DIY halide setup

[Rocks reef]

I like the SBreef lights as well, too bad they no longer exist.

 

[BeanAnimal]

Current LEDs are way more efficient than mh's/t5.

Context is everything. I provided it above, and yet you reframed it.

I clearly pointed out that lumens are a way to compare efficiency, not effectiveness. You shifted it into a debate about plant µmol/J and subjective color.

Yes, white LEDs can hit 150+ lm/W, but reef fixtures aren’t built from white diodes alone. In fact, they are dominated by violet, deep blue, and royal blue emitters that average 20–50 lm/W. So quoting top-bin white numbers as representative of full-spectrum reef lights is misleading.

MH does waste energy in non-PUR spectrum, but LEDs waste it too, just in the form of poor efficiency in the spectrum we do want. That was my point, and it was clearly articulated.

The 1W LED = 2W T5 comparison applies to horticulture or general lighting. Reef lighting has different spectral demands. It's not just about photon delivery -- back to the entire PAR/PUR context -- it's what you're delivering, not just raw photon count.

The secondary point was spectrum vs. intensity. It isn’t an either/or. You can’t solve spectral deficiencies (gaps) by just cranking up PAR. The real concern (also articulated in my short post) is that it appears that some (all?) LED blends are still missing key parts of the MH profile.

Not wishing to head down a rabbit hole here. A typical reef LED fixture arguably does not deliver PUR more efficiently than a MH. The bulk of the LED PUR is from low efficiency LEDs and even when reflectors and other losses are considered, you can't just outright declare them "far more efficient" or even "more efficient".

If we are talking high-bay lighting, that is an entirely different story.

 

[FUNGI]

Found these fixtures locally for $10 each. Going to check them out tomorrow.

They currently house halogen bulbs and ballast.

I am thinking about picking up 5 of them and start collecting what I need to put them over 2 tanks. My 300g shallow 96X30X24 TALL currently has mixed LEDs and want to upgrade but I miss the old halides and always have the pull to go back to them.

And also setting up a 45g frag tank 48 x 24 x9 tall and need lighting for it so I will probably start with one.

I am hoping the socket is the same.
Will need to locate ballast and bulbs.
Looking at aquabright 175w 14k


Tank is lps/softie.

What do you all think

Nice find on the fixtures!

 

[PPBlimpy]

Nice find on the fixtures!

hoping they work out. they are outside lighting for an industrial park. i dont think they look to bad.

 

[oreo54]

Lets start here .."clearly pointed out that lumens are a way to compare efficiency"...

For what?
One can have a pure green bulb with 1000 lumens or a pure blue bulb measuring 1000 lumens and the blue will be orders of magnatude more "reef efficient".

The lumen curve is a subset of the par range

Take lux ( lumens/ area)
https://www.waveformlighting.com/horticulture/convert-lux-to-ppfd-online-calculator1000 lux of nat daylight is 23 umol/s/m2
1000 lux of 450nm blue led is 115.55 umol/s/m2
Only thing that counts is photon numbers and energy.

What efficiency are you comparing?
The efficiency of the yellow/ green band?


80% of what you ( collectively really) said may have some precedent but has little real science behind it. Mh vs led.

Maybe you see it different but this is a pretty " humpy" spectrum (some nm's" height" entering the noise floor)

 

[BeanAnimal]

Lets start here .."clearly pointed out that lumens are a way to compare efficiency"...

There is no argument to be had here. While I respect many of your posts, this is heading off-course because the point keeps getting reframed. I never said lumens measure reef effectiveness. I said they are a comparative metric of electrical efficiency. It is simply a measure of how much visible light output is produced per watt of input, regardless of lamp or emitter.

That’s a valid and standard engineering baseline, not a coral growth metric.

Nobody disputes that 450 nm light delivers more photons per lux due to the human eye’s lower sensitivity in that range. Again, that’s not what was being argued.

My point was very simple.

- A watt is a watt. 100W of halide and 100W of LED pump the same amount of heat into the room. Neither heat the water significantly for far-IR.

- Metal halides produce more visible light per watt, unless we are talking about single source emitters like high bin whites.

- Reef LEDs rely heavily on blue/violet emitters that are electrically inefficient, at best being 20–50 lm/W

- Quoting 150+ lm/W from white bins and applying it to a mixed-spectrum reef fixture is grossly misleading.


My secondary point made for thought:

- Even though LEDs can be more targeted, halides emit a broad, continuous spectrum, and some of those wavelengths may be critical for coral health, coloration and other biological effects.

As I said I don't wish to go further down a rabbit hole and argue beyond those basic facts. I have no interest in a MH vs LED debate. This started with watts and heat and just a simple fact about luminous efficacy.

 

[oreo54]

It is simply a measure of how much visible light output is produced per watt of input, regardless of lamp or emitter.

No, it's not.. it is the amount inside a subset of visible light.

Splitting hairs? Maybe.

Metal halides produce more visible light per watt,

Can't see how you come up with this. Do not use lumens.. :)
Leds emit no or little UV/ IR . Almost all watts go to heat or vis photons.
Since "PAR" is the total of all photons from 400-700nm with no discrimination or weighting of any individual "color" it is the de-facto standard one should measure efficiency by.
Unless one is making a germicidal or heat lamp.

As to a "watt is a watt" thing yea.. after the photons are converted (well what happens to the few percent consumed in photosynthesis) to heat sure a "watt is a watt".

Initially though leds produce more photons/watt than a MH or T5.
(Qualifier: equal or more if using average to above average LEDs ) current leds, old ones had "lumens" in the 50's and were only "saved" by very sharp focusing as to not "waste" any.
So less heat.. initially. Not NO heat obviously.

Royal blue is THE MOST efficient led out there.
And phosphor whites based on rb is the same.
It wasn't till recently that one was even considering the weakness of violets or UV chips.

Even though LEDs can be more targeted, halides emit a broad, continuous spectrum, and some of those wavelengths may be critical for coral health, coloration and other biological effects.

Good hypothesis, now for proof...:)

See I personally don't believe there is a "chasm" between the 2 light sources. If one is better or worse its baby steps not orders of magnitude.

As you know in my history that I "feel" that Iwasaki mh's were excellent bulbs that easily exceeded any LEDs in characteristics.
Even against other MH bulbs.
Too bad most find them ugly.
It's a hobby for enjoyment right? Not a business.

Why? Actually MORE blue (percent wise) and more "par" then even the bluest bulbs.
I also assume few if any ran high wattage daylight arrays of leds preferring RB and dimmed high k whites ( a bane of my existence ).

Not to mention the lies of equivalency sold to the public. or the horribly efficient TIR lenses.
Anyways that's off topic.

I have no issue w/ finding out if things like UV-b (not likely) or deep IR is beneficial over leds with none. BUT give me proof.

5% better.. .005% better ..50% better...?

People want to quote nature.. Why?.. Shes trying to kill you at every turn. Best you can do is put up with it.. :)

Because something can survive something does not imply it's beneficial.
Just because..

LEDs are full spectrum if one ignores UV/IR. Old school pfo solaris..
https://www.saltcorner.com/Articles/Showarticle.php?articleID=141

 

[Science/G]

If I had a big reef again, I would have metal halides, led bars and T5 lights. My goodness!!!

 

[BeanAnimal]

Honestly -- I am getting a bit annoyed. You keep reframing for the sake of having an argument where there is none. If not responding to me like I am ignorant of this subject matter.

My point (again) was about electrical efficiency and the misconception (generalization) that “LEDs” are more "efficient" because some whites hit 150+ lm/W. Reef fixtures are dominated by low-efficiency blue/violet emitters. Quoting white bins doesn’t apply and shifting the argument from electrical efficiency to PAR, PUR or some other metric other than lm/w is beyond the scope of the point being made.

Again, the point here has nothing to do with which theoretically could use less watts to grow a coral, other than to point out that MH is continuous spectrum and widely thought and understood to contain spectral components that even "full spectrum" LED fixtures are missing.

So you're not splitting hairs — you’re just wrong. lm/W is a measure of electrical efficiency across the entire visible spectrum, weighted to the human eye’s response. It’s not a subset. That’s the definition.

Your PUR chart is unlabeled and vague. No source, no spectral weighting or method. It doesn’t prove anything. Per is defined in vague terms, the key is that we just don't know what wavelengths or intensities of those wavelengths are important.

Also, let’s drop the “full spectrum LED” nonsense. There are no true full-spectrum emitters. White LEDs are blue diodes with phosphor coatings. They roll off into other wavelengths, but don’t fill them. There are always gaps. You can blend emitters to approximate coverage, but that’s not the same as the continuous output you get from MH or even T5. That was the point I raised FOR THOUGHT... nothing more.

As I already said, I do enjoy many of your posts and respect your positions. But flooding threads with charts, links, and constant reframes isn’t “debate”, especially when no one is actually arguing the point you're trying to counter. Sometimes it’s okay to just let a simple, factual point stand.

 

[oreo54]

luminous flux is weighted according to a model (a "luminosity function") of the human eye's sensitivity to various wavelengths; this weighting is standardized by the CIE and ISO.[2]

The lumen can be thought of casually as a measure of the total amount of visible light in some defined beam or angle, or emitted from some source. The number of candelas or lumens from a source also depends on its spectrum, via the nominal response of the human eye as represented in the luminosity function.
Lumen measurements are weighted by the eye response curve..

A blue photon is weighted differently than a green photon..
Green are Eye brighter than blue thus lumens of blue light are not the same as green.

PUR is from Dana Riddles paper..
Used a Seneye.

other than to point out that MH is continuous spectrum and widely thought and understood to contain spectral components that even "full spectrum" LED fixtures are missing.

Not in the visible range.
You want to include UV, IR and what radio waves?
It's all speculation with no real proof... period.
And AGAIN if true.. quantify it.
Famous last words.. widely thought... ;)

data of a white led..Find the missing daylight spectrum. Nm's in percent 454nm 100%
THORELABS

 

[BeanAnimal]

Dragging in UV, IR, and even radio waves as if that’s somehow relevant to my comment is just useless noise. I’ve been clear, direct, and accurate from the start. Lamps, whether MH, T5, LED, or anything else, produce a given amount of visible light per watt of input. That’s electrical efficiency, measured in lm/W. The rest is heat or other non-visible radiation. I don’t care if it’s radio waves or gamma ray... it’s not the point.

At this point, you are being insanely pedantic and deliberately obtuse for the sake of forcing an argument that doesn’t exist. You keep reframing context and shifting metrics to manufacture debate.

None of it addresses the actual point I made and repeated several times. This has nothing to do with coral growth, PUR, µmol/J, or spectrum preference, no matter how many times you try to drag it there. All you have proven is that you are willing to ignore a simple point for the sake of appearing to be knowledgable.

I’ve been extremely clear, consistent, and accurate from the start. You’re welcome to keep flooding the thread with irrelevant charts and tangents, but I’m done entertaining your need to argue a point that was never made. I was also firm and clear about not wanting to head down a silly tangent rabbit hole with you....

 

[PPBlimpy]

 

[BeanAnimal]

Paul Erik will be along at some point and will be infinitely helpful with all things core and coil ballast (or electronic) -- he is the master, by trade.

Other than that, I would start by looking to see what lamps are actually available and what you can stock up on. The cheap China halides are not your grandmas Iwasaki's or Ushios...

As for the rest... Oreo just likes to post charts and graphs and argue... sometimes even when there is really nothing to argue about. We have a few folks that are MH or die and will argue to ridiculous ends to not be wrong... and then we have folks that are LED or die and....

Well you get the point. I am not either. I loved the growth and color rendering of the halides. I disliked the bulb changes and on/off aspect. I don't like the color rendering of LEDs, be they over my tank or over my head. Sure, they beat CFLs... I do like the convenience of not changing bulbs and having control over brightness. And not burning my elbow on a point source or getting shocked by a reflector energized due to salt creep.

 

[PPBlimpy]

I appreciate all the wisdom. I will hopefully put together at least one of these halides as a 250w. Probably run a 14k reef bright.

May still supplement with my current led so adjust color if I am not super happy. Either way it’s an experiment. And have spent a lot more on a whole lot less

 

[fish_collector]

I’d love to illuminate my tank with MH. I miss the 14k Phoenix bulbs, I used both mogul base and DE, I liked the fact that mogul base didn’t require a glass screen but the DE bulbs just hauled the mail! And since this thread came about, I may go down the rabbit hole myself. I think there’s enough mh gear around for a while yet, in North America anyways.

 

[A. grandis]

Paul Erik will be along at some point and will be infinitely helpful with all things core and coil ballast (or electronic) -- he is the master, by trade.

Other than that, I would start by looking to see what lamps are actually available and what you can stock up on. The cheap China halides are not your grandmas Iwasaki's or Ushios...

As for the rest... Oreo just likes to post charts and graphs and argue... sometimes even when there is really nothing to argue about. We have a few folks that are MH or die and will argue to ridiculous ends to not be wrong... and then we have folks that are LED or die and....

Well you get the point. I am not either. I loved the growth and color rendering of the halides. I disliked the bulb changes and on/off aspect. I don't like the color rendering of LEDs, be they over my tank or over my head. Sure, they beat CFLs... I do like the convenience of not changing bulbs and having control over brightness. And not burning my elbow on a point source or getting shocked by a reflector energized due to salt creep.

I find your excuse very poor to compromise the use of halides and it's benefits, specially because you just said you prefer some of it's important qualities (growth and color rendering). You will change bulbs once a year, if you use them 8 hours a day, Bean. That is not a good excuse to use a "less than favorable choice", if that is the case and if that is what you think. Specially because you don't really need to worry about any "brightness control". Anyways...
It doesn't make any sense to me the way you argue hard here sometimes and the choice you make. Is that simply because you want some attention? Oreo has his points do defend what he believes and die on that hill. LOL! He "believes" in LEDs and as far as I know he wanted to make some LEDs to sell. You are on the fence and want to prove some points, and be in a "neutral gray area of wisdom" making both sides happy, I guess?
You bring some of the technical aspects to the table, but at the same time, in the end, your personal preferences are based in completely superficial aspects for your choice. Just saying...
Life is too short. Get some halides and enjoy them, man! The way you act is more like you are trying to exercise that confirmation bias for choosing LEDs, but you are suffering every day that goes by.
Forgive me if I understood all wrong.

Does Oreo have any reef tank these days?

Halide rules!

 

[A. grandis]

We know UVB and UVA can be beneficial to corals, sometimes preventing bacterial infections in situ. There are some suggestions that the presence of UVR in nature is also important to the coral's immune system. We know that part of UVR and IR can be used in photosynthesis. We know that the full spectrum can be absorbed by corals in one way or another for it's metabolism as a whole in different species, for example in the production of natural pigmentation for each coral species. All these should be taken in consideration for proper maintenance including coloration and health of corals IMO. Most of it is ignored today.
It's not only about photosynthesis and fluorescent proteins as we often hear!!!
We know shallow water corals came from the ocean and they were under the sunlight. To change that and adapt them to whatever we want is to ignore what scientists call evolution. The health of the corals in captivity should depend on natural light principals, period. Metal halides, with the proper combination of spectrum, intensity and distribution, are the very best in terms of artificial lighting available, when the purpose is to simulate what we find in nature. Many reefers find that corals, clams and the whole system does way better in many aspects when halides are implemented with the right application. Other people prefer other ways for other reasons.
Different "kelvins" of metal halides will still offer that full spectrum to the corals with emphasis in different wavelengths within the full spectrum. So the application of those different lamps will already fit different personal preferences that way.
The worse results I find in terms of growth rate, colony structure and coloration (production of proteins), independent of any variable in the system, and directly related to lighting, is under LEDs. Most species show deformities and lack of proper direction for their growth under the majority of LEDs. So evident and so ugly IMO. Uniform growth, as well as quality of the tissue and protein formation, are part of the health of the coral and a good aesthetics representation to me!
I also see lack of quality of light from some of the so called best LEDs in the market while maintaining many species of fresh water plants.
We can compare only if we use both, by experience.
Gotta love halide/T5 combo!! Best thing for your corals IME, period! Results don't lie!
For those indoctrinated to the "blues" as the main reason why they should keep a "reef" (normally those weird tanks with so many plugs with 3/4" frags called "mini colonies") at home, as some profit entities (I refuse to call them fish stores!!) preach, they will need the LEDs to come in the pack with those 1/2" deformed "frags". Other wise they won't be in that club! Hey, everyone should be respected, I know... they don't know better, or they don't care. Not their fault, or it is what they actually want!
To compare electricity saving/costs and any efficiency related to that as the primary focus when choosing lights, is to ignore the actual quality of light that the corals/system will receive.
The proper balance of spectrum, distribution and intensity is the most important thing for the corals IMO. Halides rules this territory and reigns, the KING!

We can argue showing graphics and technical terms the whole day. What matters for the people is the results. If you like LEDs, be happy with the results! If you are a T5 user and like the results (which are excellent in terms of distribution and spectrum for shallow tanks), enjoy that! For those who like the phenomenal (sorry, can't help!) results from halides, there is absolutely no other for them!

Is it a matter of results for the health of the corals, or simply the personal preferences for any results? Is the term "health of the corals" subjective to you? What's more important to you, then? Everyone will tell you what they think or the way the learned in a different way.
I can't believe we still see debates like this here.
Show me your corals and tell me why your lights are better than mine... that way we will all get along and understand the personal preferences due to the different results. If you think my corals look better, get my lights, no arguments.
Perhaps those who tend to argue about results are those who never had a reef system, or whoever isn't satisfied with the lights they have, but want to boost that confirmation bia$.

Life is way too short to give excuses about the electricity costs and heat in the house to maintain struggling $1200.00 frags, or what ever cheaper frags, alive for more than a year... or to be part of a "blues club" just because the majority is there today... perhaps you will die and never enjoy a tremendous uniform colony with proper colors and growth rate because of that monthly saving on your electricity bill. Are those $10.00 - $50.00 what makes you happy??? Fine with me.

I hope this HALDE THREAD will explode with HALIDE INFO. Ha!

 

[BeanAnimal]

I find your excuse very poor to compromise the use of halides and it's benefits, specially because you just said you prefer some of it's important qualities (growth and color rendering).

Labeling somebodies values and reasoning as an “excuse” — as if there is something to be excused for — or a crime committed, is ridiculously pretentious.

You will change bulbs once a year, if you use them 8 hours a day, Bean. That is not a good excuse to use a "less than favorable choice", if that is the case and if that is what you think. Specially because you don't really need to worry about any "brightness control". Anyways...

I don’t worry about brightness control, I desire to have it, just as I desire to have bacon with my eggs or down pillows instead of feather. Each comes with pros and cons. My choice, based on my assignment of value.

It doesn't make any sense to me the way you argue hard here sometimes and the choice you make.

What are you talking about? I have not argued for or against anything. I stated why I ended up with LEDs after using halides for over a decade. I don’t care what anybody else uses. My reasons don’t have to align to your values. I am
Not you.

Is that simply because you want some attention?

From the guy who only showed up here to attack me, rather off the actual topic, in an open forum because I committed the crime of moving to LEDs? lol, okay

Oreo has his points do defend what he believes and die on that hill. LOL! He "believes" in LEDs and as far as I know he wanted to make some LEDs to sell. You are on the fence and want to prove some points, and be in a "neutral gray area of wisdom" making both sides happy, I guess?

I don’t care who I make happy and I am not straddling a proverbial fence. I simply don’t care what you or anybody uses.

You and Oreo are opposite sides of the same coin. You both want to argue endlessly about MH vs LED and you both pretend to be lighting savants, spamming threads with charts and links and frankly both of you can’t get out of the way of your own conformation bias, or respond in context without reframing arguments and moving goalposts.

That said, Oreo’s knowledge and understanding runs circles around yours and I tend to agree with most points he makes.

I am not sure I agree with anything you have ever said… so there is that too.

You bring some of the technical aspects to the table, but at the same time, in the end, your personal preferences are based in completely superficial aspects for your choice. Just saying...

Yep. That is me. Very technical and fact based. I use that to help me drive personal choices.

Life is too short. Get some halides and enjoy them, man! The way you act is more like you are trying to exercise that confirmation bias for choosing LEDs, but you are suffering every day that goes by.
Forgive me if I understood all wrong.

Does Oreo have any reef tank these days?

Halide rules!

There is no confirmation bias. I purposefully moved to LEDs for a definite set of reasons and have not moved back to halides for a definite set of reasons. Maybe one day I will, or plasma or solar tubes. Whatever the decision, it will be mine, made by me and based on my values and circumstances. See how easy that is?

 

[A. grandis]

Labeling somebodies values and reasoning as an “excuse” — as if there is something to be excused for — or a crime committed, is ridiculously pretentious.



I don’t worry about brightness control, I desire to have it, just as I desire to have bacon with my eggs or down pillows instead of feather. Each comes with pros and cons. My choice, based on my assignment of value.


What are you talking about? I have not argued for or against anything. I stated why I ended up with LEDs after using halides for over a decade. I don’t care what anybody else uses. My reasons don’t have to align to your values. I am
Not you.


From the guy who only showed up here to attack me, rather off the actual topic, in an open forum because I committed the crime of moving to LEDs? lol, okay


I don’t care who I make happy and I am not straddling a proverbial fence. I simply don’t care what you or anybody uses.

You and Oreo are opposite sides of the same coin. You both want to argue endlessly about MH vs LED and you both pretend to be lighting savants, spamming threads with charts and links and frankly both of you can’t get out of the way of your own conformation bias, or respond in context without reframing arguments and moving goalposts.

That said, Oreo’s knowledge and understanding runs circles around yours and I tend to agree with most points he makes.

I am not sure I agree with anything you have ever said… so there is that too.

Yep. That is me. Very technical and fact based. I use that to help me drive personal choices.



There is no confirmation bias. I purposefully moved to LEDs for a definite set of reasons and have not moved back to halides for a definite set of reasons. Maybe one day I will, or plasma or solar tubes. Whatever the decision, it will be mine, made by me and based on my values and circumstances. See how easy that is?

I agree with you in the majority of your points in the argument with Oreo. I'm not talking about that.
You see as some of the real values of lighting would be your superficial choices, yet you come with all this "scientific proof statements" in most arguments. That is what is controversial. The way you act you are able to argue with both sides and try to be the "right" in every argument, politically correct. Whatever you want..
Oreo also can do some of that, but more towards his side, the LEDs, of course. LOL! Watch out! LOL!
I don't really care what you think, to tell the truth.
I was happy to know that at least some of what I consider being the real values of halides were mentioned by you, but sad to know that you still choose LEDs for futile reasons, at least in my book.
Never mind...

 

[BeanAnimal]

You see as some of the real values of lighting would be your superficial choices, yet you come with all this "scientific proof statements" in most arguments. That is what is controversial.

Facts are only controversial to people who refuse to acknowledge them, are ill equipped to understand them, or confuse them with opinion. I am fully open to being wrong, just bring relevant facts to the table. ( That’s rhetorical, by the way. Past experience suggests you can't stay on topic long enough to debate.)

'Superficial choices' is meaningless in this context. I choose what I choose, because I choose it. Ironically choosing based on your opinion, or rhetoric would be, by definition, superficial.

The way you act you are able to argue with both sides and try to be the "right" in every argument, politically correct. Whatever you want..

You are confusing arguing opinion with presenting fact. It is my opinion that LEDs do not look as natural as Halides. It is a fact; one is a broad, continuous plasma arc spectrum; the other is a banded, phosphor-driven spectrum down-converted from single wavelength blue emitters.

End of conversation -- troll somebody else for a metal halide debate.