LEDs... Have they arrived?

[headstrong]

..another vote for yes.

 

[joelespinoza]

The current problem with lighting (don't know the US, but in the Netherlands it is) that you buy a lamp saying 7 watt equals 60 watt old style. However what you want to know is the amount of wats and the lumen. Added with the coloring and maybe par for reef keeping. Since 350 watt led is still 350 watt. Which is a lot of power still.

Its the same thing here a Kessil 350 is NOT 350 watts, I believe its 90 watts.

 

[rsg4]

i think they are there, just need fine tunning.

 

[Nanook]

I think they are here to stay as well, just that they have a LONG way to go to be "right" for growing corals. Sure, they look great to the eye and have all the bells and whistles that technology folk (male reefers) like, but they are not time-tested yet over reef tanks. Considering the rapidly evolving technology (ie new fixture every few months), I think it is safe to say they will only get better and hopefully much cheaper. The investment for someone with 1100 gallons is huge and that gamble of 7 years pay off for me is just too risky at this time on a limited budget. However, I keep watching them evolve and watching the price

 

[Porgy Bait]

I say yes also. After some initial tests I'm in the process of retrofitting all my tanks with LED lights. I had crappy lights anyhow so anything at this point is an upgrade.

 

[lighthouze08]

Yes, mine arrived just checked the DHL tracking! Now can't wait to get home and unbox them.

whattt, DHL is still in business?

 

[jazzmanb]

leds have arrived....the big fancy led fixtures still have weird shimmering due to the spacing between each bulb. mark my words. The kessil 350 is the best light you can get bar none, if ya want growth,color ,perfect spectrum, beautiful shimmering at effiecient costs. It looks natural, real and a bit more subdued to the eyes then a hallide, but this thing really is stronger then any 250 watt combo, dont believe the #S, look at the corals....yes this thing is only 90 watts when driven at 100% and well grow corals like a 250-400 watt hallide. just wait a few months from now and youll see:] the results well soon be in. Theres a few local frag places out here that have switched over 100% to the kessil because growth was crazy after just two months

 

[joelespinoza]

I vote no, the LED's have not arrived. I have seen many LED fixtures over tanks, and I would not even consider purchasing one at this point. Why?

1. LED's create weird "shadows" in the tank. When looking at live rock or coral, I can see different lines of color (blue, white, purple - I'm sure there's a term for this, just don't know what it is). To me this looks unnatural and ugly.

2. The colors may be there, but they are just not as bright as halides, despite the fact that many people are bleaching their corals with them. When I look at my tank, it's bright and lights up the entire room.

Misinformation again.... LEDs are INCREDIBLY flexible.. far more so then any other style of reef lighting.... yet you get people like this who see one design and don't like it so they write off the technology as a whole..... you want a single point light source? Cluster them all together, you want multi point shimmer? Spread them apart. You think you get too much disco and don't like it? Cluster the LEDs in small groups, still to much? Don't use optics or at least make sure all the optics are the same. Still too much? Put refractive screen between the LEDS and the water.....don't like how dim the tank looks? Part of the efficiency of LEDs is not having to produce light in ranges photosynthesis doesn't use, that's an advantage, however much of that "useless" light falls in the area we see best... if you don't like it, plan your fixture with a higher ratio of warm whites...

The thing I think is funny about peoples opinions of leds is that they see a couple fixtures and assume that's all that's possible..... there is a 90 gallon tank at school that uses 3 250 watt metal halides, 2 10000ks and a 20000k. It looks like total **** compared to my led setup. The light is a nasty yellow color (even though the bulbs are new) stuff doesn't grow very well and everything looks brown and colorless. I certainly don't base my entire opinion of metal halides on that. Yet people do so with LEDs constantly....

 

[acesq]

This is a huge misconception that is beig endlessly propogated. LEDs produce a tremendous amount of heat. For every watt pumped in at least 2 watts of heat is directly produced at the back of the LED die and sent to the heatsink.

The do not RADIATE much heat in the form of IR or UV, but they do CONDUCT most of the power they consume as heat.

The chart below is CURRENT.

Am I mistaken, or is the reason LEDs seem to generate much less heat than MH despite the facts you cite in your post is because they require so much less power to generate the same PAR?

 

[longranger]

This is my first post on this forum. I am a newb as far as saltwater fish tanks go but have a lot of experience with all the types of lighting being discussed via hydroponics.

I agree with one of the earlier posts that stated LEDs have indeed arrived but still have a great deal of room for improvement.

The chart we have been looking at is technically correct but is misleading. First LEDs do produce higher PAR per watt than other the other light sources accounting for the overall low generation of heat.

Par has only a modest correlation with what our eyes find pleasing. Approached from the perspective of corals, plants and plankton the most effective spectra for optimal growth appear a bit blue, low intensity and full of shadows.

Conversely some T5 bulbs and MH create a feast for the eyes but produce relatively low PAR. Even worse much of the visually pleasing spectra is just great for nuisance algae.

Because LEDs are superior at creating specific spectra with relatively high efficiency they likely represent the future for most of our lighting needs. As far as marine models go they are in their infancy with the possible exception of kessil. I am not a rep and actually prefer the visual appearance of some of the more conventional panels like AI. The interface capabilities of AI are also cool, however as far as efficiently creating the best spectra for the needs of our tanks Kessil is probably the best available LED right now. They have done their homework both with spectra and optics. Unfortunately that does not guarantee that the effects will be pleasing to everyones eyes.

 

[Luxo]

This is a huge misconception that is beig endlessly propogated. LEDs produce a tremendous amount of heat. For every watt pumped in at least 2 watts of heat is directly produced at the back of the LED die and sent to the heatsink.

The do not RADIATE much heat in the form of IR or UV, but they do CONDUCT most of the power they consume as heat.

The chart below is CURRENT.

Based on your own argument; using LEDs would reduce the overall cost and carbon footprint of your system since in a properly designed fixture most of the heat is transfered into the heatsink rather than the tank.
This will in return reduce the time your chiller needs to be on!
The LEDs do produce enough light to maintain a successful reef, this is a fact and they do reduce the amount of energy used as well as the need for having your chiller on during the whole photo-period!
Not eveything should be assessed based on which emitter produces more light as per you table. Overall benefits of one platform over others is what is important.
Just my 2 cents.
Dave

 

[BeanAnimal]

Am I mistaken, or is the reason LEDs seem to generate much less heat than MH despite the facts you cite in your post is because they require so much less power to generate the same PAR?

A Watt is a Watt.... it follows that if you can reduce wattage and still achieve the desired results, then heat will be reduced as well. I have no desire to get into the if portion of the discussion or debate what PAR measures and what coral does or does not need to grow... My post was a general response to the question of "heat" produced per Watt converted

Secondly, the method in which the heat is transfered to the environment adds to the perception of how much heat is produced. Your BODY, at rest, imparts roughly 65 watts of energy into the room. If I asked you what was "hotter", the human body or a 60 watt light bulb, you would clearly choose the lightbulb. However, if we put you in an insulated box and the light bulb in an insulated box of the same size, your box would get hotter faster and sustain a higher temperature. Why? you are imparting more energy (heat) into the box. Perception

 

[BeanAnimal]

Based on your own argument;

I don't have an argument, I was simply stating physical fact to ensure that those following along understand where the energy goes.

using LEDs would reduce the overall cost and carbon footprint of your system since in a properly designed fixture most of the heat is transfered into the heatsink rather than the tank.
This will in return reduce the time your chiller needs to be on!

Maybe, maybe not. Where does the heat go from the heatsink? Is it heating the room, that is in turn heating the tank. In general yes, when heat is transfered directly to the room instead of directly to the tank it has more of a chance of escaping into the environment before it heats the tank. This certainly can have the effect of reducing cooling costs in the tank. How the heat is removed from the room is a different story (window, fan, ac, etc). There are many variables.


Regarding "carbon footprint". Be careful with your footing... your carbon footprint still includes LEDs for a fish tank. As such, the person to the left of you may feel that to be too much to be acceptable, even if you feel that you are doing your part or are comfortable with your "footprint".

Not eveything should be assessed based on which emitter produces more light as per you table. Overall benefits of one platform over others is what is important.

I never infered that it should. I simply posted the facts that help to illustrate some of the differences in lighting technology. It is information that should be considered along with everything else. More importantly, it illustrates the basic physics that most people are fully ingorant of, to the point of assuming almost the opposite of what is true... "LEDs don't produce heat"....

 

[Reefahholic]

Hey, beananimal...not to hijack this thread, but my overflow is working like a champ.

Check it out...sorry for the iPhone video..

Thank you for creating such a flawless system!

 

[nyknicks4412]

Many of the LED fixtures being released are not just plug and play like MH, T5's ect...that is to say you don't just plug the fixture in and turn it to 100% and away you go.

They require the user to dial in the fixture over a period of time to the setup that works best for their given tank and livestock. Saying LED's are more limited than other lighting options makes no sense. They are much more versatile. And in this regard...they may be too versatile because people actually need to work with them in the beginning instead of just plugging them into a socket.

 

[Paul B]

However, if we put you in an insulated box and the light bulb in an insulated box of the same size, your box would get hotter faster

Unless you stuff your mouth full of LEDs. Some white, some blue :lmao:

 

[Luxo]

I don't have an argument, I was simply stating physical fact to ensure that those following along understand where the energy goes.





Maybe, maybe not. Where does the heat go from the heatsink? Is it heating the room, that is in turn heating the tank. In general yes, when heat is transfered directly to the room instead of directly to the tank it has more of a chance of escaping into the environment before it heats the tank. This certainly can have the effect of reducing cooling costs in the tank. How the heat is removed from the room is a different story (window, fan, ac, etc). There are many variables.


Regarding "carbon footprint". Be careful with your footing... your carbon footprint still includes LEDs for a fish tank. As such, the person to the left of you may feel that to be too much to be acceptable, even if you feel that you are doing your part or are comfortable with your "footprint".

I never infered that it should. I simply posted the facts that help to illustrate some of the differences in lighting technology. It is information that should be considered along with everything else. More importantly, it illustrates the basic physics that most people are fully ingorant of, to the point of assuming almost the opposite of what is true... "LEDs don't produce heat"....

REDUCE!! it means lower than what it used to be it has nothing to do with a set target and/or where it should be according to any set guidelines by others!
And yes I do try to reduce the amount of energy I use by using more efficient devices without going back to the caves
Bean, you are just being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative! if your room temp is the same as your tank and no means of maintaining a comfortable environment for yourself and/or your family then you should not keep a tank1 Having said that the heat from the heatsink is morelikely to go into your ambient enviro rather than the tank which is higher in temp"simple physics as you stated"
You are looking at the info very monodirectional and just considering the parameter you like to point out, same as saying an 18 wheeler has more HP tahn a porche. However the porche can still achieve higher speed.
Fact remains that using LEDs you can use less electricity both in lighting and cooling front.
Cheers,
Dave

 

[BeanAnimal]

REDUCE!! it means lower than what it used to be it has nothing to do with a set target and/or where it should be according to any set guidelines by others!

Not relevant to the topic, but honestly I could care less what my "carbon footprint" is. :bigeyes: My only real motive for reducing energy consumption is purely monetary... That is, I use as much as I can afford to buy

Bean, you are just being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative!

No.. I have not argued anything at all. I have pointed out a very simple fact that is overlooked by 99% of the people talking about LEDs (in any market). Apply that fact however you see fit, in whatever context you see fit. As long as the context remains true to the facts, then there is no argument

I have not taken a side or argued pros or cons of LEDs. To that end (and to give my opinion NOW) I am (as we speak) building a rather elaborate LED fixture. Part of my is to reduce heat load on the aquarium and my electric bill. The criteria include being pleasing to MY eye and sustaining my SPS and a clam. If the criteria are met, the MH go to mothballs

In context to the actual poll here, I don't like the light cast by most of the fixtures (OEM and DIY) I have seen. Furthermore, I am not convinced that many of them are capable of sustaining a broad range of SPS long term. That is, MOST are severely lacking in spectral output from both a biological and an aesthetic perspective. I am however ready to jump in with both feet and give them a whirl.

In conclusion, if you see an argument, it is because you are looking for one where there was none

You are looking at the info very monodirectional and just considering the parameter you like to point out, same as saying an 18 wheeler has more HP tahn a porche. However the porche can still achieve higher speed.

Nope I am simply stating that the 18 wheeler has more HP than the porche, and doing so because most conversations on the subject are full of folks who have been told that a Porsche has more HP than a top fuel dragster. I am providing the fact (a tool) for people to use during the discussion. How one chooses to apply that fact to a given situation or contact is up to them, it is just a statement of fact.

So back to OUR subject. Most folks believe or are led (no pun) to believe that LEDs produce "no heat" and/or are many times more efficient than other lighting technologies. Somebody (me in this case) has attempted to correct the misconceptions so that facts can be used in context when discussing LEDs vs anything else.

Happy Reefing

 

[BeanAnimal]

f your room temp is the same as your tank and no means of maintaining a comfortable environment for yourself and/or your family then you should not keep a tank1

Hrmmm says who? The same person who determines acceptable carbon footprints?

Maybe some folks assign a higher priority to their hobby than they do the comfort of their family... For that matter, what about buying a $7,000 LED setup instead of a better car for the wife or the new kitchen she wanted. Maybe sending the kid to in-state school instead of out of state so that you can keep your fish? Hrmmm...

The point was, when we make statements regarding choices others make, we often find ourselves on squishy ground if we examine the logic from a broad point of view

 

[joelespinoza]

Here is a fun little color comparison, Both of these are actually fairly acurate representations of reality, however in the pictures of the LED tank, the lights are WAY down. I only have on 12 Royal blues on at about 500mA and I have on 14 neutral whites at about 70mA, So figure a ratio of about 3:1 Royal Blues to neutral whites. The other 40 LEDs are turned off, I did this just to get pictures of the tank that actually come out realistically.

Now this is not to say that LEDs are good and Metal Halides are bad, this is just pointing out how silly snap decisions based on very limited examples can be (something that seems to be made VERY often regarding LEDs).

If you saw both of these tanks without any other experience which light would you think makes the critters look better?

90 gallon plexi tank with 750 watts of metal halides (2 10,000k and 1 20,000)

55 gallon glass tank with the equavilent of 6 Cree Royal Blues driven at 1000ma, and 2 Cree Neutral white driven at 1000mA (about 24 watts total), more light makes everything look better, but makes pictures impossible: