How much difference is there between MH and T-5?

[JoshHarpst]

How much difference is there between MH and T-5? Is the quality from a T-5 to a MH a huge jump? Or are halides a lot better? I want to know so i can buy real soon, and its about a 400 dollar difference but i've heard good things about T-5.

~Josh

 

[Zoalander]

Even T-5 supporters can't say they are equal or better then MH's. MH's all the way.

 

[sjm817]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6526188#post6526188 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Vetter1980
Even T-5 supporters can't say they are equal or better then MH's. MH's all the way.

I wouldn't agree with that.

 

[ga_reefer_guy]

Originally posted by robthorn

there are alot of questions going about t5's and there power vs. efficiency. I took an ampdraw reading on a few ice cap ballasts and bulb configurations to figure out which way would be best for my situation and maybe a few other peoples as well.
I read on rc or somewhere somebody checked and there 660 ballast was drawing 4 amps with 4 4 ft / 54 watt bulbs. to me that was shocking knowing that it should be much lower according to the way the bulb manufacturer designed them to run. I took my fluke rms amp clamp to fish and other ichthy stuff and checked johns ballasts and they were 4 and 4.1 amps. I was pretty blown away since this is higher than a 250 watt metal halide draws. the ice cap ballast should draw around 2.1 amps and give alot more light. at least penetration wise. then in the same 4 ft you would need 2 250 watt metal halide to give the same coverage. so we could say a total of 5 amps max with 2 of them because the voltage or bulb type may be different. that doesn't seem very much more efficient to me.
the ice cap 660 turns up the frequency which in turn drives the bulb harder resulting in more light output from the bulb. the 4 ft bulb then gives you approximately 80 watts. so now your up to approximately 360 watts of light with 4 54 watt bulbs. seems the deal is getting a little better at least.
I then went home with my meter and checked my system running 3 5 ft /80 watt bulbs. the amp draw was 2.5 on one ballast and 2.6 on the other one. these bulbs are supposed to give you 100 watts of useable light per bulb overdriven. I have not figured out if the ballast runs that much more efficiently with only 3 bulbs or if it just doesn't overdrive the 5 ft bulbs as much as the 4 ft bulbs. I do not have a light meter so I can't check those values. I am thinking it might be a good idea and investment since corals die when bulbs go bad I could check periodically and know when to change them. hopefully the intensity would change with color shift.
I did not check the voltage at the time I checked amp draw. I just didn't think of it since it matched what I read. it wouldn't change the outcome that drastically anyway.
I do have to say I have 6 t5's on my 125 right now. 2 actinic 3 11k and 1 blue bulb and I have to say it looks great and all corals are growing. ricordea and mushrooms are big and fluffy and all 5 acro frags I put in there are growing decently for being new. the blue tort from john has been in there 3 weeks or so and has held the same blue as his store. the browned out milli from a friend with vho is turning a very nice shade of blue.


Hope this helps if not look for "rjwilson37" he is a member who has used both t5 and MH.

 

[SaltyNewb]

heard great things about the T5, but you'll never get the shimmering effect that you do from halides.

 

[oldimpala]

Josh-

As an ex-MH user; I can tell ya. T-5s are the way to go. Uses less power than my old dual MH setup, let alone the VHO actinics to go with it. And, to reference the late Grim Reefer; puts more PAR where you need it most. I miss the shimmer lines, but not having to consider a chiller, seeing a drop in my electric bill, and watching my corals respond. Magic.

With T-5's though, it's all about the reflectors; cheap out, and it's def. not worth it...


-Andy/Oldimpala

 

[Ti]

apples and oranges.
All depends what our needs are.

 

[old salty]

I agree with Ti. Depends on what you want. I chose T5's for less power consumption. I weighed all different aspects of both lighting choices for a few months before making my decision. Neither one is "Better" than the other, nor have I heard of anything that can be grown with one that can't be grown with the other.

 

[grigsy]

I like Metal Halides - the shimmer effect is great and the corals grow well under them.

 

[moonpod]

You can go either way. Either way if you "cheap out" on the reflectors you lose. You get better shimmer with MH. In large setups, MH is often easier if for no other reason than you use fewer bulbs and fixtures.