PUR and PAR with Leds

[Dana Riddle]

That is the most interesting graph yet.

So, the assumption from that graph is, to get an accurate representation of color visually, we would need to punch up everything surrounding the yellow/orange/red spectrums to be able to penetrate as efficiently or turn down those spectrums if we have them, no?

Maybe I am over simplifying it.

Or just use an Iwasaki daylight 6500K metal halide. The MH column is the one to the left.

 

[dantimdad]

Or just use an Iwasaki daylight 6500K metal halide. The MH column is the one to the left.

I see what you did there. Circling back to an old conversation...

I honestly am tempted....

 

[Dana Riddle]

I see what you did there. Circling back to an old conversation...

I honestly am tempted....

Yes, I am in an evil mood this morning. LOL.

 

[dantimdad]

Yes, I am in an evil mood this morning. LOL.

When you get to be our age, it happens a lot. ;Hilarious

 

[SPSteve]

Read your post with interest. While it is possible that xanthophylls (xantho means yellow) and carotenoids (named after the pigments extracted from a carrot, and are yellow or orange) might make a coral appear those colors, it is generally accepted that the colorful reflective and florescent colorations are due to the presence of specialized proteins.
While far-red/infrared light plays a role in terrestrial plant flowering, it is not at all clear (to me anyway) how this could be so in deeper waters. Here is a chart showing light quality at a depth of one meter (about 10 am on a beautiful morning and taken with an Ocean Optics fiber optic spectrometer at Kahaluu Beach Park, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii.)

You are correct re. pigmentation, though the presence of the specialized proteins is in itself often driven by photo-inhibition, either through reflection or emission via Stokes shift. As for the involvement of IR light in zooxanthallae, in waters below the penetration depth of these wavelengths, it won't play much of a role. However, sexually reproducing corals are not tied to the zooxanthalae from their parents (vertical transfer does happen, but my understanding is that it is the exception, not the norm). Horizontal transfer can occur from the parent coral, or from free-swimming (generous use of the term swimming) dinos. Bleached coral frequently revives it's resident zoox population in the later fashion. And plankton is not limited to a specific depth. I will see if I can find the article (I think the guy who wrote it was at Florida Gulf Coast) but the take away was dino reproduction is impacted via the same mechanism as terrestrial plants, and showed improved reproduction at surface layers in the Gulf, though it wasn't necessary. It was an interesting and counter-intuitive result, as zoox is typically pretty sparse over reefs. (A decent bit of this type of transfer also came from feces from coral-eating fish - nutty.) In any case, IMHO broad spectrum light is beneficial to coral pigmentation and health, especially the shallow water SPS that I like to keep. Unfortunately, I cannot cruise outside with meter in hand to check anything relevant; I'm at 6,000 ft above sea level. It sure sounds nice compared to the overcast, chilly day here.

 

[SPSteve]

Read your post with interest. While it is possible that xanthophylls (xantho means yellow) and carotenoids (named after the pigments extracted from a carrot, and are yellow or orange) might make a coral appear those colors, it is generally accepted that the colorful reflective and florescent colorations are due to the presence of specialized proteins.
While far-red/infrared light plays a role in terrestrial plant flowering, it is not at all clear (to me anyway) how this could be so in deeper waters. Here is a chart showing light quality at a depth of one meter (about 10 am on a beautiful morning and taken with an Ocean Optics fiber optic spectrometer at Kahaluu Beach Park, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii.)

I guess I should also add, I use LED lights that don't go above a 660 peak diode, and have never had any issues.

 

[dantimdad]

I guess I should also add, I use LED lights that don't go above a 660 peak diode, and have never had any issues.

I think this is the case with 95% of LED setups out there.

That is why I have been preaching for years we are trying to include spectrum that aren't really necessary, thus overcomplicating and overpricing LED implementation.

Just my .02

 

[Jay Norris]

Yes, very well said, jda.
Here:
https://orphek.com/atlantik-v4-reef-aquarium-led-lighting/

We are getting there. People who appreciate the look of LEDs, and specially those who wants to lit their tanks with only LEDs, should also learn more about the wide range of the spectrum/needs of the organisms we keep to offer the best they can.
As I've always said... UV and IR are what LEDs were lacking the most, besides diffusion/distribution.
Orphek's web site is teaching some.
Merry Christmas to all.
Cheers.

Hi , I also believe the Mitra LX 7206 , and the new Radion lights have the same full spectrum LED lights as the Orpheks.

 

[Jay Norris]

Why is Orphek above the others at the moment? I'm in the DIY camp has you already know but wondered.

Their not.

 

[bluewill]

Back to UVA and Orphek, I prompted the factory on sunday, here's the responce .

"Hi Steve,

We have no UV LEDs in the OR BAR lights that are 385nm. Very sorry we can’t help you here.

James G.
[email protected]
Sales Consultant
Orphek LED Lighting

------------------------------------
On Sun, Jan 20, 2019 at 8:52 PM Blue Willys <[email protected]> wrote:
Thanks for the quick response
Doing some light experimentation on a newer system
Looking to ad some true UV ( sub 400 NM ) to your OR series bar . I see that you may have some led options , looking for UV A wavelengths looking at 365nm ,or 395nm led options Maybe a mix with some of your 410 or 430
Thanks"

Dana , do you know which leds specifically are in the custom UV bar you recieved from Orphek . The answer from Orphek above, is a little confusing , and maybe I have to be more specific as to the <400nm led's that they may keep in house

also in looking at the " Waveform" UV strips ,
UV Output @ 395 nm: 0.9 Watts per foot (2.8 Watts per mete
UV Output @ 365 nm: 0.7 Watts per foot (2.1 Watts per meter)

not sure if output is enough ,

Im not a LED user , MH , and Fluorescent for 30 years. Presently looking to add various sub 400nm wavelengths on newer grow out tank,with 8 bulb t5 fixture .present t5 lineup from both ATI, or Giesemann doesent offer a solution for me . MH isnt an option for me now on this system so my thought's were to supplement with led bar, or strip , but obviously not that easy as what i see available are only single wavelengh solutions.
In another uv thread going on r2r, some horticulture t5 bulbs being discussed by Agromax specifically these 2



another question for Dana, you mentioned in the other thread that you thought these wavelengths on these t5 bulbs looked "Scary " can you state why ?
thanks
Steve

• 
  

also
Interesting UV LED mfg
https://www.ledwv.com/uv/uv-leds-c-19.html.

 

[oreo54]

The action spectrum shows that UVA does not cause immediate reaction, but rather UV begins to cause photokeratitis and skin redness (with Caucasians more sensitive) at wavelengths starting near the beginning of the UVB band at 315 nm, and rapidly increasing to 300 nm.....
In the past, UVA was considered not harmful or less harmful than UVB, but today it is known to contribute to skin cancer via indirect DNA damage (free radicals such as reactive oxygen species). UVA can generate highly reactive chemical intermediates, such as hydroxyl and oxygen radicals, which in turn can damage DNA. The DNA damage caused indirectly to skin by UVA consists mostly of single-strand breaks in DNA, while the damage caused by UVB includes direct formation of thymine dimers or other pyrimidine dimers and double-strand DNA breakage.[57] UVA is immunosuppressive for the entire body (accounting for a large part of the immunosuppressive effects of sunlight exposure), and is mutagenic for basal cell keratinocytes in skin.[58]

UVB photons can cause direct DNA damage. UVB radiation excites DNA molecules in skin cells, causing aberrant covalent bonds to form between adjacent pyrimidine bases, producing a dimer. Most UV-induced pyrimidine dimers in DNA are removed by the process known as nucleotide excision repair that employs about 30 different proteins.[53] Those pyrimidine dimers that escape this repair process can induce a form of programmed cell death (apoptosis) or can cause DNA replication errors leading to mutation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet

 

[bluewill]

presently my only intent is add a significant amount of UV-A (350-400nm) . Unfortunately i cannot see an easy option that doesn't also include some UV-B.im presently looking at all possible detrimental effects that the lower 280-350 wavelengths may have. there are many charts showing the penetration of of these wavelengths in fairly decent amounts within the zones that most of our corals are maricultured and harvested from. The wiki article above doesn't cover our Melanins ability to protect cells from this UV-B damage , i assume it is all dosage related.Also Their has been many conversations about coral pigments and other compounds that offer protection to the coral . I have not seen any info either positive or negative from substantiated studies or direct observation from reefers , as to whether elevating these sub 400nm wavelengths is a great idea or a horrible one. My only intent is to substantiate whether the addition of these missing wavelengths will have a direct effect on growth, and coloration.

 

[Dana Riddle]

I checked the spectral quality of the Orphek custom UV/violet strip light. The UV LED peaks at about 400nm, with half of the radiation trailing off to about 377nm. This LED strip has different LEDs than the Atlantik V4 (peaks at about 380nm.) I don't see any reason to add UV below about 350nm. Aside from health concerns with exposure to UV-B (and to a lesser degree UV-A.) Zooxanthellae have the ability to produce natural sunscreens (called mycosporine-like amino acids, or MAAs) which likely comes to some energy cost. I'd have to check my notes, but I think MAAs in zoox/corals offer protections at about 350nm and below. As for coloration, only two fluorescent proteins in my database of about 300 are excited by UV radiation below 350nm (Acropora aspera at 340nm and A. horrida at 345nm.) There is one at 358nm in Pocillopora damicornis. There are an additional 4 with excitation between 380 and 399nm - two of these are in anemones.

 

[oreo54]

presently my only intent is add a significant amount of UV-A (350-400nm) . Unfortunately i cannot see an easy option that doesn't also include some UV-B.im presently looking at all possible detrimental effects that the lower 280-350 wavelengths may have. there are many charts showing the penetration of of these wavelengths in fairly decent amounts within the zones that most of our corals are maricultured and harvested from. The wiki article above doesn't cover our Melanins ability to protect cells from this UV-B damage , i assume it is all dosage related.Also Their has been many conversations about coral pigments and other compounds that offer protection to the coral . I have not seen any info either positive or negative from substantiated studies or direct observation from reefers , as to whether elevating these sub 400nm wavelengths is a great idea or a horrible one. My only intent is to substantiate whether the addition of these missing wavelengths will have a direct effect on growth, and coloration.

This has nothing "really" to do w/ the conversation but to show how complicated a simple question can be..Obviously much can be ignored...
I had ..and lost.. a much more complicated flow chart of the various interactions in plants.. prob only minor-ly less complicated in corals..
Not intended as a discouragement..
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpls.2017.00278/full

 

[Dana Riddle]

This has nothing "really" to do w/ the conversation but to show how complicated a simple question can be..Obviously much can be ignored...
I had ..and lost.. a much more complicated flow chart of the various interactions in plants.. prob only minor-ly less complicated in corals..
Not intended as a discouragement..
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpls.2017.00278/full

I'm assuming this is for terrestrial plants since 'leaves' are mentioned. Not trying to discount the complexity of the issue, but *some* aquatic plant responses are opposite those of terrestrial plants. A good example is red is associated with shade on land, while it is associated with shallow exposed aquatic environments.

 

[oreo54]

I'm assuming this is for terrestrial plants since 'leaves' are mentioned. Not trying to discount the complexity of the issue, but *some* aquatic plant responses are opposite those of terrestrial plants. A good example is red is associated with shade on land, while it is associated with shallow exposed aquatic environments.

Yea, I know.. more like "shade" plants and "reverse red" responses.....
Point was each "system" has a set of complex related systems..
Like I said, has little to do but to point out pathway complexity..
Like w/ UV-b and blue light w/ "high" PAR is there chlorophyll degradation. Which chlorophyll...
Effects of proportion of UVa/b/blue/high/low PAR..

I mean one does need to break things down and then rebuild but the "sum of the parts" isn't always what is expected from examining the parts..
Doesn't mean one shouldn't try..

As an example "red".. alone or in conjunction w/ blue..and how much red..

Like w/ the poster I responded to:

presently my only intent is add a significant amount of UV-A (350-400nm)

coupled w/ high par, low par, full spectrum, just blues, which corals.. All can create differences in response..as shown w/ terrestrials..

 

[Dana Riddle]

Yea, I know.. more like "shade" plants and "reverse red" responses.....
Point was each "system" has a set of complex related systems..
Like I said, has little to do but to point out pathway complexity..
Like w/ UV-b and blue light w/ "high" PAR is there chlorophyll degradation. Which chlorophyll...
Effects of proportion of UVa/b/blue/high/low PAR..

I mean one does need to break things down and then rebuild but the "sum of the parts" isn't always what is expected from examining the parts..
Doesn't mean one shouldn't try..

As an example "red".. alone or in conjunction w/ blue..and how much red..

Like w/ the poster I responded to:

coupled w/ high par, low par, full spectrum, just blues, which corals.. All can create differences in response..as shown w/ terrestrials..

Again, not trying to discount your post. Responses to spectrum are indeed complex and often not well understood.

 

[dantimdad]

Also, I believe folks try and make things more complicated than they really are.

I think that people are reaching to find scientific data and, in doing so, find the wrong data many times.

I have been researching this for years and, more than once, in the early days, got off on a wild goose chase.

I think @Dana Riddle can appreciate and relate to what I am talking about having studied this as long as I have.

 

[arafas]

Back to UVA and Orphek, I prompted the factory on sunday, here's the responce .

"Hi Steve,

We have no UV LEDs in the OR BAR lights that are 385nm. Very sorry we can’t help you here.

James G.
[email protected]
Sales Consultant
Orphek LED Lighting

------------------------------------
On Sun, Jan 20, 2019 at 8:52 PM Blue Willys <[email protected]> wrote:
Thanks for the quick response
Doing some light experimentation on a newer system
Looking to ad some true UV ( sub 400 NM ) to your OR series bar . I see that you may have some led options , looking for UV A wavelengths looking at 365nm ,or 395nm led options Maybe a mix with some of your 410 or 430
Thanks"

Dana , do you know which leds specifically are in the custom UV bar you recieved from Orphek . The answer from Orphek above, is a little confusing , and maybe I have to be more specific as to the <400nm led's that they may keep in house

also in looking at the " Waveform" UV strips ,
UV Output @ 395 nm: 0.9 Watts per foot (2.8 Watts per mete
UV Output @ 365 nm: 0.7 Watts per foot (2.1 Watts per meter)

not sure if output is enough ,

Im not a LED user , MH , and Fluorescent for 30 years. Presently looking to add various sub 400nm wavelengths on newer grow out tank,with 8 bulb t5 fixture .present t5 lineup from both ATI, or Giesemann doesent offer a solution for me . MH isnt an option for me now on this system so my thought's were to supplement with led bar, or strip , but obviously not that easy as what i see available are only single wavelengh solutions.
In another uv thread going on r2r, some horticulture t5 bulbs being discussed by Agromax specifically these 2



another question for Dana, you mentioned in the other thread that you thought these wavelengths on these t5 bulbs looked "Scary " can you state why ?
thanks
Steve

also
Interesting UV LED mfg
https://www.ledwv.com/uv/uv-leds-c-19.html.

What about these lights: https://store.waveformlighting.com/collections/led-strips/products/real-uv-led-strip-lights

 

[arafas]

Again, not trying to discount your post. Responses to spectrum are indeed complex and often not well understood.

Hey Dana can you take a look at the link above that i posted what do you think about these light strips as uv supplement, that website even sells IR lights. Would they help corals in any way for supplementation. Thanks