VHO's V.S. T5's

[william1]

So im working on a lighting set-up for the 180 gallon 72x24x24. I wasnt sure if there was a huge difference in running VHO lighting like T8 or 12's or T5 lighting.

So I want to run a couple icecap 660 ballasts. And I need to figure out a bulb size to run like six 72" VHO's or 10 36" T5's. Im going to start my canopy soon and need to figure out the lighting combination.

So if anyone wants to chime in feel free. Im running a small T5 setup right now and a 400 MH, until I finish the canopy. I really dont want the heat issues or electric bill of running MH's

 

[glxtrix]

The only thing that I would run VHO's for is actinics only. Their color is FAR superior than any T5 bulb can produce. Now keep in mind, they serve no purpose for PAR....T5's can, and I believe the blue+ bulbs puts out A LOT of PAR. So if you feel you need the extra PAR, stay with T5's. If you're not worried so much and would love that crazy coral color pop, try the URi Super Actinic R.....and you don't need a reflector for the VHO, it has one built into the bulb If you're thinking of using VHO's for other than actinics....I personally would just go with T5's. They cost less, produce way more PAR and are more efficient.

 

[skriz]

10 T-5's will still consume 400 watts, so compared to a 400w mh, there's no power difference.

Between t5 and vho, t5 has better reflectors available, making them a better option for lighting. Vho actinics are the best though, but the t5's will eventually get there.

You could go 2 x 25w mh and have an awesome setup. Fewer bulbs to buy/replace, plenty of par and shimmer

 

[skriz]

AndyMan;354652 wrote: I'm also interested in this... I'm running VHO T12's (as well as 2x250W halides)
If T5's are "better" I'm definitey willng to listen

t5's are not better than MH; they're different.

 

[skriz]

glxtrix;354651 wrote: The only thing that I would run VHO's for is actinics only. Their color is FAR superior than any T5 bulb can produce. Now keep in mind, they serve no purpose for PAR....T5's can, and I believe the blue+ bulbs puts out A LOT of PAR. So if you feel you need the extra PAR, stay with T5's. If you're not worried so much and would love that crazy coral color pop, try the URi Super Actinic R.....and you don't need a reflector for the VHO, it has one built into the bulb If you're thinking of using VHO's for other than actinics....I personally would just go with T5's. They cost less, produce way more PAR and are more efficient.

Oddly enough, the URI's without the built-in reflectors are better than those with! I used the ones with the built-in reflectors and LOVED the colour-best I've ever seen (Actinic).

 

[glxtrix]

Do they even make Actinics with out reflectors inside them?? I've never seen. Not that I would change, lol. how were the no reflected ones you used better? Light/PAR wise, but not color over the reflected ones?

 

[skriz]

glxtrix;354671 wrote: Do they even make Actinics with out reflectors inside them?? I've never seen. Not that I would change, lol. how were the no reflected ones you used better? Light/PAR wise, but not color over the reflected ones?

They used to a while back, not sure if they still do. They were better with regards to light/par. Colour was the same.

No need to change the bulbs. If you're going to change anything, start with your substrate

 

[mufret]

With the IceCaps you can actually run both T5s and VHOs, simultaneously. One thing to consider would be to use one or 2 VHO actinics and wire up the remaining bulbs for T5s.

You will get a different look between the T5s and MH. With a standard 180g, you'll need to consider the coverage you'll get with each. You can run multiple banks of the 36" 39w or you could go with the 60" 80w T5s and either leave 6" on each side or stagger them. The alternative is at least three MH (depending on the reflectors you decide to use) to get the coverage you'll need in a tank with those dimensions.

I run tanks with both and you really can't go wrong with either one on a tank that has a height of 24" or less . The look, though, will be different so go with the one that looks best to you.

 

[glxtrix]

Skriz;354678 wrote: They used to a while back, not sure if they still do. They were better with regards to light/par. Colour was the same.

No need to change the bulbs. If you're going to change anything, start with your substrate

Ah cool. Yeah I've never seen them sold..but maybe I don't look hard enough, lol. Change my substrate? Nah it's good, no poop collection going on there....now you on the other hand, did you have fun changing yours ....Oooohhhhhh.

 

[smoothie]

With the depth of the 180 I would really look into the best reflectors for each if you are not going halide. As far as my opinion I love vho's. As far as where the hobby is going and broader color spectrum =t5's. Get with Big D on these lights for that sized tank to get a first hand opinion

 

[william1]

Ya if I ran two icecap 660's and six 60" T5's that might work. Im defenetly not going to be running T12's or T8's. The six foot bulb are 80 watts but if I run three bulbs off the icecap 660 there going to be overdriven right? And does anyone know the wattage draw of the icecap ballast? (how much electric it takes to run the ballast)


I guess when it comes down to it Im trying to conserve on electric and light the tank up as much as possible. You know like the biggest bang for the buck.

 

[schwaggs]

First of all, the 660 can run only 16 feet of bulb or 4 bulbs max. Assuming 2 ballasts with the 2 configurations mentioned will get you:

4 - 72" VHO bulbs = 640 watts of VHO lighting. ($33 X 4 = $132 .206 per watt)
8 - 36" T5 = 312W of T5 Lighting ($20 X 8 = $160 .513 per watt)
So VHO would yield almost 2X lighting power.

I would suggest thinking about 48" bulbs. They ship better than the 60 or 72" bulbs and cost only a little more than the 36" bulbs. Of course you would have to stagger the bulbs in the hood which would mean less light on the ends of the tank but I don't think that is a bad thing...

8 - 48" VHO = 880W of VHO Lighting ($24 X 8 = $192 = .218 per watt)
8 - 48" T5 = 432W of T5 Lighting ($21 X 8 = $168 .388 per watt)

Of course, the comparison above is based on watts which doesn't translate 100% to PAR but I think it is close.