Anyone Thinking of Dumping LEDS and going back to Halides

[Wazzel]

Mark (Wazzel) & RC et. al,

Please accept my apologies for the rant and personal comments. There is never any excuse for bad behavior either on the internet or in person. This is not an excuse, but the truth is I had been drinking and have been stressing lately over my parents as I am at the stage in life where both my parents are going through dementia, and I am the responsible child coordinating their transfer to a home.

Anyways, that is NOT an excuse for my bad behavior and personal comments against your coral.

I am sorry and apologize.

I am human and I can and do make mistakes, but I promise to try and be a better "netizen" from now on and not repeat that same mistake.

Joe Peck

Thanks. Apology accepted. I am not one to hold a grudge. End of life parent issues can be tough. I wish all the best for you. Good luck.

 

[JPMagyar]

for those that keep babbling about "led's aren't continuous ieher.. a sample W/ real numbers:
Granted this is a special broad spectrum LED though.. ;)
[IMG]http://www.thorlabs.com/images/popupImages/MBB1L3_Spectrum.gif
RAW data is available here, see spreadsheet:
http://www.thorlabs.com/newgrouppage9.cfm?objectgroup_id=2692

Hey I resemble that remark.

Jeremy as much as I respect your business acumen and skill as a longtimre reefer, I must tell you that you have fallen prey to the same fallacy as all other "broadband" graph believers.

The graph shown is not a true representation of what is occurring at a quantum level. The known combinations of elements that can be used to create the junctions necessary to produce LED light are finite and produce finite wavelengths. Manufacturers are able to pack an incredible amount of junctions onto chips and combine many different elements in very small packages. Those chips produce "broadband" light that appears to most instruments that are designed to measure light as smooth curves with a broad spectrum, but just as your dvd or iphone does not play truly analog sound so to your LED does not produce truly "analog" light no matter what the graph shows.

 

[oreo57]

The graph shown is not a true representation of what is occurring at a quantum level.

See the Excel spread sheets.. comment on that...They break down the flux per very narrow bandwidths,..
example:

477.02011 0.24198
477.136 0.24118
477.25189 0.23991
477.36778 0.23944
477.48368 0.23878
477.59958 0.23846
477.71549 0.23794
477.8314 0.23743
477.94732 0.23575
478.06324 0.23427
478.17916 0.23307
478.29509 0.23333
478.41102 0.23333
478.52695 0.23364
478.64289 0.23266
478.75884 0.23141
478.87478 0.23016
478.99073 0.22989
479.10669 0.22882
479.22265 0.22877
479.33861 0.22778

"IF" you think the graph is in error.. show me "one" correct one...........

There is less "ripple" than you tend to believe..........And if you believe it is more than the "ripple" in a MH I have a bridge to sell you..

 

[markalot]

Doesn't arguing over actual LED spectral curves miss the point though? MH and T5 spectrums are far far far from sunlight and yet produce beautiful results. It might be a happy accident that we can have bulbs that produce just the spectra that corals need to display beautiful colors.

If you search for 'Yttrium aluminum garnet spectrum', which is the phosphor coating used to make white LED, you will find graphs that are not smooth, at all. I'm not a scientist so these graphs look like pretty squiggly lines to me. Are they the real representation of what white LED's are producing?

If you add white LED to the search ('Yttrium aluminum garnet spectrum LED') you will suddenly find smooth curves rather than ugly jagged ones.

What does it all mean?

 

[CHSUB]

the "smart" guys here are trying to solve the equation on the wrong side!!!! forget about the graphs and look at the corals; then it's easy to understand....MH are the answer!!!

 

[oreo57]

Doesn't arguing over actual LED spectral curves miss the point though? MH and T5 spectrums are far far far from sunlight and yet produce beautiful results. It might be a happy accident that we can have bulbs that produce just the spectra that corals need to display beautiful colors.

If you search for 'Yttrium aluminum garnet spectrum', which is the phosphor coating used to make white LED, you will find graphs that are not smooth, at all. I'm not a scientist so these graphs look like pretty squiggly lines to me. Are they the real representation of what white LED's are producing?

If you add white LED to the search ('Yttrium aluminum garnet spectrum LED') you will suddenly find smooth curves rather than ugly jagged ones.

What does it all mean?

I'm not arguing (much) about the ripply-ness of a white LED.. Only against those that assume it is MORE than say a t5 or a MH..

Se w/ white LED you have one major emission peak (450nm whereas in a MH you have a set of mercury emission peaks (what 3 major).. and the rest is all phosphors..or metals...

NONE are pure black body emission i.e sun..

LED is "arguably" smoother or equally smooth as any of the other "punctuated" light source..
you could argue t5's are worse since they are 3 phosphors.. RGB each w/ it's own "failings" in smoothness..

Again, "ripply" LED's is not the reason for led "failure".. ALAFAICT..

 

[wildman926]

T5 light "wraps" around coral better too. Led only tanks will tend to have sps that don't do well at the base where the spotlight beams don't provide that "wrapping" kind of light; T5's fixe that issue.

The description of T5 is due to the bulb and it's reflectors, which broadens the angle of light transmitted. Light itself, does not "wrap" around coral.

Most LED's have lenses that have a max angle of 120*. The fix to better coverage of LED's is to have multiple units pointing into the tank at different angles. This would have the same affect as running T5's, pertaining to light coverage.

 

[Wazzel]

Doesn't arguing over actual LED spectral curves miss the point though? MH and T5 spectrums are far far far from sunlight and yet produce beautiful results. It might be a happy accident that we can have bulbs that produce just the spectra that corals need to display beautiful colors.

If you search for 'Yttrium aluminum garnet spectrum', which is the phosphor coating used to make white LED, you will find graphs that are not smooth, at all. I'm not a scientist so these graphs look like pretty squiggly lines to me. Are they the real representation of what white LED's are producing?

If you add white LED to the search ('Yttrium aluminum garnet spectrum LED') you will suddenly find smooth curves rather than ugly jagged ones.

What does it all mean?

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

 

[markalot]

I'm not arguing (much) about the ripply-ness of a white LED.. Only against those that assume it is MORE than say a t5 or a MH..

Se w/ white LED you have one major emission peak (450nm whereas in a MH you have a set of mercury emission peaks (what 3 major).. and the rest is all phosphors..or metals...

NONE are pure black body emission i.e sun..

LED is "arguably" smoother or equally smooth as any of the other "punctuated" light source..
you could argue t5's are worse since they are 3 phosphors.. RGB each w/ it's own "failings" in smoothness..

Again, "ripply" LED's is not the reason for led "failure".. ALAFAICT..

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

 

[Wazzel]

the "smart" guys here are trying to solve the equation on the wrong side!!!! forget about the graphs and look at the corals; then it's easy to understand....MH are the answer!!!

When people come by to pick up frags and see my tank, the first word out of their mouth is usually "Wow!".

I look at my corals and those of others and see there is no one right answer, just preferences.

 

[Wazzel]

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

Marketing.

 

[oreo57]

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

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

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

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

 

[CHSUB]

When people come by to pick up frags and see my tank, the first word out of their mouth is usually "Wow!".

I look at my corals and those of others and see there is no one right answer, just preferences.

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

 

[markalot]

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

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

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

They MEASURED with what? Why are their graphs smooth when the technical literature for the coating used shows a very unsmooth curve? JB is claiming it's a limitation of the equipment, equipment designed to measure a different light source.

 

[oreo57]

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

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

You need to walk the walk here..

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

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

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

 

[CHSUB]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[markalot]

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

You need to walk the walk here..

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[oreo57]

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

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

Yet all you give is words.

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

Is that too much to ask?

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

 

[CHSUB]

just that urban legends should end and photons are photons

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

 

[oreo57]

just that urban legends should end and photons are photons

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

NOT in the least......

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

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


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

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

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