I'm still on the fence with this one since there is no direct comparison bewteen the brand new ATI daylight and the GE. Grim even stated the daylight was that much better so the numbers should be off quite a bit just because of the bulb difference. I'm willing to bet the intensity of the bulbs drops rather quickly to begin with, then tapers off.
T5s and their life span
- Thread starter dhoch
- Start date
Bathypelagic
New member
I don't know how valid this guy is, but he claims that there is a spectrum shift at around 9 months that causes growth stagnation in hard corals and that most European T5 users change out every 6-11 months. He also has one of the best looking T5 lit tanks I have seen.
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=700454&perpage=25&pagenumber=1
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=700454&perpage=25&pagenumber=1
ga_reefer_guy
New member
I have been hearing the exact same thing. The TOTM owner that uses an all T5's stated the same thing. That he changes out his bulbs at 6 months. Knowing that has me rethinking the T5's.
Bathypelagic
New member
I am still up in the air. I mean with VHO you are changing every 8 months, the same with PC. I believe if you want great growth with MH you are changing lamps every year. The cost of replacing 3 decent 80 watt T5 bulbs I think are the same or cheaper than a decent 250 MH. I am just trying to weed out the truth. If I can get a great look, a good year out of the bulbs, lower watts, and not have to run a chiller, they are worth a look. I would just like to see the initial investment come down a little, and I need to gather a few more facts before I make my choice.
dwdenny
New member
I think there might be a small shift at 6 months but to change them every 6 months would get really expensive. The other thing that the other euro reefer are not saying is the cost of T5 over there. If they are changing every 6 months or so I bet the cost is like what a VHO cost here(not for sure but just an opinion). As horkn says 15 months on his and doesn't see(key here SEE) a difference. If you look at some of the older T5 threads on the IC forum. IC did months of testing leaving the lamps on for extended periods of time and they did fine. But they are saying ever 12-18 months on the blues and up to 18-24 on the daylight lamps. Soon we will know th truth wil Dave and grim doing tests.
Just want to say thanks to Dave and grim for sharing their infor with all of us.
Doug
Just want to say thanks to Dave and grim for sharing their infor with all of us.
Doug
hahnmeister
In Memoriam
I am testing the growth between two 40Bs. One has a single 250wattDE, IC ballast, pheonix14,000K. The T5 is a 6x39watt Tek. I will change out all the bulbs at once in a coupe months (after the newer T5 setup should be done cycling) and take PAR readings. I am using the ATI/D-D/Geisemann bulbs (all the same), with 2 actinic03, 2 blue plus, 2 11,000K.
I just want to point out that the IC ballasts arent worth it. There is a limited amount of phosphors in any bulb, and once they reach their limit, pumping more electricity through them results in little additional output, and more heat. I remember tests done on VHO & PC bulbs that showed that a 10-20% increase in voltage increased output by 5-15%, and more voltage than this didnt result in more light.
The tests I have seen with T5 support this. While the IC ballast pumps 50% more juice through 3 and 4ft bulbs, it only increases their PAR by 30%. A better use of that electricity, as well as the high cost of a IC ballast, would be to simply buy 50% more reflectors, 50% more ballast, 50% more bulbs, and run them within operating spec for 50% more electricity = 50% more output.
The idea that IC throws out there that 'soft start' somehow extends bulb life is absurd to us reefers. We replace out bulbs long before they cease to start and create black deposits at the ends. While this might be useful for commercial uses, for reefers, we replace our bulbs when the phosphors wear out...and this is due to heat. The IC ballast creates more heat.
I believe your bulbs are losing that much intensity that fast if they are running hot. You might consider a better cooling setup to counter the effects, or swap out ballasts for more bulbs.
I just want to point out that the IC ballasts arent worth it. There is a limited amount of phosphors in any bulb, and once they reach their limit, pumping more electricity through them results in little additional output, and more heat. I remember tests done on VHO & PC bulbs that showed that a 10-20% increase in voltage increased output by 5-15%, and more voltage than this didnt result in more light.
The tests I have seen with T5 support this. While the IC ballast pumps 50% more juice through 3 and 4ft bulbs, it only increases their PAR by 30%. A better use of that electricity, as well as the high cost of a IC ballast, would be to simply buy 50% more reflectors, 50% more ballast, 50% more bulbs, and run them within operating spec for 50% more electricity = 50% more output.
The idea that IC throws out there that 'soft start' somehow extends bulb life is absurd to us reefers. We replace out bulbs long before they cease to start and create black deposits at the ends. While this might be useful for commercial uses, for reefers, we replace our bulbs when the phosphors wear out...and this is due to heat. The IC ballast creates more heat.
I believe your bulbs are losing that much intensity that fast if they are running hot. You might consider a better cooling setup to counter the effects, or swap out ballasts for more bulbs.
dhoch
New member
hahnmeister... very interesting experiment and one I am gathering the equipment to test here in MD... would love to hear more on your results when you have them...
As for testing old bulbs here we go...
I only tested one of each of my old bulbs (too much to do them all, but I labeled them for reproducibility if anyone wants to come over and get a numbers test
)
Remember these bulbs are 13 months old:
ATI 6000K: 720 (don't have anything to bench against)
ATI Actinic +: 710 (my new one is pushing ~1000 so thats a 29% decrease)
ATI AquaBlue: 1010! (my new one is pushing 1150 thats a 12% decrease)
So the 12% decrease that would be to my liking... I'm not sure of the other ones...
As to the IC tests I am wondering if they left them on or turned them on and off (I think that might have some serious affect)
Just validated the readings from yesterday as well and bulbs are well within an error rate for readings yesterday... (both bulbs of each type except one of my GE is not pushing near as much PAR as the one I measured yeterday at 1500 (it's around 1250)...
Dave
As for testing old bulbs here we go...
I only tested one of each of my old bulbs (too much to do them all, but I labeled them for reproducibility if anyone wants to come over and get a numbers test
)Remember these bulbs are 13 months old:
ATI 6000K: 720 (don't have anything to bench against)
ATI Actinic +: 710 (my new one is pushing ~1000 so thats a 29% decrease)
ATI AquaBlue: 1010! (my new one is pushing 1150 thats a 12% decrease)
So the 12% decrease that would be to my liking... I'm not sure of the other ones...
As to the IC tests I am wondering if they left them on or turned them on and off (I think that might have some serious affect)
Just validated the readings from yesterday as well and bulbs are well within an error rate for readings yesterday... (both bulbs of each type except one of my GE is not pushing near as much PAR as the one I measured yeterday at 1500 (it's around 1250)...
Dave
hahnmeister
In Memoriam
So more heat, shorter bulb life, and using 50% more electricity to get 30% more light seem good to you?
hahnmeister
In Memoriam
they are from Grims tests. The only exception is the 5' bulbs. The ICs cant overdrive them as much so dont worry. They arent hardly as common as 2', 3' and of course 4' bulbs.
Similar threads
