T5s unevenly lit

  • Thread starter Thread starter Suohhen
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users None

Suohhen

Well-Known Member
View Badges
Joined
Apr 2, 2020
Messages
710
Reaction score
492
Location
Santa Cruz
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
My T5s are brighter on the end closer to the ballast. The bulbs are brand new, one Giesemann and the other fluval. The difference is minimal but sometimes by the end of the lighting period it can be very noticeable. I just replaced both bulbs because the issue was severe and the bulbs were hardly used but around 10 years old. Above is a picture with the old bulbs. My T5 setup is getting pretty old. The ballast is an Icecap 660 that I got second hand 10 years ago so it is probably 15+ years old. Is uneven lighting typical and something I'm only noticing now because of the old bulbs or is it possible the ballast is aging or maybe one of the end caps has an issue?
20200822_144510.jpg
 
I have extra end caps and they are all the insulated type and none showed signs of corrosion. I replaced the end caps on the end that is dim and didn't notice any definitive difference. I also rewired and cleaned up this whole setup about 8 months ago as part of a full system restoration. 15 years ain't too shaby, hopefully the new 660s are still up to snuff. Thanks!
 
Following along. I just swapped from T12 vho actinic to new giesemann t5 bulbs on an old (20 year?) IceCap 430 ballast. They lit right up the first couple of weeks, but I noticed the other day that they are now firing up with a dim spot in the middle, but slowly increase to full brightness over about five minutes. I’ve been wondering if I already fried the bulbs or if the ballast needs replacement.
 
A dim spot in the middle at startup is normal for a flourescent bulb as it is gas that the power is flowing through and it takes a bit for things to warm up, but afaik it isn't typical for one side of a bulb since they are powered on both sides. Here is a pic of the new bulbs. They are near the end of their lighting period, have been on for almost 10 hours and are certainly nowhere near this bad when they come on. It's tough because I am very much on the fence about continuing to run T5's, led's have them beat it almost every way but I have two a360's and would need to add a third before I drop the T5's. So I may get a cheaper ballast such as a fulham workhorse for the time being, or just leave them until I can decide what to do as making as few changes as possible is usually the preference in this hobby.
20200905_193259.jpg
 
I took the lights out and inspected everything and the wire connections weren't very tight. I had crimped them on with a typical oval crimper which is strange because I have much better pairs/style of crimpers but I was sick at the time so I guess I wasn't clear headed. While I had it apart I tinned all my wires to make sure everything stays solid. I really need to buy some higher quality wire connectors because this cheap set has caused me numerous headaches.
20200907_155138.jpg
20200907_160050.jpg
20200907_160214.jpg
 
Are these 4ft bulbs? if you are driving T5s with an icecap 660 vho ballast you are overdriving them to my knowledge, should have fans pushing air over the bulb, also should be replaced every 3-6mo instead of 9 if running on a vho ballast.
 
Yes I run two 4ft bulbs and 2 a360ws. I have 3 fans in my canopy, two that blow air in and one at the top blowing out. Yes 660s overdrive bulbs and these bulbs are brand new, the purple bulb is a Giessemann Super Purple I just got from BRS and the blue bulb is a Fluval Ocean Blue I picked up at a local pet shop. For sure overdriven bulbs need to be replaced more often but there is a lot of debate over how long bulbs last.
 
led's have them beat it almost every way

Many folks would disagree with that. But, you didn't start this thread to debate about that.

So I may get a cheaper ballast such as a fulham workhorse

I would do that.

One nice thing about T5s is that they are easy to repair. You ruled out the bulbs by replacing them. Replace the ballast, since it's really the only other possible thing, and the current ballast is really old anyway.
 
Many folks would disagree with that. But, you didn't start this thread to debate about that.

No debate needed, I agree that they are awesome and many have shared this view and the fact that they are so common in this hobby still at this point reinforces that point. What I should have said is that they are beaten in almost every way to what I consider important and yet I still run T5s so obviously the differences are rather minor and in the end the ways they are most significantly different is what makes them go so well together.

I would do that.

One nice thing about T5s is that they are easy to repair. You ruled out the bulbs by replacing them. Replace the ballast, since it's really the only other possible thing, and the current ballast is really old anyway.

I found the issue, when I replaced the wiring I used cheap wire connectors and crappy crimpers so when I took it apart the wires were lose, I tightened everything up with much better crimpers and I tinned the wires to make sure everything stays solid and freely flowing. I was sick at the time that I did the rewire so I didn't do my best work. A few posts up shows the wires and the working lights. the first picture is when they just came on to show Semisonyx what I was talking about.

This was shared with me recently, its what I did but now I have something to show others.

I have seen that, that is mostly what I was referencing by their being debate, I don't know of any other testing that has been done like this. Thanks for sharing.
 
This was shared with me recently, its what I did but now I have something to show others.

Video didn't mention anything about using VHO ballasts with T5HO bulbs

ATIs use HO 54w ballasts to my knowledge,
OP is using a ballast designed for 110w VHO T12 bulbs.

Essentially OP is putting 110w to a 54w bulb.
 
660s support VHO, HO, and Power compact.
Correct, but to my knowledge 660 is a 440w ballast if you wire a 660 with 4x 54w you will be overdriving them a bit, but due to resistance maybe? I dont think it will quite be 110w through the bulb but will be a bit more than the 54w the bulb was rated for

That's the point I was trying to make when it comes to bulb longevity

Edit-

From icecap:

"Hello All:

We are still working on the details and all various outputs for the Model 660 and 430 in conjunction with T5HO lamps. Sadly the process has taken a great deal longer than we had thought, however here are some general details:

4 lamp combination of T5HO lamps driven on a 660 will result in additional PAR of between 25-40% more output versus a standard ballast. 2 lamp combination of T5HO lamps on a 430 will result in 25-30% more PAR than a standard ballast.

The numbers have been varying(lamp length, brand type, color type) and we are still doing more tests. We expect to have a full matrix of results available soon. When you ask?? Soon...and we will try to get this done sooner than that!!
 
Last edited:
Correct, but to my knowledge 660 is a 440w ballast if you wire a 660 with 4x 54w you will be overdriving them a bit, but due to resistance maybe? I dont think it will quite be 110w through the bulb but will be a bit more than the 54w the bulb was rated for

That's the point I was trying to make when it comes to bulb longevity

For sure overdriving reduces bulb life. Though it is average bulb life itself that is so hard to figure with many manufacturers saying 6 to 8 months and BRS testing pointing to 2 plus years.
Personally I am comfortable running the bulbs longer since they are not a big proportion of my lighting and I am obviously comfortable with some red light given that I don't run actinics.
Apparently for the typical fluorescent bulb the main factor in bulb life is cycles as every time the bulb turns on some of the filament comes off working away at the mercury and phosphorus. This can be seen with the naked eye as the ends of the bulb turn black. However, obviously these are not typical fluorescents.
 
Some times that happens and it's probably the ballast.
I had experienced using ATI bulbs in a Giesemann Spectra fixture. After I changed all bulbs for Giesemann bulbs it worked normal. I insisted and reinstalled the ATI bulbs back in the same fixture and after couple of days it was getting better and better. Today I don't see the problem anymore. Never had that problem using ATI bulbs or Giesemann bulbs in any of my ATI fixtures. Gotta be the ballast/ bulb compatibility in my case. Go figure!
 
Gotta be the ballast/ bulb compatibility in my case. Go figure!

Yeah that is certainly strange, It definitely points a finger towards the ballast when weird things happen since everything else in the system is static but I certainly do not know much about how these things work.
 
Yeah that is certainly strange, It definitely points a finger towards the ballast when weird things happen since everything else in the system is static but I certainly do not know much about how these things work.
One thought is that some ballasts are made to run cool and some others will do great running hot. They are designed like that and have their temperature limit for proper operation. The ATI fixture has fans to cool down the ballast and bulbs. If one of the fans goes bad the ballast will get too warm and fail. The only times I needed to change ballasts on ATI fixtures were because at last one fan failed or was running too slow for the ambient temperature. Giesemann Spectra works with passive cooling and the fixture gets really hot due to no fans and the additional heat from the halides. It works so great though in the hot fixture. As I've said before, after couple of weeks with the ATI bulbs in the Spectra it worked fine and still is to this date... "knock on wood" !! ;Wideyed
 

IF YOU HAD TO TAKE A REEFING EXAM, WOULD YOU PASS?

  • Yes!

    Votes: 32 45.7%
  • Not yet, but I have one that I want to buy in mind!

    Votes: 9 12.9%
  • No.

    Votes: 26 37.1%
  • Other (please explain).

    Votes: 3 4.3%
Back
Top