T5's: A cautionary note
- Thread starter JohnL
- Start date
rickburdeniuk
New member
One reported issue with them is saftey, apparently they don't have (E)nd (O)f (L)ife protection that all T5 ballasts are suppose to have. I assume that means that if a bulb burns out or breaks something bad could happen.
Having said that I know of two people personally and one on this forum who use them and are very happy with them dispite the fact that the starting method is suggested to damage bulbs. Having said all that T5's on a WH have some of their manufactures support as Fullham does explain how to wire HO T5.
Anyhow, to be fair I think some users on on RC have also reported problems.
The Grim Reefer
Ready for some NOBALL!!!
Well Damn, I am not a fan of Workhorses for T5's. You don't have much choice if you want a 6 foot T5 fixture. You could always go with it and then upgrade the thing with an IC 660 or two down the line if you want more light. You would probably have to mount the IC ballasts remote to the hood which is no big, they can be up to 50 feet away so you just need to make a wiring harness.
mcegelsk
New member
Grim-
See that is what I was thinking, I was really hoping Tom would come back saying they use ICs. I'm leaning toward trying to find something similar to the fixture housing and then installing the components myself with ICs and the best reflectors. I think choosing the best reflectors and ballasts will help achieve my goal of lower operating costs for the light value. Thanks for your continued help. ~Matt
See that is what I was thinking, I was really hoping Tom would come back saying they use ICs. I'm leaning toward trying to find something similar to the fixture housing and then installing the components myself with ICs and the best reflectors. I think choosing the best reflectors and ballasts will help achieve my goal of lower operating costs for the light value. Thanks for your continued help. ~Matt
The Grim Reefer
Ready for some NOBALL!!!
Mounting IC ballasts in that fixture might be a chore. If he would set you up with a bare hood with fans and 2 power cords I bet you could mount 6 80 watt lamps flat across but staggered a few inches end to end and fit 2 660 ballasts in there above the lamps. You would have to stay with Tek reflectors to have a chance at squeezing the 6 lamps in there. That would be the most efficient to run and maintain but $$$$ to build. I can actually understand why they went with WH ballasts. You got to make the units cost effective.
NorthernCF
Premium Member
That is deep. Over drive them if you want high light corals on the bottom.... Now, if you have a dsb with lower light corals on the bottom, it won't matter 
The Grim Reefer
Ready for some NOBALL!!!
Running staggered 54 watt lamps with IC ballasts and reflectors will get you a lot more light to the bottom of the tank in the middle few feet and a little less going out towards the ends. Running 80 watt lamps slightly staggered will get you pretty even coverage across the entire tank but it wont be as instense as the center few feet on the 54 watt system.
Which is better depends on how you want to stack the tank. With the 54's you could have the center of the tank top to bottom with high light critters and use the ends for lower light guys. With the 80's you would need to keep the higher light guys in the top half of the tank and lower light critters in the bottom.
Which is better depends on how you want to stack the tank. With the 54's you could have the center of the tank top to bottom with high light critters and use the ends for lower light guys. With the 80's you would need to keep the higher light guys in the top half of the tank and lower light critters in the bottom.
Ixthys
Premium Member
I'm afraid I'm a bit confused. If the tank is 72" long by 24" front to back (and assuming the canopy is the same), then staggered 48" long 54w bulbs vs. 60" 80w bulbs (could be slightly staggered) still fit the same number front to back, correct? So why would the 54's allow high light corals at the bottom (in the center of the tank) and 80's wouldn't?
Another way to put my question, 8-80w vs 8-54w. Which allows for the most ppfd at 29" depth (assuming all bulbs on 660 IC)?
Thanks!
The Grim Reefer
Ready for some NOBALL!!!
54 watt lamps are brighter than the 80 watt lamps when overdriven. My 6x80 watt system (4 "Customozed" Ice Cap reflectors and 2 Teks) running on IC 660 ballasts pulled off 145 UMOLs of PAR measuring under the lamps at the sandbed 18" below the surface. A 4x54 watt Ice Cap system place about an inch lower than the 6x80 system Pulled off 183 UMOL's. When overdriven the 54 watt lamps are much brighter than the 80's.
Because the 54 watt lamps will have to be staggered farther (say 6 inches each way) you will get more PPFD at the center where all 8 lamps overlamp but lower as you move to the edges where there are only 4 lamps above the tank due to the stagger. I hope that makes more sense.
Because the 54 watt lamps will have to be staggered farther (say 6 inches each way) you will get more PPFD at the center where all 8 lamps overlamp but lower as you move to the edges where there are only 4 lamps above the tank due to the stagger. I hope that makes more sense.
The Grim Reefer
Ready for some NOBALL!!!
The 80 watts are driven to about a 100 watts. The 54's are 80 to 85 watts, 80 watters ends up running like 1.6 watts per inch and the 54 is like 1.8.
You can run 3 80 watt lamps per 660, 4 of the 54 watt lamps.
You can run 3 80 watt lamps per 660, 4 of the 54 watt lamps.
Hello Grim,
Glad to see you are back. I have a 90Gal. Thinking of using 6 bulbs
2-T5HOs overdriven on Icecap ballast (54W driven to 80W)
2-T5HOs on a DYnamic ballast (54W)
2-VHOs on an ARO ballast (110W)
What bulbs and configuration would you recommend?
Currently running
Front
1-T5HO (11k)
1-VHO (URI Atinic)
1-T5HO (Aqua Blue 460nm)
Back
Want to pump up the light so my SPSs grow faster.
Glad to see you are back. I have a 90Gal. Thinking of using 6 bulbs
2-T5HOs overdriven on Icecap ballast (54W driven to 80W)
2-T5HOs on a DYnamic ballast (54W)
2-VHOs on an ARO ballast (110W)
What bulbs and configuration would you recommend?
Currently running
Front
1-T5HO (11k)
1-VHO (URI Atinic)
1-T5HO (Aqua Blue 460nm)
Back
Want to pump up the light so my SPSs grow faster.
The Grim Reefer
Ready for some NOBALL!!!
I'd run 1 GE daylight 1 Aquablue and 2 VHO superactinics on a 660 ballast and 2 actinic pluses on the T5 ballast. If that looks too blue go with 2 GE's and lose the aquablue.
Although I am thoroughly confused on what lighting I will need for my tank I will ask here since it pertains to the T5's. After reading all 10 pages I am just as confused as when I started 
I have a 120gal 4x2x2, hood is about 7"+ above the water so probably 5" from bulb to water. I am only going to start off with softies, maybe 1 LPS and 1 anemone. Grim you seem (ok you are ) the master at the T5 lighting issues. What would be your recommended setup for this. I have 16.5" in width and 48" long to mount lights in the hood.
Looking at mounting specs,
6 x 48" IC's are 46.5" x 15" x 2.75" Cost is $600 (More wattage)
8 x 36" IC's are 3.25" x 20" x 2.75" Cost is $700 (Less wattage but I can stagger the bulbs)
which combo would be better ? any other combos you would suggest?
How is the heat from these bulbs?
Thanks in advance,
Chris
I have a 120gal 4x2x2, hood is about 7"+ above the water so probably 5" from bulb to water. I am only going to start off with softies, maybe 1 LPS and 1 anemone. Grim you seem (ok you are
) the master at the T5 lighting issues. What would be your recommended setup for this. I have 16.5" in width and 48" long to mount lights in the hood. Looking at mounting specs,
6 x 48" IC's are 46.5" x 15" x 2.75" Cost is $600 (More wattage)
8 x 36" IC's are 3.25" x 20" x 2.75" Cost is $700 (Less wattage but I can stagger the bulbs)
which combo would be better ? any other combos you would suggest?
How is the heat from these bulbs?
Thanks in advance,
Chris
The Grim Reefer
Ready for some NOBALL!!!
I would stick with the 48" lamps. You could go with a 4x54 IC T5 system and add a 2 lamp Tek T5 (upgrade to the IC reflectors). Run 2 GE daylights and 2 Actinic Plus lamps on the IC and add 2 actinic pluses or 1 actinic plus and 1 pure actinic on the Tek system. You get dusk/dawn, plenty of light for the anemone to move to and provide a less intense area for less light hungry softies. Having a narrower area of brighter light might make it less likely your anemone will go on the cruise once it settles in.
hahnmeister
In Memoriam
Hey Grim...thanks for the info...you said...
"Didn't see that posted. I got 120 in the sand from 250 watt 10K DE's ran on E Ballasts. Running a 10K hamilton lamp on the same E ballast in a ROlll pendant I got 150 with the fixture like 4" above the water and over 200 with it sitting on the tank frame (seafood gumbo position). The 4 lamp IC system did 183 one inch above the tank frame (2 1/2~3" above the water), Spec T5 ballasts with IC reflectors pulled 135. All the measurments were taken on the sandbed under the lamps.
Also at shallow depths (about 12") the IC and CD reflectors had even light output. Under 18" of water the Ice Cap's gained a small advantage over the CD's a little less than 10% as I remember.
Geisemann makes some nice stuff but are the reflectors in their halide/T5 systems as good as the Sunlight Supply Maristar system? The ROlll reflectors are hard to beat."
Can you give me the readings from the surface as well? I am also interested in how the T5s conpared to the halide within the first few inches or so. What I hope to do is prove the inverse square law for halides vs. the linear drop-off if T5s (or any other linear bulb). Example: T5 reading at 20" deep = 1x, Halide reading at 20" depth = 1/2x, T5 reading at 2" under water = 2x, Halide reading at 2" under water=4x.
I thought I remembered reading your results (cant remember where or when) that the halides had a peak that was much higher in the top 6", but their intensity dropped off much faster than T5s in comparison...so I could use comparative intensities from the top few inches from the tank as well...
"Didn't see that posted. I got 120 in the sand from 250 watt 10K DE's ran on E Ballasts. Running a 10K hamilton lamp on the same E ballast in a ROlll pendant I got 150 with the fixture like 4" above the water and over 200 with it sitting on the tank frame (seafood gumbo position). The 4 lamp IC system did 183 one inch above the tank frame (2 1/2~3" above the water), Spec T5 ballasts with IC reflectors pulled 135. All the measurments were taken on the sandbed under the lamps.
Also at shallow depths (about 12") the IC and CD reflectors had even light output. Under 18" of water the Ice Cap's gained a small advantage over the CD's a little less than 10% as I remember.
Geisemann makes some nice stuff but are the reflectors in their halide/T5 systems as good as the Sunlight Supply Maristar system? The ROlll reflectors are hard to beat."
Can you give me the readings from the surface as well? I am also interested in how the T5s conpared to the halide within the first few inches or so. What I hope to do is prove the inverse square law for halides vs. the linear drop-off if T5s (or any other linear bulb). Example: T5 reading at 20" deep = 1x, Halide reading at 20" depth = 1/2x, T5 reading at 2" under water = 2x, Halide reading at 2" under water=4x.
I thought I remembered reading your results (cant remember where or when) that the halides had a peak that was much higher in the top 6", but their intensity dropped off much faster than T5s in comparison...so I could use comparative intensities from the top few inches from the tank as well...
Last edited:
hahnmeister
In Memoriam
Oh, and Grim, I dont know about that Geisemann fixture, but a 72" unit with 4x80watt bulbs and 3x250watt bulbs is bound to have an impressive output. Besides, the RO 3 was beat by the Lumenarc/max (in distribution), the PFO, and Aqualine pendants if I remember...so it is possible. But we will have to wait and see. All I know so far is that the designer if French, and doesnt speak English, so a French buddy of mine found out only because he could speak with him...otherwise, we English speakers will have to wait until it comes out to see!
Also, FWIW, I know a marketing rep that does work for All-Glass, KENT, Coralife, etc....and he says that Coralife has been striving for higher quality products (and I see the change for the better as well...their newer halide/PC combos are much nicer than their earlier units) and plans to come out with a maristar-like (DE MH's and T5s) fixture any day now.
Also, have you ever taken compariative readings from other fixtures like the Nova or units w/o the individual parabolic reflectors? I wonder what the loss is. I seem to remember reading somewhere about 40%...but I forget. I remember reading that the reflectors make up to 60% of the output on a T5 bulb, but I wonder what the loss is for those using 'flat' reflectors.
Also, FWIW, I know a marketing rep that does work for All-Glass, KENT, Coralife, etc....and he says that Coralife has been striving for higher quality products (and I see the change for the better as well...their newer halide/PC combos are much nicer than their earlier units) and plans to come out with a maristar-like (DE MH's and T5s) fixture any day now.
Also, have you ever taken compariative readings from other fixtures like the Nova or units w/o the individual parabolic reflectors? I wonder what the loss is. I seem to remember reading somewhere about 40%...but I forget. I remember reading that the reflectors make up to 60% of the output on a T5 bulb, but I wonder what the loss is for those using 'flat' reflectors.
