Thoughts on T5 Lighting for Large Tanks

[HOC]

I'm looking for some opinions on T5 lighting for a 34" (@700 gal) deep tank. I'm curently running 6 x 400 watt halides and 4 x 4 foot actinic VHO. What I'm thinking of doing is running just 3 Halides down the middle and switching my VHO to T5 then adding more T5. It's a mixed reef with LPS,SPS and clams. What I'm thinking is I could run a longer lighting cycle (only have halides on a few hours/day) and get better light coverage with less electricity used. I've seen some amazing tanks lately lit with T5 alone, but I'm thinking I'm a little too deep for that.

 

[Black71gp]

a new thread with in a few hours? for the sam e questiong? anyway. i think that they do not pennitrate as well or so i have been told. no experiance my self... did you try a search

 

[HOC]

Umm ya I hit the wrong button and it said t%. I'm having it deleted. A little rude don't ya think?? I've done all the reading I can find on T5. I'm looking for someone with expeience in T5 large tank setups.

 

[Black71gp]

not trying to be rude sorry if it came that way.. i wish i could help also wondering.....

 

[HOC]

no prob

 

[Carman34L]

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=689929

Energy just switched over to T5's w/ halides from VHO ans Halides. I think it looks better with the T5's any other question you will have to direct to Energy.

 

[asnatlas]

Hopefully soon I will have my 600gal up and running with 4x 250w MH in L3 reflectors with 4x 11000K and 4x Blue Plus T5's... I will use this config at first and see how it turns out and maybe add some more T5s down the road if needed...

 

[HOC]

Well, what I'm thinking is to use the T5's for better overall coverage and just use the halides a couple hours a day for some intensity. I'm curious though to hear from somebody who has switched and if it's going to do what I'm wanting. The VHO just doesn't seem like much when running against 400W haildes.

 

[Bebo77]

at 34" ypu are very deep for T5's.. if you overdrive the T5's and cover the tank with them where there are no MH it will help...

 

[hahnmeister]

Just to clear up some 'misinformation' here...T5 light penetrates deeper than halide. Yes, yes it does. Thats why so many are reporting that with T5s that their shrooms and low-light LPSs are melting if their tanks arent tall enough.

So you are looking at about 1500 (2000 tops) watts in T5 to replace your VHO and 1200watts of halide? Sure...no problem. It sure is alot of bulbs though. Thats about 28-30 4' bulbs, or 4 of the tek 8-bulb fixtures. Thats not too bad when you say it like that.

FWIW, T5 actinics arent quite as vibrant as VHO, but thats OK. IMO, the blueplus bulbs that have a blue peak are what people should be using mostly anyways. Most 10,000Ks have more purple/450nm in their output than a 20,000K... (in fact the bulb with the most purple in the output is the iwasaki 6500K), but its the 'blue' or 420nm that they lack. This is why many people who use 10,000K and actinics just cant make it look like a 20,000K halide, or really get that 'deep blue sea' look no matter how many actinics they add. The blue spectrum is what should be 'supplimented' not the actinic.

The good news is that blue bulbs last longer than actinics (actinic phosphors are unstable and burn fast), and blue bulbs actually have a decent PAR compared to actinics, and last longer.

I would do the 4 tek fixtures, with a mix of blue+ and actinic bulbs...but mostly blue (if not all since your halides, unless you use 14,000 or 20,000Ks you will have plenty as is), and you should see a large boost from the 6 halides and VHOs that you have now.

 

[HOC]

Well, I've got a mix of aquaconnect 15K and XM 20 K on there right now. I'm sure it's going to be hard to tell what I'll like without some trial and error. So are you saying go down to less halides or do away with them all together? I was thinking a mix would be better.

 

[hahnmeister]

...oops, I mixed up my numbers BTW, the purple/actinic is the 420nm peak, and the blue is the 450nm.


HOC, maybe you and I should talk about bulb spectrum as well. That mix is rather odd. BTW, you mean Aquaconnect 14,000Ks, right?

As far as halides/no halides...its up to you. I can see how a mix might be the best for a larger tank however...those shimmer lines and spots of intense light are hard to let go.

For your tank, the AC 14,000K bulbs are perhaps the best 400watt bulbs around. I would use them alone, and skip the XMs.

http://www.reeflightinginfo.arvixe.com/select2lamp.php

You may have seen this already, but if you compare the outputs of the XM 20,000K and the AC 14,000K...they are near identical in how they curve and where they spike, only the AC has almost double the PAR of the XM. The AC has more blue-450nm and purple-420nm than the XM.

Something you might do is use 10,000Ks which are strong performers at any level for PAR, and suppliment for what they lack in comparison...with blue-plus T5 bulbs (which happen to be among the best T5 bulbs you can buy) instead of actinic. This would end up looking alot like the 14,000Ks, but with a little bit more purple like the 20,000Ks...and have a much higher PAR overall with less watts.

Some of the best looking tanks are the ones with 10,000K halides (best PAR), paired with 30-50% in T5 bulbs....50% blue+, 50% actinic 03. This mix combines the best performers of both types, and gives a look alot like a 14,000K.

But those XMs....they are just worthless compared to what else you are using. I would pick another bulb...at least the EVC 20,000K.

If you want to continue with the AC bulbs, they lack nothing compared to the XM, and really could only be supplimented by some actinics...which they actually have more of than the XMs already.

 

[keefsama2003]

Im going strictly T5 on my 300 as of now im planning on 8 bulbs at 54W apiece driven by icecap ballasts. 4' bulbs

 

[bagedtaco]

keefsama.... will that be enough for the 300?? what are you planning on keeping in the tank?

hahn.... what reflectors do you suggest... i'm running 6500k blubs and vho's aictinics right now and was thinking of running t5's all aictinics. 4 on a icecap 660 48" long on a sps tank 5'x2'x2'

and what brand bulbs??

 

[keefsama2003]

its going to be LPS and angels/triggers/wrasses/anthias/a few misc i had the reef but not really into it want to do a nice fowlr with some softies and LPS if i can get away with it.

 

[bagedtaco]

ic.... then you should be fine.

 

[keefsama2003]

yeah im not trying any sps even tho i have seen them do very well under t5's i dont think the angels would let them have much life

 

[HOC]

Ya, Angels are hit or miss. They are really like people and like to eat different things. You can't tell which one will eat corals. MOst of the large angels love to tear up zoanthids.


I guess what I'm wondering since T5's should do what I'm wanting is.. Do the T5's fluoresce the corals as good as actinic VHO?

 

[keefsama2003]

from what i have seen yes they do and i have some SPS under T5's 54wat driven by icecap 660's and i have nice extension on the sps polyps and it hasnt been too long but i want to see the growth as well

 

[hahnmeister]

Wher to begin...
1. 6500K bulbs already produce more actinic than any other halide, 10,000K or 20,000K...you just dont see it because of all the other spectrums in large amounts. The best supplimentation would instead be something in the blue range, which also happens to be a better performer with any bulb. Geisemann, D-D, ATI all part of the same company and the #1 bulbs to get right now. They make a 'blue plus' bulb with much more PAR than any actinic, longer lasting, and will make more of a visual impact than actinic.

2. reflectors: 1. Icecap SLR, 2. aqualuxlighting.com's, 3. SLS Tek

3. the IC ballasts: Not worth it. They claim that the 'soft start' feature will extend bulb life. Yeah, as if we would consider using our bulbs until they no longer start any more! Soft starting means that the starting electrodes last longer and dont create those black deposits at the ends. We, as reefers, replace our bulbs long before this point. We replace our bulbs in less than half this time because the phosphors wear out or shift. The reason for this is heat. The IC ballast makes more of this, and therefore requires better ventilation because the bulbs are hotter. Running bulbs hotter means less life...unless you could run them in the arctic where they could be kept cool forever.

Also, tests with phosphor based lighting shows that boosting the voltage by more than 10-20% has very little pay-off. There is a limited amount of phosphors in any T5, PC, VHO, NO tube. Once these are all being used there is little more that more electricity will do other than make more heat. Tests on PC/VHO bulbs have shown that boosting the electricity by 10-20% resulted in 5-15% greater outputs, and more electricity than this did not produce more than 15% output...just more heat.

Tests with the IC660 show that it tends to overdrive 3' and 4' bulbs by 50%, yet the increase in PAR is a mere 30%. Not worth it.

A better use of the $150-200 that a Icecap ballast costs would be to simply buy an extra 50% reflectors, regular T5 ballasts, and bulbs to get the full 50% more output from. Then you wouldnt have to worry about shorter bulb life or cooling needs as you would be running the bulbs as per their intended operating specs.