- Joined
- Sep 18, 2017
- Messages
- 5,610
- Reaction score
- 3,451
Technically that isn't correct.and the light spectrum that you can get out of one T5 bulb like the Blue Plus takes many LEDs to replicate and the blending isn't easy or cheap.
Using a violet pump (yes technically more difficult than royal blue) and select phosphors most tubes can be emulated for all intents and purposes..
KYOCERA Develops World's First Full-Spectrum LED Aquarium Lighting; Innovative technology mimics sunlight at specific underwater depths; designed to optimize growth of corals and marine plants | News Releases | KYOCERA
Kyocera announced that the company developed the world’s first full-spectrum LED lighting for aquariums.
global.kyocera.com
Unfortunately that is like a specialty within a specialty .. sort of..
Main problem is efficiency of violet chips vs royal blue and of course phosphor losses..
There are plenty of equiv to T5 phosphors in the LED world.
Remember those tubes are just mercury emissions plus RGB phosphors in varying quantities.
It's just more convenient (and yes slightly cheaper) do do the chip blending thing atm and has the advantage of easily shifting spectrums then being "stuck" w/ one err color.
Due to tech differences i.e mercury vs gap there will always be differences.
Rough current RETAIL is $3/Watt for violet pump COB's w/ high CRI producing phosphors.
About 3X the cost of quality Blue pump emitters.
54W t5ho would cost $162 for the diodes..Rest is relatively cheap. housing ect.
That's assuming a w to watt output.
due to the directional "plus" of diodes one can usually go somewhere between 1/2 tube watts = 1 W led though it would be a bit more comfortable at say 75% equiv. $121 for diodes.
Only need to convince a manuf that there is a profitable market for them..
Hasn't happened yet..
Power supplies/drivers vs ballasts are roughly equiv. priced..
So it's not "exactly" cheap and there are other issues such as high power violets.
Last edited: