Is T5 still one of the best choices in reef lighting.

[jda]

Here is my general thoughts on T5s as a light source, and especially adding them to LEDs...

They are kinda like sex... You have never met somebody who was like "I tried that once in college and it was just not for me!" You might not want to mess with them, might not have the room to install or whatever, but they are universally thought to add something even if you just don't want any right now.

 

[Troylee]

My opinion? I hate t5’s and never been a fan… they grow corals like weeds thou! The spectrums are pretty much unlimited with all the bulbs out they have great coverage and pop! Just don’t have that shimmer that I crave that’s why I don’t use them! I still run halides to this day and will as long as I can! I have a t5 retro in my garage I was gonna put on my current display and I tried it and it just washed out stuff with a huge blanket of light lol.. they will always have a place in this hobby as there proven and amazing lights! Just not my cup of tea….

 

[Cichlid Dad]

My opinion? I hate t5’s and never been a fan… they grow corals like weeds thou! The spectrums are pretty much unlimited with all the bulbs out they have great coverage and pop! Just don’t have that shimmer that I crave that’s why I don’t use them! I still run halides to this day and will as long as I can! I have a t5 retro in my garage I was gonna put on my current display and I tried it and it just washed out stuff with a huge blanket of light lol.. they will always have a place in this hobby as there proven and amazing lights! Just not my cup of tea….

I'll take those retro's off your hands......I'm sure I can put them to good use!

 

[dricc]

Great 2 cents. +1 on the vinyl. I feel sorry for the younger crowd that have never heard Pink Floyd or zeppelin on a analog DC amp through large floor standing speakers turned way too far up.

I don't miss 8-track tapes though, for years I waited for the part when the levee breaks by Zeppelin would 2/3 of the song through click changing sides.I would expect to hear that click during that part of the song no matter what format I was listening to.

 

[Cichlid Dad]

I don't miss 8-track tapes though, for years I waited for the part when the levee breaks by Zeppelin would 2/3 of the song through click changing sides.I would expect to hear that click during that part of the song no matter what format I was listening to.

That is funny, you just brought up a memory of walking through Sears and seeing all of the 8-tracks on sell to make room for the newest tech! Ya cassettes LOL!

 

[Spare time]

"food is food" and "calories are calories" is just as bad of a statement as "photons are photons." ...only photons are quantums which are both theoretical and infinite... and calories are neither.

Technically a calorie is a calorie lol

 

[Spare time]

"Photons are Photons" and "Spectrum is Spectrum" implies an over-simplified understanding of light to suit our very limited knowledge as humans. There has to be more to light than just PAR and spectrum, at least as measured by our crude instruments. We don't know what we don't know. The fact that corals respond differently to different lighting systems (including natural sunlight), as many experienced reefers will attest, with seemingly the same par and spectrum proves this is wrong or incomplete at best. Corals in their natural habitat are exposed to natural sunlight with 2000-2500 PAR and thrive. I challenge any reef keeper to match that if you really believe that PAR and spectrum is totally sufficient to define light.

You do realize that those corals exposed to par levels that intensely have harsh lives and grow very, very slowly right? We keep tanks designed to maximize coral growth. Nature doesn't provide that environment to all corals and is harsh. No organism lives its ideal life in nature.

Also, perceived differences to different lighting systems isn't "proof" of anything. People believe what they want to believe.

 

[DCR]

You do realize that those corals exposed to par levels that intensely have harsh lives and grow very, very slowly right? We keep tanks designed to maximize coral growth. Nature doesn't provide that environment to all corals and is harsh. No organism lives its ideal life in nature.

Also, perceived differences to different lighting systems isn't "proof" of anything. People believe what they want to believe.

Where do you get that they grow "very, very slowly" in the wild? All the information I have seen suggests the opposite, that they grow much faster than in our reef tanks. They certainly suffer and get knocked back from predators, storms, silt, run-off etc., which we protect them from, but yet they still overcome that and even reproduce. I find any thought that our man-made lighting is somehow superior for coral growth and health to natural sunlight to be absurd. When you go diving, you will quickly notice that the highest coral densities are in more shallow water where the lighting is most intense. They do not suffer from high intensity sunlight. And again, if you believe PAR is PAR regardless of the light source, then we should be able to crank up our LED's or T5/MH to 2000+ PAR and our corals would be perfectly happy. We all know that is not what would happen.

 

[Z Burn's Reefing]

Technically a calorie is a calorie lol

Not really…had to chime in because I think you said a while back that this is a “scientific forum” and we should chime in when people make incorrect claims.

"Technically" a calorie is not a calorie. The body metabolizes a calorie in different ways depending on its source (i.e., glucose vs fructose). 1 calorie of fructose can only be metabolized primarily by the liver, while 1 calorie of glucose can be metabolized by most all tissue in the body. I suppose a calorie is a calorie to someone that doesn’t understand the science and complexity of how the body works. I am only aware because of the career I chose.

But, now that calories have been brought up, perhaps there are some parallels between calories and PAR.

Sorry I just had to do it…

PAR is PAR in simple terms, but just maybe… some corals metabolize the PAR differently depending on source type (i.e., glucose = T5 and fructose = LED; or vice versa). Or maybe there is more going on...perhaps some unmeasureable differences (i.e., confounding) between light sources, but we are focusing on PAR since it's what we know and what we can measure.

This idea that some corals may metabolize PAR differently depending on light source is just a guess though (just like we know calories are metabolized differently based on type), and would somewhat explain my experience (and others in this thread) on why I can’t push the same amount of PAR “readings” from my apogee 520 when I change light sources (t5 vs mh vs led), without the corals reacting negatively. However, I have no evidence that PAR is actually the mechanism responsible, its just an observation and what I can measure...and, as pointed out earlier, perhaps spectrum is the stronger explanatory variable, or perhaps there is some other factor that we simply aren't measuring, and we are saying PAR because it's what we know and what we can measure in our homes.

So yes, I can see how we may be using the term "PAR" inappropriately in some of our statements. As they say, correlation isn't causation. To make stronger conclusions, we would need to keep the PAR the same, change light sources, and keep all other variables the same, including both measured variables like spectrum and unmeasured variables (knowledge on lighting source differences yet to be learned), then observe the corals.

I am trying the blend the two areas of the argument and be open, I think we probably agree more than disagree. Some of the disagreement probably is due to semantics.

 

[Mikeltee]

Best is subjective... one can be successful with any kind of light marketed towards reef keeping.

 

[djf91]

You do realize that those corals exposed to par levels that intensely have harsh lives and grow very, very slowly right? We keep tanks designed to maximize coral growth. Nature doesn't provide that environment to all corals and is harsh. No organism lives its ideal life in nature.

Also, perceived differences to different lighting systems isn't "proof" of anything. People believe what they want to believe.

This is ridiculous. You do realize that the shallow coral flats are the most densely populated areas of the reef. Who told you that they grow very slowly?



Please go to 27:30 where Jake talks about transitioning from deeper water to shallow reef and how the coral diversity and density sky rockets.

 

[Cichlid Dad]

Good video on different light types and spectrum

 

[rtparty]

What lights are the slowest at growing corals? Cuz I want those. My LEDs are growing everything way too fast. Not even 2 years in and my tank needs a massive reset because of growth

 

[Cichlid Dad]

 

[dricc]

What lights are the slowest at growing corals? Cuz I want those. My LEDs are growing everything way too fast. Not even 2 years in and my tank needs a massive reset because of growth

Come to my house I'll hook you up

 

[buruskeee]

Wow, lots of false analogies in this thread and a lack of understanding of basic physics. I'm not sure why folks keep insisting they're correct in the "unknown", yet in the same breath argue it's an unknown lol.

First off, calories are a measure of energy. Different sugars will metabolize differently to become calories, the calories are a product of the foods, which then is burned off exactly the same way, because again, a calorie is a measure of energy, which can also be measured in joules instead. Let's get that straight, first of all. Same with that toaster and car analogy - not even in the same stratosphere in relevancy.

Now what is a photon? It's a fundamental particle in the electromagnetic field (in this case of reefing, the field ranges from UV to IR and everything in between). Just because LEDs are not analog, and are created using digital components, doesn't meant the wave/frequencies are different - the only thing different is using 1s and 0s to excite the component to produce the waves/frequencies. Literally the only way that these frequencies and waves are translated into the visible light spectrum, and the non visible, is to vibrate/excite/however you want to describe it at the exact frequency/wavelengths needed to produce such.

Now that we have a quick and simple basic understanding of what we're discussing, now start brainstorming and revisiting these arguments of MH and T5 vs LEDs.

Again, someone please being forth a compelling argument with how a PAR meter measuring photons (really PPFD to measure photons per area per time) would have a different context from the various light fixtures? It's confusing how someone is actually arguing that the photons (literally the fundamental, aka a quantum, particle of the EM field) are not the same, as if it wasn't photons, it wouldn't be in the EM field.

 

[jda]

Anybody who needs more than a sentence do describe a simple statement like a calorie is a calorie should never use the term that a photon is a photon. The nuance just matters too much - a calorie is not a calorie to the human body, for example... a calorie of a hydrocarbon like motor oil is the not the same as a calorie from an avacado, Coca Cola or beer. These things all mean different things to different people. Nothing that is infinite and theoretical should be used by anybody smart as a comparison. Discuss the theory and leave it at that.

Anybody are to explain to me if a light that emits a spectrum from 400-700nm has the same photon as a light that emits 350-850nm? ...or is it a bunch of photons that you can count? It it an infinite amount? There is nearly no chance that the same diode, bulb, etc. ever put out two photons that were identical anyway, so don't tell me that a photon is a photon since it is likely that no two were ever the same.

There are no ones and zeros to send electricity through the pn junction of a semiconductor. What is this digital stuff? LEDs started in 1907 long before Turing or ENIAC had some of the first computers of any significance.

BTW - nearly everything in nature works on analog. It might not always, but in our lifetimes not much is set to evolve otherwise. Digital music comes out as analog waves. Digital photos comes out as analog wavelengths of light. If you interact with anything living, it is analog. The light that any LED comes out is as analog waves, which makes sense since the semiconductors are analog and so is the current that goes to them.

The PAR meter is yet another fundamental miss on the whole argument. It can measure energy quantity, but not quality. If a photon from a LED was the same as a photon from a mercury light source, then measuring the entire thing would be important, not just the quantity.

Then, you get into the whole thing about how a photon is delivered. Even harmless energy, like light, can be directed in a way that can cause massive desruction. Can a PAR meter measure this?

 

[Z Burn's Reefing]

Wow, lots of false analogies in this thread and a lack of understanding of basic physics. I'm not sure why folks keep insisting they're correct in the "unknown", yet in the same breath argue it's an unknown lol.

First off, calories are a measure of energy. Different sugars will metabolize differently to become calories, the calories are a product of the foods, which then is burned off exactly the same way, because again, a calorie is a measure of energy, which can also be measured in joules instead. Let's get that straight, first of all. Same with that toaster and car analogy - not even in the same stratosphere in relevancy.

Now what is a photon? It's a fundamental particle in the electromagnetic field (in this case, the field ranges from UV to IR and everything in between). Just because LEDs are not analog, and are created using digital components, doesn't meant the wave/frequencies are different - the only thing different is using 1s and 0s to excite the component to produce the waves/frequencies. Literally the only way to these frequencies and waves are translated into the visible light spectrum, and the non visible, is to vibrate/excite/however you want to describe it at the exact frequency/wavelengths needed to produce such.

Now that we have a quick and simple basic understanding of what we're discussing, now start brainstorming and revisiting these arguments of MH and T5 vs LEDs.

Again, someone please being forth a compelling argument with how a PAR meter measuring photons (really PPFD to measure photons per area per time) would have a different context from the various light fixtures? It's confusing how someone is actually arguing that the photons (literally the fundamental, aka a quantum, particle of the EM field).

It doesn't appear you understand metabolism. Recent findings challenge your attempt to oversimplify.

This peer-reviewed journal article on why a calorie is not a calorie, may enlighten you.

When a calorie is not just a calorie: Diet quality and timing as mediators of metabolism and healthy aging - PubMed

An epidemic of obesity has affected large portions of the world, increasing the risk of developing many different age-associated diseases, including cancer, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes. In contrast with the prevailing notion that "a calorie is just a calorie," there are clear...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

If a calorie is a calorie, just consume fructose calories and enjoy fatty liver disease.

Happy to review any recent peer-reviewed literature that align with your claims on PAR (and/or calories).

 

[jda]

...so can we all agree that photon is a photon is just dumb?

Calories are not infinite or theoretical and they are too hard for this board.

 

[buruskeee]

Anybody who needs more than a sentence do describe a simple statement like a calorie is a calorie should never use the term that a photon is a photon. The nuance just matters too much - a calorie is not a calorie to the human body, for example... a calorie of a hydrocarbon like motor oil is the not the same as a calorie from an avacado, Coca Cola or beer. These things all mean different things to different people. Nothing that is infinite and theoretical should be used by anybody smart as a comparison. Discuss the theory and leave it at that.

Anybody are to explain to me if a light that emits a spectrum from 400-700nm has the same photon as a light that emits 350-850nm? ...or is it a bunch of photons that you can count? It it an infinite amount? There is nearly no chance that the same diode, bulb, etc. ever put out two photons that were identical anyway, so don't tell me that a photon is a photon since it is likely that no two were ever the same.

There are no ones and zeros to send electricity through the pn junction of a semiconductor. What is this digital stuff? LEDs started in 1907 long before Turing or ENIAC had some of the first computers of any significance.

BTW - nearly everything in nature works on analog. It might not always, but in our lifetimes not much is set to evolve otherwise. Digital music comes out as analog waves. Digital photos comes out as analog wavelengths of light. If you interact with anything living, it is analog. The light that any LED comes out is as analog waves, which makes sense since the semiconductors are analog and so is the current that goes to them.

The PAR meter is yet another fundamental miss on the whole argument. It can measure energy quantity, but not quality. If a photon from a LED was the same as a photon from a mercury light source, then measuring the entire thing would be important, not just the quantity.

Then, you get into the whole thing about how a photon is delivered. Even harmless energy, like light, can be directed in a way that can cause massive desruction. Can a PAR meter measure this?

So you're still talking about specturm and confirming exactly what i've been arguing? That it's the spectrum that matter and LEDs are not "lasers"? Thank you!

Also, yes I have a great understanding of the digital world (I've designed many chips being used today). I was dumbing it down, because that's what it seems folks that thing LEDs produce lasers are thinking. But you made exactly my point, the light that it emits is analog - it's the exact same energy because it would not be measured in the EM spectrum if it wasn't!

You keep talking about quality with the PAR meter. Again, if the spectrum is identical, how is 100PAR from LEDs not EXACT same as 100PAR from MH or T5?

So much trying to dissect my arguments, but not enough proving your claims of MH/T5s being better than LEDs. Again, LEDs are not "lasers" and therefore being able to put out 700PAR and not bleaching corals is why 700PAR from LEDs bleach corals.