Damn it, can't decide, VHO's or T5's

TrojanScott · 06/02/2006, 10:37 AM

for supplementation. Using XM 10k's, 250W's.

I love the coloration the VHO's provide, but the T5's seem to be the way to go for the future. Less energy, less heat as well.

Anyone have experience with BOTH? Trying to weigh out the pluses and minuses for each.

Whichever I choose, it'll be with an IceCap 660 ballast.

Thanks for any opinions given.

twon8 · 06/02/2006, 10:58 AM

i prefer t-5's for the reasons you mentioned. the new uv bulbs are coming out right now and they should provide a competitive actinic bulb.

goreefer · 06/02/2006, 11:03 AM

If it's new, everyone wants to try it.
If it's old, everyone is looking for something better!

Fliger · 06/02/2006, 11:06 AM

If you have experience with one, try the other for now. Run it for a few months & if you don't like it, trade em out. With the 660 - all you have to do is get new endcaps/standoffs/bulbs. They're both great options. I prefer T5, especially in CA with higher electricity costs.

TrojanScott · 06/02/2006, 11:18 AM

According to reefgeek, the actinic bulb isn't available in a 5 footer, and no plans to do so anytime soon. I guess this could change. I just wonder if anyone has compared the two colors. I've never seen the t5 actinics, is the difference in color THAT drastic from the VHO's? Fliger, I hear ya. It's bad enough I'll be running Mh's, so any cost savings for electricity is important.
But.... I know the VHO's are proven, and the coloration they give corals is really appealing. I know changing endcaps and bulbs is no big deal, but I was hoping I could just make one decision and be done with it.

Fliger · 06/02/2006, 11:22 AM

If I had a canopy - I would be running both for sure. T5 B+ and VHO Actinic. Several reefers do this, you cover all bases. B+ spikes like a 400W Radium. On the zeovit website check the DTOTQ - Invincible - he does both. We've talked about it before and he says he sees different results from each one so he runs both. Check with IC about wiring them together off the same ballast. Just a thought!

TrojanScott · 06/02/2006, 11:31 AM

I do have a canopy, but can't get away from wanting Metal Halides. The par output and those shimmer lines. Worth the extra few bucks a month to me. Canopy will be 12 " high, bulbs about 10" off water, with two IceCap fans blowing in.
I have a chiller if needed, but am hoping I won't need it.

papagimp · 06/02/2006, 11:40 AM

Hey Trojan,
Check out this thread...lot's of good information and technical whatchamacalits about PC's vs. T-5's. But Travis posted some great info about all sorts of lighting options and which work best, produce better lumens, ect. ect...

horkn · 06/02/2006, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by TrojanScott
I do have a canopy, but can't get away from wanting Metal Halides. The par output and those shimmer lines. Worth the extra few bucks a month to me. Canopy will be 12 " high, bulbs about 10" off water, with two IceCap fans blowing in.
I have a chiller if needed, but am hoping I won't need it.

an overdriven IC ballasted t5ho setup will make as good of PAR or better than the MH rig you have now.

the only thing then is the shimmer lines....

thats why i am going t5ho (4x54 ) and 1 250 Mh inthe middle of my 90g.

the best tanks i have seen are mh/t5 tanks

TrojanScott · 06/02/2006, 11:44 AM

Thanks, but where's the thread?

TrojanScott · 06/02/2006, 11:51 AM

Guys, if I decide on T5's, what bulbs do you recommend? I have a 6 foot tank, so for supplementation, only want two 5 foot bulbs. Both Blue +?

twon8 · 06/02/2006, 12:06 PM

on a 55 frag tank i have one t-5 aquablue and one vho actinic, both running on an icecap 430. i may switch the vho to t-5 at some point, but i had the endcaps and bulb. it is wired the same as two vho's.

tfp · 06/02/2006, 12:33 PM

TrojanScott, i run both T-5s (blue+, 60") and VHO (uri actinic 72"). each pair of t5s and vhos are run on ic430 ballasts with vhos on the front and t5s on the rear (my tank is 3-sided so it doesnt really matter). visually, i can't tell that much of a difference except the vhos are a tad more purple and seem to flouresce corals better. i guess the biggest drawback is the vhos need to be replaced every 6-8 months vs 1-1.5yrs for the t5s.

hth,
tim

shoddyk · 06/02/2006, 12:43 PM

i just ordered my T5's to replace my PC's on my 125 I am going with 480watts of T5's instead of 720 watts of PC and I am sure the the T5's are much stronger.

TrojanScott · 06/02/2006, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tfp
TrojanScott, i run both T-5s (blue+, 60") and VHO (uri actinic 72"). each pair of t5s and vhos are run on ic430 ballasts with vhos on the front and t5s on the rear (my tank is 3-sided so it doesnt really matter). visually, i can't tell that much of a difference except the vhos are a tad more purple and seem to flouresce corals better. i guess the biggest drawback is the vhos need to be replaced every 6-8 months vs 1-1.5yrs for the t5s.

hth,
tim

Thanks Tim. The purpling effect the VHO's have on corals and clams is what I might love most about the hobby. But, if you're telling me it's not that much of a difference, the T5's may win out just because of the added punch, less energy and heat, etc.

Hopefully the true actinics will be out someday, (in 5 foot bulbs) and it won't matter.

Thanks again.

PrangeWay · 06/02/2006, 01:54 PM

I think getting VHO's & the Icecapp 440 ballast would be the best route for now.

Than IF the UV's turn out as nice as the VHO actinics and WHEN & IF the 60" version comes out, for 40 bucks you pick up a pair of IceCap reflectors and end caps and you're ready to rumble.

Quote:

If it's new, everyone wants to try it. If it's old, everyone is looking for something better!

- Go is right here.

Until Grim is sold on the new UV's I'm going to be sceptical of them, even if I want to upgrade to them to (as he is the best T5 expert / non-fanboy around!).

tkeracer619 · 06/02/2006, 02:00 PM

i use the uri super actinic vho 72" great bulb. they almost look like blacklights and do a super job on the corals.

daytonians · 06/02/2006, 02:37 PM

T-5's have only one advantage. The smaller tube means that they have less light re-strike the tube when it is bouncing off the reflector. Less re-strike means that more light gets to the water. This is only helpful if you have a seperate reflector with each bulb. There is no advantage if you have 2 or more bulbs sharing a reflector.

RichConley · 06/02/2006, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by TrojanScott
for supplementation. Using XM 10k's, 250W's.

10K bulbs have plenty of violet already. You DO NOT need an actinic bulb. What you do need is blue supplementation, which makes the T5 a VASTLY superior choice here (not that they weren't already)

RichConley · 06/02/2006, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by daytonians
T-5's have only one advantage. The smaller tube means that they have less light re-strike the tube when it is bouncing off the reflector. Less re-strike means that more light gets to the water. This is only helpful if you have a seperate reflector with each bulb. There is no advantage if you have 2 or more bulbs sharing a reflector.

THats completely not true.

T5s are more efficient than vhos. Whether or not theirs a reflector involved.

daytonians · 06/02/2006, 02:53 PM

When check with a light meter. They are not.

RichConley · 06/02/2006, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by daytonians
When check with a light meter. They are not.

Yes, they are.

With any fluorescent tube, the more electricity you put through it, the more light it puts out, but it is less efficient.

Any Normal output bulb is more efficient than the same sized High output bulb, and that high output bulb is more efficient than the Very High Output bulb.

NO T8s absolutely destroy T5HO and VHO as far as efficiency goes.

A 110w VHO puts almost no more light out than a 54w T5. If they were the same efficiency, it would put out twice the light. IT doesnt. Its not even close.

TrojanScott · 06/02/2006, 03:22 PM

Rich, I've always respected your opinion on this site.

I think I'll go with the T5's. No reflectors though, as they'll be 4" from the water while the rest of my canopy is far higher!

I wasn't aware the 10k's had that much violet light. If you're saying I just need blue light, then I guess T5's are perfect. (along with the lower heat and power consumption.)

daytonians · 06/02/2006, 03:51 PM

How did you measure this? A member of our local reef club has did extensive testing, and then came to the conclusions that I quoted. He did his tests in actual tanks measuring light at a depth of 12 inches. I am not saying that you didn't get different result with your testing. I am just interested to know how you did your testing.

RichConley · 06/02/2006, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by TrojanScott
Rich, I've always respected your opinion on this site.

I think I'll go with the T5's. No reflectors though, as they'll be 4" from the water while the rest of my canopy is far higher!

I wasn't aware the 10k's had that much violet light. If you're saying I just need blue light, then I guess T5's are perfect. (along with the lower heat and power consumption.)

I've actually got a graph in my gallery...

There we go. Thats an XM10K vs a Radium. Notice the big spike in the violet area the XM has, whereas the Radium has a big blue spike?

Honestly, I'd go and get the icecap reflectors. Theyre only about and inch and a half wide, and you're gonna lose 60%+ of the light not using reflectors.

06/02/2006, 10:37 AM	#1
TrojanScott Registered Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Lake Forest, CA Posts: 2,229	Damn it, can't decide, VHO's or T5's for supplementation. Using XM 10k's, 250W's. I love the coloration the VHO's provide, but the T5's seem to be the way to go for the future. Less energy, less heat as well. Anyone have experience with BOTH? Trying to weigh out the pluses and minuses for each. Whichever I choose, it'll be with an IceCap 660 ballast. Thanks for any opinions given.

06/02/2006, 10:58 AM	#2
twon8 Formally registered membe Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: slightly sw of richmond, va Posts: 5,920	i prefer t-5's for the reasons you mentioned. the new uv bulbs are coming out right now and they should provide a competitive actinic bulb. __________________ Anthony Richmond Reef Club "and as things fell apart, nobody paid much attention." Not building a wall but making a brick Current Tank Info: 300g DD display, 60g frag tank

06/02/2006, 11:06 AM	#4
Fliger Registered Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Chandler, AZ Posts: 8,642	If you have experience with one, try the other for now. Run it for a few months & if you don't like it, trade em out. With the 660 - all you have to do is get new endcaps/standoffs/bulbs. They're both great options. I prefer T5, especially in CA with higher electricity costs. __________________ Growing old is mandatory, growing up is optional. Closed minds should come with closed mouths. When life hands you lemons, add vodka! Current Tank Info: Current: 210G Elos System, 2x400W + 6x54W Photon w/Aquaconnects, H&S skimmer, Deltec FR509/ROWAphos+Elos Carbon, 6101's and 6201's, Ocean GEOtronic 900 Chiller/Heater, Biotopus II Controller w/SMS. Elos System 70.

06/02/2006, 11:22 AM	#6
Fliger Registered Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Chandler, AZ Posts: 8,642	If I had a canopy - I would be running both for sure. T5 B+ and VHO Actinic. Several reefers do this, you cover all bases. B+ spikes like a 400W Radium. On the zeovit website check the DTOTQ - Invincible - he does both. We've talked about it before and he says he sees different results from each one so he runs both. Check with IC about wiring them together off the same ballast. Just a thought! __________________ Growing old is mandatory, growing up is optional. Closed minds should come with closed mouths. When life hands you lemons, add vodka! Current Tank Info: Current: 210G Elos System, 2x400W + 6x54W Photon w/Aquaconnects, H&S skimmer, Deltec FR509/ROWAphos+Elos Carbon, 6101's and 6201's, Ocean GEOtronic 900 Chiller/Heater, Biotopus II Controller w/SMS. Elos System 70.

06/02/2006, 11:40 AM	#8
papagimp COMAS Rocks! Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Oklahoma City, OK Posts: 8,185 Blog Entries: 2	Hey Trojan, Check out this thread...lot's of good information and technical whatchamacalits about PC's vs. T-5's. But Travis posted some great info about all sorts of lighting options and which work best, produce better lumens, ect. ect... __________________ 58g Softie & 75g Stoney Member, Central Oklahoma Marine Aquarium Society Current Tank Info: 58g Mixed Reef Project - Started June 2011

06/02/2006, 11:03 AM	#3
goreefer Registered Member Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Knoxville, Tennessee Posts: 825	If it's new, everyone wants to try it. If it's old, everyone is looking for something better!

06/02/2006, 11:18 AM	#5
TrojanScott Registered Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Lake Forest, CA Posts: 2,229	According to reefgeek, the actinic bulb isn't available in a 5 footer, and no plans to do so anytime soon. I guess this could change. I just wonder if anyone has compared the two colors. I've never seen the t5 actinics, is the difference in color THAT drastic from the VHO's? Fliger, I hear ya. It's bad enough I'll be running Mh's, so any cost savings for electricity is important. But.... I know the VHO's are proven, and the coloration they give corals is really appealing. I know changing endcaps and bulbs is no big deal, but I was hoping I could just make one decision and be done with it.

06/02/2006, 11:31 AM	#7
TrojanScott Registered Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Lake Forest, CA Posts: 2,229	I do have a canopy, but can't get away from wanting Metal Halides. The par output and those shimmer lines. Worth the extra few bucks a month to me. Canopy will be 12 " high, bulbs about 10" off water, with two IceCap fans blowing in. I have a chiller if needed, but am hoping I won't need it.

06/02/2006, 11:44 AM	#10
TrojanScott Registered Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Lake Forest, CA Posts: 2,229	Thanks, but where's the thread?

06/02/2006, 11:51 AM	#11
TrojanScott Registered Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Lake Forest, CA Posts: 2,229	Guys, if I decide on T5's, what bulbs do you recommend? I have a 6 foot tank, so for supplementation, only want two 5 foot bulbs. Both Blue +?

06/02/2006, 12:06 PM	#12
twon8 Formally registered membe Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: slightly sw of richmond, va Posts: 5,920	on a 55 frag tank i have one t-5 aquablue and one vho actinic, both running on an icecap 430. i may switch the vho to t-5 at some point, but i had the endcaps and bulb. it is wired the same as two vho's. __________________ Anthony Richmond Reef Club "and as things fell apart, nobody paid much attention." Not building a wall but making a brick Current Tank Info: 300g DD display, 60g frag tank

06/02/2006, 12:33 PM	#13
tfp Registered Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Folsom, CA Posts: 3,225	TrojanScott, i run both T-5s (blue+, 60") and VHO (uri actinic 72"). each pair of t5s and vhos are run on ic430 ballasts with vhos on the front and t5s on the rear (my tank is 3-sided so it doesnt really matter). visually, i can't tell that much of a difference except the vhos are a tad more purple and seem to flouresce corals better. i guess the biggest drawback is the vhos need to be replaced every 6-8 months vs 1-1.5yrs for the t5s. hth, tim __________________ Go with what works for you. Current Tank Info: Envisions 400g (96x32x30) online January 2012. 4-72" VHOs,7-OceanRevive T247,Aquamaxx Cone 6 Skimmer, Aquamaxx S3 CR,Aquariumplants CO2 regulator, Jebao SOW20's, 80w Emperor UV, tang dominated with anthias and longspine cards

06/02/2006, 12:43 PM	#14
shoddyk Registered Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Yuma, Az Posts: 568	i just ordered my T5's to replace my PC's on my 125 I am going with 480watts of T5's instead of 720 watts of PC and I am sure the the T5's are much stronger.

06/02/2006, 02:00 PM	#17
tkeracer619 Registered Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Westminster, CO Posts: 17,289	i use the uri super actinic vho 72" great bulb. they almost look like blacklights and do a super job on the corals. __________________ Hobby Experience: 9200ish gallons, 26 skimmers, and a handful of Kent Scrapers. Current Tank: Vortech Powered 600G SPS Tank w/ 100gal frag tank & 100g Sump. RK2-RK10 Skimmer. ReefAngel. Radium 20k.

06/02/2006, 02:37 PM	#18
daytonians Registered Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Cincinnati, Ohio Posts: 394	T-5's have only one advantage. The smaller tube means that they have less light re-strike the tube when it is bouncing off the reflector. Less re-strike means that more light gets to the water. This is only helpful if you have a seperate reflector with each bulb. There is no advantage if you have 2 or more bulbs sharing a reflector. __________________ Thanks, Matt I'ld rather be in Daytona! Avatar: Photo taken with model Asia Williams posing on my car. Current Tank Info: 45 Gallon, LR, power head, custom hood with 140 watts PC light & 175 MH, basement has 29 g. fuge with 6" sand & caluerpa, 20 g. cryptic fuge with 4 inch sand bed & LR, carbon & Phos remover, 55 gallon sump.

06/02/2006, 02:53 PM	#21
daytonians Registered Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Cincinnati, Ohio Posts: 394	When check with a light meter. They are not. __________________ Thanks, Matt I'ld rather be in Daytona! Avatar: Photo taken with model Asia Williams posing on my car. Current Tank Info: 45 Gallon, LR, power head, custom hood with 140 watts PC light & 175 MH, basement has 29 g. fuge with 6" sand & caluerpa, 20 g. cryptic fuge with 4 inch sand bed & LR, carbon & Phos remover, 55 gallon sump.

06/02/2006, 03:22 PM	#23
TrojanScott Registered Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Lake Forest, CA Posts: 2,229	Rich, I've always respected your opinion on this site. I think I'll go with the T5's. No reflectors though, as they'll be 4" from the water while the rest of my canopy is far higher! I wasn't aware the 10k's had that much violet light. If you're saying I just need blue light, then I guess T5's are perfect. (along with the lower heat and power consumption.)

06/02/2006, 03:51 PM	#24
daytonians Registered Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Cincinnati, Ohio Posts: 394	How did you measure this? A member of our local reef club has did extensive testing, and then came to the conclusions that I quoted. He did his tests in actual tanks measuring light at a depth of 12 inches. I am not saying that you didn't get different result with your testing. I am just interested to know how you did your testing. __________________ Thanks, Matt I'ld rather be in Daytona! Avatar: Photo taken with model Asia Williams posing on my car. Current Tank Info: 45 Gallon, LR, power head, custom hood with 140 watts PC light & 175 MH, basement has 29 g. fuge with 6" sand & caluerpa, 20 g. cryptic fuge with 4 inch sand bed & LR, carbon & Phos remover, 55 gallon sump.