PDA

View Full Version : T5 capabilities- reality or hype?


jmaneyapanda
07/16/2006, 04:01 PM
I have heard so many stories about T5s as the next coming of lighting. Many die hard fans have been claiming they can out illuminate MH or similar. First off, please understand, I am not a ney-sayer, I am simply looking for some data. Does anybody have any true numbers that indicate this?
From what I understand, T5s are high output fluorescent bulbs. Is the reason so many swear by them because you can fit so many in a small space, so they produce a lot of light per space covered? Or do the indivual bulbs actually produce a greater PAR than MHs?

Like I said, I have no interest in bashing one side or the other. I may even invest in T5 if someone can provide me with data or comparisons. Does anybody have such information?

Ti
07/16/2006, 04:21 PM
pm grim reefer

s3aL
07/16/2006, 04:29 PM
Yes they have been tested. Grimreefer has done tests to prove that a proper T5's setup can have the same if not more PAR then a 250w MH setup. There is a thread somewhere with the PAR test readings.

Ti
07/16/2006, 04:36 PM
Did he?
I rermember him doing one against a 150 MH, but ot a 250MH

s3aL
07/16/2006, 04:43 PM
Yep against a 250w MH. If someone can search and find the post, please go ahead and post it.

freddie40
07/16/2006, 04:46 PM
I did test on my own tank. With 4 T5s (1 GE Sun & 3 Blue+) on an Icecap 660 I got a par output of 150 at the sand which is 18 inches below the water surface. 2 250 watt MH bulbs will give a par reading of about 135.

Dave

BTW: I realy realy realy like the new UVL bulbs. My current setup includes 2 Actinic Whites, 2 Super Actinics and 2 D&D Blue +. Out of all the combos I have tried (many many many) this is by far the best.

goda
07/16/2006, 05:05 PM
MH capabilities- reality or hype?

Ti
07/16/2006, 05:09 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7754081#post7754081 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by s3aL
Yep against a 250w MH. If someone can search and find the post, please go ahead and post it.
Yeah can somebody post that one?
I'd like to see it.
TIA

divemasterjim
07/16/2006, 05:57 PM
Can someone help me with my t5's

http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=7753986#post7753986

PrangeWay
07/16/2006, 06:20 PM
1/2 reality, 1/2 hype.

I believe grims' test was against a 14k bulb. I found when I moved from 10k XM's that the output was visually the same, and no reaction from the corals (towards to little or to much light).

It's a great lighting system, so are halides. Look at the strengths and weakness's and pick!

PW

geoff72
07/16/2006, 06:38 PM
I heard for the t5's there is a difference between having individual refelectors and a single one and the individual ones were much brighter. Has anyone done a test on this?

Ti
07/16/2006, 06:53 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7754658#post7754658 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by geoff72
I heard for the t5's there is a difference between having individual refelectors and a single one and the individual ones were much brighter. Has anyone done a test on this?
u can see the results on the SLS website.

horkn
07/16/2006, 06:59 PM
with t5ho, you need to be careful with bulb choice when you have individual reflectors in a tank that is 18" or under.

you can get too much light.

zapata41
07/16/2006, 10:47 PM
what everyone is also forgetting is that if you read through grims tests you will find that he used a very crappy, i think he said brown box or somthing like that, reflector for the MH. we all know how important a reflector is so how can one say that a t5 with the good slr reflector can be compared to a mh with a junky flat reflector, when taking par readings 18" and deeper. also i like how no one give the par numbers at water surface, 6", and 12" under the bulb. i have ran 660 driven t5 slr retro t5, 250 10k xm and now 400w 20k and i by far get the best growth from the 400w 20k.

the last bit was a little off topic but does give some background into what lighting i have used.

so when comparing t5 to mh please use a good mh reflector and also please give par numbers from various depths in the tank, not just 18" deep.

Tim

The Grim Reefer
07/17/2006, 12:50 AM
I also tested against a Hamilton 10K lamp in a Reefoptix 3 pendant. 150 compared to 135 for T5's normally driven and 183 for an Ice Cap T5 system. I also tested 10K lamps in my "crapy" reflectors and got in the low 120's.

Considering I was not using any daylight T5's (2 actinic plus and 2 aquablues) the measurment against 14K halide was absolutly legit. Want to measure against 10K XM's on a HQI ballast with enough actinics to make it look good? You will also use over 600 watts of power for the halides, another 250 or so for the actinics. My 4 lamp T5's will use 303 watts. I could add a couple more lamps with a ATI sun added to the mix and for 450 watts likely beat or at least keep up the XM's.

That doesn't make T5's better or worse, just a reasonable option.

mufret
07/17/2006, 11:49 AM
jmaneyapanda, I'm in Canton (not too far away) and have a T5 only tank that you are welcome to stop by and take a look at. I get good growth out of all the SPS in the tank and even have clams on the sand bed that are thriving.

RichConley
07/17/2006, 12:16 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7754031#post7754031 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by s3aL
Yes they have been tested. Grimreefer has done tests to prove that a proper T5's setup can have the same if not more PAR then a 250w MH setup. There is a thread somewhere with the PAR test readings.

His tests were 15K xm bulbs against GE 6500Ks and Aquablues. He also had the halide fixtures like 12+" off the water, and the T5s like 3" off the water. Hardly fair.


That being said, yes, T5s are impressive.

The Grim Reefer
07/17/2006, 12:33 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7758897#post7758897 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by RichConley
His tests were 15K xm bulbs against GE 6500Ks and Aquablues. He also had the halide fixtures like 12+" off the water, and the T5s like 3" off the water. Hardly fair.


That being said, yes, T5s are impressive.

Where you getting your information?

orlenz
07/17/2006, 12:58 PM
I have run both, but I just cant live with the look and color I got from the T5 setup, it looked very unnatural, no shimmer or shadows. I got decent growth though.

Ti
07/17/2006, 01:12 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7759019#post7759019 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by The Grim Reefer
Where you getting your information?
Grim, Did you compare T5 to a 250 MH?

RichConley
07/17/2006, 01:15 PM
Grim, I remember looking at your "test" and thinking "this is set up to prove a point." The whole setup you were using for MH was sub par, and you have nice high par T5s. Very akin to the Solaris LED thing at IMAC.


T5s are great, I just dont think your test a while back proved anything.

Reef_bones
07/17/2006, 01:27 PM
WOW .. T-5 vs MH is turning into the new DSB vs BB that still lives on. Lets just say you can use either and leave it at that. There has been enough proof of thriving high light needing corals under both. Choose your poison and move on... ;)

blackie lawless
07/17/2006, 01:38 PM
I've got my return outlets set so that they are constantly disrupting the surface water of my tank, instant shimmer effect!

If you go with a good T5 setup, you will not be dissapointed is all I can say. We can sit here and argue over this all day, but the bottom line is they work great, and I along with many others are getting great growth out of our SPS.

I can't help but laugh everytime I hear the guy at the LFS tell customers that they can't grow SPS unless they have Halides.

Both Halides and T5's will grow SPS, provided you have a good setup of either one. Which one is right for you depends on many different factors, not just which will grow SPS the fastest. Do your homework.

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y86/BlackieLawless/Test33.jpg

manderx
07/17/2006, 02:12 PM
grim, i still don't believe you can use that hardware to make these comparisons. i finally went through the 250wSE thread again (i did follow it live back then but it's been awhile) and noticed that several people had the same thoughts and issues i do about that sensor and they were never really addressed (i never saw a post from them giving in and saying they were convinced). the closest i saw it to being addressed was apogee calibrated a licor sensor (to match their own sensor?) and sent it to JB to compare. that doesn't mean or prove anything.

Considering I was not using any daylight T5's (2 actinic plus and 2 aquablues) the measurment against 14K halide was absolutly legit
so are you saying the combination of actinic+ and aquablue matches the spectrum exactly of that particular 14K bulb? if we were dealing with different dalight halide bulbs, yeah sure knock youself out. but not with the uncommon spectrums that t5 put out.


T-5 vs MH is turning into the new DSB vs BB that still lives on.
i don't think anyone is really trying to put one or the other down (like they do in bb/dsb threads), we're just saying that the tests done to put hard numbers on them are probably worthless due to a lack of understanding of the limits of the hardware and poor testing proceedure. many of the best tanks (big and small) in the world are t5. and not even as many bulbs or overdriven as many here in the states would recommend either.

and the whole 'well the numbers might not be very good but they are the best we have' is bunk. bad data is worse than no data.

bassnman11
07/17/2006, 05:16 PM
I think people are caught up in minor details to justify their position. As far as testing with halides mounted high and T5 mounted low, thats the way we use them. Halides need to be high to get coverage. The other feature of T5s that is not mentioned here is heat and power draw. If you set up a system of both kinds of light with the best reflectors and bulbs, performance would probably be about equal. How ever, the halides are going to be drawing almost twice the juice and most likely would require a chiller, which is expensive and a additional power draw.
If you prefer the look of one system over the other, more power to you. As the reef keeper, you need to be happy with how you tank looks. Some people prefer Ford over Chevy, so what. Be happy and don't get all defensive in trying to justify your prefered lights.
Sorry to unload on you but this debate has gone on a long time. If you think halides are the best, do like grim did. Put together both kinds of systems and compare them side by side and post the results.

Ti
07/17/2006, 05:39 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7760958#post7760958 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by bassnman11
I think people are caught up in minor details to justify their position. As far as testing with halides mounted high and T5 mounted low, thats the way we use them. Halides need to be high to get coverage. The other feature of T5s that is not mentioned here is heat and power draw. If you set up a system of both kinds of light with the best reflectors and bulbs, performance would probably be about equal. How ever, the halides are going to be drawing almost twice the juice and most likely would require a chiller, which is expensive and a additional power draw.
If you prefer the look of one system over the other, more power to you. As the reef keeper, you need to be happy with how you tank looks. Some people prefer Ford over Chevy, so what. Be happy and don't get all defensive in trying to justify your prefered lights.
Sorry to unload on you but this debate has gone on a long time. If you think halides are the best, do like grim did. Put together both kinds of systems and compare them side by side and post the results.
There are T5 guys out there who need chillers.
I've seen the postings.
I for one use MH and don't have a chiller, there are members like me as well.
Am I a MH dead head though?
No.
I used Only T5 before for a year.
For my setup, MH worked out better than just T5 only.
I;m sure for some others T5 only is the way to go, it all depends on the setup and the needs of the user.
As for ampherage draw, that is all dependant on set up, it's not safe to say MH draws more or T5 draws more.
Nothing about this topic is really definative.
It all comes down to what each person likes more.

geoff72
07/17/2006, 06:12 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7754734#post7754734 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Ti
u can see the results on the SLS website.

Maybe I am just blind can you point it out to me. The main problem I am having is I am trying to watch the budget. I am hoping to get a 250g soon so I need to watch how much I spend on these lights. I have been looking at the Finnex and Tek 5. The advantages I see with the Finnex is all price but they are cheaper, comes with the bulbs, and my tank does not have a hood and my wife will not let me hang lights form the ceiling. My tank is in my living room. The Tek 5 looks like it is made to be hung and the braces are $57. I can get a Finnex 6 bulb for $279 or 4 bulb for $159. The Tek 5 is more than that and I still have to buy the bulbs and braces. Any suggestions?

The Grim Reefer
07/17/2006, 06:44 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7759275#post7759275 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by RichConley
Grim, I remember looking at your "test" and thinking "this is set up to prove a point." The whole setup you were using for MH was sub par, and you have nice high par T5s. Very akin to the Solaris LED thing at IMAC.


T5s are great, I just dont think your test a while back proved anything.


Will you knowing better than I how high up my system was and what lamps I had would of course know what the motivation was behind the test. I guess the Reefoptix lll pendant I measured was sub par too. I sell so much T5 stuff I would have a vested interest in hyping them. I guess I actually bough the PAR meter to do a T5 vs. halide test. [profanity], here I thought I bought it to test the difference in the different T5 reflectors about a year before I switched to halides. Must be slipping in my old age.

blackie lawless
07/17/2006, 06:46 PM
I have no experience with Finnex, however whenever you are talking about any T5 setup, one of the key things is reflectors. Does each bulb have an individual reflector on the Finnex? Make sure to find out about that, it is very important.

The Grim Reefer
07/17/2006, 06:52 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7759643#post7759643 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by manderx
grim, i still don't believe you can use that hardware to make these comparisons. i finally went through the 250wSE thread again (i did follow it live back then but it's been awhile) and noticed that several people had the same thoughts and issues i do about that sensor and they were never really addressed (i never saw a post from them giving in and saying they were convinced). the closest i saw it to being addressed was apogee calibrated a licor sensor (to match their own sensor?) and sent it to JB to compare. that doesn't mean or prove anything.


so are you saying the combination of actinic+ and aquablue matches the spectrum exactly of that particular 14K bulb? if we were dealing with different dalight halide bulbs, yeah sure knock youself out. but not with the uncommon spectrums that t5 put out.



i don't think anyone is really trying to put one or the other down (like they do in bb/dsb threads), we're just saying that the tests done to put hard numbers on them are probably worthless due to a lack of understanding of the limits of the hardware and poor testing proceedure. many of the best tanks (big and small) in the world are t5. and not even as many bulbs or overdriven as many here in the states would recommend either.

and the whole 'well the numbers might not be very good but they are the best we have' is bunk. bad data is worse than no data.

I am saying that 2 Aquablues and 2 Actinic Pluses are going to be in the range of what "14K" halides are. The light from the T5's have a blue look to them. I have not seen a blue 10K halide. 4 Aquablues, which by the way would produce quite a bit more PAR than having 2 actinic Plus in the mix, have more of a blue look than any 10K halides I've seen.

The Grim Reefer
07/17/2006, 06:55 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7761259#post7761259 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by geoff72
Maybe I am just blind can you point it out to me. The main problem I am having is I am trying to watch the budget. I am hoping to get a 250g soon so I need to watch how much I spend on these lights. I have been looking at the Finnex and Tek 5. The advantages I see with the Finnex is all price but they are cheaper, comes with the bulbs, and my tank does not have a hood and my wife will not let me hang lights form the ceiling. My tank is in my living room. The Tek 5 looks like it is made to be hung and the braces are $57. I can get a Finnex 6 bulb for $279 or 4 bulb for $159. The Tek 5 is more than that and I still have to buy the bulbs and braces. Any suggestions?

If you want to run T5's over a big tank you gotta go with good reflectors. Aquactinics has a 72" T5 hood with 7 rows of lamps that have good reflectors.

RobbyG
07/17/2006, 07:16 PM
1) Dude you are absolutely wrong with that statement! T5's draw a lot less current than MH (Period). This is not a debate or a subjective view point, it is fact.

2) All things being equal, on a PAR for PAR measurement MH's will heat up your water a whole lot more than T5's, this is a fact not a subjective view point.

3) Lastly even if it's true which I doubt it is, if Grim used 12" off the Water VS 3", it would still be a fair comparison since people with T5's can put them 3" off the water but MH owners have to worry more about etching and cracking. In the real world I would say you could use that comparison.

MH are great but lets keep it real.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7761087#post7761087 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Ti
As for ampherage draw, that is all dependant on set up, it's not safe to say MH draws more or T5 draws more.
Nothing about this topic is really definative.
It all comes down to what each person likes more.

The Grim Reefer
07/17/2006, 07:35 PM
Bye the way, the halides were 7" above the water which heated the tank to about 82 degrees. That was open top. The overdriven 80 watt T5's were 3 1/2 up in an enclosed canopy and didn't go higher than 81 with glass lids on the tank.

Reef_bones
07/18/2006, 06:42 AM
just to clear it up... Grim you run both, correct?

Being able to have a choice between t5 and MH for sps and light lovin corals is a good thing. I don't understand why people feel the need to say there is one way and one way only.

There are many ways to skin a cat. I have a smaller system that most MH would cook. T-5 is the way to go.
On the flip side I want 2x250w MH 15k xm on my 75g.....Why you ask! BECAUSE I CAN....

zapata41
07/18/2006, 07:21 AM
this thread wasnt about the fact that there is one way and only one way, it was simply questioning how the tests were made and if they way the tests were performed was fair to equal in both quality of materials used and the way the testing was carried out. like most all threads about this topic and the dsb vs. bb it quickly was taken at threats and turned into, " i run this system so it is better." Like i said in my first post, lets see some numbers at waters surface, 6" down and 12" down. then ppl could decide which system suites them better. i know i have a few corals on the bottom of my tank that dont need super high par, thus a t5 system might yield even more par down at the bottom than my mh, but i am quite sure the t5 numbers are no where near what the mh numbers are up high in the tank.

Also about the statement that ppl shouldnt get caught up in the minor details, to me that i a crazy thing to say about comparing to similar styles of lighting. If all we are looking to compare is the huge differences then shoot, why run reflectors on either setup and if the mounting height plays no role the mount the t5 12" off the water.

The tests that grim did are great in the fact that he went through with something that no one else would buck up and do, so props to grim for that. I would just liketo so some other numbers throughout the tank. as far as anyone saying rim is trying to justify the lighting he runs, ppl need to go read through all of his post and read what he says, he call the pros and cons of each and even was head over heals for the t5 setup, as was i once, then he switched because he wanted to keep other things besides light demanding corals only on the bottom of the tank.

Tim

so again, thanks for the tests grim, without them i would never have bought a t5 retro for my first two tanks.

Reef_bones
07/18/2006, 07:30 AM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7764079#post7764079 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by zapata41
i know i have a few corals on the bottom of my tank that dont need super high par, thus a t5 system might yield even more par down at the bottom than my mh, but i am quite sure the t5 numbers are no where near what the mh numbers are up high in the tank.

Tim

Sounds like your convinced already so why even bother. Grim has always been a great resource for lighting, why would he stack the test a certain way as you are implying. What does he have to gain?

The Grim Reefer
07/18/2006, 08:18 AM
If a certain lighting source is more intense at the waters surface it will be more intense 10 feet below no matter what created it. A photon of light will travel the same distance regardless of what kind of lighting created it.

Halides tend to penetrate deeper because they start out so intense. The "downside" is that you have a hot spot under the lamp (which is the area I have always read the halides at) with the intensity falling off as you move away from the lamp. That give halides an advantage over fluorescent if you have a mixed reef. The downside is you waste a lot of light between the light source and the water because they typically need to be placed so high to avoid heating up the tank. Even with a perfect parabolic reflector a halide 8" off the water will have to be twice as intense as T5's 4" off to provide an equal amount of light to the tank. Because the halide light must spread out to cover a larger area much of the light strikes the water diagonally which causes the light to tend to be reflected off the surface. T5's with good reflectors has the light narrowly focused so most of it strikes the water at a right angle which reduces reflection.

As far as taking measurments at different depths a jig would have to be made to do it right. The sensor has to be at a consistant angle. That isn't too hard on the bottom but once you try different levels things get interesting. I've done it but it isn't really good for anything but a general idea of the difference in PAR.

horkn
07/18/2006, 08:22 AM
if you guys want a comparo pic of grims t5ho bulb combp, and how it compares toa 14k MH rig, our friend hahnmeister has a pic of both lighting configurations in one pic. the tanks are stacked. and the combo of t5ho looks exactly the same hue as the 14k bulb. the t5 lit tank is however brighter.

RichConley
07/18/2006, 09:55 AM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7764296#post7764296 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by The Grim Reefer
If a certain lighting source is more intense at the waters surface it will be more intense 10 feet below no matter what created it. A photon of light will travel the same distance regardless of what kind of lighting created it.

Halides tend to penetrate deeper because they start out so intense. The "downside" is that you have a hot spot under the lamp (which is the area I have always read the halides at) with the intensity falling off as you move away from the lamp. T


WRONG, WRONG, and wrong. Oh, did I mention you're wrong?

"If a certain lighting source is more intense at the waters surface it will be more intense 10 feet below no matter what created it"

Wrong. A point source light will be affected by the inverse square law. IE, if you double the distance from the bulb, you cut the amount of light in quarters. From a line source light, you can figure out light distribution by simulating an infinite number of point sources between that area. Once you do that math out, you'll realize that line sources degrade in linear fashion. This is because the spread from points along the bulb overlaps the spread from other points along the bulb.

So, while halides do have a higher starting intensity, at some depth, and all subsequent depths, you actually get more intensity from a line source.

" A photon of light will travel the same distance regardless of what kind of lighting created it."

We're not talking about a photon. We're talkin about millions of photons and theyre distribution patterns.


"The "downside" is that you have a hot spot under the lamp"

Any hot spot under a halide lamp is completely and 100% caused by the reflector. A halide bulb puts its light out in a pretty uniform distribution that is roughly spherical.





other poster

1) Dude you are absolutely wrong with that statement! T5's draw a lot less current than MH (Period). This is not a debate or a subjective view point, it is fact.

WRONG. T5s and metal halides are close enough as far as efficieny goes that it doesnt matter. As far as actual photons produced per watt, they are pretty much equal.

3) Lastly even if it's true which I doubt it is, if Grim used 12" off the Water VS 3", it would still be a fair comparison since people with T5's can put them 3" off the water but MH owners have to worry more about etching and cracking. In the real world I would say you could use that comparison.

What the hell are you talking about? Etching and cracking? I run my pendants about 5" off the water. No problems. I run 2x250w on a 58 gallon, and have NO heat problems whatsoever. I dont run a chiller.








Mind you, this whole discussion is a joke: Either one will work, and these corals dont need NEARLY the light most people seem to think they do. If you clean up your water, they really dont need much at all. I've seen acros grown under striplights for god sakes.

RichConley
07/18/2006, 10:01 AM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7764296#post7764296 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by The Grim Reefer
. Even with a perfect parabolic reflector a halide 8" off the water will have to be twice as intense as T5's 4" off to provide an equal amount of light to the tank. Because the halide light must spread out to cover a larger area much of the light strikes the water diagonally which causes the light to tend to be reflected off the surface.

Have yoiu ever used a perfect parabolic reflector? Do you understand how they work?

In a perfect parabolic reflector, 95%+ of the light ends up going straight down. The remaining 5% is still below critical angle, so 100% of the light goes into the tank. If you want to make that argument, its all about what produces more light per watt, and theres really not much difference there.

In that situation, you've basically created a laser, and theres absolutely no difference in how far off the water you put it, because all the light is traveling straight down. (barring light reflecting off of atmospheric dust, etc, which is a nonfactor here)



"Because the halide light must spread out to cover a larger area much of the light strikes the water diagonally which causes the light to tend to be reflected off the surface."

again, not in a parobolic reflector. In a parabolic reflector, the light is traveling straight down.


If you're going to try to explain things to people, atleast be close to accurate. Theres entirely too much crap out there thats wrong.



ROIIIs arent even close to parabolic reflectors.

Ti
07/18/2006, 10:17 AM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7761641#post7761641 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by RobbyG
1) Dude you are absolutely wrong with that statement! T5's draw a lot less current than MH (Period). This is not a debate or a subjective view point, it is fact.

2) All things being equal, on a PAR for PAR measurement MH's will heat up your water a whole lot more than T5's, this is a fact not a subjective view point.

3) Lastly even if it's true which I doubt it is, if Grim used 12" off the Water VS 3", it would still be a fair comparison since people with T5's can put them 3" off the water but MH owners have to worry more about etching and cracking. In the real world I would say you could use that comparison.

MH are great but lets keep it real.
Please post up the facts.
It would be very beneficial to all in this thread.
The Sun > All your reef lighting.

The Grim Reefer
07/18/2006, 10:55 AM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7764821#post7764821 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by RichConley
WRONG, WRONG, and wrong. Oh, did I mention you're wrong?

.


I am talking apples to apples, either both light sources with no reflector or using parabolic reflectors. But you already knew that, you just seem to want to reach a conclusion that agrees with your preference.

The fact that there is no perfect parabolic reflector makes the case as to why T5's are more efficient at putting light to the bottom of the tank even stronger. Now that halide 8" up needs to be what, 120% more intense than the T5's?

And of course in a practical applications the T5's will have less light decay than halides (assuming both reflectors have the same efficiency) because of the linear aspect of the lamps and the fact they are used in an array.

Reef_bones
07/18/2006, 10:55 AM
Rich sounds like he has some good knowledge on this subject.. Good post Rich even if it seems like your screaming at GRIM..lol...Alot of good info there.

natedogg
07/18/2006, 11:06 AM
did Rich C say he runs MH 5inch above water with no chiller on a 58g??

HAHAHA
he must live in a meat locker.

interesting set up....... . . . .

HowardW
07/18/2006, 11:14 AM
<<< these corals dont need NEARLY the light most people seem to think they do. If you clean up your water, they really dont need much at all. I've seen acros grown under striplights for god sakes. >>>


<<< I run 2x250w on a 58 gallon, and have NO heat problems whatsoever. >>>




You claim you've seen acros grown under strip lights, yet you run nearly 10 watts per gallon of MH's on a 58g? .....hmmmm

Ti
07/18/2006, 11:20 AM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7765226#post7765226 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by HowardW

<<< I run 2x250w on a 58 gallon, and have NO heat problems whatsoever. >>>





Lies, You need a chiller for MH!. :p
j/k
I don't use a Chiller with my MH either.:)

brentp
07/18/2006, 11:49 AM
Having run both halides and T5's over my tank I can tell you that it is much easier to keep a T5 tank cooler. I'm not saying that T5's put out a lot less heat. But... The heat from the bulbs is distributed pretty evenly across the reflectors - with some good air flow a lot less heat makes it into the water. It's almost like using a really good heat sink.

RichConley
07/18/2006, 12:08 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7765415#post7765415 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by brentp
Having run both halides and T5's over my tank I can tell you that it is much easier to keep a T5 tank cooler. I'm not saying that T5's put out a lot less heat. But... The heat from the bulbs is distributed pretty evenly across the reflectors - with some good air flow a lot less heat makes it into the water. It's almost like using a really good heat sink.

same, good airflow makes MH heat not an issue.

RichConley
07/18/2006, 12:17 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7765124#post7765124 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by The Grim Reefer
I am talking apples to apples, either both light sources with no reflector or using parabolic reflectors. But you already knew that, you just seem to want to reach a conclusion that agrees with your preference.

The fact that there is no perfect parabolic reflector makes the case as to why T5's are more efficient at putting light to the bottom of the tank even stronger. Now that halide 8" up needs to be what, 120% more intense than the T5's?

And of course in a practical applications the T5's will have less light decay than halides (assuming both reflectors have the same efficiency) because of the linear aspect of the lamps and the fact they are used in an array.

Jesus, are you even listening? Did you read my post at all, or are you just posting to disagree.

MY ENTIRE POST WAS ON HOW T5s ACTUALLY PENETRATE BETTER THAN HALIDES, AND NOW YOUR TRYING TO TELL ME THAT THEY DO.


"I am talking apples to apples, either both light sources with no reflector or using parabolic reflectors"

My point still stands, no reflector, a line source beats a point source for penetration, every day of the week.


When you start looking at reflectors though, the source stops mattering, and the reflector starts mattering. A perfect 2D parabolic reflector on T5s vs a Perfect 3d parabolic on a halide, you have 100% of light going down, evenly distributed, and it really doesnt matter either way. Same penetration, same intensity, etc. Then watts are the only thing that matters.


The whole crux here is that (thankfully) people are pushing the good reflectors with T5s. With MHs, people go out and buy these piece of junk reflectors, and are like "Well, its MH, who cares."

As far as I'm concernced, these tests should all be done using MHs in Lumenarcs or Lumenmaxs, running 10K bulbs, and T5s using 10K bulbs and individual reflectors. If you dont do it that way, its like testing a Suzuki Aerio against a 745 iL and deciding that German cars run better than asian cars. It doesnt mean anything.

Like T5s, if you dont run MHs in decent reflectors, you're just wasting money.

RichConley
07/18/2006, 12:20 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7765226#post7765226 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by HowardW
<<< these corals dont need NEARLY the light most people seem to think they do. If you clean up your water, they really dont need much at all. I've seen acros grown under striplights for god sakes. >>>


<<< I run 2x250w on a 58 gallon, and have NO heat problems whatsoever. >>>




You claim you've seen acros grown under strip lights, yet you run nearly 10 watts per gallon of MH's on a 58g? .....hmmmm

My apartment has electricity included in the rent, and its what I have. I have no reason to change.

I had 1x250, and then won a geismann pendant in an LFS raffle. Since I'm not paying for electricity, I figured I may as well use it.

As to SPS growing under striplights, go look in the "Lets talk about lighting" thread in the SPS forum.

blackie lawless
07/18/2006, 12:21 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7765226#post7765226 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by HowardW
<<< these corals dont need NEARLY the light most people seem to think they do. If you clean up your water, they really dont need much at all. I've seen acros grown under striplights for god sakes. >>>

<<< I run 2x250w on a 58 gallon, and have NO heat problems whatsoever. >>>

You claim you've seen acros grown under strip lights, yet you run nearly 10 watts per gallon of MH's on a 58g? .....hmmmm

Now that's irony! :lol:

RichConley
07/18/2006, 12:27 PM
Like I said, electricity is paid for. I see no reason to do otherwise.


now how about we talk about lighting, instead of my tank, and my living situation.

Ti
07/18/2006, 12:33 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7765621#post7765621 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by blackie lawless
Now that's irony! :lol:
but this is an Iron.
http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/B000291PVC.02.LZZZZZZZ

But seriously, people, calm down. :D

Reef_bones
07/18/2006, 12:34 PM
So a 4x54wt5 set-up with SLR reflectors on a lets say 55gallon vs a 2x250w MH set-up with Parabolic reflector.

Which would cost more to run?
Which would develope more heat?
Would there be equal light to the 18" depth?
Would there be any additional equipment needed to offset a changed caused by the lighting?


This is where you see that the t5 is more cost effective... You can't argue that!

HowardW
07/18/2006, 12:42 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7765721#post7765721 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Reef_bones
So a 4x54wt5 set-up with SLR reflectors on a lets say 55gallon vs a 2x250w MH set-up with Parabolic reflector.

Which would cost more to run?
Which would develope more heat?
Would there be equal light to the 18" depth?
Would there be any additional equipment needed to offset a changed caused by the lighting?


This is where you see that the t5 is more cost effective... You can't argue that!


Yes....excellent point! And if you were to overdrive those 4 X 54s to 4 X 80 with an IC 660 ballast, that would be an incredible amount of PAR and still use 1/3rd less wattage than the 500W MHs.

Ti
07/18/2006, 12:42 PM
Double post.

Reef_bones
07/18/2006, 12:46 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7765781#post7765781 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Ti
Double post.

:smokin:

Ti
07/18/2006, 12:48 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7765797#post7765797 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Reef_bones
:smokin:
:bum:

Reef_bones
07/18/2006, 12:54 PM
LOL... I beleive we have now all gotten tongue tied....

The Grim Reefer
07/18/2006, 01:20 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7765589#post7765589 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by RichConley
Jesus, are you even listening? Did you read my post at all, or are you just posting to disagree.

MY ENTIRE POST WAS ON HOW T5s ACTUALLY PENETRATE BETTER THAN HALIDES, AND NOW YOUR TRYING TO TELL ME THAT THEY DO.


"I am talking apples to apples, either both light sources with no reflector or using parabolic reflectors"

My point still stands, no reflector, a line source beats a point source for penetration, every day of the week.


When you start looking at reflectors though, the source stops mattering, and the reflector starts mattering. A perfect 2D parabolic reflector on T5s vs a Perfect 3d parabolic on a halide, you have 100% of light going down, evenly distributed, and it really doesnt matter either way. Same penetration, same intensity, etc. Then watts are the only thing that matters.


The whole crux here is that (thankfully) people are pushing the good reflectors with T5s. With MHs, people go out and buy these piece of junk reflectors, and are like "Well, its MH, who cares."

As far as I'm concernced, these tests should all be done using MHs in Lumenarcs or Lumenmaxs, running 10K bulbs, and T5s using 10K bulbs and individual reflectors. If you dont do it that way, its like testing a Suzuki Aerio against a 745 iL and deciding that German cars run better than asian cars. It doesnt mean anything.

Like T5s, if you dont run MHs in decent reflectors, you're just wasting money.


The point I am trying to make is that the method of light generation doesnt cause the light to travel any farther. If you are saying T5's can put more light to the bottom because of reflectors and the position of the lamps and using multiple lamps blah, blah blah, then we agree.

As far a lab spec test between the two I think the PFO mini pendants against IC T5's would be a better indicator. The lumenarcs are great but because of the size they aren't practical in a lot of situations. The 10K against 10K isn't a good standard either. I would say a 14K Phoenix against a 50/50 mix of Aquablue and Blueplus T5's would be good because they are both pretty common stand alone lighting choices.

RobbyG
07/18/2006, 01:36 PM
Where the heck are you getting those numbers? From everything I have read about T5's vs MH on PAR measurements the T5's blow the MH out of the water on a Watt per Watt consumption comparison. Please show something credible that says otherwise, because Grims own measurements confirm this.

You may be lucky enough to run your MH only 5" off the water but many other people have had splash problem etc. I guess its all a case of how your tank is setup, but most people do not Run MH only 5" off the water, so your setup in not indicative of the average MH tank.


<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7764821#post7764821 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by RichConley



WRONG. T5s and metal halides are close enough as far as efficieny goes that it doesnt matter. As far as actual photons produced per watt, they are pretty much equal.

3) Lastly even if it's true which I doubt it is, if Grim used 12" off the Water VS 3", it would still be a fair comparison since people with T5's can put them 3" off the water but MH owners have to worry more about etching and cracking. In the real world I would say you could use that comparison.

What the hell are you talking about? Etching and cracking? I run my pendants about 5" off the water. No problems. I run 2x250w on a 58 gallon, and have NO heat problems whatsoever. I dont run a chiller.








Mind you, this whole discussion is a joke: Either one will work, and these corals dont need NEARLY the light most people seem to think they do. If you clean up your water, they really dont need much at all. I've seen acros grown under striplights for god sakes.

Reef_bones
07/18/2006, 01:37 PM
A real good way to test the effectiveness of both lighting sources is to hook 2 55 gallon tanks to a single sump so they share the same water and water quality. Mount one tank with 4 x 54w t5 and the other with 2x 250w MH. Take a few corals frags from the same parent plant and place one of each in each tank...Come back in a year and tell us which one grew and colored up the best..

HowardW
07/18/2006, 01:41 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7766125#post7766125 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Reef_bones
A real good way to test the effectiveness of both lighting sources is to hook 2 55 gallon tanks to a single sump so they share the same water and water quality. Mount one tank with 4 x 54w t5 and the other with 2x 250w MH. Take a few corals frags from the same parent plant and place one of each in each tank...Come back in a year and tell us which one grew and colored up the best..




Wouldn't an 8 X 54W be a fairer comparison?

natedogg
07/18/2006, 01:43 PM
booooo Rich !!!!

HAHA

Reef_bones
07/18/2006, 01:43 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7766150#post7766150 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by HowardW
Wouldn't an 8 X 54W be a fairer comparison?

Maybe but I think you would be surprised how much light 4 x 54w t5 would produce. You have to have 2 MH to light a 48" tank, but I would think 8 x54w would be to much for most corals in a 55g....

The Grim Reefer
07/18/2006, 02:04 PM
If you had something like a 90 or whatever where the tank is 48x18x24 tall running 6 T5's against 2 250's would be interesting. The thing to do would be to have multiple frags of the same colony in each tank but at different levels. It would be a killer experiment for some one with enough room.

blackie lawless
07/18/2006, 02:06 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7766150#post7766150 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by HowardW
Wouldn't an 8 X 54W be a fairer comparison?

That my friend is called Over Kill!!:D

The Grim Reefer
07/18/2006, 02:09 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7766319#post7766319 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by blackie lawless
That my friend is called Over Kill!!:D

And 2 250's on a 55 aint?:D

Reef_bones
07/18/2006, 02:16 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7766338#post7766338 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by The Grim Reefer
And 2 250's on a 55 aint?:D

HAHA yeah but, you have to have 2 to span 4ft with descent coverage, and who the hell would waste the money on a 150w or 175w when the 250 is the same price.... I have seen 2x400w on a 55 before....I'm talking lights mounted a foot and a half off the water and a bottle of 50spf sunblock sitting by the tank for veiwing protection...lol

HowardW
07/18/2006, 02:21 PM
Perhaps a similar comparison would be 2 X 175W MHs vs. 4 X 54W T5s overdriven to 80W each?

Reef_bones
07/18/2006, 02:30 PM
Maybe the best scenario would be a 70w MH vs a 54w t5.... ;)

thats about as even as it will get for a watt for watt comparison.

perpetual98
07/18/2006, 02:30 PM
The overdriven T5's would destroy the 2x175W.

Ti
07/18/2006, 03:01 PM
Forget about MH, forget about T5, Forget about VHO, Forget about PC, heck forget about the sun.
It's ALL about Arcturus

http://www.rense.com/1.imagesH/13db976.jpg
calm down folks.

Horace
07/18/2006, 03:24 PM
Well guys no data here but I was and still am a fan of T5 for a while. I used to run 6x54w T5 on my 75g and it was BRIGHT AS HELL! Because of loss of colors to some of my corals and the fact that I wanted shimmer (its priceless IMO), I switched to a 2x250w HQI Phoenix in ROIII w/ 2x54w UVL Super Actinics. The tank still looks very bright and the color is awesome and i now have SHIMMER. The tank DID raise in temp about 2+ degrees but that was easily countered by adding fans to my canopy. Now my water stays at 80.5 or less with the bulb being about 8" off the water. I have had both and will say they both are great lighting....however I must say, the MH looks better hands down and that is what is most important if you ask me :)

RichConley
07/18/2006, 03:30 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7766395#post7766395 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Reef_bones
HAHA yeah but, you have to have 2 to span 4ft with descent coverage, and who the hell would waste the money on a 150w or 175w when the 250 is the same price.... I have seen 2x400w on a 55 before....I'm talking lights mounted a foot and a half off the water and a bottle of 50spf sunblock sitting by the tank for veiwing protection...lol

Right, all overkill.

The thing is, yeah, you need 2 MH bulbs to light a 55, but you can go up and use a 120, or even a 150wide, or a 180, or a 225, etc, on 2x250.

Use GOOD reflectors. Not these crappy PFO minis.

The T5s? Not a chance in hell, you need more bulbs.

Its all bout what you're trying to do, and the tank shape.


Grim, I've been saying all along that the T5s are great. You keep trying to put the 'Anti -t5 stick' in my mouth

What I've also been saying is that the science you're spouting isnt correct. The 'experiment' you did is nowhere near unbiased. And again, you keep trying to compare a phoenix to Aquablues. I'll give you GE against a 10K. Thats the closest I'm going. You're looking at a very specific example thats nowhere near indicitive of how things are.


As to the whole lumens per watt thing, metal halides produce anywhere from 65-115 lumens per watt. The standard T5HO is somehwere around 95. So yeah, theyre more efficienct than a 20K, but nowhere near an Iwasaki. If you want to talk about efficiency, look at Normal output fluorescents (T8 32w), where you're up around 130.



If you're gonna talk about this stuff grim, get your facts straight.

Ti
07/18/2006, 03:33 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7766936#post7766936 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by RichConley
Its all bout what you're trying to do, and the tank shape.

That's what I've been saying all along. :cool:

jrcastro
07/18/2006, 04:17 PM
Do T-5's give the shimmer affect like halides do?

This is why i like halides, but I hate the electricity & heat it puts out.

I might try the t-5s to save on electricity.

jrcastro
07/18/2006, 04:23 PM
Do T-5's give the shimmer affect like halides do?

This is why i like halides, but I hate the electricity & heat it puts out.

I might try the t-5s to save on electricity.

horkn
07/18/2006, 04:40 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7765708#post7765708 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Ti
but this is an Iron.
http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/B000291PVC.02.LZZZZZZZ

But seriously, people, calm down. :D

that is one PIMP iron.

how about we take this deabet on to which is better, ironing, or steaming to get rid of wrinkles ;)

horkn
07/18/2006, 04:45 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7766125#post7766125 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Reef_bones
A real good way to test the effectiveness of both lighting sources is to hook 2 55 gallon tanks to a single sump so they share the same water and water quality. Mount one tank with 4 x 54w t5 and the other with 2x 250w MH. Take a few corals frags from the same parent plant and place one of each in each tank...Come back in a year and tell us which one grew and colored up the best..

in a year without changing the MH bulb, you would have a burnt out MH bulb. more than likely at least

Reef_bones
07/18/2006, 05:00 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7767375#post7767375 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by horkn
in a year without changing the MH bulb, you would have a burnt out MH bulb. more than likely at least

True...

But do you think you would see a difference in the tanks. Both treated exactly the same for that amount of time. Fed the same, dosed as one tank due to common sump. It would be a true test, but which bulb combo would be equal. The halide and t5 would need to look the same.

perpetual98
07/18/2006, 05:16 PM
If enough people sent me $20, I'd set up the comparison. :)

natedogg
07/18/2006, 05:33 PM
Do you need actinic supplementation with 2x 250w 14k's ???

DrBDC
07/18/2006, 05:39 PM
MH's won't burn out in 1 year. My new Iwasaki's have 60% running at 6000 hours use. At 8 hours per day that is 750 days. At that same time frame it is 70% of the lumens.

At the typical year change mark you have over 90% of the bulbs burning with 80% lumens.

Take those numbers and apply them to that test run on the T5's at just the 6 month mark.

Reef_bones
07/18/2006, 05:42 PM
haha.. checks in the mail.. ;)

You would have to either go with a 14k spectrum as Grim did, or go with 10k no supplimentals. Maybe even 20k...But which ever it is it would have to visably look the same.

Ti
07/18/2006, 05:53 PM
Sanjay has Iwasakis over yr old and he did a par measurement on them after 1yr and they only lost like 10% par.

The Grim Reefer
07/18/2006, 06:55 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7766936#post7766936 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by RichConley
Right, all overkill.

The thing is, yeah, you need 2 MH bulbs to light a 55, but you can go up and use a 120, or even a 150wide, or a 180, or a 225, etc, on 2x250.

Use GOOD reflectors. Not these crappy PFO minis.

The T5s? Not a chance in hell, you need more bulbs.

Its all bout what you're trying to do, and the tank shape.


Grim, I've been saying all along that the T5s are great. You keep trying to put the 'Anti -t5 stick' in my mouth

What I've also been saying is that the science you're spouting isnt correct. The 'experiment' you did is nowhere near unbiased. And again, you keep trying to compare a phoenix to Aquablues. I'll give you GE against a 10K. Thats the closest I'm going. You're looking at a very specific example thats nowhere near indicitive of how things are.


As to the whole lumens per watt thing, metal halides produce anywhere from 65-115 lumens per watt. The standard T5HO is somehwere around 95. So yeah, theyre more efficienct than a 20K, but nowhere near an Iwasaki. If you want to talk about efficiency, look at Normal output fluorescents (T8 32w), where you're up around 130.



If you're gonna talk about this stuff grim, get your facts straight.

PFO mini's crap? Do you have a clue? Have you ever read any of Sanjays test results on reflectors? And I am not trying to compare the Phoenix to just aquablues. I am comparing it to a 50/50 mix of aquablue and Blue plus. Anyone who has actually seen both knows the color will be very similar. GE against a 10K is no comparison. GE is 6500K, what would measuring it against a 10K lamp prove?. What would be the point? Nobody runs straight GE lamps over their tank and few run straight 10K halides.

The measurements from my "biased" tests were the result of my shock that 150 watt halides placed slightly lower than my T5 system had less than half the PAR of my T5's. I was so "biased" in favor of T5's I went out and bought BLV 10K's which are the highest output 10K lamps I could find and they still could only do a little better than half. Being so biased I bought the stuff to upgrade the 150 watt halides to 250's. I was even so "biased" I got a hold of a Reefoptix III (which by the way is indeed a parabolic reflector) and a new Hamilton 10K lamp to see what good componants would do after the 250's fell short too. And all that time my T5's were still sitting in the closet until the 14K halide lamps died and decided I liked the look of fluorescents better and went back to the T5's. I sure spent a hell of a lot of money on halides just so I could create a biased test to show they suck.

zapata41
07/18/2006, 07:22 PM
man this has turned in to quite the debate here. lights are lights, they both grow sps great. what i did notice from my t5 setup was the cooler water , thus having to run my 600w of heater about 1/2 the day. now that i have the halides, i never have to run the heaters. so i guess some heat is good.

someone also said how IC 660 driving 4t5s is like half the power consumption of 2x250w halides. funny sine i have hooked up my kill a watt meter to a 660 running 4 t5s over my 90g and it pulls 4.1 amps. so not too far off from the 250w setup. just because you are only running 4 bulbs doesnt mean that the ballast isnt waisting elec too.

Tim

The Grim Reefer
07/18/2006, 07:30 PM
Running a watt meter a 660 pulled 303 watts using 4x54's. I got the same 4.1 amp draw you did using a multimeter though. My EVC 250 watt E-ballasts pulled 260 watts each. They pulled around 2.4 amps each. 2 54 watt T5's normally driven pull about 120 watts depending on the lamps.

RobbyG
07/19/2006, 05:42 PM
Rich I find your statements to be very confusing, it's not just Grims Imagination but I think anybody who reads your posts can see that you don't like T5's and seem very biased against them,
but at the end of the day it is still a proven fact that on a Watt per Par basis T5's are vastly superior to MH bulbs and if your going to state otherwise please show some test data to back it up.




<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7766936#post7766936 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by RichConley


Grim, I've been saying all along that the T5s are great. You keep trying to put the 'Anti -t5 stick' in my mouth


If you're gonna talk about this stuff grim, get your facts straight.

tgreene
07/21/2006, 03:14 PM
This is my tank. It's a 72" 125g that's kept under 312w of T5.

I'm pretty happy with the results! ;)

http://gallery.nea-reefkeeping.com/album/00000001/reef-072006-sm.jpg

HowardW
07/21/2006, 03:20 PM
Beautiful tank you have there tgreene!

RichConley
07/21/2006, 03:35 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7767375#post7767375 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by horkn
in a year without changing the MH bulb, you would have a burnt out MH bulb. more than likely at least

What are you smoking?

Theres a reason they use these things in street lights. THey run forever.

I've got a bulb running my fuge thats gotta be 4 years old.

RichConley
07/21/2006, 03:38 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7774736#post7774736 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by RobbyG
Rich I find your statements to be very confusing, it's not just Grims Imagination but I think anybody who reads your posts can see that you don't like T5's and seem very biased against them,
but at the end of the day it is still a proven fact that on a Watt per Par basis T5's are vastly superior to MH bulbs and if your going to state otherwise please show some test data to back it up.

Robbi, no its not.

Like I said, T5HO is around 90lumens/watt, MH bulbs range anywhere from 75-110. How is 90 higher than 110? 90 is higher than 75, yes, but not higher than 110. I'd say we just average them, and say theyre the same.



Robbi, I like T5s. Theyre great.

Theres just an absolute BUTTLOAD of misinformation in this thread. 90% of the posts on this thread are completly incorrect, and that ****es me off.

I dont see hwo you think I'm anti T5. I was arguing how they penetrate better than MH. THe idea that theyre more electrically efficient is wrong though.

horkn
07/21/2006, 03:56 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7788033#post7788033 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by RichConley
What are you smoking?

Theres a reason they use these things in street lights. THey run forever.

I've got a bulb running my fuge thats gotta be 4 years old.

i dont smoke anything.

a statement like that is really out of line.

whatever...

horkn
07/21/2006, 03:57 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7788050#post7788050 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by RichConley

Theres just an absolute BUTTLOAD of misinformation in this thread. 90% of the posts on this thread are completly incorrect, and that ****es me off.

.

considering that you posted more in this thread than anyone else, i find that statement funny.

Eric Boerner
07/21/2006, 04:01 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7774736#post7774736 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by RobbyG
....it is still a proven fact that on a Watt per Par basis T5's are vastly superior to MH bulbs and if your going to state otherwise please show some test data to back it up.

Although I dont agree with anything that Rich says, your statement is wrong.

T5's are not 'vastly' superior on a watt to PAR ratio than Metal Halides.

T5's at best could be said that on a watt to PAR to overall SQ Ft raitio, that they may in fact be 'somewhat better', that Metal Halide. That being said, if your goal is to give a 100% perfect PAR saturation over the entire length of your tank, that may be the case. However, a DIRECTIONAL SPOT LIT goal, where you are attempting to consentrate PAR on specific area's of your tank, they simply cannot compete with Metal Halides, because they aren't Spot lights, they're ambient lights.

A Metal Halide will have 4 times more PAR output directly underneath it and taper off at the surrounding areas. For most 'pratical' aquascaping / tank openings, this yields more PAR in those areas, since you don't NEED to have full coverage of the entire tank.

Does this mean that T5's aren't any good? no. For certain applications, such as a shallow, small tank that has an even rock structure that you need to have 100% light coverage, they're great. But for very large tanks that have irregular rockscapes islands, centerbraces, or that have dedicated rockfaces for specific species, the spot lighting aspects of Metal Halides is the better alternative.

As was stated by someone earlier, what is better, T5's or MH? It all depends on what your over all goals are.

R33f3r
07/21/2006, 04:19 PM
"But for very large tanks that have irregular rockscapes islands, centerbraces, or that have dedicated rockfaces for specific species, the spot lighting aspects of Metal Halides is the better alternative.

As was stated by someone earlier, what is better, T5's or MH? It all depends on what your over all goals are."

There it is in a nutshell. I am a diehard T5 fan, but EACH tank and specific rock structure setup + species must be taken into consideration and MH will provide a better goal for SOME. It just depends on everyone's individual tank.

I know I couldn't keep my giganeta anemones and ritteri's under T5's. MH iS THE BEST lighting for them. So whatever one wants to keep, they must decide which lighting is best.

But I will say T5's are the best fluros out there hands down.

The Grim Reefer
07/21/2006, 04:32 PM
Eric B,

You are somewhat right but I measured the halides directly under the light at the sandbed and the T5's still beat them. That was in a 23.5" tall tank. I think once you get to a 30" and taller tank where it is time to start talking 400 to 1000 watt halides then there are no options. Under that and T5's can compete. The spotlight effect of halides is definatly a big advantage for those who want mixed reefs. I think the more we learn about lamp combinations and so on the better T5's will do. Aint ever gonna get those shimmers though.

The Grim Reefer
07/21/2006, 04:36 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7788291#post7788291 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by R33f3r
"But for very large tanks that have irregular rockscapes islands, centerbraces, or that have dedicated rockfaces for specific species, the spot lighting aspects of Metal Halides is the better alternative.

As was stated by someone earlier, what is better, T5's or MH? It all depends on what your over all goals are."

There it is in a nutshell. I am a diehard T5 fan, but EACH tank and specific rock structure setup + species must be taken into consideration and MH will provide a better goal for SOME. It just depends on everyone's individual tank.

I know I couldn't keep my giganeta anemones and ritteri's under T5's. MH iS THE BEST lighting for them. So whatever one wants to keep, they must decide which lighting is best.

But I will say T5's are the best fluros out there hands down.

I think an advantage of halides is for anemones. Under fluorescents they can get enough light all across the tank. With halides they have a sweet spot as far as light goes. In theory that would keep them from wandering around.

The Grim Reefer
07/21/2006, 04:40 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7788169#post7788169 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by horkn
i dont smoke anything.

a statement like that is really out of line.

whatever...

Consider the source. You see any streetlights running halides latley?

R33f3r
07/21/2006, 05:41 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7788390#post7788390 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by The Grim Reefer
Consider the source. You see any streetlights running halides latley?

Just 20k's :D

R33f3r
07/21/2006, 05:42 PM
Wandering around is exactly correct. They do wander and MH keeps them happy and expanded. Never had too much success at keeping any kind of carpet happy under t5's, now Bta's love them.

RobbyG
07/21/2006, 06:05 PM
Come on dude he's just using a common every day phrase, Lighten up it's not personal.



<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7788169#post7788169 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by horkn
i dont smoke anything.

a statement like that is really out of line.

whatever...

RobbyG
07/21/2006, 06:10 PM
Grim if you measured them right under then on a Watt for Par basis the T5's beat the MH's all the time. Now if I get you right your saying that the only advantage of an MH bulb is that you can get higher wattages that are useful for penetrating deeper tanks.

BTW I still think all of these solutions end up being overkill and that most people are slow cooking there corals.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7788365#post7788365 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by The Grim Reefer
Eric B,

You are somewhat right but I measured the halides directly under the light at the sandbed and the T5's still beat them. That was in a 23.5" tall tank. I think once you get to a 30" and taller tank where it is time to start talking 400 to 1000 watt halides then there are no options. Under that and T5's can compete. The spotlight effect of halides is definatly a big advantage for those who want mixed reefs. I think the more we learn about lamp combinations and so on the better T5's will do. Aint ever gonna get those shimmers though.

The Grim Reefer
07/21/2006, 08:06 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7788750#post7788750 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by R33f3r
Wandering around is exactly correct. They do wander and MH keeps them happy and expanded. Never had too much success at keeping any kind of carpet happy under t5's, now Bta's love them.

My BTA stayed in its spot for like a year and then one day decided to go for a walkabout, RIP Bubble coral. It hung out on the glass for a couple days and then moved back where it started. Didn't change flow or lighting. I think it just wanted to annoy me:D

The Grim Reefer
07/21/2006, 08:14 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7788905#post7788905 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by RobbyG
Grim if you measured them right under then on a Watt for Par basis the T5's beat the MH's all the time. Now if I get you right your saying that the only advantage of an MH bulb is that you can get higher wattages that are useful for penetrating deeper tanks.

BTW I still think all of these solutions end up being overkill and that most people are slow cooking there corals.

In my situation the T5's put more light into the tank using less wattage. There is no best lighting, just best ways to utalize what you've got.

I agree about overkill. I have a 105 that is 60x18x22 tall. When I set that one up I think it will be LPS. I plan to use Ice Cap reflectors on Normal output T5's for that tank. My current tank is a 60 gallon uniquarium with a display area that is 48x10x18 tall. The canopy was set up for halides so it is 12" tall, I have 4 T5's mounted to the lid of the canopy so they are about 10 inches above the water and you wouldn't believe how bright this thing looks. It is an SPS tank so I will lower the lights but I could raise most corals how ity sits/

dvanacker
07/21/2006, 08:22 PM
wow this has turned into quite the thread.

It would be nice to get some definative information on T5's. When or when will sanjay explore the world of T5.??

I find alot of Rich's comments closed minded in this thread. He is making claims with no research or data to back it up.

Also he mentioned that when it comes to lumens per watt T5 and MH are neck and neck. Well that may be but take into consideration that T5's are placed closer to the water's surface.

I see T5's effiecency coming from the fact that they can be placed closer to the waters surface then MH. Most people are realizing the importance of a good reflector with T5 as well, where alot of people with MH have no idea that a good reflector can increase effiecency incredibly.

Also two things make T5 a cooler choice in most cases. The ability to use less wattage and the linear aspect of T5. Its the same idea as a heat sink.....if you have a larger surface area producing the heat the more effiecently that area can be cooled. That part is just science.

But of course I'm not a scientist and most of this stuff is just my wacky opinions.

RobbyG
07/22/2006, 07:48 PM
Your pretty much on target, and I would also add that the initial cash outlay and later maint costs with the T5 are just so much lower.

PrangeWay
07/24/2006, 08:31 AM
Odd thing on heat for the tank...

My t5's (w/o a shield) heated my tank at 6" more than my MH did at 10".... UNTIL my acrylic shield from Tek finally arrived. Once I installed that on the Tek fixture tank temperature dropped to less than what it was under the halide.


PW

nyvp
07/24/2006, 03:39 PM
Why can't you have your cake and eat it?
Thats why I'm going to go with both MH and T5's on my 560g

120x36x30 3 side viewable.

2 -- Hamilton Metal Halide Ballast 250k
4 -- SLS Lumen Max 2 Needed to go smaller ones
4 250's xm 10k's and 8 t5 54's



l ________54's ________ l__________54's_________
l ________ 54's________ l__________54's_________
l Halides ---- ---- Halides l Halides--------Halides
l ________ 54's________ l__________54's_________
l ________ 54's________ l__________54's_________

Grims Info given to me


http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=741281&perpage=25&pagenumber=17

RichConley
07/24/2006, 03:46 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7788365#post7788365 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by The Grim Reefer
Eric B,

You are somewhat right but I measured the halides directly under the light at the sandbed and the T5's still beat them.

Grim, I explained this earlier. Its simply Linear dropoff vs exponential. The Deeper you get, the better the T5s are going to do. You're going to have more bulbs overlapping each other.


The whole MH penetrate thing is just so ingrained into people, and is really a product of the fact that PC and VHO basically suck. Its also completely untrue.

RichConley
07/24/2006, 03:49 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7789592#post7789592 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by dvanacker


I see T5's effiecency coming from the fact that they can be placed closer to the waters surface then MH. Most people are realizing the importance of a good reflector with T5 as well, where alot of people with MH have no idea that a good reflector can increase effiecency incredibly.

How close they are to the water only matters because of reflector design.

Also, go look over the whole thing about linear vs exponential decay. Being close to the water would affect T5s a lot less than MHs.


"Most people are realizing the importance of a good reflector with T5 as well, where alot of people with MH have no idea that a good reflector can increase effiecency incredibly. "

I 100% agree with you here. I can not emphasize how much it ****es me off when I see someone running a 400w MH in a hood line with tinfoil, and no reflector. It just burns me. You'd get more light from a 175 with a decent reflector.

Ti
07/24/2006, 04:09 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7805106#post7805106 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by RichConley


I 100% agree with you here. I can not emphasize how much it ****es me off when I see someone running a 400w MH in a hood line with tinfoil, and no reflector. It just burns me. You'd get more light from a 175 with a decent reflector.
I've seen that.
LOL

RobbyG
07/24/2006, 07:04 PM
If I add more MH bulbs to get the same overlapping effect, I would be burning tons more power so its all really pointless.
I get your point but what does it matter, at the end of the day its how much PAR you are getting per watt burned and the more penetration the better, IN all theses cases the T5's come out on top.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7805092#post7805092 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by RichConley
Grim, I explained this earlier. Its simply Linear dropoff vs exponential. The Deeper you get, the better the T5s are going to do. You're going to have more bulbs overlapping each other.


The whole MH penetrate thing is just so ingrained into people, and is really a product of the fact that PC and VHO basically suck. Its also completely untrue.

Kurt03
07/24/2006, 07:18 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7754095#post7754095 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by freddie40
I did test on my own tank. With 4 T5s (1 GE Sun & 3 Blue+) on an Icecap 660 I got a par output of 150 at the sand which is 18 inches below the water surface. 2 250 watt MH bulbs will give a par reading of about 135.

Dave

BTW: I realy realy realy like the new UVL bulbs. My current setup includes 2 Actinic Whites, 2 Super Actinics and 2 D&D Blue +. Out of all the combos I have tried (many many many) this is by far the best.
How far away from the water are your bulbs? finishing up my t5 canopy now so was just wondering.

Darth Wader
07/24/2006, 07:31 PM
It looks like guitar tab for lighting.

l ________54's ________ l__________54's_________
l ________ 54's________ l__________54's_________
l Halides ---- ---- Halides l Halides--------Halides
l ________ 54's________ l__________54's_________
l ________ 54's________ l__________54's_________

tgreene
07/24/2006, 07:42 PM
My T5's are about 2" above the waterline.

joedirt54
07/24/2006, 07:48 PM
IMHO, t5's will end up just like all the rest of the tubes. Sure, if you have money to burn, you can switch out t5's every six months and get good results...But, I think most will let them go for way too long and end up growing more hair algae than coral.

Wait a year and we'll all be talking about the new LED hoods and how much better they are than t5's. The quiet majority of well-lit reefs will still be running MH of some kind.

Dirt

Reef_bones
07/24/2006, 08:12 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7806545#post7806545 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by joedirt54
IMHO, t5's will end up just like all the rest of the tubes. Sure, if you have money to burn, you can switch out t5's every six months and get good results...But, I think most will let them go for way too long and end up growing more hair algae than coral.

Wait a year and we'll all be talking about the new LED hoods and how much better they are than t5's. The quiet majority of well-lit reefs will still be running MH of some kind.

Dirt

did you just jump right in to grace us with your vast knowledge on the subject or did you actually read the thread?

If you had read the thread you would realize you get 2 yrs out of a t-5 bulb. And acording to the rest of RC bad water quality grows hair algae not lights..

At least make an attempt to know something about a subject before you make claims...

dvanacker
07/24/2006, 08:25 PM
2 years may be a stretch but if I recall Danano (TOTM MARCH 05) went 18months before changing his bulbs (aquablue and blue+) and his tank is spectacular.

brentp
07/24/2006, 09:12 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7806545#post7806545 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by joedirt54
IMHO, t5's will end up just like all the rest of the tubes. Sure, if you have money to burn, you can switch out t5's every six months and get good results...But, I think most will let them go for way too long and end up growing more hair algae than coral.

Wait a year and we'll all be talking about the new LED hoods and how much better they are than t5's. The quiet majority of well-lit reefs will still be running MH of some kind.

Dirt

Reading more and posting less is always a good option when you don't know what you're talking about.

I overdrive my T5's and replace them every 18 months.

nyvp
07/25/2006, 06:19 AM
Doesnt Iwan change his bulbs more often than that? I thought like 6 months to year?

The Grim Reefer
07/25/2006, 06:35 AM
Your milage will vary. Iwan changes out at 8 months but he was running on the ragged edge to begin with. He didn;t use parabolic reflectors on his 80 watt lamps. I would imagine he could get a few more months of use now that he has a unit with good reflectors.

I will say it again, A guy who designs lamps told me that by 6 months of use there is a signifigant shift in spectrum, be it fluorescents or halides. The longer you push the lamps the more the shift. The corals might be able to adapt to a slowly changing spectrum over time but what happens when you relamp after 2 years and hit the critters with higher intensity and spectrums they haven't seen in a year?

If you are raising nice SPS and such I would be prepaired to relamp at a year. If you want to push the lamps longer I would consider staggering your replacements. Do like 1 lamp every 2 weeks so you arent shocking your critters.

tgreene
07/25/2006, 06:47 AM
I run just a bit over a year, but have also noticed that power surges have played a big role in the life of bulbs. After Katrina, I had to replace the full bank of 8.

perpetual98
07/25/2006, 07:32 AM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7806424#post7806424 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Darth Wader
It looks like guitar tab for lighting.

LOL. That's exactly what I was thinking.

RobbyG
07/25/2006, 05:52 PM
In the stereo world, some people still love Tube Amplifiers, 30 years later and you still can't get them to switch. The case with lighting is pretty much the same as sound, some people will perceive the Light as being better in one way or another and nothing is going to change their minds.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7806545#post7806545 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by joedirt54
Wait a year and we'll all be talking about the new LED hoods and how much better they are than t5's. The quiet majority of well-lit reefs will still be running MH of some kind.

Dirt

tgreene
07/25/2006, 06:01 PM
So you're saying that I SHOULDN'T be ashamed for still using incandescents with gel filters..? Sweet! :D

Ti
07/25/2006, 06:16 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7812924#post7812924 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by RobbyG
In the stereo world, some people still love Tube Amplifiers, 30 years later and you still can't get them to switch. The case with lighting is pretty much the same as sound, some people will perceive the Light as being better in one way or another and nothing is going to change their minds.
There is a reason for tube amps.
It's not cause audiophiles are stubborn.

luv2jeep
07/25/2006, 06:31 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7813083#post7813083 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Ti
There is a reason for tube amps.
It's not cause audiophiles are stubborn.

Amen! As an audiophile, there is a definite reason I run a tube amp when I spin vinyl! :cool:

Not to get off-topic, but I love this thread! I am planning to get back into reefs this winter after taking a year off ... I miss my tanks! :( Due to limited space, I plan to put up a 55-gallon and after reading this thread, am seriously considering a 4-lamp SS fixture!

Thanx for the great discussion!

joedirt54
07/25/2006, 10:07 PM
I do read probably 400 or 500 posts for every one I write.

I have run NO, HO, VHO, and PC's. I loved my IC 660 running URI VHO... I just hated switching out bulbs. It just seemed like every six or eight months I would start to see my reef take a bad turn. I corrected it every time with new bulbs.

This whole thread just reminds me of the old PC vs VHO vs MH threads of 5 years ago. PC's were claimed to grow SPS like weeds and last 24 months. And there were plenty of great reefs running them!

I think the biggest thing for me is my new found love of cube tanks...and cubes(open top) less than 2'x2'x2' running a single phoenix 14K HQI are just too simple not to love. Heat is not even an issue with a open top and a single small fan over the sump in the summer.

I have been dreaming of a 3'x3'x3' DIY starphire cube lit with a 400w radium and 4 t5's on the edges. To me, that would provide the ultimate lighting for my eye and any coral I would want around the bottom.

I guess for me, I will continue to use DE MH's because they are just too easy and cheap to clean and replace. I'm sure there will be a number of bulbs on the market as good as the phoenix for half the price. A few of foreign firms are producing DE MH bulbs now because they are cheaper to ship than SE MH bulbs.

Lighting is just a single piece of a much larger system of reef keeping. The very best captive reef could very well be in a plastic swimming pool in the right backyard.

Dirt

Reef_bones
07/25/2006, 11:11 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7814796#post7814796 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by joedirt54
I do read probably 400 or 500 posts for every one I write.

I have run NO, HO, VHO, and PC's. I loved my IC 660 running URI VHO... I just hated switching out bulbs. It just seemed like every six or eight months I would start to see my reef take a bad turn. I corrected it every time with new bulbs.

This whole thread just reminds me of the old PC vs VHO vs MH threads of 5 years ago. PC's were claimed to grow SPS like weeds and last 24 months. And there were plenty of great reefs running them!

I think the biggest thing for me is my new found love of cube tanks...and cubes(open top) less than 2'x2'x2' running a single phoenix 14K HQI are just too simple not to love. Heat is not even an issue with a open top and a single small fan over the sump in the summer.

I have been dreaming of a 3'x3'x3' DIY starphire cube lit with a 400w radium and 4 t5's on the edges. To me, that would provide the ultimate lighting for my eye and any coral I would want around the bottom.

I guess for me, I will continue to use DE MH's because they are just too easy and cheap to clean and replace. I'm sure there will be a number of bulbs on the market as good as the phoenix for half the price. A few of foreign firms are producing DE MH bulbs now because they are cheaper to ship than SE MH bulbs.

Lighting is just a single piece of a much larger system of reef keeping. The very best captive reef could very well be in a plastic swimming pool in the right backyard.

Dirt


Well I guess I was alittle harsh, I mean how can I disagree about the vho's. I been running them for a couple of years myself. For the first couple of months you can't beat the color and growth, then it peters out. That is why I am switching to t-5. I still like the look of MH the best but I just can't keep my tanks cool with them without a high dollar chiller or a canopy that is just hidiously tall.

We do share one thing, I too love the cubes. I have a 3x3x20high in the works. I just think it looks so much more realistic with an actual rock formation in the middle and sand all around. Thats what I see in the wild at the locations I have been. Round rock formations with open space around and fish galore. My cube will start with 6 39x t-5 and I may take out 2 and put a 250mh right in the middle down the road.

I too have had everything at one time or another. PC just took to many bulbs to get the right light intensity and the light never looked right. VHO is awesome but you go through to many bulbs. I started overdriving NO bulbs to offset some of the VHO cost and it really wasn't much difference in light but it got harder to find the right NO bulbs in my area and when I did it seemed the price was only 5-8 bucks a bulb cheaper than VHO. My only real dislike so far has to be the URI Aquasun bulb. It looks like crap it is so pink. It took 2 50/50's and 2 Actinics just to offset it.

Well I am truly sorry if it seemed I was being critical of you. I just get alittle bent when people start knocking a new thing just because its different from the norm. I have come to realize that all the light in the world wont help if you have water issues, and there are many situations and many lighting types that will work for each..

Peace
KD:cool:

The Grim Reefer
07/25/2006, 11:47 PM
I have started a project using a uniquarium which has a 48x10x18 tall display area. The tank came with 250 watt halides mounted in a canopy so they are about 11" above the water. I pulled the halides and mounter 4 T5's to the underside of the lid where the halides were. I was only getting a PAR of around 67 on the sand so I need to make a frame so the lamps can be mounted lower down. I decided to throw the halides back in so I could take my time making the T5 frame. 2 250 watt 10K Venture lamps running on a PFO ballast BUT it only has a flat reflector. The color of the lamps looks nice, just a little blue to a pretty crisp white light. Problem is they only put about 28 UMOL's to the sand, what a waste of electricity! I realize nice reflectors would help but even if it doubled the output they would still be sucking wind compared to the T5's. I wouldn't run these Venture lamps if they were free. So much for taking my time.

joedirt54
07/26/2006, 12:16 AM
So, would you send me the Mh setup for free...I'll pay shipping?

The Grim Reefer
07/26/2006, 12:48 AM
You can have the crappy lamps:D

joedirt54
07/26/2006, 01:31 AM
you got a pm

Firewolf4
07/26/2006, 04:46 AM
Now lets say you happened across a 400W filtered 14K Carbon Arc lamp ?

horkn
07/26/2006, 06:28 AM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7788877#post7788877 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by RobbyG
Come on dude he's just using a common every day phrase, Lighten up it's not personal.

thanks captain.


never mind the rest of what he had said.:rolleyes:

brentp
07/26/2006, 09:27 AM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7814796#post7814796 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by joedirt54
I do read probably 400 or 500 posts for every one I write.

I have run NO, HO, VHO, and PC's. I loved my IC 660 running URI VHO... I just hated switching out bulbs. It just seemed like every six or eight months I would start to see my reef take a bad turn. I corrected it every time with new bulbs.

Yes, and people were rightly skeptical about T5's three years ago when very few people in the US were using them. All pluses and minuses of T5's have been posted by people who actually have used them. Now it's just a matter if deciding if it is the right type of lighting for your application. So quit comparing T5's to something they are not to prove a point that has been disproved many times over.

usafa93
07/26/2006, 08:06 PM
Rich Said:

"WRONG. T5s and metal halides are close enough as far as efficieny goes that it doesnt matter. As far as actual photons produced per watt, they are pretty much equal."


Well, that is true Rich, but not in the way you are implying.

A heat lamp of 150 Watts emits the same amount of photons as a 150W MH or 150W of T8, T5, etc. Photons emitted is a worthless measurement for purposes of this discussion. Worthless.

Do you think the heat lamp and the 14k MH are of the same "efficiency" in providing PAR to your coral? Ahhh, PAR, now there's a worthwhile metric. LUX is another decent one, since it usually closely correlated to PAR.

I suppose I should throw a "WRONG WRONG WRONG!" in here somewhere, and something about misinformation "p*ssing me off," but you get the idea.