I am just going to state a fact or two. Based in physics.

Objects closer to a heat source are hotter than objects farther away. Based on an inverse square equation the same as light. That means there is no way to have the top of a hide cooler than the bottom with an RHP. I have argued this over and over it is a very simple idea easily proved. My problem with my test enclosure the top of the hide is hotter than the floor beside it. The height does not effect the way EM waves travel.

Air moves as it is heated mixes and changes. In a small space it will not stratify and rarely does so horizontally. 8ºF is in error the measurement under the RHP is likely face of the probe not the air. The probe must be shielded to read the air under a RHP or it needs to be powered down for a few min. This is a common error and leads many to claim air is dramatically changed by an RHP some have claimed as much as 20ºF increase in air temps. 4-6 likely, 20º unlikely. If it did increase the ambient temp this dramatically RHPs could not be used in rooms 80ºF.

The objects inside the enclosure make a huge difference, the colour and mass in particular. White glossy surfaces reflect IR, matte black absorbs IR. This also is simple to prove, but still it is debated. I believe that is what I was to confirm with Bob, the silly theory.

RHPs will heat objects and they will lift a few degrees, not the massive amounts some claim. There have been those taken in by such claims purchased gear and then found it failed to do the what was promised drastically change ambient air temps.

My advise is easy try fluorescent lights first. They cost a fraction to buy a fraction to run and heat air not objects. They change ambient air temps where few other things do. If that doesn't work try RHPs. I 100% suggest them in arboreal and semi arboreal set ups they work perfectly. KISS , the simplest solution is often the best.

It is the silliest debate I have ever had all the points I make are common sense.