My Overall Theory of Light (Information heavy)

ReeferBatman

New member
Hey guys, how are you? After posting on another thread with some of this info, I got a personal request about a thread that spelled out my collected thoughts more with data I've pulled together from many sources. So I sat down for the last hour or two to explain for everyone my thoughts on lighting in the hope that knowledge is power, and should be shared.

So without further adieu...


I have been researching intently into the lighting situation for corals in particular for the last year or so... Collected data from many many sources and have an understanding of evolutionary-biology. There was a great video (1.2 hours long!) on youtube that was a great help (where some of those pics came from) but he took it down.

To mix all my knowledge into a coherent theory...

First we must go over the terms [as they apply to us] that are often misused or interpreted - as there is no one good measure of 'light' (par is an attempt but lacks in certain areas)

Kelvin - is color to our eyes.

kelvinscale.jpg


Nanometers (nm) - is the particular spectrum of energy delivered. (measured for our purposes of propagating corals between 300-700 nm)

spectrum.gif


Watts – only a human energy consumption measurement which is often unrelated to...

Intensity – the amount of energy delivered.

PAR (Photosynthetically Available Radiation) and PUR (Photosynthetically Usable Radiation) are simply a convenient graph for our purpose that tries its best to mix all of this data together – Par graphs do a decent job but lack some of the finer details of the other independent measurements…

but it helps as the science is so tricky and confusing to talk about… For example, if we take light with a higher Kelvin rating it means more blue ... same as the blue represented by the lower nm readings... see how easily it gets confusing?

Anyway, that's the 'science of light' and terminology in a very concise nutshell.

Now onto the biology.
As we know corals are animals and have evolved in many forms, some of which use no photosynthetic light at all for food, ranging to those which rely primarily on photosynthesis for sustenance.

First, don’t rely on what you know from terrestrial plants because they rely mostly on chlorophyll. Chlorophyll is mostly used in land plants because they have full access to the suns light… as such chlorophyll is a very fruitful strain of photosynthetic cell (it produces a lot of energy or food for the organism)… but do so it relies upon a higher [nm] peak of light… as seen here demonstrated in a par graph…

phototropicresponse.jpg


A: Phototropic response; having a tendency to move in response to light. Basically this is the Chlorophyll containing plant or algae "moving" to respond to a positive light source to begin the process of photosynthesis (initial growth of plants, zooxanthellae, etc.).

B: Photosynthetic response; the process which begins when energy from light is absorbed by proteins called photosynthetic reaction centers that contain chlorophylls.

C: Chlorophyll synthesis is the chemical reactions and pathways by the plant hormone cytokinin soon after exposure to the correct Nanometers wave length (about 670 NM) of light resulting in the formation of chlorophyll, resulting in continued growth of a plant, algae, zooxanthellae and the ability to "feed" and propagate, and without this aspect PAR (670 NM light energy), zooxanthellae and plants cannot properly "feed" propagate. The results of the lack of this high PAR "spike" would be stunted freshwater plant growth, and eventually poor coral health in reef tanks."

In other words..
A) [420-500nm] Coral wakes up and turns toward light
B) [580-650nm] Photosynthetic Cells prep for final stage
C) [ 670-700nm] Coral 'food' actually created from Chlorophyll containing photosynthetic cells.


That said, here is the natural graph of sunlight par… and how it is “filtered” out by depths…

naturalsunlight.jpg


And how the light is 'filtered' out at depths measured in PAR...

photosyn8parvsdepth.jpg


As we can see, upper nm registers (red light) are filtered out first as light travels through water. As a result, although some corals do use chlorophyll, most corals rely more heavily on other strains of photosynthetic cell in addition to or in lieu of chlorophyll.

But that is not to say that corals don’t “need” the upper registers of light… If you notice, even up to 60 feet down, the corals still have access to at least some light up to the 600nm range... this is why past about 100 feet (represented by the red line below) we find very few photosynthetic corals… because there is very little light left other than blue light left that far down.

kelvinvsdepth2.jpg


Each coral has its own “strains” of photosynthetic cells. One strain may “create food” at 450 nm (and look green), while another strain might “create food” at 550 nm (and make the coral look more yellow/orange). Most corals have many strains... reacting to many different spectrums of light.

There are two different types of photosynthetic cells in corals, fluorescent and non-fluorescent. Non-fluorescent are just that… They absorb light at a spectrum and reflect that light back.
The other type is fluorescent. This type is really cool as it takes in light of one spectrum, and the light it gives off is of another part of the spectrum . Imagine the cell eats blue light, and spits out green light! These are most of the pigments we find so beautiful in our corals.
Anyway, many of the different “strains” of photosynthetic cells are listed below for your convenience.

photosyn101.jpg


photosyn12.jpg


photosyn13.jpg


For more in depth data on particular photosynthetic cell strains and their own particular activation (creates food for coral) rates, see some links below
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2009/1/aafeature1/
and
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2006/9/aafeature


...Continued below...
 
Last edited:
For a visual example of how different strains are in different corals, here is an evolutionary chart of "zoanth" development by families; and which families use which strains...

zoantharia.jpg


Ok, now it gets even more complicated. The same "œstrain" of photosynthetic cell will actually have different activation peaks in different animals!!! This is caused by natural selection over time acting on quite literally the cellular level.

So those lists above are generalized!! No wonder this is one of the least understood aspects of our hobby!

Here are some examples of the same strain of photosynthetic cell (P-486) in different animals"¦ notice how even the same strain uses slightly different light to "œcreate food", and then each fluoresces a slightly different color as a result - in an Acro, Agaricia, and Anemone"¦

coralagaricia486.jpg

coralacro486.jpg

anemone486.jpg



Some more to mention on the biology"¦ Light is an energy source, and too much energy (even of the right nm spectrum) can eventually destroy a cell from the inside out. The coral throws up "˜deflectors' to get rid of light it doesn't need, and this is the light we see emitted. But those deflectors can be over-run by too much light. When this happens, particles of light destroy random parts of a cell's genome, and when that cell goes to duplicate itself it creates a flawed copy because the original data was tampered with via radiation [the light]. This is why you can kill a coral with too much light, or by the same token, why we humans get skin cancer"¦

Wowsa"¦ tired yet?

On to Aquarium Lights"¦
We seem to have many options for lighting available. Each one offers different spectrums to the corals.
Here are some examples of lighting measured by PAR graphs"¦

T5's

t510k.jpg


t56700k.jpg


t5colormax.jpg


t5actinic.jpg


t5purpleati.jpg


t5purplebulb.jpg
 
Last edited:
And a few Metal Halides…

mhpar.jpg


Now onto LED’s which are a newer introduction to our hobby. LED’s differ extremely much in Par from one model to the next…

LED's have the potential to offer any spectrum needed. That said, they often do not…especially older models of LED's...

[PERSONAL OPINION]

I still myself don't trust LED tech lights...They peak at a very specific area [nm] and thus don't give off the 'background radiation' of other lights like T5's or MH.

See example below...

An LED Actinic LED strips Par values

aqlled.jpg


and T5 Actinic Par values

t5actinic.jpg


Notice though both are "Actinic Lights", that the T5 spikes lower [in nm] and also gives off more background radiation from 450-560 nm as well compared to the LED Actinics that have a large spike in an extremely focused nm range.

So your “10k white LED lights” alone are not giving off the same amount of PUR that the 10k T5 is.

I have friends at 2 LFS, and their stores spent buco on LEDs, but have largely switched them over to their freshwater tanks as their corals are still doing better under T5/metal halide. (Side note, I put some "actinic/10k 50/50 " LED's on my freshwater [in addition to my T5’s] and did see a small improvement in green chlorophyll using photosynthetic plants. )


A friend of mine dropped $350+ on a new LED setup with dimmable blues and whites, and he talks about how he 'experiments' with the dimmer to give the corals 'different colors' throughout the day, giving them all the colors they need. What he doesn't realize is that statement is false.

He is only giving his corals different INTENSITIES of the same narrow SPECTRUMs[nm]... the color change to our eyes is the kelvin color rating which is irrelevant to the corals photosynthetic cells. What our eyes see as 10k, 15k, etc is not always indicative of the entire needed spectrum [for photosynthesis] within that light.

In other words, You can get 10 by adding 1+2+3+4, or 8+2. If you physically eat only 1, 2, 3 and 4's then the more "efficient same outcome 8+2" is a less favored equation to you...
Think of it this way, does it make a difference if you have 2 slices of bread, or a whole table full of bread when all you really want is some cheese and milk too [in form of different nm spectrum for coral.]?


It is possible to have enough LED's to cover the entire spectrum needed, but IMO that is a lot to ask of a company that needs to do very specific research on their LED construction... can't just build it yourself from off the shelf parts at home depot - well you could try but not effectively or efficiently. This equates to expensive product when offered to the consumer... and in order to work right the company really really needs to know their stuff, and test it too... not a simple feat.

Personally, I only supplement my tank with LED's, don't rely on them - I don't trust them yet, though I see they have made a lot of progress in the last 7 years or so. I'll give em another few years until they figure out how to do it right, and then that tech trickles down to the consumer at a reasonable price.

[/PERSONAL OPINION]










So where do we end up?

Well my friends, this is my best effort to place all my knowledge in a concise and hopefully easy[ier] to understand manner. There is a lot more information available on most every aspect here if you are curious (did you know there are actually 2 types of chlorophyll? Lol Ok I’ll shut up now.)

I will end with saying there is no one way to create a good tank, there is no one lighting source in our hobby that will perfectly match every organisms needs.

The best I can give you is the tools to understand how light works in regards to photosynthetic cells and then tell you to do the best you can to figure out what coral uses which “strains” of photosynthetic cells more than others, and then try to get light fixtures that give the needed PUR or PAR to match that coral.

IE…

If I know my Prizm Favia needs a lot of light like this…
faviazoo.png


Then a 10k T5 bulb would match that PUR/PAR better than an Actinic T5 [ see graphs above]. And there’s your answer.

It just takes knowledge and some effort to understand the particular needs of your species and specimen of corals.


:dance:
 
Last edited:
Excellent write-up and I have been thinking the same thing as far as LEDs go for several months now. The problem is not the light or colors they produce, but the lack of overall spectrum output by them. If the companies could try to make an LED that like MH or T5 put out a blue or Actinic or white color but actually had more than that particular spectrum of light output, we would be done with this conversation. I had AI Sols which I believe are amazing lights and quality made and I loved them. But my corals did not--well, some did, and some did not. I have since switched back to MH/T5 but I miss the adjustability and color pop that the LED had so I am adding a strip of 3W Cree Blue/RB to my MH fixture to either supplement or replace the t5's. I think that will truly be the best setup, although far from the most economical or energy efficient.

Sorry to make this an LED post on a lighting thread but that is what I gleaned from your write-up. I think the real summary of your work is that the light that we see is not the light spectrum that is actually delivered, it is the combination of all wavelengths output by the source and also that corals don't need a "color" of light but they need a combination of spectrum to be healthy. If we give them the color but not the spectrum, it would be like trying to give them water to live in but leaving out the salt, magnesium, and calcium.

Great write-up.
 
Have had LEDs for most of my reefing experience. I have noticed fine growth in all corals and maintained all of their colors...except for any coral with orange in it or an intense turquoise-blue. I have always run white/blue LEDs and am tempted to try a setup with "full spectrum" by incorporating cyan, red, green, and UV.

Zoas stay colored the way they are, just the super orange and turquoise blue in my 2 echinata colonies has never stayed...dulled out to green and dull blue. Although other LPS and SPS hold their colors, I haven't owned any coral close to the orange or teal color besides the echinatas which lost their color. Maybe coincidence, maybe light source? Possibly just thinking out loud on a forum whether or not my new build will be full spectrum LED or MH :P
 
Nice work, but having a master degree in physics I'm bothered with the mix up of quantities and units in the first post. It makes me feel that science is lacking here... Kelvin is NOT the color to our eyes, color temperature is(!) and its usually measured in Kelvin... Nanometers (nm) is NOT the particular spectrum of energy delivered, wavelength is(!) and its usually measured in nanometers... Get my point?
 
Nice work, but having a master degree in physics I'm bothered with the mix up of quantities and units in the first post. It makes me feel that science is lacking here... Kelvin is NOT the color to our eyes, color temperature is(!) and its usually measured in Kelvin... Nanometers (nm) is NOT the particular spectrum of energy delivered, wavelength is(!) and its usually measured in nanometers... Get my point?



I will add that chlorophyll is NOT a cell but rather a chemical that is found within the chloroplasts of plants and many algae.



To the OP, could you please cite your sources. As it is, it looks like you are plagiarizing someone else's work.
 
You said that you understand evolutionary biology but nothing in your post provides any evidence.

If you are going to use a chart with binomial nomenclature please learn the correct format.

In post #2 you stated that you are showing the families of zoanthids but you are showing the orders.

A family name would end in -idae.

Even if your data are correct and you are trying to draw conclusions from "your work", by making this simple mistake it weakens anything else you have to discuss and to be honest people will take anything you have to say with a few grains of salt.

Nice try though and good luck with your overall theory of light that isn't a theory.
 
Hey guys, how are you? After posting on another thread with some of this info, I got a personal request about a thread that spelled out my collected thoughts more with data I've pulled together from many sources. So I sat down for the last hour or two to explain for everyone my thoughts on lighting in the hope that knowledge is power, and should be shared.

Reading is Fundamental...if you don't understand the second sentence in a paragraph, then the chances of understanding anything beyond that are greatly reduced. There is nothing ambiguous about "many sources". He is not claiming this is his own work, but rather states plainly that is a compilation of other works. I think it is good to see this data presented all in one thread, and it is ok if someone doesn't want to see it in one thread. If you want to pick apart the science, that is great, just keep in mind it isn't "his" science so shooting the messenger isn't really helpful to understanding what is being presented.

Edit...I would have preferred to see the sources.
 
Those photos are not mine, I have been slowly saving any prudent data I find online (via screen-captures if needed) over the last year or so... a good thing as some of it is now no longer available via the original site!!!

I do not claim those photos for my own. But I do believe all scientific information should be shared, the second someone locks up a piece of data for their own use, the entire society suffers as a result. That is not the intent of science.

As for pluralism I'm not worried because I just sat down for 2 hours and wrote that, no books or websites in front of me (except my notes)... so go ahead try to find it all and sue me, because you won't/can't.

As to faulting my non-use of scientific nomenclature,

That's why I said "the terms [as they apply to us]"

I tried to simplify the science down to how it matters to us. I am aware that Kelvin is actually temperature, or the color of a body judged against a theoretical black mass ... When someone says "this light is 10k" that measurement refers to the "final color" we view. They are not saying their "tank is 10,000 degrees Kelvin in temperature..."

As I stated, the science was very concise in order to let the typical aquaraist understand it.

As such I didn't talk about wavelengths, and photons... or the reason atmospheres and substances filter out different wavelengths.

I didn't talk about cell walls and chloroplast and nuclear-membranes, I simply called the overall thing a "photosynthetic cell".

I didn't talk of different species, families and phylums. I simply referred to them as different "strains" of "photosynthetic cells".



If the science is what your interested in, please do continue your own studies... it is very interesting indeed.

I gave simplified explanations as they will relate to our use in the aquatic industry (IE reading advertisements on the box of a new light) so that companies cannot use simple terms that make us infer wrong conclusions.

And I spoke of the biology in an easy to grasp manner.

Hell I explained Cancer in like 1 sentence lol.



As to sources, as I said, I collected this data from reading many many sources, including some links I gave above (if I still had them).

One must also have a basic understanding of physics (light and it's effects/quantification), Biology (evolutionary theory - from the basics of how a cell works, to how the organism benefits, on up to current genetic data on the breakdowns of different species, family, etc.), and then how it applies to our aquatic hobby (lights effects in water, spectrum's offered by man made lights vs what our particular corals actually need to produce "food").

I do not hold a Masters Degree in Physics. But I do study intently on my own time in many subjects, including Neuro-cognitive Biology, Psychology and Behaviorism, Astronomy , String theory, quantum mechanics, and Relativity, Evolutionary Theory, Gene theory, on and on to whatever I find interesting.

My Degree is actually in History :)

And I work as a Behavioral Therapist...

If people are interested in some of the basics of evolutionary biology and physics i would say...

For Evolutionary Biology, I would recommend the "Greatest Show on Earth" by Richard Dawkins; "Evolution" by Carl Zimmer.

For Physics lets go with the "Elegant Universe" by Brian Greene. In it he describes quantum mechanics and Relativity in a wonderfully easy to grasp manner for the casual reader.

Otherwise people, just go to a Library and see what they have... Or better yet go to some college bookstore (you don't have to attend the college) and look around for good scientific texts and buy them for yourself.

Or better yet just take a few classes in these (and other disciplines)... even if it doesn't go toward your major or your not after a degree...



Anyways, feel free to pick apart as you see, and I am open to discussion to points and their causal-or-correlational relationship to different aspects of my overall theory on lighting as it applies to us.

As to further attempts to say what I have to say is completely useless because I didn't use the proper scientific term... Not really interested.

I am not trying to explain to everyone the basics of the universe from the ground up, i think its your own duty to teach yourself those principles...

I will assume some people are smart enough to do so and read between my lines, but I know that most people do not care to learn the scientific specifics, and so I outlined my thoughts in an easy to follow manner for everyone.

Neil degrasse Tyson isn't a great scientist because he only speaks in nomenclature, he is a great scientist because he explains it in a down to earth (pun intended) manner... and that's what science is truly about...

Sharing information in a way that explains the world to the masses.

If you want the details, they are out there for you to find ;)


If you have other articles, or points do discuss please do post them, I would like this to be a continuing query into the field of lighting as it applies to the aquarium.

:wave:

:beer:
 
Last edited:
Some newer research I found interesting...

"Light gradients and optical microniches in coral tissues"

http://www.frontiersin.org/Aquatic_Microbiology/10.3389/fmicb.2012.00316/abstract

Point to us - different Corals thrive under different lighting conditions.

"deep sea corals hate light, prefer shade"

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111016212023.htm

Point to us...

This makes sense, as corals evolved with that a particular PUR of light in mind. Imagine a creature evolving in the night, grows larger dilated pupils to take in that meager amount of light available... and then it is forced to live in bright daytime light... its eyes would be overwhelmed - damaging the cells and receptors in the eye.

Corals that grow deeper still need a range of NM to thrive (although they do rely more upon the lower NM spectrum), but cannot stand the INTENSITY of that same NM/PAR when subjected to "higher" lighting [PAR offered by upper reef status, or our "brighter" tanks lights]

"viruses responsible for coral bleaching"

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120712092610.htm

Point of this one as it applies to us - Corals are life forms, sometimes it's not even the lighting that can cause bleaching... be aware they can transmit disease to one another too!
 
Last edited:
You said that you understand evolutionary biology but nothing in your post provides any evidence.

If you are going to use a chart with binomial nomenclature please learn the correct format.

In post #2 you stated that you are showing the families of zoanthids but you are showing the orders.

A family name would end in -idae.

Even if your data are correct and you are trying to draw conclusions from "your work", by making this simple mistake it weakens anything else you have to discuss and to be honest people will take anything you have to say with a few grains of salt.

Nice try though and good luck with your overall theory of light that isn't a theory.

If the qualification to learn something "scientific" on a community website forum was that any opinion be formatted correctly I think we'd all be in trouble. This is our hobby for crying out loud. I know where you're coming from but can we all just take a chill pill and read this for what it is--the OPs opinion.
 
I had been involved in the other thread and was anxious to have a chance to sit down and see what direction this new thread had taken. What a disappoinmtment! The original post is nothing but a rehash of information that appeared in the other thread, only this time there seems to be added emphasis on discrediting LEDs, something that the OP has clearly not researched at all.
I'm not a fan of "strips," they tend to be a string of low grade LEDs of a single color (sometimes 2 colors) in a convienent, if not quite effective format. The strip you used as an example, the only example of an LED that you included, obviously uses a single RB emitter with a peak around 453nm. Should it be labeled "Actinic?" That's debatable, but I wouldn't use that term for it. Few would dispute that RB/CW is outdated technology, your example doesn't even include the CW. For comparison you posted a traditional actinic 03 lamp, this lamp is made using a blend of phosphors and would be pretty easy to replicate using a combination, or blend, of LEDs. You've marked the main peak at 420nm, start with a few LEDs that have the same peak output. Your T-5 also has peaks around 405nm and 440nm, Why not simply add a couple LEDs with these peaks to the 420nm LEDs? The 405 and 440nm LEDs would likely have greater bandwidth than the narrow spikes of the fluorescent phosphors but the additional light in the 440-455nm range would probably benefit quite a few of the pigments on your list.
Your "background radiation" is also easy to create. The graphic for the T5 shows ~5% output from 480nm to 550nm, tapering off to near nothing at 570nm and an odd spike at 448nm (I suspect it's an unintended byproduct of the phosphor blend). The LED strip graphic does indeed show some "background radiation" but it's only .25 to 3% and it goes all the way into the IR part of the spectrum. Still, If you feel you need to have this in an actinic fixture, it can be accomplished by adding a CW or two. I'd personally have this light provided by my daylight channel, but to each, his own. There you have it, a DIY strip that can replicate or even improve on the T5 Actinic 03 that you posted.
You are partially correct when you say that LEDs emit a single, narrow peak, have you not realized that you can combine several colors to get the desired result?

You've noticed that I said "partially correct" in the statement above? Technically, some LEDs emit narrow peaks, but this is not true of all LEDs. There are a lot of rules here about links and copyrighted material and I'm not sure about this one, instead of a link I'll suggest you search for the data sheet for the Cree XP-G series and scroll down to the "Relative Spectral Power Distribution" graphic on page 3. Could you please list for me the "narrow peaks" for the CW, NW and WW LEDs?

I'm not a Behavioral Therapist, but I have heard that we tend to have trouble trusting that which we don't understand. That would explain why you said
I still myself don't trust LED tech lights...
I appreciate all the work you've put into researching the biological end of this, and I have no problem with your mis-use of several terms (we laymen will do that from time to time) but it is my opinion that you should have left out comments on lighting, especially LEDs, until you have done a little research on the subject.
 
I am glad if you thought that no "new science'" was added by my particular post. I'm happy to hear you've undertaken your own studies on the biology/physics of light and come to similar understandings.

I did, however, explicitly say that my LED comments were personal opinion twice in caps...

And closed with "find out your coral's needs as best as possible, then match that PAR as best as can with whatever light fixture you can."

I agree LED tech has the potential to offer all the nm spectrums needed. Just sayin it's harder [for a company] to produce a proper LED light for our purposes.

If you found one that emits proper par for your particular needs, then success be unto you my friend.

I looked into the Cree XP-G series as you suggested.

It looks intriguing, better than any LED PAR i've come across so far.

I couldn't find a price for those in a unit online, how much does a complete fixture run and who from?

Or did you build it yourself?

If so, you only solidify my point that companies have not yet mass produced, at consumer level, a reasonably priced fixture that does what we aquarists fully need it to.

I do not doubt that it is possible.

I even said I myself supplement LED's in my setup. As you inferred... can't hurt!

I have heard that we tend to have trouble trusting that which we don't understand.

Very true... our neurons start fusing the first time they are activated simultaneously! And Human nature does not enjoy change well... especially if we hold anybeliefs in such high regard as not to be questioned.

That's why even proven things like gravity are still "theories"... they are always subject to a better verifiable and reproducible explanation.

That's why my favorite quote is "Education is the progressive realization of our ignorance."

The second we take anything as infallible, is the second we set ourselves up to be biased.
 
Last edited:
And just to throw in some fun random pics...

Here's a picture of my prizm favia under LED 'Actinic' light [peak around 450nm]

mytankledactinic.jpg


and under 'fluorescent bulb' "Black light" (<410nm)... Remember how we saw that different "strains" peak at even UV nm?

mytankblacklight.jpg


:bigeyes:
 
Last edited:
Back
Top