vho and t5 lighting

[shawns]

i need to understand a couple of things a little better. most of these things concern the topic.

 

what is the difference between a 430 and a 660 ballast??? im sure that the 660 is a higher out put or something along those lines. is the 660 really "worth" the additional $$? i guess it burns the bulbs more intensely?

 

are vho end caps and t endcaps interchangeable? i know that the t5 bulbs are a fraction of the size, but havent seen he endcaps enough to conceptualize them.

 

keep in mind that i do have an understanding of electricity--ohms law and what not--so dont be tentative to explain lighting in a complicated fassion.(if nec)

 

thanks again for the help!

[dhoch]

430 is a smaller ballast... 660 is a bigger ballast (they don't burn the bulbs brighter, but they do burn more bulbs on the 660 ballast as opposed to the 430 ballast).

 

VHO and T5 endcaps are not interchangeable the T5 bulbs are much smaller and need a different endcap.

 

Dave

[shawns]

can i run 4-5 bulbs on just the 660?

 

dave, by the way the frags look great in the tank!!

[dhoch]

Kewl...

 

Depends on the bulb type and length.

 

I.e. the 660 can fire only 3 5' T5 bulbs (but can fire 4 3' T5 bulbs) but the 430 can fire only 2 5' T5 bulbs.

 

Dave

[shawns]

thinking about 5 bulbs over 48x18. so my best bet is to use 2 430s?

[dchild]

I like the $40 Workhorse 7. Electronic ballasts are "smart" and can generally run any combination of fluorescent bulbs up to their wattage rating. The WH7 is rated 220 watts, half of a 660 (but 1/4 the cost!). One WH7 can run 4 4' (54w) T5 bulbs. So you could get 2, or use a smaller WH3 or WH5. The WH ballasts have very flexible wiring options, and can be set up to "overdrive" bulbs for higher output.

 

For T5 you need waterproof endcaps, standoffs for the endcaps (don't forget these or you won't be able to screw the endcap to your canopy), and a reflector for each bulb. Each bulb/reflector takes 3". You can fit 6 bulbs in 18", why not fill the canopy? I run 6 bulbs over my 125 (6' x 18").

Edited May 17, 2007 by dchild

[bigJPDC]

dchild - I use WH5's for my T5 rigs (4x36" and soon to be 2x24") and am very happy. I didn't know they could overdrive - how?

 

jp

[rioreef]

A 660 will run 4 x 48 54W T5s and overdrives them to near 80 watts I thought I once read. However, with T5s, throw out the wattage rule!! It is all about PAR. Look at the values below, the Workhorse does not come close. There is a reason the IceCap costs more. My corals thank me for it.

 

JP - the IceCap ballast just do it, no special rigging or settings.

 

On Reef Central extensive testing on the T5s has been done and one of the best sources of data on RC is "The Grim Reefer". He started a thread in 2005 comparing ballasts and T5s.

 

Also, here is another thread on this.

 

Here is his first post:

So I finally got some regular T5's (54 watt 4 foot lamps) to play with. I did PAR measurments 18.5" below the surface at the sandbed. The lamps were about 2" above the water for the test. The lamps were D&D, 2 Aquablues and 2 Actinic Pluses ran in Ice Cap reflectors. Tested with Apogee Quatum meter, Amps tested with Craftsman True RMS meter.

 

Workhorse 7: 1.5 amp draw, PAR reading 126

 

DYnamic T5 ballast: 1.4 amp draw, PAR reading 135

(spec T5 ballast)

 

Ice Cap 660: 4.1 amp draw, PAR reading 183

 

My 6x80 watt T5 system was 145 with an amp draw of just under 6. Seems to back up my theory that the shorter T5 lamps are way brighter when overdriven.

 

3x250 watt DE halides. 14K lamps on good e-ballasts about 7" higher, 6 amp draw, PAR reading 95. And people wonder why I am going back to the fluorescents

Edited May 17, 2007 by rioreef

[bigJPDC]

yep - I've read those threads for the past couple of years too - that's why I went T5 retro with SLRs instead of buying a fixture. I was refering to the comment that the WH could be overdriven. If I notice something not growing that I absolutely have to have in my tank, I might upgrade the lighting. I just got my first SPS frags and I am looking forward to seeing how they do over the coming months. For now I am pretty happy with how things look. Maybe on the next tank I'll even use an IceCap ballast to test growth side by side.

 

jp

[rioreef]

Same here on the info gathering, did a retro to with the IC 660. I do have lots of sps all through the tank top to bottom, two clams and lps. All are doing great for two years and running.

[rsaavedra]

I run 5X54W on my 48X18X24 (90G). I use 3 standard T5 Triad Ballasts wired in the following photo period:

 

1200-2300 1XSuperAct and 1XAct+

1245-2215 1XBlue+ and 1XAquaBlue+

1500-1945 1XMidDay

 

Raf

[rooroo]

I currently split between VHO and T5. I am not completely sold with this combo. I may just go for all T5s soon. I use two 430s and have it set up so that the VHOs are actinics and do the dusk/dawn thing with them. It's almost time to buy some new actinic VHOs and I'm thinking about just buying some new T5 endcaps and reflectors and a big batch of T5 bulbs and getting rid of the VHOs. Or still running one actinic VHO. We'll see.

 

Also I was having a problem with my bulbs burning out very quickly with the T5s until I switched to UVL bulbs. Thus far no problems, though they probably will not last a full year as advertised. I am running 2x39w on each 430 ballast, I have heard that the shorter the bulb the shorter its lifespan when overdriven.

[bigJPDC]

Doesn't light penetrate water on a logrythmic scale? Meaning that the WH rig in Grim's study would hit the same PAR as the 660, only a few inches higher than 18.5"? And so if all things are equal (which is impossible in seperate tanks, but for purposes of disco) wouldn't the same corals do the same long-term, one being on a 6-10 inch pile of rocks and using 1/3 the electricity and longer bulb life? What if I was using them over a 33L, which is something like 13 inches deep to begin with?

 

I am growing and fragging zoas on my sandbed, which are 27" from my T5's. I guess you can grow them under any lighting, but is there really a scenario where the WH will not grow a coral, even placed ridiculously close to the waterline? Or is this more about performance optimization? The 660 is pushing $200 with the wiring harness (DFS), and I got my WH5s for $24.

 

jp

[rioreef]

Doesn't light penetrate water on a logrythmic scale? Meaning that the WH rig in Grim's study would hit the same PAR as the 660, only a few inches higher than 18.5"? And so if all things are equal (which is impossible in seperate tanks, but for purposes of disco) wouldn't the same corals do the same long-term, one being on a 6-10 inch pile of rocks and using 1/3 the electricity and longer bulb life? What if I was using them over a 33L, which is something like 13 inches deep to begin with?

 

I am growing and fragging zoas on my sandbed, which are 27" from my T5's. I guess you can grow them under any lighting, but is there really a scenario where the WH will not grow a coral, even placed ridiculously close to the waterline? Or is this more about performance optimization? The 660 is pushing $200 with the wiring harness (DFS), and I got my WH5s for $24.

 

jp

 

That penetration does not start equal (same PAR output), so saying that the WH would be the same just might not hold true. On a shallow tank it may not matter, but deeper tanks it does because rock work may not extend to the top of the water line. In many tanks it can be 1/4 to 1/2 way down and on deeper tanks you are loosing a lot by time that level is reached.

[bigJPDC]

I agree 100% and have no illusions about growing SPS everywhere in my tank (lack of big flow would stop me before lighting anyways), just trying to establish a baseline for the upgrade costs in money and electricity to be justified. It would be useful I think to be able to plug in tank dimensions and lighting and get some kind of gradient map where you would know what to put where - stuff that master reefers can tell just by looking.

 

And scary about the number for the 3x250 DE's huh?

jp

[dchild]

...but is there really a scenario where the WH will not grow a coral...

 

IMO, no. I have been extremely impressed with T5s and I think you will be surprised how well they grow corals. Jean-Marie used to keep a tank (I forget the size, but the corals were over 2' down) with 4x54w T5 and VHO actinics and his tank was beautiful. He preferred that setup to his 400w halides

 

Overdriving with WH ballasts requires that the ballast be rated at double the wattage. Since the bulb is less efficient at higher temps, it doesn't double the output (54w -> 80w).

 

Quoting myself from this thread: (here is the diagram I used)

 

I use Workhorse ballasts. They will overdrive just fine but you need to wire them differently and the ballast needs to be double the wattage rating. (Electronic ballasts are rated with a maximum wattage they can drive, and will accept several bulb configurations under that wattage).

 

The wiring essentially brings two lamps together as one. Each endcap accepts two wires, and (for example) in a 4-bulb configuration, only one wire from the ballast goes to each endcap but is jumpered to both holes. To overdrive, take the singe wire from each of two endcaps, then plug them both into one endcap. This is a 2x overdive since one bulb is wired as two. It is also possible to do 3x and 4x overdrives, but I recommend you stick with 2x since the bulbs run cooler and T5s are pretty bright anyway. Here is a link but this diagram is for a 4x overdrive. http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/planted-...hting-odno.html

 

For example, I use a single Workhorse 7 (rated 220W max, $40 from prolighting.com) to 2x overdrive two 4' 54W bulbs (54Wx2x2bulbs = 196w). The same ballast would drive 4 4' bulbs in a non-overdriven configuration.

 

With that said, I don't know that overdriving makes THAT much difference. Your light output increases but does not double since the bulb is no longer in its most efficient mode. There is plenty of evidence that 1x driven T5's grow corals just fine. And you need twice the ballast capacity to do a 2x overdrive.

 

So the upshot is: I recommend workhorse ballasts. They have done great for me for years both with and without overdriving. Overdriving with them is certainly possible but not required.

[bigJPDC]

nice! I never thought of that, and I'm not going to try it but it makes sense. It's the same principle as when I bridge channels on my amp to drive my Klipsch speakers to 384 w/channel, which will knock your head off.