t5 vs vho
- Thread starter leigh123
- Start date
macawmagic
In Memoriam
when i switched from vho's to t5's with ind. reflectors...both ran by an icecap 660, I melted half my corals...didn't think there was that big of a diffarence so I left everything in its usual positions. You don't have to believe me, but going from 4 vho's to 4 t-5's was a huge diffarence. and then i switched to 8 t5's and now i have dual 250 MH's. I can honestly say on the 8 t5's my tank looked much brighter, but on the mh's my corals look better. but mh vs. t5 is a totally diff story. I would highly recommend 4 t5's over 4 vho's esspecially if you want to keep sps. good luck
SoonerReefer
New member
We have ran T-5s for over 3 years and the color and growth are superior to VHO and PC,I keep SPS with no problems and have grown frags out to full colonies.
I still use VHO over a 40 breeder,but run 2 Teks and 1 Solarflare.I am by no way a lighting expert and I honestly dont care about numbers and the repeated this versus that.
My proof comes from years of use and observation,every light fixture works different and everyone is different in how the take care of their tank.
Sorry if people disagree but T-5 lighting is here to stay, there are too many success stories and mine is one of those..
Just check out my little red house
Donny
OMAS
I still use VHO over a 40 breeder,but run 2 Teks and 1 Solarflare.I am by no way a lighting expert and I honestly dont care about numbers and the repeated this versus that.
My proof comes from years of use and observation,every light fixture works different and everyone is different in how the take care of their tank.
Sorry if people disagree but T-5 lighting is here to stay, there are too many success stories and mine is one of those..
Just check out my little red house
Donny
OMAS
twon8
Formally registered membe
the w is less than 1/2 from the bulb
I don't have to provide you any numbers; both I and everyone else who has used t5s realizes they are far superior. More light at less wattage, what else is there to ponder. Anyone who wants to continue using obsolete equipment is welcome to remain in the last century.
Agreed Twon. The info is all over the place. The proof is in trying T5's for yourself and then shutting up about VHO superiority because it simply got passed by. Ran VHO for nearly a dozen years. T5 is easily superior in putting more light into the tank with deeper penetration at less wattage. Only extra is the individual reflectors. Simply put, if you havent tried it yourself you are blowing smoke up your own skirt.
Leigh ... try posting accurate info. You do not need to use an Icecap ballast on the T5's for them to kick VHO's butt. If you do, you should aggressively cool the endcaps and lamps and you do shorten the usable life. Most T5 users are NOT overdriving the T5's. Even on the Icecap ballast It is still most likely longer than VHO. On standard HO ballast the usable life of T5 lamps is double for the blues and 3 X for the whites and that is probably conservative.
Warren ... I suggest you refine your amazing VHO reflector and patent the design then manufacture, market and sell it and become a millionaire. You are obviously a lighting genius as nobody before you has been able to come up with a VHO reflector design to put VHO leaping back ahead of T5. I applaud your efforts and am looking forward to seeing your superior reflectors on the market. I still have 4 new VHO's and endcaps that I'd love to use with your new arse whooping reflectors. Man, and I thought theyd go to waste.
Leigh ... try posting accurate info. You do not need to use an Icecap ballast on the T5's for them to kick VHO's butt. If you do, you should aggressively cool the endcaps and lamps and you do shorten the usable life. Most T5 users are NOT overdriving the T5's. Even on the Icecap ballast It is still most likely longer than VHO. On standard HO ballast the usable life of T5 lamps is double for the blues and 3 X for the whites and that is probably conservative.
Warren ... I suggest you refine your amazing VHO reflector and patent the design then manufacture, market and sell it and become a millionaire. You are obviously a lighting genius as nobody before you has been able to come up with a VHO reflector design to put VHO leaping back ahead of T5. I applaud your efforts and am looking forward to seeing your superior reflectors on the market. I still have 4 new VHO's and endcaps that I'd love to use with your new arse whooping reflectors. Man, and I thought theyd go to waste.
Icefire
Seasoned reefer
I use a standard WorkHorse ballast on T5HO, not overdrived. The useable light from a T5HO not overdrived is 4500Hours (18-24 months), try that with a VHO which is only 12 months.
If you use a standard ballast, you get more PAR with a T5HO with a single parabolic reflector than a VHO with an internal reflector.
For a same length, T5HO have about 1/2 the Watts than VHO.
One thing to consider is VHO are PINK, 10K, 12K, actinic all pinkish.
With T5HO you ave yellow, red, blue, white, purple light, you choose the bulb.
I'm setting up a 110G Tall (30" high) and will be using 7 bulb (total of 333Watts) and I'm sure I'll be keeping SPS easily on the sandbed if I wished. Try that running 3x 110W VHO.
The only thing VHO is currently supperior is the UVL/URI Super Actinic, it pop more, but UVL T5HO are not far.
The T5HO use a triple phosphore that make them last and output more.
Using a single reflector for X lamps isn't efficient because you loose light between bulb and between bulb/reflector/bulb. With a single reflector you shoot 96%+ of the light down in the tank.
Just read the whole grimmreefer's thread on T5HO, you'll see.
Also, 4x39w (156w) with reflector equal 250W of MH in the 12-14K spectrum. Talk about saving $$ in electricity.
If you use a standard ballast, you get more PAR with a T5HO with a single parabolic reflector than a VHO with an internal reflector.
For a same length, T5HO have about 1/2 the Watts than VHO.
One thing to consider is VHO are PINK, 10K, 12K, actinic all pinkish.
With T5HO you ave yellow, red, blue, white, purple light, you choose the bulb.
I'm setting up a 110G Tall (30" high) and will be using 7 bulb (total of 333Watts) and I'm sure I'll be keeping SPS easily on the sandbed if I wished. Try that running 3x 110W VHO.
The only thing VHO is currently supperior is the UVL/URI Super Actinic, it pop more, but UVL T5HO are not far.
The T5HO use a triple phosphore that make them last and output more.
Using a single reflector for X lamps isn't efficient because you loose light between bulb and between bulb/reflector/bulb. With a single reflector you shoot 96%+ of the light down in the tank.
Just read the whole grimmreefer's thread on T5HO, you'll see.
Also, 4x39w (156w) with reflector equal 250W of MH in the 12-14K spectrum. Talk about saving $$ in electricity.
macawmagic
In Memoriam
dont remember vho bulb names but i got them from a good store and they were pretty expensive per bulb(i think ati, but note 100% sure)...t5's were geissman's with icecap reflectors(i believe)
both were 2 daylight 2 actinic ran off icecap 660. i had my personal doubts that they were that much brighter untill they melted half my corals. then I became a believer. don't ask me why i switched to metal halides though...it was just kinda a spur of the moment thing. kinda wish i stayed with the 8 t5's as now my room heats up and I'm about to setup a whole ventilation system to get the heat up into my attic...such a PITA!!!
both were 2 daylight 2 actinic ran off icecap 660. i had my personal doubts that they were that much brighter untill they melted half my corals. then I became a believer. don't ask me why i switched to metal halides though...it was just kinda a spur of the moment thing. kinda wish i stayed with the 8 t5's as now my room heats up and I'm about to setup a whole ventilation system to get the heat up into my attic...such a PITA!!!
Why must you distort my comments and ridicule to make your point? Is that what it takes for you to make your point because you have no objective information to offer?
I've never said VHO with a good reflector is brighter than T5's with good reflectors.
Since no none I ask will answer which VHO reflector they were using, nor which lamp (no internal reflector either?) it seems that maybe they weren't using a good reflector for their VHO's. By switching to T5 they also started using a good (parabolic) reflector.
Some of us can use good reflectors with VHO and internal reflectors so the change to T5 would offer a change in output that is mostly unrelated to a change in reflectors.
As an example of the reflector size issue, the T5 reflectors are positioned a given distance from the T5 lamp's tube. A very good VHO reflector can be positioned the same distance from the tube, perhaps even closer if the VHO lamp has an internal reflector because not as much light is being lost out of the back/top of the tube as it would be with a T5 lamp, so bouncing the light around to get as much as possible out from behind the lamp is not as important/beneficial.
If the t5 reflector of choice is 2.5" wide then a similar VHO reflector could be wider by just about the difference in the tubes' diameter, a total width of about 3.5" and in my testing that's worked very well, and if the lamps are close together the reflectors don't come out as far so they end before the width exceeds 3 inches.
You can look at the reflectors used for some tanning beds/booths to see examples of good reflectors used with VHO.
As for marketing a VHO reflector, I don't think it's a way to make much money. I already make a nice living manufacturing underwater video and lighting equipment.
Warren, you challenged for information proving the output superiority of T5 over VHO.
I dont understand you trying to reflect light that is behind an internally reflected VHO. That makes no sense. You would not be reflecting any signifigant portion of direct light from the bulb.
I used URI Internally reflected VHO's. That is all I used, every single lamp change. Internally reflected VHO. Actinic 03 and 50/50 lamps ... two of each. A very common VHO set-up.
As far as a source, I believe I have stated it more than once now. Go to the T5 q and a thread and ask Grim for any information that you want to. The onus is NOT on me to provide you with data but I directed you to a source for anything you would need anyway. If you wish to use VHO, feel free. You are simply wrong when you make the claim that T5 set-up as many have described here will not provide higher par to the tank than VHO. That was indeed your premise when you made the challenge to provide a source.
If you had ever tried and/or tested T5 correctly applied with good individual reflector you wouldnt even be arguing what really is a moot point ... assuming of course that your testing set-up and procedure was even remotely valid.
T5 Q and A thread ... Grim Reefer. That is your source, once again. Enjoy.
I dont understand you trying to reflect light that is behind an internally reflected VHO. That makes no sense. You would not be reflecting any signifigant portion of direct light from the bulb.
I used URI Internally reflected VHO's. That is all I used, every single lamp change. Internally reflected VHO. Actinic 03 and 50/50 lamps ... two of each. A very common VHO set-up.
As far as a source, I believe I have stated it more than once now. Go to the T5 q and a thread and ask Grim for any information that you want to. The onus is NOT on me to provide you with data but I directed you to a source for anything you would need anyway. If you wish to use VHO, feel free. You are simply wrong when you make the claim that T5 set-up as many have described here will not provide higher par to the tank than VHO. That was indeed your premise when you made the challenge to provide a source.
If you had ever tried and/or tested T5 correctly applied with good individual reflector you wouldnt even be arguing what really is a moot point ... assuming of course that your testing set-up and procedure was even remotely valid.
T5 Q and A thread ... Grim Reefer. That is your source, once again. Enjoy.
ganjero
saiperchémibatteilcorazon
You keep saying that your "experiments" proved that VHO can be or are superior than t5s, yet you haven't owned or experiment with t5's ho, their individual reflectors and active cooling.
I have tried VHO, ODNO, t5s, MHs. I only keep sps corals and I can tell you t5 are comparable to MH, and superior than any combination of VHOs.
The individual reflectors for T5s that I've used clip on the bulbs so I dont understand how you say they are made to be to far from the bulbs. I've owned t5 fixtures (aquatinics, TEK, and ATI) and the reflectors are right on top of the bulbs as well. The VHOs are a thing of the past, I stopped using them like 3 years ago.
An effective individual reflector for VHO will be too big, about 7-8" not 4" like you are saying. VHO bulbs are too big, why do you think there are not commercial individual reflectors out there for VHOs?
You keep saying that you like to spread the bulb so the light gets spread better in the tank and that with t5s you have to cramped them up. Wrong, like I told you before you can also spread out t5's bulbs.
Look at these thread for PAR readings on T5's
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=918935&perpage=25&pagenumber=1
http://www.austinreefclub.com/blog/mojo/index.php?&req=printentry&eid=245
Look at the PAR readings of the VHO tank in this article
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2005/8/lines/view
a 100 right next to the bulbs, any T5 setup with 4 bulbs will have at least 650-700 next to the bulbs.
There are plenty of threads, links, and articles here at rc and on the web. This discussion between VHO and T5HO started a few years ago, and also ended a few years ago with a clear winner, the T5HO.
You need to read more carefully because I haven't said either of those things.
How do you know this? I disagree with you because I have already tested this with a light meter and 3.5" wide is very effective. VHO reflectors are used in some tanning beds/booths and they are about 3" wide.
That is a poor reference. The reflector design for the VHO's in that article is terrible. It is worse than having no reflector. Way too much light from the two upper lamps is being reflected into the back and side of two other lamps, and half the lamps are too far from the water. They would have much done better with the lamps side by side and closer to the water.
I can't find it right now but there is an article somewhere that has measurements from many different light styles and tanks. What I remember is that the VHO had an output of 1000ue and the T5 was around 1100uE.
DarG, there is light behind the lamp and to the sides that can be reflected out and I have measured this too. Since you did not account for this you were not getting maximum light from your VHO's.
I think a reason for no available VHO reflectors is that with T5 they are a necessity but with VHO the internal reflectors do a reasonable job, and for URI, it would be tough to convince people that their internal reflector was good if they also sold reflectors. In the aquarium trade there are bad products sold and good ones that are not (if the profit margins aren't good).
And don't gt too carried away with PAR. Par includes light that is not used by the zoox. PUR is more relevant for our corals. Look at the lamp's PAR, but consider how much of that PAR is actually used by the coral. You need to know the spectral signature of the lamp.
The original poster asked about converting from VHO to T5. If the MEASURED improvement is only 10% vs. the cost, that is worth considering.
ganjero
saiperchémibatteilcorazon
man you are one of those people that dont want to open their eyes.
A reflector will improve output, so yes you 3" or 4" reflector for VHO will improve PAR but to be as effective as the ones for t5s they have to be about 8". A 3" reflector is gonna restrike a lot of light back on the bulb.
only 10% improvement going from vho to t5? No way, it is a lot more than that specially if you dont have any reflectors or just a big flat reflector for the vhos and you upgrade to t5s with individual reflectors.
PUR values are very different for every photosynthetic organisms, PAR values are more even across these organisms and that's why PAR measurements are commonly accepted for this hobby.
Im not try to get you (warreng) to change your lighting, Im just try to inform people that T5s are indeed superior than VHO in many ways. T5 are more efficient, cost effective and readily available.
BTW I would like to see VHO putting out a 1000 in PAR, those number are only achievable by MH bulbs and the measurements have to be taken close to the bulbs. I've olny seen a report showing a value of 1000 PAR for VHOs, but it was under a 24 bulb fixture.
ps. The only VHO I still like are for actinic supplementation which is merely for color and not PAR, and many say that newer T5s can match the URI VHO actinic.
A reflector will improve output, so yes you 3" or 4" reflector for VHO will improve PAR but to be as effective as the ones for t5s they have to be about 8". A 3" reflector is gonna restrike a lot of light back on the bulb.
only 10% improvement going from vho to t5? No way, it is a lot more than that specially if you dont have any reflectors or just a big flat reflector for the vhos and you upgrade to t5s with individual reflectors.
PUR values are very different for every photosynthetic organisms, PAR values are more even across these organisms and that's why PAR measurements are commonly accepted for this hobby.
Im not try to get you (warreng) to change your lighting, Im just try to inform people that T5s are indeed superior than VHO in many ways. T5 are more efficient, cost effective and readily available.
BTW I would like to see VHO putting out a 1000 in PAR, those number are only achievable by MH bulbs and the measurements have to be taken close to the bulbs. I've olny seen a report showing a value of 1000 PAR for VHOs, but it was under a 24 bulb fixture.
ps. The only VHO I still like are for actinic supplementation which is merely for color and not PAR, and many say that newer T5s can match the URI VHO actinic.
twon8
Formally registered membe
i'd say the improvement is easily 50% more light, at less wattage.
I would say one reason i can't find any numbers comparing vho to t5 is that any sensible person would realize such a comparison is foolish as t5's are better compared to 250w mh's. no reason to do a vho/t5 test when t5's are obvioulsy so far superior.
I would say one reason i can't find any numbers comparing vho to t5 is that any sensible person would realize such a comparison is foolish as t5's are better compared to 250w mh's. no reason to do a vho/t5 test when t5's are obvioulsy so far superior.
The internally reflected VHO's have an internal 180 degree reflector. The light behind the bulb is not directly radiated from the bulb. It is just ambient light and very weak relative to light that is directly emitted from the bulb itself. Being able to reflect that back to the tank isnt going to signifigantly increase the par in the tank. The problem with your testing of your reflector at 3.5 inches wide is that you never did extensive testing with wider, parabolic reflectors. You came up with some things you thought would work and that was it. You can claim that 3.5" wide reflector was "very effective" but relative to what? If a cad program for reflector design spit out a 7" wide parabolic reflector and you tested that against a your 3.5" reflector and found that the 3.5" reflector was 90% as effective, then you would have something of relevance. But "very effective" in and of itself is meaningless. Better than no relfector? ... I'm sure.
But you did nothing that compares anything to optimal. Nobody would expect you to be able to go to those lengths but then you shouldnt make claims that you essentially have revived VHO with a reflector design.
Also, claiming that VHO only provides a 10% improvement over T5 is again without a standard. Are you talking watt for watt? If you are talking watt for watt, WITHOUT a reflector, just measuring raw light output from the respective bulbs, then that is probably right. There is no argument there. Everyone knows that it is the relfector that makes T5 the superior flourescent light source. It is the 5/8" diameter that makes the small reflector possible and the 1.5" VHO that makes a reflector for VHO that is as effective as the ones for T5 prohibitively large. You havent even done anything with T5 to make the claims that you are trying to make. they are all based on your very limited testing of VHO reflectors and assumptions from them and from reading the specs on the raw output of the T5 bulb itself, with NO reflector ... and doing NO testing with T5 at all.
There wouldnt even be a thread here if you had any experience with T5. If you had any T5 + reflector experience you wouldnt be posting the claims that it is hype and if you did any actual T5 + reflector testing you definitely wouldnt be posting claims that it is hype.
I didnt want to make the change from VHO that I had used for close to a dozen years, either. But I kept an open mind and found out that T5 was genuinely the far more effective lighting.
You kept and continue to keep a closed mine and post mis-information. What's worse is that you seem unwilling to look further because you dont want to be wrong. You wouldnt have to stop using VHO. Just because something is better ... clearly better, more efficient, deeper penetration, longer lasting ... doesnt mean what you have and has been working for you will all of a sudden stop working for you. T5 is just superior lighting for the aquarium. Open your mind and check into it.
But you did nothing that compares anything to optimal. Nobody would expect you to be able to go to those lengths but then you shouldnt make claims that you essentially have revived VHO with a reflector design.
Also, claiming that VHO only provides a 10% improvement over T5 is again without a standard. Are you talking watt for watt? If you are talking watt for watt, WITHOUT a reflector, just measuring raw light output from the respective bulbs, then that is probably right. There is no argument there. Everyone knows that it is the relfector that makes T5 the superior flourescent light source. It is the 5/8" diameter that makes the small reflector possible and the 1.5" VHO that makes a reflector for VHO that is as effective as the ones for T5 prohibitively large. You havent even done anything with T5 to make the claims that you are trying to make. they are all based on your very limited testing of VHO reflectors and assumptions from them and from reading the specs on the raw output of the T5 bulb itself, with NO reflector ... and doing NO testing with T5 at all.
There wouldnt even be a thread here if you had any experience with T5. If you had any T5 + reflector experience you wouldnt be posting the claims that it is hype and if you did any actual T5 + reflector testing you definitely wouldnt be posting claims that it is hype.
I didnt want to make the change from VHO that I had used for close to a dozen years, either. But I kept an open mind and found out that T5 was genuinely the far more effective lighting.
You kept and continue to keep a closed mine and post mis-information. What's worse is that you seem unwilling to look further because you dont want to be wrong. You wouldnt have to stop using VHO. Just because something is better ... clearly better, more efficient, deeper penetration, longer lasting ... doesnt mean what you have and has been working for you will all of a sudden stop working for you. T5 is just superior lighting for the aquarium. Open your mind and check into it.
DarG, you misquote me frequently. You need to read more carefully. Perhaps you are confusing what I write with things that other people have written.
I have not said the good T5 reflectors were hype. They could be a little better, but they are still good. I have also not said VHO's provide 10% more light than T5, rather the other way around.
I have also not said I have "revived" VHO with a new reflector, but if you want to make fair comparisons then you should compare T5's with a good reflector and VHO with a good reflector, and my testing shows that a 3.5" reflector for VHO can be a good reflector.
One guys' measurement of VHO and then comparing that to another guy's measurement of T5 where the reflectors and positions were different is not very accurate.
I have been looking around the net trying to find a test where T5 and VHO were measured in the exact same way but the only thing I've found was where the T5 was about 10% brighter. To me, that improvement is not worth changing over to T5.
PAR vs. PUR, there are some good articles online from Dana Riddle and others about this. Essentially, there are 2, maybe 3 ranges of the (PAR) spectrum that are used by the zoox in almost all of the corals we keep, so light that is outside those ranges is either wasted, or is to enhance our viewing.
Looking at the spectral signatures of some T5's compared to URI's actinic VHO I'd say some T5's look to have near equal PUR. Maybe people have used the VHO actinic for so long that they are reluctant to change that to T5.
Somebody around RC has an interesting quote in his signature. It's from Dana Riddle in 3/07. According the quote, "I know I'll make some people mad, but if I had to set up a tank now I'd use VHO's."
I'm guessing that Dana Riddle says this because of the significance of PUR, avoiding photoinhibition, and avoiding overheating of the corals. I think he has recently set up a tank using Solaris LED's, probably for similar reasons.
I have not said the good T5 reflectors were hype. They could be a little better, but they are still good. I have also not said VHO's provide 10% more light than T5, rather the other way around.
I have also not said I have "revived" VHO with a new reflector, but if you want to make fair comparisons then you should compare T5's with a good reflector and VHO with a good reflector, and my testing shows that a 3.5" reflector for VHO can be a good reflector.
One guys' measurement of VHO and then comparing that to another guy's measurement of T5 where the reflectors and positions were different is not very accurate.
I have been looking around the net trying to find a test where T5 and VHO were measured in the exact same way but the only thing I've found was where the T5 was about 10% brighter. To me, that improvement is not worth changing over to T5.
PAR vs. PUR, there are some good articles online from Dana Riddle and others about this. Essentially, there are 2, maybe 3 ranges of the (PAR) spectrum that are used by the zoox in almost all of the corals we keep, so light that is outside those ranges is either wasted, or is to enhance our viewing.
Looking at the spectral signatures of some T5's compared to URI's actinic VHO I'd say some T5's look to have near equal PUR. Maybe people have used the VHO actinic for so long that they are reluctant to change that to T5.
Somebody around RC has an interesting quote in his signature. It's from Dana Riddle in 3/07. According the quote, "I know I'll make some people mad, but if I had to set up a tank now I'd use VHO's."
I'm guessing that Dana Riddle says this because of the significance of PUR, avoiding photoinhibition, and avoiding overheating of the corals. I think he has recently set up a tank using Solaris LED's, probably for similar reasons.
So ... T5 with reflectors will only output 10% more par into the tank than VHO with your reflector. So is this watt for watt? Or is this a 54 watt 48" T5 vs. a 110 watt 48" VHO?
Id say that you could possibly be on track if you are claiming 54watt T5 vs. 110 watt VHO . Because obviously with a large and optimized reflector for VHO that would be relatively as effective as those for T5, and yours is not, the VHO should put more light into the tank. T5 has a higher output watt for watt, bulbs alone, but it isnt enough for 54 watt to be higher than 110 watt. So, assuming it is 10%, bulb for bulb, why would it not be worth the switch for a 10% increase with 1/2 the wattage? And what is the increase without your reflector? Obviously much larger.
If you are claiming a 10% increase for T5 watt for watt, you are wrong, far off.
The reason why optimized reflectors arent available for VHO is because of the width and it is larger than 3.5 inches. At only 3.5" VHO makers would certainly be making these parabolic reflectors available and there would be profit involved. It would take little extra to make a 3.5" reflector. Only 1 inch wider than the SLR and a mere 1/2" wider than the TEK II. Both extending down a bit further but simple, and not much more costly than T5 reflectors.
But again, it's not that simple. They need to be much larger which makes them not feasible as it would not allow enough lamps over most tanks. Use the source I have given you as Grim and others can surely direct you to the information.
BTW ... the reflectors on VHO based tanning beds serve a completely different purpose. They are directing light literally a few inches to the target, not 2 feet down into an aquarium. Its not a valid comparison.
Id say that you could possibly be on track if you are claiming 54watt T5 vs. 110 watt VHO . Because obviously with a large and optimized reflector for VHO that would be relatively as effective as those for T5, and yours is not, the VHO should put more light into the tank. T5 has a higher output watt for watt, bulbs alone, but it isnt enough for 54 watt to be higher than 110 watt. So, assuming it is 10%, bulb for bulb, why would it not be worth the switch for a 10% increase with 1/2 the wattage? And what is the increase without your reflector? Obviously much larger.
If you are claiming a 10% increase for T5 watt for watt, you are wrong, far off.
The reason why optimized reflectors arent available for VHO is because of the width and it is larger than 3.5 inches. At only 3.5" VHO makers would certainly be making these parabolic reflectors available and there would be profit involved. It would take little extra to make a 3.5" reflector. Only 1 inch wider than the SLR and a mere 1/2" wider than the TEK II. Both extending down a bit further but simple, and not much more costly than T5 reflectors.
But again, it's not that simple. They need to be much larger which makes them not feasible as it would not allow enough lamps over most tanks. Use the source I have given you as Grim and others can surely direct you to the information.
BTW ... the reflectors on VHO based tanning beds serve a completely different purpose. They are directing light literally a few inches to the target, not 2 feet down into an aquarium. Its not a valid comparison.
Similar threads
