T5 capabilities- reality or hype?

[Reef_bones]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7767375#post7767375 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by horkn
in a year without changing the MH bulb, you would have a burnt out MH bulb. more than likely at least

True...

But do you think you would see a difference in the tanks. Both treated exactly the same for that amount of time. Fed the same, dosed as one tank due to common sump. It would be a true test, but which bulb combo would be equal. The halide and t5 would need to look the same.

 

[perpetual98]

If enough people sent me $20, I'd set up the comparison.

 

[natedogg]

Do you need actinic supplementation with 2x 250w 14k's ???

 

[DrBDC]

MH's won't burn out in 1 year. My new Iwasaki's have 60% running at 6000 hours use. At 8 hours per day that is 750 days. At that same time frame it is 70% of the lumens.

At the typical year change mark you have over 90% of the bulbs burning with 80% lumens.

Take those numbers and apply them to that test run on the T5's at just the 6 month mark.

 

[Reef_bones]

haha.. checks in the mail..

You would have to either go with a 14k spectrum as Grim did, or go with 10k no supplimentals. Maybe even 20k...But which ever it is it would have to visably look the same.

 

[Ti]

Sanjay has Iwasakis over yr old and he did a par measurement on them after 1yr and they only lost like 10% par.

 

[The Grim Reefer]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7766936#post7766936 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by RichConley
Right, all overkill.

The thing is, yeah, you need 2 MH bulbs to light a 55, but you can go up and use a 120, or even a 150wide, or a 180, or a 225, etc, on 2x250.

Use GOOD reflectors. Not these crappy PFO minis.

The T5s? Not a chance in hell, you need more bulbs.

Its all bout what you're trying to do, and the tank shape.


Grim, I've been saying all along that the T5s are great. You keep trying to put the 'Anti -t5 stick' in my mouth

What I've also been saying is that the science you're spouting isnt correct. The 'experiment' you did is nowhere near unbiased. And again, you keep trying to compare a phoenix to Aquablues. I'll give you GE against a 10K. Thats the closest I'm going. You're looking at a very specific example thats nowhere near indicitive of how things are.


As to the whole lumens per watt thing, metal halides produce anywhere from 65-115 lumens per watt. The standard T5HO is somehwere around 95. So yeah, theyre more efficienct than a 20K, but nowhere near an Iwasaki. If you want to talk about efficiency, look at Normal output fluorescents (T8 32w), where you're up around 130.



If you're gonna talk about this stuff grim, get your facts straight.

PFO mini's crap? Do you have a clue? Have you ever read any of Sanjays test results on reflectors? And I am not trying to compare the Phoenix to just aquablues. I am comparing it to a 50/50 mix of aquablue and Blue plus. Anyone who has actually seen both knows the color will be very similar. GE against a 10K is no comparison. GE is 6500K, what would measuring it against a 10K lamp prove?. What would be the point? Nobody runs straight GE lamps over their tank and few run straight 10K halides.

The measurements from my "biased" tests were the result of my shock that 150 watt halides placed slightly lower than my T5 system had less than half the PAR of my T5's. I was so "biased" in favor of T5's I went out and bought BLV 10K's which are the highest output 10K lamps I could find and they still could only do a little better than half. Being so biased I bought the stuff to upgrade the 150 watt halides to 250's. I was even so "biased" I got a hold of a Reefoptix III (which by the way is indeed a parabolic reflector) and a new Hamilton 10K lamp to see what good componants would do after the 250's fell short too. And all that time my T5's were still sitting in the closet until the 14K halide lamps died and decided I liked the look of fluorescents better and went back to the T5's. I sure spent a hell of a lot of money on halides just so I could create a biased test to show they suck.

 

[zapata41]

man this has turned in to quite the debate here. lights are lights, they both grow sps great. what i did notice from my t5 setup was the cooler water , thus having to run my 600w of heater about 1/2 the day. now that i have the halides, i never have to run the heaters. so i guess some heat is good.

someone also said how IC 660 driving 4t5s is like half the power consumption of 2x250w halides. funny sine i have hooked up my kill a watt meter to a 660 running 4 t5s over my 90g and it pulls 4.1 amps. so not too far off from the 250w setup. just because you are only running 4 bulbs doesnt mean that the ballast isnt waisting elec too.

Tim

 

[The Grim Reefer]

Running a watt meter a 660 pulled 303 watts using 4x54's. I got the same 4.1 amp draw you did using a multimeter though. My EVC 250 watt E-ballasts pulled 260 watts each. They pulled around 2.4 amps each. 2 54 watt T5's normally driven pull about 120 watts depending on the lamps.

 

[RobbyG]

Rich I find your statements to be very confusing, it's not just Grims Imagination but I think anybody who reads your posts can see that you don't like T5's and seem very biased against them,
but at the end of the day it is still a proven fact that on a Watt per Par basis T5's are vastly superior to MH bulbs and if your going to state otherwise please show some test data to back it up.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7766936#post7766936 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by RichConley


Grim, I've been saying all along that the T5s are great. You keep trying to put the 'Anti -t5 stick' in my mouth


If you're gonna talk about this stuff grim, get your facts straight.

 

[tgreene]

This is my tank. It's a 72" 125g that's kept under 312w of T5.

I'm pretty happy with the results!

 

[HowardW]

Beautiful tank you have there tgreene!

 

[RichConley]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7767375#post7767375 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by horkn
in a year without changing the MH bulb, you would have a burnt out MH bulb. more than likely at least

What are you smoking?

Theres a reason they use these things in street lights. THey run forever.

I've got a bulb running my fuge thats gotta be 4 years old.

 

[RichConley]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7774736#post7774736 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by RobbyG
Rich I find your statements to be very confusing, it's not just Grims Imagination but I think anybody who reads your posts can see that you don't like T5's and seem very biased against them,
but at the end of the day it is still a proven fact that on a Watt per Par basis T5's are vastly superior to MH bulbs and if your going to state otherwise please show some test data to back it up.

Robbi, no its not.

Like I said, T5HO is around 90lumens/watt, MH bulbs range anywhere from 75-110. How is 90 higher than 110? 90 is higher than 75, yes, but not higher than 110. I'd say we just average them, and say theyre the same.



Robbi, I like T5s. Theyre great.

Theres just an absolute BUTTLOAD of misinformation in this thread. 90% of the posts on this thread are completly incorrect, and that ****es me off.

I dont see hwo you think I'm anti T5. I was arguing how they penetrate better than MH. THe idea that theyre more electrically efficient is wrong though.

 

[horkn]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7788033#post7788033 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by RichConley
What are you smoking?

Theres a reason they use these things in street lights. THey run forever.

I've got a bulb running my fuge thats gotta be 4 years old.

i dont smoke anything.

a statement like that is really out of line.

whatever...

 

[horkn]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7788050#post7788050 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by RichConley

Theres just an absolute BUTTLOAD of misinformation in this thread. 90% of the posts on this thread are completly incorrect, and that ****es me off.

.

considering that you posted more in this thread than anyone else, i find that statement funny.

 

[Eric Boerner]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7774736#post7774736 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by RobbyG
....it is still a proven fact that on a Watt per Par basis T5's are vastly superior to MH bulbs and if your going to state otherwise please show some test data to back it up.

Although I dont agree with anything that Rich says, your statement is wrong.

T5's are not 'vastly' superior on a watt to PAR ratio than Metal Halides.

T5's at best could be said that on a watt to PAR to overall SQ Ft raitio, that they may in fact be 'somewhat better', that Metal Halide. That being said, if your goal is to give a 100% perfect PAR saturation over the entire length of your tank, that may be the case. However, a DIRECTIONAL SPOT LIT goal, where you are attempting to consentrate PAR on specific area's of your tank, they simply cannot compete with Metal Halides, because they aren't Spot lights, they're ambient lights.

A Metal Halide will have 4 times more PAR output directly underneath it and taper off at the surrounding areas. For most 'pratical' aquascaping / tank openings, this yields more PAR in those areas, since you don't NEED to have full coverage of the entire tank.

Does this mean that T5's aren't any good? no. For certain applications, such as a shallow, small tank that has an even rock structure that you need to have 100% light coverage, they're great. But for very large tanks that have irregular rockscapes islands, centerbraces, or that have dedicated rockfaces for specific species, the spot lighting aspects of Metal Halides is the better alternative.

As was stated by someone earlier, what is better, T5's or MH? It all depends on what your over all goals are.

 

[R33f3r]

"But for very large tanks that have irregular rockscapes islands, centerbraces, or that have dedicated rockfaces for specific species, the spot lighting aspects of Metal Halides is the better alternative.

As was stated by someone earlier, what is better, T5's or MH? It all depends on what your over all goals are."

There it is in a nutshell. I am a diehard T5 fan, but EACH tank and specific rock structure setup + species must be taken into consideration and MH will provide a better goal for SOME. It just depends on everyone's individual tank.

I know I couldn't keep my giganeta anemones and ritteri's under T5's. MH iS THE BEST lighting for them. So whatever one wants to keep, they must decide which lighting is best.

But I will say T5's are the best fluros out there hands down.

 

[The Grim Reefer]

Eric B,

You are somewhat right but I measured the halides directly under the light at the sandbed and the T5's still beat them. That was in a 23.5" tall tank. I think once you get to a 30" and taller tank where it is time to start talking 400 to 1000 watt halides then there are no options. Under that and T5's can compete. The spotlight effect of halides is definatly a big advantage for those who want mixed reefs. I think the more we learn about lamp combinations and so on the better T5's will do. Aint ever gonna get those shimmers though.

 

[The Grim Reefer]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7788291#post7788291 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by R33f3r
"But for very large tanks that have irregular rockscapes islands, centerbraces, or that have dedicated rockfaces for specific species, the spot lighting aspects of Metal Halides is the better alternative.

As was stated by someone earlier, what is better, T5's or MH? It all depends on what your over all goals are."

There it is in a nutshell. I am a diehard T5 fan, but EACH tank and specific rock structure setup + species must be taken into consideration and MH will provide a better goal for SOME. It just depends on everyone's individual tank.

I know I couldn't keep my giganeta anemones and ritteri's under T5's. MH iS THE BEST lighting for them. So whatever one wants to keep, they must decide which lighting is best.

But I will say T5's are the best fluros out there hands down.

I think an advantage of halides is for anemones. Under fluorescents they can get enough light all across the tank. With halides they have a sweet spot as far as light goes. In theory that would keep them from wandering around.