# Fish Need It, but do Plants Need It?



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

(Sorry about the title:redface
I just got some PAR data from a Fish Need It light, from jrman83. It was a 24 inch 2 x 24 watt T5HO light. To say I was shocked would be an understatement. The light is obviously running as a T5NO light, not a T5HO light. With both bulbs on, it gives only about 35 micromols of PAR at 18 inches, or about 15-20 micromols per bulb. A T5HO light should give at least double that much PAR, even with a very poor reflector. Apparently Fish Need It lights use very poor ballasts, which only drive the bulbs at about half their rated power.

This light would be very good for a 15 or 20 gallon tank, but almost worthless for a much bigger tank. (In my opinion)

Unfortunately it is now obvious to me that we can't judge a T5 light by the bulbs or the reflector, only by the ballast, which we can't even see. Without using a wattmeter to see how much electric power the light uses I don't see a way to know how good or bad it is, short of using a PAR meter.


----------



## Centromochlus (May 19, 2008)

Very interesting... It's one of the most affordable brands out there though, so I'm not surprised.


----------



## hbosman (Oct 5, 2006)

Hoppy,

Do you have any data on Catalina T5HO fixtures? I just received one two weeks ago because my Nova Extreme's ballasts died after several years of service. The Nova Extreme was a 4x39 watt where I ran two bulbs most of the time. The Catalina is a 3x39 Watt that I had installed in there wider fixture so there is more spacing between the bulbs. I run 1 bulb for 8 hours with a burst of 3 hours for all three bulbs. So far, BBA production is minimal and plant growth seems good. The bulbs are about 24 inches from substrate and 4 kdh drop checker is light lime green.


----------



## jccaclimber (Aug 29, 2011)

Would measuring current between the wall and ballast help any? I'm assuming that ballast efficiency is at least somewhat constant between brands/models. Mind you it's easy to kill yourself playing with the line current in a house, but it's also measurable with a $5 DMM.


----------



## Robert H (Apr 3, 2003)

That is interesting. Some years ago it was common for some lighting manufacturing to OVERDRIVE the ballasts in order to use higher wattage bulbs.. IE the 65 watt PC vs. the 55 watt. This was done for marketing purposes since the perception of the public was that higher wattage meant more light. Truth was the 65 watt PC gave off the same amount of light as the 55 watt, but burned out quicker.


----------



## zergling (May 16, 2007)

This is something that reef folks also discuss a lot -- quality of ballasts*. You may have good reflectors with good bulbs, but if your ballasts aren't driving them at the right frequency(?)......

On the bright side, ballasts are easy to replace, even for the lousiest of DIY'ers (IE - folks like me!), when you consider that you don't have to build the fixture/housing anymore. Just snipping a few wires here and there, taking out the old ballast, putting in new ballast, then connecting the wires.




*Well, at least until LED's came into the picture.


----------



## Storm (Aug 7, 2011)

Thanks for posting this. Wow, that would explain why the tank in my signature, which has a Fishneedit 2x24 just 16" from the substrate, has not yet become an algae farm. I was planning on hanging the fixture higher to avoid algae issues, but it seems like that's not needed.


----------



## Storm (Aug 7, 2011)

Another question comes to mind - does that mean my fixture only draws about half as much power as rated? So, instead of 48 watts it might draw 24? Or, do cheap ballasts just waste the extra electricity and still draw the full 48?


----------



## bsmith (Jan 8, 2007)

Great info Hoppy. Keep up the good work.


----------



## jackyuen89 (Apr 2, 2009)

Does anyone else wish the forum had a like button? +1 for you hoppy. Was going to buy a new 4" 4 bulb t5 fixture. But you changed my mind and im going back with Catalina.


----------



## Rich Conley (Jun 10, 2008)

Storm said:


> Another question comes to mind - does that mean my fixture only draws about half as much power as rated? So, instead of 48 watts it might draw 24? Or, do cheap ballasts just waste the extra electricity and still draw the full 48?



Somebody needs to pop these things on a kill-a-watt, and see. If its just that they draw less wattage, and have normal efficiency, its really not that bad of a thing. 

If, on the other hand, they're drawing full HO wattage, and are just terribly inneficient, thats a problem. 


Also, do these things get hot? My recollection is that T5HO is much more efficient with adequate cooling, and a lot of fixtures aren't properly designed to keep them cool enough.


----------



## lbacha (Apr 13, 2011)

Hmm this might be a good thing for me I want to use t5no bulbs over my tank but they are hard to find good ones this might be my solution.

Len


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

The thanks should go to jrman83, who did the testing, and gave me the data. He also bought his own PAR meter. He has promised me some data on Catalina lights too, so I'm hoping to not be as disappointed with that brand. 

If enough PAR meters get into our hands it becomes entirely possible to make PAR vs distance charts for individual manufacturers lights, by far a better idea than my original lumping together of several manufacturers lights. But, this isn't even possible for one person to do alone.


----------



## Naekuh (Oct 19, 2011)

Hoppy said:


> But, this isn't even possible for one person to do alone.


you can start by putting on a dark cloak and then pointing to someone and say my apprentice.... :flick:


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

This is just further evidence that you can't neatly graph these light intensities. It's what I was saying all along. You know have light intensity going from one end to the other for the same type fixture. Sorry if this isn't popular, but it's the truth. Not to mention you have a PAR reading from different individuals without any real control since you don't know the effect each person's tank conditions and the way they took the reading is having on the number.


----------



## Storm (Aug 7, 2011)

houseofcards said:


> This is just further evidence that you can't neatly graph these light intensities. It's what I was saying all along. You know have light intensity going from one end to the other for the same type fixture. Sorry if this isn't popular, but it's the truth. Not to mention you have a PAR reading from different individuals without any real control since you don't know the effect each person's tank conditions and the way they took the reading is having on the number.


This is a really good point. I think in order for PAR data for each manufacturer to be significant, you would need at least 3 or 4 data points. It's entirely possible that one guy got a faulty ballast and all of us are basing our purchases and/or lighting strategies on that one data point. I know before I read this thread I spent Sunday morning at Lowes looking for wire hanging kits for the fishneedit fixture to raise it up above the tank so that I don't grow an algae farm. Now I'm thinking of replacing the fixture with a metal halide - also from fishneedit, of course I'd like to see PAR data first...

It would be truly awesome to see a wiki or even a google docs spreadsheet where everyone posts their PAR readings from their various lighting solutions. I'm sure very soon when PAR meters are cheap and T5HO fixtures are obsolete this will be already done.


----------



## jrman83 (Nov 22, 2010)

Great thread title  

hbosman - if you have a CA 3X39W, with a 12.5" enclosure, lights spaced evenly...this is the same as some of my CA fixtures. PM me your email and I'll pass what I have on it.

I will test the other FNI fixture I have. It is the same except in a 30" enclosure for comparison to see if the fixture I tested possibly has a fault. The one tested is only 1 month old.


----------



## VNCNT (Nov 16, 2009)

i was comparing my 60-p setup to a friend's 60-p setup. we are both using FNI 70w metal halide fixtures. i use an 8000k bulb and he is using 6700k. our plant growth is completely different. he has nice compact growth while my plants are tall and lanky. thats only comparing the tropica 049 too. i pump in more co2 as well. i was thinking that FNI ballasts do not undergo thorough quality control... i suppose they are hit or miss with many rave reviews and some not so hot.


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

> hbosman - if you have a CA 3X39W, with a 12.5" enclosure, lights spaced evenly...this is the same as some of my CA fixtures. PM me your email and I'll pass what I have on it.
> 
> I will test the other FNI fixture I have. It is the same except in a 30" enclosure for comparison to see if the fixture I tested possibly has a fault. The one tested is only 1 month old.


See http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/lighting/154855-catalina-par-data.html for the PAR results and my opinion about them for that Catalina light.


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

houseofcards said:


> This is just further evidence that you can't neatly graph these light intensities. It's what I was saying all along. You know have light intensity going from one end to the other for the same type fixture. Sorry if this isn't popular, but it's the truth. Not to mention you have a PAR reading from different individuals without any real control since you don't know the effect each person's tank conditions and the way they took the reading is having on the number.


You can't take data like this and use it to determine how much PAR you are getting with your light, made by someone else, on a planted tank full of various plants and fish, with the glass in various states of cleanliness. For that you need a PAR meter. But, when you are picking out a light for your tank you do need something to go by, and this is the best way I have found to do that. If you then hang the light or otherwise suspend it so it can be moved up and down to adjust the PAR, and you can get a PAR meter to use for adjustments, you can get whatever PAR you want to use, without having the light spill out all over the room, or have to have it floating on the water to get it close enough to get the PAR you want. It is far from a perfect way to pick a light, but it sure beats just guessing.


----------



## zergling (May 16, 2007)

Thanks Hoppy for sharing the info and your countless hours of work on this. 

Us freshwater planted tank folks have not spent a whole lot of time testing lighting like the reef folks, so it's good to see Hoppy pushing this testing. Later on we will eventually get on to analyzing efficiency -- power consumption (and fixture price) vs PAR output 

Compiling PAR data points is still better than WPG or the typical "Oh I have x lighting on my x tank, no algae!".


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

I found some data for the Coralife 2 x T5NO light, by Dave-H, and plotted it to compare with the FishNeedIt 2 x T5HO light. The FishNeedIt light gives about twice the PAR of the Coralife light. Neither light has a good reflector, but the FishNeedIt has a better one, I think. This 2X difference might be from the reflector quality or from the power the bulbs are driven at, or a combination of the two.









I think this demonstrates that the FishNeedIt lights, at least this model, are a good alternative when you need more light than you get from the Coralife light, but not nearly as much as a typical T5HO light would give you. Considering its price, this is good news.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

So your whole graph is based on one person's PAR readings from one fixture. I'm really sorry I would like to be able to rely on that, but if I presented data like that in my job with that type of control and sampling error I would definitely be out of work. Also Dave H from what I remember was a newbie and certainly new to taking PAR readings. Again not to say it's wrong, but to rely and make a decision off it is just very misleading.


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

If getting PAR data was difficult or highly dependent on technique I would agree with you, but it isn't. And, in both cases I had discussed how to use the PAR meter with them, so I knew we were doing the same kind of testing. Rather than noting your reasons for not accepting these results why not present your own testing, compilations of other's data, your own analysis of that data, and your own recommendations? We would all benefit from it if you did that.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

Hoppy said:


> If getting PAR data was difficult or highly dependent on technique I would agree with you, but it isn't. And, in both cases I had discussed how to use the PAR meter with them, so I knew we were doing the same kind of testing. Rather than noting your reasons for not accepting these results why not present your own testing, compilations of other's data, your own analysis of that data, and your own recommendations? We would all benefit from it if you did that.


Hobby, I don't need to do that. *I'm not making charts.* I discuss my usage for different fixtures from first hand experience and let the forum readers make their own decisions. When someone sees a chart they assume it has a good methodology and is sound. Having a discussion in a thread is completely different. To be honest looking at my tank and taking a 'guess' as you stated eariler is more reliable than you stating that A T5HO fixture is high light and then having people give readings from low light to high light for the same type fixture. How 'bout tank conditions, age of bulbs. In water out of water, etc, etc. My guess would have a narrower range of light. I'm not trying to pick on you, but if you consider this reliable information (from one person) to build a chart/graph on then I can't agree with you.


----------



## Storm (Aug 7, 2011)

houseofcards said:


> So your whole graph is based on one person's PAR readings from one fixture. I'm really sorry I would like to be able to rely on that, but if I presented data like that in my job with that type of control and sampling error I would definitely be out of work. Also Dave H from what I remember was a newbie and certainly new to taking PAR readings. Again not to say it's wrong, but to rely and make a decision off it is just very misleading.


I would just like to point out that it is not Hobby's job to do this type of research. We all benefit from the information he brings us. Personally, I would rather have one data point than zero. He has not been misleading and clearly stated up front that this is a single data point from a single fixture. Be grateful for what you get, or feel free to go purchase your own FNI fixture and PAR meter and by all means, please give us some more data points.


----------



## Rich Conley (Jun 10, 2008)

VNCNT said:


> i was comparing my 60-p setup to a friend's 60-p setup. we are both using FNI 70w metal halide fixtures. i use an 8000k bulb and he is using 6700k. our plant growth is completely different. he has nice compact growth while my plants are tall and lanky. thats only comparing the tropica 049 too. i pump in more co2 as well. i was thinking that FNI ballasts do not undergo thorough quality control... i suppose they are hit or miss with many rave reviews and some not so hot.


 I don't know anything about these two specific bulbs, but its not unheard of in the Marine world for a 10K bulb manufacturer to have twice the PAR of one from another manufacturer. 



Its entirely possible that the 6700K bulb is significantly brighter than the 8K bulb. 

I know Sanjay Joshi (google him) has mapped out the spectral charts/ par data for pretty much every commonly used reef bulb, but I don't know if this has been done for the planted side. 



And that brings up another caveat - PAR readings for fixtures are almost useless without knowing what bulbs you're using.


----------



## zergling (May 16, 2007)

Rich Conley said:


> And that brings up another caveat - PAR readings for fixtures are almost useless without knowing what bulbs you're using.


.....and not just the Kelvin rating, but the exact brand and product name.


----------



## Capsaicin_MFK (Nov 15, 2009)

I will run my Kill-a-Watt on the FNI 48" dual bulb fixture to test the wattage of the ballast.


----------



## Storm (Aug 7, 2011)

Capsaicin_MFK said:


> I will run my Kill-a-Watt on the FNI 48" dual bulb fixture to test the wattage of the ballast.


Any results to share from the Kill-a-watt?


----------



## Storm (Aug 7, 2011)

Hoppy said:


> I found some data for the Coralife 2 x T5NO light, by Dave-H, and plotted it to compare with the FishNeedIt 2 x T5HO light. The FishNeedIt light gives about twice the PAR of the Coralife light. Neither light has a good reflector, but the FishNeedIt has a better one, I think. This 2X difference might be from the reflector quality or from the power the bulbs are driven at, or a combination of the two.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Based on the chart, I'd say this light is almost perfect to pair with an ADA 60P, as I've done. On the existing plastic arms, 16" from the substrate, I'm getting 40 PAR, which is just about right. Granted, it doesn't look as nice as some of the lights out there, but it's only $65 with bulbs and I've been growing my stems about 12" every 2 weeks.


----------



## 2in10 (Feb 8, 2011)

jccaclimber said:


> Would measuring current between the wall and ballast help any? I'm assuming that ballast efficiency is at least somewhat constant between brands/models. Mind you it's easy to kill yourself playing with the line current in a house, but it's also measurable with a $5 DMM.


Ballasts are available with power factors between .9 and 1.0 for T5HO. So we are talking 90% to 100% power sent to bulbs. I read Coralife fixtures run ballasts with a .95 power factor.

Hoppy's comment I would modify to ballasts and reflectors, but with heavier emphasis on ballasts. Polished aluminum reflectors are rated generally 95% to 98% reflective. ATI reflectors are 98% and the reflectors from Hellolights are 97%. Most others are 95%.


----------



## zergling (May 16, 2007)

Storm said:


> I've been growing my stems about 12" every 2 weeks.


Whoa, what kind of stems are you growing that fast?? :eek5: I get that growth from myrio mattogrossense, with around 140 par on the substrate


----------



## HolyAngel (Oct 18, 2010)

Storm said:


> This is a really good point. I think in order for PAR data for each manufacturer to be significant, you would need at least 3 or 4 data points. It's entirely possible that one guy got a faulty ballast and all of us are basing our purchases and/or lighting strategies on that one data point. I know before I read this thread I spent Sunday morning at Lowes looking for wire hanging kits for the fishneedit fixture to raise it up above the tank so that I don't grow an algae farm. Now I'm thinking of replacing the fixture with a metal halide - also from fishneedit, of course I'd like to see PAR data first...
> 
> It would be truly awesome to see a wiki or even a google docs spreadsheet where everyone posts their PAR readings from their various lighting solutions. I'm sure very soon when PAR meters are cheap and T5HO fixtures are obsolete this will be already done.


Already did this but it's in my Dropbox, can always upload it to google docs if needed:
http://db.tt/6Fqe44F3

And here's the thread link:
http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/diy/141245-gather-par-data-build-community-database.html


----------



## Storm (Aug 7, 2011)

zergling said:


> Whoa, what kind of stems are you growing that fast?? :eek5: I get that growth from myrio mattogrossense, with around 140 par on the substrate


Rotala colorata. After they established root structure, it only took 1 week to reach the top of the water, and another week to spread completely across the top. Then, I trimmed 12" and 2 weeks later they're like that again. When they are stretching across the top of the tank they're only 6" from the light though, so PAR there might definitely be in the 100s range.


----------



## zergling (May 16, 2007)

Storm said:


> Rotala colorata. After they established root structure, it only took 1 week to reach the top of the water, and another week to spread completely across the top. Then, I trimmed 12" and 2 weeks later they're like that again. When they are stretching across the top of the tank they're only 6" from the light though, so PAR there might definitely be in the 100s range.


Ah yes, I forgot to note that PAR is MUUUUCHH higher at the top. I've been trimming mine as soon as they're about 4" from the top of the tank. 

But I've lately drastically cut down my light intensity, so no more twice-a-week trimming LOL!


----------



## lanceduffy (Nov 14, 2011)

Originally Posted by houseofcards 
This is just further evidence that you can't neatly graph these light intensities. It's what I was saying all along. You know have light intensity going from one end to the other for the same type fixture. Sorry if this isn't popular, but it's the truth. Not to mention you have a PAR reading from different individuals without any real control since you don't know the effect each person's tank conditions and the way they took the reading is having on the number.

By Storm:
This is a really good point. I think in order for PAR data for each manufacturer to be significant, you would need at least 3 or 4 data points. It's entirely possible that one guy got a faulty ballast and all of us are basing our purchases and/or lighting strategies on that one data point. 

By Me:
I agree with these.


----------



## bsmith (Jan 8, 2007)

VNCNT said:


> i was comparing my 60-p setup to a friend's 60-p setup. we are both using FNI 70w metal halide fixtures. i use an 8000k bulb and he is using 6700k. our plant growth is completely different. he has nice compact growth while my plants are tall and lanky. thats only comparing the tropica 049 too. i pump in more co2 as well. i was thinking that FNI ballasts do not undergo thorough quality control... i suppose they are hit or miss with many rave reviews and some not so hot.


One thing I think is worth mentioning if memory serves me (which from time to time serves me wrong...) is that lights with a lower k rating produce more/higher par values. Hes using a 6700k and you are using a 8000k which on k value alone would not give you the difference in reading but it does have some bearing on the readings even if its a small one.


----------



## Doc7 (Apr 7, 2011)

I don't know if the dave-H thread results were ever evaluated in a tank with water situation.

I have 2 of those coralife t5no fixtures suspended an inch above the rim of my 40B and have an HC carpet filling in great and rotala and elodea stems growing 3 inches plus a week. I don't know if 17 PAR would do that .......

Sent from my BlackBerry 9650 using Tapatalk


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

Doc7 said:


> I don't know if the dave-H thread results were ever evaluated in a tank with water situation.
> 
> I have 2 of those coralife t5no fixtures suspended an inch above the rim of my 40B and have an HC carpet filling in great and rotala and elodea stems growing 3 inches plus a week. I don't know if 17 PAR would do that .......
> 
> Sent from my BlackBerry 9650 using Tapatalk


If you have 2 inches of substrate you would probably have about 25 micromols of PAR, with no water in the tank, or another 10-15% with water in the tank and clean glass sides. Perhaps close to 30 micromols. Then, there is some overlap of the light from the two fixtures, which could increase the PAR in the middle to over 30. With CO2 I don't see any reason why HC wouldn't grow with that.


----------



## jrman83 (Nov 22, 2010)

I don't get the belief that this testing couldn't be done just as successfully from a "newbie" vs someone who has a lot of experience with a PAR meter. Experience with a tank has very little to do with it. I would think that variation in readings would be more the difference in the sensors and/or meter than the person conducting the test. As long as the testing was conducted via the same method (ie in air vs tank, center of fixture, etc). A pretty sophisticated piece of equipment, but in no way difficult or complicated to operate.


----------



## bsmith (Jan 8, 2007)

jrman83 said:


> I don't get the belief that this testing couldn't be done just as successfully from a "newbie" vs someone who has a lot of experience with a PAR meter. Experience with a tank has very little to do with it. I would think that variation in readings would be more the difference in the sensors and/or meter than the person conducting the test. As long as the testing was conducted via the same method (ie in air vs tank, center of fixture, etc). A pretty sophisticated piece of equipment, but in no way difficult or complicated to operate.


I agree for the most part. I think that different machines (par meters) would be the largest variable. But there are many small things like, how stained is the water with tannins, how dirty are the reflectors/bulbs, what k rating are the bulbs, etc. 

Now if if the par meters are the same and all of these variables I just listed are in play you could find yourself with very/exactly the same setups (on the surface) giving you very different readings.


----------



## jrman83 (Nov 22, 2010)

bsmith said:


> ...But there are many small things like, how stained is the water with tannins, how dirty are the reflectors/bulbs, what k rating are the bulbs, etc.


Not disagreeing.....these items are why the tests were all conducted outside of a tank...there are too many variables in one person's tank to the next. The only way a tank would work is if it were nothing but maybe gravel and water...not even fish.

I appreciate the testing that hoppy has done and making the graphs. It is time of his that he has given to help people here and not many people would take that time. They'll never be perfect, but for most of us it gives us a starting point or a refernce point. I can operate the internet pretty well, but it is the only such info I have been able to find. If it doesn't fit someone's taste for the accuracy of it, it is just as easy to NOT use it and move on.


----------



## livingword26 (Oct 28, 2010)

jrman83 said:


> I appreciate the testing that hoppy has done and making the graphs. It is time of his that he has given to help people here and not many people would take that time. They'll never be perfect, but for most of us it gives us a starting point or a refernce point. I can operate the internet pretty well, but it is the only such info I have been able to find. If it doesn't fit someone's taste for the accuracy of it, it is just as easy to NOT use it and move on.



They may not be perfect, but for many people they are revolutionary. When I first started planted tanks 7 or 8 years ago, people were putting huge amounts of light, myself included, and battling endless, un-win-able battles with algae. I would even go so far as to say that their perfection, or lack thereof, is irrelevant, because the difference between them, and what is generally believed, is so great, that if you follow them expressly, you are still better off than you are with older teachings.


----------



## bsmith (Jan 8, 2007)

jrman83 said:


> Not disagreeing.....these items are why the tests were all conducted outside of a tank...there are too many variables in one person's tank to the next. The only way a tank would work is if it were nothing but maybe gravel and water...not even fish.


Yep. 

There was a thread on a site which I can't remember 100% (Barrs site maybe) where a member was trying to put together some system where people could use his par meter. Not sure what happened with that but maybe someone should think about doing that. 

I personally have about 10 different fixtures (PC/t5no/t5ho/MH/16"-30"/single bulb to
Quad bulb) that I currently employ and I would love to get some readings from them.


----------



## nodim (Jan 26, 2007)

So I have one of the FNI lights - the 48" version. It has seemed that it was not as intense as I expected it to be from day one. I had been thinking of tearing it apart, buying some good reflectors and building a new light box. With the potential the issue is the ballast would that be throwing good money after bad?

Would I be better off buying a different fixture? Tank is a 75 with CO2.


----------



## stangmus (Apr 1, 2010)

nodim said:


> So I have one of the FNI lights - the 48" version. It has seemed that it was not as intense as I expected it to be from day one. I had been thinking of tearing it apart, buying some good reflectors and building a new light box. With the potential the issue is the ballast would that be throwing good money after bad?
> 
> Would I be better off buying a different fixture? Tank is a 75 with CO2.


Are you having problems growing any plants?


----------



## Dave10910 (Nov 8, 2011)

I hooked my fishneedit 2x24 up to my kill a watt. 

It is consistent in pulling only 38.5 or so with minor variations. It never goes over or under 38 watts though. 

I then hooked my kill a watt up to a 19 watt compact florescent. It pulled 19 watts consistently. 

Kind of disappointing for the fishneedit fixtures.


----------



## bsmith (Jan 8, 2007)

Is that power consumption equivalent to a T5HO unit?


----------



## HolyAngel (Oct 18, 2010)

No, 2x24w should pull at least 48 watts, If its 38 then each bulb is Only getting 19 watts or so, basically normal output wattage and not high output. Seems to me like that is false advertisement..


----------



## bsmith (Jan 8, 2007)

Duh, what was I thinking. Didn't realize it was that literal! Your right my coralife t5no bulbs are rated at 18w. 

I wonder what the chances of a class action suit on a Chinese company like fishneedit actually doing a damn thing are?


----------



## evilc66 (Feb 28, 2008)

Dave10910 said:


> I hooked my fishneedit 2x24 up to my kill a watt.
> 
> It is consistent in pulling only 38.5 or so with minor variations. It never goes over or under 38 watts though.
> 
> ...


This is interesting. I don't remember my 4x24W fixture being that low. Looks like I may have to pull it out and test it tonight.


----------



## bsmith (Jan 8, 2007)

evilc66 said:


> This is interesting. I don't remember my 4x24W fixture being that low. Looks like I may have to pull it out and test it tonight.


He was testing a 2x24w fixture and yours is a 4x24w fixture so you should be showing right at 96w being pulled with both banks on and around 48 with just two. Unless his readings are going to be the norm for fishneedit fixtures then you will be showing lesser numbers like 18w per bulb being fired. :thumbsup:


----------



## gordonrichards (Jun 20, 2009)

Interesting. I really need to get one of those kill-a-watt things so I can see what happens over 24 hours. With over 26 t5 fixtures I'm certain half of the electric bill is going towards my tanks.

I'll tell you one thing, they radiate heat in the winter months :^)

-Gordon


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

bsmith said:


> Duh, what was I thinking. Didn't realize it was that literal! Your right my coralife t5no bulbs are rated at 18w.
> 
> I wonder what the chances of a class action suit on a Chinese company like fishneedit actually doing a damn thing are?


There is no specification that T5HO lights have to meet, as far as I know. I think any light with T5HO bulbs in it could be called a T5HO light, even if the bulbs are only driven at half power. Now, if they claimed some specific number of lumens for the light, or some specific PAR at a given distance from it, that would be grounds for a suit.


----------



## bsmith (Jan 8, 2007)

Hoppy said:


> There is no specification that T5HO lights have to meet, as far as I know. I think any light with T5HO bulbs in it could be called a T5HO light, even if the bulbs are only driven at half power. Now, if they claimed some specific number of lumens for the light, or some specific PAR at a given distance from it, that would be grounds for a suit.


So on their auctions or wherever the info is posted about their fixtures it doesn't say that they are a 2x24w fixture? That would imply something right?


----------



## redfishsc (Aug 29, 2010)

Good luck suing a Chinese company. Many of them have absolutely no ethic other than to make a buck. Sadly I wish I couldn't say the same about American companies, but General Motors and Microsoft prove it to be just as true here, just in different ways.

I do think bsmith has a point, if they are claiming a certain wattage, then they're lying, but there are so many of these Chinese importers that do this crap that I'm not sure the US Gov't can stop it without just laying down enormous tariffs across the board.


----------



## bsmith (Jan 8, 2007)

Yes my post was to insinuate that trying to sue them would be very time consuming and in the end worthless. I should have put the multiple periods at the end to let everyone know that I was not holding my breath.....


----------



## jrman83 (Nov 22, 2010)

Well....it still is a 2X24w fixture with 2-24w bulbs...even though it may not be truly utilized as such. I think that is all that is advertised. Can't remember. Good to know it wasn't just mine that were like this.


----------



## bsmith (Jan 8, 2007)

It would be nice for someone with some knowledge of electronics to take one apart and see if the ballast are just sub par at converting energy.


----------



## Storm (Aug 7, 2011)

I'm curious - the FNI light works fine for my ADA 60P and I'm able to grow anything. Since it runs the bulbs at 19 watts instead of 24 watts, would they last longer than 1 year? Frankly, I'm fine with the price and the light output. It's not the best fixture, but it was only $65 and included bulbs. By the time I need to replace the bulbs I might just go with the FNI 70 watt metal halide fixture or DIY a PAR38 LED setup.


----------



## bsmith (Jan 8, 2007)

Storm said:


> I'm curious - the FNI light works fine for my ADA 60P and I'm able to grow anything. Since it runs the bulbs at 19 watts instead of 24 watts, would they last longer than 1 year? Frankly, I'm fine with the price and the light output. It's not the best fixture, but it was only $65 and included bulbs. By the time I need to replace the bulbs I might just go with the FNI 70 watt metal halide fixture or DIY a PAR38 LED setup.


Do you have a 2x24 or a 4x24 and how high is your light above the substrate?


----------



## Storm (Aug 7, 2011)

I have a 2x24 and the light is sitting on the included plastic legs, directly on the tank rim. 8 hour photoperiod, 2bps Co2, and my rotala stems have been growing about 6 inches per week. The DHG carpet is also filling in nicely. If these were full T5HO this would probably be too much light only 16" from the substrate...


----------

