Comparison of T5HO bulbs - PLEASE READ!!!

Status
Not open for further replies.
KaliKitsune

KaliKitsune

Well-Known Member
I've been checking out some T5HO bulbs recently, and I've come across something quite interesting.

Those of us using four-foot T5HO bulbs might be slightly screwing ourselves.

All knowledge about how lumens means nothing to plants aside, check out this comparison I've done using 1000bulbs.com

I hit up the T5HO section, chose the 6500K varieties of the F54, F39 types.

I looked at GE and PlusRite, since those were the two most common among the set.

The Plusrite F54 T5HO (What I use, well i use AgroMax, 4-foot) outputs 5000 lumens, using 54 watts.

92.6 lumens per watt.

The PlusRite T39 T5HO (3-foot) does 4900 lumens using 39 watts.

125.6 lumens per watt.

If those numbers are accurate - whooooooooooooops on us. :dunce::dunce::dunce::dunce::dunce::dunce::dunce::dunce: Especially if those lamps have any decent PAR - I wish that site would list that.

I wonder what would happen if I drove 39 watt bulbs with 54 watt ballasts?

Hell, I wonder what it would do if I drove a 39 watt bulb with 80 watts using an IceCap ballast?
 
mykul916

mykul916

Well-Known Member
ugh....T5 newbz.



everyone on this site would learn ALOT if you guys went to nano-reef.com and looked in their "lighting" section...
 
KaliKitsune

KaliKitsune

Well-Known Member
mykul916 said:
ugh....T5 newbz.



everyone on this site would learn ALOT if you guys went to nano-reef.com and looked in their "lighting" section...
Click to expand...
Calling me a noob when I've used T5 lighting for years is pretty bold.

Doubly bold when you're telling it to someone that taught horticultural science.

Triple bold when same person was responsible for an entire T5HO lighting switch in a HUGE warehouse and had to do a five hour presentation on why the warehouse should switch.

Quadruple bold considering I already maintain other people's aquariums and could tell you far better lighting solutions than T5.

This thread is here to alert T5HO growers that they might be getting screwed over considering the appearance of 3 foot T5HO lamps outputting more than 4 foot T5HO lamps.

My research never ends - your site is kinda lacking.

Oh, and underwater growing of plants is WAY different than growing with your plant mass above water level - trying to link to an aquarium site is pointless and would only serve to confuse people.
 
Landragon

Landragon

Well-Known Member
I call balogna on 4900 lumens @ 39 watts. It's a mistype. Also you should know IC ballasts don't drive 39w T5HO bulbs @ 80w, but at closer to 60. But the efficiency won't go up, just that the lumens rise at a level exponentialy lower than the added watts. I won't list my credentials in photometry but I rest confident my comments won't be refuted. LD
 
mykul916

mykul916

Well-Known Member
KaliKitsune said:
1)Calling me a noob when I've used T5 lighting for years is pretty bold.

2)Doubly bold when you're telling it to someone that taught horticultural science.

3)Triple bold when same person was responsible for an entire T5HO lighting switch in a HUGE warehouse and had to do a five hour presentation on why the warehouse should switch.

4)Quadruple bold considering I already maintain other people's aquariums and could tell you far better lighting solutions than T5.

4)This thread is here to alert T5HO growers that they might be getting screwed over considering the appearance of 3 foot T5HO lamps outputting more than 4 foot T5HO lamps.

My research never ends - your site is kinda lacking.

Oh, and underwater growing of plants is WAY different than growing with your plant mass above water level - trying to link to an aquarium site is pointless and would only serve to confuse people.
Click to expand...
1) i meant that the majority of RIU is very new to t5ho....

sorry if i offended. :-(

2) bah....so did my high school science teacher. doesn't mean he was a T5 whiz-kid....ya know. ;-)

3) BIG DEAL. i bet it was REALLY difficult to convince them to switch from (im assuming here) high bay metal halides to WAY more effecient t5ho lights....you convinced people to save money? youre my hero....get off yer high horse.

4) "other people's aquariums"....i maintain MY aquariums, and ive done a TON of research into everything t5ho, and ive been lucky enuf to have some great resources (both written and people) on the matter....you dont seem to have done much research at all.....but have fun with your typo's and icecaps....

oh yeah...go add some lumens, too while youre at it.

kthxbye.


edit: in addition to "4" : i think its funny that youre "biggest qualification" was maintaining 'other people's aquariums'... sorry, just reread it and thot it was funny.
 
KaliKitsune

KaliKitsune

Well-Known Member
1. Maybe a majority - do you have statistics to back that up?

2. I was a dedicated Horticultural Science Sub - That's my specialty.

3. It was difficult to convince them to switch, considering all the other lighting solutions being offered at that time (plasma lighting, LED flood lighting, CCL lighting, etc.) and it took months just to get all the information needed, including attending lighting conferences and asking direct questions. The amount of money saved? 50 million. That's a HUGE deal. No high horse here, just stating the facts. The fact you choose to think I'm on a high horse shows that you're the one on a high horse.

Lumens don't add up - go learn your basic photography and some high school physics.

My Qualification is COLLEGE DEGREES. Whatchoo got, son?

4. I've done loads of research to get those degrees - your wikipedia pales in comparison.
 
Lightguy420

Lightguy420

Well-Known Member
well if you are such a specialist in T5 lighting you would know that you CANNOT run a 39W/HO/T5 lamp on a 54W/HO ballast... those lamps are very specific to the electronics within the ballasts and if you try running that 39W lamp on the 54W ballast your are setting yourself up for shortening the life of the lamp or perhaps overdriving your lamp and putting yourself in a fire hazard situation. In the new highbay applications they are replacing a 400MH lamp with 4 x FP54T5/HO lamps just for a comparison....
 
Boneman

Boneman

Well-Known Member
Stick with the good ole trusty HPS & MH conversion and your green will always be plentiful and rewarding :hump:
 
U

UserFriendly

New Member
Over-driving lamps causes a color shift. Anyway, lamps are constantly improving, and more watts means higher yields, even if they don't list PAR. Yeah, lumens are pointless.... so is this thread.
 
mykul916

mykul916

Well-Known Member
KaliKitsune said:
My Qualification is COLLEGE DEGREES. Whatchoo got, son?

4. I've done loads of research to get those degrees - your wikipedia pales in comparison.
Click to expand...
all that college and you still dont know shit...too much money, not enuf sense.



"loads"....and you dont know ballasts yet? sheesh.... and i know lumens dont add...it was SARCASM college boy. step out of the books, and into the world.

now lets all just smoke some pot.

:fire::weed::fire:
 
Lightguy420

Lightguy420

Well-Known Member
Yeah listen to Boneman he knows what he is talking about... Why stray from what we already know works and hell a 150HPS initial lumens is 16000Lum how can you go wrong.
 
Lightguy420

Lightguy420

Well-Known Member
If Lumens don't matter than why can't we all just save money and time and grow under a 60watt A-19... or do you know what that is?
Lumens is a measure of the perceived power of light...
 
KaliKitsune

KaliKitsune

Well-Known Member
Landragon said:
I call balogna on 4900 lumens @ 39 watts. It's a mistype. Also you should know IC ballasts don't drive 39w T5HO bulbs @ 80w, but at closer to 60. But the efficiency won't go up, just that the lumens rise at a level exponentialy lower than the added watts. I won't list my credentials in photometry but I rest confident my comments won't be refuted. LD
Click to expand...
Well, thermodynamics always comes into play when it comes down to energy in/light out. I wouldn't say exponentially, as doubling the wattage only yields at best 1.7X increase in output - not quite matching the definition.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top