xenon lamps require more sophisticated and expensive systems of optical filters and cooling techniques to remove the strong excess IR energy.

Despite the relatively low lighting efficiency xenon arcs reach highest artificial luminance concentrated to a single lamp and compare in this respect best with sunlight. Therefore, xenon lamps are unique, for instance, as a light source of projectors and monochromator systems. Furthermore, xenon lamps do practically not need a warming-up time but the full illuminance is available immediately.

The advantage of metal halide lamps is their economical adaptability to biological applications, while xenon lamps provide an almost constant smooth spectral output close to sunlight over a wide range of power.

Conclusion

Therefore , despite considerable competition by other lighting techniques, xenon lamps provide a very useful tool for special purposes. In plant lighting however, they seem to play a less important role as other lamp and lighting developments can meet these particular requirements at lower costs.

dabandit

11-26-2008 11:39 PM

How does a 70w mh cost less than a 35w xenon I wonder? Anyway Im not talking about replacing a product morso filling a gap where no product exist. As for the greenish nm ratings disscused thats not for the 10000k xenon.
Come out with a mh bulb less than70w at 10000k I'll agree mh is better but at the moment there is nothing for a nano reefer to keep sps under 7ow just complicated and also unproven l.e.d system which is insanelly expensive. Seems to me that article said it was possible with a filter also the final par value of mh to xenon was pretty close did it not? Just speculation on your part now anyway lets see some numbers...and links...and a blood sample lol

dabandit

11-26-2008 11:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by superduperwesman (Post 363362)

I'm confused...? Are you guys on the same team or different ones??

That comment was directed at phelps,check again youll see what I mean

sphelps

11-27-2008 12:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dabandit (Post 363387)

How does a 70w mh cost less than a 35w xenon I wonder?

Ballast
Bulb
A halogen spotlight fixture works great as a DIY pendant, bulb fits into the same sockets.
No power source needed, all in all cheaper than a 35W DC Xenon (just bulb and ballast).

Quote:

Originally Posted by dabandit

Anyway Im not talking about replacing a product morso filling a gap where no product exist. As for the greenish nm ratings disscused thats not for the 10000k xenon.

So out of curiosity how do they make 10K Xenon? Is it a filter they place on the bulb to filter the spectrum to 10K? Otherwise they would have to add different noble gasses to illuminate a higher spectrum. Any ideas?

Quote:

Originally Posted by dabandit

Come out with a mh bulb less than70w at 10000k I'll agree mh is better but at the moment there is nothing for a nano reefer to keep sps under 7ow just complicated and also unproven l.e.d system which is insanelly expensive.

I still think a 20K 70W halide would work great on a nano, even a 5.5gal, you could always hang it a little higher and run a small fan for heat if needed. But that's just me I guess. Does anyone have a link to an SPS 5.5gal? Sounds difficult, the lighting would be the easy part.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dabandit

Seems to me that article said it was possible with a filter also the final par value of mh to xenon was pretty close did it not?

You have to show me that cause I didn't get that from it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Article

Metal halide lamps have with regard to the luminous efficiency an advantage of a factor 4 as compared to long arc xenon lamps (Table 2). This also holds approximately for the PAR region.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dabandit

Just speculation on your part now anyway lets see some numbers...and links...and a blood sample lol

I'm not sure how got speculation. All did was quote some of what I though were the key parts of the article. And I gave a link to it and it was originally posted by The New Guy (BTW Thanks TNG) and why would you want a blood sample?

Actually my biggest concern from that article is the IR radiation, what filter would you use to deal with that?

dabandit

11-27-2008 02:32 AM

1. I assume they get the different k ratings the exact same way as they would with mh being as its the same technology but thats a guess
2.What to use as a filter im not sure,time will tell if one is even needed
3.It was a joke im trying to take the negativity out of this
4.The article said the mh needed extra measures which reduced its advantage to two also it said close to par value,sounds like the par would be close to me or am I reading this wrong?.I did claim the test I saw was close did I not?
5. What are you talking about with the halogen,running a mh bulb? efficientlly?

dabandit

11-27-2008 02:40 AM

sry didnt catch the links about the halogen,I mean how is it more efficient to run a 70w over a 35w?

sphelps

11-27-2008 02:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dabandit (Post 363446)

how is it more efficient to run a 70w over a 35w?

Not sure I follow, is that something I said or someone else?

Efficiency can be interpolated many different ways but in the hobby I believe we tend to use PAR compared to actual measured power used. So a 10K would be more efficient than a 20K of the same wattage. So a 70W MH could be more efficient than a 35W Xenon or different lighting source, but it all depends on the PAR rating for Xenon and of course bulbs and ballasts used.

superduperwesman

11-27-2008 05:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dabandit (Post 363388)

That comment was directed at phelps,check again youll see what I mean

ahah I don't need to check again to know who the comment was directed at... maybe if you check again you'll see what my point actually was

dabandit

11-27-2008 05:26 AM

Superduper,I dont follow ,those two comments you highlighted are unrelated. I think were all on the same side? didnt realise there were sides,just a group of people trying to find answers,though some perhaps myself included could be a little more polite about how they go about doing it.

superduperwesman

11-27-2008 05:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dabandit (Post 363503)

No worries... I just find other things interesting while people are trying to find those answers

Whatigot

11-27-2008 02:06 PM

Whoah...
I got moderated on for "personal attacks" relating to this thread.

I just wanted to put a final post up on this thread to apologize to anyone who felt hurt by my words here.

Sorry.

All times are GMT. The time now is 11:02 AM.

Page 2 of 3

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page