PAR Results HQI vs T5

[SkiFletch]

Did you take the glass off yet John?

And Ellery, I wholeheartedly agree. Bulb replacement costs on an 8-tube 48" T5 fixture are NOT cheap, especially not for good quality bulbs like these Geismanns. And if overdriven and replaced more often... Well, then any monetary savings can just go up in smoke

 

[PCIALF]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12162297#post12162297 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by SkiFletch
Did you take the glass off yet John?

And Ellery, I wholeheartedly agree. Bulb replacement costs on an 8-tube 48" T5 fixture are NOT cheap, especially not for good quality bulbs like these Geismanns. And if overdriven and replaced more often... Well, then any monetary savings can just go up in smoke

Yes the results are posted I believe on page 2 in green numbers

as far as bulbs mine are not overdriven I have been told 12-18 months at around $20 -@24 each

 

[oldimpala]

Ellerey-

I've been running T-5's for about 3 years now; and bulb replacement on Normally driven 48" T-5's can go 2 years, if they're cooled. I ran about 16/18 months; complete switch of 6 bulbs, shipped is around $150. So, a bit less than 2 good DE/250W MHs I used to run. Not including the actinics I needed for supplement.

Since switching to an IceCap rig, I'm a bit more cautious; I run them 1 year, and dump them. I can go longer (18mo/2yrs), I'm told, but why risk it? That's the interval I followed on my MHs, too.

I personally think the two year replacement is a bit long, especially for the Actinic phosphors.

-Andy

PS: John- Don't even think about replacing the bulbs, unless you want to mess with spectrum, before a year.

 

[Henry Colf]

That totals up to around the same price as 2 new metal halide bulbs.So that's not to bad.I like the idea of being able to adjust the lighting by switching out a bulb or 2 without it costing an arm and a leg.John,are you going to do any growth pic's.I am interested in seeing how the sps in your tank will grow.

 

[shred5]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12162108#post12162108 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Ellery
John,
My next question is to see how long your T5 bulbs last before you have to replace them. That also cuts into the perceived savings if they need to be replaced more often and per the cost of each bulb needed.

T-5 last longer.. The blue lamps decrease faster than the daylight t-5 lamps... The lamp life can be increased if cooled... Over driven lamps will decrease at a faster rate.

Dave

 

[webster.nano]

Regarding glass covers, wouldn't anti-reflection glass used for framing gallery art work transmit more of the light?

It has a coating that prevents reflections, which means more of the light goes through the glass.

If memory serves me right, 8% of the light hitting a glass pane gets reflected (approx 4% from the air-glass interface, another 4% from the glass-air interface on the back side of the glass).

With proper coatings, this may go down to 2%, a 6% improvement.


In practical applications, salt spray and dirt will necessitate the cleaning of the glass periodically, but this seems much easier than cleaning T5 reflectors.

Has anyone done any measurements / experiments with this type of glass as a cover or splash guard in a real-world SW aquarium setting?

 

[SkiFletch]

I'd say more than periodically Webster. I've read a few articles out there where some anecdotal measurements were taken with a PAR meter on rigs with glass covers and salt spray/dirt. The before/after cleaning data were often in the 15-30% difference range. If memory serves, there were a few articles on advancedaquarist about this. Also some regarding cleaning off the shields on those new pendant type compact flourescents so many of us use for our sumps. Again, big difference from cleaning it off.

 

[gsxunv04]

how close are your bulbs that you have salt spray on your reflectors? i hear rainx or carwax is a good shield for reflectors against salt creep

 

[NATIVEVAMAN]

You dont have to overdrive t-5 anymore.Have a look at the bulbs in this link.
http://www.uvlco.com/T5VHO.htm

 

[gsxunv04]

sweet, will these go in any ballast, and who carries them?

 

[dan10342]

if you put them in a normal t5-ho ballast they run at 54 watts.

if u hook them up and overdrive them with an cecap 660 or something, they burn at 85 watts. (same for other bulb legnths)

 

[gsxunv04]

so theres no difference in these and regular uvl's? what makes them "pro" series?

 

[dan10342]

i have no idea. but they are V-HOs which means, "variable high output". so they can either be fired at 54 watts or 85 watts. they are in no way VHOs. however, they out-do halides and VHO im sure

 

[LFS_worker]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12160867#post12160867 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by shred5
blue bulbs put out less par..

Dave

Can you site your source? I want to read this article ...

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12164496#post12164496 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by shred5
T-5 last longer.. The blue lamps decrease faster than the daylight t-5 lamps... The lamp life can be increased if cooled... Over driven lamps will decrease at a faster rate.

Dave

Ditto on this one ( the last longer thing ) hopefully the articles have PAR numbers to be shown with them. All of the T-5 lamps I have seen get that nasty brown ring on the end caps after about 5 months. I have minimal long term experience with T-5 and would love to learn more about them from a factual, scientific standpoint.


I don't run MH or PC but the info I PERSONALLY have seen T-5 is terrible ...

John what meter are you using? Also with your MH testing how did you get your numbers? did you account for glitter lines?

For the record I am a huge fan of PC so I am not really taking sides I have a 2 x 150 / or 2x 175 MH kit in my garage that I choose not to run. In my wifes 65 g tank we run 1x96w PC that is a 460nm actinic lamp and there are left over acro frags about 8" from the bottom of the tank that are growing quite well.

I am alone (most days it seems) in saying that water quality is MUCH more important than lighting. People put so much emphasis on lighting and neglect things like owning their own test kits, or knowing how magnesium impacts their tank...

I hope that T-5 changes the reef-keeping world! I really do...

Great info John ... You are the guy who by posting has nothing to gain or loose only to share info! so again thanks

B-UNIT

 

[shred5]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12186200#post12186200 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by LFS_worker
Can you site your source? I want to read this article ...[/q]

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=918935&perpage=25&pagenumber=1
Par readings done by grim reaper.

ATI

Sun Pro 357
Aquablue 336
Blue Plus 311
Actinic 137

D&D/Giesemann

Midday 325
Aquablue 324
Actinic Plus 264
Pure Actinic 157

UVL

Aqua sun 345
Actinic White 293
Super Actinic 210

AquaZ

Sun Pro 285
Ocean Pro 323
Blue Pro 266

Helios

Daylight 309
Super Blue 225

Current Sun Paq

Daylight 10K 272
Blue 252

GE Daylight 340

By the way this is not nothing new. With any lamp the higher in Kelvin you go the less par. Obviously some lamps are better than others. Allot of day light bulbs have more blue in than blue bulbs it is just the blue bulbs have less of the other colors in them.


Actinic’s do not perform and are more used to bring out the fluorescence in corals. It is more for us than the corals. actinics are actually slightly purple.

Also par is not just in blue light, that is a misconception some people have.


I don't run MH or PC but the info I PERSONALLY have seen T-5 is terrible ...

What info says it is bad? Maybe regular t-5 lamps but not h.o. lamps.

John what meter are you using? Also with your MH testing how did you get your numbers? did you account for glitter lines?...

Most likely it was an Apogee Instruments' Model QMSW-SS since that is what most people use... Li-cor is way out of most people range. Apogee meter does have a problem with reading par in the red spectrum.

Dave

 

[PCIALF]

Dave Great info
I am running 3 aquablues as my blue as you can see by the numbers they are just about as bright as the Middays. That was what I was saying. Now the Actinics are another story again as the numbers show.

 

[sfsuphysics]

Good info Dave, looked in the other T5 thread, the one that has split more than hollywood marriages, but gave up when I started to grasp the reality of how many pages I'd have to wade through.

Seems of my Geisemann bulbs the "actinic plus" (it's really blue) is still 81% the output of "Aquablue" (really white) bulbs, plus it gives a little more kick, however those ATI blue plus bulbs really got my interest piqued especially since the spectral output curve is almost identical to the Geisemann bulbs

 

[shred5]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12193110#post12193110 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by sfsuphysics
Good info Dave, looked in the other T5 thread, the one that has split more than hollywood marriages, but gave up when I started to grasp the reality of how many pages I'd have to wade through.

Seems of my Geisemann bulbs the "actinic plus" (it's really blue) is still 81% the output of "Aquablue" (really white) bulbs, plus it gives a little more kick, however those ATI blue plus bulbs really got my interest piqued especially since the spectral output curve is almost identical to the Geisemann bulbs

I use the ati blue plus and really love them... They put out well and are really Blue... The ati & geisemann Blue lamp due hold their own very well compaired to most other blue lamps... Only reason I brought up blue having less par is someone stated they have more which is not the case.

People have been adding lamps with a little red in them like the uvl aqua sun and noticing better colors in their corals. I recently removed one that I was using because I am not a huge fan of the red color but I did loose some color in my corals after a month... I think it is going back in...

Dave

 

[LFS_worker]

the thread doesn't state his depth of testing ... nor are there any other variables involved (age of lamps, run time before testing, fans on / off) I suppose that is all splitting hairs but If I wanted to replicate his test I can't do it.

some interesting excerpts for ya

"The energy contained in the light is related to the frequency (and hence wavelength) of the wave. There are mathematical formulas for determining this, but we wont get into that here. What is relevant is the relationship between frequency and energy - the lower the frequency the higher the energy. Hence the red light will have lower energy than the violet light. This is of interest since in the oceans as light penetrates into the water light with lower energy (red light) gets absorbed first, and blue and violet light penetrates deeper. "

"The reason for expressing PAR in number of photons instead of energy units is that the photosynthesis reaction takes place when a photon is absorbed by the plant, no matter what the photon's wavelength (or energy) is (provided it lies in the range between 400 and 700 nm). That is, if a given number of blue photons are absorbed by a plant, the amount of photosynthesis that takes place is exactly the same as when the same number of red photons is absorbed."

articles quoted above are by Sanjay Joshi

Blue light has also been reported to increase rates of photosynthesis (Kinzie and Hunter, 1987)

enough about the blue light thing...

john was using 492w before and now is using 432w a 60w difference ... Couple of years before that $ comes back around ... and lamp replacement will be about $20 on lamp replacement ... for what ? To change something that was not broken? Johns tank was AWESOME before this and it is AWESOME now but I would feel terrible telling him that what he did to his reef is for the better ... or that it will save him a lot of $$ .

Please do not take offence to my post It has taken me 2 days to write it so that it no longer sounds mean when I read it to myself. I in no way am attempting to belittle anyone, or any idea. we are all here to better care for our animals

Thanks Guys
Brian

Looking foreword to learning much more on this thread!

 

[shred5]

LFS_worker
what you posted on what sanja said is correct on blue light .. Some unproven with coral but it is thought to be correct.

Watts has nothing to do with par either. What he has now will give him more par.

par is 400 to around 700 nm.. Par also just does not come from blue or purple spectrum.

What I am saying is a blue lamp just because it is blue does not mean it put out more par and that is what he measured. It can have less blue than a 6500k lamp it just has less of the other colors of light like red, yellow and green. They remove the other spectrums. Remember white light is a mix of the other spectrums. Take for example the iwasaki halide it is a 6500k lamp which is close to the color of the sun and has a yellow tinge to it. It has more blue spectrum in it than any other halide on the market that has been tested and far more than any 20k lamp which is way more blue in apearance. It also has alot of the other color spectrums in it taking away from its blue look. A blue light just has less of the other spectrums of light in it makeing it apear just blue but it does not mean it has more blue than any other light. Why do you think a halide needs no supplemental blue or actinic light lighting and they do not look blue? Because it has allot of blue in it already.

So basically a blue lamp can have less blue than a white lamp it just does not have the other colors of the spectrum...


Watts has nothing to do with par either. What he has now will give him more par and is running in the par range of 250 watt metal halides. Is it better for his tank? Maybe or maybe not, it dpends on what he is keeping or plans to in the future. In one of my tanks I was thinking of using a 250 halide and instead went to 4 t-5 and I am getting close to the same par. My lamps cost are close to the same and my energy usage is way down than if I went 250.
Dave