I would like some feed back on t5's. I don't understand why every body thinks they are so great. I takes 2 t5's to equal 1 vho watt wise. Price wise two t5's cost aprox. $36.00. 1 vho costs aprox. $25.00. Is there some sort of magical phosphors in them that makes them better? 10,000k t5 puts out same light spectrum as 10,000k vho. They can both be run by same ballast ( i.e. icecap). Any imput on this would be very helpful!!!! Or is this another craze like the power compacts a couple of years ago
t5 vs vho
- Thread starter leigh123
- Start date
Scissorhand
New member
PAR (Photosynthetically Active Radiation) is your answer.
philagothos
New member
Watts are a measure of power consumption, not light output. Just imagine looking into a 60w LED (if they existed); you would be blinded.
T5s by themselves are comparable to PCs. The magic happens with T5s when you add individual parabolic reflectors. Then light output into the tank increases 3 fold. Btw, if you run T5s on an Icecap ballast the wattage bumps considerably (4' bulbs become 80w, closer to VHO in power consumption but totally rocking VHO in output). There is debate, but properly setup T5s are fairly comparable to 250w MH.
If you like your VHOs and don't mind a higher power bill, then stick with them. However, if you are doing a new setup, looking for a change, or trying to lower utility bills T5s are a great option. Btw, on my 29 I run a mix of T5 and VHO. With comparable spectrum bulbs 48w of T5 kick the crap (sorry, no specific numbers) out of the VHO. But VHO actinic rocks so I'll keep it.
HTH,
Kevin
Btw, this thread might help with some specifics: http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=918935
T5s by themselves are comparable to PCs. The magic happens with T5s when you add individual parabolic reflectors. Then light output into the tank increases 3 fold. Btw, if you run T5s on an Icecap ballast the wattage bumps considerably (4' bulbs become 80w, closer to VHO in power consumption but totally rocking VHO in output). There is debate, but properly setup T5s are fairly comparable to 250w MH.
If you like your VHOs and don't mind a higher power bill, then stick with them. However, if you are doing a new setup, looking for a change, or trying to lower utility bills T5s are a great option. Btw, on my 29 I run a mix of T5 and VHO. With comparable spectrum bulbs 48w of T5 kick the crap (sorry, no specific numbers) out of the VHO. But VHO actinic rocks so I'll keep it.
HTH,
Kevin
Btw, this thread might help with some specifics: http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=918935
philagothos
New member
Freed, with good reflectors T5s keep up with 250w MH down to 24". Overdriving them with an Icecap will give you even more penetration. But again, it's ALL about the reflectors. Icecap makes some of the best retrofit reflectors and for a ready-made fixture the Aquatinics are king.
1628mna, conventional wisdom a year or two ago was that the A4 would not work with T5s, only the 660 & 440. However, I just did a Google search and found several people that report using the A4 with no problems. I would contact Icecap and ask them. Otherwise you can use it at your own risk (personally, I don't like the risk of burning down my home over a ballast).
1628mna, conventional wisdom a year or two ago was that the A4 would not work with T5s, only the 660 & 440. However, I just did a Google search and found several people that report using the A4 with no problems. I would contact Icecap and ask them. Otherwise you can use it at your own risk (personally, I don't like the risk of burning down my home over a ballast).
you keep saying with a reflector but what if same reflector was used on vho? owner of lfs is a very good friend of mine. he says all a t5 is is a stright power compact. and he would not use on deep tank. and yes i was talking about icecap 440 and 660 if you were using a 660 instead of 4, 110 watt you could use 8, 54 watt t5s i might be wrong but you would still be in the max watt range. what are t6s
T5's produce more light per watt than VHO. It's not enough by itself to make a 54 watt T5 produce more output than a 110 watt VHO but with the reflector, signifigantly more light is directed into the tank for the 54 watt T5 than the 110 watt VHO, even with the internal reflector VHO's. If you could put an effective relfector on a VHO, then it would direct more light into the tank than the 54 watt T5. But an as effective parabolic reflector for a VHO lamp would need to be somewhere in the 8" wide range from what I have read. Even if you did that, you can get far more T5's over the tank with their 2.5" wide reflectors than you could VHO with reflectors 3X as wide. But you wont really accept what anyone else tells you, no matter who they are or how many say the same thing until you try properly set up T5's for yourself. I ran VHO for close to a dozen years. T5 is a different animal, it's really not even close ... in this case, the old really doesnt hold a candle to the new with the exception of the VHO super actinic having better color than T5 super actinic. The T5 bulbs last up to 2X as long as well so they really ending up costing as little as 1/2 as much.
The internal reflectors arent nearly as effective as the externals made for the T5's. That's all I used, the internally reflected URI (now UVL) VHO's. They dont put the light output into the tank nor have the penetration of externally reflected T5's. I use the Icecap SLR reflectors but the TEK's are also effective. Even some of the generic T5 reflectors are supposed to be pretty good as well.
dieselkeeper
New member
I started with VHO's, and up graded to T5's. Corals just survived under VHO's (softies). Now I'm keeping SPS on the sand bed with T5's.
That's untrue. I have experimented with various DIY reflectors and different materials while measuring the light output with a light meter.
The most effective reflector that I made allows room for 5 VHO lamps in a reflector that is about 15" wide, and since the corals are spread over more width than that and I want' to get light to their sides, I don't think this width is a bad thing.
I think that instead of making a large reflector in order to properly reflect the light that's coming from the top of the lamp it's better to use the internal reflector lamps, and also use some ways to get the light from behind the lamp to reflect around the lamp and out to the tank, and not just right back into the lamp tube.
I mentioned in another thread that what I found very effective was to either use a wedge of smooth aluminum behind the lamp, with the point of a wedge nearly touching the lamp along its centerline, or use dimpled reflective material behind the lamp in a more traditional shape. (It apparently bounces the rays around enough to get them out from behind the lamp.) Again, I tested many combinations of materials and shapes and measured the outputs with a meter.
Think of a W shape with the insides of the bottom points of the W rounded. I made the reflectors in two parts and bonded the wedge piece to the round shape.
It would be much more expensive for a manufacturer to make a reflector with the shapes I found most effective, than it is to make a "parabolic" shape reflector.
An individual parabolic type reflector for each lamp is far more effective that a single reflector for all bulbs. The properties of reflected light are the same for T5 and for T12, it is a difference in reflector size that limits the feasibility of individual reflectors for T12 VHO. Also, the internal reflector isnt nearly as effective as an external parabolic.
If you have found that a single large reflector for multiple t12's (Regardless of The inverted, rounded center of a W running the length of the bulb up top and center)
was more effective than an individual reflector for each lamp then clearly your testing was limited and/or flawed. No offense. The information is available here and all over the web.
I dont know the exact width that it would take to make a individual T12 reflector that is as effective as the individual T5 reflectors like the Icecap SLR's but they would need to be signifigantly larger. 8" wide is a number I remember and this may or may not be exactly accurate. However, common reasoning is that it would necessarily be proportionally larger that what is required for a 5/8" T5 in order to design as effective a reflector for a 12/8" (1.5") T12 VHO.
Again, the information is available. Grim and others on the forum should certainly have more information and know where to direct you for the technical information.
If you have found that a single large reflector for multiple t12's (Regardless of The inverted, rounded center of a W running the length of the bulb up top and center)
was more effective than an individual reflector for each lamp then clearly your testing was limited and/or flawed. No offense. The information is available here and all over the web.
I dont know the exact width that it would take to make a individual T12 reflector that is as effective as the individual T5 reflectors like the Icecap SLR's but they would need to be signifigantly larger. 8" wide is a number I remember and this may or may not be exactly accurate. However, common reasoning is that it would necessarily be proportionally larger that what is required for a 5/8" T5 in order to design as effective a reflector for a 12/8" (1.5") T12 VHO.
Again, the information is available. Grim and others on the forum should certainly have more information and know where to direct you for the technical information.
Last edited:
twon8 and DarG, please stop dodging my requests and provide the data that shows 4 T5 lamps put out a significantly greater amount of light than the same quality and style of reflector on 4 VHOs running on a IceCap 660. What's the number?
What specific information do you have that says a good VHO refelector must be 8" or "huge"?
My testing showed that a single reflector didn't really need to be more than about 4" wide for a VHO lamp and when several lamps are used together the reflectors can be closer together and didn't need to cover the sides as much.
My experiments with reflectors were done 3-4 years ago. The pictures I've seen of t5 "parabolic" reflectors have the point of the W (or wedge) too far from the lamp and the angle of bend is not sharp enough. My testing showed that the point needs to be nearly touching the lamp. When the point of the reflector was an inch or so away from the lamp it didn't offer much improvement in the measured output.
I haven't said T5's are bad, I think they're good, but so far all I see from you guys is opinions that sound like manufacturer's sales pitch and no data.
What specific information do you have that says a good VHO refelector must be 8" or "huge"?
My testing showed that a single reflector didn't really need to be more than about 4" wide for a VHO lamp and when several lamps are used together the reflectors can be closer together and didn't need to cover the sides as much.
My experiments with reflectors were done 3-4 years ago. The pictures I've seen of t5 "parabolic" reflectors have the point of the W (or wedge) too far from the lamp and the angle of bend is not sharp enough. My testing showed that the point needs to be nearly touching the lamp. When the point of the reflector was an inch or so away from the lamp it didn't offer much improvement in the measured output.
I haven't said T5's are bad, I think they're good, but so far all I see from you guys is opinions that sound like manufacturer's sales pitch and no data.
Well warrenG the data they have provided me so far, same price as VHO, don't last when over driven, need a reflector, need to be fan cooled including endcaps, and they would be happy if they got nine months out of the t5's. That data is really helping to convince me that i will stay with VHO. I agree it really does sound like a manufacturer's sales pitch and they don't like it when we don't want to see things their way. I enjoy being in my blissful little world with my healthy beautiful reef tank.
Similar threads
