More fuel for the T5 fire

[digital-audiophile]

http://zeovit.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12347

Zeo Tank of the quarter.. light only by T5's. :) :)

[bv_reefer]

16x54 watt:eek:, ok i'm convinced, especially after seeing that green milli, i still don't think he gets as much shimmer as you would with halides though

[untamed]

I don't care about the lighting...I'm going to research that skimmer....

[digital-audiophile]

Ah, the KZ skimmer. Very sexy!

http://www.korallen-zucht.de/en/shop/products-technology/skimmers/index.html

if you thought the bubble king was expensive ... :p

[Phanman]

Looks like the ATB conical shaped skimmer..

http://www.atbskimmers.com/index.php?cat=conical

[Myka]

Photoperiod
10 am to 12 pm

Uh...I think they made a boo boo. I'm sure the tank is lit for 12 hours, not 2. :lol:

I don't see the point in running T5s when you're using that many. For the record, my T5s shimmer, but not as much as MH.

[jasond]

Man do I like those lights! The fixtures look awesome IMO, very slick.

I may get some shimmer out of my TX5, that is until I see a real bright MH light tank, and I realize mine looks like a flashlight with a blue bulb :lol:

[Der_Iron_Chef]

I don't care about the lighting...I'm going to research that skimmer....

I think Albert owned one of those skimmers. Ditched it for a Bubble King :)

[digital-audiophile]

I don't see the point in running T5s when you're using that many.


You did notice that his tank is 8ft long right? Nothing odd about 2 x 8 bulb fixtures.

[StirCrazy]

T5's have there place, right inbetween MH and PC, 50% more intensity then the same size PC but still far lower than MH. but I think the popularity of them is due to ease and lower heat, as on large tanks it would take several MH.

seeing as 6 or more years ago we had tanks like that using VHO I don't realy find T5 lighting that amazing just a better idea than PC or VHO. I think there is a lot more than the lights causing the color in that tank, bad A$$ skimmer, crazy maintenance, and time to do it all.

Steve

[Der_Iron_Chef]

Heh. And the debate rages on. To each his own.

[i have crabs]

Lighting Setup
2 x ATI power module, 16 x 54 Watt ( 10 x KZ coral light and 6 x KZ fiji purple)

i believe that means 32 x 54w bulbs

[Myka]

^ I thought it meant 16 bulbs...?

You did notice that his tank is 8ft long right? Nothing odd about 2 x 8 bulb fixtures.

Actually at quick glance I thought it was 10 ft. :lol: The way I figure it is this:

16 x 54w = 864w
Change 16 bulbs every 8 months = ($30 x 16) x 1.3 = $624 per year

Or

250w metal halide x 3 = 750w
4 x 54w = 216w (for actinics) = total of 966w
Change 4 bulbs every 8 months = ($30 x 4) x 1.3 = $156 per year
Change 3 bulbs every 12 months = $140 x 3 = $420 per year Total of $576 per year

Hmmm, more watts of power, higher PAR, and cheaper to run the MH.

[Zylumn]

Photoperiod
10 am to 12 pm

Uh...I think they made a boo boo. I'm sure the tank is lit for 12 hours, not 2. :lol:


10 fingers and 4 toes = 14 hours

That is a long time to keep lights on.
Kevin

[Der_Iron_Chef]

By the looks of it, buddy boy wasn't too concerned with pinching pennies. I'm sure he found what he liked most and said, "I'll take two."

[Delphinus]

Hmmmm...

Don't get me wrong, I like T5's ... but they are a tool to achieve an end, not a end in themselves. So why bother even debate about what's better? You might as well debate whether an apple is better or an orange is better. The bottom line is an apple is better to make apple juice and an orange is better to make orange juice.

I think Myka hit the nail right on the head. T5's are great, but they aren't "really madly truly" an economical alternative to halides. The lamps are cheaper but you have more of them and you need to replace them more often. I doubt that you really even get substantially less heat overall (it might be better directed though).

To me the choice for lighting should be about the size and shape of the area you wish to cover, and basically what floats your boat better.

I like both halides and T5's. I have tanks with both. :p I wouldn't say one really has an edge out over the other. I like the slimline low profile the T5 fixture I use has, but I don't like that in 3 months of use that I can perceive that the lights are already dimmer. I like how my halides last 12 to 18 months before I perceive a shift, but I don't like that I have to spend $80 to $120 to replace them when I DO have to replace them.

So in short, I think T5's both rule and suck, and I think halides both rule and suck.

:p

[Delphinus]

Oh and ... wow, what a wicked tank BTW. (Just noticed I forgot to mention that :redface:) DARRRROOOOOOOOOL. :)

[StirCrazy]

I just can't figure out why the T5 fanatics see a amazing tank that has a million bucks worth of equipment and automatically assume it is the T5's that are responsible for everything on the tank :mrgreen:

Steve

[digital-audiophile]

Of course it's not just the T5's :p But for colour, I really think they have an edge of MH.

I've used 150MH , 250MH and now T5's myself and I must say I prefer the latter, but as mentioned it really is a matter of choice.

[Myka]

Photoperiod
10 am to 12 pm



10 fingers and 4 toes = 14 hours

That is a long time to keep lights on.
Kevin

Bahahaha!!! Wow...excellent mathematical skills on my part! 12 pm is noon though. 12 am is midnight. I'm sure that the article means his lights are on from 10 am to midnight...which yes, would be 14 hours, not 12. :lol:

[Aquattro]

You NEED metal halide. I'm just sayin'.....

[digital-audiophile]

LOL!! Brad, you are the reason I posted this. :lol: ... what took you so long? :mrgreen:

[Aquattro]

LOL!! Brad, you are the reason I posted this. :lol: ... what took you so long? :mrgreen:

I wanted to share the fun, but nothing good was coming up, so I thought I needed to straighten out the confusion. :)
I just remember snorkelling through the reefs and recalling that a real reef looks like it's lit by MH, not T5, so therefore to get an accurate representation of a real reef, you need MH. I looked at a tank last night lit with T5s, nice and bright with great colors, but something was just missing. I guess it's sort of the "snap" you get with a more direct light source. And you can tan under MH too, just like on a real reef.

[Reefer Rob]

That's the reason I went with MHs on my present tank. Plenty of light with T5s, but they don't have the "natural look" (well that and my wife told me to :redface: ) I still miss all the good things about T5s though. Shadowing and glitter lines are the only thing MHs add to a system IMO.

[Aquattro]

[QUOTE=Reefer Rob;314642] I still miss all the good things about T5s though. QUOTE]

I guess I still fail to understand what these good things are.....

[digital-audiophile]

1.) Slim unit design and weight (not as big an ugly as Mh units)
2.) Multiple bulbs allow individual selection to fine tune your colour preference & par (as opposed to only ~4-5 realstic bulb selections/colours available with MH)
3.) Less energy consumption
4.) Less heat (even after 10 hours on I can put my hand on the unit vs. MH of which I still have a nasty scar on my arm from a fraction of a second contact with a fixture)
5.) Less bulb replcement cost (up to debate)
6.) Even light in all corners of the tank, no shadows or MH "spolight" effect


Just a few points that sold me.

[Nate]

T5 for the power and all of gregs other points, and maybe a small 70 watt halide for the shimmer. Best of both worlds, and hey, then everyone is on your team ( halide guys and t5 guys)



Probably not a great time however to mention I am a t5 guy.

Nate

[Aquattro]

1.) Slim unit design and weight (not as big an ugly as Mh units)
2.) Multiple bulbs allow individual selection to fine tune your colour preference & par (as opposed to only ~4-5 realstic bulb selections/colours available with MH)
3.) Less energy consumption
4.) Less heat (even after 10 hours on I can put my hand on the unit vs. MH of which I still have a nasty scar on my arm from a fraction of a second contact with a fixture)
5.) Less bulb replcement cost (up to debate)
6.) Even light in all corners of the tank, no shadows or MH "spolight" effect


Just a few points that sold me.
Hmm.
1.) My CL MH unit is slim and lightweight
2.)I've always been able to select a color temp that was to my liking (really, how many combinations do you need)
3.)Have no info on this, but I'm sure any savings are negligible over the TCO (total cost of ownership of tank)
4.) With my enclosed HQI setup, heat is not an issue, I can touch any part of my fixture.
5.) <$200 yr, I'm happy with value for dollar here
6.) depending on fixture, reflector, same thing with MH. although I prefer different areas of exposure for different species placement in tank. I certainly don't have any "spotlight" effect in my tank.

[Reefer Rob]

I'm in for #2, #4 and #6, with #4: less heat being the big one. I've noticed with MHs some of my Acros will grow towards the nearest Halide, like a house plant in a window, so #6 would be my second advantage.

[Reefer Rob]

T5 for the power and all of gregs other points, and maybe a small 70 watt halide for the shimmer. Best of both worlds, and hey, then everyone is on your team ( halide guys and t5 guys)
Nate

I really would like to try this, but I'm not sure how to fit it all over my tank or how the effect would look. Would you still get natural looking shadows? I'd still want at least 600W of T5 plus the halides over my 180.

[fkshiu]

I use both T5 and MH (as well as VHO actinics and LED moonlights for good measure). It shouldn't be an "either/or" choice.

[Joe Reefer]

T5's have there place, right inbetween MH and PC.
Steve

^--- This is all that there is to say. For me they work very well on each side of my MH's. :mrgreen:

[StirCrazy]

you know, I ran into some one to day and he said I was holding back to much on this discussion :twised:

SO.... T5s are good for supplementation only on a real reef tank. there I said it. I did get a chance to compare the light out put of T5's against MH, and PC's and I have to say while impressed against the PC's I was totally let down with there performance against the MH, I thought they would do better than 20%.

as for the debate there isn't one. if you want real color not dim, flat, dingy looking you need a better light source like MH. there are more options with MH for color, better coverage from 1 bulb and way more intense lighting.

If you take a tank that has 3 MH bulbs that is 6 foot long, you will need a fixture that has 16, 36" bulbs to cover the entire tank unless they now make a 6 foot bulb. T5's are changed what every 6 months compared to MH once a year, so you are looking at 36 bulbs at say 20.00 each so 720.00 even once a year change out would be 360, as apposed to the MH 300.00 so now look at power, a 36" bulb is around 35watts so that is 560 watts, compared to the MH of 750, so a little better (we'll assume they are both electronic ballast so extra is not important) but at 5.6 or 6cents a KW/H were talking under 50.00 a year difference. so bulb cost still higher for T5's by a long shot if you follow recommendations.

now heat.. lets compare fixtures to fixtures, you can look at Brads twin 150 fixture and I would be surprised if it is going to add much heat at all, but my T5 fixture on my fresh water tank is damn hot and raised my tank by 3 degrees when it is on. so I say this is a non point also. what I would like to do though is take the PC's out of Brads fixture and replace if with T5's because I hate PC actinic and you can't fit VHO's in there:mrgreen:

Now, why is it every time there is a tank out there that has some color everyone on the T5 bandwagon has to credit the T5's with all the success. I look at that tank and it looks fake to me, dark, dingy, and flat.. no life.

Lighting is just one part of the equation, look at water chemistry, type of lights, color of lights (were there any non actinic shots of that tank? no cuz the colors wouldn't be fluorescing due to the wave length of light hitting the coral, and yes some pigments in corals will fluoresce a different color than they look in day light depending on the light wave that is hitting them. finding that light wave is the critical part. take one of the corals out of the tank and into the sun, do you think it will look the same? I am almost willing to bet (except I am to poor) that it wont.

also let us not forget about nutrients in the water, water chemistry its self, and so on and so on. the more money you have the more equipment you can get to ensure these are perfect resulting in nicer corals.

here is an example, this picture (excuse the algae was having problems at the time) was taken under 10K bulbs with the actinic off. in the first one the pink on the milli is pink, even out of the tank as I saw when I moved it
http://www.members.shaw.ca/stircrazy/top/pink_milli.jpg

In this one there are several different colors, the purple is purple, the green is emerald, and if you look at the green digitata in the right top corner to the left of it is a purple digitata that is a deep deep purple where just below the green and partially under the big milli (about 16" across to give a size reference) is the same purple digitata that looks more lavender. this is the difference intense light makes, as the deep purple one is partially shaded and not directly under the light, but surprisingly the color is what you guys keep loving about T5's and the kind of color I see in that tank you posted.

http://www.members.shaw.ca/stircrazy/top/blue_purple_green_mili.jpg


so what am I trying to say... Quite trying to start debated on something there is nothing to debate.

Steve

[Reefer Rob]

My.... that was long winded. You really need to try reef a tank with T5s. Most of us that actually have really quite like them.

[digital-audiophile]

... Sounds like there is a lot to debate ;)

[Aquattro]

You NEED MH.....how come nobody listens to me?? :)

[Der_Iron_Chef]

Umm. Because you're wrong? ;)

[Aquattro]

Umm. Because you're wrong? ;)


Ah. That explains it!

[spreerider]

MH acutally uses less electrical power to generate the same amount of light, they have the highest efficiency of any light source except sodium lamps but they are useless for us.
how many watts total of T5 do you use, how many watts total MH would you use to get the same lighting, from what i have seen you need more T5 watts to equal the same lighting as a MH setup.
I build and design underwater lights at work and we use MH exclusivly as they generate way more light than the equivilant T5's we tried, T5 dont have enough raw power to light a large amount of water, they do seem to be bright but only from up close, The MH lights are visible for miles underwater, while the T5 were maybe 100ft untill they dissapeared, both were tested in the same conditions...
top it off that i love the MH shimmer effect and to me that is the trump card.

[dreef]

I'm too old and wise to argue about what's better,and as everything in this world,to each there own.I went all T5's about 2 yrs ago.I'm sticking with what i like,i have no regrets,mix of softies,lps and sps.And everything looks GREAT..:) but it's just my 2 cents.....

[Myka]

Unless you guys are comparing PAR of T5 setup vs MH setups using the same number of watts then you have no debate. MH are more efficient. There are really only three points in which T5s could be considered "better":

1. They have prettier fixtures. :lol:
2. You can customize the visual appearance of the light by using different combinations of bulbs. More bulbs = more combinations.
3. Less heat, but not by much.

On that note. I have T5s right now. I've had MH in the past. I prefer a combination! T5s are really good actinics!!! Tee hee hee :biggrin:

3.) Less energy consumption
5.) Less bulb replcement cost (up to debate)


I'd have to debate both those. :D Neither are true. :p

[digital-audiophile]

Bulb replacement cost savings are up to debate - for example on my tank -

6 bulbs x ~$25 x 2 changes per annum = ~$300/year

...If I had 2x250W + T5/PC actinics would cost ~2 bulbs x $100 + 2 T5 x ~$25 x2 = $300

Basically the same in the end.

[digital-audiophile]

Anyhow.. my intention was not to start a stir.. I love my T5's but I do enjoy MH too.. I have used them in the past and I am sure I will use them again in the future.

This all seems too much like fanboyism .. if that is really a word :p

I just like to show that T5's are a very viable option and too many MH diehards dismiss them too readily.

[Myka]

Bulb replacement cost savings are up to debate - for example on my tank -

6 bulbs x ~$25 x 2 changes per annum = ~$300/year

...If I had 2x250W + T5/PC actinics would cost ~2 bulbs x $100 + 2 T5 x ~$25 x2 = $300

Basically the same in the end.

That's why I say there's no debate. ;) They are so close it doesn't even matter. If anything you end up spending more money replacing T5s than MH.

[digital-audiophile]

Remember though, thats only if you change out your t5's every six months.. how many actually do that? The again how many MH bulbs get changed out every 12 months either :p

[Aquattro]

Anyhow.. my intention was not to start a stir...

mhmm...:)

[digital-audiophile]

.. well even if it was not my intention it seemed to work :p

Canreef has been pretty quiet as of late anyways.. sometimes you need to rattle the sabres a little bit to get the blood going :p

[Myka]

Remember though, thats only if you change out your t5's every six months.. how many actually do that? The again how many MH bulbs get changed out every 12 months either :p

I change my T5s every 8 months "religiously". HOT5s don't need to be changed every 6 months like NOT5s, NOs, HOs, or PCs. When I have had MH I always changed them out every 12 months. But to each their own.

[VFX]

I change my T5s every 8 months "religiously". HOT5s don't need to be changed every 6 months like NOT5s, NOs, HOs, or PCs. When I have had MH I always changed them out every 12 months. But to each their own.

That's a lot of acronyms for a single sentence Myka :lol:

.

Ps. I use MH with PC's & have used T5's with MH & liked them all!

[Myka]

I was wondering if you guys would make me type all that out. :lol: We're all nerdy enough to know what they mean. ;)

[Pan]

If you want actinic supplemation only VHO is the better way to go on almost every tank i have seen. at least. I think one benefit in the T5 area is the sleak look for an open top tank. MH have some nice units but say ati's units just look spiffy, they seem to be a little more current on design appeal thank MH units...not all but in general. I personally think a tank looks nice both ways, depends on the tank :) I have seen tanks I would love to say were mine with All LED, VHO, T5, MH etc. When you get to arguing about aesthetics, there is never a end. Its the old ..i may not now...but i know what i like.
If you want to argue cold hard facts...you need to find them realiably then, no disussion i have ever seen has anyything other than personal opinion oh energy usage, bulb replacement etc. Bulbs both kinds can be found cheaper ands at least equal if you look around it seems.

[StirCrazy]

Unless you guys are comparing PAR of T5 setup vs MH setups using the same number of watts then you have no debate. MH are more efficient. There are really only three points in which T5s could be considered "better":

1. They have prettier fixtures. :lol:
2. You can customize the visual appearance of the light by using different combinations of bulbs. More bulbs = more combinations.
3. Less heat, but not by much.

On that note. I have T5s right now. I've had MH in the past. I prefer a combination! T5s are really good actinics!!! Tee hee hee :biggrin:



I'd have to debate both those. :D Neither are true. :p

yes I cpompared the same amount of watts. T5's just don't have the intensity of MH.

Um, I have seen some pretty sexy MH fixtures also, and some but ugly T5 ones.. so thats not even a discussion point :mrgreen:

More bulbs... do you mean in choices or the amount of bulbs you putting over the tank.. if it is by choices to buy I think MH in the 250 range has just as many as every manufacture's 10K is a little different from the others and so one and so one.. I actualy find the lack of different T5's localy a pain only about 6 types and 2 or 3 are freshwater.

Heat.. hmmm... lets compare sexy fixture against sexy fixture, Brads twin 150 MH with two PC's seams to throw out less heat downwards than my 24" twin HO T5 set up. :redface: so what does this tell me, fans are good, but like you said comparing watt for watt to keep things fair like I did with the PAR, you will get just as much radiant heat from 250 watts of HOT5 as you will from 250 watts of MH in the same type of fixture.

Steve

[Reefer Rob]

Now I'm embarrassed. I've gone and replaced all the bulbs in my home with those little curly CF bulbs, thinking I'm being environmentally friendly! Now I find out that in order to be a real tree hugger I've got to replace them all with MH fixtures :surprise:

The only place you see the MH vs T5 debate is in the aquarium hobby. It's all emotional. We don't want to admit we're energy pigs, and we use MHs because we like the look of them, even though it's been proven time and time again that you can keep a beautiful reef with T5s! Everyone else is a little more scientific.

A little something from BC Hydro's site.
http://www.bchydro.com/business/investigate/investigate3668.html

[Canadian]

Steve,

1) How are you measuring and comparing the intensity of T5 lamps to MH? Are you fishing around for a spot of highest intensity or mapping out a grid both horizontally and vertically?

2) What specific T5 lamps were in the T5 fixture you measured? Did the fixture use true individual parabolic reflectors? What fixture was measured? Did the fixture utilize active cooling? How old were the lamps? How high above the water were the fixtures?

I'm all for "measuring" things in an attempt to quantify differences but if there's a complete lack of control and standardization then the comparison is as useful as "MH sucks and T5 kicks a$$".

And to be fair, I use both MH and T5 in combination ;)

[Myka]

yes I cpompared the same amount of watts. T5's just don't have the intensity of MH.

I wasn't asking you that. I know YOU were comparing watts. No one else seems to get it. :lol:

I agree, given the same depth water, MH are FAR more intense no matter how great the reflectors on the T5s are. This is partly what I was saying.

We don't want to admit we're energy pigs

This is EXACTLY what I mean! If you're using one of those 6 or 8 bulb T5 fixtures you're using up just as much power (or more) than if you were to use 250w or less MH, and you'd be getting LESS PAR with the T5s. Hence, MH are far more efficient. Those using 400w MH over 18" deep tanks ARE energy pigs...but I've seen a couple of tanks using 12 T5s side by side that had just as many watts, and try to tell me they aren't energy pigs too?

Of course you can keep just as brilliant SPS corals under T5s, but you're using at least as many watts as you would if you were using MH, so what's the point? Do you still think you're being energy-wise?

You guys need to learn what PAR is, and how to compare PAR watt for watt. Some of you really aren't getting it.

Between me and Steve, one of us is gonna break down and give the lecture... :lol:

[albert_dao]

Seriously, what the hell is wrong with you guys? Solatubes FTW.

*cough*

Edit: http://www.astro.psu.edu/users/saez/Class/RedSun.jpg FTWx3 <--- best lightbulb 3VAR

[Myka]

Now you're talkin!

[Aquattro]

Seriously, what the hell is wrong with you guys? Solatubes FTW.



Right idea, wrong part of the world!

[albert_dao]

Right idea, wrong part of the world!

Incorrect. You seem to have missed the Red Giant clause. Red Giant + SolaTube = Win. There is no room for discussion. ggnorekkthx.


*Assumes you mount mentioned Red Giant + SolaTube assembly no further than 24" from the tank.

[Der_Iron_Chef]

Albert, nice to see you around. But one question:

WTF are you smokin?

Alternate question:

Am I too dumb to understand what you're saying?

:)

[Canadian]

Please see this thread for some reported T5 values and a comparison to a 250W MH.

http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=1332562

[StirCrazy]

Steve,

1) How are you measuring and comparing the intensity of T5 lamps to MH? Are you fishing around for a spot of highest intensity or mapping out a grid both horizontally and vertically?

2) What specific T5 lamps were in the T5 fixture you measured? Did the fixture use true individual parabolic reflectors? What fixture was measured? Did the fixture utilize active cooling? How old were the lamps? How high above the water were the fixtures?

I'm all for "measuring" things in an attempt to quantify differences but if there's a complete lack of control and standardization then the comparison is as useful as "MH sucks and T5 kicks a$$".

And to be fair, I use both MH and T5 in combination ;)

hey Andrew, good to see you back on again, I didn't do a map, but I did deviate up to 8" from the center line of the MH at a depth of 12" (under water) and it still maintained almost double the intensity of the TEK light directly under the bulb. and to be fair I did try to find the highest point of light under the T5 to see if I could get a higher reading. the T5 lights had maybe 5 days use and the MH was about 6 months old.

Now one thing is that I do not believe in the grid measurements, but rather realistic ones. we don't worry about light in the corner on our tank why should we worry about it for testing. I rather will test the usable area in a tank with water. I have done all over readings on my tank just out of curiosity though and I can tell you my old AB's put out more light in the dimmest area at a depth of 23" of water and 6" of air than my PC's did 6" directly below the bulb. on my standardized jig I can only get to with in 3" of the glass so on a 24" wide tank I can measure the middle 18 inches but since we all try to keep the glass free for cleaning I decided this was realistic.

At one time I was in the process of gathering equipment and building a black box tester but after I bought 4 ballasts and 12 bulbs I changed my mind and decided to go with practical "as used" testing. one thing I haven't tested and would like to is this solaris, but I don't know anyone local that is rich enough to have one:mrgreen:

Steve

[StirCrazy]

Please see this thread for some reported T5 values and a comparison to a 250W MH.

http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=1332562

see Andrew, he is using a 16 to 18" deep tank, but thats not the issue. when you say comparing against a 250watt Mh that real means nothing, I read the thread and discovered that he was comparing 14" Phoenix bulbs (and DE's to boot which are lower output than SE's), which are one of the lowest out put bulbs on many tests and on an electronic ballast which under drives the bulb (only know that because I saw a thread on the aquamedic ballasts and what to replace them with)

when I was running my SE AB 10K's on the bottom of a 24" deep tank with the lights 6" above the water I was getting values of 640. he is getting that in about 8" of water and 7" of air. so same readings at 3X the water depth which is the important thing as air made very little difference from 6" to 15" (I was board when my tank was empty once, I also discovered that 1/4" glass only gets rid of 1.823% of the PAR passing through it :mrgreen:

this is one of the things I hate about the comparisons, people through them out there testing the top of the line against bottom of the line but neglect to tell you that, If you remember years ago when I first started doing measurements I was threatened by IceCap and they had Reef Central delete all my posts as I proved they were under driving VHO bulbs by using HO electronic ballasts and asked them about it in a public forum.

well i am not saying anything bad about T5's I like them and they are what they say they are. And yes you can grow corals under them, as you can with PC's VHO, and even NO's if you are real shallow, but what I will say is they are not as intense as a MH and do not have the same degree of penetrating power as a MH. I do use T5's on my fresh water tank, and while it is a respectable output compared to a lot it is not quite as good as the TeK I have found.. I was actually surprised though as it uses a parabolic type reflector which has two bulbs in it and it is almost as good as the Tek, but not quite.

Steve

[StirCrazy]

Please see this thread for some reported T5 values and a comparison to a 250W MH.

http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=1332562

heres a measurment thread for you on 499 watt with outstanding reflectors. it was a linkof the one you posted, just to show you I realy do read these :mrgreen:

http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1211402&perpage=25&pagenumber=12

[StirCrazy]

Between me and Steve, one of us is gonna break down and give the lecture... :lol:

I already have .... a few times :wink: but not again.. well maybe, not today anyways.

Steve

[Canadian]

Steve,

I don't think you can reasonably compare readings from person to person (i.e. your measurements to his). The lack of control for calibration and differences in measurement techniques makes for an unreliable comparison.

I read that same (re: the 400W with LumenBright reflector) thread Steve. I actually thought I had posted it in my previous post but I guess I forgot to. Anyway, that 400W MH setup produces considerable PAR. In fact, to the point of photoinhibition. But I don't think you can compare a crappy passively cooled Tek fixture with Workhorse ballasts to 400w 12K Reeflux bulbs with LumenBright Reflectors and a Coralvue ballast. Part of me wishes ReefGeek wasn't so slow to get the PowerModul in when I requested it. Then we would have a high quality T5 fixture to compare things to.

Additionally, it has been well documented that, for instance, magnetic HQI ballasts draw significantly more wattage than the stated/rated value. So when people are tossing about comparisons regarding "efficiency" I sure hope they're actually measuring the true wattage drawn and not assuming that because they're running a 250W MH that it's pulling 250W.

Ultimately I find the T5 vs MH comparisons tiresome. They both work - it has been well documented and there are plenty of pretty pictures to support the use of both. Pick the attributes that most appeal to the user and go with it. Alternatively take advantage of the strengths and weaknesses of each and combine them.

[albert_dao]

Albert, nice to see you around. But one question:

WTF are you smokin?

Alternate question:

Am I too dumb to understand what you're saying?

:)


<incoherent reply>

you WOULD -

</incoherent reply>

[Aquattro]

Incorrect. You seem to have missed the Red Giant clause. Red Giant + SolaTube = Win. There is no room for discussion. ggnorekkthx.


*Assumes you mount mentioned Red Giant + SolaTube assembly no further than 24" from the tank.

Albert, don't you think the Red Giant might cause heat issues?

[Aquattro]

Also, I don't know why we're all comparing numbers and watts and PARs. It's all real simple...you NEED MH. Yes, even on nano tanks. And betta bowls. NEED..thats all I'm sayin'

[Der_Iron_Chef]

I agree. I have a 400w MH bulb hanging over my betta bowl. AWESOME! It really makes his colours pop. And his skin crackle.

[Aquattro]

I agree. I have a 400w MH bulb hanging over my betta bowl. AWESOME! It really makes his colours pop. And his skin crackle.

See???? Someone gets it!!

[Reefer Rob]

Between me and Steve, one of us is gonna break down and give the lecture... :lol:

No need to give any more lectures. Just Google Metal Halide vs T5 and you'll find plenty of them :wink:

If you have any information showing MHs producing more lumens per watt than T5s please post it.

Hey Albert. I don't think a Red Giant can exist that close to a Black Hole :mrgreen:

[albert_dao]

No need to give any more lectures. Just Google Metal Halide vs T5 and you'll find plenty of them :wink:

If you have any information showing MHs producing more lumens per watt than T5s please post it.

Hey Albert. I don't think a Red Giant can exist that close to a Black Hole :mrgreen:

Umm, your black magic science has no place here before God. Begone with ye.

[argan]

that tank is nice and i've seen tons of T5 tank that are amazing in terms of aquascaping and total tank health.

But the T5 tanks always look like a pastel explosion to me. I love the more intense reds and blues and greens and purples you get from from MH. i don't or ever will care about par values, only what looks pretty to me.

If I saw an all T5 tank in person, i might rethink it, but haven't yet had a chance.

JMO

[banditpowdercoat]

My T5's heat the tank up enough as it is. MH, Dang, I'd need to run the sump lines through the Freezer LOL

[Reefer Rob]

Umm, your black magic science has no place here before God. Begone with ye.

Alien impostor what have you done with Albert! Contact the Mother Ship and have him returned now!!

[Myka]

Kind of off topic, but not really...

Where are you guys buying your submersible probe light meters? I need one because I'm too anal to not know.

[Myka]

Ok fine, everybody just quit posting! :p

[banditpowdercoat]

Ok fine, everybody just quit posting! :p
OK, I wont post any more I pwommis:razz:

[albert_dao]

You know what I saw today at the Sony store? A 6 or 7" OLED TV. It was like two grand and had a contrast ratio of one MEEELION:1 or something ridiculous like that. It was bloody bright too.

OLED = Future (we're talking far future here, like cold fusion and time travel future).

[Aquattro]

You know what I saw today at the Sony store? A 6 or 7" OLED TV. It was like two grand and had a contrast ratio of one MEEELION:1 or something ridiculous like that. It was bloody bright too.

OLED = Future (we're talking far future here, like cold fusion and time travel future).

And? Are you saying this over a tank is better than a T5? Don't doubt it. You NEED MH...

[Aquattro]

i don't or ever will care about par values, only what looks pretty to me.



This is what it all comes down to. MH look prettier. So to take that one step further, if you want a prettier tank, you NEED MH. No, really.

[spreerider]

Please see this thread for some reported T5 values and a comparison to a 250W MH.

http://reefcentral.com/forums/showth...readid=1332562

This article compared 324W of T5 to 250W of MH, i wonder what one will come out with more light? not a very good comparison IMO.
I will try to get the research the company i work for conducted when designing underwater lighting for fish farms, but i dont think i can post it to the public, its been copyrighted.

[Canadian]

This article compared 324W of T5 to 250W of MH, i wonder what one will come out with more light? not a very good comparison IMO.
I will try to get the research the company i work for conducted when designing underwater lighting for fish farms, but i dont think i can post it to the public, its been copyrighted.

HUH?! Welcome back to arithmetic in the real world. The fixture discussed in that thread is a 6 x 39W Tek light - i.e. 234W. Not a very good comparison indeed . . .

Let me know when you've actually read the thread posted above and discovered that the tank is a standard 30g at 36 x 12 x 16.

[albert_dao]

And? Are you saying this over a tank is better than a T5? Don't doubt it. You NEED MH...

Yeah, actually, I am. OLED's are starting to post some of the highest efficiencies and spectral outputs available in modern lighting. It's not an application that's found its way to the aquarium hobby yet, but as time goes by and RD progresses, manufacturing costs come down and these light sources get even better.

Thx 4 attempt at GG reply :P MH = lose.

[Canadian]

It shouldn't be long before OLED prices come down (I guess "long" is a relative term thoug). From what I understand manufacturing of organic screens should be considerably cheaper than comparable alternatives once manufacturing scales are equalized.

But what about Luxim's plasma lamps?

[Myka]

So...how 'bout them light meters...where do you get one?

[albert_dao]

God will grant you one with enough prayer.

[Myka]

I'm gonna have to get some knee pads.

[Aquattro]

I'm gonna have to get some knee pads.


Don't nobody say nuthin'....

[bv_reefer]

i'm sorry i've seen quite a few sps tanks running t5' with great results, but going on to say that T5's give a nicer tone is'nt true, my T5's gave a pretty bland color, with little shimmer, but when i switched to halides, man you can't beat that nice crisp shimmer that you get imo

[albert_dao]

Don't nobody say nuthin'....

You joykiller you...

[Aquattro]

You joykiller you...

I know, but it's a family board...

[banditpowdercoat]

Nuthin. Nuthin. Nuthin. Nuthin. Nuthin. Nuthin. Nuthin. Nuthin. Nuthin. Nuthin. Nuthin. Nuthin. Nuthin. Nuthin. Nuthin. Nuthin. Nuthin. Nuthin. Nuthin. Nuthin. Nuthin. Nuthin. Nuthin. Nuthin. Nuthin. Nuthin. Nuthin. Nuthin. Nuthin. Nuthin. Nuthin. Nuthin.

:razz::mrgreen:

[Myka]

Don't nobody say nuthin'....

:lol:

[albert_dao]

I know, but it's a family board...

*insert demeaning, offensively implicit comment here.

[Der_Iron_Chef]

I think I read somewhere that T5s are more family-friendly.

[Doug]

Left side is under my 4 T-5 bulbs that I ran alone before. Right side is under the T-5,s also, but widely spaced front to back, as my 250w pendant is in between. Its just running a used up 14K bulb.

[Mik_101]

Metal halides most defenetly.