# Thoughts on metal halide lighting



## ngrubich (Nov 29, 2011)

My roommate had a 400W MH above his 90 gallon tank that was converted from saltwater to fresh. You can buy the lamps from 1000bulbs in the grow section of the site for pretty cheap. That thing grew hair algae and cyano pretty well until he realized he couldn't keep the MH in his canopy and had to build a hanger for it. 
Needless to say he doesn't have any long-term experience with it and growing plants (we had to break our tanks down because a water pipe broke during a bad freeze we had here in January and we are moving anyways in a couple months, so we didn't want to go through the hassle of setting two 90 gallons back up only to turn around and break them down again...) but I assume someone else on here is using one.


----------



## Seadon (Mar 24, 2014)

I know that they're still widely used as grow lights in hydroponic gardening, so they're stilling readily available, that's where I gained my familiarity with them, I used a combo of HPS and MH's in my greenhouse, and I know they sure do a great job of growing plants out of water. And I've never even heard of using HPS lighting in aquariums, why is this, I can't remember exactly what the spectrum is for HPS But I know they're more on the red side than MH's, I would think that they would simulate a Dutch style lighting system.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Seadon (Mar 24, 2014)

So I take it by the death of this thread that they have pretty much been all but phased out


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fearsome (Feb 16, 2013)

Seadon said:


> So I take it by the death of this thread that they have pretty much been all but phased out
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


They have been phased out where they are not needed. Most of them tend to target high light in larger spaces. Most planted tanks just are not very big. In fact it seems few people even make planted tanks as big as reef tanks. LED strips are sufficient for most people. They should work fine if you get the light level right but it seems they would only be needed on a large deep tank. However if you like the color there is nothing wrong with using one if you can manage the heat and light output.


----------



## GuppyGuppyGuppyGuppyGuppy (Feb 11, 2012)

I used them for a while in one of my tanks... They're really more than you need and too bright for some plants and fish. My guppy hated the halides and slowly died. The plants didn't seem to grow unusually fast, either. They're actually growing faster now in a high-nutrient, low-light environment.


----------



## Seadon (Mar 24, 2014)

I'm assuming you mean that you used halides only right, not HPS...If anyone knows the answer, I'm really looking for someone to give me a reason why HPS lights won't work on a planted tank.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## CmLaracy (Jan 7, 2007)

All 6 of my scapes done with my 75P have been with a 150w MH, I'll never replace it unless I come across an LED pendant that really blows me away. The minimalist design of being hung from the ceiling, and the pendant itself being super small, makes it look slick. Also you can't beat it's intensity without going high-end LED, it can grow the most demanding of plants at incredible speeds. The shimmer is great, the reflection on the ceiling is great, the depth of water it can pierce is great, the flexibility it has by lowering and raising it is great... I can go on and on. Check out some of my journals in my sig, I'll be posting an update of my current scape around friday-saturday.

But yes they are out of date and being phased out sadly due to poor efficiency. 

Oh and the ADA 8000K 'Green" bulb cannot be matched when it comes to green scapes, it's the ultimate NA and Iwagumi bulb.


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

Your making up for lack of spectrum w/ pure power.. and a ton of it wasted........
Yes they work, yes they actually are more "full spectrum" than most lights.. Yes they cost you a small fortune in electricity.. 
not sure of the accuracy, but the content is fairly representative..











> I looked at the advertised spectrum of the Blue Halide. It is really superior to other Metal Halides, but it still is not a good match for PAR http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/4773/bluehalide.jpg . I still stand by my statement that high end LED lights are superior to Halides or HPS. Sodium is terrible in the blue wavelengths. The best Bang for the Buck are CFL's or fluorescent tubes with a combination of Daylight 5600k and Warm White(2400k).
> 
> Of course if you have a row of 1000 watt Blue Halides then they're going to be superior to fluorescent bulbs because of the density of light per square meter. A jet goes faster than a motor scooter, but the capital cost per mph and energy cost make the jet not nearly as practical to the average person.


http://www.tomatoville.com/showthread.php?t=25775




http://www.eyesolarlux.com/light-technology/full-spectrum/

Typical MH ..


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

Seadon said:


> I'm really looking for someone to give me a reason why HPS lights won't work on a planted tank.


Fairly self explanatory.


----------



## CmLaracy (Jan 7, 2007)

jeffkrol said:


> Your making up for lack of spectrum w/ pure power..


Sorry, but the child in me now likes MH even more :flick:

With the combination of the growth I get, along with the look of the setup (minimalist, shimmer, color, etc)... I'll be using it a long time. It also helps to be using a bulb that was was specifically designed with plants in mind (ADA). I'll eventually switch to a high-end LED pendant.

And yes they are quite inefficient to run. For me, it's worth it.


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

CmLaracy said:


> Sorry, but the child in me now likes MH even more :flick:
> 
> The combination of the growth I get, along with the look of the setup (minimalism, shimmer, color, etc)... I'll be using it a long time. I'll eventually switch to a high end LED pendant.



The OP really was interested in HPS... 

you can get all of that and more w/ LED's .. at a cost..

http://www.ledgroupbuy.com/lumia-5-1-100w-full-spectrum-5-channel-led/

The child in you may like one or 2 of these........... 
AND one thing you can never get..


> I am 100% satisfied with this full spectrum LED aquarium light. Installation was very easy. The range of colors produced is essentially limitless! I love the flexibility offered by this product!


----------



## CmLaracy (Jan 7, 2007)

jeffkrol said:


> The OP really was interested in HPS...
> 
> you can get all of that and more w/ LED's .. at a cost..
> 
> ...


It's the direction I'll be taking eventually. No rush atm though.


----------



## Seadon (Mar 24, 2014)

CmLaracy said:


> Sorry, but the child in me now likes MH even more :flick:
> 
> With the combination of the growth I get, along with the look of the setup (minimalist, shimmer, color, etc)... I'll be using it a long time. It also helps to be using a bulb that was was specifically designed with plants in mind (ADA). I'll eventually switch to a high-end LED pendant.
> 
> And yes they are quite inefficient to run. For me, it's worth it.



What size MH are you using, and if you don't mind my asking, how much does it effect your electric bill?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Seadon (Mar 24, 2014)

I know when I was doing my greenhouse it was almost like paying a second rent, I was running 4000 watts of HPS and MH for 18 hours a day at certain points, but still IME I would think even one small fixture would have a noticeable effect


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

seadon said:


> i know when i was doing my greenhouse it was almost like paying a second rent, i was running 4000 watts of hps and mh for 18 hours a day at certain points, but still ime i would think even one small fixture would have a noticeable effect
> 
> 
> sent from my iphone using tapatalk


eeeekkkkkk..................


----------



## CmLaracy (Jan 7, 2007)

Seadon said:


> What size MH are you using, and if you don't mind my asking, how much does it effect your electric bill?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


150w over a 75P (around 40g). Not at all noticeable due to the size of the bill already. That's not to say that they don't draw a ton of power, I realize how inefficient they are.


----------



## Seadon (Mar 24, 2014)

CmLaracy said:


> 150w over a 75P (around 40g). Not at all noticeable due to the size of the bill already. That's not to say that they don't draw a ton of power, I realize how inefficient they are.



They are inefficient as far as fixture for fixture goes, but as far as point source lighting is concerned, if that's what you want, you'd be hard pressed to find any ONE bulb that threw out as much useable light as a good MH. One LED, Bah


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

Seadon said:


> They are inefficient as far as fixture for fixture goes, but as far as point source lighting is concerned, if that's what you want, you'd be hard pressed to find any ONE bulb that threw out as much useable light as a good MH. One LED, Bah
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Useable to who???



> The output of a 400 watt incandescent bulb is about 25 watts of light, a 400 watt metal halide bulb emits about 140 watts of light. If PAR is considered to correspond more or less to the visible region, then a 400 watt metal halide lamp provides about 140 watts of PAR. A 400 watt HPS lamps has less PAR, typically 120 to 128 watts, but because the light is yellow it is rated at higher lumens (for the human eye).


http://www.sunmastergrowlamps.com/PAR_Watts.htm

Sure it is "brighter" (like the mostly useless to plants yellow part of HPS) to you but over half is UV and heat...and not "great" PAR per watt..



> Aesthetically speaking the Metal Halide is also hard to beat, however the latest technology LED lights are now beginning to surpass MH for Reefs and LEDs have been proven to surpass MH with plant growth in nursery/hydroponics environments (one study/test shows a 12 Watt Full spectrum LED producing better growth than a 175 Watt MH of the same type!).


http://www.americanaquariumproducts.com/aquarium_lighting.html




> High-pressure sodium (HPS) lights
> are much more common in greenhouses than
> metal halide, although both have similar
> efficiency in converting electrical energy to PAR
> (20-25%).


http://www.greenhouse.cornell.edu/crops/factsheets/SuppLight.pdf

And from there we could go into a discussion of how PAR is not very accurate either..


> The facts are you can have a light with a higher PAR be a considerably lesser PUR and thus an INFERIOR light.



http://www.aquarium-pond-answers.com/2012/03/pur-vs-par-in-aquarium-lighting.html

PAR meters are a "standard" but not a very realistic one (since it treats all light frm 400-700mn as "equal" when in fact that assumption is technically in error) based on:









HPS PAR and MH made measure equal but their PUR is probably not.............


----------



## Seadon (Mar 24, 2014)

I know LEDs are by far better in every aspect, when you look at the entire fixture of diodes, but one bulb vs. one bulb, efficiency asside, PAR, watts, lumens, whatever measurement you want to use one MH bulb will pulverize one LED bulb. though I realize the impracticality of the comparison 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

Seadon said:


> I know LEDs are by far better in every aspect, when you look at the entire fixture of diodes, but one bulb vs. one bulb, efficiency asside, PAR, watts, lumens, whatever measurement you want to use one MH bulb will pulverize one LED bulb. though I realize the impracticality of the comparison
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I'm fairly sure, in regards to plant needs.. You could take a 100W LED (like at Groupbuyled) and a 150W MH and one would not "pulverise " the other.

150W MH ....5000k.... 88CRI ......10,500 lumens...... 9000 hours
100w LED flood 2700-7000K.... ?CRI......>10,000 Lumens...>50,000 hours (Chinese generic flood)

GRANTED all of these numbers are only manuf. esitmates (or propaganda-its ) but it looks to me that MH only win on initial cost...
But only because the below annoying website has no pricing..


http://www.led-lights-factory.com/products/100w-Multi-Chip-LED-high-bay-lights-1382904.html

Forward thinking.. 


> The 3,200-lumen concept luminaire delivered greater than 200 LPW at 80 CRI at thermal equilibrium while remaining within the ANSI color specification for 3000 K.





> LED maker Cree announced this week that it had achieved a new record in terms of lighting efficiency, harvesting 303 lumens per watt from a white high power LED at room temperature. This represents a 10% increase over last year’s record of 276 lumens per watt, also held by Cree.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterde...re-efficient-cree-passes-300-lumens-per-watt/









someday soon a 100w multichip flood will output 30,000 Lumens....... leaving MH in the dust...........

400W MH....4000K....63CRI (eek)......39,000(initial)lumens(clear tube).......8000hr life

REal life pricing:
http://www.lux-concept.com/led-flood-light-4th-generation-multichip-100w-cold-white-p-394.html


> LED type: 1x Power LED MultiChip 100W
> Power:100W
> Angle: 120�
> Lifespan:50.000h
> ...


$418.23.............. 


$87.87...
http://www.myled.com/p3495-led-proj...0v-grey.html?gclid=CJuQ1aPqwb0CFSISMwodYngATA
ONLY 8000lm..


> LED Power: 100W
> Lumen Flux: 8000Lm
> Voltage: AC110-220V
> LED Type: 1 pcs Integrated
> ...


Bottomish line.. LED's now have achieved (and exceeded)the power density of MH in a single package. The chip being smaller or so than the area of the MH bulb.. 
Just another generic LED flood
http://www.elite-opto.com/file/20126614504155.pdf
http://www.ledcornbulbs.com/100W-LED-Flood-Light-new-2.html


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

Just want to add this.. 
SALES blurb.. 
http://anaghasolutions.com/brochure/Anagha_LED-Lighting.pdf









Note incorrect "lifetime" range.. I assume it is 5000-8000 not 80000 

Years look to be based on 10hr days....


----------



## Seadon (Mar 24, 2014)

Wow...nice research, I stand corrected I didn't know that they had such powerful single bulb LED floodlights...but I will amend my previous statement cuz I'm stubborn, a 1000w MH vs any single LED lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

Seadon said:


> Wow...nice research, I stand corrected I didn't know that they had such powerful single bulb LED floodlights...but I will amend my previous statement cuz I'm stubborn, a 1000w MH vs any single LED lol
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


:biggrin:

My little city has just replaced some of the HPS street lights w/ LED's................


----------



## Seadon (Mar 24, 2014)

jeffkrol said:


> :biggrin:
> 
> My little city has just replaced some of the HPS street lights w/ LED's................



That makes sense...it seems almost irresponsible for cities not to do that, not to mention if they sprung a little extra for RGBs they could make it look really cool on holidays...the savings in electrical would pay for the whole thing in under a year I bet, easily


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fearsome (Feb 16, 2013)

Real numbers and company advertisements are often different though. It has been my experience and you can probably check this out yourself. That lumens / watt for LEDs is close to CFL. The problem is companies whom are often at the leading edge often make charts with their best case scenarios and compare them to average or poor competitors. 

So fare the real place that LED has made gains in, is either in something like planted tanks where you want all light pointing 1 direction. Or in places where its a pain / costly to replace bulbs and people want to reduce work load. CREE is only now withing the last year finally brought down the cost of SOME LED bulbs to the point where I can walk into home depot and say, well its not that much more than CFL to buy the LED. But if you actually calculate the lumens / watt its often hardly a gain sometimes its worse than CFLs. 

The best LEDs that meet the great criteria are typically expensive. 

For instance lets look at CREEs own advertisement posted claiming 303 lumens / watt by 2014. This is not reflected in their consumer products. The Cree 60W Equivalent Soft White (2700K) A19 Dimmable LED Light Bulb sold at homedepot which was their big break through product actually only gets 80 lumes / watt, according to their own chart that takes it back before 2006. 

LEDs may have finally caught up to HPS but unfortunately their price has not and until the price comes down people are going to find it impractical to invest in them. And rightfully so, since we know the price should keep diving their is little reason to try to be at the front of this trend buying a $800 light this year in hopes of saving a little electricity only to see a similar light fall to $400 next year.


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

You have valid points .. BUT:
Not even considering "quality" for a minute here That "catch up" period is a bit over..
2-



> LED Flood Light 100W 8000Lm Warm White Light(110-220V,Grey)
> SKU:2500720536
> Availability: In stock USD $87.87


http://www.myled.com/p3495-led-proj...0v-grey.html?gclid=CKybi5uoxL0CFbFaMgod_04Amw
$175.74

Cheapest MH:


> 150 Watt - Metal Halide Flood Light Fixture
> $129.19 ea


http://www.1000bulbs.com/product/77...BaseShopping&gclid=CLKoy8SnxL0CFa5DMgody3IASw
Keep in mind MH start to deteriorate and replacement bulbs are $10.. From what I read this should be a yearly change. Add $10 "maintenance cost" 

I don't think your pricing is up to date.. see above.. though LED's are still "luxury" in certain applications..

As to CF.. My experience is most ar junk and REALLY don't live up to their marketing hype on longevity.. due to cheap ballasts..

As to specs that applies to all types of lighting..


----------



## Seadon (Mar 24, 2014)

jeffkrol said:


> Keep in mind MH start to deteriorate and replacement bulbs are $10..
> 
> As to specs that applies to all types of lighting..



A $10 replacement bulb for MH has to be junk, I used to spend $40-$70 to replace mine, and I would do it every six months due to deterioration


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fearsome (Feb 16, 2013)

jeffkrol said:


> You have valid points .. BUT:
> Not even considering "quality" for a minute here That "catch up" period is a bit over..
> 2-
> 
> ...


My experience with cheap LEDs has been similar, claimed 50k lives but crap out in a year or 2 due to failed electronics. Pricier LEDs seem to last fine but they are still pricier. My numbers came from home depot. I don't know the whole market but sure I know I can go to ebay right now and buy really cheap LEDs. But they seem to be unproven and have a warranty that leaves much to be desired. I even find the warranty on finnex fixtures to be a joke.

We may be there now I don't know but I know for sure that is only now just this last year that we may have finally achieved it if we have. For instance I went into 2 hydroponics stores this last week and they were only selling 1 LED each and it was like $800+. Specing what they claimed to be a comparable HPS fixture it would have been around $300 or less. So I have to bet on the life of that LED to make that up. Lumens / watt were not available to me but based on what I have seen before and even your own links lumens / watt are still not at all anywhere near the 200 - 300 range CREE is claiming. When they get there or quality LEDs with warranties that match their long life claims come down in price no one will need to argue about it because it will be obvious that no one is buying the alternatives.


----------



## Seadon (Mar 24, 2014)

Yeah... I'm running through aquaticlife lunar LEDs waaaay too fast


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## andyl9063 (Oct 22, 2010)

Led might seem great at first but some of tradeoffs are very high. Sure you might get great lights, low power. However, the cost is very high and if your tank is deep, consider additional cost. Also many claims to have long lifetime, I haven't seen or anyone reporting actual usage on planted tank for a long time lasting more than three years to justify the cost. I think it's only beneficial to small tanks now. Maybe later on, it'll be better.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk


----------



## Seadon (Mar 24, 2014)

andyl9063 said:


> Led might seem great at first but some of tradeoffs are very high. Sure you might get great lights, low power. However, the cost is very high and if your tank is deep, consider additional cost. Also many claims to have long lifetime, I haven't seen or anyone reporting actual usage on planted tank for a long time lasting more than three years to justify the cost. I think it's only beneficial to small tanks now. Maybe later on, it'll be better.
> 
> Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk



I think there are some nice higher end models that definitely get the job done on the larger tanks...maybe not massive 250+ tanks but there are some nice LED systems out there for freshwater now, I like the BML fixtures, yeah they are pricey but that's how it is for anything too of the line and relatively new. But the cheap ones are a ripoff I agree, they are marketed to people who like the idea of state of the art LEDs and think they are somehow going to get that quality at knockoff prices, you get what you pay for. Wait a few years and the price will come down like it does with everything.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

andyl9063 said:


> Led might seem great at first but some of tradeoffs are very high. Sure you might get great lights, low power. However, the cost is very high and if your tank is deep, consider additional cost. Also many claims to have long lifetime, I haven't seen or anyone reporting actual usage on planted tank for a long time lasting more than three years to justify the cost. I think it's only beneficial to small tanks now. Maybe later on, it'll be better.
> 
> Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk


It may be faster than you think though..



> One thing Bridgelux didn’t talk much about when we discussed Vero was how this was all possible. For example, why can these arrays run at 2x their nominal current? Marketing and back-patting aside, much of this seems to come down to smart product design and a generational step forward. The phosphors have gotten better, the package design has improved, thermal management was rethought, and the engineers accounted for a huge range of current. The result was an LED array that belongs in 2013, not just another star-shaped piece of metal with a slightly better LED chip slapped on it.
> The Vero lineup will be available in SKUs ranging from 2700K up to 5000K, 80 to 97 CRI, and up to 15,000 lumens. Vero became commercially available yesterday, which means parts will ship to manufacturers and we should see them in action at LightFair next week.


That was from last year..
See the big problem is NOT that the tech and even price point is there.. It is the technology is going so fast that , economically speaking, it has to be retarded..otherwise they would never recoup, much less profit, from "'yesterdays news"...

The idea that as soon as a new product is released it is obsolete.. really holds for LED's..


----------



## andyl9063 (Oct 22, 2010)

jeffkrol said:


> It may be faster than you think though..
> 
> 
> That was from last year..
> ...


When led are costing more than $1000 to achieve the right light for a large tank or deep, nothing I see coming up. 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk


----------



## Seadon (Mar 24, 2014)

I think we will see affordable high end LEDs by mid 2015


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

andyl9063 said:


> When led are costing more than $1000 to achieve the right light for a large tank or deep, nothing I see coming up.
> 
> Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk


Not being too familiar w/ "other" lights.. how much DOES a high end non-LED fixture/light cost for a large deep tank.. I've seen numbers close to your $1000 mark... 

http://www.marinedepot.com/Hamilton...tures-Hamilton-HT01201-FILTFIMHTFDEMT-vi.html

Oddly enough the most expensive part of this DIY is probably the heatsink......... 
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?p=22628061#post22628061

Well maybe the LED's.. 
http://www.newark.com/bridgelux/bxr...o-white-10000lm-4000k/dp/62W5819?CMP=KNC-GPLA
$46.44 per "bulb"............ the rest is pretty cheap..



> CCT: 4000K
> Forward Current @ Test: 2.1A
> Forward Voltage @ Test: 39.8V
> LED Color: White
> ...











http://www.farnell.com/datasheets/1707548.pdf


----------



## Seadon (Mar 24, 2014)

andyl9063 said:


> When led are costing more than $1000 to achieve the right light for a large tank or deep, nothing I see coming up.
> 
> Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk


yeah any high end fixture of any type of lighting is well over $1000...ATI's T5 fixtures are very close to $1000 for the very cheapest ones...and for a large deep tank, you are paying WELL over $1000, and there are T5's that are very very expensive...$5000 plus...there are "High End" LEDs that are close to if not in the $10000 range, but realistically there are some very good and solid mid-range fixtures that are plenty sufficient for a deep tank...I'm thinking of BML fixtures being at least 100 PAR at the substrate at 30 inches, and having a very nice wide range of color temperature options, timers, and dimmer modules. and they are under $300 for the most part...you obviously would want 2-4 to get the proper spread of light in a large tank but for about $5-600 you can have a very very nice LED setup that is at least as good, probably a good deal better than similarly priced T5 HO fixtures... Bottom line-High End is High End, it is not meant to be practical for the vast majority of hobbyists, it is meant for professionals, and people with disgustingly deep pockets.


----------



## andyl9063 (Oct 22, 2010)

Seadon said:


> yeah any high end fixture of any type of lighting is well over $1000...ATI's T5 fixtures are very close to $1000 for the very cheapest ones...and for a large deep tank, you are paying WELL over $1000, and there are T5's that are very very expensive...$5000 plus...there are "High End" LEDs that are close to if not in the $10000 range, but realistically there are some very good and solid mid-range fixtures that are plenty sufficient for a deep tank...I'm thinking of BML fixtures being at least 100 PAR at the substrate at 30 inches, and having a very nice wide range of color temperature options, timers, and dimmer modules. and they are under $300 for the most part...you obviously would want 2-4 to get the proper spread of light in a large tank but for about $5-600 you can have a very very nice LED setup that is at least as good, probably a good deal better than similarly priced T5 HO fixtures... Bottom line-High End is High End, it is not meant to be practical for the vast majority of hobbyists, it is meant for professionals, and people with disgustingly deep pockets.


I have look at BML. I would be shelling out for $1000 plus on lights for a 30" 210 gallon tank. I don't mind that, but I haven't really see anyone use them for a tank this large with measurable results. Sure, the par value is there, but its not justified just yet......


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

andyl9063 said:


> but I haven't really see anyone use them for a tank this large with measurable results.


OK lets sum this up a bit.. You think PAR levels are fine, pricing is comparable (?) yet there is no measurable differences....???

So what exactly is the issue? Worse??


I know you also consider longevity.. but to be honest LEDs are nothing more than a bunch of cheapish little light bulbs w/ fairly cheap drivers.. Unlike huge ballasts for other lighting..

As to phosphor/quality "decay".. yes there is a "shelf life" which is heat dependent and therefore favors LEDs.. when properly designed..

http://www.ilighting.com.hk/KNbase.htm


----------



## andyl9063 (Oct 22, 2010)

jeffkrol said:


> OK lets sum this up a bit.. You think PAR levels are fine, pricing is comparable (?) yet there is no measurable differences....???
> 
> So what exactly is the issue? Worse??
> 
> ...


I meant to say real life results. All I see are led fixtures of smaller tanks which have gotten great results, but not anything large. Even Tom Barr swear by T5, he mention that led lighting is not up to the levels of t5 compare with pricing as of yet. 
I was simply stating what I have seen about led lighting. It probably work really well for smaller tanks, not anything in the 200 gallon range.

And I do agree with your statement about led, eventually they'll be better and cheaper.


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

andyl9063 said:


> I meant to say real life results. All I see are led fixtures of smaller tanks which have gotten great results, but not anything large. Even Tom Barr swear by T5, he mention that led lighting is not up to the levels of t5 compare with pricing as of yet.
> I was simply stating what I have seen about led lighting. It probably work really well for smaller tanks, not anything in the 200 gallon range.
> 
> And I do agree with your statement about led, eventually they'll be better and cheaper.


We could play he said she said all day long.. 


> I have a 300 tank with 3 400w MHs and they coral love it. I also have another smaller but also taller tank (200) with AI sols. The corals in that tank have a deeper color and are also very healthy. However, I agree with Rustl3r. Sols are not made for deep tanks. You lose a good amount of intensity after 24". I've set up a 48" tall tank for a friend and I used Orphek pendants. They were very affordable and have more intensity. The only thing I didn't like about the is the color range. It seemed very artificial to me. It didn't matter though, the coral in his tank are very healthy and growing. If I were you, I'd mix the Orphek LED's to get a color you like.


http://www.thereeftank.com/forums/f6/lighting-a-36-deep-300-gal-tank-179348.html


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

andyl9063 said:


> Even Tom Barr swear by T5, he mention that led lighting is not up to the levels of t5 compare with pricing as of yet.


sorry, not arguing w/ you it is just sometimes "we" need to separate objectives here.. 
Mr. Barr likes t5's and for various reasons but they should be spelled out.. Is it because t5's are cheaper ? (w/o making a quality judgement ect)

each light type has pros and cons but one must be careful to say.. Well t5 is better when they meant t5 is cheaper..and equivalent..
If you know what I mean.. 
T5's are a phosphor driven spark basically.. Very uneven spectrum and certainly not even close to mimicking "daylight".. 

We could also spend all day arguing "which" t5 bulb (or combinations) are best...


----------



## andyl9063 (Oct 22, 2010)

LOL.

It goes back to what I was saying. I don't see any real life proving otherwise. You're just going by graphs and data, I'm going by what other people are actually doing.

Sure we can sit here all day and argue the pros and cons of each, but until u have a large enough tank to prove me otherwise.


----------



## CmLaracy (Jan 7, 2007)

What in holy hell did I start by resurrecting this thread! You guys have been going at it for days now LOL

Good stuff though regardless, very informative :thumbsup:.


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

CmLaracy said:


> What in holy hell did I start by resurrecting this thread! You guys have been going at it for days now LOL
> 
> Good stuff though regardless, very informative :thumbsup:.


Well it is all "opinion"....


----------



## CmLaracy (Jan 7, 2007)

jeffkrol said:


> Well it is all "opinion"....


You can learn a lot from comparing two well informed opinions, even if they differ drastically. There's much you can take from both sides of this argument and use it all to make a more educated decision for yourself


----------



## Seadon (Mar 24, 2014)

Idk, I have to agree with Jeff here, I think a good high end t5, while no doubt being a decent fixture can't match a good high quality led for quality of spectrum...and if you want to see LEDs on big tanks doing big things hit up YouTube...and as far as price goes I stand by what I said...high end t5's with high end reflectors are very pricey, especially 60"+, a 60-72" ATI power module with a dimmer is very very expensive, probably (absolutely) more than $1000 in BMLs that if you ask some members on here, I have seen pictures of at least one with a 135 gallon 27" deep tank that didn't even have the high output xb models over it, and they were at least 30" above the substrate, and he had a 105 PAR readout on the gravel.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Seadon (Mar 24, 2014)

Probably much better than that single 60" power mod


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MedRed (May 20, 2008)

I'm thinking about getting back into FW. As in the reefing world, it seems that LEDs are the it thing now. After using two high end LED fixtures over my reef tank, I switched back to MH as LEDs just don't grow corals as well or as colorful as MH or T5 does. 

That being said, are there FW guys that feel that either plant growth or color aren't up to the standards of T5 or MH? I'll soon be embarking on a 60p or 75p journey and I plan on using an MH+T5 fixture. I've not yet ruled out LEDs for a FW application though. 

BTW, this is what has been taking up my aquatic time for the past few years.


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

MedRed said:


> I'm thinking about getting back into FW. As in the reefing world, it seems that LEDs are the it thing now. After using two high end LED fixtures over my reef tank, I switched back to MH as LEDs just don't grow corals as well or as colorful as MH or T5 does.
> 
> That being said, are there FW guys that feel that either plant growth or color aren't up to the standards of T5 or MH? I'll soon be embarking on a 60p or 75p journey and I plan on using an MH+T5 fixture. I've not yet ruled out LEDs for a FW application though.
> 
> BTW, this is what has been taking up my aquatic time for the past few years.


you could just as well had a poor LED spectrum choice or underpowered..

T5's and a collection of LED wavelengths have more similarities than dissimilarities..

As to MH that is just a shotgun approach for photons.. and heat..

Besides LED's were not long ago in their infancy stage.. They have come a long way.. just an example.. even a year ago "cyan" or "deep red" wasn't even a footnote..

If you were using just 10000k white and roysl blue LED's I certainly could understand your failure..


http://orphek.com/atlantik-v2-1/










http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2012/3/aafeature



> What is obvious, from looking at the individual graphs is that the resulting light spectrum will be a direct addition of the spectral output of the various component lamps. In this regard the LEDs definitely provide a significant advantage over the traditional one bulb one look approach of metal halide lighting. The data presented here should be viewed in conjunction with the distributed data presented in my earlier articles provided in the references.


----------



## lauraleellbp (Feb 3, 2008)

Hey- I know you! Welcome back to The Light! :icon_mrgr


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

For interest............



> As for coloration, most corals should color up nicely when light peaking at 400-420nm is used.


LED's other than specific ones, are purple/UV deficient.

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2014/5/aafeature


----------



## MedRed (May 20, 2008)

jeffkrol said:


> you could just as well had a poor LED spectrum choice or underpowered..
> 
> T5's and a collection of LED wavelengths have more similarities than dissimilarities..
> 
> ...


I started with AI Sol Blues which are white, blue, and royal blue and switched over to a full spectrum Radeon fixture. In the reefing world, the more experienced reefers are coming to the conclusion that LEDs will not get you 100% coral color and growth. Even with UV spectrum, LEDs are currently not advanced enough at the moment. All photons are not created equal, and in a reefing environment, it's easy to see the differences

My reef tank has been featured on 3 sites as tank of the month or as a special tank feature.

That's neither here nor there. Before I dive into my new setup, I want to know if there are cons that people are experiencing with FW planted tanks in either how the plants look or how they grow.



lauraleellbp said:


> Hey- I know you! Welcome back to The Light!


ha ha, it's been some years! Thank you for the warm welcome. I'm ready to come back and finally make the amazing scape that eluded me when I had so many tanks to deal with. Now it will be just one reef and one FW tank. At one point I had 9 tanks running and 5 of them high tech and 4 with halides.


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

Well we do agree that "all photons are not created equal".. 

I'm not going to ague reef stuff.. not my interest really.. 
Personally any well designed light ource can do what you want it to do.
I could just as well show you this:









and state MH are poor in growing grass.. 

but then again:



> A 14,000K or 20,000K Metal Halide is still generally your best choice for lighting, at least in part, for tanks over 30 inches deep.


http://aquarium-digest.com/2010/04/11/led-aquarium-lights-lighting/#comparisons

you could give me the best lights in the world and I'm sure "my" corals would die.. 

sum of the parts if you get my drift.. 




> AI Sol Blues which are white, blue, and royal blue and switched over to a full spectrum Radeon fixture


Old tech..  at least if my current reading skills are OK.. 


> The EcoTech Radion & Aqua Illumination SOL (AI Sol Blue) get around the lack of the newest generation emitters/drivers with “bells & whistles” that do not add to PUR.


I'm not trying to convince you of anything. You obviously know what you are doing.. and to continue to do it right we often stick w/ what we know..



> It is worthwhile pointing out that one needs to compare “apples to apples”, and at this current time (as of any updates) you still cannot compare a 400 watt 20,000K Metal Halide to any LED, including the TMC AquaBeam 600 Reef Blue for both output or depth penetration. However many modern LEDs can compare favorably with many common Metal Halides of 250 watts or under, especially for tanks under 24 inches.





> *The bottom line is while their proprietary 40 and 70 degree lenses and feature rich controllers may be useful, these do not make up for the basics of PUR necessary for marine life!! It’s a bell and whistle to district the buyer into (not knowing) what light is being shined in the tank and how much wattage they are using.*


----------



## MedRed (May 20, 2008)

jeffkrol said:


> Well we do agree that "all photons are not created equal"..
> 
> I'm not going to ague reef stuff.. not my interest really..
> Personally any well designed light ource can do what you want it to do.
> ...


It doesn't matter the fixture or even DIY, in the reefing world, many are coming to the conclusion that LEDs aren't there yet. There isn't a single LED Acropora coral tank I've seen that looks as good as an equitable MH or T5 tank. 

My goal is strictly to utilize the best light for growth, coloration, and aesthetics that are pleasing to my eye. I'm open to using LEDs, but my guard is up. Having just dipped my toes back in FW this week, I want to know what those with LED experience in high tech settings have to say. I'm more concerned with the negatives than the positives as I'm familiar with LEDs using less power, putting out less heat, requiring little to no further investment once bought, and offering a high degree of programming features you can't get on other forms of lighting.


----------



## fearsome (Feb 16, 2013)

Just looking at the metal halide spectrum I never really realized metal halide was so volatile in spectrum. I wonder if what you witness is actually increased color or more skewed color. For instance some people say neodymium coated lights have better color, well better may be true and subjective but it's less accurate as it tends to sort of filter out parts of the spectrum and make colors look more saturated in a narrower range. On the other hand the MH did have more dipping into the UV and higher into IR, but newer LEDs have 660 nm diodes to help with the red. UV LEDs I am not aware of many that are not very expensive.

The MH spectrum in parts such as around 545 nm seems to spike up. And that could create something similar to the effect you see where neodymium filters out green and yellow parts making color look more pronounced but less full.

That said I would love to have someone like you give your opinion on something like some of the buildmyled full spectrum fixtures in a planted tank.


----------



## MedRed (May 20, 2008)

What we are seeing with reefing is royal blue LEDs do an amazing job with corals that fluoresce. They have a certain pop that seems to be better than actinics have.

The worst issue with LEDs happens in tanks with large stony coral colonies. MH has some great reflectors and T5's do a great job and getting light around corals. LEDs are so point to point that major shading occurs and large colonies lose their polyps underneath. Example:



d2mini said:


> Here ya go.
> A before/after. The "before" pic was taken one or two weeks after the switch.
> You can see how the color is coming back underneath. I don't know if it has stopped yet or if it will continue.
> I also think the overall growth pattern has improved.


Even though I had a lot of ugly tanks here, I think I was generally regarded for having an eye for aesthetics (not everything was an ADA tank 9 years ago). My discerning eye sees 14,000K to 20,000K LED light as somewhat cold even with the full spectrum LEDs. It's really telling when looking at the 800 gallon half led, half MH tank my LFS is running. I don't know if I will be able to tell under 10,000K, but reef style lighting seems slightly off. 

The other issue is long term coral color. Corals don't look exactly the same under LEDs and a lot of Acroporas will lose distinguishing colors over time. Colors would be 80-90% correct, but I couldn't live with having corals not reach their full potential. 

I know we are way off topic, but a picture is worth a thousand words...


MedRed said:


> My tank 1 year after being on Sol Blues
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Bringing it back to the FW world. I want to make sure that LEDs are absolutely equitable to traditional forms of lighting


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

you make a valid point on some of the shading aspects inherent in focused LED's.. 
have some other issues but that is left more for Reef Central or other sites.

As to LEd's and planted tanks.. fortunately we have less of a problem w/ symbiosis.. 



> I want to make sure that LEDs are absolutely equitable to traditional forms of lighting


Absolutes never exist..

and again.. depending on the iterations.. Radions are sub-optimal LEd's compared to many others.. at least according to this author:



> What I have noted from my own research and that of my aquarium design & maintenance friends is that the EcoTech Radion is well marketed to the point that many if not most forums and poorly informed aquarium stores assume this is the best LED available when although good, it is NOT the best as per reasons and research cited here.
> Even EcoTech’s own customer service [according to a friend who forwarded me an email] will refer questions about their product to forums.


http://aquarium-digest.com/2010/06/30/led-light-review-tmc-xg-1500-maxspect-more/#radion

sol blues don't fair much better here:


> This said, I will note that based on others results and known facts about the emitters used in the AI Sol, this is still a good choice for reef tanks under 20 inches of depth (based on emitters used, the EcoTech Radion, and TMC AquaBeam Reef White, Marine Blue, and Reef Blue are better choices for reef tanks over 20 inches).


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

OK back to LED's and planted tanks.. 
Something to keep in mind when you are studying them.. Plant coloration has a high dependency on water parameters.. (and genetics, and light spectrum) so it is not a good parameter for growth though one that is important for aesthetics.

to find proof of this one only has to read that "show tanks" Nitrogen starve their plants prior to "showing".. pops the reds

UV stimulation, and the concurrent plant response to avoid tissue damage also enhances color..(I assume some of the same for corals) 

point is, in both the fw and sw world.. hurting your "things" can make them better for you.. 

But the bottom line in fw (to me) get your water parameters (ferts, CO2, pH, plant genetic choices up) first..Any good light will work.. then concentrate on the light..

Unless your planning 30" deep planted tank, your shading issues are much less..

Of course you will find the same back and forth HPS, T5, LED here as there..



> LEDs using less power, putting out less heat, requiring little to no further investment once bought, and offering a high degree of programming features you can't get on other forms of lighting.


Those are not merely side issues for many..


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

Need to throw this in as an example of what I was getting at above:
http://reefbuilders.com/2013/06/26/coral-color-indication-success-health/



> In fact, we should ask ourselves a broader question. Is our quest for more color misguided? May we reach a point where our quest for more color compromises the long-term health of these corals? There are additives available to kill and reduce zooxanthallae in corals to unmask more color pigmentation. ULNS (ultra low nutrient systems) are the latest hot thing because browned out corals are undesirable. Browned out? A coral with a wealth of brown is a coral with a lot of symbiotic zooxanthellae. When corals undergo stress, they brown out. That means they are loading up on the symbionts that feed them and give them the nutrients to recover and grow.
> 
> If anything should be an indicator of health, it should be growth. Anyone veteran hobbyist will tell you corals calcify faster under lower kelvin bulbs. An Iwasaki 6,500K metal halide grows corals faster than a Radium bulb of equivalent wattage. And let’s compare coral colors to growth. Some of the notable slow growing acropora are the blue hoeksemai, torts and purple monster. There seems to be a discrepancy between growth and color. A purple monster grows pretty fast under an Iwasaki, but its not going to be a deep purple.
> 
> Perhaps we lose growth, hardiness and stress tolerance when pushing towards excessive pigment expression and photo-inhibition. Again, this may not be wrong. The hobby places immense value on coral color. So it may just be a double edged sword. You should illuminate your tank the way you want. But don’t make the mistake of believing your goals and desires should be the “standard” that others should be compared against. It’s a lot more fun and engaging to discuss a diversity of metrics for success in reef aquariums.


Read more: http://reefbuilders.com/2013/06/26/coral-color-indication-success-health/#ixzz33OBRyBV1

also interesting:
http://reefbuilders.com/2013/04/22/bridging-revising-metal-halides-time-leds/



> While the different brands of LED certainly meet PAR requirements for that area with a single module or fixture, the nature of LEDs results in shadows from branching corals. As these corals grow larger, the shading starts to hinder or recede growth. I think the solutions is simple. As your tank gets larger, the distribution surface of the light fixture needs to get larger too.
> 
> I need to iterate, this isn’t the fixture’s fault, I’m blown away by LEDs but they do have some shortcomings. People need to recognize that sometimes more fixtures or modules are needed; NOT for PAR but better spread…


http://reefbuilders.com/2013/07/11/rough-draft-solving-led-woes/

contemplated doing my light in an "angular" fashion.. Changed my mind. May need to revisit it.. (side note)

Bottom line.. there i more of a distribution problem than a light quality one.. in general.


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

Just LED's only 6 months though:











> is a picture of a Reef Aquarium (88”x32”x24”) that includes Acropora corals lighted with ONLY VERY high PUR but lower wattage AquaRay NP 1500 & 2000 LED lights (this tank has been running with these lights for 6 months at the time of the picture).


----------



## MedRed (May 20, 2008)

obviously all that growth didn't happen in 6 months and it's easy to see the colors are photoshopped. I read reefbuilders almost daily. There are a lot of biased reviews there and there will always be 2 sides to any story. 

This thread was started in 2012 and is still going today. In fact, the LED defectors are picking up steam. Some of the nicest tanks on reef central switched over to LEDs and a year or two later came back to traditional lighting. 

This is what's happening in the real world even with full spectrum LED fixtures


mhucasey said:


> I started with two Canon 100W pendants, one Blue and one White, individually controllable though my Apex. They were missing green, red and UV, so I added two LEDtric 18W par 38 bulbs.
> 
> The color was pretty flat before adding the PAR 38 bulbs, and there was better reflective color after adding them. I initially went to T5s thinking that their biggest advantage would be just showing reflective colors better and eliminating shadowing.
> 
> ...


----------



## MedRed (May 20, 2008)

There weren't very many people using MH back then, and that was right on the cusp of LEDs taking over. I still would like to see or hear about any real life comparisons


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

MedRed said:


> There weren't very many people using MH back then, and that was right on the cusp of LEDs taking over. I still would like to see or hear about any real life comparisons


for planted freshwater tanks???

I probably should have stopped earlier.. sw not my thing.. and I'll leave it to "them" to decide. I do believe you.. btw.. BUT there is no "magic photons" in MH...that I'm pretty sure of. Whether it is spectrum, intensity or distribution is another story... 

Best to go over to the "Barr Report" for people that shift in fw.. most fw's aren't deep pockets kind (or choose not to sink a small boat sized wad of cash at this hobby)...... most

One thing I know, given enough light, fertilizer and attention one can grow anything..w/ any "type" of light practically..

Oh and I can probably safely say few really use MH (unless they use their leftovers from a reef tank)... too much heat, too much output and overkill in most cases.. Now LED vs t5 is another story..
i could be wrong..


----------



## roberto1 (Jan 29, 2011)

*Initial setup of MH for new planted 180g*

was interested to see just how much mh lights (175x3) would cost to operate given the comments about inefficiency. These lights are installed in a converted Hamilton lighting horizontal fixture along with two 48" T5 HO and some DIY moonlights......

The mh electronic ballasts from Vertex require 183 watts to operate x3=549 watts total. For the initial trials at a bit less than 10 hours per day we have 549 x 10 = approx 5500 watt-hours per day or 5.5 kwh per day. We pay about $0.10 per kwh to Duke Energy so that works out to about 5.5 x 0.1 = $0.55 a day or about fifty cents a day -- in a month it works out to say $15. Not sure what LEDs draw so cannot calculate the difference per month but since the basic mh hardware was already sitting around, the payback to go LED would be lengthy even considering the cost of bulb replacement every year or so.. plus I think the mh bulbs are neat to look at ... 

I hoping someone can give me some direction on some related concerns:

1. the tank is currently running at about 78 degrees and I am sure the mh will increase that to some degree. The bulb center-lines are about 24" above the water and the spaces beneath the hood are shrouded on all four sides to about 70% to keep the resident cats from fishing - I would like to find something that is cost effective to be able reduce the temp by about 4 degrees if necessary w/o spending $600 on a refrigeration system. Summer in Raleigh NC is approaching and I can see a problem already as the average house temp increases from the current average of 70 to an average of 80 during the hottest days. I have removed the glass tops and could install some fans to increase surface evaporative cooling but that will not get 4 degrees ... This question is prompted by the use of mh due to the heat radiated but is off topic so a referral to an other thread would be appreciated.

2. I have read that the mh lights need to be about as far above the water as the tank is deep - in this case 23" -- mine are setup this way but the hood mount is adjustable and they could be lowered - any experience with mh lighting height above the water surface? substrate? The intensity falls with the square of the distance and the water pretty much seems to double that as I measure it. Wondering if there will be enough left to get the job done for bottom dwelling plants needing medium to higher light levels.


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

roberto1 said:


> was interested to see just how much mh lights (175x3) would cost to operate given the comments about inefficiency. These lights are installed in a converted Hamilton lighting horizontal fixture along with two 48" T5 HO and some DIY moonlights......
> 
> The mh electronic ballasts from Vertex require 183 watts to operate x3=549 watts total. For the initial trials at a bit less than 10 hours per day we have 549 x 10 = approx 5500 watt-hours per day or 5.5 kwh per day. We pay about $0.10 per kwh to Duke Energy so that works out to about 5.5 x 0.1 = $0.55 a day or about fifty cents a day -- in a month it works out to say $15.


Just the cost of MH bulbs over the course of 6 years pays for a quality LED fixture that is. dimmable, tuneable, and programmable..and could, theoretically last a lot longer than 6 years..
AND assumes you don't pop a $100 plus ballast in 6 years.










Add in at least 2.5X more efficient.. and MH really don't compete except as a "type"...at least for FW and getting arguably the same for sw..

an even less optimistic curve for MH.









If you lose 2 or 3 ballasts over the course of 6 years the TCO of LED blows the MH out of the water..
One more for the road:









http://resodance.com/ali/LLD.html


----------



## roberto1 (Jan 29, 2011)

Thanks for the thorough reply - you have caused me to do some more looking and have discovered some write-ups regarding SHO self ballasted CFL types that are said to be successfully used in the land and water plant business and esp in Europe. They are marketed in the US by one firm that is easily located via Google. These lights appear to have many advantages esp wrt PAR/PUR light spectrum for fw as well as output, longevity, less heat, etc. They are also a fairly quick change-out from the current mh bulbs - just remove the ballasts and replace the mogul bases with E26, etc. Your thoughts on or experience with these bulbs?


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

roberto1 said:


> Thanks for the thorough reply - you have caused me to do some more looking and have discovered some write-ups regarding SHO self ballasted CFL types that are said to be successfully used in the land and water plant business and esp in Europe. They are marketed in the US by one firm that is easily located via Google. These lights appear to have many advantages esp wrt PAR/PUR light spectrum for fw as well as output, longevity, less heat, etc. They are also a fairly quick change-out from the current mh bulbs - just remove the ballasts and replace the mogul bases with E26, etc. Your thoughts on or experience with these bulbs?


On a freshwater plant basis..they compare quite favorably to any other lighting.
One problem w/ "look"though is based on phosphor content. this chart is really geared to your vision of the world, but you can see it is weak in red w/out a "specialty bulb"









http://www.thelia.org.uk/lighting-guides/lamp-guide/fluorescent-lamps/

efficiency wise and say lumens/watt.. most compare well to LED's

What differentiates them is 1)LED output per $ energy is bypassing any and all other normal lighting at this point but this is diode dependent and 2)ease of control and adjustment. 

In other words I have more against the "static" nature of most other types of lighting than the "quality".. though there can be plenty of argument there. 

Light is light and it is more a matter of degrees than a black and white choice....



> SHO are among the highest PAR fluorescent lights available and along with Next Generation T2 Sub Miniature Aquarium Lights & even more so LED Aquarium Lights are the future of aquarium lighting, especially for planted freshwater or marine reef aquariums.


http://www.americanaquariumproducts.com/powercompact.html

On a side note I've owned 3 of the "type" but they were "outdoor high efficiency flood" lights. all filed in a short time. almost all home CFL's failed in a short period of time.. 
NOT impressed w/ the engineering..for me theory and fact did not coincide... YMMV..


----------



## roberto1 (Jan 29, 2011)

Yo - thanks again - ve shall see vot happens. I have changed out the mh ballasts, etc and installed four 105 watt SHO cfl(s) mainly because I could do it relatively on the cheap. The bulbs are installed horizontally with a reflector for each with the centerline about 24" above the surface. 22" surface to substrate. With no additional ferts other than the excess nitrate and pressurized CO2 (ph 7.1/KH 5) I can see some level of pearling on the new watersprite and foxtail. Under the prior old 5.5k mh bulbs (probably long gone wrt color balance) the foxtail was tall and spindly except at the surface. Now it is just getting bushy and the light is the only thing changed. I will let you know what happens in a month or two by posting again to this thread. There will be a followup regarding life if I find a premature failure. The bulbs are said on the box to have an expected life of about 2 years at 10 hr/day

Ok so I checked out the link and it appears that the cfls are triphosphor and the color balance for that phosphor is shown on the lower CRI Wheel - except that the wheel shown is for 4k instead of 6.5k. Wonder what the polar pattern for one of the SHO bulbs is? Still deficient in red? Esp since that bulb seems to have such a good rep in the gardening biz and plants do appear to need that region of the band - more thoughts?


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

roberto1 said:


> Yo - thanks again - ve shall see vot happens.
> 
> Ok so I checked out the link and it appears that the cfls are triphosphor and the color balance for that phosphor is shown on the lower CRI Wheel - except that the wheel shown is for 4k instead of 6.5k. Wonder what the polar pattern for one of the SHO bulbs is? Still deficient in red? Esp since that bulb seems to have such a good rep in the gardening biz and plants do appear to need that region of the band - more thoughts?


almost all florescent's of "white" use the same 3 phosphors in various combinations. "Specialty" bulbs usually add other, apparently more costly phosphors to get a low red shift..
The better answer is it is more costly w/ the small lot produced, compared to say "warm white" anything..


also any "deficiency" can be made up using brute force approach.. low in red? Double bulb output.. 


















http://www.carnivorousplants.org/howto/SoilsWater/Lighting.php

Grow lux w/ "typical" RGB and added deep red phosphor..

I still miss my foxtail.. Grew great.. died out..


----------

