![]() |
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: Quote:
|
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. |
Quote:
|
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
|
Quote:
|
.. 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 |
Quote:
|
Quote:
. 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. ;)
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 02:37 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.