Anyone Thinking of Dumping LEDS and going back to Halides

[Telkiira]

I haven't had a tank set up for a while. Last time I was set up was with T-5's. I was planning on going with LED's, but, from what I am reading I may go with T-5's or a combination with MH. Guess that depends on what I plan on going in the tank eventually.

[jestronix]

A nice example of led use http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?p=20147169

[trueperc]

A nice example of led use http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?p=20147169

Very nice set up, but again kind of proves the point some people are making about leds though, as you need complete coverage and wattage equal to or more than a decent metal halide set up.

[Bpb]

T5HO and MH seem to mainly be more forgiving of mistakes and perhaps a lesser skill level of reef keeping. I now know several long time MH loyalists that did the LED switch about a year ago and have not missed a step in growth and color, but these people make no mistakes and have every other aspect of sps growing basically perfected. With bulbs you have a little more margin of error. I have anyway.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CHSUB]

T5HO and MH seem to mainly be more forgiving of mistakes and perhaps a lesser skill level of reef keeping. I now know several long time MH loyalists that did the LED switch about a year ago and have not missed a step in growth and color, but these people make no mistakes and have every other aspect of sps growing basically perfected. With bulbs you have a little more margin of error. I have anyway.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I will disagree...many LED users seem new to the hobby. They buy a LED light and a few sps and come on RC and tell everyone how great everything is in their tank. A few months pass and a whole new group of "LED SPS experts" spew the same crap again!

[Bpb]

I'm not necessarily talking about newcomer armchair forum reefers on here. Talking about people I personally know who have seen their tanks in person over the years


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dz6t]

I thought I'd bump this. I'm also thinking about ditching my reefbreeders.

I've really been eyeing this fixture hard:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/111318726343

If you buy this fixture, you will be very disappointed.
These fixture only belong to trash piles.
First of all, their ballasts are very dim compare to any name brand fixture.
Second, they rust quickly.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dz6t]

I'm supplementing my MH with red, blue and UV LEDs...

I plan on reversing the artificial blue morning and nights with red to simulate what really happens on the reefs...

red/yellow dawn and dusk... blue morning and afternoon... blue and UV midday... then UV for moonlight


You are simulate what you see on the beach, that is not what coral sees under water. Lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dz6t]

This ones gone quiet :)

I came across the Phillips coralcare LED fixture recently, a light with scientific backing. A light which is tempting me to try LED again :)

What I can say is it has a lot of LEDs in the 420nm

40x 6500k
32 x RB
16 x 420
8 x PC-Amber
8x cyan

They found growth and color to be the same as T5, which is promising.

The lights give no shimmer and look more like T5 due to their frosted glass cover.

Anyone running these ?

Finally they eliminated the red led which can be harmful and useless.
Great to see them ditch the green led which is also useless.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[karimwassef]

You are simulate what you see on the beach, that is not what coral sees under water. Lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Really?? Interesting because I snorkel at dawn, midday and dusk and I see that on the reef.

Nice to know your find other people's experiences funny... Lol

[dz6t]

Really?? Interesting because I snorkel at dawn, midday and dusk and I see that on the reef.

Nice to know your find other people's experiences funny... Lol

How deep do you snorkel?

[karimwassef]

no deeper than 8-10ft at most. The corals I see there are comparable to what I keep in my tank.

[jestronix]

Very nice set up, but again kind of proves the point some people are making about leds though, as you need complete coverage and wattage equal to or more than a decent metal halide set up.

I wonder about wattage though, if u run 3w LEDs at 1w and have then layered out like Lani LEDs fixtures I'd say it is less than halide ? Watt for watt led is more efficient with the latest top end Cree LEDs yeh ? But with good reflectors and a fuller spectrum halides are proven and are probably close on par levels

[karimwassef]

I haven't seen a PAR map comparison of an LED and MH. I plan to do my own but always looking for other contributors.

[Wazzel]

Very nice set up, but again kind of proves the point some people are making about leds though, as you need complete coverage and wattage equal to or more than a decent metal halide set up.

Mh and T-5 went through similar realizations. Initially MH did not use reflectors and T-5 did not use enough lamps or reflectors. Both performed poorly until those issues got resolved. Not a surprise the LED is going through a similar growth.

[Wazzel]

T5HO and MH seem to mainly be more forgiving of mistakes and perhaps a lesser skill level of reef keeping. I now know several long time MH loyalists that did the LED switch about a year ago and have not missed a step in growth and color, but these people make no mistakes and have every other aspect of sps growing basically perfected. With bulbs you have a little more margin of error. I have anyway.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Less variable, more user history. Basically the kinks have been worked out. It is taking a bit longer with LED due to the increased number of variables and the lack of uniformity across manufacturers.

[sirreal63]

LED's have been hanging over aquariums for 10 years, how long is it going to take?

[oreo57]

LED's have been hanging over aquariums for 10 years, how long is it going to take?

http://www.tf.uni-kiel.de/matwis/amat/admat_en/kap_5/illustr/history_light.gif
http://www.tf.uni-kiel.de/matwis/amat/admat_en/kap_5/backbone/r5_3_1.html

Point is even though its "geometry" improved photon delivery (both a blessing and curse due to directionality), gross photon output was still lower than conv. sources. Don't blame LED's for how it was implemented 10 years ago..

[sirreal63]

You know LED's have been around since 1962? That chart is a bit misleading. I do not blame LED's, I am deeply in favor of them but that doesn't change the relevancy of this thread or the people who have discovered they wasted their money.

It doesn't matter how many charts, graphs and google searches you do, the whole point of this thread is still that traditional light sources still do a better and easier job of keeping corals happy. It is my sincere hope that in time that will change, but today it has not. Will it in another 5 years? Five years ago it was thought it would be worked out by now.

It is ok for you to disagree with the numerous people who ditched their "not ready for prime time" LED's but other than graphs and google searches you have nothing to change anyone's mind.

[Wazzel]

LED's have been hanging over aquariums for 10 years, how long is it going to take?

I think tech wise they are there now and have been for a while. Operation parameters is a matter of debate. I am over two years in and still doing fine. Yes I have more units that the manufacturer recommends, but we all know that is an issue.

[Wazzel]

You know LED's have been around since 1962? That chart is a bit misleading. I do not blame LED's, I am deeply in favor of them but that doesn't change the relevancy of this thread or the people who have discovered they wasted their money.

It doesn't matter how many charts, graphs and google searches you do, the whole point of this thread is still that traditional light sources still do a better and easier job of keeping corals happy. It is my sincere hope that in time that will change, but today it has not. Will it in another 5 years? Five years ago it was thought it would be worked out by now.

It is ok for you to disagree with the numerous people who ditched their "not ready for prime time" LED's but other than graphs and google searches you have nothing to change anyone's mind.

I disagree. LEDs are more than ready for primetime. Not sure why the notion that LEDs are not up to the job persist. LED tanks do look different that MH or T5 tank, but that does not mean bad. All the colors we get from corals in our tanks are artificially stimulated by manipulating the light anyway.

[shred5]

LED's have been hanging over aquariums for 10 years, how long is it going to take?

I think it is starting too right now. If you read my past posts I have pretty much been saying all other types of lighting are better than led. I have never said leds cannot grow corals but colors on some shallow water sps are not as good due to limited spectrum especially UV. Self shading was a issue and really still is. I have said halides are the best overall for sps color and I prefer t-5 because energy saving and coverage.

Any how I have seen some pretty impressive sps tanks that are leds now.
I believe it is because of two things:

1.) One is UV is now being added to the spectrum. Kessil even has a small peak around 380 nm.. Could dip much lower yet! cost is a issue her yet.

2.) People are adding allot more leds which helps with self shading.
Like what is being said above that removes some of the advantages of leds. One, now they do not save you the electricity like they are supposed too and a watt of heat is a watt of heat so you no longer can look at them running cooler. But most people do not run leds at 100 percent. I think they could start running more leds but at lower watts. So technically I think a tank lit with leds still could save a little energy vs other technologies but not by allot.

I still think halides and leds provide the best light for sps but with LEDS dipping even more into the UV department it will get better.

At this point there are going to be so many leds fixtures the prices have to come down and will come down hard. That was another disadvantage of leds was cost of a fixture, even if they saved you money on energy you could never make up the cost of the fixture.


Controllability of leds is a big advantage.
Not changing lamps is a big advantage.
Being able to make nice sleek fixtures is a advantage.

My point is going forward I think the gap closes. I do not think anything will ever beat halides for color in sps corals ever but as the gap closes there the other advantages to leds that outweigh the disadvantages. It happened with t-5 lighting, one big disadvantage of t-5 was bulb changes and even though they produce close to as good of colors as halides they are now consider pretty good.

I think halides will be niche and be around for ever for those who want the best of the best and do not care about cost will use them but I think at this point the little loss in color the other advantages of leds might start cutting into the t-5 market and some halide.

[shred5]

You know LED's have been around since 1962?

I work in the lighting industry and we were discussing this yesterday and one guy mentioned this yesterday, he was defending led lighting.. The fact is led might have been around but not for lighting applications which is totally different...

L.e.d.'s were always developed before for their visibility not to light up an area which is completely different application. This has actually caused some of the problems in development of the led and leads to some of the disadvantages. As a matter of fact it was visibility without lighting up an area, Who wants a led alarm clock that light up a room? How annoying would that be. Or leds on a vcr or dvd player that puts out so much light it effects your vision of a tv. So basically lets see how visible we can be without putting out light and now we are focused on how much light they can put out.

[Cyberdude]

While true lots of led coverage requires some wattage and coverage is what is required in a led tank, peak period isn't for the majority of the day. As soon as the peak period is over, consumption drops dramatically below anything close to traditional lighting. I think we could put the electrical consumption to debate to bed.

[Wazzel]

While true lots of led coverage requires some wattage and coverage is what is required in a led tank, peak period isn't for the majority of the day. As soon as the peak period is over, consumption drops dramatically below anything close to traditional lighting. I think we could put the electrical consumption to debate to bed.

It takes me 1800 watt hours to light my tank for 14 hours using 2 AI hydra 52 units. To light my tank with MH wound consume 2000 watt hours, assuming a 250 watt lamp and 8 hours on. To add t5 (2x24 watt, 12 hours) would cost 2600 watt hours for MH+T5.

An 8 lamp t-5 fixture running 12 hours would be 2300 watt hours.

Power savings is there, just not as much as many LED users would like to admit.

[sirreal63]

LED tanks do look different that MH or T5 tank, but that does not mean bad. All the colors we get from corals in our tanks are artificially stimulated by manipulating the light anyway.

Why do they look different, a photon is a photon, right? This validates everything people have said in this thread, LEDs are still not a direct replacement for traditional lighting sources. Hopefully that will change soon.

If you read my past posts I have pretty much been saying all other types of lighting are better than led. I have never said leds cannot grow corals but colors on some shallow water sps are not as good due to limited spectrum especially UV. Self shading was a issue and really still is. I have said halides are the best overall for sps color and I prefer t-5 because energy saving and coverage.

I do not disagree. LEDs have been growing corals since the Solaris, that does not mean they grow the same. Many of us are holding off until it is a direct replacement, one that will not cause corals to change, one that will will not cause shading issues and one that will truly be a savings.

Any how I have seen some pretty impressive sps tanks that are leds now.
I believe it is because of two things:

As have I, and in time we will see more. I do wonder how long it will before people forget how corals looked before LEDs.

1.) One is UV is now being added to the spectrum. Kessil even has a small peak around 380 nm.. Could dip much lower yet! cost is a issue her yet.

2.) People are adding allot more leds which helps with self shading.
Like what is being said above that removes some of the advantages of leds. One, now they do not save you the electricity like they are supposed too and a watt of heat is a watt of heat so you no longer can look at them running cooler. But most people do not run leds at 100 percent. I think they could start running more leds but at lower watts. So technically I think a tank lit with leds still could save a little energy vs other technologies but not by allot.

Many of us are not in the hobby to save electricity or money, but I have always tried to make tanks as efficient as possible without compromising the livestock.

I still think halides and leds provide the best light for sps but with LEDS dipping even more into the UV department it will get better.

At this point there are going to be so many leds fixtures the prices have to come down and will come down hard. That was another disadvantage of leds was cost of a fixture, even if they saved you money on energy you could never make up the cost of the fixture.


Controllability of leds is a big advantage.
Not changing lamps is a big advantage.
Being able to make nice sleek fixtures is a advantage.

My point is going forward I think the gap closes. I do not think anything will ever beat halides for color in sps corals ever but as the gap closes there the other advantages to leds that outweigh the disadvantages. It happened with t-5 lighting, one big disadvantage of t-5 was bulb changes and even though they produce close to as good of colors as halides they are now consider pretty good.

I am still in this to have the best looking corals I can, deep coloration, consistent growth patterns and predictable health and eliminating as many variables as I can.

I think halides will be niche and be around for ever for those who want the best of the best and do not care about cost will use them but I think at this point the little loss in color the other advantages of leds might start cutting into the t-5 market and some halide.

[Wazzel]

Why do they look different, a photon is a photon, right? This validates everything people have said in this thread, LEDs are still not a direct replacement for traditional lighting sources. Hopefully that will change soon.

Different color temp mh lamps make corals look different, different t-5 lamp combination make corals look different. Why rag on LED for looking different?

Disagree, LED is more than adequate for replacing the other systems. If I would feel that LED is lacking I would have ditched them or not planned on using them on my upgrade. Even tho they are not for everyone, they do work well.

[shred5]

While true lots of led coverage requires some wattage and coverage is what is required in a led tank, peak period isn't for the majority of the day. As soon as the peak period is over, consumption drops dramatically below anything close to traditional lighting. I think we could put the electrical consumption to debate to bed.

Agreed... That is why I said most do not run theirs at full anyway so there still can be some savings. But t-5 users do not use all lamps all the time either, dusk/dawn.

I was just offered a chance to test out some led fixtures so I am looking forward to that. I have two frag tanks 2'x2' plumbed together. I tired led on one before and it did not work out but that was a while ago.

Right now I have t-5 on both but was switching one out to halide. Should be interesting.

[Scorpius]

The main thing IMO with any LED lamp is coverage and the ability to change spectrum/intensity whenever we want. Coverage issue is fixed with more lamp use per square inch of tank. Spectrum/intensity issues are fixed by keeping our meddling mitts off the lights dials. :lol:

[shred5]

Different color temp mh lamps make corals look different, different t-5 lamp combination make corals look different. Why rag on LED for looking different?

Disagree, LED is more than adequate for replacing the other systems. If I would feel that LED is lacking I would have ditched them or not planned on using them on my upgrade. Even tho they are not for everyone, they do work well.

Agreed...

"Photon is a photon" Problem with that is all corals would grow at the same depth be the same color etc. Corals have ways to adapt to different depths and that is what causes the colors in allot of them.

Everything reacts different to light.

Plus people seem to focus so much and the spectrum of light for chlorophyll and there is so much spectrum outside that especially in shallow water where most sps come from.. This is another one of those things that seems to stick with the hobby, this is not the 80's and 90's where most of the corals where softies and lps which came from depths where there mainly is blue light.

Not only that chlorophyll mainly provides sugars for the corals and they need more.

[sirreal63]

Different color temp mh lamps make corals look different, different t-5 lamp combination make corals look different.

Has that really been your experience? Under 10k's oranges and reds and greens are a little pronounced, under 20k's blues and purples are more pronounced, and the appearance of the water is different. Under LEDs the basic colors seem to morph, which has been noted all over this thread, and when traditional lighting was put back in place, the colors were the same as they were under led, then began changing back to what they were prior to LEDs.

I have run everything from 4.2k to 20k halides, the corals stayed the same color, with the difference being what was highlighted or less pronounced due to the weighting of the spectrum.

[Wazzel]

Has that really been your experience? Under 10k's oranges and reds and greens are a little pronounced, under 20k's blues and purples are more pronounced, and the appearance of the water is different. Under LEDs the basic colors seem to morph, which has been noted all over this thread, and when traditional lighting was put back in place, the colors were the same as they were under led, then began changing back to what they were prior to LEDs.

I have run everything from 4.2k to 20k halides, the corals stayed the same color, with the difference being what was highlighted or less pronounced due to the weighting of the spectrum.

I have not had a color morph issues under LEDs. The colors are the color they were under the original lighting, just a different shade. Similar to changing the color temp of a MH lamp or adjusting the combination of T-5 lamps.

My frags did go through a goofy adjustment period, but after that all was good.

[Wazzel]

Has that really been your experience? Under 10k's oranges and reds and greens are a little pronounced, under 20k's blues and purples are more pronounced, and the appearance of the water is different. Under LEDs the basic colors seem to morph, which has been noted all over this thread, and when traditional lighting was put back in place, the colors were the same as they were under led, then began changing back to what they were prior to LEDs.

I have run everything from 4.2k to 20k halides, the corals stayed the same color, with the difference being what was highlighted or less pronounced due to the weighting of the spectrum.

As a follow up since I can not edit my other response...

This could probably be listed as a disadvantage of LED. Having all the control of the colors means you have to set it manually by eye. Our perceptions of color temp are probably not accurate. With MH and T-5 the color temps are "factory set". This could account for some of the coloration complaints. It is just my theory.

[jda]

I will disagree...many LED users seem new to the hobby. They buy a LED light and a few sps and come on RC and tell everyone how great everything is in their tank. A few months pass and a whole new group of "LED SPS experts" spew the same crap again!

So true. I will add that most think that their digis, slimers and caps are the same as the higher end acros that other people have. What would really be helpful is if those new-to-the-scene experts stuck around after they figured stuff out and switched to better lights. A few do and have some nice threads. Most don't however, and the cycle starts again...

[davehead86]

Agreed... That is why I said most do not run theirs at full anyway so there still can be some savings. But t-5 users do not use all lamps all the time either, dusk/dawn.



I was just offered a chance to test out some led fixtures so I am looking forward to that. I have two frag tanks 2'x2' plumbed together. I tired led on one before and it did not work out but that was a while ago.



Right now I have t-5 on both but was switching one out to halide. Should be interesting.



Most people don't run their LEDs at full strength because it will kill the corals. Not because of savings.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[shred5]

Most people don't run their LEDs at full strength because it will kill the corals. Not because of savings.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Did I say that? I think you need to read what I wrote.

I said because people do not run them at full there will be savings.

But I will add allot of people buy leds because they think they will have energy savings.

[davehead86]

Did I say that? I think you need to read what I wrote.

I said because people do not run them at full there will be savings.

But I will add allot of people buy leds because they think they will have energy savings.



That's how I read it. Not a big deal just thought I'd add a clarification from what I have seen.

I'll also say that people are now buying leds more for convenience than energy savings. It's far more convenient to buy an LED unit and set and forget it. No chillers needed. No fans in canopies needed. No bulb replacement schedules. No need to have bulbs shipped to you because you live 4 hours for a store that sells bulbs.

I have read through this thread and understand that black box led units aren't going to reproduce the spectrum at the necessary quality but other units can. Especially now that high quality units are adding low end uv light to the tanks.

Everyone likes to think their way is the best and this thread is ripe with just ripping apart led users as some dummies who don't know what they are doing. There are a slew of high quality tanks growing high quality sps. It's not impossible as this thread would want people to believe.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Wazzel]

So true. I will add that most think that their digis, slimers and caps are the same as the higher end acros that other people have. What would really be helpful is if those new-to-the-scene experts stuck around after they figured stuff out and switched to better lights. A few do and have some nice threads. Most don't however, and the cycle starts again...

What do you consider high end acros?

[Bpb]

^^+1

I'm on the halide/t5ho team if I had to pick, but one gripe I'm having is that this thread has now moved from MH grows corals better, to "MH grows only ultra expensive branded limited edition aquaculture acropora better". Show anyone anything other than the latest RR or BC offering, and everyone is quick to say "yeah but that doesn't count. ANYONE can grow montipora/green slimer/random non-named stag/valida/or any other well established sps coral that is easy to come by". The rules seem to have changed just to favor the original argument. That is irritating.

I have to disagree with the above sentiment. I don't think many people argue that the major benefit to LED lighting is its set and forget nature. Quite the opposite. That's the biggest selling point to bulb style lighting. Set. Forget. The technology has worked out what grows best and offers it in a nearly impossible to screw up selection. That's my reason for getting rid of LEDs and going back to t5ho. I want my lights to come on and off reliably and grow corals without question or adjustment. That's the definition of set and forget. To those who have figured out how to tune their LEDs, kudos, but the fact that you have to tune them at all (not saying it's BAD, just a fact) kind of makes them NOT a set and forget light choice. There is a learning curve, research, and trial and error.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Zacktosterone]

Different color temp mh lamps make corals look different, different t-5 lamp combination make corals look different. Why rag on LED for looking different?

Disagree, LED is more than adequate for replacing the other systems. If I would feel that LED is lacking I would have ditched them or not planned on using them on my upgrade. Even tho they are not for everyone, they do work well.

I have to disagree. Theres a difference between simulated colour and real colour. In my experience, when growing corals woith both, after shutting the lights of and flashing a flashlight at the coral, one is brown, the one grown under halide holds its colour.

[Wazzel]

^^+1

I'm on the halide/t5ho team if I had to pick, but one gripe I'm having is that this thread has now moved from MH grows corals better, to "MH grows only ultra expensive branded limited edition aquaculture acropora better". Show anyone anything other than the latest RR or BC offering, and everyone is quick to say "yeah but that doesn't count. ANYONE can grow montipora/green slimer/random non-named stag/valida/or any other well established sps coral that is easy to come by". The rules seem to have changed just to favor the original argument. That is irritating.

I have to disagree with the above sentiment. I don't think many people argue that the major benefit to LED lighting is its set and forget nature. Quite the opposite. That's the biggest selling point to bulb style lighting. Set. Forget. The technology has worked out what grows best and offers it in a nearly impossible to screw up selection. That's my reason for getting rid of LEDs and going back to t5ho. I want my lights to come on and off reliably and grow corals without question or adjustment. That's the definition of set and forget. To those who have figured out how to tune their LEDs, kudos, but the fact that you have to tune them at all (not saying it's BAD, just a fact) kind of makes them NOT a set and forget light choice. There is a learning curve, research, and trial and error.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I am not just growing the run of the mill pieces. I got some nice BC, JF and RR pieces.

I do agree that the adjustability of LED is a disadvantage. I have actually made that point quite a few time. Lots of control/variables is not always a good thing.

[Bpb]

I don't doubt it. I've seen your tank on here and it looks very nice. I was moreso getting at people looking for every excuse to discredit success with a light source other than their own, down to nit-picking what species are allowed in the discussion. I, myself, was chastised earlier in the thread (many pages back) for SUPPORTING mh growth by mh users because the species I was keeping are too common to have any place in the discussion. Moreso what I was getting at. I've seen plenty of LED tanks in person with spectacular growth and color out of all manner of acros both common and rare. I just think, as it's been mentioned hundreds of times, you need more panels than you think for adequate coverage (not just spread), and it takes a lot of knowledge in tuning them and making sure every other aspect of the tank is on point. They're just more difficult to use to get the same results


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[alton]

Well this my first summer month since I went with full LEDs, my savings are $0. You see during the last two summers I would run 2 - 90w BML's, Actinic VHO 160 watts 9 Hours and my MH 750 watts only 3 hours. Now I run my 360 watts of LEDs 9 to 10 hours, replacing my MH and VHO. Corals still look great, growing fine, nothing died, but the only savings I am seeing are from having to top my tank off with 3 gallons of water everyday since I am now able to use glass tops with the LEDs. We too many times blame our tanks for high electricity bills when we should turn to our families and see what they are doing that waste electricity? Or maybe my utility company fudged my bill? We shall see next month I hope.

[Wazzel]

I don't doubt it. I've seen your tank on here and it looks very nice. I was moreso getting at people looking for every excuse to discredit success with a light source other than their own, down to nit-picking what species are allowed in the discussion. I, myself, was chastised earlier in the thread (many pages back) for SUPPORTING mh growth by mh users because the species I was keeping are too common to have any place in the discussion. Moreso what I was getting at. I've seen plenty of LED tanks in person with spectacular growth and color out of all manner of acros both common and rare. I just think, as it's been mentioned hundreds of times, you need more panels than you think for adequate coverage (not just spread), and it takes a lot of knowledge in tuning them and making sure every other aspect of the tank is on point. They're just more difficult to use to get the same results


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree with the sentiment and all those points.

[Wazzel]

I have to disagree. Theres a difference between simulated colour and real colour. In my experience, when growing corals woith both, after shutting the lights of and flashing a flashlight at the coral, one is brown, the one grown under halide holds its colour.

So now I have to see if I have nice corals when the lights are off too? How many more hurdles are going to get tossed out there for LED users to jump over?

[CrayolaViolence]

This isn't much to add to the discussion, but I think it has some application here. They use fluorescing Zooxanthellae found in coral and other marine life, to mark certain genes so they can follow them as they are inherited and connect them to different types of genetic disease.
Why does this have anything to do with coral? Because when exposed to certain light spectrums some of the Zooxanthellae would die off, leaving others alive, thus changing the color of the coral. There were of course, other ways to alter the zooxanthellae, resulting in color changes. On a side note, biologists recently found some of the brightest corals ever in the deepest part of the red sea where almost no light penetrates. Hardly any light yet, the corals were brightly colored.

[Zacktosterone]

So now I have to see if I have nice corals when the lights are off too? How many more hurdles are going to get tossed out there for LED users to jump over?

Haha, I'm just talking about production of xoanthailie vs floresence

[Scorpius]

Most corals are brown in nature and not the hyped up colors we get in our glass boxes. Guess the sun is the wrong spectrum too.

[karimwassef]

Most corals are brown in nature and not the hyped up colors we get in our glass boxes. Guess the sun is the wrong spectrum too.

so.... no

corals vary in color by region and location. Some zones are predominately brown and yellow, but the red sea and the great barrier reef are characterized by incredible colors...

the Caribbean has many "boring zones" of brown coral (I still love it though), but let's not generalize to the whole world reefs :)

[karimwassef]

check out these guys with an aquafarm in australia

WARNING - THAT THREAD WILL MAKE YOU HURT!

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2500838&highlight=australia&page=1

http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/15/05/03/99f47e30e53e899b606f65b1869b3033.jpg

http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/15/05/03/9ed466507c438bb102778db71d4d00d0.jpg

http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/15/05/03/11257f18908e8782a9cacb1656148221.jpg

http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/15/05/03/88d08b9913eb78453706f26b2d0902d7.jpg

http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160131/16a1976786fd61bfea297c747ee0819e.jpg

http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160202/974b68b9499447e52fda52ec0ef8a671.jpg

http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160403/9f49d5338fd0b7cb880b95a5e3e94725.jpg

http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160403/fa593018c374506445db21d2ee3cb31a.jpg

http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160411/8fa141bd0f2e6c1fc64bdf1aae8100bf.jpg

http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160411/118c9738c2277abc5c9c40fcaad0b783.jpg

[Bpb]

Sunlit raceway tanks. Man I loved that thread early on. Didn't he get nailed by some form of acro eating nudibranch or black bugs or something?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[karimwassef]

and as for the PAR of sunlight...

Par regularly hits 2400 and even higher, natural sunlight..

[karimwassef]

in contrast, here is my PAR map for my MH 400Ws

<a href="http://s1062.photobucket.com/user/karimwassef/media/LED%20experiments/Capture_zpsqflx1soi.png.html" target="_blank"><img src="http://i1062.photobucket.com/albums/t496/karimwassef/LED%20experiments/Capture_zpsqflx1soi.png" border="0" alt=" photo Capture_zpsqflx1soi.png"/></a>

new bulbs top, old bulbs bottom.

I peak around 1700... I would have to drop from 12" up to 8" to break 2400

[karimwassef]

Sunlit raceway tanks. Man I loved that thread early on. Didn't he get nailed by some form of acro eating nudibranch or black bugs or something?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

he did but he recovered... the heat bleaching is wrecking the GB reef though now :(

:sad1:

[karimwassef]

since others have shared their tanks... here's mine with 3 x MH 400W @ 14000K

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/41usuLeiNbE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[jda]

I could get 1200 to 1600 PAR (apogee meters, so who really knows...) in Missouri in the summer months from about 10 AM (1200) to peak about 1-4 (1600) and then until about 6 PM. The acros thrived outside under the sunlight - I had a frag of PM go from about 3/4 of an inch to just smaller than a tennis ball size in 4 months under that light and had to drive a Korallin reactor as hard as I could to keep the corals fed. Amazes me that people think that the 300-400 PAR that their fixtures put out is "too much" light.

[karimwassef]

well.. I am running at 2 x 5 gal buckets of kalkwasser a year... so it's like a factory.

[salty joe]

Where do you get buckets of kalkwasser?

And how high does your pH go?

[shred5]

I could get 1200 to 1600 PAR (apogee meters, so who really knows...) in Missouri in the summer months from about 10 AM (1200) to peak about 1-4 (1600) and then until about 6 PM. The acros thrived outside under the sunlight - I had a frag of PM go from about 3/4 of an inch to just smaller than a tennis ball size in 4 months under that light and had to drive a Korallin reactor as hard as I could to keep the corals fed. Amazes me that people think that the 300-400 PAR that their fixtures put out is "too much" light.

Couple problems with his thought.
Par and spectrum drop off rather fast once they hit the water.
Corals in shallow water might hit over a 1000 par but not corals deeper and a 1000 par might kill a coral from just 25 feet of water.

The other issue is the sun moves so basically it is lighting one side of the coral for the first half while the other side is shaded and then evening the other side is getting the light. Plus light is being reflected off the surface especially with wave action and being bent. Our light do not move and are at high noon all the time..

[karimwassef]

I make all my PAR readings at the water surface. The rest is math.

My pH runs at 8.4 and I've been using a very expensive two fishes from Amazon. Just about to order a new bucket from BRS.

My Alk is 7.5 ... If my growth rate goes any higher, I'll have to switch to two part or start adding vinegar to my kalk to help keep my pH under control.

[Bpb]

I'm amazed you can keep up with that level of growth from kalkwasser alone


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[shred5]

Couple problems with his thought.
Par and spectrum drop off rather fast once they hit the water.
Corals in shallow water might hit over a 1000 par but not corals deeper and a 1000 par might kill a coral from just 25 feet of water.

The other issue is the sun moves so basically it is lighting one side of the coral for the first half while the other side is shaded and then evening the other side is getting the light. Plus light is being reflected off the surface especially with wave action and being bent. Our light do not move and are at high noon all the time..

You know this has me thinking maybe this is why leds are so hard. They are a point source which creates shading.. To me T-5 has been the easiest light for keeping a reef and it is basically a wall that lights up the whole coral on all sides.. Halides might provide the best color but they are more of a point source and on their own they can be a little harder but with supplementation they get easier.

Look at the led tanks that do really well with large colones of sps and great color, they have tons of led lights and some are usually angled and they are angled from the front back. We look at the fronts of the corals mostly in the reef aquarium. I just wonder if they just appear brown from the fronts and if we lit the fronts with leds we would see more color.. I have seen tons of frags and smaller colonies that look good but as they get larger they brown out. This keeping lights at high noon may be the problem with leds and sps because the sides do not get enough light while we are torching the tops and maybe from the top they look fine.

Example I have a orange/forest fire digitata and switched out my T-5 fixture for Kessil.. The very next day the digitata looked brown.. I put it in my frag tank and the next day is was pure orange again... Well my guess is under led It was shading the front of the coral so no fluorescing of the orange pigments. There is no way a coral browns that fast and gets 100 percent color back in 24 hrs. I bet if I left that coral under led eventually the front would brown out from being shaded..

I think this is one reason leds lights are so touchy..

[karimwassef]

I'm amazed you can keep up with that level of growth from kalkwasser alone


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If I didn't have my monster skimmer to keep my pH under control, it wouldn't be possible.

[biecacka]

Why do you keep your Alk @7.5. Do you seem to get best results with that number.

Corey

[karimwassef]

Yes. My calcium is consistently 500ppm and with 7.5dKH, I get very fast growth and healthy PE and color.

I also think it's a more natural and resilient state. Natural reefs don't really run at 10+

My biggest problem is new corals that come from low light, low flow, high Alk tanks into my very high light, surge flow, low dKH environment. Corals either thrive and grow very quickly or crash.

Here's one constant: every single SPS coral I've gotten has dramatically changed color and girth / form in my tank.

I'll post some before/after pics

[karimwassef]

<a href="http://s1062.photobucket.com/user/karimwassef/media/6E29B26D-2600-4113-B0A1-59B27EFFB170_zpsvg18k5et.jpg.html" target="_blank"><img src="http://i1062.photobucket.com/albums/t496/karimwassef/6E29B26D-2600-4113-B0A1-59B27EFFB170_zpsvg18k5et.jpg" border="0" alt=" photo 6E29B26D-2600-4113-B0A1-59B27EFFB170_zpsvg18k5et.jpg"/></a>

the purple Stylo Milka in the center of that picture started out like this:
<a href="http://s1062.photobucket.com/user/karimwassef/media/12FC3480-F6AD-4B01-874E-79C0C9919307_zpsqan5ta0u.jpg.html" target="_blank"><img src="http://i1062.photobucket.com/albums/t496/karimwassef/12FC3480-F6AD-4B01-874E-79C0C9919307_zpsqan5ta0u.jpg" border="0" alt=" photo 12FC3480-F6AD-4B01-874E-79C0C9919307_zpsqan5ta0u.jpg"/></a>

The Pavona on the top left:
<a href="http://s1062.photobucket.com/user/karimwassef/media/A9A23DC2-1D1E-4600-97A2-CF128013370D_zpszw5o9cde.jpg.html" target="_blank"><img src="http://i1062.photobucket.com/albums/t496/karimwassef/A9A23DC2-1D1E-4600-97A2-CF128013370D_zpszw5o9cde.jpg" border="0" alt=" photo A9A23DC2-1D1E-4600-97A2-CF128013370D_zpszw5o9cde.jpg"/></a>

The gold-base, purple-tip acro above the Milka:
<a href="http://s1062.photobucket.com/user/karimwassef/media/2460CE3F-CCE3-43E1-85E1-0CEBC7B05BFF_zpsoxrinhfv.jpg.html" target="_blank"><img src="http://i1062.photobucket.com/albums/t496/karimwassef/2460CE3F-CCE3-43E1-85E1-0CEBC7B05BFF_zpsoxrinhfv.jpg" border="0" alt=" photo 2460CE3F-CCE3-43E1-85E1-0CEBC7B05BFF_zpsoxrinhfv.jpg"/></a>

a little further down the tank (today's view)...
<a href="http://s1062.photobucket.com/user/karimwassef/media/CD4C3C8E-F2E2-46E2-9465-06E605906C6A_zpsc0rtg1kw.jpg.html" target="_blank"><img src="http://i1062.photobucket.com/albums/t496/karimwassef/CD4C3C8E-F2E2-46E2-9465-06E605906C6A_zpsc0rtg1kw.jpg" border="0" alt=" photo CD4C3C8E-F2E2-46E2-9465-06E605906C6A_zpsc0rtg1kw.jpg"/></a>

The purple Digitata on the far right started out like this
<a href="http://s1062.photobucket.com/user/karimwassef/media/24A421FD-4DC2-4EF3-B15E-F2A4C44F0EE0_zps8eedmdhf.jpg.html" target="_blank"><img src="http://i1062.photobucket.com/albums/t496/karimwassef/24A421FD-4DC2-4EF3-B15E-F2A4C44F0EE0_zps8eedmdhf.jpg" border="0" alt=" photo 24A421FD-4DC2-4EF3-B15E-F2A4C44F0EE0_zps8eedmdhf.jpg"/></a>

The bright pink Birdsnest on the left:
<a href="http://s1062.photobucket.com/user/karimwassef/media/402B1A05-F849-49EE-B69A-359ED3384126_zps7l96aaew.jpg.html" target="_blank"><img src="http://i1062.photobucket.com/albums/t496/karimwassef/402B1A05-F849-49EE-B69A-359ED3384126_zps7l96aaew.jpg" border="0" alt=" photo 402B1A05-F849-49EE-B69A-359ED3384126_zps7l96aaew.jpg"/></a>

and the green/brown Fungia on the top right started out as:
<a href="http://s1062.photobucket.com/user/karimwassef/media/IMG_1905_zpssp3v2wh3.jpg.html" target="_blank"><img src="http://i1062.photobucket.com/albums/t496/karimwassef/IMG_1905_zpssp3v2wh3.jpg" border="0" alt=" photo IMG_1905_zpssp3v2wh3.jpg"/></a>

and another picture from today:
<a href="http://s1062.photobucket.com/user/karimwassef/media/36444632-1756-41B0-AF00-DCBD99E2C7A8_zpsrw5cv5eb.jpg.html" target="_blank"><img src="http://i1062.photobucket.com/albums/t496/karimwassef/36444632-1756-41B0-AF00-DCBD99E2C7A8_zpsrw5cv5eb.jpg" border="0" alt=" photo 36444632-1756-41B0-AF00-DCBD99E2C7A8_zpsrw5cv5eb.jpg"/></a>

Here's what the green Birdsnest in the middle started as:
<a href="http://s1062.photobucket.com/user/karimwassef/media/F3378B27-96B2-4F44-804F-058A64458428_zpsuhbhqydu.jpg.html" target="_blank"><img src="http://i1062.photobucket.com/albums/t496/karimwassef/F3378B27-96B2-4F44-804F-058A64458428_zpsuhbhqydu.jpg" border="0" alt=" photo F3378B27-96B2-4F44-804F-058A64458428_zpsuhbhqydu.jpg"/></a>

that picture also shows the gold and green acropora on the top right today (It's not super clear in the picture from today).

I get a lot of "rescue" corals so that may be why they change color so much

[dz6t]

Most people don't run their LEDs at full strength because it will kill the corals. Not because of savings.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I found people commonly lump all LED together despite they are not all created equally.
There are plenty of junks out there and may good ones.
In contrast, there are not that many halide and t5 options people use.
For example, most people use Radium, Phoenix halide bulbs and ATI t5.
If people are using high quality LED and run them properly, you will get similar results as halide and t5.

[dz6t]

One area LED still can't replace metal halide is the ability to generate large amount of light that concentrated at one dot. The requirement of cooling such mutichip led plus the lower efficiency diminish the advantage of LED, which is suppose to be energy saving and longer life.

[karimwassef]

That's just because liquid cooling hasn't caught on. One advantage of trained DIY is the flexibility to push the envelope.

[dz6t]

It is just physically impossible to pack 250w or 400w of LED power in a dot that is about a quater of a square inch so far.

[shred5]

It is just physically impossible to pack 250w or 400w of LED power in a dot that is about a quater of a square inch so far.

Why would you want to?

That is what is what is causing shading issues...

[karimwassef]

Well.. First: lenses on high powe LEDs can reduce the shading effect, basically converting the flat LED grid to a virtual point source.

Second: you don't need 250 to 400W. A good 100W multichip LED can generate an equivalent PAR to a MH bulb.

Third: conduction cooling allows significantly more thermal control.

My prediction is that my DIY liquid cooled multichip lens array can get there. But then, I'm biased.

[drummerboyevil]

Seems like if you could pack 250 watts into a small space you might be able to stack an upward and downward facing LED so that you could use a reflector for the upward facing and it'd be more like metal halide spread.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dz6t]

W: you don't need 250 to 400W. A good 100W multichip LED can generate an equivalent PAR to a MH bulb.
.

That just flat out not true. A100w multichip led is more equivalent to 150w metal halide at best.
Use a quantum counter and you will see.

[dz6t]

Seems like if you could pack 250 watts into a small space you might be able to stack an upward and downward facing LED so that you could use a reflector for the upward facing and it'd be more like metal halide spread.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Some led for home market are just like that minus the reflector.

[dz6t]

Yes. My calcium is consistently 500ppm and with 7.5dKH, I get very fast growth and healthy PE and color.

I also think it's a more natural and resilient state. Natural reefs don't really run at 10+


Can't help but to point out that natural reef don't run at 500ppm calcium either.

[karimwassef]

That just flat out not true. A100w multichip led is more equivalent to 150w metal halide at best.
Use a quantum counter and you will see.

hmmm.. so I actually did. I ran a 100W LED with 55 and 85 degree lenses.

This thread covers the results even though it wasn't the intent of that thread.
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2553733&page=12

At about a foot away, I got ~400 PAR with an 85 degree lens and 1000 with a 55 degree lens.

My 400W MHs vary between 400 and 1600 depending on whether the bulbs are old/new and whether the reflectors are wide or focused. 1600 is the hotspot for the new MHs with a tight reflector.

So, the 55 degree 100W LED is ~comparable to a 400W MH with a wide distribution reflector.

:D

So - it depends.

But I can certainly see that a couple of 100W LEDs with the right lenses can generate as much PAR as a brand new 400W MH for some area of coverage. Or maybe one of them is equivalent to a brand new 250W MH.

The trick is in the coverage. These LED PAR reading are down the lens cone at 12" away. So the 55 degree lens covers about 120in2. That's about the size of the MH hotspot... so green apples and red apples.

The only way to truly compare is to put the LED fixture to the test on a full PAR map (just like I did with the MHs), not a spot measurement. That's in the plans, but I have too many projects running at this point.

Good point though.. it's an important datapoint for real comparison.

[karimwassef]

Can't help but to point out that natural reef don't run at 500ppm calcium either.

true.. but taking calcium from 420 to 500 is not "that" significant of a deviation... it's just a little more mineral in the water.

but taking alkalinity from 7.5 to 11 ... I consider that to be a significant shift in water chemistry... IMHO, anyway.

[dz6t]

7.5 dkh is 134ppm of CaCO3, 11 dkh is 196ppm of CaCO3
the difference is 62ppm.

The difference of Calcium from 420 to 500 ppm is 80ppm.

[dz6t]

In order to compare MH to LED, you need photon counter to count how many photon generated from each light source. Spot Par measurement is not very meaningful when you consider total coverage.

[salty joe]

7.5 dkh is 134ppm of CaCO3, 11 dkh is 196ppm of CaCO3
the difference is 62ppm.

The difference of Calcium from 420 to 500 ppm is 80ppm.

But the percentage in change is much greater with the alkalinity.

BTW, after seeing what glennf is doing, I am re-thinking using NSW as the absolute target.

[karimwassef]

That's why I said we need a PAR map, not a spot reading, to do it right.

<a href="http://s1062.photobucket.com/user/karimwassef/media/LED%20experiments/IMG_5310_zpslj4fyggl.jpg.html" target="_blank"><img src="http://i1062.photobucket.com/albums/t496/karimwassef/LED%20experiments/IMG_5310_zpslj4fyggl.jpg" border="0" alt=" photo IMG_5310_zpslj4fyggl.jpg"/></a>

<a href="http://s1062.photobucket.com/user/karimwassef/media/LED%20experiments/Capture_zpsqflx1soi.png.html" target="_blank"><img src="http://i1062.photobucket.com/albums/t496/karimwassef/LED%20experiments/Capture_zpsqflx1soi.png" border="0" alt=" photo Capture_zpsqflx1soi.png"/></a>

In my map, I take a reading every inch or so and plot out the distribution of PAR. Integrating over the surface area should be a meaningful measure.

[oreo57]

In order to compare MH to LED, you need photon counter to count how many photon generated from each light source.

"PAR" sensors measure photon counts.. Some of this is pure semantics, though yes the measurement is restricted to a "subset" of the energy.. i.e 400-700nm..
Why do you think they are called quantum sensors..???
The LI-190R measures Photosynthetically Active Radiation (PAR, in µmol of photons m-2 s-1).
https://www.licor.com/env/products/light/quantum.html
Granted, a bit confusing..

[karimwassef]

I think I've got a way to measure partial UV too :)

But it's controversial.

I shine a known white LED light on UV reactive powder and take a PAR reading off the reflected photons. So now I have a ratio of known direct PAR to returned PAR. Now that I have that ratio...

I do the same with my UV light... I get the returned PAR and use the ratio to calculate the original UV direct equivalent.

No idea if I can even get a reading, but I'm open to better ideas...

[oreo57]

I think I've got a way to measure partial UV too :)

But it's controversial.

I shine a known white LED light on UV reactive powder and take a PAR reading off the reflected photons. So now I have a ratio of known direct PAR to returned PAR. Now that I have that ratio...

I do the same with my UV light... I get the returned PAR and use the ratio to calculate the original UV direct equivalent.

No idea if I can even get a reading, but I'm open to better ideas...
How about just buying one.. ???
;)
http://www.apogeeinstruments.com/mu-100-uv-integral-sensor-with-handheld-meter/

Sensor only:
http://www.apogeeinstruments.com/uv-sensor-su-100/

[karimwassef]

it took me a year to get to buying the PAR meter I have now.. maybe in 2017

[2smokes]

Leds do not have UV ,its =with zero absolute even for the leds sold as UV leds(with the exception of the glass and copper leds that can put out UVB but thhose arent used in the hobby by nobody and they last just 1000 hours-like an incandescent bulb,much shorter life than T5 or MH). Only light sources made of glass like MH and T5 can put out UV and the bluish bulbs we use are verry powerfull emitting UV.Soo powerfull that can get you skin get tan after a few hours exposure.Leds are made of plastic(the led lens wich is made of silicone or acrilic) and the UV radiation even in small amount burns the plastic ,thats why they have zero UV,to protect the led.Somme will say that UV is not important because it doesnt gets deep into the water or that is harmless but if it doesnt gets deep into the water then why almost all corals have evolved to be fluorescent in UV light?I would change the most expensive LED lamp for the cheapest T5HO any time.In my opinion leds are good only in a reef tank that has corals that grow mainly from food instead of light ,like LPS and soft corals but for sps i havent seen an impressive tank lit by leds alone(in wich corals are grown from small frags not huge sps colonies introduced from the begining).I also think that T5 HO is better than MH because T5 doesnt have shimmer wich is a good thing .A lamp that creates shimmer makes a lot of shades while the uniform light of T5 have verry litle shaded areas.Altough the shimmer looks good it isnt practically good .https://s14.postimg.org/9uxpp2j9d/Image_For_Article_1087_1.png

[blasterman789]

The best looking SPS tanks I've seen lately have either been 100% lit by LED or halides.

If you want to make an LED lit tank look like T5 just put plastic diffusers over the top. Not sure why were confusing light source -vs- emission size. The only drawback with LED are shadows caused by too much PAR being directed by optics. Reefbrites, etc., beat T5 badly at their own game.

[2smokes]

Shadows cause by too much PAR?This is the funyest thing ive read on RC.Shadows is cause by light intensity not by PAR.A green light with 0 PAR san make shadows like any otther PAR rich light source.I am a MH fan but i know what im saiyng when i sayd that T5HO beats MH because the MH creates too much shadows and shimmer.Best sps tank that i know (probably the best and most beautifull in the world )uses only T5HO.No led lamp could get even cloose to that huge growth with Acropora corals that get out from the water made by T5.Leds dont have UV in rest they have all the colors of the spectrum and intensity just as T5 and MH.Its not only the Par that matters(PAR is the ammount of blue and red light).

[ReefCowboy]

Shadows cause by too much PAR?This is the funyest thing ive read on RC.Shadows is cause by light intensity not by PAR.A green light with 0 PAR san make shadows like any otther PAR rich light source.I am a MH fan but i know what im saiyng when i sayd that T5HO beats MH because the MH creates too much shadows and shimmer.Best sps tank that i know (probably the best and most beautifull in the world )uses only T5HO.No led lamp could get even cloose to that huge growth with Acropora corals that get out from the water made by T5.Leds dont have UV in rest they have all the colors of the spectrum and intensity just as T5 and MH.Its not only the Par that matters(PAR is the ammount of blue and red light).

Good info on some of your posts, but there is a lot of your own opinions here my man. Ive been a big T5 guy myself for as long as i can remember, yes they grow corals really well, we all know that. LED fixtures these days do also grow corals and yes they also allow for excellent coloration as well. Some out there know how to do it, others dont.

There are many led tanks with great corals out there, and very soon we shall see them more often as more efficient led lit tanks mature.

T5's grow coral, but the flat look it provides visually is sure boring as hell. T5's are popular in Europe, we get it. Giesemann, ATI are investing on LED's since the old technology will eventually be...old.

[grigsy]

I love the shimmer I get from Metal Halides.

A MH tank looks more appealing to me vs T5 (flat) and better than the less than natural look I got from LEDs.

[zooman72]

Leds do not have UV ,its =with zero absolute even for the leds sold as UV leds(with the exception of the glass and copper leds that can put out UVB but thhose arent used in the hobby by nobody and they last just 1000 hours-like an incandescent bulb,much shorter life than T5 or MH). Only light sources made of glass like MH and T5 can put out UV and the bluish bulbs we use are verry powerfull emitting UV.Soo powerfull that can get you skin get tan after a few hours exposure.Leds are made of plastic(the led lens wich is made of silicone or acrilic) and the UV radiation even in small amount burns the plastic ,thats why they have zero UV,to protect the led.Somme will say that UV is not important because it doesnt gets deep into the water or that is harmless but if it doesnt gets deep into the water then why almost all corals have evolved to be fluorescent in UV light?I would change the most expensive LED lamp for the cheapest T5HO any time.In my opinion leds are good only in a reef tank that has corals that grow mainly from food instead of light ,like LPS and soft corals but for sps i havent seen an impressive tank lit by leds alone(in wich corals are grown from small frags not huge sps colonies introduced from the begining).I also think that T5 HO is better than MH because T5 doesnt have shimmer wich is a good thing .A lamp that creates shimmer makes a lot of shades while the uniform light of T5 have verry litle shaded areas.Altough the shimmer looks good it isnt practically good .https://s14.postimg.org/9uxpp2j9d/Image_For_Article_1087_1.png

Shadows cause by too much PAR?This is the funyest thing ive read on RC.Shadows is cause by light intensity not by PAR.A green light with 0 PAR san make shadows like any otther PAR rich light source.I am a MH fan but i know what im saiyng when i sayd that T5HO beats MH because the MH creates too much shadows and shimmer.Best sps tank that i know (probably the best and most beautifull in the world )uses only T5HO.No led lamp could get even cloose to that huge growth with Acropora corals that get out from the water made by T5.Leds dont have UV in rest they have all the colors of the spectrum and intensity just as T5 and MH.Its not only the Par that matters(PAR is the ammount of blue and red light).

What are you smoking exactly? Much of what you are trying to relay is just flat wrong (here and in multiple other threads), and I am not even referring to the difficulty in reading your posts.

How is this thread still going with gems like this?

[JPMagyar]

Good info on some of your posts, but there is a lot of your own opinions here my man. Ive been a big T5 guy myself for as long as i can remember, yes they grow corals really well, we all know that. LED fixtures these days do also grow corals and yes they also allow for excellent coloration as well. Some out there know how to do it, others dont.

There are many led tanks with great corals out there, and very soon we shall see them more often as more efficient led lit tanks mature.

T5's grow coral, but the flat look it provides visually is sure boring as hell. T5's are popular in Europe, we get it. Giesemann, ATI are investing on LED's since the old technology will eventually be...old.


People have been saying that for years and yet, we still don't see a plethora of LED grown reefs. Here is my reef grown under T5 for one year and MH for one year. The first shot is January 2015 and the second shot is October 2016. I've said this over and over and over in this thread; it's not the fact that LEDs don't work; it's about the fact that there are infinitely simpler and easier solutions that work better. Lighting choice is highly subjective and this is a hobby. Just use the light you like and be happy. Who cares what others say about LEDs. The mystery to me is why all the LED lovers find it necessary to come on a thread about MH lighting and defend LED lighting.


http://i927.photobucket.com/albums/ad115/JoePeck66/RC%20Uploads/IMG_1821_zps93369036.jpg?t=1478553727



http://i927.photobucket.com/albums/ad115/JoePeck66/RC%20Uploads/FTS2016_zpshfs0fajp.jpg?t=1477854195

[Wazzel]

People have been saying that for years and yet, we still don't see a plethora of LED grown reefs. Here is my reef grown under T5 for one year and MH for one year. The first shot is January 2015 and the second shot is October 2016. I've said this over and over and over in this thread; it's not the fact that LEDs don't work; it's about the fact that there are infinitely simpler and easier solutions that work better. Lighting choice is highly subjective and this is a hobby. Just use the light you like and be happy. Who cares what others say about LEDs. The mystery to me is why all the LED lovers find it necessary to come on a thread about MH lighting and defend LED lighting.


There are lots of LED grown tanks. Some are nice some are not. If you are not seeing any you are not looking or choosing not to see them.

As far as LED uses posting on this thread, it is quite appropriate since it is a question about people currently using LED and if they are going to keep them or not. If you really want to be picky, only current LED users should be posting to this thread, considering the nature of the question. As far as other threads, I guess it would depend on the nature of the discussion.

[ReefCowboy]

People have been saying that for years and yet, we still don't see a plethora of LED grown reefs. Here is my reef grown under T5 for one year and MH for one year. The first shot is January 2015 and the second shot is October 2016. I've said this over and over and over in this thread; it's not the fact that LEDs don't work; it's about the fact that there are infinitely simpler and easier solutions that work better. Lighting choice is highly subjective and this is a hobby. Just use the light you like and be happy. Who cares what others say about LEDs. The mystery to me is why all the LED lovers find it necessary to come on a thread about MH lighting and defend LED lighting.


http://i927.photobucket.com/albums/ad115/JoePeck66/RC%20Uploads/IMG_1821_zps93369036.jpg?t=1478553727



http://i927.photobucket.com/albums/ad115/JoePeck66/RC%20Uploads/FTS2016_zpshfs0fajp.jpg?t=1477854195


I agree with your comments, but from when this thread started til now, many led fixtures have closed the gap and are allowing for very impressive reefs. Have you seen Sanjay's sps tank grown under radions(after it was restarted)?I have a good friend whos close to him and says hes very happy with leds, and that his tank has grown amazingly close to what the MH days brought.

Like I posted before, I am a T5 guy, ran Halide before switching to led, and can say my tank kept growing and coloring without any change. Some acros actually colored better than when with halides. The visual appeal is much nicer however, on top of a sleek fixture and my chiller not going crazy over and over during the day.

[biecacka]

While Sanjay's tank is super impressive, how many radions is he running on it? He was experimenting with 3 on a 40 breeder before he switched his main tank over. If he has 10 radions on it (total guess on that number as the math is easy but it's probably more) gen he has 7500$ in lights on the tank. Probably running full wattage so he isn't saving a ton of electricity and how long will it take to recoup the cost of those fixtures.
I think as the leds expand and do the users, ppl realize it takes more to light our tanks properly. Thus making saving on electricity less of a factor. My biggest thing with leds after trying them (not a bad or good thing, just a thing that makes me think) is the number of led users who supplement their tanks with T5 to prevent shadowing. In my mind it sort of defeats the purpose. But that is just my thought, I see the reasoning behind it.

Corey

[ReefCowboy]

While Sanjay's tank is super impressive, how many radions is he running on it? He was experimenting with 3 on a 40 breeder before he switched his main tank over. If he has 10 radions on it (total guess on that number as the math is easy but it's probably more) gen he has 7500$ in lights on the tank. Probably running full wattage so he isn't saving a ton of electricity and how long will it take to recoup the cost of those fixtures.
I think as the leds expand and do the users, ppl realize it takes more to light our tanks properly. Thus making saving on electricity less of a factor. My biggest thing with leds after trying them (not a bad or good thing, just a thing that makes me think) is the number of led users who supplement their tanks with T5 to prevent shadowing. In my mind it sort of defeats the purpose. But that is just my thought, I see the reasoning behind it.

Corey

Agree 100%. Hes running an insane amount of watts with those leds. Hes running the G2's but is soon to upgrade to G4's i believe. If I had a big tank, would be running T5's for sure. Halides are a better option, but as he said himself, the chiller is a big concern when one has three 400w halides, unless ones house is in unique conditions with weather helping keep it cool.

My point is leds can do the job as far as ability to grow coral. Efficiency and savings are another talk. On smaller tanks it is the way to go. Issue with T5's and Sanjay's tank is depth also, im not sure.

[Wazzel]

Agree 100%. Hes running an insane amount of watts with those leds. Hes running the G2's but is soon to upgrade to G4's i believe. If I had a big tank, would be running T5's for sure. Halides are a better option, but as he said himself, the chiller is a big concern when one has three 400w halides, unless ones house is in unique conditions with weather helping keep it cool.

My point is leds can do the job as far as ability to grow coral. Efficiency and savings are another talk. On smaller tanks it is the way to go. Issue with T5's and Sanjay's tank is depth also, im not sure.

Not to mention that everyone's situations are different. What is a good choice for you may not be a good choice for someone else.

[brad65ford]

In the process of switching over my Orphek's to all T5 on my sps system, actually really looking forwad to this change been burned out on LED for the past 4 years. Though redsea knew the market was pushing for led on thier system even though they didn't agree with it. Here is a post from Kevin from Redsea a few years ago. They know what grow's corals, any Redseamax t5 system i've ever seen grows corals like wild fire.


"
The promise of a MAX® coral reef system is that it provides a complete, plug & play, reef spec® aquarium for all levels of hobbyists without having to worry about the choice, compatibility and suitability of the equipment.

All of the products that Red Sea develops for reef hobbyists, including the MAX systems, start with understanding the biological needs of the corals. This approach has enabled us to develop our "Reef-Spec" which defines the environmental conditions necessary for successfully maintaining SPS corals in a reef aquarium.

Lighting is an important part of the Reef-Spec definition and our research over many years has clearly shown that T5 fluorescent lighting provides all of the needs of corals in a simple and safe way. Furthermore, T5 usage requires no expertise or understanding by the hobbyist and will support all of the major species of SPS corals in all areas of the MAX aquarium.

The move from Metal Halide and Fluorescent lighting to LED lighting for aquariums in general (and reef tanks in particular) has not been driven by the needs of the corals, but by the move within the lighting industry towards more energy efficient systems.

Without getting into the technical details, it is sufficient to say that there are significant differences between LED lighting and T5, and unless LED light is applied knowledgeably to an aquarium it can cause harm to the corals. Many hobbyists are investing a lot of time in learning how to adapt the LED lights that are available on the market to their reefs, with various levels of success.

In keeping with the lighting industry's advances in this field, Red Sea's goal is to be able to provide MAX aquariums with LED lighting that can safely ensure at least similar coral growth, coloration, vitality and longevity to that currently achieved in our T5-driven MAX systems.

Red Sea's development team is currently evaluating LED lighting for use with the MAX aquariums and we hope to be able to offer a reef safe LED lighting solution within the near future.

"

#1
RedSeaKev, Nov 29, 2013

[Joe0813]

guess ill throw some .2 cents in...... All the big name tanks, sponsors tanks and some people on here who have really really grown out SPS tanks are LED with supplemented light from t5s. I personally want to ditch my ecotech radion gen 2's and go with a t5/led hybrid.
My tank has been running now for 5 years. some sps like my monti took off and grew like a weed. but for the majority of my sps corals they are still tiny mini colonies.

[brad65ford]

guess ill throw some .2 cents in...... All the big name tanks, sponsors tanks and some people on here who have really really grown out SPS tanks are LED with supplemented light from t5s. I personally want to ditch my ecotech radion gen 2's and go with a t5/led hybrid.

was going to do that also but said no to the led at this point and going full t5. if anything will run reefbrights if i need that extra pop in life. Is it me or I can stair at a T5 lit reef tank for hours over a led lit tank.

[Joe0813]

was going to do that also but said no to the led at this point and going full t5. if anything will run reefbrights if i need that extra pop in life. Is it me or I can stair at a T5 lit reef tank for hours over a led lit tank.

seems like when I had my T5 over my old 75 gallon, the corals grew so much faster. now I have 3 gen2's over my 180 and im not impressed at all. I really want the Giesemann Aurora but id need two 36inch units and they aren't cheap at alllll

[brad65ford]

going with a Matrix ii but none dimmable which i'd strongly stay away from.

[ReefCowboy]

The new E5x led T5 bulbs seem very promising. You pop two blue led bulbs for dusk/dawn, 4 blue+ a coral + , and lastly a KZ Pink. Enough said, enjoy both worlds

[brad65ford]

Seen them in person and know someone that runs them and loves them. They just flex a little the longer the bulb. Would like to try them.

[ReefCowboy]

Seen them in person and know someone that runs them and loves them. They just flex a little the longer the bulb. Would like to try them.

I was talking to a buddy who has seen the new bulbs. Basically the company listened to customers' complaints and the new bulbs have higher penetration(25% brighter), since they ditched the frosted surface of the bulb to improve par. Also changed the heat sinks, and made the bulbs clip on the fixture while making them sturdier. It wont sag and will kick more butt.

Im very curious to see them, as they will start being sold in Feb i think. The old ones will no longer be available. Having the ability to use an led t5 shaped bulb going straight into the T5 would be awesome. I hate Reefbrite leds attached to T5 fixtures, kills the look.
One would be able to get a sunpower for 700 bucks, pop led bulbs and get a great alternative to the powermodule, which IMO is ou of this world expensive for the leds present

[brad65ford]

I was talking to a buddy who has seen the new bulbs. Basically the company listened to customers' complaints and the new bulbs have higher penetration(25% brighter), since they ditched the frosted surface of the bulb to improve par. Also changed the heat sinks, and made the bulbs clip on the fixture while making them sturdier. It wont sag and will kick more butt.

Im very curious to see them, as they will start being sold in Feb i think. The old ones will no longer be available. Having the ability to use an led t5 shaped bulb going straight into the T5 would be awesome. I hate Reefbrite leds attached to T5 fixtures, kills the look.
One would be able to get a sunpower for 700 bucks, pop led bulbs and get a great alternative to the powermodule, which IMO is ou of this world expensive for the leds present

+1000000 on this. Do you have a link or any information on the new E5's?

[MJNTWise]

+1000000 on this. Do you have a link or any information on the new E5's?

http://www.euroquatics.com/

[ReefCowboy]

http://www.euroquatics.com/

I believe these are the older model. The new ones although already announced have not yet been advertised in their website. It will be called E5X or 5X if Im not mistaking.

[paal]

Derailing a halide thread with T5 talk, but… :)

The new E5X bulbs should be available at the very end of this month.
I asked Euroaquatics about the differences (in addition to the increased output) between these and the “pre-X” ones.
They confirmed that the old bulbs were designed to have a uniform light output similar to T5. The new ones would have a more “traditional LED output”; creating more shimmer.

I run a 8xT5/LED hybrid. Will probably try to add two E5X bulbs simply to get a bit more shimmer.

T5
-E5X-
T5
T5

LED

T5
T5
-E5X-
T5

[ReefCowboy]

Derailing a halide thread with T5 talk, but… :)

The new E5X bulbs should be available at the very end of this month.
I asked Euroaquatics about the differences (in addition to the increased output) between these and the “pre-X” ones.
They confirmed that the old bulbs were designed to have a uniform light output similar to T5. The new ones would have a more “traditional LED output”; creating more shimmer.

I run a 8xT5/LED hybrid. Will probably try to add two E5X bulbs simply to get a bit more shimmer.

T5
-E5X-
T5
T5

LED

T5
T5
-E5X-
T5

You are correct, another improvement on the new E5X bulbs is they made them sturdier, so they won't bend or "sag" through time.

[biecacka]

Better luck posting these in the for sale forum.

Corey

[jestronix]

Time moves on, so does led tech. but are we still leaning on efficiency and appearance ? I'm not sure we are there yet, to where we can say LED is better than halide and T5, by better I mean not just growth, not just colour, but insane health that u get with halide.

Led over David Saxbys tank was a key moment for me, seeing him make that jump was a huge day for Led. However as I look over his old videos it looks like he was keeping more delicate soft corals too. It feels to me that their are certain species that do well with led. Halide I think seems to keep a far wider range ?

For me, my first led unit to grow SPS was a home made unit using XRE leds back in 2008. All I had was blue and white. No science , no special lenses no marketing no dimming :) it worked, but it was only one species that did well, other SPS just gave up while the other grew like mad. I still think this is the case even for makers like AI etc. I think spectrum is the key. While multi coloured leds have helped fill gaps, there are still holes. I think T5 with halide filled almost all the holes. This is why hybrid LED and T5 does well.

I think LED lights have been an LFS's dream, a light with all the cool features and awesome shimmer but secretly won't grow all corals :) Yeh they don't come back in the shop for bulbs but they come back when their new corals eventually died out. People scream success of Led which is now 10 years of proof, but it could be just me , but I swear some of the old tanks with halide were insanely healthy?

I've been running T5 and led, with good success, but I just can't put my finger on why I can't grow really healthy coral like I used to. So I'm again flipping back to halide for a while to see how we go. Ahhh reefing and the endless fiddling with things :)

Keen to hear how others are doing after now many years of LED.

[DesertReefT4r]

Im still stuck on MH. I feel it is still the best light for a reef tank especially for sps and acropra. The new G4 Radion is a great light however and I think its getting very close to what MH can do. Kessil I feel has an edge with their densely packed LED chips. I also think more needs to be done with COB LED chips and reef keeping as well. These dense packed LED clusters is what I think will eventually get LED to 98% of what MH produces, right now I feel its at 85%. I have seen beautiful sps tanks with just LED so they are proven to work well. After researching lights for my tank build I have decided to use MH again and picked up 2 old school 250w PFO pendants used for cheap. Going to run so e blue LED strips for actinics to add more pop.

[ReefCowboy]

Have the Orphek at an office tank and love it. Ran Radions G4 last and liked them, but sold them after six months and got back to MH. All variables remaining the same, MH by far gave me the best results. I was running leds and started laughing looking at old pics of the tank with halides and how much better corals looked.

[outssider]

I think the great color you get from sps and halide has to do with the halide giving off some bad-*** ultraviolet light...sps tries to block the ultraviolet ....we see this as great color in their skin....

[Joe0813]

i ran three radion gen2s over my 180 since they came out... crap coral growth and some LPS just would rather die than use LEDs as their light. Two days ago i bought my first MH, the Giesemann spectra. Love the look so much better and can already tell the corals will do better. Way better polyp extension and my LPS that lived are starting to open back up. Only thing i dont like so far with the MH is it gets reaaaal hot. Other than that i probably wont go back to a LED until they can outperform a halide

[jestronix]

Interesting to see other people experiencing the same thing. I think as the hobby goes on corals that do well under LED will be fragged and become more popular, making LED more successful in appearance. Halide is now days for the more dedicated reefer that has experienced and seen what halide and T5 can do. anyone getting into the hobby now will most commonly start with LED, in fact I don't think I've seen any LFS selling halide lights for a few years now.

Our local LFS which I've gone to for 10 years or so has a huge show tank, I've watched them make the move to LED. I've been there and seen people come up to the tank and go wow this is incredible! I always chuckle quietly and think "u should have seen this tank under halides !" But they are amazed and I'm sure buy some new G5s for their tank and are probably very happy for many years.

I think LEDs are outright the most beautiful looking light, at night they transform the tank softly and u can do so with unlimited tuning to exactly what u want. This is why I run 10K Hamilton in the day, pure growth and health with halide in the day and led for evening viewing.

I think there will be some new full spectrum led or new tech that will come out in the next decade that will transform the hobby again and perhaps beat halide and T5. I actually thought plasma LEP was going to be that light! But expense, heat and a very accurate yellow sun colour stopped it being popular. It's true full spectrum completely!

[shred5]

Interesting to see other people experiencing the same thing. I think as the hobby goes on corals that do well under LED will be fragged and become more popular, making LED more successful in appearance. Halide is now days for the more dedicated reefer that has experienced and seen what halide and T5 can do. anyone getting into the hobby now will most commonly start with LED, in fact I don't think I've seen any LFS selling halide lights for a few years now.

Our local LFS which I've gone to for 10 years or so has a huge show tank, I've watched them make the move to LED. I've been there and seen people come up to the tank and go wow this is incredible! I always chuckle quietly and think "u should have seen this tank under halides !" But they are amazed and I'm sure buy some new G5s for their tank and are probably very happy for many years.

I think LEDs are outright the most beautiful looking light, at night they transform the tank softly and u can do so with unlimited tuning to exactly what u want. This is why I run 10K Hamilton in the day, pure growth and health with halide in the day and led for evening viewing.

I think there will be some new full spectrum led or new tech that will come out in the next decade that will transform the hobby again and perhaps beat halide and T5. I actually thought plasma LEP was going to be that light! But expense, heat and a very accurate yellow sun colour stopped it being popular. It's true full spectrum completely!

That is what is happening that is why Jason fox who uses almost all blue and world wide corals have become so popular. Not a cut on Jason Fox or WWC either they are selling what sells. They sell some corals that are brown or light in color but are highly fluorescent under the royal blue leds. I just can not handle all that blue it is unnatural and looks terrible.. Ever since people learned to use orange/yellow filters for their cameras you see these incredible pictures. Take for instance the Walt Disney coral, it is not attractive under 10-14 k at all. it is very washed out and would not have been looked at twice 10 years ago.


There are so many advantages to leds but the one thing they can not do is bring out the max real color of a sps.

Led do allot better than they used to and are improving. Still self shading is a issue and I think that is the reason you do not see many full colonies much any more. Allot of the tanks look more like a frag tank with way to many small coral plastered all over the tank. To compensate people have to add allot of fixtures and for best result mount some angled.

People are just taken advantage of the short comings of leds.

Not my tank so I really do not care, to each his own. I understand the want for led.

People should do what they want to do and enjoy.

Just funny how people fall for trends though and have so many excuses to defend them.. I remember when t-5 became popular people said they hated them because of no shimmer. Now I see people going back to t-5 because they hate shimmer of like the kessils. I remember when Iwasaki was the bulb of choice and it was 6500k everyone loved them, then when people started using the Radium bulbs people hated them they looked too blue and dim.

You know I have been in the hobby so long I do not really care to each his own. As long as people are providing the care their animals need.

i run t-5 with kessil with more white than blue somewhere aroud 10 to 12 k... Why? it is the closest to halides without being halides. I get lots of shimmer and the t-5 take care of self shading issues. I love halides but prefer the lower energy cost. I might run them in the future though again who knows. I would love Iwasakis with led strips for a little pop.

[markalot]

I'm hybrid T5/LED. I don't have high end acros in my tank but the ones I have are colored well ... but I find I have to run T5 for 5 hours daily to maintain healthy. No clue if this is a par thing, or a coverage thing, or just acclimation. I can make up the PAR with the LED but they don't like it.

I assume it's spectrum and that I can duplicate the coral performance by tweaking the LED's, I have the coverage, but it won't look good to my eyes. I need the green spike in the T5's to make the tank bright enough and white enough for my taste.

[heritage]

I switched back to T5's several years ago and never looked back. I'll run them till the day they decide to stop making bulbs.

[Bpb]

I switched back to T5's several years ago and never looked back. I'll run them till the day they decide to stop making bulbs.



Same here. I’ll admit. I like the royal blue only crazy colors. I like that real life photoshopped look. But not all day. I’ll always run t5ho until they’re not available any longer. They’re so cheap to replace and they last so long


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[heritage]

Same here. I’ll admit. I like the royal blue only crazy colors. I like that real life photoshopped look. But not all day. I’ll always run t5ho until they’re not available any longer. They’re so cheap to replace and they last so long


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Same here, I always changed bulbs around the 15 month mark with the blues running around 10 hours a day and white at 5 hours a day.

I tried dimming them for a year with the same times and by the 9 month mark my yellow tang was no longer yellow but green, so I stick to on, off and get 15 months out of them.

[Reefpuck]

I dropped LEDs for T5s for several reasons...but LEDs still provide great supplemental light IMO. I'll never go back to MHs though. Too much heat.

[jestronix]

Sitting here looking at my tank lit up with a Hamilton 10k bulb, suddenly I'm seeing a true yellow tang, true red clowns, add some blue led and now I'm getting fluorescence and all the rest. Halide gets hot, but dam i love the look!

I'm also leaning on maybe getting LEP plasma, something i still think is an amazing true spectrum light. Which on further research actually pushes way less heat into the tank. Though the unit runs hot.

[Tripod1404]

Sitting here looking at my tank lit up with a Hamilton 10k bulb, suddenly I'm seeing a true yellow tang, true red clowns, add some blue led and now I'm getting fluorescence and all the rest. Halide gets hot, but dam i love the look!

I'm also leaning on maybe getting LEP plasma, something i still think is an amazing true spectrum light. Which on further research actually pushes way less heat into the tank. Though the unit runs hot.

I think there were some trails for LEP plasma light on reef tanks few years ago. People in the trail groups gave up on them due to intense yellow color they generate. Some also reported it caused SPS corals to brown. Unless someone makes LEP plasma with colder spectrum, I dont see a future in that.

And all this comes down weather it is profitable to produce such a light. Sales for bulbs used in saltwater aquarium industry is a drop in the ocean compared to the entire bulb production industry. No body will produce a specific line of bulbs designed exclusively to be used for growing corals. ATI for instance uses rebranded sylvania bulbs. There was some talk at Macna couple of years ago that it is actually possible to produce a single full spectrum T5HO bulb that mimics the light coral reefs get, say at 20 meter. But no such bulb is being produced because no major fluorescent light producer wants to invest in a bulb that would have a very limited and specific consumer target. The bulbs we get in this hobby are mostly used in a variety of different industries, for different purposes, under different names. At best what we get are mixtures of two bulbs, which are relatively cheap to manufacture.

And this all relates to MH because no will be producing MH lights in 10 years. Even if there will still be demand from saltwater aquarium industry, that demand is not large enough to make it profitable to produce MH bulbs. Metal halide light are being phased out in all major industries that use them, they simply produce too much heat and are inefficient. Also, production and waste management of MH bulbs is getting more expensive due to handling of toxic mercury and other heavy metals.

[jda]

Please. I have already been hearing for ten years already that nobody was going to be making MH bulbs in ten years. Instead, there is new MH tech coming out right now.

Until LED are an ACTUAL replacement, there are still massive amounts of people who use T5 and MH. Heck, there is still enough of a demand for VHO that they are made still just for the aquarium industry - people have been prematurely calling for the death of VHO for probably 15 years.

PEC stopped making 14k phoenix bulbs, and then started again after they realized their error. Hamilton just designed new bulbs. ReefBrite also has new bulbs on the market. Giesemann too. If anything, MH is making a resurgence. All of this is just for reefing. Most of these are improved bulbs. What happened is that MH got stale and this is where PC (they were once the heir-apparent), T5 and LED took over... companies jumped on these bandwagons... but in the last few years some people have grown tired of the never ending promises of LED manufacturers so some manufacturers saw the increase in MH sales, innovated and came up with some really good new bulbs. Have you not seen these new bulbs? These companies would not have done the R&D if there were not customers to buy them. Some of these bulbs are supposedly very low on IR and have significantly less heat (this will upset me since I live in Colorado and love the heat).

While true that Radium 20k was an import from another purpose/industry, there are a lot of bulbs that are made just for reefing.

If somebody wanted to tell me that everybody will be using dual/tri acr MH over their tanks in 10 years, then I might believe that.

[Tripod1404]

Please. I have already been hearing for ten years already that nobody was going to be making MH bulbs in ten years. Instead, there is new MH tech coming out right now.

Until LED are an ACTUAL replacement, there are still massive amounts of people who use T5 and MH. Heck, there is still enough of a demand for VHO that they are made still just for the aquarium industry - people have been prematurely calling for the death of VHO for probably 15 years.

PEC stopped making 14k phoenix bulbs, and then started again after they realized their error. Hamilton just designed new bulbs. ReefBrite also has new bulbs on the market. Giesemann too. If anything, MH is making a resurgence. All of this is just for reefing. Most of these are improved bulbs. What happened is that MH got stale and this is where PC (they were once the heir-apparent), T5 and LED took over... companies jumped on these bandwagons... but in the last few years some people have grown tired of the never ending promises of LED manufacturers so some manufacturers saw the increase in MH sales, innovated and came up with some really good new bulbs. Have you not seen these new bulbs? These companies would not have done the R&D if there were not customers to buy them. Some of these bulbs are supposedly very low on IR and have significantly less heat (this will upset me since I live in Colorado and love the heat).

While true that Radium 20k was an import from another purpose/industry, there are a lot of bulbs that are made just for reefing.

If somebody wanted to tell me that everybody will be using dual/tri acr MH over their tanks in 10 years, then I might believe that.



MH lights are intrinsically heat generating due the fact that bulbs need to be hot to function. You can reduce the heat produced by IR, but that doesn't make run cold. It just prevents them from heating the environment with IR.

I work at an research institution that developed genetically modified plants, we used to order 200+ MH bulbs a year, we (or anyone who grows plants in greenhouses) no longer order new MHs. All is being replaced with LEDs. And you might like heat generated by MH in your house, but in a green house, or factory, or depot where tens of MH bulbs are running in a small space, the added cost of cooling is significant. And it is much cheaper to heat something than cooling it.I will not even go into storage and waste procedure of used bulbs due to mercury. Even all major captive coral growers that use artificial lights are switching to LEDs or T5s. No body would use a Giesemann megachrome bulb that costs $100. This is what happens when something is produced for a small consumer base, it gets ridiculous expensive comparable to similar products. A phoenix 14k that is mass produced is half the price of Giesemann megachrome. Lower the sales, more expensive individual bulbs will get, until it becomes unprofitable. And 14k phoenix bulb production probably restarted because they converted their facilities that produced other types of MH bulbs to this, this is a classical way how phase outs are made. You switch production to goods that still have a market while gradually phasing out non selling ones. This way production equipment and facilities are at least utilized as they are slowly being replaced. Most of those new MH tech were probably already known, they probably just didn't apply it to products since it used to made the bulbs more expensive and not attractive for widespread use. Since now a MH bulbs are more expensive and serve to a specific consumer base that is willing to pay more, producing MH bulbs with new tech become profitable, for now.

MHs always had a small market share and the moment the market gets even smaller nobody will produce them. I am not talking about lights for aquariums here, I am talking about light bulb industry as a whole. Some hobbits buying 4 bulbs a year is nothing compared to thousands bought by some large horticulture and agriculture companies. Just look at all those companies you listed how many new MH bulbs fixtures they developed in last 5 years compared to new LED and T5HO bulbs and fixtures they developed? It is not a resurgence of MH, it is just a phase out. Of course it will not go out over night, they will try to make as much of profit as possible while phasing out.

New technologies were also applied to CRT screens while all screen producers phased them out and sales of CRT TVs increased since they were offered cheap as a wide scale manufacturer driven closeout sale. Now days, fixing a CRT TV is more expensive them buying a LCD screen TV because few produce their parts.

[jda]

I do not think that you know what you are talking about here. The new Giesemann Megachrome 17.5k is selling like crazy, even for the higher price.

Have you ever actually used MH to any big degree? A 6500k bulb is considerably more hot than a Radium 20k - a Radium 20k can effectively be cooled by just a fan. IR is the big deal here... 250w of electrical heat is the same in a p-n junction or fluorescent bulbs without the IR. Nobody is saying that they will ever be cool, but the heat is a red herring for most people and if you do not live in a desert or in Florida, the only people who cannot deal with it are people who do not want to. BTW - IR is being found to be very necessary to coral and some LED panels are getting IR put into them... expect these to start to heat up some tanks a bit.

I did an appraisal for a grow facility here in Colorado. They grow the ultimate profitable crop - hippie lettuce. This place has 200+ 1000w and 600w MH fixtures to supplement the sunlight. They do not even consider using LEDs since the crop suffers - HO T5s are fine, but too many bulbs to change since 1000w MH are not expensive. I visited and called 11 other grow houses in the area to determine run costs, etc. and none of them used LED (all HPS or MH) and all had massive electrical bills as well. This company can be plenty profitable with $150 a day in electricity and still make some bank, so this is not a big deal to them... when performance matters with big money on the line, they still use the MH. The heat helps them here in Colorado for about 11 months out of the year, but I can imagine that the heat is not good for everybody.

Have you not been paying attention to the people who are driving MH sales higher than ever before? Some this is probably somewhat attributable to more people entering the hobby, but the people who are choosing MH are experienced folks who have been in the game for a while. The people who have been migrating to better lighting are in for the long-haul and are MH users for life now. This is an expanding market with the best kind of customers.

This whole argument parallels to all-diesel, electric or hydrogen cars from the 1970s until now. For four decades, gas cars were going to be obsolete in the next decade. After a while, you just have to assume that if it was possible, it would have happened by now. If LED was going to get to the point where it is as good as a MH, then it would have happened by now. There is a good portion of the newer generation that started with LED because they were told that they were just as good, that are now switching because they have found out otherwise.

[Joe0813]

i just switched over to MH from radion gen2s... i bought a giesemann spectra with radium bulbs and i will probably never go back.

[Braver69]

Please. I have already been hearing for ten years already that nobody was going to be making MH bulbs in ten years. Instead, there is new MH tech coming out right now.

Until LED are an ACTUAL replacement, there are still massive amounts of people who use T5 and MH. Heck, there is still enough of a demand for VHO that they are made still just for the aquarium industry - people have been prematurely calling for the death of VHO for probably 15 years.

PEC stopped making 14k phoenix bulbs, and then started again after they realized their error. Hamilton just designed new bulbs. ReefBrite also has new bulbs on the market. Giesemann too. If anything, MH is making a resurgence. All of this is just for reefing. Most of these are improved bulbs. What happened is that MH got stale and this is where PC (they were once the heir-apparent), T5 and LED took over... companies jumped on these bandwagons... but in the last few years some people have grown tired of the never ending promises of LED manufacturers so some manufacturers saw the increase in MH sales, innovated and came up with some really good new bulbs. Have you not seen these new bulbs? These companies would not have done the R&D if there were not customers to buy them. Some of these bulbs are supposedly very low on IR and have significantly less heat (this will upset me since I live in Colorado and love the heat).

While true that Radium 20k was an import from another purpose/industry, there are a lot of bulbs that are made just for reefing.

If somebody wanted to tell me that everybody will be using dual/tri acr MH over their tanks in 10 years, then I might believe that.

You might seen some uptake by the Halide manufactures for the Saltwater hobby, but that is mainly due to most industrial lighting being switched to led's. You will notice most traffic lights and street lights are being switched out due to the massive savings in electricity. So the Halide Industry has idle lines they need to put to some use or tear them out, question is if there is enough demand for them to justify continuing with it. As long as they can turn enough of a profit to justify it then you guys that like Halide lights should be safe.

[Tripod1404]

I do not think that you know what you are talking about here. The new Giesemann Megachrome 17.5k is selling like crazy, even for the higher price.

Have you ever actually used MH to any big degree? A 6500k bulb is considerably more hot than a Radium 20k - a Radium 20k can effectively be cooled by just a fan. IR is the big deal here... 250w of electrical heat is the same in a p-n junction or fluorescent bulbs without the IR. Nobody is saying that they will ever be cool, but the heat is a red herring for most people and if you do not live in a desert or in Florida, the only people who cannot deal with it are people who do not want to. BTW - IR is being found to be very necessary to coral and some LED panels are getting IR put into them... expect these to start to heat up some tanks a bit.

I did an appraisal for a grow facility here in Colorado. They grow the ultimate profitable crop - hippie lettuce. This place has 200+ 1000w and 600w MH fixtures to supplement the sunlight. They do not even consider using LEDs since the crop suffers - HO T5s are fine, but too many bulbs to change since 1000w MH are not expensive. I visited and called 11 other grow houses in the area to determine run costs, etc. and none of them used LED (all HPS or MH) and all had massive electrical bills as well. This company can be plenty profitable with $150 a day in electricity and still make some bank, so this is not a big deal to them... when performance matters with big money on the line, they still use the MH. The heat helps them here in Colorado for about 11 months out of the year, but I can imagine that the heat is not good for everybody.

Have you not been paying attention to the people who are driving MH sales higher than ever before? Some this is probably somewhat attributable to more people entering the hobby, but the people who are choosing MH are experienced folks who have been in the game for a while. The people who have been migrating to better lighting are in for the long-haul and are MH users for life now. This is an expanding market with the best kind of customers.

This whole argument parallels to all-diesel, electric or hydrogen cars from the 1970s until now. For four decades, gas cars were going to be obsolete in the next decade. After a while, you just have to assume that if it was possible, it would have happened by now. If LED was going to get to the point where it is as good as a MH, then it would have happened by now. There is a good portion of the newer generation that started with LED because they were told that they were just as good, that are now switching because they have found out otherwise.

I am not saying megachrome is not selling, i already said it is selling because its target consumers are a very specific bunch who are not cost driven. But will demand from how many aquarium keepers will be able to keep MH industry alive?. If you have a manufacturing plant that produced 1 million bulbs a year, will aquarium industry alone will be able to make that sector profitable on its own. Demand from the aquarium sector might be increasing, but that will never compliment the reduction in demand from, say street lights. You cant use a manufacturing plant with 1M capacity to produce 10k bulbs a years and keep operating. As more big producers exit the MH market, it will get even more expensive for smaller producers like giesemann to keep producing them. Because raw materials and part required to produce these bulbs will get even more expensive with reduction of demand from big players.

Again, using ultimate profitable crop might not be cost driven, but if you were to grow something less profitable, or do something for research, MH cost become important. Especially here in Washington state where I work, in which summers can hit +100F and there is intense waste management on mercury ( like we had to give away our mercury thermometers :().

And yes, I have been in this hobby for 20 years. My dad was in before me,so I had experience with tanks even before I had my own. For the first 10 years I used MH. They were great for growth but I hated the heat radiating from the fixtures as if I am next to the stove even when just standing next to the tank. I than started using T5HOs and now I have a custom RB V2 and T5HO combo.

And about the cars, number of diesel car sales has been more than gas cars in Europe since 2009 until first half of this year. 10 years ago their market share were probably less than 10%, so there is takeover in that sector in certain parts of the world as well.

[jda]

I do not think that I am being clear enough...

There is no risk of losing MH as long as it is the superior source for light. Until LED is truly better, then MH will be fine - this has been promised for a decade and not yet close to a reality. Camera film has always been more detailed and has better depth than digital - film has always been produced and is making a comeback. Vinyl Records always had a place, was still produced and is making a huge comeback since it was always better than digital with better sound quality and dynamics. Neither of these truly ever went away even though they were dwarfed but the front-running and convenience-driven market of new people entering the space. The professional photographer that got in during the digital age is now finding film to be amazing. Audiophiles are into vinyl like crazy once they heard them.

People made money selling turntables to those who demand the best. My McIntosh amps still have tubes in them that are still being made - yes, tubes are still being made. Turntables and tubes in 2018... the stuff is even made in the USA... it is total anarchy!

The same thing is happening here. There is a good mass of people who got in during the LED craze and forsook MH are now seeing that they were oft led improperly and are switching. They are happy with their switch.

The best tech is not much of a risk for getting lost. You can make all kinds of arguments to predict the future, but looking back of a decade of promises that tubes and bulbs will be obsolete and everybody will have LEDs has proven to be both false and not even close to true yet. Once LED truly is better, then start the decade-long clock on dogma, upgrades and phase out.

BTW - if you are the kind of person who can tell a difference in a lossless digital copy of a song and one on a good piece of vinyl (and there is a substantial difference if you are good with details and your ears are good), then even a larger difference between the same tank on LED and MH awaits you. Some people cannot tell. Some people are happy to have the convenience of songs on a phone and do no care about the differences. Ahhh.... but some want the best and vinyl will always be around for them. ...and those that want the best have money to spend and there will always be companies to sell stuff to them.

[shred5]

As a person who actually specifies what lighting goes into a job let me tell you the answer is somewhere in the middle of the argument just like politics.

Tripod is right when it is not profitable anymore they wont make them but that is no where near.

First of all their are so many existing installations of metal halides out there they need the bulbs to be there for the future. They are not ripping them out just to install led. Believe me there are more existing halide lit buildings than led.. Led may have a larger portion of new buildings but not existing buildings.

There are also allot of new buildings going up with halides up even though there are more and more led installations everyday. There are several reason why people still choose halides and florescent fixtures.

One of the biggest reason is allot of buildings are rented out and the owner wants cheap. He does not care about energy because in most cases it is on the renter. He also does not care about maintenance saving money and time changing bulbs unless it is his responsibility. Even if the building is not rented the initial cost of led can be allot higher and with limited budgets they do not want to spend money there and rather put it somewhere else. The price is getting closer between them every day..

Another reason is not everyone is sold on led.
Some just do not like the look .


We are specing more and more led but halides are here for a long time.

Again look at compact florescent which really were bad form day one in the hobby, you still can get them anyway you want.

Halides might be more vulnerable than most other lighting because where they are used led does do a decent job like out door lighting especially in cold weather. One issue is too the same issue is they are too directional.

As far as led Traffic lights they are such crap. you cant see them during the day.

[oreo57]

Data available if one really wants it..
https://theanalystfinancial.com/91969/global-metal-halide-light-sales-market-cost-structure-future-demands-including-key-players/

;)

[Tripod1404]

Data available if one really wants it..
https://theanalystfinancial.com/91969/global-metal-halide-light-sales-market-cost-structure-future-demands-including-key-players/

;)

Too bad the full article need to be purchased :). Ony data I could find on their sales is this;

Basically from 2011 to 2014, there was 20% reduction in sales. If this trend continued the same way, today they should be around 60% of the sales in 2011. 10 years from now it can very well be around 20 percent of 2011. Unless market has resistance at some point that prevents further drop ( liek shred5 explained). But a lot of things can happen in 10 years, new tech can also make them obsolete.

https://www.nema.org/Intelligence/Documents/HID_Lamp_Index_3qtr_14.gif

https://www.nema.org/news/Pages/HID-Lamp-Shipment-Indexes-Relinquish-Recent-Gains.aspx

[oreo57]

https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/12/f46/lmc2015_nov17.pdf

[Playapixie]

Nope. The power consumption and throw-away nature of non-LED technology doesn’t jive with my ethics. It’s not just the lights; with LED I also don’t need to run a chiller or fan.

[Tripod1404]

https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/12/f46/lmc2015_nov17.pdf

Thank you!!

These two graphs are really interesting. First pictures basically shows number of bulbs and the second picture shows electricity used by the bulbs. Not surprisingly, there ware few HID lamps (which are mostly MH and a smaller number of MV) but they consume considerable amount of electricity. In 2001, almost the entire outdoor lighting sector was HID lamps, in terms of number of bulbs. But in 2015, ~1/3 or that sector get absorbed by LED bulbs and those LEDs use a fraction of the electricity the HID bulbs they replaced..

https://imgur.com/a/Lb6nNnT

https://imgur.com/a/7jgBn3q

[Tripod1404]

Nope. The power consumption and throw-away nature of non-LED technology doesn’t jive with my ethics. It’s not just the lights; with LED I also don’t need to run a chiller or fan.

I mean MH, T5 or LED aside, this hobby itself has many ethical issues to start with. In my opinion bulb/fixture choice is negligible when other issues like collection of specimens and mistreatment of fish in general are far more critical.

[jda]

Why is anybody comparing general lighting to specialty applications? If you are, then think globally... I just adopted two kids from Eastern Europe and they still have HID all over the place since they have no money to replace anything... bulbs are cheap to them. The Wal-Mart that I was in last week in Central/Rural Florida still had MH in the ceiling whereas around me they are all T5 and skylight in the nicer areas. Our silos are not really a good indication of what is going on.

I can light my larger tank with MH and reflectors cheaper (initially and ongoing) than with LEDs. Heat is no issue to me - the one month a year it gets to 100 degrees here, it is still 59 at night and my heaters run. You do not save an electricity lighting what I light... you are going to spend the same no matter what you choose.. a singe 250W MH or a trio of Radion G4s at 375 watts (lets go with 125w at the power supply). Even if I wanted to deal with the spread and shadowing issues of just running two, they would still be about 250 watts, so why bother with the inferior performance? Then, my heaters would run all day instead of just in the early AM.

What is the carbon footprint of getting new panels ever 3-4 years? I dunno the answer, but factor this in... manufacturing, shipping from china on a freighter, trucking, disposing of the old ones... not free.

I purchased solar to pay for my tanks and my hot tub (and a bit more) - two things that I cannot even defend in an argument of unnecessary items. There are ethical issues all around this hobby, including whether or not people should be keeping some creatures under inferior lighting that does not allow them to thrive to their fullest... kinda like leaving part of the food pyramid out for humans.

[oreo57]

you woudn't have any MH's for aquariums if "general lighting" didn't use them to begin with. ..

[ReefCowboy]

MH lamps are for sure dropping. Lets face it leds are everywhere, if one runs a warehouse, why run MH’s in todays age. In my house everything is led, EXCEPT my reeftank.

[Bpb]

MH lamps are for sure dropping. Lets face it leds are everywhere, if one runs a warehouse, why run MH’s in todays age. In my house everything is led, EXCEPT my reeftank.



Yeah I’m gradually changing over to LEDs everywhere in the house as I run out of cfl bulbs. Not on the reef tank though though I will admit. Some local friends with radions are getting some pretty amazing growth and color


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Tripod1404]

MH lamps are for sure dropping. Lets face it leds are everywhere, if one runs a warehouse, why run MH’s in todays age. In my house everything is led, EXCEPT my reeftank.

Yeah I’m gradually changing over to LEDs everywhere in the house as I run out of cfl bulbs. Not on the reef tank though though I will admit. Some local friends with radions are getting some pretty amazing growth and color


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Yeah this is my point. I am not saying performance of LEDs are equivalent to MHs in this hobby. What I am saying performance of LEDs are equivalent to or better than MHs in sectors that MHs make the 99% of their sales. Plus LEDs cost a lot less to operate and have longer lifespans.

There is not a single MH manufacturer that only produce bulbs dedicated to aquariums. All the MH bulbs we see are rebranded & modified MH bulbs produced by major bulb producers. For example when giesemann wants MH bulbs they dont produce them themselves. They contract Narva to produce 100k bulbs with a giesemann stamp , buy those and sell them over 5 years. In total it probably takes less than 1-2 weeks for Narva to produce that many lamps for giesemann. I am pretty sure giesemann megachrome bulbs are modified narva nachrome MH bulbs. If sales from other major sectors that actually matter drop (like outside lighting), to a level that MH business in no longer profitable, Narva will shutdown its MH department before Giesemann puts another order. They wont keep a factory up and running to produce 100k bulbs every 5 years for 1 week. This is for every MH we see in the hobby. ATI use Sylvania bulbs, Hamilton use Narva bulbs, Phoenix use Panasonic bulbs.

MH bulbs that were produced for aquarium business was never a major component of MH industry. And they will not be able to keep it alive. MH can become a specialty product, but that will push their prices up and up. They are already expensive bulbs to produce due to many parts and use of rare earth elements. If there is not an option to mass produce them, their prices will sky rocket. If one bulbs costs $200 and needs to be replaced every 1-2 years, how many people even in this hobby continue to use them?

[grigsy]

I always liked this thread.

Count me as one of the hobbyists who used LEDs then switched back to Metal Halides.

I have found nothing better for a reef tank than MH. Better coral growth vs LEDs, a more natural look it gives corals, no shadowing problem to deal with, no disco ball look in my tank, no constant dialing in LEDs and better tank light spread.

Simple plug and play and great results.

[grigsy]

Nope. The power consumption and throw-away nature of non-LED technology doesn’t jive with my ethics. It’s not just the lights; with LED I also don’t need to run a chiller or fan.

I don't use a chiller with MH but when I did used LEDs, I noticed my heater was on a lot more. I wasn't seeing the electrical savings with LEDs that I thought I would.

[oreo57]

you know a funny sidelight to all this is nobody (or really really few) make LED chips "for corals"...

can't find large COB's in royal blue or blue though almost all whites are royal blue w/ phosphors..


wouldn't be hard to manuf a "reef COB" w/ all the spectrum components of any MH or t5..
Well UV is a bit of an exception but really UV isn't "the bandwidth"
But small market.. little incentive.
you are always really dealing w/ hand me down tech, regardless of source.

just for friday fun.. A MH LED 20k equiv..
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=11627&pictureid=79582
Using a base 410nm-ish LED pump and phosphors (though this is ind. chips) almost any T5/MH spectrum can be emulated.
no financial incentive to spend the r/d money or resources on it..



As LED watt efficiency pushes way past MH (currently about 1.5x1) to the 2 or so range even using heaters will not increase above the cost of MH and you will save money .
To be honest and considering other expenses it may or may not be significant.
And of course cost/benefit for the "real users" will shift farther to LED.
It's just Capitalism.. ;)

Then again, like t5's and mh's maybe someone will want to capitalize on it.. We shall see.

[Tripod1404]

oreo57, I think it also comes down to the same problem. This hobby is simply not large enough to generate adequate demand for big producers to go in and R&D any type of bulb or diode, dedicated to growing corals. Let this be LEDs, T5s or MHs, producing a bulb line that is exclusively developed to be used in reef aquarium will simply be a bad investment. Resources that can be used for producing such a bulb or diode, can be used to produce a bulb that has a much wider consumer target and therefore it is more profitable to do that. All we have are modified versions of certain common bulbs or diodes, that are tinkered with to work a bit better at growing corals.

Like I said before, There was some talk at Macna couple of years ago that it is actually possible to produce a single full spectrum T5HO bulb that mimics the light coral reefs get, say at 20 meter. But no such bulb is being produced because no major fluorescent light producer wants to invest in a bulb that would have a very limited and specific consumer target. This fits in line with what you said about the LEDs.

One thing with LEDs though, they are much easier to manufacture. You dont need a very large assembly line to produce diodes. So it might be possible for an small company to go in to the business of producing coral dedicated diodes. They will cost more than regular common diodes, but it can still be competitive in aquarium field. This was not something possible with T5s or MHs as you cant have a small but profitable manufacturing facility for these types of bulbs, unless you want to sale one bulb for $200.

[smatter]

I do not think that I am being clear enough...

There is no risk of losing MH as long as it is the superior source for light. Until LED is truly better, then MH will be fine - this has been promised for a decade and not yet close to a reality. Camera film has always been more detailed and has better depth than digital - film has always been produced and is making a comeback. Vinyl Records always had a place, was still produced and is making a huge comeback since it was always better than digital with better sound quality and dynamics. Neither of these truly ever went away even though they were dwarfed but the front-running and convenience-driven market of new people entering the space. The professional photographer that got in during the digital age is now finding film to be amazing. Audiophiles are into vinyl like crazy once they heard them.

People made money selling turntables to those who demand the best. My McIntosh amps still have tubes in them that are still being made - yes, tubes are still being made. Turntables and tubes in 2018... the stuff is even made in the USA... it is total anarchy!

The same thing is happening here. There is a good mass of people who got in during the LED craze and forsook MH are now seeing that they were oft led improperly and are switching. They are happy with their switch.

The best tech is not much of a risk for getting lost. You can make all kinds of arguments to predict the future, but looking back of a decade of promises that tubes and bulbs will be obsolete and everybody will have LEDs has proven to be both false and not even close to true yet. Once LED truly is better, then start the decade-long clock on dogma, upgrades and phase out.

BTW - if you are the kind of person who can tell a difference in a lossless digital copy of a song and one on a good piece of vinyl (and there is a substantial difference if you are good with details and your ears are good), then even a larger difference between the same tank on LED and MH awaits you. Some people cannot tell. Some people are happy to have the convenience of songs on a phone and do no care about the differences. Ahhh.... but some want the best and vinyl will always be around for them. ...and those that want the best have money to spend and there will always be companies to sell stuff to them.

Can you post up some metrics that back up your audio claims?

[jda]

There are plenty of audio sites for what you are wanting...

Kessil might be the one to come up with a reef diode since they attempt to innovate and make stuff themselves. The rest just assemble what is available and write some bad software.

Maybe Kessil will get to where Hamilton/Reefbrite/Gisemann is is where they can produce their own chips. This would be the most important step forward since blue/white only panels got some other colors. Maybe there is not as much money in LEDs as people think if EcoTech cannot make their own diodes, but Hamilton can make their own bulbs?*

*I know perfectly well that the answer is that EcoTech does not have to make their own diodes since the market has not forced them to, but if they can read tea leaves, their market is pulling back a bit with the converts and they should be out ahead of the curve a bit. Economic issues of 2007 to 2010 affected the front running, trendy and poorly run companies... but the companies that supported the hard-core stayed around.

[Bpb]

While I may not 100% agree on vinyl, I can DEFINITELY agree on the use of tubes vs solid state or digital amplifiers. Once you’ve heard quality tube gear it makes perfect sense and there is zero refuting it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[oreo57]

One thing with LEDs though, they are much easier to manufacture. You dont need a very large assembly line to produce diodes. So it might be possible for an small company to go in to the business of producing coral dedicated diodes. They will cost more than regular common diodes, but it can still be competitive in aquarium field. This was not something possible with T5s or MHs as you cant have a small but profitable manufacturing facility for these types of bulbs, unless you want to sale one bulb for $200.

Yea that's my hope too.. Really is simple..
Violet based pumps have some "issues", primarily efficiency for the most part.
Just not pushing the photons of royal blue base chips..

Fortunately (well in a sense) the "biological effects" of RB (circadian rhythm disruption, blue damage to eyes ect) is pushing the R/D in them as well as high CRI lighting demands.
Sorra, Yuji, and a handful of big players are pursuing it.

Very young tech.

IF violets get up to speed and blue phosphor (high photon intensity is not good for them, a problem that T5's don't have as much due to distribution and material) stability is fixed then RGB phosphor packs will be economically available. Only takes tweaking of the powders. Easily done either directly by manuf. or a 3rd party.

bit surprised it's not done yet really. Think a lot of "CREE" or "Rebel" chips are third parties buying royal blue emitters and glueing on their own phosphor lens..

Piece of cake really..

[smatter]

I'm not referring to amps. I'm interested in the dynamic range of LPs. I'm aware that there are plenty of sites out there, that's why I asked, because the facts are contrary to what was said. Using the perceived superiority of vinyl to support a metal halide argument really leaves nothing more to be said.

[Tripod1404]

There are plenty of audio sites for what you are wanting...

Kessil might be the one to come up with a reef diode since they attempt to innovate and make stuff themselves. The rest just assemble what is available and write some bad software.

Maybe Kessil will get to where Hamilton/Reefbrite/Gisemann is is where they can produce their own chips. This would be the most important step forward since blue/white only panels got some other colors. Maybe there is not as much money in LEDs as people think if EcoTech cannot make their own diodes, but Hamilton can make their own bulbs?*

*I know perfectly well that the answer is that EcoTech does not have to make their own diodes since the market has not forced them to, but if they can read tea leaves, their market is pulling back a bit with the converts and they should be out ahead of the curve a bit. Economic issues of 2007 to 2010 affected the front running, trendy and poorly run companies... but the companies that supported the hard-core stayed around.

I think an issue with diodes is patents. Since most "good" diodes are developed relatively recently (like 5-10 years), they are patent protected for 20 years after development. So right now, it is very hard for a third party to go and develop custom diodes on their own. They would either need to pay a licensing fee and use a patented design to produce their custom diode (and this assumes the patent owner is giving licenses, which might not be the case). Or then need to go deep into R&D and develop their own diode from scratch. Both options are expensive for a company like Ecotech that is not an all around electronics company and probably not experienced with manufacturing diodes, let alone develop them.

This is why Philips going into LED reef lights business is interesting. These guys are a major company that have their own patents and probably can produce any LED they want. So in long term they might be able to develop diodes specific for reef use. They just announced their coral lights department last year or something, so I am excited to see what they will offer in the future.

https://www.philips.co.uk/c-m-li/coralcare

you can check reeeefbuilders- philips coralcare 5 months and counting

[oreo57]

Kessil wrote some pretty bad software.. ;)

[oreo57]

I think an issue with diodes is patents. Since most "good" diodes are developed relatively recently (like 5-10 years), they are patent protected for 20 years after development. So right now, it is very hard for a third party to go and develop custom diodes on their own. They would either need to pay a licensing fee and use a patented design to produce their custom diode (and this assumes the patent owner is giving licenses, which might not be the case). Or then need to go deep into R&D and develop their own diode from scratch. Both options are expensive for a company like Ecotech that is not an all around electronics company and probably not experienced with manufacturing diodes, let alone develop them.

This is why Philips going into LED reef lights business. These guys are a major company that have their own patents. So in long term they might be able to develop diodes specific for this use. They just announced coral department last year or something, so I am excited to see what they will offer in the future.

https://www.philips.co.uk/c-m-li/coralcare

you can check reeeefbuilders- philips coralcare 5 months and counting

nobody has to make their own diodes.. Only need to come up w/ a phosphor formula and contract out.
Thing is it's still "easy" just to add stock diodes in multiple flavors than to bother w/ limited runs w/ higher prices.
SERIOUSLY doubt if the cost is very high since most phosphors will be in stock at any maj manuf.
https://www.yujiintl.com/phosphors
https://www.yujiintl.com/phosphors/view/ZYP650G3-Nitride-Red
I do know (dealing w/ Yuji when I was trying to get constant current strips manufactured using their own diodes) that a setup is cost prohibitive but that was modifying constant voltage patterns .. so board design/manuf comes into play .
THAT is also relatively cheap or expensive based on what a manuf pretends it's worth..

I really believe that if you went to say Phillips and said you want 10,000 Rebel whites w/ x/y/z proportion of phosphors it would be "relatively" cheap but taking profit margins all down the chain is problematic..
If you want 100. that is another story.

Almost all manuf is in China.. Can't be too expensive..

Besides the robots and cost of raw phosphors this is what is "expensive" i.e. not worth the time for reef tanks.. Determine what you want.. Manuf is easy..

Usage: Can be applied to packaging of highly bright white LEDs of CCT 8000K with blue chips.
Can be used to manufacture warm white LEDs with red phosphors.
Can be used to manufacture high color rendering white LEDs with other phosphors, such as red and/or green phosphors..
Directions: Weigh the phosphor and epoxy or silicone in the correct concentration and mix them evenly. Pump in the vacuum chamber to eliminate air bubbles before package in LEDs for testing. Adjust the concentration as needed and repeat the above steps until the desired CIE is achieved (it can also be mixed with other phosphors).

Nobody big wants to spend the R&D on a small market..
Phillips coral care took the easy way.. Just throw chip colors at it..
nothing stopping them from the above..
But of course no adjustments to personal taste..
One color LED panels is really a thing of the past.. a short lived past..

[jda]

Nobody has a patent on a full-range diode from 350-850nm similar to something like a 20K radium. If they do, then were is their prototype? Anybody ever heard of one?

This is totally possible, but since you are no longer cutting spectrum, there are not any super efficiencies (some, but not huge). I think that most people are past the electrical savings argument over reef tanks in 2018, but this is not good for general lighting where cutting spectrum is totally OK. In the end, what are the uses for a LED that saves no power over MH or T5 and still has issues with spread and reflect-ability? ...small tanks, form-factor buyers and people who love the apps and thunderstorms... basically the current market.

These type of units would not really be controllable, though... just lots of the same diode with the spectrum that you choose.

Again, for like the fifth time in just the last few pages... UVL makes it work... Hamilton makes it work... ...there is money in this hobby if you do things well. An aquarium LED company will come up with an order for 100,000 units when the market makes them.

[jda]

The parallel between high end audio and aquarium lighting is a good one. The same type of hobbyist who knows the difference (not just read about it), will pay more and the companies who supply them can still thrive.

If anybody is ever near Boulder and wants to bring by their best digital copy of any well-recorded song, I have a McIntosh and Grand Utopia vinyl system that will make you want to cry it is so good. All that you need is ears... and you can feel the difference as well. However, I will say that some people's ears are not good enough to tell a difference, but most can. I have done this "pepsi challenge" about two dozen times and got nothing but apologies from the people who came over... and they felt as staunch about what they had "read" as anybody ever has.

[oreo57]

. ...there is money in this hobby if you do things well. An aquarium LED company will come up with an order for 100,000 units when the market makes them.

No they won't.. Regardless of your feelings on it .MH is even dying in the reef world..as a percent of the market..

As to tubes.. AFAICT only the Russians make them. Probably due to the fact that a lot of their old military hardware uses/used them..
Less susceptible to an EMP..

As a different kind of example.. "gamers' loved CRT's due the slow refresh rates of LCD's.. Lot of good it did them..

Have no idea if ANY are made anymore.. There were only 3 or so factories (near the end) to start with..

[biecacka]

Better buy my halide bulbs and stock them up for the rest of my years!
:lol:


Corey

[Tripod1404]

Nobody has a patent on a full-range diode from 350-850nm similar to something like a 20K radium. If they do, then were is their prototype? Anybody ever heard of one?



There doesn't need to be a patent on a particular wavelength range. They patent the overall architecture including the optics, circuitry and any novel materiel they used . If a third party wanted to design a LED, they cant just go and work on the wavelength while using an already set LED architecture. They would either need to lease that architecture from the patent owner, or come up with a new architecture that doesn't resemble patented one. Its not easy for non-electronics company to come up with new LED architectures.

And there are few 20K LEDs (most are 10W diodes rarely used in commercial fixtures). Its problematic to use 10W diodes because it limits number of LEDs you can put on the fixture and you cant cluster them. Say if you put 50 such diodes, they alone will be 500W. It will be difficult to cool such a fixture. Last link is actually a 3W 20000K LED and they also show the spectrum, which is pretty wide.

http://ledfedy.com/products/high-power-led/3w-led/3w-white-led-1981.html

https://www.ebay.com/i/251502822560?chn=ps

http://ac-rc.net/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=201


I think some people did try to used these 10W LEDs in clusters in modified metal halide reflectors. The main issue was LEDs getting too hot and breaking down.

[jda]

Some of those wider spectrum ones with some IR look interesting. Too bad that they do not have any UV. The ones with IR will get as hot as MH. The charts look like the IR might continue well past 850 or 1000 just like it does in MH... that kinda sucks... but maybe a better chart would show differently. The 20k radium that we tested in the Integrating sphere lost about 2% of the output above 850... this could be similar if the phosphors are similar.

Here is what will probably happen in the next ten years...
1). I will still be using the same MH that I am now
2). My friends locally and nationally will also be using them and we will still be trading acros
3). Posts all over the place about how LED is "almost there" or "just a generation away"
4). People might slow down on upgrading on the next "gen" of fixtures... might go every other generation on upgrades
5). Most of the people posting now will be long gone onto other hobbies - not all
6). UVL will still probably be making VHO bulbs - not so sure on this one, but they still have a good amount of market share and their demise was also called for MORE than ten years ago
7). Dual and Tri arc MH bulbs might get popular with 30K dawn, 20k morning, 14k daylight, 20k evening and 30k dusk. Dual-arc are getting some run right now.. but never tried one myself.
8). My collection of vinyl records will have better return than my index-based investments.

I pay attention to LED tech because if it ever does get better, then I want to move to it. I am not against switching... just absolutely not a single reason to switch right now... it needs to get better, if it can.

I think that a CITES ban of all coral, or ICN endangered/threatened list might kill the hobby before MH will not be around anymore. I have no idea what will happen to all of the shortcakes (for example) if they get threatened in the Coral Sea and otherwise near Australia.

[oreo57]

Personally, and w/ no proof you are over-emphasizing UV and IR..
I "personally" again think it has little to do w/ it..
UV always needs to be in small doses..and @ the lowest 400nm is sufficient..
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=11627&pictureid=79584

Personally the difference between LED and MH is 1)MH even in rich blue has more spectrum spread.
And 2) (and harder to "fix") led , by their more directional nature, produce a host of issues like internal light "hot spots' and ect.
Probably the biggest issue. Think of it like flashing a laser in a fun house mirror maze

http://www.personal.psu.edu/sbj4/aquarium/articles/MetalHalideLamps2_files/photo3_files/f2fig3.jpg

[jestronix]

I wonder how much research David Saxby and Sanjay Joshi did when they moved from T5 and halide. Davids tank is no easy feat lighting wise, halide and T5 was working , why did they risk led ? I often wonder if David got those lights for free, try them out, if you like them keep them, it was a great marketing move from AI if that's what happened. Heh imagine David secretly drops halides in after the open visit is over lol, rest of the year he's punching halide. Ah the fools he says.

I run two ai primes and they grow coral no problem, apart from shadowing issues. With enough lights this can be illuminated. But I still use halide for 3 hours of peak daylight. I can see the difference in a week or two of running halides, first thing I see is colours, a month later and growth picks up. Every time! When I see a led light do that, I'll go full led. 10k Hamiltons are unreal for growth!

[oreo57]

https://hamiltontechnology.com/image/cache/data/Product%20pictures/10K%20chart-600x600.jpg

10k Hamilton spectrum...

[Bpb]

https://hamiltontechnology.com/image/cache/data/Product%20pictures/10K%20chart-600x600.jpg

10k Hamilton spectrum...



That looks like a very desirable daytime spectrum to me


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[shred5]

UV is not about coral growth or chlorophyll it is about coloration.. Allot of sps bake in the sun or are in very shallow water... Coral have proteins and pigments to block that UV and that adds the colors to the corals. With coral it is not just about chlorophyll because of this. It would be if we just wanted brown corals but we like pretty colors. I could go on with spectrum but also corals can change lighting with proteins to usable spectrum.

With par I think any good fixture puts out plenty and we are closer to photoinhibition. but again some corals can block this if acclimated and also create colors.

This is mainly shallow water sps which is a good chunk of the sps we keep.

The main problem with stuff that shows data on corals is all corals are different. What happens with UV for one coral may not be the same for another coral.

I think the main lighting issues we see in the hobby is keeping corals together that would never be found in nature together. Hence the reason wider spectrum does better like MH.

[oreo57]

UV is not the only "colorant"...........
Of course make sure one uses <400nm for UV


Anyway a different way to look at it.

http://www.qualiteitems.com/images/mh5.jpg

[Bpb]

UV is not the only "colorant"...........
Of course make sure one uses <400nm for UV


Anyway a different way to look at it.

http://www.qualiteitems.com/images/mh5.jpg



It’s always interesting to me that spectrographs of gas burning bulbs are always containing lots of distinct peaks and valleys but led plots are always so smooth and round. Is that just software averaging of few points to make it appear smooth or do these diodes really produce those thousands of slightly different wavelengths at such smooth slopes?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[markalot]

I'd like to know that as well.

My assumption has always been that the tiny sharp peaks in the green are what makes both Halide and T5 look bright to us but so much light that it adversely effects acros. Try and reproduce the visual color with LED and you fry the corals with too much 'white' light.

Just an assumption though.

[oreo57]

It’s always interesting to me that spectrographs of gas burning bulbs are always containing lots of distinct peaks and valleys but led plots are always so smooth and round. Is that just software averaging of few points to make it appear smooth or do these diodes really produce those thousands of slightly different wavelengths at such smooth slopes?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
http://zeiss-campus.magnet.fsu.edu/articles/lightsources/mercuryarc.html
The emission profile of mercury arc lamps is distinct from incandescent lamps in that several prominent emission lines are present in the ultraviolet, blue, green, and yellow spectral regions, which are significantly brighter (up to 100 times) than the continuous background (see Figure 1).


They are quite real.. As to LED.. no probably not as smooth as presented but there are no mercury(or any other) emission spikes worth noting..
Well except for the Royal blue base spike..or any single color, non-phosphor enhanced diode.

note though that most graphs are usually "relative intensity".. The spikes do sort of minimize the rest of the spectrum..

not this one though..
http://zeiss-campus.magnet.fsu.edu/articles/lightsources/images/mercurylampsfigure1.jpg

Only about a third of the output lies in the visible portion of the spectrum, the remainder being confined to the ultraviolet and infrared regions. Ultraviolet emission accounts for about half of the output of the mercury arc lamp, so great care must be taken to protect the eyes as well as living cells that are being illuminated with this source. The remainder of the mercury lamp output is dissipated as heat in the form of infrared radiation.

http://donklipstein.com/spectra.gif

About 10 "natural" spikes from Mercury alone.

"In between".. Tubes.
Mercury plus phosphors..
http://lh3.ggpht.com/_vHwtYfzMc9c/Stqvfr1iCVI/AAAAAAAAAWQ/Kp3_qPu-sME/Slide2_thumb%5B7%5D.jpg?imgmax=800
http://www.ruander.com/2009/10/emission-spectrum.html

https://publiclab.org/notes/dhaffnersr/09-06-2016/cfl-and-led-bulb-study-section-iii

[oreo57]

I'd like to know that as well.

My assumption has always been that the tiny sharp peaks in the green are what makes both Halide and T5 look bright to us but so much light that it adversely effects acros. Try and reproduce the visual color with LED and you fry the corals with too much 'white' light.

Just an assumption though.

Actually believe it is somewhat the opposite..Too much blue not enough other "white components"..

10000K whites and up have little "not blue" unlike a 10000k tube or MH..
spikes aside.
most LED whites are a simple yellow phosphor and royal blue. Decrease the amount of phosphor, increase K temp.
When you get to low k whites, usually throw some red phosphor in there.

[shred5]

I did not say it right UV has more to do than with just coloration. I chose my words wrong. But it has allot to do with coloration and one of the main reason UV is important to us as in the reef hobby. UV can be bad for some corals.

[Tripod1404]

I did not say it right UV has more to do than with just coloration. I chose my words wrong. But it has allot to do with coloration and one of the main reason UV is important to us as in the reef hobby. UV can be bad for some corals.

Actually all colors are important for coral colorization. What is special about UV is our eyes are not sensitive to it. So you dont "see" the illumination light but see the light fluoresced back in visible range (most commonly green). They probably also fluores significantly under white light or say, red light. But since our eyes are sensitive to those wavelength and the fluoresced light is weaker than illumination light, it gets washed out.

For birds that can "see" well into UV range, corals might not look that spectacular under actinic lights. Its also the same reason why cameras have hard time taking pictures with UV, they can also detect light in UV range and so fluoresced light gets washed out.

[shred5]

Actually all colors are important for coral colorization. What is special about UV is our eyes are not sensitive to it. So you dont "see" the illumination light but see the light fluoresced back in visible range (most commonly green). They probably also fluores significantly under white light or say, red light. But since our eyes are sensitive to those wavelength and the fluoresced light is weaker than illumination light, it gets washed out.

For birds that can "see" well into UV range, corals might not look that spectacular under actinic lights. Its also the same reason why cameras have hard time taking pictures with UV, they can also detect light in UV range and so fluoresced light gets washed out.

Never said others were not important. I said why UV is.

[oreo57]

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Fluorescence-emission-maxima-of-corals-and-corallimorpharians-from-Eilat-reefs_fig1_279176540

Yea gets complicated.. Above deals w/ "output" more than input but many pigments have fairly broad absorption bands as well.. There is a good scatter plot of abs vs emissions somewhere.
so yes, many will happily absorb and flouresce using non-UV bandwidths.. but yep, harder to see.
The pigment granules within the chromatophores (0.5–1.0 μm in diameter) show a brilliant light-blue/turquoise autofluorescence (emission between 430 and 500 nm) after excitation with light of 365–410 nm.
UV or not UV???
One thing to note is the depths..
"Natural UV" is gone by at least 50M... in the real world, if not much higher:
All real lakes and oceans are full of contaminants to a varying degree. Some can be quite clear (lakes with granite bottoms, or the ocean near white sand beaches) and some quite turbid (a mud-bottomed lake in Minnesota or northern Ontario, say). But in all cases, the absorption of UV light by the contaminants and suspended particles will totally dominate over the absorption by the water itself.
Geoff Olynyk, Ph.D., Applied Plasma Physics and Fusion Energy, MIT, 2013


In a biological sense UV is rarely ever a good thing.
It may be good for you but not "good" for the corals..

UV exposure can build up protective systems but that is a response to damaging light.

In an artificial system this "need" is certainly questionable.

UV (if you consider real UV) can probably help stimulate production of some florescent pigments.

This isn't saying it is necessary because even high intensity light "close to" (and in some cases far from) the UV spectrum will do the same..
not sure if anyone quantified the amount of pigment produced w/ say 385nm vs 410nm.

Add that you can see them better (doesn't necessarily imply UV produced more) it is "desirable" on a human level..

[lpsouth1978]

I have been out of the Reefing world for a little while now, but I am working on getting back in. I am in the process of deciding on my lighting and thought that I might go back to halides. My most successful tanks in the past have all been halide. I have been using LED basically since thier introduction and have built a number of lights from simple, to extremely complicated. While I had success with these, these tanks never did as well as my halide tanks.

That being said, I am having a heck of a time finding halide systems like those that used to be available. I LOVED my 72" halide/T5 fixtures, but I can NOT find anything like that now. I would like to avoid having multiple fixtures hanging over the tank, but I don't think I will have a choice. Based on my search, I would say that the life of the metal halide may already be declining. Halide may not be dead, but companies are no longer producing the fixtures that many halide users want. This could ultimately limit the number of people who choose to return to Halide's. As of now, I will likely end up with LED
s and T5's.

[shred5]

I have been out of the Reefing world for a little while now, but I am working on getting back in. I am in the process of deciding on my lighting and thought that I might go back to halides. My most successful tanks in the past have all been halide. I have been using LED basically since thier introduction and have built a number of lights from simple, to extremely complicated. While I had success with these, these tanks never did as well as my halide tanks.

That being said, I am having a heck of a time finding halide systems like those that used to be available. I LOVED my 72" halide/T5 fixtures, but I can NOT find anything like that now. I would like to avoid having multiple fixtures hanging over the tank, but I don't think I will have a choice. Based on my search, I would say that the life of the metal halide may already be declining. Halide may not be dead, but companies are no longer producing the fixtures that many halide users want. This could ultimately limit the number of people who choose to return to Halide's. As of now, I will likely end up with LED
s and T5's.

Hamilton makes the same fixture for pretty much ever with the exception is they used to be vho and now t-5:
https://hamiltontechnology.com/index.php?route=product/category&path=17_74

You want something more modern Giesmann offers two fixtures:

http://www.coralvue.com/giesemann-infinity-hqi-metal-halide-t5-fixture

http://www.coralvue.com/giesemann-spectra-se-metal-halide-t5-fixture-iridium

There never was a ton of metal halide manufacturers for the hobby and the others that did like PFO are gone and had nothing to do with halides. PFO got sued over their led fixture and went out of business...

[kevin_e]

I have been out of the Reefing world for a little while now, but I am working on getting back in. I am in the process of deciding on my lighting and thought that I might go back to halides. My most successful tanks in the past have all been halide. I have been using LED basically since thier introduction and have built a number of lights from simple, to extremely complicated. While I had success with these, these tanks never did as well as my halide tanks.

That being said, I am having a heck of a time finding halide systems like those that used to be available. I LOVED my 72" halide/T5 fixtures, but I can NOT find anything like that now. I would like to avoid having multiple fixtures hanging over the tank, but I don't think I will have a choice. Based on my search, I would say that the life of the metal halide may already be declining. Halide may not be dead, but companies are no longer producing the fixtures that many halide users want. This could ultimately limit the number of people who choose to return to Halide's. As of now, I will likely end up with LED
s and T5's.U nevr had many to begin with. Coral Vue and Hamilton are the companies to look at.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

[kevin_e]

Some of those wider spectrum ones with some IR look interesting. Too bad that they do not have any UV. The ones with IR will get as hot as MH. The charts look like the IR might continue well past 850 or 1000 just like it does in MH... that kinda sucks... but maybe a better chart would show differently. The 20k radium that we tested in the Integrating sphere lost about 2% of the output above 850... this could be similar if the phosphors are similar.

Here is what will probably happen in the next ten years...
1). I will still be using the same MH that I am now
2). My friends locally and nationally will also be using them and we will still be trading acros
3). Posts all over the place about how LED is "almost there" or "just a generation away"
4). People might slow down on upgrading on the next "gen" of fixtures... might go every other generation on upgrades
5). Most of the people posting now will be long gone onto other hobbies - not all
6). UVL will still probably be making VHO bulbs - not so sure on this one, but they still have a good amount of market share and their demise was also called for MORE than ten years ago
7). Dual and Tri arc MH bulbs might get popular with 30K dawn, 20k morning, 14k daylight, 20k evening and 30k dusk. Dual-arc are getting some run right now.. but never tried one myself.
8). My collection of vinyl records will have better return than my index-based investments.

I pay attention to LED tech because if it ever does get better, then I want to move to it. I am not against switching... just absolutely not a single reason to switch right now... it needs to get better, if it can.

I think that a CITES ban of all coral, or ICN endangered/threatened list might kill the hobby before MH will not be around anymore. I have no idea what will happen to all of the shortcakes (for example) if they get threatened in the Coral Sea and otherwise near Australia.That's not happening. The hobby, while a strain, has provided a lot of awareness, research/funding and opportunities to save reefs. Not to mention, many corals are grown in captivity now. Those coral won't be protected and shouldn't.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

[jda]

UV (if you consider real UV) can probably help stimulate production of some florescent pigments.

Yes, but it can help with illumination as well as developing pigments.

When you consider both the things that light does for color, being 1). reflected as-is, and 2). used and reflected at a lower energy, then it is easy to see how true UV from 350-400 can be used by a coral and expelled in the low visible range. For example... 380nm goes in, 405nm comes out... if 400 is the low part of your panel, then 425 (in this crude example) is as low as you will see with your eyes.

The people who have seen true-UV light sources work will speak of better purples and blues, which is to be expected. Better color with UV is undeniable to them.

[devocole]

On the topic of UV. I bought a Giesemann Infiniti with 1 UV shield broken(glass below the bulb). Would one recommend I buy the $150 replacement UV glass from Germany or go with $20 regular glass.
I appreciate the insight.

[Tripod1404]

On the topic of UV. I bought a Giesemann Infiniti with 1 UV shield broken(glass below the bulb). Would one recommend I buy the $150 replacement UV glass from Germany or go with $20 regular glass.
I appreciate the insight.



MH bulbs should have their own UV shields. That being said, if it has a UV shield on the fixture, I would still replace it. There must be a reason for them to use it.

Some years ago, somehow the UV shield on my MH bulb shattered while I was at work. Bulb was on for maybe few hours before I returned back to home and realized it. Most of the corals directly under that bulb bleached in few days.

UV is nice for corals in small doses. It can still kill in large quantities.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[robi0543]

On the topic of UV. I bought a Giesemann Infiniti with 1 UV shield broken(glass below the bulb). Would one recommend I buy the $150 replacement UV glass from Germany or go with $20 regular glass.
I appreciate the insight.Standard glass will do as it is blocking uv rays .
Just make sure it is not a quartz glass as this glass allows to uv rays

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[oreo57]

Yes, but it can help with illumination as well as developing pigments.

When you consider both the things that light does for color, being 1). reflected as-is, and 2). used and reflected at a lower energy, then it is easy to see how true UV from 350-400 can be used by a coral and expelled in the low visible range. For example... 380nm goes in, 405nm comes out... if 400 is the low part of your panel, then 425 (in this crude example) is as low as you will see with your eyes.

The people who have seen true-UV light sources work will speak of better purples and blues, which is to be expected. Better color with UV is undeniable to them.


Yes but that is a qualitative thing for the most part and probably subjective due to the "eye dim" light..
This has stuff supporting both positions:

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0128697

The chromophore of this specific type of GFP-like protein requires exposure to light in the spectral range between 360 to 430 nm (maximal efficiency at 390 nm) in order to undergo the irreversible photochemical reaction that changes the chromophore from a green(514 nm) to a red (578 nm) emitting form
Previous studies showed that the expression of GFP-like proteins in shallow water corals is often upregulated at the transcriptional level by the light intensity, specifically by blue light [19]



For example... 380nm goes in, 405nm comes out... if 400 is the low part of your panel, then 425 (in this crude example)


Hmm not exactly sure it works that way.. will check.
Most studies have little concern for "exact" output and has it's own natural spread.

Certainly not saying UV isn't "helpful" for certain things.
Only saying that , in general, the "necessity" is user select-able.
It's not a "critical component "
And in high levels def. not desirable.

The normal bandwidth (400-700) is good enough.. for most..
and UV probably doesn't have much to do w/ growth other than the normal PAR addition..

Probably the best support of UV from that article..
http://www.qualiteitems.com/images/uvplus.jpg

Long-term experimental exposure of Echinophyllia sp. to low intensity of cyan light (~480 nm), which lacked wavelengths <430 nm resulted in a colour change from orange-red to green. This greening could be reversed by a brief, local exposure to short wavelength light (~380 nm).

Troublesome thing about statements like that is what about 400nm? 410?

[shred5]

Yes but that is a qualitative thing for the most part and probably subjective due to the "eye dim" light..
This has stuff supporting both positions:

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0128697







Hmm not exactly sure it works that way.. will check.
Most studies have little concern for "exact" output and has it's own natural spread.

Certainly not saying UV isn't "helpful" for certain things.
Only saying that , in general, the "necessity" is user select-able.
It's not a "critical component "
And in high levels def. not desirable.

The normal bandwidth (40-700) is good enough.. for most..
and UV probably doesn't have much to do w/ growth other than the normal PAR addition..

See studies mean nothing if it is on coral that comes from 50 feet vs 10 feet. Again all corals are not the same period, You can not group all corals together. One study on one type of corals may mean nothing for anther group.. Sps that come from shallow water are exposed to UV.. Sps are were the real difference between halides and leds. In my opinion other than self shading it is the draw back of leds. Softies have no issues with leds the big difference is in sps. i have had no issues with softies and very few with most lps.

Tullio Dellaquila has talked about this several times and why they still offer halides. I think Tullio other than maybe Dana Riddle is one of the smartest people when in comes to reef lighting.

Edit:
I do think UV can be harmful to some corals.

[oreo57]

not arguing for or against MH's and yes understand the difference between deep and shalllow corals, though some can do both.

like humans.. we do fine under sunlight. Doesn't mean we can't get skin cancer..;)

Halides broader spectrum's and huge watts.. w/ efficiencies close to LED's

My "take" on any discussion is 1)spread 2)spectrum and # of photons.

all of which is more than capable w/ LED's, just a matter of choices..
Lot of the LED PR damage is artificial by lack of knowledge and/or economics...

Unless a true 'full spectrum' mega diode led is ever developed I don't think there's any chance of halide being dethroned.
That is more than possible already...that is the main point..

Just the fact that few use cyans over green is an issue.. And why? Harder to get or their supply chain doesn't even offer them

400-ish base diodes are available as well as phosphors to "convert" it to any spectrum you want/desire..
Efficiencies of output are approaching 2x that of the best MH's on a watt/watt basis.

It's like its not LEDs it's "those" LEDs that makes the difference..

Phillips and Orphek are on the best track..

at least he understands photons are photons.. ;)

[markalot]

It's like its not LEDs it's "those" LEDs that makes the difference..

Phillips and Orphek are on the best track..

Are they though? I'm still not convinced Halide and T5 performance is not a happy accident, so what are they shooting for? Better sun spectrum or better hobby spectrum? Not sure I made sense there, but hopefully. :)

[jda]

Oreo - you are almost there...

The last part is to realize that there is no efficiency once you can capture the whole spectrum. MH does have waste from 2 to 5% (on what we tested) on IR above what anybody could argue is useful at 850nm... there is no getting this back. Other than this, the replace the same radiated watts with the same spectrum is a wash. There is also some ballast loss in some ballasts just like power supply loss.

A good spectrometer in preferably an integrating sphere can easily tell you this. Lots of Engineering Schools have these that you can probably use if you ask. I asked twice and got access at two different schools to use theirs.

The only efficiences in LED are perceived by either cutting spectrum, or using an inappropriate tool like a LUX meter that does not tell the whole story. Twice the lux at a wattage from a diode made to only deliver spectrum in the LUX meter range 450 to 650nm, is not the same as output from 350 to 850nm from a full-spectrum light source. It is a simpleton measurement made for general lighting that was/is used to trick people in this hobby when all of the nuance about the measurement is not given.

The best benefit with LED, IMO, is that it made people realize that they did not need as much light as they thought. People went from 400w halides and T5/VHOs and replaced them with 190w panels, but this was more of a referendum on not needing 400w halides, than the new lights. Some of those same people are back to 150w halides now with even less wattage and better results. There was a bit of a "how big is my Johnson" paradigm in the 1990s and early 2000s with getting as high of wattage MH as you could get... kinda stupid.

Again, I will state that if you had any appreciable experience with both, there is no way that you could state that LED is "more than capable." This might be true on the internet or in theory, but even the best LED aficionados will tell you, if you want to listen, that they are living with inadequacies to the coral for benefit in other area. You are not going to be able to get here without experience.

The more recent PR damage to LEDs are the people who do not believe the BS anymore. This has worn thin on them. They don't have to understand why... they can see it in their own homes.

[oreo57]

I've been "there".. just not finalized..
Yes it's theory.. w/ practical consequences.. Why aren't people using more cyan?..
Blue-green has probably the second best depth penetration and high photosynthetic efficiency.
AND way short in LED's

Let's shift gears a bit and concentrate strictly on MH's..


Which would offer the best growth?
high UV: Actinic only: 20000K: 14000K: 6500K........won't go lower though you still can..

Why is one or the other "better"?

People went from 400w halides and T5/VHOs and replaced them with 190w panels
Yes mistakes were made.. ;)
watt efficiency wasn't quite 1:1 at that time and the directional efficiency wasn't quite up to snuff. But again the Blue:not blue ratio was HORRIBLE (whites being mostly blue w/ a smattering of yellow phosphor)..
Looked good though..and the "numbers" matched" ie. 14000k vs 14000K.
Again mistakes were made..

I see them as equals in potential, you don't..

Certainly one isn't better than the other (in "theory". ;)) until one gets into versatility and control, but a completely separate topic really..

[jda]

I get best growth and color rendition under 6500k. Illumination is not good. 20K has better illumination, but growth is slower and rendered color is not as good, IMO.

I use 14K Phoenix and 20k Radium (they are really like a 14k, more than a 20k), because this is a good compromise to do both. I also use these because I do not need to supplement them at all, which saves in fixtures, bulbs and electricity.

I do grow clams and acros in my frag tank under 6500K bulbs (6.5k - did I do that right?). I just want the clams to live through the first three months (the tough part) and the frags to grow as fast as possible in here.

I don't care about potential. I come from a baseball background (players with every potential trait and skill getting passed by those who can execute) and then was a 10x SE in the valley (grads and PhD candidates from top-5 engineering schools full of potential that did not last three months). Potential can suck it as far as I am concerned - I have seen lives wasted banking on potential when nobody would nut-up and tell people the truth about what they were. I digress... Once somebody actually turns that potential into something, then I all ears - this is why I pay attention to LED tech so that I am ready if it comes. I am NOT going to be the one who turns that potential into something - I know this for sure.

The academic in me loves potential. I am a graduate of a good Engineering School and loved my time there talking about all kinds of "potential" projects like solar, perpetual energy, etc. However, that side of me is depressed by the side that needs results... probably 75/25. Results send my kids to college, built my retirement, built my past and future and grow my corals. Most people on boards are looking for results, not academia, so I like to point out the differences.

Then, the business person in me realizes that all of the potential in the world will never get developed if there is not big-time money to be made, or an absolute love and commitment - you need either, but both works best. When I was at Google, we shut down a project because they thought that it would only be worth 5 billion a year in 2-3 years and that was not good enough of a gain for them - nobody loved this project. LED innovation for reefing will need to come out of love and respect since a big pile of cash is probably not there. When you take the established companies, they are working out of love and commitment to their employees, community, lifestyle, etc and will keep going as long as they can make the numbers work and make just enough profit for everybody to get by - it is a different paradigm when starting fresh.

...so I am interested, but I do not care about potential. If somebody figures it out, I will pay them for their work and use it. Until then, I just pay attention so that I can find the parallels in development in the next new thing a few decades from now... either in success or failure.

[oreo57]

So why is 6500k "the best"?
IR and UV are probably equal in the other MH's spectrum..

See where this is going.......

http://jeb.biologists.org/content/jexbio/206/22/4041/F4.medium.gif

http://www.personal.psu.edu/sbj4/aquarium/articles/MetalHalideLamps2_files/photo1_files/f2fig1.jpg

https://glarminy.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/led-color-temperature-vs-spectral-power-distribution-normalized.gif
BETTER 6500k diodes:
http://www.fiilex.com/images/product/V70/V70_Light-Quality_img01.jpg

[shred5]

Oreo - you are almost there...

The last part is to realize that there is no efficiency once you can capture the whole spectrum. MH does have waste from 2 to 5% (on what we tested) on IR above what anybody could argue is useful at 850nm... there is no getting this back. Other than this, the replace the same radiated watts with the same spectrum is a wash. There is also some ballast loss in some ballasts just like power supply loss.

A good spectrometer in preferably an integrating sphere can easily tell you this. Lots of Engineering Schools have these that you can probably use if you ask. I asked twice and got access at two different schools to use theirs.

The only efficiences in LED are perceived by either cutting spectrum, or using an inappropriate tool like a LUX meter that does not tell the whole story. Twice the lux at a wattage from a diode made to only deliver spectrum in the LUX meter range 450 to 650nm, is not the same as output from 350 to 850nm from a full-spectrum light source. It is a simpleton measurement made for general lighting that was/is used to trick people in this hobby when all of the nuance about the measurement is not given.

The best benefit with LED, IMO, is that it made people realize that they did not need as much light as they thought. People went from 400w halides and T5/VHOs and replaced them with 190w panels, but this was more of a referendum on not needing 400w halides, than the new lights. Some of those same people are back to 150w halides now with even less wattage and better results. There was a bit of a "how big is my Johnson" paradigm in the 1990s and early 2000s with getting as high of wattage MH as you could get... kinda stupid.

Again, I will state that if you had any appreciable experience with both, there is no way that you could state that LED is "more than capable." This might be true on the internet or in theory, but even the best LED aficionados will tell you, if you want to listen, that they are living with inadequacies to the coral for benefit in other area. You are not going to be able to get here without experience.

The more recent PR damage to LEDs are the people who do not believe the BS anymore. This has worn thin on them. They don't have to understand why... they can see it in their own homes.


Well that is the thing. The whole reason people like Jason fox are pushing this 100 percent blue spectrum is because led can not do what halides or even t-5 can do. The new people in the hobby are falling for the marketing and it is a reason to sell brown or washed out coral but they fluoresce well under leds. Led just can not get the true colors on some coral so they focus on fluorescence. i know we discussed this before but Walt Disney coral looks washed out pale coral under 14k lighting for example but under royal blue leds wow.. Nothing wrong with fluorescence but focusing on just that? I mean just blue lighting does not look good or right to me.

Again it does not bother me if people like blue lighting or Jason Fox likes it, not my reef. If I sold coral I would sell too both crowds, it is the smart thing to do as a retailer.. In away they are experts at marketing getting a whole hobby to change what they like. I really should not say the whole hobby because like you said in anther thread it is the reason these corals drop so fast in price.

[jda]

I do see where this is going... people all end up back to sunlight sooner or later... then have to modify a bit for aesthetics. I have been here for a few decades.

Why is 6500 the best? Color is subjective, so let's put this aside...although the vast majority are on the same side on this one. As for growth and health, I do not know. Nobody does. Anybody who thinks that they do is fooling themselves. There are some good ideas and some initial studies with some data points, but this is not yet even information and still far from knowledge.

The easiest and probably most true answer is that the coral spent all kinds of unknown time adapting and evolving to be as efficient as possible in this environment under sunlight. 6500k is as close to this as we have, so that is why it is the best.

True science observes nature and seeks to prove that nature/dogma is not right. This pseudo-science that is reef lighting does the opposite having to prove that adding back in things that are found in nature. Only the hubris of man uses charts and graphs and studies to try and understand what is right in front of our faces... sunlight is the gold-standard. Rather than prove that UV or IR is necessary, we should be providing it until it is proven that it is not.

I just read last month that a new organ in the human body was discovered. Imagine all of the hurt feelings from people who thought that they knew how a body worked. :)

BTW - there is more UV in every 6500k bulb that I have used... they get a lot hotter as a result. 10k are hot too. True 20k bulbs are not as much of a heat concern as lower temps because of the less UV.

This is late to the party, but I also want to add in health to color rendition and illumination. People did not have issues with alk or parameter swings under tubes or bulbs, but do under LED. Lights have a big role in health where it seems that any light can "grow" coral under idea water conditions, but especially acropora under LED are far more prone to die when something happens in the tank. Believe it or not, acropora were easier to grow a decade ago when people only used the higher quality light.

[Tripod1404]

I do see where this is going... people all end up back to sunlight sooner or later... then have to modify a bit for aesthetics. I have been here for a few decades.

Why is 6500 the best? Color is subjective, so let's put this aside...although the vast majority are on the same side on this one. As for growth and health, I do not know. Nobody does. Anybody who thinks that they do is fooling themselves. There are some good ideas and some initial studies with some data points, but this is not yet even information and still far from knowledge.

The easiest and probably most true answer is that the coral spent all kinds of unknown time adapting and evolving to be as efficient as possible in this environment under sunlight. 6500k is as close to this as we have, so that is why it is the best.

True science observes nature and seeks to prove that nature/dogma is not right. This pseudo-science that is reef lighting does the opposite having to prove that adding back in things that are found in nature. Only the hubris of man uses charts and graphs and studies to try and understand what is right in front of our faces... sunlight is the gold-standard. Rather than prove that UV or IR is necessary, we should be providing it until it is proven that it is not.

I just read last month that a new organ in the human body was discovered. Imagine all of the hurt feelings from people who thought that they knew how a body worked. :)

BTW - there is more UV in every 6500k bulb that I have used... they get a lot hotter as a result. 10k are hot too. True 20k bulbs are not as much of a heat concern as lower temps because of the less UV.

This is late to the party, but I also want to add in health to color rendition and illumination. People did not have issues with alk or parameter swings under tubes or bulbs, but do under LED. Lights have a big role in health where it seems that any light can "grow" coral under idea water conditions, but especially acropora under LED are far more prone to die when something happens in the tank. Believe it or not, acropora were easier to grow a decade ago when people only used the higher quality light.

I absolutely agree with sun being the best light source. Right half of my tank gets afternoon sunlight for ~1-3 hours depending on the season. I originally did not design it that way but about 10 years ago a blue pine tree next to to my house died and the tank stated to get sunlight after that. In summers I filter it trough a thin curtain but in winter, I mostly let sunlight get directly on to the tank. Corals of any kind (mostly light loving corals) on that side of the tank are the happiest and grow maybe 2 times faster than corals on the other side. There are some large colonies that are in between sun and no sun zone, you can easily see the difference based on color, growth pattern and rate based on the side of the colony that gets sunlight and side of the colony that doesn't get it. They also grow towards the window even if its only 1-3 hours versus ~10H of total light period. One nice feature is you can see how the colors of corals (mainly acros) change with season. Almost all get bright florescent green in summer while in winter they change back to purples, blues and yellows as suns intensity drops. Its funny that non of them were green acros when I get them, but I feel like all acros have the capacity to become green with enough light.

This tank had MH, T5s and LEDs (now T5 led combo) over the years, nothing come even close to the sun. I seriously think about building my next tank in a sun room. My only concern is heat and cold in the summer and winter as my sun room is not really heated or cooled aside from leaving the door to it from the house open. And I fear algae can take over the tank very rapidly if I run into some nutrient problems. I am also concerned about the intensity of the summer midday sun. All the people I talked about this said it can bleach corals, especially the ones that are not naturally found in the shallows or corals that were grown under artificial lights for extended periods of time. I would probably need to put some shading cloth or panels at certain angles to filter out the midday sun. The problem is, sun moves with seasons.

Also I dont agree acropora were easier to grow a decade ago. Imo very few acro were being imported and we were basically only getting the hardiest species/varieties as other were either not collected or died during the transport. Unwillingly, we basically generated and artificial selection system that only allowed hardy species to make it to our tanks. Few rare and less hardy species that made it were astronomically expensive. My friends in Australia had great acros (like smoothskin acros that blew my mind), since they could probably transport them more easily, but what I could find in US those days were slimiers and/or miliporas. Now with better collection and transport practices, we got more acros, some of them do very poorly in captivity.

[jda]

Most of all of the non-trendy corals that people covet have been around for more than a decade. ...shortcake, GARF Bonsai, Red Planet, Pearlberry, Cali Tort, Miyagi/Becker torts, OBT, Purple Monster, Palmers Blue Mille, 20k & 30K Lokani, Banana Lokani, Atlantis Ruby Red Granulosa or anything from Atlantis, anything from Westside Reefs (including the deepwaters like Longhorn), Leng Sy, etc. The corals were just as good. ORA had outstanding milles and acros in the early 2000s before the hurricane. I can still get $100+ for a chunky frag of most of these and they all come from the "golden age" of named acropora of 1998 to about 2007.

Efflo, solis & tables were also much easier to keep and find when people did not use LEDs. I miss seeing these around, but small tanks also helped with their semi-demise since they can get pretty big. These are almost a no-go in a small cube with LED.

I am in a high-sun area. Light tubes are in my future to work alongside my MH, but I will need a different home before I can make this work out.

[oreo57]

Rather than prove that UV or IR is necessary, we should be providing it until it is proven that it is not.

ANY successes w/ "old style" LED's proves that..
doesn't have to be the best or most colorful..
Only healthy and growing.
doesn't even depend how "fast"
Sort of a low bar..

One just needs to look around..

most LED's don't even have "real" UV and zero IR to speak of..

Your definition of necessary is colored by your needs that probably 95% of the reefing world.. ..doesn't need.. commercial production.

your dislike of LED's is more subjective than objective barring the commercial aspect.

[jda]

Yes, they can grow some coral, which leads me to one of my peeves where people will post "any of them will grow coral!" Which coral? Why just growth and not the other important factors? This irks me a bunch like they are knowingly misleading people who might not be acutely aware enough to dissect the wording. I will not say that they are healthy... too many issues with shipping, parameter swings and other issues that are no problem in other systems to claim that they are healthy. I will only go with alive, not healthy.

Again, this is not proof, just an anecdote. Eating only McDonalds is not really proof that it is all that humans need to thrive... but there is probably no "proof" that McDonalds is not alone enough, either. Surviving with/without something is not proof that you could not do better without/with it. My grandmother smoked until she was 94 with no cancer or health problems - does this prove that smoking does not cause cancer? My apologies... I hate false equivalencies.

No, most LED do not have IR or UV to speak of... which is why a lot of get T5 bulbs added to them as the hobbyist gets a more breath and depth of experience. Has anybody ever seen a post where somebody added T5s to their panels and regretted it? Seriously? I am sure that they exist, but I cannot think of one off the top of my head. I am genuinely curious.

[oreo57]

Yes, they can grow some coral,
how about a list of ones LED's don't grow at all..


most t5's have very little UV and only a smidge of IR
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=11627&pictureid=79595

No, most LED do not have IR or UV to speak of... which is why a lot of get T5 bulbs added to them as the hobbyist gets a more breath and depth of experience.

mostly added for spread not spectrum and besides .. you are ADDING "PAR"..and generally a lot of it..

ORPHEK and Phillips..........
https://orphek.com/led/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/orphek-atlantik-v4-vs-philips-coral-care-.png

https://orphek.com/best-light-spectrum-coral-growth/

Even w/ LED's IR is "theoretical"..
Theory:

Infrared light appears to play a role in the conversion of coral in synthesis and oxidation. However, there is still no proof of this.

However, it is proven in higher algae and tangs.
There is enough literature on the internet for this.
950Nm does not seem to matter due to the water penetration.

But what happens at low tide is uncertain.
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.salzwasserwelten.de%2Farbeitsblaetter%2Flicht%2Finfrarot-licht-nutzbar%2F&edit-text=

UV is "dumped" into a range :
This produces the chlorophyll S2, which forms carotenes and is much stronger in the oxidation than in the near Uv / Uv range of 360-420 Nm.

[Tripod1404]

Yes, they can grow some coral, which leads me to one of my peeves where people will post "any of them will grow coral!" Which coral? Why just growth and not the other important factors? This irks me a bunch like they are knowingly misleading people who might not be acutely aware enough to dissect the wording. I will not say that they are healthy... too many issues with shipping, parameter swings and other issues that are no problem in other systems to claim that they are healthy. I will only go with alive, not healthy.

Again, this is not proof, just an anecdote. Eating only McDonalds is not really proof that it is all that humans need to thrive... but there is probably no "proof" that McDonalds is not alone enough, either. Surviving with/without something is not proof that you could not do better without/with it. My grandmother smoked until she was 94 with no cancer or health problems - does this prove that smoking does not cause cancer? My apologies... I hate false equivalencies.

No, most LED do not have IR or UV to speak of... which is why a lot of get T5 bulbs added to them as the hobbyist gets a more breath and depth of experience. Has anybody ever seen a post where somebody added T5s to their panels and regretted it? Seriously? I am sure that they exist, but I cannot think of one off the top of my head. I am genuinely curious.

Lol I regretted adding T5HOs once because, I somehow knocked the bulb of the fixture and it dropped into the tank.

Aside from that I like them. Though I mainly like them for reducing shadowing issues.

[oreo57]

This is just for "fun"
Atlantik V4 "mini"...
https://www.bulkreefsupply.com/atlantik-compact-v4-led-light-fixture-orphek.html
LED Specifications:

42 high-efficiency 5w Dual-Chip LEDs that span between 380nm and 850nm

20000K - 4x
5000K - 4x
380nm - 2x
410nm - 2x
420nm - 2x
430nm - 2x
440nm - 2x
460nm - 10x
470nm - 4x
500nm - 2x
525nm - 2x
590nm - 2x
850nm - 2x
W-R - 2x

[Big_ Macc]

Hi all. Just my 2 cents. Im an EE. I did some research online and built a set of LED fixtures using the no name "3W" LEDs off ebay. Based on the light spectrum over a tropical reef at the equator, I picked 465nm, 450nm, 410nm, and 10k wavelengths. Ive got 5 of each staggered on an rough extruded aluminum scaffold that I got from Home depot, one 18inch length for each side of a 55gallon. I control them with an arduino mega 2560 sending four individual pwm signals to CAT4100 series LED drivers from ON semiconductor. I limit the max current to 700mA, and the PWM to between 3% and 90%. I wrote code for the arduino that simulates the diurnal cycle of the sun and translated it to PWM duty cycle so the the LEDs automatically cycle throughout the day with max intensity at noon. I added a moonlight cycle as well using a real time clock. Sorry for the run on description, but to make a long story short, Ive had it running for about 8 months and have had great results. Corals adapt to their environment, if you choose the key wavelengths, 410, 450, 460nm, they can adapt and be happy. My corals are all frags and have at least doubled in size since I started using the LEDs.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

[oreo57]

shhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.....;)

[Tripod1404]

Corals adapt to their environment, if you choose the key wavelengths, 410, 450, 460nm, they can adapt and be happy.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

I kinda agree with this. I am very skeptical that light in red and infrared spectrum is essential for corals or even provide any major benefits. That idea is mainly based on "Emerson effect". It basically shows that light around 700nm stimulates photosynthesis by activating photosystem I. The issue is, Emerson effect is studied mainly on land plants that are subjected to red and infrared in their natural envoriments.

Under water, light with waveleghts above 650nm do not penetrate more than 10 meters and this is for midday at tropics. On average coral reefs are found at depths 30-40 meters, so with the exception of corals that are found at extreme shallows, they all basically grow at light below 550nm. So what zoox use for photosynthesis for the majority of corals is mainly between 460nm to 350nm.

Image below shows the light penetration. Light blue is surface, blue is 5 meters and dark blue is 15 meters.

https://www.advancedaquarist.com/2012/10/aafeature_album/image005.jpg/image_full

https://www.advancedaquarist.com/2012/10/aafeature

https://www.advancedaquarist.com/2018/4/aafeature?utm_source=nivoslider&utm_medium=slider&utm_campaign=clickthru

[Big_ Macc]

Haha! Those are the same charts I used!

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

[oreo57]

I kinda agree with this. I am very skeptical that light in red and infrared spectrum is essential for corals or even provide any major benefits.

Ultraviolet and red wavelengths are gradually removed from the spectrum resulting in a blue-green underwater light field at greater depths


Think most people stop a bit short on wavelength..should go up to at least 500nm.
I also believe that the higher intensity light you give the more you need "not blue" light..

corals behave completely different than land plants where the lack of blue (or more correctly more red) implies "shade" and different systems or different equilibriums are reached.

W/ corals red implies high light and as blue increases implies less light..relatively speaking.




Oh and currently deep water corals are receiving, in some cases, a broader spectrum due to the blue to green/yellow/red shift of fluorescent pigments..

The trend that fluorescence in mesophotic corals tends to be red-shifted compared to the shallow water representatives further points to a distinct biological function in corals from deeper habitats. Alternative functions of FPs, which have been discussed, include modulation of the activity of regulatory photosensors analogous to phytochromes and cryptochromes of higher plants [56], links to visual ecology of the reef fishes [57,58] and PAR enhancement [12]. Future experimental studies are required to confirm the function of fluorescence in mesophotic corals.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0128697

[jestronix]

I absolutely agree with sun being the best light source. Right half of my tank gets afternoon sunlight for ~1-3 hours depending on the season. I originally did not design it that way but about 10 years ago a blue pine tree next to to my house died and the tank stated to get sunlight after that. In summers I filter it trough a thin curtain but in winter, I mostly let sunlight get directly on to the tank. Corals of any kind (mostly light loving corals) on that side of the tank are the happiest and grow maybe 2 times faster than corals on the other side. There are some large colonies that are in between sun and no sun zone, you can easily see the difference based on color, growth pattern and rate based on the side of the colony that gets sunlight and side of the colony that doesn't get it. They also grow towards the window even if its only 1-3 hours versus ~10H of total light period. One nice feature is you can see how the colors of corals (mainly acros) change with season. Almost all get bright florescent green in summer while in winter they change back to purples, blues and yellows as suns intensity drops. Its funny that non of them were green acros when I get them, but I feel like all acros have the capacity to become green with enough light.

This tank had MH, T5s and LEDs (now T5 led combo) over the years, nothing come even close to the sun. I seriously think about building my next tank in a sun room. My only concern is heat and cold in the summer and winter as my sun room is not really heated or cooled aside from leaving the door to it from the house open. And I fear algae can take over the tank very rapidly if I run into some nutrient problems. I am also concerned about the intensity of the summer midday sun. All the people I talked about this said it can bleach corals, especially the ones that are not naturally found in the shallows or corals that were grown under artificial lights for extended periods of time. I would probably need to put some shading cloth or panels at certain angles to filter out the midday sun. The problem is, sun moves with seasons.

Also I dont agree acropora were easier to grow a decade ago. Imo very few acro were being imported and we were basically only getting the hardiest species/varieties as other were either not collected or died during the transport. Unwillingly, we basically generated and artificial selection system that only allowed hardy species to make it to our tanks. Few rare and less hardy species that made it were astronomically expensive. My friends in Australia had great acros (like smoothskin acros that blew my mind), since they could probably transport them more easily, but what I could find in US those days were slimiers and/or miliporas. Now with better collection and transport practices, we got more acros, some of them do very poorly in captivity.

I've had two of my tanks under sunlight and the health and growth is insane. It's without doubt the best, but it's so hard to control intensity and well, I ended up with brown sticks. Tidal Gardens uses a green house with sunlight, but ended shading most of the sunlight and running T5, soon they are going no sunlight. I can understand why, it's about the market, they want colour!

So far 10K XM halide,has produced results for me. I'd still like to try plasma!

[Bpb]

ORA Has a lot of sun grown corals and their colors are pretty good


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[dz6t]

There are so many talk, speculation, misunderstood science and misinformation plus personal sentiments in this thread.
Coral are highly adaptable, as long as the algae inside the coral is producing food via photosynthesis for the coral, the host coral will grow regardless which spectrum the algae is using for photosynthesis.
No IR? No problem.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[markalot]

Hi all. Just my 2 cents. Im an EE. I did some research online and built a set of LED fixtures using the no name "3W" LEDs

...

adapt and be happy. My corals are all frags and have at least doubled in size since I started using the LEDs.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

I'll say it since maybe I can cover sole older ground here. :D

Looks is subjective. The point many Halide (and T5) users are making here is that once these are added, or switched back too, performance AND coloration AND health skyrockets, given good water quality.

The question is why?

The common argument is LED works for me! It's a non sequitur.

Another question, that has not been answered to my satisfaction, is if any LED combination can produce the results I get by adding T5's for a few hours a day. The reality is that if you can take a light that exactly matches one of the MH bulb types WITH equal spread (so not only spectrum but also spread w reflector) the result should be identical.

Unfortunately it may still not be that simple because there IS a difference between a filament light source and a diode. This may or may not make any damn difference at all, but unlike Halide and T5 if you slow time down the LED is blinking while the filament bulbs are not. Does this make a difference? Who knows? :)

^ note this is something I don't understand since LED is using a DC source, but you can generally see the effect from home bulbs by moving your hands in front of them. Someone clue me in on what this is, or if it applies to reef lighting. Do I have it backwards? LOL.

[shred5]

There are so many talk, speculation, misunderstood science and misinformation plus personal sentiments in this thread.
Coral are highly adaptable, as long as the algae inside the coral is producing food via photosynthesis for the coral, the host coral will grow regardless which spectrum the algae is using for photosynthesis.
No IR? No problem.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I do not think you have read the thread lately, This thread is relatively old and leds have come along way. I do not think anyone is debating leds can not grow coral anymore. There is allot more than just growth though..

[oreo57]

Unfortunately it may still not be that simple because there IS a difference between a filament light source and a diode. This may or may not make any damn difference at all, but unlike Halide and T5 if you slow time down the LED is blinking while the filament bulbs are not. Does this make a difference? Who knows? :)




first none of the other common ones is "exactly" a filament light source
T5 excites phosphors by the photon emissions from a mercury "plasma" excited by err ..lightning. ;)

MH's excite mercury and metal salts by electrons.

NONE are close to "tungsten" like really.

Actually both also do "flicker".. the excitation is not 100% stable.
"Old" tech tubes flickered at the frequency of the line ie 60Hz


LED's "flicker" either due to pwm dimming or because power supplies are not "constant"
Switching power supplies pulse output at some set frequency to make them stable in voltage.
Unless poorly designed most LED flicker is at worst 500Hz, though yes it can show up as looking lower. not sure why exactly.
Well cameras can easily detect it w/ fast shutter speeds.
In home and AC issues may contribute.and cheap DC conversion circuitry.

Power supplies "flicker" at usually much higher frequencies.
Typical frequencies range from a few KHz to a few megahertz (20Khz-2MHz).
Ocean light "flickers" as well due to wind/wave/current/ particulate/fish action.

and like I tried to say is that you can match both PAR and color temp w/ LED and MH yet get different results due to "different" (not better or worse exactly) spectrums..

Not to mention it's pretty common knowledge that 6500K MH probably give both best growth and color.. Whether you see it or not..
yet who "prefers" them over say 10000K

See I listen.. ;)
ask yourself why?

In a sense the "knock" on LED vs MH is no different than saying
"you should use 6500k not 20000k MH's You will get better growth and color"
Yet that argument is rarely mentioned.. ;)

bottom line is everyone compromises somewhere.....depending on the goal.
guess to sort of complete this there is a difference between color and color you see..

[markalot]

In a sense the "knock" on LED vs MH is no different than saying
"you should use 6500k not 20000k MH's You will get better growth and color"
Yet that argument is rarely mentioned.. ;)

bottom line is everyone compromises somewhere.....depending on the goal.
guess to sort of complete this there is a difference between color and color you see..

This is the only part I disagree with. As someone who grows acros, and has less experience than those in the hobby since the early days, I've seen the jump in health when adding T5, and I have enough LED's to duplicate the spread and the PAR, both Nanobox pucks and BML strips.

They didn't die under all LED, they just did better with T5's added for 5 hours a day.

I also don't know how to politely respond to those who say they get great growth under LED and then list numbers that, frankly, I wish I had because I'm tired of trimming all the time. It's not because I'm some kind of awesome reef keeper, my tank is ignored far too much of late. I would be willing to bet money that if someone with LED's and a PAR meter added 2 T5's, a blue+ and a coral+, and made sure to match PAR, the growth increase would amaze them. In addition, based on my limited experience, the acro colors would greatly increase to the point that now they would be asking the same question.

Why? Why can't I get this with all LED?

Either I am believed, or I'm not, and I doubt I'm going to change anyone's opinion. :D

[Joe0813]

i made the switch from three radion gen 2 to a 72 inch giesemann spectra with 3 radium bulbs. Switched over two weeks ago, my chalice corals and some lps are bleaching and dying off. I turned off the T5s and raised the light up, so we shall see what happens. hopefully this isnt to powerful for my tank

[oreo57]

They didn't die under all LED, they just did better with T5's added for 5 hours a day.

so you ADDED more PAR or did you shut off the LEDs?
Why would it be surprising that adding more photons increased growth?

Maybe I'm missing something here...

I would be willing to bet money that if someone with LED's and a PAR meter added 2 T5's, a blue+ and a coral+, and made sure to match PAR, the growth increase would amaze them.

Pretty sure this was done and frankly there was a difference (but way short of "amazing", I'll try to find it. most web "experiments" are cr@p).. But again, no matter HOW you slice it, different spectrum..soooo which is it?
"Those" LED's or LED's??

I'm not trying to convince you one way or another.. JUST trying to show the logical fallacies of certain arguments..
Simplistic works fine but for those that seek "the truth" isn't cutting it..

For most it doesn't make any difference...

and to poke the bear again.. Shifting from 20000k to 6500K MH may show "amazing" growth.. ;)

something for everyone:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=10&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjo-oHq5ufaAhUG6oMKHX2QBZwQFgh6MAk&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.horniman.ac.uk%2Fmedia%2F_source%2F3.%2FLighting_growth_rate_coral_Montipora_c apricornis-HFitzgerald.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0J-9wHK1p-RyDZ0cXYpmOE

Teaser:
Figure 7.11 Average growth rates for each tank at the three different levels with associated
standard deviations
The highest growth rate was experienced in the metal halide tank in the middle level , however its
associated standard deviation is also relatively large. The metal halide also experienced the lowest
growth rate for corals positioned on the top level.

Even though the metal halide did produce the highest growth rates, the other two lights still significantly increased the weight of the corals. Therefore it depends on the function the lights need to perform as to which ones can be used. If a fast growth rate is required then the metal halides are still the best option. However, if a steady growth is required then there is the possibility for T5 or LED lighting being used.

Same old same old LED used:
Reef White with seven 14,000K and three 50,000K LEDs

[Tripod1404]

Just realized this thread has close to 1 million views :O.

[markalot]

so you ADDED more PAR or did you shut off the LEDs?
Why would it be surprising that adding more photons increased growth?

Maybe I'm missing something here...


You did. :) Like I said, MATCH PAR using a PAR meter. I own one. More light does not always equal more growth by the way.

And like I said, either you, they, them, believe it or you don't. I have the tank, I have the experience, I have the results that I like.

One final thing, because you seem to miss it every time.


ACROPORA COLOR AND GROWTH.

Even Ecotech could not SHOW the results using ACROPORA with their LED study, instead they showed a couple of pale montis.

All I care about is Acropora, everything else does fine under LED as far as I'm concerned.

3 months growth.

https://i.imgur.com/sJBBzEWh.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/493Xm5ah.jpg

[oreo57]

Hard to believe one source.. ;)
Sorry for the misunderstanding and clarification..

Anyways the funny thing is it's both ways...but like I tried to say I "believe" growing shallow water corals w/ blue and high k white LEd's is a mistake..It's not "the" leds but what LEDs

sorry this 3 yr old thread may need updating and a link to it is verboten..
but you get stuff like this:
Good topic Scott and one I've been immersed in a while now myself. And with incredible results. Been saying it for a little while now, but I really believe the secret is in the warm/neutral whites. I ran fixtures with cools and warms over the same system and the results were very clearly discernable as to what worked and what didn't.


Not going for the plug here but to illustrate my convictions, everything in this pack but the purple guy was grown 100% under LEDs. I could show you many many more. Color's there and so is growth. For me the question as to "do they?" has long been answered. It's now more a question of "for how long?" And don't get me wrong I'm still running plenty of HID's, but every time I need to buy another 16 T5's or a round of radiums I'm closer to switching over. I may be in the minority on this one, but I have yet to have any real trade offs in the switch to leds. In a lot of cases my sps look better. I would not have believed it if I didn't see it with my own eyes. It took me a while to really accept it, but I can't deny what in from of me. Since you specifically asked for some details, ;) I personally run no frills reefbreeder fixtures at 100% and high above the water. 20+ inches in some cases. Spread is good and heat is zero. These fixtures have warms only, not a single cool in there.

Aesthetically still inferior to the Radium in my opinion, I'll admit that I run halides over my own display. But for propagation, you cant hardly beat them if you ask me.


My advice Scott, would be to have someone build you a fixture (assuming you must have some LED's savoy friends) with plenty of warms and blues, and try them out over some sps in your main. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised at what you see.

a little of both..
https://www.(guess).com/threads/leds-and-acropora-please-shed-some-light-on-this-topic-urrghhhh.203010/

[markalot]

I run hybrid, as well indicated in my signature. I prefer the look of LED, T5 is too flat, Actually I prefer the look of Halide, but LED plus T5 gets me close. I don't run white LED's.

Show me the pictures that prove color and growth is there. We've been asking for years now. Bad cell phone pictures do not count, saying it's hard to show LED pics does not count.

This is my little 40 gallon, all LED. No acros in here.

https://i.imgur.com/A3v2RYwh.jpg

Proper white balance is easy using the right tools, so I want to see some Acropora pics grown exclusively under LED showing the colors and growth we see when grown under T5 and Halide. That's all. With the picture please include the lights used, the light cycle, and the settings (spectrum etc). Also please include the total light wattage for reference so we know how much power we will be saving. Total cost for all lights would be helpful as well.

If it can be done we'd all be nuts not to switch. :)

[Tripod1404]

One think with LEDs is that it atleast make keeping Clams easier. It is trange becouse even the most "low light" clam requires more light than most SPS corals and all clams can adapt to intense light that would bleach most corals. I have no idea why but I get much better growth from clams with LEDs compared to T5s or MHs. One derasa clam I got grew from ~2 inches to 10 inches in 18 months or so.

Maybe it is because Clams like hot spots generated by LEDs, or they like the intense directional light.

[Tripod1404]

I run hybrid, as well indicated in my signature. I prefer the look of LED, T5 is too flat, Actually I prefer the look of Halide, but LED plus T5 gets me close. I don't run white LED's.

Show me the pictures that prove color and growth is there. We've been asking for years now. Bad cell phone pictures do not count, saying it's hard to show LED pics does not count.

This is my little 40 gallon, all LED. No acros in here.

https://i.imgur.com/A3v2RYwh.jpg

Proper white balance is easy using the right tools, so I want to see some Acropora pics grown exclusively under LED showing the colors and growth we see when grown under T5 and Halide. That's all. With the picture please include the lights used, the light cycle, and the settings (spectrum etc). Also please include the total light wattage for reference so we know how much power we will be saving. Total cost for all lights would be helpful as well.

If it can be done we'd all be nuts not to switch. :)


WOW is that a massive black cap basslet !!!

[markalot]

WOW is that a massive black cap basslet !!!

Ha, optical illusion I think.

Tiny tang. The 3 year old Basslet is fat, but not that big.

[Tripod1404]

Ha, optical illusion I think.

Tiny tang. The 3 year old Basslet is fat, but not that big.

Lol yeah I think the tang mislead me :D

[dz6t]

something for everyone:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=10&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjo-oHq5ufaAhUG6oMKHX2QBZwQFgh6MAk&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.horniman.ac.uk%2Fmedia%2F_source%2F3.%2FLighting_growth_rate_coral_Montipora_c apricornis-HFitzgerald.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0J-9wHK1p-RyDZ0cXYpmOE

Teaser:




Same old same old LED used:



This paper is very interesting, the author compared a 29w led, vs a 72w t5 and 250w metal halide.
Based on the growth rate reported, led looked like a hero here.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jestronix]

This paper is very interesting, the author compared a 29w led, vs a 72w t5 and 250w metal halide.
Based on the growth rate reported, led looked like a hero here.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Unless I'm reading things wrong, halide had the fastest growth rates, T5 and led did it far far more efficiently. The study only looked at montipora and did not mention coloration either ? Would have loved to have seen a wide range of corals over a year rather than 2 months. Would be interesting also to see this done with multiple LED brands, halide bulbs and T5. Study's like this are unfortunately very narrow and don't come close to hundreds of thousands of hobbyists tanks. Still always good to see these studies, with enough of them we will see a complete picture.

[dz6t]

On the end of the paper, the three graph show the average growth rate for MH, LED and t5 are similar.
They match the PAR value for the three types of light sources instead of wattage.
It shows MH is almost 9 times less efficient in this study.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dz6t]

This is just a single study, but it was done in control laboratory conditions on real coral growth rate.
From my own experience for my coral farm, when PAR and coverage is similar, growth rate for acropora and montipora are similar. Acropoea is what I grow the most. I retired the last metal halide two month ago after 14 years of using them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jestronix]

That's some serious inefficiency ! But I'm in so much denial with my halide, there's now way I'm ripping it off the tank :) what ever it's doing it seems to be up to some voodooo cause I'm seeing colours and lots of encrusting. I just know on my tank the XM 10k 250 would demolish my Ai Prime :) in theory they are same par ? I'm in denial :)

I visited my local hydro shop the other week and well...... some should break the news to them that led lights have been invented, cause they use nothing but halide and sell 90% halide. Why haven't they moved to led ?

[dz6t]

It took me 5 years to eliminate halide due the large amount of investment on them. I still have halide bulbs that can last me another 10 years. If you check out those large in door hydro farms around the world, they are doing led only.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dz6t]

No, your AI prime does not put out the same par as your halide in a large tank. The coverage of prime is small. Also you can see in the paper they used led strips populated with hundreds of low power led chips. They are more efficient than high power led chips used in many current fixtures. They can be twice as efficient sometimes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[PitViper]

I kept my LED strips on my FOWLR but on my display and frag tank I just made the switch back to halides from AI SOLs. I cant quite put my finger on it but there was something missing with the LEDs. I liked the color adjustability but my corals and their colors sure do love some halides.



So for the MHs. Do they show the coloring that you would expect? Like say with the Kessil a160 tuna blue... can be adjusted to show more coloring of corals. Will the halides do the same as the kessil?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bpb]

So for the MHs. Do they show the coloring that you would expect? Like say with the Kessil a160 tuna blue... can be adjusted to show more coloring of corals. Will the halides do the same as the kessil?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



The world of metal halides is different. If you wanted a blue period to show off fluorescence you use actinic t5ho or vho tubes, or just use a 20k halide bulb and it will look about as blue as most people run their Kessils anyway. No. You obviously done adjust the voltage through the day of a bulb in hopes to modify the color temp....not if you care about its longevity anyway. Besides. Since when was frequent adjusting of an led unit to suit you color tastes by the way ever a good idea. The most successful people with LEDs have their setting and they leave it alone


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Pslreefer]

Here was my 150 tall using mars aqua led exclusively in 2016.

I tried them on 2 180’s and just couldn’t replicate my success with again. I figured it was due to the extra depth of a tall tank. Idk.

I now use T5/led.

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180506/f860677580e124f7f9f817bbc51a5382.jpg
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180506/59b56559714593ce73aa3aa16a9794b1.jpg
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180506/3456df03eae73153f03b370f98f0c494.jpg

[parrthed]

I'm currently using 2x250 14k Phoenix in lumenbrights with 2x 4ft XHO blue strips I
On my sps 80. On my lps tank I'm running Kessil, I have a 60 cube I have a radion with SPS. With the additional color leds it's way better then the old SOLs. I still like the MH for sps but the newer leds seem to grow them five as well.

My MH tank doesn't have the constant neon color I can get out of my Kessil with my lps, but in reality the two tanks are set up exclusively for their respective corals. Lower light and lower flow for LPS and high light and crazy flow for the sps, its bare bottom and only sps.

[jestronix]

No, your AI prime does not put out the same par as your halide in a large tank. The coverage of prime is small. Also you can see in the paper they used led strips populated with hundreds of low power led chips. They are more efficient than high power led chips used in many current fixtures. They can be twice as efficient sometimes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I always thought the Cree XPG v2 was pretty efficient. These low wattage cheap by the dozen Chinese leds are ahead of Cree ? Ai and radions are a waste of money? I would have thought with all their special lenses and top shelf led chips would be way ahead ? If not we are all being taken for a ride. Now I feel like getting one of these low wattage super lights

[jestronix]

It took me 5 years to eliminate halide due the large amount of investment on them. I still have halide bulbs that can last me another 10 years. If you check out those large in door hydro farms around the world, they are doing led only.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Looks like it's all for micro greens :) from what I am seeing local shops are selling lights for those that want to hide the hooch plants indoors , looks like LED still can't grow hooch like halide / hps

[dz6t]

I always thought the Cree XPG v2 was pretty efficient. These low wattage cheap by the dozen Chinese leds are ahead of Cree ? Ai and radions are a waste of money? I would have thought with all their special lenses and top shelf led chips would be way ahead ? If not we are all being taken for a ride. Now I feel like getting one of these low wattage super lights



Low power led chips put out more light per watt than high power chips, it has nothing to do with brands.
The high cost of some led fixtures are due to low production volume and higher profit margin. The cost of led chips themselves has little to do with the cost of a fixture.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dz6t]

Looks like it's all for micro greens :) from what I am seeing local shops are selling lights for those that want to hide the hooch plants indoors , looks like LED still can't grow hooch like halide / hps



Led has been proven for growing medical plants, and good for people who want to hide them. Metal halide in a tent is a disaster waiting to happen.
Led for horticulture is a proven technology, metal halide is long gone for horticulture outside of US.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Pslreefer]

Led has been proven for growing medical plants, and good for people who want to hide them. Metal halide in a tent is a disaster waiting to happen.
Led for horticulture is a proven technology, metal halide is long gone for horticulture outside of US.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Leds work great for cheato

[jda]

I spent a lot of time in Eastern Europe last year while adopting two kids. Metal Halide is still all over the place in every mall, store, shop and everywhere that they were a few decades ago in the US... they have no money to replace fixtures, no environmental codes, cheap power and absolutely no issues with just throwing tubes or bulbs in the trash on a mass scale. Don't underestimate dogma in places outside the US that do not have money to retrofit.

I think that I posted a few pages back about a very large medical weed place that I appraised recently. It, and all of the comps that I talked to, use MH and MV to enhance the sunlight. None will use T5s when real money is on the line... and LED is a joke to them. They do not care how much electricity costs (they almost print money) and the heat from a 5500k bulb is really nice for a tropical plant.

[m14socom]

Something I have noticed in most LED setups is they are under powered and overrated. I've seen 2000w lights that only pull 550w. They're are a few company's that list actual wattage. But, then you have to take efficiency into account. The same LED light with a 80% eff driver will only put out 83% of the light a 96% efficiency driver will.

[jestronix]

I spent a lot of time in Eastern Europe last year while adopting two kids. Metal Halide is still all over the place in every mall, store, shop and everywhere that they were a few decades ago in the US... they have no money to replace fixtures, no environmental codes, cheap power and absolutely no issues with just throwing tubes or bulbs in the trash on a mass scale. Don't underestimate dogma in places outside the US that do not have money to retrofit.

I think that I posted a few pages back about a very large medical weed place that I appraised recently. It, and all of the comps that I talked to, use MH and MV to enhance the sunlight. None will use T5s when real money is on the line... and LED is a joke to them. They do not care how much electricity costs (they almost print money) and the heat from a 5500k bulb is really nice for a tropical plant.

This is interesting to see they see LED as a joke, i wonder if they are seeing spectrum issues ? over coverage issues with the different plant size, did you see any using led for microgreens and that sort ?

[jda]

Performance is the only thing that matters to them. The send out hundreds of thousands of dollars in product all of the time. Be honest... if you had many hundreds of thousands of dollars of sales every month dependent on your choice in lighting, would you use MH/MV or LED? There is only one answer here... especially when you consider an electric bill at 2-3% of the sales dollars... no brainer.

This is really no different from reef keepers who are only interested in pure performance... the vast majority of these think that LED are a joke too. Plants are kinda like corals, except they can grow seedlings into plants whereas most reefers rarely see full tanks of colonies. If the growth is 30-40% more with MH, and it compounds, then who does not want more product to trade or sell? 30-40% more of compounding interest adds up over a few periods.

Of course there are spectrum issues. The only way to cut down the wattage is to cut spectrum.

They grew hippie lettuce for sale. That is all. All of them have a few orchids, tomatoes and other houseplants lying around, but The Chronic was all that I was interested in since it was my assignment.

[Tripod1404]

I spent a lot of time in Eastern Europe last year while adopting two kids. Metal Halide is still all over the place in every mall, store, shop and everywhere that they were a few decades ago in the US... they have no money to replace fixtures, no environmental codes, cheap power and absolutely no issues with just throwing tubes or bulbs in the trash on a mass scale. Don't underestimate dogma in places outside the US that do not have money to retrofit.

I think that I posted a few pages back about a very large medical weed place that I appraised recently. It, and all of the comps that I talked to, use MH and MV to enhance the sunlight. None will use T5s when real money is on the line... and LED is a joke to them. They do not care how much electricity costs (they almost print money) and the heat from a 5500k bulb is really nice for a tropical plant.

To be clear which eastern European country we are talking about here? Russia? Ukraine? Because my parents are from Bosnia and I have been Bosnia, to almost all former Yugoslavian nations, Greece, Bulgaria, Turkey and Romania. I dont think non of those nations are big MH users. What makes you think a nation that doesnt have money for bulbs or fixtures have money to pay for much more expensive electricity (electricity is not cheap in any of these nations, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_pricing, prices in US is cheaper than almost every country there).

cents per KW/h

US; 8 to 17 (except Hawaii)

Serbia; 7.9

Croatia;17.5

Turkey; 11.2

Greece; 24

Bulgaria; 13.4

Romania; 18.4

Hungary; 23

Non of them have major fossil fuel sources so basically electricity they generate is produced by imported coal or natural gas. Plus it is very easy to get funds from European union for infrastructure development projects that improve overall energy efficiency and/or environmental friendliness.

For Russia and other former soviet nations that have cheap nuclear energy, huge fossil fuel deposits, and a large stockpile of MH bulbs from some factory that produced them for 40 years, maybe? but that is a very small fraction of entire Eastern Europe population and is not a market to start with since they are going through the bulbs they already produced over the years.

[jda]

We were in Bulgaria. These cities lack curbs, sidewalks and other things that we call basic in the US. I have no idea how somebody in a wheelchair would get around. I would be shocked if they could afford new fixtures in the next two decades in some of the medium-sized towns that we were in. The building occupied by the Ministry of Justice was an old soviet building from 1968 and I would say that it probably had not even had a coat of paint or any kind of maintenance in the last thirty years with granite stairs missing chunks, trim gone, wood rotting.

It is one thing to keep on budgeting what is in the budget. It is yet another to find capital-funding for improvements.

On the other hand, Sofia was a wonderful and modern city... and the rest of the country was totally different even five miles from the city center.

The streetlights had the hammer and sickle stamped into them like a lot of the infrastructure from the 1950s until the 1980s. Of course, Bulgaria was an old Soviet Bloc nation.

Your chart has electricity around 9 cents at night, which is not awful for them. ...gonna be hard to try and replace lights when so much more is needed first. Not all of these countries are in the EU... and some are only partially in.

[oreo57]

https://www.nema.org/news/Documents/HID_Lamp_Index_4qtr_15.gif

https://www.nema.org/news/Pages/HID-Lamp-Indexes-Close-out-2015-Down-From-2014.aspx

People are slow to change, even regardless of economics.. That is just psychology..

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20171221005630/en/LEDs-Billion-Tons-Carbon-Dioxide-Sky-2017

https://mms.businesswire.com/media/20171221005630/en/631463/4/LED_carbon_emissions_2017.jpg?download=1

The use of LEDs to illuminate buildings and outdoor spaces reduced the total carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions of lighting by an estimated 570 million tons in 2017. This reduction is roughly equivalent to shutting down 162 coal-fired power plants, according to IHS Markit (Nasdaq: INFO), a world leader in critical information, analytics and solution
IHS Markit figures are only based on the lighting market. They do not include energy saved by LEDs that replaced other technologies in other sectors, such as automotive and consumer technology.

Tic tok tik tok...

https://globenewswire.com/news-release/2017/05/15/984708/0/en/LED-Lamp-Market-to-hit-13-5bn-by-2024-Global-Market-Insights-Inc.html

EESL to replace nearly 50K street lights with LEDs in Gurugram At present, the street light system prevailing in MCG consists of conventional lighting systems such as high pressure sodium vapour lamps, metal halide lamps and fluorescent tube lights.

The installation of LED-based street lighting system is essential, since LED lighting offer higher efficiency, better illumination and life expectancy apart from being environmentally sustainable. The EESL will be implementing the Centralised Control and Monitoring System (CCMS) as a replacement of existing conventional streetlight fixtures besides providing minimum guarantee of savings of 45-55 percent to MCG.

https://www.financialexpress.com/economy/eesl-to-replace-nearly-50k-street-lights-with-leds-in-gurugram/890233/

Bulgaria vs India.. hmmm..

[alton]

It is amazing this thread is still going. But oh well as I said a year ago if you think when you switch from MH to led your electric bill will go down a bunch, keep wishing. Our AC, clothes dryer, washer, stove/ oven, along with water heater uses so much more. The difference for me was when I ran my MH in the summer I would cut down on the length of time versus my LED's today so not to build up the heat in my home. I turned them up in the winter to heat my home and tank, now I use a heater on my tank and my house heater runs more. The biggest question is why is it so much easier to grow coral with MH than LED? Because MH is idiot proof, buy a Radium lamp (which is not 20K) or a Phoenix 14K (which looks like a Radium) run them for 4 hours a day with supplemental lighting for 10 and you have a coral growing machine. The problem with LED is too much tinkering, with running blues at 80%, and whites at 40%, and UV at 10%. Oh yea and do not forget the reds and greens. At the end of the day most LED users have no idea what spectrum their coral is getting, only that it looks good to their eyes. Build my led when they built leds for aquariums sold lights based on kelvin very similar to T5’s. The best light they built and I have four of them was a mixtures of leds that mimicked the Radium lamps. Your only option was to regulate the amount of PAR your corals needed by using a dimmer.
LEDS are saving energy like no other lighting source can. But for all the savings and cutting down of using fossil fuels for energy, on the weekends we Americans will jump on our Harleys, or get into our sports cars, take our ski boats, jet skis to the water and burn 10 times more fossil fuels than our led savings. What happened to when all we had to do was grow a garden, take kid out and play ball in the backyard for entertainment?

On with your arguments, I will check back in with this thread next year.

[markalot]

What's amazing about this thread is the desire for proof is never ever answered.

http://reefkeeping.com/joomla/index.php/current-issue/article/155-tank-of-the-month

This was a TOTM using 13 AquaIllumination Sol Blues, which would total aprox. 975 watts (mfg rating is 75 watts per fixture). It looks like the fixtures sold for about $400, so that's $5200 in fixtures. The overall wattage used will be lower than 975 (see snippet below) but I have no idea how to calculate exactly what that would be.

Main Display: 10' x 4' x 3' 900 US-gallon Acrylic Aquarium

AI sol blues and I’m very happy with them. There are 13 over the display tank and 2 over the coral QT trays. The intensities have been set at 40% white and 85% blue from the beginning. Each time I’ve tried to increase intensities my coral suffer, so I’ve stopped trying. I believe the difficulties many have had with LEDs are due to excessive intensities, especially with the latest more powerful fixtures.


There's nothing new there. Obviously you can grow acros under LED, and some acros do better than others. Suffice to say I think he's got the spread down. This was mentioned way way earlier in the thread, and like before will be quickly ignored by those not wanting to hear it. :)

The colors of many of the acros have that LED look. This is where some people think we are making things up. I don't blame them one bit, I think those who prefer tube amps are crazy as well, but I don't argue with them because maybe I just can't hear it. :lmao:

For those with Halide experience, how many lamps and what total wattage would be needed to light that tank?

[Tripod1404]

LEDS are saving energy like no other lighting source can. But for all the savings and cutting down of using fossil fuels for energy, on the weekends we Americans will jump on our Harleys, or get into our sports cars, take our ski boats, jet skis to the water and burn 10 times more fossil fuels than our led savings. What happened to when all we had to do was grow a garden, take kid out and play ball in the backyard for entertainment?


So if you have MH bulbs, you dont do those in weekends?

A reduction is a reduction, doenst matter how much CO2 other parts of your life puts up. 10 times more CO2 than LEDs plus CO2 from LEDs is still better than 10 times more CO2 than LEDs plus CO2 from MH. If energy residential, industrial and outdoor application switches to LEDs, saving become large, like the data oreo57 showed.