A real "LED X halide" thread, scientifically. LOL!

[A. grandis]

Some of the info that I have been posting for years here:



Have fun and enjoy watching!
The information in the video isn't really to "condemn" or "hate" LEDs, but to show some of the facts of both technologies.
There is no argument, really!
I've been posting all that since loooong ago.
Halides are the best representation of natural sunlight.

 

[areefer01]

Some of the info that I have been posting for years here:



Have fun and enjoy watching!
The information in the video isn't really to "condemn" or "hate" LEDs, but to show some of the facts of both technologies.
There is no argument, really!
I've been posting all that since loooong ago.
Halides are the best representation of natural sunlight.

Are any of the major saltwater aquarium LED light manufactures trying to build a MH replacement or arguing that they are superior? It is all about choices. Be glad you have one.

Edit: probably would have been a bit better had Dana been involved. Just my $0.02 worth.

 

[A. grandis]

Just want to share what's in the video. Nothing more, nothing less.
No arguments!

 

[oreo54]

Actually there is plenty to " argue".....if one wants to. but first read on

To be honest ...it feels more like a sales pitch.

I honestly wouldn't know where to start

From the "more radiant energy" ( my electric 1500 watt heater produces more " radiant energy" than the halides but certainly don't think it would grow anything) statement to free air par comparisons with different reflectors. The light field in FREE AIR
is not the same as in a water filled tank.

Corals and vitamin d production?
Interesting thought .
As to humans.. along w/ D..

UVB rays cause sunburns, skin cancer, skin aging, and snow blindness (a sunburn to your cornea that causes a temporary loss of vision) and can lower your body's ability to fight illness.

Funny how nature works.. same thing that keeps you healthy also can kill you.
Emulating nature has it's drawbacks apparently


List goes on.
Now .. what's right? Nothing's proven and he states it as such.
Trying to" sell" uv-b with little proof of it's benefit but more ( unmentioned) proof of it's downside is ..err... contentious..
IR above 750-ish even moreso except no apparent downside but wasted energy possibly.
Case temp? Doesn't matter.

The 3 sltes consisted of an ocean atoll in the Maldives (cen-
tral Indian Ocean), a small (8 km') high island 11 km off the continental coastline at Phuket, Thailand
(Andaman Sea), and an inshore reef at Phuket. E, at each of the depths was integrated over the wave-
bands as a percentage of the above-water irradiance. E,(UVB) at 5 m depth was found to decrease to
12% of incident irradiance at the mid-occan atoll, to 2% for the high island site, and to 0.4 % in the tur-
bid waters of the inshore reef. A 1% Ed(UVB) depth was computed for each site and found to be 11, 6,
and 3 m respectively. The diffuse attenuation for downwelling irradiance (Kd) for the depth range 0- m
(just below the surface) to 5 m showed a very rapid attenuation with decreasing wavelength in the UVB
at all sites. Biological damage potential, as weighted by the DNA-damage action spectrum, showed a
more rapid attenuation with depth than Ed(UVB), with a1 % EDN, depth of 9 m for the ocean atoll, 4.7 m
for the coastal island, and 2.6 m for the inshore reef.

For scale.

Onward .

many, if not all, don't need it to color up. We determined this back in the 90's.....

LED’s- No UV? Do corals need UV for longterm health?

Just wondering how important UV is for longterm coral health, specifically Acropora. Somebody measured some LED fixtures and the conclusion was they lack UV. Personally I’ve never seen a tank with LED’s struggle that much. I’ve been watching closely over the last several years and from what I...

www.reef2reef.com

Now that said there is no "argument" because there is very little if any proof.

All would be opinion or conjecture ..including my own.

SSDD...

 

[areefer01]

Just want to share what's in the video. Nothing more, nothing less.
No arguments!

I know - life is too short. Hope your day is going well!

 

[A. grandis]

I know - life is too short. Hope your day is going wellI agree, life is too short.

I just wanted to post here, cause it's the right forum for the subject.
It's a matter of choice and personal preferences for results.
I think metal halides still have it's place in the market and should be available to anyone interested. Even if sales would be very small.
Have a great day.

 

[A. grandis]

Actually there is plenty to " argue".....if one wants to. but first read on

To be honest ...it feels more like a sales pitch.

I honestly wouldn't know where to start

From the "more radiant energy" ( my electric 1500 watt heater produces more " radiant energy" than the halides but certainly don't think it would grow anything) statement to free air par comparisons with different reflectors. The light field in FREE AIR
is not the same as in a water filled tank.

Corals and vitamin d production?
Interesting thought .
As to humans.. along w/ D..

Funny how nature works.. same thing that keeps you healthy also can kill you.
Emulating nature has it's drawbacks apparently


List goes on.
Now .. what's right? Nothing's proven and he states it as such.
Trying to" sell" uv-b with little proof of it's benefit but more ( unmentioned) proof of it's downside is ..err... contentious..
IR above 750-ish even moreso except no apparent downside but wasted energy possibly.
Case temp? Doesn't matter.

For scale.

Onward .

LED’s- No UV? Do corals need UV for longterm health?

Just wondering how important UV is for longterm coral health, specifically Acropora. Somebody measured some LED fixtures and the conclusion was they lack UV. Personally I’ve never seen a tank with LED’s struggle that much. I’ve been watching closely over the last several years and from what I...

www.reef2reef.com

Now that said there is no "argument" because there is very little if any proof.

All would be opinion or conjecture ..including my own.

SSDD...

I agree that is sounds like he wants to sell some of his old stock. It could be just that it sounds like, but I'm not going to disagree with that for this particular video, if I want to judge that way. Again, all LED manufacturers have been bombarding halides for years.. If that was the case, maybe what Tullio did is more than fair!

I'm not sure what he meant by the vitamin D for corals deal. If there is anything there I do not know. Never heard... As far as I know that works for humans, not corals.

In regards to the downsides of halide, he did prove that heat isn't the case anymore and talking about electricity consumption also, so.. no more downsides, I guess. There is absolutely no downside for UV emission over a reef tank from any metal halide when application is proper and safe. Only benefits to resemble nature to some extent and give amazing results IMO!

I do not think UV should be the only motive to promote or use metal halides for reefs and the real full spectrum with the more than safe high intensity is what makes the big difference to ANY system, no matter the size. Also, the ability of the unique glimmer lines is a huge advantage to resemble natural sunlight over a reef. There is absolutely nothing that could substitute halides in many ways. Results are the best for what I, and many other reefers, are looking for. That's personal and should be respect, just like for LED users.

It sounds like he wants to sell his lights. But he also makes and promotes LEDs a lot, so...
The comparisons he showed were mostly to prove those UV LEDs aren't the real deal, and that the manufacturers use the "UV" to sell their LEDs. That was really good to show to this new generation. So no one can substitute halides for LED if they want that UV.

Are halides really coming back now???
There are many people looking for them!
Again... why not have them available for those who want to use?
LEDs can't provide what halides can.
Halides can't provide what LEDs can, also.
To each their own results and personal preferences.
That is the right of each of us consumers.
Thanks for your post.

 

[Thales]

I don't get it.

None of the info on spectrum is new, we knew all of that when LED's were just coming to market and people didn't trust them. Spectrum was never the reason people left MH once it was shown that LEDs grew coral just fine.

People left MH because bulb replacement is a pita and disposing bulbs are bad for the enviornment (so much so that it was and is felt that MH will be a thing of the past not becuase LED's were better, but because the would be phased out of use so they would be harder to get and more expensive. Ushio stopped making one of the bulbs we liked at the Steinhart and we had to scramble to find 1000 w replacements. That was what convinced me to jump to LED's.

The spectrum informaton has been readily available, and it was shown that LED's do just fine at growning coral, and they were more controlable which adds much convenience - and they look so much sleeker than MH fixtures, so people shifted. But if you want to talk full spectrum, the LEP had the most representative spectrum of natural sunlight on paper, but didn't grow corals any better than anything else and fried some folks tanks.

You still can, and always been able to get MH stuff, but that market continues to dwindle which has not much to do with our hobby.

The uvb stuff seems weird and I don't understand what is the anecdote that is motivating this line of thought. Based on the existing information and some of the science they provided, doesn't make much sense to me.

 

[A. grandis]

I don't get it.

None of the info on spectrum is new, we knew all of that when LED's were just coming to market and people didn't trust them. Spectrum was never the reason people left MH once it was shown that LEDs grew coral just fine.

People left MH because bulb replacement is a pita and disposing bulbs are bad for the enviornment (so much so that it was and is felt that MH will be a thing of the past not becuase LED's were better, but because the would be phased out of use so they would be harder to get and more expensive. Ushio stopped making one of the bulbs we liked at the Steinhart and we had to scramble to find 1000 w replacements. That was what convinced me to jump to LED's.

The spectrum informaton has been readily available, and it was shown that LED's do just fine at growning coral, and they were more controlable which adds much convenience - and they look so much sleeker than MH fixtures, so people shifted. But if you want to talk full spectrum, the LEP had the most representative spectrum of natural sunlight on paper, but didn't grow corals any better than anything else and fried some folks tanks.

You still can, and always been able to get MH stuff, but that market continues to dwindle which has not much to do with our hobby.

The uvb stuff seems weird and I don't understand what is the anecdote that is motivating this line of thought. Based on the existing information and some of the science they provided, doesn't make much sense to me.

I have to agree with the weird "anecdote about the UVB" the way he puts. I would think that Tullio must have an ace hiding in his hand. He likes to release info slowly... I m a bit too anxious. LOL!
Ushio had bulbs back in stock, like the 250W 14K, for example. The demand must be growing. I know there are lot's of people going back to halides and new hobbyists trying and going crazy for the results.
We must admit that even though LEDs grow corals "just fine" like you said, some of us want to grow them profusely. Also, there is nothing like those glitter lines, not even Kessils... it's a matter of taste.
The info Tullio published in the video was well known by many of us, BUT not for the majority of the newbies, which cover a much highr percentage of people today than the old guys like me and you. LOL! It was a good video to show that the so called UV LEDs don't make much difference, comparing to halides, if that's what we are looking for. There is so much propaganda around LEDs' companies comparing their products to halides and T5s and saying their LEDs are better and blah, blah, blah... the truth is simply that they are just one more technology to be chosen from, and halides and T5s are still valid to use in many applications. Results are different and everyone should have those 3 types available in the market, I believe. Instead, what we see is a lot of videos condemning metal halides as they are a terrible choice and promoting LEDs as they are "better". That's not true at all! Many actually see metal halides as the very best of all to grow corals.
Jake Adams had access to all LEDs ever made up to recently. He always promoted LEDs he liked and said many times he would never go back to halides because of the heat, specially. In the end, he actually said that the best bulb to grow corals was actually a metal halide bulb, the Iwasaki 65K 250W. I always have also said that and was so excited when he pointed that out. Another great coral farmer, Chris Meckley from ACI, also say there is absolutely nothing that can substitute halides. I think there is no more than that to be said in terms of quality of light to grow corals, but the choices need to be respected in both ways and people need to know that whatever we choose it's just one of the ways and we shouldn't make a big deal, like many were doing. Ten years back we couldn't even talk bout halides because we would almost be judged and treated like a criminal anywhere in this hobby. I think things are changing and Tullio is showing on video the facts of light, so LED manufacturers can stop selling ideas of what they don't have to offer. It's to educate the hobbyists and the industry. Glad to see you posting here!

 

[Spare time]

Actually there is plenty to " argue".....if one wants to. but first read on

To be honest ...it feels more like a sales pitch.

I honestly wouldn't know where to start

From the "more radiant energy" ( my electric 1500 watt heater produces more " radiant energy" than the halides but certainly don't think it would grow anything) statement to free air par comparisons with different reflectors. The light field in FREE AIR
is not the same as in a water filled tank.

Corals and vitamin d production?
Interesting thought .
As to humans.. along w/ D..

Funny how nature works.. same thing that keeps you healthy also can kill you.
Emulating nature has it's drawbacks apparently


List goes on.
Now .. what's right? Nothing's proven and he states it as such.
Trying to" sell" uv-b with little proof of it's benefit but more ( unmentioned) proof of it's downside is ..err... contentious..
IR above 750-ish even moreso except no apparent downside but wasted energy possibly.
Case temp? Doesn't matter.

For scale.

Onward .

LED’s- No UV? Do corals need UV for longterm health?

Just wondering how important UV is for longterm coral health, specifically Acropora. Somebody measured some LED fixtures and the conclusion was they lack UV. Personally I’ve never seen a tank with LED’s struggle that much. I’ve been watching closely over the last several years and from what I...

www.reef2reef.com

Now that said there is no "argument" because there is very little if any proof.

All would be opinion or conjecture ..including my own.

SSDD...

I couldn't find anything mentioning corals using or needing vitamin D. Vitamin D deficiency is a human phenomena, and cnidarians are physiologically, nothing like us. UVB isn't used in photosynthesis and is damaging to corals and their zooxanthellae.

 

[areefer01]

Chris Meckley from ACI, also say there is absolutely nothing that can substitute halides.

Aquaculture != home aquaria. His needs are vastly different than the average Joe. Same applies to large scale public aquarium displays.

Note this is just what hit me as I was reading your reply and has nothing to do with better or worse between lighting.

 

[oreo54]

I don't get it.

None of the info on spectrum is new, we knew all of that when LED's were just coming to market and people didn't trust them. Spectrum was never the reason people left MH once it was shown that LEDs grew coral just fine.

People left MH because bulb replacement is a pita and disposing bulbs are bad for the enviornment (so much so that it was and is felt that MH will be a thing of the past not becuase LED's were better, but because the would be phased out of use so they would be harder to get and more expensive. Ushio stopped making one of the bulbs we liked at the Steinhart and we had to scramble to find 1000 w replacements. That was what convinced me to jump to LED's.

The spectrum informaton has been readily available, and it was shown that LED's do just fine at growning coral, and they were more controlable which adds much convenience - and they look so much sleeker than MH fixtures, so people shifted. But if you want to talk full spectrum, the LEP had the most representative spectrum of natural sunlight on paper, but didn't grow corals any better than anything else and fried some folks tanks.

You still can, and always been able to get MH stuff, but that market continues to dwindle which has not much to do with our hobby.

The uvb stuff seems weird and I don't understand what is the anecdote that is motivating this line of thought. Based on the existing information and some of the science they provided, doesn't make much sense to me.

There pushing the "unknown" of it and the assumption of germicidal properties and the belief the increase in LED increased diseases..
A lot is actually known or hypothesized (see attached paper as an example).
As to the disease increase many feel there is no causation with the assumed correlation.
Actually some " gurus" have walked back their "belief" and to paraphrase Sanjay 'show me the money' (not really what he said but close enough ).....

Anyways here..Even this really poses more questions than answers but it is(was) a start and shows the complexity of it.
UVb and Phytoplankton

Lastly even if germicidal there possibility of taking out beneficial bacteria ect. is there.

As the above paper shows using "tanning bed" doped metal halides one could easily start there.

Compare uv-b+mh vs uv-b- MH's before expanding to led.

Except for observations there is nothing "scientific" in the vid.

"Sure there is random variation in nature but the underlying principles driving adaptation have allowed life to proliferate in the face of extreme stress."

Miguel Altieri, “By designing farming systems that mimic nature, optimal use can be made of sunlight, soil nutrients, and rainfall.”


This strategy arises from a long history of thinking that there exists a “balance of nature.” This idea has greatly influenced how we look at nature and agriculture. In the latter case, it drives much of what is done in organic farming and agroecology, but also finds its way into no-till farming. Nonetheless, it is false, and because it is false we can abandon the restrictive “nature knows best” argument in designing agricultural systems. Instead, we can improve on nature.

Anyways some "stuff" for either side of any discussion.
Bottom line is it does "do stuff" in nature but is it a net benefit or not in an artificial environment?
Consider the risks of "mis-management" as well.

 

[njreefkeeper]

I agree that is sounds like he wants to sell some of his old stock. It could be just that it sounds like, but I'm not going to disagree with that for this particular video, if I want to judge that way. Again, all LED manufacturers have been bombarding halides for years.. If that was the case, maybe what Tullio did is more than fair!

I'm not sure what he meant by the vitamin D for corals deal. If there is anything there I do not know. Never heard... As far as I know that works for humans, not corals.

In regards to the downsides of halide, he did prove that heat isn't the case anymore and talking about electricity consumption also, so.. no more downsides, I guess. There is absolutely no downside for UV emission over a reef tank from any metal halide when application is proper and safe. Only benefits to resemble nature to some extent and give amazing results IMO!

I do not think UV should be the only motive to promote or use metal halides for reefs and the real full spectrum with the more than safe high intensity is what makes the big difference to ANY system, no matter the size. Also, the ability of the unique glimmer lines is a huge advantage to resemble natural sunlight over a reef. There is absolutely nothing that could substitute halides in many ways. Results are the best for what I, and many other reefers, are looking for. That's personal and should be respect, just like for LED users.

It sounds like he wants to sell his lights. But he also makes and promotes LEDs a lot, so...
The comparisons he showed were mostly to prove those UV LEDs aren't the real deal, and that the manufacturers use the "UV" to sell their LEDs. That was really good to show to this new generation. So no one can substitute halides for LED if they want that UV.

Are halides really coming back now???
There are many people looking for them!
Again... why not have them available for those who want to use?
LEDs can't provide what halides can.
Halides can't provide what LEDs can, also.
To each their own results and personal preferences.
That is the right of each of us consumers.
Thanks for your post.

Just curious. You mentioned that halides can’t provide what LEDs can. Other than a larger footprint and bulb replacement, what might those be?

 

[Oldreefer44]

My issue is with the term "best". Best for what? Growth? Health? Strength? Color? Best for one thing usually means that it is less good for another. IMO, that's the way nature works.

 

[A. grandis]

Aquaculture != home aquaria. His needs are vastly different than the average Joe. Same applies to large scale public aquarium displays.

Note this is just what hit me as I was reading your reply and has nothing to do with better or worse between lighting.

The application of different types of light, say metal halide, T5 or LED will show differently and present different results to each case. The application of metal halide for home aquarium has been more than adjusted in the past and it was the main source of light for so many years with a tremendous success. It's application utilizing different ballasts, bulbs and reflectors is what will provide the same amazing results for any size system, with different organisms. The availability of different gear using 70W,100W, 150W, 175W, 250W 400W, 1000W was largely available to those who would choose halides in the past. So the correct application for each system will follow the ability of each case. Today we still have 175W, 250W, 400W and 1000W bulbs available and that still give us some room to choose the right system for what we want to address, and a very viable option.
So it's not only for aquaculture, but mainly for home aquariums. By the way, the majority of the fixtures they are using today for aquaculture are actually design and largely used specifically for 55, 75 or 90 gallon tanks back in the day, using 175W or 250W bulbs!

 

[A. grandis]

Just curious. You mentioned that halides can’t provide what LEDs can. Other than a larger footprint and bulb replacement, what might those be?

Listing only the benefits of each:
Metal halides:
1) Real full spectrum, as the video states, from UV to IR, like the sun.
2) The coverage reflecting light all over the system, offering light reflected under the corals with proper spread, when application is right.
3) Very strong intensity in a very safe way, allowing the corals to receive the amazing full spectrum very similar to what we see in nature.
4) The glitter lines punching that spectrum in pulses, stimulating the corals, as we see in nature. Glitter lines must play in the natural metabolism of the shallow water corals and clams.
5) The ability to change bulbs and choose, within that full spectrum, what pleases our eyes, but still providing the qualities we are looking for when choosing halides. Changing bulbs also refresh the initial light qualities of the light and keep those qualities in the long run.
6) A very inexpensive gear in the long run!!! We can buy a metal halide system and have it for the rest of our lives, just changing bulbs every year or so.
LEDs:
1) The ability to change spectrum, which has many times seen as a negative aspect. That was the reason why some LED manufacturers are trying to make new fixtures without that ability, or teaching how to set the spectrum for their products.
2) The aesthetics of the chromatic blue emission from LEDs can't be reproduced by halides. Many people see that as a priority.
3) The aesthetics of a smaller/thinner fixture over the tank.

 

[A. grandis]

My issue is with the term "best". Best for what? Growth? Health? Strength? Color? Best for one thing usually means that it is less good for another. IMO, that's the way nature works.

Yup! The term "best" was many times used by LED manufacturers to compare their products to metal halides and T5s, in order to sell their products. There are lot's of different qualities between the types of reef lights and it will always be a matter of personal preference and priorities in the end.

 

[Eric R.]

Just want to add that the sun releases light in a wider spectrum than just UV-A, UV-B, UV-C, visible light, and IR. The sun also emits radio waves, microwaves, x-rays, and gamma rays. Some of these frequencies of light are very harmful to living organisms. Fortunately for us, the atmosphere protects us from the most damaging of these rays.

So just because a certain frequency of light is part of the spectrum emitted from the sun, doesn't mean that it's necessarily good for living organisms. "Natural" isn't always safe, evolution has helped organisms develop all sorts of adaptations to better survive harmful things that exist in nature.

 

[A. grandis]

One thing I would like to add to this thread is the fact that many LED users see metal halide almost as a threat. They think metal halide should be out of the market and the only option is what the LED the chose. They believe in those who preaches AGAINST metal halides. We have mentioned in the past the so called "confirmation bias", when people try to convince themselves they did a great thing spending their money on a high priced tag LED. That is mostly what happens IMO, but also the personal preference for each in regards to aesthetics play some in the game.
I thinks it's time to call the halide users "halide guys", the T5 users "T5 guys" and the LED users "LED guys", and simply deal with the 3 as they were in the same boat, as reefers.
There is no sin in accepting the other person's preference as another friend in this hobby. To critique halide is to critique the users and vice versa.
When we put the halide qualities on the table we are just exposing what we like and what they provide for us.
Same thing when LED guys love their LEDs...
We are all "crazy" here... with different types of "craziness"!
Time to let the ego aside and treat each other as we should.

 

[A. grandis]

Just want to add that the sun releases light in a wider spectrum than just UV-A, UV-B, UV-C, visible light, and IR. The sun also emits radio waves, microwaves, x-rays, and gamma rays. Some of these frequencies of light are very harmful to living organisms. Fortunately for us, the atmosphere protects us from the most damaging of these rays.

So just because a certain frequency of light is part of the spectrum emitted from the sun, doesn't mean that it's necessarily good for living organisms. "Natural" isn't always safe, evolution has helped organisms develop all sorts of adaptations to better survive harmful things that exist in nature.

All the corals in shallow water are there simply because they grow in that environment. The choice to replicate that environment using halides is just one more. It should be available for those who want to use. Simple as that. I personally think the very best of all is natural sun light.