That’s nice! This should be powerful! I’m curious how they distributed the LEDs on the ramp.

LOL good guess We are expecting high hundreds to low $1,000 for each modular unit that is 300mm in length

Graphs are all wrong IMO. Not saying that the peaks aren’t in the right places, but everything is too smooth and blended from one peak wavelength to the next. Makes it look like the LEDs have a wider emission spectrum than they really do.

Either way, should be an interesting fixture once its out in public.

It seems to me that almost all companies are smoothing out their graphs. This is common place IME.

Yep I think the spectra are all right. They compared pretty well with experimentally measured spectra.

This is the kind of features I was expecting from Giesemann, but the tezla is not so fancy.

Yellow adds a more natural sunrise effect and green allows for any RGB combination to be created. Not all LED’s in the lamp will be for coral growth as a natural look as nature intended is also taken into account. Of course you can turn any channel off you wish if it is something you dont feel the need of. 

ok, I thought it was just me. I couldn’t figure out how they are getting such a smooth graph for the the sub 500nm range. I expected more peaks/gaps than what is shown. If companies are starting to do this type of “false advertising” I think it is our responsibility to point that out to as many people as possible until this behavior stops. It is the same as photoshopping corals, they are giving people false hope on the true color. 

They are all doing it. Look at Ecotech’s Radion graph, it is way too smooth for an LED graph. Look at AI’s graph as well. They smooth them out quite a bit.

T5 and halide manufactures have done this for years as well.

But graphs aren’t necessarily science. They are just a general idea. I haven’t had the fortune to look at a bulb with a spectrometer (sp?) but there are quite a few people I know that have and said the reading they get, looks different than what the manufactures put out.

Moving away from the UV debate and onto the requirement for 420nm a google search brings up masses upon masses of research in regards to the requirement of 420nm in coral growth, too many articles to link to here but just type in 420nm coral growth.

Off now to educate myself on the subject

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL Google gives answers, but not always the right answer. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet#Subtypes

UV is 10-399 nm Visible light is 400-700 nm

*Also, I can take a pic from my old physics book of the Electromagnetic Spectrum graphic/table and send it to you.

**Still not convinced?!! I’ll have my buddy who is a Physics Graduate Student or even his Graduate Professor (my old professor for undergrad) say the same thing. I can do that for you. 

The only thing I can think of why reefer’s associate UV spectrum (sub 400 nm) and Violet 420 nm is that it’s so close to UV that bulb companies produce spectral peaks of 420 nm with “spill over” into the sub 400 range.

Hence, the MARKETING of “UV-420″. It kills a lot of birds with one stone. You get small amounts of UV, good for green florescent proteins and other fluorescent protein compounds, with a nice spike at 420 nm which most reefers deem favorable for symbiotic zooxanthelle algae. 

You can’t argue that.

I never found true evidence of the benefits of ~420 nm light over ~450 nm for either color or growth. LEDs at 450 nm seems to be much more efficient in terms of Lumen/W, so even if the absorption cross section of the chlorophylle is a bit higher at 420, what goods does it do if you have 1/3rd of the light. As for colors, you could see more fluorescence for the same reason as you see more fluorescence when the white are turned off: your eye is less sensible the further you lower the wavelength and it lets you appreciate the fluorescence. I would appreciate a strong experimental study of that debate. I’m still pretty sure it doesn’t hurt to have a more complete spectrum. 

Here is a good chart for you to consider.

http://i679.photobucket.com/albums/vv157/rtparty/spectrum-corals.jpg

The Violaxanthin created at the 425nm area is used to help control photosynthesis and without enough the coral can have photoinhibition set in much quicker.

You need get off the whole lumens/watt thing. It isn’t all that great of a tool. PAR is a good measurement to go off and PUR is even better. PUR is problematic though because it varies between tanks and even individual corals.

That is what I have found in my research. I have been pushing LED companies for years to include more than just the old white:blue combo that is so ugly. I asked EcoTech to explain why didn’t they include any and they wouldn’t answer me. AI doesn’t include this option either.

On issue was that 400-420nm LEDs were expensive and did not hold up well so companies avoided them. I am happy to see more and more companies offer a MUCH better selection LEDs as they become available.

Thanks Ryan and patrick this is good info as I said i am not expert and have a lot of learning to do myself which of course helps us understand clients needs and requirements better.

Ryan – yes you are quite right and GHL are adding as much a spread of LED’s within the realms of current capabilities and as patrick points out 420nm of course was one of the biggest requested value talked about in our hobby so it is natural for GHL to answer that call.

Instead of hyper-UV, Hyper-Violet seems a better term to call it. The term 420nm-UV comes from the diode manufacturers more than anything rather than the lamp manufacturer anyway, but as you factually point out, although not completely in the UV spectrum it does offer the corals a nice useful spike into the UV range, and I think that is far more important info than what name you give the diode.

So calling it 420nm-UV is not strictly incorrect however better marketed on the useful reasons of this peak rather than just UV alone, its just in marketing very difficult to get your mouth around “420nm with useful peak into the UV range” Its easier just to call the LED 420nm-UV which is the term all the 420nm diode makers use anyway.

For me this has provided great marketing insight and knowledge, and I will do my best when the lamp is launched to highlight the reasons and uses for each colour.

I appreciate your feedback.

Hi,

just a comment to 2 of the discussed points:

“graph looks too smooth”
no – this is the output of our lamp
you are right that LEDs have usually a narrow band of color emission, but the white LEDs (with their “remote phosphor”) flatten the graph; and I agree – most spectrum graphs I have seen in the past look really as they had been smoothed, but again: these graphs we showed here are no fake, this is the reality.

Second, the never ending debate about UV… the LED we are using has its dominant wavelength at 420 nm. Many companies, even LED manufacturers, and labs call this “UV”. I like “hyperviolet” more for the 400 nm … 430 nm.