The Great LED Debate

since we are debating this sounds like a good place to continue our conversation logan.

"The can blow mh away no prob, the par thing is that par meters do not detect the par right from LEDs, and the results scew up to 20%."

-Blanketed statements such as this which came from you is extremely misleading.
It is not a 20% difference for leds showing up on a par meter.

LED Error [%]
Blue (448 nm peak, 10 nm FWHM) -8.5
Green (524 nm peak, 15 nm FWHM) 8.0
Red (635 nm peak, 10 nm FWHM) 6.9
Cool White -2.0
Neutral White -3.8
Red, Blue Mixture 4.9
Red, Green, Blue Mixture 5.6

-this is from Apogee's website on getting the best measurments out of their meters. I do not see a 20% anywhere there. I even informed you of this weeks ago when i was using my tester but yet you still continue to state that led's are under tested by 20%.
Apogee Instruments: Light Intensity Measurements for Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs)

"LEDs out competed all three in power, efficiency, and of course coral colors and growth. The proof is there, just because I cannot afford thousands in testing equipment, or I do not have a Phd, does not mean I am wrong."

-Another quote by you, Sanjay who does have a phd says otherwise of your findings. That the full spectrum that mhs and t5 can provide isn't quite their in leds yet. While coloration is great, power consumption and heat is obviously less, But overall statements that they are clearly better isn't proven yet.

-Towards the end of the led Q and A thread you seem to have changed your view on what you were saying about leds. From
""The can blow mh away no prob,"
- to
"What I am saying is that LEDs are superior in efficiency to mh and T-5"
- to finally
"you can get results as good as, or better than metal halide, using less electricity with LEDs."
- Now according to your most recent claim led can be as good as mh, or better.

You keep changing your statements as more people correct you I am seeing.
Not too much of a debate when one party keeps changing their point as they go along.

 

Hi nc208082

It is not uncommon for people who have an opinion on any given subject to adjust that opinion in the light of opinions to the contrary of their own
as such statements changing or being modified as the conversation/ debate develops shows only that the individual is taking on board comments made by others, and thus modifying their stance based on that

this is a good thing, IMO
it shows that individuals can alter their opinions based on well made points that are in opposition to their original position

I do not believe this undermines a debate
I do believe that it displays perfectly the value of debate

 

Yes, and did you refer to the graph I linked on apogee's site? Apogee Instruments Quantum Sensor - Spectral Response
The scew will vary by model, with mine, it is about 20%. And aside from the par meters, the readings are better than 250watts of mh with only 120watts of bridgelux LEDs, that is without the scew, and with no optics. Over a 24" area, and with optics, LEDs win hands down, I will break out the apogee tommorrow and do some testing on the optics again, and make a nice picture with the numbers. The problem I had with your debate, was that you were saying that LEDs do not yield good results, which is not true at all. Also, I will be testing over a locals tank, a 210 gallon, different degrees of optics, and comparing to the mh on there already. I am mostly pointing that out, because I also want to show how deep LEDs can penetrate with the right optics.

 

you make a very good point steve. I feel it does matter though when Logans point he was saying in another thread which myself and others disagreed with, was moved to here to debate.
But now Logan's wording is different from what we were debating in the other thread, and then he goes and calls us out for now saying anything quick enough I felt was throwing fuel on the fire. I feel his changing his view defeats the purpose of having this debate when he has corrected what he was saying, to now say what we were saying.
That the technology is great but it is not better than MH or T5 technology based upon the scientific data and successful longterm success(1 year is not long enough) we have seen through reef lighting in this hobby.
Just my opinion.

PLease post where i said leds do not yield good results Logan, Cuz your making that up.

 

Gcarroll, for mh I have no idea. For T-5s I used Ice cap. I never got into it like I did LEDs, I am an electrician, and the wiring involved is much more challenging, and more enjoyable to me, which is one of many reasons I am so into LEDs today. I know that the locals I trade frags with use radiums for mh, or icecap, ATI, etc. for T-5s

 

I disaggre. 1 year is more than enough, if everything thrives and colors for a year, is it going to explode in 2 years? that is what I do not understand. Just because LEDs did not work for you, doesn't mean they won't work for anyone. Keep in mind, XREs are vey old school LEDs, and the tech of 2 years ago is really not considered that good, in fact my XP-Es are now only used for the colored (reds, greens, blues) LEDs, as the cree XT-E series has yet to include those. Yes, I still think (and know) that you can get much much more power with LEDs than you can with mh, using less electricity. Even now, LEDs are better, and keep getting better. In another 2 years, mh will probably not even apply to reef lighting. Here are some of the benefits of LEDs:
1)Ability to change color spectrum at will, with the push of a button, or turn of a knob
2)Less heat projected into the aquarium, a big factor in the summer months
3)No bulb changes for up to 12 years, even more in some cases. On a large tank, with say 3 mh bulbs, you can spend anywhere from $50-$150 per bulb, for a good bulb, every year. That is $150 to $450 on top of the power bill, and what you payed for the actual fixture!
4)Point source lighting. why use a big, bulky reflector, when you can use a few fans, or a heatsink, and project almost 100% of the light into your tank, rather than lose some light to the reflector, same with T-5
5)Efficiency! with crees, about 100 watts of LEDs will be about the equivalent of 250watts of mh, do the math, that is 2.5 times more power used with mh than with LEDs. On top of that, you will not even need that much light, so power use is even less.

Just a few points of why LEDs are superior lights, and will be even better in the years to come.

 

I will post again, and then leave you all to it

the most important thing in any debate, is a mutual respect from all individuals towards the other individuals during the debate

when that is lost, the debate goes downhill fast and develops into an arguement

debates are wonderfull IMO, they give me and others like me a chance to learn about something from diametrically opposing perspectives

arguements are awful IME as there are no winners, it is just a matter of who loses the most

so keep focus on the subject
refrain from focusing on the individual who is posting
keep it civilized
remember to respect the opinions of others, even if they do not agree with your opinions


Steve

 

Well said X 2 Steve!
I'll preface this by saying I'm an LED guy, have a rapidled DIY system on my tank now and am getting ready to compare that system to reefbreeders.com value 96W bridgelux system. I wanted to increase my color spectrum and decided to try this new system to compare to my system. I will be adding color spectrum to my rapid build as well. That being said, I read till my brain hurt; forums, data, etc etc about the different lighting options and ended up with led for these main reasons:
1. controllability I can change the look/color of my tank pretty much instantly. I can have sunrise and sunsets. I can instantly change my output if corals bleach or need more light. I can program a thunderstorm
2. heat there is none at least that will affect your tank
3. bulbs none to replace for a LONG time, alot of savings verse T5 or MH each year
4. energy SAVINGS over T5 and MH
5. they do grow corals, no debate there. And corals look great, honestly seen all forms and yes MH and some T5's may hold a small edge in coloration, I think the LEDs are close enough.

Now do the other options work as well? YES, do they outperform in some areas? PROBABLY, do they win in my viewpoint when all factors are weighed? NO

lol, have fun

 

Good thread!

I think the debate between LED and other forms of lighting is often lead in the wrong direction. I've been lucky enough to use a majority of LED, metal halide, T5 and power compact lighting on the market, and the biggest thing I've noticed is that light grows coral no matter what it's source may be. I've also seen every single source do an amazing job when it is used in the proper context, but this often seems to be missed in discussion. Pairing a light with your tank, stocking and abilities is far more important than any other factor.

That said there are a few factors to this pairing process that are unique to each form of lighting.

If you take a look around forums you will find a huge amount of people having great success with metal halide, T5 and even power compact lighting. You will also find some people having success with LED lighting, but you will almost always find more having problems with LEDs than the other sources. In my opinion, this observation shouldn't stem debate about with is better, but rather about which is easier to pair with a given set up, and when you look at it this way, it becomes a fairly strait forward issue.

Metal halide, T5 and power compact are easy to mate up with a given reef for a couple of simple reasons. For starters these light sources have been around for quite awhile and there is a huge amount of knowledge around about exactly how they should be used. Secondly there are far less variables to consider such as wattage and color temperature which makes it much easier to give recommendations. For these reasons, it's pretty easy to set up a successful reef tank with these forms of lighting.

LED, however, can be extremely hard to pair up with a specific set up. It would be hard to deny the fact that LEDs have seen less total hours over reef tanks than other lighting sources, and this also means that hobbyists have had less time to observe and document their effects. This also means that there is less good advice to be had about LEDs than other sources. Add to this the amount of variables involved when considering which LED fixture to buy, and it can be pretty tough to cone out on top.

The bottom line is that our industry is on the cutting edge of lighting for a reason, and every type of lighting available CAN yield excellent results. The key is not choosing the best but choosing the best for you.

 

Based on this response, I don't think we should continue. I really don't know how to respond.:-/