are t-5's better than vho's

[jklaw]

hi all,
i have an all glass aquarium 125 gallon reef. on top of it i have 4- 72 inch vho bulbs powered by ice cap ballasts. im interested in keeping clams but it appears that metal halides are preferred. however, i noticed that some are okay under t-5's. are t-5's considered better lighting even though that are ho as opposed to my vho bulbs?
thanks,
john

 

[bboy aqua]

Re: are t-5's better than vho's

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9784306#post9784306 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by jklaw
hi all,
i have an all glass aquarium 125 gallon reef. on top of it i have 4- 72 inch vho bulbs powered by ice cap ballasts. im interested in keeping clams but it appears that metal halides are preferred. however, i noticed that some are okay under t-5's. are t-5's considered better lighting even though that are ho as opposed to my vho bulbs?
thanks,
john

t5's are definately better then vhos
just make sure you use individual parabolic reflectors for most output because much will be wasted if you use one big reflector

as for t5's with the right amount you can keep just about anything you want
most people say that t5's put out similar par to mh's but its still an argument and very debatable

 

[Rovert]

Re: Re: are t-5's better than vho's

Re: Re: are t-5's better than vho's

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9784385#post9784385 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by bboy aqua
...most people say that t5's put out similar par to mh's but its still an argument and very debatable

Just a quick thought on this.

Let's assume that T5's and MH's are similar in their PAR and/or PPFD. IMO, it's not just the total output, but the CHARACTERISTICS of the light that make a huge difference.

Metal Halides, as point-source lights, tend to more closely simulate the sun, where T5 as a "line-source" of light has a more diffused look. It does not replicate the 'shimmer' that we normally associate with the sun as nicely as MH's do, and I find where clams are concerned, line-source lighting does not 'penetrate' into the mantle as deeply to bring out the opal-like quality the animals display.

Just my two cents. Not intended to start a flame war, it's simpy my personal preference based on observation.

 

[bboy aqua]

Re: Re: Re: are t-5's better than vho's

Re: Re: Re: are t-5's better than vho's

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9786356#post9786356 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Rovert
Just a quick thought on this.

Let's assume that T5's and MH's are similar in their PAR and/or PPFD. IMO, it's not just the total output, but the CHARACTERISTICS of the light that make a huge difference.

Metal Halides, as point-source lights, tend to more closely simulate the sun, where T5 as a "line-source" of light has a more diffused look. It does not replicate the 'shimmer' that we normally associate with the sun as nicely as MH's do, and I find where clams are concerned, line-source lighting does not 'penetrate' into the mantle as deeply to bring out the opal-like quality the animals display.

Just my two cents. Not intended to start a flame war, it's simpy my personal preference based on observation.

i like what your getting at and your point seems very plausable but......

im pretty sure that when the people on rc did tests related to this they also took into consideration that t5's are usually placed closer to the water then mh are

since mh are placed up higher this allows the light to spread out more and from there the observations and other spectacle tests were made

they seemed to call this a "handicap" for metal halides

although this his been done many times rovert your point of view can be correct
i still havnt seen actuall accurate results

 

[Rovert]

Re: Re: Re: Re: are t-5's better than vho's

Re: Re: Re: Re: are t-5's better than vho's

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9790130#post9790130 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by bboy aqua
im pretty sure that when the people on rc did tests related to this they also took into consideration that t5's are usually placed closer to the water then mh are

since mh are placed up higher this allows the light to spread out more and from there the observations and other spectacle tests were made

they seemed to call this a "handicap" for metal halides

Disagree.

Any comparative tests should always be done with the same conditions, with the same distance between the lamp to the sensor. That's part of the scientific process.

If you read my post again, my point wasn't about the metrics of the light or circumstances of a test, but about what it LOOKS like to the human eye.

My point is simply that even IF the T5's are the same, or better, that the way they LOOK isn't to my liking, because of the unavoidable characteristics of a line-source lamp.

To use an analogy, you can have two cars... they both go 167 MPH on the highway, they both accelerate from 0-60 in 3.5 seconds and they get the same gas mileage, but one handles a lot better, can take curves better than the other and has far less road noise. The second car, however, might have a nicer interior, and prettier overall design. If all you're factoring is the one parameter of engine performance, they're the same. But when you take the other conditions and attributes into account, one of them is more preferable than the other depending on what's important to you.

Likewise, there's more to lighting than just total output.

 

[mattc183]

well said/written. man it's late, and where did your signature line come from?

 

[Rovert]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9798903#post9798903 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by mattc183
well said/written. man it's late, and where did your signature line come from?

You asking me? If so, thanks, and the sig line is from a movie, but I've taken it as a rule for life.

 

[cowboyswife]

All I know is that I have a crocea clam under T5s and it is doing amazing.

 

[Rovert]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9800507#post9800507 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by cowboyswife
All I know is that I have a crocea clam under T5s and it is doing amazing.

Nobody said T5's wouldn't work.

 

[jklaw]

thanks

thanks

thanks everybody, it looks like t-5's are better all around than vho's. although rovert i didn't find a lot of your responses to be particularly helpful.

 

[Rovert]

Re: thanks

Re: thanks

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9801744#post9801744 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by jklaw
thanks everybody, it looks like t-5's are better all around than vho's. although rovert i didn't find a lot of your responses to be particularly helpful.

Gee, I'm sorry you weren't able to understand my points.

Simply stated, watt-for-watt, inch-for-inch, T5 has greater output than VHO. But since I was able to read between the lines of your question to fathom your intent behind it, the next step is a choice between T5 and MH, given that you're asking with anticipation of making a change.

Or did I mistake your meaning?

Perhaps if you go to the CLAM LIGHTING FAQ STICKY it might help. Another place to go would be the lighting forum, or try using the search function which would also get you where you need to be.