MH vs. T5

[TROLL]

I've always been a PC man for last 7 years... Finally switched to MH last summer and was fairly glad with how it works... However, it's very hot and does not really permit for much configuration, they takes up a lot space and area of coverage isn't quite much as PC/Fluorscent set-up.

 

I'm in process of ordering 6 x 80w T5 and setting up a true T-5 system for the first time. Hopefully to have whole thing arrive and in place by this weekend. So far, what I've seen on Dhoch's tank and others, I'm convinced to go with T-5!

 

Not only T-5 offers good PAR, flexibility, temperature, etc- they can be arranged to run at time interval like Rsaavedra to stimulate natural daylight pattern. Most of time MH already takes up large percent of wattage and wouldn't run stimulation equally I.E. starting off with 2 x 55w actinic then pop up to 2 x 400w MHs (huge jump from dawn/dusk to peak daylight).

 

Wattage percent split in between for stimulation should be almost equal at each interval. See my ballast array configure below for example. There should be even split in transition to match the true sunlight pattern and promote better health for corals. Mine are close to 33% difference in each transition.

 

I have 3 icecap ballasts for my new set-up:

 

660 #1

11am to 3pm (620w 100% total watt- peak)

 

1 x 6500 T-5 80w

2 x actinic T-5 80w

 

660 #2

9am to 5pm (380w 65% total watt)

 

2 X 10K T-5 80w

 

430 #3

7am to 7pm (220w 39% total watt)

 

2 X 110w VHO actinic

 

I'm an actinic freak, maybe a bit too much actinic but still good amount of light for my 5' 120g

 

As for shimmering effect, pop in some 25w-50w halogen bulbs- they'll shimmer madly without effect the system.

[danskim]

T5s complex? Dialing in T5s?

 

Fixture + bulbs + electricity = lighting. Pretty simple actually.

 

My verdict is that MH is good, T5 is good and VHO is good. Heck, even PC is good. It all comes down to the specific needs and preferences of the owner and his/her tank.

 

I agree. They're all good depending upon depth, width, the demands of photosynthetic creatures in the aquarium, temperature concerns, etc.

However, because there are many beautiful reef tanks that use MH only, T5 only or a combination of both, I think it's safe to say that MH and T5 are most comparable.

[dhoch]

the only real arguement for t5v MH is the look (light shimmer)and the depth of tank. until you get to a deep tank (30+ inches) t5s are equivelent to MH fairly closely as far as PAR per wattage and lifetime of bulb v cost.

 

Jager,

 

I undrestand the shimmer, but show me one study, any study where the same amount of light penetrates water at different rates...it just doesn't happen.

 

Light is light is light is light... frequencies will penetrate differently, but now you are back to bulbs.

 

Science refutes your statement.

 

Dave

[YBeNormal]

You're both right, just looking at it from differing perspectives.

 

It's like the Mag flashlights with the adjustable focus. If you adjust it for a tight beam, the light will carry for quite a distance. If you adjust it for a wide beam, it dissipates within a few feet. The point light of MH is more concentrated and will punch down to deeper levels than the diffused/spread output of T5s.

[dhoch]

But YB...

 

your mag light example has to do with using a lens to focus the SAME amount of light.

 

In our example 500 umols of PAR is going to penetrate the same amount (regardles if it comes from a T5 or a MH... neither are focused and measurment is a point measurement.

 

Dave

[rsarvis]

When comparing T5, MH, etc., I assume the wattage isn't directly comparable b/c that's energy consumption not brightness, right? What's the easiest way to figure that two fixtures are roughly comparable? There isn't much information to go on in the packaging or online descriptions, I find.

 

I have to say, lighting is what has caused me the most stress so far... I guess I just need to get over the fact that I'm spending a small fortune on the lights and will probably not end up with the perfect thing.

[dhoch]

PAR is the best way (it's a measurement of light weighted to the frequencies that are for growth of photsynthetic creatures) as opposed to lumens (a measurement of light weighted to our visual sight).

 

It's how Sanjay does his studies on MH (and will be shortly doing T5 light measuremts as well).

 

There is a fair amount of information over on Reef Central on this topic.

 

Basically the jist is that T5s out perform MOST 250 W MH systems (but it depends on bulb choice and reflectors)...probably not as good as most 400W MH systems (but again will depend on bulbs/reflectors).

 

You get a linear source as opposed to a point source = more uniform lighting/less shade spots (which can be an advantage or a disadvantage deepending on the creatures being kept.

 

Dave

[bcjm]

Do you think does it make any difference using an ice cap 660 vs. other electronic ballasts? 660 draws more than twice as much current as other ballasts.

 

Sunlight Supply

6-Bulb: Approximately 3 Amps

8-Bulb: Approximately 4 Amps

 

IceCap

6-Bulb: Up to 8 Amps

8-Bulb: Up to 8.8 Amps

[djcerna]

I am also looking at a T5 system and have found that the ice cap ballast over drive the t5 lights. Thus they brighter but the life span of the bulbs are shorter, than regular HO ballasts.

David

[inedukated]

I think T5s just have to be dialed in too precisely, and they are overly complex for the results you get.

 

Can you explain this?

 

I bought my Tek 6x54 unit, bought 6 bulbs, snapped them in, and turned it on. Am I the one missing something here?

[rsarvis]

Is there any problem running big 6' lighting fixtures on normal outlets (plus all the other gadgetry)?

 

 

Do you think does it make any difference using an ice cap 660 vs. other electronic ballasts? 660 draws more than twice as much current as other ballasts.

 

Sunlight Supply

6-Bulb: Approximately 3 Amps

8-Bulb: Approximately 4 Amps

 

IceCap

6-Bulb: Up to 8 Amps

8-Bulb: Up to 8.8 Amps

[Guest vatbrew]

Current setup 2-72" 10k VHO's, 2-72" actinic VHO's

 

I would like to switch out the white's for 3- 60" T5 bulbs.

 

Should I stagger the actinics with the T5's or is it ok to have the 72"ers on the outsides and the T5's in the middle?

[Ingo]

For years I have been running power compacts on on side of my aquarium and VHO's on the other.

I have not been happy with the power compactsd performance, price and longevity. For the past three months I have been looking and learning about other lights then finally decided to go with metal halides.

Looking at all the input here now I am not so sure anymore. I seem to favor T-5's now?

Call me confused.

[keeperofthefish]

For years I have been running power compacts on on side of my aquarium and VHO's on the other.

I have not been happy with the power compactsd performance, price and longevity. For the past three months I have been looking and learning about other lights then finally decided to go with metal halides.

Looking at all the input here now I am not so sure anymore. I seem to favor T-5's now?

Call me confused.

 

You did the right thing. Halides are better than T5. Fact is that you see WAY more great MH tanks than T5 tanks. Mine is T5 and it is a nice tank, but not what it would be with halides. Not the same growth or intense, deep coloration.

[Ingo]

Thanks for the info.

[SDBDRZ]

You did the right thing. Halides are better than T5. Fact is that you see WAY more great MH tanks than T5 tanks. Mine is T5 and it is a nice tank, but not what it would be with halides. Not the same growth or intense, deep coloration.

 

I am curious if this claim can be substantiated? Just saying they are better is easy, I am still waiting for someone to prove it to me. I have never seen your tank but I can guarantee you 100% that lights are not the only contributing factor to growth and deep coloration.

[dhoch]

Factor into that fact that T5 was NOT an accepted technology till about 1 year ago... I mean 2 years ago it was me and 2-3 other guys doing it....

 

MH is NOT better... doubt anyone who says it... there is not truth in it... (realizing I'm not saying T5 is better either though)...

 

Dave

 

You did the right thing. Halides are better than T5. Fact is that you see WAY more great MH tanks than T5 tanks. Mine is T5 and it is a nice tank, but not what it would be with halides. Not the same growth or intense, deep coloration.

[keeperofthefish]

My argument is this:

 

-The only "spectacular" T5-only tanks I have ever seen featured online are all in Europe and Asia--where they are using lighting technology that isn't even available in the US--different reflectors, ballasts, etc. They are all also using prodibio and other additives. They are using top-of-the-line Deltec skimmers and most feed very heavily--techniques of very advanced reefkeepers and out of the price range of most of us

 

-I have seen MANY great MH tanks. It is 100% true that we simply know more about MH and T5 is a relatively new technology that will get better in time as we learn more about how best to apply it. Sanjay Joshi's tests should be especially helpful. Grimreefer on RC has also contributed a lot to the average reefer's understanding of this technology.

 

-As I have said, I have never seen DHoch's tank and hope to soon. It could totally eradicate my current thinking about what is possible with T5. However, DHoch is an expert reefer and has top of the line equipment on his tank. He also has far more T5 bulbs over his tank--partly due to its size--than the average reefer.

 

-My bottom line is that it isn't fair to recommend T5s to beginning reefers. They cannot easily get their hands on info and troubleshooting T5s on a reef tank the way they can with MH.

 

-I recommend that DHoch write an article for the club about his experience with T5, or perhaps a presentation at a meeting. Maybe we could get Sanjay Joshi to come speak to the club and share with us his findings on T5 and MH and we could invite a few lighting companies to come, also. We could video this and put it on the WAMAS site to better contribute to overall discussion ongoing on T5 vs. MH.

[dhoch]

Actually we tried (a while ago) to get teh guru of T5 (Grim Reefer on RC, who is a person that I have a long 2 year history with) to come out a number of years ago, but it turns out he doesn't fly (I'll keep why between him and myself) and is in the north west...

 

I actualy would be very happy to talk about T5 at any point... And while I find my tank very pleasing to me, I've seen better (I've seen worse as well)...

 

Dave

[YBeNormal]

My argument is this:

 

-The only "spectacular" T5-only tanks I have ever seen featured online are all in Europe and Asia--where they are using lighting technology that isn't even available in the US--different reflectors, ballasts, etc. They are all also using prodibio and other additives. They are using top-of-the-line Deltec skimmers and most feed very heavily--techniques of very advanced reefkeepers and out of the price range of most of us

Fuel and energy costs are very high in Europe and most houses are much smaller than in the US. In addition, European styles tend to lean more toward modern, compact, trim and thin designs. The savings in cost and space coupled with proven results drive Europeans to purchase T5 over MH.

The comments about European tanks having top of the line Deltec skimmers and being heavily fed must be based upon the select few European tanks chosen as TOTM on RC and other forums. I can assure you that most Europeans are just as cash strapped as you and I are and not everyone has a Deltec skimmer. Care for a link to the very active ATI forum where Germans are discussing their Bubble Master skimmers? How about a few dozen links to German DIY forums?

 

-I have seen MANY great MH tanks. It is 100% true that we simply know more about MH and T5 is a relatively new technology that will get better in time as we learn more about how best to apply it. Sanjay Joshi's tests should be especially helpful. Grimreefer on RC has also contributed a lot to the average reefer's understanding of this technology.

I have seen many great MH *and* T5 tanks--just different ends to the same means--and I believe we have already learned quite a bit about T5s. The hard part is breaking down misconceptions and downright incorrect information being tossed around on some forums. T5 and MH both have their pros and cons and there is no one-size-fits-all answer.

 

If I'm not mistaken, Grim Reaper was a big naysayer when T5s first came out but changed his mind after doing some tests and actually using TEK T5 over his own tank (burning a few coral in the process). Watch the for sale/trade threads here or look at the corals being sold and traded at each of our swap meets. Several of the more active sellers with seemingly endless supplies of very nice coral frags are using T5s over their tanks. What more proof is required?

 

-As I have said, I have never seen DHoch's tank and hope to soon. It could totally eradicate my current thinking about what is possible with T5. However, DHoch is an expert reefer and has top of the line equipment on his tank. He also has far more T5 bulbs over his tank--partly due to its size--than the average reefer.

I would hope that the visit convinces you that both technologies are good, not that one is better than the other. I can't speak directly for I'm but I'm pretty sure the fact that Dave is an expert reefer is one of the reasons that he chose to go with T5s, not the reason that he is somehow able to get corals to grow under T5s.

 

-My bottom line is that it isn't fair to recommend T5s to beginning reefers. They cannot easily get their hands on info and troubleshooting T5s on a reef tank the way they can with MH.

And here I definitely have to disagree with you. I have no issues with recommending either MH or T5 for a beginner, but I would try to recommend the choice that is best for their specific needs and desires rather than blindly ruling T5s out as being inferior and more complex. There is a lot of flexibility when it comes down to T5 bulb types and combinations, but that is a pro in my opinion rather than a drawback.

[luceneck]

I had a 250w DE MH setup over my 20g and now have a 5x39w aquactinics setup (suggest by grimreefer) over my 50g. I've been very happy with the setup and have seen great growth in my tank.

 

Keep in mind that I can not argue good versus bad because I have a limited SPS experience but if someone were to ask me "Would you go MH or T5 for your new tank?", the answer would be simple. T5! I like the ability to change the look with different bulbs and things have done really well since the adjustment period.

 

Growth pics:

Pic taken 1/26/07

 

Pic taken 2/16/07

 

Like I said, I'm not an expert just someone who found something that works for him.

[SDBDRZ]

reefer.

 

-My bottom line is that it isn't fair to recommend T5s to beginning reefers. They cannot easily get their hands on info and troubleshooting T5s on a reef tank the way they can with MH.

 

 

 

I don't think that T-5 is superior to MH or vice versa, one is a viable alternative to the other. I have kept reef tanks since the mid 80's and have used every type of light available outside of LED's.

 

Beginning reefers should be getting advice on the overall setup, good husbandry, stable environment, etc, etc. Bottom line, too many reefers slap a rediculous amount of MH over their tanks and can not control the heat, wonder why they have algae growing like crazy, etc. The high temps accelerate the metabolism of many of the organisms in the tanks which causes disease, recession events, etc to spread more rapidly.

 

I hate these types of threads because they always end the exact same way, one camp has one opinion and the other camp has the opposite opinion. I remember back when the majority consensus was that 400w 65K bulbs were the only way you could get good coral growth and anyone using radiums was doing it wrong. There were no 14k, 15k bulbs etc.

 

Good husbandry techniques and being knowledgable about what you are keeping is what this site, and others, should be emphasizing to new members.

 

Many of the people in this club saw my reef when it was lit with 400W halides and with 250w HQI's. Right now I have 4 healthy tanks with 4 different lighting schemes. One is running HO T-5's, one is running PC's one is running VHO's and I have a tank with normal output T-5's. All 4 have corals healthy and growing. The stony corals in my 180 look as good or better than they did under halides.

 

I have seen many beautiful MH tanks and I have seen tanks with MH lighting that couldn't even grow algae. The people keeping the tanks has more to do with the success than the lighting.

 

EDIT: I'll also add that 2 of my tanks have no filtration whatsoever outside of LR and water changes. You don't need to have top end equipment to be successful. Sure it helps and some of the top end equipment is very well made but some of the prettiest tanks I have seen use a bunch of DIY stuff.

Edited February 19, 2007 by SDBDRZ

[keeperofthefish]

I appreciate all of the great comments here from ALL camps. The fact of the matter is that I'm stuck with T5s and really should admit that my reef is only about a year old--so perhaps my frustration has more to do with impatience than the capabilities of T5s.

 

That said, I'd like to call on the T5 users for some info. I'm running 4x54w on an IceCap 660 with IceCap SLRs. I am running, from front to back, an Aqua-Z BluePro, a Giesemann AquaBlue Plus, an ATI SunPro (6500), and a Geisemann AquaBlue Plus. I am running 2x110w UV Lighting Super Actinic R bulbs on an IceCap 440. One bulb is in the very front of the tank, another at the very back.

 

Any suggestions on how to improve this? Maybe my results are sub-par for a reason! I'm getting growth, but not at the rate I've seen in MH and some other T5 tanks. I've been thinking about replacing the ATI with a GE 3000K and the Aqua-Z with a pure actinic or another AquaBlue+.

[YBeNormal]

Patience is the first thing you will need to learn in this hobby. If it happens fast, it's probably a mistake and will likely cost you a fortune!

 

As was mentioned above, there are so many variables other than lighting that can have an effect on growth or color of corals. I'd suggest starting a new thread with as much detail about your tank as you can provide and ask for advice and recommendations. Include at least the following:

 

Tank size, type and age

Information about sump/refugium

All available water parameters

Setup of returns and other pumps in the tank

Water change regimen and type of salt mix used

Lighting type, bulb configuration (including height above water line) and light cycle

Additives used, frequency and qty

Tank inhabitants

Any observations about your tank that concern you or that you think may be useful.

[jamesbuf]

Since you have your actinics covered with the VHOs, why not just have all your T5 bulbs as regular lights. Maybe 2 65K and 2 10K. Also, what is your light schedule like? When does each type of light come on and for how long? I changed my light schedule after talking to dhoch, going with more time in between when the different bulbs came on, and I've seen better growth since then.