T-5 bulbs

[mike68]

I was just wondering what you guys think of the geissman (sp) aqua blue bulbs. i really like the color of them just wondering if thay are good for growth.

i have 6 bulbs over a 72 bow
aqua blue
geissman pure actinic
aqua blue
geissman pure actinic
aqua blue
uvl 454 nanometer

what do you guys think of this setup?

[avaneaton2000]

I would look at ATI bulbs and the UVL Super Actinics

I would do 3 ATI Blue +, 2 ATI Aquablue Special, and a KZ Fiji Purple.

Or 2 Blue+, 1 UVL super actinic, 2 ATI aqua blue, and a KZ Fiji Purple.

ATI are much better than the geissman, I learned that from experience.

Check out reefgeek.com

[mike68]

Did you not get good growth with the geissmans, or did you not like the color?

[JRechcygl]

I run all Gmann on my 180 reef ATM, I will most likely swap out to ATI next replacement strictly to get that added little bit of PAR... Essentially from what I have seen the spectrum is very similar in both brands, ATI just has alittle more PAR and actually light ALL the way to the end..
As far as growth is concerned, most of my pieces started as one inch frags in last november, now they are all 6" or better...
Gmann would be probably 2nd best out of the big three IME...

Also Grim Reefer has tested many lamps and is good dialing in color blends can't hurt to ask him...

If you want my opinion, or if you ask what I would have done, I would drop the Actinics for an Actinic+ or Fiji Purple... I personally aren't a huge fan of true actinics and they don't really put out that much PAR....

[DarG]

Mike ... I believe there is some crossover between some of the ATI and Giesemann lamps. In other words, some of them are the same lamps made by the same company. Atleast I believe this used to be the case. There may be some changes since this comparison was done.
Anyway, I think that the Aquablue is one of those lamps. There is a lighting chart of the different brand lamps that shows the par of the lamps. The ATI Aquablue and the Giesemann Aquablue both measured very close to each other in par. I believe that small or even single lamp samples of each lamp were used in the testing and if this was the case, the numbers would reflect only general par values as there will be some variation from lamp to lamp and a larger sample would be needed to come up with an average par that could be stated as THE output of each specific lamp.

Anyway ... I have (or had) some of the Giesemann and the ATI lamps as well as some KZ and UVL and some of the chinese made lamps as well. The Gisemann lamps I have used have performed well as have the ATI's and the the other top brands.
The Giesemann Aquablues are good lamps in my experience. I havent used them in a while but from what I have seen, I wouldnt replace the Giesemann Aquablue with an ATI Aquablue just for the sake of changing it ... unless one or both companies have changed/upgraded/downgraded the lamp, I dont think there would be any real gain in replacing the Giesemann with the ATI, atleast for that particular lamp. But again, this is from my own experience with these lamps from a while back.

I also found the Giesemann pure actinic to be a good lamp as far as 420 nm T5's go and can live with either it or the UVL super actinic, both of which I have used. The UVL super actinic was the higest par 420nm T5 back when the original testing was done but Visually, I could be happy with either one. Some have had bad luck with certian lamps. Luckily, I have had positive experiences with all the top quality T5's I have used in terms of how long they have lasted and how well they performed ... even overdriven. But everyones experiences are different.

Best person to ask about specifics would probably be Grim Reefer. He would also have updates on improvements on any of the lamps. I believe that he is the RC member who put together that original comparison chart on the outputs of the most popular T5's. There was a link to it in a recent thread. If I find it, I will post it. But it should be available with a google search.

[mike68]

thanks guys i really appreciate it.