which light set up

navyreefer · Dec 31, 2007

Cameron;115510 wrote: IMO it is hard to beat an overdriven T5 setup as it offers flexibility and a lot of advantages in the PAR/cost/heat transfer arena. However, Iwasaki 175w bulbs with great reflectors is a close second on my list. If your tank is deeper than 24" and you plan on running light demanding corals/clams down there, IMO you MH is the only way to go.

Woot!! Something I did that Cameron Agrees with!! haha

cameron · Dec 31, 2007

I agree from time to time... just not as frequently as some.

wbholwell · Dec 31, 2007

Victor, I'd like to see some pics of your tank under the new T5's!

roland jacques · Dec 31, 2007

Cameron;115510 wrote: Not sure I can agree with the cost. Maybe in the used sector, but T5s quickly outpace MH in terms of cost in most tanks. Take a 48"x24" tank which is likely the best MH cost ratio. A good new retro for MH with 2 bulbs will run you $500. A good new retro for 8 T5s is about $600. However you likely replace your bulbs in the MH twice as often (8 months versus 16 months). A good bulb will run you $75 in the MH and about $25 in the T5s. So $300 versus $200 every 1.5 years. Then there is the lower electric bill and less water costs from lower heat. I think T5s recoup and save you money over 3 years.

Good points, I agree, if you do a off the shelve MH vs T-5 the initial cost are close. Smaller tanks the upfront cost are about the same but with bigger tanks the price gap increases more. If you are cheep like me and Do your own retro type mh the price gap is a little more. 

Lamp life is debatable. Theirs a great article in a resent (past):unsure: RC magazine, charting lamp PAR decline of MH lamps over about 14 months. The lamps lamps biggest PAR decline with the MH lamps was in the first 2 months after that it was very gradual. Even at 14 months the Par was only about 7% less than it was at 4 months (If I remember right). So on my personal tank ill run MH up to 18 months (if the PAR is still acceptable) Raising and lowering the fixtures based on age/output is a option for some also. Also i think their are some good Ebay MH lamps $15-$25 each, (Ive seen Phoenix 14h lamps on ebay for $20) but thats just My Opinion. Some people T-5 are changed at about 12 when Overdriving them with Icecaps... also bulb cooling on t-5s effects life.
So for me changing 4 MH lamps for $80 every 12-16 months, or 12 to 16 t-5s for $240-$400 every 12- 16 Months. 

But i do see you have a good point Camaron

As far as lamps do

As for PAR output T5s can compete with MH in the sub 24" depths. MHs big advantages are they throw light further down into the tank, they provide a full range spectrum and they are point of source so you get more lots shimmer. However if you consider T5s throw their PAR across the length of the bulb and thus the length of the tank, they average out in some cases equal to or higher depending on setups. People tend to measure PAR on a MH bulb under the bulb not where the PAR tends to fall off.

I think this is preference personally. T5s tend to be softer while MH tend to be more crisp. You can customize your color choices better with T5s, but that is only part of the appearance.

Agree

This isn't as great as some people think. I believe the new fixtures use 5w LEDs which means a bank would suck at least 125w. If you look at straight PAR numbers, I think the Iwaski 175w MHs throw about the same amount of PAR. That is still an improvement but not the improvement LED companies would have you believe. Also, I don't think PAR is the be all in coral growth. I think it is the best measurement we have but I think a lot of corals need a fuller spectrum which is lacking more on LEDs than any of the others.

Wow,i thought the watts advantage was more. good to no.

This is true, but LEDs do throw a lot of heat they just suck it off a heatsink which IMO is a big advantage.

IMO it is hard to beat an overdriven T5 setup as it offers flexibility and a lot of advantages in the PAR/cost/heat transfer arena. However, Iwasaki 175w bulbs with great reflectors is a close second on my list. If your tank is deeper than 24" and you plan on running light demanding corals/clams down there, IMO you MH is the only way to go.

Good stuff

patrick214 · Dec 31, 2007

LED. Were thinking of getting the new i series soon. I hate the bias involved in everyones bashing of the leds. I bet if the same people won one in a raffle itd be on there tank and theyd prob be talking about how great it is. Wasnt there a lighting expert who suggested we may be overlighting our corals anyways packing 400 watt halides and t5s everywhere?

roland jacques · Dec 31, 2007

Bias? where?

Do you have any info on the I series LED.

And yes I agree with Dana's opinion, that many tanks are over powered, but that does not make LED any better.

kzoo · Dec 31, 2007

The only problem I see with T5s is the lack of space to put enough bulbs on smaller tanks and the depth that the light can reach. But you can use more light spectrums and coverage is great. Thats why I use t5s and MH.

patrick214 · Dec 31, 2007

the bias is that everyone wants to think what they have is best. Ppl say things like they only get 25 llumens per watt when they get 80 or that a 175watt iwasaki puts out the same kinda par as the new led putting par comparable to a 14k 400watt halide that's just balogne.

jimw369 · Dec 31, 2007

Sounds to me like Cameron got it covered! 24" deep tank T5s got it covered.

In fact T5s can bleach SPS and as for the blue shimmer look T5s have an 18K bulb out there now. Ill be getting that soon to see what it does.

mwitten · Dec 31, 2007

Patrick214;115688 wrote: the bias is that everyone wants to think what they have is best. Ppl say things like they only get 25 llumens per watt when they get 80 or that a 175watt iwasaki puts out the same kinda par as the new led putting par comparable to a 14k 400watt halide that's just balogne.

Now you see why I want to check for myself on the LED's

I suspect that our metrics are not quite there yet, personally. I know the Aquaillumination fixture I have ordered will NOT replace a 400W. But if it improves my efficiency, it will be worth it to me.

Happy new year to all!

-Mike

roland jacques · Dec 31, 2007

Patrick214;115688 wrote: the bias is that everyone wants to think what they have is best. Ppl say things like they only get 25 llumens per watt when they get 80 or that a 175watt iwasaki puts out the same kinda par as the new led putting par comparable to a 14k 400watt halide that's just balogne.

I dont no, but i think their may be a application issue here. Lumen's per watt only go so far in a reef tank application. Directing the light into the tank is the other part when comparing lights.

A manufacture saying their fixture puts out the same PAR as a 400 watt MH can be true AND false. If they measure light directly under both lights the PAR can be the same. at 12" 18" and 24" so they can say they are comparable. But if you measure PAR those same depths, 6" or 10" off center, they can be very different. When you add a great reflectors to that mix the comparisons can be WAY different.

The reflector is the most important part of any t-5 and MH type lighting. LEDS not quiet as much (I'm not sure how they measure the Lumen's of the LED lights.)

The comparison of LED and MH can be a bit subjective. It may not be bias but an opinion from a different perspective. Maybe even a more complete or thorough perspective. I find that most bias statements come from manufactures not so much from hobbyist. (Then again that best skimmer poll had some serious bias in it)

Id like to no more about these discrepancies also. i never really given the LEDs a thorough look over they are priced out of my league and i think in the next 3-5 years they will improve a lot, and hopefully the cost will drop significantly

I'm glad that you challenged this. Maybe some more light will get shed on this :shades:. i wish more people would challenge things they think to be false.

dough · Dec 31, 2007

However you likely replace your bulbs in the MH twice as often (8 months versus 16 months).

What? I guess you're going on some average. There are a lot of people still running MH up to a year. Doesn't over driving the T5 deminsh the life of a lamp?

Besides one can spend quite a bit of $$ trying to get the right color combination of T5's in a tank.

I don't think that it is so much a hesitation to embrace new technology as there is "I've already shelled out $500 on a MH system, why do I want or need to shell out another $600 on T5". There are still a lot of TOTM out there that are still using MH. Here are two of the latest.

http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2007-12/totm/index.php">http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2007-12/totm/index.php</a>

[IMG]http://www.zeovit.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11391">http://www.zeovit.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11391</a>

To Cams point about coverage, I still struggle with my setup trying to min the spot light effect of a single MH over the tank even with 2 T5 as suppliments.

For me for right now that would be the only reason for me to go with an all T5 system along with the fact if I add another MH I would really be dealing with heat issues.

What I find interesting is that most have drifted away from VHO's in preference for T5. Accept this guy the Cam referenced in another thread as a example of a good T5 tank. He is adding a VHO to his hood.

[IMG]http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1221511">http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1221511</a>

cameron · Dec 31, 2007

Patrick214;115688 wrote: the bias is that everyone wants to think what they have is best.

I had the opportunity 2 weeks ago to buy the lighting setup I wanted and I have the cash for pretty much anything. I chose T5s because after my research they are still a better value. Using some relatively simple math, I could never recoup the cost of an LED fixture compared to a T5 setup.

Patrick214;115688 wrote: Ppl say things like they only get 25 llumens per watt when they get 80

Even at 80 it still has a ways to go to catch 95 for T5s or over a hundred for MH. They are also comparing their white LEDs when they make that statement and those don't even make up half a bank so their actual lumen to watt for a bank is quite a bit lower. That said there are already LEDs that are kicking out 150+ lumens to the watt. They are too expensive to use currently in a setup like this, but that will change over the next few years. LEDs will likely be THE lighting technology of the future, but right now the math doesn't add up to me.

Patrick214;115688 wrote: or that a 175watt iwasaki puts out the same kinda par as the new led putting par comparable to a 14k 400watt halide that's just balogne.

From the numbers I have seen they used the XM bulb to do their comparison:

http://www.reeflightinginfo.arvixe.com/tabular-ballast-data.php?BallastName=5&shield=N&tfm_order=ASC&tfm_orderby=lamp_name">[B]Lamp[/B]</a> [IMG]http://www.reeflightinginfo.arvixe.com/tabular-ballast-data.php?BallastName=5&shield=N&tfm_order=ASC&tfm_orderby=ballast_name">[B]Ballast[/B]</a> [IMG]http://www.reeflightinginfo.arvixe.com/tabular-ballast-data.php?BallastName=5&shield=N&tfm_order=ASC&tfm_orderby=power">[B]Watts[/B]</a> [IMG]http://www.reeflightinginfo.arvixe.com/tabular-ballast-data.php?BallastName=5&shield=N&tfm_order=ASC&tfm_orderby=efficiency">[B]PPFD Efficiency[/B]</a>
[IMG]http://www.reeflightinginfo.arvixe.com/alldataforalamp.php?x1=128&x2=5&x3=Iwasaki 175W 15000K SE 1&x4=Icecap 175W Electronic&x5=N">Iwasaki 175W 15000K SE 1</a>[IMG]http://www.reeflightinginfo.arvixe.com/alldataforaballast.php?x1=128&x2=5&x3=Iwasaki 175W 15000K SE 1&x4=Icecap 175W Electronic&x5=N">Icecap 175W Electronic</a> 86 0.5261
[IMG]http://www.reeflightinginfo.arvixe.com/alldataforalamp.php?x1=103&x2=25&x3=XM 400W 15000K SE 1&x4=Icecap 400W Electronic&x5=N">XM 400W 15000K SE 1</a>[IMG]http://www.reeflightinginfo.arvixe.com/alldataforaballast.php?x1=103&x2=25&x3=XM 400W 15000K SE 1&x4=Icecap 400W Electronic&x5=N">Icecap 400W Electronic</a> 82 0.1976

The PAR numbers I have seen seem to be bearing that out as well. At any rate, the marketing prattles on about 400w MH 15000k bulb comparison but they don't list the ballast, bulb, PAR, PUR, etc. Since the previous setup did about 75% the PAR right under the bulb as the MH, one can only assume the same is true for this fixture.

This doesn't even account for the fact that MH bulbs have a much better lighting radius and with a top of the line reflector those numbers go even higher. Victors MH setup would CRUSH the numbers from an i4.

cameron · Dec 31, 2007

Good points, I agree, if you do a off the shelve MH vs T-5 the initial cost are close. Smaller tanks the upfront cost are about the same but with bigger tanks the price gap increases more. If you are cheep like me and Do your own retro type mh the price gap is a little more.

In my system, T5s were actually about the same upfront price as MH and mine is a 6' 135g. T5s aren't that expensive really. I would be hard pressed to find an MH setup that was considerably less expesive than a comparable T5 setup.

Also i think their are some good Ebay MH lamps $15-$25 each, (Ive seen Phoenix 14h lamps on ebay for $20) but thats just My Opinion. Some people T-5 are changed at about 12 when Overdriving them with Icecaps... also bulb cooling on t-5s effects life.
So for me changing 4 MH lamps for $80 every 12-16 months, or 12 to 16 t-5s for $240-$400 every 12- 16 Months. 

Your comparison isn't fair in the least. You can run T5 bulbs for twice as long before you get significant reduction in PAR. If you run your MHs 12 months, you are going to get a similar PAR drop off from T5s in 24 months. You can run T5 bulbs for 3-4 years with OK PAR and virtually no spectrum shift if you keep the bulbs relatively cool. You are also comparing cheap MH bulbs which are known (at least on RC) for some horrible PAR with effeciencies bording on 0.10. Even cheap T5 bulbs (sub $15) produce more PAR than those. Plus you don't need that many T5 bulbs to run your tank. Assuming your tank is 6' and 24" deep you can easily get good results with 8 60" bulbs which are going to be cheaper to replace than MH bulbs unless you have really found a $20 bulb that is as good as a quality XM.

roland jacques · Dec 31, 2007

Heres is a " artical" that compares MH to LED, It looks Very bias to me.

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2007/10/review/view">http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2007/10/review/view</a>

Even the data they use, shows MUCH More PAR coming out of the 250 MH than the LED. But the conclusion says
"In a nutshell, the LED array out-performed the 250-watt metal halide.":confused2:

1. They change the color graph in the 2 comparisions light distribbution pattern to help the LED look like more PAR. figure 10 and 11. but look at the numbers.:roll:

2. They compared the LED to one of the [B]LOWEST PAR MH available[/B] 20k lamp. :whut:

3. They show a close up pattarn for the LED only (12" by 6") 5" away from the source but dont supply the same for the MH.

4. They say the LED uses 68% less power In this comparision. Ture, BUT!! even with the Very poor lamp choice (20k) the MH put out much more PAR. :sad:

cameron · Dec 31, 2007

That is common so far with these tests. I can respect what these companies are doing pioneering a technology that one day will likely be the defacto standard in aquarium lighting, but to get their products out their they twist every imaginable number. The Iwasaki 175w in Sanjays research produces over 30% more PAR than the XM he used. Honestly I don't trust this reviewers numbers. Have you ever seen even the crappiest MH not throw over a 1000 PAR right under the bulb?

patrick214 · Dec 31, 2007

Cameron we will just have to agree to disagree. What bulb was used in the testing of the i series 14k? It coulda been phoenix or radiums for the 20k h series. Just bc bad bulbs were used a while back in a previous test doesnt mean there arent significant improvements. And to be honest i think the slightly lower par (which in my opinion is debatable since we dont know the actual par or testing criteria) is mitigated by the fact it does things mh can't do for the most part like changing intensities kelvin and dimming to more accurately simulate sunrise/set. Or the 28 day lunar cycle. Not to mention if we are already overlighting our tanks so what if it is barely outperformed by a 400watt halide? U gain that loss and more in other areas. When we started plans for this tank our goal was to find the best equipment possible for skimming flow and light, and I'll tell u this much when trying to gather opinions on these subjects I've never come across so much bias. The consensus ive got from ppl on rc seemed to me to be that u had the led bashers and those who switched from mh and saw improved growth and wouldnt go back. If I done get the led i don't know what to do maybe that super giesseman my t5 light? I think the LEDs are getting alot closer than u think if they are not there already. I hear there are lots of real nice SPs tanks under these lights. Watch rc will prob have a totm w led be4 long.

cameron · Dec 31, 2007

First I NEVER posted on RC about commercial LEDs. I posted a DIY project stating the advantages of some LEDs, but never got into ANY conversations about the Solaris fixtures other than speculation as to how it was built and what LEDs they used. You need to recheck that.

Second, While the i4 is "good" IMO it isn't $3800 good (what it would take to light my tank). I think it is a fine fixture, but lets be honest $3800 is a lot of money... period. It better cook my breakfast for that kind of money. If you change MH bulbs every six months and buy a relatively high end setup it does break even in several years but a high end MH blows it out of the water on PAR. I can't even fudge the numbers on a T5 fixture to make it cost beneficial.

Third if you do use the thought that we overlight (and that is only some corals mostly mid-deep water corals non-SPS), then you might as well go with a low end T5 or MH setup. Again the relatively inexpsive Iwasaki with spider reflectors would likely never break even cost wise with the Solaris.

Four, I like the fixture and it has features you can't find anywhere else but for me to recommend such an expensive piece of equipment it better be THE best out there. Right now it produces OK lighting, has features I find cool but not anything that will likely help my corals grow any better and will be obsolete next year. All that for some serious bank. I am about the results and I doubt this fixture will perform any better than a similar setup in MH or T5s costing thousands less.

Fifth if they tested against the top of the line MH setups it wouldn't have been a 15000k bulb much like the previous tests of the original weren't against the best 250w MH out there. I am pretty sure from what some people asked at MACNA they used the XM which is a crap 400w bulb. If they had used a good MH setup and tested in a real environment, they would have published their results rather than spouting "as good as" with no verification. Their previous comparison wasn't as good as the other bulb from a PAR aspect much less a full spectrum.

Lastly, I think this technology has a lot of promise and truly believe it will be the standard. Right now people who buy this fixture are early adopters and they will pay the price for being first like in most other industries. If you have the money, buy it... it is a cool fixture and will make people go oh cool when they come over. However, I am a bang for buck kinda guy and this thing doesn't do very well in that regard.

patrick214 · Dec 31, 2007

Cameron, i wasnt trying to suggest what i read on rc was from you. I meant to say my consensus was from others who posted on rc. The reason I brought this debate up in the first place was to try and get a better understanding bc it is difficult to determine whether this fixture is worth the money. I want the best light money can buy. If this fixture is the best i want it. if it is only average id be rather upset. I really like the cloud cover and the other features but I recently found a mh that does the dimming, clouds, and lunar cycle. It was a giesseman that costs about the same as the solaris. Do u have ne thoughts on these? Im confused do u think there are better lighting options period without regard to cost or that there is just better bang for your buck fixtures. I've had ppl whose opinions I trust tell me to get the led, if its not gonna give par better than a 175watt halide its not worth it to me.

blind1993 · Dec 31, 2007

patrick go with mh t5ho mix that is the best money can buy. i think that the cloud cover is not needed it is just something fancy.

which light set up

Member

Active Member

Active Member

Member

Member

Member

Active Member

Member

New Member

Member

Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Member

Active Member

Member

Active Member

Member

Active Member

Similar threads