# T5ho



## Dman911 (Nov 24, 2016)

I have read of many who think t5ho is still better than LED's and refuse to change until the technology gets better but I assume its because of the power, bulb replacement and possibly cost?

Dan


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

Troy. said:


> Why are people no longer using T5HOs? The light output outweighs the increased energy consumption along with LEDs that compare light intesity wise are much more expensive.


Costs are close to parity.. Mostly due the the better geometry of the LED's.
no mercury
ss lighting is easily dimmed and controlled.
lot less fragile.

As industry moves to LED's Tube market shrinks. 

For $140 you get 10,400 "directed" lumens.
https://www.amazon.com/Beamswork-FS...UTF8&qid=1497841839&sr=8-3&keywords=beamswork
Easily dimmed by adding a $3 PWM dimmer
Equiv to at least a 2 tube T5ho fixture..assuming 90L/W typical..and probably "effectively" a 3 tube.
4 tube equiv. if reflectors are not optimum.
Plenty of studies show LEd's have a 1:2 W/W Par/Par advantage over tubes.
Cost isn't outrageously more..unless you go w/ shoplights/hort stuff.. and then I could go w/ cheap LED floods..

Again LED and tubes are reaching parity..EXCEPT in the larger size tanks..

One other thing.. sizing.. 2' and 4' are still not much of a problem.. any other sizes are getting slim in tubes as to variety..


----------



## burr740 (Feb 19, 2014)

Serious folks still use T5HO because you simply cannot get the power AND the color from an led without spending a fortune. If its even possible 

At least when it comes to lighting bigger tanks. Im not talking about a 20 long.

Also the popularity of nature scapes with mostly green plants makes color rendition somewhat less important. LEDs are fine for those.


----------



## Troy. (Jun 19, 2017)

burr740 said:


> Serious folks still use T5HO because you simply cannot get the power AND the color from an led without spending a fortune. If its even possible
> 
> At least when it comes to lighting bigger tanks. Im not talking about a 20 long.
> 
> Also the popularity of nature scapes with mostly green plants makes color rendition somewhat less important. LEDs are fine for those.


My situation is that I have a 75 gallon tank that im planning on planting. I used the beamworks led mentioned above on a 55 gallon and was not getting nearly enough PAR. In your oppinion would you say a t5ho would be the best route for my scenario?


----------



## roadmaster (Nov 5, 2009)

True guru's will tell you that 50 PAR at the substrate will grow any of the over 400 species of aquatic plant's.
Anymore light will just make getting CO2 dialed in correctly mandatory/possibly more difficult.(along with nutrient's.)
Why try and run everything at eleven when less light can achieve maybe a bit slower growth,but less problem's associated with too much light energy for available CO2.
I think two 54 watt T5HO bulb's over 75 gal will make CO2 injection a must.


----------



## dcutl002 (Apr 8, 2014)

My T5HO fixtures got really hot, used more electricity than LEDs, burned out ballasts, and needed bulb replacements. They did make the plants pearl nicely, but I do like the slimmer LED fixtures. I relate this issue to photography. At one time, 35mm cameras were the best thing going. Digital cameras came out, but they were expensive and not as good initially. Over time, digital cameras eventually became cheaper, more versatile, and sought after. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## nel (Jan 23, 2016)

I was thinking about changing my T5HO to LED, but with 345l tank it's just too expensive. 4x39W T5HO with ballasts and everything needed to light them up (no hood though, I had it before) costed me around 100$. When I started calculating the costs for LEDs that would give the same light AND colour... Maybe 250$ was a starting point. Another thing - lot of work, I love playing with things like that, but I don't have unlimited time and mounting those T5HO took 0,5h, few screws and that's all, LEDs would be a long expensive project.


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

Troy. said:


> Why are people no longer using T5HOs? The light output outweighs the increased energy consumption along with LEDs that compare light intesity wise are much more expensive.


I think your premise is wrong. There are still a few people using T5HO. I am one of them.

I think it really all depends on what your goals are and the size of the tank. For low or medium light on small tanks, LED should be fine. 

For larger deeper tanks, it would take multiple fixtures, and a large pocketful of cash, to get to high lighting. 

If you are a high light tank, color rendition is also important. Most LED's are still not there yet.

So for me, until they come out with an LED that can do it all at a reasonable price, I'll stay old school with my T5H0.


----------



## burr740 (Feb 19, 2014)

Troy. said:


> My situation is that I have a 75 gallon tank that im planning on planting. I used the beamworks led mentioned above on a 55 gallon and was not getting nearly enough PAR. In your oppinion would you say a t5ho would be the best route for my scenario?


Well it all depends on your goals for the tank, your experience level, and what kind of plants you want to keep. 

Reflectors make a big difference on fluorescents. Lights that have individual reflectors for each bulb are a lot brighter than ones that use a single reflector for all the bulbs.

Assuming you get a unit with good reflectors, a four bulb unit will need to be raised 12"-16" above the surface of a 75 gal, else it'll be way too much light. 

With the fixture just hanging in mid air, a foot or two above the tank, there's going to be a lot of light spilling out into the room, and into your eyes. Some folks dont mind this. I do, which is why I use ancillary panels across the front of all my tanks. So that is something to consider as well.

I had a four bulb unit on a 75, about 9" above the surface. Par at the sub around 120. Which is way too much for most folks, and way more than any plant needs.

Currently have this light about 6" above a 50 gal, which is a short 55. Par at the sub around 90. That's still high light but a lot more manageable.

The more light you have, the faster everything moves. Both good things and bad. If this is your first time with high light, 60-70 par would be a good range to shoot for. That's plenty for most anything, and will be a lot more manageable than higher levels.

If you go with T5HOs, you'll probably want a four bulb unit to have good coverage front to back, and more bulb options. Use one or two 6500Ks and the rest red/pink types.

Just plan on raising the light a good bit off the surface, 12" -16" like I said before. (Id start at 16")

And it should go without saying that CO2 is a must.

Here's a thread on bulbs and a few journal links to folks using T5HOs. Might give you some additional food for thought.

http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/10-lighting/762202-thread-t5ho-bulb-comparisons.html

http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/1...inbow-fish-tank-amanos-arrived-6-15-a-19.html

http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/1...gallon-high-tech-project-update-5-5-17-a.html


My old 75 which started out with a two bulb unit, then switched to a four bulb around page 6 I think - http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/12-tank-journals/592313-75-gallon-journey.html

My current 120 with a six bulb unit - http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/12-tank-journals/1117642-120-gal-dutchy-freestyle.html


:bounce:


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

> I had a four bulb unit on a 75, about 9" above the surface. Par at the sub around 120.


not discussing color ATM (actually a personal choice).. but you can get that PAr w/ 2 Beamswork Pent. .5W LEds..
For.. drum roll $125............
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B016P96UA8/ref=twister_B01KYELCSK?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1

not sure where you believe LEd's are, currently, soo costly..


Of course your lights would be only a few inches off the tank top..
mounting time: practically zero..Just put the feet on and plop..
NO secondary hood assembly required..


----------



## burr740 (Feb 19, 2014)

jeffkrol said:


> not discussing color ATM


Well we have to discuss color because that's half the equation!

Nobody said you couldnt get more than enough par with an inexpensive led. Of course you can. So what? 

Nothing against those Beamsworks, or any other light on that PAR chart. They just dont look very good on tanks with lots of color. Or to put it differently, they'll do a poor job of bringing out colors. Surely even you would agree with that.

Fine for a nature style though.


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

Right.. color becomes subjective (feels odd arguing this side of the equation)...
8000k led is pretty ADA standard.. Ask all the Kessil fanatics..
not much different than a Finnex Ray II
....... and have been attacking this windmill for a few years now.. it is self inflicted..
Only would take tweaking 20% of the diodes in any cheap fixture to create a better "look"..

The, yes expensive, Fluval has excellent color. Halo, Radion, Sat plus pro have full color adjustment going from low to high K looks..highlighting any and all colors you want..

Problem is things like ADA and the "mh" look is more prevalent, and w/ cheaper or high K diodes your CRI suffers creating a "flat" look..
"we" can be are own worse enemy..  

Point is it is all a market thing.. not a technology thing..

YOU have a VERY valid point btw.. Don't get me wrong, but I prefer to attack the problem rather than withdraw from it....

Technically building a multi-spectrum static light is not much more expensive than a simple "white" led..
This, sans control has diode costs at all about the same cost.. regardless of color..









an argument is not winnable when 1/2 is subjective.. 

you may prevail in the present, but will not in the future..  
even tubes are mostly RGB... 

I rarely do this as it is a bit rude.. But your photos seem to be SERIOUSLY color enhanced..


----------



## TormentedFishTank (May 21, 2017)

I'm using T5HO because they are cheaper to get what I need.

If you show me Kessils at a comparative price range, I'll be all over them. But they only become economically viable if you have expensive electricity, and then it's over a period of years.


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

TormentedFishTank said:


> I'm using T5HO because they are cheaper to get what I need.
> 
> If you show me Kessils at a comparative price range, I'll be all over them. But they only become economically viable if you have expensive electricity, and then it's over a period of years.


i have no love for Freshwater Kessils.. consider them old tech..
Radion XR15 Gen4 is more "new tech"..and expensive..

Take any cheap 6500k LED and pair it w/ a color adj "mate".. i.e Current/vivagrow, or 24/7 and you will be able to dial in a look you like..
Exactly like a tube? Errr no.. the tech is "just" different enough to not be a perfect emulation.

Burr740 uses tube colors to do exactly that.. Change the ratios of RGB..
6500k tube:








http://www.carnivorousplants.org/howto/SoilsWater/Lighting.php










light is light.. any can be adjusted to what you want..


----------



## Troy. (Jun 19, 2017)

burr740 said:


> Troy. said:
> 
> 
> > My situation is that I have a 75 gallon tank that im planning on planting. I used the beamworks led mentioned above on a 55 gallon and was not getting nearly enough PAR. In your oppinion would you say a t5ho would be the best route for my scenario?
> ...


Love your tanks. I have multiple low tech tanks most with dirt but I have a few with just osmocote plus capsules. I have more luck with the dirted tanks. Ive done diy co2 before but find it hard to control. I have a co2 tank but im having problems deciding on a regulator. Would you reccomend a dirted tank with t5hos or am I asking for algae issues?


----------



## TormentedFishTank (May 21, 2017)

jeffkrol said:


> i have no love for Freshwater Kessils.. consider them old tech..
> Radion XR15 Gen4 is more "new tech"..and expensive..
> 
> Take any cheap 6500k LED and pair it w/ a color adj "mate".. i.e Current/vivagrow, or 24/7 and you will be able to dial in a look you like..
> ...


I have no idea how good they are for plants. I'm just coming over from reef tanks, and I love how they look and the options for that.

I never even researched them for my planted tank because I knew they were out of my budget.


----------



## burr740 (Feb 19, 2014)

jeffkrol said:


> I rarely do this as it is a bit rude.. But your photos seem to be SERIOUSLY color enhanced..


LOL My pics are absolutely unaltered except for brightness when that's needed. Nothing else. Not a single one. Ever. 

Believe what you want. 

In reality you just proved my point!


----------



## burr740 (Feb 19, 2014)

Troy. said:


> Love your tanks. I have multiple low tech tanks most with dirt but I have a few with just osmocote plus capsules. I have more luck with the dirted tanks. Ive done diy co2 before but find it hard to control. I have a co2 tank but im having problems deciding on a regulator. Would you reccomend a dirted tank with t5hos or am I asking for algae issues?


I have no experience with dirted tanks so really cant say. Only thing is if you plan on moving things around very much, or want the ability to do so without screwing things up, its probably best to stay away from using a dirt based substrate.

Otherwise plants seem to love it, based on other's experience Ive seen.


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

burr740 said:


> LOL My pics are absolutely unaltered except for brightness when that's needed. Nothing else. Not a single one. Ever.
> 
> Believe what you want.
> 
> In reality you just proved my point!


Burr this brings to mind the time a little while back we were going back and forth taking pictures with different combinations of colored bulbs.

The difference at times was striking. Those that don't think color rendition makes a difference might think differently if they see those pics. It makes a huge difference to the color of everything, fish, plants, and even substrate.

And it is subjective, but to me T5H0 just looks.....warmer....more natural. When I see tanks in person that have LED's, it looks cold, less natural. Of course, that is purely subjective. Others probably feel completely differently. 

Here's one thing I do know for sure. Suggesting you alter your pictures WAS rude, and classless as well. I knew you wouldn't say it but I will.


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

Greggz said:


> Burr this brings to mind the time a little while back we were going back and forth taking pictures with different combinations of colored bulbs.
> 
> The difference at times was striking. Those that don't think color rendition makes a difference might think differently if they see those pics. It makes a huge difference to the color of everything, fish, plants, and even substrate.
> 
> ...




Why I have proof.. People do it all the time btw..









As an amateur photographer and someone who has spent countless hours in like discussions. there is nothing crass about it..
It is what it is..
I "personally" try VERY hard to post images that look exactly like I see them and am quite a stickler on that..good or bad.


If Burr wants to tell me his images aren't heavily processed (Tom Barr complains about this all the time.. the amount of photoshopping btw. not anyone in particular ) fine.. I'm willing to listen.

I apologise to Burr if he felt it was out of line but I stand by what I said..

and as to LED's .. once you reach a certain level of CRI . say 95+ you are imitating as close to practical "daylight" . Can't get any more "natural" than that.. 
Reaching 99% of D65 or D50 for that matter is 99% "accurate" w/ the right amount of samples.


----------



## burr740 (Feb 19, 2014)

No I did not think it was rude at all. Matter of fact, Ive looked at them myself before and thought, damn that looks shopped!

So I understand why a person might think they've been altered. I actually took it as a compliment, a strong testament to what I was saying in the first place. 


@jeffkrol idk what that graph means but if anything altered anything, it was the camera itself. I dont even know how to photoshop, beyond what you can do in the Windows viewer.


Here's a couple I just took with my phone, uploaded straight to flickr, completely untouched, except I brightened the fts up a little.

White balance set to fluorescent, iso 100, exposure or whatever you call it at .6

Run these through your little graph. If it says these have been altered in any way, well, it's lying to you. 



















Amano done swiped a bit of food


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

some do that naturally.. Like "Vivid" mode on some DSLR's.. There is always a contrast adjustment somewhere.
Everything I shoot is in RAW so as to have as little of "their ideas" to deal with..

those are much better (still thinking about the last one.. )

Never said they were bad shots, and I congratulate you on your work and dedication..
Problem comes when you give some unreal expectations.. 

Yea your phone does some pretty heavy processing..

all that aside.. Time for the real question:
Looking at your photo and looking at your tank..

How close do the 2 match?

Using older state of the art DSLR and pro quality software I couldn't honestly say the images are anywhere near 100% eye accurate right out of the can..maybe 60%..

Sensors and my eyes "see" differently..

Err.. so there are no understanding.. Your tanks are beautiful.. natural or not..


----------



## burr740 (Feb 19, 2014)

jeffkrol said:


> all that aside.. Time for the real question:
> Looking at your photo and looking at your tank..


It's pretty damn close. Brighter in person, and without the overexposure glare some things have in pictures.

Color-wise....not much different.

Im sorry it looks so much better than your precious LEDs, unfortunately there's nothing I can do about that.


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

burr740 said:


> It's pretty damn close. Brighter in person, and without the overexposure glare some things have in pictures.
> 
> Color-wise....not much different.
> 
> Im sorry it looks so much better than your precious LEDs, unfortunately there's nothing I can do about that.


It has nothing to do w/ LED's .. Color rendition is a function of photons.. Photons can come from any light source..

On further review most of it is the jpg compression.. 

thanks though..


----------



## Greggz (May 19, 2008)

jeffkrol said:


> As an amateur photographer and someone who has spent countless hours in like discussions. there is nothing crass about it..


Well Jeff I disagree with you there.....it is crass. And rude. And classless.

I'm sure you are a nice guy, but in a case like this, when even YOU say you are being rude, you might just want to apologize and own up to it. 

We all get you love LED's, but really??


----------



## burr740 (Feb 19, 2014)

jeffkrol said:


> It has nothing to do w/ LED's .. Color rendition is a function of photons.. Photons can come from any light source..
> 
> On further review most of it is the jpg compression..
> 
> thanks though..


Well then...why arent everyone else's jpg photos popping with color? Or is that something that I alone am afflicted with? 

Its all about the bulbs.

Here's my 50 gal with two T5HOs, one 6500K and one TrueLumen Flora.

It's not nearly as vivid as the 120, which has an ati purple, a 3000k, 3 different reds and a 6500K.

Still pretty nice color rendition, much better than a typical LED...imho


----------



## Maryland Guppy (Dec 6, 2014)

@burr740 you know how it is with a man with two watches. :grin2:

I could not resist, sorry guys!

I have been one to delete many pics because they don't look like my tank.
Even the one's I post sometimes don't look quite right.
Often times very white and over exposed.

Best pics are during sunset and I edit by increasing brightness.
Not sure why it works this way but it does.
New cell phone is higher Megapixel but doesn't seem as real life.
Don't have the time to play with a few pics.

I am one to embrace the new LED technology.
They are all made to my uneducated specs at home.
I've settled on a puck design and I'm sticking to it for now.
PAR is what I set it at, no more, no less.


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

Greggz said:


> Well Jeff I disagree with you there.....it is crass. And rude. And classless.
> 
> I'm sure you are a nice guy, but in a case like this, when even YOU say you are being rude, you might just want to apologize and own up to it.
> 
> We all get you love LED's, but really??


Already did..


> I apologise to Burr if he felt it was out of line but I stand by what I said..


and you actually seem to have more of a problem w/ it then the offended..



> No I did not think it was rude at all. Matter of fact, Ive looked at them myself before and thought, damn that looks shopped!


already backtracked a bit but I do know what cameras do..
Burr assured me it was close to life like. Didn't deny him on that..


----------



## burr740 (Feb 19, 2014)

Maryland Guppy said:


> @*burr740* you know how it is with a man with two watches. :grin2:
> 
> I could not resist, sorry guys!
> 
> ...


Indeed, Ive been quite impressed with your LED build. If I were to go LED with whats out there today, I'd try a custom job too. 

But that's a project (and something new to learn) for another day. For now I'd rather just drop a buck fifty on a cheap hydroponic unit and pick out the bulbs for it.


----------



## TormentedFishTank (May 21, 2017)

I personally can't get my photos to look like my tank, so I'm not sure what the complaint is. I actually have to alter my images with a couple of filters to make it look more like what I see in person.

In my reef tank, the light color differences are HUGE in terms of how things look. Blue actinics lights turn some of the corals into almost neon colors, while under more white color they look completely different.

I can't even get a clear picture of my stuff under actinic's. 

And in my planted tank now I have 2 different color T5HO bulbs. One is a daylight bulb and the other is a plant bulb which is more purple in color. I can turn each bulb off and on individually, and the tank looks so much different if I just run 1 bulb.

Obviously if I just run the purple bulb, it doesn't look that good. But if I run just the daylight bulb, the tank looks more drab, doesn't pop as much. But with both of them on at the same time, it looks white but my plants look brighter.

So there is no doubt in my mind that the color of lights has a large impact of how the plants look.


----------



## clownplanted (Mar 3, 2017)

Never owned t5ho so really do not know so am a noob with bulbs. But changing out the bulbs sounds fun . Do your plants tell you? Say you have a 6 bulb fixture and all were bought at same time and you think your plants are telling you one or more is bad? Do you change them all? Am sure there is no " static" shelf life so they slowly lose power over time. Say you are at 120 par at sub but for how long. 110 two weeks later. 100 a month later? Then you have to keep a chart what bulb in what socket you replaced on what date? So it's like a juggling act to ensure all bulbs are optimal. Or am I just wrong and am missing something?

Wanted to add hope I don't come off as being rude or against those that use t5ho just I really did always wonder those things and to me seemed like too much more of an effort when I can get great results from a pair of led lights pushing 100 par 22" deep from light to sub so to me the extra work involved to go old school and have to keep track of bulb replacement just is not my cup of tea. 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## burr740 (Feb 19, 2014)

clownplanted said:


> Never owned t5ho so really do not know so am a noob with bulbs. But changing out the bulbs sounds fun . Do your plants tell you? Say you have a 6 bulb fixture and all were bought at same time and you think your plants are telling you one or more is bad? Do you change them all? Am sure there is no " static" shelf life so they slowly lose power over time. Say you are at 120 par at sub but for how long. 110 two weeks later. 100 a month later? Then you have to keep a chart what bulb in what socket you replaced on what date? So it's like a juggling act to ensure all bulbs are optimal. Or am I just wrong and am missing something?
> 
> Wanted to add hope I don't come off as being rude or against those that use t5ho just I really did always wonder those things and to me seemed like too much more of an effort when I can get great results from a pair of led lights pushing 100 par 22" deep from light to sub so to me the extra work involved to go old school and have to keep track of bulb replacement just is not my cup of tea.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Oh my goodness. I replace them when they pop and dont worry about it. Or say after a couple of years if the ends turn black and it's noticeably dimmer than its supposed to be..

Some brands hold up better than others. Think there's a few tests in the bulb thread I linked. 

For example I had a Zoo-med Ultra sun over two years old, with big black rings on both ends, still within 10% of its original par. Coralifes on the other hand are pure garbage. These generic hydroponic brands hold up pretty well.

Another concern is the spectrum degrading.

I dont know this to be a fact, but Ive read that fluorescents in general tend to degrade towards the red spectrum over time. This could be a problem on a reef tank that relies heavily on blues. Freshwater plants? Not so much.

It is a myth that they need replacing once a year, at least on a fw tank


----------



## nel (Jan 23, 2016)

burr740 said:


> Oh my goodness. I replace them when they pop and dont worry about it. Or say after a couple of years if the ends turn black and it's noticeably dimmer than its supposed to be..
> 
> Some brands hold up better than others. Think there's a few tests in the bulb thread I linked.
> 
> ...


I've heard (not sure if it's a fact) that the problem existed with old T8 and newer T5 from good brand at the end of their lifetime should give around 70-80% of the starting light. I'm changing mine usually after 3-4 years. I'm with you on that having to change them every year is a myth.

Even somebody loving LEDs has to admit, that getting same CRI as from even most expensive T5 is going to be extremely more expensive. I would love to get LED lights for the programmability, but for now they're out of my cost range. If we're not thinking about cost - yes, LEDs can be better (if done right), but with such a tremendous difference in cost T5HO are winning for now.


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

> yes, LEDs can be better (if done right), but with such a tremendous difference in cost T5HO


https://store.yujiintl.com/products/bc-series-high-cri-t8-led-tube?variant=41785231059

$47.50/tube
Use your old t8 minus ballasts..
5600K max..
95CRI..
4ft
1600-1780 lumens/tube..
Only 2ft,4ft and 5ft though..
30,000 hours lifespan with 8 years warranty.
Only ip52 rated though..

color fidelity wil be extremely good
https://store.yujiintl.com/products/bc-series-high-cri-t8-led-tube

tubes are a mature industry.. LED's are a growing industry..
Unfortunately, as in the past.. Aquariums are a follower and not a leader in this area..

The "problem" w/ LEDs in one photo..










Ok 2 charts..










Problem is well known..
http://www.open-photonics.com/featured-technologies/high-cri-leds


----------



## TormentedFishTank (May 21, 2017)

burr740 said:


> I dont know this to be a fact, but Ive read that fluorescents in general tend to degrade towards the red spectrum over time. This could be a problem on a reef tank that relies heavily on blues. Freshwater plants? Not so much.
> 
> It is a myth that they need replacing once a year, at least on a fw tank


This is true about reef tanks. When they get towards the end of their life, the colors shifts and people start getting more algae. So they get replaced often. 

That said, I never changed mine as often as recommended and I always doubted many others did either. Like most things, it's not until it becomes a big problem that they get replaced.

I'm glad to know I don't need to replace them so often on planted tanks.

Btw - where in Alabama? Wife and I are from the Decatur area.


----------



## burr740 (Feb 19, 2014)

TormentedFishTank said:


> Btw - where in Alabama? Wife and I are from the Decatur area.


No kidding? Im about 15 minutes due north


----------



## TormentedFishTank (May 21, 2017)

burr740 said:


> No kidding? Im about 15 minutes due north


So just shy of Athens?

We live in Arizona now, but our family still lives in that area.


----------



## Maryland Guppy (Dec 6, 2014)

burr740 said:


> Indeed, Ive been quite impressed with your LED build. If I were to go LED with whats out there today, I'd try a custom job too.
> 
> But that's a project (and something new to learn) for another day. For now I'd rather just drop a buck fifty on a cheap hydroponic unit and pick out the bulbs for it.


Thank you for the compliment!

It is a project, more so the canopy, LED's sort of blend right in for me.
The puck design I have going right now works for sure.
It will end up outdated within the year.
I think I have a good blend of LED's but who knows???


----------



## clownplanted (Mar 3, 2017)

Maryland Guppy said:


> Thank you for the compliment!
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I would say you have a good blend for sure the way your plants look. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## The Dude1 (Jun 17, 2016)

I'm looking into lighting for a 75 gallon. It looks like 2 of the Beamswork Fixtures would still be low light... I say black 2 bulb T8 fixtures for $15 and a 12 pack of 6500k bulbs for $28... would 4 T8's cut It? It will be high tech with C02, but nothing crazy... Haven't found as good of a deal on T5HO given the cost of bulbs.. the T8's also have those cheap "grow" bulbs for reds and actinic bulbs are cheap for blues...
Then make a simple wood canopy and mount them in there??


----------



## GrampsGrunge (Jun 18, 2012)

The Dude1 said:


> I'm looking into lighting for a 75 gallon. It looks like 2 of the Beamswork Fixtures would still be low light... I say black 2 bulb T8 fixtures for $15 and a 12 pack of 6500k bulbs for $28... would 4 T8's cut It? It will be high tech with C02, but nothing crazy... Haven't found as good of a deal on T5HO given the cost of bulbs.. the T8's also have those cheap "grow" bulbs for reds and actinic bulbs are cheap for blues...
> Then make a simple wood canopy and mount them in there??




```

```
You should try to make some sort of reflector behind the tubes as the wood interior of canopy is just going to absorb the light better spent shining into the tank.

In retrospect I used to have a single 48" T12 HO ballasted Longlife 5K full spectrum tube over my 55 gallon with a DIY parabolic reflector. It grew plants well, I think the 40 watt tube were being overdriven at 60~70 watts. but still lasted for a year before the ends darkened as the light output was noticeably dimmer.


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

The Dude1 said:


> I'm looking into lighting for a 75 gallon. It looks like 2 of the Beamswork Fixtures would still be low light.


Which ones?
This is for 1 BW..









Bump:


The Dude1 said:


> Then make a simple wood canopy and mount them in there??


at least paint it inside white w/ a high content Barium Sulfate paint..


> A Mixture of Barium Sulfate and White Paint is a
> Low-Cost Substitute Reflectance Standard for
> Spectralon®


----------



## The Dude1 (Jun 17, 2016)

​


jeffkrol said:


> Which ones?
> This is for 1 BW..
> 
> 
> ...


Fantastic! I greatly appreciate it. The beamswork fixtures that I was looking at or the regular ones on Amazon for like $40 a piece. I know there is a high-output 1 watt LED system but I wasn't able to find it for a reasonable price. If I wanted to try and make a decent reflector inside of the canopy do you know where I would find those materials? I'm assuming just flat sheet metal? Or should I just stick with the paint?


----------



## Bunsen Honeydew (Feb 21, 2017)

The Dude1 said:


> ​
> Fantastic! I greatly appreciate it. The beamswork fixtures that I was looking at or the regular ones on Amazon for like $40 a piece. I know there is a high-output 1 watt LED system but I wasn't able to find it for a reasonable price. If I wanted to try and make a decent reflector inside of the canopy do you know where I would find those materials? I'm assuming just flat sheet metal? Or should I just stick with the paint?


$60 gets you around 50ish PAR.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B016P96UA8/ref=twister_B01KYELCSK?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1

Would you really need a reflector for this fixture?


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

you don't realy need reflectors for LEd's.. Their "stength" is their directional-ity.. 120 degrees vs 360...
side spill can be an issue though..

as to high content Barium paints. well I've had a hard time tracking this to a def. source that is reasonable..but:


> A 500 g bottle of BaSO4 costs $25, whereas reflectance standard made of Spectralon® and with a 99% reflectance factor costs $385. However, pure barium sulfate dries to a powder and easily rubs off surfaces. We sought to increase the durability of barium sulfate by mixing it with untinted white latex paint.


https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...XmsSS5oyA&sig2=d_DvcPFIS2YXs7_DOfDHFw&cad=rja
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...nFztpHMJJbeFqu2PQ&sig2=66Yg5zjPiGAA6IjXgP7nuQ
The real thing but:


> Sensitive to water and UV light


http://sphereoptics.de/en/product/white-reflectance-coating-barium-sulphate/
to be honest this is a bit of a picky point..but Ba-sulfate has better reflective qualities than al ect..but not by much.


----------



## The Dude1 (Jun 17, 2016)

Bunsen Honeydew said:


> $60 gets you around 50ish PAR.
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/dp/B016P96UA8/ref=twister_B01KYELCSK?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1
> 
> Would you really need a reflector for this fixture?


Perhaps I'm confused... from what I had read 2 of those fixtures in my 75 gallon tank would still be lower light and unable to grow things like crypt parva.. I think a standard 75 gallon is 22 inches. That light would be around 40 par and I don't know how that works with doubling fixtures. I'm just going to stay in my comfort zone I think and mount 2 of these dual T8's in a canopy and call it a day. I've got some nice cherry that I was going to use to put together an end table for the sofa. Maybe I'll do some of those RGB strips in there too and have some fun. I got both fixtures and enough bulbs to replace all of them 3 times for about $70.


----------



## Bunsen Honeydew (Feb 21, 2017)

The Dude1 said:


> Perhaps I'm confused... from what I had read 2 of those fixtures in my 75 gallon tank would still be lower light and unable to grow things like crypt parva.. I think a standard 75 gallon is 22 inches. That light would be around 40 par and I don't know how that works with doubling fixtures. I'm just going to stay in my comfort zone I think and mount 2 of these dual T8's in a canopy and call it a day. I've got some nice cherry that I was going to use to put together an end table for the sofa. Maybe I'll do some of those RGB strips in there too and have some fun. I got both fixtures and enough bulbs to replace all of them 3 times for about $70.


From the chart on the first page of the thread, you'd get about 50 PAR at substrate. I have a 36 inch fixture on a 92 corner (24") and can grow low plants well. If you double fixtures, you will have close to double PAR within the normal overlap areas.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

w/ 2 fixtures you get l/r and f/b overlap...
w/ 120 degree optics and most light output in a cone of say 90 degrees.. each diode produces a circle of light 44" in diameter (22" distance).. each overlapping another..
not accounting for glass reflections (which will go "inward" amd light refraction (also inward)

Point is should be plenty of PAr.. But if one has parts already.. and output not really much different, well might as well use the parts..

RGB strips will normally be pretty inefficient except as stand alone lighting. you tube brightness will all but mitigate most any "effects"..
w/ the possible exception of using a whole roll..

But if you want to spend some money.. Get a warm white 12V constant voltage light bar, add a TC-420.. Program it for a ramp up/down at sunrise/sunset.
Will prevent light shock as the tubes fire up...
Probably $50 total for a good bar/ps/and controller..
Use .5W or better diodes though..


----------



## charlie 1 (Oct 22, 2006)

burr740 said:


> Oh my goodness. I replace them when they pop and dont worry about it. Or say after a couple of years if the ends turn black and it's noticeably dimmer than its supposed to be..
> 
> Some brands hold up better than others. Think there's a few tests in the bulb thread I linked.
> 
> ...


I'm with you burr, in all my years in this hobby, I only change t5 ho bulbs when they drop dead, yet to see the bad effects people talk about.


----------



## Mathman (Apr 5, 2009)

I have a 48" Dutch BML LED fixture with a dimmer. I have it set at 50% and getting about 74 par substrate level. Light is about 24" above the substrate. Plant colors are great, the fixture is meant to be used in a Dutch style tank. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## clownplanted (Mar 3, 2017)

Mathman said:


> I have a 48" Dutch BML LED fixture with a dimmer. I have it set at 50% and getting about 74 par substrate level. Light is about 24" above the substrate. Plant colors are great, the fixture is meant to be used in a Dutch style tank.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk




Now that is some serious sun power that you are getting that much par that high up at 50% . 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## The Dude1 (Jun 17, 2016)

jeffkrol said:


> w/ 2 fixtures you get l/r and f/b overlap...
> w/ 120 degree optics and most light output in a cone of say 90 degrees.. each diode produces a circle of light 44" in diameter (22" distance).. each overlapping another..
> not accounting for glass reflections (which will go "inward" amd light refraction (also inward)
> 
> ...


Now I'm regretting it. 2 of the Beamswork Fixtures would be super clean looking and fit under the rack sitting on the shelf allowing me to have a set of 10's on top for growouts. So 2 of the regular 0.5w 48" fixtures would provide ample lighting for carpets and C02 injection? I have the RGB one on as an addition on my 150 and 2 of them would still be very low light


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

> So 2 of the regular 0.5w 48" fixtures would provide ample lighting for carpets and C02 injection?


AFAICT ..yes... 2 5 row .5W led lights should be enough for most anything..
don't forget CO2 injection can "supplement" lower light levels as well, though that is not what is here..
"The whole is greater than the sum of the parts".........


----------

