t-5 or VHO??

[reefgeek84]

Even though, the VHO has more wattage is the T-5 Par better?

[dwdenny]

way better and less wattage.

[tomnmaddie]

yes the T5's I have on my tank with a 660 icecap ballast appear to my eye to be at least twice as bright

[dwdenny]

I am trying to get the boss(wife for the singles) to let me get the 660 or at least a 430 to run at least 2 aquablues on. I know The Grim Reefer had some numbers out on three different ballast but I cannot find it right now. I will look at post what I find.

[reefgeek84]

Ok so your telling me that the 24" strip of T-5 lights that has a total of 28 watts is worth my time and money.

Heres what I got... It is a 55gal pentagon corner tank 24" at its widest piont and 24" deep. Now I just bought the Aqua medic 250w HQI halide system with a 15k XDE bulb. I want something else up there and was going to go with the 4 bulb VHO retro fit system that has 300watts, so your telling me that I would be better off with two of the dual t-5 strips that would total 46watts?

That makes no sense to me.

[reefgeek84]

Ok so I just checked out reefgeek.com and the retrofit kit is 291.00 for 96 watts or from hello lights the VHO retro fit kit with shipping is 230.00 shipped for 300watts, there is no way that something is a 1/3 of the power is better, please explain this to me? and why would Very high output be worse then High out put?

[horkn]

well, the t5ho is better than vho. its more than just a watts thing. the strip lite 28 watt t5ho isnt what you are looking for though-if its helios you rally are selling yourslef short on t5ho, esp if you are looking for a min light source and not just supplementals.. you want individual parabolic reflectored t5ho tubes (24watts for 24" t5ho bubs) . dont mess around with msuch anything else other than www.aqualuxlighting.com 's DIY retrofits, tek retrofits, or icecap retro fits, as well as tek lights. aquatinics seem to have a nice unit as well.

[reefgeek84]

Originally posted by horkn
well, the t5ho is better than vho. its more than just a watts thing. the strip lite 28 watt t5ho isnt what you are looking for though-if its helios you rally are selling yourslef short on t5ho, esp if you are looking for a min light source and not just supplementals.. you want individual parabolic reflectored t5ho tubes (24watts for 24" t5ho bubs) . dont mess around with msuch anything else other than www.aqualuxlighting.com 's DIY retrofits, tek retrofits, or icecap retro fits, as well as tek lights. aquatinics seem to have a nice unit as well.

I understand par... but when you are comparing 96 watts to 300watts and the 300watts is cheaper, how can the t-5 be the way to go?
I could understand 96 watts of T-5 and 96 watts of VHO and then comparing, but again when it is a third of the power and less money, how does it make sense logicaly and scientificly?

So the only thing is the reflector then?

[horkn]

well, comparing PAR of a VHO retro compared toa t5ho retro will show you thgat the more watts of vho compared to less watts of t5ho.. well, the t5ho has more PAR. also, less heat than the vho, less electricity bill at the end of the month, and also less bulbs used. vho can only be used a year at best, t5ho, up to 2 years.

vho will not give MH a run for its money, but t5ho does quite well comparatively...

[reefgeek84]

Originally posted by horkn
well, comparing PAR of a VHO retro compared toa t5ho retro will show you thgat the more watts of vho compared to less watts of t5ho.. well, the t5ho has more PAR. also, less heat than the vho, less electricity bill at the end of the month, and also less bulbs used. vho can only be used a year at best, t5ho, up to 2 years.

vho will not give MH a run for its money, but t5ho does quite well comparatively...

again, you are telling me that I would be better off with 96watts of T-5, then 300watts of VHO? I am not worried about replacing bulbs or the electric bill... Does anyone have some par comparsions??? Cause this makes no sense to me.

[sneeyatch]

i can't recall the exact article, but there were several bulbs tested at a standard 18" depth with different light meters...

1.) 250 watt metal halide (can't remember the manufacturer or kelvin rating) - measured approx. 80 lumens per watt.
2.) t-5 bulbs (again with the manufacturer and kelvin rating) measured approx. 75 lumens per watt. as far as i can remember, these had individual reflectors, but i don't think they were overdriven.
3.) vho lighting - measured approx. 45 lumens per watt.
4.) pc lighting - no measurement - but stated as being lower than vho's.

i know there's a lot of "i can't remembers" in there, but - look for the t-5 thread with grim in it - you'll be convinced - my 48" 4 x 54 watt fixture should be here tomorrow for my 75 - can't wait.

also - i spoke to the guy at reefgeek too. he told me this...

the 4 bulb fixture (tek) would be just fine for a mixed reef (75 gallon). however, he did recommend the 6 bulb if i were planning on having a more dominant sps tank. he saif the 8 bulb was "just plain overkill"

convinced - vho's will more than likely become a thing of the past (hopefully anyway)

[Bathypelagic]

As I move from fowlr to reef I am still trying to figure the different opinions on lighting out. I thought most people were of the opinion that for true actinic lighting VHO's were still far better than T5's. As far as bulb life, when I was looking for pictures of some T5 lighted tanks someone pointed me in the direction of Iwan's (Switzerland) thread and I believe he stated that most Europeans are changing out the bulbs every 6 to 11 months. He stated that they found there was a large loss of spectrum at around the nine month point and growth of hard corals had pretty much become stagnant.

Don't know of any of the above to be true, as I state above just trying to figure the whole thing out before I make my purchase.

[Nabber86]

Originally posted by horkn
well, the t5ho is better than vho. its more than just a watts thing. the strip lite 28 watt t5ho isnt what you are looking for though-if its helios you rally are selling yourslef short on t5ho, esp if you are looking for a min light source and not just supplementals.. you want individual parabolic reflectored t5ho tubes (24watts for 24" t5ho bubs) . dont mess around with msuch anything else other than www.aqualuxlighting.com 's DIY retrofits, tek retrofits, or icecap retro fits, as well as tek lights. aquatinics seem to have a nice unit as well.

Good discussion on Aquatinics -vs- Tek at http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/sh...hreadid=788386

[SHORTYSDROP]

*posted for reference*

[horkn]

Originally posted by Nabber86
Good discussion on Aquatinics -vs- Tek at http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/sh...hreadid=788386

yeah, i have participated in that thread.

sneeyatch, that is basically what i have seen in the past.
compare 100watts of PC to 100 watts of t5ho. its the basically same as vho PAR wise.


how many sps tanks have you seen lit by vho or PC? then, how many tanks that are sps dominant have you seen? there is your answer. t5ho are much better at PAR than any vho or Pc setup

vho' s are a doomed technology. it is only a matter of time before they are phased out. t5ho are much better anyways... esp once UV lighting makes their super actinic.

[reefgeek84]

Still no one has answered my question...

Maybe I am writing to much

300watts of VHO cost 230.00 shipped?
or
144watts of T-5 for 400.00 shipped?

That is all I am really looking for.

[Bathypelagic]

Correct me if I am wrong, but from what I have been able to read from various sites in flourescent lighting alone a T5 with individual reflectors will drive as much light into a tank with half the watts as a standard flourescent. So you can't look at the initial watts you are pushing you have to look at what is reaching the bottom of your tank. So with 144 watts of T5 you will have almost the same amount of light hitting the bottom of your tank as the 300 watts of VHO. The cost of running the T5's at .13 per KWH will make up the price difference within 2 or 3 years.

I have also read that because of the design of the T5 it will be nearly impossible to duplicate the quality of true actinic that you can get out of a VHO, so you could be waiting a very long time for URI or UV, whatever it's called now, to come out with that.

Me at the current time I am still leaning toward MH with VHO supplement lighting.

The bulb life I am still taking with a grain of salt. Like I said previously, according to Iwan, most Europeans who are running T5's are changing them out every 6 to 11 months.

[dwdenny]

Originally posted by reefgeek84
Still no one has answered my question...

Maybe I am writing to much

300watts of VHO cost 230.00 shipped?
or
144watts of T-5 for 400.00 shipped?

That is all I am really looking for.

Yes VHO is less cost wise. But output per watt is better with T5 then VHO. If you can retro then T5 is cheaper the $400 price tag you have there. Not sure what exactly you are looking for. It is not about watts!! Watt tell you crap about lighting other then the power consumption of the bulbs. You have to look at PAR and lumens. Yes The grim Reefer did have some comparisons I will try to find them again and post. But in short T5 on T5 ballast was like 135 at 18" or so and with IC 660 they were like 185 at the same depth. The reflectors make a big difference in the performance of the bulb directing the light into the tank. HTH

[dwdenny]

Originally posted by Bathypelagic
The bulb life I am still taking with a grain of salt. Like I said previously, according to Iwan, most Europeans who are running T5's are changing them out every 6 to 11 months.

Could be that the electricity surge there is worse then here. Meaning the steady input of electricity. I am not sure but most are dealing with SPS so they do not want to take a chance and let the bulbs go longer. We have T5 in our office for lighting and you can see a big difference when you walk into the older side that has not been converted over yet. It is very dull and yellow looking. We also went from 4 bulb t12 to 2 T5 in each fixture. The office is a lot cooler as well. As far as changing them we will see how long they last we put them in over a year ago and I cannot tell any difference but I work there. Oh well. IF you go into D and look up I think they are using T5 as well at least the store here is.

[Bathypelagic]

I think the real value in T5 is not comparing them to VHO as in supplemental lighting, or soft coral lighting, but as an alternative to MH lighting, where if kept close enough they can drive enough light down deep as MH and keep your tank running a lot cooler.

Myself I am still looking at VHO for suppliments but up in the air over T5 and MH for my main lighting.

As far as bulb life it did not have to do with electrical surges. He stated that after 9 months there was a enough of a drop off in the spectrum that hard coral growth stagnated.

Of course I am just taking his word on that, like I said still trying to figure things out on lighting myself.

[dwdenny]

I am in the same boat. I am going with T5 aquablues run on IC and VHO sper actinics for supplementals. Of course this is going to be an all zoanthid tank. I want some lower light areas for the blues and reds and higher light for the oranges.

[Bathypelagic]

Originally posted by dwdenny
I am in the same boat. I am going with T5 aquablues run on IC and VHO sper actinics for supplementals. Of course this is going to be an all zoanthid tank. I want some lower light areas for the blues and reds and higher light for the oranges.

I would be interested in pics when you get it set up. I am still around six months out from getting things set up for the switch from fowlr to reef.

[gussy]

144W of T5 with the right reflector and ballast is way brighter than 300W of VHO...I've seen it!

[dwdenny]

Will do I hope to have mine setup and going by May.

[reefgeek84]

Originally posted by Bathypelagic
Correct me if I am wrong, but from what I have been able to read from various sites in flourescent lighting alone a T5 with individual reflectors will drive as much light into a tank with half the watts as a standard flourescent. So you can't look at the initial watts you are pushing you have to look at what is reaching the bottom of your tank. So with 144 watts of T5 you will have almost the same amount of light hitting the bottom of your tank as the 300 watts of VHO. The cost of running the T5's at .13 per KWH will make up the price difference within 2 or 3 years.

I have also read that because of the design of the T5 it will be nearly impossible to duplicate the quality of true actinic that you can get out of a VHO, so you could be waiting a very long time for URI or UV, whatever it's called now, to come out with that.

Me at the current time I am still leaning toward MH with VHO supplement lighting.

The bulb life I am still taking with a grain of salt. Like I said previously, according to Iwan, most Europeans who are running T5's are changing them out every 6 to 11 months.

THANK GOD!!!!!!! So T-5 will produce twice the par as per watt as VHO. This means that 144 watts of T-5 is equlivalnt to 300 watts of VHO... I could save 170.00 and go with the VHO that has better actinics, why would I go with anything else? It comes out to be the same and I save money up front.

So the VHO will cost me 5 more bucks a month the run?