t5's better than pc?

[tat2dfreeky1]

okay, i understand that the mh are great, but money is the issue. so are t5's better than pc? or does it matter. the t5 are less than 50 bucks for a dual light fixture and the pc is right around 200 dollars. for 100 dollars i could get 2 t5's with 2 10000k and 2 actinic bulbs or for 200 dollars get the pc with 1 10000k and 1 actinic...i'm confused.......

[crvz]

Generally speaking, a lot of folks consider t5's to perform better than pc. However, this really depends on what equipment you're chosing. One of the biggest influences is the reflector for either style bulbs. Individual reflectors are paramount to capitalizing on performance. I'd recommend checking out this thread for some actual data. Also, if you could link the products you're comparing, i think you'll get better suggestions/information.

http://thereeftank.com/forums/showth...ghlight=apogee

[AquaGrizzly]

What is the watts on the bulbs? T5 48" has a 110w bulb. I run a DIY kit of pcs. 4 bulbs 96w each,2 blue,2 12k in a DIY canopy. I was thinking of switching to T5's but found a great deal on some PC equipment.

[hng]

Originally Posted by tat2dfreeky1

okay, i understand that the mh are great, but money is the issue. so are t5's better than pc? or does it matter. the t5 are less than 50 bucks for a dual light fixture and the pc is right around 200 dollars. for 100 dollars i could get 2 t5's with 2 10000k and 2 actinic bulbs or for 200 dollars get the pc with 1 10000k and 1 actinic...i'm confused.......

You might want to double check those prices, I have never seen T5HO's for that little. You might be lloking at regular T5s or the fixture does not have individual reflectors. IMHO, T5s are way superior to any other form of fluorescent lighting (be it VHO, T8, or PCs) and about equal to halides in smaller systems (less than 90 gallons). I don't think that halides are as expensive as you think, you can set up a DIY halide system for the same price as a T5HO in most cases. Long story short, yes, T5s are a lot better than PCs in terms of bulb replacement costs, energy consumed, light output, heat output, and light penetration.

[Weatherman]

Originally Posted by hng

Long story short, yes, T5s are a lot better than PCs in terms of bulb replacement costs, energy consumed, light output, heat output, and light penetration.

T5s may be better than PCs if you have the appropriate ballast and reflectors, and fans to keep the bulbs cool. These items don't tend to come cheap. An inexpensive T5 setup may be no better than PCs.

[jerseyguy1996]

Originally Posted by AquaGrizzly

What is the watts on the bulbs? T5 48" has a 110w bulb. I run a DIY kit of pcs. 4 bulbs 96w each,2 blue,2 12k in a DIY canopy. I was thinking of switching to T5's but found a great deal on some PC equipment.

Where are you seeing the 110W 48" T5? All of the T5HO that I see are 54W for 48" bulbs.

The VHO's are 110W for a 48" bulb.

This brings up another question for me and stop me if you think I am hijacking this thread, but I hear everyone claiming that T5's are better as far as power output, and cheaper than VHO's but from what I can tell, the T5's of equivalent length are about 1/3rd the power (if rating it by watts) and about the same cost. What gives?

[hng]

Originally Posted by Weatherman

T5s may be better than PCs if you have the appropriate ballast and reflectors, and fans to keep the bulbs cool. These items don't tend to come cheap. An inexpensive T5 setup may be no better than PCs.

Good point, but I was assuming that we were talking about a T5 setup that most people would consider "standard". That is, with a good quality individual parabolic reflector for each bulb. I would also consider a fan to be a fairly standard piece of equipment regardless of what lighting system is used. When people discuss lighting options, they are already comparing apples and oranges, so I try to think of it as comparing what someone would typically have.

Edit: BTW, the reflectors cost $25 each, one time charge. I don't have PCs so I don't know how much they cost, but I think they are pretty expensive and need to be replaced every 6 months. So I would disagree that PCs are more economical than T5s.

[hng]

Originally Posted by jerseyguy1996

Where are you seeing the 110W 48" T5? All of the T5HO that I see are 54W for 48" bulbs.

The VHO's are 110W for a 48" bulb.

This brings up another question for me and stop me if you think I am hijacking this thread, but I hear everyone claiming that T5's are better as far as power output, and cheaper than VHO's but from what I can tell, the T5's of equivalent length are about 1/3rd the power (if rating it by watts) and about the same cost. What gives?

You're right about the bulbs, length, and watts. I switched from VHO to T5s a few months ago. T5s put out more light per watt, that's why the rated watts are less. With a reflector, they are just more efficient than a VHO.

[jerseyguy1996]

Originally Posted by hng

You're right about the bulbs, length, and watts. I switched from VHO to T5s a few months ago. T5s put out more light per watt, that's why the rated watts are less. With a reflector, they are just more efficient than a VHO.

So let me just crunch the numbers here and stop me if I'm missing something. (prices are off of marine depot website).

1 36" T5HO midday bulb 39W $17.99
1 36" VHO Aquasun bulb 95W $24.00

So if we are just looking at wattage we are paying $.46 per watt with the T5 and $.25 per watt for the VHO. In order for the actual light output of the T5HO to equal the light output of the VHO it would have to be 2.43 times more efficient than the VHO. Is this possible? It seems like it couldn't be that much more efficient at generating light. Please someone tell me what I am missing.

[Weatherman]

Unfortunately, the only way to know for sure is with a Kill-A-Watt and a PAR meter. Anything else is just speculation.

[hng]

I think you've hit the nail on the head, T5s are produce more light per watt than VHOs. A fluorescent bulb emits light in all directions, so about half the light goes down into the tank, and another half goes up to the hood. Some of that light will be reflected down into the tank but not much. With the parabolic reflectors used with T5s, a lot of the light that doesn't directly go into the tank is reflected down into the tank. That almost doubles (figure of speech, not a specific percentage) the light that goes into the tank, and that is why everyone insists on using those reflectors for T5s. There are simply no parabolic reflectors available for VHO bulbs (at least I've never heard of any). The other reason that T5s can give you more light is that you can fit MORE of them over a tank, and still be using less watts than a VHO system.

[jerseyguy1996]

Originally Posted by Weatherman

Unfortunately, the only way to know for sure is with a Kill-A-Watt and a PAR meter. Anything else is just speculation.

I just want to know if I got ripped by putting VHO's on my tank instead of T5's.:-)

[jerseyguy1996]

Originally Posted by hng

I think you've hit the nail on the head, T5s are produce more light per watt than VHOs. A fluorescent bulb emits light in all directions, so about half the light goes down into the tank, and another half goes up to the hood. Some of that light will be reflected down into the tank but not much. With the parabolic reflectors used with T5s, a lot of the light that doesn't directly go into the tank is reflected down into the tank. That almost doubles (figure of speech, not a specific percentage) the light that goes into the tank, and that is why everyone insists on using those reflectors for T5s. There are simply no parabolic reflectors available for VHO bulbs (at least I've never heard of any). The other reason that T5s can give you more light is that you can fit MORE of them over a tank, and still be using less watts than a VHO system.

So it's all in the reflector. Seems to be an easy fix. Someone needs to make a parabolic reflector for VHO's. I will get right on it.

[hng]

VHOs are good lights, don't worry about it. If you want sps and clams, then you might want to switch. Otherwise, be happy (at least until it comes time to change the bulbs!).

[jerseyguy1996]

Originally Posted by hng

VHOs are good lights, don't worry about it. If you want sps and clams, then you might want to switch. Otherwise, be happy (at least until it comes time to change the bulbs!).

Well based on what I have read, the bulbs should have about 8-9 months total useful life so that gives me about 7-8 months to save up the money for an all out MH system and just use the VHO's to supplement the actinic.