Have there been any members on this site who have disproven certain lighting facts by posting photos representing their counterexamples? For example, I have disproven the fact that it was impossible to operate probe start MH lamps in MV fixtures.

Probestart MH is just hit and miss
 
 But Ive done it on a 277 volt mercury choke ballast in my AEL 
  Series 11 nema fixture.  But why I want run a short life span
  Lamps in there. 

I did use a Philips SI51 ignitor in my 175w MV yardblaster and it reliably starts probe start MH bulbs. The idea of reliably starting probe start MH bulbs on MV ballast is one of my counterexamples for people who do claim that it is impossible to run MH in MV fixtures. The original question is whether members have presented counterexamples to disprove certain lighting facts known throughout the lighting community.

Probestart MH is just hit and miss
 
 But Ive done it on a 277 volt mercury choke ballast in my AEL 
  Series 11 nema fixture.  But why I want run a short life span
  Lamps in there.

I guess the slightly higher OCV from a 277v choke is just enough to get a probe start lamp to light.

Many "facts" are just based on not making sense economical to use it that way (e.g. pay for extra ignitor when ballasts with a bit extra OCV are readily available, or use more efficient 150W MH for the same ballast and ignitor costs).
And many are based on liability perspective: It may technically perfectly work to operate a S56 on a 150W pulse MH ballast, or 175W MV on a S56 with disconnected ignitor, but unless the manufacturer explicitely rates and certifies (UL,...) these products to be used that way, all liability for this light causing any harm goes after you, even when the real cause would be e.g. shoddy discipline on the manufacturers production floor. Plus in many situations (mainly commercial premises, governed by OSHA, when you do that on your contract work, when dealing with insurance pay outs after some disaster that couldbe in theory related to these lights,...) it is in fact illegal, because there is no valid UL (or equivalent) safety certification. The labels on the components are invalid, because the things are not used according to the manufacturers instruction.

And for many proffessionals if something is against regulation, it is just plain off limits, no discussions.

  Every thing have to be done According to National Electric code.  And have UL listed componets.   If I want to install a British pop pack in my home,   I have to do a complete rewire
 And USE UL listed componet for perminant installation.  This leaving couple of choices  either gut ballast out and wiring
 And use Advance UL listed electronic ballast.  or U can use UL
 Listed Chokes that fits in there.  Otherwise National Electric code forbid you to install it.  Also NEC forbid 240 volt splitphase
 240 volt lighting circuit in residental home wiring.  That why I have a step up transformer.   Basically running unapprove UL stuff is like do so at your own risk And things goes wrong,  your pretty much SOL on insurence claims.

Yes , you showed it will indeed light , a number of other people already knew that . In order to totally disprove that something will or won't work requires a lot more than one example . Show how a large number of said lamp behave on said ballast , show how the life expectancy is or is not affected (of BOTH the lamp AND the ballast), show how long term lumen depreciation is or is not affected  and most importantly , what happens at EOL ? (Is the risk of arc-tube rupture increased?) These are all things that need to be taken into account. Years ago GE actually referred to their 1000w MV lamps as "dual wattage" for use on BOTH 700w AND 1000w ballasts. I goes on to say "when so operated, the 1000w lamp shows excellent lumen maintenance and life performance , so it's total cost of light is equal to or less than that of the 700w lamp on the same ballast"  SEE HERE :
http://www.lamptech.co.uk/Documents/Catalogues/GE%20-%20Catalogue%20-%201960%20US.pdf (actual catalog page 54)

 I'm not trying to be condescending or anything else with this and I'm sorry if I come off like that , but WAY more facts and tests are required before you can say you have disproved any facts . 

 Just because it works in some examples doesn't mean it will work in ALL examples . What you're doing is awesome for those of use who want to fire up a lamp of which the correct ballast is made of "unobtainium" so keep researching and testing!!! 

Speaking of Lamptech, James who owns the site knows a hell of a lot about lighting technology, he together with Max makes a useful source of knowledge/ 

Right here, you can see my examples of disproving the fact that it is impossible to operate metal halide bulbs in mercury vapor fixtures in the USA:

Mogul base 175w metal halide lamp on H39 ballast:
https://youtu.be/8CMA_6EbBmg

Medium base 175w metal halide lamp on H39 ballast:
https://youtu.be/S8-ZwKbAy74

When you watch these videos, you will see that these M57 metal halide lamps will strike on H39 ballasts when adding a European 750v 2 wire ignitor to the circuit.