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

Quote:

Originally posted 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/showth...86#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

Quote:

Originally posted 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

Quote:

Originally posted 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

Quote:

Originally posted 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

Quote:

Originally posted 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.

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

07/16/2006, 04:01 PM	#1
jmaneyapanda Commencing hatred Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 3,784	T5 capabilities- reality or hype? 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?

07/16/2006, 04:21 PM	#2
Ti Registered Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Bay Area Posts: 7,927	pm grim reefer __________________ Hair algae is my Macro algae.

07/16/2006, 04:29 PM	#3
s3aL Registered Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Fairfield, California Posts: 847	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. __________________ 58g oceanic (36x18x21) 36" Aquatinics 2x175w MH 2x39w T5 Deltec MCE600 3x Koralia 3's Litermeter3 Dual stage Ranco controller Matt

07/16/2006, 04:36 PM	#4
Ti Registered Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Bay Area Posts: 7,927	Did he? I rermember him doing one against a 150 MH, but ot a 250MH __________________ Hair algae is my Macro algae.

07/16/2006, 04:43 PM	#5
s3aL Registered Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Fairfield, California Posts: 847	Yep against a 250w MH. If someone can search and find the post, please go ahead and post it. __________________ 58g oceanic (36x18x21) 36" Aquatinics 2x175w MH 2x39w T5 Deltec MCE600 3x Koralia 3's Litermeter3 Dual stage Ranco controller Matt

07/16/2006, 04:46 PM	#6
freddie40 Registered Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Aurora, Co Posts: 1,415	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. __________________ At D.A.R.C. we are all Premium Members. Current Tank Info: 75gal with T5 lighting and 29gal Biocube with LED lighting

07/16/2006, 05:05 PM	#7
goda Moved On Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: fortlauderdale florida area Posts: 1,874	MH capabilities- reality or hype?

07/16/2006, 05:57 PM	#9
divemasterjim Registered Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 41	Can someone help me with my t5's http://reefcentral.com/forums/showth...86#post7753986

07/16/2006, 06:20 PM	#10
PrangeWay Duke of Monte Fisto Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Fort Worth, TX Posts: 722	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 __________________ Dumbest Quotes Ever..... "Great color, great growth" closely followed by "all water parameters fine"

07/16/2006, 06:38 PM	#11
geoff72 Registered Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: O'Fallon, IL Posts: 158	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?

07/16/2006, 06:59 PM	#13
horkn Registered Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: milwaukee wisconsin Posts: 4,125	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. __________________ people write stupid things in this space Current Tank Info: 200g DIY wood reef, 2x 250w SE 10k MH 2x80 t5ho, 75g sump, Geo Ca RX, ASD 6" recirc skimmer

07/16/2006, 10:47 PM	#14
zapata41 Moved On Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Humboldt County, CA Posts: 2,024	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

07/17/2006, 12:50 AM	#15
The Grim Reefer Ready for some NOBALL!!! Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Kingman Az Posts: 25,259	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. __________________ America, the way it outta be! Current Tank Info: 120 Starphire with Illudium Q-288 Photon Regurgitator DIY LED lighting

07/17/2006, 11:49 AM	#16
mufret Moved On Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Canton, GA Posts: 144	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.

07/17/2006, 12:58 PM	#19
orlenz Awaiting Email Confirmation Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: California Posts: 1,648	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.

07/17/2006, 01:15 PM	#21
RichConley Registered Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Bostonian in Chicago going to DC Posts: 9,908	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. __________________ NO TANKS!!!

07/17/2006, 01:27 PM	#22
Reef_bones Registered Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: minor hill, tn Posts: 489	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...

07/17/2006, 01:38 PM	#23
blackie lawless Registered Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Naples, FL Posts: 283	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.

07/17/2006, 05:16 PM	#25
bassnman11 Registered Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Corona Ca. Posts: 674	t5 vs halide 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.