Is there any real benefit to full spectrum lighting?

[oreo54]

as to spectrums..Bridgelux COB @ 6500k as a base..

 

[Shooter6]

IF you actually listened to Tuillio you would know the specific mh's Palletta is using has no uv emissions...AFAICT
It's on "tape"

If you wanted it to " end" why do you keep throwing logs on the fire?

A simple neutral white led has more of a VISIBLE full spectrum than any of the high k
mh's out there.
Same with a moderately blue enhanced white/ blue led array.
Except for the crazy spikes this is not hard to do w/ leds.

Uv/ir is still debatable..
In fairness it still can go either way.

Why does your graph say 14080k if it's 65k? Single led or a mix of diodes? How many? At what water depth? Focus lense? Is this just a computer simulation or true measurement data?

I just realized who I'm discussing this with, no wonder your trying to turn this into led vs mh, next krit21 will be here as well.

Before you start, nobody called leds Christmas lights in this chat, so don't start that claim either.

Now by your posted graph, if thats from a 65k led diode, then blues,greens,reds,ect are not needed, just a fixture full of 65k and corals will grow as fast as in the wild..... not happening lol.

 

[oreo54]

Why does your graph say 14080k if it's 65k? Single led or a mix of diodes? How many? At what water depth? Focus lense? Is this just a computer simulation or true measurement data?

I just realized who I'm discussing this with, no wonder your trying to turn this into led vs mh, next krit21 will be here as well.

Before you start, nobody called leds Christmas lights in this chat, so don't start that claim either.

Now by your posted graph, if thats from a 65k led diode, then blues,greens,reds,ect are not needed, just a fixture full of 65k and corals will grow as fast as in the wild..... not happening lol.

Just watch the vid....and remember these words.. sea turtles and penguins..

 

[SunnyX]

Guys, I don't understand why MH vs T5 vs LED is even debated anymore. All of them work and at least in my experience, none of them is all that better than the other. They each have their perks, but at the end of the day if you're using them properly they all will grow and color up corals.

I and quite a few others have had success with all three lighting systems and in a perfect world I would still be using MH. To me, it aesthetically appealed to me the most. But, with all of the benefits and the form factor of LED's it is simply too much hassle(for me) to use MH. The size, heat, physical aesthetics, blub replacement/degradation and need for supplementation are a big turn off. After using LED's for a couple years now and obtaining the same results it would make no sense to go back to MH. Why overcomplicate things with MH when I can obtain the same results LED's?

To me, its a silly debate and one that needs to be put to bed; for good. Anyone who still argues or brings up these debates concerning MH/T5/LED's has not used all three competently.

Concerning full spectrum, I have always been someone who ran a much whiter looking setup. The full spectrum look has brought out certain colors much better than when I ran on the bluer side. Pinks, yellows and even blue corals look and stand out much better under a full spectrum.

 

[Shooter6]

Guys, I don't understand why MH vs T5 vs LED is even debated anymore. All of them work and at least in my experience, none of them is all that better than the other. They each have their perks, but at the end of the day if you're using them properly they all will grow and color up corals.

I and quite a few others have had success with all three lighting systems and in a perfect world I would still be using MH. To me, it aesthetically appealed to me the most. But, with all of the benefits and the form factor of LED's it is simply too much hassle(for me) to use MH. The size, heat, physical aesthetics, blub replacement/degradation and need for supplementation are a big turn off. After using LED's for a couple years now and obtaining the same results it would make no sense to go back to MH. Why overcomplicate things with MH when I can obtain the same results LED's?

To me, its a silly debate and one that needs to be put to bed; for good. Anyone who still argues or brings up these debates concerning MH/T5/LED's has not used all three competently.

Concerning full spectrum, I have always been someone who ran a much whiter looking setup. The full spectrum look has brought out certain colors much better than when I ran on the bluer side. Pinks, yellows and even blue corals look and stand out much better under a full spectrum.

I agree and was attempting to stop this from becoming a mh vs led thread. Also agree with whiter looks better overall as well.

 

[Shooter6]

 

[djf91]

Hmmmm, I thought all of the white light was supposed to be filtered out at that depth?

 

[ZombieEngineer]

Hmmmm, I thought all of the white light was supposed to be filtered out at that depth?

White light does not get filtered out at any depth, white light includes all colors. What actually occurs is that the highest wavelengths are reduced in magnitude at a higher rate than the lower wavelengths.

Ex at surface 400nm is 100 lumens, 800nm is 100 lumens, at 50 feet down, 400nm is 50 lumens, 800nm is 25 lumens.

The white light is still there even down 100s of meters. The spectrum just shift from reds and greens to blues the deeper you go the greater the shift.

 

[djf91]

White light does not get filtered out at any depth, white light includes all colors. What actually occurs is that the highest wavelengths are reduced in magnitude at a higher rate than the lower wavelengths.

Ex at surface 400nm is 100 lumens, 800nm is 100 lumens, at 50 feet down, 400nm is 50 lumens, 800nm is 25 lumens.

The white light is still there even down 100s of meters. The spectrum just shift from reds and greens to blues the deeper you go the greater the shift.

Ok, certain components of a “white light” are at a lower magnitude at that depth, or that’s what some people will want you to believe. Clearly not evident in the video or what I’ve experienced snorkeling at 20 feet. Regardless, you know what I meant.

 

[Shooter6]

Ok, certain components of a “white light” are at a lower magnitude at that depth, or that’s what some people will want you to believe. Clearly not evident in the video or what I’ve experienced snorkeling at 20 feet. Regardless, you know what I meant.

They do but not like so many claim. Most people claiming blue light only past 10 meters have never been underwater lol

 

[ZombieEngineer]

Ok, certain components of a “white light” are at a lower magnitude at that depth, or that’s what some people will want you to believe. Clearly not evident in the video or what I’ve experienced snorkeling at 20 feet. Regardless, you know what I meant.

The change at 20ft is reasonably substantial and has nothing to do with what people "want you to believe". It is basic physics. By 20ft, red and orange are nearly non-existant. Its not blue, but definately a change from warm white to cool white. If you have ever scuba dived to 80ft, it looks dang near actinic and is very teal colored.

 

[Shooter6]

When 25ft underwater using our draeger mk25 closed circuit units, looking up at the sun, it looks yellow white aka full daylight. That means full daylight was reaching us, otherwise the sun would appear like a big blue led, which it did not.

Ever been to a deep public aquarium, the ones with 20ft+ tall walls? Ever notice the bottom doesn't look any bluer then the surface? Unless heavy blue lights are being used that is.

 

[Jon's Reef]

Here is 20 ft (~ 6 m)on the chart. No substantial shift.

 

[Jon's Reef]

Here is an interesting article on this topic. In particular the role of various wavelengths in photosynthesis, fluorescence and color protein growth.

Coral Color Management｜BlueHarbor

This is a coral color management theory created by scientifically understanding the color of coral from an optical perspective.

www.blueharbor.co.jp

 

[djf91]

The change at 20ft is reasonably substantial and has nothing to do with what people "want you to believe". It is basic physics. By 20ft, red and orange are nearly non-existant. Its not blue, but definately a change from warm white to cool white. If you have ever scuba dived to 80ft, it looks dang near actinic and is very teal colored.

Pretty sure orange light is still very visible at 20 feet…

 

[djf91]

I think people often inaccurately conflate the blue backdrop of the open ocean behind a reef structure with solely blue light penetration onto the reef structures surface. If you focus on just the structure it looks very full spectrum but I think our perception of the overall color scheme is blue heavy because of the blue backdrop.

A reason the classic blue background on aquariums looks so familiar/natural.

 

[jda]

You all are thinking too much... nearly everything that we have in our tanks is collected on one breath. 3m would be about it. Not all, but the VAST majority. Some corals can live deeper, but if you have ever been, you start to see changes below 20 meters in structure, branch thickness, etc. Lots of filter feeders can live lower, but let's don't confuse them with true coral (hard coral) or colonial nems (most softies that are not NPS). I think that too many people have skimmed and don't understand that not all that grows deeper is really coral... or that most charts are in meters and not feet.

Don't believe what you see in EcoTech, or whatever, about corals at even 50 meters. Do any of you know what kind of equipment that you have to have to get down that low? ...like the kind of stuff that James Cameron owns. The people who have this kind of equipment catch deepwater fish that can command $100-500 dollars, or much more, rather than less-than-a-dollar that most corals bring.

Full spectrum is like a balanced diet. Plenty of people living into their 60s just eating fast food does not mean that McDonalds and Arby's are all that you need, or all that you should eat. Especially for all of you that can change your spectrum, set up a daylight type of deal for most of the day and then blue-it-up to your liking to look at them - you will be amazed at the difference.

 

[Shooter6]

I think people often inaccurately conflate the blue backdrop of the open ocean behind a reef structure with solely blue light penetration onto the reef structures surface. If you focus on just the structure it looks very full spectrum but I think our perception of the overall color scheme is blue heavy because of the blue backdrop.

A reason the classic blue background on aquariums looks so familiar/natural.

I completely agree. I've tried explaining this to people an endless amount of times but they always argue with me by posting graphs ect. Anyone who has actually scuba dove knows this. Both in salt as well as fresh water. Saltwater has a slightly more light absorbtion then clear freshwater but not by a huge amount.

A great example of this is off Sitka Alaska, theres small volcanic rock islands . If you go on them and look off the ledge, you can easily see 30-60ft down. The water has a slight green look to it , due to the high phytoplankton concentrations, but you can clearly see fish, urchins, crabs,,starfish/sunstars and the non photosynthetic anemones as well as kelp. The sunlight isn't as intense there so instead of a blue look, the water appears more olive when underwater and looking out into the distance, but looking up its daylight.

 

[Shooter6]

You all are thinking too much... nearly everything that we have in our tanks is collected on one breath. 3m would be about it. Not all, but the VAST majority. Some corals can live deeper, but if you have ever been, you start to see changes below 20 meters in structure, branch thickness, etc. Lots of filter feeders can live lower, but let's don't confuse them with true coral (hard coral) or colonial nems (most softies that are not NPS). I think that too many people have skimmed and don't understand that not all that grows deeper is really coral... or that most charts are in meters and not feet.

Don't believe what you see in EcoTech, or whatever, about corals at even 50 meters. Do any of you know what kind of equipment that you have to have to get down that low? ...like the kind of stuff that James Cameron owns. The people who have this kind of equipment catch deepwater fish that can command $100-500 dollars, or much more, rather than less-than-a-dollar that most corals bring.

Full spectrum is like a balanced diet. Plenty of people living into their 60s just eating fast food does not mean that McDonalds and Arby's are all that you need, or all that you should eat. Especially for all of you that can change your spectrum, set up a daylight type of deal for most of the day and then blue-it-up to your liking to look at them - you will be amazed at the difference.

Yup 50 meters you start dealing with mixed gas. Ever done a mixed gas with coms? Funny ****. Everyone talking like they sucked the helium out of balloons lol.

 

[Superlightman]

I was thinking also full spectrum is better, and I got better results on my radions when turned on the greens and not use the ab+ , but now I switched to the red sea led because on my small tank I got better results on the lps and sps frag than in the big tank. I will see if this would be confirmed on my bigger sps tank, but probably I would add a day led bar as I prefer a whiter spectrum for my taste and the read see are very blue.
I also noticed in the past better colors with the blue + t5 than the coral +.
So what is the best I don't know white seem to be good for growth and blue for the colors