T5 ballasts compared

[The Grim Reefer]

So I finally got some regular T5's (54 watt 4 foot lamps) to play with. I did PAR measurments 18.5" below the surface at the sandbed. The lamps were about 2" above the water for the test. The lamps were D&D, 2 Aquablues and 2 Actinic Pluses ran in Ice Cap reflectors. Tested with Apogee Quatum meter, Amps tested with Craftsman True RMS meter.

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

I am going to do some "dry" test where I can run the lamps for about a half hour to get a better idea what happens with the amp draw and output once they have ran longer. These tests were ran for around 10 minutes but things seemed stable.

[d4a2n0k]

So instead of getting the 8 x 54w Tek Light hood, maybe I should look into 2 x Icecap 660's and just go with a retro-fit.

They really make a big difference.

[fishypapas]

so according to your results, T5's are brighter DEEP in the tank.

hmmmmmmmm.

anyway you can get yourself on different reflectors???

id love to see how some single unit with dual bulbs (ie finnex) compares.

there are so many posts on here claiming that the single reflectors "double" the output of a bulb.

id like to get some empirical data to give a really good price/performace comparison (using the same bulbs of course)

finnex costs half as much as the retro sls (which makes it even cheaper as it comes finished in a hood) and the ice cap is even more.

keep up the good work grim!!

fp

[fishypapas]

also, can you check the par reading while slideing from one end to the other?

it would be nice to have an idea of how much light is lost while deviating from the center (directly under) a halide compared to the constant (should be) output of the t5's.

fp

[The Grim Reefer]

I've done the one end to the other before. Not a lot of difference on a bare lamp, actually more when used with a reflector. Assume it has to do with imperfections in the reflector.

I have measure a flat gloss white surface vs. a Ice Cap reflector and it is about double the output with the reflector. Look up the inverse square rule (or law) to see why a parabolic relector makes such a difference.

[fishypapas]

i am aware of the principle (into photography). but a flat white surface isnt the same as a highly polished, mirror finished, piece of aluminum.

somehere here, or nano-reef, posted pictures of his new finnex. the reflection was so clear that many posters were fooled into thinking that the 2 bulb was a four bulb unit.

even trying to correct the owner that he counted wrong lol. it stands to reaqson, that if a duplicate image is being produced by a reflection, that the reflector is redirecting a high percentage of the light.

id just like to know how much of it, and how much compared to the others. enough to offset the cost?

especially at your par readings. already out shining (pardon the pun) halides, even if there is a loss, a less expesive fixture may be worth its weight in photosynthetic gold.

[The Grim Reefer]

Actually a white painted surface is more reflective than you might think.

http://www.sunlightsupply.com/aquari...tcomparo.shtml

Pay attention to the meter readings on the curved reflectors. They got 12.4 on the white and 13.6 on the polished aluminum, not a huge change.

For my readings I used a peice of black PVC to isolate the sensor from the other lamps. I had 4 lamps with Ice Cap reflectors but because my lamps are 60" I had to use a 2 foot and 3 foot reflector on each lamp leaving a gap in the center. When measuring the area of the lamp with the reflector the reflectors themselves worked to isolate the lamp from the others so I knew I was only reading a single lamp. When I measured the gap there was actually 4 lamps reflecting in that area which added to the output and even with the additional light it was barely over half the output of the area with reflectors. How much the additional lamps added to the reading I am not sure so I feel comfortable saying about half. Now that I have a 4 foot lamp I've got a PC fixture I can set on in to test, that is a polished flat reflector.

As for the flat reflector fixtures you are not considering another aspect. With a Tek unit the lamps utilize the parabolic reflector to take advantage of all the light produced from the lamp. With the Finnex, Orbit, etc. not only don't they take advantage of the parabolic reflector the lamps are crammed so close together that they actually block much of the light produced on the upper side from entering the tank. They also run hotter which will decrease output and lamp life. I will say they Finnex produces half the light of the Tek and put money on being within 10% one way or the other of being right.

Oh, and don't put too worked up over my halide system. I am only running decent reflectors and lamps that aren't PAR monsters. I picked the particular lamps I did for their spectral output, I don't need to suppliment them with actinics. Had I gotten Phoenix lamps I would probably have PAR into the 120's or 30's but hay have needed supplimental actinics to get the look I wanted. Still not as good at the T5's but a much closer contest.

[Malolo]

Wow, those are impressive par numbers for 4 bulbs and no 6k bulbs in the mix either.

I am trying to decide on the number of bulbs I need in a tek t5 fixture for a new mixed corals set-up. I was convinced I needed 6 or 8 (18"W x 20"D) now not so sure. I am also very energy cautious. Is that amp draw on the IC ballast 3x the others? If so not worth the extra light in this set-up.

This is great info, thanks Grim!

[The Grim Reefer]

I am going to do this with the units off the tank so I can see if the amp draw changes after a half hour of so. I know 3 80 watt lamp were drawing less amp than that. If your tank is tall enough the amps drawn by the Ice Cap is well worth it, that is a lot of light. you would need at least 500 watts of good halides to cover the same area with that much intensity.

In your case 4 lamps should be enough but you could always run a couple actinics in a 6 lamp fixture to pop the fluorescent greens a little more.

[fishypapas]

grim, thanks for thr objectivity about the halide set-up (that it was not at its best).

but im sure many reefers didnt think T5 could even come close to halide, compound that with the fact that they performed better at that depth.

so whether a halide is set-up with top notch components or not, it seems T5 is trully a viable option. especially when you consider the new depth data along with the other benefits of heat and cost.

btw, from the photos of the finnex, at least the 2 bulb version, it looks like a curved reflector. especially when you can see four bulbs clearly (illusion); if it were flat i dont think the reflection would have looked the same and fooled so many. gotta go find that link and ask the reefer. but at $140 for 4 T5, on a shallow tank, for a first timer. doesnt seem like a bad choice. (unless you have to fork over another $100 for new bulbs) ....

fp

[fishypapas]

grim, here the link. ton'o pics of the finnex (not sure if you have seem them yet).

http://www.nano-reef.com/forums/inde...0&hl=finnex+t5

fp

[ASH]

Grim,
Do you have the ability to calculate PAR / Watts vs. Amps consumed. The IceCap VHO ballast has a low power factor, and the true amount of energy used will show up in the wattage comparison.

Our low capacitive power factor is off-set by the less than perfect inductive power factor produced by all pumps on the same service.

Andy

[RobbyG]

Just trying to get a grasp on this, I don't know much about PAR except that it's a measuring unit for the whole spectrum over surface area, almost like LUX. I assume that the 126 vs 183 is on a linear scale not like Db's.

If that is the case then one could assume that 8 Lamps using Workhorse 7 Ballasts would produce a 252 reading and use only 2.8 Amps?

What I am getting at is that Ice Cap Ballasts seem to be super inefficient! I see 4.1 Amps at 183 vs 1.4 Amps at 135. From these numbers I see them as power hogs.
It would seem that unless you have money to burn or no space for extra bulbs, you should stay away from Ice Cap ballasts.

So from what I am reading on the net I guess we need to know what the PAReff of these Bulb/Ballast combos are!

Please correct me if I am wrong because I am making many Assumptions in an area I know little about.

Originally posted by The Grim Reefer

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

. These tests were ran for around 10 minutes but things seemed stable.

[The Grim Reefer]

I am going to do some more playing as far as amp draws/output with the lights off the tank. I was only letting the lamps run about 10 minutes before taking the readings, didn't want to melt the braces over the tank. As I remember my 660's on the 80 watt lamps were only drawing like 2.8 amps but driving the lamps at or above 300 watts, seems like this should have been a lower draw as well. I'll go fire up that experiment and post results later on.

[ASH]

RobbyG - That was why I asked Grim to show wattage used, lamps and ballast, and compare that to alternative lamp drivers.

Andy

[twkenny]

Not wanting to sound ignorant or TOO one sided here..but I could not care less if the IC use more power. Bulbs seem to last longer, ballasts run cool, and you have a tremendous amount of flexibility with IC. Not to mention the support if you ever need it and the involvement in the industry. These guys are far and above the best.
Grim...I'm a huge T5 fan like you, and I appreciate the amount of time and energy you've given to inform others about T5's. I'm looking forward to seeing the rest of your results!

[RobbyG]

twkenny, I would remind you that 4.1 Amp is 471 Watts of power being drawn. That's more than most chillers and more than your refrigerator at home. At that rate you would be paying for about 3 extra set of bulbs per year in electricity bill or more.

I am afraid the Reaper may have just opened Pandora's box.

[RobbyG]

Yes from what I am seeing it would seem that Ice Cap Ballasts have the worst PAReff of any Ballasts. I will wait for Reaper to confirm the previous post but it does not look good.

Originally posted by ASH
RobbyG - That was why I asked Grim to show wattage used, lamps and ballast, and compare that to alternative lamp drivers.

Andy

[d4a2n0k]

I actually thought he had a typo. I figured he meant 1.4 amps not 4.1.

[The Grim Reefer]

RobbyG
I am running the lamps as we speak. You can't expect the power usage to follow a curve based on what it takes to normally drive them. By overdriving the lamps we are forcing more current through them than they were designed for. The original design (for industrial and commercial uses) was developed to run at the most efficient wattage possible. For our purposes that might not always be enough.

You are off base about what running twice as many lamps will do. The brighter the intensity of the source, the farther away from it the light travels. If you measured the output of 4 lamps over an empty tank of water then added 4 more lamps you wouldn't gain all that much PAR/lumens/lux at the bottom. all you are really doing is making the light more consistant across the bottom so you will see a small gain but not much. If you took those first 4 lamps and made them run 40% brighter you would see a 40% gain at the bottom.

I just rechecked my notes from the halides and each ballasts is actually drawing 2.34 amps so I am using 4.68 amps to put 95 UMOL's of PAR at the sandbed. I get 183 using 4.1 amps for the T5's to cover the same area as those 2 halides. Why the hell wouldn't I use Ice Cap?

[The Grim Reefer]

Just did a amp check after running the lamps for over an hour. IC ballast amp draw at 3.6. I thought it might come down a tad once the lamps had been on a while.

[chadfarmer]

on the work horse 7 you are running 2 bulbs and another work horse 7 you are running 2 bulbs (so 2 ballasts correct)

[old salty]

Thanks for all the info Grim. I have been running 2 Tek fixtures over my 125 and couldn't be more pleased. I recently got an electric bill, and though the bill was higher than normal, it was due to the higher usage of natural gas. I'm paying less than $15 a month to power my 125!! T5's are the shizzle.

[The Grim Reefer]

4 lamps on the workhorse and Ice Cap both. The DYnamic is 2 ballasts each running 2 lamps.

[chadfarmer]

grim if you had a 58 gal sps tank 36 inches long


current lights are 1 250w 10k ushio --icecap ballast
2 24 watt t5 blue plus (they were sitting around for over a year and decided to use them)

what would you put over it?