Rittori and Haddoni under T5??
- Thread starter Flameangel
- Start date
55semireef
Moved On
I think we are talking about two different things now. I wasn't debating about the intensity of the point source lighting that MH puts out, I was debating how much light T5s and MH put out to the sandbed.
What caused me to disagree was this statement that you said because you never mentioned point source, all you mentioned was the "amount of lighting." Both T5s and MH put out a ton of light. There are some T5s that put out more light while there are some MH that put out more light just like I said above. You are probably right in regards that MH puts out more intense light near the surface since its coming from a point source. I havn't read any recent studies on that but it seems logical enough for me to go with that concept. However, I have read many studies about the comparison of T5s and MH. Just go look in the equipment forum and you can dig up many old threads about MH vs T5s. Both are strong lighting units; they both have different advantages and disadvantages though.
Anyways, sorry to digress away from the topic, I was just trying to make a subtle point.
The Grim Reefer
Ready for some NOBALL!!!
You can get higher intensity with T5 lighting than a lot of 250 watt halide systems can manage. I have done the PAR readings. My 6x54 watt normally driven ATI unit is putting better than 200 UMOL's of PAR to the sand of a tank that is over 22" tall with a shallow sandbed. Thats using 1 3000K lamp 2 actinics and 3 blues, the color is about like a more blue 14K halide. That will grow acros, should be fine for any anemone.
I think the only real disadvantage to T5's is that the light is evenly distributed across the tank so anemones would be more prone to wandering than if you had them under more isolated lighting like halides. It might be better for big carpets.
I think the only real disadvantage to T5's is that the light is evenly distributed across the tank so anemones would be more prone to wandering than if you had them under more isolated lighting like halides. It might be better for big carpets.
OrionN
Moved on
T5 is the same technology as NO or VHO or PC. What is new here is the higher power and the smaller bulbs so you can squeeze more bulb into a small space.
Both MH and Florescence light the spectrum of light depends on the chemical composition of the compound of gas in the bulbs. I am sure the total energy output per watt is about the same. I think degradation of light (decrease in light intensity and shift of light spectrum is less with MH than with florescence type light. I am sure that 6X54 W T5 will be brighter than 250 W MH. The one advantage of MH is that intensity of light vary. I can have zones of high light and lowlight with MH while it is harder to do this with florescence light.
The new technology for aquarium lighting is LED light. I think LED light produce more light (and less heat) per watt than MH and florescence and have virtually no degradation in intensity or shift in spectrum. It just cost too much for me at this time.
Both MH and Florescence light the spectrum of light depends on the chemical composition of the compound of gas in the bulbs. I am sure the total energy output per watt is about the same. I think degradation of light (decrease in light intensity and shift of light spectrum is less with MH than with florescence type light. I am sure that 6X54 W T5 will be brighter than 250 W MH. The one advantage of MH is that intensity of light vary. I can have zones of high light and lowlight with MH while it is harder to do this with florescence light.
The new technology for aquarium lighting is LED light. I think LED light produce more light (and less heat) per watt than MH and florescence and have virtually no degradation in intensity or shift in spectrum. It just cost too much for me at this time.
The Grim Reefer
Ready for some NOBALL!!!
The real advantage to T5's is the ability to use a parabolic reflector and keep them closer to the water. If you get a cheap fixture with a flat reflector they are really not going to put any more light to the sand than a PC's. They will look better and last longer though.
A photon of light will travel the same distance no matter what created it. Halides start out more intense but the T5's make up for that advantage by being placed closer to the water (in most cases) and using multiple lamps in an array so the output overlaps. The reason the T5's can compete with halides where VHO and PC's can't is the ability to use good reflectors, they about double the amount of light reaching the tank over a flat reflector.
A photon of light will travel the same distance no matter what created it. Halides start out more intense but the T5's make up for that advantage by being placed closer to the water (in most cases) and using multiple lamps in an array so the output overlaps. The reason the T5's can compete with halides where VHO and PC's can't is the ability to use good reflectors, they about double the amount of light reaching the tank over a flat reflector.
55semireef
Moved On
Thanks Grim for clearing that up. 
elegance coral
They call me EC
I'm sorry, but you are comparing apples and oranges. H. Magnitica needs much more light then these animals.
It doesn't matter how much overall light any given bulb produces. What matters is how much of that light reaches the animal in question. With T5's the light is spread out over a much larger area making it impossible for one animal to take advantage of most of the lightthey produce. With MH one animal can take advantage of most of the light it produces. Most H.Mags dont servive even when given mh lighting. I would never try it with T5"s, the animal will just not get enough light. If you try this you may want to put the lights as close the the anemone as you can.
illcssd
New member
I hope you never find it.
There are about 10 people who are very experienced and have kept this anemone, including me, that say it won't work. Why would you risk an anemone that already has the worst track record for almost all marine animals to try and prove a point after everyone is saying it won't work?
It is completely irresponsible and you are one of the people that give this hobby a bad rap./
fwiw
55semireef
Moved On
plancton, elegance coral and illcssd are right. Its not that T5s produce enough light (we just discussed that), its that they give off their light in a much different way than MH. MH gives off strong point source lighting which H. Magnifica prefers. H. Magnifica as others mentioned move up as close as to the light as possible no matter how strong the lighting is and absorb all of that light thats being produced in such a small area. On the other hand, T5s have their light evenly distributed throughout the whole tank. Yes T5s are strong and intense, but they give off their light in a way where H. Magnifica won't benefit from. Now, H. Magnifica would do well under a combo of MH and T5s, but soley T5s alone would not be sufficient based off what all I have read.
I am not bashing your intentions, just trying to inform you so you don't end up killing a H. Magnifica.
Just my two cents
I am not bashing your intentions, just trying to inform you so you don't end up killing a H. Magnifica.
Just my two cents
elegance coral
They call me EC
you confuse me. Is there anything in what I posted that is incorrect or untrue?
The Grim Reefer
Ready for some NOBALL!!!
PAR is measured based on the number of light photons striking a target in a given amount of time. If a T5 system provided a PAR reading of 200 in one area of the sandbed it is likely providing that number accross the entire area of sand that is under the T5 array which typically covers nearly the entire footprint of the tank.
Halides have peak PAR under the lamp and quickly drops off as you move away from the reflector. If the halide has peak PAR of 180 under the lamp there is no way it can be providing more light to any specific animal than a T5 system that is producing PAR of 200 at the sand.
I have measured PAR on a few different halide systems and several T5's. Measuring directly under the halide lamp at the sandbed the T5's were providing more PAR. Several others here on RC have done similar measurments and gotten the same type of results. That includes a few differnt 250 watt halide systems. A 175 watt Iwasaki (which is a PAR monster lamp) in a lumen max reflector was the only thing I've seen measured so far that beat a decent T5 system. Most of the 250 watt systems running cheap spyder type reflectors aren't providing any more PAR than a good T5 system.
Halides have peak PAR under the lamp and quickly drops off as you move away from the reflector. If the halide has peak PAR of 180 under the lamp there is no way it can be providing more light to any specific animal than a T5 system that is producing PAR of 200 at the sand.
I have measured PAR on a few different halide systems and several T5's. Measuring directly under the halide lamp at the sandbed the T5's were providing more PAR. Several others here on RC have done similar measurments and gotten the same type of results. That includes a few differnt 250 watt halide systems. A 175 watt Iwasaki (which is a PAR monster lamp) in a lumen max reflector was the only thing I've seen measured so far that beat a decent T5 system. Most of the 250 watt systems running cheap spyder type reflectors aren't providing any more PAR than a good T5 system.
55semireef
Moved On
I was agreeing with you...lol. I said you and Austin were right.
55semireef
Moved On
Grim, so your saying that some T5s have more par at the sandbed than MH directly under the lamp?
OrionN
Moved on
Parabolic reflector, in order to work well require light source significantly smaller than the reflector. This is just optical principle. Perfect reflectors requires point source or in long reflectors requires linear light source. T5 have much smaller bulbs this have much better reflectors than VHO or PC (essentially two T5 right next to each other)
Because larger size of PC and VHO, the reflector is not as good. That is essentially the advantage of T5 over VHO and PC.
MH also have much better reflector than VHO and PC.
If we think about it, the total amount of light that directly go to out tank is lest than 1/4 of the light produce by the bulb. The reflector get the rest of the light, which is at least 75% of the light to the tank. A good reflector is essential in getting the most out of all that electrical energy to the tank without waste it as heat.
Last edited:
elegance coral
They call me EC
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9929697#post9929697 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by 55semireef
I was agreeing with you...lol. I said you and Austin were right.
I'm sorry man! I'm just so use to you disagreeing with me that I misunderstood what you were saying. My bad
