t5 or not

cheeks69

Wannabe Guru
RS STAFF
Cheeks if there are so many tests out there that prove your point why dont you show me one.You ask me for test results and give me anacdotal information about someone else's tank.I have to say that I have read a few articles that include information about mh lighting but I dont save the articles.And since I freely admit not having any data perhaps you might be willing to enlighten others reading this thread and show us some data?I mean you brought up the idea of proof are you not willing to show us some?

Well you made so many statements and that's why I asked you if you read the tests that Sanjay and Joe did :banghead:

CnidarianReef: Lamp Tests

List of all my articles
 
Cheeks I looked at the two most recent articles from 2005.I saw no reference's to bulb life.The oldest bulb tested that I saw was 6 months.After 3 years I would bet that some of those bulbs are not even on the market anymore.If we can have this much fun talking about mh lights I can wait for a good debate on deep sand beds lol.
 

cheeks69

Wannabe Guru
RS STAFF
This experiment’s results suggest information potentially valuable for hobbyists - that rates of photosynthesis were essentially the same under these two distinctly different light sources. Other than aesthetic value, there appears to be no advantage, photosynthetically speaking, in using high Kelvin lamps.

The implication of these results should be of interest to hobbyists; it suggests that lamp selection (with due regard to lamp intensity) may be based on appeal, whether that is price or the "look" it gives to a tank, without fear of hindering photosynthesis. Economy-minded hobbyists and coral farmers may find this especially useful. It appears that light intensity and relatively simple light measurements alone adequately judge lamp efficiencies within the context of zooxanthellae photosynthesis. This should not be construed to mean that all light sources are adequate for reef aquaria use.

The spectral signatures obtained with the spectrometer demonstrate that these two metal halide lamps are full spectrum (though the 12,000° K lamp output is skewed towards the blue portion of the spectrum) and most resembles the "white light" category defined by Kinzie et al. (1984). Results garnered with the PAM meter suggest these two lamps are more or less equally efficient in the promotion of photosynthesis when PPFD values are the same.


It is inappropriate to claim that there are no major differences among the plethora of lamps available and their abilities to promote photosynthesis. Certainly the depreciation of overall lamp light output (PPFD) should be considered and readers are encouraged to review the works of Joshi and Morgan (1998; 1999, 2000) and others. Future experiments involving spectral quality and its effects should include more data points, different lamps and perhaps different coral species. Clearly, more work is required before we have an answer to the "best lamp" question. For now, it appears that spectral quality might be subordinate to lamp intensity.
.

Lighting the Reef Aquarium - Spectrum or Intensity?

PS Let me know if you need anymore articles !
 
Cheeks,the authors of the spectral analysis part 2 freely admit flawed data because they tested bulbs from aquarists who estimated there age.It could not be any less scientific.The other paragraphs you put in dont adress bulb life at all.Outside of the bulb life issue there are more than a few reasons to not use them.Perhaps we should discuss those tomorrow.I am an old man and need my rest so I am off to bed.
 
HTML:
Where did the par readings come from? Who did the testing? 
I always like to know the source before giving the information weight.

Sorry I should have posted the source. Grim Reefer tested the bulbs and posted the original results on RC. When it comes to reef lighting he's extremely competent and well respected.
 

TangMang232

Member
okay native, Thanks. I will intend to purchase one now, and put it on the 65 gallon and then purchase another down the road. At that time i will also replace the bulbs of the first purchased unit just to avoid any difference in illumination.
 

zy112

Active Member
Even if T5 does come close to MH par and surpass it at equal wattage it seems impractical to stack that many t5's on a tank.
 

Edd13

Member
i got T5ho's on my 2 tanks and keep averything under them ... SPS... LPS ... Clams. I got a Dursa Clam in 25" of water under T5's im wifes tank.
but if electric is a worry you may want to look at solaris lights ... expensive up frount but in a year and a half they about pay for themselves ... and the hood is a like 468 watts ... i think you could cut it back a bit and save a little ... maybe even do a DIY custom T5HO hood with 6 bulbs
 
A conclusion that could be drawn from this data is that the rate of decrease in PPFD during the second year is less than that during the first. The worst two-year lamp tested only had a 29.4-percent decrease in PPFD. If we assume that, similar to the one-year lamps, 17 to 22 percent of this occurred during the first year, then only 7 to 12 percent of decrease occurred during the second year. One implication of this to the aquarist may be that instead of changing these lamps every year, they could be used for at least 18 months. Sanjay yoshi

He also states that this bulb lost 17 to 22 % of its par valuse in the first year.My opinion is that a loss that large would be crippling at best.
 
Zy,how practical would it be to cut your electricity bill by 30%?You could take the wife out to dinner or buy an extra 12 pack every week or start saving the money for that 600 gallon in wall tank you always wanted.Well ok so the tank idea isnt very practical but its a better goal than working overtime to pay the electric bill.
 

TangMang232

Member
i have purchased one set of the t-5 retro kit and have started working on designs for a canopy. Due to the fact that i dont have the tank, i will hold off on building until i get the tank.

Native your total number of bulbs was 8, do you believe that this would be possible with a 6 bulb set insead??
 

cheeks69

Wannabe Guru
RS STAFF
He also states that this bulb lost 17 to 22 % of its par valuse in the first year.My opinion is that a loss that large would be crippling at best.

:lol::lol:
If it's only 17-22% in one year then I would say that's outstanding as I thought it was 30 %. As the old adage goes "the proof is in the pudding". When MH became available in the hobby it revolutionized it and allowed us to keep corals that at one time you could only dream. Also since as Sanjay concluded you lose 17-22 % of PAR in one year and the MH bulbs put out 20-to 30% more than T5's then I would say in one year I would call them the equivalent...:LOL:
 
Last edited:
I think you are the only person on the planet who would not morn the loss of 22% of anything lol.If a toaster lost 22% of its efficiency it would make warm bread.If a Mr.coffee lost 22% of its heating capability it would make warm brown water not recognisable as coffee.If you cars engine lost 22% of its efficiency you would have it repaired.Why then are you willing to accept the loss of 22% of your lights capability?And you say you are willing to accept 30%?Man you really need to switch to t-5 VHO.
 
Booze,you have no idea how interested I am in these fixtures and the web site couldnt have told me less.What do you know about them?
 
Top