t5 vs vho

[clamm]

which is better and why? which consumes more energy.?

 

[NateHanson]

Is this for actinic?

VHO takes more space, but gives a really nice actinic-glow. Bulbs need replaced just a bit more frequently than PC, but cost half as much.

VHO produces a fair amount of heat in my experience, but I can't compare it to PC, as I've never had them. Not sure if they're the same in that respect.

Nate

 

[wrassefan]

T5s aren't pc bulbs. T5s are 54w for 46.5" bulbs reg driven or 85w overdriven by an IC660 ballast. The vho bulbs are 110w for the same 48" or 46.5". Vho bulbs last 9-12mo. on avg. The T5s are suppose to last 18-24mo. (claims by IceCap, SLS and the other bulb manufacturers). I have T5 bulbs going on a year and still looks the same. FWIW, I use the ATI T5 blueplus bulb instead of the actinic bulbs. I was told that the actinic didn't flouresc as much as the blueplus. So far, I like the blue plus bulb alot.

 

[Piscevore]

I've seen a quite a few T-5/VHO setups. I considered both for supplemental lighting. The VHO setups cost more, but produce more wattage than the T-5. The T-5 units work very well, but I've got halides for sps, and to make any color change in the lighting, a T-5 would need a lot more wattage to compete ... For supplemental lighting, just about everyone who really wants their lighting to make stuff "pop" uses VHO. Case in point is all becca's blasto under her two 6 foot vho's. Its like disco bowling in her tank

IF you are turning all lights off, and you compare a T-5 to the VHO, I think the VHO is a richer, bluer, more luminescence inspiring bulb.

I haven't seen a T-5 or a Pc achieve that level of blueberry power.

 

[NateHanson]

T5s aren't pc bulbs.

Oops, guess I didn't read your question carefully Casey.

 

[clamm]

N/P. I think im got the info i need.