T-5 actinic supplimemtation question

[barebucta]

For those of you guys that have MH lights, I'm curious to know why you would you go VHO for actinic supplimentation as compared to t-5 actinic supplimentation? I know that VHO bulbs go an average of about 110watts each as compared to the 54 watt T-5's (w/reflectors), but will it make a big difference? Would the T-5 setup be sufficient enough actinic supplimentation for the average 55 gallon? Suggestions?

 

[tomzpc]

For those of you guys that have MH lights, I'm curious to know why you would you go VHO for actinic supplimentation as compared to t-5 actinic supplimentation? I know that VHO bulbs go an average of about 110watts each as compared to the 54 watt T-5's (w/reflectors), but will it make a big difference? Would the T-5 setup be sufficient enough actinic supplimentation for the average 55 gallon? Suggestions?

You're better off with the T-5's. More light and less energy to use them than the VHO. A 54 T-5 HO with it's own parabolic reflector is brighter than a 110 watt VHO. Go with an Icecap VHO ballast to overdrive them and they'll be even brighter and you'll still be consuming less electricity than you would with the VHO's.

Folks (myself included) used to say stick with the VHO for actinic since the URI(now UV lighting co.) super actinics weren't made in T5 and they are the best actinics on the market. That is no longer the case since UVL started making T-5 bulbs earlier this year.