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.