I find it interesting that the early LEDs were considered equal to halides-by the manufacturers. With each improvement made to the LED systems, the wattages rise-and yet the manufactures still say they equal halides. I would have thought if they were equal before, and have been improved- they would surpass the halides. I have no dog in the race- I use both-but I do have the advantage of seeing first hand the research being done on LED-and its comparison to halides in testing. The question is only if LED will surpass halides before plasma takes off. I live where the LED was invented- and it is one of the best ag schools as well-if they could prove LED to be the top dog- they would-but so far they can`t.
Anyone Thinking of Dumping LEDS and going back to Halides
- Thread starter Goldcoastreefs
- Start date
AlexR
Premium Member
I'm happy with my new LED's. My Halide/T5 gave less light to my eyes and much more heat/electricity. I have a 300w LED fixture with 100x3w LED's. Separate plugs for blue/white. Its a pretty awesome fixture, has to be the best I have ever owned and I have been reef keeping for over 20 years. Corals and inverts love it too!
The LED fixture I have cost me roughly $240. The older Halide/T5 fixture cost about $350.
My LED fixture takes much less electricity and gives off much less heat. My chiller runs much less now, thus saving even more electricity. And my monthly bill is insane as it is. I am an lucky guy because my wife lets me indulge in my expensive hobbies with no remorse.
I am sorry but I wont go into any scientific mumbo jumbo, I can, but don't have the desire.
The LED fixture simply looks brighter and makes the colors of my corals look enhanced, greener greens, pinker pinks, reds pop, etc... While with my Halide/T5 fixture the colors were much more bland. Everything has always been healthy, but the LED's seem to have improved growth for me. I may have just chosen a good LED fixture and had a bad Halide/T5 fixture.
But with my experiences, i wont be switching back, ever.
Some details about my LED fixture:
•Spectrum of Light: 450nm and white 10000K
•True Royal Blue Spectrum:450-452nm,Cooling White:10000K
•The range of power consumption under 110V: 212W-222W,220V:202W-211W
•LED Lifespan: 50000hours
•Every led has a protective diode, so if one goes bad the light will sill work
•Below the LED is a Heat sink and then 2 high-speed rotation fans.
The LED fixture I have cost me roughly $240. The older Halide/T5 fixture cost about $350.
My LED fixture takes much less electricity and gives off much less heat. My chiller runs much less now, thus saving even more electricity. And my monthly bill is insane as it is. I am an lucky guy because my wife lets me indulge in my expensive hobbies with no remorse.
I am sorry but I wont go into any scientific mumbo jumbo, I can, but don't have the desire.
The LED fixture simply looks brighter and makes the colors of my corals look enhanced, greener greens, pinker pinks, reds pop, etc... While with my Halide/T5 fixture the colors were much more bland. Everything has always been healthy, but the LED's seem to have improved growth for me. I may have just chosen a good LED fixture and had a bad Halide/T5 fixture.
But with my experiences, i wont be switching back, ever.
Some details about my LED fixture:
•Spectrum of Light: 450nm and white 10000K
•True Royal Blue Spectrum:450-452nm,Cooling White:10000K
•The range of power consumption under 110V: 212W-222W,220V:202W-211W
•LED Lifespan: 50000hours
•Every led has a protective diode, so if one goes bad the light will sill work
•Below the LED is a Heat sink and then 2 high-speed rotation fans.
Last edited:
TropTrea
New member
I will say from roughly 4 years of playing with LED's they have improved. But in most commercial fixtures they have gone to the route of dropping price rather making optimum usage of the new technology. Yes it as someone said add more gizmos to them to make last years sound obsolete rather improve the cost efficiency.
Yes prices have come down the 5 year old LED system that sold for $3,000 could have been built for $1,000.00 back then by the DIY individual. Today he can build a system for half that money with twice the light output. Just looking at the last two years it was hard to find a LED that hit 80 lumns per watt, compared to today when the quality manufacturers are exceeding 120 lumns per watt. Most of the big manufacturers claim they will be marketing LED's at 200 lumns per watt by the year end.
But lets look at there market. What percentage of the LED market is the aquarium industry. Lets look at how many light bulbs are in your house and what percentage of those are on your aquarium. Then how many houses in your neighborhood have aquariums at all. We are a very small segment of the market and when they invest millions of dollars into a new LED design they are looking at a market that will sell the most of these units rather any small segment of the market.
Now you look at the aquarium fixture manufacturers. They are not the ones designing the LED's. They are simply taking the LED's designed for the main stream markets and trying to apply them. When a new series of LED's come out they start running tests on them, build prototype fixtures, test the prototypes, develop reproduction models, run added tests, when the have final product then they run them to endorsement LABS like UL and CSI. finally they hit the market and in the mean time the LED manufacturers have already come out with two new series of LED's.
Look at the LED fixtures out there and how many are still running 1 Watt LED's when the major manufacturers of LED's are producing 10 Watt LED's now.
Yes there is a difference between a 2005 LED light fixture and one you get today. In 2005 they produced the same LUMNS as a 250 Watt MH with only 200 watts of power. Today they are producing the SAM PAR as the 250 Watt MH with 150 Watts of power. In another 5 years they will be producing the same spectrum with only 100 watts of power.
But when is worth to make the switch? This is something that marketing is trying to convince you to switch today. Then next year when there new model that is slightly better comes out they will try and convince you again the same thing. Your the only one that can make the decision if the new one is worth the investment for you or not.
My point is that the boys in the labs creating LEDs trying to tune them to use on plants and animals still have not had success in surpassing halides. They are starting to get close to equal, but the wattages needed are getting close to each other. You are talking about marketing and whatnot, with what exists on the market, where I am talking about the people creating the LED tech.
That matches with what I have been able to glean from public sources. I think that the expectation in that industry is that LEDs as a technology will advance via Moore's law. That is prices will halve and efficiency double in 18 month cycles. The one slide show I found (from 2012 I think) outlined this and felt that in two cycles, LED would have a clear advantage.
The other thing I found was that commercial enterprises were finding 'recipes' for different crops. That is, they were tuning spectrum differently for different crops. Specific tunings are not in the public domain for obvious reasons.
That's a good news bad news story for us reefers. The good news is that the technology will only get less expensive and more efficient. The bad news is that we are not a large enough market to warrant the research dollars required to optimize the technology for coral growth and colour and viewing colour. We are left to hope that our hobby will get pulled along by research efforts in more viable industries. Well, that and trial and error.
TropTrea
New member
Well lets look at the big industires that would buy LED's.
You have the home owner looking for a more efficient light.
You have commercial buildings looking on reducing expenses.
You have a medical industry looking for better light regardless of cost.
Then you have the gardening business be it commercial or hobby.
How large are all of these compared to the aquarium industry? If there developing a special LED which will they spend the most effort and capital upon. The one that they will make the most profits off of.
If they can sell a 10 million of them a year they only need to make a dime off of each one. But if they see a market of only 20,000 a year they need to make $50.00 on each one to match the others level of return. Then the look will there be a market for it at that price.
Fortunately we fell into some fields where LED's had been developed for other reasons and we are able to utilize them. But for the fine tuned perfect LED system it probably needs to go a step beyond this for the Reef world.
You have the home owner looking for a more efficient light.
You have commercial buildings looking on reducing expenses.
You have a medical industry looking for better light regardless of cost.
Then you have the gardening business be it commercial or hobby.
How large are all of these compared to the aquarium industry? If there developing a special LED which will they spend the most effort and capital upon. The one that they will make the most profits off of.
If they can sell a 10 million of them a year they only need to make a dime off of each one. But if they see a market of only 20,000 a year they need to make $50.00 on each one to match the others level of return. Then the look will there be a market for it at that price.
Fortunately we fell into some fields where LED's had been developed for other reasons and we are able to utilize them. But for the fine tuned perfect LED system it probably needs to go a step beyond this for the Reef world.
James77
Team RC
Compared to the aquarium...namely the reef aquarium...industries, any of those are huge. We kind of coat tailed on the gardening/horticulture technology.
As a homeowner...there is not an LED on the market I would consider a savings over any compact fluorescent. First...they are only starting top approach the output of CFls. Buy in on a rebate or sale with CFL's, and you can get them for a buck a piece around here. Add in the unknown of reliability, or damage to one....and they are too much of an "investment" to make them worth the cash for what amounts to miniscule savings.
Commercial...I still see commercial buildings around here employing halides. The ones that are not are using T5 or T8 (I think) fluorescent lighting.
Not sure on the other 2....
reefwiser
New member
I am in factory maintenance an we are removing MH lighting for LED. I remember when went from sodium Vapor lights to MH the where so bright. When we put up the new LED fixtures they made the old MH lights look really weak. We moved to LED for a brighter plant than what MH
could give us.
could give us.
power boat jim
Well-known member
The huge downside to CFL is the mercury thats in them.That makes disposal a problem. I have been replacing bulbs with LEDs in any application they will fit. Personally I dont see CFLs being around all that long given their disposal problem, they dont light up very quickly and that their size is often a problem in some fixtures. LEDs will probably replace them entirely.
James77
Team RC
All but a handful of the ones I have used light up instantly, they have greatly improved over the years. Unless it is very cool, they are bright right away....outside lamps though in this area are noticeably dim in the very cold. EDIT: I will add cool CFls can be somewhat pleasant if they are not 100% on right away...nothing worse than my pupils snapping shut at 5am on a bathroom run
Of course CFL will be replaced eventually...all lighting is replaced as time goes on. But I truly do not see it happening anytime soon. Around me, there is zero move to LED that I can see. They have the things showcased at Home Depot and people walk right past it. The disposal issue can easily be solved....maybe even recycle it....with some simple program. I have no problem storing up CFLs for a year and dumping them on a CFL disposal day.
What is not there with the LED lights for household use is savings. It is only a handful of watts saved over CFL, and the insane cost of the LED "bulbs" right now makes it silly to even consider it. You mention the size of CFL bulbs...they have long had specialty CFLs that will fit in smaller fixtures...and LEDs are not all that great as far as variety goes(shape wise).
James77
Team RC
Somehow I picture a government mandate for that to happen, just as was needed for CFL.
power boat jim
Well-known member
That will only happen after they have been perfected for every application and there is disposal program in place.
meshwheel
New member
What I see really makes the led much more efficient as a whole is this:
1. Up to 40% of light is lost with a metal halide fixture! Light is bouncing all over the place. It has to, and alot of it is wasted.
2. A cheezy or junky MH ballast can waste up to 30% off the entire light set up! Just depends on your particular ballast.
3. Heat! As the temp rises and goes past optimal, you lose bulb life and spectrum much quicker.
The led blows the light straight down into the tank. It does not look as bright, because all that wasted light your used to seeing is not there anymore. ITS IN THE TANK! It's going into the tank, not all over the place. This is why so many people fry all their corals.
I would venture to say a PAR meter is really helpful here. Or heed the warning of the manufacturer and use the acclimation mode on your led's if you have one.
I never thought I could grow SPS with 120-ish watts of light for 4 hours a day. And I am not doing anything magical. Just water params correct and thats it!
This just shows how much MORE efficient they are. YOU CANNOT COMPARE LUMENS PER WATT OUTPUT ONLY. It will not give you a accurate real world comparison.
If I took a 100 watt MH( to campare to my LED running at one 120-ish for 4 hours) and ran it for lets say 9 hours over my tank, my corals would suffer!!!! I promise you. The reflector, heat, lenses, covers etc. would not provide enough light for my corals.
Your comparing 2 different systems producing light. I would have never believed it myself until I decided to try it. I felt the Reefbreeders was crucial as to the layout of the led's they use. Much like a row of T5's.
My corals came from MH lit tanks. So far, the colors are every bit as good. Time will tell but so far, I am very pleased with the results. We will see in the summer months if my chiller is even needed any more.
1. Up to 40% of light is lost with a metal halide fixture! Light is bouncing all over the place. It has to, and alot of it is wasted.
2. A cheezy or junky MH ballast can waste up to 30% off the entire light set up! Just depends on your particular ballast.
3. Heat! As the temp rises and goes past optimal, you lose bulb life and spectrum much quicker.
The led blows the light straight down into the tank. It does not look as bright, because all that wasted light your used to seeing is not there anymore. ITS IN THE TANK! It's going into the tank, not all over the place. This is why so many people fry all their corals.
I would venture to say a PAR meter is really helpful here. Or heed the warning of the manufacturer and use the acclimation mode on your led's if you have one.
I never thought I could grow SPS with 120-ish watts of light for 4 hours a day. And I am not doing anything magical. Just water params correct and thats it!
This just shows how much MORE efficient they are. YOU CANNOT COMPARE LUMENS PER WATT OUTPUT ONLY. It will not give you a accurate real world comparison.
If I took a 100 watt MH( to campare to my LED running at one 120-ish for 4 hours) and ran it for lets say 9 hours over my tank, my corals would suffer!!!! I promise you. The reflector, heat, lenses, covers etc. would not provide enough light for my corals.
Your comparing 2 different systems producing light. I would have never believed it myself until I decided to try it. I felt the Reefbreeders was crucial as to the layout of the led's they use. Much like a row of T5's.
My corals came from MH lit tanks. So far, the colors are every bit as good. Time will tell but so far, I am very pleased with the results. We will see in the summer months if my chiller is even needed any more.
James77
Team RC
That will only happen after they have been perfected for every application and there is disposal program in place.
Ha!....that would be the perfect time for them to step in
James77
Team RC
1- I greatly disagree with that statement....with a high end reflector, it will be making its way into the tank. For it to be "wasted", I would be seeing tremendous light spill, and I am not.
2- Right...but how many are using cheesy-butt ballasts? Even those big bad magnetic ballasts waste very little...like M80 driving a Radium. The heat from any of the ballasts I have used is almost nonexistent.
3-Halides are meant to run hot, they need to. They do NOT need fan cooling to run optimally, matter of fact, it reduces their output. I have never incorporated anything other than canopy fans(strictly for water temperature) on my tanks, and my halides perform beautifully.
Can you please provide any supporting evidence for your claims above?
Yes....my Lumenbright also blows all the halides light straight into the tank. The light spill is minimal, no more so than when I tried LEDs with optics. You speak as though a halide bulb is sitting in open air. We have great reflectors that push that light into the tank, with almost no spill...any research on Sanjays reflector tests will show that.
There are so many potential variables in that statement.
Totally incorrect. This depends entirely on the MH reflector that is being used. What nonsense.
Are you talking about the same MH ballasts that has lasted me for 10 years now? I would call that money well spent. How many LED fixtures will last that long?
power boat jim
Well-known member
Its not really a fair comparison, MH require bulb changes to keep the unit operating at peak efficiency. LEDs have no required maintenance over their life span which should be easily 10 years. I dont know of any large scale failures of LED reputable units to this point. So the answer to that question could easily be nearly all of them.
power boat jim
Well-known member
If someone spends hundreds and hundreds of dollars on a new LED unit and it wont keep their corals happy, its probably not the fault of the lights. More and more folks are finding, especially with newer units, that leds provide the light needed for corals to thrive.
meshwheel
New member
James,
You can greatly disagree all you want. And I said "UP TO 40%". There are some fixtures more/less efficient then others. I have been in this hobby almost 30 years.
I own Lumenbright fixtures. I know what they can do. The cannot shoot light down into the tank as efficiently as led's. Not even close. I own a Apogee PAR meter too.
Enclosed metal halides have fans and or ventilation for a reason just as T5's do. The led's produce light just as metal halides do. And they have the spectrum down now. They are working beautifully for me and many many others!!!
This was the same debate 4 years ago for T5's being able to grow SPS corals. This is why companies like ATI, Geismann and other are now introducing their T5's WITH LEDS!!!! You st got to get them dialed in fellas! Thats all!
You can greatly disagree all you want. And I said "UP TO 40%". There are some fixtures more/less efficient then others. I have been in this hobby almost 30 years.
I own Lumenbright fixtures. I know what they can do. The cannot shoot light down into the tank as efficiently as led's. Not even close. I own a Apogee PAR meter too.
Enclosed metal halides have fans and or ventilation for a reason just as T5's do. The led's produce light just as metal halides do. And they have the spectrum down now. They are working beautifully for me and many many others!!!
This was the same debate 4 years ago for T5's being able to grow SPS corals. This is why companies like ATI, Geismann and other are now introducing their T5's WITH LEDS!!!! You st got to get them dialed in fellas! Thats all!
Similar threads
