gen 4 product literature confusing at best

[mattgumaer]

First off, let me say, I own a bunch of radions (5). Their main shortcoming, in my experience, has been the fact that they can be very 'spotlightly' so the idea of 'HEI optics' is intriguing. I'm sure there are many existing radion owners that are trying to determine whether an upgrade to gen 4s make sense. Unfortunately, I find the Ecotech 'Radion G4 Product Information' literature to be very unhelpful in figuring that out.

First, let me say I have added wide angle lenses to three of my radions over my main tank to improve the 'spotlightly' effect of the radions. So, I was looking for product literature that would compare the brightness and dispersion of previous Radion Pros with wide angle lenses as relative to the new HEI optics.

My observations of the product literature are as follows:

1) On page 4 of the literature, there are three par dispersion charts. The first thing that I noticed was that the par charts for the XR15w G4 Pro (one 'puck') and the XR30w G4 (two 'pucks') appear identical in both shape and intensity. It is hard to believe that they both provide identical lighting. The second thing that is immediately apparent is that the charts contain no par values, meaning that the give some information regarding spread but not intensity. Given that the spread information appears inaccurate, with the XR15 and XR30 non-pro being identical, while the XR30 pro has a different shape, the charts end up being of very limited value.

2) On page 6, there are two figures purporting to show the shape of the light distribution from the HEI optics versus the TIR lenses. I'm assuming the TIR figure is for the standard and non-wide angle lenses so, if you have the wide angles, this information is not terribly helpful. Further, again Ecotech shows the spread of 'Optimal PAR' without providing information regarding the par value. The optimum par value can be highly dependent on the corals you are trying to keep. Finally, in the figure on the right, the widely dispersed light in the figure just seems to stop about 9 inches down. I'm not really sure what this is supposed to mean.

3) On page 7, we have more spread pictures for 'Reflector G1', TIR/Wide Angle TIR G3 Pro' and 'HEI Optics G4 Pro'. Again, notably absent from the diagrams is any indication of par values. Equally problematic is the fact that Ecotech has lumped together the TIR and Wide Angle TIR in the same chart (which by the way, appears inconsistent with the charts on Ecotech's own website for the TIR and wide angle lenses). Surely, the standard TIR and wide angle lenses do not have the same light spread.

I have a hard time coming away from this product literature thinking anything other than Ecotech decided to put some nice colorful charts and graphs together to show the superiority of their new product without a lot of 'scientific rigor' in putting together the information, some of which appears inaccurate, inconsistent and/or uninformative.

Believe it or not, I'm a fan of Ecotech, their products and their customer service (which has always been great). I appreciate the need to keep promotional material concise but, I do think the limited information provided should be both accurate and informative. In this case, I think the 'scientific' looking data fails on both counts. In particular, the fact that the one puck XR15w and two puck XR30 show identical light spread and intensity on page 4 and the fact that the TIR and wide-angle TIR show the same spread on page 7 makes me question the accuracy of the information provided.

I would really like to know how the intensity and spread of the G4s with the new HEI lenses compares to older G2 and G3 pros with wide angle lenses. Unfortunately, despite the number of graphs and charts in the literature, the answer does not appear to be present in Ecotech's current product literature. To the extent I'm missing something (which is always possible and sometime likely), I apologize.

Matt

 

[Mr. Brooks]

I'm interested as well, I tried out the wide angle lenses and I was very dissapointed in the loss of par directly below the fixture, with very little increase in par further out. I ended up switching back to the standard lenses.

 

[emedock]

I was actually holding off upgrading my kessils to see if ecotech would release he gen 4s. I was excited to see that my patients had paid off. Then I began looking at the information sheet to find not much information. I think I'll keep waiting a little longer. What's a couple more months.

 

[mattgumaer]

I think the safest course is to wait and see. Ultimately, these new lights are still 'puck style' point source lighting.

Clearly, from its first TIR lenses, Ecotech recognized that it had an issue with the evenness of its light distribution/spread. Wide angle lenses were introduced to mitigate this issue and now the HEI lenses. Based on the information released by Ecotech with respect to its new lights, I don't think it is possible to say how much more effective the HEI lenses are at resolving this issue than the previous effort, the wide angle lenses (my guess is that the HEI lenses give at least marginally more 'controlled' spread than the wide angle lenses, potentially eliminated some wasted spillage and further evening out par spread). It is also unclear 'at what cost' this additional diffusion comes with respect to par intensity (from my experience, I wouldn't say that the Radion's ability to generate sufficient par is generally in doubt although it sounds like Mr. Brooks may have a different experience/perspective). However, it would be nice to give potential buyers that information. Maybe there is some reluctance because of past efforts by manufacturers to tout how much par their fixtures could generate as a surrogate for their lighting potential/prowess. Advertising a 'new fixture' less capable of generating mind blowing par under the fixture may be perceived as a marketing risk.

I also think there is an inherent shortcoming in lighting sps from a single general direction (a single line of pucks running down the middle of a tank). The deeper a tank is from front to back, the more that problem is aggravated. Softies and LPS can mitigate that issue to some extent, I think, because, as they and their polyps sway and move on their own, they are varying the angles at which the light hits their 'flesh'. However, regardless of lens type, it seems to me that you're asking for trouble running a single row of pucks down the middle of a relatively deep (front to back) sps tank. If you're going to run an sps tank with a single line of puck style lights down the middle, I think you probably need to plan to supplement that lighting with something like t5s at the front and back of the tank. Alternatively, you could turn Radion XR30s so they're running perpendicular to the front of the tank, essentially creating two rows of pucks in the tank. Finally, you could run two rows of radions in the tank. This, however, can get rather expensive.

All of the above are just my opinions based on my limited experience. I am definitely interested in hearing what others, including Ecotech, think about this and my earlier post.

For my part, I run three of the original XR30 pros lengthwise down the middle of a standard 180. To mitigate against the 'hot spots' and the directional nature of puck style lighting, I added wide angle lenses and recently added single 5 foot t5 retrofit tubes at the front and back of the tank (and turned down my radions to some extent). I'm also setting up a 60 gallon cube with two gen 3 pros (undecided but likely to convert to wide angle lenses) not because I feel like you need the power of two XR30s for a 60 gallon cube but because I think it may address both 'hot spot' and 'directional lighting' issues.

Matt

 

[billwill]

Great post! I'm in the middle of wanting to transition from (2) Kessil A360WEs and (4) T5s in a hood to hanging fixtures with no hood. Getting a deal on the G3 Radions and changing to the wide angle TIR lenses seems like a good option, but there's nothing out there comparing this with the G4. I too have been confused as heck how a two or four puck wide light can show a round PAR map! ***? Look at AI Hydra 52. I need to do something soon because I retrofitted metal halides back on and the temp is way too hot without a chiller!

 

[wings516]

I have asked Ecotech questions directly about the Gen4 which one would think is vital information to just get an answer that holds no weight.

I myself have been a "victim" of the SPS shadowing on the Gen3's. I think some people are combating this with a multi-puck approach and angling on mounting; not bad, but as mentioned it gets expensive. If I had some real numbers to work with I could sort out the merit of maybe supplementing with some xr15's at an angle. It is a requirement to have a PAR meter with these things as well.

I don't think we are asking for much when we ask for specs of a near $1,000 fixture. Every commercial lighting source I know of has (2) primary things as part of the sales service.
1. Fully detailed specs on the fixture.
2. A lighting designer to spec out exactly what you need for your space.

Ecotech has thus far provided neither of the two now (4) generations into their product. I'm looking at upwards of 12 Gen4 pros and if the best answer I get is "Do a 36x36 per fixture", I'm guessing they probably don't know what their product does either. Sounds pretty inflammatory, but I would really love to buy their product. Simply not going to spend $10k on lighting that operates on hopes and dreams.