T5's vs MH

kravi · 09/21/2006, 09:40 AM

Okay, maybe this should go into the lighting and equipment forum, but since I'm not looking for manufacturers, just about lights in general, I figured I'd post it here.

I've read a lot of good things about T5s. They have great penetration, good energy, etc. People compare them in efficacy to MHs.

So... Do you really need MHs? Everyone knows they work well, but if T5s work just as well, or even almost as well, would it be possible to set up a full reef tank using only T5s and maybe some actinics? Would there be any real disadvantages to that type of a setup?

I hope it doesn't provoke a flame war, either. I am looking for everyone's oppinions. Thanks!

--Me

jeffbrig · 09/21/2006, 10:05 AM

T5s can do just fine...there have even been a few TOTMs in the last year that are T5 only.

In planning my tank, I selected MHs, then made the decision to use T5s for supplemental lighting. Today I run the T5s as my primary lighting, and run a MH for a couple of hours during prime viewing evening hours. I've found this to be plenty of light for everything I've tried, even acros are holding their colors.

RichConley · 09/21/2006, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by kravi
So... Do you really need MHs? Everyone knows they work well, but if T5s work just as well, or even almost as well, would it be possible to set up a full reef tank using only T5s and maybe some actinics? Would there be any real disadvantages to that type of a setup? [/B]

Are there any real advantages?

They both work fine. Theyre both about the same efficiency. They both create about the same amount of heat per watt.

giants4pc · 09/21/2006, 10:10 AM

it's a matter of preference. Only MH can give that natural sunlight penetrating look with a nice shimmer. Can you have just as much success with T5's, yes. I've seen it first hand.

kravi · 09/21/2006, 10:15 AM

I was wondering because T5s are no more expensive than regular PCs or CFs. Also use less electricity and don't generate heat like the MHs. Just strikes me as a practical and efficient way to light the tank.

Thanks folks. Have a pint and put in on Daft's tab.

--Me

RichConley · 09/21/2006, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by kravi
I was wondering because T5s are no more expensive than regular PCs or CFs. Also use less electricity and don't generate heat like the MHs. Just strikes me as a practical and efficient way to light the tank.

But none of htose things are true. They dont use less electricity than MH. They produce about the same lumens per watts, so MH and T5 produce the same light for the same energy.

Since they produce the same amount of light for the same amount of energy, they waste the same amount of energy as heat.

Anyone who says MH produce more heat, doesnt understand what heat actually is. Yes, a MH feels hotter, but that doesnt mean its making more heat. It means its making more heat per unit area. T5s have significantly more area, so it evens out.

T5 bulbs are about the same price as PCs, but thats not necessarily cheap. At $22-25 a bulb, you're looking at $100 to replace your bulbs on a 4 bulb fixture. I spend $110 to replace 2 250 halides.

stereomandan · 09/21/2006, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by RichConley
T5 bulbs are about the same price as PCs, but thats not necessarily cheap. At $22-25 a bulb, you're looking at $100 to replace your bulbs on a 4 bulb fixture. I spend $110 to replace 2 250 halides.

I agree with the rest of your comments, but have to disagree with you there.

T5 bulbs are $20-22 each for a 4' bulb

96W PC bulbs, the largest you can find, are $30 each at the cheapest, and typically around $40 each.

T5's last longer than PC's if not overdriven, so that factors in too.

A four bulb T5 setup is about $84 for bulbs, replaced every 18 months or so

A four bulb PC setup is $120 at the cheapest replacing every 12 months.

Dan

MrSpiffy · 09/21/2006, 12:05 PM

One slight advantage/disadvantage (depending on how you look at it) is that T-5, because it's a long fluorescent bulb, can create a more even lighting within the tank as far as viewing goes. The center of the bulbs is actually brighter, as that's just how fluorescent bulbs are. But they seem to light more evenly, as MH's are more of a point source for light, even with the reflectors. So it may be easier to get light distributed throughout the tank with T-5. But that may not be what you're looking for. It's all dependent on what you want. *shrugs*

Personally, I'm going to go with T-5 because the fixture would run me less money than MH's, and I think it'll provide more even coverage of my 40-gallon breeder tank than MH could without raising the bulbs higher. But you won't see the shimmer of the water on the bottom unless you have MH's, which looks cool.

Y'know what..? Flip a coin... I give up... *steps down from the soap box* lol!

RichConley · 09/21/2006, 12:37 PM

The main advantage in T5s that I see is that theres more bulbs, and theyre set up in a way that allows you to run different bulbs without it looking funny. That allows you to mix and match colors.

bohlke · 09/21/2006, 01:34 PM

Check out this thread lots of good information and configuration examples.

mike89t · 09/21/2006, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by RichConley
But none of htose things are true. They dont use less electricity than MH. They produce about the same lumens per watts, so MH and T5 produce the same light for the same energy.

Since they produce the same amount of light for the same amount of energy, they waste the same amount of energy as heat.

Anyone who says MH produce more heat, doesnt understand what heat actually is. Yes, a MH feels hotter, but that doesnt mean its making more heat. It means its making more heat per unit area. T5s have significantly more area, so it evens out.

T5 bulbs are about the same price as PCs, but thats not necessarily cheap. At $22-25 a bulb, you're looking at $100 to replace your bulbs on a 4 bulb fixture. I spend $110 to replace 2 250 halides.

I agree with most of what you say. 600W of T5 lighting puts out the same amount of heat as 600W of MH. However the difference is that the heat dissipation for the T5 light is spread out over a greater distance than it is for a MH bulb. This larger surface area makes keeping a T5 bulb cooler much easier than with the point source MH bulb.

For example I have 600W of T5 lighting that equates to 30' of bulb length. It will be much easier to keep those bulbs cool and vent the heat out of the canopy than if I had a pair of 250W MH bulbs that had a total length of about 8".

RichConley · 09/21/2006, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mike89t
I agree with most of what you say. 600W of T5 lighting puts out the same amount of heat as 600W of MH. However the difference is that the heat dissipation for the T5 light is spread out over a greater distance than it is for a MH bulb. This larger surface area makes keeping a T5 bulb cooler much easier than with the point source MH bulb.

For example I have 600W of T5 lighting that equates to 30' of bulb length. It will be much easier to keep those bulbs cool and vent the heat out of the canopy than if I had a pair of 250W MH bulbs that had a total length of about 8".

Actually Mike, its much easier to get rid of heat when its concentrated. Its much easier to ventilate it. The problem is that most commercial fixtures dont give a damn.

Run a pair of halides with lumenarcs and the vent kits, and they'll run way cooler than T5s.

TWallace · 09/21/2006, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by RichConley
T5 bulbs are about the same price as PCs, but thats not necessarily cheap. At $22-25 a bulb, you're looking at $100 to replace your bulbs on a 4 bulb fixture. I spend $110 to replace 2 250 halides.

A lot of people recommend that half the bulbs in a T5 setup be GE daylight. Those can be had for $13 each (4'). I've read many times that T5 bulbs generally last longer than MH. And finally, unless you're paying an arm and a leg for a Geisemann fixture, the initial setup fee for T5 is considerably lower than MH as well.

RichConley · 09/21/2006, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by TWallace
A lot of people recommend that half the bulbs in a T5 setup be GE daylight. Those can be had for $13 each (4'). I've read many times that T5 bulbs generally last longer than MH. And finally, unless you're paying an arm and a leg for a Geisemann fixture, the initial setup fee for T5 is considerably lower than MH as well.

Since when? Its about $300+ for a 4 bulb Tek. My ROIII retrokits cost me $210 a piece. $100 is a difference, but not huge.

T5 bulbs do not last longer than MH bulbs. Both should be replaced at about a year.

04mach1 · 09/21/2006, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by RichConley
Since when? Its about $300+ for a 4 bulb Tek. My ROIII retrokits cost me $210 a piece. $100 is a difference, but not huge.

T5 bulbs do not last longer than MH bulbs. Both should be replaced at about a year.

I never got a year out of a MH bulb.

jackson vile · 09/21/2006, 04:19 PM

From what I understood that MH needs to be changed every 6months while T-5 every 18months.

T-5 is indeed easier to keep cooler due to greater surface area that is this is how all cooling devices such as a heat sink works.

Depending on your setup the t-5 can be had for much cheaper than said price

t-5 lights the whole tank making all of the tank usable also to place coral, and also will not give you color variance in the coral as all are getting the same amount of light.

ie with MH same coral in center will look different from outer

t-5 is highly customizable

t-5 does not need to be so far up from your tank

more options with t-5 in initial setup and thus cost

t-5 can be setup in a way that highest par can be in front, back, middle ect

Almost all MH ends up with suplemental lighting.

So when calculateing cost of running got for hardware and electricity one must factor in that almost all MH tanks use supplemental lighting usually in the form of t-5 LOL

However t-5 does not give you that shimmer and perhaps some wont use supplemental lighting and like the fact that you have to have the light up so high, and that it does not cool well, and that not all of the tank can optimally be covered LOL

IMO smaller tanks MH, large-medium tanks t-5, super big tanks MH

09/21/2006, 09:40 AM	#1
kravi Registered Member Join Date: May 2006 Location: Bethesda, MD Posts: 114	T5's vs MH Okay, maybe this should go into the lighting and equipment forum, but since I'm not looking for manufacturers, just about lights in general, I figured I'd post it here. I've read a lot of good things about T5s. They have great penetration, good energy, etc. People compare them in efficacy to MHs. So... Do you really need MHs? Everyone knows they work well, but if T5s work just as well, or even almost as well, would it be possible to set up a full reef tank using only T5s and maybe some actinics? Would there be any real disadvantages to that type of a setup? I hope it doesn't provoke a flame war, either. I am looking for everyone's oppinions. Thanks! --Me

09/21/2006, 10:05 AM	#2
jeffbrig Premium Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Ft. Lauderdale, FL Posts: 5,548	T5s can do just fine...there have even been a few TOTMs in the last year that are T5 only. In planning my tank, I selected MHs, then made the decision to use T5s for supplemental lighting. Today I run the T5s as my primary lighting, and run a MH for a couple of hours during prime viewing evening hours. I've found this to be plenty of light for everything I've tried, even acros are holding their colors. __________________ Beware the power of stupid people in large groups..... Current Tank Info: formerly 250g room divider

09/21/2006, 12:37 PM	#9
RichConley Registered Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Bostonian in Chicago going to DC Posts: 9,908	The main advantage in T5s that I see is that theres more bulbs, and theyre set up in a way that allows you to run different bulbs without it looking funny. That allows you to mix and match colors. __________________ NO TANKS!!!

09/21/2006, 01:34 PM	#10
bohlke PBITAWA Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: at the super sweet NRC lounge Posts: 1,253	Check out this thread lots of good information and configuration examples. __________________ There is a very fine line between a hobby and mental illness. ... (Dave Barry) Check out my reef tank upgrade project by clicking on the red house. Current Tank Info: 120G mixed reef

09/21/2006, 04:19 PM	#16
jackson vile Registered Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 52	From what I understood that MH needs to be changed every 6months while T-5 every 18months. T-5 is indeed easier to keep cooler due to greater surface area that is this is how all cooling devices such as a heat sink works. Depending on your setup the t-5 can be had for much cheaper than said price t-5 lights the whole tank making all of the tank usable also to place coral, and also will not give you color variance in the coral as all are getting the same amount of light. ie with MH same coral in center will look different from outer t-5 is highly customizable t-5 does not need to be so far up from your tank more options with t-5 in initial setup and thus cost t-5 can be setup in a way that highest par can be in front, back, middle ect Almost all MH ends up with suplemental lighting. So when calculateing cost of running got for hardware and electricity one must factor in that almost all MH tanks use supplemental lighting usually in the form of t-5 LOL However t-5 does not give you that shimmer and perhaps some wont use supplemental lighting and like the fact that you have to have the light up so high, and that it does not cool well, and that not all of the tank can optimally be covered LOL IMO smaller tanks MH, large-medium tanks t-5, super big tanks MH __________________ The future is Ozone, mud, T-5, and rotifers

09/21/2006, 10:10 AM	#4
giants4pc Registered Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: connecticut Posts: 1,699	it's a matter of preference. Only MH can give that natural sunlight penetrating look with a nice shimmer. Can you have just as much success with T5's, yes. I've seen it first hand.

09/21/2006, 10:15 AM	#5
kravi Registered Member Join Date: May 2006 Location: Bethesda, MD Posts: 114	I was wondering because T5s are no more expensive than regular PCs or CFs. Also use less electricity and don't generate heat like the MHs. Just strikes me as a practical and efficient way to light the tank. Thanks folks. Have a pint and put in on Daft's tab. --Me

09/21/2006, 12:05 PM	#8
MrSpiffy Premium Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Loveland, CO Posts: 1,300	One slight advantage/disadvantage (depending on how you look at it) is that T-5, because it's a long fluorescent bulb, can create a more even lighting within the tank as far as viewing goes. The center of the bulbs is actually brighter, as that's just how fluorescent bulbs are. But they seem to light more evenly, as MH's are more of a point source for light, even with the reflectors. So it may be easier to get light distributed throughout the tank with T-5. But that may not be what you're looking for. It's all dependent on what you want. shrugs Personally, I'm going to go with T-5 because the fixture would run me less money than MH's, and I think it'll provide more even coverage of my 40-gallon breeder tank than MH could without raising the bulbs higher. But you won't see the shimmer of the water on the bottom unless you have MH's, which looks cool. Y'know what..? Flip a coin... I give up... steps down from the soap box lol!