l ed lights

[rickb]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13042927#post13042927 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by BeanAnimal
If you care to remove that foot from your mouth for a moment...

200W of LEDS DO produce EXACTLY as much heat as a 200W flat iron. That is one of the first things taught in physics. The first law of thermodynamics! It is WHY we can label different devices with the UNIT we call a Watt and make meaningful comparisons about them by looking at the ENERGY they use. ENERGY=HEAT. Energy can to be created or destroyed, it can only be transferred or stored. Neither your LED or FLAT IRON store ENERGY. They only transform it. 200W in = 200W out. Nothing in your room STORES energy with any significance. The LEDs and FLAT IRON both conduct the same amount of heat into the room. The flat iron does so mostly by convection and conduction. The LED by radiation and convection.

Furthermore, there have been a very large number of people who have had problems with the SOLARIS units. There was a long standing quality control issue that involved everything from shipping damage from china, bad boards, bad drivers, bad packaging, etc. A simple search of these and other forums will prove that. Many of the original and second generation Solaris units had to be replaced by Solaris. A simple search will also confirm this. From my understanding the AI units have been much better.

Lastly, one DOES NOT have to own something to be able to make educated comments about its function, design, pros/cons or the science that makes it tick, to even suggest so is more than a little short sighted.

Are you totally sure about that? Heat from incandescent bulbs is generated from the resistance of the filament, this is why fluorescent tubes are cool to the touch. I'll agree that LED do generate some heat but they generate less.

There are a few reasons why a tank in THEORY gets more light/watt from an LED.

1) While it does generate heat, it does generate less. This excess heat would mean more energy used but is not the case in LED's. I'm open to more info on this, but my understanding is that the way a LED works is completely different than a filament, furthermore various manipulations in the structure and the compounds housing the junction of an LED allow for more efficiency.

2) Spotlight effect. Look at any FTS and you can see an entire room is lit up by a metal halide, and the reflector gets hot as well. LED have more spotlight/directed light. Again the light spillage and the heat of trying to bounce light off the reflector (again , the heat generated bouncing off the reflector an indicator of efficiency). Becasue you dont have so many errant photons in LED as most are directed into the tank below....again you have greater efficiency.


I'm sorry but you are painting with a wide brush, energy!=heat. I think what you meant was that the conversion of stored energy to mechanical power generates heat. This is why we dont have perpetual motion. Different mechanisms can convert stored energy into useful energy, but they all do not have the same efficiency factor which is what you are implying. And in this case energy -> filament light does not equal energy -> LED light.

 

[BeanAnimal]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13043837#post13043837 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by rickb
Are you totally sure about that?

Yes, it is the most basic application of physics. The first law of thermodynamics...

Heat from incandescent bulbs is generated from the resistance of the filament, this is why fluorescent tubes are cool to the touch. I'll agree that LED do generate some heat but they generate less.

No, Watts are Watts. 100W pumped into an LED creates the same overall heat as 100W pumped into a T5 or a Fan. Each converts energy in a different way, but the end result is 100W of heat into the environment that contains the device.

There are a few reasons why a tank in THEORY gets more light/watt from an LED.

We are not arguing light per Watt that is not related to the TOTAL HEAT! Different types of lamps produce different amounts and spectrums of radiation per Watt of power converted. There is no argument there. Each device converts energy differently. They differ in the amount of radiated and conducted/convected heat. However IN ALL CASES the TOTAL ENERGY (HEAT) transfer is 100%. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed or stored. We are not storing energy...

It amazes (bothers) me that so many people have so much trouble with something so basic to the core of ALL physics. Understanding this basic concept is key to understanding just about everything that surrounds us.

I'm sorry but you are painting with a wide brush, energy!=heat. I think what you meant was that the conversion of stored energy to mechanical power generates heat.

No, that is not what I meant We are NOT storing energy, we are transforming it. The light strikes objects in the room and the tank and is converted to HEAT. The amount STORED in the biomass of the tank is irrelevant in context of this conversation. The HUM of the ballasts (save what is heard outside of the room) excites molecules IN the room and is converted to HEAT.

This is why we dont have perpetual motion. Different mechanisms can convert stored energy into useful energy, but they all do not have the same efficiency factor which is what you are implying.

No, I am NOT implying anything like that. I AM saying that if you pump 100W into a room, then you created 100W of heat IN that room (minus the small amount that escapes via magnetic fields, light under the door, or sound heard outside the room). It is all neat and tiday and basic physics.

 

[jtma508]

Bean. Wrong, wrong and wrong. And wrong one more time to be sure you got it the first three. Watts are a measure of electrical consumption. The product of voltage and current. Period. What the device DOES with that wattage is at issue. A flat iron, for example, is a resistive load. It's designed to convert the power (wattage) into heat. A power saw is designed to primarily convert that same 200w (for example) into kinetic energy. Some is wasted as heat. Lights (depending upon their design) are designed to produce light. Some amount of the power (wattage) is converted to light energy the remainder is converted to heat. Incandescent lamps are mostly resistive and produce a great deal of heat. Other lamp designs use the power to excite gases. Some lamps need to power electronics. There is always some heat relative to the efficiency of the design. But to say different lamp designs --- all 200w --- all produce the same amount of heat is just incorrect.

What can be said is that a 200w flourescent will consume exactly the same amount of electricity as a 200w LED or 200w MH. The key differential is 1) how much light energy is each producing and 2) how much of the total light energy is making it into the tank. And as for the heat generated by each, how much is being trasferred to the tank water.


But no. 200w does not equate just to heat output.

 

[Lucifa68]

wow all i did was ask a couple of questions and put up some pics, never intended for this to happen.

 

[BeanAnimal]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13044142#post13044142 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by jtma508
Bean. Wrong, wrong and wrong. And wrong one more time to be sure you got it the first three. Watts are a measure of electrical consumption. The product of voltage and current. Period.

With all due respect, that comment has shown that you have a complete lack of understanding of ENERGY, POWER and HEAT and the units used to quantify them.

The WATT is a UNIT of power and is equal to one JOULE of ENERGY per SECOND.

Secondly, (again) you may want to be on firm footing before you try to make a fool of somebody.

What the device DOES with that wattage is at issue.

No it is not at issue.

A flat iron, for example, is a resistive load. It's designed to convert the power (wattage) into heat. A power saw is designed to primarily convert that same 200w (for example) into kinetic energy.

and that kinetic ENERGY is then converted to HEAT via the friction of the saw blade, its gears and other moving parts. The SOUND made by the saw is converted to HEAT when it excites molecules (your ear drum, the air, etc). The SAW DOES NOT STORE ENERGY, nor does the wood being cut or the air carrying the sound... it is all converted to HEAT my friend.

What can be said is that a 200w flourescent will consume exactly the same amount of electricity as a 200w LED or 200w MH.

AND THEREFORE BOTH PRODUCE THE SAME AMOUNT OF HEAT.

If you wish to broaden your understanding of physics (I am not being flip, I am trying to help), then I would suggest starting with the Law of Conservation. This is all pretty basic stuff, but it will mean that you will have to unlearn what you think you already know.

Plase a 100W flat iron and a 100W fan in an insulated box. Both will heat the box to the same stable temperature in the same amount of time. The box is called a calorimeter and is how we can measure the energy consumption of an unknown device. It all goes back to the Law of Conservation of Energy, something that is fullty being missed by most of the people who enter into this argument.

 

[BeanAnimal]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13044219#post13044219 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Lucifa68
wow all i did was ask a couple of questions and put up some pics, never intended for this to happen.

It happens a lot when well meaning people say things that are not supported by the basic facts. This exact conversation happens about 3 times a month with regard to LIGHTS, PUMPS and other electrical devices. This is a real world demonstration of the lack of proper basic science/physics schooling... but that is another subject. Most of the poeple who end up on the other end of this topic confuse EFFICIENCY with regard to a desired TYPE of energy conversion with the fact that ALL of the ENERGY must be accounted for and it all ends up as HEAT one way or another

Look at it this way... you got more for your money from a simple question

 

[jtma508]

I'm sorry Bean. No offense but I've taken my fair share of physics as well and your argument is flawed. But my sense is that you will never be swayed.

Still, a joule is actually a measure of 'work'. Any kind of work that converts energy. We have two machines: a 200w flat iron and a 200w electric winch. We plug each in for 10min. Your contention is that each produces the same amount of heat. That 100% of the energy (200w) is converted to heat by each device. That's impossible. Because our winch lifted a 100lb rock which now dangles over your head. A portion of the 200w consumed by the winch has been converted to kinetic energy to lift the rock and some is now stored as potential energy in the rock. If your contention in true then you have successfully defeted the law of conservation of energy. You've converted 200w of electrical energy to heat and gotten the kinetic and potential energy for free. That is, unless the flat iron did something other than produce heat for its 200w.

I'm done.

 

[BeanAnimal]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13044503#post13044503 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by jtma508
I'm sorry Bean. No offense but I've taken my fair share of physics as well and your argument is flawed.

No sir it is not flawed. To say so is to argue against the law of conservation of energy. This exact argument plays out over and over again here and on other sites. Each time, the losing end of rope is help by those who confuse efficiency as it relates to the desired task with overall energy consumption and heat.

But my sense is that you will never be swayed.

I will not be swayed because I am not wrong by a long shot.

Still, a joule is actually a measure of 'work'. Any kind of work that converts energy. We have two machines: a 200w flat iron and a 200w electric winch. We plug each in for 10min. Your contention is that each produces the same amount of heat.

If they BOTH use the same amount of ENERGY the both CONVERT the same amount of ENERGY. Therefore, they BOTH produce the same amount of HEAT. Because we ARE NOT STORING the energy IT IS ALL CONVERTED TO HEAT. End of story!There is no wiggle room here my friend. To argue so displays a lack of understanding or a lack of contex with regard to the conversation and statements that have been made.

We can express the SAME QUANTITY of ENERGY (HEAT) in terms of joules, watts, BTU. etc. One unit can be converted directly to the other, as the all are ways to quantify the SAME ENERGY.

That 100% of the energy (200w) is converted to heat by each device. That's impossible. Because our winch lifted a 100lb rock which now dangles over your head.

Yes, the rock STORES the energy! Read that again STORES THE ENERGY. Drop the rock and the ENERGY is converted to HEAT via friction and conduction/convection. The transfer is then complete! I HAVE NOT STATED ANY DIFFERENTLY!!!! Instead YOU have ignored the entire context of the conversation and avered that I am wrong, ignoring that fact that I CLEARLY (several times) indicated that the biomass CAN STORE SOME of the energy but that quantity is irrelevant IN CONTEXT here.

So that we are very clear on the context (and why this conversation started):
Once again, a 200W LED creates the same amount of HEAT in a room as a 200W flat iron (minus what the life in the tank STORES). Likewise a 200W fan in the room creates the same heat as a 200W heater or lightbulb.

 

[rickb]

actually bean, you are way off. Efficiency is what we are talking about. And there are numerous reasons why an led is more efficient. I listed 2 above and there are others as well such as wavelength focus to be considered.

You are actually not the only person well versed in physics, but being able to relate an idea briefly and succintly without going far off scope, or without being condescending is something I suggest you brush up on.

 

[tkeracer619]

LOL Guys, PHYSICS!

Bean is on the money. Don't think he is correct? Well, your wrong.

As for LED, I wouldn't put it on my system yet. Maybe sometime down the road but I still have yet to see a fully developed reef tank with colonies grown from frags under LEDS. Please link me to them. And not that one guy who had an amazing tank with 1 week old colonies. Frag to colony please.

 

[BeanAnimal]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13044677#post13044677 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by rickb
actually bean, you are way off.

Sadly sir,the opposite is true. I kindly posted IN CONTEXT with comments made in this thread. You stated I was wrong but have not been able to show where. You have been somewhat flip in your comments from the getgo. You have drifted away from the context of now confusing the issue. Please re-read what I have posted. Please keep the context of the discussion in mind.

Efficiency is what we are talking about. And there are numerous reasons why an led is more efficient. I listed 2 above and there are others as well such as wavelength focus to be considered.

No we are NOT talking about efficiency. The topic of HOW MUCH and WHAT SPECTRA per WATT different lamps produce is a totaly different subject. It is ALL HEAT.

The HEAT is what I commented on. You have tried to show me as being wrong. You failed and have now changed the subject.

You are actually not the only person well versed in physics, but being able to relate an idea briefly and succintly without going far off scope, or without being condescending is something I suggest you brush up on.

Last I checked, YOU have been condescending, flip and far from keeping the conversation IN CONTEXT. You keep saying I am wrong but have been unable to show where. I will kindly ask you again to refer to the fisrt law of thermodynamics and the fact that we can label ENERGY with any of a myriad of units that can be DIRECTLY converted.

When you can show me that a 200W LED setup, a 200W MH setup, a 200W flat iron and a 200W fan put different amounts of HEAT into the room, then please do so. Otherwise, can we move on?

 

[reefconcepts]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13044219#post13044219 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Lucifa68
wow all i did was ask a couple of questions and put up some pics, never intended for this to happen.

Lucifa68, See why I don't post much!!!!!!!!

 

[BeanAnimal]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13045156#post13045156 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by reefconcepts
Lucifa68, See why I don't post much!!!!!!!!

isn't learning fun though

 

[Philwd]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13043837#post13043837 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by rickb
Are you totally sure about that? Heat from incandescent bulbs is generated from the resistance of the filament, this is why fluorescent tubes are cool to the touch. I'll agree that LED do generate some heat but they generate less.

There are a few reasons why a tank in THEORY gets more light/watt from an LED.

1) While it does generate heat, it does generate less. This excess heat would mean more energy used but is not the case in LED's. I'm open to more info on this, but my understanding is that the way a LED works is completely different than a filament, furthermore various manipulations in the structure and the compounds housing the junction of an LED allow for more efficiency.

2) Spotlight effect. Look at any FTS and you can see an entire room is lit up by a metal halide, and the reflector gets hot as well. LED have more spotlight/directed light. Again the light spillage and the heat of trying to bounce light off the reflector (again , the heat generated bouncing off the reflector an indicator of efficiency). Becasue you dont have so many errant photons in LED as most are directed into the tank below....again you have greater efficiency.


I'm sorry but you are painting with a wide brush, energy!=heat. I think what you meant was that the conversion of stored energy to mechanical power generates heat. This is why we dont have perpetual motion. Different mechanisms can convert stored energy into useful energy, but they all do not have the same efficiency factor which is what you are implying. And in this case energy -> filament light does not equal energy -> LED light.

Hi Rick,
I was going to ask you what you meant by efficiency but I see you posted it here.

1) Yes LEDs work differently. It is a diode. All diodes generate light. This light is generated by electrons dropping to lower energy levels across the semiconductor junction. They drop a set quantized amount in a given material. This energy drop corresponds to a wavelength of light. The higher the drop the more blue the light emitted. Still a very high % of the light is absorbed by the material and transformed into heat. It is this heat that gets wicked away by the heatsinks on the back.

Current high intensity LEDs from Lumiled or Cree have reached 100lumens/watt. Cree has anounced 135. Hahnmeister's analysis of the AI88 unit (uses Cree White LEDS packaged by Seoul Semi at 100l/w) showed on a per watt basis it is comperable to a 250W Phx14K in a good reflector; if the whites are turned all the way up. The AI runs at 88W so the total light is quite a bit lower. So LEDs are not more efficient. They are getting close but can't meet 250W 10K halides or 400W 20K yet.

Don't get me wrong here. I LOVE the AI88. I feel it is very well made, designed and uses high quality LEDs. Well engineered for low junction temperature. I almost bought one but the point below stopped me for now.

2) That spotlight effect also leads to narrow spread. Some people have complained about hotspots. Anyone with a tank over 18" wide will have issues covering front to back near the top. AI realizes this and now sells in 2 ft modules to be mounted perpendicular to the tank. I feel the halide reflector's spread is an advantage not an efficiency hit. A well made reflector minimizes internal reflections and directs the light down. There have been many measurements that show a good reflector can increase the total light directed down by 2-3X.

So in short I don't completely agree with your efficiency statement. LEDs are the future no doubt. Not more efficient yet by any measure; lumens/watt, $$/watt or PAR.

 

[BeanAnimal]

Philwd...

I have not kept up with the output numbers of the newest production bins and dies. Are they still creeping up or have they reached a plateau for the time being?

 

[Philwd]

Hi Bean,
I'm looking into that actually this week. The 2008 Lightfair show just ended and the major LED companies all were there with announcements. What I've found so far though is application specific and little on new raw performance improvements. I'm going to look through Cree's patent submissions also to see if I can get any clues there.

The DIY flashlight forums are actually a wealth of info on high intensity LEDs. The buzz there is the Cree XRE but that's not new to us.

Phil

 

[T5PO]

An interesting thread.

 

[Philwd]

Hey Bean,
All I've found so far are a few announcements on green and blue LEDs. Certainly still good for us but I haven't seen any new records for the cool white spectrum ones.

I did find this roadmap that shows where the industry intends to be. products will follow 12-18 mos. later.

In addition the DOE Solid State Lighting project goals are 150 lumens/watt by 2012 and 200 by 2020. Cree was about 2 years ahead of that goal in 2007.

 

[Lucifa68]

yeah i hear ya frank

 

[arod2051]

I have no idea why I'm chiming in but I feel I need to.

I agree with Bean's point that inputting 200W of power will eventually lead to 200W of power dissipated in the form of heat... Eventually.

I also like the rock analogy. Some of the 200W will be light energy which the algae in the coral and the rocks will photosynthesize and store for later use. After that is metabolized the excess energy would be released as heat.

I think the simple point is: If we assume the only power dissipation is in the form of light or heat, then the lower the heat dissipated means there is more light for our light-hungry algae living in our beloved corals to synthesize and store. If our tanks are empty, the light would reflect and power would dissipate in the black-body radiation yada-yada-yada.

The 200W flat iron and 200W LED will both dissipate equal amounts heat into the room, but the transport of that energy will be much different. The algae is storing some of that energy to feed our money-hungry coral friends who will metabolize some of that to build coral skeletons and heat-poo.

I thought of another "light->tree->burn->200W" analogy but hopefully I made my point.

Then we can talk about how much PAR and PUR is generated but that is another religious war in itself.

My own opinion: In the absence of other forms of power dissipation, less heat dissipated by the fixture/lamp = more light energy, relatively speaking.

EDIT: to fix a typo