JackRipper
Avid Member
His cage has naked bare glass walls hun
Uv and glass
- Thread starter Lennoncham
- Start date
- Status
Lennoncham
Chameleon Enthusiast
Finally! We get to the real problem with glass enclosures.
Why yes a fish tank type glass enclosure has very poor ventilation. An exo terra has bottom ventilation. The hot air from the basking bulb rises and pull cool air into the bottom of the tank.
JackRipper
Avid Member
First tank tested is the long one. Second one is the the square one. That’s a LOT of exposed glass to shoot your argument right out of the water. Quit making excuses and changing the terms. The photos outside of the cages have one surface to bounce off of versus the ones inside the cage that have 3 or 4 at least. Which was your point to supposedly prove your argument from the beginning and now you’re saying it’s the opposite?
Attachments
Lennoncham
Chameleon Enthusiast
So you think the problem causing the heat in a glass enclosure is the uvb bulb?
If you setup a glass enclosure properly it can be plenty ventilated.
JackRipper
Avid Member
I'm not you just tested the relective properties of landscaping foam spray. It's very porous and dense I'm sure it absorbs alot of the rays that would be bouncing from each corner until 100% dissipated not infinitely lol. No idk how many times it bounces before it burns out but it does bounce off of glass for say roughly 30 percent of what makes it thru the screen top bounces and continues the trend
JackRipper
Avid Member
Why? Why should we not put a animal in a glass tank outside?
JackRipper
Avid Member
I think it definitely helps raise the temp by radiating the furniture etc but ofcourse the basking bulb is the main source of heat.... .. . I used to raise Jackson's in a huge glass tank b4 they had all the fancy ventilation cut outs I would run air line thru the bottom of the tank to create ventilation and bring fresh air to the bottom using an air pump. It solved alot of problems but the pump was noisy.
because of HEAT, not uvb. Glass is a natural insulator so it cooks things. It doesn’t microwave them.
I see you ignored my proof of lots of glass in the tanks I tested, once again invalidating your theory.
JackRipper
Avid Member
Trolling will not be tolerated
Yeah I'm going to have to ignore all of your snooty little remarks. Good effort but your inconsistent. Explain why you had higher readings outside of the cage? You have 0 idea of what you are talking about and your a rude little girl.
CamoChameleonsHuman
Chameleon Enthusiast
Measure your UVB bulb at 36" directly below the bulb with a screen and tell me what readings you're getting? I bet it's not even at a uvi of 1 Even if some rays are bouncing off the glass they're bouncing towards the ground losing the same amount of energy at the same amount of travel distance. It's literally not even enough to measure! The UVB light rays are not gaining energy as theyre being reflected. And they're not losing energy either. But if your UVB light is pointed at the ground and a Ray from that downward motion reflects off the glass it's reflecting at the same angle it came in at. It's not reflecting directly back in the same direction it came from it still travels downwards. That's trigonometry.
Lets say in theory we have a 10.0 UVB bulb in a T5HO single reflector using a Solar meter 6.5 with a screen and we have the following readings. At 6" below bulb we have a UVI of 5. At 8" 4, at 10" 3, at 12" 2 and at 14" we barely have a UVI of 0.5. So in theory if we had an empty glass enclosure that's 10" high using that same T5HO you would have reflected UVB rays that would still have energy to produce a reading. Why? Because it reflected and still had 2-4" of measurable UVI travel distance.
JackRipper
Avid Member
using that same T5HO you would have reflected UVB rays that would still have energy to produce a reading. Why? Because it reflected and still had 2-4" of measurable UVI travel distance. BINGO BANGO. Thanks
Classic.
1. Make ridiculous claim and put burden of proof on everyone else
2. Someone does the work and proves you wrong
3. Change terms and point out any possible flaw to try to maintain the upper hand but still wrong
4. Resort to condescension and name calling.
You’re a dime a dozen.
Still *you’re.
The higher readings outside the cage prove your point wrong. Period.
Here's the thing @JackRipper: we don't put up with this kind of trolling here. This is a scientific community, not just a "whoever is louder gets to be right". And in this case, I'm not a rude little girl, I'm an educated scientific professional who also has moderator powers in these here parts. And I say that you're done here.
CamoChameleonsHuman
Chameleon Enthusiast
But you're not keeping chams in 10" tall glass enclosures with nothing in them?
- Status
Similar threads
