Re: [APD] Lighting question

[Russell Vance <russell_vance at gmail.com>]

Yeah, I don't know that the loudspeaker analogy is the best...

Comparing the look of MH to fluorescent is like comparing a pair of B&Ws to
a pair of Bose.

Well, maybe not that drastic... people can actually afford MH lights.





On 1/27/06, S. Hieber <shieber at yahoo_com> wrote:
>
> I agree. I've heard those loudspeakers and they really surpass all
> others.  ;-)  sh
>
> * * * * * * * * * * * It's new; it's fun; it's the New England Aquatic
> Plant Society NEAPS, is a newly formed organization interested in aquarium
> flora and fauna. http://www.ne-aquaticplants.com/
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Bob_Ashcraft at L-3com.com
> To: aquatic-plants at actwin_com
> Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 8:42:12 AM
> Subject: Re: [APD] Lighting question
>
>
> > Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 15:18:24 -0800 (PST)
> > From: "S. Hieber" <shieber at yahoo_com>
>
> >
> > Like Audio loudspeakers, most folks think the ones they bought are the
> best.
>
>
> True, but if you've ever had the chance to see a tank lit by MH next to a
> tank lit by anything else, the choice would be clear.  MH lighting is
> drastically more aesthetically pleasing.  I have both a planted tank and a
> reef tank lit by MH's, and would never use anything else.
>
> Bob
> _______________________________________________
> Aquatic-Plants mailing list
> Aquatic-Plants at actwin_com
> http://www.actwin.com/mailman/listinfo/aquatic-plants
> _______________________________________________
> Aquatic-Plants mailing list
> Aquatic-Plants at actwin_com
> http://www.actwin.com/mailman/listinfo/aquatic-plants
>
_______________________________________________
Aquatic-Plants mailing list
Aquatic-Plants at actwin_com
http://www.actwin.com/mailman/listinfo/aquatic-plants