# T5HO or CF



## Emerc69 (Mar 28, 2008)

Hey guys I've been out of aquascaping for some time but Im wondering what you think would be the better choice of lighting for my 20gal. I've been looking at a few prospects:
*
Aquaticlife's 4x24 lamp* T5HO with built in timer retails $239.99usd
pros 
-all the light I'll need 
-built in timer
-Ideal setup for a 20gal tank
cons
-price 
-available setups come with 2 420/460 bulbs meaning I'll have to buy 2 extra T5HO bulbs $40

*Aquaticlife's dual 2x24 lamp* T5HO no built in timer retails $99.99usd
pros
-affordable
-can be connected with up to 3 fixtures meaning 6x24 potential
-comes in fresh water setup although I dont know what a 650nm is rated at
cons
-might be able to find a better CF setup for the cash
-no timer

*Current satellite dual 2x65 compact florescent* no timer retails $132.99usd 
pros 
-all the light I'll ever need
-Ideal in cost
cons
-rumors of Current as a company not doing as well 
-rumors of CF setups becoming obsolete/less popular

The main reason I would like to go with T5HO lighting is because i can mix match the bulbs the problem is I dont know much about the bulbs as far as compatibility (will any 24w T5HO/T5 bulb work provided its the right length 22" i believe) and the cost is kind of up there. For some reason I heard that CF aren't doing so well and the guys at the plant shop said they are becoming less of a choice to the majority and if thats the case I don't want to be stuck on a dead investment or a fixture with no bulbs.


----------



## Finaddictfred (Nov 12, 2004)

I'd go with the T5 over CF as long as the T5 has individual reflectors. T5's last longer and are more efficient than CF and replacement bulbs cost less.


----------



## bosmahe1 (May 14, 2005)

Finaddictfred said:


> I'd go with the T5 over CF as long as the T5 has individual reflectors. T5's last longer and are more efficient than CF and replacement bulbs cost less.


+1


----------



## spinxarelli (Feb 24, 2006)

+2 
I use nothing but T-5's now, I am paying as much for T-5 replacements as I used to pay for Old T-8's back in the day. T-5's are a great value and the price does not go up significantly in price with the longer length of bulb that you need. i.e. 36"/48"


----------



## Dantra (May 15, 2007)

+3


----------



## DVS (Nov 20, 2005)

Finaddictfred said:


> T5's last longer...


Why would this be true? Cf bulbs are really just t5 bulbs bent in half.


----------



## Jane in Upton (Aug 10, 2005)

DVS said:


> Why would this be true? Cf bulbs are really just t5 bulbs bent in half.


Hi,

I've been researching HO T5's as well, and from what I can find, the CF bulbs, although they are technically T5 technology "bent in half" as you say, they have a few drawbacks, first and foremost being re-strike all along the length where the lamp is parallel to itself. This makes the bulb run hotter, and reduces the life of the lamp.

In the case of a very short length, the CF are still a good value, since they will fit into smaller fixtures. Other than a few everything-under-the-hood combo units (some of the Eclipse hoods), I have yet to see any linear T5 fixtures w/ good reflectors offered that are shorter than 24". Apparently there is also a few inches of decreased output at each end of any linear lamp tube, due to the end cap and coating technology, which also is a strike against a short-length T5 bulb.

And to the OP, from what I've learned, I'm convinced that T5 is the way to go, and will be getting HO T5s in my next fixture.

-Jane


----------



## geeks_15 (Dec 9, 2006)

I definitely prefer T5HO.

A couple other benefits of T5HO:
1. The fixtures are often smaller for the same or more light output.
2. Since the T5HO bulbs run cooler a fan is usually not required. Therefore less energy usage and no noise (I hate fan noise!).


----------



## Newt (Apr 1, 2004)

Its true that CFs are T5 (some T6) but they are not High Output. Forget the watts, its all in the intensity. A 54watt T5HO puts out 25 to 30% more lumens and last twice as long than CFs.

I say forget the watts because watts is a power consumption and not light output. Its really not relevant terminology and really only works with incandescent bulbs and is a stretch for T12 and not realistic for T8 and and smaller diameter fluorscents.


----------



## boink (Nov 29, 2006)

I use T5 on all my tanks and love it.


----------



## DVS (Nov 20, 2005)

Newt said:


> Its true that CFs are T5 (some T6) but they are not High Output. Forget the watts, its all in the intensity. A 54watt T5HO puts out 25 to 30% more lumens and last twice as long than CFs.


When I asked my question I hadn't considered the shape of the bulb impacting the concentration of heat. I understand the heat, having an impact on bulb life. You get more light out of a T5 since there is minimal restrike (which I was aware of). But the CFs are actually high output. This is why the same ballast that runs a 54 T5HO runs a 55 watt cf. The 36 watt cf ballast runs a 39 watt t5HO, etc. Mechanically a 54 watt T5HO is a 55 watt cf, same bulb, same ballast. Its just the T5 is a more efficient shape.


----------



## Newt (Apr 1, 2004)

CFs are not HO. You are still thinking watts and not light output. The high output is for light emitted and not power consumed (watts). T5HOs are more efficient and provide more light output per watt consumed. Inefficiency is output in heat. Restrike is only a small part of why a T5HO is more efficient.

A Fulham Workhorse 5 ballast will drive a variety of bulbs such as 40watt 48" T12s, 32 to 40 watt 48" T8s, 55 and 65 watt CFs, 48" T5HO and more. These bulbs are quite different and vary on effieiency. Which do you think is more efficient, a 55 watt CF or a 65 watt? They are the same length. Efficiency is light output per watt consumed. Light ouput is typically done with lumen output but that doesnt take all light in the spectrum into account and manufactyrers dont provide PAR data.


----------



## Jane in Upton (Aug 10, 2005)

Newt said:


> Its true that CFs are T5 (some T6) but they are not High Output. Forget the watts, its all in the intensity. A 54watt T5HO puts out 25 to 30% more lumens and last twice as long than CFs.


So..... if the T5 HO put out about 25% more lumens, and with a good reflector, what would be some rough equivalents?

My 24" 2x55w CF fixture was banished (LOUD fans) and I put a 1x65w CF over a 20H tank instead. But, it just went kaput, and was looking like it wasn't enough light, anyhow - plants looked like they needed more.

So what would be a good replacement for a 2x55w CF with lousy reflectors (2 lamps packed in side-by-side, hugely inefficient) in terms of an HO T5 setup?

Would a dual 24w HO T5 fixture w/ excellent reflectors suffice, even though the wattage is only 48 watts total? Figuring the 25% better lumens output, that roughly equates to 60w. I know, I know, wattage is NOT a good measure, but without having access to lumen data for these fixtures, its really difficult to decipher what would be equivalent intensities.

Help? Thanks
-Jane

ps - to the OP, sorry, I didn't mean to hijack your thread, but it seemed to fit in with the direction of the discussion.


----------



## gpodio (Feb 4, 2004)

Newt said:


> CFs are not HO. You are still thinking watts and not light output. The high output is for light emitted and not power consumed (watts). T5HOs are more efficient and provide more light output per watt consumed. Inefficiency is output in heat. Restrike is only a small part of why a T5HO is more efficient.


Hey Newt! My understanding on this is a little different... HO does indeed indicate a bulb that can handle more wattage than the same length NO bulb. For example if you look at this list from another post:

For example, comparing a few bulbs with similar specs:
1. 48" 32W T8 = 2950lumen / 92lpw
2. 48" 28W T5NO = 2900lumen / 104lpw
3. 48" 54W T5HO = 5000lumen / 93lpw
4. 48" 84W T5VHO = 7200lumen / 85lpw
5. 21" 55W CF = 4800lumen / 87lpw

The wattage handled is the big difference. Efficiency (lpw) actually goes down slightly as you increase wattage. As far as watts per inch of tube, CF's are in the same category as HO bulbs of the same diameter.

Also, T5's don't necessarily run cooler, their ideal operating temperature is higher, in the mid 90's, while T8's had an ideal operating temperature in the mid 70's... This is why T5 are a particularly better choice in closed fixtures where temperatures get high quickly. The need for fans is greatly reduced.

Don't get me wrong, T5HO is the better choice, but I feel at times we expect a little too much from them, specially if we're expecting to get an increase in output/performance from a decrease in wattage...

Giancarlo


----------



## Newt (Apr 1, 2004)

Yes, that is good info. My point was that alot of people talk watts as if this was the output. It is the input. That was my point.

Here's something to ponder:
I have some european Philips Aquarelles. One is 48" T8 and is 36watts the other is 1 meter T8 38.5watts. Which do you think is more efficient, more light output?


----------



## gpodio (Feb 4, 2004)

They are going to emit pretty much the same amount of lumen/PAR assuming they are identical models and both running off same quality ballasts. The HO tube (105mm 38W) is going to appear brighter because the same amount of light is being emitted from a smaller surface area, but overall output will be very similar.

As for efficiency... the NO bulb is likely more efficient (more lumens per watt consumed). As for lumen output... I don't think the 2 extra watts will completely offset the reduced efficiency... the 36W NO bulb may have the slight advantage yet again, even if only marginal.

Obviously for aquarium use, we are often faced with limited room so no doubt you can pack a lot more light in a given space using HO bulbs. A lot will also depend on the ballasts used, I believe one can make a lot more difference based on the ballast they use than the NO/HO/VHO designation of the bulbs, assuming the same overall wattage is used.

Giancarlo


----------



## gpodio (Feb 4, 2004)

I found some specs on the Philips site... they were well hidden 

TL-D 36W 120cm 
TL-D 38W 105cm

I found one reference that stated the TL-D 36W has a PAR rating of 47.1 mEinsteins which is actually quite good, but it wasn't from the Philips site so not sure how accurate that may be.

Giancarlo


----------



## tom855 (Feb 5, 2006)

T5's or even HOT5's can't be beat for nice, sleek small fixtures, and in many cases, NO FAN!

Might not sound like a big deal until you listen to how loud some of the fixture fans are.

Go fanless if at all possible!

Tom 


.


----------



## tom855 (Feb 5, 2006)

...


----------

