For those that doubt T5 's

[gasman059]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12158541#post12158541 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by AquamanE
Ok your highness, the almighty has spoken, your right. LOL J/K.

But ide rather buy me a bottle of Johnie Walker Blue every once in a while with the money you send FPL. :rollface:

LOL LOLOLOLOL

I still buy a bottle of blue even with my Mh's but I'd rather have some single malt(OBAN to be specific), so the question at hand is I do like whisky
No doubt they work but like cars some like a sports one some like trucks.


Great work-great husbandry!

 

[AquamanE]

I still buy a bottle of blue even with my Mh's

Hey we all cant sell gas for a living. We all know how you guys are ripping as regular joes off. LOL.

Great work-great husbandry!

Thanks. I make up for my shortcomings in other ways i guess.

 

[djfrankie]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12158456#post12158456 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by gasman059
Nothing personal lol j/k
It does not matter 1000 watts whether it is from MH or t5 in the end is 100o watts.

Yeah, watts here or there are the same. The point is you can light up the same area with less wattage using T5's because they can be a lot closer to the surface of the water than MH. Besides you can manipulate the spectrum to the best of your liking and bring out certain colors.

There is no doubt that either lighting scheme works fine, even VHO, and saying only one type of lighting scheme works is like saying you can't run a tank without a wet dry.

BTW, I run (3) 250 HQI DE Aquamedic setups which don't equal 750 watts. I ran a Kill-O-watt through it and it showed each ballast is pulling nearly 340 watts each. So the 250 watt number is a misconception. I could end up running electronic ballasts, but it would just simply underdrive the bulb and that's not how they were engineered to be used.

Bottom line is that you can save yourself some money by using T5's. However, it does not guarantee you better growing corals and better colors in your corals since lighting is only one parameter of many that influence coral growth and coloration.

My .0017 cents. Taking into factor inflation rise and the dollar drop

djfrankie

 

[reefsahoy]

DJ,
the 250 watt on the bulb refers to the light being produced. the ballast has a certain efficiency and to get 250 watt to the bulb you also lose energy to heat being produced. if ballast was 100% efficient then your kilowatt meter would read closer to 250 watt assuming wire and connectors are 100% efficient. i'm sure the t5's draw more energy than what the bulb rating are also.

 

[djfrankie]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12159237#post12159237 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by reefsahoy
DJ,
the 250 watt on the bulb refers to the light being produced. the ballast has a certain efficiency and to get 250 watt to the bulb you also lose energy to heat being produced. if ballast was 100% efficient then your kilowatt meter would read closer to 250 watt assuming wire and connectors are 100% efficient. i'm sure the t5's draw more energy than what the bulb rating are also.

Yeah, but I was mainly talking about energy savings. Electronic ballast have a higher efficiency. So the way I'm looking at it is I'm paying for 340 to get 250...Makes sense now?

Something also tells me the bulbs are also producing more than 250 watts. We can do a test with an electronic ballast and compare. You will definitely see the bulb intensity lower and possibly a shift into a bluer spectrum with the electronic one.

Maybe Dobly can bring one of those electronic ballasts and we can do a side by side comparison

I will request the help of an expert in this material...hold on..

djfrankie

 

[ReefWreak]

On original topic:

I saw the thread. The tank looks very nice. I do have to say though, that the second already screamed "flamebait," so don't be surprised that people got into the debate about it.

T5, MH, LED, it doesn't matter. husbandry is all that matters as long as you have a decent amount of light over the tank.

And please don't think I'm doubting you, but it's so simple to change the time in a camera, that it's really not useful for a time/date stamp. I believe you got that growth (especially since I've seen how much my tank grows in short periods of time), so that's not a question, just timestamps are relatively useless for "proof," but are more useful for personal cataloging.

BTW Nice colors. Reefsahoy, nice tank as well

I've seen people do it right with any type of lighting (including and especially VHOs, if you've never seen a VHO tank that looked incredible, then you haven't lived )

I prefer my 2x250w halides. I don't even need actinics. I also run my bulbs for 2-3 years without needing replacement, because I never really notice the color shift much, and the output stays pretty consistent after the first 60-90 day's worth of dropoff.

 

[PaulErik]

It is known that HQI/M80 ballasts will and can provide more lamp (output) wattage than an electronic ballast.

The 250-watts listing for a MH lamp does not all ways mean the rated wattage. The wattage varies by lamp design and the age of the lamp. Magnetic ballasts limit current to the lamp and once the lamp stabilizes and reaches an equilibrium the lamp sets the operating voltage. They both work together to set the wattage level. Electronic ballasts work differently and generally work by supplying a certain amount of wattage within a certain percent. The nominal wattage these ballasts are built to is 250-watts or a little less for a 250-watt ballast. Double-Ended and Euro spec/M80 lamps generally operate at a higher wattage than 250-watts on HQI /M80 ballasts. The amount again varies by lamp design and age.

All ballasts (fluorescent, metal halide, electronic and magnetic) have wattage losses (due to making heat, EM and RF). With a Kill-O-Watt meter you will only see how much power the ballast and lamp is using together. Testing the ballast output / lamp operating wattage is more complicated. You need to measure the power factor, RMS voltage and current. Testing ballast output is very different compared to the input side. Specialized equipment and testing rigs are needed so the equipment can withstand the starting voltage / voltage pulse and in some cases the high operating frequency with these ballasts.

You can check out Sanjay’s site www.reeflightinginfo.arvixe.com and he lists the efficiency of the different ballast and lamp combinations on the Search Performance Data part. In some cases the electronic ballasts are more efficient but not always.

 

[djfrankie]

Thanks for chiming in Paul!

djfrankie

 

[AquamanE]

Interesting thread from main "reef discussion" forum. including PAR levels. I realize the comp is with 2 x 150w MH. Not sure what to make of numbers but interesting none the less.

PAR levels with T5

 

[REDDAWG43]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12158694#post12158694 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by AquamanE
Hey we all cant sell gas for a living. We all know how you guys are ripping as regular joes off. LOL.





Thanks. I make up for my shortcomings in other ways i guess.

LMAO......WRONG GAS!!!
LOL...LOL...LOL...LOL...LOL...LOL!!!

 

[Rogger Castells]

I agree with the argument that "what ever works for you" however I am not to sure that T5's are the answer to less heat and energy savings, I have had both in the past and t5's are pretty hot and when I ran them with an ice cap 660 it sucked a ton of power.
I can see how the fact that the light and heat are spread in a much larger area than metal halides and therefore could give the impression that they are cooler.
The other issue why I did not liked the t5's is that I was not able to get bright colors in the Acros, I got sutler pastels and light blues and browns but never intense colors like I got with MH, the second issue I got was that I could not get the pictures to look clear they always looked blueish.
These are just my observations while I had T5's, I decided to go back to MH and now I am happy.
I do want to see a tank that has been able to overcome my issues w/T5's and see what they do different so I can learn and understand.
I the meantime I am here sitting having some Coconut rum with Pineapple Juice while looking at the shimmering in my tank

 

[db_triggerfish]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12178757#post12178757 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Rogger Castells
I agree with the argument that "what ever works for you" however I am not to sure that T5's are the answer to less heat and energy savings, I have had both in the past and t5's are pretty hot and when I ran them with an ice cap 660 it sucked a ton of power.
I can see how the fact that the light and heat are spread in a much larger area than metal halides and therefore could give the impression that they are cooler.
The other issue why I did not liked the t5's is that I was not able to get bright colors in the Acros, I got sutler pastels and light blues and browns but never intense colors like I got with MH, the second issue I got was that I could not get the pictures to look clear they always looked blueish.
These are just my observations while I had T5's, I decided to go back to MH and now I am happy.
I do want to see a tank that has been able to overcome my issues w/T5's and see what they do different so I can learn and understand.
I the meantime I am here sitting having some Coconut rum with Pineapple Juice while looking at the shimmering in my tank

WELL SAID, i have T5 i love them because it works for me for now, but in future MH with T5 both is better imo. Also T5 with icecap uses a lot of current and gives off a lot of heat. I get a little bit of shimmer when i point the powerheads towards the surface.