Lights... hit me...
- Thread starter Gweeds
- Start date
Brand name LEDs are far more expensive, fact. Point source lighting cannot hit SPS the way T5 does, fact.
Its not the way we like it, its just the way it is.
Yes it will, but as i said right at the beginning, i expected savings over time to come from not replacing tubes vs t5s. 16 tube fitting, replacing every 6 months = 32 tubes per yr at about £20 per tube = £640 per year... the leds would need to be consuming a he'll of a lot if energy for t5s to be cheaper!
As for the comment re the Chinese... have you ever looked up the inventions and tech advancements made by that country? Not to mention that they'll soon be the biggest economy in the world... hardly a recipe for going backwards is it!?! As with anything, simplicity equals customiseability equals future proof, even if that isn't designed in at great expense.
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
My previous post contains UK pricing for the two major LED brands this thread was discussing as well as ATI Sunpower pricing. Bulb replacements 16/year x £20 comes to £320/year. He could buy the T5 units, and change bulbs for 4.5 years before he hits break even using the Kessil example. Then his running cost will be more. But there will also exist LEDs two generations ahead of now... You know how that game works.
However, for all those years and all the ongoing years he will have had the gold standard of lighting. An LED can only direct light in a narrow cone from the top down. This hardly needs covering, there is a reason Maxspect have tacked wings onto their latest Razor.
Potatohead
New member
Wut
It's pretty clear to anyone with eyes that T5 provides, way, way better coverage and light spread than LED (and halide for that matter).
Thanks... fyi 'he' is me
T5 just not an option... I'm sure I put that in original post?
I'm a stubborn bugger and am determined to see this done with leds... now the challenge has moved onto cheap leds
I've spent years looking at FW under t5s and am so over it... appreciate it might be the 'best' in your opinion, but when you're comparing with AI and eco tech leds and I'm now looming at black boxes for a 5th of the price, I reckon they'll come up smelling of roses. No science behind that, just my opinion
Would be really interested to see the science behind the 'leds can't hit sps like t5s can' statement... I get the point source argument but with enough variance in the led wavelengths across the fixture the actual light hitting the corals should be of a decent spectrum.
I think the biggest issue here is that we just don't know the wavelengths of light which the zooxanthellae actually use to photosynthesise, if we did then all reef lighting would hit exactly the same nm, but it doesn't... the advantage of t5 is that there is more variance in the wavelength of the light and thus you're more likely to hit the right ones... hopefully by using cheaper leds, this variance will also be evident, to the benefit of the corals.
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
ComforablyNumb
New member
"Point source lighting cannot hit SPS the way T5 does, fact." -Bronx19
That is not fact, altho it seems to be your impression.
Look at this SPS that was grown entirely under point source LED (Kessil in this case) in my tank over 22 months:
Frags when I first got them:
Approx 12 months
Approx 15 months:
Approx 20 months:
All single point LED (2 kessils) and no supplemental lighting at all...and I'm happy with the growth.
That is not fact, altho it seems to be your impression.
Look at this SPS that was grown entirely under point source LED (Kessil in this case) in my tank over 22 months:
Frags when I first got them:
Approx 12 months
Approx 15 months:
Approx 20 months:
All single point LED (2 kessils) and no supplemental lighting at all...and I'm happy with the growth.
Last edited:
I really meant... explain how T5s 'hit' SPS in the first instance... it's all great that were saying that t5s are better and we can see better spread of light etc, but what is actually the difference? Are we talking a million photons extra per NS, a billion? Nine? Less? I don't expect and answer to that, which is kinda my point... we don't know. All we can do is see the difference, but does that actually make any difference, on a cellular level, to the zooxanthellae or is it just us projecting our own aesthetic preferences onto the argument?
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Ah, bingo... actual proof! Now all we need is the exact same coral, in the exact same place, in the exact same tank, with the exact same nutrients, with the exact same pressures over the exact same timespan with t5s..."Point source lighting cannot hit SPS the way T5 does, fact."
That is not fact, altho it seems to be your impression.
Look at this SPS that was grown entirely under LED (Kessil in this case) in my tank over 22 months:
Frags when I first got them:
Approx 12 months
Approx 15 months:
Approx 20 months:
All single point LED...and I'm happy with the growth.
I think I may have made my point...
The info in all of this thread is great, really, really great, it all confirms exactly what I thought...
We don't know what type of lighting is best and there is no scientific basis for our opinions on the subject... ergo, we might as well just plump for the lighting we prefer and ignore our corals entirely!
Has there ever been any actual study into the wavelengths of light that the zooxanthellae species within acros actually use to photosynthesise?
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Nah, just woke it up from its afternoon nap.
I'm glad you've come to a decision you feel comfortable with. That's the important part. I'm sure the Mars Aqua will work just fine for you.
Potatohead
New member
T5 simply covers more of the tank. The light is extremely diffused and reflects off glass and sand better, and therefore shadowing is greatly reduced. This leads to much healthier and nicer looking sides and undersides of the corals comparatively. It's like comparing sunlight to a huge spotlight, the former is immensely more diffused with far less shadowing.
Not trying to be a jerk here, but it's a stylo which isn't difficult (for sps), and in the last pic the underside is white, which is kind of proving our/my point.
LQT
Active member
"Point source lighting cannot hit SPS the way T5 does, fact."
That is not fact, altho it seems to be your impression.
Look at this SPS that was grown entirely under LED (Kessil in this case) in my tank over 22 months:
Frags when I first got them:
Approx 12 months
Approx 15 months:
Approx 20 months:
All single point LED...and I'm happy with the growth.
Oh c'mon, stylos don't count, those are like GSP of the SPS world. :rolleye1:
After all of this back n forth nonsense :deadhorse:, I'm curious as to what the OP decided on for his tank.
ComforablyNumb
New member
No trying to be a jerk here, but any shading "damage" you see is entirely natural and exactly what you would see in the wild. And are sytlo's SPS or not? Sure, some corals may be more difficult that stylo's, but my point remains..you can easily grow sps under single point light.
Some of that lower damage was caused by anemone when it went for a walk..but its growing back.
I dont have any acro's, but thats a personal choice..I dont happen to like colored sticks.
Potatohead
New member
So are algae, aiptasia and monti eating nudibranchs but that doesn't mean I want them in my reef
.ComforablyNumb
New member
Now you're just being ridiculous I'm afraid. You wouldnt have that stylo in your tank?
You'd be ashamed to show it? C'mon.
Potatohead
New member
Sure.
At the end of the day people are going to use what they want to use, it's really that simple. I have used LED, switched to T5 and highly prefer the latter. I may go back to LED at some point but I can't see doing that for a long time because I've been there and done that. You may feel the opposite and that is fine too.
