More fuel for the T5 fire

[Aquattro]

Originally Posted by digital-audiophile

Anyhow.. my intention was not to start a stir...

mhmm...

[digital-audiophile]

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

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

[Myka]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[digital-audiophile]

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

[Myka]

Originally Posted by digital-audiophile

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

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.

[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

[Reefer Rob]

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

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

[Canadian]

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

[StirCrazy]

Originally Posted by Canadian

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

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

Steve

[Myka]

Originally Posted by StirCrazy

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

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

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.

Originally Posted by Reefer Rob

We don't want to admit we're energy pigs

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...