Lights, lights, lights???
- Thread starter siline
- Start date
scsinet
Active Member
Originally Posted by Siline
http:///forum/post/2606375
Am I right???
No.
While 300w of halide will generally consume the same amount of electricity as 300w of PC or 300w of T5, the amount of light output is very different from technology to technology.
You are right in that a watt is a watt is a watt though.
Keep in mind that what I said above can be misleading as well... there is lamp watts and system watts. All fluorescent (PC, VHO, Tx) and HID (halide) technologies require a ballast that consumes some electricity which it loses to heat. Lamps of different technologies also come in different wattage increments that make it difficult to match watts for watts (you can get 250w of metal halide, but I know of no combination of fluorescent tubes that adds up to 250w exactly), but let's assume you could for the sake of agument...
200w worth of T5 lamps and 200w of halide lamps all consume exactly the same number of lamp watts - 200.
However, ballast efficiencies vary depending on both the technology in use and the ballast technology, make, and model. So, 200w worth of T5 lamps may be installed in a fixture that uses a total of 220w of energy, while 200w of Halide lamps run in a fixture that consumes 240w.
So when you say a watt is a watt, talking about lamp watts yes, but total wattage, not necessarily.
As for efficiency, it's not about energy consumption, it's about x number of units of light per x number of watts. A metal halide or a T5 will always put out more light for each watt in than a power compact, unless the fixture is malfunctioning.
T5s and halides are very close in efficiencies, and can edge each other out depending on the factors listed above.
The other thing about PCs that needs to be taken into consideration is the relatively high operational costs. PC lamps are expensive and need to be replaced twice as often as halides and 4 times as often as T5s. There are also usually more of them. It takes (4) 65W PC lamps to [roughly] equal the wattage of a SINGLE 250w halide, but the halide lamp has to be replaced half as often and does a heck of a better job of turning your hard earned killowatt-hours into light.
siline
Member
Originally Posted by SCSInet
http:///forum/post/2606404
No.
While 300w of halide will generally consume the same amount of electricity as 300w of PC or 300w of T5.
So, 200w worth of T5 lamps may be installed in a fixture that uses a total of 220w of energy, while 200w of Halide lamps run in a fixture that consumes 240w.
As for efficiency, it's not about energy consumption, it's about x number of units of light per x number of watts. A metal halide or a T5 will always put out more light for each watt in than a power compact, unless the fixture is malfunctioning.
T5s and halides are very close in efficiencies, and can edge each other out depending on the factors listed above.
The other thing about PCs that needs to be taken into consideration is the relatively high operational costs. It takes (4) 65W PC lamps to [roughly] equal the wattage of a SINGLE 250w halide, but the halide lamp has to be replaced half as often and does a heck of a better job of turning your hard earned killowatt-hours into light.
Mmmmm....
At first you said that they consume the same electricity, but later you also said that you have to add the "balast consumption"...
...That translates into that they do not use the same electricity.
If a PC of 200w uses 200w, a T5 uses 220w & a MH uses 240w; that makes the PC the most efficient of the 3 in terms of watts consumed versus usable "light" watts.
scsinet
Active Member
Originally Posted by Siline
http:///forum/post/2608194
Mmmmm....
At first you said that they consume the same electricity, but later you also said that you have to add the "balast consumption"...
...That translates into that they do not use the same electricity.
If a PC of 200w uses 200w, a T5 uses 220w & a MH uses 240w;
Those numbers you repeated back were example numbers.
PCs have ballasts too, which consume power just like PCs.
The two main ballast technologies are magnetic and electronic. Magnetic is by far the most common, and they usually add about 20% of the lamp watts.
Again, if you could assume three ballasts, a halide, T5, and PC all being exactly the same efficiency (which you CANNOT do, but for this argument, we'll pretend), then
200W of PC + 20% = 240w
200W of T5 + 20% = 240w
200W of halide + 20% = 240w
But the thing is, you can't compare them like that. Different ballasts have different efficencies, and you can't make a blanket claim that all ballasts of a certain type are more efficient than all ballasts of another. It would be inappropriate to claim that all halide ballasts are more efficient than all T5 ballasts, for instance.
that makes the PC the most efficient of the 3 in terms of watts consumed versus usable "light" watts.
NO! Again, the ballasts are a necessary variable that must be introduced because the lamps need them to operate. ALL technologies that are fluorescent or HID require ballasts, period. That includes PC.
The thing you aren't getting is the amount of light produced versus the amount of current in.
There are a number of terms at play, but you can take lumens, watt-seconds, PAR, etc etc etc, but it all comes down to amount of light output versus the amount of watts in.
PCs produce the least amount of light output for each watt going in of all three technologies being discussed. Ergo, they are the least efficient. You need more wattage in PC to light your tank up to a certain degree than you would need in T5 or halide. You could place 200w of PC, 200w of halide, and 200w of T5, you'd find that the PC is the least bright (dimmest).
scsinet
Active Member
Halides and T5s both have their advantages.
As far as efficiency is concerned, they are very close in efficiency. A T5 system with a crap ballast would be more efficient than a halide with a top of the line electronic ballast, and vice versa.
I am a halide fan myself, so I imagine that my arguments tend to read as halide biased, sorry.
Halides..
Pros: Penetration power (good for deep tanks), shimmer
Cons: Heat
T5s
Pros: Less Expensive than halides, more lamp combination options, less heat
Cons: No shimmer, does not penetrate as deep as halide
As far as PC is concerned, IMO it's an obsolete technology. It's not as efficient as either of the other two, and it's operational costs are insane with lamp replacements. T5s are simply a progression of PC.
As far as efficiency is concerned, they are very close in efficiency. A T5 system with a crap ballast would be more efficient than a halide with a top of the line electronic ballast, and vice versa.
I am a halide fan myself, so I imagine that my arguments tend to read as halide biased, sorry.
Halides..
Pros: Penetration power (good for deep tanks), shimmer
Cons: Heat
T5s
Pros: Less Expensive than halides, more lamp combination options, less heat
Cons: No shimmer, does not penetrate as deep as halide
As far as PC is concerned, IMO it's an obsolete technology. It's not as efficient as either of the other two, and it's operational costs are insane with lamp replacements. T5s are simply a progression of PC.
siline
Member
SCSInet;2610027 said:Halides..
Pros: Penetration power (good for deep tanks), shimmer
Cons: Heat
T5s
Pros: Less Expensive than halides, more lamp combination options, less heat
Cons: No shimmer, does not penetrate as deep as halide
QUOTE]
"Deep", I think is a relative term...
How deep, is deep???
My tank is aprox 22 inches (56cm)... is it deep, or shallow???
siline
Member
Originally Posted by SCSInet
http:///forum/post/2610027
Halides..
Pros: Penetration power (good for deep tanks), shimmer
Cons: Heat
T5s
Pros: Less Expensive than halides, more lamp combination options, less heat
Cons: No shimmer, does not penetrate as deep as halide.
"Deep", I think is a relative term...
How deep, is deep???
My tank is aprox 22 inches (56cm)... is it deep, or shallow???
http:///forum/post/2610027
Halides..
Pros: Penetration power (good for deep tanks), shimmer
Cons: Heat
T5s
Pros: Less Expensive than halides, more lamp combination options, less heat
Cons: No shimmer, does not penetrate as deep as halide.
"Deep", I think is a relative term...
How deep, is deep???
My tank is aprox 22 inches (56cm)... is it deep, or shallow???
perfectdark
Active Member
IMO if my tank was 24" or more in height, I would use nothing less than MH. 20 to 24 T5's are doable, but good ballasts, individual parabolic reflectors and good bulbs would be recomended to reach the bottom of the tank eg. Tek fixtures or Aquatinics. Less than 20" nova extreme or pros will be sufficient. JMO. I use the novas as an example as they are IMO the middle of the road HO T5 lights, Teks and Aquatinics are known to be exceptional HOT5 fixtures.