Anyone Thinking of Dumping LEDS and going back to Halides

[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/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.