Anyone Thinking of Dumping LEDS and going back to Halides

[Tripod1404]

Originally Posted by 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.

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/atlan...re-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]

Originally Posted by Big_ Macc

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

https://www.advancedaquarist.com/201...aign=clickthru

[Big_ Macc]

Haha! Those are the same charts I used!

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

[oreo57]

Originally Posted by Tripod1404

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/art...l.pone.0128697

[jestronix]

Originally Posted by Tripod1404

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]

Originally Posted by 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

...

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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by markalot

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]

Originally Posted by oreo57

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.

[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=...p-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]

Originally Posted by oreo57

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.

[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...rghhhh.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.



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]

Originally Posted by 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.



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]

Originally Posted by Tripod1404

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]

Originally Posted by markalot

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

[dz6t]

Originally Posted by oreo57

something for everyone:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...p-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