12000k xenon car lights

[sphelps]

Originally Posted by dabandit

next they claim wrong spectrum...wrong they are allmost identical in every way

Not sure where you got that from. The key to any lighting is the bulb. Have you noticed that bulbs for the hobby are more expensive than similar bulbs used for other applications? Even the cheap ebay bulbs aren't much good. I doubt those bulbs will provide the required spectrum over time, at least not in an efficient way.

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.

[dabandit]

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

[sphelps]

Originally Posted by dabandit

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

Link?

[superduperwesman]

Originally Posted by dabandit

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

Originally Posted by dabandit

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

Originally Posted by dabandit

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

Originally Posted by dabandit

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

Originally Posted by dabandit

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??

Originally Posted by dabandit

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]

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]

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

[superduperwesman]

Originally Posted by dabandit

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

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]

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]

So let me get this straight...

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

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...

Originally Posted by dabandit

get bent

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