PDA

View Full Version : T5's: A cautionary note


Pages : [1] 2

JohnL
03/25/2006, 09:07 PM
This thread was automatically split due to performance issues. You can find the rest of the thread here: http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7042014#post7042014

Codeman00
03/25/2006, 09:07 PM
Grim and I had this Superblue vs ATI Blueplus discussion awhile back on this thread. I ordered the superblue bulbs because of his recommendation and needless to say, I couldnt tell them apart from the blueplus..both looked just as good. The bad part about the Superblues were that 1) they are longer than a normal T5 bulb, 2) if you buy the superblue fixture, it comes with a cheap throwaway ballast, and its a pain to order from Commodity Axis. I sent them back for a refund and am glad that I don't have to deal with that company anymore.

s3aL
04/08/2006, 01:58 AM
I read alot of people saying 4 and 6 bulb Tek T5 fixtures are Waaaay bright and sometimes even to much. I guess im in for a nice surprise. Im picking up the 48" Tek Light: 8-54W T5 fixture pretty soon for my new 75 gallon setup :) . If it IS to much light for me, I can always just run 4 bulbs at a time.

I have a question though for you guys who have had alot of experience with T5 bulb combos. Im looking for a nice blue look for my tank. Basiclly the look of a 20k XM MH bulb if you have seen those. Do any of you have a recommendation for bulb combos for me to get that same blue look? Would 5 x aquablues 3 x aquaplus create that color?

FastUno
04/08/2006, 11:31 AM
The Number of T5's needed all depend on the type of corals you are growing. If you are doing mostly/all SPS's, then 8 bulbs is fine, although you may still need to acclimate corals.

You can always use the 1st set of 4 bulbs for dusk/dawn effect (using mostly B+ & Actinic) & the other set for your normal lighting.

The best look I have seen with T5 combos is 2 AB, 1 B+, & 1 Actinic, per 4 bulb setup.

horkn
04/08/2006, 11:46 AM
its hard to tell really about how many lights cna or need to be used. when you compare tek light to tek light, then yeah its easy. now if you over drive, or use the icecap or aqualux reflectors, then its a whole new ball game. add in the better reflectors, and overdriving, and you are in a whole different sport entirely:)

and then theres the choice of bulbs as well. running all ge 6500k day bulbs will give you a ton of par, and another variable.

what could work well ona 90 might be too bright for a 75g (depending on coral), due to the extra height of the 90, albeit, all the other dimensions are the same. I can say my 3x39 retro with aqualkux reflectors, and a workhorse 5 driving them, and 2 ati blues w/ 1 ge 6500k is too much for any euphyllia.

NorthernCF
04/08/2006, 12:49 PM
I am still confused a bit about what corals need... or rather the zoa in them... what kind of spectrum. I try to get as much different spectrums as possible.
I personally like the look of half AB+(11k) and half blue+ (half attinic bulb). This is my compramise and what I would run for an 8 bulb set up (I assume the 2 on each outside turn on with one switch and the 4 inside turn on with the other:

12 hours outside/4 hours inside:

Front to back:

B+
11k
B+
11K
B+
GEDay
11k
B+

I think this would be a great starting point for your 8 bulb set up.
You should get at least 1 extra of each type of bulb, incase of "emergency" (knock on wood). It will also let you try some different combos.

Don't worrie about PAR, your going to have enough if you run...well whatever with 8 t5s :)

s3aL
04/08/2006, 05:47 PM
Thanks for the input.

This tank will be mainly SPS/Clams with some LPS and zoo's in shaded areas. The light will be about 6" above the tank so I can get my hand in and out of the tank without having to move the light.

Someone was saying if I wanted a MH 20k XM bulb look to my tank this combo would create that.

3 x Aquaplus
5 x Aquablues

Any opinons on that?

NorthernCF
04/08/2006, 06:42 PM
If you take my recomondations you will be able to try that combination. :)

horkn
04/08/2006, 11:35 PM
s3al, IME zoos do great under even very high light. they seem to grow especially fast under t5ho compared to mh...

I have 7 kinds of zoos now, all are in broad daylight and all grow quicker than any other coral in the tank.

s3aL
04/09/2006, 12:02 AM
I may pick up 2 extra bulbs I guess. But I think the perfect color for me is gunna be 5 x aquablues and 3 x aquaplus combo.

Awesome, hopefully I can have zoo's all over the place on the sandbed and not melt any :) .

horkn
04/09/2006, 01:02 AM
trust me, you won't melt zoos anywhere

s3aL
04/09/2006, 02:18 AM
Okay :) .

Another question. I am not purchasing the acrylic shield for my fixture. Will it be okay if I have the legs extended to the max(6" I think?) and not have to worry about getting saltcreep or splashing into the fixture?

FastUno
04/09/2006, 09:12 AM
Do you have a lot of surface agitation? I do on my tank & would never put the fixture on without the shield.

The shields stain EASILY & they will lose their purpose if stained. However with the shiled on, the fixtures felt warmer/hotter. It almost acts like a more efficient radiator with shield on.

Check your tank & see how much spattering you have 6" above. If you had a piece of glass, plexi, or even cardboard you can temporarily place 6" above & check in 2-3 hours.

Fishy1
04/09/2006, 09:33 AM
Could someone tell me if ATI and Geisemann t5 bulbs are the same? Is ATI even around anymore?

Thanks,
Janey

runninfrom
04/09/2006, 12:53 PM
I have t5 H.O.s on my tank 3 on each side there the 48in and my ricodias and zoos are doing awesome.if i add 3 more to each side will i have to shade the corals.Also what coral will i beable to keep with more light.

JMBoehling
04/09/2006, 01:00 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7139039#post7139039 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by s3aL
Thanks for the input.

This tank will be mainly SPS/Clams with some LPS and zoo's in shaded areas. The light will be about 6" above the tank so I can get my hand in and out of the tank without having to move the light.

Someone was saying if I wanted a MH 20k XM bulb look to my tank this combo would create that.

3 x Aquaplus
5 x Aquablues

Any opinons on that?


You may still be a little too white with 3 to 5... May want 2 to 6...

JMBoehling
04/09/2006, 01:04 PM
Let me clarify..

Assuming your using Geissmanns

2 Aqua Blue Plus 11k (White)
6 Actinic Plus(Blue)

Obi-dad
04/09/2006, 01:16 PM
On my 75g stonies tank I have 4 Blue T5s bulbs on an Icecap. When the halides are off and only the 4 overdriven T5s are on, the look is very much like a 20k bulb. I tried having 1 of the 4 bulbs with the 11k(white) bulb, but it is much more white than a 20k bulb that way.

s3aL
04/09/2006, 05:02 PM
Yeah, I will be using Geissmanns bulbs from reefgeek.com.

I dont have the tank setup right now so I cant check water agitation. Still picking up all the equipment before I set it up. I guess if I need to, ill go to homedepot and get a piece of glass cut out.


So 6 x aquablues & 2 x aquaplus huh? The aquaplus bulbs must be really really bright white then. I will test that bulb combo and see how it works out.

If anyone has these bulb combos...

6 x aquablues 2 x aquaplus
3 x aquablues 1 x aquaplus

Please post a pic if you can so I can get a general idea of what it would look like, Thanks!

IZZY'SREEF
04/09/2006, 05:43 PM
Hey, i thought I would chime in here. I have the Tek retro with ATI 4x39w. 1aquablue(11k)>2blue+>1aquable(11K). I had a problem with zoos bleaching under that light. My corallins even bleached. I took one of the reflectors off one of the aquablues(11k) and the started to look better (corallins started to grow like crazy) after a while I put the reflector back on and corallins bleached again within 1-2weeks.
I have heard others say that the settup I have looks whiter than 14k which I was looking for, but I want it more blue to keep the color of my zoos. Maybe I'll try 3blue+ and 1aquablue or 6500gesun. Is there anyone trying this and still getting decent growth?

horkn
04/09/2006, 09:16 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7142324#post7142324 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Fishy1
Could someone tell me if ATI and Geisemann t5 bulbs are the same? Is ATI even around anymore?

Thanks,
Janey

they basically are the same.

i dont know if they are exactly the same, but ati and geiseman had some sorta buyout of other thing going on.

they could be exactly the same.

Fishy1
04/09/2006, 09:35 PM
Thanks, horkn.......I just replaced my ati with geisemann about 6 weeks ago and the only change I made was I left the actinic 03 out of the mix. I replaced it with a blue plus and have noticed that my monti's are not a deep and rich a color as they were before the change. The bulbs that I replaced were only 9 months old so there shouldn't have been much shift in spectrum. I wonder if the 03 is necessary for richer color.......

Janey

hahnmeister
04/10/2006, 12:08 AM
s3aL, I am running a combo that is almost identical to the 14,000K pheonix. Its 6 bulbs...2blue+, 2actinic+, 2 aquablue. If you want a 20,000K, and have 8 bulbs, the following worked for me and gave me a look just like a EVC 20,000K bulb... (I used 4x54wattT5 to get it, so just multiply by two and thatgives you...)

2xaquablue, 4xblue+, 2xactinic+. OF course, if you can wait for the highly anticipated UVlighting(URI) actinic T5 which is supposed to be the best actinic ever upon release...I would.

Ti
04/10/2006, 12:25 AM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7142324#post7142324 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Fishy1
Could someone tell me if ATI and Geisemann t5 bulbs are the same? Is ATI even around anymore?

Thanks,
Janey
Same

JMBoehling
04/10/2006, 04:35 AM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7144603#post7144603 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by s3aL
Yeah, I will be using Geissmanns bulbs from reefgeek.com.

I dont have the tank setup right now so I cant check water agitation. Still picking up all the equipment before I set it up. I guess if I need to, ill go to homedepot and get a piece of glass cut out.


So 6 x aquablues & 2 x aquaplus huh? The aquaplus bulbs must be really really bright white then. I will test that bulb combo and see how it works out.

If anyone has these bulb combos...

6 x aquablues 2 x aquaplus
3 x aquablues 1 x aquaplus

Please post a pic if you can so I can get a general idea of what it would look like, Thanks!


http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/500/91022DSCN2903.JPG

hahnmeister
04/10/2006, 12:10 PM
JMBoehling, how do you like that combo with the skylights. Are the T5s able to compete with all the daylight?

RedEyeReef
04/10/2006, 12:25 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7147144#post7147144 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by hahnmeister
OF course, if you can wait for the highly anticipated UVlighting(URI) actinic T5 which is supposed to be the best actinic ever upon release...I would.

Do you have any info on these? Thread, anything? Will I be able to replace my 4 VHO Actinics, buy 4 URI T5 Actinic with reflectors and hook up to my Ice Cap 660?

hahnmeister
04/10/2006, 12:29 PM
http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=7089698#post7089698

JMBoehling
04/10/2006, 12:29 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7149796#post7149796 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by hahnmeister
JMBoehling, how do you like that combo with the skylights. Are the T5s able to compete with all the daylight?

Getting ready to switch out the Aqua Blue + (11k White) for all Actinic Plus (Blue) bulbs.. It is just a little too white for my taste..

During peak sunshine, the Solar Tubes take over the T5HO's and give a very nice shimmer all the Halides guys brag about. :)

Later,

Jim

hahnmeister
04/10/2006, 12:33 PM
But in the end, you are the one laughing all the way to the bank with all that extra money you save on electricity. Nice. Im working on a daylight/skylight tank myself...seen the monster solatube threads, but was still debating myself between using supplimental blue with T5s, a 20,000K halide system, or maybe using blue tinted acrylic on parts of the skylight to even things out. I dont want the pee colored reef just to save money.

So how much light do those solatubes put out? Seems more than a 250watter for each one...400 watt equal or more?

JMBoehling
04/10/2006, 04:11 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7149980#post7149980 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by hahnmeister

So how much light do those solatubes put out? Seems more than a 250watter for each one...400 watt equal or more?

Pardon the brief hijack...

10" are more like 175's

14" = 250's

22" = 400's

One day I'll get my hands on a Lumen meter and get some good data. All I know is is looks great and my SPS and Softies are growing...

Later,

Jim

garvondavis14
04/10/2006, 11:43 PM
wow...first of all, I can't believe this thread is still going, I remember reading it not too long after it was started...Here's my question:

I am going to be starting a 20 long...it's gonna be in a classroom, probably dominated by softies, maybe some LPS and the hardier SPS...not too many SPS though, at least not for a while. I was wondering what light would be best? DO you think 2x24 would be enough, or would I need more? Trying not to spend a boat load, it will be a retrofit unless I find a great deal. Thanks guys.

hahnmeister
04/11/2006, 01:22 AM
I would not go lower than 3 unless all you were planning to use would be daylight bulbs. At least two of the bulbs on a tank that size with only 24" T5s should be either aquablue 11,000Ks or GE 6500Ks. You will prolly want another bulb or two of blue or actinic to balance the look out.

you could piece it together at aqualuxlighting.com, or go on ebay for the best deals on tek lights I have seen...but they are still around $200 for a 4 bulb 24" tek.

My best suggestion for you would be to try getting the next size larger tank...a 30L. This will allow you to use 3' bulbs...more bang for the buck and easier to find a retrofit ballast (aqualux sells the WH5 for $26...a good deal), since the setup will cost you the same for 2' bulbs or 3' bulbs...endcaps are $10/pair no matter what, reflectors are only a dollar or two more for the extra foot, and bulbs cost just as much for 2' as 3'...so a 30L would be a much better tank for T5s...3x3' bulbs would work great.

Sparkss
04/13/2006, 02:42 PM
I have been searching and so far cannot find an answer to this question :

With relation to power consumption, how does 500w of T5HO (on an icecap660) match up to 500W of MH (10K running on PFO ballasts) ?

I would think that the T5s, being flourescent, would have a heavy fire up draw (not that the MHs don't also) but that the T5s would have a significantly lower continuous draw amperage. Can anyone confirm or denounce this assertion ? Thanks :)

hahnmeister
04/13/2006, 02:52 PM
you are correct, the draw of T5s (or any flo bulb except for VHO perhaps, depending also on the halide bulb/ballast combo you are comparing to), would be less than halide, with few exceptions. Just look at the average ratings listed for halide ballasts vs. the ratings on your T5 ballasts.

According to some lighting engineers, T5 puts out more PAR per watt than halide as well. I know that this is relative to the color of the bulb, but a straight comparison at any K rating should be constant. 6500K halide to 6500K T5, 10,000K Ushio vs. 11,000K Geisemann, or a mix of multiple T5s to match the spectrum of a certain halide, etc. Of course, a 20,000K halide wont have the same PAR/watt output as a 6500K T5...and a 10,000K halide will have a higher PAR/watt than a blue+ T5...

Sparkss
04/13/2006, 02:58 PM
well the icecap has a rating of 4.4 amps for 440 watts (If I recall correctly). A 400W MH would have less amps than that, I think they run around 500watts, which comes out to about 4.1 amps. So that is only marginally better ratio for the icecap.

Is the 4.4 amps just start up draw ? or is that expected continuous usage draw ? Or am I just mis-interpretting the data ?

dwdenny
04/13/2006, 03:06 PM
got to be start up. I cannot imagine them drawing 4.4a all the time. Heck a 25w MH only darws 2.4a or so when running I think.

hahnmeister
04/13/2006, 03:13 PM
Like I said, the IC 660 is really a VHO ballast and has about 3-4x the draw of a regular T5 ballast. Look at a REGULAR T5 ballast for comparison...

Sparkss
04/13/2006, 03:17 PM
There there is little to no real savings if using the 660, if i am interpetting this correctly.

hahnmeister
04/13/2006, 03:21 PM
And the initial feedback is that it decreases bulb life...so getting 30% more light out of the bulb (at close to 30% more electricity)at 33% less bulb life (or worse it seems depending on the bulb you match it with) is a trade off.

hahnmeister
04/13/2006, 03:23 PM
here...
http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=724967&highlight=reflector

http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=536358&perpage=25&highlight=t5%20glarathon&pagenumber=1

You can compare the numbers yourself...the IC660 draws 4.1 amps, and the average for a regular T5 ballast is 1.4-1.5.

Sparkss
04/13/2006, 03:25 PM
alot depends on if you need that 30% xtra light or not. Since I am planning out a 26" tall custom tank, then the extra PAR will be necessary.

Do you have a link that outlines the impact on the various bulbs ? (since you mentioned it depends on the bulb you match it up with). Thanks again :)


Oh, you mentioned 30% more light for close to 30% more electricity.. but previously it was stated at 3 - 4 times (300% - 400%) more elcetricity than a workhorse ballast. ????

dwdenny
04/13/2006, 03:59 PM
I am guessing here but there probably is no difference in the Triad and the centium advance series T5HO ballast. I have an electrical supply Co. here locally that is looking into getting the Advance ballast. Hopefully not to expensive. I have also sent an email to universal lighting(triads) to see if there is a local dealer here. WIll have to wait until Monday due to the holiday probably.

horkn
04/13/2006, 04:36 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7171636#post7171636 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by hahnmeister
And the initial feedback is that it decreases bulb life...so getting 30% more light out of the bulb (at close to 30% more electricity)at 33% less bulb life (or worse it seems depending on the bulb you match it with) is a trade off.

this is exactly why using the ic slr or aqualux sold CDR reflectors makes so much sense over using the ic ballast to run a retro with tek reflectors.

the tek is 20% less par at a depth of 16" or so compared to the IC or aqualux.

a more efficient use of electricity is by using a better reflector. at some point though too much par is too much par. I cant imagine running an IC ballast on my tank. i think i would fry everything in it:eek2:

horkn
04/13/2006, 04:39 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7171856#post7171856 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by dwdenny
I am guessing here but there probably is no difference in the Triad and the centium advance series T5HO ballast. I have an electrical supply Co. here locally that is looking into getting the Advance ballast. Hopefully not to expensive. I have also sent an email to universal lighting(triads) to see if there is a local dealer here. WIll have to wait until Monday due to the holiday probably.

i think that is an accurate statement, based on the fact they have the same ratings and startup type.

but what if you want to run 80w bulbs? then you need one of these per reflector, since they only make 2x54w or 108 total wtts.

i have not yet seen a triad or advance that can do more than 2x54w of t5ho. maybe they are made, but I hav eyet to see them on lighting sites

hahnmeister
04/13/2006, 05:29 PM
advance makes them in 80 watt.

horkn
04/13/2006, 08:15 PM
yeah, and they make 2x54, so that would drive an 80watt t5ho. I guess what i am getting at is there (besides workhorse) is there any other (esp program start) ballast that will run 2 80 watt t5s?

hahnmeister
04/13/2006, 09:59 PM
hmmmm. Advance has a huge catalog...Im sure theres a 2x80 in there somewhere...

dwdenny
04/14/2006, 12:20 PM
Hahnmeister where are you getting your data from on the 33% less lamp life with the IC ballast? What model watt and PAR meters did you use to prove the IC ballast used 300 to 400 percent more power and decreased the lamp life 30%?

horkn
04/14/2006, 01:00 PM
there have been a number of RCers showing that bulb life when used with a IC 430 or 660 ballast have drastically been reduced vs normally driving them.

icecap doesnt think so though. check their forum out.
with the verbage that IC uses about how the new UVlighting bulbs are specifically designed to take being overdriven, it has to make you wonder if the available bulbs now cant handle this overdriving. also, more watts= more heat. heat is what kills bulbs. maybe running a fan over them will reduce the extra heat to non fan cooled heat levels.

me, honestly, i would never shell out $100 or more dollars for a ballast, when a workhorse/ advance/ triad will do the job admirably, for a lot less money. my w5 driven t5ho retro is bright as all daylights as is. my lps are not even happy on the bottom of my 17" tall tank with 3x39 and w5 driven and aqualux reflectorerd t5ho retro. the sps are happy anywhere in my tank. why would you need to overdrive them? i know the answer to that, but even when i get my 90g, (24"tall) i will not, and do not feel the need to overdrive the t5ho i will have on there, even if i go all t5ho, and no mh... it seems many others feel the same way.

dwdenny
04/14/2006, 02:28 PM
I just want to know what Hahn si measuring the light and watts with. I remember Grim stating that the IC uses 29% more power and produces 35% more light.

ASH
04/14/2006, 06:00 PM
From IceCap:
There are some opinions /inaccuracies in this thread that I don't agree with but I don't have the time to jump in late take on everything.

An easy one - 'overdriven T5HO lamps will use lots more electricity and dramatically shorten lamp life and gives off only slightly more light ....'
Maybe that's why UVL company likes our ballasts? The reality is we both believe a brighter T-5HO with 2 years of reef service in a well ventilated canopy or fan cooled fixture would be the best ad for our ballast and their lamps. Check the wattage consumed not the amps, to calculate cost of running an IceCap VHO ballast.

The light output per watt has been shown by many hobbyist (TGR) to be equal or better with our VHO ballasts than a HO ballasts in l/w. BTW, the WH ballast may light T5HO lamps, but it's not something I'd recommend safety-wise. A T5HO ballast must shut down power to a dead lamp. Our existing safety shutdown makes our overdriving the lamps still safe to operate. I have 4 X 54-watt lamps powered by a Model 660 over my tank as well as MH. The fluorescent light exceeds what my VHO powered T-12s provided with 7 months into them and still going strong.

Andy

dwdenny
04/14/2006, 06:42 PM
Exactly what grim was saying. At 14 months he still had what he felt like was of 80%of the PAR I think. 29% increase in power but a 35%increase in PAR. SOunds like to me a good deal.

Andy I might be going with a 430 to run two aquablue and a regular ballast to run the blue+ not sure yet. I might switch it sense I wont be running it for SPS but would like to have a clam or two. :)

twkenny
04/14/2006, 10:43 PM
I've had Triad, Workhorse and finally a 660. I will never run those cheaper ballasts again. They run hot, their construction is sub-par and they sure did darken the ends of my bulbs compared to my Icecap ballasts.
I'd like to hear form the folks or see where the data came from claiming shorter bulb life. How are these facts being calculated?

hahnmeister
04/14/2006, 10:55 PM
Icecap claims longer bulb life due to soft starting, which in turn means less 'darkening' at the ends. Sure, this extends the life of the bulb if you were going to continue using it until the bulb wont fire any more, but means little to nothing to reefers who replace the bulbs when their output is diminished or shifted (long before they cease to fire). Phosphor shift and fade is due to heat. While it is possible for an IC ballast to have a near normal life for the bulb, the only way it could claim that would be if they could somehow increase the voltage to the bulb yet not increase the heat, which last I checked...was impossible w/o better cooling (and even at that, there is only so much you can do from outside the bulb). This means that extra ventilation is the key to keep icecap run T5s from burning out early, as the bulbs must be kept that much cooler to compensate for the greater power.

At that, I see other people with 10% loss in PAR when running the IC after just a month, and worse after that. Im sure it varies with bulb to bulb (actinics prolly burn out much faster on IC in comparison to 6500K GEs).

http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=795494&perpage=25&pagenumber=1

horkn
04/15/2006, 12:07 AM
I am with hahnmeister on this one.
i run a workhorse 5 to light my t5ho retrofit. after near 16 months on the original bulbs, there is no darkening of he ends on any of my bulbs.

i still conlude that more heat = less life. fans may help a lot, but even so, i use less wattage, and the ballast costs less. by the way, my w5 doesnt run hot at all. you can easily hold your hand on it after its been running all day. I will shoot it with the digital pyrometer tomorrow, after the lights have been on for a good number of hours.

dwdenny
04/15/2006, 07:28 AM
Ok the way I see it and I trust Grim on this one is yeah the IC 660 ballast cost $160 and the 430 you canget for about $140. What you are paying for in the 3 year warrenty, great customer service, and product that will out last your WH, Triads, Advance what ever ballast. Peice of mind that it is going to last longer is what your paying for plus better internal components. I dont run IC ballast and may not. But I believe that what grim has tested and what IC has tested. Until Hahn can give me some results that he tested then I will beieve him. On another note horkn canyou name some people that have premature bulb failure on IC ballast for me. I would bet that they did not have great connection in the endcaps, might have used the cheaper T5HO lamps, etc.

NorthernCF
04/15/2006, 08:20 AM
The IC 660 is well worth the money, if you feel you need to overdrive the bulbs.

ASH
04/15/2006, 08:30 AM
If you had to prematurely kill a fluorescent lamp, excess heat is great and a poor connection maybe even better. When I tested the GE lamps (well know as the providers of the best lamps available - LOL.) I didn't get a 10% drop in 1 year of abusive 24/7 use. Measuring light output from higher Kelvin lamps is best left to the Sanjays of the world.

I never said the WH didn't light the lamps, just that it was a potential fire hazard, destructive to lamp life but otherwise a great ballast for the price.

UVL (URI) samples of their new T5HO line suggest the wait is worth it. I am very impressed with their super actinic and anxious to work with the entire line.

Andy

davejnz
04/15/2006, 09:21 AM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7180775#post7180775 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by horkn
I am with hahnmeister on this one.
i run a workhorse 5 to light my t5ho retrofit. after near 16 months on the original bulbs, there is no darkening of he ends on any of my bulbs.

i still conlude that more heat = less life. fans may help a lot, but even so, i use less wattage, and the ballast costs less. by the way, my w5 doesnt run hot at all. you can easily hold your hand on it after its been running all day. I will shoot it with the digital pyrometer tomorrow, after the lights have been on for a good number of hours.
Interesting,I've ran 39w T5's on my WH5 for just over a yr,even with a near 0 reading on my ohm meter doing a continuity test,I still had alot of blackening on the ends of my tubes.The reason,its obvious if you look at the way it fires the bub.They're INSTANT START,they dont use cathode heating and fire the bulb at a higher voltage.This causes excessive wear on the filaments and seriously shortens lamp life.Look at the facts,PROGRAMMED START ballasts provide nearly 2-3x the total on/off cycles than INSTANT START.

kroe
04/15/2006, 09:29 AM
To the "no need to overdrive" camp:

Can you grow acropora on your sandbed? I can with an IC660, SLR reflectors I can - even with 3/4 of my bulbs as BluePlus. The IC ballasts do cost money... but to run 4 bulbs you need two cheaper ballasts... and by then you are half way to an icecap that will give you more light, more piece of mind, and definitely longer ballast life if not longer bulb life. Look at all the people using IC ballasts for 5 years +.

davejnz
04/15/2006, 10:13 AM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7180509#post7180509 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by hahnmeister
Icecap claims longer bulb life due to soft starting, which in turn means less 'darkening' at the ends. Sure, this extends the life of the bulb if you were going to continue using it until the bulb wont fire any more, but means little to nothing to reefers who replace the bulbs when their output is diminished or shifted (long before they cease to fire). Phosphor shift and fade is due to heat. While it is possible for an IC ballast to have a near normal life for the bulb, the only way it could claim that would be if they could somehow increase the voltage to the bulb yet not increase the heat, which last I checked...was impossible w/o better cooling (and even at that, there is only so much you can do from outside the bulb). This means that extra ventilation is the key to keep icecap run T5s from burning out early, as the bulbs must be kept that much cooler to compensate for the greater power.

At that, I see other people with 10% loss in PAR when running the IC after just a month, and worse after that. Im sure it varies with bulb to bulb (actinics prolly burn out much faster on IC in comparison to 6500K GEs).

http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=795494&perpage=25&pagenumber=1 Where are you getting your info from dude.FYI,I have an 18mon old D&D true actinic that has been run on an IC660.Has it lost its spectrum?It still looks like the same,crappy 420nm purplish
bulb it always was.Obviously,this doesn't mean anything without data to back it up.I or your average hobbyists don't have access to the $$ equiptment needed to do a spectral analysis on a flourescent bulb.So,where are these spectral analysis tests/charts comparing T5bulbs spectrum at different ages.I've yet to see one test done to confirm your statement about this.What makes you think that they need to increase the voltage in order to get 2yr bulb life?Do you even know what voltage or mA T5HO lamps operate at on an IC or a WH5?I wonder why Fulham dosn't list the crest factor on there spec sheet.hmm.I found this little FAQ on Fulhams site
Q- My lamps are blacking prematurely, is there a problem?

A-End blackening is a normal function as lamps age, provided the blackening is even. Early blackening may be a heat related issue in your fixture.

I think it is misleading for people to say that they are getting 10% less PAR from there bulbs after 1 month on an IC ballast when ALL
FLOURESCENTS,regardless of ballast lose lumen output as soon as they fire up for the first time(especially during the first 100hrs of operation)That is why bulbs have a initial and design/mean lumen rating.

hahnmeister
04/15/2006, 10:38 AM
davejnz, info is from others with Li-Cor meters. Just because your bulb looks the same, never trust your eyes...the output might be dimiinished and you would never know. Perhaps an easier way is to hook up a new bulb next to the old one and see if you can see the diff.

My background and information is from fellow lighting engineers who work on the stuff...even a person who works on T5s for GE.

I never said that they need to increase voltage to increase bulb life, I stated that increasing voltage in any phosphor based lighting system (which is how you boost the power), is how you increase the heat of the bulb, and how a bulb wears out faster.

As far as the blackening at the ends of the bulbs, its a non-issue to reefers. We are replacing these bulbs long before this is an issue we would be concerned about. It is not a heat issue, but rather a symptom of how the ballast starts the bulb. Eventually, a T5 will stop working from starting, but that is many years after we should stop using the bulbs due to the phosphors diminishing/shifting.

Did you read the link? Thats some serious diminished output. I am working on testing with a few others. I have a few tek ballasts and an IC660 to do SxS PAR comparisons over the next 18 months.

davejnz
04/15/2006, 10:57 AM
Until i see spectral analysis charts/tests ran on the various bulbs at different ages,I'll just have to take this info just like i do with the rest of the crap on this board.In one ear and out the other.

ASH
04/15/2006, 10:58 AM
The 10% loss in the 1st hours is true for all fluorescent lamps, for except T-5HO lamps. 1st day is where it stays for some time.

Andy

RGibson
04/15/2006, 11:34 AM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7182188#post7182188 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ASH
The 10% loss in the 1st hours is true for all fluorescent lamps, for except T-5HO lamps. 1st day is where it stays for some time.

Andy Andy can you post the test you did on the lamps?

Sparkss
04/15/2006, 12:24 PM
I posted this question in another T5 link, but since this thread seems to have some T5 heavy weights I will post it again here :

From what I have read it seems that T5HOs are only good for up to a 23" tall tank ? I did see a comment by Grim that MH will penetrate further into the tank than T5HOs, but he didn't have time to clarify that statement (before he was "ejected" ). Grim also tested an MH 150 against his T5HOs at 18" and the T5s had 52% more PAR, but most people with larger tanks use MH 250s at least, so that data really doesn't help alot, especially when you get down around 22" - 26". Does anyone know the real numbers for what depth T5s are capable of penetrating to support SPS (acros, not just digis) and clams (at least a maxima maybe even a crocea) ? (ok, so I may be stretching on wanting a crocea on the sand bed, but it is a point to ask :))

I am in the planning stage for a larger tank and am on the fence between T5HOs and MH (all really depending on the depth limitations of T5s). Any info or assistance will be greatly appreciated.

P.S. I do plan to use IC ballasts, so the T5HOs will be overdriven

hahnmeister
04/15/2006, 03:58 PM
The penetration of T5s is double that of halides, due to the linear output. The intensity just depends on how many bulbs you use. T5s should have no problem lighting a tank as tall as 36" or more...in fact for most T5 users, I would suggest a tank at least 24" tall, since the intensity they carry can melt lower light species that normally get placed on the bottom...open brains, mushrooms, etc. T5 means you need a taller tank to get the same light gradient as a shorter tank with halides, as the light penetrates 2x as much. So with a shorter tank, you could get stuck with one intensity throughout the tank, making a mixed reef where the top is SPS and the bottom is mushrooms near impossible.

Heres an interesting comparison...

With a common aqua-green open brain coral (lobo or welso), I can place it on the sandbed of my 60g cube with a 400 watt halide, HQI ballast & lumenarc reflector with a 14,000K aquaconnect bulb. OR, frags of that same coral go in a 40B with a single 250wattHQI halide 14,000K pheonix. Either way it does just fine with the halide.

When I tried to take that same coral and put it into a 40g Breeder with only 4 39 watt T5s (6 was too bright for other things even), it retracted and began melting.

I mention this because its not so much wattage or PAR when comparing halide to T5 as it is looking at how that bulb gets the light to the coral. I can cite that vs. a single halide pendant, there is much more light that hits the coral with T5s, as with halide, the point source makes my SPS shade themselves in many areas, and so one side of a colony could be nice and colored in, and the other half faded. With T5, the PAR could be less, but the output is coming at the coral from a wider angle, meaning that the coral gets more use of the light that is there.

Also, some tanks just lend themselves better to T5s, and others to halide. A natural tank for T5s is a 55g. It works great with 4x54watt T5s. The height and norrow profile of the 55 works great with T5, where with halides, dual 250s seem to be needed (thats 2x the wattage) due to the height, but much of it is lost on the narrow profile of the tank, etc. Then there is my 60g cube. Its 24" dimensions would mean that I would have to sun something like 8x24wattT5...and at that, I still wouldnt get the intensity I would with a single lumenarc/halide. Not to mention the cost of replacing all those short T5 bulbs (T5s cost nearly the same per bulb no matter if they are 2' or 4', so economics favors the 4'). The 60 cube shape favors the halide pendant.

The best way to chose is to make a thread/post in a thread with your intentions for livestock and the tank's dimensions. Then people can make suggestions based on that or post pics of simlar tanks with either setup.

You can also never go wrong with a combo of both T5 and halide. Some of the best results I have seen...for instance a 120g with 4x54watt T5 and dual 250 watt HQI halides...grows anything like a weed.

dwdenny
04/15/2006, 07:20 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7183348#post7183348 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by hahnmeister
The penetration of T5s is double that of halides, due to the linear output. The intensity just depends on how many bulbs you use. T5s should have no problem lighting a tank as tall as 36" or more...in fact for most T5 users, I would suggest a tank at least 24" tall, since the intensity they carry can melt lower light species that normally get placed on the bottom...open brains, mushrooms, etc. T5 means you need a taller tank to get the same light gradient as a shorter tank with halides, as the light penetrates 2x as much. So with a shorter tank, you could get stuck with one intensity throughout the tank, making a mixed reef where the top is SPS and the bottom is mushrooms near impossible.

Heres an interesting comparison...

With a common aqua-green open brain coral (lobo or welso), I can place it on the sandbed of my 60g cube with a 400 watt halide, HQI ballast & lumenarc reflector with a 14,000K aquaconnect bulb. OR, frags of that same coral go in a 40B with a single 250wattHQI halide 14,000K pheonix. Either way it does just fine with the halide.

When I tried to take that same coral and put it into a 40g Breeder with only 4 39 watt T5s (6 was too bright for other things even), it retracted and began melting.

I mention this because its not so much wattage or PAR when comparing halide to T5 as it is looking at how that bulb gets the light to the coral. I can cite that vs. a single halide pendant, there is much more light that hits the coral with T5s, as with halide, the point source makes my SPS shade themselves in many areas, and so one side of a colony could be nice and colored in, and the other half faded. With T5, the PAR could be less, but the output is coming at the coral from a wider angle, meaning that the coral gets more use of the light that is there.

Also, some tanks just lend themselves better to T5s, and others to halide. A natural tank for T5s is a 55g. It works great with 4x54watt T5s. The height and norrow profile of the 55 works great with T5, where with halides, dual 250s seem to be needed (thats 2x the wattage) due to the height, but much of it is lost on the narrow profile of the tank, etc. Then there is my 60g cube. Its 24" dimensions would mean that I would have to sun something like 8x24wattT5...and at that, I still wouldnt get the intensity I would with a single lumenarc/halide. Not to mention the cost of replacing all those short T5 bulbs (T5s cost nearly the same per bulb no matter if they are 2' or 4', so economics favors the 4'). The 60 cube shape favors the halide pendant.

The best way to chose is to make a thread/post in a thread with your intentions for livestock and the tank's dimensions. Then people can make suggestions based on that or post pics of simlar tanks with either setup.

You can also never go wrong with a combo of both T5 and halide. Some of the best results I have seen...for instance a 120g with 4x54watt T5 and dual 250 watt HQI halides...grows anything like a weed.

Hahn you are killing me here. doudle the pentration of halides!!!!! I dont think so. If it was then everyone would drop halides like a bad habit. You are pulling some **** out of your ***(PS I did the censorship here not RC). That is all I am going to say.

davejnz
04/15/2006, 08:07 PM
FYI,my open brain(Trachyphyllia geoffroyi) thrived in my old 40gal lit with guess what(4x39w/IC660).BTW,"wellso"phyllia is no longer recognized as a genus.And Lobophyllia sp. thrive under bright light.This coral is mostly found on upper reef-slopes and fore-reef slopes.Corals have a remarkable ability to adapt to different lighting intensities.To make a generalized statement like that is absurd IMO.I also had an Agaricia sp. (Agariicids have some of the deepest symbiotic corals known)in that tank for over 2yrs.Its all about acclimation and placement.
Before this thread gets any more ridiculous,I would really like to see these spectral analysis tests performed by your friends with their li-cor meters.Just 1 chart comparing the spectrum of a new bulb,a 6month bulb,a 1yr bulb,and an 18month bulb will do.Until you can back up what you've heard with some real data,you should stop making comments such as these.And for the PAR tests you plan on doing,its already been done so who cares?Grim,IceCap,and a few others have already done these types of tests.What would be much more beneficial for us T5 users,is tests done documenting a bulbs spectrum as it ages.

dwdenny
04/15/2006, 08:45 PM
Ok I know I was not going to post here again but I think the same way dave. I know we have been discussing this a lot. I wish I could aford to buy a good spectrometer to test it and I would.

horkn
04/15/2006, 09:21 PM
crap, i forgot to measure the temp of my w5 ballast when tis fully up to operating temp. i know its not that hot, as i can keep my hand on ti, for as long as i want.
i am guessing 90 -95 degrees or so, any higher thana 100 would probably burn you, from what i can recall. oh, i will take shots of the ends of my near 16month old bulbs to, so the non believers can see that there is no darkening yet.

and the 3 year warranty, thats great. i buy many products for their warranty, even if they cost more. but since you cant normally drive t5ho with the IC ballasts, then i wouldnt get one.

as far as quality of W ballasts, thats a non issue. many of you guys know reefers that have used the same ballast for years.

the workhorse ballasts are UL listed for use on t5ho. they would not get that listing if they were not safe to use.

davejnz
04/16/2006, 12:06 AM
From what I have read it seems that T5HOs are only good for up to a 23" tall tank ? I did see a comment by Grim that MH will penetrate further into the tank than T5HOs, but he didn't have time to clarify that statement (before he was "ejected" ). Grim also tested an MH 150 against his T5HOs at 18" and the T5s had 52% more PAR, but most people with larger tanks use MH 250s at least, so that data really doesn't help alot, especially when you get down around 22" - 26". Does anyone know the real numbers for what depth T5s are capable of penetrating to support SPS (acros, not just digis) and clams (at least a maxima maybe even a crocea) ? (ok, so I may be stretching on wanting a crocea on the sand bed, but it is a point to ask )
quotes/tests by Grim Reefer
"This was a low tech test done on my 125 reef.
It was 3 250's but I did a few different tests. Reading on the sandbed 18" under the water directly under a lamp I got 95 with a 14K EVC DE and 120 with some 10K's that were ugly (too yellow for my taste) but bright. A Hamilton 10K which looked much nicer was around 110. I put said hamilton lamp in a reef optix pendant to see what happened and with it raised about 2" above the tank I got 150. Of course I would need the mother of all chillers to run them that low but it was as high as I could move the pendant with my fixture on the tank.
With the T5's 1" above the tank which is about an inch lower than I would run it permanently I got 183 measuring at the sandbed 18" down under the lamps. I was running 2 aquablue and 2 Actinic Plus lamps which had a way better look than either of the 10K halides"

AS for your WH5

"The Workhore produces unsteady PAR that was about 10% below what a standard Korean made T5 spec ballast Ice Cap now sells produced. The WH also use a little more power. Ice Cap ballasts use 29% more power and produced 35% more light."

I'm not knocking Fulham/WH ballasts,they have there uses.Its just T5's are not meant to be operated on "Instant Start"ballasts.Don't worry about those pics either,here's a pic of a 12month old 39wATI blue on a WH5 right after it died.
http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e162/davejnz/2003_0101bulb0002.jpg
http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e162/davejnz/2003_0101bulb0003.jpg

hahnmeister
04/16/2006, 12:54 AM
dwdenny, Im not pulling anything out of my @$$. This is a fact that is true of any linear light source from my understanding, and testing confirms it with T5s at least. YES, T5s will penetrate 2x as much as halide. In layman's terms, the reasoning has to do with the source of the light. With a halide, its a small point source, so its light distribution is much like a slice of a pie. As you get farther from the center of that pie, the light spreads out to cover more area...and it loses intensity. With a linear bulb, the light doesnt have to spread as much, since in the process of it spreading and thinning out as it does, you have waves overlapping from other parts of the bulb. I forget what its called...the 'square rule' or something...having to do with the rate at which light from a source diminishes at certain rates/distances. The rate that halides diminish is 2x that of T5s, or any linear bulb for that matter. Its too late to try to find it right now, but Ill try to find the links tomorrow...or, maybe someone else can chime in and save me the time...

If that makes your nugget burn, think about this...T5 can make more PAR per watt than halide as well...

Also, that discoloration at the end of the bulbs....what does that mean to us as reefers? The bulbs will stop firing sooner? Ok, let me break it down for you. The firing has nothing to do with the output of the bulb or the longevity of the phosphors...right? It has to do with the long term life of the bulb. If we were using these lights in a warehouse, where we would want to get 6+ years out of these bulbs...or until they die and need replacement, then that buildup would be a concern. But for our tanks, the bulbs must be changed in 1/3 that time or less due to phosphor changes. Those black rings dont block any light, nor to they effect the longevity of the coating elsewhere in the bulb, only at the ends (which last I looked, barely any light came from that close to the ends anyways even on a new T5). What will effect the longevity of the bulb, in particular, the phosphors, is the voltage running through the bulb and the heat that it makes. If this heat isnt vented, and the temperature of the phosphors is raised, then the life of the coating, and the output of the bulb, will diminish. The IC ballasts, or any ballast which puts more voltage into the bulb will raise the temperature of it (and according to experiences of those using IC ballasts to overdrive T5s, they are hotter than normal). This means that either the cooling solution for the light must be boosted, or the bulbs will wear out faster. And even with extra ventilation, this has little benefit to the inside of the bulb's operating temperature, esp since glass is an insulator...so just short of running the bulbs in a cooler temperature (like a fridge), I doubt that even excessive fans and ventilation can make up for the extra power that the IC uses to power the bulbs. And that doesnt even take into consideration what possible variables could be thrown in if the bulb/ballast combo has EOL, or End-Of-Life circuitry.

T5 and T5 high output (T5 HO) lamps are designed to produce maximum light output at 35°C (95°F) ... A 10°C (18°F) difference in optimal temperature between T5 lamps may affect lamp performance in various types of luminaires.

Source: NLPIP (national lighting product information program)
(thanks horkn)

horkn
04/16/2006, 12:58 AM
well, that blackness at the end of that 12 month old t5ho means that you didnt have a good connection with your endcap to pins.

if mine at 16 months do not have that issue, that has to be the problem

i will post a pic to show you.

IME, proper setup yields good responses.

hahnmeister
04/16/2006, 01:11 AM
nah, the black on the inside is from the starters at either end. A harder start causes 'sputtering' and the ions leave deposits at the ends. The actual black deposits are no big deal though, as the mfg's designate this area as the 'cool zone' where light is not generated (about an inch and a half to two inches from either end I believe). They do signify the wear and tear on the starter electrodes in the bulbs. Kinda like tires on a car. If you burn rubber when the light turns green, your tires wont show it until you wear the tread out, but the pavement will have skid marks. If you accelerate nicely, as with soft starting, you dont burn as much rubber.

To continue the analogy...if the starter is the car's tires, the idea that it is important is something like this... We are only driving the car for 3000 miles on tires that are rated for 10,000 miles or more, so the tire wear means little.

horkn
04/16/2006, 01:15 AM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7185791#post7185791 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by hahnmeister

To continue the analogy...if the starter is the car's tires, the idea that it is important is something like this... We are only driving the car for 3000 miles on tires that are rated for 10,000 miles or more, so the tire wear means little.

but I like to burn my tires off ;)


why would he get a black end like that when using a w5, like I do, on a bulb i have 2 of the exact same of, and i have more months on mine?

i cant be that lucky...

but i did pick up that 90g canopy and stand today:):rollface:

let the modding begin:cool:

hahnmeister
04/16/2006, 01:17 AM
could be when and by who the bulbs were made. T5 bulbs have improved greatly in just the past 2 years even.

I need someone to find those intensity&penetration tests that were done for T5 vs halide... I cant remember where they are... Come on, someone has to know this here...dont make me have to go get Grim...lol. I remember it, but forget the exact rule...something about the intensity changing at a lower rate up to a point based on the length of the tube??? Some square depth penetration rate of intensity rule...

hahnmeister
04/16/2006, 02:00 AM
Oh, in the process of looking, I found this thread on depth of penetration of T5s...30" tall tank...no problem! http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=728912

"inverse square rule"...how does this apply to linear vs point source...hmmm....Im getting warmer...

hahnmeister
04/16/2006, 02:20 AM
Ok, didnt find what I was looking for, but got it from another source. If anyone can find the exact tests (I believe it was Grim who did them) where he compared % of light intensity lost over 24" of depth (the T5 carried light 2x better).

With halides, or a point source light, the inverse square rule applies, so that if you double the distance from the bulb you decrease the intensity of light by a factor of four. If you are less than one tube length away from the middle of a fluorescent tube, light drops off at an approximately linear rate. That is, if you are two feet away from a 4-foot tube, you receive half (not one quarter) the light that you would receive if you are just one foot away. And if you are in front of the middle of a whole bank of six or more fluorescent tubes, the light intensity at two feet away is almost the same as it is only one foot away! Think about it for a while and you will realize that as you move away from the center of the reflector, you receive more light from the sides, and this compensates for the increasing distance. This works as long as you are still closer to the center of the reflector than the reflector is wide. So a multiple tube fluorescent light fixture produces a very even light throughout the depth of a tank. If you want to defeat the inverse square law, get more tubes.

I hope you washed those feet before you stuck them in your mouth dwdenny. lol...

davejnz
04/16/2006, 07:22 AM
BLah,Blah,Blah,Blah.Until you can answer my original question,I wont even comment on the MH-vs-T5 penetration topic which you are clearly WRONG about.So,back to my ?,what voltage and at what mA does IC and your beloved WH5 fire T5HO's at?Perhaps if you 2 weren't so busy patting yourselves on the back you would of took the time to research this a little more.So,according to your friend who works on T5's for GE,this is where your getting your info from,correct?.Does he speak Hungarian,LOL.GE's T5HO tubes are manufactured out of the country.O wait,maybe he works here in the US in a factory packaging them,LOL.You claim that higher voltage through the tubes is what causes these phosphors to degrade thus causing spectrum shift.I would post a link for you so you could educate yourself on what T5 bulb manufacturers have to say about this but that would be too easy.
T5HO-----mA-----V------W--------LM--------LM/W
39w-----260----122---31.8-----3000-------94
----------340----115---39-------3500-------90
----------425----109---45.8-----3960-------86
54w-----370----139---50.9-----4790-------93
----------460----135---54-------5000-------91
---------650----121---77.9-----6510-------82
Interesting on how the voltage goes down when the lamps are being overdrived,huh?Guess your high voltage theory needs some more work.Dwdenny,I'll help you take those feet out of your mouth and stick them up this guys ***
Oh,and please stop posting information about phosphors degrading or spectrum shifting unless you have some data to back it up.Clearly your talking where dwdenny just stuck his foot in because otherwise,you would of posted some facts instead of what your Hungarian friend has been telling you.

davejnz
04/16/2006, 07:35 AM
BTW,If you want to get Grim in on this,we can take this discussion to an alternate forum where i just know he'd be willing to tell you how WRONG you are.
Something tells me you wont take me up on this offer though,drop me or dwdenny a PM and we can arrange it.

dwdenny
04/16/2006, 10:11 AM
yeah that will work let me know we can do something. he information you are giving out Hahn is wrong and newbies are more then likely going to take it and run.

horkn
04/16/2006, 10:56 AM
Davejnz just because the ge bulbs are made in hungaria, or other remote eastern european country, does not mean that there are not any lighting engineers here.


if you read up on GE, you would know they have at least 3 (menomonee falls wi, pewaukee, wi, and milwaukee wi) locations here in SE wisconsin. And yes, lighting is one of the departments at at least the pewaukee location. I know this because my GF used to work for GE at that location (different dept) before she took a job at Rockwell Automation.


they may speak a bit of english, as well as hindi or hindu or whatever it is, and maybe, the guys that make and package the bulbs bulbs speak hungarian.

dwdenny
04/16/2006, 11:05 AM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7185884#post7185884 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by hahnmeister
Ok, didnt find what I was looking for, but got it from another source. If anyone can find the exact tests (I believe it was Grim who did them) where he compared % of light intensity lost over 24" of depth (the T5 carried light 2x better).

With halides, or a point source light, the inverse square rule applies, so that if you double the distance from the bulb you decrease the intensity of light by a factor of four. If you are less than one tube length away from the middle of a fluorescent tube, light drops off at an approximately linear rate. That is, if you are two feet away from a 4-foot tube, you receive half (not one quarter) the light that you would receive if you are just one foot away. And if you are in front of the middle of a whole bank of six or more fluorescent tubes, the light intensity at two feet away is almost the same as it is only one foot away! Think about it for a while and you will realize that as you move away from the center of the reflector, you receive more light from the sides, and this compensates for the increasing distance. This works as long as you are still closer to the center of the reflector than the reflector is wide. So a multiple tube fluorescent light fixture produces a very even light throughout the depth of a tank. If you want to defeat the inverse square law, get more tubes.

I hope you washed those feet before you stuck them in your mouth dwdenny. lol...

It's all about what you can get though the surface of the water. A photon is a photon wether it was create by a halide or a candle. Once they hit the water they are all going to travel the same distance. Halides start out much more intense so they have an advantage. The disadvantage is they have to be place farther away from the water. The Inverse Square Law explains why the halides can be beat by much less intense fluorescents. A halide mounted 8" above the tank has to be twice as intense as the t5 array mounted 4" above the tank (assuming both are using parabolic reflectors) to be equal intensity once they hit the water.

Obi-dad
04/16/2006, 11:50 AM
dwdenny - well said. The arguments about MH 'being the best' or 'having more punch' are silly and are some of the most often repeated ill-informed statements here on RC. 'A photon is a photon wether it was created by a halide or a candle.' Absolutely true (for any given wavelength).

Whether you have light deep in the tank on the sandbed is determined by the setup - a poorly designed MH reflector will not give high light on the sandbed, as would not using the proper reflectors for T5. Add in the height of bulbs above the water and the number of bulbs as other factors in the setup.

A PAR meter will tell the truth about a given setup, whether MH or T5. I have used the club's PAR meter and it is easy to show that T5s can have high light levels on the sandbed, and also showed that a poor MH reflector with low PAR MH bulb had low light on the sandbed. It is time to give the fictions of 'MH is the best' and 'MH have more punch' a rest.

hahnmeister
04/16/2006, 12:28 PM
"The Inverse Square Law explains why the halides can be beat by much less intense fluorescents." -dwdenny

Thank you, that was my whole point that you claim I am wrong about, yet you just repeated it in your last post. So what was I 'wrong' about? Halides are more intense at shorter distances, no doubt about it, due to their sheer output/wattage, but the original challenge was for me to prove that T5s penetrate deeper than halides, and they do, up to a distance from the bulb equal to the bulb's length. You have to compare apples to apples here though. If you have 400watts halide vs. 216 watts T5, well, yeah, the halide is just more intense to begin with. If I were to compare PAR readings from 216 watts of T5 vs. 250watts of hlaide however...the T5 would smoke the halide from about 18" of depth and on deeper. I should know, I have a meter and both lighting setups. The halide is great for intensity near the bulb, but taller tanks naturally lend themselves to T5.

hahnmeister
04/16/2006, 12:39 PM
davejnz, I dont know where you are coming from. You state I am clearly wrong about something, but have yet to clarify what about. I have proven that linear output bulbs carry their intensity deeper into our tanks than halides, both dwdenny and Obi-dad agree with that.

As for the GE contact. You dont have to believe me and its hardly relevant. I know, and if you look through GE's website, you will see many lighting engineer positions available where I live. They might be made in Hungary, and packaged elsewhere, but the R&D is here.

As for the voltage numbers that you are posting, they mean very little. The voltage might be going down, but thats because the amps is going up...so the wattage stays the same. In the past, the most common way to boost a flo bulb was through boosting the voltage, because manipulating the amps wasnt an option.

To narrow down that whole argument, I would challenge anyone to use a laser thermometer to measure the temps of both a normally driven T5 bulb compared to an overdriven (IC660) T5 bulb. This is what it comes down to.

as far as "Oh,and please stop posting information about phosphors degrading or spectrum shifting unless you have some data to back it up". I dont have to. phosphors degrade due to heat. Thats too basic to have to back up.

Back to the beginning, someone said that I was 'full of it' for stating that T5s penetrate 2x as much as T5s. That is a fact of any linear bulb up to the length of the bulb (so if you are running 4' T5s on a tank that is over 48" tall, let me know).

Where am I WRONG here?

horkn
04/16/2006, 12:47 PM
i have said laser thermometer. its called a digital pyrometer. many times it is used for measuring temps of tires in race cars and such. I use mine for measuring temps of tires when I am at the racetrack on my bike.

I ahve used mine for measuring other temps too, like how hot each pump gets for lacal heating in my tank, as well as temp of lights,a nd ballasts. its really pretty useful.

since i have a second. let me post up the reults of my digital pyrometer on my t5ho retro, since it now has been on a few hours.

hahnmeister
04/16/2006, 12:50 PM
Thanks horkn. That will help. But do you have a way of posting temps from equal wattage bulbs running on IC and spec T5 ballasts? We need a comparison here...

horkn
04/16/2006, 12:57 PM
i dont have an icecap, so i cant comment on that, but maybe someone else close to me does have an IC overdriven t5ho setup.

however. i just measured between 92-94 degrees on my workhorse 5 ballast. thta seems totally in line with what i figured. and for another example, my digital pyrometer measured 160 degrees on middle of the (ati blue) t5ho bulb.

suprisingly, the GE 6500k bulb is running at 104 Degrees.
wierd huh? maybe its the blue spectrum holding more heat in that the whitish color of the ge bulb?
i see that some say that t5ho is supposed to run at 90 degrees. If that is the case, then my setup does run hotter. but if the wballast make less par than advance or triad or other ballasts, then i couldnt imagine the other ballasts making then t5 bulbs run cooler. I esp doubt that an icecap 430 or 660 will run the bulbs cooler. btw, i have no fans in my canopy, and its half open in back.

horkn
04/16/2006, 01:00 PM
i dont have a spec t5ho ballast either. maybe i can get a reading from JD's yours or someone elses t5ho setup? the problem is the tek light has the ballasts encased, and i doubt JD will want to take his apart just to get a temp reading on the ballast.


johns is a WRS member as well, and has his tank lit by t5ho, so, in the next feww weeks we could have results, all from the same pyrometer.

hahnmeister
04/16/2006, 01:05 PM
All I need is a laser thermometer, and I could take readings off my 6x39wattT5 and I could set up my IC660 with 4x54wattT5s thats sitting around doing nothing...

The biggest thing I notice is just how much brighter the 6x39watt T5 tek is than my 250wattHQI halide. Its impressive to see in person, and not that the 'color' of both tanks is nearly the same as far as how I matched the bulbs, so its not like I have a bluer halide and a whiter T5.

horkn
04/16/2006, 01:12 PM
and this is the instrument i used to get those numbers.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v64/horkn/P4160078.jpg

horkn
04/16/2006, 01:13 PM
jon, write me at the wrs yahoogroup. i can loan you this pyrometer for about 2 weeks.

-Tom

davejnz
04/16/2006, 01:20 PM
If its so basic,then why cant you show me one single test comparing a bulbs spectral analysis over the course of an 18 month period.And for the heat thing,DUH,I think its obvious that an overdriven bulb will produce more heat than a normally driven.I've never disagreed with you on this.I will CHALLENGE any of you on this thread to prove your
"theory" by showing me some real data by way of spectral analysis.
BTW,I wonder why computer chip manufacturers design there chips to run at low voltages?less heat perhaps?WH ballasts,last i checked are have a nominal line output voltage of 600vRMS.THat,combined with there high voltage,"instant start" type of firing has got to be pretty hard on those phosphors(since your voltage theory must be right).

hahnmeister
04/16/2006, 01:31 PM
Ok, davejnz, the only thing I thought we were debating was that T5's penetrated better than halides. As far as any other 'theories' that you would like to challenge, please clarify. Spectral analysis equipment is in the $$thousands$$ and so beyond all of us, but I dont remember spectral analysis ever coming up before in this thread.

But one thing is for sure, the starting mechanism, soft start, instant, etc...it has nothing to do with the phosphors. Heat is all that matters, and every bit of data I have seen so far shows that the IC runs the bulbs hotter than spec...so the bulb life would be decreased (from the website on T5s I posted before, 95 degrees is the ideal).

Im still wondering, what am i so WRONG about? If anything, i was told I was pulling stuff out of my @$$ for saying T5s penetrate 2x as good in our aquariums. I proved it. Why are you continuing to talk about appendages in orifaces?

davejnz
04/16/2006, 01:33 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7183348#post7183348 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by hahnmeister
The penetration of T5s is double that of halides, due to the linear output.
Then there is my 60g cube. Its 24" dimensions would mean that I would have to sun something like 8x24wattT5...and at that, I still wouldnt get the intensity I would with a single lumenarc/halide.
Now,who's putting there foot in their mouth.Your 2x penetration theory has just been contradicted by your own post.

horkn
04/16/2006, 01:41 PM
davejnz, all I am proving is that the w ballasts are not bad at all to run on t5ho setups. 15+ months on the same bulbs driven by a w ballast with no dark bands show me this. I could care less about spectral analysis really. I have seen good coral growth from both t5ho lit tanks, and from Mh lit tanks.

that is why i am doing my new 90 with both mh and t5ho.


no reply on the GE engineering dept in hungary?

davejnz
04/16/2006, 01:55 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7187871#post7187871 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by hahnmeister
Ok, davejnz, the only thing I thought we were debating was that T5's penetrated better than halides. As far as any other 'theories' that you would like to challenge, please clarify. Spectral analysis equipment is in the $$thousands$$ and so beyond all of us, but I dont remember spectral analysis ever coming up before in this thread.

Why dont you go back and read my first post then.

davejnz
04/16/2006, 02:03 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7187915#post7187915 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by horkn
davejnz, all I am proving is that the w ballasts are not bad at all to run on t5ho setups. 15+ months on the same bulbs driven by a w ballast with no dark bands show me this. I could care less about spectral analysis really. I have seen good coral growth from both t5ho lit tanks, and from Mh lit tanks.

that is why i am doing my new 90 with both mh and t5ho.


no reply on the GE engineering dept in hungary?
For someone who doesn't even own an IC660 or even a T5HO spec ballast like a Triad or Advance Centium,you shouldn't even be commenting on this thread IMO.
And for your post earlier about me having a bad pin connection,perhaps if you would of read my first post,you would of saw that i had a<5ohm connection when i ran a continuity test.

davejnz
04/16/2006, 02:06 PM
I'm finished with you 2 and this thread,the invite still stands for you guys to join me and Grim in an alternate forum where we can discuss this further.

hahnmeister
04/16/2006, 02:26 PM
Reefmonkey, captivereefing, or marine depot? Grim is at all three.

As for contradicting myself, where do you see that? The inverse square rule is for halides, and the intensity decrease for linear bulbs is linear, so the T5 would penetrate twice as far before loosing 50% of its output compared to the halide.

horkn
04/16/2006, 02:27 PM
I am on the other forum with grim.

naw, i dont own an IC or spec t5 ballast, but others in my reef club do. I can speak about this as i please.

about the blackening, maybe you are just not lucky.


lets invite the hungarian engineers as well. sorry, but your bad experience doesnt make everyone else's bad as well.

Reefmaniac1
04/16/2006, 02:28 PM
This is all kind of ridiculous. Some here are making wild accusations without data to back it up. Others just spout the same crap they've seen elsewhere.

OK...so we can all agree that heat kills flourescent lamps. Big, hairy, freakin' deal! Throw some fans on them and use the IceCap, which in the long run is less expensive to own. It's also repairable, which means we don't have extra toxic crap going into the landfills when it dies (unlike the CHEAPER Workhorse ballast...remember, you get what you pay for!).

BTW, Grim Reefer said to tell all of you, "I have proven the WH is a poor choice. So far I know of one person who had an issue with the Ice Cap and that was likely because he wasn't running a fan."

hahnmeister
04/16/2006, 02:44 PM
dwdenny said "Hahn you are killing me here. doudle the pentration of halides!!!!! I dont think so. If it was then everyone would drop halides like a bad habit. You are pulling some **** out of your ***(PS I did the censorship here not RC). That is all I am going to say."

I countered with information about linear vs point source lighting, proving my point, and yes, many European reefers are dropping halides in favor of T5. My response was to dwdenny, but you seemed to want to jump in on that just to say that "hahnmeister is WRONG"...where is your proof of that?

Now, I am not saying that T5s are better or haldies are better...they both have their applications and using them together is perhaps the best solution for someone wanting high light SPS types at the top, and penetration to the lower parts of a tall tank.

Then you, davejnz, cut in with "BLah,Blah,Blah,Blah.Until you can answer my original question,I wont even comment on the MH-vs-T5 penetration topic which you are clearly WRONG about." & "Dwdenny,I'll help you take those feet out of your mouth and stick them up this guys ***"

What was I wrong about? Not only is this a violation of the RC user agreement, but you continue to say I am WRONG about something...but what? even dwdenny said "The Inverse Square Law explains why the halides can be beat by much less intense fluorescents" despite his claims that halides penetrate better...so he would in fact be contradicting himself here.

As for you,davejnz, the original dispute you and I had was about the starting mechanism affecting bulb life. I thought I summed it up pretty nicely. The starting mechanism means little to the longevity of the T5 bulb as far as reefers are concerned, since the day that the bulb quits firing all together is much longer than the period that we as reefers are concerned with.

As far as heat, you agree that the IC ballast heats up T5s more than a spec ballast. From that link I posted about ideal lighting temps for T5 bulbs, 95 degrees is optimal, and going beyond that spec diminishes bulb life and output.

Could you please tell me what I am so WRONG about? OR do you just like making that claim because it sounds good to you?

hahnmeister
04/16/2006, 03:14 PM
Reefmaniac1, thanks for the input.

I thought it was a given that heat kills flourescent lamps, and IC ballasts make more heat in the bulbs...as to if a fan is enough to keep that extra heat from building up inside the bulb...I doubt it. The straw that broke the camel's back was when I made the claim that T5s penetrate better than halides...so I proved it.

I still dont know what davejnz is arguing about. I think he just likes talking about limbs in orifaces because I still am not seeing where the argument is...

Reefmaniac1
04/16/2006, 04:03 PM
The heat is emitted from the lamp, just like light. It's when you don't remove the heat from the vicinity of the lamps that it causes problems. By using a fan to vent the heat (and prevent the build up of heat) this alleviates the problem of heat-associated damage to the lamp. The principle is the same regardless of whether it's NO, HO or VHO. If you want to extend the usable (to us) life of the lamp, you MUST vent the heat.

As to spectrum shift...I can't comment on that.

hahnmeister
04/16/2006, 04:09 PM
One small thing though that I question in that ventilation is how well the heat is really being removed from the bulbs. I made a comment a while back about how the ventilation deals with the heat once its outside the bulb, but since glass passes light much better than heat (its an insulator), all the ventilation in the world could mean very little if the internal temps of the bulb cant be kept down. Thecore temps are most likely higher than anything we could read at the surface of the bulb...

davejnz
04/16/2006, 05:12 PM
Do you really think that when T5HO bulb manufacturers put out a bulbs optimal temperature rating that they are going by the internal temp of the bulb?Do a google search on Phillips T5HO,you might just find the link as to where my data comes from.You need to quit mis-informing hobbyists and research this subject a bit more.Nevermind,I'll just give it to you so that others who read this thread can access it.Then,they will be more informed so someone else can pick this up where i'm leaving it at. http://www.brite-lite.com/pdf/t5_brochure.pdf
BTW,since you've already posted the sites,I'll be looking for you on one of them.I think we already got a 13page T5 thread going,I'll be looking forward to your participation/comments in it.

hahnmeister
04/16/2006, 05:19 PM
"Do you really think that when T5HO bulb manufacturers put out a bulbs optimal temperature rating that they are going by the internal temp of the bulb?" -davejnz

No, you are correct, but they also arent betting on people using Icecap 660 ballasts to drive the bulbs up to 50% over spec. This extra power increases the delta of temperature from normal, and since glass is an insulator...

Its logical to conclude that if the suggested temp of a bulb (at the surface) is 95 degrees, and then we add more power to the bulb to boost that bulb's surface up to say...110 degrees, we need to add more cooling. Now, adding fans and ventilation could bring that surface temp back down to 95degrees, but all we are doing in increasing the delta of temps between the core and the surface. Its logical to conclude that the core temp must be much higher than normal (whatever it may be) even if the surface temp is 95 still ...because the rate that we are removing heat is much higher. The higher temp of the core can hurt the bulb, since the phosphors are on the inside of the glass, not the outside.

The marketing data on that PDF sheet isnt taking this into account. FWIW, its a marketing sheet as well...so its scientific value is questionable.

davejnz
04/16/2006, 08:06 PM
Well,where are the links(i want studies/tests not threads) to the tests/data to validate your information?Since Phillips is a well known,respectable manufacturer of flourescent lighting,I tend to side with there tests rather than your hearsay.
FACTS----
"The T5 family of low pressure mercury discharge lamps operate by the same principle as other flourescent lamps.The discharge tube has an electrode sealed into each end and is filled with an inert gas and a small amount of mercury(liquid and vapor forms).The inside of the tube is coated with a mixture of flourescent powders.These powders convert the UV radiation of the mercury discharge into visible light.The T5 family is designed to operate on electronic PROGRAMMED start ballasts for OPTIMAL performance and LIFE."
"The light output of a low pressure mercury discharge lamp is determined by the mercury vapor pressure which in turn is determined by the temperature of the COOLEST SPOT on the discharge tube.In the case of T5 and T5HO lamps,this spot is located on the etched end of the lamp,behind the elelctrode(cold chamber)"
"T5 linear lamps reach maximum light output at 95F"
"There is a 10% drop in luminous flux when temp is increased from 35C/95F to 48.5C/119.3F"
CONCLUSIONS-----T5's are not designed to operate on instant start ballasts such as WH/Fulham.The OPTIMAL performance and LIFE of an overdrived T5 can still be attained if the cold chamber can be kept at rated temperature(95F)
In a well designed fixture/canopy with T5's ran by an IC660,this temperature should not be hard to maintain.Even if the tubes were not being adequately vented and temps were at 119F,the 10% drop in luminous flux is still way more than what your normal output T5 ballast or a WH will do.
BTW,I noticed you deleted your previous response,you can find me at CR if you want to continue this.

horkn
04/16/2006, 08:35 PM
the workhorse may not be as good as the t5 spec ballasts, but remember, the IC ballast isnt a spec t5 ballast either. its more like a workhorse in that it can run pretty much any fluorescent tube.

since the w ballast is so crappy, i will run it on the original bulbs that i bought 2 christmases ago until they burn out.

i still can melt green striped shrooms at will, even with my lower par workhorse ballast.

reread though my posts if anyone thinks i misinformed anyone of anything here.

reefmaniac, grim hasnt been on this site for a while now. There have been quite a few people that have had very short bulb life even while he was on the site. maybe he didnt remember them. hell, i dont even remember their names. One guy works at a public aquarium, and there are a few others i do not remember any specifics about, other than they noted short bulb life on t5ho. also, he is a big proponent of IC stuff. he got free samples of IC items, so he may have a biased oipinion of that product.

granted the IC makes more par, than a normally driven retro. if you need it, thats great, but i really dont see a need for it.

dwdenny
04/16/2006, 08:39 PM
All things being equal good reflectors, bulbs, ec., etc. With the same distance from the water there in no way a T5HO can beat a MH in penetration(I dont think at least) We are comparing apples to oranges here now. T5ho max height from water 6" or less inches MH 6" or more most going at 12" it seems. So yes the T5HO in this instance would be better. However this is where we went array from the subject of T5 lamp life on IC ballast. Hahn and horkn give me names of those that had premature lamp failure running on IC. At least get them to post here what happened!!

horkn
04/16/2006, 08:50 PM
i wish i could remember the names of them, but it sure struck me as odd that they have short bulb life when IC says they dont reduce the life of t5ho.

IIRC, one of these guys (very recently) was mentioned in this thread, or a thread about t5ho and bulb longevity. if the search button worked for non paying members, then i wouldnt have any issue finding it i bet. i would rather put my $$ into my reef club than having a way of backing up arguments by proving what i have seen does exist..

on the same token, all the people on RC that said that running a w ballast for t5ho would kill bulbs prematurely have been put to rest as well, besides one example above. who knows, maybe he had a bulb that wasnt up top PAR(pun intended).


I have never, and will never get into the debate that t5 are better / worse than MH as far as penetration. each has their own advantages and disadvantages.

which is why as i said before that i am going t5ho and mh on my new tank.

horkn
04/16/2006, 09:02 PM
and dave,

"FACTS----
"The T5 family of low pressure mercury discharge lamps operate by the same principle as other flourescent lamps.The discharge tube has an electrode sealed into each end and is filled with an inert gas and a small amount of mercury(liquid and vapor forms).The inside of the tube is coated with a mixture of flourescent powders.These powders convert the UV radiation of the mercury discharge into visible light.The T5 family is designed to operate on electronic PROGRAMMED start ballasts for OPTIMAL performance and LIFE."
"The light output of a low pressure mercury discharge lamp is determined by the mercury vapor pressure which in turn is determined by the temperature of the COOLEST SPOT on the discharge tube.In the case of T5 and T5HO lamps,this spot is located on the etched end of the lamp,behind the elelctrode(cold chamber)"
"T5 linear lamps reach maximum light output at 95F"
"There is a 10% drop in luminous flux when temp is increased from 35C/95F to 48.5C/119.3F"
CONCLUSIONS-----T5's are not designed to operate on instant start ballasts such as WH/Fulham.The OPTIMAL performance and LIFE of an overdrived T5 can still be attained if the cold chamber can be kept at rated temperature(95F)"


these are the same things we have seen over and over and over and over, well at least the part from phillips. then i refer to the fact that in the aquarium hobby replace our bulbs way earlier than the industrial guys do. they basilcally only replace them when they burn out, whereas 1.5 years or 2 years is still a lot less than what the t5ho bulbs are rated for for lifespan. your conclusion would be correct if we simply waited until they burnt out to replace bulbs.

but we dont wait that long.

horkn
04/16/2006, 09:06 PM
heres one. 50% less light in 6 months when ic overdriven.

http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=795494&perpage=25&pagenumber=1

hahnmeister
04/16/2006, 09:14 PM
Um, davejnz...you just proved my point with that listing of FACTS. The first two facts are true of any linear phosphor bulb. The third is something I brought up as well...sure 95 degrees is the optimal temp, and anything above or below this can result in diminished output. Ok, no problem there.

Now the part of "There is a 10% drop in luminous flux when temp is increased from 35C/95F to 48.5C/119.3F". Sure, exactly why I am questioning the longevity of bulbs running on IC ballasts...they are known to run the bulbs hotter.

But where you lose me is on your conclusion part..."The OPTIMAL performance and LIFE of an overdrived T5 can still be attained if the cold chamber can be kept at rated temperature(95F)".

What does instant start or soft starting a bulb have to do with the running temp of the bulb? Once the bulb is started, all that means anything is the operating temp of the bulb...which has nothing to do with the starting mechanism of the ballast or the bulb.

And oops, yeah, I forgot to re-paste that part I deleted. Creative it is...

For now though, I will talk with dwdenny...and deal with one thing at a time...

Linear bulbs will beat point source ones in penetration. Did you catch what I said before? Yep. Im not pullin stuff out of my @$$. If you look in Sanjay's lighting update thread, I even asked him to confirm it while I was looking for the info elsewhere....

"If you have a point source of light, (a source is approximated by a point source if the distance of measurement is greater than 5 times the size of the source), then you can assume light follows the inverse square law.

According to the inverse square law, the intensity of a point source of light decreases inversely as the square of the distance from it. So if you were to double the distance the light intensity would drop to 1/4 of what it was.

A MH has the light source size of about 1.5-2", whereas a 4ft FL lamp has about 4ft of light source. So to really measure a 4ft FL as a point source you would have to be about 20ft from it.

Measuring FL lamps is kind of tricky at short distance.. since the light source is quite long. A FL would spread the light over a larger area. So if we assume we have a FL lamp and MH lamp generating the same number of photons/sec, they would be spread very differently, resulting in very different values of PPFD if single point reading was taken. I have not found an easy way to compare the FL with MH that I feel would be acceptable to the reefing community. Hence I have not ventured into testing FL lamps. The best caparison in my book would be to compare the output of FL lamp fixtures, in a manner similar to what I did with reflectors. Since what we really want is the spread distribution.

On a 4 ft fixtures, this woould mean collecting even more data points than what I did with the MH reflector using a 3ftX3ft grid, and several (6-8hrs) of just data collection if we go with larger grid. It would need a whole new setup and hell of lot more time than I am willing to put into it right now.

I did test some 2ft T-5 fixture from Sunlight supply..... to see that result come to WMC It will eventually get written up, but for now its only available in my talk."

-sanjay.

The bottom line is that halides diminish at an inverse square rate, and linear bulbs diminish in output at a linear rate. Think about it. As you move away from a point source, the photons that it emits spread out in a circle/cone/etc. As they spread, they diminish at a geometric rate. Now, for a linear bulb, the number of photons from any single point would diminish at the same rate, BUT, there is overlap. Imagine going towards the bulb, and you are at one end of that bulb....as you get closer to the bulb, less light from the other end of the bulb reaches you, right? So as you move farther from the bulb, you get more photons from other places on the bulb. So at some point, the percentage lost as you move away from a halide tank will be greater than with the T5.

Now, at that, I think you might be reading more into what I am saying that what I really said. Halides/point source bulbs do have an advantage in other areas. When I say that T5 penetrates better than halide, that also means that the closer you get to halide, that much more the light will get compared to T5. The closer you get to T5, this isnt the case. I can move some of my light loving SPS as close to a T5 as possible, but they just cant get enough light. Why? Well, the closer they get to the bulb, the less of the bulb's output they are being exposed to. Even adding more bulbs can only do so much, as the PAR per square inch of bulb doesnt really change no matter how many bulbs you add. But with halide, the PAR per square inch does increase as you get closer.

The height of the fixtures relative to each other means very little as you can see. Halides do have the advantage of peaking at a much higher level as you get closer to the bulb. This is key for many species of light loving SPS. Then again, the linear output sometimes counters this in that it can prevent shadows and get more light to the entire surface of the coral...but even so...there is only so much intensity that T5s can have as you get closer to the bulb.

But once and for all...yes, T5s penetrate better than halides almost any aquarium (unless you go over 48" or something...lol).

ASH
04/17/2006, 09:43 AM
From IceCap:
A factoid from: http://aboutlightingcontrols.org/about.shtml

The source: The Lighting Controls Association (LCA), an adjunct of the National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA), is the association dedicated to educating the professional building design, construction and management communities about the benefits and operation of automatic switching and dimming controls. The benefits include energy savings, flexibility and higher-quality building environments. ........

The fact: "Ambient temperature: Note that initial rated light output for T5 and T5HO lamps is based on peak output at an ambient temperature of 35 ºC (95 ºF), whereas T8, T12 and circular T5 lamps are based on 25 ºC (77 ºF). This characteristic of T5HO lamps may make them more suitable than T8 in some industrial applications in which ambient temperatures may be higher."

My conclusion: the canopy air in our hoods often exceeds 95ºF and always exceeds 77ºF. Nevertheless, with a fan removing lamp heat, which far exceeds either recommended temperature, the lamp itself can operate at optimum output. The 95ºF target only helps in setting a number in a static environment that anyone could reproduce and verify. Doing the same for a scenario involving heat extraction by use of fans makes it impossible to sum up with a single number. You'd have to account for fan placement, temperature of replacement air, speed of fan ( or with an IceCap variable speed fan - where was the probe set) proximity of lamps to each other, .... . Not an easy benchmark to create.

General observation: This thread is too much about rhetoric and too little about facts.

Andy

Reefmaniac1
04/17/2006, 09:57 AM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7190214#post7190214 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by horkn
heres one. 50% less light in 6 months when ic overdriven.

http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=795494&perpage=25&pagenumber=1

He doesn't mention whether or not he's done a continuity test. If the continuity isn't right, you WILL get premature lamp failure. I'm not arguing with anyone over this, but to make his experiment valid, he'd need to make sure that the equipment was properly installed to begin with. Therefore, without the conclusive data of having a proper continuity test done, you can't take the data at face value.

RGibson
04/17/2006, 10:29 AM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7192206#post7192206 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ASH
From IceCap:
A factoid from: http://aboutlightingcontrols.org/about.shtml

The source: The Lighting Controls Association (LCA), an adjunct of the National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA), is the association dedicated to educating the professional building design, construction and management communities about the benefits and operation of automatic switching and dimming controls. The benefits include energy savings, flexibility and higher-quality building environments. ........

The fact: "Ambient temperature: Note that initial rated light output for T5 and T5HO lamps is based on peak output at an ambient temperature of 35 ºC (95 ºF), whereas T8, T12 and circular T5 lamps are based on 25 ºC (77 ºF). This characteristic of T5HO lamps may make them more suitable than T8 in some industrial applications in which ambient temperatures may be higher."

My conclusion: the canopy air in our hoods often exceeds 95ºF and always exceeds 77ºF. Nevertheless, with a fan removing lamp heat, which far exceeds either recommended temperature, the lamp itself can operate at optimum output. The 95ºF target only helps in setting a number in a static environment that anyone could reproduce and verify. Doing the same for a scenario involving heat extraction by use of fans makes it impossible to sum up with a single number. You'd have to account for fan placement, temperature of replacement air, speed of fan ( or with an IceCap variable speed fan - where was the probe set) proximity of lamps to each other, .... . Not an easy benchmark to create.

General observation: This thread is too much about rhetoric and too little about facts.

Andy Andy do icecap overdrive the t5 lamps?

Reefmaniac1
04/17/2006, 10:33 AM
horkn, I was asked to deliver this message from Grim Reefer to you:

"You're kind of wreckless with your comments and accusations. First off I have been recomending Ice Cap equipment for a few years in the forum (simple to search and see). The only thing they ever gave me was a 4x54 watt system in November to test the effectiveness of their ballast on the more standard size lamps. I also was very up front about the fact they had given me the equipment to use.

Now the way you plaster aqualux lighting's link in every friggin T5 thread since the creation of time I'll ask, what are they giving you? They only way they beat Reefgeek's or Ocean encounter's price (which are both forum sponsor's) is if the customer asks for a price match."

Reefmaniac1
04/17/2006, 10:36 AM
Gibson,

Yes, the T5s are overdriven on IC's ballasts. However, that's not a bad thing if you have everything wired properly and are careful with your selection of corals.

RGibson
04/17/2006, 10:50 AM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7192519#post7192519 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Reefmaniac1
Gibson,

Yes, the T5s are overdriven on IC's ballasts. However, that's not a bad thing if you have everything wired properly and are careful with your selection of corals.
I did not know you were Andy from ice cap.javascript:smilie(':bum:')

Reefmaniac1
04/17/2006, 10:57 AM
My alter ego ;)

Oh yeah, one more thing to tack onto my original reply to you: Make sure that you also have the hood vented adequately.

hahnmeister
04/17/2006, 01:03 PM
Well, I suppose the best thing now, since we have ASH talking with us, would be to simply ask...

Are there any studies that have been done comparing the long term operation/longevity of T5 bulbs running on IC ballasts?

Reefmaniac1
04/17/2006, 02:00 PM
I remember reading on one of his threads that he'd been testing them on a tank for 24+ months with, I think, 90% of the original lumen output still intact.

hahnmeister
04/17/2006, 02:49 PM
Perhaps one of the reasons for the reports of early diminished output would be because of the rumored low longevity of the GE 6500K bulbs??? Perhaps tests using these bulbs were the reason for diminished output.

So how can IC run a bulb with more heat, yet not diminish the output of the phosphors?

Reefmaniac1
04/17/2006, 03:03 PM
A question for Andy.

ASH
04/17/2006, 03:21 PM
Reefmaniac1 does his homework. When I first started playing with T5HO lamps I thought overdriving them would cause an explosion. They seemed too bright to last. As a result, at IceCap we began a 12 month speeded up time trial where the four GE 54-watt 6.5K lamps were packed into a stock AG lighting hood and the torture began. Each night they would cycle on and off four times. I discovered the temperature to output relationship first hand by not allowing heat to dissipate from the lamps I could watch the light levels drop. Turn on a fan and they brightened back up. At the end of the year the lamps looked like hell, but when lit still came in around 94% of initial lumens. Unlike 'normal' fluorescent lamps, day one is initial lumens, not after 100 hours of break-in.

We didn't go to market on a hope they'd work. We ran them in a way I would hope no one would do purposely. I never thought of GE as the premier lamp manufacturer in the world but as these came from the recently rebuilt Hungarian plant they were state of the art. More recently, the GE line has an environmental kick too, the mercury is locked up in the discarded old lamp rather than leeching out as they did historically. The new UVL lamps will likewise have this feature.

As to depreciation of actinic lamps, the rate is faster but of less significance. Most tanks exceed ocean levels in their actinic light portion of the spectrum. You can go by looks (to your eye) as they mostly provide aesthetics for us. There are poorly made lamps we've tested that look beat in 3 to 6 months. But these lamps looked like the phosphorus was sprayed on in a hurry when still new. Cheap bulbs are not only made in T-12 sizes.

I will qualify my statement, when overdriving T5HO lamps, if you expect 18 - 24 months, use well made lamps in a well vented hood. Always run a fan when the T5HO lamps are lit. Always use a ballast that shuts off current to a dead lamp and use SLRs to get the most out of your T5 lamps and put the light where you want it.

Andy

horkn
04/17/2006, 04:33 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7192508#post7192508 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Reefmaniac1
horkn, I was asked to deliver this message from Grim Reefer to you:

"You're kind of wreckless with your comments and accusations. First off I have been recomending Ice Cap equipment for a few years in the forum (simple to search and see). The only thing they ever gave me was a 4x54 watt system in November to test the effectiveness of their ballast on the more standard size lamps. I also was very up front about the fact they had given me the equipment to use.

Now the way you plaster aqualux lighting's link in every friggin T5 thread since the creation of time I'll ask, what are they giving you? They only way they beat Reefgeek's or Ocean encounter's price (which are both forum sponsor's) is if the customer asks for a price match."

well, coming from someone that can't post nere, i take that at face value as well.
If he were around here, he would realize that i do not plaster around the aqualux name at all. I only mention it when people do not understand that ther are alternatives to just tek , and icecap reflectors, and that they will match anyones price, as well as having the least expensive good t5ho retros available. I have never been given anything for free by aqualux, i have posted what i paid for my retro and compare that to what other companies sell theirs for.

I am all about equal or better performance for less price. thats why i like aqualux. It seems most people are very happy with the aqualux sold items, esp once they realize how much $$ they save.
In fact, i ordered a set of bulbs from reefgeek, because they were less money, and had the bulbs on hand i wanted. but, i really dont think its that big of a deal to ask for a price match. its kinda like asking a sponsor for our RC discount. If you dont feel like asking, you will pay more.

also, when aqualux gets bigger, they will probably be a sponsor.

horkn
04/17/2006, 04:40 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7194138#post7194138 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by hahnmeister
Perhaps one of the reasons for the reports of early diminished output would be because of the rumored low longevity of the GE 6500K bulbs??? Perhaps tests using these bulbs were the reason for diminished output.

So how can IC run a bulb with more heat, yet not diminish the output of the phosphors?

what is funny is that the GE is widely regarded as the best available t5ho bulb as far as PAR, and longevity. maybe the guy that had his ge diminish that much so quickly did have a problem with his connections.?

Sparkss
04/17/2006, 06:13 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7194793#post7194793 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by horkn
well, coming from someone that can't post nere, i take that at face value as well.
If he were around here, he would realize that i do not plaster around the aqualux name at all.

Last I checked, just because he can't post doesn't mean he can't read and keep up with the threads. Just pointing out that obvious little bit. :)

horkn
04/17/2006, 10:38 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7195407#post7195407 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Sparkss
Last I checked, just because he can't post doesn't mean he can't read and keep up with the threads. Just pointing out that obvious little bit. :)

umm yeah.


thats true, but you missed my point i guess.

there's a reason he isnt here.

hahnmeister
04/18/2006, 12:46 AM
Er, oops, sorry. I meant the ATI 6000K bulbs were short lived...not the GE 6500Ks. Nevermind.

ASH
04/18/2006, 08:12 AM
From IceCap:
horkn - I'm not looking to get into a posting battle but suggesting TGR was in anybody's pocket is ridiculous.

I find it funny that when you deny plugging a brand name you repeat the brand name 5 times in your retort.

I just visited http://www.aqualuxlighting.com/workhorse5.html and I'm concerned that they spec a WH for T5HO lamps yet clearly state that when it comes to End of Life Protection - No EOL Circuit exists.
IMO, when recommending sites that sell applications that could be dangerous, add a 'buyer beware'.
Andy

floridareefs
04/18/2006, 08:32 AM
Great point ASH. The No EOL concerned me from the beginning with the Workhorse 5 or 7. Sometimes you get what you pay for and a lighting mishap can be nasty, to say the least. Its Icecap for me and I have no problem paying the extra money for a quality product. In fact, looking into your 4x54 retro system right now. Thanks

NorthernCF
04/18/2006, 08:59 AM
Some one help me... I missed it... EOL?

mcegelsk
04/18/2006, 09:36 AM
NorthernCF-

End of Life = EOL

~Matt

Reefmaniac1
04/18/2006, 11:20 AM
No EOL circuitry? Wow! Strike 5 against Workhorse. Not that I would have ever really considered the things, but man...that's NUTS!

horkn
04/18/2006, 11:41 AM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7198618#post7198618 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ASH
From IceCap:
horkn - I'm not looking to get into a posting battle but suggesting TGR was in anybody's pocket is ridiculous.

I find it funny that when you deny plugging a brand name you repeat the brand name 5 times in your retort.

I just visited http://www.aqualuxlighting.com/workhorse5.html and I'm concerned that they spec a WH for T5HO lamps yet clearly state that when it comes to End of Life Protection - No EOL Circuit exists.
IMO, when recommending sites that sell applications that could be dangerous, add a 'buyer beware'.
Andy

take the workhorse battle up with aquatinics. they use them, and are a competitor of yours.
or go to fulhams website and see that they are specified to work on t5ho. are there better ballasts? yeah. are there more expensive ballasts?, yeah

i know they work well for me, but seeing that ballastwise has spec t5ho ballasts for a lot less than anyone else, i will go with them instead of w ballasts for t5ho in the future.

i plug aqualux, like some guys plug reefgeek and others. I am just using my good experiences so others will know.

didnt your reputation as a good vendor come form good experiences from customers?

twkenny
04/18/2006, 11:46 AM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7197269#post7197269 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by horkn

there's a reason he isnt here.

I don't think it has anything to do with T5HO lighting either.
That is an absurd thing to post.

horkn
04/18/2006, 11:47 AM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7199829#post7199829 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by twkenny
I don't think it has anything to do with T5HO lighting either.
That is an absurd thing to post.


not really, but its one thing to consider.

twkenny
04/18/2006, 11:54 AM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7199831#post7199831 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by horkn
not really, but its one thing to consider.

Huh? So you're saying if you lose your posting privileges here everything you have posted is invalid?
That's even more absurd than your last post.

Reefmaniac1
04/18/2006, 12:07 PM
I concur. It's a majorly asinine thing to say. No offense horkn, but you have taken this whole thread out of the realm of legitimate and reasonable discussion and are making this a personal thing.

NorthernCF
04/18/2006, 12:14 PM
Thanks Matt. I am still confused what an EOL Circut means.

hahnmeister
04/18/2006, 01:10 PM
It prevents catastrophic failure should the bulb cease to start. Its kinda like a circuit breaker inside the bulb. Its very important with some bulbs (with some SE halides in particular) because without it they can explode.

mcegelsk
04/18/2006, 01:47 PM
Yeah, and unfortunately fish don't like to eat "blown" bulbs. You guys are just too serious. I remember the beginning of this thread and it talked about actual lights vice who's "light" was bigger! Chill out.

I'm setting up a 180G (72x24x24) within the next two months and have decided to go all T5 while keeping SPS. I also like a little blue in the look. Its an acrylic tank, and I'm thinking I need the 60" with 8 bulbs. Is this a good idea or do I want to go with 2 3ft setups? I've looked up as much as I can find about these UV bulbs.

Questions for all the brainiac's:

1. Without saying any brand, what kind of setup would you choose and what blubs would you install?

2. What is so great about the UV bulbs? And should I use them?

hahnmeister
04/18/2006, 04:07 PM
You might want to hold off on the actinic bulbs until the UVL brand ones come out, otherwise, if you like the blue look, maybe just one or two GE 6500Ks, but even that might be too 'daylight'. I use the 11,000Ks myself for a more blue look, but Im using a max of 6 bulbs.

So for 8 bulbs, perhaps...
2x 11,000K(aquablue) or 6500K for daylight
4x blue+ for the blue look
2x actinic+ or UVL's actinic when it comes out, but for the time being, 2 more blue+.

As for ballasts, two IC660s and 8 of the aqualux reflectors should do you fine...since icecap doesnt make 5' reflectors.

horkn
04/18/2006, 05:20 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7199870#post7199870 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by twkenny
Huh? So you're saying if you lose your posting privileges here everything you have posted is invalid?
That's even more absurd than your last post.

that is not what I am saying at all.

you 2 are reading entirely too much into it.


I get along fine with grimmy on another forum. and I got along fine with him on this forum. hell, at the same time he was doing t5ho research, i was doing my own as the "official RC t5ho workhorse ballast gunuea pig"
dubbed that by TGR himself.

twkenny
04/19/2006, 02:09 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7201927#post7201927 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by horkn
that is not what I am saying at all.



Then what, exactly are you saying?

horkn
04/19/2006, 05:20 PM
that you are reading too much into it, like i said.

i think i see a dead horse being beaten...

SunnyX
04/19/2006, 06:13 PM
Wonder if some of you T5 gurus could help me out here.

I am one of the few who like Florecent light better than MH, to me Florecent just looks better.

My tank is 60Lx36Wx24H.

Would 16 5' T5's be enough for lighting? I plan to also use 3 140W VHO's.

Current pic of 225gl with MH and VHO-

http://www.thesunnyreef.com/DSCN3156.jpg

IZZY'SREEF
04/19/2006, 09:11 PM
I also have a ? for the T5 gurus.
I currently have the 4x39w TEK retro. I run 2 aquablue(11k)and 2 blue+. I want to fill my tank with more LPS, and zoos. I already have some of both and a BTA wich is doing great. I was thinking of using 3 blue+ and one of either the aquablue or GE6500k instaed to get more color from the corals. What do you think would be the result?
My tank is 24'' tall.

IZZY'SREEF
04/19/2006, 09:17 PM
I'm asking because some are saying that the 50/50 mix of ATI/ Geissman bulbs are whiter than 14k. I'm looking for at least the 14k look or higher. Please help. My new bulbs are on the way.

Codeman00
04/19/2006, 09:17 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7209293#post7209293 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by SunnyX
Wonder if some of you T5 gurus could help me out here.

I am one of the few who like Florecent light better than MH, to me Florecent just looks better.

My tank is 60Lx36Wx24H.

Would 16 5' T5's be enough for lighting? I plan to also use 3 140W VHO's.

Current pic of 225gl with MH and VHO-[/IMG]

I don't mean to be rude at all while saying this..but that is a beautiful reef you have. With all of the T5 problems cited in this thread, why would you want to take a chance at ruining such a great reef?

hahnmeister
04/20/2006, 12:37 AM
SunnyX, for what reason would you want to change your lighting when your tank looks that good. Thats a TOTM right there...

If electricity is the main concern, perhaps T5 would help, but first, please tell us all what you are currently using as Im sure you would want to keep the light levels similar.

What wattage, K-rating, and how many of each type of bulb are you using?

IZZY'SREEF, I run a setup of 6x39wattT5s over one 40B, and a 250watt 14,000K pheonix in the tank above it. The color of both is near identical (then again, I also notice that the pheonix on the Icecap ballast is slightly bluer than the one on the HQI). I use...
2x11,000K aquablue
2xblue+
2xactinic+
...for the T5. For more blue, I wouldnt go with the 6500K, its color is slightly more yellow (I would never dream of running it alone, where I could actually see a tank lit with only aquablues), and its intensity is so much greater that it would require 5 other blue bulbs to compete...IMO.

For 4 bulbs to work with, I would go with one aquablue, one actinic03 (or another blue+ until the UVL comes out), and 2 blue+. That should be closer to 14,000K (depending on which 14,000K I suppose).

ASH
04/20/2006, 11:42 AM
I have to agree. If I had that tank I'd be afraid to change anything.

Andy

Fishy1
04/20/2006, 06:08 PM
Hope you guys can give me some good advice. I currently have a 55 gallon tank with the 4 bulb T5 Tek fixture. I love the way it looks and have had good luck with my softies and SPS corals (both color and growth). I just purchased a 120 gallon 4x2x2 foot tank and bought the coralife 2- double ended 150 watt MH fixture with 2-96 watt actinic PCs to go with the tank. The lights are still in the box and I'm having second thoughts about them......will I have the same amount of light for my corals? I know you can't compare watt for watt but will the coralife fixture be similar in "looks" to what I'm used to......and will my corals continue to do as well with the MH?

Thanks for the help,
Janey

The Grim Reefer
04/20/2006, 06:18 PM
If you were running top quality 150 watt lamps in good reflectors with good ballasts (which coralife ain't) yes, the coralife is a substantial step down.

Deuce67
04/20/2006, 07:21 PM
Whoa! Nice to see you back Grim!

IZZY'SREEF
04/20/2006, 08:28 PM
First off, welcome back , Grim!!
Thanks for the reply, hahnmeister. So your saying maybe 3 blue+ and 1 aquablue?
If I did this what kind of growth would I expect?

Fishy1
04/20/2006, 10:05 PM
What would you recommend, Grim?

The Grim Reefer
04/20/2006, 10:27 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7218056#post7218056 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Fishy1
What would you recommend, Grim?

Send the coralifes back. I tried the 150's over the 24" tank thing.

Either go with a good 150 watt halide system or try something different. If you are going with a ready made fixture I would do a 250 watt halide or an 8 lamp Tek light.

hahnmeister
04/20/2006, 10:38 PM
Nice to see you back Grim. I see that they lifted your ban. That sure must be nice...the rest of us just have to keep making up new names...lol.

Fishy1
04/20/2006, 10:52 PM
The 4 tube Tek light I have now has brand new bulbs.....2 aqua blues and 2 blue+'s. Would there be enough room to put another 4 tube Tek light beside the one I already have? If so, would the light penetrate well past 18 inches......the tank is 24" deep.....maybe it would look funny to have 2 Tek lights on top of the tank.......what do you think? My monti's have such beautiful color right now, would hate to lose it because of going to MH.....hope I don't make a big mistake with my lighting.....

Thanks for the help,
Janey

hahnmeister
04/20/2006, 11:24 PM
Not likely, since a 55g is only 12" front to back. A 6 bulb tek fixture would fit however.

As for the tek reflectors, they arent as good as the IC and aqualux when it gets to about 16" of depth (according to Grim, the teks lose about 20% compared to the others at these depths). So, with tek reflectors, you might see a slight loss before the light hits the bottom 5ish inches of the tank, but that might not be a bad thing. Many people (myself included) have had LPS and other lower light corals simply FRY under the intensity that T5s are able to penetrate with to lower levels in the tank. So perhaps a slight drop is a good thing so you can keep some LPS and shrooms at the bottom of the tank. I know that I cant keep open brains and shrooms in my T5 tank...except under a rock.

Grim, from what I remember, you did some penetration comparisons between T5 and halides, did you have the numbers from those tests? I cant remember where to find them...I just remember you somparing the PAR at various levels from T5s and comparing it to MH...and the T5 had better penetration.

Fishy1
04/20/2006, 11:30 PM
Thanks for the info, hahnmeister......I, too, have trouble with 'shrooms in my 55.....maybe the dropoff would be a good thing:) Just wonder if I should sell the 4tube Tek and buy an 8tube so all is in one unit.....not as cost effective buy less power cords floating around. What do you think? Also, what mix of bulbs would be best in an 8tube fixture?

~Janey~

hahnmeister
04/21/2006, 01:18 AM
The most bulbs you will fit over that 55 with a tek fixture is 6 though...the reflectors are 2" each, so 6 bulbs is it (unless you just get the 8 for a future upgrade to say...a 75g....and just leave 2 of the bulbs out for the time being...dont know if thats good for the ballasts though...

Everyone has their own pref for the spectrum they like. I have posted what I use to get a 14,000K look. My strategy, if you dont have any idea, would be to buy 2 GE 6500K, 2 Geisemann aquablue, 2 blue+, and 2 actinic+ (or wait for the UVL actinics to come out). Then you can mix & match or play with the switches or powercords on the timers to play with the blends until you get something you like.

Or, you could keep the current setup as is, simply swapping out the ballast for a higher power IC660 ballast. That would boost the output considerably without changing fixtures or adding bulbs.

Fishy1
04/21/2006, 07:53 AM
I've already upgraded to a 120 4x2x2 (coming next Friday).......that's why I was wondering about keeping the 4tube Tek or buying an 8tube and selling the 4. I have a Coralife Pro 2 150 doublended MH and 2 96 watt PC still in the box (bought locally so can easily return). My corals are doing so well right now I hate to take a chance with this particular MH fixture and be disappointed.

~Janey~

The Grim Reefer
04/21/2006, 07:55 AM
Janey,

What are the deminsions of the tank you are talking about placing 2 Tek light systems on?

Treg
04/21/2006, 08:03 AM
:eek1: Arose from the Dead? :eek1:

The Grim Reefer
04/21/2006, 08:11 AM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7219476#post7219476 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Treg
:eek1: Arose from the Dead? :eek1:

You notice the reefer is now a skelaton?

Treg
04/21/2006, 08:12 AM
I did. ;) :D

Congrats Dude!

You get a tank up again or still just shooting the Ar? :lol:

The Grim Reefer
04/21/2006, 08:52 AM
Gotta find a house before I fill the tank up. I am trying to destroy some Rio pumps (plugged in with the pumps out of water and the impellors locked up for over 30 hours, no luck so far) to keep myself entertained for now.

Fishy1
04/21/2006, 10:02 AM
48"x24"x24"

The Grim Reefer
04/21/2006, 10:14 AM
8 normally driven T5's or 6 overdriven. The downside to using 2 seperate Tek lights is that you will have one bank of lights at the front and one at the rear with a gap in the center, where it would be most effective to have the lights. I'd get a new unit.

Fishy1
04/21/2006, 02:56 PM
Thanks for the help:)

Janey

mcegelsk
04/21/2006, 03:02 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7200515#post7200515 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by mcegelsk
I'm setting up a 180G (72x24x24) within the next two months and have decided to go all T5 while keeping SPS. I also like a little blue in the look. Its an acrylic tank, and I'm thinking I need the 60" with 8 bulbs. Is this a good idea or do I want to go with 2 3ft setups? I've looked up as much as I can find about these UV bulbs.

Questions for all the brainiac's:

1. What kind of setup would you choose and what blubs would you install?

2. What is so great about the UV bulbs? And should I use them?

GRIM- have any wise input on the above question I previously posted? I'd appreciate any help! ~Matt

The Grim Reefer
04/21/2006, 03:12 PM
The nice thing about the 60" lamps on a 72" tank is you have lower light areas at the ends for shrooms and such. Just stagger the lamps a bit end to end and you will have an even look across the tank.

Lamp wise my last T5 configuration was 2 Aquablues 1 GE, 2 actinic plus and a pure actinic. It was just a tad blue and poped colors really well. If you like more blue you could substitute a 3rd AB for the GE.

mcegelsk
04/21/2006, 03:36 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7222103#post7222103 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by The Grim Reefer
The nice thing about the 60" lamps on a 72" tank is you have lower light areas at the ends for shrooms and such. Just stagger the lamps a bit end to end and you will have an even look across the tank.

Lamp wise my last T5 configuration was 2 Aquablues 1 GE, 2 actinic plus and a pure actinic. It was just a tad blue and poped colors really well. If you like more blue you could substitute a 3rd AB for the GE.

Grim- So you are talking about getting two 60" 6 bulb fixtures set up like the following (or talking two 3 bulb 60" fixtures)?

<-----72"----------->
======== < (two bulb lines)
========
========
>>>==========
>>>==========
>>>==========

And I like a little blue so your lights set would probably work well for me. How did you have the bulbs ordered in the fixtures?

horkn
04/21/2006, 03:52 PM
yeah, but not quite like that Matt


more like this


===============
/////===============
===============
////===============

The Grim Reefer
04/21/2006, 04:05 PM
I would start with six lamps staggered like Horkn lists with the double line representing a single lamp.

The Grim Reefer
04/21/2006, 04:09 PM
Just noticed your doing SPS, get 8 lamps.

mcegelsk
04/21/2006, 04:46 PM
Ok, so talking retro fit a canopy then. Right now I don't have one. I get the picture. Best stuff to retro fit with??? Thank you guys! ~Matt

The Grim Reefer
04/21/2006, 05:46 PM
Just get a 8 lamp retrokit from reefgeek. If you had room I'd say grab the CD reflectors from aqualux but you dont have room for 8 of those over a 24" tank. Make sure you get a couple fans to run across the lamps. Need to keep them cool when overdriven.

horkn
04/21/2006, 08:09 PM
grim, wouldnt you think 7 of the aqualux cdr's would wotk better than the 8 tek reflectors? i sure do, and if he wanted to, he could run the 8th bulb with a tek reflector? heck, the aqualux CDRs are only 3" wide, as long as the canopy was made right, you could actually fit 8 of those in there. or you could even angle the front and back reflectors in toward the tank to make it fit easier.

I mean if he is going sps, he needs as much help as he can get, and the cdr's are way better than the tek reflectors at PAR outpout.

hahnmeister
04/21/2006, 09:41 PM
"Grim, from what I remember, you did some penetration comparisons between T5 and halides, did you have the numbers from those tests? I cant remember where to find them...I just remember you somparing the PAR at various levels from T5s and comparing it to MH...and the T5 had better penetration."

^^^Any thoughts on this yet Grim?

As for the 180g, Geisemann does have a new fixture on the way...3x250wattDE/HQI with 4x80watt T5s in one fixture. That would be my pick for your tank. Should be out in a month or so...

mcegelsk
04/22/2006, 04:54 AM
hahnmeister-

Thanks for the info on the new Geisemann. Is there any prerelease info out on this upcoming item? I have time to wait a bit...still acquiring items for then next month or two. ~Matt

Sparkss
04/22/2006, 10:48 AM
What is the typical side to side coverage on a T5 ?

Or more specific to recent posts, taking mcegelsk's question and Grim's and horkn's response/answer, how much stagger is needed, or possible, to still get good end to end coverage (regardless of tank length) ? Or a more pointed question would be along the lines of "Would a 48" bulb give 6" of side ways coverage off each end ? (essentially coverage 60 linear inches)" I know that is extreme, but the limits and threshold of coverage is what I am trying to determine.

For a 48" bulb ?

For a 60" bulb ?

or are they the same regardless of the bulb length ?

For the sake of baselines, lets just assume using an IC660 to drive them.

Thanks for your expertise and time to answer :)

The Grim Reefer
04/22/2006, 12:28 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7223584#post7223584 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by horkn
grim, wouldnt you think 7 of the aqualux cdr's would wotk better than the 8 tek reflectors? i sure do, and if he wanted to, he could run the 8th bulb with a tek reflector? heck, the aqualux CDRs are only 3" wide, as long as the canopy was made right, you could actually fit 8 of those in there. or you could even angle the front and back reflectors in toward the tank to make it fit easier.

I mean if he is going sps, he needs as much help as he can get, and the cdr's are way better than the tek reflectors at PAR outpout.

Maybe try 4 or 6 CD reflectors and 2 Teks But only if Aqualux will throw in and extra lamp clip and screw for each reflector. IME the reflector is so heavy it bows a tad in the center and needs support. Just drill a hole in the middle and mount the clip, problem solved. By the time you account for the frame around the tank most 24" tanks are closer to 23" and you really dont want the reflectors all the way to the edge where the light is shinning out the front of the tank. You can turn the reflector so the light doesn't spill over but then you are bouncing the light off the next reflector over which is a waste too. My new system is going to be 4 lamps centered over an 18" tank.

The Grim Reefer
04/22/2006, 12:45 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7226082#post7226082 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Sparkss
What is the typical side to side coverage on a T5 ?

Or more specific to recent posts, taking mcegelsk's question and Grim's and horkn's response/answer, how much stagger is needed, or possible, to still get good end to end coverage (regardless of tank length) ? Or a more pointed question would be along the lines of "Would a 48" bulb give 6" of side ways coverage off each end ? (essentially coverage 60 linear inches)" I know that is extreme, but the limits and threshold of coverage is what I am trying to determine.

For a 48" bulb ?

For a 60" bulb ?

or are they the same regardless of the bulb length ?

For the sake of baselines, lets just assume using an IC660 to drive them.

Thanks for your expertise and time to answer :)

Here is a pic of my old 125 (mem-ories, scattered in the cobwebbs of my miiiind) with 60" T5's that were not staggered. The ballasts were mounted at each end which block a little light spread. The only dark areas were the upper corners of the tank and not as noticably as the picture makes them look. With the ballasts remote mounted and the lamps staggered even a couple inches I dont think your eye would be able to see the difference. My lamps were also pretty close to the water, If they had been a couple inches higher that would have probably spread the light better. 48" lamps would need to be stagger at least 6" each way and placed about 6" above the water to get an even look.

http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/500/38553tank.jpg

The Grim Reefer
04/22/2006, 01:04 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7224070#post7224070 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by hahnmeister
"Grim, from what I remember, you did some penetration comparisons between T5 and halides, did you have the numbers from those tests? I cant remember where to find them...I just remember you somparing the PAR at various levels from T5s and comparing it to MH...and the T5 had better penetration."

^^^Any thoughts on this yet Grim?

As for the 180g, Geisemann does have a new fixture on the way...3x250wattDE/HQI with 4x80watt T5s in one fixture. That would be my pick for your tank. Should be out in a month or so...

Didn't see that posted. I got 120 in the sand from 250 watt 10K DE's ran on E Ballasts. Running a 10K hamilton lamp on the same E ballast in a ROlll pendant I got 150 with the fixture like 4" above the water and over 200 with it sitting on the tank frame (seafood gumbo position). The 4 lamp IC system did 183 one inch above the tank frame (2 1/2~3" above the water), Spec T5 ballasts with IC reflectors pulled 135. All the measurments were taken on the sandbed under the lamps.

Also at shallow depths (about 12") the IC and CD reflectors had even light output. Under 18" of water the Ice Cap's gained a small advantage over the CD's a little less than 10% as I remember.


Geisemann makes some nice stuff but are the reflectors in their halide/T5 systems as good as the Sunlight Supply Maristar system? The ROlll reflectors are hard to beat.

gary greguire
04/22/2006, 01:32 PM
hey Grim A little redundant question but I am planning on switching over to t5s from halides. I have a 75 frag tank that I am planning on running 8 bulbs on icecap balasts & my 125 which currently has 3 250 halides & 4 96 w pcs will 8 bulbs give me more light that I have now I also plan on using icecaps on that tank. all bulbs and reflectors will be from reefgeek unless you think there is somthing better.

Thanks for the help

The Grim Reefer
04/22/2006, 02:08 PM
a six lamp IC T5 system would be more than enough for the 75.

The 125 it depends, If your halides are the good stuff a 6 lamp (8 wont fit) reefgeek standard 60" retro will be maybe the same. Unfortunatly IC doesn't make 60" reflectors yet. You could mount 2 36" reflectors on a single lamp but that would get a bit pricey. You could have the geek delete 4 of the tek reflectors (see if he would give you a couple extra lamps instead) and get 4 of the CD reflectors from Aqualux lighting. They wont be quite as good as the IC's but pretty close.

You could try a 6x54 watt Ice Cap T5 with the lamps staggered around 6 inches either way. The 54 watt lamps are a lot brighter on the IC than the 80 watt lamps. You would end up with a ton of light in the center 3 feet of the tank and drop off to lower light at the edges. might be able to squeeze 7 lamps in there doing that. You need 2 1/2 inches per lamp.

gary greguire
04/22/2006, 02:17 PM
I am just buying bulbs and reflectors not buying complete retros it is cheaper that way. what about running 2 sets of 36 inch bulbs and reflectors on the 125

The Grim Reefer
04/22/2006, 02:29 PM
the dual 36" lamps would be the best but you will pay for it. There isn't much difference in lamp prices. You could order lamps by the case through seeds etc and save a little.

gary greguire
04/22/2006, 02:55 PM
just did some measuring I have cornerover flows so the back three bulbs will be best @ 60 inches the front of the tank is mostly lps & softies so less light will be best what lamps do you think I should run for the six bulb setups

The Grim Reefer
04/22/2006, 03:11 PM
Yeah, just keep the high light critters under the lamps and you will be fine.

tentacles
04/22/2006, 07:18 PM
I am in the planning stages of setting up a tank with dimensions of 72x48x25. Will be mixed with mostly sps. If I were to use 48" bulbs(running front to back) on ice cap slr's, how many do you guys think I would need?

FastUno
04/22/2006, 10:15 PM
Well, look who the devil just dragged in:)

Nice to see the boys are back in town!

I am having thoughs of a second SPS only tank with some T5's. If I had the room I would set it up toinight, but for now I have to wait till I move.

I am having great success with my main tank now & would not change this setup. Here are some last tank shots before I butcher the monti cap big time & get rid of the ever growing carpet anem.

http://www.pbase.com/fastuno/image/58105491.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/fastuno/image/58105514.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/fastuno/image/58105538.jpg

The Grim Reefer
04/22/2006, 10:39 PM
I would say 18 at least. You would need to place the lamps close enough together that you wouldn't get color bands so 24 would probably be the way to go.



<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7228232#post7228232 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by tentacles
I am in the planning stages of setting up a tank with dimensions of 72x48x25. Will be mixed with mostly sps. If I were to use 48" bulbs(running front to back) on ice cap slr's, how many do you guys think I would need?

The Grim Reefer
04/22/2006, 10:41 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7229315#post7229315 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by FastUno
Well, look who the devil just dragged in:)

Nice to see the boys are back in town!

I am having thoughs of a second SPS only tank with some T5's. If I had the room I would set it up toinight, but for now I have to wait till I move.

I am having great success with my main tank now & would not change this setup. Here are some last tank shots before I butcher the monti cap big time & get rid of the ever growing carpet anem.

http://www.pbase.com/fastuno/image/58105491.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/fastuno/image/58105514.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/fastuno/image/58105538.jpg

Looking sweet Uno. I am tankless at the moment, sold the 125 cause I am moving out of state.

rdmpe
04/23/2006, 06:04 AM
I was hoping to get some of those SuperBlue lamps from commodity axis to use in my Maristar fixture. However, all I hear from them is "should be in next month" - this has gone on since January. I have not been in a hurry, but I am ready to get something new.

So - does anyone know who makes the stock T5 lamps that come in the Maristar? They seem very purple to me.

What would be best as supplement to the 3-250W MH? Right now I'm using 14K pheonix, but I may go back to the 10K, not sure.

Thanks,
Randy

IZZY'SREEF
04/23/2006, 06:39 AM
What kind of growth should I expect from 3blue+ and 1aquablue(11k)??

mcegelsk
04/23/2006, 07:27 AM
Hey Guys, I checked out the 72" setup they have at Aquactinics to find out more. It sounds like they are pretty good. Price was about $650 without bulbs. What do you think of the equipment list? Do you know what ballasts they use and are they comparable to the IceCaps? Also what does everyone think of Aquactinics? Thanks. ~Matt


* Aluminum fixture fully powered coated for extended life
* Dual fans ( located on top of the fixture )
* 14 individual Miro IV (95% reflectivity) aluminum reflectors
* 3 switches and power cords for lighting control ( 6 ft cords, but we have a few with 8ft cords if needed )
* Full length splash shield
* Fixture designed to be placed directly on top of tank without heating water
* Standard Aquactinics Warranty

Dimensions : 72" L x 14" W x 3" H

The Grim Reefer
04/23/2006, 08:18 AM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7230252#post7230252 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by rdmpe
I was hoping to get some of those SuperBlue lamps from commodity axis to use in my Maristar fixture. However, all I hear from them is "should be in next month" - this has gone on since January. I have not been in a hurry, but I am ready to get something new.

So - does anyone know who makes the stock T5 lamps that come in the Maristar? They seem very purple to me.

What would be best as supplement to the 3-250W MH? Right now I'm using 14K pheonix, but I may go back to the 10K, not sure.

Thanks,
Randy

The Maristar probably came with an ATI or D&D actinic. Put and actinic plus in the front side of the fixture and see what you think of the combo of the two. The Actinic Plus is a very blue looking lamp that will fluoresce corals pretty good, especially red and blue colors. The pure actinic seems to light up greens really good but nothing else. I had a 2 to 1 AP/Actinic mix and really liked the look.

The Grim Reefer
04/23/2006, 08:30 AM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7230489#post7230489 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by mcegelsk
Hey Guys, I checked out the 72" setup they have at Aquactinics to find out more. It sounds like they are pretty good. Price was about $650 without bulbs. What do you think of the equipment list? Do you know what ballasts they use and are they comparable to the IceCaps? Also what does everyone think of Aquactinics? Thanks. ~Matt


* Aluminum fixture fully powered coated for extended life
* Dual fans ( located on top of the fixture )
* 14 individual Miro IV (95% reflectivity) aluminum reflectors
* 3 switches and power cords for lighting control ( 6 ft cords, but we have a few with 8ft cords if needed )
* Full length splash shield
* Fixture designed to be placed directly on top of tank without heating water
* Standard Aquactinics Warranty

Dimensions : 72" L x 14" W x 3" H

Aquactinics has a pretty good rep as far as halide fixtures goes. I know Tom did a lot of research before bringing out the 72" T5 unit but I am not sure what the final product has installed.

I would find out what they are doing for ballasts. The only thing that compares to an Ice Cab ballast is another Ice Cap ballast at this point. I have a knock off of a 660 and it doesn't come close. Hopefully they are using spec T5 ballasts of some kind. I would also rather raise the fixture up a couple inches off the tank than use a splash sheild. Even a clean sheild will cut down the light produced by like 10%, one covered in salt spray will really drop light output.

mcegelsk
04/23/2006, 10:15 AM
Grim-

I don't suppose that these new UVL bulbs that will be coming out soon would work on it would they? Or are they going to require a completely different equipment setup? Thanks. ~Matt

The Grim Reefer
04/23/2006, 10:30 AM
Not sure when the lamps will be out. I am not getting too exited about them until they hit the market and we can see what they really look like. I guess I'll have to order a couple and put them against some D&D lamps. I guess ATI is back with new lamps too but I don't know if they are marketing to the US or not.

bourbeaue
04/23/2006, 02:13 PM
Grim, glad you're back.

I'm thinking of running 4 48" T5's on a 660 and two 48" T5's on a SLS ballast 9not overdrive) on a 21 inch wide tank (30" high). I would like to be able to keep SPS in there.

Would you recommend running one Actinic and one AP on the two normally driven tubes and running daylight (GE) and BP on the four overdriven ones ? Would that be a good config ?

The Grim Reefer
04/23/2006, 02:37 PM
I am thinking for looks the AP and Actinic would be better on the normal ballast. I would think overdriving a GE, 2 AB's and a A+ would give you enough PAR for SPS and a pretty broad range of spectrum and the actinic/actinic plus will pop the colors, give it a shot.

davejnz
04/23/2006, 04:47 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7230335#post7230335 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by IZZY'SREEF
What kind of growth should I expect from 3blue+ and 1aquablue(11k)??
Growth has too many variables to say for sure.I would think with your tek fixture/tek reflectors,your gonna notice a dropoff in PAR at about the 14"(Grim can give you the exact figures on the tek reflectors).Your tank is kind of deep,about 24" i think.Your setup should make for a nice mixed reef with low to med light corals in the bottom half and high light corals towards the upper half.IME,feeding your corals,especially LPS has more positive impact on growth than does lighting.
BTW,i would consider substitiuting a GE for one of your blue+ to help bring up the PAR.

The Grim Reefer
04/23/2006, 04:57 PM
What ^ said. I'd keep the high light stuff in the upper half of the tank.

IZZY'SREEF
04/23/2006, 08:31 PM
Grim and davejnz, your saying that I should run 2B+, one aqua blue and one GE? I had trouble with some corals bleaching with my currrent setup(2aquablues and 2blue+, colors are just starting to come back ) I would be a little afraid to put a GE in the mix. Don't get me wrong, I like the look of 2AB and 2B+, I'm just concerned with color.
Is there anyway to get closer to a 20k look with 4bulbs?
Is there anyone out there having any success with 1aquablue and 3blue+?

kroe
04/23/2006, 08:36 PM
I had 2xGE 6500K and 2xBluePlus for over a year and liked it, but had that pastel color to my corals. I switched 6 months ago to 3xBluePlus and 1xGE and the pastel color is gone, much better coloration and growth is about the same. It does not have the "artificial" 20k blue look, but is definitely more blue than with half and half.

I don't like aquablues, even one of them. I feel like they wash the whole tank out with white.

bourbeaue
04/23/2006, 09:22 PM
Thanks Grim.

I will try that combination of bulbs. My tank is 60" long. I was planning on using 48" bulbs and staggering them. Do you think that's a better bet than going with the 60" bulbs ?

Also, I was planning on using the IceCap reflectors. Do you think that's the best reflector for this setup or do you recommend another reflector ?

Thanks Grim.

The Grim Reefer
04/23/2006, 09:51 PM
The IC reflector is the best. If you overdrive the lamps the 54 watt is brighter than the 80 watt. However on regular T5 ballasts the 80 watt lamps are brighter than the 54.

davejnz
04/24/2006, 12:13 AM
I run 1 GE,2-blue+,and 1 aquablue on an IC660 with Ic SLR's.They're in my 75gal LPS reef.I keep Blastomussa wellsi(low light coral) on the starboard near the side of the tank.I've never had any bleaching episodes with any opf my corals in the 2.5yrs i've been useing T5's.Its all about acclimation and placement.
BTW,my bulb setup gives me a 12-14k look.

mcegelsk
04/24/2006, 05:26 AM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7230705#post7230705 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by The Grim Reefer
Aquactinics has a pretty good rep as far as halide fixtures goes. I know Tom did a lot of research before bringing out the 72" T5 unit but I am not sure what the final product has installed.

I would find out what they are doing for ballasts. The only thing that compares to an Ice Cab ballast is another Ice Cap ballast at this point. I have a knock off of a 660 and it doesn't come close. Hopefully they are using spec T5 ballasts of some kind. I would also rather raise the fixture up a couple inches off the tank than use a splash shield. Even a clean shield will cut down the light produced by like 10%, one covered in salt spray will really drop light output.

Grim- I emailed Tom and he said they are using the Workhorse ballasts. I know that I've heard mixed reviews of them. What do you think? Would I be better off just doing the fixture myself and going with IC 660s? Thanks. ~Matt

Ixthys
04/24/2006, 06:09 AM
Can you overdrive a 60" bulb?

dwdenny
04/24/2006, 07:03 AM
Yes the IC 660 overdrives it to about 100w I think. Grim will know for sure.

dwdenny
04/24/2006, 07:03 AM
Yes the IC 660 overdrives it to about 100w I think. Grim will know for sure.

rickburdeniuk
04/24/2006, 08:00 AM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7235863#post7235863 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by mcegelsk
Grim- I emailed Tom and he said they are using the Workhorse ballasts. I know that I've heard mixed reviews of them. What do you think? Would I be better off just doing the fixture myself and going with IC 660s? Thanks. ~Matt

One reported issue with them is saftey, apparently they don't have (E)nd (O)f (L)ife protection that all T5 ballasts are suppose to have. I assume that means that if a bulb burns out or breaks something bad could happen.

Having said that I know of two people personally and one on this forum who use them and are very happy with them dispite the fact that the starting method is suggested to damage bulbs. Having said all that T5's on a WH have some of their manufactures support as Fullham does explain how to wire HO T5.

Anyhow, to be fair I think some users on on RC have also reported problems.

The Grim Reefer
04/24/2006, 08:50 AM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7235863#post7235863 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by mcegelsk
Grim- I emailed Tom and he said they are using the Workhorse ballasts. I know that I've heard mixed reviews of them. What do you think? Would I be better off just doing the fixture myself and going with IC 660s? Thanks. ~Matt

Well Damn, I am not a fan of Workhorses for T5's. You don't have much choice if you want a 6 foot T5 fixture. You could always go with it and then upgrade the thing with an IC 660 or two down the line if you want more light. You would probably have to mount the IC ballasts remote to the hood which is no big, they can be up to 50 feet away so you just need to make a wiring harness.

mcegelsk
04/24/2006, 09:01 AM
Grim-

See that is what I was thinking, I was really hoping Tom would come back saying they use ICs. I'm leaning toward trying to find something similar to the fixture housing and then installing the components myself with ICs and the best reflectors. I think choosing the best reflectors and ballasts will help achieve my goal of lower operating costs for the light value. Thanks for your continued help. ~Matt

The Grim Reefer
04/24/2006, 09:15 AM
Mounting IC ballasts in that fixture might be a chore. If he would set you up with a bare hood with fans and 2 power cords I bet you could mount 6 80 watt lamps flat across but staggered a few inches end to end and fit 2 660 ballasts in there above the lamps. You would have to stay with Tek reflectors to have a chance at squeezing the 6 lamps in there. That would be the most efficient to run and maintain but $$$$ to build. I can actually understand why they went with WH ballasts. You got to make the units cost effective.

Ixthys
04/24/2006, 11:29 AM
So speaking of overdriving:

on a 210g tank (6' x 24" wide x 29" deep) would you go with the 54w or the 80w T5's on IC balasts?

Thanks!

NorthernCF
04/24/2006, 12:24 PM
That is deep. Over drive them if you want high light corals on the bottom.... Now, if you have a dsb with lower light corals on the bottom, it won't matter :)

The Grim Reefer
04/24/2006, 12:47 PM
Running staggered 54 watt lamps with IC ballasts and reflectors will get you a lot more light to the bottom of the tank in the middle few feet and a little less going out towards the ends. Running 80 watt lamps slightly staggered will get you pretty even coverage across the entire tank but it wont be as instense as the center few feet on the 54 watt system.

Which is better depends on how you want to stack the tank. With the 54's you could have the center of the tank top to bottom with high light critters and use the ends for lower light guys. With the 80's you would need to keep the higher light guys in the top half of the tank and lower light critters in the bottom.

Ixthys
04/24/2006, 03:52 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7237819#post7237819 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by The Grim Reefer
Running staggered 54 watt lamps with IC ballasts and reflectors will get you a lot more light to the bottom of the tank in the middle few feet and a little less going out towards the ends. Running 80 watt lamps slightly staggered will get you pretty even coverage across the entire tank but it wont be as instense as the center few feet on the 54 watt system.

Which is better depends on how you want to stack the tank. With the 54's you could have the center of the tank top to bottom with high light critters and use the ends for lower light guys. With the 80's you would need to keep the higher light guys in the top half of the tank and lower light critters in the bottom.

I'm afraid I'm a bit confused. If the tank is 72" long by 24" front to back (and assuming the canopy is the same), then staggered 48" long 54w bulbs vs. 60" 80w bulbs (could be slightly staggered) still fit the same number front to back, correct? So why would the 54's allow high light corals at the bottom (in the center of the tank) and 80's wouldn't?

Another way to put my question, 8-80w vs 8-54w. Which allows for the most ppfd at 29" depth (assuming all bulbs on 660 IC)?

Thanks!

The Grim Reefer
04/24/2006, 04:03 PM
54 watt lamps are brighter than the 80 watt lamps when overdriven. My 6x80 watt system (4 "Customozed" Ice Cap reflectors and 2 Teks) running on IC 660 ballasts pulled off 145 UMOLs of PAR measuring under the lamps at the sandbed 18" below the surface. A 4x54 watt Ice Cap system place about an inch lower than the 6x80 system Pulled off 183 UMOL's. When overdriven the 54 watt lamps are much brighter than the 80's.

Because the 54 watt lamps will have to be staggered farther (say 6 inches each way) you will get more PPFD at the center where all 8 lamps overlamp but lower as you move to the edges where there are only 4 lamps above the tank due to the stagger. I hope that makes more sense.

Ixthys
04/24/2006, 04:52 PM
Thanks again. Yes, that makes sense.

So the 80w aren't really overdriven when put on the IC 660's?

How many 54w can be overdriven by 1 IC660?

The Grim Reefer
04/24/2006, 04:56 PM
The 80 watts are driven to about a 100 watts. The 54's are 80 to 85 watts, 80 watters ends up running like 1.6 watts per inch and the 54 is like 1.8.

You can run 3 80 watt lamps per 660, 4 of the 54 watt lamps.

fish1219
04/25/2006, 11:29 AM
Hello Grim,
Glad to see you are back. I have a 90Gal. Thinking of using 6 bulbs
2-T5HOs overdriven on Icecap ballast (54W driven to 80W)
2-T5HOs on a DYnamic ballast (54W)
2-VHOs on an ARO ballast (110W)

What bulbs and configuration would you recommend?
Currently running
Front
1-T5HO (11k)
1-VHO (URI Atinic)
1-T5HO (Aqua Blue 460nm)
Back
Want to pump up the light so my SPSs grow faster.

The Grim Reefer
04/25/2006, 11:42 AM
I'd run 1 GE daylight 1 Aquablue and 2 VHO superactinics on a 660 ballast and 2 actinic pluses on the T5 ballast. If that looks too blue go with 2 GE's and lose the aquablue.

trenity
04/25/2006, 04:22 PM
Although I am thoroughly confused on what lighting I will need for my tank I will ask here since it pertains to the T5's. After reading all 10 pages I am just as confused as when I started :(

I have a 120gal 4x2x2, hood is about 7"+ above the water so probably 5" from bulb to water. I am only going to start off with softies, maybe 1 LPS and 1 anemone. Grim you seem (ok you are :) ) the master at the T5 lighting issues. What would be your recommended setup for this. I have 16.5" in width and 48" long to mount lights in the hood.
Looking at mounting specs,
6 x 48" IC's are 46.5" x 15" x 2.75" Cost is $600 (More wattage)
8 x 36" IC's are 3.25" x 20" x 2.75" Cost is $700 (Less wattage but I can stagger the bulbs)
which combo would be better ? any other combos you would suggest?
How is the heat from these bulbs?
Thanks in advance,
Chris

The Grim Reefer
04/25/2006, 06:12 PM
I would stick with the 48" lamps. You could go with a 4x54 IC T5 system and add a 2 lamp Tek T5 (upgrade to the IC reflectors). Run 2 GE daylights and 2 Actinic Plus lamps on the IC and add 2 actinic pluses or 1 actinic plus and 1 pure actinic on the Tek system. You get dusk/dawn, plenty of light for the anemone to move to and provide a less intense area for less light hungry softies. Having a narrower area of brighter light might make it less likely your anemone will go on the cruise once it settles in.

hahnmeister
04/25/2006, 11:17 PM
Hey Grim...thanks for the info...you said...

"Didn't see that posted. I got 120 in the sand from 250 watt 10K DE's ran on E Ballasts. Running a 10K hamilton lamp on the same E ballast in a ROlll pendant I got 150 with the fixture like 4" above the water and over 200 with it sitting on the tank frame (seafood gumbo position). The 4 lamp IC system did 183 one inch above the tank frame (2 1/2~3" above the water), Spec T5 ballasts with IC reflectors pulled 135. All the measurments were taken on the sandbed under the lamps.

Also at shallow depths (about 12") the IC and CD reflectors had even light output. Under 18" of water the Ice Cap's gained a small advantage over the CD's a little less than 10% as I remember.


Geisemann makes some nice stuff but are the reflectors in their halide/T5 systems as good as the Sunlight Supply Maristar system? The ROlll reflectors are hard to beat."

Can you give me the readings from the surface as well? I am also interested in how the T5s conpared to the halide within the first few inches or so. What I hope to do is prove the inverse square law for halides vs. the linear drop-off if T5s (or any other linear bulb). Example: T5 reading at 20" deep = 1x, Halide reading at 20" depth = 1/2x, T5 reading at 2" under water = 2x, Halide reading at 2" under water=4x.

I thought I remembered reading your results (cant remember where or when) that the halides had a peak that was much higher in the top 6", but their intensity dropped off much faster than T5s in comparison...so I could use comparative intensities from the top few inches from the tank as well...

hahnmeister
04/25/2006, 11:28 PM
Oh, and Grim, I dont know about that Geisemann fixture, but a 72" unit with 4x80watt bulbs and 3x250watt bulbs is bound to have an impressive output. Besides, the RO 3 was beat by the Lumenarc/max (in distribution), the PFO, and Aqualine pendants if I remember...so it is possible. But we will have to wait and see. All I know so far is that the designer if French, and doesnt speak English, so a French buddy of mine found out only because he could speak with him...otherwise, we English speakers will have to wait until it comes out to see!

Also, FWIW, I know a marketing rep that does work for All-Glass, KENT, Coralife, etc....and he says that Coralife has been striving for higher quality products (and I see the change for the better as well...their newer halide/PC combos are much nicer than their earlier units) and plans to come out with a maristar-like (DE MH's and T5s) fixture any day now.

Also, have you ever taken compariative readings from other fixtures like the Nova or units w/o the individual parabolic reflectors? I wonder what the loss is. I seem to remember reading somewhere about 40%...but I forget. I remember reading that the reflectors make up to 60% of the output on a T5 bulb, but I wonder what the loss is for those using 'flat' reflectors.

johns
04/26/2006, 07:33 AM
What I hope to do is prove the inverse square law for halides vs. the linear drop-off if T5s (or any other linear bulb). Example: T5 reading at 20" deep = 1x, Halide reading at 20" depth = 1/2x, T5 reading at 2" under water = 2x, Halide reading at 2" under water=4x.

Hahn-
If you dealing with a linear drop-off on T5 and the light at 20" deep is 1x, then the light at 2" deep should be 10x. Am I confused about something?

GoldStripe
04/26/2006, 08:51 AM
Been watching this thread forever and I'm getting ready to order some equipment. My system is a 150 tall (48x24x30). My primary light will be 2x250 DE MH in Reef Optix III pendants. Because of the depth of the tank (24") I have room for more lighting. I was contemplating 2 54w T5's in front of the halides and 1 54w T5 behind. The reason I'm only using 1 behind is I have a Calfo style overflow that takes up some depth. No need to light that. My 250w bulbs are either going to be 10k Reeflux DE's or Phoenix 14k's. I have a 20k Aqualine Bushke bulb now and I hate the color, needs to be way more white. The MH ballasts are IceCaps.
With 10k's I figured 2 of my 3 T5's should be actinic but I don't know about the 3rd one. Any suggestions would be appeciated. I'm going to be using the IceCap SLR reflectors & Workhorse 5 ballasts.

By the way, great to see you back Grim. I've used your suggestions in the past with great success!!

Thanks

The Grim Reefer
04/26/2006, 09:50 AM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7250938#post7250938 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by GoldStripe

With 10k's I figured 2 of my 3 T5's should be actinic but I don't know about the 3rd one. Any suggestions would be appeciated. I'm going to be using the IceCap SLR reflectors & Workhorse 5 ballasts.

By the way, great to see you back Grim. I've used your suggestions in the past with great success!!

Thanks

I'd use 2 actinic plus and 1 pure actinic for the T5's/

GoldStripe
04/26/2006, 09:55 AM
Thanks for the quick response Grim!! I actually mismeasured my available space on top of the tank. I will have enough room to run the 2x250 halides and 4x54 T5s. So, with that in mind would you run 2 actinic plus and 2 pure actinic?

Another combo I thought about was 2 pure actinic and 2 GE 6500k daylight. I do want to get some PAR out of the T5s I'll be using. I know the daylight bulbs are a little yellow but I figured with the halides you wouldn't notice that. But you are the guru so I will see what you think. Thanks again

drouner
04/26/2006, 12:11 PM
Grim as long as your giving out recommendations how one for me.

I just bought a used 58 18" wide x 21 deep x 36" long, was thinking about moving my 1-175 over to it and ditching the PC's for T5's. I have a mix of everything right now. Or should I go 6 T5s? What bulbs?

Thanks,

Doug

The Grim Reefer
04/26/2006, 12:14 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7249468#post7249468 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by hahnmeister
Hey Grim...thanks for the info...you said...

"Didn't see that posted. I got 120 in the sand from 250 watt 10K DE's ran on E Ballasts. Running a 10K hamilton lamp on the same E ballast in a ROlll pendant I got 150 with the fixture like 4" above the water and over 200 with it sitting on the tank frame (seafood gumbo position). The 4 lamp IC system did 183 one inch above the tank frame (2 1/2~3" above the water), Spec T5 ballasts with IC reflectors pulled 135. All the measurments were taken on the sandbed under the lamps.

Also at shallow depths (about 12") the IC and CD reflectors had even light output. Under 18" of water the Ice Cap's gained a small advantage over the CD's a little less than 10% as I remember.

Geisemann makes some nice stuff but are the reflectors in their halide/T5 systems as good as the Sunlight Supply Maristar system? The ROlll reflectors are hard to beat."

Can you give me the readings from the surface as well? I am also interested in how the T5s conpared to the halide within the first few inches or so. What I hope to do is prove the inverse square law for halides vs. the linear drop-off if T5s (or any other linear bulb). Example: T5 reading at 20" deep = 1x, Halide reading at 20" depth = 1/2x, T5 reading at 2" under water = 2x, Halide reading at 2" under water=4x.

I thought I remembered reading your results (cant remember where or when) that the halides had a peak that was much higher in the top 6", but their intensity dropped off much faster than T5s in comparison...so I could use comparative intensities from the top few inches from the tank as well...

The inverse square law only holds true in the absence of any reflectance. The best way to defeate the inverse Square law is to use a parabolic reflector, like the majority of halides use anymore.

The linear aspect of a T5 doesn't make the light travel any deeper. After you move a short distance away from the lamp (22% of the lamp length is the number I seem to remember being told) there is no more real effect because the light along the axis has so much further to travel. Using multiple lamps has a much greater effect on intensity but again the light isnt traveling any further, it is just more intense due to the overlap. The linear aspect really only makes the light created more even across the length of the tank.

T5 kick because of the reflector, being ran in an array and they can be placed so close to the water. Assuming you had a linear drop off (which doesn't happen even with a good reflector) a halide mounted 8" above the water has to be twice as intense as a T5 array sitting 4" above to compete. Another benefit that gets overlooked is having the lamps close to the water in tightly focused reflectors causes most of the light to hit the water at a right angle so not as much reflects off the surface. When I ran halides it looked like the northern lights on the ceiling. Nothing but maybe a faint glow with the T5's.

I didn't do measurements at different levels, too many variables without creating an elaborate fixture to keep the sensor at an even angle. The "shallow" reading were done under different conditions and are only useful regarding reflector performance at that particular depth.

The Grim Reefer
04/26/2006, 12:35 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7251280#post7251280 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by GoldStripe
Thanks for the quick response Grim!! I actually mismeasured my available space on top of the tank. I will have enough room to run the 2x250 halides and 4x54 T5s. So, with that in mind would you run 2 actinic plus and 2 pure actinic?

Another combo I thought about was 2 pure actinic and 2 GE 6500k daylight. I do want to get some PAR out of the T5s I'll be using. I know the daylight bulbs are a little yellow but I figured with the halides you wouldn't notice that. But you are the guru so I will see what you think. Thanks again

If you are concerned about PAR go with PAR monster halides (XM 10K) and run 4 actinic plus (or 3 AP and 1 Pure Actinic) to wash out the yellow from the halides. The Actinic Plus put out decent PAR. Unless you want to overdrive the lamps the GE's arent going to make the difference going with stronger halides will. The XM 10K is about 30% more PAR than a Phoenix 14K.

GoldStripe
04/26/2006, 12:39 PM
I'm going with 10k halides for sure, either XM's or Reeflux. I don't have par numbers on the Reeflux yet.

I spoke with Greg at Reefgeek. In a 4 lamp retro setup running 2 halides also, he recommended 2 actinics and 2 blueplus bulbs. But I don't know if he meant Aquablue Plus or the Actinic/Blue Plus. I'll have to clarify that when I call in to order them.

The Grim Reefer
04/26/2006, 12:40 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7252055#post7252055 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by drouner
Grim as long as your giving out recommendations how one for me.

I just bought a used 58 18" wide x 21 deep x 36" long, was thinking about moving my 1-175 over to it and ditching the PC's for T5's. I have a mix of everything right now. Or should I go 6 T5s? What bulbs?

Thanks,

Doug

A single 175 aint gonna do much over that tank. You could try running it with a couple of actinic plus T5's, just keep high light crits in the center of the tank. If you want a lot of high light critters Id try 6 t5's. I like 1 pure actinic, 1 GE 2 actinic plus and 2 aquablues, it is slightly blue but has warm look.

The Grim Reefer
04/26/2006, 12:42 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7252247#post7252247 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by GoldStripe
I'm going with 10k halides for sure, either XM's or Reeflux. I don't have par numbers on the Reeflux yet.

I spoke with Greg at Reefgeek. In a 4 lamp retro setup running 2 halides also, he recommended 2 actinics and 2 blueplus bulbs. But I don't know if he meant Aquablue Plus or the Actinic/Blue Plus. I'll have to clarify that when I call in to order them.

Blueplus and actinic plus are the same lamp.