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

Actually it's just hearsay

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

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

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

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??

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...?

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

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

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.

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

So let me get this straight...

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

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....

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?

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.