T5's: A cautionary note

To the "no need to overdrive" camp:

Can you grow acropora on your sandbed? I can with an IC660, SLR reflectors I can - even with 3/4 of my bulbs as BluePlus. The IC ballasts do cost money... but to run 4 bulbs you need two cheaper ballasts... and by then you are half way to an icecap that will give you more light, more piece of mind, and definitely longer ballast life if not longer bulb life. Look at all the people using IC ballasts for 5 years +.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7180509#post7180509 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by hahnmeister
Icecap claims longer bulb life due to soft starting, which in turn means less 'darkening' at the ends. Sure, this extends the life of the bulb if you were going to continue using it until the bulb wont fire any more, but means little to nothing to reefers who replace the bulbs when their output is diminished or shifted (long before they cease to fire). Phosphor shift and fade is due to heat. While it is possible for an IC ballast to have a near normal life for the bulb, the only way it could claim that would be if they could somehow increase the voltage to the bulb yet not increase the heat, which last I checked...was impossible w/o better cooling (and even at that, there is only so much you can do from outside the bulb). This means that extra ventilation is the key to keep icecap run T5s from burning out early, as the bulbs must be kept that much cooler to compensate for the greater power.

At that, I see other people with 10% loss in PAR when running the IC after just a month, and worse after that. Im sure it varies with bulb to bulb (actinics prolly burn out much faster on IC in comparison to 6500K GEs).

http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=795494&perpage=25&pagenumber=1
Where are you getting your info from dude.FYI,I have an 18mon old D&D true actinic that has been run on an IC660.Has it lost its spectrum?It still looks like the same,crappy 420nm purplish
bulb it always was.Obviously,this doesn't mean anything without data to back it up.I or your average hobbyists don't have access to the $$ equiptment needed to do a spectral analysis on a flourescent bulb.So,where are these spectral analysis tests/charts comparing T5bulbs spectrum at different ages.I've yet to see one test done to confirm your statement about this.What makes you think that they need to increase the voltage in order to get 2yr bulb life?Do you even know what voltage or mA T5HO lamps operate at on an IC or a WH5?I wonder why Fulham dosn't list the crest factor on there spec sheet.hmm.I found this little FAQ on Fulhams site
Q- My lamps are blacking prematurely, is there a problem?

A-End blackening is a normal function as lamps age, provided the blackening is even. Early blackening may be a heat related issue in your fixture.

I think it is misleading for people to say that they are getting 10% less PAR from there bulbs after 1 month on an IC ballast when ALL
FLOURESCENTS,regardless of ballast lose lumen output as soon as they fire up for the first time(especially during the first 100hrs of operation)That is why bulbs have a initial and design/mean lumen rating.
 
davejnz, info is from others with Li-Cor meters. Just because your bulb looks the same, never trust your eyes...the output might be dimiinished and you would never know. Perhaps an easier way is to hook up a new bulb next to the old one and see if you can see the diff.

My background and information is from fellow lighting engineers who work on the stuff...even a person who works on T5s for GE.

I never said that they need to increase voltage to increase bulb life, I stated that increasing voltage in any phosphor based lighting system (which is how you boost the power), is how you increase the heat of the bulb, and how a bulb wears out faster.

As far as the blackening at the ends of the bulbs, its a non-issue to reefers. We are replacing these bulbs long before this is an issue we would be concerned about. It is not a heat issue, but rather a symptom of how the ballast starts the bulb. Eventually, a T5 will stop working from starting, but that is many years after we should stop using the bulbs due to the phosphors diminishing/shifting.

Did you read the link? Thats some serious diminished output. I am working on testing with a few others. I have a few tek ballasts and an IC660 to do SxS PAR comparisons over the next 18 months.
 
Until i see spectral analysis charts/tests ran on the various bulbs at different ages,I'll just have to take this info just like i do with the rest of the crap on this board.In one ear and out the other.
 
The 10% loss in the 1st hours is true for all fluorescent lamps, for except T-5HO lamps. 1st day is where it stays for some time.

Andy
 
Tests

Tests

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7182188#post7182188 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ASH
The 10% loss in the 1st hours is true for all fluorescent lamps, for except T-5HO lamps. 1st day is where it stays for some time.

Andy
Andy can you post the test you did on the lamps?
 
I posted this question in another T5 link, but since this thread seems to have some T5 heavy weights I will post it again here :

From what I have read it seems that T5HOs are only good for up to a 23" tall tank ? I did see a comment by Grim that MH will penetrate further into the tank than T5HOs, but he didn't have time to clarify that statement (before he was "ejected" ). Grim also tested an MH 150 against his T5HOs at 18" and the T5s had 52% more PAR, but most people with larger tanks use MH 250s at least, so that data really doesn't help alot, especially when you get down around 22" - 26". Does anyone know the real numbers for what depth T5s are capable of penetrating to support SPS (acros, not just digis) and clams (at least a maxima maybe even a crocea) ? (ok, so I may be stretching on wanting a crocea on the sand bed, but it is a point to ask :))

I am in the planning stage for a larger tank and am on the fence between T5HOs and MH (all really depending on the depth limitations of T5s). Any info or assistance will be greatly appreciated.

P.S. I do plan to use IC ballasts, so the T5HOs will be overdriven
 
The penetration of T5s is double that of halides, due to the linear output. The intensity just depends on how many bulbs you use. T5s should have no problem lighting a tank as tall as 36" or more...in fact for most T5 users, I would suggest a tank at least 24" tall, since the intensity they carry can melt lower light species that normally get placed on the bottom...open brains, mushrooms, etc. T5 means you need a taller tank to get the same light gradient as a shorter tank with halides, as the light penetrates 2x as much. So with a shorter tank, you could get stuck with one intensity throughout the tank, making a mixed reef where the top is SPS and the bottom is mushrooms near impossible.

Heres an interesting comparison...

With a common aqua-green open brain coral (lobo or welso), I can place it on the sandbed of my 60g cube with a 400 watt halide, HQI ballast & lumenarc reflector with a 14,000K aquaconnect bulb. OR, frags of that same coral go in a 40B with a single 250wattHQI halide 14,000K pheonix. Either way it does just fine with the halide.

When I tried to take that same coral and put it into a 40g Breeder with only 4 39 watt T5s (6 was too bright for other things even), it retracted and began melting.

I mention this because its not so much wattage or PAR when comparing halide to T5 as it is looking at how that bulb gets the light to the coral. I can cite that vs. a single halide pendant, there is much more light that hits the coral with T5s, as with halide, the point source makes my SPS shade themselves in many areas, and so one side of a colony could be nice and colored in, and the other half faded. With T5, the PAR could be less, but the output is coming at the coral from a wider angle, meaning that the coral gets more use of the light that is there.

Also, some tanks just lend themselves better to T5s, and others to halide. A natural tank for T5s is a 55g. It works great with 4x54watt T5s. The height and norrow profile of the 55 works great with T5, where with halides, dual 250s seem to be needed (thats 2x the wattage) due to the height, but much of it is lost on the narrow profile of the tank, etc. Then there is my 60g cube. Its 24" dimensions would mean that I would have to sun something like 8x24wattT5...and at that, I still wouldnt get the intensity I would with a single lumenarc/halide. Not to mention the cost of replacing all those short T5 bulbs (T5s cost nearly the same per bulb no matter if they are 2' or 4', so economics favors the 4'). The 60 cube shape favors the halide pendant.

The best way to chose is to make a thread/post in a thread with your intentions for livestock and the tank's dimensions. Then people can make suggestions based on that or post pics of simlar tanks with either setup.

You can also never go wrong with a combo of both T5 and halide. Some of the best results I have seen...for instance a 120g with 4x54watt T5 and dual 250 watt HQI halides...grows anything like a weed.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7183348#post7183348 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by hahnmeister
The penetration of T5s is double that of halides, due to the linear output. The intensity just depends on how many bulbs you use. T5s should have no problem lighting a tank as tall as 36" or more...in fact for most T5 users, I would suggest a tank at least 24" tall, since the intensity they carry can melt lower light species that normally get placed on the bottom...open brains, mushrooms, etc. T5 means you need a taller tank to get the same light gradient as a shorter tank with halides, as the light penetrates 2x as much. So with a shorter tank, you could get stuck with one intensity throughout the tank, making a mixed reef where the top is SPS and the bottom is mushrooms near impossible.

Heres an interesting comparison...

With a common aqua-green open brain coral (lobo or welso), I can place it on the sandbed of my 60g cube with a 400 watt halide, HQI ballast & lumenarc reflector with a 14,000K aquaconnect bulb. OR, frags of that same coral go in a 40B with a single 250wattHQI halide 14,000K pheonix. Either way it does just fine with the halide.

When I tried to take that same coral and put it into a 40g Breeder with only 4 39 watt T5s (6 was too bright for other things even), it retracted and began melting.

I mention this because its not so much wattage or PAR when comparing halide to T5 as it is looking at how that bulb gets the light to the coral. I can cite that vs. a single halide pendant, there is much more light that hits the coral with T5s, as with halide, the point source makes my SPS shade themselves in many areas, and so one side of a colony could be nice and colored in, and the other half faded. With T5, the PAR could be less, but the output is coming at the coral from a wider angle, meaning that the coral gets more use of the light that is there.

Also, some tanks just lend themselves better to T5s, and others to halide. A natural tank for T5s is a 55g. It works great with 4x54watt T5s. The height and norrow profile of the 55 works great with T5, where with halides, dual 250s seem to be needed (thats 2x the wattage) due to the height, but much of it is lost on the narrow profile of the tank, etc. Then there is my 60g cube. Its 24" dimensions would mean that I would have to sun something like 8x24wattT5...and at that, I still wouldnt get the intensity I would with a single lumenarc/halide. Not to mention the cost of replacing all those short T5 bulbs (T5s cost nearly the same per bulb no matter if they are 2' or 4', so economics favors the 4'). The 60 cube shape favors the halide pendant.

The best way to chose is to make a thread/post in a thread with your intentions for livestock and the tank's dimensions. Then people can make suggestions based on that or post pics of simlar tanks with either setup.

You can also never go wrong with a combo of both T5 and halide. Some of the best results I have seen...for instance a 120g with 4x54watt T5 and dual 250 watt HQI halides...grows anything like a weed.

Hahn you are killing me here. doudle the pentration of halides!!!!! I dont think so. If it was then everyone would drop halides like a bad habit. You are pulling some **** out of your ***(PS I did the censorship here not RC). That is all I am going to say.
 
FYI,my open brain(Trachyphyllia geoffroyi) thrived in my old 40gal lit with guess what(4x39w/IC660).BTW,"wellso"phyllia is no longer recognized as a genus.And Lobophyllia sp. thrive under bright light.This coral is mostly found on upper reef-slopes and fore-reef slopes.Corals have a remarkable ability to adapt to different lighting intensities.To make a generalized statement like that is absurd IMO.I also had an Agaricia sp. (Agariicids have some of the deepest symbiotic corals known)in that tank for over 2yrs.Its all about acclimation and placement.
Before this thread gets any more ridiculous,I would really like to see these spectral analysis tests performed by your friends with their li-cor meters.Just 1 chart comparing the spectrum of a new bulb,a 6month bulb,a 1yr bulb,and an 18month bulb will do.Until you can back up what you've heard with some real data,you should stop making comments such as these.And for the PAR tests you plan on doing,its already been done so who cares?Grim,IceCap,and a few others have already done these types of tests.What would be much more beneficial for us T5 users,is tests done documenting a bulbs spectrum as it ages.
 
Ok I know I was not going to post here again but I think the same way dave. I know we have been discussing this a lot. I wish I could aford to buy a good spectrometer to test it and I would.
 
crap, i forgot to measure the temp of my w5 ballast when tis fully up to operating temp. i know its not that hot, as i can keep my hand on ti, for as long as i want.
i am guessing 90 -95 degrees or so, any higher thana 100 would probably burn you, from what i can recall. oh, i will take shots of the ends of my near 16month old bulbs to, so the non believers can see that there is no darkening yet.

and the 3 year warranty, thats great. i buy many products for their warranty, even if they cost more. but since you cant normally drive t5ho with the IC ballasts, then i wouldnt get one.

as far as quality of W ballasts, thats a non issue. many of you guys know reefers that have used the same ballast for years.

the workhorse ballasts are UL listed for use on t5ho. they would not get that listing if they were not safe to use.
 
From what I have read it seems that T5HOs are only good for up to a 23" tall tank ? I did see a comment by Grim that MH will penetrate further into the tank than T5HOs, but he didn't have time to clarify that statement (before he was "ejected" ). Grim also tested an MH 150 against his T5HOs at 18" and the T5s had 52% more PAR, but most people with larger tanks use MH 250s at least, so that data really doesn't help alot, especially when you get down around 22" - 26". Does anyone know the real numbers for what depth T5s are capable of penetrating to support SPS (acros, not just digis) and clams (at least a maxima maybe even a crocea) ? (ok, so I may be stretching on wanting a crocea on the sand bed, but it is a point to ask )
quotes/tests by Grim Reefer
"This was a low tech test done on my 125 reef.
It was 3 250's but I did a few different tests. Reading on the sandbed 18" under the water directly under a lamp I got 95 with a 14K EVC DE and 120 with some 10K's that were ugly (too yellow for my taste) but bright. A Hamilton 10K which looked much nicer was around 110. I put said hamilton lamp in a reef optix pendant to see what happened and with it raised about 2" above the tank I got 150. Of course I would need the mother of all chillers to run them that low but it was as high as I could move the pendant with my fixture on the tank.
With the T5's 1" above the tank which is about an inch lower than I would run it permanently I got 183 measuring at the sandbed 18" down under the lamps. I was running 2 aquablue and 2 Actinic Plus lamps which had a way better look than either of the 10K halides"

AS for your WH5

"The Workhore produces unsteady PAR that was about 10% below what a standard Korean made T5 spec ballast Ice Cap now sells produced. The WH also use a little more power. Ice Cap ballasts use 29% more power and produced 35% more light."

I'm not knocking Fulham/WH ballasts,they have there uses.Its just T5's are not meant to be operated on "Instant Start"ballasts.Don't worry about those pics either,here's a pic of a 12month old 39wATI blue on a WH5 right after it died.
2003_0101bulb0002.jpg

2003_0101bulb0003.jpg
 
dwdenny, Im not pulling anything out of my @$$. This is a fact that is true of any linear light source from my understanding, and testing confirms it with T5s at least. YES, T5s will penetrate 2x as much as halide. In layman's terms, the reasoning has to do with the source of the light. With a halide, its a small point source, so its light distribution is much like a slice of a pie. As you get farther from the center of that pie, the light spreads out to cover more area...and it loses intensity. With a linear bulb, the light doesnt have to spread as much, since in the process of it spreading and thinning out as it does, you have waves overlapping from other parts of the bulb. I forget what its called...the 'square rule' or something...having to do with the rate at which light from a source diminishes at certain rates/distances. The rate that halides diminish is 2x that of T5s, or any linear bulb for that matter. Its too late to try to find it right now, but Ill try to find the links tomorrow...or, maybe someone else can chime in and save me the time...

If that makes your nugget burn, think about this...T5 can make more PAR per watt than halide as well...

Also, that discoloration at the end of the bulbs....what does that mean to us as reefers? The bulbs will stop firing sooner? Ok, let me break it down for you. The firing has nothing to do with the output of the bulb or the longevity of the phosphors...right? It has to do with the long term life of the bulb. If we were using these lights in a warehouse, where we would want to get 6+ years out of these bulbs...or until they die and need replacement, then that buildup would be a concern. But for our tanks, the bulbs must be changed in 1/3 that time or less due to phosphor changes. Those black rings dont block any light, nor to they effect the longevity of the coating elsewhere in the bulb, only at the ends (which last I looked, barely any light came from that close to the ends anyways even on a new T5). What will effect the longevity of the bulb, in particular, the phosphors, is the voltage running through the bulb and the heat that it makes. If this heat isnt vented, and the temperature of the phosphors is raised, then the life of the coating, and the output of the bulb, will diminish. The IC ballasts, or any ballast which puts more voltage into the bulb will raise the temperature of it (and according to experiences of those using IC ballasts to overdrive T5s, they are hotter than normal). This means that either the cooling solution for the light must be boosted, or the bulbs will wear out faster. And even with extra ventilation, this has little benefit to the inside of the bulb's operating temperature, esp since glass is an insulator...so just short of running the bulbs in a cooler temperature (like a fridge), I doubt that even excessive fans and ventilation can make up for the extra power that the IC uses to power the bulbs. And that doesnt even take into consideration what possible variables could be thrown in if the bulb/ballast combo has EOL, or End-Of-Life circuitry.

T5 and T5 high output (T5 HO) lamps are designed to produce maximum light output at 35Ã"šÃ‚°C (95Ã"šÃ‚°F) ... A 10Ã"šÃ‚°C (18Ã"šÃ‚°F) difference in optimal temperature between T5 lamps may affect lamp performance in various types of luminaires.

Source: NLPIP (national lighting product information program)
(thanks horkn)
 
Last edited:
well, that blackness at the end of that 12 month old t5ho means that you didnt have a good connection with your endcap to pins.

if mine at 16 months do not have that issue, that has to be the problem

i will post a pic to show you.

IME, proper setup yields good responses.
 
nah, the black on the inside is from the starters at either end. A harder start causes 'sputtering' and the ions leave deposits at the ends. The actual black deposits are no big deal though, as the mfg's designate this area as the 'cool zone' where light is not generated (about an inch and a half to two inches from either end I believe). They do signify the wear and tear on the starter electrodes in the bulbs. Kinda like tires on a car. If you burn rubber when the light turns green, your tires wont show it until you wear the tread out, but the pavement will have skid marks. If you accelerate nicely, as with soft starting, you dont burn as much rubber.

To continue the analogy...if the starter is the car's tires, the idea that it is important is something like this... We are only driving the car for 3000 miles on tires that are rated for 10,000 miles or more, so the tire wear means little.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7185791#post7185791 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by hahnmeister

To continue the analogy...if the starter is the car's tires, the idea that it is important is something like this... We are only driving the car for 3000 miles on tires that are rated for 10,000 miles or more, so the tire wear means little.

but I like to burn my tires off ;)


why would he get a black end like that when using a w5, like I do, on a bulb i have 2 of the exact same of, and i have more months on mine?

i cant be that lucky...

but i did pick up that 90g canopy and stand today:):rollface:

let the modding begin:cool:
 
could be when and by who the bulbs were made. T5 bulbs have improved greatly in just the past 2 years even.

I need someone to find those intensity&penetration tests that were done for T5 vs halide... I cant remember where they are... Come on, someone has to know this here...dont make me have to go get Grim...lol. I remember it, but forget the exact rule...something about the intensity changing at a lower rate up to a point based on the length of the tube??? Some square depth penetration rate of intensity rule...
 
Last edited:
Ok, didnt find what I was looking for, but got it from another source. If anyone can find the exact tests (I believe it was Grim who did them) where he compared % of light intensity lost over 24" of depth (the T5 carried light 2x better).

With halides, or a point source light, the inverse square rule applies, so that if you double the distance from the bulb you decrease the intensity of light by a factor of four. If you are less than one tube length away from the middle of a fluorescent tube, light drops off at an approximately linear rate. That is, if you are two feet away from a 4-foot tube, you receive half (not one quarter) the light that you would receive if you are just one foot away. And if you are in front of the middle of a whole bank of six or more fluorescent tubes, the light intensity at two feet away is almost the same as it is only one foot away! Think about it for a while and you will realize that as you move away from the center of the reflector, you receive more light from the sides, and this compensates for the increasing distance. This works as long as you are still closer to the center of the reflector than the reflector is wide. So a multiple tube fluorescent light fixture produces a very even light throughout the depth of a tank. If you want to defeat the inverse square law, get more tubes.

I hope you washed those feet before you stuck them in your mouth dwdenny. lol...
 
Back
Top