LED's are bad for our Hobby

[Perth_reefer]

= plasma are better at growing LPS than led, but no idea how they compare to T5 or MH or with SPS.

I think the point that Kissman was trying to make by posting the article is this one....

'Our results show that both broad and narrow bandwidth light sources (i.e. plasma and LED) result in high coral growth'

The point of the post wasn't to compare to MH/T5 but to show evidence that LEDs do work very well as lighting for reef aquariums. The article does state that LEP does produce better results than LED, however as far as I'm aware LEP isn't a readily available light source for aquarium use at the moment.

Maybe in 5-10 years time there will be heaps of us LED users bashing the new LEP technology instead of embracing it

 

[kissman]

I actually posted it because I thought some people in this thread would find it interesting. I actually haven't even finished reading it yet myself. I can't say whether MH, T5 or LED is better. I have never used MH I have used PC, T5HO and now LED's and so far I like the LED's better and I really don't care who likes them and who doesn't its my tank my investment and I love my Reefbreeders Photon 48 over my 55g. When I finally go to a 90 or 120 my LED's will be on it.

 

[mhucasey]

Mmmmm check out that pee-yellow plasma goodness

 

[Wazzel]

Mmmmm check out that pee-yellow plasma goodness

Just like old school MH.

 

[mhucasey]

Like my Coralife 5500k MH I had in 1991. They took a ton of actinics to make them look halfway decent. I lusted after the iwasakis when they came out but couldn't afford a new ballast...LPS and clam did well with that but acroporas just held on for a while then wasted away....

 

[Moser]

I think the point that Kissman was trying to make by posting the article is this one....

'Our results show that both broad and narrow bandwidth light sources (i.e. plasma and LED) result in high coral growth'

The point of the post wasn't to compare to MH/T5 but to show evidence that LEDs do work very well as lighting for reef aquariums. The article does state that LEP does produce better results than LED, however as far as I'm aware LEP isn't a readily available light source for aquarium use at the moment.

Maybe in 5-10 years time there will be heaps of us LED users bashing the new LEP technology instead of embracing it

Plasma lights for aquarium use have been around for several years- some good fixtures at that. They just didn't take off...

My point was that the paper means nothing without a reference point. The reference point for most of us is MH/T5 as that is what we compare LED results to, generally.

This paper just says LEP and LED grow galaxea coral at x rate. We have no idea if x is good or not, just that it is growth- they claim it is a high rate with no reference standard. For all we know, it might be a very slow rate. The reference we all know is 20K MH. Without that standard, that we can all relate to, we have no idea if the rates of growth are good or not, just that the authors say it is"¦..

How do we know their water quality is good enough to sustain good growth.

What if their set up favours one light system over the other?

What if they repeated it with Echinata, would they even survive the experiment?.

Just because its a published paper, doesn't mean it supports the LED is good hypothesis"¦.

Mo

 

[Perth_reefer]

Plasma lights for aquarium use have been around for several years- some good fixtures at that. They just didn't take off...

My point was that the paper means nothing without a reference point. The reference point for most of us is MH/T5 as that is what we compare LED results to, generally.

This paper just says LEP and LED grow galaxea coral at x rate. We have no idea if x is good or not, just that it is growth- they claim it is a high rate with no reference standard. For all we know, it might be a very slow rate. The reference we all know is 20K MH. Without that standard, that we can all relate to, we have no idea if the rates of growth are good or not, just that the authors say it is…..

How do we know their water quality is good enough to sustain good growth.

What if their set up favours one light system over the other?

What if they repeated it with Echinata, would they even survive the experiment?.

Just because its a published paper, doesn't mean it supports the LED is good hypothesis….

Mo

Ah ok, I wasn't aware that plasma lights had been available in the past.

I do agree with what you are saying about there being unknown factors in the experiment. As far as a reference point to MH/T5 goes I'm not sure whether that really applies to the paper.
Sure to us as hobbyists we need a reference to refer anything to, a kind of standard that has been set in the past that we can apply new techniques to.
However this research hasn't been conducted by hobbyists, it's been conducted by the Aquaculture and Fisheries Group, Department of Animal Sciences, Wageningen University. You would like to think they they know a little bit about what they are talking about. The standard that they are most probably comparing to (and I fully agree that it isn't mentioned) is that of growth in the wild. When they list the growth results and then go on to state that LEDs produce high coral growth I'd be willing to bet that the term 'high' means it's good! Remember this isn't an LED advertising campaign where results can be made to look better than they actually are, this is a scientific study conducted by a university as to whether LEDs are suitable for use in aquaculture to try and preserve our reefs, if they weren't of benefit I'm sure the paper would have said that.
With regards to water quality, use of Echinata etc. Well who knows, they can't test every coral and you'd like to think that a scientific study like this would have the basics of water maintenance correct.
Not all studies get published remember, only those that have merit, the fact that this one is selling for $40 would hopefully show that it's a respected study.

 

[mhucasey]

Pretty much all these coral studies are flawed if you want to see how a particular light or supplement impact the corals that we most care about- delicate SPS corals. Many of them choose corals that are inherently hardy or not fussy about light. In this case it was a galaxea- an LPS coral. Many I have seen use Stylophora- I've grown that under all kinds of light and level of said light. We are still a long way off from good scientific evidence of just about anything in this hobby. There are far too many variables unfortunately.

 

[Wazzel]

Pretty much all these coral studies are flawed if you want to see how a particular light or supplement impact the corals that we most care about- delicate SPS corals. Many of them choose corals that are inherently hardy or not fussy about light. In this case it was a galaxea- an LPS coral. Many I have seen use Stylophora- I've grown that under all kinds of light and level of said light. We are still a long way off from good scientific evidence of just about anything in this hobby. There are far too many variables unfortunately.

True. Our hobby has more anidotal than fact. Even when things are going good we have a hard time narrowing down the driver(s). Does not mean we should stop sharing our experience, but the receiver should always keep in mind we are all hobbiest, not scientiest. Well except for Thales and Gallion, they are actually scientist. Others may be out there and i just do not know it. I am an engineer by day.

 

[Moser]

Mmmmm check out that pee-yellow plasma goodness

And turn them down and watch them turn to Radium blue! :thumbsup:

Mo

 

[Moser]

Pretty much all these coral studies are flawed if you want to see how a particular light or supplement impact the corals that we most care about- delicate SPS corals. Many of them choose corals that are inherently hardy or not fussy about light. In this case it was a galaxea- an LPS coral. Many I have seen use Stylophora- I've grown that under all kinds of light and level of said light. We are still a long way off from good scientific evidence of just about anything in this hobby. There are far too many variables unfortunately.

+1- that was my point.
Plenty of crap gets published- not saying this is, just that because it is published, doesn't make it gospel- many seem to think a link to a published paper is the be all and end all... like this would prove that leds work. It doesn't- not for SPS anyway. My initial abstract summary still stands....

Mo

 

[Perth_reefer]

+1- that was my point.
Plenty of crap gets published- not saying this is, just that because it is published, doesn't make it gospel- many seem to think a link to a published paper is the be all and end all... like this would prove that leds work. It doesn't- not for SPS anyway. My initial abstract summary still stands....

Mo

How do we know MH and T5s work for SPS?

 

[power boat jim]

+1- that was my point.
Plenty of crap gets published- not saying this is, just that because it is published, doesn't make it gospel- many seem to think a link to a published paper is the be all and end all... like this would prove that leds work. It doesn't- not for SPS anyway. My initial abstract summary still stands....

Mo

It also doesnt prove leds grow tomatoes or makes your lawn green either. It just says they did a study and it was suitable for growing Galaxia coral. I dont see it mentioned anywhere that it was intended to prove it was the be all end all for sps growth in home aquariums and I dont see people taking it as such, at least I didnt. I also didnt pay 40 bucks to read the whole thing either so Im only going by whats on the first page.

 

[USAFReefer]

IMO, it isn't the lighting technology that is the problem, it is the person who doesn't understand how photosynthetic plants and animals utilize the light. I have been running LEDs since 2007, before that, T5'a for many years, and MH for a decade before that. From my experience, they all work the same, as long as you understand how light works and adjust accordingly.

The two main reasons I stuck with LEDs over other lights is 1. I can create a much better spectral output geared for growth than any T5/MH bulb I have tested and 2. my power bill was $500+ when running MH and T5's (due to being put in the most expensive tier within the few days of the billing cycle), since changing all my lights to LEDs, power bill is between $80-100 a month and I never even reach the second tier for electricity pricing. Just the savings from the power bill paid for all the LEDs lights in under a year. Since 2007 I have probably spent less than $80 replacing burned out LEDs (I have always DIY as I feel I can make a better light for growing, at less than 50% of the cost of what I can find on the market). Previously I was replacing 10 T5 bulbs and a 250w MH @ a cost of $300 every 6 months (due to using an Icecap 660 + M80 ballast, both really eat bulbs quickly).

My situation:
Before LEDs, cost to run lights for me = $4200/yr, assuming ~$300 a month for power out of the $500 bill, which a kill-a-watt verified, and $600/yr for bulb replacement
After LEDs, cost to run = $620/yr, assuming $50/mo out of the total bill (using kill-a-watt), and at most, another $20/yr to replace burned out LEDs.

I get the same growth if not slightly better with the LED lights I make, and I save ~$3580 annually by using LEDs over T5 and/or MH, so it is a no brainer for me to use LEDs, but I speak only for myself. Others may see their frustration from lack of knowledge to be more costly (killing corals) than just going with the old tried and true lights that have been out and working for decades.

It all comes down to personal preference, there is no validity to anyone saying X light is better than Y and Z light. Some lights are more efficient than others, but all have proven they are capable of doing the job.

 

[meshwheel]

Im running a Reefbreeders Photon fixture and love it! It is amazing and grows my SPS corals just as fast AS ANYTHING I HAVE EVER OWNED IN THE PAST! Metal halides. T5's power compacts, VHS etc.
And I am saving alot of money now with them too. I WILL NEVER GO BACK TO ANYTHING ELSE..........

 

[kissman]

Im running a Reefbreeders Photon fixture and love it! It is amazing and grows my SPS corals just as fast AS ANYTHING I HAVE EVER OWNED IN THE PAST! Metal halides. T5's power compacts, VHS etc.
And I am saving alot of money now with them too. I WILL NEVER GO BACK TO ANYTHING ELSE..........

I have been running a photon 48 over my 55 and love it so far. I am at 50% blues and 30% whites. What are you running yours at and what is it on?

 

[jackson6745]

IMO, it isn't the lighting technology that is the problem, it is the person who doesn't understand how photosynthetic plants and animals utilize the light. I have been running LEDs since 2007, before that, T5'a for many years, and MH for a decade before that. From my experience, they all work the same, as long as you understand how light works and adjust accordingly.

The two main reasons I stuck with LEDs over other lights is 1. I can create a much better spectral output geared for growth than any T5/MH bulb I have tested and 2. my power bill was $500+ when running MH and T5's (due to being put in the most expensive tier within the few days of the billing cycle), since changing all my lights to LEDs, power bill is between $80-100 a month and I never even reach the second tier for electricity pricing. Just the savings from the power bill paid for all the LEDs lights in under a year. Since 2007 I have probably spent less than $80 replacing burned out LEDs (I have always DIY as I feel I can make a better light for growing, at less than 50% of the cost of what I can find on the market). Previously I was replacing 10 T5 bulbs and a 250w MH @ a cost of $300 every 6 months (due to using an Icecap 660 + M80 ballast, both really eat bulbs quickly).

My situation:
Before LEDs, cost to run lights for me = $4200/yr, assuming ~$300 a month for power out of the $500 bill, which a kill-a-watt verified, and $600/yr for bulb replacement
After LEDs, cost to run = $620/yr, assuming $50/mo out of the total bill (using kill-a-watt), and at most, another $20/yr to replace burned out LEDs.

I get the same growth if not slightly better with the LED lights I make, and I save ~$3580 annually by using LEDs over T5 and/or MH, so it is a no brainer for me to use LEDs, but I speak only for myself. Others may see their frustration from lack of knowledge to be more costly (killing corals) than just going with the old tried and true lights that have been out and working for decades.

It all comes down to personal preference, there is no validity to anyone saying X light is better than Y and Z light. Some lights are more efficient than others, but all have proven they are capable of doing the job.

Can you please share pics of your LED success? You sound very experienced, especially since you ran halide and T5 and halide in the past. Glad the change worked out for you.

 

[USAFReefer]

Can you please share pics of your LED success? You sound very experienced, especially since you ran halide and T5 and halide in the past. Glad the change worked out for you.

Sure thing....

And this is one of the graphs I go by when making lights to match spectrum and intensity in all the right places to maximize growth while using the least amount of electricity. This is only for zooxanthellae, there are other lighting requirements that corals need for other aspects (corals need more 550-650nm than the graph leads you to believe, but not nearly as much as white LEDs put out). The graph also shows the spectral output for a few Cree white LEDs in comparison. I do have a spectrometer at my disposal, something most people don't have, which is critical for making sure the spectral output is where you want it to be. Going off of bin's or spec sheets only gets you close, but if you are really trying to design a super efficient light, you have to test each LED for spectral output prior to installing, believe me, I have had quite a few LEDs fall well outside the spectrum they were sold as. PAR meters, which I do have, are pretty useless when making a light because it doesn't take into account spectrum, so you can have a 2000 PAR heavy green/yellow light that doesn't grow corals well at all, or you can have a 200 PAR LED light that has better spectral output for photosynthesis and get much better growth.

On my lights I make, I start off by using a lot of 400-430nm (because their intensity is so low, but as the graph shows, are very important), a few 445-455, a lot of 480's, a few 505 cyans, just a couple warm whites (because between the few whites and few royal blues, that is more than enough of that 450nm blue spectrum, any more of it and it easily causes problems with corals reaching photo-saturation/inhibition). I also use a couple 660nm reds (2 per 48 LEDs) but that is for personal preference more than anything else. Warm whites provide enough for corals, but I like a little more so certain fish and corals really stand out.

 

[meshwheel]

Kissman,
I run the Photon32 and love it!. So far it's been a very easy light to set up. Not alot of bells and whistles, but it grows SPS corals and others extremely well.
My light is hung 11" above the tank, and my tank is completely covered with 1/2" acrylic. I like the covers on and it seems to make very little if any difference.
The lights run 40% blue and 35% whites at peak for 4 hours. The rest is ramping up and back down. I get approx 240-260 PAR measured with my Apogee PAR meter.
Photons are photons. The corals do not know a difference as to where they are coming from. If the spectrum is correct, then people are either blasting with too much light, or not enough.
I feel the majority of problems are water chemistry related, and not the led lights..

 

[Paul B]

I totally agree withUSAFReefer. I have also run every light in existance and LEDs will be it for me for the rest of my life.