NewSchool04
New member
No problem Jose, I'm glad you're happy with the lights.
Lighting Opinions Wanted
- Thread starter ppurcell
- Start date
ppurcell
New member
I think I am finding the idea of 324watts vs 600-700 appealing.
I like the shimmer of MH, but I think I'm leaning more towards the either the Tek fixture or buying the parts needed to convert my IceCap and then adding either a Workhorse 5 or Triad for two more bulbs.
Pat, where did you get yours from? (I'm tired of googling)
Mike, Are the Universal Triad better than the IceCap or Workhorse ballasts?
What do you think about doing something like this:
http://www.grainger.com/Grainger/wwg/itemDetailsRender.shtml?ItemId=1613557212
I like the shimmer of MH, but I think I'm leaning more towards the either the Tek fixture or buying the parts needed to convert my IceCap and then adding either a Workhorse 5 or Triad for two more bulbs.
Pat, where did you get yours from? (I'm tired of googling)
Mike, Are the Universal Triad better than the IceCap or Workhorse ballasts?
What do you think about doing something like this:
http://www.grainger.com/Grainger/wwg/itemDetailsRender.shtml?ItemId=1613557212
Last edited:
Douglas LEHMAN
Premium Member
Hello Phil Think long term, a 250 Iwasaki go'es for $60.00 or so and are useful for 18 months. What will it cost to replace 250 watts of T-5's?
NewSchool04
New member
I got mine from www.reefgeek.com. Great people to work with and very cheap shipping on bulbs compared to other vendors. You can get either retrofits or the fixtures there.
T5's usually run about $20 - $25 for a bulb and they should last at least 18 months up to 24. I changed mine out at 18 months not because the bulbs were dimming or I noticed growth slowing, I just was currious to see some of the newer bulbs.
T5's usually run about $20 - $25 for a bulb and they should last at least 18 months up to 24. I changed mine out at 18 months not because the bulbs were dimming or I noticed growth slowing, I just was currious to see some of the newer bulbs.
ppurcell
New member
Light Cost Comparison
Light Cost Comparison
Doug, you got me thinking about the average annual cost to run different light systems. This is what I came up with:
Cost per KWh (in Naperville) = $.0813 including taxes
-Setup 1 - 2x250W MH + 2x54W T5 Actinic
MH Watts = 500
MH Hours/Day=10
Cost per year = $149
Bulb cost per year ($60 each new @ 12 months) = $120
Bulb cost per year ($60 each new @ 18 months) = $80
T5 Watts = 108
T5 Hours/Day=15
Cost per year = $39
Bulb cost per year ($18 each new @ 9 months) = $48
Bulb cost per year ($18 each new @ 18 months) = $24
Setup 2 = 6x54W T5
6x54W T5 Watts = 324
T5 Hours/Day = 15
Cost per year = $145
Bulb cost per year ($18 each new @ 9 months) = $144
Bulb cost per year ($18 each new @ 18 months) = $72
Setup 1 total cost per year (conservative bulb replacement) = $292
Setup 1 total cost per year (aggressive bulb replacement) = $356
Setup 2 total cost per year (conservative bulb replacement) = $217
Setup 2 total cost per year (aggressive bulb replacement) = $289
This assumes you actually get 18 months from the MH's and only 9 months from the T5's. In reality I think the MH get replaced between 12-15 months and the T5 bulbs at around 12 months. So the numbers are a little farther apart. It also assumes the MH bulbs are only $60 and that you can get the T5's for $18. I think both numbers sound a bit low.
Light Cost Comparison
Doug, you got me thinking about the average annual cost to run different light systems. This is what I came up with:
Cost per KWh (in Naperville) = $.0813 including taxes
-Setup 1 - 2x250W MH + 2x54W T5 Actinic
MH Watts = 500
MH Hours/Day=10
Cost per year = $149
Bulb cost per year ($60 each new @ 12 months) = $120
Bulb cost per year ($60 each new @ 18 months) = $80
T5 Watts = 108
T5 Hours/Day=15
Cost per year = $39
Bulb cost per year ($18 each new @ 9 months) = $48
Bulb cost per year ($18 each new @ 18 months) = $24
Setup 2 = 6x54W T5
6x54W T5 Watts = 324
T5 Hours/Day = 15
Cost per year = $145
Bulb cost per year ($18 each new @ 9 months) = $144
Bulb cost per year ($18 each new @ 18 months) = $72
Setup 1 total cost per year (conservative bulb replacement) = $292
Setup 1 total cost per year (aggressive bulb replacement) = $356
Setup 2 total cost per year (conservative bulb replacement) = $217
Setup 2 total cost per year (aggressive bulb replacement) = $289
This assumes you actually get 18 months from the MH's and only 9 months from the T5's. In reality I think the MH get replaced between 12-15 months and the T5 bulbs at around 12 months. So the numbers are a little farther apart. It also assumes the MH bulbs are only $60 and that you can get the T5's for $18. I think both numbers sound a bit low.
Last edited:
ppurcell
New member
Pat,
Thanks for the link.
I just noticed they are selling the fixture for $309 and the retro for $449. I can't even begin to guess why the retro is almost 50% more than the fixture.
I guess there is no advantage to getting a retro...
I'm still thinking of buying a high bay warehouse fixture. I found one that has similar dimensions to the Tek, but only costs $230. It comes with six 5900K bulbs, which I could use as spares...
http://www.fullspectrumsolutions.com/commercial_lighting_fixtures_35_ctg.htm
Thanks for the link.
I just noticed they are selling the fixture for $309 and the retro for $449. I can't even begin to guess why the retro is almost 50% more than the fixture.
I guess there is no advantage to getting a retro...
I'm still thinking of buying a high bay warehouse fixture. I found one that has similar dimensions to the Tek, but only costs $230. It comes with six 5900K bulbs, which I could use as spares...
http://www.fullspectrumsolutions.com/commercial_lighting_fixtures_35_ctg.htm
Last edited:
NewSchool04
New member
The key to T5's is the individual reflectors. If you don't have them, you basically have a glorified PC light.
I think the retro's use a better ballast and water proof endcaps. I'm not sure exactly why the huge difference in price though. Great thing about reef geek is you can call them and they know what their talking about.
I would definitely not skimp on the lights, get something proven and reliable.
I think the retro's use a better ballast and water proof endcaps. I'm not sure exactly why the huge difference in price though. Great thing about reef geek is you can call them and they know what their talking about.
I would definitely not skimp on the lights, get something proven and reliable.
BreadmanMike
New member
Phil,
The retro comes with bulbs. that's why it costs more.
FYI....
I will have a 4 bulb retro available in a few weeks. It has Ice Cap reflectors. I also have an extra 2x54w triad ballast and one set of extra end caps.
The retro comes with bulbs. that's why it costs more.
FYI....
I will have a 4 bulb retro available in a few weeks. It has Ice Cap reflectors. I also have an extra 2x54w triad ballast and one set of extra end caps.
ppurcell
New member
I was thinking about buying this 6 bulb T5HO warehouse high-bay fixture for $180 (w/hanging kit & no bulbs):
Which looks like it puts out over 27,000 lumens on a 6 bulb fixture according to this chart:
But then I was looking at the Sunlight Supply website and saw this SunBlaze fixture for $241.
Does anyone know if this is comparible to the TEK fixture (individual reflectors) and if the light output is the same?
What is the output on a TEK anyway? I was searching but all I could find were non-quantitative statments such as the reflectors increase light output by 300% and that 54 watt T5 bulbs produce 5,000 lumens. Is that supposed to mean that with a individual reflector over a single 47.5" T5HO that you should get 15,000 lumens; or 90,000 from a 6-bulb fixture?
Which looks like it puts out over 27,000 lumens on a 6 bulb fixture according to this chart:
But then I was looking at the Sunlight Supply website and saw this SunBlaze fixture for $241.
Does anyone know if this is comparible to the TEK fixture (individual reflectors) and if the light output is the same?
What is the output on a TEK anyway? I was searching but all I could find were non-quantitative statments such as the reflectors increase light output by 300% and that 54 watt T5 bulbs produce 5,000 lumens. Is that supposed to mean that with a individual reflector over a single 47.5" T5HO that you should get 15,000 lumens; or 90,000 from a 6-bulb fixture?
NewSchool04
New member
I have no idea, you might be able to find that info out in the lighting forum. A guy named grimreefer has a lot of info on the bulbs and output.
All I know is if the fixture doesn't have individual reflectors, you're wasting your money.
All I know is if the fixture doesn't have individual reflectors, you're wasting your money.
TropTrea
New member
I'll go back to my old system which was a 75 gallon tank.
My initial lighting was 1 400 Watt @ 14K plus 110W of P
C atinics. I never had any great growth with this set up, and eventuially made some changes.
My end set up was 1 400W @14,000K and 250W @16,500K plus 220 Watts of atinic lighting. The Atinics were on 12 hours per day, the 250W was on for 10 hours a day and the 400W was on for 8 hours per day.
The half of the tank with the 400W MH did have more color than the other side however actual coral growth was considerably faster on the 250W side. Visually looking at the tank the 250W side looked brighter even though it had less wattage than the 400W side. This I will atribute to the color temperature differences between the bulbs.
If I were doing this again as a 75 gallon tank I would go with SE 250W bulbs looking at the highest PAr 10K's I could find. Then I would suplement with T-5's in the 420 and 450 nm range.
My new tank is a 120 gallon that is in process. My lighting plans for this tank are twin 250W SE using XM 10,000K's plus 4 T-5 bulbs with a combination of 2 420nm, 1 450nm, plus a so called Blue Plus bulb.
The other thing to consider is goiing with straight T-5's on you 75 gallon tank. However, I would use at least 6 bulbs with a least a pair of 10K's for starters. Remember though that bulb combination can change the looks of your tanks drasticly, and what one person might consider too blue another person might consider not blue enough. There is a lot of personal taste involved with these bulb selections.
Dennis
Dennis
My initial lighting was 1 400 Watt @ 14K plus 110W of P
C atinics. I never had any great growth with this set up, and eventuially made some changes.
My end set up was 1 400W @14,000K and 250W @16,500K plus 220 Watts of atinic lighting. The Atinics were on 12 hours per day, the 250W was on for 10 hours a day and the 400W was on for 8 hours per day.
The half of the tank with the 400W MH did have more color than the other side however actual coral growth was considerably faster on the 250W side. Visually looking at the tank the 250W side looked brighter even though it had less wattage than the 400W side. This I will atribute to the color temperature differences between the bulbs.
If I were doing this again as a 75 gallon tank I would go with SE 250W bulbs looking at the highest PAr 10K's I could find. Then I would suplement with T-5's in the 420 and 450 nm range.
My new tank is a 120 gallon that is in process. My lighting plans for this tank are twin 250W SE using XM 10,000K's plus 4 T-5 bulbs with a combination of 2 420nm, 1 450nm, plus a so called Blue Plus bulb.
The other thing to consider is goiing with straight T-5's on you 75 gallon tank. However, I would use at least 6 bulbs with a least a pair of 10K's for starters. Remember though that bulb combination can change the looks of your tanks drasticly, and what one person might consider too blue another person might consider not blue enough. There is a lot of personal taste involved with these bulb selections.
Dennis
Dennis
ppurcell
New member
Thanks Dennis.
I just got off the phone with Sunlight Supply. They were not able to provide any quantitative difference in the output between the Sun Blaze and the TEK fixture, however there are two notible differences besides the fixture construction itself.
1. The reflector in the Sun Blaze is not the same as the TEK. The TEK uses a german made reflective material and the Sun Blaze is something different. The New Wave is another fixture they have similar in style to the Sun Blaze but uses the same reflector as the TEK.
2. The Sun Blaze only has a single power control for the whole fixture, The TEK has two so you can power up some bulbs seperately to simulate sunrise/sunset.
I am waiting on a call back from the aquarium sales specialist, so maybe he will be able to provide some additional technical information. So, far there isn't anything measurable that I can use to base my decision on except "german made reflector" and the price.
I just got off the phone with Sunlight Supply. They were not able to provide any quantitative difference in the output between the Sun Blaze and the TEK fixture, however there are two notible differences besides the fixture construction itself.
1. The reflector in the Sun Blaze is not the same as the TEK. The TEK uses a german made reflective material and the Sun Blaze is something different. The New Wave is another fixture they have similar in style to the Sun Blaze but uses the same reflector as the TEK.
2. The Sun Blaze only has a single power control for the whole fixture, The TEK has two so you can power up some bulbs seperately to simulate sunrise/sunset.
I am waiting on a call back from the aquarium sales specialist, so maybe he will be able to provide some additional technical information. So, far there isn't anything measurable that I can use to base my decision on except "german made reflector" and the price.
ppurcell
New member
Ok, I got a report from Sunlight Supply that shows the efficiency of three different reflectors.
Original Tek Reflector: 89.63% lumens measured (rated at 95% efficient)
Tek II Reflector: 96.98% lumens measured (rated at 97.1% efficient)
IC Reflector: 91.38% lumens measured (don't have rating %)
There seems to be a descrepancy in the "rating" verses measured value for the original Tek reflector. the IC reflector outperforms it but not the new Tek II reflector.
The TCP high bay warehouse fixture has a efficiency rating of 95% and measured lumins of 92.4% which would make it appear that it is more efficient than either the Tek I or IC reflectors. My only concern is that the reflectors are laid out on a convex arc which would direct the light from each pair of bulbs in different path as you can see in this end view representation of the fixture:
Original Tek Reflector: 89.63% lumens measured (rated at 95% efficient)
Tek II Reflector: 96.98% lumens measured (rated at 97.1% efficient)
IC Reflector: 91.38% lumens measured (don't have rating %)
There seems to be a descrepancy in the "rating" verses measured value for the original Tek reflector. the IC reflector outperforms it but not the new Tek II reflector.
The TCP high bay warehouse fixture has a efficiency rating of 95% and measured lumins of 92.4% which would make it appear that it is more efficient than either the Tek I or IC reflectors. My only concern is that the reflectors are laid out on a convex arc which would direct the light from each pair of bulbs in different path as you can see in this end view representation of the fixture:
Similar threads
