what a joke of a thread. if you compare PAR at center line on the bottom of the tank with either light the MH will be way higher than the T5. every T5 advocate uses the point source of a MH to his advantage to make it look like it has a lower output.
I was testing at 23" of water and 6" of air and my PAR was still over 500 with MH, the problem is if you look at the pictures it is a very unfair comparison. he had multiple T5 tubes so no matter where he measures he is right under one (take them all out and put one across the middle and see what happens to his readings. The MH is only on the middle. so if he continues to hold his meter at a 90 degree angle as he moves to the side he will cut out more light from the sensor the farther he moves of the center axis, and the same thing would be true for one florescent mounted in the middle of the tank.
so just like the old 150DE vs 400SE tests they are using the reflectors and the position of the sensor to give them the results they want instead of making it a proper comparison.
I think the very first post in that thread is the one which is the most creditable.
Steve
__________________
 *everything said above is just my opinion, and may or may not reflect the views of this BBS, its Operators, and its Members. If cornered on any “opinion” I post I will totally deny having ever said this in a Court of Law…Unless I am the right one*
Some strive to be perfect.... I just strive.
|