T5 capabilities- reality or hype?

[RichConley]

Grim, I remember looking at your "test" and thinking "this is set up to prove a point." The whole setup you were using for MH was sub par, and you have nice high par T5s. Very akin to the Solaris LED thing at IMAC.


T5s are great, I just dont think your test a while back proved anything.

 

[Reef_bones]

WOW .. T-5 vs MH is turning into the new DSB vs BB that still lives on. Lets just say you can use either and leave it at that. There has been enough proof of thriving high light needing corals under both. Choose your poison and move on...

 

[blackie lawless]

I've got my return outlets set so that they are constantly disrupting the surface water of my tank, instant shimmer effect!

If you go with a good T5 setup, you will not be dissapointed is all I can say. We can sit here and argue over this all day, but the bottom line is they work great, and I along with many others are getting great growth out of our SPS.

I can't help but laugh everytime I hear the guy at the LFS tell customers that they can't grow SPS unless they have Halides.

Both Halides and T5's will grow SPS, provided you have a good setup of either one. Which one is right for you depends on many different factors, not just which will grow SPS the fastest. Do your homework.

 

[manderx]

grim, i still don't believe you can use that hardware to make these comparisons. i finally went through the 250wSE thread again (i did follow it live back then but it's been awhile) and noticed that several people had the same thoughts and issues i do about that sensor and they were never really addressed (i never saw a post from them giving in and saying they were convinced). the closest i saw it to being addressed was apogee calibrated a licor sensor (to match their own sensor?) and sent it to JB to compare. that doesn't mean or prove anything.

Considering I was not using any daylight T5's (2 actinic plus and 2 aquablues) the measurment against 14K halide was absolutly legit

so are you saying the combination of actinic+ and aquablue matches the spectrum exactly of that particular 14K bulb? if we were dealing with different dalight halide bulbs, yeah sure knock youself out. but not with the uncommon spectrums that t5 put out.

T-5 vs MH is turning into the new DSB vs BB that still lives on.

i don't think anyone is really trying to put one or the other down (like they do in bb/dsb threads), we're just saying that the tests done to put hard numbers on them are probably worthless due to a lack of understanding of the limits of the hardware and poor testing proceedure. many of the best tanks (big and small) in the world are t5. and not even as many bulbs or overdriven as many here in the states would recommend either.

and the whole 'well the numbers might not be very good but they are the best we have' is bunk. bad data is worse than no data.

 

[bassnman11]

t5 vs halide

t5 vs halide

I think people are caught up in minor details to justify their position. As far as testing with halides mounted high and T5 mounted low, thats the way we use them. Halides need to be high to get coverage. The other feature of T5s that is not mentioned here is heat and power draw. If you set up a system of both kinds of light with the best reflectors and bulbs, performance would probably be about equal. How ever, the halides are going to be drawing almost twice the juice and most likely would require a chiller, which is expensive and a additional power draw.
If you prefer the look of one system over the other, more power to you. As the reef keeper, you need to be happy with how you tank looks. Some people prefer Ford over Chevy, so what. Be happy and don't get all defensive in trying to justify your prefered lights.
Sorry to unload on you but this debate has gone on a long time. If you think halides are the best, do like grim did. Put together both kinds of systems and compare them side by side and post the results.

 

[Ti]

Re: t5 vs halide

Re: t5 vs halide

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7760958#post7760958 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by bassnman11
I think people are caught up in minor details to justify their position. As far as testing with halides mounted high and T5 mounted low, thats the way we use them. Halides need to be high to get coverage. The other feature of T5s that is not mentioned here is heat and power draw. If you set up a system of both kinds of light with the best reflectors and bulbs, performance would probably be about equal. How ever, the halides are going to be drawing almost twice the juice and most likely would require a chiller, which is expensive and a additional power draw.
If you prefer the look of one system over the other, more power to you. As the reef keeper, you need to be happy with how you tank looks. Some people prefer Ford over Chevy, so what. Be happy and don't get all defensive in trying to justify your prefered lights.
Sorry to unload on you but this debate has gone on a long time. If you think halides are the best, do like grim did. Put together both kinds of systems and compare them side by side and post the results.

There are T5 guys out there who need chillers.
I've seen the postings.
I for one use MH and don't have a chiller, there are members like me as well.
Am I a MH dead head though?
No.
I used Only T5 before for a year.
For my setup, MH worked out better than just T5 only.
I;m sure for some others T5 only is the way to go, it all depends on the setup and the needs of the user.
As for ampherage draw, that is all dependant on set up, it's not safe to say MH draws more or T5 draws more.
Nothing about this topic is really definative.
It all comes down to what each person likes more.

 

[geoff72]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7754734#post7754734 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Ti
u can see the results on the SLS website.

Maybe I am just blind can you point it out to me. The main problem I am having is I am trying to watch the budget. I am hoping to get a 250g soon so I need to watch how much I spend on these lights. I have been looking at the Finnex and Tek 5. The advantages I see with the Finnex is all price but they are cheaper, comes with the bulbs, and my tank does not have a hood and my wife will not let me hang lights form the ceiling. My tank is in my living room. The Tek 5 looks like it is made to be hung and the braces are $57. I can get a Finnex 6 bulb for $279 or 4 bulb for $159. The Tek 5 is more than that and I still have to buy the bulbs and braces. Any suggestions?

 

[The Grim Reefer]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7759275#post7759275 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by RichConley
Grim, I remember looking at your "test" and thinking "this is set up to prove a point." The whole setup you were using for MH was sub par, and you have nice high par T5s. Very akin to the Solaris LED thing at IMAC.


T5s are great, I just dont think your test a while back proved anything.

Will you knowing better than I how high up my system was and what lamps I had would of course know what the motivation was behind the test. I guess the Reefoptix lll pendant I measured was sub par too. I sell so much T5 stuff I would have a vested interest in hyping them. I guess I actually bough the PAR meter to do a T5 vs. halide test. [profanity], here I thought I bought it to test the difference in the different T5 reflectors about a year before I switched to halides. Must be slipping in my old age.

 

[blackie lawless]

I have no experience with Finnex, however whenever you are talking about any T5 setup, one of the key things is reflectors. Does each bulb have an individual reflector on the Finnex? Make sure to find out about that, it is very important.

 

[The Grim Reefer]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7759643#post7759643 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by manderx
grim, i still don't believe you can use that hardware to make these comparisons. i finally went through the 250wSE thread again (i did follow it live back then but it's been awhile) and noticed that several people had the same thoughts and issues i do about that sensor and they were never really addressed (i never saw a post from them giving in and saying they were convinced). the closest i saw it to being addressed was apogee calibrated a licor sensor (to match their own sensor?) and sent it to JB to compare. that doesn't mean or prove anything.


so are you saying the combination of actinic+ and aquablue matches the spectrum exactly of that particular 14K bulb? if we were dealing with different dalight halide bulbs, yeah sure knock youself out. but not with the uncommon spectrums that t5 put out.



i don't think anyone is really trying to put one or the other down (like they do in bb/dsb threads), we're just saying that the tests done to put hard numbers on them are probably worthless due to a lack of understanding of the limits of the hardware and poor testing proceedure. many of the best tanks (big and small) in the world are t5. and not even as many bulbs or overdriven as many here in the states would recommend either.

and the whole 'well the numbers might not be very good but they are the best we have' is bunk. bad data is worse than no data.

I am saying that 2 Aquablues and 2 Actinic Pluses are going to be in the range of what "14K" halides are. The light from the T5's have a blue look to them. I have not seen a blue 10K halide. 4 Aquablues, which by the way would produce quite a bit more PAR than having 2 actinic Plus in the mix, have more of a blue look than any 10K halides I've seen.

 

[The Grim Reefer]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7761259#post7761259 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by geoff72
Maybe I am just blind can you point it out to me. The main problem I am having is I am trying to watch the budget. I am hoping to get a 250g soon so I need to watch how much I spend on these lights. I have been looking at the Finnex and Tek 5. The advantages I see with the Finnex is all price but they are cheaper, comes with the bulbs, and my tank does not have a hood and my wife will not let me hang lights form the ceiling. My tank is in my living room. The Tek 5 looks like it is made to be hung and the braces are $57. I can get a Finnex 6 bulb for $279 or 4 bulb for $159. The Tek 5 is more than that and I still have to buy the bulbs and braces. Any suggestions?

If you want to run T5's over a big tank you gotta go with good reflectors. Aquactinics has a 72" T5 hood with 7 rows of lamps that have good reflectors.

 

[RobbyG]

Re: Re: t5 vs halide

Re: Re: t5 vs halide

1) Dude you are absolutely wrong with that statement! T5's draw a lot less current than MH (Period). This is not a debate or a subjective view point, it is fact.

2) All things being equal, on a PAR for PAR measurement MH's will heat up your water a whole lot more than T5's, this is a fact not a subjective view point.

3) Lastly even if it's true which I doubt it is, if Grim used 12" off the Water VS 3", it would still be a fair comparison since people with T5's can put them 3" off the water but MH owners have to worry more about etching and cracking. In the real world I would say you could use that comparison.

MH are great but lets keep it real.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7761087#post7761087 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Ti
As for ampherage draw, that is all dependant on set up, it's not safe to say MH draws more or T5 draws more.
Nothing about this topic is really definative.
It all comes down to what each person likes more.

 

[The Grim Reefer]

Bye the way, the halides were 7" above the water which heated the tank to about 82 degrees. That was open top. The overdriven 80 watt T5's were 3 1/2 up in an enclosed canopy and didn't go higher than 81 with glass lids on the tank.

 

[Reef_bones]

just to clear it up... Grim you run both, correct?

Being able to have a choice between t5 and MH for sps and light lovin corals is a good thing. I don't understand why people feel the need to say there is one way and one way only.

There are many ways to skin a cat. I have a smaller system that most MH would cook. T-5 is the way to go.
On the flip side I want 2x250w MH 15k xm on my 75g.....Why you ask! BECAUSE I CAN....

 

[zapata41]

this thread wasnt about the fact that there is one way and only one way, it was simply questioning how the tests were made and if they way the tests were performed was fair to equal in both quality of materials used and the way the testing was carried out. like most all threads about this topic and the dsb vs. bb it quickly was taken at threats and turned into, " i run this system so it is better." Like i said in my first post, lets see some numbers at waters surface, 6" down and 12" down. then ppl could decide which system suites them better. i know i have a few corals on the bottom of my tank that dont need super high par, thus a t5 system might yield even more par down at the bottom than my mh, but i am quite sure the t5 numbers are no where near what the mh numbers are up high in the tank.

Also about the statement that ppl shouldnt get caught up in the minor details, to me that i a crazy thing to say about comparing to similar styles of lighting. If all we are looking to compare is the huge differences then shoot, why run reflectors on either setup and if the mounting height plays no role the mount the t5 12" off the water.

The tests that grim did are great in the fact that he went through with something that no one else would buck up and do, so props to grim for that. I would just liketo so some other numbers throughout the tank. as far as anyone saying rim is trying to justify the lighting he runs, ppl need to go read through all of his post and read what he says, he call the pros and cons of each and even was head over heals for the t5 setup, as was i once, then he switched because he wanted to keep other things besides light demanding corals only on the bottom of the tank.

Tim

so again, thanks for the tests grim, without them i would never have bought a t5 retro for my first two tanks.

 

[Reef_bones]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7764079#post7764079 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by zapata41
i know i have a few corals on the bottom of my tank that dont need super high par, thus a t5 system might yield even more par down at the bottom than my mh, but i am quite sure the t5 numbers are no where near what the mh numbers are up high in the tank.

Tim

Sounds like your convinced already so why even bother. Grim has always been a great resource for lighting, why would he stack the test a certain way as you are implying. What does he have to gain?

 

[The Grim Reefer]

If a certain lighting source is more intense at the waters surface it will be more intense 10 feet below no matter what created it. A photon of light will travel the same distance regardless of what kind of lighting created it.

Halides tend to penetrate deeper because they start out so intense. The "downside" is that you have a hot spot under the lamp (which is the area I have always read the halides at) with the intensity falling off as you move away from the lamp. That give halides an advantage over fluorescent if you have a mixed reef. The downside is you waste a lot of light between the light source and the water because they typically need to be placed so high to avoid heating up the tank. Even with a perfect parabolic reflector a halide 8" off the water will have to be twice as intense as T5's 4" off to provide an equal amount of light to the tank. Because the halide light must spread out to cover a larger area much of the light strikes the water diagonally which causes the light to tend to be reflected off the surface. T5's with good reflectors has the light narrowly focused so most of it strikes the water at a right angle which reduces reflection.

As far as taking measurments at different depths a jig would have to be made to do it right. The sensor has to be at a consistant angle. That isn't too hard on the bottom but once you try different levels things get interesting. I've done it but it isn't really good for anything but a general idea of the difference in PAR.

 

[horkn]

if you guys want a comparo pic of grims t5ho bulb combp, and how it compares toa 14k MH rig, our friend hahnmeister has a pic of both lighting configurations in one pic. the tanks are stacked. and the combo of t5ho looks exactly the same hue as the 14k bulb. the t5 lit tank is however brighter.

 

[RichConley]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7764296#post7764296 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by The Grim Reefer
If a certain lighting source is more intense at the waters surface it will be more intense 10 feet below no matter what created it. A photon of light will travel the same distance regardless of what kind of lighting created it.

Halides tend to penetrate deeper because they start out so intense. The "downside" is that you have a hot spot under the lamp (which is the area I have always read the halides at) with the intensity falling off as you move away from the lamp. T

WRONG, WRONG, and wrong. Oh, did I mention you're wrong?

"If a certain lighting source is more intense at the waters surface it will be more intense 10 feet below no matter what created it"

Wrong. A point source light will be affected by the inverse square law. IE, if you double the distance from the bulb, you cut the amount of light in quarters. From a line source light, you can figure out light distribution by simulating an infinite number of point sources between that area. Once you do that math out, you'll realize that line sources degrade in linear fashion. This is because the spread from points along the bulb overlaps the spread from other points along the bulb.

So, while halides do have a higher starting intensity, at some depth, and all subsequent depths, you actually get more intensity from a line source.

" A photon of light will travel the same distance regardless of what kind of lighting created it."

We're not talking about a photon. We're talkin about millions of photons and theyre distribution patterns.


"The "downside" is that you have a hot spot under the lamp"

Any hot spot under a halide lamp is completely and 100% caused by the reflector. A halide bulb puts its light out in a pretty uniform distribution that is roughly spherical.





other poster

1) Dude you are absolutely wrong with that statement! T5's draw a lot less current than MH (Period). This is not a debate or a subjective view point, it is fact.

WRONG. T5s and metal halides are close enough as far as efficieny goes that it doesnt matter. As far as actual photons produced per watt, they are pretty much equal.

3) Lastly even if it's true which I doubt it is, if Grim used 12" off the Water VS 3", it would still be a fair comparison since people with T5's can put them 3" off the water but MH owners have to worry more about etching and cracking. In the real world I would say you could use that comparison.

What the hell are you talking about? Etching and cracking? I run my pendants about 5" off the water. No problems. I run 2x250w on a 58 gallon, and have NO heat problems whatsoever. I dont run a chiller.








Mind you, this whole discussion is a joke: Either one will work, and these corals dont need NEARLY the light most people seem to think they do. If you clean up your water, they really dont need much at all. I've seen acros grown under striplights for god sakes.

 

[RichConley]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7764296#post7764296 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by The Grim Reefer
. Even with a perfect parabolic reflector a halide 8" off the water will have to be twice as intense as T5's 4" off to provide an equal amount of light to the tank. Because the halide light must spread out to cover a larger area much of the light strikes the water diagonally which causes the light to tend to be reflected off the surface.

Have yoiu ever used a perfect parabolic reflector? Do you understand how they work?

In a perfect parabolic reflector, 95%+ of the light ends up going straight down. The remaining 5% is still below critical angle, so 100% of the light goes into the tank. If you want to make that argument, its all about what produces more light per watt, and theres really not much difference there.

In that situation, you've basically created a laser, and theres absolutely no difference in how far off the water you put it, because all the light is traveling straight down. (barring light reflecting off of atmospheric dust, etc, which is a nonfactor here)



"Because the halide light must spread out to cover a larger area much of the light strikes the water diagonally which causes the light to tend to be reflected off the surface."

again, not in a parobolic reflector. In a parabolic reflector, the light is traveling straight down.


If you're going to try to explain things to people, atleast be close to accurate. Theres entirely too much crap out there thats wrong.



ROIIIs arent even close to parabolic reflectors.