Jump to content

T5 vs VHO


medi

Recommended Posts

I am about to start building my new lighting system. So far I am doing 2x250w MH with DIY Lumenarc reflectors. I haven't decided which MH ballast yet. What I am trying to decide is whether to use 4x24" VHO super actinics or 4x24" T5 super actinics for actinic supplementation. I like the size of the T5 because it would give me a little more room to work than the VHO would. Is there any advantage to using VHO over T5? I am limited to a max width of 36" for the entire fixture so I cannot go any larger than 24" bulbs. Also, this whole fixture will be suspended from the ceiling. Thanks for any input.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've need nice setups with VHO's and T5's. I ultimately decided to go the VHO route as that's what John_G had on his tank.

Talk to Mike_M. He has T'5s as actinics and his tank looks great.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The super actinics tend to be 420 and the regular actinics tend to be 454 in VHOs. I guess I should ask why does everyone prefer VHO? VHO setups tend to be more expensive and take up more room than T5.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was just having this discussion with o0zarakawater and in my limited research discovered that the VHO actinic's look better to people.

I never found hard numbers but the prevailing opinion was that the T5 put out more PAR but for pure actinic supplementation the VHO was better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Medi also consider that your similar length T5 bulbs is only about 1/3 to 1/2 the rated wattage of the same VHO in the same given space. Some of the VHO's are running around 120w of power in a 4' bulb while the same T5 is only about 50w. There are some that claim VHO in T5 but I've not come across anybody that has set them up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...