T5 ho lighting

[sasquatch]

Originally Posted by prow

one thing you might want to think about is the bulbs. 54watters have alot more punch than 39watters. i have 80watters that burn up any LPS even on the sand. too much for most sps too if run all bulbs. but i am running 600watts of T5's for 72x18x20 tank.

too bad they dont make a double bulb like pc's, then it would be easy

[prow]

one day, but by then we all be wanting LED's.

something i have learned about T5's is jsut how versital they are. there are many different bulb types, k rating and all. mixing whatever different spectrums each produces different looks. even just changing the config has a huge effect on looks. the only bad thing about it is depending the config of the bulbs the coral under apper to change color. not really change but look like a different coral. if you look at my tank the clams, the one in the mid is green but looks very blue. the other is blue and looks blue. the way my bulbs are conf the my birds nest is bright pink with white polyps when placed towards the front of the rock work and in the back it looks white with brown polyps. red look washed up front but bright in the back. this is just with my current bulbs and confiq, i change up often, have extra various bulb types at the ready. good and bad, like getting a new tank after change up, but sometimes some of the coral colors look i dont like, hard to get all to look thier best at the sametime. i think raising it would help blend better. mine are at about 4-5" off the water.

[DrHank]

Let me add one final observation. If you are looking for actinic supplementation, I was never impressed with my 54w T5 actinics. I got more blue from a 65w PC. The T5s can rock at 10K but where you loose is in actinic. IMHO.

[sasquatch]

So maybe I should stick with vho's? the t5's sound ok but wattage,selection etc seem a bit undiscovered as yet, I prefer softies and have 2 clams and 1 anem that requires some light the mh and placement should handle that?

[BoomerD]

Squash, forget about the whole "watts-per-gallon" thing. It was never an accurate measure of lighting anyway, and can't take into account the turbidity/clarity of water, PAR of the bulbs/lamps, depth from lights to the target organisms, height of lamps above the water, penetration, surface scum (if any) etc.

FAR too many people think I have XYZ WPG...that should be good, right? When in reality, WPG is about as meaningful as...dang...it's hard to figure out something as useless as wpg...maybe GMPS (gallons of milk per sandwich)

I ran my 90 gallon tank with 6X110 watt VHO's for a long time...that's 7.33 wpg...not bad, but I still couldn't keep SPS in that tank no matter what I did. They'd live, but never thrived, never colored up well, etc. I sure wouldn't have tried clams under that lighting.

[sasquatch]

So the mystery continues? I loved the GMPS comment BoomerD but at this point im looking for a ball park any park really and so far t5 info seems to be NVC (not very clear)

[prow]

IMO, you can go with MH and T5 for comparisons, T5's are just below MH in output. i mean just below MH but far above PC's or VHO's. i like the acitinic bulbs mixed with superblue bulbs, nice blue color, IMO. the T5 ture actinics are more purple by themselves.

i think most of the confusion on the T5's is the fact most dont even know the difference between the looks and effects of a good reflector vs a not so good one and ballast too. that and the fact everyone seems to lump all T5's togather. IMO, its like comparing a 150watt MH to a 250watt MH-very different, one can support clams on the sand in a tall tank the other may not. just like T5's you can do things with 80watt bulbs you can not with 39watters. once people start to look at them more like MH instead of PC's the confusion should get better. its just everyone now is still lumping all them togather, think if everone was stating the right light for MH based on total watts but forget about the watts per bulb. i think i said it right, hope you know what i am trying to say.

[sasquatch]

Prow, thats what Ive gathered from cruising other forums, here is my delema, My largest lfs only stocks 1 brand powerchrome
pure actinic no k rating peaks at 421 nm
actinic+ 450nm 22000 k
aqua blue 60/40 15000k
midday 6000k

gobbledegook to moi, vho's at least make some sense and Ive had good results, apart from the whole pink buisness lol

[prow]

aahh ic your in canada. try these guys ReefGeek > Aquarium Supplies for Marine, Reef, and Saltwater Aquariums maybe they can ship up there. if they can i can help with selection to get the look you want. or if you find somewhere that has the same type bulbs. i dont know powerchrome though. all the bulbs in the T5 bulbs sec on reefgeek i know. Giesemann has the only actinic i like its a 420nm.
aqua blue bulbs are different depending on brand the Giesemann 11k is really white and the ATI 12k has, IMO very nice, crisp white/blue. i also find the 10k to be somewhat yellow. the 11k is really white and the 12k has, IMO, a nice crisp white/blue. believe it or not there is big visual dif between the 11k and 12k bulbs. ATI 12k i like the most in the mix. the powerchrome 15k i dont know, none of the powerchromes. believe it or not, though, there is a big visual dif between the 11k and 12k bulbs. ATI 12k i like the most in the mix. the ATI 12k also puts out more par than the ge or giesemanns equivalent. but the GE day lights look better and out do the ATI equivalent.
the General Electric 6000k i have not tried but i think its yellow/orange. have the GE 3000k, its very orange/red.

[cheeks69]

My suggestion would be one MH 250 watter on a LumenArc reflector and 2-4 T5's for actinic supplements.

[sasquatch]

Is a single 250mh more light than 2 175 mh? my pfo's arnt a year old yet and I would rather not change them so soon

[prow]

Originally Posted by sasquatch

Is a single 250mh more light than 2 175 mh? my pfo's arnt a year old yet and I would rather not change them so soon

nope, the 2x175w will give more light but will not be as intense(means it will not travel as far before being absorbed, some of the spectrums will be lost before it get down to the corals). now a 175w 5" off the water compared to a 250w 10" off, the 175w might be as intense or more so, might be that is.

[sasquatch]

Well done Prow a straight forward answer! Im going to run the dual 175's

[cheeks69]

Yes the 2 175 W will give you better coverage but will not penetrate the water as well as the 250's but since the tank is only 24" tall this shouldn't be a problem, just keep any of the more light demanding corals/tridacnads on the upper sections of the tank.

[sasquatch]

Thanks Robert, I think Ill run 2 vho and 2 t5's then I can try different bulbs at least with the icecap its just changing the lamp holders and it dosent care about type, im using the xm10k's and I almost think they are too much