L.E.D. solaris review

Re: L.E.D. solaris review

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7947248#post7947248 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by chadfarmer
j/k here is the review
Click to expand...

I don't think he was serious that he actually bought it. ;)

btw, thanks for the review chad.
 
Re: Re: L.E.D. solaris review

Re: Re: L.E.D. solaris review

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7949348#post7949348 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Shooter7
I don't think he was serious that he actually bought it. ;)
Click to expand...

Oh.:o
 
I have made an excel cost comparison of my MH system vs this LED system. the excel file is located here http://webpages.charter.net/mjpelikan/LightComparison.xls

here is my break even chart:
comparison.JPG


I compared my 650w MH running for 13/15 hours a day to the comparable 300w LED system running at the same ratio of wattages.

If you have any questions about it let me know :)

Mike
 
For the long run and i mean if you are going to keep your system with the same lighting requirements for more then 5 years, yes.

If I wanted to get stupid deep into this comparison, I should have added rate hikes to the electricity (based on historic rate hikes), inflation, etc. Though I think it will just make the LED even more attractive.
 
6am 150w on
7am 2 * 250w on
8pm 2 * 250w off
9pm 150 off

everybody seems happy, my frilly mushrooms and yellow polyps have never been happier, acro has finally extended polyps.

Hmmm after checking the internet... I will gradually be changing my schedule to:
6am 150w on
7:30am 2 * 250w on
5:30pm 2 * 250w off
7pm 150 off

or some combination of 10/13... but I will lower the lights a bit.
that falls more in line time wise with the Caribbean

Thoughts?
 
Watch out for the extra heat on the water surface if you lower the lights.

I'm not a light expert so I can not comment what the proper timing is. Partly depends on the age of the bubls and depth of the tank too I guess.

We run our newer 250W MHs and 36W T5s for about 7 hours. We have all kinds of corals and anemones, all doing well. Our tank is in a window so it gets about 2 hours of sunlight through double pane windows later in the afternoon. The tank is shallow.
 
PC actinic on at 10:00 am
2x175MH on at noon
PC actinic off at 12:30 pm
PC actinic on at 9:30 pm
2x175 off at 10:00
PC actinic off at 10:30
 
I didn't like thier calculator, cause it didn't take into consideration different watt bulbs coming on at differnt times, but my excel sheet takes care of that. :)
 
Shouldn't you compare watts to watts? I don't buy their 40% efficiency. It has to be higher than than even with so-so reflectors.
 
Well going from the review (http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2006/8/review2)

When we compare the spectral qualities of the LED array and the metal halide lamp, we see that the Solaris produces more PUR. See Figure 10.
Click to expand...

The LED array is better in a direct comparison of usable lights (looks like an 86% vs 84% PUR)... of course that is their 75w LED vs a 250w MH, so we adjust that to compare to a 650w MH system, we would only need 195w LED system to compare (if it were linear I don't think it is) Which if we run the LED in a dimmed mode running at 195w my break even moves down to slightly over 4 years from a slightly over 5 year break even ($86/year vs $131/year cost of electricity for LED)

Solaris Intensity vs. that of a 250-watt 20,000K Metal Halide Lamp

PFO advertises the Solaris to produce as much PAR as a 250-watt 20,000K metal halide lamp. This is a difficult claim to verify - measuring and comparing the output of different light sources is, at best, a challenging proposition. Many variables come into play including type, age, production run and temperature of the light source, shielding material, lamp orientation, type of ballast, line voltage, lamp-to-sensor distance, type of reflector (including material, geometry, condition, etc.), type of sensor, effect of heat on the sensor and so on. I took time to control and maintain as many variables as possible, including lamp-distance-from-sensor, sensor temperature, etc. The XM 20,000K lamp was shielded for UV with an acrylic screen (the Solaris luminaire also has a ‘splash guard).

Since these LEDs channel a relatively high proportion of input energy to visible light production, how does their efficiency compare to metal halides? We are comparing a metal halide lamp (a point source) to an LED array (multi-point source), and in order to fairly evaluate light production we should examine the light intensity over a broad but standardized area. Without going into a lot of detail, we can simply compare lamp wattage to PAR production over a given area. Using the data shown in Figures 2 and 4, plus standardized surface area, the 75-watt Solaris produced 89.4% of the PAR generated by the 250-watt XM 20,000K lamp.
Click to expand...
I would definitely like to know what all the specs of her MH!
 
sorry for double post:
point of last post: You can't go a watt for watt compairson, cause the LEDs are more efficient. Hell that is why people go to floresent type bulbs, lumens per watt! or if i am reading correctly the more important factor of PUR!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

H
BRAVO FILTER REVIEW WITH VIDEO
Replies
0
Views
329
hydor_italy
H
C
Maxspect jump led issue
Replies
0
Views
1K
Cruzersmith
C
S
Nightmare worm ID
Replies
14
Views
1K
Uncle99
Uncle99
A
Choosing a Canister Filter for 55-gal Saltwater — OASE Biomaster Thermo 600 vs EHEIM Classic
Replies
2
Views
774
griss
griss
A
Choosing a Canister Filter for 55-gal Saltwater — OASE Biomaster Thermo 600 vs EHEIM Classic
Replies
4
Views
435
vlangel
vlangel
Back
Top