The Big Un's

[swords]

I've been working out my wall unit on paper and come across the idea to use 8 ft Fluorescents over the top two 4 ft Vivariums and over the lower two 4 ft GH style terrariums. Certain 8fts have a fantastic lumen output if you check out the specs here:

http://www.1000bulbs.com/F96T12-Single-Pin-Fluorescent-Light-bulbs/

My Home Depot carries the Alto 841 tube (6600 lumens/75 watts) and a couple of the other nice high lumen/full spectrum tubes listed above. The 8 ft fixture is $37.99 and two nice output tubes are $18.99 per pair.

This brings my whole lighting setup for the four vivariums to apx $160 for four fixtures (two twin tube fixtures per shelf) and apx $80 for bulbs if I don't order them online, which looks like a better deal - but I dunno what shipping would be on a box of 8 footers. Total 8 Ft setup is apx $250 with taxes across the street at HD. Compared with apx $800 for four 6 tube T5 fixtures, bulbs and shipping.

Using this configuration gives me apx 24,000 lumens per shelf (comparable to a 400W metal halide lumen output) but using only 300 watts per 8 feet compared with apx 30,000 lumens/340 W of T5 for only 4 feet. Not only will startup be 1/4 the cost but my power bill will be drastically reduced and I will not be loosing much in lieu of lumens. And to slap another fixture over each shelf wouldn't cost much should I actually need to go up to 36,000 lumens per shelf.

Anyway, it's all still in planning but I thought this was pretty cool to find that the big industrial FL bulbs have a pretty darn good output if you have the space to use them.

 

[seedjar]

If you can find them locally you might check them with a spectrometer. I'm usually suspicious of lumens, but those numbers seem particularly too-good-to-be-true. I've got to wonder if the extra output comes from a thrifty spectral distribution.
~Joe

 

[Av8tor1]

Swords,

Few points to consider
*6600 lumens for a single 8 foot T12 compared to 10,000 lumens for 2 4' T5's, a 44% reduction in energy
*The t5's have 3x (or more) the bulb life with less then a 5% reduction in output over the life of the bulb
*T5 are much thinner, increasing reflector efficiency
*95% reflectors are not usually available in T12 format (remember 60% of the bulb is pointed in the wrong direction)
*Thinner bulb and 95% reflector can result in up to a 300% gain in usable output
*6 T5's will fit in the same width as 4 T12's which is double the energy level (based on 4 foot bulbs)

While the 8 foot T12 are a decent enough option, I think it depends if initial cost is the primary factor. As far as a performance comparison..... well, they are not in the same league mate.

Just my 2 cents,
Av

 

[Tony Paroubek]

Av pretty much sums it up. You can't just compare lumen output and leave it at that. Intensity is important if not more important. Aside from all the advantages of a thinner bulb, HO T5 are twice as intense in brightness so they can be further from the plants while still providing enough light on the leaf surface. Metal halide even more so because all that light is coming from a very small bulb.

 

[swords]

Thanks for the input guys.

They do have 110W 8 ft HO tubes as well. Twin tube fixtures for those are $60, though the lumens output are still 6600.

My interest in these comes as I say not just from the start up cost but also the electric bill. Replacing the tubes once a year is not going to upset my world, been doing it for 10+ years why stop now?

Indeed building reflectors would be in order for these sorts of fixtures. It won't be 95% but I've done them in the past it's not that hard to make a shop fixture into a rather nice reflective lamp.

As I say, I'm just batting this around. Plenty of time to work on things.

 

[Tony Paroubek]

Bulb selection can make a noticeable difference in lumens. I used to run Philips Ultralume which is a 4' tube 5000k and 3300 lumens t12. This kind of bulb is not available from a home store though. You have to get them from a lighting supply store. I would consider the HO 8' selections. They do make 8' 110w HO t12 tubes with 6500k and 8900 lumens. I noticed a cool white with the same power at 4100k and 9350 lumens.

I think 6 of the HO 8' t12 tubes would be quite nice for your set up.

Another alternative is the 8' HO T8 tubes which only use 86 watts, but with slightly reduced output of around 8000 lumens. They supposedly last 30% longer too. Which considering a HO 8' tube will run you $15-$20 each is something to consider.

Tony

 

[swords]

Thanks Tony, I have plenty of time to work out the lighting but the 8 footers were really attractive being they claim to output twice as much lumens as the regular 4 foots I'm using now. But reducing the ongoing electricity costs and heat (both, particularly in summer) is my prime importance on this whole wall setup since I know will have to run a lot of lights.

I used a 400W MH over my LL tank years back and even though it was only 400W it cost me twice as much to operate as 400W of Fluorescents (actually 480W of NO T12s), have you any idea why that would be? Shouldn't 400W be 400W? Does the MH ballast also pull power for itself and not just the bulb?

 

[Av8tor1]

Does the MH ballast also pull power for itself and not just the bulb?

Yes, you're also paying for that heat you feel coming from the ballast... no different then running an electric heater.... still gonna cost you coin

any heat you feel coming from a light is an inefficiency, now you're next question will be "well since T5's run hotter the T12's, aren't they less efficient?"

The answer is no,.... the T5 is a higher wattage with a smaller surface area. You have more energy being dissipated by a smaller surface area, hence a hotter surface even though it is more efficient
Av

 

[Tony Paroubek]

Av answered about the ballast power usage so no need to answer much on that other than to say deffinately take a look at the ballast since it uses power also. Electronic ballasts will save you money as they use less than the magnetic coil type!

You can't really compare the 8' to the 4' in lumens since the 8' is twice as long it should have twice the lumen output. But you deffinately need to look at all the bulbs available in the size you are looking for since they can vary as much as 30% between them for bulbs of the same size and power.

 

[Av8tor1]

In addiion to spectra and CRI

Av

 

[Hermopolis]

I used a 400W MH over my LL tank years back and even though it was only 400W it cost me twice as much to operate as 400W of Fluorescents (actually 480W of NO T12s), have you any idea why that would be? Shouldn't 400W be 400W? Does the MH ballast also pull power for itself and not just the bulb?

No, a 400W MH ballast does consume 400W and should not cost you more than running 480W of NO T12s. The watt rating for MHs is the total power of the ballast/bulb combination and will not run you in excess of that rating. MH ballasts do have considerable power losses due to heat (up to 20%); however, they more than make up for this inefficiency by putting out more PARs.

One reason it may have cost you more could have been time of year. Power companies charge different rates depending on the time of year. And they commonly "estimate" your power bill in winter months in such a way as it can cost you 3 or 4 times what you actually use. I have this fight with my electric provider every year, where they estimate a $300 power bill when the actual meter reading will result in only an $80 bill. A lot of people try MHs for the first time in the winter and experience the sticker shock--people generally don't do MHs until they think they need them, which is when Mr. Sun has decided to take a vacation from the northern hemisphere.

The problem here is that you are comparing apples and oranges. 400W is 400W for input. The same is not true of output. According to National Garden Wholesale in order to get 50,000 lumins, you need either a single 400W HID lamp or 10 4ft 54W T5's or 42 4ft 40W T12's. [http://www.nationalgardenwholesale.com/ngw/literature/catalog_supplemental.pdf]

-Hermes.

 

[swords]

Yes, I realize a 400W MH isn't the same intensity of output of NO FL but the operating price difference was quite astonishing. It was not an electronic ballast but an older style one from a guy online who was changing his SW Reef lighting over to a new electronic ballast setup so he let me have it cheap and gave me a 175W ballast for free. Since I was growing my huge LL Neps in a full size tub/showerstall I wanted a heavy duty lamp to do it and it did well but cost a fortune.

 

[Hermopolis]

I don't doubt that the price difference was astounding. I'm questioning why it was astounding, because 400W of MHs should cost you no more than 400W of T12s. Since this is input wattage we are talking about, they should be equivalent in cost to run. Perhaps, you miscalculated the input watts on your flourescents. Are you calculating the 480W by number of tubes or by number of fixtures?

-Hermes.

 

[Av8tor1]

No, a 400W MH ballast does consume 400W and should not cost you more than running 480W of NO T12s. The watt rating for MHs is the total power of the ballast/bulb combination and will not run you in excess of that rating. [http://www.nationalgardenwholesale.com/ngw/literature/catalog_supplemental.pdf]

-Hermes.

I have to respectfully disagree, you take 2 400w MH bulbs, run one in an old fashioned magnetic ballast and run one in a new electronic ballast... due to hysteresis, power factor and other losses the magnetic ballast will be considerably less efficient.

big problem with MH is the lumen maintenance, they lose efficiency very quickly and the overall efficency is considerably less then T5.
their typical PAR efficiency measured in uE/s/Watt is 0.48 when compared to a common T8 (i dont have T5 data handy) it's 1.2, over twice the efficiency...and even less efficent when compared to T5

the increase in efficency is the reason industry is replacing their HD with T5's



Av

 

[swords]

So are NO T8 or T5s 32W better than old timey NO T12s even though they don't have the same lumen output? Just curious as I've always been a T12 man going by the lumens rating.... Since I can grow and flower Neps, Orchids and succulents with NO T12s.


Back the the MH for a sec, I was calculating on the number of tubes and the power bill. It would be interesting to see what the dif in power bills would be between the old style MH and the newer ones. I'm not in contact with the guy I bought the MH from to see if switching reducing his running costs for his reef.

OFF TOPIC: The guy had an overflow that dropped through the living room floor to a 100+ gallon refugium / sump in the basement and then back up to the display tank in the living room - that was wild!

 

[Tony Paroubek]

Wattage of the bulb is simply how much the bulb uses to light properly. For the real power consumption you need to look at the ballast and find the INPUT wattage.

A magnetic ballast for a 400w MH bulb will typically be around 460 input watts.
A magnetic ballast for 2 4' 40w T12 fluorescent tubes is about 86 watts. x 5 = 430 watts
An electronic ballast for 2 4' 40w T12 fluorescent tubes is about 72 watts x 5 = 360 watts

 

[Hermopolis]

I have to respectfully disagree, you take 2 400w MH bulbs, run one in an old fashioned magnetic ballast and run one in a new electronic ballast... due to hysteresis, power factor and other losses the magnetic ballast will be considerably less efficient.

Efficiency is irrelevant when it concerns cost to operate. Both magnetic and electronic ballasts rated at 400W input will cost about the same to run. Your output efficiencies will be different, but the cost to run will be roughly the same. The objection of the original poster was that of cost. 400 watts of incandescent bulbs costs the same to run as a 400 watt refrigerator. 400 watts is a unit of consumption NOT efficiency.

big problem with MH is the lumen maintenance, they lose efficiency very quickly and the overall efficency is considerably less then T5.
their typical PAR efficiency measured in uE/s/Watt is 0.48 when compared to a common T8 (i dont have T5 data handy) it's 1.2, over twice the efficiency...and even less efficent when compared to T5 the increase in efficency is the reason industry is replacing their HD with T5's

What's your source? T5's are only more efficient than T8's at their peak operating temperature of 35 degrees Celsius, otherwise their efficiency is roughly the same. While I think that T5's are excellent light, I also think it is important to separate the data from the hype as well. T5's generally get 70-100 lm/w, while MH's get 65-115 lm/w. Furthermore, T5's also suffer from lumen maintenance issues, although they do last 33% longer than T8's. And when using T5's instead of MH's, while I admit this can be done, people often don't use nearly as many tubes as they need to really get the job done, using say 4 or 6 tubes when they really need 8 or 10. So, while T5's are appropriate for terrarium less than 18 inches tall, they are often rendered inadequate by improper implementation.

I'm not saying that MHs are the be all and end all, but only that they can be appropriate for some situations and don't cost nearly as much as some people make them out to cost. I normally recommend that people starting a new terrarium use T5's, because (a) they are efficient and (b) a wide variety of tube color temperatures are available, which can contribute to a highly aesthetic color of lighting. However, I have used MHs for years and have not suffered from the issues often described on the CP sites.

In the end, it depends. You have to use what is appropriate for your situation. If you have a hammer, one tends to see every problem as a nail. Likewise, if one has T5's, it is a mistake to see them as the answer to every lighting problem. Sometime it is. Sometimes it isn't.

-Hermes.

 

[Tony Paroubek]

T8 tubes are lower in lumen output than the t12 because they use less power. A 4' T8 is 32 watts vs 40 watts. I would not bother with them for your plants. Many buildings use them because you will hardly notice the lower light ouput and they will save 8 watts/bulb. Your plants will notice the difference though!

They do make electronic ballasts for MH systems. The problem with your setup is the length. You would need a bunch of lower power MH bulbs to evenly light the 8' length. And to get the proper light for the depth of it I think you would want something with more intensity than normal fluorescent. You can't make up for the distance by simply adding more normal tubes. You need a brighter bulb to do that. Which means more electricty....So until LED or Plasma lamps are perfected you are stuck with power hungry HID or HO fluorescent

 

[Av8tor1]

Efficiency is irrelevant when it concerns cost to operate.

-Hermes.

Wow... now that is a statement

when you go buy a 400w MH they are referring to the bulb wattage, not the actual wattage of the fixture. If that was the case then the bulbs you buy would be rated less... and be rated depending on the specific ballast you were using.

T5's aren't the right fixture for everyone, and you sure are right...there are lots of incorrect hype and tribal knowledge...

T5 is 54w, T8 is 32... T5 is 5/8" T8 is 1"

So the t5 is dissipating more energy over a smaller surface are... intensity is higher, and the smaller diameter increases reflector efficiency as well

so on several levels T5 is more efficent the T8

What source?... how about common sense for one



Av

 

[Hermopolis]

when you go buy a 400w MH they are referring to the bulb wattage, not the actual wattage of the fixture. If that was the case then the bulbs you buy would be rated less... and be rated depending on the specific ballast you were using.

Ah, if you were a professor worth your salt, then you would have been careful about reading my post and noticed that I was referring to input wattage of the ballasts. I made no reference to the bulbs themselves. Now, you are quite right some input wattages of ballasts do vary, which is why I qualified my post with the words "about the same." However, if I have a MH ballast is rated for 400W bulbs that draws 456W watts input then it should cost slightly less than an array of T12s that draw in 480W watts input. To say otherwise is magical thinking.

Im just a licensed deep and surface mine electrician, ISCET certified industrial electronics tech, FAA A+P licensed, FCC GROL license, licensed Infrared Thermographer etc.

Oh and for a living I'm Professor of Industrial Sciences..

But obviously I'm way out of my league...

Good for you. And maybe some day you'll have a college degree to go with all those licenses.

BTW, I don't have anything against electricians. My father is an electrician. I just dislike people who parade certificates in lieu of arguing the facts of the case. Appealing to authority is just another kind of faulty reasoning.

-Hermes.