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

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

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).

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?

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.

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

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?

sry didnt catch the links about the halogen,I mean 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.

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

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.

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

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.