A lot of led fixture question

[saltyfilmfolks]

So how can we explain the report of so many people who see huge differences in color/ growth, specially with SPS corals, namely Acropora spp., after changing their LED back to halides? Do you think that would have to do only with wattage? That happens also when the change from LEDs to T5s, but let's keep the topic with the halides.
I know there must be something else to explain all that, then. I think the extra UV from halides would be the main reason, even though the scientists don't think so, I guess...
Plus, Mr. Tullio Del Aquilla said in that video that "...halides can produce a lot of UV that LEDs cannot!"
What is that about?
We clearly see and know there is a difference between using halides and LEDs under table Acopora spp., for example. They tend to have dead spots under the colony due to shading. That happens more often than any other shading problems with LEDs. I believe that is a combination of factors, like intensity, spectrum and reflection (uniformity). The best aquarists in the world have seen that happening more often with LEDs than Halides. Some say they can actually correct the problem when they go back to halides.
What do you think?
Grandis.

IMO. Jury and science is still out.
We can belive what we want to belive and spin facts to sell.

But there are specifics involved. Did the led guy have 3 radions at 30% and 350 par and hit the mh at 550 par? Sometimes, yes.

It’s one of the reasons I do look at all those threads.

 

[A. grandis]

I’d have to look personally at the Ecotech with a spectrometer , and the bloody settings all the kids are using. (The failure point imo)
As far as I’ve read , Uva uvb etc because of the shorter wavelength doesn’t penetrate well, and I’ve not read any conclusive scientific paper that there’s a benitift. I’d love to read more naturally.
But from what I do know , a Light can be mixed to deliver the entire visible spectrum.

As far as it, I’ve though about that before yea , I honesty don’t know.
Heat can be transferred in a multitude of ways, so logically , I’d say no. But it’s a reason I’m about to dig head first into clams.

As far as specific intensity, I think we’ve all seen poorly made Lights regardless of the type.
From what I’ve seen , honestly , the biggest failure in led is the knobs and the misunderstanding of how it works. Put a Kessil on it don’t go over 60% Uh ok. Is a 200 gal 30indeep tank.
Most t5 mh for the uninitiated generally give too much light , and corals don’t mind that for the most part. W led, it’s too little.

Thanks for the explanation. What about analyzing that particular picture posted by oreo?
Comparing Eco Tech, say G4 Pro, with a 250W radium in a ok fixture like the Cebu?
What are your thoughts on that, please?

FROM: https://hamiltontechnology.com/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=57

Grandis.

 

[Centerline]

I see so many people adding so many led fixtures over there tank and I don’t understand why . I asked about lighting help for a new tank . It’s 72 x19x20 and I had someone say put 6 hydra 26 hd and T5 over it . What I don’t get is If I was going MH I would just put 3 250 Phoenix 14ks over it with two actinic. I would never put six . Are leds just that inadequate?

Well... they aren't metal halides and are not going to preform in the same way. That said there are a lot of really nice LED only tanks out there. I run LEDs (Hyrdras and Radions), T5s and MHs and I still like MH best for growth and color. LEDs have some serious advantages though with respect to heat and often coloration. Additionally some of the fastest growth I've ever seen with SPS was a Paletta pink tip under Hydra 52 HDs. However, If your a MH fan and don't mind running a chiller you might want to stick with them.

 

[A. grandis]

IMO. Jury and science is still out.
We can belive what we want to belive and spin facts to sell.

But there are specifics involved. Did the led guy have 3 radions at 30% and 350 par and hit the mh at 550 par? Sometimes, yes.

It’s one of the reasons I do look at all those threads.

Actually my friend had 3 400W halides and changed for 10 G4 Pros. Huge tank.
He is noticing the Acros dying under the colonies more than when he had halides...
Grandis.

 

[Centerline]

Can you compare any of the single best LED fixtures with a 250W MH?
This is a legitimate question, by the way!
Grandis?

No

 

[A. grandis]

No

Thanks for answering that.
Could you elaborate a bit?
Grandis.

 

[Centerline]

You also can not compare one G4pro to a 250 either but you can still get great results with both

Maybe

 

[Centerline]

Thanks for answering that.
Could you elaborate a bit?
Grandis.

I run Gen4 Pro Radions, Hydra 52 HDs, Metal halides and T5s. I've been reefing for 20 years now and have yet to see anything that compares when it comes to consistent growth and coloration to MHs except T5s. I KNOW LEDs grow coral just fine once tuned in and left alone but they simply don't perform as well as MHs. I'm hopeful that the new diffusers for the Radions will help level the playing field but only time will tell. Phillips figured it out. Below is a picture of the one of my tanks (Reefer - fallow as of hurricane Irma) with the new diffusers on it... very even spread - no noticeable hot spots. Hope this answered your question.

Pre Irma - Running Hydra 52 HDs - a little over a year old.

 

[A. grandis]

Do you have pictures of one of your systems with the halides, please?
Grandis.

 

[A. grandis]

and... I would like to know more about your observations changing from halides to LEDs.
What exactly did you notice and why do you think that happens?
Some of my friends from the mainland tell me it's like night and day.
Grandis.

 

[oreo54]

He is noticing the Acros dying under the colonies more than when he had halides...

Well what does that mean? 5 died vs 2? See this is the questions that come to mind w/ statements like that..
Whole colonies, just areas ect
Same species ..? different species. ..? What? Statement like the above mean nothing really w/out full context.
Now zero A. ect died under MH when 6 A.ect died under LED is MUCH more "quantitative".
That different species behave differently under different spectrums is well known..

Reflectors are not a factor in quality except if it happens to absorb some wavelengths (which they do btw)
Only efficiency and spacial distribution.

Getting back to the "differences".. let me ask the question in a different way re: the "differences"..
How many "watts" and in which bands is a MH different than an LED..?

In other words how much and what bands does the light in the <400nm really represent?
Keep in mind the bulbs are sheilded and UV is restricted.
Light capture is not 100%.. Only a small portion of any light actually reacts w/ tissue. Most is just reflected or just plain misses..

. In actuality, however, plants do not absorb all incoming sunlight (due to reflection, respiration requirements of photosynthesis and the need for optimal solar radiation levels) and do not convert all harvested energy into biomass, which results in an overall photosynthetic efficiency of 3 to 6% of total solar radiation.[1] If photosynthesis is inefficient, excess light energy must be dissipated to avoid damaging the photosynthetic apparatus. Energy can be dissipated as heat (non-photochemical quenching), or emitted as chlorophyll fluorescence.

Which brings us to color and florescence..
What is the "right" color???
w/ organisms w/ multiple states of color it is a convention w/ possible or possibly not relation to health and growth.
To add a quote from the fw side:

Conclusion

Whether the UV-A light or violet light is more efficient at producing pigments in aquatic plants still remains to be seen. In the case that UV-A light proves to be beneficial, the next step will be finding the right balance, as too much will most likely lead to damage of the plants. Regardless, this part of the spectrum is severely underestimated among the plant keepers in my opinion. With the development of LEDs, we have control over the composition and intensity of the spectrum unparalleled in the history of our hobby and we should take advantage of it.

As to IR.. Who really knows.. yet...
It is obviously not critical for growth..and t5's are probably not rich in it either..Though I have yet to see a spectrograph that goes beyond 800nm..
http://aquanerd.com/2015/07/ati-giesemann-t5-comparison-part-2.html

 

[rockskimmerflow]

I run Gen4 Pro Radions, Hydra 52 HDs, Metal halides and T5s. I've been reefing for 20 years now and have yet to see anything that compares when it comes to consistent growth and coloration to MHs except T5s. I KNOW LEDs grow coral just fine once tuned in and left alone but they simply don't perform as well as MHs. I'm hopeful that the new diffusers for the Radions will help level the playing field but only time will tell. Phillips figured it out. Below is a picture of the one of my tanks (Reefer - fallow as of hurricane Irma) with the new diffusers on it... very even spread - no noticeable hot spots. Hope this answered your question.

Good point about the diffusers. I think people get tied up in the spectrum debate, which is important to a degree, but forget about the fact that the light delivery itself is almost as or more important than spectrum. Diffusion is king and always will favor systems with 360 degree emitters using reflectors to direct the light rather than focusing it through a lens. First LED light to 'get it right' with regard to dispersion IMO was the Sicce AM series LED lights. Tons of very small diodes evenly space to create a super consistent light field without any real spectral or PAR hotspots compared to the other offerings at the time. Triton's LANI LED was the next one I noticed following the trend of spreading the LEDS over a wide are rather than concentrating them in pucks. To me an ideal form factor is the high output strip light like BML used to sell til the got out of the aquarium side of the market.

FWIW I manage a lot of customer tanks and many do run only LEDS and I can say certainly that in almost every case the health and vigor is better in comparable systems that are under the conventional T5 or halide. And don't get me wrong, there are a few really nice systems that the owners very much enjoy powered by the now super old AI Sols exclusively. Just had to really dial them in to prevent roasting LPS, 4 hour ramp 36%W, 55%B, 80% RB is my go to for tanks around 18-24" deep when lit with the old Sols. I push those percentages a bit on deeper tanks.

I think a lot of ppl can be very happy with pure LEDs provided they choose wisely and select a balanced output program for said fixtures and then, most importantly, stop messing with them and let them do their thing so the corals can adapt. I will add that the colonies they produce are often shaped a bit differently that other types of light. Not that that's better or worse, just an interesting observation I've had over the years.

 

[Centerline]

Do you have pictures of one of your systems with the halides, please?
Grandis.

Ya, will post tomorrow when I can get to my work pc.

 

[Centerline]

and... I would like to know more about your observations changing from halides to LEDs.
What exactly did you notice and why do you think that happens?
Some of my friends from the mainland tell me it's like night and day.
Grandis.

I never changed from halides. Just built another tank with leds. First shot was Hydra 52 hds and a bunch of new Ora sps. Killed them all as I had the lights cranked up. Got a little advice from @saltyfilmfolks on how to manage them and started to have some very good success across the board. Scored radion g4pros after the irma crash and have been experimenting with them for the last couple of months. The biggest differences I have noticed comes down to encrusting patterns and branching. Also noted that low n03 appears to effect sps more under led than mh.

 

[A. grandis]

Well what does that mean? 5 died vs 2? See this is the questions that come to mind w/ statements like that..
Whole colonies, just areas ect
Same species ..? different species. ..? What? Statement like the above mean nothing really w/out full context.
Now zero A. ect died under MH when 6 A.ect died under LED is MUCH more "quantitative".
That different species behave differently under different spectrums is well known..

Reflectors are not a factor in quality except if it happens to absorb some wavelengths (which they do btw)
Only efficiency and spacial distribution.

Getting back to the "differences".. let me ask the question in a different way re: the "differences"..
How many "watts" and in which bands is a MH different than an LED..?

In other words how much and what bands does the light in the <400nm really represent?
Keep in mind the bulbs are sheilded and UV is restricted.
Light capture is not 100%.. Only a small portion of any light actually reacts w/ tissue. Most is just reflected or just plain misses..


Which brings us to color and florescence..
What is the "right" color???
w/ organisms w/ multiple states of color it is a convention w/ possible or possibly not relation to health and growth.
To add a quote from the fw side:


As to IR.. Who really knows.. yet...
It is obviously not critical for growth..and t5's are probably not rich in it either..Though I have yet to see a spectrograph that goes beyond 800nm..
http://aquanerd.com/2015/07/ati-giesemann-t5-comparison-part-2.html

Well, that all turns once more to be a relative point then.
If we don't make it experimental with numbers it isn't valid, you would say.
Many others would say that too.

I trust his experience of 20+ years of reefing, but unfortunately he didn't perform any experiment and doesn't have any scientific approach to determinate why is that happening. When we talk to a guy long enough we kinda see if he gets the point. His tank is nice!
His observations are just general observation and he was talking about the tank as a whole though.
Many of the people reporting such results throughout the world won't have numbers to give to us. Too bad!

I personally believe that reflector does play a lot in light distribution and subsequently with the quality of light that the tank will get.
I agree that when we look into the qualities of light as a source it should be compared as they are too. In both cases, my personal observations and opinion, after trying the 3 types of light discussed, halides did show to help with tremendous growth and amazing pigmentation, with healthy shapes and structures, compared with LEDs. The T5s comes next, and then LEDs. My goal, as an example to be followed, is with what I find in the ocean. Another thing important is that when we use halides we will need a fixture to run it. Same with T5s. LEDs too.. so...

One needs to know also the differences between what light does and what flow, water params, temp, etc... will do to add to the equation. It acts all together and if you want to point it out that could be also relative. Unless if the light source was the only thing changed for the observation.
The "right color" of a coral is totally relative too, unless we know what was the color of that particular colony in the wild. Still many will say that they don't care, while others will totally care about it. So it becomes relative. Same species of that coral can be found in different depths around the same geographic area and have different colors. That could be related to genetics, food, available light, flow, temperature, etc.. So that's very relative...

Heat from light source itself isn't anything that would stimulate growth, but spectrum where that heat comes from might have something to do with it? Perhaps we just don't know yet, like you said?
Cause there must be something that will tell us why so many people have observed halides to have better growth than LEDs, including myself. But what are they looking for and what is the goal?
It's just one of those things...
Or... it's just a matter of taste?
Grandis.

 

[A. grandis]

Good point about the diffusers. I think people get tied up in the spectrum debate, which is important to a degree, but forget about the fact that the light delivery itself is almost as or more important than spectrum. Diffusion is king and always will favor systems with 360 degree emitters using reflectors to direct the light rather than focusing it through a lens. First LED light to 'get it right' with regard to dispersion IMO was the Sicce AM series LED lights. Tons of very small diodes evenly space to create a super consistent light field without any real spectral or PAR hotspots compared to the other offerings at the time. Triton's LANI LED was the next one I noticed following the trend of spreading the LEDS over a wide are rather than concentrating them in pucks. To me an ideal form factor is the high output strip light like BML used to sell til the got out of the aquarium side of the market.

FWIW I manage a lot of customer tanks and many do run only LEDS and I can say certainly that in almost every case the health and vigor is better in comparable systems that are under the conventional T5 or halide. And don't get me wrong, there are a few really nice systems that the owners very much enjoy powered by the now super old AI Sols exclusively. Just had to really dial them in to prevent roasting LPS, 4 hour ramp 36%W, 55%B, 80% RB is my go to for tanks around 18-24" deep when lit with the old Sols. I push those percentages a bit on deeper tanks.

I think a lot of ppl can be very happy with pure LEDs provided they choose wisely and select a balanced output program for said fixtures and then, most importantly, stop messing with them and let them do their thing so the corals can adapt. I will add that the colonies they produce are often shaped a bit differently that other types of light. Not that that's better or worse, just an interesting observation I've had over the years.

Yeah, that's the type of observation many LED lovers have. Good example!
Again, the differences of shapes, colors and "vigor" are personal preferences, as we just talked about.
That's why is so hard to agree with what light would be the best for each person.

Grandis.

 

[A. grandis]

Ya, will post tomorrow when I can get to my work pc.

Thanks! I'll check before I go to work!
Grandis.

 

[A. grandis]

I never changed from halides. Just built another tank with leds. First shot was Hydra 52 hds and a bunch of new Ora sps. Killed them all as I had the lights cranked up. Got a little advice from @saltyfilmfolks on how to manage them and started to have some very good success across the board. Scored radion g4pros after the irma crash and have been experimenting with them for the last couple of months. The biggest differences I have noticed comes down to encrusting patterns and branching. Also noted that low n03 appears to effect sps more under led than mh.

Yes, some see also the same encrusting and branching observations you did.
Some say their LEDs were better for some corals and bad for others...
Many say the halides gave 'em an explosion of colors and growth, like I've experienced too!!
In my case with the LEDs I had a fast growth at first and then saw the shapes turning weird and very unnatural. I also noticed some tissue recession in some of the colonies which turned me off and I went back to T5s. As soon as I went back to T5s everything went great in that 125gal. Never changed my 75gal. and I'm still glad.
But I want my tank to be a slice of the ocean at home and therefore I compare to what I observe while snorkeling.
Some of local friends have LEDs and are "LED people" **LOL!** but when I point things out, they actually can see what I mean and agree, but it's aways like... "it's just that I don't like to change bulbs", or " it would be too hot and I'll need chiller" kinda deal.
I understand we do what we can and like.
Not a big deal anymore. LOL!
I guess I'm just a halide/T5 kinda guy until I can proof anything scientifically. Hehe.

Please don't forget to post the pics with halides...
Grandis.

 

[rockskimmerflow]

Yeah, that's the type of observation many LED lovers have. Good example!
Again, the differences of shapes, colors and "vigor" are personal preferences, as we just talked about.
That's why is so hard to agree with what light would be the best for each person.

Grandis.

Yup I'm a die hard T5HO and Halide guy, but at the end of the day I work for my customers, so if they insist that we only use LED because they have some notion they're stuck on that changing bulbs or the 'heat' from a halide or T5 will be detrimental then I have to go with what they want. I always try to get the 'best' light for the health of my customers animals so I generally recommend and try to persuade them to go with halides, t5s, or both. And will usually suggest we add a royal blue strip with a remote so they can put that on in the evening when the main lights are out if they'd like to view the corals in crazy psychedelic color mode haha- which I think is great if that's what floats their boat and I feel like LEDs are really in their element when it comes to targeting spectrums like the royal blue for visual effect. I've never had someone whose tank I converted to T5 or halide say they wish they went back or their corals look better under LED. I have had people switch to LED and switch back to T5 though....

 

[Centerline]

Yes, some see also the same encrusting and branching observations you did.
Some say their LEDs were better for some corals and bad for others...
Many say the halides gave 'em an explosion of colors and growth, like I've experienced too!!
In my case with the LEDs I had a fast growth at first and then saw the shapes turning weird and very unnatural. I also noticed some tissue recession in some of the colonies which turned me off and I went back to T5s. As soon as I went back to T5s everything went great in that 125gal. Never changed my 75gal. and I'm still glad.
But I want my tank to be a slice of the ocean at home and therefore I compare to what I observe while snorkeling.
Some of local friends have LEDs and are "LED people" **LOL!** but when I point things out, they actually can see what I mean and agree, but it's aways like... "it's just that I don't like to change bulbs", or " it would be too hot and I'll need chiller" kinda deal.
I understand we do what we can and like.
Not a big deal anymore. LOL!
I guess I'm just a halide/T5 kinda guy until I can proof anything scientifically. Hehe.

Please don't forget to post the pics with halides...
Grandis.

So having had a bunch of great growth once the LEDs were dialed in do you think that the problems you ran into were micro hotspots from the lens? That was always my assumption. That said the red planet i the middle of the tank shot grew from a frag to a 4" coral in about 10 months. That's pretty darn fast and it didn't run into the hot spot issue at all. Also if you look at all of those frags in the rack on the left you will see 5 or 6 red planets on 1" plugs. Those were only about 45 days old. The beach bum and other monties were all grown under MH and transferred to that tank but continues to grow albeit a little slower. That was under what would basically be 14 k - lots of blue/uv with whites tossed in at 30% to blue/uv. No green or reds. One thing about that tank to consider is that I was running RedSea A/B coral care products, had lots of fish that got fed twice daily, ran NoPox and kept my A/C/M at 12/500/1400. The tank also had 2 Gyres on either sides of the tank making a crazy amount of flow. High Energy tank. So there maybe something to consider with respect to highly usable (spectrum), densely packed protons and a need for available nutrients.