# T-5 Information



## Cliff Mayes (Jan 29, 2007)

Can anyone simply explain what a T-5 system does that my CF System does not? Should I wait for LEDs to come out?

I have tried to read the commercial listings about T-5s but they only say what they have to to sell the product. I need some advice here from a knowledgable source that is not trying to sell me something.

I will buy if that makes sense just now but; having been down the road a few times; I ony need information right now.


----------



## davemonkey (Mar 29, 2008)

With t-5 (a good one anyway) you get a reflector for each bulb, meaning more light gets into your tank, so you don't need as many "watts per gallon" so to speak. The other thing is that you can get a better selection of bulbs (color temps and mixed full spectrum) than you can with the CFL or PC bulbs.

I don't have t-5 and my tanks do great and look great, but it would be nice to be able to play around with different bulbs now and then for different color combinations.

-Dave


----------



## Vadimshevchuk (Jul 5, 2009)

also how are the new led light fixtures are they any good?


----------



## Newt (Apr 1, 2004)

CFs are T5 and T6 technology (the 'T' is for tube and the 5 would be 8th of an inch - the diameter of the bulb) but the linear tubes are typically high output (HO) and deliver more intensity than your CF/PCs. The 48" 54watt T5HO puts out about 30% +/- more light intensity than a typical 55watt CF.


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

T5HO's also have programmed start ballasts quite frequently; I have yet to find a CF in the hobby that does, outside of DIY. This will increase bulb life by about 2-3x meaning you'll save money over CF.

LED's are still in a holding pattern; it's worth it to invest in them, but it'll cost you about $200 to do the DIY that Hoppy pulled. Non-DIY will cost more like $500 for the same system. The lights last somewhere around 7-10 years with minimal intensity loss, and you need about 1/2 the wattage of CF to get what you want because of the superior spread. I suspect this will increase as the bulbs are tailored to hobby spectrum, given that LED's can be made to output certain nm's of wavelength more precisely than other bulbs.

-Philosophos


----------



## Newt (Apr 1, 2004)

That's good info, Philosophos


----------



## houseofcards (Feb 16, 2005)

Cliff Mayes said:


> Can anyone simply explain what a T-5 system does that my CF System does not? Should I wait for LEDs to come out?
> 
> I have tried to read the commercial listings about T-5s but they only say what they have to to sell the product. I need some advice here from a knowledgable source that is not trying to sell me something.
> 
> I will buy if that makes sense just now but; having been down the road a few times; I ony need information right now.


I think it really depends on what your trying to accomplish and your tank specs. In most cases CF bulbs are fine. One reason to possibly switch to T5 is that the CF bulbs you currently are using aren't intense enough to grow a carpet or to get the reds you want. T5HO bulbs are more effective in deeper tanks or where more intense light is needed.


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

houseofcards said:


> One reason to possibly switch to T5 is that the CF bulbs you currently are using aren't intense enough to grow a carpet...


How do the tanks at AFA in SF hold 40mmol PAR (very low light levels) at the substrate and still get HC to carpet then? Tom Barr did the reading with an Apogee PAR meter. Look around and you'll find marsillea and glosso in lower light tanks as well, carpeting beautifully. I'm soon to be keeping HC under 54w of T5 over a 48 gal with some 108w bursts around noon; easily achievable levels with CF.



houseofcards said:


> ...or to get the reds you want.


Just curious, where are you getting the idea that high light induces red? If it does, how is this tank possible at 1.5wpg of CF:
http://showcase.aquatic-gardeners.org/2008.cgi?&op=showcase&category=0&vol=2&id=14

Red has been done under low lighting, as well. Most often it's accomplished through (ideally temporary) NO3 and PO4 limitation. I've done it my self, as well as many others.

I also have a theory that quality of light may effect color through carotenoid stimulation at 500nm, but it's an untested theory. You won't see me calling it fact until it's been tested.

I'm most definitely not meaning any personal offense here, I've just seen these same concepts passed around with a complete lack of solid evidence to back them. Many concepts people have about high light seem to be disproven through the tanks kept by Tom Barr, Oliver Knott and Takashi Amano.

-Philosophos


----------



## Newt (Apr 1, 2004)

Red plants and plants that turn red when they reach near the surface are inefficient at photosynthesizing red light. They utilize mostly blue light and light of other colors. Iron can also play a role in producing red in plants more so for plants that are normally red. Intensity is usually more important than spectrum.


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

Wouldn't all red plants be inefficient at photosynthesizing red light?

And what is this Rotala goias doing at the bottom of the tank? Doesn't rotala turn red at the top of the tank?

I agree about the iron, it definitely plays a roll. All the same, I have bright green sunset hygro pushing in .7ppm of Fe per week.

Where are you getting this intensity = red concept?

Tom Barr must be confused about the issue on two separate occasions, and while holding a PAR meter:
http://www.barrreport.com/36994-post2.html
http://www.barrreport.com/30498-post1.html

Takashi Amano's plants don't seem to listen either; I'm seeing some nice red L. arcuat on page 130 of the september 2002 issue of TFH. Come to think of it, many of his tanks are low light and show brilliant red at times. Give a read through Aquarium Plant Paradise; it shows reds under a few different values of light.

How about this one by Oliver Knott at 2.4wpg of MH:
http://www.pbase.com/plantella/bblunew

Or this one at about 1.5wpg of T5HO:
142.10526315789473684210526315789

And another:
http://www.pbase.com/plantella/wska2007

-Philosophos


----------



## mudboots (Jun 24, 2009)

Lots of good info here. 

Cliff, I've got T5-HO on a 125npt (no fertz, no co2...) and it can almost be stressful at times. Learning the hard way and waiting to pour through posts from folks like Newt and Philosophos until AFTER buying a bajillion gigawatts of light probably wasn't the best idea. It is extremely efficient compared to the CFL's I've got on a 10npt and I think is causing some deficiencies in my Marsilea. That said, all of my Echinodorus species, Anubias' and Nymphoides seem to absolutely love it. The rest are somewhere in the middle. At the moment I've got 2.496 wpg over the 125 (8x39w, 2 6700K, 4 10000K, 2 "pink") with no window light. While the visuals are not overpowering, and actually quite appealing, the proof is in the plants that I'm missing something, and it isn't light.


----------



## Newt (Apr 1, 2004)

Philosophos said:


> Wouldn't all red plants be inefficient at photosynthesizing red light?


Isnt that what I said.

I never said intensity = red. I merely meant if the plants are red or prone to turning red then Intensity augments.

A P.A.R. meter reads with equal weight for all the output a light source emits in the wavelength range between 400 and 700 nm but it doesnt differentiate between them. P.U.sableR.adiation is typically obtained by weighing the photon spectrum with an "average" photosynthesis action curve. It is the sum of all photons in the range 400-700nm weighted by the action spectrum. It also doesnt differentiate between the relative amount of red and blue photons.

BTW, this is getting off topic....................


----------



## Philosophos (Mar 1, 2009)

Newt said:


> I never said intensity = red. I merely meant if the plants are red or prone to turning red then Intensity augments.


Then why is one of the most intensely red images I linked to sitting under some of the lowest light? Where are you getting this concept from? Is there anything you can show me to back it up?



Newt said:


> A P.A.R. meter reads with equal weight for all the output a light source emits in the wavelength range between 400 and 700 nm but it doesnt differentiate between them. P.U.sableR.adiation is typically obtained by weighing the photon spectrum with an "average" photosynthesis action curve. It is the sum of all photons in the range 400-700nm weighted by the action spectrum. It also doesnt differentiate between the relative amount of red and blue photons


Yes, I realize the difference between PAR and PUR/FAPAR. What are you trying to say here? That every time lighting/PAR is low but plants are red, that PUR is actually high? In that case red bulbs (or at least ones lacking blue) shouldn't be growing red plants very well unless there's excessive amounts of light, and yet it happens.



> BTW, this is getting off topic....................


Isn't that how most decent debates start? 

Start a new thread if you like and link to it, or Cliff can decide if he wants the debate here.

-Philosophos


----------



## Cliff Mayes (Jan 29, 2007)

I am enjoying the discussion even though I am still lost albeit less lost than before.


----------

