LED Lighitng question (again)

[Jason72]

Hi all - I know LEDs get a lot of on-again/off again attention on here, but I couldn't find anything directly to what I wanted to ask.

Instead of buying replacement bulbs again, I was contemplating changing up the lighting on my 90 softie/LPS to an LED system. The LFS recommended the aquaticlife connectable lights (putting together 4 to get desired light for LPS). However, the company itself, when I called, said don't do it - they're not tested for corals (honesty! :: )

So - I also ran across Marineland's reef ready. Would the 48-60" Marineland reef ready system be sufficient for non-sps corals? Anyone know anything about them?

Thanks - I appreciate any and all feedback!

Jason

 

[don in mass]

http://www.3reef.com/forums/led-aquarium-lighting/marineland-led-reef-ready-strip-107811.html

http://answers.marineland.com/answe...ghting-system-questions-answers/questions.htm

http://www.nano-reef.com/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t261032.html

 

[Jason72]

Thanks Don - but does anyone have more than a google search to help me out? Personal experience or personal opinion? Thanks.

 

[don in mass]

hello jason call a sponsor and ask most of them here are very helpful when comes to ?? like these .give greg a call at underwater world 5088229664 he has hands on with those lights .hth don

 

[niftyjosh]

Do yourself a favor and look into better fixtures than those.

 

[Jason72]

Thanks Don - and thanks nifty - but why? What would be sufficient LED type fixtures or lights? I'm trying to learn here...

 

[inverted]

Thanks Don - but does anyone have more than a google search to help me out? Personal experience or personal opinion? Thanks.

I don't really have personal experience with them, because I have seen so many others, have issues with them. Also, the amount of light output they produce is very low (it is stated on the box i.e. "PAR"). I have seen them and they run very yellow, which I also don't like. I am told that the reason for this is that they want to market them to both fresh and saltwater. So, even though, they are labeled "Reef-Ready" that doesn't mean they are sold as "reef-specific".

If you plan to stick with LPS/Softies, and are looking at budget lighting, you could try Boost LED. They have some good, budget lights. Both fixture and spotlights. Also, ReefKoi imports some lights from China and backs them up with a 2 year US warranty and service them in Colorado. I have one on my frag tank and it is a great light for the price. Not many frills though. A bit thing for a 90g tank is optics, as the tank is relatively tall. The "optics" are just little lenses, that help focus the light, so, it penetrates deeper. My ReefKoi light did not have optics, but I believe that they have 90 degree optics now, which should be okay for a LPS/Softie 90g. I would say probably 2x100W lights would be more than enough and would let you expand a bit if you get into more light loving corals at some point. You could do a single 150W or 200W, but the center brace will cause a shadow and block some of the light. Otherwise, I would push more for the Boost Mu, but that will have the same problem and 2 would be too many.

The Boost PAR30 Spotlights work good too. I like them because you can easily add more as needed. So, you could probably start with as little as 4 (long term you may need 6-8+ though). The only issue is they are not dimmable. Although, you can control how many are turned on, which is like a dimming effect, if you have enough.

Apollo is another popular budget brand, although, their dimable units are more expensive and the "non-dimmable" ones may be too much light for an LPS/Softie tank.

Also, the Kessil spotlights, are very nice, but they also are not dimmable and not very powerful. So, you would probably need 4 eventually, even for LPS/Softies. You could probably get away with 2 to start though.

 

[Jason72]

Thanks inverted - you gave me lots of searches to go do to try to see what you're talking about you said "I would say probably 2x100W lights would be more than enough" - so if I'm running 4x54 t5's now - that's not much if a difference in power savings yes? Just in replacement costs? Or am I not understnaing it the right way?

 

[inverted]

Thanks inverted - you gave me lots of searches to go do to try to see what you're talking about you said "I would say probably 2x100W lights would be more than enough" - so if I'm running 4x54 t5's now - that's not much if a difference in power savings yes? Just in replacement costs? Or am I not understnaing it the right way?

Well, it's not really technically correct to say that LEDs are "inherently more energy efficient". Our best measure of useful light, for photosynthesis, when considering a broad number of organisms, is "PAR" or Photosynthetically Active Radiation. You can essentially also call this "visible light" (not to be confused with LUX/Lumens, which are measures of how humans perceive visible light).

What's interesting to note, is that LEDs produce less "visible light" than many other types of lighting. For example, in the Sept/Oct issue of Coral Magazine, Sanjay Joshi. On Page 43, there is a table, which shows the amount of visible light, produced by various lighting sources. According to the table, incandescent lights produce about 8%, florescent 21%, metal halides, 27% and LEDs, 15-25%. So, how can LEDs be more efficient? Overall, they aren't.

However, most LEDs direct the light over an approximately 120% cone, versus fluorescent and halide lights, which radiate 360 degrees. So, already, you are getting more light, where you want it to go (with the use of optical lenses, you can fine tune this further). However, a lighting source, such as a T-5, which matches the shape of the aquarium well, and if it has good reflectors, can redirect the light pretty well, will not necessarily be "less efficient" than an LED system, for a given aquarium.

I think that with a good T-5, with good bulbs, on a 90g aquarium, the difference between LESs and T-5 is pretty nominal. You might gain some efficiency, you can probably dim the LEDs a bit (you probably don't "need" all the light from the T-5s either). Going a little bigger, and dimming, has some advantages though. It allows you to acclimate corals to your lighting, it allows you to adjust the color (just don't constantly fiddle with it, or the coral might never acclimate LOL) and LEDs lifespan is rated in loss of output, they don't really "burn out", they just get dimmer over time. So, being able to increase the output over time, should expand their usable lifespan.

 

[gadolinium]

A single Marineland reef ready wont spread the light enough to cover your entire tank. You would need one for the front and one in back.

 

[dz6t]

What's interesting to note, is that LEDs produce less "visible light" than many other types of lighting. For example, in the Sept/Oct issue of Coral Magazine, Sanjay Joshi. On Page 43, there is a table, which shows the amount of visible light, produced by various lighting sources. According to the table, incandescent lights produce about 8%, florescent 21%, metal halides, 27% and LEDs, 15-25%. So, how can LEDs be more efficient? Overall, they aren't.

So halides are the most efficient?
Thanks

 

[niftyjosh]

So halides are the most efficient?
Thanks

For halide, add up: initial purchase, supplemental lighting to go along with them, bi-yearly bulb replacement, cooling, and overall wattage.

For LED, add up: initial purchase, and overall wattage.

I'm getting the same growth and better color with LEDs. Not to mention being able to program the lights to a specific schedule and color that suites my taste.

My electric bill doesn't make me cry anymore either.

The possibility of saving thousands of dollars over a few percent? I'll be 2% less efficient for the next few years.

 

[inverted]

So halides are the most efficient?
Thanks

With regards to total output, but getting light into your tank is another issue. I have a 29g tank in my basement. When I replaced the MH on my 29g tank with LEDs, the first time I went down to the basement, I thought the lights were off. It never occurred to me how well the halide lit up the whole room Of course, that was a cheap parabolic reflector. Better reflectors do a better job, but even on my 93g, with a really good reflector, when just the supplemental LEDs are on, there is almost no illumination on the wall. When the halide comes on again...

With LEDs, it is much easier to focus the light. So, depending on the setup your coming from, they can provide pretty significant energy savings. However, for the most part, that is more of a function of having an improperly fitted lighting system. Comparing the LEDs, to the mot efficient halides setup will provide much less savings. Also, LEDs do better with blue light. Blue halides are typically pretty inefficient, but blue LEDs seem to do a bit better. So, there is some potential energy savings there (although note: IME, drastic changes in spectrum, such as going from "white" lighting to "blue" lighting may cause significant acclimation issues). The big thing though is heat, bulb replacement and dimming.

Also shape though makes a difference though. On rectangular tanks, less than around 24" front to back, T-5s and LEDs will also beat halides just due to the shape. Halides focus the Light in a circular pattern. Usually designed to illuminate a 24" diameter. So, with a narrow, but long, rectangular tank, such as a 90g, you usually loose a lot more light over the front and back with halides.

 

[dz6t]

Where the energy lost go for LED?
I assume that the energy lost from halide is heat.
thanks

 

[inverted]

Where the energy lost go for LED?
I assume that the energy lost from halide is heat.
thanks

More "heat" from LEDs. Halides put out more IR. The IR is reflected down to the aquarium by the reflector and heats the tank. The heat from the LEDs is managed differently. It is conducted out the back, through the heatsink and quickly dispersed away from the aquarium. So, overall, there is much less of a heating effect.

Actually, the breakdown from the table for halides and LEDs is:
Halides - 27% visible, 17% IR, 19% UV and 37% heat.
LEDs - 15-25% visible, 0% IR, 0% UV, and 75-85% heat.

 

[dz6t]

More "heat" from LEDs. Halides put out more IR. The IR is reflected down to the aquarium by the reflector and heats the tank. The heat from the LEDs is managed differently. It is conducted out the back, through the heatsink and quickly dispersed away from the aquarium. So, overall, there is much less of a heating effect.

Actually, the breakdown from the table for halides and LEDs is:
Halides - 27% visible, 17% IR, 19% UV and 37% heat.
LEDs - 15-25% visible, 0% IR, 0% UV, and 75-85% heat.

thanks for the infom.
I will stick to halides for the following reasons:
1. My tanks are in the basement and 65F max in summer, I need the halide to heat the water.
2. I use aquamedic pendants and the light is very focus.

Also, for watt to watt, I don't see a electricity saving in my situation.

 

[Stanley Wong]

Any initial cost comparison for the same PAR between MH & LED ?

 

[KSC]

Here's a good article comparing all 3 lighting types. I think there are some more powerful/efficient LED's out there now, but the t-5 and mh fixtures used are pretty much still the best to this day.

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2010/2/aafeature2