an open ended discussion in Full Spectrum LED concepts

[bluprntguy]

http://reefbuilders.com/2010/08/23/...d-photosynthetic-pigment-uses-infrared-light/

So has anyone experimented with Infrared LEDs? shall I be the guinea pig?

Infrared heaters do an awesome job of heating up people, so it seems like infrared LED's would just heat up the tank mostly.

As a starting point, you could use the infrared LED on your TV remote. Maybe just point your TV remote at the tank and click the volume button for a few minutes every day? (Joking BTW)

 

[rygh]

Infrared heaters do an awesome job of heating up people, so it seems like infrared LED's would just heat up the tank mostly.

As a starting point, you could use the infrared LED on your TV remote. Maybe just point your TV remote at the tank and click the volume button for a few minutes every day? (Joking BTW)

Yes, I fail to see the point of infrared leds either. Seems like very little would get through the water.
Interesting graph of water absorption here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Water_absorption_coefficient_large.gif
It really makes it obvious why coral like the deep blue side of the spectrum so much.

 

[aqua-nut]

Yes, I fail to see the point of infrared leds either. Seems like very little would get through the water.

Don't be so quick to discount the concept. In six months it might be the new trend in tank heating!
(Um, sure this is a joke! (unless someone actually makes a product!!))

 

[rygh]

A few notes/opinions on florescence and UV LEDs:

1) The source wavelength has little impact on the output.
Other than it must higher energy of course.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kasha%27s_rule
So really, RB versus UV is little different as far as fluorescence.

2) The Royal Blue gets though water, acrylic, and glass better than UV.
In some cases, such as tempered glass, WAY better.
That means your UV is getting very attenuated by the time it hits the coral.

3) The UV LEDs are generally less efficient and cost more.
Manufacturing thing. But it means as far as far as cost/florescence,
the UV is a loser.

So : Is UV a bad idea?? Well, there is one key thing:

4) We cannot see UV very well.
If we add a ton of extra RB to make colors "pop", it makes the tank
really start to look blue. Some may like that, some may not.
On the other hand, a lot of UV will make colors "pop" the same, but really
have almost no effect on the look.

Then there is the separate discussion on UV and PAR.

 

[rygh]

Don't be so quick to discount the concept. In six months it might be the new trend in tank heating!
(Um, sure this is a joke! (unless someone actually makes a product!!))

Hm .... might really sell.
INSTEAD of heating the water, you heat the fish and coral directly with infrared.
Saves tons of money in heating cost.
And you can shadow part of the tank, and have part tropical, part cool water.
Genius!!

 

[HiFidelity]

Glad I found something funny, I thought it could be.

would I try it? yes, I'd try most things at least once (in moderation). Though after reading everyone's comments I begin to wonder, if IR LEDs are used in a fuge environment per say, and since water is so good at absorbing IR which in real life is very obvious with halides since most or all the heat you feel off them is IR or near IR (I could be wrong) so would this be a more efficient means of heating the water as opposed to the traditional filament heaters we use?

Shooting fish in a bucket guys, wasn't too serious with the first recommendation anyway.

 

[aqua-nut]

so would this be a more efficient means of heating the water as opposed to the traditional filament heaters we use?

I don't think so. The submersible heaters are real efficient. Their heat goes only into the water. Any light would have possible reflective loss. That's really a guess. I'm making a big assumption IR can be reflected from the surface.

 

[HiFidelity]

haha yeah shooting fish in a bucket for sure then