T5 vs Metal Halide debate answered
- Thread starter baytran7
- Start date
puffer32
Active Member
Originally Posted by fishieness
as long as it is a quality unit and not one of those crappy nova extreames, from what i know and have seen/read/heard,absolutly.
Fanker: the 660 will overdrive them a heck of a lot more than 5-8 watts. get a kill-o-watt meter and test it for yourself. someone in my reef club tested them and a 24" 24 watt HO t5 put out 50 watts on an icecap ballast. as the bulbs get longer, the ratio that they increase get smaller, but that is still a big difference.
Here's afew pics of my reef under "crappy" lighting.
I am satisfied with the growth of everything in my tank. Even my anenome is coloring up, he was bleached when I got him, still has a way to go though.
IMO you can have anything under my lighting if you have excellent water quality, same with MH, it takes more then good lighting to have a successful reef
as long as it is a quality unit and not one of those crappy nova extreames, from what i know and have seen/read/heard,absolutly.
Fanker: the 660 will overdrive them a heck of a lot more than 5-8 watts. get a kill-o-watt meter and test it for yourself. someone in my reef club tested them and a 24" 24 watt HO t5 put out 50 watts on an icecap ballast. as the bulbs get longer, the ratio that they increase get smaller, but that is still a big difference.
Here's afew pics of my reef under "crappy" lighting.
IMO you can have anything under my lighting if you have excellent water quality, same with MH, it takes more then good lighting to have a successful reef
stanlalee
Active Member
Originally Posted by baytran7
As I have said before, don't waste my time with unproven statements. SHOW me that you lose light from crystal clear water. Everyone can sound smart by using jiberish words, I want
[hr]
evidence that there is light lost. If you are so straight on Par, then show me your par readings.
all you have to do is look DOWN at your fish tank. It is quite obvious. does it look optically clear as it does when you look thru air? Its not crystal clear water that blocks light ability to penetrate its MOVING water that inhibits penetration and what tank or body of water has still water? I did search that info 1rst (like when I said it on page one) but at this point really dont give a damn about this thread anymore.
As I have said before, don't waste my time with unproven statements. SHOW me that you lose light from crystal clear water. Everyone can sound smart by using jiberish words, I want
[hr]
evidence that there is light lost. If you are so straight on Par, then show me your par readings.
all you have to do is look DOWN at your fish tank. It is quite obvious. does it look optically clear as it does when you look thru air? Its not crystal clear water that blocks light ability to penetrate its MOVING water that inhibits penetration and what tank or body of water has still water? I did search that info 1rst (like when I said it on page one) but at this point really dont give a damn about this thread anymore.
acrylic51
Active Member
Originally Posted by baytran7
there is a monti that is 8 inches in diameter on the bottom of the tank, I got it when it was 2 inches in diameter. I think that growth took alittle longer then 1 month. You are failing to realize that there you cannot measure par because it will be different in every tank (due to particles). THAT is why no manufacturer will ever use it to advertise their product. Lumens is a standard that no matter how deep it is or how far it is, will still be a standard, only thing that will affect lumen is age and heat. Sure there will be less light at the bottom of the tank, but do you think it will be as dramatic? Don't go by Par, it is too varied, I would only use it if it were 3 foot plus. You are wanting to use this thread as an argument, that is why you specifically singled out 1 coral that i've had for 1 month, I am only trying to help other hobbiest out in understanding the factors that affect efficiency.
I agree will depend on alot offactors in the tank....I had stressed that early on that alot of factors play into things.......I also agree with your attitude on proven fact, but I gave proven fact data on my stand on MH and PAR readings for different ballast bulb combination on the site I listed earlier.....That is proven fact....you may be a biology major which is great, but there are true leaders in the hobby that have put out hard fact information on the lighting I'm referring to that you seem to over look.....Where is this
[hr]
data sheet to let us look at the T5 PAR readings......Not that jibirish crap that someone supplied from a lighting engineer.....
there is a monti that is 8 inches in diameter on the bottom of the tank, I got it when it was 2 inches in diameter. I think that growth took alittle longer then 1 month. You are failing to realize that there you cannot measure par because it will be different in every tank (due to particles). THAT is why no manufacturer will ever use it to advertise their product. Lumens is a standard that no matter how deep it is or how far it is, will still be a standard, only thing that will affect lumen is age and heat. Sure there will be less light at the bottom of the tank, but do you think it will be as dramatic? Don't go by Par, it is too varied, I would only use it if it were 3 foot plus. You are wanting to use this thread as an argument, that is why you specifically singled out 1 coral that i've had for 1 month, I am only trying to help other hobbiest out in understanding the factors that affect efficiency.
I agree will depend on alot offactors in the tank....I had stressed that early on that alot of factors play into things.......I also agree with your attitude on proven fact, but I gave proven fact data on my stand on MH and PAR readings for different ballast bulb combination on the site I listed earlier.....That is proven fact....you may be a biology major which is great, but there are true leaders in the hobby that have put out hard fact information on the lighting I'm referring to that you seem to over look.....Where is this
[hr]
data sheet to let us look at the T5 PAR readings......Not that jibirish crap that someone supplied from a lighting engineer.....
acrylic51
Active Member
Bottom line and last I will post to this idiotic thread that. T5's are very nice bulbs, and do agree that you can run a system with them and have seen it done......but they aren't equal or better than MH's as some will tell you....They are an alternative to them, but you don't get the pentration as some might think, they are an alternative due to electrical costs.....IMO.......
hurt
Active Member
PAR values definitely decrease as you go down in tank depth, that's a fact.
As far as putting more PAR deep into the tank, not always fellow reefers. I think quite a few people need to go to -- and read the 30+ page threads on T-5, then make your own opinions.
So, here is some more info posted by the same author in which he tested PAR 18.5 inches below the surface of the tank(sandbed) with 4 54w T-5's(2 aquablues, 2 actinic pluses) with different T-5 ballasts(notice what the IC 660 does) and the PAR #'s, and then he took the same measurement with 250w 14K MH's. Food for thought, you be the judge...
"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"
As far as putting more PAR deep into the tank, not always fellow reefers. I think quite a few people need to go to -- and read the 30+ page threads on T-5, then make your own opinions.
So, here is some more info posted by the same author in which he tested PAR 18.5 inches below the surface of the tank(sandbed) with 4 54w T-5's(2 aquablues, 2 actinic pluses) with different T-5 ballasts(notice what the IC 660 does) and the PAR #'s, and then he took the same measurement with 250w 14K MH's. Food for thought, you be the judge...
"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"
ibew
Active Member
Originally Posted by acrylic51
Bottom line and last I will post to this idiotic thread that. T5's are very nice bulbs, and do agree that you can run a system with them and have seen it done......but they aren't equal or better than MH's as some will tell you....They are an alternative to them, but you don't get the pentration as some might think, they are an alternative due to electrical costs.....IMO.......
deffenitly cheaper to what the amp draw is but not a whole big difference
Bottom line and last I will post to this idiotic thread that. T5's are very nice bulbs, and do agree that you can run a system with them and have seen it done......but they aren't equal or better than MH's as some will tell you....They are an alternative to them, but you don't get the pentration as some might think, they are an alternative due to electrical costs.....IMO.......
deffenitly cheaper to what the amp draw is but not a whole big difference
baytran7
Member
Originally Posted by Hurt
PAR values definitely decrease as you go down in tank depth, that's a fact.
Now, since my first post in this thread was apparently jiberish crap :notsure: , (I actually just copied numbers directly that were taken from a member on another board who actually tested the bulbs with Apogee Quatum meter) I will just have to do the same again. As far as putting more PAR deep into the tank, not always fellow reefers. I think quite a few people need to go to -- and read the 30+ page threads on T-5, then make your own opinions.
So, here is some more jiberish crap posted by the same author in which he tested PAR 18.5 inches below the surface of the tank with 4 54w T-5's(2 aquablues, 2 actinic pluses) with different T-5 ballasts(notice what the IC 660 does) and the PAR #'s, and then he took the same measurement with 250w 14K MH's. Food for thought, you be the judge...
"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"
That is really good stuff Hurt, I'm going to save those findings, When I said Jibberish, I was refering to non-tested claims, this is the only reply i've seen imo that is helpful. Although the posted pics were nice...
PAR values definitely decrease as you go down in tank depth, that's a fact.
Now, since my first post in this thread was apparently jiberish crap :notsure: , (I actually just copied numbers directly that were taken from a member on another board who actually tested the bulbs with Apogee Quatum meter) I will just have to do the same again. As far as putting more PAR deep into the tank, not always fellow reefers. I think quite a few people need to go to -- and read the 30+ page threads on T-5, then make your own opinions.
So, here is some more jiberish crap posted by the same author in which he tested PAR 18.5 inches below the surface of the tank with 4 54w T-5's(2 aquablues, 2 actinic pluses) with different T-5 ballasts(notice what the IC 660 does) and the PAR #'s, and then he took the same measurement with 250w 14K MH's. Food for thought, you be the judge...
"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"
That is really good stuff Hurt, I'm going to save those findings, When I said Jibberish, I was refering to non-tested claims, this is the only reply i've seen imo that is helpful. Although the posted pics were nice...
hurt
Active Member
Originally Posted by baytran7
When I said Jibberish, I was refering to non-tested claims, this is the only reply i've seen imo that is helpful. Although the posted pics were nice...
I actually didn't mean you...I'll have to re-read this whole thread to make sure I understood everyones comments correctly...
When I said Jibberish, I was refering to non-tested claims, this is the only reply i've seen imo that is helpful. Although the posted pics were nice...
I actually didn't mean you...I'll have to re-read this whole thread to make sure I understood everyones comments correctly...
butter
New Member
Originally Posted by PiscesBlue
Pro / Advanced (people with many years experience who want/need the best and have the ability to grow/frag SPS and keep the most advanced fish) I RECOMMEND Metal Halide fixtures
Intermediate / Average (people who know what they are doing and are wanting to advance into more difficult corals/fish) I recommend T5's
Beginner / Sucker (people who are just starting and are overly influenced by people online who they will never meet or by predatory LFS' and idiot employees of retail chains) These are the people who will be convinced to purchase Power Compact fixtures. PC's are not bad for this application, but obviously reach their limits quickly if the beginner aquarist masters thier water quality and desires more than mushrooms and starpolyps.
This is probably by far the best post I have read. good unbiased opinion.
correct me if I am wrong...base on the quote, it seems to me that T5's is recommended for a majority of the hobbiest...whereas MH is more for a handful of those "pros" that went all out on the equipment.
so, in other word, T5's win this debate, because it's cheaper (more bang for the buck), easier (more enjoyment than worrying), and achieving the optimal results for most hobbiest.
:cheer:
piscesblue
Member
Thank you Butter.
I would prolly define Pro / Advanced as peeps with SPS tanks that make your jaw drop and ask "what happened" when you look at your tank. If you look at their tank and and think it's almost as nice as yours, you qualify.
Many people on this and other boards strive to buy the best based on opinions of advanced aquarists, but in reality, their equipment far exceeds their skills and is, in a way, wasted. Water quality is an art, not a science and until you find that groove in your own tank, you do not need to focus on the best of the best. Save your money for replacement livestock and keep your hands out of your tank, it's way too easy to be overly obsessive in this hobby.
I have recently "discovered" how no formula for success is one size fits all. After being forced to be tankless for the past 4yrs, I have set up a 75gal using methods I learned with my old 30gal and quickly realized it wouldn't work. Thankfully my mistakes were not costly and I already know that tossing money by the bucket at an issue will not resolve it. I made minor adjustments and then sat on my hands for a few weeks to see the results. I really view building a reef tank differently after years of experience and becoming a new dad. All of a sudden, you take the time to find the less expensive path and learn to be patient with problems.
A reef tank is like a handcrafted violin, you must take the time to learn it's sweet spot before it will produce beauty. I am convinced that any reef system could be beautiful in the hands of someone who takes the time to learn it's limits and determine it's needs.
Enough philosophy for tonight from Blue.
I would prolly define Pro / Advanced as peeps with SPS tanks that make your jaw drop and ask "what happened" when you look at your tank. If you look at their tank and and think it's almost as nice as yours, you qualify.
Many people on this and other boards strive to buy the best based on opinions of advanced aquarists, but in reality, their equipment far exceeds their skills and is, in a way, wasted. Water quality is an art, not a science and until you find that groove in your own tank, you do not need to focus on the best of the best. Save your money for replacement livestock and keep your hands out of your tank, it's way too easy to be overly obsessive in this hobby.
I have recently "discovered" how no formula for success is one size fits all. After being forced to be tankless for the past 4yrs, I have set up a 75gal using methods I learned with my old 30gal and quickly realized it wouldn't work. Thankfully my mistakes were not costly and I already know that tossing money by the bucket at an issue will not resolve it. I made minor adjustments and then sat on my hands for a few weeks to see the results. I really view building a reef tank differently after years of experience and becoming a new dad. All of a sudden, you take the time to find the less expensive path and learn to be patient with problems.
A reef tank is like a handcrafted violin, you must take the time to learn it's sweet spot before it will produce beauty. I am convinced that any reef system could be beautiful in the hands of someone who takes the time to learn it's limits and determine it's needs.
Enough philosophy for tonight from Blue.
tx reef
Active Member
I cannot understand what is so hard about maintaining a reef tank.
I have never had any water quality issues, and I really don't have to work that hard to keep things right in my tank. I think that the problem with some people is a lack of commitment to the tank. I do a 10% water change every Saturday without fail. Commitment and consistency is the key to great water quality and success in a reef tank, especially with SPS.
You will get growth from T5s, but you will get much better growth with MH.
Only "advanced" aquarist should use MH? I think not.
Water quality is not an "art." If you provide the proper filtration, don't overstock your tank with fish, do water changes, and don't over feed, you will have great water quality. Right now, I use a Cascade H.O.B. filter, prizm protien skimmer, and live rock as my filtration, though my new refugium and coralife SS 65 will be here Monday. I have never had water quality issues with my tank. The highest nitrate reading I have ever had was 12.5.
It is not hard. I think that many of you make it sound so hard that many will not even attempt a reef tank.
So, new reef aquarist, go out and buy a DIY MH system (I got mine for less than a new T5 fixture) and provide proper filtration, don't overstock your tank with fish, do water changes, and don't over feed, and you will have a successful reef tank.
I have never had any water quality issues, and I really don't have to work that hard to keep things right in my tank. I think that the problem with some people is a lack of commitment to the tank. I do a 10% water change every Saturday without fail. Commitment and consistency is the key to great water quality and success in a reef tank, especially with SPS.
You will get growth from T5s, but you will get much better growth with MH.
Only "advanced" aquarist should use MH? I think not.
Water quality is not an "art." If you provide the proper filtration, don't overstock your tank with fish, do water changes, and don't over feed, you will have great water quality. Right now, I use a Cascade H.O.B. filter, prizm protien skimmer, and live rock as my filtration, though my new refugium and coralife SS 65 will be here Monday. I have never had water quality issues with my tank. The highest nitrate reading I have ever had was 12.5.
It is not hard. I think that many of you make it sound so hard that many will not even attempt a reef tank.
So, new reef aquarist, go out and buy a DIY MH system (I got mine for less than a new T5 fixture) and provide proper filtration, don't overstock your tank with fish, do water changes, and don't over feed, and you will have a successful reef tank.
piscesblue
Member
TX Reef
You are right about it not being hard, but with so many variables in this hobby and the fact that EVERY tank is unique makes it more of an art than a science. You were lucky to learn how your tank operates and that was thru shear dedication and observation. Did you have freshwater experience? That helps tremendously. When corals can die because they are 2" too high or low, or the current isn't right for them, it can become extremely frustrating for a new hobbiest. Hell, I have 6yrs under my belt and after a 4yr break, I'm learning how to play my new tank and what worked for the 30gal is not working for the new 75gal. Even you have to admit that this hobby is in a state of information overload and can be overwhelming to someone new to aquariums. I'm glad you had such great success on your first shot and I really hope you don't suffer a catastrophic event that leave you scratching your head and wanting to retreat from the hobby. In six years of reading this board, I have seen many 3yr tanks crash overnight, even a mod lost their tank this way back in 2001. Beth, do you remember which mod that was?
And to be clear, I'm not against a newbie who can truly afford to throw cash at the best equipment going out and buying a tank of this board's dreams, but for the average broke person struggling to setup that first 30 or 55gal tank, I don't think it's necessary to skip on the baby's formula so they can buy the best skimmer or PH's or lights... to be continued
You are right about it not being hard, but with so many variables in this hobby and the fact that EVERY tank is unique makes it more of an art than a science. You were lucky to learn how your tank operates and that was thru shear dedication and observation. Did you have freshwater experience? That helps tremendously. When corals can die because they are 2" too high or low, or the current isn't right for them, it can become extremely frustrating for a new hobbiest. Hell, I have 6yrs under my belt and after a 4yr break, I'm learning how to play my new tank and what worked for the 30gal is not working for the new 75gal. Even you have to admit that this hobby is in a state of information overload and can be overwhelming to someone new to aquariums. I'm glad you had such great success on your first shot and I really hope you don't suffer a catastrophic event that leave you scratching your head and wanting to retreat from the hobby. In six years of reading this board, I have seen many 3yr tanks crash overnight, even a mod lost their tank this way back in 2001. Beth, do you remember which mod that was?
And to be clear, I'm not against a newbie who can truly afford to throw cash at the best equipment going out and buying a tank of this board's dreams, but for the average broke person struggling to setup that first 30 or 55gal tank, I don't think it's necessary to skip on the baby's formula so they can buy the best skimmer or PH's or lights... to be continued
hagfish
Active Member
Originally Posted by baytran7
As I have said before, don't waste my time with unproven statements. SHOW me that you lose light from crystal clear water. Everyone can sound smart by using jiberish words, I want
[hr]
evidence that there is light lost. If you are so straight on Par, then show me your par readings.
This is just a ridiculous and arrogant statement. You don't have to be a scientist to know that this happens. You can tell simply by the way corals react at different depths. I have PC's on a tank that is about 3 ft. tall. I can't stack the rocks up very high because it's not wide enough. So everything is at least 2 ft. deep. I can barely even keep shrooms alive on the bottom. And some of the corals had been in another tank where they were only 6-7 inches from the top with PC's and in that tank they were much brighter and healthier.
Just about everybody on these boards will tell you that depth effects the color and health of corals. It's largely because of the differences in light from those depths.
As I have said before, don't waste my time with unproven statements. SHOW me that you lose light from crystal clear water. Everyone can sound smart by using jiberish words, I want
[hr]
evidence that there is light lost. If you are so straight on Par, then show me your par readings.
This is just a ridiculous and arrogant statement. You don't have to be a scientist to know that this happens. You can tell simply by the way corals react at different depths. I have PC's on a tank that is about 3 ft. tall. I can't stack the rocks up very high because it's not wide enough. So everything is at least 2 ft. deep. I can barely even keep shrooms alive on the bottom. And some of the corals had been in another tank where they were only 6-7 inches from the top with PC's and in that tank they were much brighter and healthier.
Just about everybody on these boards will tell you that depth effects the color and health of corals. It's largely because of the differences in light from those depths.