• You are viewing the forum as a Guest, please login (you can use your Facebook, Twitter, Google or Microsoft account to login) or register using this link: Log in or Sign Up

So LED's don't work??

Thanks, sanj.

Not sure why they've not succeeded with the TMC tiles. They have good PAR and grow plants very well indeed when used appropriately.

Colour rendition is an interesting topic.

I am used to T5 fluorescents that really saturate the colours (I usually use a combination of Hagen Life-Glo, JBL 9000K and Arcadia Pro Plant).

LEDs in comparison lack the vibrancy of some fluorescents, but I actually think the colour rendition when combined with the glitter lines and shadows of the LED look more natural.
 
I do love the shimmer and shadows you get with point source lighting. Miles ahead of flouescants on that point.

The thing im interested in is has anyone got carpeting plants growing well in a deep tank under LED, eg 45cm+ ? (i know it works great nanos and small tanks) anyone got any examples they can post?
 
stuworrall said:
The thing im interested in is has anyone got carpeting plants growing well in a deep tank under LED, eg 45cm+ ? (i know it works great nanos and small tanks) anyone got any examples they can post?
Click to expand...
Hi Stu,

That would be good to see.

Jeremy Gay (PFK Editor) grew glosso nicely in an 80cm, but it was 30cm deep.

5376421026_f60cbfbdf9_z.jpg


I may try 3x TMC tiles over my 120x45x45cm soon (if I don't get sent away with the Libya conflict).

Cheaper that 2x ADA Solar 1 units, and much much cheaper to run. Also, halides have a wider spread and more glare, so this usually results in needing the clean the aquarium glass more often, as well as potentially dazzling any room occupants!
 
I had a glosso carpet growing well in my old tank that was 40cm tall using just two tmc aqua-rays. I'm now growing some high light carpeting plants in my new setup at around 20" deep. It's early days but I know there putting down roots quickly!
 
stuworrall said:
I do love the shimmer and shadows you get with point source lighting. Miles ahead of flouescants on that point.

The thing im interested in is has anyone got carpeting plants growing well in a deep tank under LED, eg 45cm+ ? (i know it works great nanos and small tanks) anyone got any examples they can post?
Click to expand...

Hi Stu
Forgive poor quality - photography and 'scaping not my strong points - but couple of pics of gloss under 1000ND's in my 4x2x2:

onemn.jpg


six.jpg


twozb.jpg


Water depth at substrate is about 47cm...
 
Its a shame, i've lost a lot of respect for them after this review....Why write something off so completely when the results of many 'serious' plant growers have had expectational results...
 
Perhaps of some interest, those of you have spent hours searching on the net about LEDs over the last few years will have already seen this: Controlled Tests with Plants and The Aquatic Life Implications; http://www.americanaquariumproducts.com/Aquarium_Lighting.html#par

Personally though I would want more information on the experiment. Yet still a bit of interest in the debate... or perhaps there is no debate :p :lol:
 
OK, so instead of bashing The Green Machine on the Lighting sub-forum which they are not allowed to respond to, perhaps it would have been better to post this question on the TGM sub-Forum. I can grow plants with a Tesco 100 watt incandescent light bulb, or even a Sainsbury 14 watt Energy Saver bulb, but I wouldn't suggest using either of these bulbs generally.

Perhaps there are reasons other than PAR why TGM do not like the current state of LED technology. Perhaps it is a quality/value issue. Perhaps there are ergonomic issues. Perhaps there are pricing issues. Perhaps people have completely misinterpreted the statements and have narrowly focused on the least relevant of their reasons.

It is suggested therefore that we withhold judgement until TGM are able to clarify the specifics of their position. If we don't like their clarification then perhaps then the bashing can proceed...

Cheers,
 
I actually sent them a pm in the hopes that tgm would come and shed light on their view (pardon the pun) maybe lift the clause and allow them to respond to this thread. Because I for one would like to hear their views.

An article like this by such a well known member of the planted community needs to speak up because it could cause people to shy away from a cheap and effective long term solution to aquarium lighting. This I think is why people are "Bashing" because a majority view on ukaps.org, a leader in planted tanks and techniques, seems to be the opposite of what tgm say. And an open debate on the subject (under the lighting section as this is where people will look and nit the tgm subsection) will benefit all comers from experienced keepers to new people looking for new lighting.

I think that's all I wanted to say.
 
Thanks mate.

John, Sponsors are not allowed to post outside of their own sub-forum, period. We will follow the protocol and will see what happens. Additionally, everyone is allowed an opinion, including sponsors and other vendors. It is our responsibility to interpret the posted opinions assuming that those opinions have been articulated properly. TGM has never stated that LED does not grow plants. They merely implied that they do not prefer LED technology and therefore have decided against selling it until, in their opinion, the technology is improved to their satisfaction.

When LED first hit the scene I was aghast at the prices for the commercial units. It would never occur to me to spend that kind of money for light bulbs, just as it would never occur to me to spend 30 quid for a name brand fluorescent bulb when I can buy one for a relative pittance at Lapmspecs. Name brand bulbs, for example, do not look 10X better in my opinion than cheap bulbs, nor do they last 10X longer, therefore I could see no reason they are priced 10X more. Yet, people buy these bulbs all the time.

It's entirely possible that TGM have a similar feeling towards LED, which may have nothing to do with LED ability to grow plants. Or, they may actually have growth performance data. It's not clear, but as I said, lets give them the chance to respond to a thread posted in their sub-forum so that we do not create the impression that "TGM suck because they don't sell LED", OK?

Cheers,
 
Its Chris btw :D and don't worry I get called John alot...
 
Oh golly, sorry mate. That's what happens when we assume...
foxfish said:
However it is a strange system that this forum operates on!
The sponsors are not permitted to post outside their allotted threads - I guesse there is some logic revolving around this situation?
Click to expand...
Yes mate, there are extremely good reasons for this, which I'm not prepared to re-hash right now. You'll have to trust me on this one.

Cheers,
 
Johno2090 said:
And an open debate on the subject (under the lighting section as this is where people will look and nit the tgm subsection) will benefit all comers from experienced keepers to new people looking for new lighting.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more. Here's a very positive (and detailed) American review of LEDs in the context of different lighting options. Scroll about half way down for the detailed LED section. The upshot is that "a high PAR/PUR LED from the most exclusive/best emitter bins can only need 4% of the wattage as a household T12 to produce the same results [or] ... about 17% for better aquarium T8 or T12 lamps" and that "It is still easy to make assumptions from the raw data based on this study with plants that a 12 Watt LED can at least replace a 100 watt MH of equal Kelvin ratings"

Here's the test result comparing Metal Halide and LEDs:

ledmhcomparison2.jpg


Sounds like good news to me. The helpful American chap says that when "the outdated 'watts per gallon rule' for planted/reef aquariums (@ 4 watts per gallon) is applied to a TMC GroBeam (as an example)" that for "a high light planted freshwater aquarium .6 to maybe .8 watts per gallon are required."

Translating this into British English :silent:, means that 0.16 - 0.21 LED W are needed per litre.

So my 72L tank (for example) requires 11.5W to 15.2W. So I'm pretty much ok with just the one 12W Grobeam, but could push it to 2 for a serious light overload... :clap:
 
They are most likely right. I was blowing 2x 12W TMC stripes to 78L tank and got issues... so that equals to 200W MH. Now I run first at 50% and second and 40% and placed them higher than before.
 
Radik said:
They are most likely right. I was blowing 2x 12W TMC stripes to 78L tank and got issues... so that equals to 200W MH. Now I run first at 50% and second and 40% and placed them higher than before.
Click to expand...

Right. Well I won't invest in another Grobeam then... saving up for a Canon EOS 550D instead :wideyed:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top