Anyone Thinking of Dumping LEDS and going back to Halides

[Wazzel]

Is this the same for T5 and MH? I read a lot of MH users like to frame the MH time with a couple of hours of T5 on either side. I ramp my LED strips up over an hour, then turn on just the blue T5, then all T5 for 6 hours. It seems to me (without any evidence to back it up) that as the angle of the sun over the water changes the spectrum will change as well. The sun overhead is going through less water than the sun at a steep angle. This doesn't consider the inherent spectral changes of the LED strips as power is changed though. Perhaps that's the main point?

The sun's angle to the surface matters some, IIRC. It is a gradual change from morning sun to noon sun to dusk sun. There is no drastic spectrum spikes or drops. The only drastic change is a cloud, but that is just intensity.

 

[oreo57]

Care to explain what you mean?

Really?
I have to spell it out??

I think a lot of luck goes into it as well. It appears he chose lighting levels that happen to work.

Thought it was pretty obvious..

you seem to give Alex Costa absolutely no credit for thinking and using an LED fixture in a logical manner

The 6 fixtures lie 10 inches above the water line running blues/purples at 100% of power, whites varying between 80~100%, and reds and greens at 70%. The lights cycle has 12 hours of duration starting at 8:00AM and ending at 8:00PM with an 1 hour ramp in rise and dusk...

Lather rinse and repeat.. see if someone else gets "lucky"

 

[oreo57]

The sun's angle to the surface matters some, IIRC. It is a gradual change from morning sun to noon sun to dusk sun. There is no drastic spectrum spikes or drops. The only drastic change is a cloud, but that is just intensity.

splitting hairs..
solar radiation is in continuous flux..

http://www.fondriest.com/environmen.../weather/photosynthetically-active-radiation/

besides clouds, waves, and drifting plankton/garbage/fish ect..

 

[markalot]

Lather rinse and repeat.. see if someone else gets "lucky"

So how did he find those numbers if it wasn't luck? What skill was used, and where do I go to learn this skill. Luck is not a dirty word, and for him to use observations and come to the conclusion that these are the best values to run with is a good thing. His skill is with the corals and observations in order to find the right value for the light fixture.

By all means call it skill, that wasn't the point anyway and I mean no disrespect to him. The LED fixture he uses gave no guidance for how to run them, how many to use, and what level to run the channels. Why isn't he running every channel at 100%?

 

[DavidinGA]

From his write up---------

"The lights cycle has 12 hours of duration starting at 8:00AM and ending at 8:00PM with an 1 hour ramp in rise and dusk."

I've told many LED users to stop with the kaleidoscope of colors throughout the day..........it's a deterrent. The spectrum needs to be constant for most of the duration. An hour or so on each end is fine for dawn/dusk but that's it.

Yes.

I stopped the idiotic "ramping" up/down crap last year on my leds and everything improved.

 

[oreo57]

So how did he find those numbers if it wasn't luck? What skill was used, and where do I go to learn this skill. Luck is not a dirty word, and for him to use observations and come to the conclusion that these are the best values to run with is a good thing. His skill is with the corals and observations in order to find the right value for the light fixture.

By all means call it skill, that wasn't the point anyway and I mean no disrespect to him. The LED fixture he uses gave no guidance for how to run them, how many to use, and what level to run the channels. Why isn't he running every channel at 100%?

Granted there is a fine line between luck and gradual observation by picking and moving a parameter..
Then again there could be an infinite combinations that "work" based on no more than pure power.. I believe it was 570 "wall watts" of LEd's.

Few people have the patience (me included) not to just "fiddle w/ the knobs" in a random manner and actually forgetting about time.. Some things go good or south far enough past the change point to not recognize the real cause..

That is where MH/t5 ect do exceed.. EVERY change is fairly drastic..
1,2,3,4,5,6, tubes is not a small change at each step. Same w/ MH 250/500/1000 ect..and every change is usually over a loooonnnnggg period. Sometime weeks/months.

W/ LED you can shift not only intensity but spectrum in seconds..and not even really think too much about it..

Pretty sure some of the numbers were chosen based totally on look BTW..and just made sure he was full out in blue/purple..and mostly full out in white..Red and green to taste probaby. He used 90% of the available light, on average, at some point in time..
Actually if you look at my chart I posed above it is a "equatorial" 24hr pattern.. approx.. and a shallow reef i.e red's not filtered out.

The 6 fixtures lie 10 inches above the water line running blues/purples at 100% of power, whites varying between 80~100%, and reds and greens at 70%. The lights cycle has 12 hours of duration starting at 8:00AM and ending at 8:00PM with an 1 hour ramp in rise and dusk.

I see his "luck" as solidly based in the "real world".......

 

[firebirdude]

How do you guys manage heat for MH pendants? I am interested in trying MH in my next tank with LED supplements.

Open top. No issues here and it breaks 100 in the summer. And I'm frugal with the house AC.

 

[JB NY]

The core posters of this thread are very discerning, and I think newer posters miss some of the detail about what this thread has become. The core isn't talking much about energy savings or bulb replacement costs, they are talking about achieving the ultimate best results in SPS corals. A tank that most people would find amazing or at least very good could still get observations from the true SPS junkies. It's like cooking for Gordon Ramsay...don't be surprised if he finds something to criticize...

This is a good point that people seem to overlook. Listen, I am not in this hobby to save money, if I can get the same or better results AND save money that is great. But if the results are not better than what I have, why would I change. I am trying for the best results I can achieve. Am I, and a lot of people on this thread, being hyper critical yes we are. Why should we not? For me the option to go to LED is something like $4000! That is a lot of money for a solution that will yield results less than what I am currently using.

I can post pictures of incredibly colorful and healthy SPS from my tanks over a 15 year period, I think many others can do the same thing. With the amount of people who are using LEDs now there should be pictures coming in from every direction but there are not. So I think we do have a point in being so picky.

 

[Jeremy B.]

Joe, that absolutely without a doubt hits the nail square on the head! Probably the best post in the first 172 pages of this thread!

 

[sirreal63]

this is a good point that people seem to overlook. Listen, i am not in this hobby to save money, if i can get the same or better results and save money that is great. But if the results are not better than what i have, why would i change. I am trying for the best results i can achieve. Am i, and a lot of people on this thread, being hyper critical yes we are. Why should we not? For me the option to go to led is something like $4000! That is a lot of money for a solution that will yield results less than what i am currently using.

I can post pictures of incredibly colorful and healthy sps from my tanks over a 15 year period, i think many others can do the same thing. With the amount of people who are using leds now there should be pictures coming in from every direction but there are not. So i think we do have a point in being so picky.

+1

 

[firebirdude]

This is a good point that people seem to overlook. Listen, I am not in this hobby to save money, if I can get the same or better results AND save money that is great. But if the results are not better than what I have, why would I change. I am trying for the best results I can achieve. Am I, and a lot of people on this thread, being hyper critical yes we are. Why should we not? For me the option to go to LED is something like $4000! That is a lot of money for a solution that will yield results less than what I am currently using.

The last several pages have only been talking about coral color. Not one mention of bulb replacement costs. LOL

 

[JB NY]

The last several pages have only been talking about coral color. Not one mention of bulb replacement costs. LOL

Cost me $300 a year to replace bulbs. A drop in the bucket for my tank and still cheaper than the 13 years(!) it would take to make up that with an LED fixture.

 

[firebirdude]

The last several pages have only been talking about coral color. Not one mention of bulb replacement costs. LOL

Cost me $300 a year to replace bulbs. A drop in the bucket for my tank and still cheaper than the 13 years(!) it would take to make up that with an LED fixture.

Until now.:facepalm:

 

[mhucasey]

The nice thing about replacing bulbs is that when you put in a new bulb, you know that the light is back to the same spectrum and output that you had day one.

 

[hart24601]

I don't think the issue on this thread is being picky on coral color, it's that many feel anything labeled LED will get picked to death while other photos are not. I personally think many of the LED photos would have gotten complements if they were labeled MH. I am sure people disagree, and that is fine, but that is what I think after reading the majority of the thread. I would like to see the photos examined before the lighting source was disclosed although I suspect the photos would generate less comments that way. Besides many people are not great photographers, nor have decent equipment or the ability to do post modification or tell which photos have been touched up.

 

[d2mini]

I don't think the issue on this thread is being picky on coral color, it's that many feel anything labeled LED will get picked to death while other photos are not. I personally think many of the LED photos would have gotten complements if they were labeled MH. I am sure people disagree, and that is fine, but that is what I think after reading the majority of the thread. I would like to see the photos examined before the lighting source was disclosed although I suspect the photos would generate less comments that way. Besides many people are not great photographers, nor have decent equipment or the ability to do post modification or tell which photos have been touched up.

This is already labeled, but even if it was not, you can't deny the difference.
The MH/T5 side shows a tighter growth pattern and better polyp extension/color underneath. This is just one of the previous examples posted in this thread. Same tank, same photographer, etc.

Most would say that the LED side looks great, and it does look pretty dang good.
But you can see how the change in lighting made it a little bit better. This is the kind of thing many of us are talking about. When I mentioned that one of the LED pics that was posted earlier looked really good but could maybe be improved by MH, this is what I mean. It's not a jab, it's a friendly suggestion.

 

[oreo57]

But you can see how the change in lighting made it a little bit better. This is the kind of thing many of us are talking about. When I mentioned that one of the LED pics that was posted earlier looked really good but could maybe be improved by MH, this is what I mean. It's not a jab, it's a friendly suggestion.

you can't say anything w/ out knowing the light intensity.. To make a point.. you could have used an LED flashlight vs a 1000W bulb..(EXAGGERATION to make a point)..

Is it intensity, spectrum, photo-period, moon phase ???
I have no doubt "one light is better" than another.. BUT....the devil is in the details..

IF that photo had Li-Cor par measurements sitting on top of each.. it would hold a LOT more weight

 

[d2mini]

you can't say anything w/ out knowing the light intensity.. To make a point.. you could have used an LED flashlight vs a 1000W bulb..(EXAGGERATION to make a point)..

Is it intensity, spectrum, photo-period, moon phase ???
I have no doubt "one light is better" than another.. BUT....the devil is in the details..

IF that photo had Li-Cor par measurements sitting on top of each.. it would hold a LOT more weight

:facepalm:
Radion Pro with WA lens vs 250w Radium MH and T5.
Radion intensity as high as it could go without burning things.
This coral was out in the middle of the tank under both lighting types.
Same basic photo period with more ramping up/down with the led.

That's all there is to know. No trickery, just plain and simple before and after.
This is one of many examples. JPMagyar has posted tons himself.
Sometimes I think the blinders are used heavily in this thread.

 

[oreo57]

:facepalm:
Radion Pro with WA lens vs 250w Radium MH and T5.
Radion intensity as high as it could go without burning things.
This coral was out in the middle of the tank under both lighting types.
Same basic photo period with more ramping up/down with the led.

That's all there is to know. No trickery, just plain and simple before and after.
This is one of many examples. JPMagyar has posted tons himself.
Sometimes I think the blinders are used heavily in this thread.

no, because I'm not implying either is better or worse, just saying that comparisons can be deceiving..
you have 170W of LED's vs what 250W plus what 4 t5's at what 95W each??
or even 2

The blinders are for those that want to compare apples to oranges.. and make lemonade..

I'm not even saying you aren't right.... BTW... I guess i just like a little more critical thinking.. for everyone sake..

I do know shading is an issue..that is obvious by the manner photon of delivery..

Maybe I'm just guilty of hope..

like this:
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2010/2/aafeature2
check the chart:
306W MH 278PAR @ 24"
t5 254w 220par
LED 216w 213par 30% weaker..
110W 224PAR..

I "do" worry about LED fade, just like MH esp. if over-driven BUT it is a separate issue..

 

[markalot]

I don't think comparing a coral under MH with reflectors and T5's is the same as the same coral sitting under a single (even 2 pucks) LED fixture.

Again, look at the acro closeups on this TOTM

http://reefkeeping.com/joomla/index.php/current-issue/article/153-tank-of-the-month

No typical LED issues. Not arguing about the color, but these acros look healthy to me. That's a fair comparison to a single MH with a big reflector. If you're the coral looking up at each lighting type in both cases you see multiple sources coming from different directions.

Yes, that's a problem, especially considering the upfront cost of all those fixtures and the fact he's using over 500 watts of LED.