Anyone Thinking of Dumping LEDS and going back to Halides

Bpb said:
I don't see what all the fuss is about. A well lit t5ho tank with good bulbs is brighter and more vibrant.
Click to expand...

VHO and t5 is the same technology, VHO just more expensive to manufacture and requires larger reflectors. HO t5 actually put out less light than VHO per foot.
 
Other than only 4 bulbs to choose from, VHO does an outstanding job. The actinic white and super actinic are so good, that they are really enough. The internal reflectors get most of the light into the tank, but I always used one big one to help a bit too. They are particularly effective on tanks over 4 feet since T5 does not come in those lengths. VHO is twice the electricity, but also twice the output as a T5 so it takes 2 T5s to equal a VHO. So in a 6 foot tank 4 72" VHO bulbs can take the place of 16 36" T5s with the same output and same electrical costs, but a fraction of the bulb cost. URI claims that their bulbs will last longer than T5 too, which they probably do. I had a GREAT reef under VHO about 15 years ago and I still have all of the stuff. People can do a LOT worse than VHO. If URI would promise to be around in 10 years, I might fire up a 6' 250 with 4 of them.
 
jda said:
Other than only 4 bulbs to choose from, VHO does an outstanding job. The actinic white and super actinic are so good, that they are really enough. The internal reflectors get most of the light into the tank, but I always used one big one to help a bit too. They are particularly effective on tanks over 4 feet since T5 does not come in those lengths. VHO is twice the electricity, but also twice the output as a T5 so it takes 2 T5s to equal a VHO. So in a 6 foot tank 4 72" VHO bulbs can take the place of 16 36" T5s with the same output and same electrical costs, but a fraction of the bulb cost. URI claims that their bulbs will last longer than T5 too, which they probably do. I had a GREAT reef under VHO about 15 years ago and I still have all of the stuff. People can do a LOT worse than VHO. If URI would promise to be around in 10 years, I might fire up a 6' 250 with 4 of them.
Click to expand...
T5 come in 60 inch length. And grow great reefs. I run 6 on a 220 and there is plenty of par plenty of spectrum and color in the corals. Not doubting vho because I used them back in the day but new reflectors make the real difference.
 
jda said:
VHO is twice the electricity, but also twice the output as a T5 so it takes 2 T5s to equal a VHO. So in a 6 foot tank 4 72" VHO bulbs can take the place of 16 36" T5s with the same output and same electrical costs, but a fraction of the bulb cost. URI claims that their bulbs will last longer than T5 too, which they probably do. I had a GREAT reef under VHO about 15 years ago and I still have all of the stuff. People can do a LOT worse than VHO. If URI would promise to be around in 10 years, I might fire up a 6' 250 with 4 of them.
Click to expand...

VHO is less efficient than HO..

http://www.t5fixtures.com/ho-vs-vho-t5-fixtures/
HO – a high output bulb of this size will chew up 54 watts of electricity per hour. But for these watts the lumen output will be about 5,000 lumens. So calculating the lumen to watt ratio, that will give the best impression about the efficiency of HO bulbs. In this instance it is 92.6 lm/w.
VHO – but a VHO bulb of the same size – 4 feet in length – will consume more watts – 95 watts to be exact – but the lumen output will be much higher too. One bulb will be able to give out 7,200 lumens. So calculating the lumen to watt ratio for this VHO bulb it would be 75.8 lm/w.
Click to expand...

Usually VHO light ballasts need to be changed every 6 months or so, but HO fixtures in most cases don’t need to be changed or lasts for several years. This means that the VHO bulbs and fixtures need more care and therefore more money put into them. But of course it might be worth it if you want really great plants and rich yields.
Click to expand...



so it takes 2 T5s to equal a VHO
Click to expand...

Oh sooo close... ;)

2 t5HO's 10000lumens.. 1 T5VHO 7200 lumens..off by 39%...

Same spectrum's, PAR will be the same ratio..

Granted all generalizations..
 
It's interesting how many people buy into better and worse without understanding objective vs subjective analysis. You cannot say, objectively, that a gormet burger is better than a whopper unless you have a specific objective to measure against. Color of the burger, or coral, would not fit the definition.

But by all means, if you want opinion writers to tell you what is best, go for it. The world needs followers. :D

I know why I didn't like the LED choice I made, that's all.
 
The best success I had was with VHO supplimented tanks. The downside with them was the end caps. The corroded and nearly started on fire. Yes I found them smoking on more then one occasion. That was the end of them for me.
 
sirreal63 said:
Your links are to T5 VHO, not T12, which is what is being discussed. They are not the same thing.
Click to expand...

That makes it even worse..

(NOTE: none of this has anything to do w/ usability.. separate subject.. it just "is what it is".)

49lumens/watt............
215W 10700 lumens.........

http://www.bulbs.com/product/F96T12-CW-VHO

attachment.php



BTW old chart as you can see by the LEd ratings which are currently exceeding the 120l/w "threshold"..
Standard disclaimer.. equal spectrum= equal phosphors = equal PAR..
 
Last edited:
News flash...T5 will always be more energy efficient than T12, that is one of the reasons it replaced T12.
 
Wazzel said:
When I work in my tank I can feel some heat on the diode side of the fixture. Not as hot as when I ran MH, but still something.
Click to expand...


I turned a radion on once will it was sitting face down on my chair and it burnt 11 holes in my chair in about 10 seconds
 
Growing healthy corals isn't always about energy efficiency. I prefer T5 to T12 as a main light but for actintics the T12 VHO still rules. I have yet to see any other bulb or light source with the same look. If you have never used them, you would never know.
 
sirreal63 said:
Growing healthy corals isn't always about energy efficiency. I prefer T5 to T12 as a main light but for actintics the T12 VHO still rules. I have yet to see any other bulb or light source with the same look. If you have never used them, you would never know.
Click to expand...

(NOTE: none of this has anything to do w/ usability.. separate subject.. it just "is what it is".)
Click to expand...

did you miss this part??? but thanks for the opinion.. ;)

Again we get the look = healthy part??? Mostly but not always true.. Corals can "look" substandard in coloration but are quite healthy..
 
oreo57 said:
Corals can "look" substandard in coloration but are quite healthy..
Click to expand...

The ocean has plenty of proof of that. I am curious if you even have a reef tank? You certainly have the ability to look up specs and are a Whiz with Google. I am wondering if all of your knowledge translates into a nice tank as well?

Not picking on you, just curious. Having a nice tank is certainly not required here, many of us are between tanks but still share our years of experience.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
LED fixture lighting help (replacing old T5 HO)
Replies
5
Views
395
griss
griss
C
Maxspect jump led issue
Replies
0
Views
73
Cruzersmith
C
M
Can't find 60"VHO Actinics anymore... LED recommendations
2
Replies
23
Views
869
griss
griss
P
MP10mqd with old controller?
Replies
9
Views
549
phreeflow
P
B
AI Hydra 32 question
Replies
3
Views
297
Batman222b
B
Back
Top