T5s and their life span - Page 2

dvanacker · 03/09/2006, 11:41 AM

Check into Danano's (March 05 I think) TOTM thread.....last he wrote he was up to 16 months on his T5's and he said he noticed no change in coral growth or coloration.

jbittner · 03/09/2006, 01:44 PM

How often do you clean your bulbs/reflectors????

dhoch · 03/09/2006, 03:14 PM

I give my bulbs a wipe down ~1 month, and the take the whole thing off and clean ~1/3 months....

The reflectors for the most part did not have a lot of splash on them... a little, so I'm sure there is some effect there, but not a lot.

Dave

dwdenny · 03/09/2006, 03:27 PM

I think there might be a small shift at 6 months but to change them every 6 months would get really expensive. The other thing that the other euro reefer are not saying is the cost of T5 over there. If they are changing every 6 months or so I bet the cost is like what a VHO cost here(not for sure but just an opinion). As horkn says 15 months on his and doesn't see(key here SEE) a difference. If you look at some of the older T5 threads on the IC forum. IC did months of testing leaving the lamps on for extended periods of time and they did fine. But they are saying ever 12-18 months on the blues and up to 18-24 on the daylight lamps. Soon we will know th truth wil Dave and grim doing tests.

Just want to say thanks to Dave and grim for sharing their infor with all of us.

Doug

hahnmeister · 03/09/2006, 03:37 PM

I am testing the growth between two 40Bs. One has a single 250wattDE, IC ballast, pheonix14,000K. The T5 is a 6x39watt Tek. I will change out all the bulbs at once in a coupe months (after the newer T5 setup should be done cycling) and take PAR readings. I am using the ATI/D-D/Geisemann bulbs (all the same), with 2 actinic03, 2 blue plus, 2 11,000K.

I just want to point out that the IC ballasts arent worth it. There is a limited amount of phosphors in any bulb, and once they reach their limit, pumping more electricity through them results in little additional output, and more heat. I remember tests done on VHO & PC bulbs that showed that a 10-20% increase in voltage increased output by 5-15%, and more voltage than this didnt result in more light.

The tests I have seen with T5 support this. While the IC ballast pumps 50% more juice through 3 and 4ft bulbs, it only increases their PAR by 30%. A better use of that electricity, as well as the high cost of a IC ballast, would be to simply buy 50% more reflectors, 50% more ballast, 50% more bulbs, and run them within operating spec for 50% more electricity = 50% more output.

The idea that IC throws out there that 'soft start' somehow extends bulb life is absurd to us reefers. We replace out bulbs long before they cease to start and create black deposits at the ends. While this might be useful for commercial uses, for reefers, we replace our bulbs when the phosphors wear out...and this is due to heat. The IC ballast creates more heat.

I believe your bulbs are losing that much intensity that fast if they are running hot. You might consider a better cooling setup to counter the effects, or swap out ballasts for more bulbs.

dwdenny · 03/09/2006, 03:45 PM

hahnmeiter
So you are running you T5 on spec ballast correct. Let us know how it goes. I am interested in all views and information. I just want to know how the bulbs do on both IC an spec ballasts.

dhoch · 03/09/2006, 04:22 PM

hahnmeister... very interesting experiment and one I am gathering the equipment to test here in MD... would love to hear more on your results when you have them...

As for testing old bulbs here we go...
I only tested one of each of my old bulbs (too much to do them all, but I labeled them for reproducibility if anyone wants to come over and get a numbers test

)

Remember these bulbs are 13 months old:
ATI 6000K: 720 (don't have anything to bench against)
ATI Actinic +: 710 (my new one is pushing ~1000 so thats a 29% decrease)
ATI AquaBlue: 1010! (my new one is pushing 1150 thats a 12% decrease)

So the 12% decrease that would be to my liking... I'm not sure of the other ones...

As to the IC tests I am wondering if they left them on or turned them on and off (I think that might have some serious affect)

Just validated the readings from yesterday as well and bulbs are well within an error rate for readings yesterday... (both bulbs of each type except one of my GE is not pushing near as much PAR as the one I measured yeterday at 1500 (it's around 1250)...

Dave

dwdenny · 03/09/2006, 06:52 PM

Man all this testing makes me want to say the heck with it an just use a single 175w se leave the T5 for a later tank when we know more about them here. But with heat being an issue it is too hard to pass on good lighting like this. lol

dhoch · 03/09/2006, 07:55 PM

It'll be interesting to chart the decline over the next 6 months... I think I'll try to do weekly readings and see how that goes...

Dave

Perureef · 03/09/2006, 07:58 PM

sorry to be off topic but where can i find detailed information on overdriving my t5's with icecap ballasts and how to do this (search never works)? would this be possible on a tek-5 4*54w fixture? thanks

dhoch · 03/09/2006, 08:03 PM

You would want to get ice cap ballasts and wire them in...

With a set fixture it's going to require taking it appart... it's much better to do on a retro-fit.

Dave

Perureef · 03/09/2006, 08:14 PM

thanks for the reply. thats what i figured, but i dont mind disassembling and reassembling if the results are worth it, but im not too skilled in electricity, so thats why i want to read up on its benefits and how to do it.

hahnmeister · 03/10/2006, 03:56 AM

So more heat, shorter bulb life, and using 50% more electricity to get 30% more light seem good to you?

dhoch · 03/10/2006, 04:06 AM

hahnmeister,

Not sure where you get your figures...would love to see some numbers on that...

My setup I'm using 20% more electricity (80W going to 100W), I'm not sure how much more light is being produced...

Dave

hahnmeister · 03/10/2006, 04:21 AM

they are from Grims tests. The only exception is the 5' bulbs. The ICs cant overdrive them as much so dont worry. They arent hardly as common as 2', 3' and of course 4' bulbs.

Perureef · 03/10/2006, 04:43 AM

Thanks for the info. obviously from these figures overriding appears to result in a lot of waste, but what is known about the kind of benefits this 30% in light provides to growth, repoduction, etc.?

dhoch · 03/10/2006, 07:08 AM

hahnmeister.... do you have alink to those tests?

I'm trying to compile as much information as possible.

Thanks,

Dave

hahnmeister · 03/11/2006, 01:14 AM

I can tell you that a 54watt bulb that Grim tested on a regular ballast produced a PAR of 135, and on an IC that was 183. That sounds good until you realize that the IC was pumping 80+ watts into each 54watt bulb.

philagothos · 03/11/2006, 05:00 AM

Hahnmeister, that still doesn't sound too terrible to me. It's a 35.6% increase in PAR for a 48.1% increase in wattage. Not ideal by any means, but not too terrible, especially if you are trying to get maximum light or you have a 24"+ tank.

dwdenny · 03/11/2006, 06:53 AM

Same as using an mag ballast on some MH bulbs. If you want more PAR then it is a good thing for you if not then use the spec ballast for the bulbs easy as that. When they start a little material blows off the electrodes. A good soft start ballast does minimize that but that isn't the only reason Ice Cap claims their ballast doesn't decrease lamp life. They run the lamps at a higher frequency which causes less wear and tear. They also have built in protection circuits to shut the ballast down if you have an arc or blown lamp.

doody · 03/11/2006, 09:14 AM

Interesting thread. I'm trying to make lighting decisions for a future 125g. So Im gonna follow this.

Hahnmeister, Are you saying its better to overdrive 5' bulbs?

doody · 03/11/2006, 09:18 AM

Ohh, and whats a spec ballast and GE bulbs?

dwdenny · 03/11/2006, 02:14 PM

GE is a brand of bulb 6500K and spec ballast(ballasts made for T5 lighting)

hahnmeister · 03/11/2006, 10:48 PM

I don't know that I would consider using an Icecap on any T5 bulb until further testing shows how much they overheat or shorten bulb life/PAR. FWIW, the IC660 only runs the 80wattT5s at 100watts...this is only a 20% increase and shows a more proportional PAR increase than the 3 & 4' bulbs that are 50% overdriven and only give a 30% boost.

To be on the safe side, it just seems to make sense to use regular spec T5 ballasts (triad, advance, fulham, etc) and simply use 50% more bulbs+ballasts+reflectors if you want more...rather than wasing potential and maybe shortening bulb life with a IC ballast.

zapata41 · 03/12/2006, 11:49 AM

hahn, what i think you are overseeing is this, its not the number of bulbs, since that only betters coverage, its the par that the number of bulbs is producing which is the advantage to running IC ballast, more par been better light penetration and thus better coral growths at all depths. also i think if you are running proper cooling over the T5s, then heat from ODing them isnt a problem. I feel that is one thing that people ignore is the fans, they figure t5s run cooler so i shouldnt need a fan. now look at the halide guys, no one really runs them without cooling.

just some thoughts as i used to run a IC driven T5 setup in slr reflectors and have since switched to halides. my observation thus far, i am geting far better growth now and colors are better too.

Tim

03/09/2006, 11:41 AM	#26
dvanacker DID I SOUNDS SMRT?? Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Ontario, CAN Posts: 3,690	Check into Danano's (March 05 I think) TOTM thread.....last he wrote he was up to 16 months on his T5's and he said he noticed no change in coral growth or coloration. __________________ --DARRYL-- Current Tank Info: 200g SPS dominant Mixed Reef

03/09/2006, 03:14 PM	#28
dhoch Registered Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Maryland Posts: 1,762	I give my bulbs a wipe down ~1 month, and the take the whole thing off and clean ~1/3 months.... The reflectors for the most part did not have a lot of splash on them... a little, so I'm sure there is some effect there, but not a lot. Dave __________________ Check out my tanks website... click the red box above my post Current Tank Info: 180 gal Acrylic, 29 gal refugium, 40 gal sump, Mag 18 -> 2 Sea Swirls, Tunze 6100, 8 x 80W overdriven T5 Lights, ASM G4 skimmer

03/09/2006, 03:27 PM	#29
dwdenny Registered Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Edinburg, Texas Posts: 1,369	I think there might be a small shift at 6 months but to change them every 6 months would get really expensive. The other thing that the other euro reefer are not saying is the cost of T5 over there. If they are changing every 6 months or so I bet the cost is like what a VHO cost here(not for sure but just an opinion). As horkn says 15 months on his and doesn't see(key here SEE) a difference. If you look at some of the older T5 threads on the IC forum. IC did months of testing leaving the lamps on for extended periods of time and they did fine. But they are saying ever 12-18 months on the blues and up to 18-24 on the daylight lamps. Soon we will know th truth wil Dave and grim doing tests. Just want to say thanks to Dave and grim for sharing their infor with all of us. Doug __________________ "Attitude determine altitude" Visit MAAST.org just click the "Red House" Current Tank Info: 40g Breeder in the works

03/09/2006, 03:45 PM	#31
dwdenny Registered Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Edinburg, Texas Posts: 1,369	hahnmeiter So you are running you T5 on spec ballast correct. Let us know how it goes. I am interested in all views and information. I just want to know how the bulbs do on both IC an spec ballasts. __________________ "Attitude determine altitude" Visit MAAST.org just click the "Red House" Current Tank Info: 40g Breeder in the works

03/09/2006, 04:22 PM	#32
dhoch Registered Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Maryland Posts: 1,762	hahnmeister... very interesting experiment and one I am gathering the equipment to test here in MD... would love to hear more on your results when you have them... As for testing old bulbs here we go... I only tested one of each of my old bulbs (too much to do them all, but I labeled them for reproducibility if anyone wants to come over and get a numbers test ) Remember these bulbs are 13 months old: ATI 6000K: 720 (don't have anything to bench against) ATI Actinic +: 710 (my new one is pushing ~1000 so thats a 29% decrease) ATI AquaBlue: 1010! (my new one is pushing 1150 thats a 12% decrease) So the 12% decrease that would be to my liking... I'm not sure of the other ones... As to the IC tests I am wondering if they left them on or turned them on and off (I think that might have some serious affect) Just validated the readings from yesterday as well and bulbs are well within an error rate for readings yesterday... (both bulbs of each type except one of my GE is not pushing near as much PAR as the one I measured yeterday at 1500 (it's around 1250)... Dave __________________ Check out my tanks website... click the red box above my post Current Tank Info: 180 gal Acrylic, 29 gal refugium, 40 gal sump, Mag 18 -> 2 Sea Swirls, Tunze 6100, 8 x 80W overdriven T5 Lights, ASM G4 skimmer

03/09/2006, 01:44 PM	#27
jbittner Registered Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Humboldt, NE Posts: 1,014	How often do you clean your bulbs/reflectors????

03/09/2006, 03:37 PM	#30
hahnmeister Moved On Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Brew City, WI Posts: 10,156	I am testing the growth between two 40Bs. One has a single 250wattDE, IC ballast, pheonix14,000K. The T5 is a 6x39watt Tek. I will change out all the bulbs at once in a coupe months (after the newer T5 setup should be done cycling) and take PAR readings. I am using the ATI/D-D/Geisemann bulbs (all the same), with 2 actinic03, 2 blue plus, 2 11,000K. I just want to point out that the IC ballasts arent worth it. There is a limited amount of phosphors in any bulb, and once they reach their limit, pumping more electricity through them results in little additional output, and more heat. I remember tests done on VHO & PC bulbs that showed that a 10-20% increase in voltage increased output by 5-15%, and more voltage than this didnt result in more light. The tests I have seen with T5 support this. While the IC ballast pumps 50% more juice through 3 and 4ft bulbs, it only increases their PAR by 30%. A better use of that electricity, as well as the high cost of a IC ballast, would be to simply buy 50% more reflectors, 50% more ballast, 50% more bulbs, and run them within operating spec for 50% more electricity = 50% more output. The idea that IC throws out there that 'soft start' somehow extends bulb life is absurd to us reefers. We replace out bulbs long before they cease to start and create black deposits at the ends. While this might be useful for commercial uses, for reefers, we replace our bulbs when the phosphors wear out...and this is due to heat. The IC ballast creates more heat. I believe your bulbs are losing that much intensity that fast if they are running hot. You might consider a better cooling setup to counter the effects, or swap out ballasts for more bulbs.

03/09/2006, 06:52 PM	#33
dwdenny Registered Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Edinburg, Texas Posts: 1,369	Man all this testing makes me want to say the heck with it an just use a single 175w se leave the T5 for a later tank when we know more about them here. But with heat being an issue it is too hard to pass on good lighting like this. lol __________________ "Attitude determine altitude" Visit MAAST.org just click the "Red House" Current Tank Info: 40g Breeder in the works

03/09/2006, 07:55 PM	#34
dhoch Registered Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Maryland Posts: 1,762	It'll be interesting to chart the decline over the next 6 months... I think I'll try to do weekly readings and see how that goes... Dave __________________ Check out my tanks website... click the red box above my post Current Tank Info: 180 gal Acrylic, 29 gal refugium, 40 gal sump, Mag 18 -> 2 Sea Swirls, Tunze 6100, 8 x 80W overdriven T5 Lights, ASM G4 skimmer

03/09/2006, 07:58 PM	#35
Perureef Registered Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: NJ, Essex County Posts: 450	sorry to be off topic but where can i find detailed information on overdriving my t5's with icecap ballasts and how to do this (search never works)? would this be possible on a tek-5 4*54w fixture? thanks

03/09/2006, 08:03 PM	#36
dhoch Registered Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Maryland Posts: 1,762	You would want to get ice cap ballasts and wire them in... With a set fixture it's going to require taking it appart... it's much better to do on a retro-fit. Dave __________________ Check out my tanks website... click the red box above my post Current Tank Info: 180 gal Acrylic, 29 gal refugium, 40 gal sump, Mag 18 -> 2 Sea Swirls, Tunze 6100, 8 x 80W overdriven T5 Lights, ASM G4 skimmer

03/09/2006, 08:14 PM	#37
Perureef Registered Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: NJ, Essex County Posts: 450	thanks for the reply. thats what i figured, but i dont mind disassembling and reassembling if the results are worth it, but im not too skilled in electricity, so thats why i want to read up on its benefits and how to do it.

03/10/2006, 03:56 AM	#38
hahnmeister Moved On Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Brew City, WI Posts: 10,156	So more heat, shorter bulb life, and using 50% more electricity to get 30% more light seem good to you?

03/10/2006, 04:06 AM	#39
dhoch Registered Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Maryland Posts: 1,762	hahnmeister, Not sure where you get your figures...would love to see some numbers on that... My setup I'm using 20% more electricity (80W going to 100W), I'm not sure how much more light is being produced... Dave __________________ Check out my tanks website... click the red box above my post Current Tank Info: 180 gal Acrylic, 29 gal refugium, 40 gal sump, Mag 18 -> 2 Sea Swirls, Tunze 6100, 8 x 80W overdriven T5 Lights, ASM G4 skimmer

03/10/2006, 04:21 AM	#40
hahnmeister Moved On Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Brew City, WI Posts: 10,156	they are from Grims tests. The only exception is the 5' bulbs. The ICs cant overdrive them as much so dont worry. They arent hardly as common as 2', 3' and of course 4' bulbs.

03/10/2006, 04:43 AM	#41
Perureef Registered Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: NJ, Essex County Posts: 450	Thanks for the info. obviously from these figures overriding appears to result in a lot of waste, but what is known about the kind of benefits this 30% in light provides to growth, repoduction, etc.?

03/10/2006, 07:08 AM	#42
dhoch Registered Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Maryland Posts: 1,762	hahnmeister.... do you have alink to those tests? I'm trying to compile as much information as possible. Thanks, Dave __________________ Check out my tanks website... click the red box above my post Current Tank Info: 180 gal Acrylic, 29 gal refugium, 40 gal sump, Mag 18 -> 2 Sea Swirls, Tunze 6100, 8 x 80W overdriven T5 Lights, ASM G4 skimmer

03/11/2006, 01:14 AM	#43
hahnmeister Moved On Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Brew City, WI Posts: 10,156	I can tell you that a 54watt bulb that Grim tested on a regular ballast produced a PAR of 135, and on an IC that was 183. That sounds good until you realize that the IC was pumping 80+ watts into each 54watt bulb.

03/11/2006, 05:00 AM	#44
philagothos Registered Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 756	Hahnmeister, that still doesn't sound too terrible to me. It's a 35.6% increase in PAR for a 48.1% increase in wattage. Not ideal by any means, but not too terrible, especially if you are trying to get maximum light or you have a 24"+ tank.

03/11/2006, 06:53 AM	#45
dwdenny Registered Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Edinburg, Texas Posts: 1,369	Same as using an mag ballast on some MH bulbs. If you want more PAR then it is a good thing for you if not then use the spec ballast for the bulbs easy as that. When they start a little material blows off the electrodes. A good soft start ballast does minimize that but that isn't the only reason Ice Cap claims their ballast doesn't decrease lamp life. They run the lamps at a higher frequency which causes less wear and tear. They also have built in protection circuits to shut the ballast down if you have an arc or blown lamp. __________________ "Attitude determine altitude" Visit MAAST.org just click the "Red House" Current Tank Info: 40g Breeder in the works

03/11/2006, 09:14 AM	#46
doody Registered Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: youngstown,Ohio Posts: 1,880	Interesting thread. I'm trying to make lighting decisions for a future 125g. So Im gonna follow this. Hahnmeister, Are you saying its better to overdrive 5' bulbs? __________________ Thanks, Robert Current Tank Info: 29g softie/lps tank, 125 in da worx

03/11/2006, 09:18 AM	#47
doody Registered Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: youngstown,Ohio Posts: 1,880	Ohh, and whats a spec ballast and GE bulbs? __________________ Thanks, Robert Current Tank Info: 29g softie/lps tank, 125 in da worx

03/11/2006, 02:14 PM	#48
dwdenny Registered Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Edinburg, Texas Posts: 1,369	GE is a brand of bulb 6500K and spec ballast(ballasts made for T5 lighting) __________________ "Attitude determine altitude" Visit MAAST.org just click the "Red House" Current Tank Info: 40g Breeder in the works

03/11/2006, 10:48 PM	#49
hahnmeister Moved On Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Brew City, WI Posts: 10,156	I don't know that I would consider using an Icecap on any T5 bulb until further testing shows how much they overheat or shorten bulb life/PAR. FWIW, the IC660 only runs the 80wattT5s at 100watts...this is only a 20% increase and shows a more proportional PAR increase than the 3 & 4' bulbs that are 50% overdriven and only give a 30% boost. To be on the safe side, it just seems to make sense to use regular spec T5 ballasts (triad, advance, fulham, etc) and simply use 50% more bulbs+ballasts+reflectors if you want more...rather than wasing potential and maybe shortening bulb life with a IC ballast.

03/12/2006, 11:49 AM	#50
zapata41 Moved On Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Humboldt County, CA Posts: 2,024	hahn, what i think you are overseeing is this, its not the number of bulbs, since that only betters coverage, its the par that the number of bulbs is producing which is the advantage to running IC ballast, more par been better light penetration and thus better coral growths at all depths. also i think if you are running proper cooling over the T5s, then heat from ODing them isnt a problem. I feel that is one thing that people ignore is the fans, they figure t5s run cooler so i shouldnt need a fan. now look at the halide guys, no one really runs them without cooling. just some thoughts as i used to run a IC driven T5 setup in slr reflectors and have since switched to halides. my observation thus far, i am geting far better growth now and colors are better too. Tim