Fauna Marin (AquaScience) T5 Group Buy

[PCFishman]

I recently read an article comparing AquaScience T5s to the very popular ATI T5s. The article showed compelling evidence that AquaScience outperform ATI on all aspects:

-PAR
-coral growth
-coral coloration.

Below is a link to the article. See for yourself, the pictures toward the end of the document speak for themselves.

http://archiv.korallenriff.de/Lichttest/T5-1.pdf

I really want to get those bulbs on my tank and was wondering if anyone would like to join a group buy for the bulbs through Barrier Reef Aquariums.

 

[Boomer]

I not going to argue whether the lights are better or worse than T-5. However, that meter they are using is about useless when it comes to PAR, as it is not a PAR meter but a Lux meter. LUX meters measure light as a function of the human eye and do not see well at all Red and Blue light, just like humans. They are not suppose to. So, a lamp with allot of Blue and Red is not going to be seen by the meter correctly. Where as a lamp with allot of Green will be seen the best by the meter. A human eye is most sensitive to Green alight and especially that around 555 nM, just like the LUX meter. This means that if a 10K lamp read 40K LUX and the lamp lost 10 % of its Blue light the LUX meter *may not even register a difference, whereas a PAR/PPDF meter would

A lamp with a higher LUX does not mean it has more total light output, as in PAR, but can actually be lower in PAR. We need to see a SED curve or actual PAR values. Even PAR is not correct and should be in PPDF. So, the higher LUX of the ATI may have nothing to do with better growth.

 

[barrierreefcf]

I not going to argue whether the lights are better or worse than T-5. However, that meter they are using is about useless when it comes to PAR, as it is not a PAR meter but a Lux meter. LUX meters measure light as a function of the human eye and do not see well at all Red and Blue light, just like humans. They are not suppose to. So, a lamp with allot of Blue and Red is not going to be seen by the meter correctly. Where as a lamp with allot of Green will be seen the best by the meter. A human eye is most sensitive to Green alight and especially that around 555 nM, just like the LUX meter. This means that if a 10K lamp read 40K LUX and the lamp lost 10 % of its Blue light the LUX meter *may not even register a difference, whereas a PAR/PPDF meter would

A lamp with a higher LUX does not mean it has more total light output, as in PAR, but can actually be lower in PAR. We need to see a SED curve or actual PAR values. Even PAR is not correct and should be in PPDF. So, the higher LUX of the ATI may have nothing to do with better growth.

They are both T-5 lights so there is no argument whether they are better than T-5. The authors freely admit that.....

"After the tubes were installed we made a measurement with a Lux-meter. We are aware
that this is not the correct way to measure the output of a light, but we were just
interested in the drop in intensity over time. As expected, the Lux value of the
AquaScience tubes was slightly higher than the value of the ATI tubes. This is due to the
fact that the ATI tubes are slightly more blueisch."

Also, the better growth was under the Aqua Science bulb not the ATI so I am confused about your last statement.

Your point about Lux Meters is well taken but I believe the point of their experiment was what the coral growth looked like under the different lights. It seemed to me like the Lux measurements were a side thing that they acknowledged meant little

 

[Boomer]

Also, the better growth was under the Aqua Science bulb not the ATI so I am confused about your last statement.

That was my error I had them backwards

However, you can not really judge two bulb unless certain data points are give,i.e., Voltage draw, measured Wattage, Amps. Given a bulb value of @ 80 W means nothing, as many bulbs are way over their given wattage when it is actually measured. Bulb x may be putting out only 80 W but bulb b may really be putting out 90 W. This is were the PPDF comes more in to play and the same with the large differences in K.

80 x 20 = 1600 W total

90 x 20 = 1800 W total


Granted it appears the AS are better bulbs but who is to say that the AS have don't shroter half-live than the ATI. Also, granted they both saw a LUX drop of about the same but that says nothing of the PPF or K drop. The AS bulbs are higher K so their K will fall of more rapidly and may not be seen by a LUX meter. And a 30 % drop in LUX in 9 months is allot, IMHO, for either bulb. To be fair, they are HO lamps, which drop much quicker than NO lamps, which OK often suck

 

[PCFishman]

The evidence that got me really excited about these bulbs were the pictures at the end showing the results under both lamps.

I believe they did a very good job of setting up the test and removed many variables to get it to an apples to apples comparison.

We have a lot more to learn about what really contributes to the health of corals, so I don't really put too much faith in any one measure.

As they say the proof is in the pudding. Not sure what exactly made the corals grow significantly better under those lights but the pictures tell the story.

Discussions such as this further fuel my interest in seeing what these bulbs will do for my system.

 

[barrierreefcf]

PCFishman...are you looking for 39w bulbs? Anyone else out there interested in trying them? I believe we would need to order about a dozen in order to bring these in. I'll post some prices thursday.

 

[PCFishman]

Yup, looking for two 39W bulbs.

 

[barrierreefcf]

I forgot to quote prices. We can sell any color and size for $29.99 on a group buy. Regular prices will range from 29.99-39.99. They have t-5/halide combo hoods available as well.