how efficient are LEDs really?

[wld1783]

Dont have a Par Meter but my Lux Meter showed the same as 2 400 watt Radiums 1 250 watt 10K xm and 3 110 watt VHOs. My draw with the whole setup including fans based on KillaWatt meter is 5.8 amps. With the old VHO/MH pulled over 17 amps.

I'm sold

Bill

 

[mr.wilson]

The pink birds nest acro? in the top left looks like it's growing toward the light, but it's hard to tell in the picture. It also appears to have fewer branches than I'm used to seeing. Have you noticed any stretching or unique polyp formation?

It looks like the T5 lighting is at least 12" above the surface of the water. Have you tried lowering the Doozy?

 

[returnofsid]

I don`t understand why no one has set up a proper control tank- a six foot tank with LEDs on one end MH on the other. Same frags on both sides- dark no mans land in the center. People keep trying to act scientific about this subject- without science entering in to the equation.

This wouldn't even come close to being "scientific." To be controlled, all other variables also have to be controlled, to rule out effects of other issues, such as flow, fish, etc.

To do a scientific and controlled experiment, all variable would have to be identical, except lighting. To do this, you'd have to have 2 identical tanks, with identical equipment, identical flow patterns etc.

2X29 gallon tanks, with identical power heads, placed exactly the same. All other equipment would also need to be identical. NO fish, as even 2 fish of the same species may have different metabolisms, which would effect the amounts of nutrients in each tank. NO live rock, as the placement of live rock would alter flow patterns in each tank, differently. You would then need to also have frags of each coral, taken from the same mother colony. Frags would have to be placed in the same location, in each tank. To be totally controlled, frags would also have to be the exact same size and shape.

A much better solution, and one that has been done, is taking PAR readings from each light source.

 

[wld1783]

The pink birds nest acro? in the top left looks like it's growing toward the light, but it's hard to tell in the picture. It also appears to have fewer branches than I'm used to seeing. Have you noticed any stretching or unique polyp formation?

It looks like the T5 lighting is at least 12" above the surface of the water. Have you tried lowering the Doozy?

I tend to believe birdsnest growth patterns in more a matter of flow vs light. It is in a lower flow corner. Here is a close up. I started to use the TM Bio-Actif salt and did notice larger polyp extension after the change but other than that no changes from switching from MH to LED. Also got plenty of LUX no need to lower.

Bill

 

[frank40]

First off, thanks to all the members for the great info. I am a believer in technology and i think LED's will be a viable source of light. I am at a crossroads where my 6ft G-man 1520w fixture is making my energy utility a little to happy. My concern is spending over $3500 for AI modules to light my 7ft tank and that this may not be the best technology out there, out of all the manufactures out there i believe they are the most reputable. I do not see the costs dropping that much in the near future for these fixtures, so my question is how much better are the DIY vs. the AI modules?

 

[solos2]

I've been using a 110w LED fixture on my 24" nano-reef for over 2 months, here're some SPS growth (in approx. 1-1.5 month - please note the dates) you can see.

p.s. pardon my PoS DC... I just got DSLR so hopefully new growth photo next month will be better!

Jan 5th - This acropora Loisetteae is quite pale when I first got it

Feb 12th - almost 1cm growth, and it's tri-color now, teal, blue, purple

Jan 5th - this stylophora pistillata also looks pale when I first got it from LFS

Feb 12th - color intensified a lot, and noticeable growth

Dec 26th - this acropora millepora was one of the first two SPS I got after I started my tank.

Feb 12th - significant growth in 1.5 month, purple tips also intensified (I'll need a DSLR!)

 

[wld1783]

First off, thanks to all the members for the great info. I am a believer in technology and i think LED's will be a viable source of light. I am at a crossroads where my 6ft G-man 1520w fixture is making my energy utility a little to happy. My concern is spending over $3500 for AI modules to light my 7ft tank and that this may not be the best technology out there, out of all the manufactures out there i believe they are the most reputable. I do not see the costs dropping that much in the near future for these fixtures, so my question is how much better are the DIY vs. the AI modules?

There are a couple of companys out there doing good fixtures but they are pricy today...I hope their cost drops quickly like LCDs or computers.

IMHO DYI is the current cost effective way to go. I'm doing a 10 foot LPS tank for under 2K after 6 years the cost is free based on bulb replacement.

Bill

 

[der_wille_zur_macht]

Those PAR values are much more encouraging. To be fair, I don't put as much emphasis on a wide spread as most hobbyists do, so a narrow spread isn't a deal breaker.

Again, this is an area where LED gives you benefits not available from other lighting technologies, at least not using commonly available components. With an LED, you get very good control over spread. If you're using a low number of LEDs to illuminate a big fish-only tank and don't want "spotlighting", you'd use no optics. If you were using a high number of LEDs packed close together, and mounted in the ceiling, to illuminate an SPS reef, you'd use very tight optics. By switching optics, you get very good control over the balance between intensity directly under the LED and spread of the light. Most of the LEDs used in these fixtures have a viewing angle between 90 - 130 degrees, and optics are available with FHWM angles of 80 degrees down to 4 or 5 degrees, so there's a very wide spectrum of choices.

Now is there a way LED can evolve to look more like natural sunlight? or does one need to install small/supplemental 20-40 watt incandescent lights to get shimmer, shadows and a warmer look? Would these supplemental incandescent lights be drowned out by the LEDs? Is there a mechanical way with a fan blade circling under the LEDs (between the bulb & the water) that would cause a flickering/shimmering effect while cooling the fixture & the tank?

Color-wise, see my last post above. You can mix and match, then use different drive currents if you need to, to get the appearance of the color of sunlight if you want. As far as shimmer, shadow, etc:

As I understand it. LEDs do produce a shimmer.

This is true.

Thanks for the video, but I believe that overlapping bulbs cancel out the single point of light effect.

Believe what you want, but LEDs (designed correctly) can produce a VERY good shimmer/shadow/contrast effect. Again, one of the reasons I love them. Even with your "thousand point sources of light" analogy, you have to remember that the light leaving an LED fixture is still likely far more directional (i.e. less scattered) than many other sources of light, which helps it appear "crisp." I'm a fanatic about this type of appearance - I LOVE contrast, shadows, and shimmer in my tanks. I know LEDs can produce that, because I've built LED fixtures that do so myself. If they were "bad" in this regard, I wouldn't be using them.

I probably sound like a broken record here, but if you've seen an LED fixture that did not impress you in this manner, it's due to poor design (and/or different design criteria) in that fixture you witnessed, it's NOT inherently a result of the LED technology.

 

[der_wille_zur_macht]

my question is how much better are the DIY vs. the AI modules?

Depends on your criteria for "better." With AI or any other vendor, you get what they designed. With DIY, you get what you design. Different design criteria will result in different prices, intensities, power consumptions, colors, etc.

FWIW, the "high end" LED fixtures like AI typically have a cost of $20-30 per LED. A comparable DIY fixture will probably be $10 - $15 per LED. Plus many hours of your time, of course.

 

[frank40]

I guess the question i really wanted to ask is......are the aftermarket LED's more advanced than the Led's used in a module such as in AI?

 

[g8gxp]

the current AI modules use a combination of triples and xpg's which are one of Cree's latest offereings. Most DIY'ers aren't combining different setups like this, but there is nothing stopping you from ordering the latest and greatest lights.

So basically the answer to your question is no. The level of technology available is equivalent between DIY and commercial units. But the cost is 2x with commercial units. Though their final product is probably a little bit more refined than a DIY, obviously.

 

[frank40]

ok....thanks for the info. my biggest concern with a commercial fixture is it may be using older technology that what is currently available and not to mention my soldering skills suck big time.

 

[Mustang Boy]

I guess the question i really wanted to ask is......are the aftermarket LED's more advanced than the Led's used in a module such as in AI?

the answer is yes and no. some fixtures like the AI use up to date LEDs whereas some of the other fixtures use outdated lowerwattage LEDs so when you go to order make sure you are getting a good fixture that uses high watt LEDs

 

[salty joe]

the current AI modules use a combination of triples and xpg's which are one of Cree's latest offereings. Most DIY'ers aren't combining different setups like this, but there is nothing stopping you from ordering the latest and greatest lights.

.

When you say AI, is that here? http://www.advill.com/

 

[solos2]

No it meant "AquaIllumination"

 

[10001110101]

LEDs can be ultra efficient, or incredibly inefficient... generally the bigger and brighter the LED's are the less efficient.

But efficiency improves rapidly in this field. I'd say a quality set-up for a reasonable price should be SLIGHTLY more efficient than MH or T5. A very high dollar set-up could be 3-4x as efficient.

 

[renisel]

If you look through this thread and scroll down to the part where I calculated the PPFD/W for each of the lighting types at 18", I can't see where there's any question as to which lighting rechnology is more efficient.

 

[wld1783]

If you look through this thread and scroll down to the part where I calculated the PPFD/W for each of the lighting types at 18", I can't see where there's any question as to which lighting rechnology is more efficient.

+1

Also these were done with buck pucks which is a a tad dimmer than the LEDs driven with the Mean Well Driver.

One other thing these were with a tight lens. A wider lens would cover a bit more area with a lower reading but still LEDs rock as you can adjust the spread by choosing the best lens.

Bill

 

[der_wille_zur_macht]

Also these were done with buck pucks which is a a tad dimmer than the LEDs driven with the Mean Well Driver.

Don't mean to argue, but at the same drive current they'll be 100% exactly the same in terms of output. If you observed something otherwise, it might have been because of some other factor (i.e. different drive currents, dimming, or the buckpucks weren't being fed enough voltage).

 

[renisel]

Don't mean to argue, but at the same drive current they'll be 100% exactly the same in terms of output. If you observed something otherwise, it might have been because of some other factor (i.e. different drive currents, dimming, or the buckpucks weren't being fed enough voltage).

You're assuming that they're putting out what they say they're putting out. Two different drivers with the same specs won't necessarily perform exactly the same way in practice. I'd be curious to see the results of actually measuring the currents each delivers.