Anyone Thinking of Dumping LEDS and going back to Halides

[oreo57]

I agree with this Oreo, which is why arguing about the smoothness of LED is pointless. We know what works, we know it's not smooth, why is a smooth curve touted as a benefit? Better question, why do manufacturers show a smooth curve for LED when it's not?

What I want to see is what you seem to possess.. A non-smooth emission curve. Best I can go by is the Thorlabs data, which certainly shows a relatively smooth data set..

You need to walk the walk here..

I need data to prove it is un-smooth output , greater or even equal to MH..

Almost every graph from marketing is smoothed to a certain degree. You are certainly implying LED "fudges" more than other lights.. I say they don't.. or certainly not meaningfully..

Again still awaiting proof of your "concept" .. I gave you mine..Enough FUD in the world..

 

[CHSUB]

I pointed you towards the Thorlabs Excel sheets (use the 6500k one) that measured emissions in like 1/10 um increments.. LED is pretty darn smooth..

Look at the data and see for yourself.. no reason for them to lie in particular..
your deluding yourself if you think this is an issue w/ LED..

http://www.digikey.com/en/articles/techzone/2013/apr/royal-blue-leds-decoding-the-datasheet

oh boy....more graphs!!!!!

mr. oreo57 any pics of your corals!!! or is just about graphs and bona fides....

 

[markalot]

What I want to see is what you seem to possess.. A non-smooth emission curve. Best I can go by is the Thorlabs data, which certainly shows a relatively smooth data set..

You need to walk the walk here..

I need data to prove it is un-smooth output , greater or even equal to MH..

Almost every graph from marketing is smoothed to a certain degree. You are certainly implying LED "fudges" more than other lights.. I say they don't.. or certainly not meaningfully..

Again still awaiting proof of your "concept" .. I gave you mine..Enough FUD in the world..

Keep it mature Oreo, no one likes to argue with that crap. I gave you a google search and told you I did not know what I was looking at, then asked a question. Do you have an answer? Here's the link to the search, maybe that helps?

https://www.google.com/search?q=Ytt...4I7LAhUGr4MKHfnfBzIQ_AUICCgC&biw=1489&bih=965

I then asked why when I add LED to the search do I get a different set of graphs. Do you have the answer to that question?

https://www.google.com/search?biw=1...1.4.4.0....0...1c.1.64.img..0.0.0.ZW1h0z9MeJE

Asking questions is not spreading FUD, just tell me what the answer is or tell me you don't know, but let's keep moving forward.

 

[oreo57]

The known combinations of elements that can be used to create the junctions necessary to produce LED light are finite and produce finite wavelengths. Manufacturers are able to pack an incredible amount of junctions onto chips and combine many different elements in very small packages. Those chips produce "broadband" light that appears to most instruments that are designed to measure light as smooth curves with a broad spectrum

all I was asking for is "proof of concept".. Your use of this implies LED spectrums are as punctated as MH or any other light..or worse...

Yet all you give is words.

To the best of my ability I tried to show that, yes, there is "some" output variation from the standard smoothed curves but nowhere near what you imply.. You may be correct, but as they say "show me" a true output spectrum of a white LED.. peaks and valleys and all..

Is that too much to ask?

It would be like me exaggerating the huge dips and spikes of MH and tell you the light is a lot smoother than the data implies.. The data is the data..
In other words the smoothness is completely secondary to spikes and specific LARGE gaps in wavelengths.. How "un-smooth" a white LEd is a non-issue, especially w/out real proof..
Your words, or usage seem to imply otherwise..

IF I am wrong on this, I apologize..I just wanted data, not platitudes..

I also apologize for sounding snippy..it is not meant to be that way..

I'm NOT even arguing whether one is better than the other, just that urban legends should end..or have a better explanation of what it means..

Again the bold above says it all.. that is misleading in the sense that , within most tolerances, or any data I can find, it does not just "appear" to be smooth, but is generally pretty darn smooth..

If you have data worth sharing, I am more than happy to look at it AND ADMIT you are correct.. now keep in mind an error of say 10-15% in the smoothing is not "significant"..


Maybe you don't mean it the way "I" am taking it..if so another apology in advance....

IF you want to know why I consider it important (even more important than "which light is better".. which by the way is really personal/choice/experience ) is because statements w/ out proof are hearsay, and do not contribute anything to anyone...Exaggeration is no better..

Will be awaiting a "real" LED data set....

http://www.electrochem.org/dl/interface/wtr/wtr09/wtr09_p032-036.pdf

Absorption coefficients are meaningless.. It is only emissions that count...........

 

[CHSUB]

just that urban legends should end and photons are photons

mr. oreo57 polite way of saying, "your all dummies"!!!!:lol::frog:

 

[oreo57]

just that urban legends should end and photons are photons

mr. oreo57 polite way of saying, "your all dummies"!!!!:lol::frog:

NOT in the least......

I have GREAT respect for the knowledge base here..more than it might seem.
Actually it is why I come here....

Somethings, do get a bit witch-craftery though (human nature)..


Photons are photons though.
Certainly not going to argue against physics.

Distribution,specific wavelengths and even PWM outputs certainly are fair game..and proving/ cause and effect is NEVER simple..

If I accidentally insulted anyone.. so sorry. Wasn't intended..

 

[Aqualund]

This would be true if we were not converting LED light using phosphors. White LEDs have a similarly broad spectrum as T5. Many High CRI LEDs are available which offer good distribution across the visible spectrum.

LEDs have a "similar" broad spectrum until you realize it isn't. Yes, maybe they share some of the same frequencies across the visible spectrum, but they differ in the shape of the CRI curve, and the extreme limits (below 455nm and above 650nm)...so in that sense...they are only alike in that they emit light. Everything else is different. This is where I make my distinction.

Oreo, thank you for posting that white led that has very little or no green/yellow. You are very up to date on the newest technologies we can start using! Glad to talk to you!

Although I'm positive the person that referenced using white LED's wasn't talking about those.

 

[Wazzel]

i agree 100%, it's mostly about preferences and expectation!!! i think BRS rating system would work with lighting: good, better, best... LEDs are good, but MH are best. walking can get you from point A to B, but a Lamborghini will get you there is style, right?

More like if you want to dive a ford, Chevy or dodge truck. It is just a tool to get a job done. Some people like one over the other two.

 

[Wazzel]

LEDs have a "similar" broad spectrum until you realize it isn't. Yes, maybe they share some of the same frequencies across the visible spectrum, but they differ in the shape of the CRI curve, and the extreme limits (below 455nm and above 650nm)...so in that sense...they are only alike in that they emit light. Everything else is different. This is where I make my distinction.

Oreo, thank you for posting that white led that has very little or no green/yellow. You are very up to date on the newest technologies we can start using! Glad to talk to you!

Although I'm positive the person that referenced using white LED's wasn't talking about those.

If you are referring to me I was not thinking of a particular white. Most of the white LEDs I know of probably would not work well on their own.

 

[Aqualund]

More like if you want to dive a ford, Chevy or dodge truck. It is just a tool to get a job done. Some people like one over the other two.

I'm thinking maybe you don't quite understand the difference. Have you owned an SPS tank with say...pearlberry, red dragon, or strawberry shortcake acroporas in both a full MH set up and then changed that same setup to an LED only tank?

There is a distinct difference in coloration and growth...to where I would say that it's bad. Colors are less vivid, less striking, and all around blah. (without understanding what they look like under MH, the corals will still look "impressive.")
Now, every other coral type? LPS, Softies, Shrooms, etc? They could care less and everything looks great.

I don't think you can understand until you've owned the same corals under both lights and seen the difference for yourself.

I was once on the all led side...look at the beginning of this thread. I didnt know what the heck I was talking about since I never owned T5 or Halides. Boy was I wrong.

I was all proud of my strawberry shortcake crowing an inch in a year under LEDs because people told me they were hard. Now I have a frag of that original colony that went from a 1 inch frag to a baseball sized colony in 4 months with full color. There is a difference. For this coral, there is a difference.

 

[Wazzel]

I'm thinking maybe you don't quite understand the difference. Have you owned an SPS tank with say...pearlberry, red dragon, or strawberry shortcake acroporas in both a full MH set up and then changed that same setup to an LED only tank?

There is a distinct difference in coloration and growth...to where I would say that it's bad. Colors are less vivid, less striking, and all around blah. (without understanding what they look like under MH, the corals will still look "impressive.")
Now, every other coral type? LPS, Softies, Shrooms, etc? They could care less and everything looks great.

I don't think you can understand until you've owned the same corals under both lights and seen the difference for yourself.

I was once on the all led side...look at the beginning of this thread. I didnt know what the heck I was talking about since I never owned T5 or Halides. Boy was I wrong.

I have run 2 tanks under VHO, 2 tanks under MH/VHO and one under LED. I have not noticed any significant difference over all. I have noticed some specifics differences. I have issues with dark purple under LED that I never had before. That color seems to be the hardest to hold. But other wise not a problem. I have pieces in my tank that I rescued from MH tanks because they were killing them.

I am not a newbie. I set up my first tank in 1997, been primarily SPS since 2001 or so. Do not think a person is unknowledgable or inexperienced because they do not agree with you. I was around when people thought radiums looked like windex and though T-5s were junk.

 

[Aqualund]

I have run 2 tanks under VHO, 2 tanks under MH/VHO and one under LED. I have not noticed any significant difference over all. I have noticed some specifics differences. I have issues with dark purple under LED that I never had before. That color seems to be the hardest to hold. But other wise not a problem. I have pieces in my tank that I rescued from MH tanks because they were killing them.

I am not a newbie. I set up my first tank in 1997, been primarily SPS since 2001 or so. Do not think a person is unknowledgable or inexperienced because they do not agree with you. I was around when people thought radiums looked like windex and though T-5s were junk.

Well I simply cannot comprehend how you can say it is personal preference and there is no noticeable difference between the light sources with regard to SPS (Acropora) growth and coloration. Didn't mean to infer you are a newbie, I'm just sitting here looking at all of my personal experiences over the last few years with all the different lighting and wondering how we arrived at such opposite ends of the "spectrum."

I would be curious to know which SPS you have. Because I have always been very careful to make a distinction between SPS like pocillipora or Acropora when referring to results had by lighting.

Nevermind. Looked at your thread. I see you had excellent growth for a year with some difficult corals. Coloration is something I can't really judge with LED lighting pictures, so I'll just say good job

 

[RobbyG]

This thread kind of throws Physics out the window and says MH is better Period.
There is absolutely no spectrum or intensity of light in MH that can not be reproduced by LEDs. The fact that you guys have not been able to do it means absolutely nothing. If someone has the right equipment they can duplicate the exact light spectrum with LEDs and if more time is spent they can isolate out which ones benefit which corals more. That means that at some point in the future you will be able to direct the exact light to each coral that makes it happy.

As it stands we our seeing the evolution of broad LED lighting reaching near maturity. What is needed now is a better method for dialing it in right.

You see it's easy to use MH and make a critical comparison with it and LEDS because MH are easy to use, you just select the right bulb and plug it in.

 

[karimwassef]

Not exactly. There are some wavelengths that cannot be achieved by LEDs because no such LED exists. An LED will emit in a narrow range. A multi-emitter will do multi emissions, and a multi-chip will do more. But they are discrete.

Whether or not that matters? I don't know but I don't think so. I've seen no evidence that says that having 450nm light and then 470nm light without the 460nm in the middle makes any difference to a coral.

The same with PWM... Different, but so what? Where's the evidence that supports that coral tissue cares?

I don't believe that one light source can accurately emulate another exactly. They're different but not better.

 

[Wazzel]

Well I simply cannot comprehend how you can say it is personal preference and there is no noticeable difference between the light sources with regard to SPS (Acropora) growth and coloration. Didn't mean to infer you are a newbie, I'm just sitting here looking at all of my personal experiences over the last few years with all the different lighting and wondering how we arrived at such opposite ends of the "spectrum."

I would be curious to know which SPS you have. Because I have always been very careful to make a distinction between SPS like pocillipora or Acropora when referring to results had by lighting.

Nevermind. Looked at your thread. I see you had excellent growth for a year with some difficult corals. Coloration is something I can't really judge with LED lighting pictures, so I'll just say good job

Who knows why we have different options. I suspect part of it is expectations. LED tanks have a look all their own, expecting them to look like a mh or t-5 tanks would be a let down. Could be let down, while LEDS do work well they have fallen far short of the game changer billing. Maybe observational bias? We all tend to see what we expect to see.

Thanks, I actually have "nicer things" in my frag tank. I ran out of room in the display.

 

[RobbyG]

Not exactly. There are some wavelengths that cannot be achieved by LEDs because no such LED exists. An LED will emit in a narrow range. A multi-emitter will do multi emissions, and a multi-chip will do more. But they are discrete.

Whether or not that matters? I don't know but I don't think so. I've seen no evidence that says that having 450nm light and then 470nm light without the 460nm in the middle makes any difference to a coral.

The same with PWM... Different, but so what? Where's the evidence that supports that coral tissue cares?

I don't believe that one light source can accurately emulate another exactly. They're different but not better.

I will agree with that to a point but White LEDs are broad spectrum and make up the majority of LEDs on most fixtures. The added 550s and 540.s etc are great for enhancement, although I think too many people over use them.

As you said and I am a firm believer in it, the corals will adapt and live just fine under most LED light setups, it's just that most people don't have the knowledge or in some cases the tools needed to make a transition without problems. Don't get me wrong there will always be some initial problems, just like you have with any major changes to an aquarium, but they can be minimized by acclimation and/or choosing the right settings.


Rob

 

[Aqualund]

I will agree with that to a point but White LEDs are broad spectrum

except anything below 455nm. Unlike MH and T5.

 

[jda]

A huge miss is 350-400nm. People forget about it because we don't see it, but coral use up light and spit it back out at lower energy, so most violet that you see could have come below 400 and then spit back out above it. The UV diodes in most fixtures is in the 410-420 range and true UV. (tangent... but the massive amount of output under 400nm is why most people think that URI Super Actinic T12 pops coral so well)

I think that similar wattage, high quality, VHO, T5 and MH (on wide reflectors) setups all look VERY similar to nearly identical.... almost to the point where if you have a closeup of the frag, then you cannot really tell. I am not talking about bad setups like small reflector MH, horrible T5s (oddysea and the like) or VHO on tar ballasts that all will all produce so-so results. LED is the outlier among these three.

While data and evidence is important, observation is the most important part of science followed closely be experimentation and experience. Data and evidence can only come after these other three and will never supplant them. I had a professor in college that said that he could commission any study to prove with data and statistics that the males in the class were female and the females were male and that some fool would take that as a fact rather and just taking a look and observing what junk they had. Don't get so caught up in your data, facts or evidence that you forget to look around... that can tell you almost all that you need to know in this hobby and in life. If you see enough high end tanks, you can just tell with your eyes that the LED ones are just not right for lots of coral... and no charts, graphs, data or analytics will change that.

I think that the recent move away from LED by so many people might be the best thing moving forward. Some company now might have to put in some effort to make them better if enough people speak with their wallets.

 

[CHSUB]

I think that the recent move away from LED by so many people might be the best thing moving forward. Some company now might have to put in some effort to make them better if enough people speak with their wallets.

yes!!! this is what i have been saying since i got suckered into spending $4k on leds. these "companies" are just throwing crap together and hoping it works. my lights came with 9 channels and 10w cree white leds and now that same company is not even using white leds. nothing would make me happier to go back to leds, but i know what the results will be!!!:sad2:

 

[gus6464]

As far as I know, no artificial lighting source produces a smooth spectrum curve. For what ever reason they have spikes. I suspect the materials used to produces the light has something to do with that.

Not entirely true. This is the Gavita Pro 270e LEP. Pretty damn smooth.