Unless you guys are comparing PAR of T5 setup vs MH setups using the same number of watts then you have no debate. MH are more efficient. There are really only three points in which T5s could be considered "better":

1. They have prettier fixtures. :lol:
2. You can customize the visual appearance of the light by using different combinations of bulbs. More bulbs = more combinations.
3. Less heat, but not by much.

On that note. I have T5s right now. I've had MH in the past. I prefer a combination! T5s are really good actinics!!! Tee hee hee :biggrin:

I'd have to debate both those. :D Neither are true. :p

Bulb replacement cost savings are up to debate - for example on my tank -

6 bulbs x ~$25 x 2 changes per annum = ~$300/year

...If I had 2x250W + T5/PC actinics would cost ~2 bulbs x $100 + 2 T5 x ~$25 x2 = $300

Basically the same in the end.

Anyhow.. my intention was not to start a stir.. I love my T5's but I do enjoy MH too.. I have used them in the past and I am sure I will use them again in the future.

This all seems too much like fanboyism .. if that is really a word :p

I just like to show that T5's are a very viable option and too many MH diehards dismiss them too readily.

That's why I say there's no debate. ;) They are so close it doesn't even matter. If anything you end up spending more money replacing T5s than MH.

Remember though, thats only if you change out your t5's every six months.. how many actually do that? The again how many MH bulbs get changed out every 12 months either :p

mhmm...:)

.. well even if it was not my intention it seemed to work :p

Canreef has been pretty quiet as of late anyways.. sometimes you need to rattle the sabres a little bit to get the blood going :p

I change my T5s every 8 months "religiously". HOT5s don't need to be changed every 6 months like NOT5s, NOs, HOs, or PCs. When I have had MH I always changed them out every 12 months. But to each their own.

That's a lot of acronyms for a single sentence Myka :lol:

.

Ps. I use MH with PC's & have used T5's with MH & liked them all!

I was wondering if you guys would make me type all that out. :lol: We're all nerdy enough to know what they mean. ;)

If you want actinic supplemation only VHO is the better way to go on almost every tank i have seen. at least. I think one benefit in the T5 area is the sleak look for an open top tank. MH have some nice units but say ati's units just look spiffy, they seem to be a little more current on design appeal thank MH units...not all but in general. I personally think a tank looks nice both ways, depends on the tank :) I have seen tanks I would love to say were mine with All LED, VHO, T5, MH etc. When you get to arguing about aesthetics, there is never a end. Its the old ..i may not now...but i know what i like.
If you want to argue cold hard facts...you need to find them realiably then, no disussion i have ever seen has anyything other than personal opinion oh energy usage, bulb replacement etc. Bulbs both kinds can be found cheaper ands at least equal if you look around it seems.

yes I cpompared the same amount of watts. T5's just don't have the intensity of MH.

Um, I have seen some pretty sexy MH fixtures also, and some but ugly T5 ones.. so thats not even a discussion point :mrgreen:

More bulbs... do you mean in choices or the amount of bulbs you putting over the tank.. if it is by choices to buy I think MH in the 250 range has just as many as every manufacture's 10K is a little different from the others and so one and so one.. I actualy find the lack of different T5's localy a pain only about 6 types and 2 or 3 are freshwater.

Heat.. hmmm... lets compare sexy fixture against sexy fixture, Brads twin 150 MH with two PC's seams to throw out less heat downwards than my 24" twin HO T5 set up. :redface: so what does this tell me, fans are good, but like you said comparing watt for watt to keep things fair like I did with the PAR, you will get just as much radiant heat from 250 watts of HOT5 as you will from 250 watts of MH in the same type of fixture.

Steve

Now I'm embarrassed. I've gone and replaced all the bulbs in my home with those little curly CF bulbs, thinking I'm being environmentally friendly! Now I find out that in order to be a real tree hugger I've got to replace them all with MH fixtures :surprise:

The only place you see the MH vs T5 debate is in the aquarium hobby. It's all emotional. We don't want to admit we're energy pigs, and we use MHs because we like the look of them, even though it's been proven time and time again that you can keep a beautiful reef with T5s! Everyone else is a little more scientific.

A little something from BC Hydro's site.
http://www.bchydro.com/business/inve...igate3668.html

Steve,

1) How are you measuring and comparing the intensity of T5 lamps to MH? Are you fishing around for a spot of highest intensity or mapping out a grid both horizontally and vertically?

2) What specific T5 lamps were in the T5 fixture you measured? Did the fixture use true individual parabolic reflectors? What fixture was measured? Did the fixture utilize active cooling? How old were the lamps? How high above the water were the fixtures?

I'm all for "measuring" things in an attempt to quantify differences but if there's a complete lack of control and standardization then the comparison is as useful as "MH sucks and T5 kicks a$$".

And to be fair, I use both MH and T5 in combination ;)

I wasn't asking you that. I know YOU were comparing watts. No one else seems to get it. :lol:

I agree, given the same depth water, MH are FAR more intense no matter how great the reflectors on the T5s are. This is partly what I was saying.

This is EXACTLY what I mean! If you're using one of those 6 or 8 bulb T5 fixtures you're using up just as much power (or more) than if you were to use 250w or less MH, and you'd be getting LESS PAR with the T5s. Hence, MH are far more efficient. Those using 400w MH over 18" deep tanks ARE energy pigs...but I've seen a couple of tanks using 12 T5s side by side that had just as many watts, and try to tell me they aren't energy pigs too?

Of course you can keep just as brilliant SPS corals under T5s, but you're using at least as many watts as you would if you were using MH, so what's the point? Do you still think you're being energy-wise?

You guys need to learn what PAR is, and how to compare PAR watt for watt. Some of you really aren't getting it.

Between me and Steve, one of us is gonna break down and give the lecture... :lol:

Seriously, what the hell is wrong with you guys? Solatubes FTW.

*cough*

Edit: http://www.astro.psu.edu/users/saez/Class/RedSun.jpg FTWx3 <--- best lightbulb 3VAR

Now you're talkin!

Right idea, wrong part of the world!

Incorrect. You seem to have missed the Red Giant clause. Red Giant + SolaTube = Win. There is no room for discussion. ggnorekkthx.


*Assumes you mount mentioned Red Giant + SolaTube assembly no further than 24" from the tank.

Albert, nice to see you around. But one question:

WTF are you smokin?

Alternate question:

Am I too dumb to understand what you're saying?

:)

Please see this thread for some reported T5 values and a comparison to a 250W MH.

http://reefcentral.com/forums/showth...readid=1332562

hey Andrew, good to see you back on again, I didn't do a map, but I did deviate up to 8" from the center line of the MH at a depth of 12" (under water) and it still maintained almost double the intensity of the TEK light directly under the bulb. and to be fair I did try to find the highest point of light under the T5 to see if I could get a higher reading. the T5 lights had maybe 5 days use and the MH was about 6 months old.

Now one thing is that I do not believe in the grid measurements, but rather realistic ones. we don't worry about light in the corner on our tank why should we worry about it for testing. I rather will test the usable area in a tank with water. I have done all over readings on my tank just out of curiosity though and I can tell you my old AB's put out more light in the dimmest area at a depth of 23" of water and 6" of air than my PC's did 6" directly below the bulb. on my standardized jig I can only get to with in 3" of the glass so on a 24" wide tank I can measure the middle 18 inches but since we all try to keep the glass free for cleaning I decided this was realistic.

At one time I was in the process of gathering equipment and building a black box tester but after I bought 4 ballasts and 12 bulbs I changed my mind and decided to go with practical "as used" testing. one thing I haven't tested and would like to is this solaris, but I don't know anyone local that is rich enough to have one:mrgreen:

Steve

see Andrew, he is using a 16 to 18" deep tank, but thats not the issue. when you say comparing against a 250watt Mh that real means nothing, I read the thread and discovered that he was comparing 14" Phoenix bulbs (and DE's to boot which are lower output than SE's), which are one of the lowest out put bulbs on many tests and on an electronic ballast which under drives the bulb (only know that because I saw a thread on the aquamedic ballasts and what to replace them with)

when I was running my SE AB 10K's on the bottom of a 24" deep tank with the lights 6" above the water I was getting values of 640. he is getting that in about 8" of water and 7" of air. so same readings at 3X the water depth which is the important thing as air made very little difference from 6" to 15" (I was board when my tank was empty once, I also discovered that 1/4" glass only gets rid of 1.823% of the PAR passing through it :mrgreen:

this is one of the things I hate about the comparisons, people through them out there testing the top of the line against bottom of the line but neglect to tell you that, If you remember years ago when I first started doing measurements I was threatened by IceCap and they had Reef Central delete all my posts as I proved they were under driving VHO bulbs by using HO electronic ballasts and asked them about it in a public forum.

well i am not saying anything bad about T5's I like them and they are what they say they are. And yes you can grow corals under them, as you can with PC's VHO, and even NO's if you are real shallow, but what I will say is they are not as intense as a MH and do not have the same degree of penetrating power as a MH. I do use T5's on my fresh water tank, and while it is a respectable output compared to a lot it is not quite as good as the TeK I have found.. I was actually surprised though as it uses a parabolic type reflector which has two bulbs in it and it is almost as good as the Tek, but not quite.

Steve

heres a measurment thread for you on 499 watt with outstanding reflectors. it was a linkof the one you posted, just to show you I realy do read these :mrgreen:

http://reefcentral.com/forums/showth...&pagenumber=12

I already have .... a few times :wink: but not again.. well maybe, not today anyways.

Steve

Steve,

I don't think you can reasonably compare readings from person to person (i.e. your measurements to his). The lack of control for calibration and differences in measurement techniques makes for an unreliable comparison.

I read that same (re: the 400W with LumenBright reflector) thread Steve. I actually thought I had posted it in my previous post but I guess I forgot to. Anyway, that 400W MH setup produces considerable PAR. In fact, to the point of photoinhibition. But I don't think you can compare a crappy passively cooled Tek fixture with Workhorse ballasts to 400w 12K Reeflux bulbs with LumenBright Reflectors and a Coralvue ballast. Part of me wishes ReefGeek wasn't so slow to get the PowerModul in when I requested it. Then we would have a high quality T5 fixture to compare things to.

Additionally, it has been well documented that, for instance, magnetic HQI ballasts draw significantly more wattage than the stated/rated value. So when people are tossing about comparisons regarding "efficiency" I sure hope they're actually measuring the true wattage drawn and not assuming that because they're running a 250W MH that it's pulling 250W.

Ultimately I find the T5 vs MH comparisons tiresome. They both work - it has been well documented and there are plenty of pretty pictures to support the use of both. Pick the attributes that most appeal to the user and go with it. Alternatively take advantage of the strengths and weaknesses of each and combine them.

<incoherent reply>

you WOULD -

</incoherent reply>

Albert, don't you think the Red Giant might cause heat issues?

Also, I don't know why we're all comparing numbers and watts and PARs. It's all real simple...you NEED MH. Yes, even on nano tanks. And betta bowls. NEED..thats all I'm sayin'

I agree. I have a 400w MH bulb hanging over my betta bowl. AWESOME! It really makes his colours pop. And his skin crackle.

See???? Someone gets it!!

No need to give any more lectures. Just Google Metal Halide vs T5 and you'll find plenty of them :wink:

If you have any information showing MHs producing more lumens per watt than T5s please post it.

Hey Albert. I don't think a Red Giant can exist that close to a Black Hole :mrgreen:

Umm, your black magic science has no place here before God. Begone with ye.

that tank is nice and i've seen tons of T5 tank that are amazing in terms of aquascaping and total tank health.

But the T5 tanks always look like a pastel explosion to me. I love the more intense reds and blues and greens and purples you get from from MH. i don't or ever will care about par values, only what looks pretty to me.

If I saw an all T5 tank in person, i might rethink it, but haven't yet had a chance.

JMO

My T5's heat the tank up enough as it is. MH, Dang, I'd need to run the sump lines through the Freezer LOL

Alien impostor what have you done with Albert! Contact the Mother Ship and have him returned now!!

Kind of off topic, but not really...

Where are you guys buying your submersible probe light meters? I need one because I'm too anal to not know.

Ok fine, everybody just quit posting! :p

OK, I wont post any more I pwommis:razz:

You know what I saw today at the Sony store? A 6 or 7" OLED TV. It was like two grand and had a contrast ratio of one MEEELION:1 or something ridiculous like that. It was bloody bright too.

OLED = Future (we're talking far future here, like cold fusion and time travel future).