new lighting

gary greguire

Premium Member
I removed 440w of vho & a 175w of 20kk mh and replaced it with 3 80w t5s on my 125 softie tank. It I a very impressive amount of light even with the 80w tubes not spanning the entire tank. I can't wait to see how things react to the new light. I may add a 4th tube of actinic for dawn to dusk.
 
Its kinda mean not to put pictures for us to compare and contrast!!!

Congrats. I know you have been wanting the T5s for a while now! :rollface:
 
2 aquablue plus & 1 6500k GE daylight I also have a actinic/blue plus but I am going to run the first 3 for starters to see how things grow. I am running them on a icecap 660

I will try to find some pics tomorrow I don't take alot of pics of that tank.
 
this is two actinic 03. i will post pics tomorrow with three 03 and a 10000k.
100_2189.jpg
 
T5's last longer ( 1.5 - 2 yrs ). Generate less heat ( they are spread over a larger area), Handle heat better (actually run best at a higher local temperature than t5) can be turned on and off without a cool down period and the bulbs are a bit cheaper.

They can be kept closer to the water and don't require nearly as large a canopy.
They are more flexible. you can mix and match bulbs to get the color(s) you want. You typically can't mix MH's.

They do not save electricty per se. t5's are as efficient as MH watt for watt. If you run 216 w of t5 it's effectively the same as running 216w of MH.

t5's even in a powerful tek reflector don't have the punch of Metal Halides in a great parabolic reflector. They just can't penetrate to depth the same way. Similarly. T5's like VHO's can only provide a certain wattage over a given area. As depths increase it becomes impossible to provide adequate light with t5. (1 t5 bulb is 5/8")

You also give up glitter lines to some extent with t5. It is possible to achieve them, but they aren't as spectacular as the ones you get from MH.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7069261#post7069261 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by dalbrecht
They do not save electricty per se. t5's are as efficient as MH watt for watt. If you run 216 w of t5 it's effectively the same as running 216w of MH.

t5's even in a powerful tek reflector don't have the punch of Metal Halides in a great parabolic reflector. They just can't penetrate to depth the same way. Similarly. T5's like VHO's can only provide a certain wattage over a given area. As depths increase it becomes impossible to provide adequate light with t5. (1 t5 bulb is 5/8")


I will agree with some of your statements

but 216w of t5 is the equivelent of 400w MH. you can check that out on any industrial lighting site.

I have read in many places that 8 54w t5's on a 120 and you can grow sps in the sand. The other claim is that you can't even think about softies, I find that a little hard to believe.



t5's are disigned for highbay applications just like halides the penetration on t5's is very good.

here is a ton of reading on t5s
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=741281

and also check out this past TOTM http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2005-03/totm/index.php
 
Last edited:
snapped these real quick so quality might not be so good.
two 54 watt 03 actinic.
100_2244.jpg

three 54 watt 03 actinic and one 54 watt 10000k.
100_2243.jpg

mounting.
100_2242.jpg

100_2241.jpg
 
That combinations seems darker than mine. Maybe its just the camera.

Here is 2 GE 54W 6500K Daylight with 2 Giesemann 54W Actinic + bulbs:

54582wholetank2yrsmall.jpg


54582wholetank2yrendsmall.jpg
 
tingy99 yours would be brighter. you are running two daylights .i use one. i also run 2x175 10000k halides for a total of 566 watts.
 
Back
Top