anyone keeping sps,clams on sandbed with t-5's

[drew22to375]

Still trying to decide between t-5 or MH on my 180. anyone keeping sps, clams on the sandbed with t-5's with a 24" tall tank. Is it possible with the t-5's am a little concerned with the height. I will be using the good reflectors and overdriving the 80w bulbs with icecap ballast.

Thankx Drew.

[Horace]

Yes, it is plenty of light, especially overdriven. Infact it would have more PAR than a typical 250w MH bulb at the SB.

[Benny Z]

just no shimmer.

:(

[saltyseaman]

How many tubes are you planning on running, and do you have any of the equipment yet?

[drew22to375]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6925518#post6925518 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by saltyseaman
How many tubes are you planning on running, and do you have any of the equipment yet?

planning on 6-8 tubes. Havn't bought the equipement yet. It will need to be a retro tho. gonna either get the aqualux lighting reflectors or see if Ice cap will do a special order on the 60" reflectors.

Drew..

[Yodeling]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6925046#post6925046 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Horace
Infact it would have more PAR than a typical 250w MH bulb at the SB.

Horace, what do you base this on? That's a little hard to believe...

[Horace]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6926703#post6926703 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Yodeling
Horace, what do you base this on? That's a little hard to believe...

Thats because you like so many others out there dont know how good T5s really are. Here are the numbers that were posted by The Grim Reefer who did testing using a PAR meter. This was using a 4 bulb retro kit with Icecap reflectors (the same ones I have). the bulbs used were 2 Blue+ and 2 Aquablue Special (note hes not even using the highest PAR T5 which is the GE daylight) THE READINGS ARE TAKEN AT THE SAND BED :

--------------------------------------------
Workhorse 7: 1.5 amp draw, PAR reading 126

DYnamic T5 ballast: 1.4 amp draw, PAR reading 135
(spec T5 ballast)

Ice Cap 660: 4.1 amp draw, PAR reading 183

My 6x80 watt T5 system was 145 with an amp draw of just under 6. Seems to back up my theory that the shorter T5 lamps are way brighter when overdriven.

3x250 watt DE halides. 14K lamps on good e-ballasts about 7" higher, 6 amp draw, PAR reading 95. And people wonder why I am going back to the fluorescents

----------------------------------------------

Also to note, he did the same test later (i cant find it though) where he used a 10k bulb and the T5 still beat it in PAR. So believe what you want, but I have seen the numbers, and when I look into my tank I can see how bright it is. ITS FREGGIN BRIGHT! So bright infact that almost no coraline will grow on any surface that is directly exposed to them and mine arent even overdriven.

Also even further proof that T5 put out amazing power is this tank which is pure T5, He uses a 50/50 combo of Blue+ and Aquablue Special, just like what was used in the above test. This tank is easily top 10 ever posted online as far as coloration. http://www.hausriff.ch/4534/108355.html

[saltyseaman]

I would most definately go with the metal halides in comparison to 6 60" T5 tubes. With two Nice pendants (like Reef Optix III's or Hamilton ReefStars) and two nice bright DE lamps (like 10KK lamps) you could easily cover 60" of your aquarium with light that I promise is bright enough to keep SPS and Clams on the sandbed in a 24" tall aquarium. You want to keep them horizontally closer to the lamps than further, of course. I personally don't think that 6 60" T5 tubes will be enough light to keep SPS and clams happily on the sand. 2 Halides like described above should end up costing about the same a 6 T5's (at least based on where I shop, and assuming you are going with the Icecap ballasts for the T5s and buying everything new :) ) and will draw about the same amount of power.

But if you are willing to go with 8 T5s or more then I would go for T5s. Check out these aquariums, both run on T5s alone

http://www.korallenriff.de/Mohr/

http://www.hausriff.ch/4534/108355.html

Both of these aquariums are 30" wide and 24" tall.

IN order to mimic something like the second link, and be able to keep clams and SPS on the sand you would want to go with 8 T5's. He runs 10 T5s over that 30" width, and is upgrading to 12 T5s. Notice in the first link that he keeps all of his light loving SPS Higher in the aquarium. This is because he runs 8 T5s over that 30" width, so there isn't enough intensity for these light loving corals and clams on the sand.

One important fact to keep in mind is that these people change their tubes every 6-9 months due to spectral shifting. They consider this very important and a tried and true method of success. The fact that you can have such a varied spectrum with T5s by being able to mix so many different types of tubes without losing a significant amount of intensity (when done properly) is what makes T5s so advantageous in comparison to Metal Halides. If the spectrum shifts then the benefits of using T5s is lost. MOre lamp changes = more $ in the long run.

Also see this American T5 tank

http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2005-03/totm/index.php


However, everything will thrive under metal halides alone. Throw 3 250W DE Pheonix 14KK lamps into 3 Reef Optix III's ran off M80 ballasts or into 3 Hamilton ReefStar Systems and I'm sure that will treat you well for years to come, and could end up saving you $. Metal halides hold their spectrum for longer than T5s, which eventually leads to $ saved. Certain lamps hold their spectrum longer than others, or so this blossoming new thread is attempting to point out

http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=787010

Initial setup could cost about the same as 8 T5s, if you shop right. Plus, with metal halides you have a little less clutter to deal with in comparison to all of the uncooperative wires that are used for fluorescent lighting. And, IMO, it is easier to control the heat that is put off by Metal halides by using a simple high velocity fan and a open top system.

Soooo ... It appears that I may have just wrote on and on and not helped at all ;) . Ultimately it's all up to personal preferance. YOu will have success with both 8 T5s or 2-3 halides where keeping SPS and clams on the sand bed is concerned.


And most importantly, success isn't dependant on lighting alone, but that topic is far beyond the scope of this post :D .

Sorry if I ended up making your decision harder or told you information you allready know or trailed on a little too much ;) . This Espresso machine I just purchased has me addicted to Iced Lattes and the caffiene just made me want to keep on writing. Anywho, good luck :thumbsup: LMK if there is anything I need to clarify or if there is anything I could help you further with.

[saltyseaman]

Horace, do you have a link to where you got that info?

[Horace]

Yeah..the link is below...And btw your missing one huge point man... Iwan doesnt overdrive his bulbs. They are run on standard T5 ballasts

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=724967&perpage=25&pagenumber=1

[Horace]

Oh and one more thing I would like to add. I am in no way saying just because T5 produce more PAR than a "typical" halide (not a XM 10k on magnetic ballasts for instance) that they are the best lighting for a tank. However, for a pure SPS tank, there is a big argument that they are infact a better choice for more even coloration of the corals because of a better distribution of light. Even with all the success Jeff from Chenoa has on his SPS tank (one of the best in the country), he is strongly considering dropping his 4x400w halides and going pure T5 on his 240g. That should tell you something

[brad23]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6929698#post6929698 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Horace
Oh and one more thing I would like to add. I am in no way saying just because T5 produce more PAR than a "typical" halide (not a XM 10k on magnetic ballasts for instance) that they are the best lighting for a tank. However, for a pure SPS tank, there is a big argument that they are infact a better choice for more even coloration of the corals because of a better distribution of light. Even with all the success Jeff from Chenoa has on his SPS tank (one of the best in the country), he is strongly considering dropping his 4x400w halides and going pure T5 on his 240g. That should tell you something

How many T5 is he going to use, from the par reedings I saw (Sanjays I think) using 400w 10k MH killed any T5 setup in par output and by quite a bit.

[Horace]

Brad, no one here ever said T5 is stronger or as strong as a 400w 10k. Like you say they arent even close. The above claims and tests, compare the T5s to 250w halides not 400w. The 400w halide is by far the most powerful lighting out there (save for the 1000w ones which hardly anyone uses).

[hounddog01]

Since I use VHO lights I can not personaly compair T5's to MH. I have seen Horase's tank and Jeff's also. Horase has a brighter tank than Jeff. It is probably the brightest tank that I have seen. I have considered adding some T5's to my VHO just because I have seen his. That being said I have 4 VHO's on my 90 gallon and I would never keep clams but my SPS is growing very nicely. I guess If I were going to setup a new tank I would go with both MH and T5. MH 10k's and Blue+ T5's

[brad23]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6931265#post6931265 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Horace
Brad, no one here ever said T5 is stronger or as strong as a 400w 10k. Like you say they arent even close. The above claims and tests, compare the T5s to 250w halides not 400w. The 400w halide is by far the most powerful lighting out there (save for the 1000w ones which hardly anyone uses).

I know that, I was just asking why Jeff was wanting to go to T5 when his MH are probably better (par wise anyway).

[Horace]

Because the 400w 20k XM only puts out 128 PAR on the best ballast M59 (which he uses). T5s put out a hell of alot more PAR than that. He will tell you that all the rage over PAR is not really the main issue in SPS believe it or not. Everyone on here seems to think that lighting is the end all in corals. While its is a big part, it is only one part. I would like to point out one thing. Two of the nicest tanks out there that I have ever seen (Jeff's and Iwan's) both do not use super high PAR 10k bulbs. Iwan uses pure T5 and Jeff uses 20k with added actinics. This should perhaps tell you something. He ranks order of importance like this:

1 - Water quality (low nutrients, stable, and close to NSW levels)
2- Flow (for sps)
3- Lighting

Some may argue that you could switch 2 & 3 around but regardless, the most important thing is keeping your water levels where they should be. That is the no. 1 reason I bought a dual 2part doser so I can dial it in and keep my water parameters where I want them. I am also setting up a large water change container so it makes water changes alot easier. This will then make me much more likely to do water changes when I need to. Right now I am lucky to do 1 a month.

[Yodeling]

I've read the thread you linked and all I can really gather from it is that when comparing best T5's with best reflectors money can buy to unknown brand 14k halide with a mediocre reflector, the T5s have more PAR at the sand bed, which is really meaningless. Perhaps it's best to wait for an objective comparison from a reputable person such as Sanjay or JB NY rather than from TGR, the well known T5 evangelist. :lol:

For a fair comparison, for example, I would like to see Sanjay run best MH setup against best T5 setup, like HQI ballast with SE XM10k in LA3 against brightest T5s with IC reflectors and ballast. That would be convincing. Not that it would matter to me I would still run my MH+VHO, cuz I love the look, and I'm sure Horace would still run him T5, no matter the result. ;)

Anyway, the T5 vs MH argument is fairly old one, and the two camps agree to disagree. I would say, go with the one you like the best. There's always going to be people telling you that one is better than the other.

[Horace]

Yodeling, I never said T5 is better than MH. What I did say is that T5 is better than the TYPICAL 250w MH setup. Typical means that if you take the normal T5 setup, using AB and B+ bulbs its brighter than a standard MH setup. Im not saying that if you take T5s vs XM 10k that T5s will have more PAR. I would be curious to see what T5s would put out if you used all 6 GE 6500k, but its not feasible. Much like its not feasible to use pure 10k lighting typically because it looks like ARSE. Because of this fact it makes it hard to compare the two because for you to get a good look, you have to use VHO supplements or take a big hit in PAR and go w/ 14k. So this means that if you compare them in a REAL LIFE situation, the T5s are only a total of 480w (overdriven), but still give off ALOT of PAR, where you have to use 770w (2x250 + 2x110) to get similar colors and more PAR.

So fundementally T5s put out just as much PAR as does 250w in MOST cases. The numbers above say it plain and simple. The only way you can argue it is if you just plain think TGR is not telling the truth.

Also you seem to think you know what I like. I happen to like the look of MH more than T5. I also know that MH is a proven technology and has some advantages over T5. However, T5 DOES have some significant advantages as well. Namely more even coloration because of better dispursed light, less electricity usage, and less heat emitted (NO CHILLER NEEDED). The simple fact is that T5s are GREAT for SPS. I would say MH are no better than T5 until you get into the 400w+ range and have a tank deeper than 24". Up until then, T5 produces more than enough PAR for any SPS/Clam etc you would ever want.

So as you can see I am not as HARDCORE T5 as you may think. In fact I have strongly considered switching to MH many times. But I just cant justify the expense when I know I am already getting good results (SPS are growing well and have great color) and I am enjoying the advantages of T5.

[saltyseaman]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6929676#post6929676 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Horace
And btw your missing one huge point man... Iwan doesnt overdrive his bulbs. They are run on standard T5 ballasts


Actually, you're right. I wasn't even thinking about that. Perhaps 6 may be enough then. I can't comment either way. I've been out of the T5 loop for way too long. The thought of 8 lamps would help me rest easier, though. Especially if overdriven. But, Overdriving = More $ devoted to more frequent bulb changes in my mind. That isn't a hassle that I personally would want to deal with. Those darn T5's are so fragile and dealing with those endcaps can be a pain. But, to each their own I guess.

I would just go with whichever is cheaper :) , as both should work fine. Heck, maybe you can start out with 6 T5s (if you choose that route) and bump it up to 8 or more at a later point if you decide 6 isn't enough.

As far as the link goes, I think a more controlled environment and overall more controlled testing parameters need to be implemented before taking TGR's post as fact. He simply doesn't provide enough information on any of the equipment or parameters of the experiment to be able to take his post seriously. Plus, I do have to say his opinion is a bit biased ;) .

Good luck Drew :thumbsup: . Hopefully through all this bickering you are able to take away somethiing valuable enough to help you make your decision.

[Yodeling]

Horace, relax man I wasn't trying to call you out. ;) My coments were more directed at Grim Reefer's study. He first points out that the IC parabolic reflectors double the PAR of T5s vs a flat reflectors. Then, after he's asked about his MH setup, he matter-of-factly states that he's using "low profile" reflectors (meaning those tiny flat ones used in cheap DE retrofits). Comon man you have to admit that's makes his comparison ridiculous.

As for what is considered "typical" MH setup, obviously that's subjective. I would say that the reflectors he used are definitely not typical. I know 14Ks are pretty popular. I use 250W XM 10K with 110W VHO super actinics, and I consider that fairly common too. The difference in PAR is gigantic.

Lastly, onto my main point - tamtadadaaaa - It's obvious that both Mh and T5 are fully capable of keeping any SPS happy. I don't think it's possible to go wrong either way. So, in the end, it's more a of preference than anything else that should effect one's decision. I love my setup, you like yours, I'm sure both look great, we're both completely nuts for reefing, and I think it's safe to say that most people would think we should be in the nuthouse for having such passionate discussions about lightbulbs. :lol:

[Horace]

HEHE, I think you think I am more passionate than I really am about them. Like I said, I know my setup isnt perfect. There are things I dont like about it. But the fact is this is the route I chose a while back. Sometimes I wish that I went with halides and other times I am happy with the choice I made. Believe it or not tonight I am kind of second guessing my setup. I really think I may actually have too much light, or not enough "coral food". I have noticed that some of my SPS have lightened in color. While some prefer the pastel look, I prefer darker colors, so right now I am not thrilled. I am thinking of cutting back my photo period and also replacing one of my daylight bulbs with a pure actinic.

[Horace]

DELETED MESSAGE

I had some pictures to show some compares of the lightening of my corals but they werent very good. I will have to take some new ones.

[drew22to375]

Thankx everyone now I have some good pros and cons for each. I do have an idea how bright t-5's are as I have 2X24w on a 29 that I set up 2 years ago but it isn't it near as high as my 180. I guess the reason I am thinking of going the t-5 route I have yet to see a tank lit with MH that doesn't have large shaded areas from corals etc. Anybody hosting a meeting with pure t-5?

Thankx Drew..

[brad23]

I agree to disagree with everyone, and I would like to see some closer test done on MH V T5.

After going MH I will never changed my lighting setup. The colors under them are mazing compared to PC and so far the growth has being incredible.

My Galaxy has grown like crazy since I put it in. All of the SPS frags I put in have grown expect the Green monti cap I have it 6 inches or so from the water surface. Myabe to close?

One of them has three new heads in less than 2 weeks and for a week of that my calcium was 360. My RBTA has almost doubled in size in 4 weeks. 8 inches across fully opened. I'm going to have to start moving stuff soon because it's so big and is getting close to stinging some of my corals.

[drew22to375]

One other question. how it the coral growth under t-5 compared to MH are they just surving or are they thriving.

Drew..

[Horace]

Again, I will tell you this. My tank with 6x54w T5 is ALOT brighter than quite a few halide tanks. PAR is not all that its cracked up to be man seriously. I have learned that in the past months by seeing different setups. I really hate to keep coming back to this, but GQJeff uses 4x400w MH and a couple added actinics as well. Now I bet your thinking, WOW THATS ALOT OF LIGHT..WRONG WRONG WRONG! He is using one of the lowest PAR bulbs out there (XM 20k). Even the 400w version only puts down 128 PAR According to Sanjay's site. So unless TGR is lying about his PAR results, a 4x54w setup w/ a standard T5 ballast was putting down 135 PAR. I would also tell you that my tank with T5s is a hell of a lot brithter than his tank, and Brad's tank with his new MH 250w EVC 14ks. So if your asking if they produce enough PAR for your corals, I would say a resounding YES.

I would also like to add one more thing. I am about to seriously cut back on my photo period because I have noticed some corals lightening in color and becomeing "pastel" in look, rather than a deep rich color that I prefer. For example that green birds nest coral I got just over a month ago. In my tank it has steadily turned to a very light green color over time. In my buddy's tank that only has 4x110w VHO, his is still nice and green (we both got them on the same exact day). Now I know for a fact I have way more PAR than he does, so what is causing them to lose color like that? I think it is the fact that I am just putting too much light in the tank, plain and simple. So I am going to cut way back on my photo period over the next couple weeks and see what happens.

[brad23]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6936790#post6936790 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Horace
Again, I will tell you this. My tank with 6x54w T5 is ALOT brighter than quite a few halide tanks. PAR is not all that its cracked up to be man seriously. I have learned that in the past months by seeing different setups. I really hate to keep coming back to this, but GQJeff uses 4x400w MH and a couple added actinics as well. Now I bet your thinking, WOW THATS ALOT OF LIGHT..WRONG WRONG WRONG! He is using one of the lowest PAR bulbs out there (XM 20k). Even the 400w version only puts down 128 PAR According to Sanjay's site. So unless TGR is lying about his PAR results, a 4x54w setup w/ a standard T5 ballast was putting down 135 PAR. I would also tell you that my tank with T5s is a hell of a lot brithter than his tank, and Brad's tank with his new MH 250w EVC 14ks. So if your asking if they produce enough PAR for your corals, I would say a resounding YES.

I would also like to add one more thing. I am about to seriously cut back on my photo period because I have noticed some corals lightening in color and becomeing "pastel" in look, rather than a deep rich color that I prefer. For example that green birds nest coral I got just over a month ago. In my tank it has steadily turned to a very light green color over time. In my buddy's tank that only has 4x110w VHO, his is still nice and green (we both got them on the same exact day). Now I know for a fact I have way more PAR than he does, so what is causing them to lose color like that? I think it is the fact that I am just putting too much light in the tank, plain and simple. So I am going to cut way back on my photo period over the next couple weeks and see what happens.

You can't really compare your tank to jeffs as far as how bright it is. If you put your lights over his tank you hardly see anything. And as far as my tank goes, a lot of light escapes out of the back because of the huge space I have in the back of my canopy. Drive by my house at night and watch my living room glow. And I don't have the best reflectors money can buy either.

If I had lumen max reflectors, fully closed canopy and my lights 3-4 inches off the water instead of 13 inches it would be a intresting to see.

You should how much brighter a 10k bulb is over a 14k or 20k. I saw Louis 29g with a XM 20k and it didn't look very bright at all, then with a 10k it was almost twice as bright.

[Horace]

Brad, what makes you think that If I put my setup over one side of the tank that you would barely see anything??? Thats rediculous man. His tank while a bit wider and a bit deeper isnt going to be a HUGE difference. Regardless that is not a fair comparison. Now if he put 10 bulbs over his tank so the T5s were spread all the way across his tank, similar to the way that 6 covers mine, then we would have a fair comparison. I can gaurentee you that his tank would be ALOT brighter with 10 T5s on each side than it would be with 4x400w XM 20k. But the simple fact is, bright does not always equal better I am coming to find. His tank, while significantly less bright, grows acros faster and with better color than my setup is currently. Also you cant play the game of, if I put my halides 3 inches over the tank thing either, because noone runs thier halides that low. You would risk blowing bulbs up and also heating your tank beyond belief. Now granted you might get a bit better results with better reflectors, I will give you that.

But I think your missing the point of what Im trying to say here man. Im saying that you dont need rediculous amounts of light to keep your corals happy. Jeff's tank proves that. Brad Lockwood's tank also proves that because he runs only 4x110w VHOs and his acros are growing well and look GREAT! Granted he may not have the flexibility of putting acros on his sandbed but in the top half of the tank they are all doing quite well.

So moral of the story, is T5 or MH will work just fine for pretty much any light loving coral. Lets drop this whole comparison of apples to oranges and just agree that both are adequite and both have thier advantages/disadvantages.

[Horace]

BTW, right now I am strongly considering actually getting some VHO's so I can run the Super Actinic. I know I have more than enough light right now so I am willing to drop my PAR down a bit to get a bit better pop.

[brad23]

I thought you were waiting on the URI T5 bulb?

Like I said I'm not a fan of the XM 20k bulb.

But I do believe if you have enough light of any kind over a tank you can grow anything.

[Horace]

The XM 20k is not a super bright bulb, but that is what Jeff runs and his colors are outstanding. I would bet I could run 2x400w XM 20k and it would be pretty sweet. I wouldnt run 400w of any other bulb I dont think though. It would be far too much. But seeing the 20k only puts out 128 PAR, I dont think it would be overkill at all. The 250w XM 10k puts out over 180! So like I said, PAR isnt everything.