Which T5 should I get

[Canadian]

Originally Posted by lastlight

For some visual appeal is its own performance stat I suppose. The higher end fixtures have the much nicer extruded aluminum shells which I think are well worth the extra money. If you're going to put it in a canopy go retrofit in my opinion.

Respek! Aesthetics fit into that category that's hard to quantify but definitely commands higher prices. I've told you before in previous conversations that I think the white Sfiligoi Stealth fixtures are easily the sexiest fixtures on the market right now. And at one point in time I had actually paid for one but quickly found out that the smaller Mini Stealth fixtures don't employ active cooling and had to cancel the order.

[lastlight]

Much easier to quantify once your wife throws the spank-down on the appearance of every other fixture out there lol. She's not the designer type but I've worn off on her over the years. I was truly in love the day she told me I wasn't allowed to retrofit. She liked the Giesemann Spectra as well.

[lorenz0]

aww T5 threads make my day. But the info is right, active cooling does play a big role with t5's. Tek lights are still good and most people have a issue dishing out the cash for the higher end fixture. myself i am planning on replacing my tek with either a Aquactinics Constellation or a ATI powermodule in the near future. But don't hate on the tek's, they aren't all that bad. Like i have stated before there are people out there with amazing tanks with current usa t5 fixtures with amazing results.

[Myka]

Originally Posted by Canadian

If you're going to calculate the T5 as if it's going on a 4 foot tank (54W) then you also need to be reasonable about the application of the MH - no one is going to try to realistically light a 4 foot tank with a single 250W MH. So consider that the above example is likely 2 x 250W MH in a real-world application (although that's purely speculation on my part as I wasn't the one making the claim - but it's certainly a reasonable consideration).

Secondly, very few people actually recommend running T5HO actinic lamps. A typical application would include lamps measured some where around 450nm but generally not pure "actinic" 420nm. And as an example even a 250W AB 10,000K on an M80 ballast has its largest peak at 420nm (actinic) so I suppose it's producing false high PAR readings?

Actually, LOTS of people run 420 nm bulbs...but the tendency is leaning away from it, yes.

You're still not comparing fairly. A 54w T5 is more intense than a 39w T5 no matter how long it (obviously) is. Just like having a 400w MH is more intense than a 250w. This is taking the same Kelvin bulbs into consideration though...for arguments' sake here. If you want to take the coverage of the bulbs, then you have to break down that 48" T5, and cover a 24x24" area with 4x54w T5 bulbs (breaking them in half to be 24x24"). Now, compare 4x54w T5 bulbs to a 250w MH. OR you have to compare 2x250w MH to 8x54w T5 to get the same coverage per 24x24" space as typical T5 spacing is 3". Comparing 4x54w T5 to 2x250w MH is hardly a fair comparison.

OR, you could try comparing it that way, but you would have a very complicated mathematical equation to figure out how many watts per square inch and PAR over the total useful area, and you would have to determine what PAR is considered usable, and wow that would be quite a chore.

Plus...it REALLY depends on what T5 and MH bulbs you choose, but even moreso for MH. You can get more PAR out of a 175w Iwasaki SE bulb run on an electronic ballast than half the 250w SE bulbs run off an electronic ballast. The amount of wattage actually used... Oh, and then you have reflectors to talk about too...

My point?? It is very difficult to give an ACCURATE judgement between MH and T5 by the average hobbyist. That's better left to the professionals. It's just better to realize that there are applications where T5s will be better than MH and there are applications where MH will be better than T5.

[TheMikey]

I agree with Myka. There's really no need to waste a bulb by buying actnic. I've noticed that the 22K Bulbs from Aquascience are almost as blue (if not just as blue) as the stock ones that cam with my fixture. By putting those in, you're recieving a great amount of PAR while maintaining the same look as actinic.

[Koresample]

The aquaticlife 'actinic' bulbs actually have a peak at 420nm and 460 nm. The 420 allows for better fish coloration and fluoresence in your corals, while the 460 peak simulates spectrum at depth. At the end of the day, all that really matters is that your corals grow, have great coloration and you get lots of coralline algae growth. Maybe i am over simplifying here, but that is the overall goal. If you check out the RC site, you will see some extensive reviews on T5 stuff there. If you go to the aquaticlife, they have full test results from an independent lab that actually measures the par and spectrum of all their bulbs.

[Canadian]

Originally Posted by Myka

Actually, LOTS of people run 420 nm bulbs...but the tendency is leaning away from it, yes.

You're still not comparing fairly. A 54w T5 is more intense than a 39w T5 no matter how long it (obviously) is. Just like having a 400w MH is more intense than a 250w. This is taking the same Kelvin bulbs into consideration though...for arguments' sake here. If you want to take the coverage of the bulbs, then you have to break down that 48" T5, and cover a 24x24" area with 4x54w T5 bulbs (breaking them in half to be 24x24"). Now, compare 4x54w T5 bulbs to a 250w MH. OR you have to compare 2x250w MH to 8x54w T5 to get the same coverage per 24x24" space as typical T5 spacing is 3". Comparing 4x54w T5 to 2x250w MH is hardly a fair comparison.

OR, you could try comparing it that way, but you would have a very complicated mathematical equation to figure out how many watts per square inch and PAR over the total useful area, and you would have to determine what PAR is considered usable, and wow that would be quite a chore.

Plus...it REALLY depends on what T5 and MH bulbs you choose, but even moreso for MH. You can get more PAR out of a 175w Iwasaki SE bulb run on an electronic ballast than half the 250w SE bulbs run off an electronic ballast. The amount of wattage actually used... Oh, and then you have reflectors to talk about too...

My point?? It is very difficult to give an ACCURATE judgement between MH and T5 by the average hobbyist. That's better left to the professionals. It's just better to realize that there are applications where T5s will be better than MH and there are applications where MH will be better than T5.

HUH?

Real world application time here:

We're talking about measured PAR over an aquarium when using typical installation methodologies with T5 and MH.

54W T5HO lamps are 4' long. When lighting a 4' tank with T5s most people choose 54W T5HO. The benefit of the T5s being that you can cram many of them beside each other with individual reflectors. This is not something you can readily do with MH. So, with the MH over a 4' tank the best option for coverage is to use 2 bulbs with a nice big reflector like a Lumenarc to provide optimal coverage and intensity.

All this comparison of with respect to square inches of coverage is ridiculous. We're talking about the real world application of the technologies and the fact that they were actually measured in a typical application.

The comparison of 8x54W to 2x250W MH made previously was simply showing that in a real world application the T5 example produced better PAR numbers under those circumstances (which were pretty typical installations and applications). Myka, you were the one who suggested that the watt for watt comparison was unfair but you made some errors in your calculations. Now you're looking for another ridiculous way to compare things - have fun with that.

The bottom line is that a well designed T5 fixture produces comparable PAR values to typical MH applications and ultimately the decision is up to the consumer to weigh the pros and cons of each technology given their desired application. The MH camp on this forum has been making some ridiculous comparisons and unsubstantiated nonsense about how T5s produce less PAR and about how some how actinics produce false PAR readings (I call BS).

[raisemyrent]

YEs, I should.

OK guys, round 2. this time, the tank is 18" deep.

GO!

[lorenz0]

imo all depends on how much you want to spend. cheapest T5 fixture i would buy is the TEK (which is what i run). But if your willing to spend more, ATI sunpower is a great fixture and basically the poor man's ATI powermodule. great thing about this fixture is it runs the same refectors and ballasts that the power module runs. Its cheaper due to less active cooling fan's. Personally this is what i want to upgrade to. If you really want to spend money, go with the power module or the constellation (sp). really it comes down to how much money you want to put into the fixture and i wish i went all out instead of buying the TEK but still is a good fixture for what you pay for.

[Samw]

I ordered an Aquactinics TX5. The reason was that it has 5 bulbs in a very narrow fixture. I needed a fixture to be less than 10" narrow and this was the only fixture that I could find in that size with 5 bulbs. Most other narrow fixtures only have 4 bulbs.

I haven't received the fixture yet but from the pictures that I've seen, the nice thing about the Aquatinics fixture for me is that the outer reflectors are placed in a slight arc which I think focuses the light where it is needed: near the center of the tank. In other words, I don't need the sand in front of my tank to be lit so the outer reflectors are arc'ed slightly inwards. That's perfect for my application where the corals are in the center of the tank.