t5 vs vho

[WarrenG]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11763714#post11763714 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by DarG
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?

I'm sorry, but I don't remember and I can't find that article now. I suppose the 54w was overdriven. Has anyone measured the actual wattage consumption at the wall outlet when using the two choices of lamps with an IceCap ballast?

If the wattage use of T5 in stead of VHO saves me 20% in energy that works out to about $36/year.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11763714#post11763714 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by DarG 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.

Please explain how this would make a difference.

Once the light is going towards the subject, it is doing that, whether the subject is 3" away or 10" away. The most important thing is to get the light out from behind and the sides of the lamps, and apparently these VHO refelectors do that. Yes, a deeper reflector would focus the light more, but I don't think an even tighter focus will matter much for our application.

 

[twon8]

I think your energy savings are closer to 50%

 

[DarG]

It's more than 50% because you definitely get MORE light, not just as much at 1/2 the wattage.

The VHO tanning bed is more effective by using more lamps with less than optimized reflectors than it would be by using far less lamps with optimized reflectors. Im not even sure if they do indeed use an individual type reflector, or atleast not all of them. They dont need to be optimized because the bulbs are so close to the individual that the light/UV directly radiating from the lamps is likely more responsible for tanning than the reflected light. The lamps do not need to have 90 something % of their light reflected to do the job. They cannot because the reflectors are not optimized (not wide or deep enough) to be able to reflect that much of the light.

BTW ... I believe I have seen T5 based tanning beds as well.

Honestly, you need to get in touch with Grim Reefer through the T5 Q&A thread. He can offer you much more of the technical information and explanation. That is if you are willing to open your mind to the facts because it is obvious that you feel that T5 is more hype than substance and you honestly are wrong. You havent even used both. You obviously wont accept anything that is presented in more laymen that technical terms. And no offense but I am not so sure that you will accept the technical. I think you would have checked out the thread and corresponded with Grim Reefer by now. This is an exercise in futility at this point.

 

[dvanacker]

THe world is flat and the earth travels around the moon.

Also the sky is falling so look out.

 

[moprint]

T-5 HO is more efficent(spl) and has more PAR or PUR watt for watt then VHO. Sorry Warren and I own 2 tanning beds.

 

[kromine]

I have a question about T5 lighting, I am going to T5 but I am confused, I( see some that say T5 standard output and some that say HO output. What gives, I take it I would always need HO
correct?

 

[DarG]

There are 3 wattages ... N.O. = Normal Output
H.O. = High Output and V H.O. = Very High Output

The majority of T5 lighting for the aquarium uses the High Output type. Very High output T5 are simply the High Output bulbs run on a VHO ballast, the same ballast that drives T-12 VHO lamps which is typically the Icecap 430 or 660 ballast. Not all VHO ballasts will properly run T5 HO bulbs but the Icecap ballasts will as long as they are 5 or 6 years or newer.

If you cannot fit enough T5 bulbs over your tank or in your canopy, then using a VHO ballast is a good option. Or if somebody was wanting to run T5 as supplemental lighting to help color up metal halide but could only fit a couple of T5 bulbs, then running VHO ballasts are a good option.

High output T5 48" bulbs are 54 watts. On the icecap VHO ballasts those same 48" bulbs run 80 watts. The downside is that they run hotter and require good fan cooling on the bulbs and endcaps otherwise they burn up pretty quickly. Even with cooling they dont last as long when driven at V HO levels. How long they last, nobody really has a real answer.

T5 HO generally lasts 12 months atleast for the blue bulbs and 18 months for the whiter bulbs. That's a common guideline anyway. This is for the higher quality T5 lamps, usually german made or the UVL brand. Cheaper T5's, typically asian made dont generally last as long.

T5 and reflectors ... What makes T5 the most effective and efficient flourescent lighting for our tanks is the fact that these skinny tubes have reflectors designed for them that take advantage of all the light that the bulb produces. The best T5 set-ups have an individual reflector for each bulb.

 

[reeformadness]

I agree, T-5 is superior to VHO (except actinics from what I hear). But only from an electrical efficiency standpoint (lum/watt). T-5's seem to give me about the same light as my VHO T-12's did, but they do it with less wattage. In comparison to metal halides it is basically a push (maybe MH's are a little more efficient). It really all comes down to preference in color and whether or not the light is point source (do you get the desirable "shimmer effect"?) In terms of the question about output, the 54W T-5's are what is considered HO. The NO stuff is around 40W I want to say. I overdrive my T-5's at 80W, but my understanding is that I am not maximizing the efficiency or longevity of my T-5's, I am maximizing the output. It really boils down to what do you think looks best. Its a pretty important factor.

 

[wet reefer]

I have a 4 lamp, VHO w/internal reflectors and a 4 lamp, T5, TEK light. Both 4 ft. Both on 55 gallon tanks. I don't need a light meter to tell me the T5 is much brighter.

So
4 x 54 watt, T5=216 watts
4 x 110 watt, VHO=440 watts
That is a 224 watt difference.

That also translates to a $90.00 savings per year on my electric bill fo me. If you go all UVL, the bulbs are about the same in replacement costs. In my experience the VHO's run much hotter, even on an Ice Cap ballast.

So less power consumption, more light, cooler running.

I don't mean to offend anyone but it's hard to believe this is even being debated. That is unless of course those still advocating VHO over T5 have not actually seen or tried them.

 

[DarG]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11994817#post11994817 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by wet reefer
I have a 4 lamp, VHO w/internal reflectors and a 4 lamp, T5, TEK light. Both 4 ft. Both on 55 gallon tanks. I don't need a light meter to tell me the T5 is much brighter.

So
4 x 54 watt, T5=216 watts
4 x 110 watt, VHO=440 watts
That is a 224 watt difference.

That also translates to a $90.00 savings per year on my electric bill fo me. If you go all UVL, the bulbs are about the same in replacement costs. In my experience the VHO's run much hotter, even on an Ice Cap ballast.

So less power consumption, more light, cooler running.

I don't mean to offend anyone but it's hard to believe this is even being debated. That is unless of course those still advocating VHO over T5 have not actually seen or tried them.

Ridiculous isnt it? I ran VHO for near a dozen years. Nobody want to change from something they know and that works but it isnt even close. T5 with reflectors are just more effective and efficient and not watt for watt, foot for foot of bulb.

 

[nreefer]

Interesting thread. I see know that URI is selling Super Actinic T5's now. Has anyone heard good or bad things? I only heard they last about 6 months.
I use 2 x 6 foot super acitinc VHO's over my tank right now run on WH7 ballasts. Do you think if I replaced each 6 foot VHO with a 4 foot and 3 foot T5 super actinic with Icecap ballasts I would get better/same results in terms of actinic affect?

 

[john rochon]

well, I personally switched back from T5's to VHO.
why, because no matter what I did those T5 reflectors become pitted.tarnished and somewhat ruined after 6 months. the problem with T5 is the fact that you need to place them fairly close to the water surface and eventually the salt will get to them.
unless you want to clean them every week which I'm not sure will help anyways. I like the idea of T5 lamps as thats the way most fluorecent lighting is going anyways but in a saltwater enviroment
they don't last long.
with my VHO I can just wipe the tube and be done with it.
this is happening to alot of T5 users.

 

[DarG]

nreefer ... UVL has had super actinic T5's for a while now. I use a halide and T5 combo now. I am using one UVL super actinic that is 6 months old and still going strong and thats overdriven with Icecap 660. The VHO super actinic has better color than T5 super actinic. You would get more output in the tank but you probably will like the VHO color better.

john ... The TEK reflectors had more issues than the Icecaps from what I have read. I think the TEK II's use a more resistant coating now. I dont recall any reports of pitting for the Icecap reflectors, but some staining has been reported.
Anyway, Icecap recommends a coat of Stainless Steel cleaner/polish on the reflectors to prevent staining. My one Icecap reflector near my returns that got the most spray/splash got a few spots of the coralline algae color stains after a couple of months. Since cleaning the reflectors with a stainless steel cleaner/polish as icecap suggested there is no more staining on my reflectors at all. Ive used it probably 3 times over the past year. I am not reading widespread reports of T5 reflectors pitting so I am not so sure this is a widespread problem. Regardless, there is an easy fix for it and it works.

Even if it were a real issue for most users, with T5 bulbs longer usuable lifespan than VHO and with saving in energy costs one could probably replace the reflectors yearly and still not cost any more to run T5 than VHO. Im being a bit sarcastic but it's probably pretty close to accurate.

 

[nreefer]

Thanks John and DarG. Do you think my 4 foot and 3 foot T5 actinic will provide the same light intensity as my 6 foot VHO actinic?

 

[john rochon]

yeh I heard about the using of the stainless steel spray to late.
I had both TEK and ICECAP reflectors.
eventually you might not even be able to get VHO lamps. theres some serious talk and acting regarding banning T12 lighting in CANADA. T12 is definatly dinosaur technology but I do love the super actinics

 

[wet reefer]

nreefer, I think you would do just fine with 80 watt (5ft) bulbs.
I also have a 72" tank and per recommendations from the T5 guys here, I switched from 72" VHO and went 80 watt T5. I have more light with the T5's. The ends of the tank are slightly dimmer but I like it that way. It gives me areas where I can put LPS and some other things that require less light. The thing is, if you are using actinic and only two lamps, you might be better off sticking with VHO. The VHO actinics are better, IMO. The T5 actinics seem more blue than actinic but they do fluoresce just as well, just not as bright.
If you switch to four T5's your lamp replacement costs will be higher also verses two 80 watt T5....and less efficient.

john rochon, There is also talk of that in the States. But T12 specialty lamps will remain available and "legal". Same with A lamps (standard incandescent). What would everybody do with their tanning beds?

Hey darg, what brand of cleaner are you using? I have stainless cleaner but it doesn't say anything about being a polish.

 

[DarG]

Wetreefer ... I use the WEIMAN stainless steel cleaner and polish. Comes in a silver spray can. It works great. It has what I think is silicone in it. Sprays on white and then you just run it in until it;s transparent. You can feel that it leaves a slick coating behind on the reflector.

nreefer ... I dont share the same opinion regarding the VHO actinics being brighter. When I built my light rack I made it so I had the option of running two VHO's or two T5's. I had new VHO lamps because that is the lighting I switched from about 15 months ago. The VHO super actinics look brighter to the eye but the T5 Super actinics definitely made a larger impact on adding color to my tank with the halides on. This was T5 driven at 54 watt by a HO advance ballasts, not even on the Icecap. With the reflectors the T5's put more light into the tank. I ended up running them with the Icecap ballast with which it is not even a contest as to which is brighter.
These were UVL Super actinic T5 with Icecap reflectors vs, UVL VHO super actinics with internal reflectors. That was my experience anyway and why I decided to use the T5 instead of VHO for supplemental color to my halides.

On other note. I dont really like T5 Super actinics with HO ballasts. That would be 48" at 54 watt. Despite them having a larger impact than the VHO they still dont look as good as VHO. They look rather anemic for lack of a better word. Maybe it's the skinny tubes that just make them look whimpy. But overdriven on Icecap ballasts it is a different story. They still dont quite have the color of the VHO Super actinic but they are much better at 80 watts than 54 watts. I think they look good on Icecaps. This is for the UVL brand T5 super actinics. I cant speak for the European brands. I can speak for the Current USA actinic 03, their version of the pure/super actinic. These bulbs dont have the color or the output of UVL super actinics. The cheaper lamps probably would not hold up well to the Icecap ballasts either. I have heard other mention the Giesemann version being more blue and less purple.
Im going a long way to say that if you do decide to try T5 Super actinics you may want to start with the UVL brand Super Actinics. They seem to make the best T5 super actinic atleast as far as color is concerned. Also had the highest par among the T5 super actinics that were tested a while back. Some people have reported that theirs havent held up well by mine is going strong at 6 months on an Icecap 660.

Also, T5 does come in more colors, so lots of variety. They have blue lamps which are around 460nm (450 - 470) and also combo bulbs with super actinic and blue in one lamp as well as daylights, 11K and 12K bulbs and different mixes of color temps like the fiji purple bulbs which are kinda like a super actinc with a little bit of red. Even have a red/purple looking lamp, the ATI procolor. There is a T5 bulb that can "pop" any coral there is ...

 

[nreefer]

Thanks DarG. One 6 foot VHO actinic costs about the same as the total for a 4 foot and 3 foot T5 actinic here in Canada.
So bulb replacement costs would be the same really. I am using the actinic to supliment 4 x 250 DE halides. So I would have running parralled on each side of the row or halides a 4 foot and 3 foot T5 powered by a WH7.
How close to the water do the T5's have to be in order to be effective?
How deep is your tank DarG? Mine is 30 inches.

 

[HowardW]

While significant, the only argument for VHO lighting is the color rendition from the Super Actinic VHO bulbs which I don't believe has been duplicated by their T5 counterpart. Other than that, T5HO's running with top quality parabolic reflectors will smoke VHO's which has long since been documented via PAR testing.

IIRC, a 48" 54W T5HO daylight bulb paired with a top quality individual reflector will put out about the same PAR as a 48" 110W daylight VHO bulb, or about twice as effective watt for watt, plus as others have mentioned there's a wider selection of T5 bulbs and they also last longer. As far as T5 reflectors getting damaged by salt spray........that's why they make the acrylic shields for nearly every T5 fixture available

 

[nreefer]

Thanks HowardW. I don't really care much about the PAR since they are just for Actinic suplementation. I want to ensure they are bright enought to get the same punch in my tank as they VHO's do.