T5 Lighting Redesign

[cameron]

I am looking at redoing my lighting setup. Currently I have the following on a 72" tank:

250w MH - 4x22" T5s - 250w MH

then another set of

1x36" T5 - 1x 36" T5

http://www.cameroncole.com/mypics/Aquarium/2007-02_New_Lighting/HPIM3177.JPG" alt="" />

My new thought is to move to the either 12x36" T5s over-driven by IceCap Ballasts which would cost $1218 at ReefGeek ([IMG]http://www.reefgeek.com/lighting/T5_Fluorescent/IceCap/SLR_Retrofit_Kits/36_inch__6x39W_SLR_T5_Very_High-Output_Retrofit_Kit_w!_Bulbs_by_IceCap">http://www.reefgeek.com/lighting/T5_Fluorescent/IceCap/SLR_Retrofit_Kits/36_inch__6x39W_SLR_T5_Very_High-Output_Retrofit_Kit_w!_Bulbs_by_IceCap</a>) with replacement lamps running around $250 each time I change them out

- or -

Switch to 6x60" T5s over-driven which would run $709. As my tank is 72", I would stagger 2 bulbs to the left and 2 bulbs to the right. I would also move light needy corals away from the edges. ([IMG]http://www.reefgeek.com/lighting/T5_Fluorescent/IceCap/SLR_Retrofit_Kits/60_inch__6x80W_SLR_T5_Very_High-Output_Retrofit_Kit_w!_Bulbs_by_IceCap">http://www.reefgeek.com/lighting/T5_Fluorescent/IceCap/SLR_Retrofit_Kits/60_inch__6x80W_SLR_T5_Very_High-Output_Retrofit_Kit_w!_Bulbs_by_IceCap</a>). The nice part on this setup is bulb costs which would run almost half the cost of the other setup at $150.

Going by the raw numbers of overdriven lamps 12x36" would equal 720w. Now the second 6x60" option would yield 600w. The "crappy" part on the second scenario of course being the ends getting less wattage than the middle, but I am not sure that is such a big problem so long as I plan the tank accordingly. Most of the tank should be getting will be getting comparable wattage and I would think similar PAR. 6" on either side of the tank would be getting 1/3 to 1/2 the wattage and again in theory the PAR.

Oh and I will likely pack another 2x36" since I should be able to fit another row of IceCap reflectors. This can go in either setup adding another 120w.

Now with all that said, what would you do?

 

[dannybradley]

Does over driving the lamps cause them to experience spectrum degradation faster? If so, you may look at a higher cost over time than you think.

 

[mufret]

I think staggering the bulb would work well. If it were me, I would probably stagger them alternating each bulb. This way the middle 60" would get full coverage and you'd only have 6" on each end that was getting less. This would still be plenty of light for most softies and LPS. How tall is your canopy? How far from the water are the T5s you currently have mounted in it? Depending on your answers, the other suggestion I would make, is to mount the end caps to some type of frame work that would allow you to move the lighting up and down. Distance from the water can have a significant impact with T5s. The ability to move your lighting would also be helpful as you acclimate your tank to the new setup.

 

[mufret]

DannyBradley;105840 wrote: Does over driving the lamps cause them to experience spectrum degradation faster? If so, you may look at a higher cost over time than you think.

In my experience, I've found that overdriving T5s does not have a significant impact on the spectrum of the bulb as we usually switch out the bulbs (12- 24 months) before it becomes an issue. Actively cooling the bulbs will make a difference in the life of your bulbs. There have been some tests that suggest that using fans to cool the bulbs also increased the PAR so this would be an added benefit to making sure there was good ventilation designed into the setup.

 

[lockeoak]

The "conventional wisdom" (take that for what it's worth) over at RC from folks like the Grim Reefer etc. is that T5's at stock voltage are good for 18-24 months and overdriving them lowers the lifespan to about 12 months. Cooling fans will slow the degradation.

 

[cameron]

Does over driving the lamps cause them to experience spectrum degradation faster? If so, you may look at a higher cost over time than you think.

I believe overdriving them from a couple of information posts degrades them about the same as it boosts them so around a 20% hit. If that range is close, it is still cheaper than my current setup at around $120 every 9 months or so with my MH and that doesn't even include what I pay for the current T5s I have. It will be cheaper and raw wattage in the tank should be close or even higher.

How tall is your canopy?

I am having it custom built to house these lights and build in multiple fans for cooling so I can pretty much put it at whatever height I like. I am considering putting the lights REAL close to the water. Maybe try to design the canopy so the lights sit 3-4" from the surface. With that in mind, got any good ideas for how to open the canopy top so access to the tank is a breeze and the lights don't get in the way?

 

[cameron]

I think it would be either 1/2 or 1/3 depending on alignment. My plan was to only stagger two on the left and two on the right which would give the very ends around 200w of T5 lighting each, about 6" on either side 300w and wouldn't effect the middle at all. I don't know what the PAR numbers in that setup will be, but I don't really run many corals on the ends just some shrooms. If I don't stagger them, little light gets on 6" of the ends since I am going to run the T5s close to the water.

In my setup, staggering is probably not that big of a deal. I just want dark spots over the ends of the tank and want a little light so I can place some low light corals there.

 

[cameron]

I knew it was going to read poorly as my bulbs on my 250w setup aren't very good and they are filled with salt spray not to mention my reflectors covered in it as well. Anyway after a HORRIBLE PAR reading, I bit it and bought new IceCap ballasts and reflectors from ReefGeek with a range ATI bulbs. Will get them installed and let everyone know how much the PAR goes up... it certainly can't go down.

 

[FutureInterest]

I really like the ATI bulbs. I have a mixture of ATI and UV lighting bulbs. I have yet to test the UV lighting bulbs out with a par meter, but supposedly they are able to be overdriven a bit more than the ATIs. However, the UV lighting bulbs are more pink/purple than blue when you go up in K.

 

[cameron]

I actually went with the ATI bulbs on your recommendations to 46bfinga. I am looking forward to less white and a bt more blue.

 

[george]

Cameron;105829 wrote: My new thought is to move to the either 12x36" T5s over-driven by IceCap Ballasts which would cost $1218 at ReefGeek (http://www.reefgeek.com/lighting/T5_Fluorescent/IceCap/SLR_Retrofit_Kits/36_inch__6x39W_SLR_T5_Very_High-Output_Retrofit_Kit_w!_Bulbs_by_IceCap">http://www.reefgeek.com/lighting/T5_Fluorescent/IceCap/SLR_Retrofit_Kits/36_inch__6x39W_SLR_T5_Very_High-Output_Retrofit_Kit_w!_Bulbs_by_IceCap</a>) with replacement lamps running around $250 each time I change them out[/QUOTE]
I know it's a big outlay leap from $1200 to $3600, but if you're considering this route, have you thought about an LED system? It's kind of a hard sell since you're not going for a full fixture but retrofit systems, but what you get for the money is really exquisite.

 

[cameron]

Lumen to watt is still low for the current LED fixtures. The T5s I bought will put out almost 100 lumens per watt. An LED fixture will put out max 50 closer to half that depending on the fixture. As for PAR, T5s compete with MH in the right setup and IMO the LED fixtures aren't very close to the numbers a good MH setup can put out or a very good T5 setup. With PUR ratings LEDs seem to do better, but they still can't compete with the raw numbers of an MH or a specialized spectrum overdriven T5 setup.

IMO you are basically paying for R&D on a technology that is inferior at this moment and time from a pure output perspective. You do get a couple nifty features and low heat. Clearly LED lighting is the future, but I don't think the future is now... for me at least. Besides wait one year and 10w LEDs will be out and probably double that in 2009. Wait a 2-3 years and you will be able to get an LED setup for half what it costs today putting out four times the light.

I paid $750 for my T5s, I paid another $100 for some LEDs to add shimmer and I have the Neptune Moonlight setup which would run most people about $100. It doesn't have the cool factor of the LED but for almost a quarter the price it will put out more PAR, have shimmer and a similar lunar cycle as the Solaris units. Factor in $750 for bulb changes over the next five years plus another $150 for electricity and it is still much cheaper to run this setup.

 

[jessezm]

Cameron, because of the wierd shape of my tank, I've had to stagger my bulbs, too. I can confirm that your thinking is right on--I place all my lower light corals on the edges, and have my high-light corals toward the center. It's actually pretty helpful to have some less intensely lit areas to acclimate corals. I've got a 30" deep tank, and I had some blastos bleach out on the sandbed before I moved them under a ledge on the side of my tank.

 

[george]

I agree LED's are still in a relative infancy and many of the numbers don't stack up against T5 or MH, but now that they've been out for a while, their capability is proven, though not for all tank types. Also, I think we over-light our reefs considerably, sometimes to a detriment.

After using fluorescent, MH, and LED's over the years, I'd *never* go back to MH for all the bad heat and wasted energy. My next system will be LED if I can afford the startup costs and T5 if I'm going budget.

I also think that the amazing programability of LED's for creating a more realistic lighting environment is a huge plus as well. It's much, much more than just the lunar cycle.

It's not for everyone though and I know most people are mostly interested in lighting capabilities, not effects.

 

[patrick214]

Cameron;109403 wrote: Lumen to watt is still low for the current LED fixtures. The T5s I bought will put out almost 100 lumens per watt. An LED fixture will put out max 50 closer to half that the light..

Actually, The I-series solaris is producing 80 Lumens per watt.

 

[patrick214]

Do the LED fixtures have to produce PAR and PUR ratings higher than a 1000 watt halide to not have "inferior" output? The I-series fixtures are already comparable if not better in PAR and PUR of 400 watt halides. Check Dana Riddle's evaluation of some the previous fixtures comparable to 250 watt halides. I'm not saying you should run out and buy one, but in reality the new LED fixtures in my opinion would be a better lighting option for our reef tanks than nearly any others. Unless we all have dimmers and microcomputers on our halides capable of adjusting the intensity and color of the halides at set intervals to simulate the natural progression of the day (not just T5's ON, halides ON, halides OFF, T5's Off) This is a rather crude area of reefkeeping that LED's will help address in the future. Part of the cost of solaris other than the alleged energy savings are these programming capabilities. In my opinion its become less an issue of technology with the LED's and more a need for competition to drive the price down.

 

[cameron]

Comparing a fixture to a 20k 250w or a 15k XM isn't a very good comparison. Why don't they just throw out the PAR number with the method by which is was taken? Seriously, a 250w 10k XM on an IceCap Ballast puts out more par than a 400w 15k XM by quite a bit. Heck an Iwasaki 175w is pretty close to those 400w XM 15k numbers.

In raw dollars, a good T5HO setup is just hard to beat. It will put out as much possibly more PAR (depending on a variety of factors) than the I4 and it will take over a decade to recoup your costs using the I4. That doesn't even count the fact you should replace those LEDs somewhere around 7 or 8 years or 10 on the outside which is probably cheaper to just buy a new unit.

My point is that LED technology is fine if you have the cash to drop on them. They work and they have some nifty features, but in the end T5s get you great lighting for a fraction of the price. Besides you can wait a couple years and get far better LED setups. I am assuming they are using the new Luxeon Rebel in the I4 and it is already old tech given some of the 10w and 15w LEDs coming down the pipe.

Honestly after Sanjay's comments about T5HO PAR and how it is stacking up in many instances to be better than MH lighting, I was pretty sold on them. Low cost entry point and relatively low maintenance costs is just a good value for this day and time.

 

[dough]

Why do you want to make changes? Is it cost, style of tank, what you want to keep etc.

I've your going towards a LPS and Softy tank I would agree. But if your sticking to mostly SPS type tanks I still think MH give you a much deeper and more rich coral colors than a T5 tank.

As Mike said reading through T5 threads over on RC, most stagger there set-up. It's seems that ATI is the lamp of choice but there are a few new unique lamps (in terms of spectrum) on the market now.

 

[cameron]

Replacing 2 MH bulbs every 8 months and 6 T5 bulbs every 16 months is pricey ($150 for the MH and $120 for the T5s). I want more light in as well so it would mean upgrading the reflectors on the MH setup which is another $300. I also want to move toward colder water so I can keep some interesting critters which MH makes difficult. Another nice benefit is the huge variety of bulb choices coming in for T5s. The 3000k and red bulbs are looking very interesting and the fiji purple is supposed to be stunning. Another plus is Sanjay's recent research that is rumored to be showing very high PAR numbers for quality T5 setups outpacing even good MH setups.

In the end for $800 roughly, I can get the color I want in the tank (ATI 2 blue+, 2 blue special, 2 pro color), my bulb costs go WAY down saving me roughly $150 every 8 months, I can part out my current lighting setup for nearly half the cost maybe more (2 IceCap 250w Ballasts, 3 T5 Retrokits, 2 additinal T5 Ballasts, LED lighting, Extra Bulbs), way less heat going into the system and my PAR will be MUCH higher blasting 600w of T5 into the tank while saving me a buck or two on my monthly electric.

The question I have, is why not?

 

[cameron]

dough;110072 wrote: I've your going towards a LPS and Softy tank I would agree. But if your sticking to mostly SPS type tanks I still think MH give you a much deeper and more rich coral colors than a T5 tank.

I am not sure where you are getting this. The reason a lot of the europeans are switching off MHs is because they can't control the spectrum nearly as well and can't get their coral colors to pop as easily. T5s aren't just for softies and LPS anymore. The new upgrades in reflectors and ballasts as well as understanding active cooling effects on T5 PAR are yielding incredible numbers. 600w of T5 is going to crush the lighting from my current system. Now granted a big reason for that is my own neglect, but even under optimal circumstances best I could do with a good investment on reflectors is equal that PAR rating.

One caveat is that I don't have a deep tank. If my tank was deeper than 24", I would probably not go this direction as MH do seem to punch light down into a tank very well.