supertech99
New member
I read an article recently that showed that t5's have higher lumens per watt than pc. Does this mean that the Watts per gallon rule does not apply to t5's? How do they equate like how many watts of pc equal t5?
t5 lumens?
- Thread starter supertech99
- Start date
iamwrasseman
New member
the only way to truly know is with a par meter . all bulbs differ , makes differ ,and if they are hos or vhos or normal units . so the question still remains next opinion ?
james3370
Premium Member
yeah, i've started a few "scuffles" in the lighting forum by mentioning the phrase "watts per gallon" & have come to have it beaten into my head that it is really an arbitrary #......water depth has more to do w/ required lighting than a standard watts per gallon formula
the amount of watts per gallon that will work w/ 1 tank of a certain depth won't work w/ a tank of the same volume but deeper.......if that makes sense.......
the amount of watts per gallon that will work w/ 1 tank of a certain depth won't work w/ a tank of the same volume but deeper.......if that makes sense.......
james3370
Premium Member
for instance.....when i was considering doing halide & was wondering what wattage to use, chris at the critter told me good general rule of thumb is:
up to about 24" depth - 175w
24-30" deep - 250w
30"+ - 400w
granted, this is just a general guide, but a good starting point. pc & t5 are different, buy you can see the general rule is that the more water depth the light has to penetrate, the more powerful it needs to be
up to about 24" depth - 175w
24-30" deep - 250w
30"+ - 400w
granted, this is just a general guide, but a good starting point. pc & t5 are different, buy you can see the general rule is that the more water depth the light has to penetrate, the more powerful it needs to be
supertech99
New member
so if you have a tank of relative equal depth, a gallonage difference in width is not important? For instance, not trying to start a scuffle, if a 55, 75, and 90 all have a 48 inch leinght and are only taller by a few inches, then an animal at the same depth in each tank would be just as happy? I know t5's penetrate deeper and generate more lumens per gallon but I was trying to figure out if I replaced my 260w (4x65) of pc lights on my 55 what would be equal in t-5? 4x54 is only 216w but is it comparable to 260w of pc or more intense that or less? I just replaced bulbs on my pc for the first time and the sticker shock has got me thinking about an upgrade when its time to change them again.
I had this same question. I ended up buying a lightly used 260w pc for $75 because I couldn't justify another $200 for t-5, but I couldn't figure out why the t5s were so much more for similar wattage, I guessd the ratio you just put up, 216w t-5 ~ 260w pc would not be enough to justify the $ difference. I would guess a higher ratio than that.
I found this which suggests more than double the output:
as an overall comparison, i'll just start by saying T5's are better. they're better for a couple of reasons...but mostly for one; they're more energy efficient. they have ample PAR ratings, (vs. other fluorescents), run failry cool, and take up minimal space.
here's a comparison in microEinstiens (µE m/sec²) :
depending on configuration (i.e. bulb, ballast, reflectors, etc.) these numbers may vary...so i'll use averages...
natural sunlight at noon is equal to about 2000 µE (taken at a shallow depth, comparable to the depth of our tanks)
4-110w VHO Fluorescent = 1000 µE
4-96w Power Compacts = 1100 µE
4-54w T-5's = about 1400 µE
1-400w 6500K Metal Halide (pendant) hot spots of 2100 µE
keep in mind that depth is a critical factor when choosing fluorescents. PC's and T-5's might appear stronger, but at depths deeper than 24", the VHO's are a better choice.
as an overall comparison, i'll just start by saying T5's are better. they're better for a couple of reasons...but mostly for one; they're more energy efficient. they have ample PAR ratings, (vs. other fluorescents), run failry cool, and take up minimal space.
here's a comparison in microEinstiens (µE m/sec²) :
depending on configuration (i.e. bulb, ballast, reflectors, etc.) these numbers may vary...so i'll use averages...
natural sunlight at noon is equal to about 2000 µE (taken at a shallow depth, comparable to the depth of our tanks)
4-110w VHO Fluorescent = 1000 µE
4-96w Power Compacts = 1100 µE
4-54w T-5's = about 1400 µE
1-400w 6500K Metal Halide (pendant) hot spots of 2100 µE
keep in mind that depth is a critical factor when choosing fluorescents. PC's and T-5's might appear stronger, but at depths deeper than 24", the VHO's are a better choice.
waynesworld
Premium Member
I have all 3 in tanks that ranged from 24-over 21 in depth and I will sell all my vho, PC and MH for little to nothing because how happy I and my coral has been with the T5 but that is without any readings just plane trial and error. When you look at cost you need to look at long term cost too not just your initial investment but I never thought t5 were that much more.
supertech99
New member
i bought 2 sunpaq dual atinics 65w (420 and 460nm in one bulb) and they are great any all my animals seem very happy with the new bulbs, butthey were 35 bucks each and that was with a reef club discount and a holiday sale (emerald bay). I am not sure but the the cost savings in power and bulb price and how long they last has got to pay off in less than a years time since i think they go for some odd 15months compared to 6 months with pc. I just dont think 2 t5's on my 55 would be enough for the lps i was planning to add but 4 now seems like overkill. this is a good question for our speaker at the swap i guess!
NeveSSL
Got tubes?
Good point, Sean... we'll ask Sanjay... someone write all this junk down. 
FWIW, T5s win many aquarist's hearts through multiple things... Number one, they have enough light for any coral that does well under MH, although the coral may look slightly different than under MH. Also, they run cool and very efficient. I love having more than enough light for my tank at only 156w. Also, with less wattage above my tank, there is also less heat going into it. I don't have to run a chiller, which gets into quite a bit of money with electricity. T5s also last longer than MH or PCs. You only have to replace the bulbs every 12 to 18 months. Thats not bad at all! At minimum twice that of PCs and MH.
In my opinion, T5s are worth the extra cost over PCs and pay for themselves fairly quickly. I've never had PCs, but from what I understand, some SPS may not do too well with them.
And, as has already been mentioned, watts-per-gallon doesn't really matter. Its all about the depth. Which brings up another point, T5s compete with MH only if they have individual reflectors. IceCap reflectors are where its at for 12.5" tanks, simply because 4 Tek reflectors won't fit and 4 IceCap reflectors will.
Hope this helps some. Your PCs are by no means inadequate and may serve you perfectly fine for what you want to do. If they do, cool beans. :thumbsup: If you decide later down the road you're not happy with them, you can always come over to the dark side... I mean T5s.
Brandon
FWIW, T5s win many aquarist's hearts through multiple things... Number one, they have enough light for any coral that does well under MH, although the coral may look slightly different than under MH. Also, they run cool and very efficient. I love having more than enough light for my tank at only 156w. Also, with less wattage above my tank, there is also less heat going into it. I don't have to run a chiller, which gets into quite a bit of money with electricity. T5s also last longer than MH or PCs. You only have to replace the bulbs every 12 to 18 months. Thats not bad at all! At minimum twice that of PCs and MH.
In my opinion, T5s are worth the extra cost over PCs and pay for themselves fairly quickly. I've never had PCs, but from what I understand, some SPS may not do too well with them.
And, as has already been mentioned, watts-per-gallon doesn't really matter. Its all about the depth. Which brings up another point, T5s compete with MH only if they have individual reflectors. IceCap reflectors are where its at for 12.5" tanks, simply because 4 Tek reflectors won't fit and 4 IceCap reflectors will.
Hope this helps some. Your PCs are by no means inadequate and may serve you perfectly fine for what you want to do. If they do, cool beans. :thumbsup: If you decide later down the road you're not happy with them, you can always come over to the dark side... I mean T5s.
Brandon
PC's are not really good for anything over 14" deep except mushrooms. Same goes with 175w MH.
175w MH good for 12-14"
250w MH good for up to 24"
400w MH good for u to 36"
T5HO's are awesome lights, I have a few sets of them. The downside is they are only good for 20-24" of depth. 12-18" for Acro's.
175w MH good for 12-14"
250w MH good for up to 24"
400w MH good for u to 36"
T5HO's are awesome lights, I have a few sets of them. The downside is they are only good for 20-24" of depth. 12-18" for Acro's.
chadfarmer
Premium Member
this is my par readings on my 120
pcs are a cloudy day
t5 with good reflectors is a sunny day
pcs are a cloudy day
t5 with good reflectors is a sunny day
Similar threads
