• Welcome back Guest!

    MARSH is a private reefing group. Comments and suggestions are encouraged, but please keep them positive and constructive. Negative threads, posts, or attacks will be removed from view and reviewed by the staff. Continually disruptive, argumentative, or flagrant rule breakers may be suspended or banned.

LED vs MH. (1 Viewer)

Users who are viewing this thread

ReefWatcher

Guest
Joined
Dec 7, 2006
Messages
471
Reaction score
0
Location
SW/Stafford,TX
I'm still skeptical about this LED lighting.No doubt about electricity consumption but can they really grow SPS like MH do?Is there anybody in here locally that uses this kind of lighting and happy with the growth and coloration of their SPS?Pics before and after?Thanks.
 

AquaNerd

Guest
Joined
Apr 29, 2007
Messages
4,581
Reaction score
0
Location
Humble, Texas
there's a lot of good info online. a lot of people are getting great par numbers with their led setups.
 
OP
OP
ReefWatcher

ReefWatcher

Guest
Joined
Dec 7, 2006
Messages
471
Reaction score
0
Location
SW/Stafford,TX
LED

camaroracer214 said:
there's a lot of good info online. a lot of people are getting great par numbers with their led setups.

I've read......mostly from manufacturers.What I'd like to know if somebody here locally has one and what's their experienced about it and maybe I can take a look in person.
 

soymilk

Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
2,608
Reaction score
1,344
Location
Fresno, Texas
I'm currently setting up my new tank. I'm using the maxspect 160w ( comparable to a 250w mh). So far I'm getting decent growth from my Ora sps. Purple plasma tort opened right away under LEDs. Too early to tell how good the LEDs are.

If you wanna take a look at it let me know.
 
OP
OP
ReefWatcher

ReefWatcher

Guest
Joined
Dec 7, 2006
Messages
471
Reaction score
0
Location
SW/Stafford,TX
LED

soymilk said:
I'm currently setting up my new tank. I'm using the maxspect 160w ( comparable to a 250w mh). So far I'm getting decent growth from my Ora sps. Purple plasma tort opened right away under LEDs. Too early to tell how good the LEDs are.

If you wanna take a look at it let me know.

Soymilk,you're close to my area,yes I'd love to see it in person.
 

Timanator

Guest
Joined
Nov 18, 2006
Messages
1,285
Reaction score
0
Location
Alief Texas
I used LED's for 2 weeks on my tank, the sps growth and color was good, some zoas did not like it however.
 

Timanator

Guest
Joined
Nov 18, 2006
Messages
1,285
Reaction score
0
Location
Alief Texas
Yep, most of what I was seeing did not make sense. The sps piece colored up a bit better, some of the zoas were stretching like there is not enough light, yet others in the same area and distance from the light started shriveling up and closing. Went back to T5's and all good again.
 

d2mini

Guest
Joined
Sep 9, 2008
Messages
3,336
Reaction score
24
Location
Houston
I have my doubts as well, but they are really just my own personal common sense trying to take over, rather than actual hard data, of which there still doesn't seem to be much of at this time. But what I keep thinking is just because there is a lot of light, doesn't necessarily mean its the right kind of light. Who sits under bright fluorescent bulbs at work all day, but just loves the feel of the SUN when they go outside at lunch? I had T5's in my last tank... a lot of them. TONS of light, but growth was just ok... except for my algae which grew like crazy. Went back to MH with my new tank and my tank is clean with good growth. The light is just one factor, but it just seems to make sense that the MH which to me most closely recreates the sun, would be better than fluorescent bulbs and to an extent possibly LED.
 

RR-MAN

Guest
Joined
Aug 18, 2003
Messages
5,689
Reaction score
1,214
Location
Pearland
d2mini said:
I have my doubts as well, but they are really just my own personal common sense trying to take over, rather than actual hard data, of which there still doesn't seem to be much of at this time. But what I keep thinking is just because there is a lot of light, doesn't necessarily mean its the right kind of light. Who sits under bright fluorescent bulbs at work all day, but just loves the feel of the SUN when they go outside at lunch? I had T5's in my last tank... a lot of them. TONS of light, but growth was just ok... except for my algae which grew like crazy. Went back to MH with my new tank and my tank is clean with good growth. The light is just one factor, but it just seems to make sense that the MH which to me most closely recreates the sun, would be better than fluorescent bulbs and to an extent possibly LED.

Totally agree. I'm not convinced yet with LEDs. I'm sure it will improve in the next 5 yrs.
I also switched from T5 [Constellation fixture] back to MH due to slow growth unless I change bulbs every 3-6 months (7 of them). In the last 2 years I learned that T5s need to be replaced way way sooner than 12 months due to drop in PAR.
 

jamesw

1
Lifetime Member
Joined
May 11, 2003
Messages
707
Reaction score
16
Location
Heights
I totally agree w/ Dennis and RR-Man on this one.

I'd like to see a spectral distribution plot of aquarium LED's but my gut tells me that they are NOT broadband emitters - they emit at spikes corresponding to the metals in the diodes.

The sun is a broadband emitter - meaning that it puts out some photons at each wavelength - which makes sense since the sun is a star...lol.

Flourescent lighting is NOT a broadband emitter - it puts out light at just a few discreet spikes - corresponding to the phosphors in the lamps.

If anyone can link/post a spectral distribution plot for the LED's being used over aquaria I'd appreciate it.

The other thing that cracks me up is the "high efficiency and low heat" argument for the LED's. If they are so efficient why do they need HUGE heat sinks?????

Cheers
James
 

jamesw

1
Lifetime Member
Joined
May 11, 2003
Messages
707
Reaction score
16
Location
Heights
N/M I just found one of the 15,000K lamp used in the bluemoon fixture:

spectrum_curve.jpg


Pretty big spike and not much else in the other wavelengths...

The blue LED's are ALL spike at 460nm
 

RGH69

Guest
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
694
Reaction score
0
Location
Katy, Texas
jamesw said:
The other thing that cracks me up is the "high efficiency and low heat" argument for the LED's. If they are so efficient why do they need HUGE heat sinks?????

Cheers
James

Yeah, I noticed that as well about the heat. What I have found is that most people run the LED's at the max rated amperage. Doing so reduces the lifespan because of the heat issues. To combat the heat they add heatsinks. The funny thing is that they really don't need the large chunks of aluminum. The LED's don't put out anywhere near the heat that MH does and they still put out less than flourescent. The board I chose used a copper core which acts like a heatsink. It has 4 fans (one per circuit) and it stays pretty cool. The 48 LED's run the tank about 2 degrees cooler than it did with the stock PC's. As far as spectrum, here is a link to everything you want to know about PAR;
http://www.americanaquariumproducts.com/Aquarium_Lighting.html
Most people build LED fixtures with Royal Blue and Cool White. After reading the above webpage I decided to add a Warm White circuit to add some red. Plus I think it looks more natural.
 

jamesw

1
Lifetime Member
Joined
May 11, 2003
Messages
707
Reaction score
16
Location
Heights
Good article - I'm familiar w/ it and understand the material. What it implies though is that the ONLY "useful" light is the wavelengths that stimulate:

chlorophylls a, c², and peridinin (the light-harvesting carotenoid, a pigment related to chlorophyll) and ~620-700nm which is the red absorption bandwidth of chlorophylls a and c².

I don't agree w/ that.

Cheers
James
 

RGH69

Guest
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
694
Reaction score
0
Location
Katy, Texas
jamesw said:
Good article - I'm familiar w/ it and understand the material. What it implies though is that the ONLY "useful" light is the wavelengths that stimulate:

chlorophylls a, c², and peridinin (the light-harvesting carotenoid, a pigment related to chlorophyll) and ~620-700nm which is the red absorption bandwidth of chlorophylls a and c².

I don't agree w/ that.

Cheers
James

What you quoted above is probably true for Plants and Chlorophyll which is why most grow lights appear reddish. What I got out of it is that there are 3 important light ranges that almost cover the entire visible spectrum as stated in the article;

PUR (Photosynthetically Usable Radiation) should also be considered. PUR is that fraction of PAR that is absorbed by zooxanthellae photopigments thereby stimulating photosynthesis. PUR are those wavelengths falling between 400-550nm and 620-700nm.


*A: 400-500 NM range - Phototropic response; having a tendency to move in response to light. Basically this is the Chlorophyll containing plant or algae "moving" to respond to a positive light source to begin the process of photosynthesis (initial growth of plants, zooxanthellae, etc.).

*B: 580-750 Range - Photosynthetic response; the process which begins when energy from light is absorbed by proteins called photosynthetic reaction centers that contain chlorophylls.

*C: 450-500 and 650-700 Range - Chlorophyll synthesis is the chemical reactions and pathways by the plant hormone cytokinin soon after exposure to the correct Nanometers wave length (about 670 NM) of light resulting in the formation of chlorophyll, resulting in continued growth of a plant, algae, zooxanthellae and the ability to “feed” and propagate, and without this aspect PAR (670 NM light energy), zooxanthellae and plants cannot properly “feed” propagate. The results of the lack of this high PAR “spike” would be stunted freshwater plant growth, and eventually poor coral health in reef tanks

So, although C is the most important A and B are needed as well. In addition other parts of the spectrum support other specific forms of life (cyano). The benefit of LED is that specific light spectrums can be acheived to reduce negative life forms. Since I switched to LED Cyanobacteria is gone (although perhaps is was already going away due to other processes).

A, B and C are below;


phototropicresponse.jpg
 
Top