T-5 Ignorance
- Thread starter maxrep12
- Start date
kruxy
Active member
Herbert:
Aren't you forgetting to take into account that those 400 watt fixtures are actually pulling quite a bit more than 400 watts each? I am not sure on what bulbs they are running to get an exact draw, but since most average between 5% and 20% more draw than the rated output to fire, multiplied over the number of fixtures across the entire store, the savings could actually be significantly more, like 466 watts more, not the 66 that you quoted...
Not picking a fight (as I really don't know the specifics and would definately lose any technical argument), just curious if you took this into account. Here where power is relatively cheap at $.07/kwh running 24/7 that is a savings of as much as 548 bucks a week per aisle. my hd has around 20 aisles, annually that would be a savings of almost $285,000.00 per year assuming a more conservative overdraw of half that number. a quarter million dollars a year per store is a nice tasty parachute for some exec somewhere. alternately since they probably dont want to have to pay big wages, that would be 15 40 hour employees at 9 bucks an hour
Aren't you forgetting to take into account that those 400 watt fixtures are actually pulling quite a bit more than 400 watts each? I am not sure on what bulbs they are running to get an exact draw, but since most average between 5% and 20% more draw than the rated output to fire, multiplied over the number of fixtures across the entire store, the savings could actually be significantly more, like 466 watts more, not the 66 that you quoted...
Not picking a fight (as I really don't know the specifics and would definately lose any technical argument), just curious if you took this into account. Here where power is relatively cheap at $.07/kwh running 24/7 that is a savings of as much as 548 bucks a week per aisle. my hd has around 20 aisles, annually that would be a savings of almost $285,000.00 per year assuming a more conservative overdraw of half that number. a quarter million dollars a year per store is a nice tasty parachute for some exec somewhere. alternately since they probably dont want to have to pay big wages, that would be 15 40 hour employees at 9 bucks an hour
Scuba Dog
New member
T5s are excelent and way out perform VHO and power compacts with the greatist of ease...with a good refelector system I think they even slightly outperform 175 halides...the penitration coment is about keeping sps and clams on the substrate..
And the case with most lfs...I ignore 99% of the garbage they tell me about the hobby..I smile make my purchase and walk out the door...
And the case with most lfs...I ignore 99% of the garbage they tell me about the hobby..I smile make my purchase and walk out the door...
LittleBlueGT
New member
Herbert T. Kornfeld
In Memoriam
kruxy
no, i did not take into account the actual ballast draw, but these arent HQI balasts were talking about here...they are cheap probe start magnetics...so they run pretty close to spec. Even at that, lets say a running wattage slightlu over the 400...maybe 420 tops...as any more would pretty much be HQI territory...still not big. Also take into account that some aisles that had just 5 halides now have 2 rows of T-5 fixtures...almost double the wattage that was there before, as well as in the showroom areas (millwork, K&B, Pro, Flooring, Paint) are getting extra rows of fixtures...I would say that the wattage advantage is negated.
Im telling ya, they could have just bought better halide reflectors and bulbs...oh well...
no, i did not take into account the actual ballast draw, but these arent HQI balasts were talking about here...they are cheap probe start magnetics...so they run pretty close to spec. Even at that, lets say a running wattage slightlu over the 400...maybe 420 tops...as any more would pretty much be HQI territory...still not big. Also take into account that some aisles that had just 5 halides now have 2 rows of T-5 fixtures...almost double the wattage that was there before, as well as in the showroom areas (millwork, K&B, Pro, Flooring, Paint) are getting extra rows of fixtures...I would say that the wattage advantage is negated.
Im telling ya, they could have just bought better halide reflectors and bulbs...oh well...
I would like the review too. ...and the one where the blue has the most PAR.
I see too much mixed information... lux, lumens, watts, PAR, penetration all talking on all different levels at the same time, or just on the wrong level alltogether.
I want to see PAR at 12", PAR at 18" and PAR at 24" with different bulb/ballast combos of flourescents.
Without those readings, isn't all this talk just academic?
I see too much mixed information... lux, lumens, watts, PAR, penetration all talking on all different levels at the same time, or just on the wrong level alltogether.
I want to see PAR at 12", PAR at 18" and PAR at 24" with different bulb/ballast combos of flourescents.
Without those readings, isn't all this talk just academic?
The Grim Reefer
Ready for some NOBALL!!!
I saw in another thread where a guy is supposed to be doing tests now. I can't remember the name exactly but it is like Sanjai Joshi (sorry for the butcher job on the name) who has done tests on halides before. The owner of ATI which is the preffered vendor for T5 has stated the Aquablue which is a 60/40 mix of actinic and sun phospers provides the most par. The light from the lamps looks very crisp white with a hint of blue to it. They estimate the color in the 11K range. I went just over two months running just Blues and Aquablues and saw very good growth in the SPS frags in my tank. I just added a sun back into the mix because I like the color better with it in.
There are a couple of threads where people have done simple tests with T5's and they were about equal to 175 watt halides based on the PAR reading at a given depth. All I know is I have a Crocea clam in the sand that is about 20" below the surface and it is doing great under T5's. I also have several SPS frags that are doing great and the LPS thrive under them.
There are a couple of threads where people have done simple tests with T5's and they were about equal to 175 watt halides based on the PAR reading at a given depth. All I know is I have a Crocea clam in the sand that is about 20" below the surface and it is doing great under T5's. I also have several SPS frags that are doing great and the LPS thrive under them.
The Grim Reefer
Ready for some NOBALL!!!
I seem to remember 1 taking the reading under a single lamp. They had moved the sensor from side to side to determine how even the output was. It really wouldnt matter how many lamps were in the system as you are only going to measure maximum PAR directly below the lamp. I guess they could use multiple lamps and turn all the reflectors to a single area if they wanted to fudge the numbers a bit.
By the way, this wasn't a comparison. The conclusions were drawn from know PAR readings typically produced by halides and compaired to these people's readings on the T5's.
By the way, this wasn't a comparison. The conclusions were drawn from know PAR readings typically produced by halides and compaired to these people's readings on the T5's.
ga_reefer_guy
New member
beautiful tank
asnatlas
New member
Just as is sounds, you are running them at a higher wattage (providing more power then they are rated to run optimally at)... For instance with the IceCaps on 54w (48") T5's you would actually be running them around 80w... This can be done as itââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢s not "overdriving" too much but it will decrease the live of the bulb(s)...
