![]() |
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Ok I feel these are getting a bad rap so lets go over the pro's and con's;ok people claim too much heat in ballast my guess is their calculations were wrong and the unit isnt being powered right(capactors and resistors) if not put a cpu fan on it,next they claim wrong spectrum...wrong they are allmost identical in every way,next they say they cost too much well...for a nano only 1 bulb is required...motorcycle units cost 89$and bulbs start at 9$ or you could split a car package worth 120$ with a fellow nano reefer the only other equip required is power source which go for 30$+ So then they say what about a reflector or hooking up supply....well if you cant figure that one out you shouldnt be doing diy lighting in the first place. From the research I've done I've found;they are cheaper to buy,run and replace bulbs ,the bulb produces less heat and is smaller and has equal par ratings.
In short if you have a nano 14g- and understand electronics I think it's a great technology that will only get better as more people use it,but I agree if you have a tank over 14g mh is the far better solution........but hey thats just one mans opinion |
#2
|
|||||
|
|||||
![]() Quote:
So you can get a 30W unit for $90 which only included the bulb and ballast and you need to run some inefficient power supply, what about a reflector? Oh right they don't make one. Also you can get a 70W MH bulb and ballast for under a $100 if you know where to look, that way you get more than twice the output and a proven spectrum. Did you know my SPS corals get great polyp extension when the lights are off? I just don't see any reason in pursuing this, sure if you want a 5.5g but not much of a market there and anything bigger would benefit more from a 70W light. You're going to have to hook up a PAR meter and measure these lights before you can make any claims. |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
![]() 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
|
#4
|
|||||
|
|||||
![]() Link?
|
#5
|
|||||
|
|||||
![]() Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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:
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...? |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
![]() 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 |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
![]() For HID aquarium lighting. Info in downloadable manual
http://www.aquaticlife.com/hid/index.html
__________________
Sebae |
#8
|
|||||
|
|||||
![]() Quote:
![]() 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. |
#9
|
|||||
|
|||||
![]() 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
__________________
![]() Some strive to be perfect.... I just strive. |