DMBillies
Active member
I don't want to drag this thread down this road much farther because you have a lot of other questions, so I'll leave it at this...
It's my opinion that 8 T5's will never fit over a 90 unless you don't have reflectors at all which would just not be very smart (I should have paid attention to this earlier) and you'll be really lucky to fit 6 of them. I know some of the new retros have bigger reflectors to better utilize the light coming out of the back of the bulb and you definitely won't fit them without bending. You're right that 8 x 54 is not that different from 2 x 250, but if he can drop 1 retro, the saving becomes significant. If he goes with 6 x 54s versus 2 x 250s he loses $40 in bulb replacement and a bit in electricity (assuming $.09 per kWh, an 8 hr light period, and 30 day month, he'll save $3.80/month and if you assume he'll have to run one retro w/ the halides to supplement actinic, then he's really saving closer to $6.13/month).
That said, the key is getting the bulbs close to the water... I've played with a PAR meter on a few set-ups and you'll get a lot more punch out of them the closer you get (which is something I think a lot of people ignore). With T5's you certainly can get them pretty close, which is a real advantage...
On my 90, at 12" off of the water, the PAR at the bottom of the tank was about half of what it was with the lights 3 inches from the water and I reproduced a similar result on a number of sizes and shapes of tank with every kind of lighting at my disposal (PC's, halides, and T5's). Who wouldn't want to get as much light as possible that they are paying to produce into their tank? Everyone should think about this the next time you build a canopy. The water surface bounces a LOT of light (another reason to take the time to at least paint the inside of your hood white when you're building it).
AZ and I can argue all day, but what you want out of your set-up and what you're willing to spend is going to dictate this.
That little bit of savings may not seem like a big deal with what we all spend on this hobby, but those little costs really add up and as a kWh of electricity increases (which it most certainly will in the next couple of years), the difference will be more exaggerated.
Most people could probably cut quite a bit out of their tanks power budget by paying better attention to what pumps and ph's they use while also cutting the amount of time their air conditioner runs by quite a lot. Add all those together and that savings becomes significant.
Call me cheap (can you be cheap and in this hobby?) or a tree hugger (this is a hobby and ALL of a tanks electricity budget might be considered "waste" by some), but I don't think the MH tanks I've seen are THAT much nicer than the T5 ones.
It's my opinion that 8 T5's will never fit over a 90 unless you don't have reflectors at all which would just not be very smart (I should have paid attention to this earlier) and you'll be really lucky to fit 6 of them. I know some of the new retros have bigger reflectors to better utilize the light coming out of the back of the bulb and you definitely won't fit them without bending. You're right that 8 x 54 is not that different from 2 x 250, but if he can drop 1 retro, the saving becomes significant. If he goes with 6 x 54s versus 2 x 250s he loses $40 in bulb replacement and a bit in electricity (assuming $.09 per kWh, an 8 hr light period, and 30 day month, he'll save $3.80/month and if you assume he'll have to run one retro w/ the halides to supplement actinic, then he's really saving closer to $6.13/month).
That said, the key is getting the bulbs close to the water... I've played with a PAR meter on a few set-ups and you'll get a lot more punch out of them the closer you get (which is something I think a lot of people ignore). With T5's you certainly can get them pretty close, which is a real advantage...
On my 90, at 12" off of the water, the PAR at the bottom of the tank was about half of what it was with the lights 3 inches from the water and I reproduced a similar result on a number of sizes and shapes of tank with every kind of lighting at my disposal (PC's, halides, and T5's). Who wouldn't want to get as much light as possible that they are paying to produce into their tank? Everyone should think about this the next time you build a canopy. The water surface bounces a LOT of light (another reason to take the time to at least paint the inside of your hood white when you're building it).
AZ and I can argue all day, but what you want out of your set-up and what you're willing to spend is going to dictate this.
That little bit of savings may not seem like a big deal with what we all spend on this hobby, but those little costs really add up and as a kWh of electricity increases (which it most certainly will in the next couple of years), the difference will be more exaggerated.
Most people could probably cut quite a bit out of their tanks power budget by paying better attention to what pumps and ph's they use while also cutting the amount of time their air conditioner runs by quite a lot. Add all those together and that savings becomes significant.
Call me cheap (can you be cheap and in this hobby?) or a tree hugger (this is a hobby and ALL of a tanks electricity budget might be considered "waste" by some), but I don't think the MH tanks I've seen are THAT much nicer than the T5 ones.
The canopy is designed almost identical to the one I built for my 90, as far as the doors go. The one thing you might want to consider is instead of mounting the lights directly to the canopy, build a drawer that is full width of the canopy. The ballasts can mount inside the drawer, the lights on the bottom. Then if you ever need to service them, you simply pull the drawer out and you have easy access to them. It definitely makes the back T'5es a lot easier to access and it gives you the extra space for the ballasts.
