t5 vs mh

shoey · 03/25/2007, 07:28 PM

i am wondering if i should use t5. I have heird good things about them.
But the guy at the local fish store says that i should use mh. should i use t5 or mh?

Elohssa1 · 03/25/2007, 07:34 PM

what kind of Tank do you plan to have? i.e... sps, ls.... mid reef, rock????

dc_909 · 03/25/2007, 07:40 PM

Use both.

Ti · 03/25/2007, 08:12 PM

do both if u can

Zoos · 03/25/2007, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by shoey
i am wondering if i should use t5. I have heird good things about them.
But the guy at the local fish store says that i should use mh. should i use t5 or mh?

As a rule of thumb 9 out of 10 times we DONT LISTEN to the guy at the LFS

killagoby · 03/25/2007, 09:12 PM

How about using 14,000K MH bulbs so you don't have to use T5 actinics?

dragonforce · 03/25/2007, 09:22 PM

I would keep it simple and do a few DIY MH setups for about 100-150 dollars per setup complete with reflector. PM me if you want details.

Entropy · 03/25/2007, 09:25 PM

I would use both, but if you must have one or the other go with halide(s). The glitter lines from a halide can't be beat.

shoey · 03/25/2007, 09:32 PM

kk thanks everybody i think i am going to go with the halides

hahnmeister · 03/25/2007, 10:32 PM

Depends on the tank. 55g tanks are poster children for T5s, but a 60g cube is pretty much a halide-only tank. For tanks 100g and up, combos are the best.

jobob · 03/25/2007, 11:48 PM

I set up my 55g with new lights last week. I got two DE MH reflectors from hellolights for $30 each. Then two t-5 with ice cap reflectors, and it all fit into my canopy which is 13in wide. I get both. I think the whole thing cost me around $500. But I got ice cap ballast which are $115 each. You could do it cheaper with mag ballast. I got ushio 14k, which are a very nice white. I still like it better with the 2 t-5 uv super actinics. makes the corals pop. Plus u get the shimmer from the mh too.

HBtank · 03/25/2007, 11:55 PM

I like t-5's.

killagoby · 04/03/2007, 06:57 AM

I just got my 150w 14K MH lamp about a week ago. That's all I am using on my 29 gallon for my LPS's. Well worth it. I switched from 130w of PC lighting.

RichConley · 04/03/2007, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by jobob
I set up my 55g with new lights last week. I got two DE MH reflectors from hellolights for $30 each. Then two t-5 with ice cap reflectors, and it all fit into my canopy which is 13in wide. I get both. I think the whole thing cost me around $500. But I got ice cap ballast which are $115 each. You could do it cheaper with mag ballast. I got ushio 14k, which are a very nice white. I still like it better with the 2 t-5 uv super actinics. makes the corals pop. Plus u get the shimmer from the mh too.

cheaping out on reflectors and spending extra on ballasts is pretty much the opposite of what you should have done.

Running Icecaps on DEs is a bad idea. DEs dont run all that well on electronics. You get shorter bulb life, less efficiency, and poor color. you're running them under spec. The difference between cheap reflectors and good ones is absurd. You're getting almost double the light from a good $100 reflector as from a cheap $30 one.

jobob · 04/03/2007, 05:17 PM

I know I should have gotten good reflectors but I only have 13in wide to work with, and I wanted to have 2x54 t-5 for actinic. Which barely fit as it is. Im planning on getting a 90gal within the next 2 months so I will have 18in, and I plan on getting better reflectors then. Do you know any good reflectors that are small enough to fit in a 18in canopy with 2x2in t-5 reflectors?

BurntOutReefer · 04/03/2007, 05:45 PM

I just dumped my T5's and went back to MH....just cant beat the look (sharpned, glitter lines, etc) of that MH......I swear that my corals like the change back to MH also.....

jski711 · 04/03/2007, 05:53 PM

i go t5, i just switched from mh and love my t5's. the mh shimmer i really don't miss, my corals look better and healthier. but i would try one and if you don't like it try the other.

hogben · 04/04/2007, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by RichConley
Running Icecaps on DEs is a bad idea. DEs dont run all that well on electronics. You get shorter bulb life, less efficiency, and poor color. you're running them under spec.

While I agree that reflectors are important do you have any sources of information covering why running DE bulbs on Icecaps is a bad idea?

Here is how it was explained to me:

Quote:

Originally posted by ASH
When we over-drive fluorescent lamps, the reaction is often you're killing the lamps. As we don't use the filaments the news has finally filtered down to most IceCap VHO owners that VHO or T5HO lamps last 18-24 months when run on our ballasts. (T5HO need active heat venting of lamp heat)

Now we are not only under-driving MH DE lamps, we're cutting into their useful life also. BS.

Here's what we do:
*Start a cold lamp with half the KV charge.
*Running MH lamps at 40KHz vs. 60Hz. or 120Hz.
*After three tries to light a lamp, the ballast shuts down, saving the electricity, the bulb and ballast from endless cycling.
*Operate lamps at specified wattage printed on the lamps.

Electronic ballasts, so it says above, also cause the MH lamp's color to shift and efficiency to drop by operating the lamp at the wattage printed on the lamp. Does that make sense to anyone? Has Sanjay ever suggested electronic ballasts degrade DE MH lamps? If they wanted to have the lamps run at 300-watts I would have thought they'd print that on the lamp.

Our experience is that using a lower starting voltage and higher operating frequency increase a lamp's useful life. If there's a color shift, it's when the MH lamp is over or under driven by 15% or more of the optimal wattage called for on the lamp.

Andy

RichConley · 04/04/2007, 12:37 PM

I run 2 MH pendants. One is a magnetic ballast, one has an Icecap. I have to replace the icecap's bulbs almost twice as often. It absolutely destroys DE bulbs.

You get a lot of splatter inside the arc tube because it doesnt burn as hot... basically the gas condenses in places its not supposed to, and then the ballast can't get the bulb to light again.

"f they wanted to have the lamps run at 300-watts I would have thought they'd print that on the lamp."

That statement right there tells me the guy has absolutely no idea what hes talking about. He should take a look at the HQI specifications at some point.

hogben · 04/04/2007, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by RichConley
I run 2 MH pendants. One is a magnetic ballast, one has an Icecap. I have to replace the icecap's bulbs almost twice as often. It absolutely destroys DE bulbs.

Wow, so they actually fail to light? very interesting, I'm going to have to do some more research, thanks.

hahnmeister · 04/04/2007, 07:12 PM

I have been testing 1 year old bulbs and found results similar to what Rich is claiming. I dont have 100% control over the test groups, so I am careful to make bold claims on this, but at about one year, the pheonix on HQI is still at about 85% output... while the Icecap one is duller... about 55% ouptut. Ouch. I wouldnt go and take those numbers as exact, but there is something going on here for sure. Also of note, the HQI run pheonix is much whiter, and the ICecap one is deep blue like a radium. This variance in spectral output may account for some of the apparent loss (both our eyes as well as Quantum meter arent as sensitive to blue as other colors), but it shouldnt be more than 5% off.

I know Icecap makes their claims about the frequency making up for raw power... well... frequency is part of power, and if it was making up for the lower wattage, then the output of the Icecap would be the same as a HQI... simple as that. The electron shells excite until they throw off photons... due to wattage, frequency, etc. So if the atoms in the bulb are just as excited... HQI or e-ballast, then they should have the same output. The atoms that arent being used dont get fully excited, and end up depositing themselves on the quartz... so you lose the output of those halides, and the deposits block the output of the other gasses.

RichConley, it isnt so much a factor at startup. What you are talking about with bulb-spatter has to do with comparing HQI/pulse start bulbs to SE/probe start bulbs.

Funny you guys bring up that point about '300 watt' halides. Lol. I have thought that for some time... that 250wattHQI bulbs should have been called 300watters... much like 150s are seperated from 175s by wattage, and this makes it easier to determine HQI rated bulbs from non. And then 400wattHQI bulbs should be called 500 watters or something like that. It would be a very clean way of doing it... HQI/DE would be 150/300/500... and probe start would be 175, 250, 400. Heck, my HQI ballast gets up well over 300 watts depending on the bulb. My pheonix runs at 320... and the more 10,000K you go, the higher you can get... up to about 350watts!!

03/25/2007, 07:28 PM	#1
shoey Registered Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 14	t5 vs mh i am wondering if i should use t5. I have heird good things about them. But the guy at the local fish store says that i should use mh. should i use t5 or mh?

03/25/2007, 07:34 PM	#2
Elohssa1 Registered Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: San Diego Posts: 23	what kind of Tank do you plan to have? i.e... sps, ls.... mid reef, rock???? __________________ D&S Current Tank Info: 60 custom

03/25/2007, 08:12 PM	#4
Ti Registered Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Bay Area Posts: 7,927	do both if u can __________________ Hair algae is my Macro algae.

03/25/2007, 09:12 PM	#6
killagoby Registered Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Monroe, NJ Posts: 2,150	How about using 14,000K MH bulbs so you don't have to use T5 actinics? __________________ How much money did you spend on that rock again?

03/25/2007, 09:25 PM	#8
Entropy Texas Reefer Join Date: May 2003 Location: Round Rock, TX Posts: 13,656	I would use both, but if you must have one or the other go with halide(s). The glitter lines from a halide can't be beat. __________________ Rich Overton 150G cube FOWLR, 30g sump, ReefKeeperII, 3x Koralia 1400's, QuiteOne 3000, Reef Octopus DNWB150, 4x 30w Par38 LED. Current Tank Info: 36x36x27 150g

03/25/2007, 07:40 PM	#3
dc_909 Moved On Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Murrieta, CA Posts: 3,260	Use both.

03/25/2007, 09:22 PM	#7
dragonforce Registered Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Laguna Niguel, 92677 Posts: 587	I would keep it simple and do a few DIY MH setups for about 100-150 dollars per setup complete with reflector. PM me if you want details.

03/25/2007, 09:32 PM	#9
shoey Registered Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 14	kk thanks everybody i think i am going to go with the halides

03/25/2007, 10:32 PM	#10
hahnmeister Moved On Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Brew City, WI Posts: 10,156	Depends on the tank. 55g tanks are poster children for T5s, but a 60g cube is pretty much a halide-only tank. For tanks 100g and up, combos are the best.

03/25/2007, 11:48 PM	#11
jobob Registered Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: wilkes-barre,pa Posts: 194	I set up my 55g with new lights last week. I got two DE MH reflectors from hellolights for $30 each. Then two t-5 with ice cap reflectors, and it all fit into my canopy which is 13in wide. I get both. I think the whole thing cost me around $500. But I got ice cap ballast which are $115 each. You could do it cheaper with mag ballast. I got ushio 14k, which are a very nice white. I still like it better with the 2 t-5 uv super actinics. makes the corals pop. Plus u get the shimmer from the mh too.

03/25/2007, 11:55 PM	#12
HBtank Premium Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Huntington Beach, CA Posts: 2,957	I like t-5's. __________________ 80g Aiptasia dominated reef tank.. with fish and now a bunch of berghia! Current Tank Info: 80g tank, re-starting a reef after a zoanthid nudibranch plauge, followed by months of steady and unstoppable STN/RTN, crashed; stayed FOWLR for a couple years, currently an aiptasia dominated reef tank with fishies and BERGHIA

04/03/2007, 06:57 AM	#13
killagoby Registered Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Monroe, NJ Posts: 2,150	I just got my 150w 14K MH lamp about a week ago. That's all I am using on my 29 gallon for my LPS's. Well worth it. I switched from 130w of PC lighting. __________________ How much money did you spend on that rock again?

04/03/2007, 05:17 PM	#15
jobob Registered Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: wilkes-barre,pa Posts: 194	I know I should have gotten good reflectors but I only have 13in wide to work with, and I wanted to have 2x54 t-5 for actinic. Which barely fit as it is. Im planning on getting a 90gal within the next 2 months so I will have 18in, and I plan on getting better reflectors then. Do you know any good reflectors that are small enough to fit in a 18in canopy with 2x2in t-5 reflectors?

04/03/2007, 05:45 PM	#16
BurntOutReefer Registered Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Granada Hills Posts: 4,376	I just dumped my T5's and went back to MH....just cant beat the look (sharpned, glitter lines, etc) of that MH......I swear that my corals like the change back to MH also.....

04/03/2007, 05:53 PM	#17
jski711 Moved On Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Arlington Heights Posts: 1,781	i go t5, i just switched from mh and love my t5's. the mh shimmer i really don't miss, my corals look better and healthier. but i would try one and if you don't like it try the other.

04/04/2007, 12:37 PM	#19
RichConley Registered Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Bostonian in Chicago going to DC Posts: 9,908	I run 2 MH pendants. One is a magnetic ballast, one has an Icecap. I have to replace the icecap's bulbs almost twice as often. It absolutely destroys DE bulbs. You get a lot of splatter inside the arc tube because it doesnt burn as hot... basically the gas condenses in places its not supposed to, and then the ballast can't get the bulb to light again. "f they wanted to have the lamps run at 300-watts I would have thought they'd print that on the lamp." That statement right there tells me the guy has absolutely no idea what hes talking about. He should take a look at the HQI specifications at some point. __________________ NO TANKS!!!

04/04/2007, 07:12 PM	#21
hahnmeister Moved On Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Brew City, WI Posts: 10,156	I have been testing 1 year old bulbs and found results similar to what Rich is claiming. I dont have 100% control over the test groups, so I am careful to make bold claims on this, but at about one year, the pheonix on HQI is still at about 85% output... while the Icecap one is duller... about 55% ouptut. Ouch. I wouldnt go and take those numbers as exact, but there is something going on here for sure. Also of note, the HQI run pheonix is much whiter, and the ICecap one is deep blue like a radium. This variance in spectral output may account for some of the apparent loss (both our eyes as well as Quantum meter arent as sensitive to blue as other colors), but it shouldnt be more than 5% off. I know Icecap makes their claims about the frequency making up for raw power... well... frequency is part of power, and if it was making up for the lower wattage, then the output of the Icecap would be the same as a HQI... simple as that. The electron shells excite until they throw off photons... due to wattage, frequency, etc. So if the atoms in the bulb are just as excited... HQI or e-ballast, then they should have the same output. The atoms that arent being used dont get fully excited, and end up depositing themselves on the quartz... so you lose the output of those halides, and the deposits block the output of the other gasses. RichConley, it isnt so much a factor at startup. What you are talking about with bulb-spatter has to do with comparing HQI/pulse start bulbs to SE/probe start bulbs. Funny you guys bring up that point about '300 watt' halides. Lol. I have thought that for some time... that 250wattHQI bulbs should have been called 300watters... much like 150s are seperated from 175s by wattage, and this makes it easier to determine HQI rated bulbs from non. And then 400wattHQI bulbs should be called 500 watters or something like that. It would be a very clean way of doing it... HQI/DE would be 150/300/500... and probe start would be 175, 250, 400. Heck, my HQI ballast gets up well over 300 watts depending on the bulb. My pheonix runs at 320... and the more 10,000K you go, the higher you can get... up to about 350watts!!