lilacdragon":33f0bm77 said:Akire and Cooperdragon, thank you for your input.
Firstly, please be reassured - none of the ZooMed tubes, from older or newer batches, are "dodgy" as has been implied. They are perfectly good tubes. A few years ago we would all have got very excited over their high output; it's just that now, we expect even higher.
I have just tested a red-capped 5.0 and a silver-capped 5.0 and can confirm that the silver one has about 50% higher UVB than the red one. Both are good tubes but one is higher output than the other. I have no sample of gold-capped 10.0 tubes to compare, but I've seen enough readings from other people to say that I'm pretty sure the same applies, however.
<<< that's not good enough,
either the red cap 5% needs to be relabeled 3%
or the silver capped 5% relabeled 7.5% ,
depending on the microW UVB / sq.cm these tubes are putting out at a standard distance ,
very few keepers own a solarmeter so they are reliant on the output from the tubes they buy being ON SPEC and a 5% tube producing like equivalent 5% tubes from other manufacturers ,
and similarly a 10% tube producing like equivalent 10% tubes from other manufacturers , no iffs no buts .
Users need to be able to use these tubes and be sure the output is as marketed.
The colour of the end caps does seem to reflect different manufacturers, red and gold earlier, all silver now. But there is also a difference in the batch number stamp. The new silver ones have a sequence of numbers in a light yellow-brown ink at the opposite end to the logo. The coloured-capped ones have numbers printed in black.