Compare performances of Arcadia T5ho tubes

[kingofnobbys]

In addition to my older information topic : viewtopic.php?f=34&t=235611

Here I compare Arcadia T5ho 6% and 12% and 14% tubes in microW UVB / sq.cm and UV-index with distance.

Key
- REFL means with a reflector .

[Hydrogod86]

Nice

[CooperDragon]

Always good to have more of this data coming through. Thanks!

[kingofnobbys]

Take an example of T5HO high output tube in conjunction with a MVB over the basking spot , tube being 75% the length a tank which is fine PROVIDED it has one end right next the MVB ( behind or infront of it like this PLAN VIEW )


If it's like this


Now consider a example where the tank has the dimensions of 24" H and 26" D :

A picture says a 1000 words and shows everything succinctly and clearly.

It is likely the UV spread from the end of the T5HO will create a low UV zone (perhaps even a zone at very close to zero UV). If the UV tube is more than 12 inches from the cold end of the tank , the UV in the last 8 inches will be very low (near zero).

This can be confirmed by looking at the iso-irradiance charts published here http://www.uvguide.co.uk/fluorescenttub ... rtests.htm
that look like this :
or using your solarmeter I'd recommend measuring UVB flux , but if you have a solarmeter UV-Index meter , you can test the UV intensity at the low UV area near the end of the tank furthest from the basking spot.

[claudiusx]

It is likely the UV spread from the end of the T5HO will create a low UV zone (perhaps even a zone at very close to zero UV). If the UV tube is more than 12 inches from the cold end of the tank , the UV in the last 8 inches will be very low (near zero).

Why are you posting what is likely? Science shoulders the burden of proof, it doesn't make assumptions.

You claim you have two different solarmeters? If you care so much about it why don't you just spend the 5 minutes to measure it yourself and see if you're right or not. Instead of always preaching how you're based on science. How about you prove it and give some actual information instead of assumption.

If you can't prove it, you don't state it. That's how actual science works.

-Brandon

[kingofnobbys]

If you can't prove it, you don't state it. That's how actual science works.

-Brandon

Yes Brandon …. take your own advice.

[claudiusx]

All my posts are for discussion sake. I've never said anything I'm stating is proof and I've stated multiple times that this is all theory and talking points since there is no actual science on the subject we are discussing. You can look at all of my threads and posts on the matter. You are the only one who acts like they are based out of science when in fact its pseudo science hidden behind charts and graphics.

-Brandon

[claudiusx]

And I take it that means you wont be testing what I suggested. Even though you apparently have the means to do so. Youd rather push assumptions instead of proving what can actually be proved or disproved. Pseudo science.

I'm starting to think you're a phoney. At first I thought you were just strongly opinionated and that you had an issue with people disagreeing with you.
But to not be willing to test something you could test simply, ignoring key points that you cant disprove or find a chart for, really makes me start to question you and your credibility.

Can you provide sources for your charts? Did you make them? If so please provide sources for your measurements with proof of your testing practices.
If you want to play scientist you have to shoulder the burden of proof, and that's just part of it. Otherwise, there is no need to attack others simply because they dont go around drawing up charts to fit their agenda.

-Brandon

[kingofnobbys]

And I take it that means you wont be testing what I suggested. Even though you apparently have the means to do so. Youd rather push assumptions instead of proving what can actually be proved or disproved. Pseudo science.

I'm starting to think you're a phoney. At first I thought you were just strongly opinionated and that you had an issue with people disagreeing with you.
But to not be willing to test something you could test simply, ignoring key points that you cant disprove or find a chart for, really makes me start to question you and your credibility.

Can you provide sources for your charts? Did you make them? If so please provide sources for your measurements with proof of your testing practices.
If you want to play scientist you have to shoulder the burden of proof, and that's just part of it. Otherwise, there is no need to attack others simply because they dont go around drawing up charts to fit their agenda.

-Brandon

So you want me to do your leg work ? That's rich.

Nah … the data you ask for is readily available online (some of it even at the UVguide's own website no less though it's in need of updating and expanding). I see little point in reproducing it.

Go and invest in UV meter and make your own measurements and see for yourself.

[claudiusx]

You are the one making the claim not me lol. If you cant back it up or are unwilling to, you shouldn't state it. Phoney pseudoscience strikes again.

You claimed 8 inches to the side of the tube will be no uv. You refuse to test it even though you are capable.

You make a claim without testing it. You are not based out of science. That type of attitude is what holds back communities.

-Brandon

[CooperDragon]

Guys, I need you to stop going after eachother. Especially in help forums where it is taking away from providing advice to (often simple) questions. I advise that if one of you sees that the other has posted in a thread, don't post to that thread.

[claudiusx]

I advise that if one of you sees that the other has posted in a thread, don't post to that thread.

That is fine with me. Although I still think people should be able to see what actual researchers and manufactures state as opposed to what some guys chart says.

-Brandon

[kingofnobbys]

By way of illustration of how to use my graphs to work out appropriate distances UV source to BASKING SPOT for pogona species.

Here is some guidance for you version for pogona vitticeps ie

which happens to give UVB flux cf the current interactive species group specific guidance in terms of UVI

Which BOTH indicate the appropriate distance from their 12% UVB T5ho tube is 30cm .
Based on the UVB flux published on the tech specs for their UVB T5ho tubes I've summarized their data succinctly in an easy to read graphical form below for their tubes in a good reflector hood

and this is how to use the charts :