Agreed this is awesome. Been following along.
More and more I am getting the impression that hybrid is the way to go (BRS basically said as much in the latest video as well).
Coral Coloration LEDS vs MH vs T5
- Thread starter Jonathan Troutt
- Start date
- Tagged users None
More and more I am getting the impression that hybrid is the way to go (BRS basically said as much in the latest video as well).
Jonathan Troutt
Well-Known Member
@jda
So the fixture is not an ati. Not sure what ballast it has in it will check when i get home. Prolly doesnt have HEP ballasts in it. So i will be buying new ballasts for it
So the fixture is not an ati. Not sure what ballast it has in it will check when i get home. Prolly doesnt have HEP ballasts in it. So i will be buying new ballasts for it
Jonathan Troutt
Well-Known Member
Ip
Yip until the led manufacturers figure out a way to have an led output full spectrum light. My take on it now after reading and watching as well seeing tanks that use hybrid fixture is leds should be use for supplementation only.
Are your inhabitants still responding positively?
Jonathan Troutt
Well-Known Member
Its not currently above the 40 breeder because of the overlap and light spill into the room.
That said the 75gal i bought should be up and running next weekend.
What i wanted to do through this is document how the few corals i have change once the light goes up. So that happens when the 75 happens.
Im gonna take @Big E ’s advice on bulbs. His success on his tank requires a, “Yes sir I will do what you say.” So stay tuned.
Bouncingsoul39
Valuable Member
The discussion of MH vs LED comes up often. In one such thread, I mentioned that MH gives better growth and color in SPS but could not articulate why very well which @jda has done here, which is that they provide a wider spectrum, higher "quality" light. The argument against what I was saying was "photons are photons" and "here comes the guy with the magic photons explanation again". @jda what do you say to the "photons are photons" argument against LED?
Jonathan Troutt
Well-Known Member
Can you elaborate on what the photons are photo argument is exactly?
Jonathan Troutt
Well-Known Member
Double post grrrr
...this is a soapbox of mine, so sorry in advance.
Photon is a quantum. They are very complex and quantum mechanics is a difficult field of study for a reason. It is also highly theoretical. Dr. Joshi was the first person to use that phrase, and I think that he immediately regretted it. I did take three quantum mechanics classes in college, but this is going to be simplified...
The statement was along the lines of IF you could produce the same quantum then the coral would not care where it came from. While probably true, it breaks down it many ways. First, quantum is infinite as far as we know and even a photon from the sun is likely never like one before it... kinda like a snowflake. There likely are no photons like another photon. Second, there are many, many quantum/photons at work. Even if a photon, say at 455nm was identical, then what about the missing ones at different spectrums or too many of one or the other?
Saying that photons are photons or that there are magic photons is a lazy argument. I might listen to somebody with a pHd in quantum mechanics, but otherwise we are all over our heads.
The only people that I see who use the "magic photons" phrase are either selling something, inexperienced or just passing along a narrative that they do not understand.
A bad equivalency is to say that since a molecule of gasoline ignites to the same energy in any combustion chamber that a Honda is the same as a Lamborghini since they both ignite gas.
IF one fixture could match another with spectrum, intensity, coverage, angles, etc., then I doubt that a coral will care. Since this does not exist, this false equivalency that a complex theoretical infinite particle from one light is the same as the other is just dumb (and lazy).
Photon is a quantum. They are very complex and quantum mechanics is a difficult field of study for a reason. It is also highly theoretical. Dr. Joshi was the first person to use that phrase, and I think that he immediately regretted it. I did take three quantum mechanics classes in college, but this is going to be simplified...
The statement was along the lines of IF you could produce the same quantum then the coral would not care where it came from. While probably true, it breaks down it many ways. First, quantum is infinite as far as we know and even a photon from the sun is likely never like one before it... kinda like a snowflake. There likely are no photons like another photon. Second, there are many, many quantum/photons at work. Even if a photon, say at 455nm was identical, then what about the missing ones at different spectrums or too many of one or the other?
Saying that photons are photons or that there are magic photons is a lazy argument. I might listen to somebody with a pHd in quantum mechanics, but otherwise we are all over our heads.
The only people that I see who use the "magic photons" phrase are either selling something, inexperienced or just passing along a narrative that they do not understand.
A bad equivalency is to say that since a molecule of gasoline ignites to the same energy in any combustion chamber that a Honda is the same as a Lamborghini since they both ignite gas.
IF one fixture could match another with spectrum, intensity, coverage, angles, etc., then I doubt that a coral will care. Since this does not exist, this false equivalency that a complex theoretical infinite particle from one light is the same as the other is just dumb (and lazy).
You act like every MH has the "EXACT" same composition/geometry..
Resitances perfectly equal. Gas molecule for molecule is identical one form another ...ect..ect..ect..ect..
which is totally false..What you are trying to "imply" doesn't hold any water..
Why not just throw in the earths magnetic field and atmospheric ionization while you are at it..
you spout dogma..
Ok. I'll throw you one bone..Polarization.. If you can prove MH's produce polarized light (or LEds)you have a TEENY out..
Though once interacting w/ "matter" that kind of goes out the window too..
Resitances perfectly equal. Gas molecule for molecule is identical one form another ...ect..ect..ect..ect..
which is totally false..What you are trying to "imply" doesn't hold any water..
Why not just throw in the earths magnetic field and atmospheric ionization while you are at it..
you spout dogma..
Ok. I'll throw you one bone..Polarization.. If you can prove MH's produce polarized light (or LEds)you have a TEENY out..
Though once interacting w/ "matter" that kind of goes out the window too..
Last edited:
Bouncingsoul39
Valuable Member
During the debate on MH or T5 vs LED, there are some poopers who argue that a "photon is a photon" as if, "light is light" and it makes no difference if it comes from a halide bulb or LED diode. I never agreed with this.
Jonathan Troutt
Well-Known Member
The way i understand what quantum theory says about particles in general is that there is not particle that is exactly like another.
The double-slit experiment in my opinion at least reinforces your view.
Granted it deals with observation or photons but it proves that particles are not just cut and dry and a photon is a particle well its a electromagnetic energy wave as well.
I recently came across a book written by DR Robert Lanza called biocentrism. You bring up quantum mechanics reminded me of it.
The magic photos thing i personally feel is mostly because people dont understand. Understanding of quantum mechanics/theory is hard for some.
But i am on board with you. No two photons are the same regardless of source they all differ in some way even if it a minute detail. That difference could very well be an important part of the equation
no 2 photons would be the same from the same source then...and back to square one we go..Unless of course you train them in some way..even that would be iffy..
IF you can prove a 420nm LED photon is significantly different than one from a MH ..well give yourself a Nobel..
AFAICT..
knock yourself out..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_polarization
to add a bit.. disruption..
https://jeb.biologists.org/content/jexbio/204/14/2461.full.pdf
Last edited:
Jonathan Troutt
Well-Known Member
I can understand your view as well. Immy personal view is more in line with Jda. That said i dont want to ever give the impression that i am trying to appear like i know what im talking about in relation to quantum theory/mechanics. Its a mind melting subject.
Big E
Valuable Member
Just want to share what I told Jonathan in a pm about using T5. Use ATI bulbs due to their success over the long term on acropora type systems. They need to be driven by the correct ballasts which is the HEP or the correct spec'd Advance ballast.
Each bulb needs a separate reflector and you need water proof end caps.
This is for DIY and is basically the LET kits that vendors sell.
Or you can buy a Sunpower fixture.
All the rest of the advice is in my tank thread and nothing new about duration, height of bulbs, type of bulbs I use ect.
Like Doug(jda) mentioned........T5 for the heavy lifting and LED for bling/supplementation if you prefer to add it.
Well..Have some fun w/ this..
https://umdrightnow.umd.edu/news/um...arch-enables-sources-nearly-identical-photons
Jonathan Troutt
Well-Known Member
Nearly identical...
And they are using light from an unknown source i don’t remember remember reading what the source was. Its a bit different than what we are referencing.
A photon from a mh vs a photon from an led.
Maybe photons from an led are similar to each other. Maybe photons from MH are similar.
Maybe they are different from each other.
Maybe......Stating it IS is dogma..
up until that is proven. I'll stick w/ 420nm photons from used light sources are functionally equivalent..
all millions of them..
till then it's strictly a matter of nm differences, focus and intensity..not spin states, polarization or angular momentum..
I'm certainly open to be proven wrong...just not seeing it..
It's always "magic" till proven..
Maybe you just "wish" it to be true..
Actually not that funny....
up until that is proven. I'll stick w/ 420nm photons from used light sources are functionally equivalent..
all millions of them..
till then it's strictly a matter of nm differences, focus and intensity..not spin states, polarization or angular momentum..
I'm certainly open to be proven wrong...just not seeing it..
It's always "magic" till proven..
Maybe you just "wish" it to be true..
https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...uantum-theory-actually-tell-us-about-reality/
Actually not that funny....
Last edited:
Similar threads
