Metal Halides are the bomb

[greekspec2]

Wow, I never knew the AB 10k was the same as all those others

Good to know

AB 10k is the private labeled BLV Nepturion 10k.

I'm no fan of Hamilton lighting but at one point they used Radium and Philips to make there private label bulbs

 

[LadyTang2]

Best large fixture available (alone no T5s) ? Cozumel Sun? Reefbrite? coralvue large has been out of stock a while.

 

[this is me]

Long live metal halide.

 

[Dana Riddle]

What bubble?

I apologize for my blunt reply - it was indelicate. I'll flesh my reply out when I have a little more time. Congrats on your successes!

 

[Dana Riddle]

Hi Dana, how're you? I have 2 legit questions:
1) What are the observations you are referring to?
2) Would PAR alone be sufficient to prove such observations in a meaningful way?
I just want to understand the whole picture. Sorry for my ignorance.
Aloha.

Don't get me wrong. We used Iwasaki 'daylight' metal halides with great success at the commercial coral farm back in the late 90's. In the case of lamps with broadband spectrum, I think PAR (correctly PPFD) is an OK metric. A different story when we get into narrow bandwidths seen with some LEDs.
Let's look at quantity of light in a different perspective. Say someone posts a thread saying they are dosing potassium with great success. My first question would ask at what concentration? 400 mg/L? 800 mg/L? What's the difference with light? Are we discussing sub-saturating intensity? Light just meeting the compensation point? Saturation point? Intensities reaching dynamic or chronic photoinhibition?

 

[JoshH]

You’re not wrong. The best colors I’ve seen are typically in led tanks. I know that other mh purists won’t agree. Just what my eyes judge. I just can’t get behind the cost of entry on quality led units. I won’t buy a used one because the condition cannot be verified. The whole “but they’ll pay themselves off” bit does nothing for me. I pay $100 a year in bulbs and the difference in electricity would be about $10 a month doing the math. It would take close to a decade to pay for itself if I switched. Just not in the kind of tax bracket I can drop $2500 for a mostly lateral move.

I agree, the money savings argument makes no sense when you actually crunch the numbers. Most high end LED setups are a massive investment and when compared to MH atleast end up costing more in the long run as most LED fixtures won't even last as long as you would need to recoup your investment.

 

[Dana Riddle]

I agree, the money savings argument makes no sense when you actually crunch the numbers. Most high end LED setups are a massive investment and when compared to MH atleast end up costing more in the long run as most LED fixtures won't even last as long as you would need to recoup your investment.

I'm hesitant to wade into this controversy.... I'll simply relay my experiences. When I was in Hawaii, I was using 400-watt metal halide lamps in the lab. The A/C unit was working overtime to maintain an acceptable temp. When I switched to PFO's Solaris LEDs, my power bill dropped from $400/month to $150. I understand my situation is different from many others', but I enjoyed spending that $250 on other things.

 

[Dana Riddle]

There was a similar thread in another forum. In essence, heat generated by metal halides can off-set the heating bill in colder climates and cooling costs during the summer isn't an issue. On the other hand, as in my situation in Hawaii, cooling (A/C) was a major cost.

 

[A. grandis]

Don't get me wrong. We used Iwasaki 'daylight' metal halides with great success at the commercial coral farm back in the late 90's. In the case of lamps with broadband spectrum, I think PAR (correctly PPFD) is an OK metric. A different story when we get into narrow bandwidths seen with some LEDs.
Let's look at quantity of light in a different perspective. Say someone posts a thread saying they are dosing potassium with great success. My first question would ask at what concentration? 400 mg/L? 800 mg/L? What's the difference with light? Are we discussing sub-saturating intensity? Light just meeting the compensation point? Saturation point? Intensities reaching dynamic or chronic photoinhibition?

That is what I was expecting from you. Thank you so much. It would be great to have this published here and to define some of the points directly related to light and add to the discussion the differences between the sources and why that happens. I would think that sub-saturation point would be touching the relationship between photoperiod and intensity, which also plays with the balance of compensation point and of course the saturation point. Can the intensity alone cause photoinhibition? It would depend on time of exposure too, right? I'm sure they are all related and dependent on each other. That is what we all learned long ago. But I also see that, as you have said in regards to the broadband spectrum (example: Iwasaki), not all the sources will offer the same qualities, as we know. Talking about the differences between LEDs and halides, for example, we see that "real UV" is emitted only by halides. Am I right? Is that the only major difference in spectrum/intensity between the 2, besides IR? Please note that I mean the relationship of intensity and spectrum from the same type from each source as a comparison. I am still trying to find out why corals get their pigmentation similar to what they see in the ocean when lit by halides and totally different when LEDs are used independent of wattage. Here at the WA we see Hawaiian corals keeping their colors under halides but not under LEDs. No matter how powerful those LEDs are. I think in reality even 20000K halides have way better spectrum than any of the LEDs used, independent of the charts we see, which is only an idea of the real deal.
I would be very happy if you could elaborate the relashinship between: sub-saturating intensity, light just meeting the compensation point, the saturation point and the Intensities reaching dynamic or chronic photoinhibition. I'm sure your explanation will tell us a lot about our experiences. Thanks for your time!

 

[Dana Riddle]

That is what I was expecting from you. Thank you so much. It would be great to have this published here and to define some of the points directly related to light and add to the discussion the differences between the sources and why that happens. I would think that sub-saturation point would be touching the relationship between photoperiod and intensity, which also plays with the balance of compensation point and of course the saturation point. Can the intensity alone cause photoinhibition? It would depend on time of exposure too, right? I'm sure they are all related and dependent on each other. That is what we all learned long ago. But I also see that, as you have said in regards to the broadband spectrum (example: Iwasaki), not all the sources will offer the same qualities, as we know. Talking about the differences between LEDs and halides, for example, we see that "real UV" is emitted only by halides. Am I right? Is that the only major difference in spectrum/intensity between the 2, besides IR? Please note that I mean the relationship of intensity and spectrum from the same type from each source as a comparison. I am still trying to find out why corals get their pigmentation similar to what they see in the ocean when lit by halides and totally different when LEDs are used independent of wattage. Here at the WA we see Hawaiian corals keeping their colors under halides but not under LEDs. No matter how powerful those LEDs are. I think in reality even 20000K halides have way better spectrum than any of the LEDs used, independent of the charts we see, which is only an idea of the real deal.
I would be very happy if you could elaborate the relashinship between: sub-saturating intensity, light just meeting the compensation point, the saturation point and the Intensities reaching dynamic or chronic photoinhibition. I'm sure your explanation will tell us a lot about our experiences. Thanks for your time!

Your reply raises some important questions. If we look at Photosynthetically Usable Radiation (PUR, as determined by RGB ratios and reported by the Seneye device) some LEDs (violet for example) have a PUR value of almost 90%, while white (cool whites) are around 40% or so. My point is that we should avoid blanket statements. If a certain light source is producing good results for you and your corals, we should examine in detail as to why this is working.

 

[t5Nitro]

I'm hesitant to wade into this controversy.... I'll simply relay my experiences. When I was in Hawaii, I was using 400-watt metal halide lamps in the lab. The A/C unit was working overtime to maintain an acceptable temp. When I switched to PFO's Solaris LEDs, my power bill dropped from $400/month to $150. I understand my situation is different from many others', but I enjoyed spending that $250 on other things.

I was thinking about this currently with the temps outside in the single to low double digits. My winter house temp is set to 64. Theoretically a 250W LED fixture and a 250W halide bulb should be the same energy consumption with the benefit of the halide helping take some work off the tank heaters plus add some heat to the room. Then I could flip back the LED fixture in the spring and summer time. What do you think? It looks like it wouldn't cost a lot to get into a halide fixture. Maybe about $300 for the reflector and ballast and another 50-80 for a bulb. And the shimmer/brightness of the halide is unmatched!

 

[DesertReefT4r]

What LED are you using and for how long Desertreef?

I’ve used LED in the past and had decent results

Just something about the ease of use and consistency with halide

I always felt that my SPS that were grown under LED were extra sensitive. If I made the slightest mistake in water quality things quickly spiraled outta control

With halide I think I could grow them in a 5 gallon bucket and an air stone. Obviously I’m not serious but corals seemed more resilient to me under halide

I got some insane color with mitras fixtures just really unstable corals

New AI Hydra 32 HDs. Had them for about 2 months now.

 

[oreo54]

I think in reality even 20000K halides have way better spectrum than any of the LEDs used, independent of the charts we see, which is only an idea of the real deal.

Why would you think the chart is wrong?
It's missing "heat" at >800

 

[MattDaReefer]

I have been using MH since I started reefing more that 13years ago. I use 2-250 14K Phoenix bulbs plus a blue LEd bar from reefbreeders. I love the look, light distribution, the shimmer, and the overall growth of all tings in my tank. I have a mixed reef 90gal with SPS, LPS, Nems, Shrooms, Zoas, and a few other softies. The heat maybe an issue for some but I have a fan set up running through my Reef Keeper Elite. So when the tank temps gets over 79.8 degrees it kills the lights and the fan kicks in until the temp get below 77.5 degrees.

Love my MH and would much rather spend $1500-$1800 on corals than on LEDs.

 

[Dana Riddle]

I was thinking about this currently with the temps outside in the single to low double digits. My winter house temp is set to 64. Theoretically a 250W LED fixture and a 250W halide bulb should be the same energy consumption with the benefit of the halide helping take some work off the tank heaters plus add some heat to the room. Then I could flip back the LED fixture in the spring and summer time. What do you think? It looks like it wouldn't cost a lot to get into a halide fixture. Maybe about $300 for the reflector and ballast and another 50-80 for a bulb. And the shimmer/brightness of the halide is unmatched!

In theory, should work fine. Make sure the transition from LED/MH and vice versa is done using a PAR meter.

 

[A. grandis]

Your reply raises some important questions. If we look at Photosynthetically Usable Radiation (PUR, as determined by RGB ratios and reported by the Seneye device) some LEDs (violet for example) have a PUR value of almost 90%, while white (cool whites) are around 40% or so. My point is that we should avoid blanket statements. If a certain light source is producing good results for you and your corals, we should examine in detail as to why this is working.

Of course I agree with you that we should avoid blanket statements. Problem in any aquarium forum is that people will state what they notice and choose the results they like showing pictures and videos. Therefore such division of preferences and some times harsh arguments. At the same time we know that the majority posting their opinions here will never have access to any scientific device to measure any of the previous data suggested. We depend on people like you to try understand more.
I agree also that we should examine in details as to why such results are happening. But how? Who could do that? And what are exactly the facts for the results we see and what to look for as for real factors?

Another problem we often face here is that "good results" have many meanings to so many different people. It is so hard to determinate a based pattern in order to drive such comparisons besides approaching the natural original aspects of the coral colonies in question. That is MHO. Specially because of the large diversity of qualities the same coral species will show under so many different "diluted environments" offered by people in the hobby.

I think an experiment should have different fresh daughter wild colonies from the same mother colony to be exposed to the different types of light to start with with proper acclimation to the individual light sources in the very same system (water parameters/system maintenance).
It is important to note that results are different and personal preferences will determinate what people like here in this forum. So what one thinks is "best" will not necessarily will be to another. And after all that we still have the differences among the types of light.

Besides all the previous aspects of light on the table, including PAR, PUR and intensity measurements, and all the variations of them, specially pointing the long term aspects of exposure (differences in photoperiod, as an example), what would be the points you would think we should consider to determinate the different results of light on corals namely: "colors and growth rate" normally published by many?

I think the real spectrum of each source (well represented often by limited charts) is what makes the differences. The photons produced/emitted by halides are different than the ones by LEDs in terms of limitation. Due to the broadband spectrum properties of halide bulbs independent of labelled Kelvin numbers on the halide's boxes, I think the photons produced by halides are better at resembling the natural photons produced by the sun. That is, the photons halides can produce embrace and offers a better quality to the living organisms. As we know the photons by LEDs are different in nature basically because of the way they are produced. Halides and T5s photons are produced by gases. The LEDs are different, produced by 2 electrodes. Effects and results will have to be different on living organisms. Another major difference is CRI (Color Rendering Index). LEDs have 65-95 and halides have probably the best source of high CRI white light in the market. If we talk about Foot Candles we normally see the advantage of LEDs in numbers, but we know the use of good quality fixtures will distribute the light from halides and therefore make up for the know losses in comparison associated with omnidirectional light output transfoming the environment and providing a blanket favoring as a whole. There are so many aspects...

Lighting Comparison: LED vs Metal Halide Lights

Metal halide lights are a familiar site to baseball fans, but how do they stack up against LED lights? Learn about energy efficient lighting solutions.

www.stouchlighting.com

I do trust graphics to some extent, but also see them more as a reference, many times commercially speaking when by companies, to what really happen. That is why is so hard to trust and lay on them 100% IMHO. They are very good references in their majority, I would say.
Another fact to spectrum is blending and direction emitted in terms of LED. Again UV and IR are also what I think makes a huge difference using halides. I would like you to leave here your detailed comments on that part as well. I've been waiting for that long time, please.

To be specific we can talk about a coral that you and I know: Porites lobata. If we see some of the strains in the ocean, they are so bright yellow in shallow water that is like a magnet to our eyes. Truly beautiful. Such coral can maintain those natural pigments (and natural colony shape) under metal halide bulbs but not so much under LEDs alone. I believe that was also the case with Dr. Sanjay Joshi with his yellow Porites sp. How can we stipulate, in that specific case, what determinate maintaining the color of the coral (or similar Porites spp. in the same terms)? When he had halides over his tank the coral was bright yellow and after he changed to LEDs it became dull gray. I know this is an isolated case, but we need to bring something here as a comparison and unfortunately there is no way to really find out because we are not sure if he did any other changes in the system that would affect, even if he claims not to change anything. I just want to know your thoughts on possible ways in regards to light alone, if you can.

I really wish you could go deep in your thoughts here and try to expose possibilities and question marks to bring some of the light properties in order to explain what we read so many times when people report their changes from LEDs to halides like in this thread. That way most of us would be able to have in mind all the aspects of results and try to understand more about the results and the facts posted.

Maybe we will need an article after your explanations here.

I appreciate your help very much!!

 

[A. grandis]

Why would you think the chart is wrong?
It's missing "heat" at >800

Rephrasing that:
I believe that many charts represent what is in them but there must be some of them missing or misleading some info. Not all charts are the same and from reliable sources IMO. No one can judge which are the legit produced by the market. Formats and limitations are part of possible misleading info. Those errors could be minor, but could exist. It doesn't mean they aren't a relatively good source for a based argument specially in our hobby. My point is that a company could manipulate a spectrum chart to sell such product if the choose to. It's a possibility. No more than that.

 

[Bpb]

Rephrasing that:
I believe that many charts represent what is in them but there must be some of them missing or misleading some info. Not all charts are the same and from reliable sources IMO. No one can judge which are the legit produced by the market. Formats and limitations are part of possible misleading info. Those errors could be minor, but could exist. It doesn't mean they aren't a relatively good source for a based argument specially in our hobby. My point is that a company could manipulate a spectrum chart to sell such product if the choose to. It's a possibility. No more than that.

There’s some merit to this. The spectral charts advertised by Giesemann on the boxes of their t5 tubes is pretty different from what was posted in that bulb comparison mega thread. The Hamilton 20,000k 250 watt mh bulbs I presently use advertise a pretty different spectrum on the box from what was also shown in the radium vs Hamilton 20k thread from a couple years ago. Those of us who have been around the forum for a while know the threads I’m talking about. I don’t feel like I need to dig them up

 

[Dana Riddle]

Of course I agree with you that we should avoid blanket statements. Problem in any aquarium forum is that people will state what they notice and choose the results they like showing pictures and videos. Therefore such division of preferences and some times harsh arguments. At the same time we know that the majority posting their opinions here will never have access to any scientific device to measure any of the previous data suggested. We depend on people like you to try understand more.
I agree also that we should examine in details as to why such results are happening. But how? Who could do that? And what are exactly the facts for the results we see and what to look for as for real factors?

Another problem we often face here is that "good results" have many meanings to so many different people. It is so hard to determinate a based pattern in order to drive such comparisons besides approaching the natural original aspects of the coral colonies in question. That is MHO. Specially because of the large diversity of qualities the same coral species will show under so many different "diluted environments" offered by people in the hobby.

I think an experiment should have different fresh daughter wild colonies from the same mother colony to be exposed to the different types of light to start with with proper acclimation to the individual light sources in the very same system (water parameters/system maintenance).
It is important to note that results are different and personal preferences will determinate what people like here in this forum. So what one thinks is "best" will not necessarily will be to another. And after all that we still have the differences among the types of light.

Besides all the previous aspects of light on the table, including PAR, PUR and intensity measurements, and all the variations of them, specially pointing the long term aspects of exposure (differences in photoperiod, as an example), what would be the points you would think we should consider to determinate the different results of light on corals namely: "colors and growth rate" normally published by many?

I think the real spectrum of each source (well represented often by limited charts) is what makes the differences. The photons produced/emitted by halides are different than the ones by LEDs in terms of limitation. Due to the broadband spectrum properties of halide bulbs independent of labelled Kelvin numbers on the halide's boxes, I think the photons produced by halides are better at resembling the natural photons produced by the sun. That is, the photons halides can produce embrace and offers a better quality to the living organisms. As we know the photons by LEDs are different in nature basically because of the way they are produced. Halides and T5s photons are produced by gases. The LEDs are different, produced by 2 electrodes. Effects and results will have to be different on living organisms. Another major difference is CRI (Color Rendering Index). LEDs have 65-95 and halides have probably the best source of high CRI white light in the market. If we talk about Foot Candles we normally see the advantage of LEDs in numbers, but we know the use of good quality fixtures will distribute the light from halides and therefore make up for the know losses in comparison associated with omnidirectional light output transfoming the environment and providing a blanket favoring as a whole. There are so many aspects...

Lighting Comparison: LED vs Metal Halide Lights

Metal halide lights are a familiar site to baseball fans, but how do they stack up against LED lights? Learn about energy efficient lighting solutions.

www.stouchlighting.com

I do trust graphics to some extent, but also see them more as a reference, many times commercially speaking when by companies, to what really happen. That is why is so hard to trust and lay on them 100% IMHO. They are very good references in their majority, I would say.
Another fact to spectrum is blending and direction emitted in terms of LED. Again UV and IR are also what I think makes a huge difference using halides. I would like you to leave here your detailed comments on that part as well. I've been waiting for that long time, please.

To be specific we can talk about a coral that you and I know: Porites lobata. If we see some of the strains in the ocean, they are so bright yellow in shallow water that is like a magnet to our eyes. Truly beautiful. Such coral can maintain those natural pigments (and natural colony shape) under metal halide bulbs but not so much under LEDs alone. I believe that was also the case with Dr. Sanjay Joshi with his yellow Porites sp. How can we stipulate, in that specific case, what determinate maintaining the color of the coral (or similar Porites spp. in the same terms)? When he had halides over his tank the coral was bright yellow and after he changed to LEDs it became dull gray. I know this is an isolated case, but we need to bring something here as a comparison and unfortunately there is no way to really find out because we are not sure if he did any other changes in the system that would affect, even if he claims not to change anything. I just want to know your thoughts on possible ways in regards to light alone, if you can.

I really wish you could go deep in your thoughts here and try to expose possibilities and question marks to bring some of the light properties in order to explain what we read so many times when people report their changes from LEDs to halides like in this thread. That way most of us would be able to have in mind all the aspects of results and try to understand more about the results and the facts posted.

Maybe we will need an article after your explanations here.

I appreciate your help very much!!

 

[Dana Riddle]

I'll have to give your post some thought but want to address the yellow Porites lobata. When I had a permit to collect Hawaiian corals for the display at the Natural Energy Lab in Kona, I had the opportunity to examine that pigment. The particular specimen I had contained a non-fluorescent chromoprotein. These proteins are usually produced in response to light intensity at a certain peak wavelength (although the bandwidth could be broad.) Some Porites contain a fluorescent protein although they weren't common off the Big Island (I could count those specimens on the fingers of one hand.) I saw those during night dives using a Light Cannon dive light fitted with Charlie Mazel's filters.