More fuel for the T5 fire

[digital-audiophile]

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.

[StirCrazy]

Originally Posted by Myka

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.
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



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

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

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. 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