T5 Ho

[jumanji]

does anyone recomend t5's over MH?

[smcnally]

does anyone recomend t5's over MH?

Lately it seems that people are admitting that T5s are a good choice when used correctly. IMO, they aren't better than MH, but MH isn't better than T5. They both have their purposes...I've been running MH and think it is great, but my new tank will be all T5. I've decided to go with T5 mainly because I want a nice short canopy, less power consumption, and plan on doing a tank that is more LPS and softies rather than the SPS dominant tank I have now.

Also, there are a lot of debates out there on overdriving T5s. I was going to until a lighting vendor told me it wasn't worth it. He told me that the overdriven setups go through bulbs like you wouldn't believe and recommended just using a couple more bulbs and run them as HO instead of VHO.

[smcnally]

Oh, one thing I want to add...You hear the saying "You can never have too much light" a lot in this hobby. I think that is such a load of crap. I'm running two 175W MH and one 250W MH in my tank and I have a lot of corals that I have a hard time placing (even acros) that seem to be getting too much light. IMO, people far too often over do their lighting and would be surprised with what they could use while getting just as successful results.

[SteveDola]

T5 lighting doesnt limit you to strickly LPS and softies you can successfully keep SPS with T5 lighting(and many do). I think the biggest limiting factor to T5 lighting is the depth of the tank. if its over 20" then most likely MH is youre best option.

[saltnut]

I agree with Steve. I read alot of very positive things on T5 here and RC and decided to try them on my new tank which is only 16"H. I let you know if they really generate less heat. My new tank is in FL so thats important to me now.

[Bobbofin]

I have a Oceanic 30 gallon cube with a 150w MH. As soon as Tek and Current get their 18"/20w 4 bulb T-5HO fixtures out early next your I will be going to one of those.

[chunky_lover52]

not to bust your bubble bobby but the current fixtures are only 2 bulb right now...and they are 18 watts each (36 total)

[smcnally]

not to bust your bubble bobby but the current fixtures are only 2 bulb right now...and they are 18 watts each (36 total)
I think you missed this part ;)
As soon as Tek and Current get their 18"/20w 4 bulb T-5HO fixtures out early next year I will be going to one of those.

I did fix his spelling though :D

[Bobbofin]

Actually if you go to Current's website it says the 18" ones are 20 watts and T-5HO http://www.current-usa.com/novaextremet5hox2.html. Actually I have had several emails back and forth with Ike from Current inquiring about a 4 bulb, 20" Nova Extreme. He said that the entire Nova Extreme line-up is being redone for spring of 2008 and will include fixtures with individual reflectors for each bulb. They've already got the housings done. Also in the line up may be a four bulb 20" 4x20 watt fixture. Here's his response to my request:

Dear Bobby,

Thank you for your suggestion on our Nova Extreme T5HO fixture.

We are exploring the idea of possibly making a 20" 4 lamp T5HO fixture - but
we will not release it until Spring of 2008. We are currently in the
process of making some new housings - so that we can accommodate 4 lamps
with individual reflectors.

I know of a lot of hobbyists who simply purchase 2 of our 2-lamp 18"
fixtures and have been happy with it. Its actually cheaper to purchase 2 of
the 2-lamp fixtures than 1 of the 4-lamp fixtures.

Once again, thanks for your suggestion - we're working on it already!

Sincerely,
Ike

Steve, thanks for the spelling correction, I hope you are grading on a curve. :)

[jdeb101]

Ive been running 2 36w T5's in my tank for about 6 months now and everything looks healthy and has growth. You can see what I have in my sig. Good luck!

[SteveDola]

wow only 2 bulbs on a 40b? that seems alittle weak. but if it works for ya then go with it.

have you thought about going with 2 more bulbs?

[JayM]

I'm running a T-5 HO 8 bulb, individual reflector 36" fixture on my 92......the water level is deeper than 20", but I'm not keeping SPS. Good growth on everything I do have (except a purple monti cap, which fell off the rockwork cap down into my sandbed and bleached out while I was away for a week)

[jeffrey richard]

I have a 15 gallon nano with Soft and LPS coral ... I light with a 20" Coralight Powerquad PC. I've had this up for about 1.5 years ... most coral is doing great. However, I've been unable to keep any Blue zoas. I would also like to add a clam. Would T5s be a good upgrade/ If so, how many bulbs over a 15 gallon?

Thanks

[Sherri]

I am planning on moving to T5s but have absolutley no idea what the difference is between HO and VHO. High Output and Very High Output? I have a 24 inch deep tank and just have PC on it now. My SPS coral is Caribbean so it doesn't want a lot of light and is doing fine. I just added a bunch of rock so I can add other SPS higher in the tank. I was given the following link for T5 HO ...

http://www.aquaticcreationsonline.com/lightingmain.html

I can't go to MH as it will burn my Caribbean coral, from what I understand ...

[jc9394]

They resell Cad Lights, got to the source and save yourself few bucks.

http://www.cadlights.com/index.php?cPath=25&osCsid=7575b150f082f38ddf40b8344fdcc6f3

[cobraz]

I ran 8 54w T5's on my 55 frag tank, the growth actually was quicker than with 250w 10k MHs... My Acros expanded on plugs and the Monti's covered the plugs all within 3 months time...

The variation of heat and less water loss is a hugh difference along with electrical cost.

I ran my system for 6 months with great results... my next system planned for this fall is a 4' 180G custom with 8 T5's. Experience and proof - T5's are better... you just lose the shimmer, but remember results vary. Stock issues, my frag tank was way over crowded... but only 4 fish.

[Sherri]

Would it really make that much of a difference for me to go from 196 W PC to 234 Watt T5 HO?

Thanks jc9394 but the price is the same on both sites. (-:

[smcnally]

It would be a huge difference. T5 reflectors get so much more light into the tank than PCs do.

[Sherri]

So what's the formula when you change up lights like that so you don't burn everyone in the tank?

[jc9394]

Would it really make that much of a difference for me to go from 196 W PC to 234 Watt T5 HO?

Thanks jc9394 but the price is the same on both sites. (-:

You must be looking at the 36" version. I have no experience with the web site you linked, I ordered a nano tank from CAD light and the service is excellent.

[jc9394]

So what's the formula when you change up lights like that so you don't burn everyone in the tank?

Use window screens, put few layers and take one off every couple days.

[merk1_99]

Use window screens, put few layers and take one off every couple days.

Thats a good tip use 3-4 layers removing a layer evry 5 days to a week. Its a slow process but works well. Also use the nylon screen the metal won't work well....:)

[Greg Hiller]

Before I would make any claims about the output and heat benefits of T5's I would like to see the data that Sanjay is reportedly collecting.

[chew*]

I can offer my data.............Real world application, Bought a frag the other day was up preety high under an all t-5 tank. Not using common sense i put it up high in my frag racfk under a 150w MH but not directly under it , It's almost completely bleached and rtn'd when i checked it today. Was under lights maybe a total of 8 hours between yesterday and when i looked today. All my other corals are fine as well as all my other frags.

[Sherri]

I guess I am confused. I always thought the MH were brighter than T5's which are brighter than PC's. So doesn't it make sense that you bleached the frag by putting it under MH after it had been under T5s? I thought the debate of MH versus T5s was centered around what level of brightness do corals grow and thrive the best under? Do I have this right???? I assume there will never be a definitive answer as with everything in this hobby...

[smcnally]

MH are definitely stronger than T5. The question that has been out there is do we need all that PAR? I hope this is what Sanjay is testing and not just whether or not T5 is close to MH in PAR. People say you can have too much light, but IMO, that's a load of crap. Of course you can have too much light, just as you can have too little. People are having great success with T5s lately and to me that is enough scientific data to persuade me to put them on my new tank.

[ChemDumb]

People say you can have too much light, but IMO, that's a load of crap.

I'm hoping, based on the rest of your response, that that's supposed to say "People say you CAN'T have too much light..."

I'm sure that that is the case. IMO, I'm pretty much reaching the point where I have the most amount of useable light over my little nano with a 150 MH. I'm certain that if I were to hang a 250 over that tank, I would have a ton of stuff bleaching and a bunch of unhappy corals in the tank.

I've considered using T5's in the past. T5's are really bright and I don't see any reason not to use them exclusively other than you don't get that single point of light which gives the pretty ripple effect on the bottom of the tank.

but that's just my $.02

Lou

[RichConley]

MH are definitely stronger than T5. The question that has been out there is do we need all that PAR? I hope this is what Sanjay is testing and not just whether or not T5 is close to MH in PAR. People say you can have too much light, but IMO, that's a load of crap. Of course you can have too much light, just as you can have too little. People are having great success with T5s lately and to me that is enough scientific data to persuade me to put them on my new tank.

Stronger isnt the way I'd say it.


Yes, peak PAR is higher under a MH fixture, but if you look at a T5 tank vs a MH tank, most of the T5 tank will have higher PAR. It just gets its butt kicked in the middle.


Consider 24" tanks, single MH, vs 6x24" T5

MH tank
015 025 050 150 500 900 500 150 050 025 015
020 030 060 150 450 800 450 150 060 030 020
020 030 070 200 400 600 400 200 060 030 020
020 030 080 200 300 400 300 200 080 030 020

T5 Tank
390 390 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 390 390
370 370 380 380 380 380 380 380 380 370 370
330 335 340 340 340 340 340 340 340 335 330
300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300

The peak PAR on the MH tank is MUCH higher than what is in the T5 tank, but the vast majority of the T5 tank is brighter than the MH tank. A very small cone is VERY bright in the metal halide tank, but a lot ot it is very dim.

This is a large part of why people bleach a lot of stuff under T5s. Theres really no dim spots. Theres also the fact that the light is no longer point based, so corals are receiving light in all sorts of nooks and crannies that weren't lit before.


Take a look at the big T5 thread on RC. Hahnmeister has an Apogee meter, and has a lot of readings from his pair of 40BRs, one that runs a 4x54w setup, and one that runs a 250w MH.

[Sherri]

Okay .. so PAR? Photosynthetically Active Radiation. Oh crap. More to learn. I have been avoiding this because it was another area of reefkeeping where I feel totally stupid!

[smcnally]

I'm hoping, based on the rest of your response, that that's supposed to say "People say you CAN'T have too much light..."

Yes...that's what I meant to type...I just forgot the " 't " :D

[Dave McReeferson]

I can offer my data.............Real world application, Bought a frag the other day was up preety high under an all t-5 tank. Not using common sense i put it up high in my frag racfk under a 150w MH but not directly under it , It's almost completely bleached and rtn'd when i checked it today. Was under lights maybe a total of 8 hours between yesterday and when i looked today. All my other corals are fine as well as all my other frags.

I would not just assume it was the lighting that caused this. There are far too many variables there to just say "it was the lights" IMO.

[RichConley]

I would not just assume it was the lighting that caused this. There are far too many variables there to just say "it was the lights" IMO.

I agree. I've never seen anything RTN from light. Bleach quickly, yes, but the RTN makes me think theres some other issue there.

[Greg Hiller]

Rich,

>Take a look at the big T5 thread on RC. Hahnmeister has an Apogee meter, and has a lot of readings from his pair of 40BRs, one that runs a 4x54w setup, and one that runs a 250w MH.<

Okay, so I assume the data you posted is from that? I dumped those #'s into Excel and just added them all up. I get 8,290 for the MH, and 15,510 for the T5. If these are really the numbers and we are indeed talking about 250 W (MH, plus ballast losses of course) vs 216 W (T-5, plus ballast losses), then I'd say T-5 wins. I also assume that we are talking about a MH with a decent reflector and T-5 with good reflectors. Otherwise, IMO the results are meaningless. With regard to the spread of the MH, if you want more of a spread you just raise the fixture, or design a better reflector.

[Greg Hiller]

Oops, I see that you are posting 6x24 T-5's, therefore 144 W? What is the metal halide you are comparing to?

[ChemDumb]

In my opinion, and this is ENTIRELY an opinion, the only reason to go with MH is for the similarity that it would have to having a sun over your tank. There is one direct source of light, it gives that shimmery look underwater (like in a shallow reef in the wild), and it leaves for a lot of shady nooks and cranny's.

While flourescents aren't nearly as bright in a single point, using the same amount of power for flourescents SHOULD (in theory) provide you with a more lit area. It may not be as bright right over the center, but you do lose the sharper shadows that occur around the rocks that we so carefully place in our tanks.

When it comes right down to it, I really think that it's a choice that any reefer needs to make based on their own personal opinions about the aesthetics of the light(s). As far as the ability to maintain a certain type of critter, I still haven't seen any proof that any lighting system is better than another.

Lou

[Sherri]

Wow -- I am struggling my way through the T5 RC thread. I have no idea what to get now. I suppose at some point confusion may give way to direction but I am not seeing it at this point. I want a 36 inch T5 set up but have no idea what to get. Perhaps the ATI Sunpower ... yipes -- TMI!

[merk1_99]

There are a lot of great threads on RC discussing T5's. I have personally used it for almost 3yrs and have never been disappointed. The only thing I uncomfortable with keeping is a clam with T5's. I know many who have had success but I not ready to jump in yet. Before T5's get shot down check out Hahn's thread, or Grim Reefer's many on RC.
Be aware just buying a set of T5's doesn't mean they are good. You need active cooling, good individual reflectors, good bulbs and HO ballasts. There are many crappy T5 fixtures floating out there. The good T5's are expensive.
I think before someone considers T5's or MH they need to do some serious research. There are pro's and cons to each type of lighting. There is no definite one is better than the other. Its not like comparing PC lighting with MH. T5's have made some major advaces of the years. Pick the lighting system that matches your needs and go with it as educated as possible.
I do admit I have grown tired of the MH is better argument when there is more and more evidence that T5's can hold their own.

[merk1_99]

Check out the Aquatinics 5 bulb system if the ATI is too much money. Depending on your tank, livestock and depth it may well suit your needs.

[RichConley]

Oops, I see that you are posting 6x24 T-5's, therefore 144 W? What is the metal halide you are comparing to?



Greg, sorry, I wasnt trying to talk specifics, more of the patterns and why the T5s seem to cause so many strange things: IE lower peak par, yet they bleach things out. The numbers were made up.

As to actual numbers, its amazing how close a set of T5s looks to a MH bulb in a lumenarc. Same sort of pattern. In most other reflectors you get a lot of low par areas, and that one huge hot spot.


Greg, as to actual output, T5 and MH are almost exactly the same, watt for watt. T5 just has a better delivery system, IMO. With T5s, its like everyone has lumenarcs.

[Greg Hiller]

>I wasnt trying to talk specifics<

That's the problem. Show me the REAL data with meaningful comparisons or forget it. I have no interest in slogging though dozens of pages of RC threads where half (no make that 90%) of the people have no real data, and are a little light on experience also. I guess I'll wait for Sanjay's data.:)

[Liam]

i will add my 02 from my experience having used both.

Personally i would not get hung up on the data too much. The fact of the matter is not which is BEST it is which will WORK .

The answer IMO is that both work equally as effectively and sufficiently provided other parameters are in spec,especially nutrients.

Like greg mentioned i would not take too much from the he said she said threads over on RC,i would wait for an authoritive set of results from someone such as Sanjay to conclude which produces more par.

IME it has APPEARED to my eye that halides above 250 watt 10K are certainly brighter
than most T5 set up's even overdriven set ups like mine.

I think low nutrients is the key to having success with T5,the extra brightness provided by halides masks nutrient problems IMO.

The considerations in choosing between the two should not be par but should be,heat, dissipation of the light source,color,halides are much crisper to the eye,cost and what will fit your canopy and system the best.

I have used 175,s 400's,250's in all spectrums and in all honesty T5's have given me the best color of the lot.

[Sherri]

It is hard going through the Grim Reefer RC thread -- most of it is just people asking advice. Which is fine but little is relevant to my situation. I am actually going back and forth because I have Caribbean SPS which, from what I understand, does not want bright lights. The water it comes from is murky. The coral got all happy with polyps extended when I rearranged the tank this last weekend! Everyone else was sucked up tight. So my concern is would the T5's bleach my Caribbean coral? It's all low in the tank and my tank is 24 inches deep.

merk199 -- yes-- I definitely have gotten the message not to bother with the cheap T5s that are out there. It seems that there are three top runners -- ATI, Aquatinics and IC powered Solar Flare?

My husband is red/green color blind so wants some color. I arranged my tank so I can have some stuff up high that needs more light. Question is -- can I keep my Caribbean stuff happy under T5s?

When will Sanjay have some data? I bookmarked a thread that has the par readings on different bulbs but I guess that is dependent upon the reflectors, ballasts and fan... I am learning.

[smcnally]

Not to be "That Guy", but aren't most Carribbean corals illegal to collect?

[Sherri]

Yes they are but I would not be publicly announcing that I have them if I came by them illegally! I got them from Richard at Tampa Bay Saltwater when I ordered coral rock from him. He leased 5 acres of ocean 20 years ago, dumped rock and let it grow. Now he harvests and sends to lucky people like me. Of course you also get mantis shrimp and gorilla crabs ...

[Sherri]

Oh -- by that guy did you mean Eric Borneman? He's already "yelled" at me when I was looking for help with the corals on the Marine Depot forum ... until I explained my source ... then he was very helpful and kind.

[smcnally]

Oh -- by that guy did you mean Eric Borneman? He's already "yelled" at me when I was looking for help with the corals on the Marine Depot forum ... until I explained my source ... then he was very helpful and kind.

Nope, I meant "That guy that starts trouble". I know who Richard is and in fact have TBS rock and some corals still from when I got it. Most of what comes from him should be kept in shaded areas to do best. My rose brain does well in a cave type of area, and the tube corals, radians star, and hidden cup corals do well in light but down real low. The only ones I've know to do well long term is the rose coral and hidden cup. The other seem to dwindle away in a lot of people tanks over the course of about a year and a half.

[steevareno]

Who sells ATI T5 fixtures?

[RichConley]

Oh -- by that guy did you mean Eric Borneman? He's already "yelled" at me when I was looking for help with the corals on the Marine Depot forum ... until I explained my source ... then he was very helpful and kind.


The same eric borneman whose been repeatedly cited for things dealing with improperly handling endangered caribean corals?

Pot, meet kettle.

[RichConley]

>I wasnt trying to talk specifics<

That's the problem. Show me the REAL data with meaningful comparisons or forget it. I have no interest in slogging though dozens of pages of RC threads where half (no make that 90%) of the people have no real data, and are a little light on experience also. I guess I'll wait for Sanjay's data.:)

Greg, the problem is, if Sanjay just posts PAR numbers, its not going to mean anything. Hes going to have to post full out graphs like he did in the reflector study. Simply posting a "73 PPFD" number isnt going to tell us anything, because of the completely different distribution.

Send a PM to hahnmeister on RC. Hes got a whole bunch of charts using the same meter Sanjay uses. Hes got measurements from dozens of tanks, and frankly, his research is a lot more complete than Sanjay's stuff. Hes got par levels at so many inches offset, graphs of par levels under Teks, Icecaps, ATI reflectors, etc.

[smcnally]

Who sells ATI T5 fixtures?

I don't think ATI makes fixtures...Just bulbs.

[RichConley]

I don't think ATI makes fixtures...Just bulbs.
ATI Powermodul.


Its probably the best T5 fixture out there. I THINK reefgeek has them, but I'm not all that sure. I'm not all that sure that they've even hit the states yet. It may be one of those things (like the bubblemaster 6 months ago) where theyre available, but you have to call and talk to someone, because they dont last long enough to hit the websites.

[Greg Hiller]

>The considerations in choosing between the two should not be par but should be,heat, dissipation of the light source,color,halides are much crisper to the eye,cost and what will fit your canopy and system the best.<

Well, I know from my own experience that PAR grows corals. Full stop. So for me PAR is extremely important. And also for me efficiency is extremely important (PAR/watt). Some people don't care, they will throw however much electricity they need to at their tank to get the look they want....not me. Once time I purchased a MH bulb without looking at the PAR data from Sanjay. I found that pretty much all the corals stopped growing. When I looked at Sanjay's PAR number...sure enough, the bulbs stunk.

Regarding heat... the heat output is going to be very different with respect to how it comes out of the fixture for MH vs. T-5. But, a comparison for that is really easy to do. You put the MH fixture over a tank at the level that gives a OVERALL Par value of X, then you put the T-5 over the same tank at the level above it that gives the same value X. Then you wait for the tank to reach a steady state with respect to temp. You control the room the tank is in so that the room temp is the same (no wind around the tank either). So, that answers the temp of the tank question, but then the temp of the ROOM becomes a question...at least for those of us that have to cool the room. Again, MH will be REALLY hot just above the bulb, but T-5 will be pretty hot the whole length of the fixture.

>dissipation of the light source<

That's pretty easy to quantify also. Light is light once it hits the water surface. Stronger light at any spot will penetrate further.

You might have also meant distribution of the light source. No question that T-5's give a more even distribution, particularly if you are comparing a single MH bulb to a T-5 fixture. You can to some extent pick a reflector for the MH though that will give you the type of distribution that you want (hot spots, or more even distribution). Sanjay's articles on reflectors can help you pick. Also, for any large tank you are going to end up with multiple halides, which makes much of the light distribution question go out the window (except of course for a small tank).

>Greg, the problem is, if Sanjay just posts PAR numbers, its not going to mean anything. <

Huh?!? It's going to mean everything! It's quite simple. PAR numbers tell you exactly how much radiation is falling in a given area. The radiation (in the correct area of the electromagnetic spectrum) grows the corals, simple as that.

>Hes going to have to post full out graphs like he did in the reflector study. Simply posting a "73 PPFD" number isnt going to tell us anything, because of the completely different distribution<

Again, I disagree. The PPFD number is the PAR number. It is the Integrated radiation.....the radiation hitting a certain surface area. You can move any light fixture up and down however you like and it will not affect the PAR number. If you have a long T-5 fixture you would just need to have sensors spread out sufficiently to get a readout from all the areas where the light is falling. Simple as that. To get meaningful numbers to compare two different lighting systems though you do need to evaluate the fixtures with decent reflectors in place, not hard to do. When comparing a DE MH to another DE MH you obviously don't need a reflector since whatever reflector you put the bulb into the reflector will work the same way.

Now....all the above being said....Liam's arguement about color IMO is totally different. The color that you can SEE when you are looking at a tank lit with fluorescent bulbs (T-5 or others) may be (and probably IS) much nicer (of course no glitter lines is a minus). Also the color that you can generate with fluorescent bulbs over time (provided they are giving off sufficient PAR) may be much better. The same colors Might be able to be generated with higher temp MH bulbs, but there again we know that the PAR is lower with these bulbs compared to lower temp MH bulbs.

For me though the starting place really is the PAR numbers. If the T-5's are close in PAR produced per watt of energy used, then I would seriously consider them. You must also consider the cost of replacing a zillion T-5 bulbs. I've heard they do not loose their spectrum and output very fast, but again, I'd like to see some data.

[Liam]

Greg i agree with your statements exactly i think i was just not quite clear in what i was trying to say.

I agree that more par will increase growth rates but from the hobbyist's pespective insane growth rates may not be the no.1 consideration.
Now if you are a power coral farmer like yourself i could see how growth is the no.1 consideration:D J/K

and by dissapation yes i did mean the light distribution in the respect of a more constant par over a greater area as with T5's compared to point of source light with halides.

[smcnally]

Greg,
The thing that I don't think your understanding that we are all saying is this...How much PAR do specific corals require? And...is it necessarily a benifit to have more PAR than what is required? You seem to be going by "more is better" which isn't always the case. A great example is the people that put "Ultra 94" octane gas in their cars because they think higher octane is better. This isn't usually the case.

The heat factor is a big benifit in my book. T5 bulbs are still hot to the touch and hot above the bulb (although not nearly as hot as MH), but they don't radiate the heat down even close to MH. I can put my hand 8" below my MH bulbs and feel my hand baking and not even get close to that feeling an inch awy from T5 bulbs.

Also, just to touch on the cost of bulb replacements. I'm going with four 24" T5s over my new tank instead of MH. It will cost me ~$80 to replace all 4 bulbs which is the same as replacing one quality MH bulb.

[Greg Hiller]

>I agree that more par will increase growth rates but from the hobbyist's pespective insane growth rates may not be the no.1 consideration.<

Good point. Particularly when it comes to M. digitata! Still, even though I have a large tank, I still have a lot of very colorful colonies that are very small and could grow for many years at their current growth rates without needing a trim. My point is though that if you want lower growth rates, use less PAR, but also use less electricity. Efficiency is the key.

>The thing that I don't think your understanding that we are all saying is this...How much PAR do specific corals require? And...is it necessarily a benifit to have more PAR than what is required? You seem to be going by "more is better" which isn't always the case.<

It might have sounded that way, but what I'm really saying, as I said just above, is use whatever PAR you need to get growth, but use the least amount of electricity to get it.

>The heat factor is a big benifit in my book. T5 bulbs are still hot to the touch and hot above the bulb (although not nearly as hot as MH), but they don't radiate the heat down even close to MH. I can put my hand 8" below my MH bulbs and feel my hand baking and not even get close to that feeling an inch awy from T5 bulbs.<

But again, IMO this test that you did doesn't mean much. The temperature in a tank is fully distributed, the water is not 85 directly under a light and 79 on the edge of the light field unless you don't have sufficent water motion. What matters is how much the fixture heats the tank, and that will depend upon how much heat enters the tank as integrated across the entire tank surface. One way to measure that is using the method I mentioned above....lights same distance away from tank that yield the same par, then look for the steady-state tank temp.

[Greg Hiller]

>Also, just to touch on the cost of bulb replacements. I'm going with four 24" T5s over my new tank instead of MH. It will cost me ~$80 to replace all 4 bulbs which is the same as replacing one quality MH bulb.<

This assumes that that set up will give similar results. If you need twice as many T-5's then the equation is different.

[Sherri]

So it would seem that a decision concerning lighting -- taking money out of the equation -- is to choose a system that grows your corals at the rate that you want to grow them (faster growing = MH, very little growth = PC) AND that gives you the color you like. Growth rate is driven by par but the question is between MH and T5, given that the ballasts, reflectors and cooling are all at optimal performance, will T5s perform as well as MH. Is this a good summary of this discussion?

[Greg Hiller]

I think it's a good summary, but I reject the statement that MH=fast growth and PC= little growth. If you put enough PC's in you should also be able to bump Par up to very high levels. There are also some worthless MH bulbs out there. Eventually you become limited by sheer space in your hood though if you are going with PC's.

[chew*]

I would like to see what kind of par you would get given the same playing field with t-5 versus pc. Etc individual reflectors for PC or a single reflector on t-5 since you brought that up greg.

[RichConley]

>
>Greg, the problem is, if Sanjay just posts PAR numbers, its not going to mean anything. <

Huh?!? It's going to mean everything! It's quite simple. PAR numbers tell you exactly how much radiation is falling in a given area. The radiation (in the correct area of the electromagnetic spectrum) grows the corals, simple as that.

>Hes going to have to post full out graphs like he did in the reflector study. Simply posting a "73 PPFD" number isnt going to tell us anything, because of the completely different distribution<

Again, I disagree. The PPFD number is the PAR number. It is the Integrated radiation.....the radiation hitting a certain surface area. You can move any light fixture up and down however you like and it will not affect the PAR number. If you have a long T-5 fixture you would just need to have sensors spread out sufficiently to get a readout from all the areas where the light is falling. Simple as that. To get meaningful numbers to compare two different lighting systems though you do need to evaluate the fixtures with decent reflectors in place, not hard to do. When comparing a DE MH to another DE MH you obviously don't need a reflector since whatever reflector you put the bulb into the reflector will work the same way.

Greg, Sanjay's numbers(in his database), as I understand them are not a sum over an area, they are a single point peak measurement. They are relevant because all bulbs are tested in the same reflector and setup, so if one has higher par at that point, it will have higher par at all points. Sanjays numbers are only useful in comparing between bulbs, because the numbers themselves are not really relevant.

"You can move any light fixture up and down however you like and it will not affect the PAR "

This is absolutely not true, as far as we're concerned. With a perfect reflector and no water involved, and infinite space, yes, but in practical application, its not. As we get further away, PAR gets lower. If we get outside 45 degrees, any light is lost due to reflection/refraction.



Greg, the point is, T5s and MHs have different light distribution. If he posts just a single number, it doesnt mean anything. We need full out graphs and charts like in this page:
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/mar2003/feature.htm

We need something like table 2: Total Incident Par. Or Figures 7,8,9.


If he just posts a single measurement, it doesnt mean anything. It doesnt MATTER what the PEAK, or Max Par is. The total par is what matters, and thats not what his database has.


We NEED THIS:

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/images/mar2003/fig14-spiderlight-par.gif

[RichConley]

I would like to see what kind of par you would get given the same playing field with t-5 versus pc. Etc individual reflectors for PC or a single reflector on t-5 since you brought that up greg.

Well, considering that without reflectors considered, T5HO is about twice as efficient as PC, that should give you some idea. People need to forget that both T5HO and PC are 5/8" tubes. They use different phosphors, run at different voltages, different frequencies, etc.


T5s are also spec'd to run at a higher temperature than PCs, so they run closer to specification. PCs are supposed to run at about 55 lumens per watt, but theyre supposed to be at 75 degrees. Usually theyre around 120 degrees, and running about 35 lumens per watt. T5HO is supposed to run at 95 degrees. My bulbs are measuring 103 right now.

[delta]

Greg, Sanjay's numbers(in his database), as I understand them are not a sum over an area, they are a single point peak measurement. They are relevant because all bulbs are tested in the same reflector and setup, so if one has higher par at that point, it will have higher par at all points. Sanjays numbers are only useful in comparing between bulbs, because the numbers themselves are not really relevant.

"You can move any light fixture up and down however you like and it will not affect the PAR "

This is absolutely not true, as far as we're concerned. With a perfect reflector and no water involved, and infinite space, yes, but in practical application, its not. As we get further away, PAR gets lower. If we get outside 45 degrees, any light is lost due to reflection/refraction.

Greg, the point is, T5s and MHs have different light distribution. If he posts just a single number, it doesn't mean anything. We need full out graphs and charts like in this page:
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/mar2003/feature.htm

We need something like table 2: Total Incident Par. Or Figures 7,8,9.


If he just posts a single measurement, it doesn't mean anything. It doesnt MATTER what the PEAK, or Max Par is. The total par is what matters, and thats not what his database has.


We NEED THIS:

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/images/mar2003/fig14-spiderlight-par.gif

This is all well and good.

More info is always helpful but proof is in the pudding. It all means nothing unless it delivers in the real world (not saying T-5s do not). I think Liam's experience with T-5s will out weigh any lighting test I ever see. But From talking and listening to Liam, seems even more so that it isn't all about lighting.

I guess my point is that T-5s are obviously a viable option as are a few lighting systems, but do not be too concerned about the data values linked to them. Although the data does have some value it is only a small part of the valuable info you need to have.

[RichConley]

Greg, on my totally anecdotal noticings (as related to Liams)

I feel the opposite. I was running 2 Phoenix 14Ks @ 250w on a 58g tank, and the 72 I have now looks brighter with 6x54w.


Is it actually brighter? I have no idea, but I'll steal the club meter at some point and find out.

[Greg Hiller]

>Greg, Sanjay's numbers(in his database), as I understand them are not a sum over an area, they are a single point peak measurement. They are relevant because all bulbs are tested in the same reflector and setup, so if one has higher par at that point, it will have higher par at all points. Sanjays numbers are only useful in comparing between bulbs, because the numbers themselves are not really relevant. <

I just went back to some of his articles, and I see you are correct, my mistake. The data as you mention is only good for bulb to bulb comparisons.

>"You can move any light fixture up and down however you like and it will not affect the PAR "<

I still maintain that this is largely correct provided the PAR numbers you start with are integrated over an area. From one of Sanjay's first articles:

All the data collected was at a distance of 18 inches between the arc?s center and the sensor. This consistency allows comparisons between the lamps. In practice, most aquarists position their lamps closer to the water surface. In theory, we can predict the PPDF at other distances, because point sources of light follow the inverse-square law: Intenstity is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the source and the surface at which it is being measured. So, if we halve the distance between the lamp and the surface of the water, the intensity should quadruple.

To test how closely the metal halide lamps followed the theory, data was collected on a 6500 K lamp at distances of 18, 12, 9, and 6 inches from the sensor. Table IV shows the PPFD from these measurements. The lamp almost follows the inverse square law. At a distance of 6 inches from the water, the lamp has an output of 1628 ?E/s*m2. The output of the noon sun on the reefs has often been quoted as 2000 ?E/s*m2. Also, as expected, there was no significant change in the CCT of the lamp as a function of distance

Greg, the point is, T5s and MHs have different light distribution. If he posts just a single number, it doesnt mean anything. We need full out graphs and charts like in this page:
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issu...03/feature.htm<

You're correct, we need graphs like those you posted. I thought the numbers he was giving were integrated over a large area. Still, it would not be very difficult to get those numbers from a T-5 fixture and compare them to numbers he already has.

The T-5 numbers could be compared to the numbers for some of the better 150 and 250 W DE MH in reflectors from this article:

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/july2003/feature.htm

With any luck, this is what Sanjay is doing for the summer. He did allude to that when he was here. :)

[Greg Hiller]

>I have no idea, but I'll steal the club meter at some point and find out.<

Don't steal it, but do get a hold of it. FWIW, the Phoenix bulb, as I'm sure you know is not a super powerful bulb. But, for a high temp bulb it is comparitively pretty good.

[Liam]

Greg, on my totally anecdotal noticings (as related to Liams)

I feel the opposite. I was running 2 Phoenix 14Ks @ 250w on a 58g tank, and the 72 I have now looks brighter with 6x54w.


Is it actually brighter? I have no idea, but I'll steal the club meter at some point and find out.

which part of my post was this opposite too?

[merk1_99]

Reefgeek does sell the ATI fixtures. They are not on the website. You have to call and I believe there is a waiting list.

[merk1_99]

PC's are not even close to a bad t5 fixture. If you do a search on RC you can find some stuff that was done a long time ago 2-3+ if I remember correctly.


I would like to see what kind of par you would get given the same playing field with t-5 versus pc. Etc individual reflectors for PC or a single reflector on t-5 since you brought that up greg.

[Sherri]

Steve -- my Caribbean coral has been in for 11 months and most is not fading but I do have just PCs -- which is part of the reason why I am hesitating moving to T5s. Most have actually improved but I have Oculina, tube, gorgonian and stephanocoenia. I talked to B and he said that ATI was bought by another company who have not really proven themselves yet and it takes forever to get their stuff re: the bubbledooda. And yes, as merk1 said, Reef geek is the US source. B actually suggested aquatinics as he feels the company is very customer oriented and the product is good and they use IceCap ballasts.

Those 3d graphs are incredibly cool -- that would be awesome to have that kind of data. Can anybody find out from Sanjay if he will produce something like that?

[JCheung]

This might be off topic but how many t-5 bulbs would a 90 gallon tank need? for say softies, lps, and maybe some sps? 4? 6? 8 (overkill?)? using the sunlight supply tek setup.

[steevareno]

ATI Powermodul.


Its probably the best T5 fixture out there. I THINK reefgeek has them, but I'm not all that sure. I'm not all that sure that they've even hit the states yet. It may be one of those things (like the bubblemaster 6 months ago) where theyre available, but you have to call and talk to someone, because they dont last long enough to hit the websites.

Checke d w Reefgeek and they have a waiting list for them but they are pricey compared to Aquatinics. Roughly $225 more!

[RichConley]

which part of my post was this opposite too?

You felt that your MHs looked brighter than your T5s. I think my T5s look brighter than my MHs did.

Not that it means anything.



As to the aquactinics, I like their fixtures. I'm not a big fan of the icecaps though. They do all sorts of wierd stuff to bulbs, and frankly, I think the Sylvanias that ATI uses are much better ballasts, and are significantly cheaper, if you can find them on ebay.



Also, in the interest of full disclosure, those graphs are Sanjays (not mine) from either a Reefkeeping or Advanced Aquarist article. I cant remember off the top of my head.

[Liam]

You felt that your MHs looked brighter than your T5s. I think my T5s look brighter than my MHs did.

Not that it means anything.



As to the aquactinics, I like their fixtures. I'm not a big fan of the icecaps though. They do all sorts of wierd stuff to bulbs, and frankly, I think the Sylvanias that ATI uses are much better ballasts, and are significantly cheaper, if you can find them on ebay.



Also, in the interest of full disclosure, those graphs are Sanjays (not mine) from either a Reefkeeping or Advanced Aquarist article. I cant remember off the top of my head.


I stated halides above 250 10k;)

[Greg Hiller]

>Those 3d graphs are incredibly cool -- that would be awesome to have that kind of data. Can anybody find out from Sanjay if he will produce something like that?<

If Sanjay is working on this, he knows that those type of graphs are the only way you could prove much of anything in a comparison of different types of lighting fixtures.

[Sherri]

Rich -- my understanding of the ice cap ballasts is that they overdrive the bulbs. Just to be literal here -- overdrive meaning they are over powerered causing the bulbs to burn brighter. Again, my understanding is that they shorten the life of the bulbs but you are saying "they do all sorts of weird stuff to bulbs". What weird stuff do they do?

[SaltCreep]

Greg, sorry, I wasnt trying to talk specifics, more of the patterns and why the T5s seem to cause so many strange things: IE lower peak par, yet they bleach things out. The numbers were made up.
As to actual numbers, its amazing how close a set of T5s looks to a MH bulb in a lumenarc. Same sort of pattern. In most other reflectors you get a lot of low par areas, and that one huge hot spot.


Greg, as to actual output, T5 and MH are almost exactly the same, watt for watt. T5 just has a better delivery system, IMO. With T5s, its like everyone has lumenarcs.


You have a great biotech career ahead of you in Korea...:p


Just kidding....;)

I understand the general concept that you're pointing out with those numbers, but the small cone of intense light may not be that small.

I hope the T-5's are as good as that, but without real numbers it's tough to say for sure.

[Matt L.]

I find this is an incredibly useful discussion...

On my current system, which is approaching four years of age, I use 3x 250W SE MH's on a 90gal tank. I do not believe this was an optimum lighting configuration in hindsight. I use two 10k and one 20k XM bulbs.

My T. squamosa clam has done very well. So has my torch coral and BTA. However, it is hit or miss with my SPS. I seem to either get slow growth or bleaching. I also seem to be very limitted in where I can place them. I can get a lot of nuisance algae growth as well. The 750W of MHs consume an enormous amount of electricity and generate a lot of heat.

I've bought a 125gal as my new system, and I just imagined reusing the three MH fixtures (and 250W PFO ballasts).

I currently plan like to switch to all lowere "temperature" bulbs and use T5s for actinic supplementation.

However, I am not necessarily thrilled with my SE (Mogul) 250W MHs. I would consider doing all T5 for lower temperature and energy costs, but I fear keeping a T. squamosa under T5s, especially one as large (and old) as mine. I also am reticent to give up my SPSs. I like how MHs make the water shimmer, but I'm just a little frustrated with my bulbs.

Anyhow, what's my thoughts on the matter,

Matt:cool:

[RichConley]

Matt, theres no need to give up your SPS with T5s.

Heres a 120, running 8x54w, mostly blue bulbs.

http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2005-03/totm/index.php

Thread of T5 tanks, pretty old.
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=421647

I dont know why some people STILL think you can't keep high light stuff with these.

[Matt L.]

...I dont know why some people STILL think you can't keep high light stuff with these.I think it's because it runs counterintuitive to the conventional wisdom when some of us got into the hobby: NO < HO < VHO < MH

Now it appears as if that CW may be wrong. I'm particularly interested in the reduced energy cost and possible better coral growth.

Matt:cool:

[Greg Hiller]

Rich,

That TOTM is pretty impressive for just 430 Watts total. I wonder though....sorry to be a skeptic...are these over driven bulbs? What is the true wattage being used? I cannot find this info in the article.

Also this was an interesting comment from the TOTM article:

One of the keys to getting good results with T5 bulbs, I believe, is to keep your SPS no more than 18" from the light source. For intensely colored SPS (i.e. reds, blues, pinks, neon yellows), I keep them less than 10" away.

In my tank I'm not sure that ANY of the corals are within 10 inches of the lights!

[Liam]

Rich,

That TOTM is pretty impressive for just 430 Watts total. I wonder though....sorry to be a skeptic...are these over driven bulbs? What is the true wattage being used? I cannot find this info in the article.

Also this was an interesting comment from the TOTM article:

One of the keys to getting good results with T5 bulbs, I believe, is to keep your SPS no more than 18" from the light source. For intensely colored SPS (i.e. reds, blues, pinks, neon yellows), I keep them less than 10" away.

In my tank I'm not sure that ANY of the corals are within 10 inches of the lights!

i believe those are ATI units,which do indeed overdrive the bulbs.

[smcnally]

In my tank I'm not sure that ANY of the corals are within 10 inches of the lights!
Greg, how high off the water are your lights? Also remember that you can put T5s a lot closer to the surface. I think mine will be about 3-4 inches off the surface when my hood is fully lowered.

[SteveDola]

2-3 " off the surface is supposedly the "zone" (so ive heard)

I keep mine 3" off

[Greg Hiller]

>i believe those are ATI units,which do indeed overdrive the bulbs.<

So what is the real wattage being used? He's at 430 W?, or not? over a 110 gallon. My old 110 gallon tank used to have 2 x 250 W SE MH on IceCap ballasts in some half-ass reflectors plus a pair of 5ft VHO's (w/o reflectors) - these are 140 W each, but I don't know they were contributing much in the way of PAR.

>Greg, how high off the water are your lights? <

I think they are about 6-8" off the surface of the water. But there are very few corals right at the top of the tank. I've left room for corals to grow up and reach more 'normal' morphologies. If I had the colonies so close to the top of the tank, I would really be able to SEE the colonies, except from above.

[Liam]

>i believe those are ATI units,which do indeed overdrive the bulbs.<

So what is the real wattage being used? He's at 430 W?, or not? over a 110 gallon. My old 110 gallon tank used to have 2 x 250 W SE MH on IceCap ballasts in some half-ass reflectors plus a pair of 5ft VHO's (w/o reflectors) - these are 140 W each, but I don't know they were contributing much in the way of PAR.

>Greg, how high off the water are your lights? <

I think they are about 6-8" off the surface of the water. But there are very few corals right at the top of the tank. I've left room for corals to grow up and reach more 'normal' morphologies. If I had the colonies so close to the top of the tank, I would really be able to SEE the colonies, except from above.

I'm not sure on the figures but i believe it is similar output to overdriving with icecaps

[RichConley]

The ATIs dont overdrive.

They're using the sylvania ballasts, which are much nicer than the triads/etc, and have great reflectors. Most of the people using Icecaps and overdriving aren't getting the par they think they are, because the bulbs run so hot, and aren't actively cooled.

Active cooling can increase par by over 30% with T5 bulbs. The ATI is actively cooled.



One of the keys to getting good results with T5 bulbs, I believe, is to keep your SPS no more than 18" from the light source. For intensely colored SPS (i.e. reds, blues, pinks, neon yellows), I keep them less than 10" away.


Greg, you're an exception because you have such a huge tank, but really, how many people are keeping corals more than about 18" deep? With a sandbed, thats sitting on the sand of a 24" deep tank.


Then again, I've seen a whole lot of T5 SPS tanks growing millepora on the sand, and I've NEVER seen that in a MH tank.

We also have to remember that just because someone has a nice tank, doesnt mean they know what theyre talking about. I remember listening to someone who has written books about reefkeeping ramble on about how he didnt believe in ANY sources of alternating flow, because having a powerhead switch on and off would compromise the structural integrity of the tank.

Him saying he believes they should be kept above 18" doesnt mean they have to be. (Par readings should tell you) I've seen people claim you need 400w'ers for any tanks over 18" deep.

[Liam]

i read that the ballasts they used were one up from the bulb.
ie the 39 watt actually houses 54watt ballast and so on for all the models.
I am not saying that is correct,that was just what i read.

[Greg Hiller]

>Then again, I've seen a whole lot of T5 SPS tanks growing millepora on the sand, and I've NEVER seen that in a MH tank<

You've not seen mine then! :D

>Him saying he believes they should be kept above 18" doesnt mean they have to be. <

Agreed of course. Nevertheless, one would presume that he's experimented in his tank with frags of various corals, and they may not have had good color below the 10" mark he states.