Anyone Thinking of Dumping LEDS and going back to Halides

[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..

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.......

BETTER 6500k diodes:

 

[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.