Open letter to the LED industry

[Vannpytt]

Rant rant rant

There is NO WAY, running LEDs with 1:1 RB:W will generate too little blue for the corals. For our visual appearance, yes, but not for a corals, hence the fact that running 70% blue doesn't really change much from running it at 100%. The main beneficial thing is to run the "white" low as to reduce the yellow bump on the spectrum. That said, you do lose some PUR for the corals, but I have yet to see a LED that isn't intense enough. It's too much in too few places that is the problem. I feel like a parrot here, repeating the same dull statements thing over and over. Really, yes, removing optics would help any fixture. Point is, no commercial fixture as I'm aware of, with exception from the SMT is delivered without optics. The spread is reduced by about 25-30% and the intensity increased even more. All in all, this is pointless unless you have a really deep tank and enough LEDs to compensate for the missing spread with lenses.

I don't need more evidence than to observe more or less anyone running a LED fixture. They do not run their "whites" at high intensity, and if they do, they are unsuccessful, and it is not "too much light". That simply is not possible. Someone said something quite useful a few posts back, everyone has a different definition of "success" and to this I agree. Mine is keeping corals growing and coloring up without knowing I'm missing out by running MH or T5.

Lani LED just works, so they don't need a spectrum graph. Well, how am I supposed to do anything but guessing why they work?

* They don't have lenses
* They don't have active cooling, so I recon they are not driven very hard

So, that's 2 observations that fits with my theory.

 

[asid61]

First off, not using lenses doesn't mean anything. In the ocean, red penetrates several meters.
That's not a lot in the ocean, but most aquariums are only a few feet deep, tops. As a result, using optics on red leds or running them optic-less won't make a difference. The red gets in your tank either way. And reds are not harmful; rather, they hit a peak of chlorophyll A, a big one too.

Optics should only be run on tanks deeper than 24". 24"-30" means you need 90* optics. 30-40" is good for 60*. And for tanks deeper than that, 30* is a good choice.

I agree with Vannpytt that whites are unnecessary. However, I highly disagree that whites are detrimental.
This is from my own experience. Although I have not kept acros before, I kept acans, chalices, zoas, shrooms, blastos, and a monti cap under a 1:1 ratio of royal blue: neutral white. The leds were run at 630ma, and their max current was 700ma. I had 12 leds total.
Later I switch to a small led cannon with a ratio of 1:1:3:3 RB:NW:OCW:HV. I run the hyper violet and royal blue at around 70%, the neutral white at 20%, and the OCW at 30%. I like the color I get.
Also, I observed that when the neutral whites were run high, the colors immediately appeared more "washed-out" than with just actinics on.
However, when I removed the neutral whites and instead ran the OCW in their place (actually, the OCW is 1:1:1 amber:warm white:cyan) the corals in the tank only lost a small amount of color, and for the most part retained an "actinic" look. The tnak still looked 14k though, and let my macroalgaes pop. However, there was a green tint that was removed only through the use of the neutral whites, albeit at low power.

My conclusions are that whites are not detrimental, but are in fact good. However, a combination of amber, cyan, and warm white is better to replace it to let the colors pop.

 

[Reef_Breeders]

I don't need more evidence than to observe more or less anyone running a LED fixture. They do not run their "whites" at high intensity, and if they do, they are unsuccessful, and it is not "too much light". That simply is not possible. Someone said something quite useful a few posts back, everyone has a different definition of "success" and to this I agree. Mine is keeping corals growing and coloring up without knowing I'm missing out by running MH or T5.

I am sorry, but that is completely wrong. Ever head of photoinhibition? There is such a thing as too much light. Ever heard of bleaching? If you increase the light too much right away, your corals will expel their symbiotic algae, and while they can come back, it is certainly not a good thing. Read up some more before you try to push a theory based purely on opinion, not scientific facts. I think people would respect your theory much more, if it had a logical backing. But as far as I can see, and in my experience, you are incorrect. Yellow light is not what harms corals, in fact little of it is absorbed, the same goes for green light. Here is a great article, that explains saturation, and photoinhibition, and just how much light your corals can take.

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2007/3/aafeature1

 

[Vannpytt]

Really, you think your LED fixtures provides more light than a 400w MH? More than the sun?

 

[asid61]

I have heard of photoinhibition, and I have also hear that it only occurs at extremely high amounts of light, or when the light changes unexpectedly to a much higher power. If you acclimate corals, they cna take a lot more light then we give them credit for.
Of course, having a dimming led fixture is always good. For par in the 1000+ range, you can dim it down to 500 or so.

I have not heard of green light being absorbed by corals in quantity.

 

[asid61]

Really, you think your LED fixtures provides more light than a 400w MH? More than the sun?

I found that a little strange too. Yes, you can have more light output than the sun, and that can go up to 1000+ par in shallow seas.

 

[penfold2]

I feel like a parrot here, repeating the same dull statements thing over and over.

Me too, so I'll just summarize by quoting my last post.

Until someone can describe a mechanism for this damage and explain all the contrary evidence, it is just a theory held by very few people.

I don't think there's much point in debating this theory unless you can explain how green/yellow light damages coral.

 

[Reef_Breeders]

Really, you think your LED fixtures provides more light than a 400w MH? More than the sun?

Yes, actually they can. PAR is at about 1000 in a shallow reef, and can be over 2,000 in a shallow tank with the right optics. The point is, there can absolutely be too much light. Most corals in the article I showed you saturate at around 200-300 par, what does that say? Did you read the article? Please show us scientific evidence to support your theories.

 

[Reef_Breeders]

Me too, so I'll just summarize by quoting my last post.



I don't think there's much point in debating this theory unless you can explain how green/yellow light damages coral.

I agree with you.

 

[jda]

I hit 1200+ PAR in a outside tank in the middle of Missouri under the sun. The SPS all thrived. With 6x 250W HQI over my 120G, I can get to 700-800 about 10" deep and over 500 on the sandbed and the SPS all thrive (so did the few zoas that I had - rastas, fruit loops and a few tubbs blues). Of course, the clams loved it. I don't see LEDs doing that kind of PAR without damaging things.

****I totally get that readings from one PAR meter to another could be different.

Seriously, get past "too much light" and find the reason that stuff has to be turned down and then you will have the best fixture around.

 

[Reef_Breeders]

I hit 1200+ PAR in a outside tank in the middle of Missouri under the sun. The SPS all thrived. With 6x 250W HQI over my 120G, I can get to 700-800 about 10" deep and over 500 on the sandbed and the SPS all thrive (so did the few zoas that I had - rastas, fruit loops and a few tubbs blues). Of course, the clams loved it. I don't see LEDs doing that kind of PAR without damaging things.

****I totally get that readings from one PAR meter to another could be different.

Seriously, get past "too much light" and find the reason that stuff has to be turned down and then you will have the best fixture around.

I am not trying to say that 500 par is too much, or even 1200. But my point is, you CAN have too much light. Also, you should have zero issues with LEDs at that intensity, so long as you acclimate your corals to the light. Sudden changes are never good.

 

[Pacific Sun RD]

I noticed you didn’t say I was wrong. Do you expect me to think that a fixture you designed in 2009 put out more PAR than you SMT?

No. There was PAR about 90-95 on the sand( and about 240-270) 10cm under water level. I should look for video from that aquarium with PAR measurments. That levels was stable in all area in tanks - becase that light sources was linear(like T5 tubes) without "death light beam" like in some led lamps with 60 or 40 degree lenses - used in 24" depth tanks... For remind - above that tank was used 150cm long led tubes - 22 Watt each, 10pcs total.
Since last three years we stopped using LED focusing lenses(or any secondary optics) - personally, for me - it complelty without any sens - a specially when your tank isn't higher than 28-30".
Did you saw that movie which show corals with their colors in tank where PAR readings was between 120 - 360-370 umol/m2/s? Lamp is working on 60%
When we increased power - corals colors wasn't so intensive like before.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMvvlNe8C7I

Yes and I think it looks great! I didn’t say that LED will burn and kill your corals. I have to ask. Did the lighting on this tank look good to your eyes and was the best for the corals?
We are talking 2009 right. Your choice of LEDs was far more limited than here in 2013. Are you claiming that Vannpytt’s assumption that all white LEDs are bad are unfounded? If not what does it matter?

White leds arent BAD because they are white.
From OUR TEAM experience - too much white PROMOTE symbiotic algae growth in corals tissue - so colors are covered by "brown" color..
This is "that thing", that you see primary difference between 2009 and 2013 test tank.
As I told before - we was satisfied from corals growth in our 2009 tank under 1:1 combo|(in fact - white led was "dirty" - I will explain it later - its helped a lot...) - but SOME colors(in corals tissue) wasn't possible to achieve..
Please remember, that 5 years ago - white leds light efficiency was much smaller than actual( 80lm/W to 200lm/W). Blue leds also had smaller efficiency, but the difference wasnt similar - so real light efficiency ratio(energy emitted by both light sources - white and blue) was little different that today(comapring to actual 1:1 combo).
So I repeat again - white leds arent "junk". They will work, if we will know everything about their pros and cons.
Pros - it smuch easier to build "white spectrum" for our eyes without spectrometers and any other devices(not always easy to use by normal customers).
Cons - I will repeat it again - IMHO they "cover" some colors by increasing brown algae cells in corals tissue(white, a specially warm white) promote their growth.
Thats a reason why in shallow water there is much more cream, brown and "much more contrasted" corals with visible color than on 10 or 15m.
It simply to understand, that corals on 1m depth have BETTER light(more, better spectrum) than the same corals living on 15m. We saw it many times on corals farms(when we did light measurements in Indonesia/Bali) where the same corals kept on 1.5m depth water was kept for "faster growth" - and after few months, it was moved to another coast of island, to 6-8m - for corals pigment intensification BEFORE shipment to Reseller.
Its my point of view for that(I was there few times) and I cant explain it on other way.
Building "white" spectrum by using monochromatic chips with additional red spectrum(which not AFFECT our looking for tank) give us similar effect - light is "white" but corals "didn't receive" that portion of spectrum which "inform" them(their algae) that they are in "shallow water" - and dont promote their algea to growth..
Why I said - AFFECT. Because you can see on MANY posts(posted by many customers) with combo led lamps (white, blue, green, orange, red etc) that many of them use red led chips only for few percent.. Why? Because they "feel" this light as too warm(for our eyes).
Yes, they are "too warm" because some of "warm" wavelenghts is already "delivered" from white led chips...
Using red led channel in matrix without white leds(even on 100%) will never give you "feeling" that : " I should decrease that color, because it looks unnatural..".. The same with green color..
Open ANY thread in other RC LED lamp sponsor section - and check led lamp config used by their users..
I can guarantee you that (Ecotech, Mitras - also PS in R2 version users) dont want to use them on 100%(even if they should). Why? Because it not look natural - or its "too white"..
There is also a reason, why in many multichannel led lamps(with white leds) customers decrease also white channel power...
I think thats enough to connect these facts ..
Last..
Now a riddle:
Please take a look for typical combo of white:blue leds or any other lamp which dont use some "dedicated led chips..
But please take a REAL spectrum chart - not anything drawed in Paint... Some of charts popular led lamps is simply NOT POSSIBLE to achieve with used by them led chips.. And it can be prooved without any problem - you only need to think and associate the facts.
Compare it to pigments excitation/emission chart.

Ask yourself - where that combo spectrum "missed" something.
I will give you a hint:
Check light spectrum(that 1:1 or other lamp) area near 500nm - and check that area again in pigments excitation/emission chart.
Finally - please compare it to SMT matrix chart.

Thats all - Im sure that you will see primary difference - why we used so many different leds in SMT matrix and why that area is so strongly covered by lighwaves emited from our lamp. Brightest range of the spectrum (approx. 550nm) in panels SMT is negligibly small - so there is no effect of "bright light" that needs to be reduced because there is too much white.

Ha, its very late now - I have to back to my home now, but Im sure that we will continue that discuss...

PS. Again - I'm sorry for my english - we can talk in polish if you want

 

[Big E]

Przemek,

Why doesn't your chart show any visible spectrum in red? There are plenty of corals that emit red visually.

Also........just fyi, one thing that chart doesn't take into account is intensity. Pigments and chromo protiens need the correct intensity along with the right spectrum to show the colors. If the intensity isn't right the colors will be bland in come cases.

 

[Pacific Sun RD]

Przemek,

Why doesn't your chart show any visible spectrum in red? There are plenty of corals that emit red visually.

Hello,
I do not understand-how does not show any visible range of the spectrum in the red? Which range is missed for you (which should be covered by spectrum)?

Also........just fyi, one thing that chart doesn't take into account is intensity. Pigments and chromo protiens need the correct intensity along with the right spectrum to show the colors. If the intensity isn't right the colors will be bland in come cases.

Of course we know that - but so what? Can you show me any chart(other aquarium LED lamp) which will bring you information about intensity count(y axis) - together with spectrum readings?
I'm very interested
Do you think 145W SMT panel has less power than his "competitors" (a specially that with 60-70W led panels) - where some of channels has a reduced power because the users adjust the color of the light "by eye"? (Reduced white channel, green channel decreased, decreased red channel ..) ..
Our lamps produce light at 100% useful - in this light, there is more sugar in sugar ..

 

[Khemul]

I suspect we are going to retire PAR as a measurement in the future as LED catches on. Not as quickly as WPG, since people actually have money invested in PAR meters. It doesn't seem to translate perfectly and the biggest issues with LED lights over tanks seems to come when people try to get a specific PAR target based on a T5/MH fixture with their LEDs. Which would explain why we can blast corals with too much PAR of LED, while giving even more PAR of T5/MH. Especially with optics, which are horribly overused.

Whether X spectrum/LED is bad/detrimental for a coral is a nightmare to test and will probably never be figured out as a result. It'll be one of those fun theories that people get to pull out of wherever they want. The biggest problem is that it falls apart if we don't intentionally limit it to very specific corals. And then it seems to be species dependent. Soft corals will grow under white LEDs alone. LPS isn't horribly picky either. Many SPS do perfectly fine as long as enough blue is offered.

 

[Big E]

Lol......yes I know you know that. I'll leave that be as it's more related to specific LED units and how they are designed.

Getting back to the chart...........if I'm reading it correctly each point represents a coral's exitation(horizontal x-axis) and it's corresponding florescense to our eyes (vertical y-axis)?

If that's right, I don't see any visible flouresence data points in the red area.

 

[sirreal63]

I suspect we are going to retire PAR as a measurement in the future as LED catches on. Not as quickly as WPG, since people actually have money invested in PAR meters. It doesn't seem to translate perfectly and the biggest issues with LED lights over tanks seems to come when people try to get a specific PAR target based on a T5/MH fixture with their LEDs. Which would explain why we can blast corals with too much PAR of LED, while giving even more PAR of T5/MH. Especially with optics, which are horribly overused.

Our hobby level PAR meters don't read incorrectly on just LED's, they read incorrectly any light source outside their range of accuracy. The same margin of error applies to MH, PC's, T5's and VHO. The significantly more expensive meters such as Sanjay uses are vastly more accurate than the Apogee.

IMO people got the impressions that LED's were more powerful and bleached sps easier was probably because the light is more intense in a shorter range of light, I an mostly convinced that the issues come from not only spectrum, but intensities of spectrum. SPS are very adaptable, not only to light but water parameters, but they don't like a rapid change. IMO, the change in intensity has more to do with issues than the actual spectrum. a 10K-20K MH has a sampling of most of the spectrum and the corals are adapted to the intensities in each, but when you change that to just a few samplings of the spectrum and raise the intensity the corals have to adapt to that change, which explains why people have less bleaching by lowering the intensity of the light down to less than 50% and slowly raising it. The change in overall spectrum can influence the coloration, but it is the increase in intensity in a more narrow range that causes the bleaching. The corals need time to adapt to that intensity change in a narrow range that they did not experience before.

Just my observation.

 

[Pacific Sun RD]

I know that you know that we know that
About chart:

its Fluorescent pigments chart - and as you can see, highest excitation lightwaves are up to 600nm.
I will ask you - do you agree that T5 bulbs can "paint" our corals(sps) amazing?(by many aquarists rated as best light for sps tanks)..
If yes(I know that yes - you can see two following spectrum charts of ATI AquaBlue and ATI Blue Plus..
Its most popular combo t5 bulbs in EU(AquaMedic ReefWhite 15h, AquaMedic ReefBlue - because they are the same in 99.5%)
Do you see any radiation in red spectrum wider than in SMT matrix?

actinic bulb:

I know - you will say - but many of them use special "pink" bubls like ATI Purple Plus or KZ Fiji Purple for "increased" pink/purple colors rendering..
So I will reply - that bulbs DIDNT offer anything more in red range spectrum - only difference is that they emit less .... green light thank ATI AquaBlue/AM ReefWhite 15K

So - typical t5 combo which can bring AMAZING sps colors DIDNT emit anything more than SMT matrix.. I would to say - that they emit less light in that range than our matrix(which is not purple/pink for eye).
Why? BEcause there is no phosphour which allow to emit lighwaves in "lower" green ranges(515-530nm) - only about 546nm(peak).

All t5 tubes have "green" peak in that range. If they have "higher" peak - they are more white. If they have lower peak in that area(and also the same/similar red) - they are more "pink".
If they have blue and green(but no red) like ATI Blue Plus - they are Blue..
Really, only one untypical t5 tube which can bring many good for our aquariums under T5 bulbs is ATI Actinic

which have alos green peak near 546nm
and Sylvania Coralstar

Both of them have very interesting spectrum charts and can be used with good results in SPS dominated tanks.

So - as you can see - anyone from above t5 bulbs is "full spectrum" bulb..
Green peak is used ONLY for feeling(for our eyes) that emited light is white - thats all.
Without that - all that tanks would be terribly pink/violet(mix of blue and red lightwaves).

Believe it or not - but really, in the last three years, "our classes have been done" and we studied almost all available and popular source of light (in salt water aquariums) - trying to analyze not only the "how it works" - but also - "why ".

 

[PolyReef]

Nice job PSun. Finally somebody explain where we standing with LED lights. Please do not stop Give us some more information......
Thank you(dzienkuje)

 

[senne76]

So this would be a much better spectrum for me:

than this:

I could change 1 of my 6 diy led modules to see the changes if it is better, than I have to find a purpose for 24 white leds