Anyone Thinking of Dumping LEDS and going back to Halides

[AcroporAddict]

Actually there has been some issues with coral growth based on species with only rb/w 1:1 led lighting.

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2013/2/aafeature

so yes I can say 90% of my sps have been just fine under 1:1 for the last two years, but this article definitely explains some of my difficulties in the pocillipora and seriatapora families. Since I have added supplemental lighting in the peak chlorophyll a and b spectrums I have not had any issues. One of those peaks is 428nm or UV...so there might be some merit in the needs of different spectrums for particular corals.

A blanket statement that you have to have UV for coral growth is wrong, which is what I was commenting on. I used Sol Blues for a year, followed by Radion G1s for a year, and I had good growth, but poor coloration on my SPS corals, except Seratiopora, Stylophora and Pocillopora species, which displayed good color and grew well. LEDs are terrible for SPS color overall, IME.

Never used a 1:1 ratio blue:white LEDs your quoted article talks about, as the Sol Blues are a 2:1 blue:white ratio. I saw how ugly the rendition a 1:1 ratio was before I bought any LEDs and avoided them from the start.

Having gone back to Radium halides months ago, my 465 gallon SPS reef is much more colorful than it ever was under Sol Blues or Radions.

Love the Radion Pros over my 100 gallon LPS/Softy mixed reef, but the UV in the Pros is not necessary for LPS, SPS or softy growth, but they do help a lot in adding pop to the colors.

 

[bernie lyons]

halides

halides

A blanket statement that you have to have UV for coral growth is wrong, which is what I was commenting on. I used Sol Blues for a year, followed by Radion G1s for a year, and I had good growth, but poor coloration on my SPS corals, except Seratiopora, Stylophora and Pocillopora species, which displayed good color and grew well. LEDs are terrible for SPS color overall, IME.

Never used a 1:1 ratio blue:white LEDs your quoted article talks about, as the Sol Blues are a 2:1 blue:white ratio. I saw how ugly the rendition a 1:1 ratio was before I bought any LEDs and avoided them from the start.

Having gone back to Radium halides months ago, my 465 gallon SPS reef is much more colorful than it ever was under Sol Blues or Radions.

Love the Radion Pros over my 100 gallon LPS/Softy mixed reef, but the UV in the Pros is not necessary for LPS, SPS or softy growth, but they do help a lot in adding pop to the colors.

Interesting observation ...

 

[Aqualund]

Let's leave science out for the moment; ...... Now how do you explain this scientifically ? just wondering...?
So after 2 months of testing the mh

You want me to take science out of it, and then explain something to you scientifically. This is where science and myth diverge...at the very point of a testable hypothesis combined with the unwillingness to recognize varying features of the lights in question.

It has been proven and I have stated that MH lights provide a "scattershot" of light spectrum at values which have proven beneficial to a lot of coral species. For this reason, they have been the standard for many years, especially in SPS.

LED's, however have had an improper introduction into the market because they have been introduced with a 1:1 ratio, which is clearly, and has been proven, not beneficial for SOME corals and most coloration.

In their defense, a properly adjusted led fixture that addresses the needs of absorption and emission spectra, and chlorophyll a and b absorption spectras does definitely provide the proper lighting corals require...and to that end, DOES achieve all of those things you mentioned achieving with MH.

I guarantee the led fixture you mentioned in the "scientific test" did not have leds an ALL of the required spectrums and their respective required intensities for success. i.e. 417,428,442,460,450-460,480-96,500-510,540-590, 630,647, and 664nm. There is no purchasable led on the market that has the entirety of these spectrums in a individually controllable array, therefore, you cannot properly compare leds to MH until you can create a custom spectrum that can properly compete with the scattershot spectrum that a MH is providing.

However, yes, you can compare all the led units that have thus been created and sold to the public since their inception and say that for some particular corals like pocillipora and seriatapora they definitely fall short of the MH over the same coral.

In the future though, led units will NEED to have all of these needs met, or the only people that will see continued success with leds over reef are going to be the diy guys providing the proper spectrum themselves.

 

[Aqualund]

but the UV in the Pros is not necessary for LPS, SPS or softy growth, but they do help a lot in adding pop to the colors.

Just as much as you say a blanket statement cant be made for their necessity, you cannot equally say that UV is unnecessary. That is purely your opinion.

But lets clarify, the UV everyone talks about here is from 400nm to 450nm which isnt actually UV..

However I am willing to accept that the 100% loss of pocillipora in their study could be attributed to the lack of light frequency in either direction of the spectrum...but since the cool whites provide minimum amounts of most every color above the rb line...and sub 450nm light is the only range missing from a rb/cw combo...I would be more inclined to think that the losses would be attributed to lack of sub 450nm color.

Likewise, since I have added 430nm as a supplemental to my cw/rb combo my pocillipora and seriatopora have had zero issues, just like every other coral.

 

[bernie lyons]

science

science

You want me to take science out of it, and then explain something to you scientifically. This is where science and myth diverge...at the very point of a testable hypothesis combined with the unwillingness to recognize varying features of the lights in question.

It has been proven and I have stated that MH lights provide a "scattershot" of light spectrum at values which have proven beneficial to a lot of coral species. For this reason, they have been the standard for many years, especially in SPS.

LED's, however have had an improper introduction into the market because they have been introduced with a 1:1 ratio, which is clearly, and has been proven, not beneficial for SOME corals and most coloration.

In their defense, a properly adjusted led fixture that addresses the needs of absorption and emission spectra, and chlorophyll a and b absorption spectras does unequivocally provide the proper lighting corals require...and to that end, DOES achieve all of those things you mentioned achieving with MH.

I guarantee the led fixture you mentioned in the "scientific test" did not have leds an ALL of the required spectrums and their respective required intensities for success. i.e. 417,428,442,460,450-460,480-96,500-510,540-590, 630,647, and 664nm. There is no purchasable led on the market that has the entirety of these spectrums in a individually controllable array, therefore, you cannot properly compare leds to MH until you can create a custom spectrum that can properly compete with the scattershot spectrum that a MH is providing.

However, yes, you can compare all the led units that have thus been created and sold to the public since their inception and say that for some particular corals like pocillipora and seriatapora they definitely fall short of the MH over the same coral.

In the future though, led units will NEED to have all of these needs met, or the only people that will see continued success with leds over reef are going to be the diy guys providing the proper spectrum themselves.

When I meant "take the science out " I meant NOT using meters and analizing the light spectrum ,par, ect on either set up for this particular test. However with the observation of many aquarists here who have also made these comparison's along with your own testamony that led fixture's today do not hold up against MH especially on SPS corals at this point in time ,what are we arguing about then ? I find it somewhat amusing that you are making a hypothesis on "IF" an led fixture had all the proper spectrum and intensities (417-664)nm that it will match any metal halide and satisfy ALL corals including SPS for their nutritional ,absortion , emmision spetra ,scattershot, intensity,ect. ? Well , were is the data to back that up ? Better yet, how about producing such an fixture and then "observe" and see whether your theory holds true, rather than assume !

 

[Aqualund]

When I meant "take the science out " I meant NOT using meters and analizing the light spectrum ,par, ect on either set up for this particular test. However with the observation of many aquarists here who have also made these comparison's along with your own testamony that led fixture's today do not hold up against MH especially on SPS corals at this point in time ,what are we arguing about then ? I find it somewhat amusing that you are making a hypothesis on "IF" an led fixture had all the proper spectrum and intensities (417-664)nm that it will match any metal halide and satisfy ALL corals including SPS for their nutritional ,absortion , emmision spetra ,scattershot, intensity,ect. ? Well , were is the data to back that up ? Better yet, how about producing such an fixture and then "observe" and see whether your theory holds true, rather than assume !

Well, the key distinction I'm trying to make is that the MH supporter flat out will not use LED's, while the leds themselves are perfectly capable of doing the exact same thing MH do, and those who have made the led arrays like I have described can prove this to be true.

So more specifically, I'm saying that if you want an LED fixture that will out perform a MH in every category, which is infact, the future of the hobby, you will have to make it yourself.

As for producing such a fixture...well yes in my coral farm and for several customers I do a custom LED array that addresses all of those spectral needs...now. But this has come after making the disappointing transition from MH to rb/cw leds and figuring out that something was missing. Once I made the adjustments, like many others here can attest to, the LED's outperform the MH in every category, including coloration.

But this is only really done when you basically mimic the general plot of a 20k MH lamp, with peaks that address the needs I pointed out earlier. So it is just a matter of recreating a particular spectral plot. For the cost of operation, I would much prefer to do that with leds than MH, wouldnt you?

 

[AcroporAddict]

Just as much as you say a blanket statement cant be made for their necessity, you cannot equally say that UV is unnecessary. That is purely your opinion.

I said UV is not necessary for coral growth, and that is backed up by a years use of AI Sol Blues over SPS, and a years use of Radion G1 over SPS, both LEDs that do not have UV. Not just an opinion, but based on actual product use.

I actually don't have issue with what you have posted, except to give credence to the other poster's erroneous statement.

The previous poster whose statement about the necessity of UV for coral growth you are defending is making blanket statements based on on less than a month's use each of several LED products, one right after the other, including Radion, AI, and Kessil. And those statements are from using corals like leathers, ricordea and candy cane in a tank that had obvious other problems. Not a single SPS in his tank.

Read this, and you will get the idea:

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2331787

Now this is only an opinion, but I definitely agree that for those that can do it, a DIY LED is probably the best way to go if you are going to use them over SPS. The commercially made units I have experience with just don't cut it for SPS color compared to halides.

 

[RKLion]

Personally I love halides nothing beats them. But for the best results I use all three halides with t5 and led supplementation. I have a killer sps tank and halides are for health , growth and colour and the LEDs help bring out the pop of certain corals.

 

[jda]

This is a hobby, not a business. Observations and anecdotes are always going to be more important than science and studies. Even the science and studies that have been published are not all that well done when you compare them against real studies - they oftentimes leaving more questions than they answer, have a laundry list of only somewhat realistic assumptions and even sometimes base their starting points on other similar quality studies. Also, we all know of studies and science by authors and long time hobbyists that have turned out to be bunk - the first one that comes to mind is Shemik's sandbed science. I appreciate what these people do, but even most of them will tell you that this is not true science and that you need to have the breath and depth of knowledge and experience to figure out how their work fits into your goals. Even the medical profession do not call it science and studies, they call it practice. Go out and look at tanks with your own eyes and gather some observations of your own, preferably with some tanks that you aspire to be like. If you have high enough of aspirations, then you will see some definite trends in nearly every aspect of captive husbandry. If your aspirations are more pedestrian, then you will find dozens of ways to achieve such results. Then, you can formulate your own plan. IMO, the issue that most have is that they have aspirations in the stratosphere and observations on the ground.

I will leave out for a moment that some types of LEDs produce damaging spectrum for most corals except for the shallowest natural inhabitants.

There is 2 things to know about light and coral. 1). some spectrum is needed to grow the dinoflagelites in the coral. This spectrum is absorbed, used up a little and spit back out at a spectrum with less energy producing visible light. 2). some spectrum is immediately reflected at the same energy in which it gets to the coral also producing visible light. The amount of this balance will vary from coral to coral - for SPS, they reflect more spectrum than they use... for like a leather coral, the absorb more than they reflect.

Since there are no LED systems that are truly full spectrum, with actual visible light being emitted in every single point from 400 to 800, there is no possible way that the same color can be immediately reflected like other types of light sources. The frequencies are simply not there to be reflected back. "More spectrum" LED lights do look better than blue/white.

While the coral might need the spikes in certain ranges to grow, our eyes will see the full monty, especially if the hobbyist is used to this from past experience. Any best-of-breed light source will need to satisfy both criteria to win over those with truly the highest of aspirations with certain coral. For other types of coral that absorb more and reflect less, lack of true full spectrum is less of an issue.

Full spectrum LED is a marketing term, not a reality... just like UV. Again, people have upgraded from a sales pitch. Some day, somebody will make a single diode that emits a spectrum like a halide bulb from about 350 to about 800. I have heard the BS arguments that the reef hobby is a rounding error to most LED manufacturers bottom line, but those of us who have been around also heard this about fluorescent bulbs and metal halides and somebody figured out a way to make money in the aquarium hobby by making both of those. This will eventually happen, but it is going to take a LONG time unless one of two things happens... more of a critical mass will need to adopt LED (other types of lighting still have much higher numbers - remember that most people are not on message boards) or the mass that currently uses LED stops buying the current piecemeal spectrum fixtures and forces somebody to innovate. Until then, LED will never be a solution for all hobbyists.

 

[Aqualund]

Yeah Acroporaddict...that guy is completely missing the boat. And I've understood what you've been saying the entire time, but I just wanted to identify with you, the personal experience of my own with regards to "UV" spectrum and sps growth. With all conditions being equal, 430nm leds were required for me to keep the corals I listed...over the long term...like longer than 2 years. And this is based on keeping frags of the same coral in the same system under 430nm supplemented light and non supplemented light separately.

Observations and anecdotes are always going to be more important than science and studies.

Wow. lol. The only studies I would dismiss are the anecdotal "studies" by billy bob in his basement. The studies I have linked to you are vetted, authentic, and scientifically based studies which have adhered to the scientific method in their application.

Fundamentally, I think you might be confused about the nature of light and how it interacts with a coral. Unless the corals are made of metal, they do not "reflect" light...and even then, light would be "absorbed" and "reflected" due to the photoelectric effect, causing an electrical current. The properties you are describing can be attributed to the compton effect...in which absorbed light is emmitted back out at a lower energy frequency, where the energy loss is due to the interaction of the photons with electrons in the molecular proteins of the animal. Additionally you have the light which is used by the different chlorophylls as well.

What you are actually describing are the pigmentation proteins that give off a certain color based on the light wavelength that "excites" that protein. As you can see here:

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2006/9/aafeature

There have been EXTENSIVE studies which can identify the specific wavelengths to promote specific coloration and florescence of nearly every coral in the hobby.

So, I disagree completely with you. The technology is already here to provide a more complete full spectrum light source for your corals and that is through the means of employing several color diodes, each individually controllable in order to create a wavelength spread that is more efficient and beneficial for the inhabitants and the owners.
I accept that MH's provide you with everything you want and you're fine with their inefficiency. That's your choice. But dont sit here and say science is inaccurate and leds wavelengths are "bad" when you are not a scientist, have not done studies, and have not worked with a full spectrum led array and seen the true benefits of such a system.

To compare the entire led area of the hobby to the few brand name fixtures available out there is a false assertion.

 

[DavidinGA]

. am I crazy for wanting to replace the LED's or have any of you noticed anything similar?

Yes, you are.

I am on my first led set (Reefbreeders) and would never go to a more expensive and more difficult to maintain light source.

 

[jda]

I totally agree that the name brand fixtures are not great.

This is what I am talking about, although I am horrible at saying it. A study from advance aquariust about proteins does not help much in this discussion - the point of the article, while I am sure completely accurate in isolation, is somewhat misapplied in this situation and the scope of the article was narrower than what is being discussed here. Go an observe some tanks and you will have a much better grasp of what is really happening with even wider spectrum LEDs, how much too much white LED can really burn/hurt coral in the real world, how many LED users are abandoning them or using other light sources as well, or how well most coral does under other types of light. You will also find that other types of lighting are quite a bit more efficient for some tanks when you consider coverage and amount of fixtures necessary.

There is really no way to get around this - it is not about what something can do, based on hypotheticals, studies, etc... it is about what they actually do. You need experience to know this.

Unless, of course, you are looking for the best tank available based on internet reading, anecdotes, misapplied articles and based nothing on actual experience. Find people who have been doing what you want to do for 10+ years and pay attention to them. They don't post much since they rarely need anything and are sick of getting blasted by the noobies and inexperienced which are somewhat of the leading edge of message boards. However, they are out there, are usually nice people who are willing to help and have perhaps the most to offer this hobby - actual, vetted experience. This will lead to better success than article and message board posts.

I had a Engineering Professor in college that said, and he was 100% serious, that he could commission a study that could conclude that your mom was really your dad and that your dad was really your mom. It takes a different level of thought to understand his point, but he is right.

 

[Tank2379]

Corals are dying you have LED = solution Bad water quality... Same water quality under MH= Corals are growing and Thriving.... The big guys see the problem but don't want to say anything about it because will damage the LED industry....

 

[gbru316]

This debate is still going on, even after TOTM tanks lit by LED's? Even after LED's have been used in tanks that have spawning acropora? Even after thread-after-thread shows good results with LED fixtures?

Sheesh! Guess this is what happens when there's no politics subforum :lmao:

 

[mixedreefjunky]

Their just stubborn Halide guys that wont move into the future of the hobby. People once thought halides werent as good as pc lighting.

 

[Aqualund]

Well the underpinnings of your reply imply that because you have not seen me on here for 10 years showing you my amazing tanks lit with leds then what I have to say and show by way of personal experience and backed up with scientific evidence is irrelevant.

This article, which is merely a consolidated form of a SCIENTIFIC STUDY shows what frequencies of light do what for virtually any coral you can think of. so when you say

"well i dunno much about light, but i know that MH over sps...well the corals just look better."

well I can direct you to this SCIENTIFIC STUDY and explain to you why they look better. But that is only if you want to accept the information.

I don't need to come on here and measure my d$#% to get you to listen to what I have to say. But light is light, whether you get it from a metal halide lamp or an led. If you want the same effects that MH provide, but with led, you need to account for intensity and variety of spectrum, once you do this, you can, and I HAVE produce more cost efficient lighting.

I'm not sure what you think these scientists have to gain by identifying the spectrum of emission and absorption for corals, besides just identifying them. But it's people like you that call into question the whole breadth of work by scientists in their respective field armed with nothing but anecdotal evidence. This type of ideology prevents us from making progress.

I have NOT ONCE seen anyone that has had years of experience that made the transition from MH to LED, that did so by using a WIDE variety of LEDS, on the order of 8 to 10 individually controlled channels in order to mimic a full natural spectrum found in a reef that came back and said they were not happy.

In every instance of dissatisfaction with the performance of leds for coloration, florescence and overall health, the leds used did not meet the needs of the corals because of the lack of a developed spectrum.

Therefore, everyone that has been complaining about the poor performance of LEDS has been right...they do worse than MH, but this is only because the leds were not configured properly.

But that is something you would need to come to yourself, and it takes a different level of thought for that.

 

[Aqualund]

Corals are dying you have LED = solution Bad water quality... Same water quality under MH= Corals are growing and Thriving.... The big guys see the problem but don't want to say anything about it because will damage the LED industry....

There is absolutely no scientific merit to this statement. what kind of leds were used? Were there specific spectrum that were missing? do you know what they were?

Who are these big guys? where are they hiding? You think because a guy has a tank in place for 20 years that costs him $800 a month to operate is doing it better than a guy doing the same thing, winning totm and contributing to the forums and the hobby for only $100 a month is not as qualified to speak?

Seems more to me like these "big guys" are lazy...because once all the "little guys" do all the groundwork to get a proper led platform that outperforms MH, they will switch over. It happened before with MH. So stop stroking them off.

 

[power boat jim]

Well the underpinnings of your reply imply that because you have not seen me on here for 10 years showing you my amazing tanks lit with leds then what I have to say and show by way of personal experience and backed up with scientific evidence is irrelevant.

This article, which is merely a consolidated form of a SCIENTIFIC STUDY shows what frequencies of light do what for virtually any coral you can think of. so when you say well I can direct you to this SCIENTIFIC STUDY and explain to you why they look better. But that is only if you want to accept the information.

I don't need to come on here and measure my d$#% to get you to listen to what I have to say. But light is light, whether you get it from a metal halide lamp or an led. If you want the same effects that MH provide, but with led, you need to account for intensity and variety of spectrum, once you do this, you can, and I HAVE produce more cost efficient lighting.

I'm not sure what you think these scientists have to gain by identifying the spectrum of emission and absorption for corals, besides just identifying them. But it's people like you that call into question the whole breadth of work by scientists in their respective field armed with nothing but anecdotal evidence. This type of ideology prevents us from making progress.

I have NOT ONCE seen anyone that has had years of experience that made the transition from MH to LED, that did so by using a WIDE variety of LEDS, on the order of 8 to 10 individually controlled channels in order to mimic a full natural spectrum found in a reef that came back and said they were not happy.

In every instance of dissatisfaction with the performance of leds for coloration, florescence and overall health, the leds used did not meet the needs of the corals because of the lack of a developed spectrum.

Therefore, everyone that has been complaining about the poor performance of LEDS has been right...they do worse than MH, but this is only because the leds were not configured properly.

But that is something you would need to come to yourself, and it takes a different level of thought for that.

couldnt have said it better, although I have tried a few times but it seems to fall on deaf eyes.

 

[jda]

I think that we are on different levels of thought and expectation.

I don't care about what can be one, only what is done. Get it done and then I will care. I need lights to execute, not hypothesize. People are dropping LEDs because the don't execute. Pointing to what can be done, studies and science does not matter to them. This thread is about actual execution.

I also don't see any savings in my own personal scenario by switching where similar large SPS tanks are using 2, 3 or 4 panels to cover what I can cover with a single 250W halide with a reflector. Some of these folks have bought new fixtures since the last time that i changed my halide bulbs (2 years on my Phoenix). Keep in mind that 500-1000W heaters take a lot of electricity to run too. If there are savings at all, they are not much.

Fix the spectrum, commercial availability, spread, disco effect, large tank efficiency, wide area shadowing and effective longevity. If you can do it, then nearly everybody will buy it. Until then, isn't all of this talk assuming that light is light and about who used what and how many diodes just academic?

You bet that people will migrate when a good alternative is there for them. You can also bet that nobody will care whose sweat and backs they climbed on to get there.

 

[power boat jim]

I think that we are on different levels of thought and expectation.

I don't care about what can be one, only what is done. Get it done and then I will care. I need lights to execute, not hypothesize. People are dropping LEDs because the don't execute. Pointing to what can be done, studies and science does not matter to them. This thread is about actual execution.

I also don't see any savings in my own personal scenario by switching where similar large SPS tanks are using 2, 3 or 4 panels to cover what I can cover with a single 250W halide with a reflector. Some of these folks have bought new fixtures since the last time that i changed my halide bulbs (2 years on my Phoenix). Keep in mind that 500-1000W heaters take a lot of electricity to run too. If there are savings at all, they are not much.

Fix the spectrum, commercial availability, spread, disco effect, large tank efficiency, wide area shadowing and effective longevity. If you can do it, then nearly everybody will buy it. Until then, isn't all of this talk assuming that light is light and about who used what and how many diodes just academic?

You bet that people will migrate when a good alternative is there for them. You can also bet that nobody will care whose sweat and backs they climbed on to get there.

There is plenty of excecution it just keeps getting ignored. How do you possibly need more led wattage then MH? I traded 1200 w of MH for 650 w total watts of LED and I dont need run them 10 hrs a day at 100%. All you need to do to fix the disco effect (if there is any) is raise the darn lights. There is nothing wrong with the spectrums available, you just need to put together the the right ones. I did it there is no magic involved and they are all off the shelf available to anyone.

The only lack of one execution there is today is on the part of the user.