Re: [APD]: PC vs. T5HO -- or - Is it always good to get close?

["S. Hieber" <shieber at yahoo_com>]

I agree, Bill.  The claims are usually based on the best
bulbs (not all sizes) and the performance is generally
matched by PCs of comparable wattage. I still think they
are esentially just PCs that haven't been bent -- so to
speak. I'd like to hear of any new technology in their
design. I can't imagine anything one could build into a
straight tube T5 that one could build into a bent tube PC,
that's the same diameter as a T5 (say, a 55 watt PC). I'm
not so sure that T5s are "new" (newer technology than PCs)
so much as merely straight.

The restrike issue seems the most important one. So long as
the tubes in a hood are farther apart than the twin sides
of a PC, you probably can get more usable light from a pair
of T5s.  But as you bunch them, the marginal benefits
become pretty insignificant -- at least the last time I ran
nubmers for the two types, that's how it worked out.  

Against that, the T5s are being offered for extraordinary
prices.

If one finds a big bargain on T5s, I think it's pretty much
a toss between them and PCs.

Scott H.

--- Bill Wichers <billw at waveform_net> wrote:

> I remain somewhat skeptical about some of the claims made
> about the new T5 
> lights. I suppose they could be somewhat more efficient
> than the PCF lights 
> due to reduced restrike, but if you can only place one
> per reflector it 
> seems to me the lower efficiency of the PCF lights would
> be more than made 
> up for by the larger area of bulb you could fit over your
> tank in a given 
> space -- and placing two T5s in one reflector effectively
> makes them the 
> same as a PCF bulb. 

=====
S. Hieber

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
_______________________________________________
Aquatic-Plants mailing list
Aquatic-Plants at actwin_com
http://www.actwin.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/aquatic-plants