l ed lights

[n2585722]

Hey guys I thougt I would chime in about your watt discussion. The wattage rating is the amount of electrical energy used by the device. It is only indirectly related to the heat produced as part of that electrical energy is in the form of light. If the device puts out more light at the same energy it has to put out less heat. It is the same amount of energy kind of like a pie. The difference is the amout of energy that used as light or the amount used as heat. Sorry if I stepped on anyones toes, but this related to my profession. I am very intrested in what you user sof this new to aquarium lighting think of it. I am getting ready to get back in the the hobby. I am about a yaer or more form setting up my tank again. Thanks in advance to the people brave enough to spend the money on a new system in the hope it is a step in the direction we all want to go, better and more efficeint lighting for our systerms.

thanks,

Danny
Electronics technician by trade.

 

[BeanAnimal]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13216544#post13216544 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by n2585722
Hey guys I thougt I would chime in about your watt discussion. The wattage rating is the amount of electrical energy used by the device. It is only indirectly related to the heat produced as part of that electrical energy is in the form of light. If the device puts out more light at the same energy it has to put out less heat.

No... ENERGY=HEAT. When LIGHT strikes an object it is either reflected or absorbed. It ALL eventually turns to HEAT. This point (fact) has been illustrated over and over in this and a dozen threads just like this. If you pump 100W into a room it turns into 100W of heat. A 100W fan and a 100W lightbulb BOTH impart the same HEAT into a room.

It is the same amount of energy kind of like a pie. The difference is the amout of energy that used as light or the amount used as heat.

It ALL becomes HEAT in the ROOM (minus the very little bit of energy that escapes through a window or via the hum of a ballast that is heard outside the room).

 

[rickb]

The light photons used in photosynthesis do not turn into heat, the energy is converted into sugars.

 

[BeanAnimal]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13218278#post13218278 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by rickb
The light photons used in photosynthesis do not turn into heat, the energy is converted into sugars.

Of course... photosynthesis that creates sugars that turn to HEAT when they decay or through the energy they provide to create movement of the living matter they makeup. It is all ENERGY and therefore it is all HEAT.

The point is not relevant to this discussion. Very little of the overall energy is converted by photosynthesis, so little that it is outside of the scope of this discussion. The same holds true for the amount that leaves the room directly via a sliver of light under the door or a hum of a ballast heard outside the room, or a magnetic flux line that passes through the rooms wall.

For our purposes, a Watt of power that passes through an electrical device in a ROOM heats the room the same, no matter what the device is. For that matter many radio transmitters will leave a LARGE portion of the consumed energy in the room, in the form of HEAT. (Though many modern broadcast transmitters can be over 90% efficient in their final gain stages).

Enjoy....

 

[rickb]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13218370#post13218370 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by BeanAnimal
Of course... photosynthesis that creates sugars that turn to HEAT when they decay or through the energy they provide to create movement of the living matter they makeup.

When those sugars are used they dont all actually turn into heat, but the energy is stored in chemical bonds and other higher entropy structures.

Your statement if LIGHT=HEAT is correct but a bit simplistic. There can be a lot that happens in between which is relevant, especially with regard photosynthesis.

 

[BeanAnimal]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13218591#post13218591 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by rickb
When those sugars are used they dont all actually turn into heat, but the energy is stored in chemical bonds and other higher entropy structures.

Of course... but when those bonds are broken... ENERGY=HEAT.

Your statement if LIGHT=HEAT is correct but a bit simplistic.

Yes, it is simplistic so is E=M... But it is the basis for everything in the universe.

There can be a lot that happens in between which is relevant, especially with regard photosynthesis.

Not in the context of this discussion. For our purposes a Watt of Electricity pumped into the room is dissapated as a Watt worth of HEAT in the room. I have made this (and the small losses that we can ignore) very clear in this and in many other threads.

So if you want to nit-pik the energy level of every photon and where it ends up... this is the wrong thread. If you want to infer that I have said any differently, then I would ask you to re-read what I have said here and in a dozen other threads since the time I started posting here at RC.

So let me say it again:
For our purposes, a Watt of power that passes through an electrical device in a ROOM heats the room the same, no matter what the device is... Unless of course we are talking about devices that radiate large amounts of energy at very low or very high frequency with respect to IR - Visible - UV spectra. We don't use those devices in a home and they are therefore out of the scope of my statement and this conversation. You will not find where I have said anything to the contrary.

 

[rickb]

When you put in a coral frag in your tank and pull out a large colony later, this represents energy that has not been converted to heat. So all 'ENERGY=HEAT in the ROOM' is not exactly correct, which you concede. You consider this amount to be insignificant to your discussion but I think its an important point. I may be a minority opinion but this is the same as being wrong.

This I thought this discussion was about "LED lights", which which have a more specific spectrum for photosyntheis and also direct all their light (photons) directly into the tank below rather than all round the bulb ( wasting energy by 'heating' the reflector etc..). So I would disagree on the device not mattering.

I'm not nit-picking, this is just part of the forward looking discussion of what LED lights could bring to the table.

 

[ghcpa9]

I'm gonna grab some popcorn, I'l brb.

 

[BeanAnimal]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13219290#post13219290 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by rickb

Rick why nitpik this to death?

When you put in a coral frag in your tank and pull out a large colony later, this represents energy that has not been converted to heat.

Yes, we have already established that fact (dozens of times), please do not infer that it is something that I do not understand when it is something that I have clearly pointed out on my own (over and over again).


The energy contained in the colony is VERY VERY VERY SMALL compared to the overall sum of the energy (light) that is pumped in. Much of the CORALS MASS is derived from the elements IN the water column. Mass = Energy. Shall we head down that route also? It has very little to do with the CONTEXT of THIS conversation. How much of that MASS is derived FROM the chemical bonds created by the photon energy and how much is derived from MASS already in the water column (the stuff that is being bonded)? How much of THAT energy is USED (given up as HEAT) during the process? Do we need to get out our scratch pads and make this more complicated than it needs to be? It sure looks that way Shall we put a lump of coral in a calorimeter and burn it up to see?

So all 'ENERGY=HEAT in the ROOM' is not exactly correct, which you concede.

Yes, I have made that VERY clear here and in MANY other threads. I have qualified that general statement (HEAT=ENERGY with regard to the ROOM, not the UNIVERSE) dozens of times here and in other threads.

You consider this amount to be insignificant to your discussion but I think its an important point. I may be a minority opinion but this is the same as being wrong.

You only think it is important because you decided to nitpik an irrelevant amount of energy within the context of this thread and my comments. I have clearly stated that there are SOME losses that do not turn directly to heat in the room but they are so small that they are not readily measurable or relevant within the significance of THIS or SIMILAR discussions. You appear to have commented before you were aware that I had clearly stated that dozens of times. Instead of saying "ohh I see what you are saying" you have decided to blaze ahead and somehow prove me wrong (which you are not going to be able to do, because I have not made any error in my statements).

Thes EXACT exchange has taken place at least 2 dozen times. Mostly becuase people do not either understand the physics, or do not take time to READ the entire discussion and comment in CONTEXT to the discussion.

This I thought this discussion was about "LED lights", which which have a more specific spectrum for photosynthesis and also direct all their light (photons) directly into the tank below rather than all round the bulb ( wasting energy by 'heating' the reflector etc..). So I would disagree on the device not mattering.

Again Rick, with regard to the ROOM, it ALL (minus the insignificant differences in spectral output that leads to slightly different coral growth and what leaks out the window or under the door) ends up as HEAT in the room.

The difference in growth rates between a LIGHT and a FAN are not even worth talking about in this context. Does one type of light grow coral better than another? Sure. Is there enough stored energy difference to make a difference in the real world heating of the room... not a chance.

I'm not nit-picking, this is just part of the forward looking discussion of what LED lights could bring to the table.

What they WILL NOT bring is a lower level of overall HEAT in the room. Period

 

[rickb]

The coral mass come from the water column, but the energy required to create bonds and re-organize those elements into the coral are driven by photsynthesis (some corals more than others, from 100% to 0%).

It may be small but this is the desired effect of the energy you put into your tank...assisting coral growth....not heating it up.



1) I'm not sure what you mean about the growth rate between a fan and a light? My point was that the photon from the metal halide that is shot up (rather than down) to heat up the reflector is essentially a missed attempt at sending a photon to photosynthesis, a condition that is reduced in LED.

2) Another case is a photon from the MH which arrives to chloroplast at the wrong wavelength and cannot be used in photosynthesis. This is also reduced by LED.

If you light is more 'efficient' towards the goal of making sure the photons are emitted are 1) correctly directed into the tank 2) of the correct wavelength...the result is that you can have the same effect by using less energy....aka LESS HEAT

Some earlier posters definitely said that they were experiencing less heat with their LED lights, are you saying that your LED lights are exactly as hot as any other light?

You dont need to put any coral in a calorimiter, just put your finger on your MH reflector, the heat is the result of photons that were sent in the opposite direction (actually 50% of them) of your tank, the reflector bounces some back but as you know most turn to HEAT.

 

[BeanAnimal]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13219591#post13219591 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by rickb
The coral mass come from the water column, but the energy required to create bonds and re-organize those elements into the coral are driven by photsynthesis (some corals more than others, from 100% to 0%).

Once AGAIN... this has already been firmly accounted for in my comments AND the context of this discussion. Why keep bringing it up like there is a lack of understanding?

It may be small but this is the desired effect of the energy you put into your tank...assisting coral growth....not heating it up.

And the wings of a butterfly flapping in China effect the tidal currents at the white cliffs of Dover...

Why nitpick something so small in CONTEXT to THIS conversation.

1) I'm not sure what you mean about the growth rate between a fan and a light?

The FAN would produce ZERO chemical conversion. The LIGHT would produce chemical conversion of ENERGY. Regardless, BOTH will impart (roughly) the same amount of HEAT into the room. I.E. the energy used for chemical conversion (photosynthesis in this case) is irrelevant in the CONTEXT of the HEAT in the ROOM. Only a very small portion of the usable light is converted. Why do we have to keep making this point?

My point was that the photon from the metal halide that is shot up (rather than down) to heat up the reflector is essentially a missed attempt at sending a photon to photosynthesis, a condition that is reduced in LED.

That has nothing at all to do with the conversation OR the pretense under which you entered it. It does not matter WHERE the photons go. MOST end up as HEAT in the ROOM. Nitpicking the difference in growth rates between different types of lights and their radiation patterns is a valid topic but NOT in CONTEXT with MY comments regarding the HEAT in the ROOM and the CONTEXT that they were made in. Again, this has been VERY CLEARLY pointed out dozens of times.

2) Another case is a photon from the MH which arrives to chloroplast.... [SNIP]

If you light is more 'efficient' towards the goal of making sure the photons are emitted are 1) correctly directed into the tank 2) of the correct wavelength...the result is that you can have the same effect by using less energy....aka LESS HEAT

NOT WITHIN ANY SENSIBLE RELEVANCE TO THE OVERALL HEAT IN THE ROOM!

Is 1 peanut missing from a unit train FULL of peanuts perceptible or relevant? You are nitpicking photons and that is just silly in the CONTEXT of MY comments and THIS conversation with regard to HEAT in the ROOM.

This is getting more than silly and sadly it is the nth time for the EXACT conversation.

Some earlier posters definitely said that they were experiencing less heat with their LED lights, are you saying that your LED lights are exactly as hot as any other light?

EXACTLY.. give or take a few photons that escape or are converted differently. So lets be VERY CLEAR... within the range of HUMAN perception, they are the same. If you want to count quarks... then no.

You dont need to put any coral in a calorimiter, just put your finger on your MH reflector,

You missed the ENTIRE point there my friend.

The calorimeter would show how MUCH of the ENERGY was STORED in the coral... the rest was already given up as HEAT in the room.

the heat is the result of photons that were sent in the opposite direction (actually 50% of them) of your tank, the reflector bounces some back but as you know most turn to HEAT.

We are going in circles here, but each time you end up a bit further from your original post. Who cares? The LED directs more photons directly into the tank (after MANY of them heat the back of the LED die and are whisked away via conduction). The difference between the light sources with regard to HEAT IN THE ROOM is not within the significance of my comments or this conversation. Once again WE ARE NOT counting every last photon... we are talking about real world measurable or perceptible heat.

One more time It DOES NOT MATTER IT IS ALL HEAT IN THE ROOM ANYWAY. Your trying to highlight differences that are FAR too small to be counted. The MH and LED differ greatly in they way they transfer ENERGY, but MOST of that ENERGY ends up as HEAT in the ROOM no matter what path it takes.


With all due respect Rick, would it not have been easier to just admit that you did not read my comments in context and therefore you commented without really taking the time to understand what I said in the first place? I do not wish to continue bickering about an insignificant number of photons and where they end up. They don't matter to the HEAT discussion one iota.

If you wish to talk about the growth differences, heat transfer to the water or any OTHER aspect of this topic, then please go right ahead, but lets leave this behind, as it is a beat horse (here and in MANY other similar threads).

 

[rickb]

You seem pretty focused on the idea that all energy becomes heat in the room.....the point is to make strides in the direction of using less energy.

Again...I'm not nitpicking, I'm just stating that nurturing photosynthesis is the goal of having any light over a flourishing tank.

I'm not arguing that a fan drives drives chemical conversion....thats kind of crazy...the point is not having to use one means you needs less total energy and end up with..as you know... less heat.


You said:
"The difference between the light sources with regard to HEAT IN THE ROOM is not within the significance of my comments or this conversation."

Sorry, i would disagree....if you can generate the same effect...or higher percentage of effective photons from one light source vs another, then you can operate it with less energy...and subsequently resulting in less heat.


I'm not veering from my original, point, I'm talking about LED lights, what are you talking about? Your statements seem to be about dismissing the effect f photosynthesis (which surprises me) and the conversion of light to heat, which I agree with but there are finer points, these points give rise to the effectiveness of LED over MH. However I'm sure we all agree that LED still are not as mature as we'd like.



Thanks
Rick

 

[BeanAnimal]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13219897#post13219897 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by rickb
You seem pretty focused on the idea that all energy becomes heat in the room.....the point is to make strides in the direction of using less energy.

Because it DOES within our CONTEXT. There is simply no sensible difference between the different types of lights and the overall HEAT they impart to the room. To that end (in the same context) there is no difference between a 100W light and a 100W fan (with regard to overall sensible, measurable, perceptible, HEAT in the room)

I am focused on not having my comments taken out of context, especially when somebody is trying to show them to be in error (in good spirit or not). I am (honestly) pleased that you (unlike many others) can respond in a direct, but kind manner.

Again...I'm not nitpicking, I'm just stating that nurturing photosynthesis is the goal of having any light over a flourishing tank.

I think you are nitpicking, partly because you have not taken a moment to understand my point (as made previous to your entry into this thread). Lets be honest here, you tried to point out the flaw in my comments and have since had to change your direction because my comments were not flawed

I do understand the point you are trying to make. At the same time, I am telling you that it is tangent to my comments previous to your posts. The subsuquent conversation (from my end) is based on my points and comments and yours from a misunderstanding of my points and/or context.

I'm not arguing that a fan drives drives chemical conversion....thats kind of crazy

Rick, again with all due respect... Please try to read the remarks in context. You clearly missed what I was trying to say (maybe I was not clear enough in my illustration). I did not infer that YOU made that argument. I was pointing out that FOR OUR PURPOSES WITH REGARD TO HEAT IN THE ROOM there is no difference between a FAN and a LIGHT. I was making the point by juxtaposing the fact that the LIGHT does grow coral and the fan DOES NOT. The point was that the ENERGY contained in the lump of coral grown BY the light has very LITTLE Energy stored in it compared to the TOTAL amount of ENERGY that was emitted through the LIGHT during the growth of the coral. The fact that you did not see the point (even after the second delivery) is somewhat telling of the state of this conversation... We are not both on the same page

...the point is not having to use one means you needs less total energy and end up with..as you know... less heat.

No that is not the point That is a tangent topic and has nothing to do with my comments or the context in which they were made. It is a very valid topic and one that certainly has relevance to the MH vs LED vs Etc discussion. But again, with all due respect, there is a problem of context here. My comments were made in the context of 100W of 'A' vs 100W of 'B'

Yes Rick, I think we all agree (and it as ALSO been pointed out dozens of times) that the if a light was more efficient at producing a desired spectrum, then LESS overall energy would have to be converted to derive THE SAME amount of light.

In other words: Using less Watts to get the same amount of desired LIGHT means LESS HEAT in the room. Or LESS WATTS = LESS HEAT. Nobody has said anything to the contrary. Again (am I starting to sound like a broken record?), that was NOT the point being made.

You said:
"The difference between the light sources with regard to HEAT IN THE ROOM is not within the significance of my comments or this conversation."

Yes, that is exactly what I said. You are still lacking context We were talking about THE SAME WATTAGE being used. SO 100W of LED vs 100W of MH vs 100W of FAN vs 100W of resistive Heat.

So one more time (I know... I said that already): They are ALL the same with regard to HEAT imparted to the room for OUR purposes.

I'm talking about LED lights, what are you talking about?

If you would take the time to read my comments previous to your entrance into this thread (and my comments in other such threads), you would know exactly what I am talking about and likely not disagree Sometimes when you skip comments, you end up losing the context of subsquent comments.

Your statements seem to be about dismissing the effect f photosynthesis (which surprises me) and the conversion of light to heat,

It can be easily dismissed with regard to the overall HEAT imparted to the room, even when we compare a LIGHT to a HEATER, let alone one LIGHT vs another LIGHT.

which I agree with but there are finer points,

No, not within the CONTEXT of this discussion

The finer points do certainly make a difference with regard to the overall pros and cons of each type of light with regard to the AMOUNT needed and growth provided by each per watt consumed.

these points give rise to the effectiveness of LED over MH. However I'm sure we all agree that LED still are not as mature as we'd like.

As pointed out, that is tangent to the point that was being made but certainly a valid topic.

Have a nice evening... and thanks for the kind exchanges... Time for a beer, a bowl of icecream and some sleep.

 

[n2585722]

Did anybody ever answer the orignal post on this. If I got this right rossi was asking about replacing 5 6ft VHO bulps with an LED system. 6ft VHO bulbs are 160 watts that would be 800 watts without adding in the consumption of the ballast. The AI fixture for 72" at 90W per foot according to AI. I have heard 88 watts form test, but we will use AI's figures. That would be 540 watts. Thats 260 watts less and thats if you run them full out. I hope this helps rossi. Bean hasen;t convinced me on the E=Heat thing, but assuming that is right it would produce less heat. So if the light outpus is enogh for your purpose then it would generate less heat.

Bean if e=heat then explain why when I use an air tool does this tool get so cold I have to put it down. It is using energy by the way. Oh, by the way the compressor is not in the room just like the electrical generator that powers the lights.

To the people out there that have these system let us know how they are working for you. I would like to hear the good and the bad. Since I don't have one I cannot comment on weather it has reduced you electric biil or not. Is the light enough for your corals. I know this will tke some time to know for sure, Please stay in touch. Like I said earlier I am about a year or more before setting my tank bqck up. I think I will wait o the lighting till I am alot closer to setting up the tank.

Sorry it takes me so long to respond, but compressed shift work at night puts me out of sync with the rest of you. Thanks for the discussion.

thanks,
Danny

 

[GSMguy]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13219290#post13219290 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by rickb
When you put in a coral frag in your tank and pull out a large colony later, this represents energy that has not been converted to heat. So all 'ENERGY=HEAT in the ROOM' is not exactly correct, which you concede. You consider this amount to be insignificant to your discussion but I think its an important point. I may be a minority opinion but this is the same as being wrong.

This I thought this discussion was about "LED lights", which which have a more specific spectrum for photosyntheis and also direct all their light (photons) directly into the tank below rather than all round the bulb ( wasting energy by 'heating' the reflector etc..). So I would disagree on the device not mattering.

I'm not nit-picking, this is just part of the forward looking discussion of what LED lights could bring to the table.

corals grow so slowly you could never quantify the energy stored within, its a mute point.


the Magical LED does not have a more specific spectrum for photosynthesis thats malarky, and now that we use computer designed reflectors like the lumenmax and the lumenbright there is no worry about the bulb shape actually the large size lends itself to efficient reflection. i dont know if you have ever seen an LED but they have reflectors as well just lil tiny ones they still lose heat to their reflectors and heat sink.

corals need spread out light, not lazer beam like penetration. Your logic is confusing me.

 

[BeanAnimal]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13222743#post13222743 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by n2585722
Bean hasen;t convinced me on the E=Heat thing,

It is basic physics... the MOST basic physics. You may not be convinced, but that does not mean that it is not true.

but assuming that is right it would produce less heat. So if the light outpus is enogh for your purpose then it would generate less heat.

Yes, LESS WATTS = LESS HEAT. If the lower wattage light provides suitable growth, then it also means less heat to deal with.

Bean if e=heat then explain why when I use an air tool does this tool get so cold I have to put it down.

Put the air tool and the compressor in an insulated box... The box will rise in temperature according to the ENERGY put into the box that drives the compressor. You can not talk about the air tool without talking about the compressed air that runs it (unless you are willing to take at face value the ENERGY=HEAT at any part of the system)... The same as we can talk about the ENERGY in the water that drives the turbine that drives the generator... In any case, you want to talk about the COLD impact wrench...

There is no magic... lets get you started on the right path to understanding

Lets take a window A/C as an easier example. It pulls 1000W from the wall for 1 hour. So it uses 1kWh of energy. During the time it runs it removes about 7 times that amount of energy from the room but how? The A/C unit is MOVING heat (from inside the room to the outside environment). If you took the A/C unit out of the window and set it on the floor (closing the window), the room would gain the same amount of heat as a resistive heater that consumed 1kWh worth or powereven though the A/C would be blowing out cold air out one end. Now think hard about how your air tool operates and where the energy (HEAT) goes. You can MOVE energy, but can not create or destroy it.

How does the A/C MOVE HEAT (energy) and where does it MOVE it to?
How does the air tool MOVE HEAT (energy) and where does it MOVE it to?

It is using energy by the way. Oh, by the way the compressor is not in the room just like the electrical generator that powers the lights.

Here is a clue, HEAT (ENERGY) always travels from HOT to COLD. If the gun is getting cold then it is giving up its HEAT to something... that something is the AIR that passes through it. Care to guess what happens when all of that AIR is collected at atmoshpheric pressure and the temperature measured?
Lets elaborate a but. You put ENERGY into the impact wrench. That ENERGY turns tool but also creates a pressure differential that MOVES HEAT (ENERGY). So when the motion (friction), sound (vibration) and heat passed to the AIR are all added up, guess what! You end up with HEAT = to the ENERGY put into the tool. Nice neat and tidy...

 

[rickb]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13220239#post13220239 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by BeanAnimal
Because it DOES within our CONTEXT. There is simply no sensible difference between the different types of lights and the overall HEAT they impart to the room. To that end (in the same context) there is no difference between a 100W light and a 100W fan (with regard to overall sensible, measurable, perceptible, HEAT in the room)

I am focused on not having my comments taken out of context, especially when somebody is trying to show them to be in error (in good spirit or not). I am (honestly) pleased that you (unlike many others) can respond in a direct, but kind manner.

I think you are nitpicking, partly because you have not taken a moment to understand my point (as made previous to your entry into this thread). Lets be honest here, you tried to point out the flaw in my comments and have since had to change your direction because my comments were not flawed

I do understand the point you are trying to make. At the same time, I am telling you that it is tangent to my comments previous to your posts. The subsuquent conversation (from my end) is based on my points and comments and yours from a misunderstanding of my points and/or context.

Rick, again with all due respect... Please try to read the remarks in context. You clearly missed what I was trying to say (maybe I was not clear enough in my illustration). I did not infer that YOU made that argument. I was pointing out that FOR OUR PURPOSES WITH REGARD TO HEAT IN THE ROOM there is no difference between a FAN and a LIGHT. I was making the point by juxtaposing the fact that the LIGHT does grow coral and the fan DOES NOT. The point was that the ENERGY contained in the lump of coral grown BY the light has very LITTLE Energy stored in it compared to the TOTAL amount of ENERGY that was emitted through the LIGHT during the growth of the coral. The fact that you did not see the point (even after the second delivery) is somewhat telling of the state of this conversation... We are not both on the same page

No that is not the point That is a tangent topic and has nothing to do with my comments or the context in which they were made. It is a very valid topic and one that certainly has relevance to the MH vs LED vs Etc discussion. But again, with all due respect, there is a problem of context here. My comments were made in the context of 100W of 'A' vs 100W of 'B'

Yes Rick, I think we all agree (and it as ALSO been pointed out dozens of times) that the if a light was more efficient at producing a desired spectrum, then LESS overall energy would have to be converted to derive THE SAME amount of light.

In other words: Using less Watts to get the same amount of desired LIGHT means LESS HEAT in the room. Or LESS WATTS = LESS HEAT. Nobody has said anything to the contrary. Again (am I starting to sound like a broken record?), that was NOT the point being made.

Yes, that is exactly what I said. You are still lacking context We were talking about THE SAME WATTAGE being used. SO 100W of LED vs 100W of MH vs 100W of FAN vs 100W of resistive Heat.

So one more time (I know... I said that already): They are ALL the same with regard to HEAT imparted to the room for OUR purposes.

If you would take the time to read my comments previous to your entrance into this thread (and my comments in other such threads), you would know exactly what I am talking about and likely not disagree Sometimes when you skip comments, you end up losing the context of subsquent comments.

It can be easily dismissed with regard to the overall HEAT imparted to the room, even when we compare a LIGHT to a HEATER, let alone one LIGHT vs another LIGHT.

No, not within the CONTEXT of this discussion

The finer points do certainly make a difference with regard to the overall pros and cons of each type of light with regard to the AMOUNT needed and growth provided by each per watt consumed.

As pointed out, that is tangent to the point that was being made but certainly a valid topic.

Have a nice evening... and thanks for the kind exchanges... Time for a beer, a bowl of icecream and some sleep.

Bean,

I had to go to bed last night, I agree that in the end yes......100W will MOSTLY end up as heat regardless of the source (FAN, LED, MH, Iron, etc). But how many photons from a MH light go straight to heat and how many from a LED end up above the tank? However since photosynthesis is the goal of the effort I would not discount it. Yes , this is the source of my nitpicking, it is also where we would disagree.

I think some were thrown off by your comments that energy=heat comments which is true (at an very basic level) and they dont understand why an LED might generate less heat/energy resulting in the same effect which I was seeking to elaborate. I do think this is within the context of the discussion.

Thanks
Rick

 

[rickb]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13223131#post13223131 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by GSMguy
corals grow so slowly you could never quantify the energy stored within, its a mute point.


the Magical LED does not have a more specific spectrum for photosynthesis thats malarky, and now that we use computer designed reflectors like the lumenmax and the lumenbright there is no worry about the bulb shape actually the large size lends itself to efficient reflection. i dont know if you have ever seen an LED but they have reflectors as well just lil tiny ones they still lose heat to their reflectors and heat sink.

corals need spread out light, not lazer beam like penetration. Your logic is confusing me.

Actually you can quantify the energy using a calorimeter as bean mentioned. Also if you know the energy per bond you can measure the mass of the coral 'created' and calculate the energy to bond the coral elements. This energy is also the reason we are even here talking so I dont think its a mute point.

Actually LED has a spectrum that is not 'magical' but is more accurate to the needs of photosynthesis. This is actually well documented, google 'LED' and 'Dana Riddle'. You can probably find this in every other LED discussion, however not this one.

The heat of the reflector represents wasted energy, so does the heat off an LED ballast... but it is much less. The shape of the reflector certainly may make a difference but it still gets hot...this is energy wasted plain and simple.

Yes corals need spread light because you cannt aim it at every chloroplast, but certainly aiming light at the ceiling and the walls is not that useful.

Sorry if this is confusing, I am happy to clarify.

 

[BeanAnimal]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13228484#post13228484 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by rickb
Bean,

But how many photons from a MH light go straight to heat and how many from a LED end up above the tank?

You already know my answer with regard to the ROOM. It does not matter

However since photosynthesis is the goal of the effort I would not discount it. Yes , this is the source of my nitpicking, it is also where we would disagree.

We don't likely disagree. It is just a matter of the context of the importance. With regard to the HEAT in the ROOM, it is nitpicking. With regard to a discussion about energy radiated to (and usable by) the tank, then that is a perfectly valid discussion where we can certainly talk about the differences in the devices

I think some were thrown off by your comments that energy=heat comments which is true (at an very basic level) and they dont understand why an LED might generate less heat/energy resulting in the same effect which I was seeking to elaborate.

Those "thrown off" either did not read the comments or do not understand the physics. The former is bothersome, the latter understandable and part of the reason for having the conversations in the first place

I do think this is within the context of the discussion.

Thanks
Rick

Yes I certainly do agree that talking about the spectral differences and the differences in radiated and convected/conducted energy are important. Give it another year or so and the differences will be WELL worth a good side-by-side with regard to overall ENERGY needed to produce acceptable growth.

 

[rickb]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13228484#post13228484 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by rickb
Bean,

I had to go to bed last night, I agree that in the end yes......100W will MOSTLY end up as heat regardless of the source (FAN, LED, MH, Iron, etc). But how many photons from a MH light go straight to heat and how many from a LED end up above the tank? However since photosynthesis is the goal of the effort I would not discount it. Yes , this is the source of my nitpicking, it is also where we would disagree.

I think some were thrown off by your comments that energy=heat comments which is true (at an very basic level, but moreso because it discounts photsynthesis...even if the energy in question is minor with respect to the total displaced) and they dont understand why an LED might generate less heat/energy resulting in the same effect which I was seeking to elaborate. I do think this is within the context of the discussion.

Thanks
Rick