Lighting Website Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.
There is little use for green light as far as photysynthesis in land plants, but many corals have been shown to use green light very well.
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2006/11/aafeature2

As far as 'admitting' that there are no LEDs in the warmer spectrums, well, yeah... that has been one of my gripes about the PFO solaris units for a while. After initial release, they went ahead on the 20,000K units and added a couple green LED's... according to their claims for better 'looks'... to bring out the green better (since many actinic phosphor bulbs have a green spike, but 420nm LEDs do not)... but this would aid in coral pigmentation and growth as well.... Im sure...
PFO output...
medium

Superbright White Output...
W10015_bin2.gif

Those 'super bright white' LEDs lack warmer spectrums... being mostly blue and green, yes. There are also 3000K LEDs made though as well.

And in the future, Im sure adding 3000K or red LEDs to the mix will be added as well...
http://blogs.frags.org/member.php?uid=2561
T5s can have some of these 'narrow output' problems. This is why bulbs like the KZ / korallen-zucht fiji have come about.

Im just wondering now if PFO is going to make a retrofit bulb system so people can go ahead and replace all of their old philips luxeons with the new luxeon rebels... something like 3x the output per watt. Thats why I wont buy in to LEDs yet... the predictions are that LEDs will hit an efficiency of 150+ lumens per watt by 2010... and those current philips are only about 20 lumens/watt... rebels at about 60.

Just imagine... even with lenses to make say... a 30degree arc of light from the LEDs, the output will be astounding. And being that LED's seem to be able to produce blue light better than warmer light... just imagine being able to light say... a 180gallon reef with a mere 150 watts!!!

I mean, the current PFO units put out about the same output as a 250wattDE 20,000K XM at about half the wattage (I know, its an argument)... so thats about the same as just using a 150wattDE 10,000K (okay, the 150wattDE is brighter). But really, thats with 20 lumen/watt crap LED's that are available now... just imagine what will happen with they hit 8x that efficiency.
 
Wow, cree hit that benchmark much faster than they predicted 6 months ago... wow. They must be going for 200 lumens per watt by 2010 then. 6 months ago, they were claiming they were going to have 130 lumens per watt and be working on 150 in the next couple years... and this was a R&D test sample they were basing that on! 160 is awesome... that really puts those luxeon and luxeon rebels by philips in their place.
 
hahn...i re-read the spec sheet. it's 136lm at 750ma, amd 176 lm at 1000ma. pretty impressive. the colored, especially the royal blue, aren't getting as impressive numbers. why do they rate the royal blues in Mw instead of lm?? here is the sheet on the colored led's

Cree XR
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9775172#post9775172 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by hahnmeister


Just imagine... even with lenses to make say... a 30degree arc of light from the LEDs, the output will be astounding. And being that LED's seem to be able to produce blue light better than warmer light... just imagine being able to light say... a 180gallon reef with a mere 150 watts!!!


Okay your auiming at 150 watts.
With the LED's out there now they seem to be most effecient at 350ma. So 150W / 350ma = 428 LED's now dependent upon mfg and source you have between $12.00 and $28.00 each. So we are now up to $5,136 to almost $12,000 for the LED's alone. So now the next question is how long would you have to use this lighting to get a return on your dollar even compared to running 3 400Watt metal hides. Sure it wpould reduce your electric bill for lighting to 1/8 of what it was, but at that price for the fixture wow you still would have to be paying a lot for power to even break out even in 5 years.

Yes browsing through they do go up to a potential 228 limens per watt. But the cost is still so high that there is no return on the investment yet. Give it time and you will see three things happening, 1. the prices will come down, 2. the quality will improve, 3. the selection will increase.

Dennis
 
Trop Trea: what are the downsides to running LED's at 1000ma vs 350 or 700, aside from heat. i figure you could get aroud the heat issue with heatsinks and fans and still keep the led's at their optimal temp. are there any other downsides??
 
HUGE heatsinks. the high lumen per watt units are not cost effective and they are already maxed as far as heat goes. Running at higher current means shorter life and faster color shift.
 
gotcha...thanks bean. how big is HUGE?? i was thinking one large finned aluminum heatsink covering the entire back of the circuit board with 1-2 90 mm fans blowing down on them.

I didn't think that led's shifted color, only intensity...am i wrong?
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9792311#post9792311 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by JCTewks
Trop Trea: what are the downsides to running LED's at 1000ma vs 350 or 700, aside from heat. i figure you could get aroud the heat issue with heatsinks and fans and still keep the led's at their optimal temp. are there any other downsides??

First off just looking at one specific LED we compare the manafucturers output to input

300mw= 68.4lum or 228 per watt
700mw = 92 lum or 131 per watt
1000mw =94 lum or 94 per watt

So on the effeciency of output per watt the 300mw is the most effective. On the other end if you needed 36 LED's at 300mw you could get tha same amount of light out of 26 at 1000mw. Actuall power usage would be 2.4X as much with the initial outlay being only 73% of the cost.

Other factors that need to be considered is that LED's will shift the color temp as the corrent is changed. Also the higher the current the shorter the life span of the LED.

Now in my mind the ideal situation would be to have them on a digital dimmer so you could slowly turn them on and off. Would not be hard with a square wave generator and digital counter circuit.

As a side note the owner of this thread is Sanjay. I only think it is fair to him to give us some his ideas here considering we are drifting way off the original topic.

Dennis
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9681127#post9681127 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Sanjay
Peter:

The Giesmann lamps do not have any Color Temp rating on the packaging. Thier lamps are labelled Marine, Coral, and Blue. The coral lamp may be the one that is being called 13K or 14.5K. It has more bluer look compared to the Marine.

sanjay.

Does anyone have any experience with these bulbs in DE? I've been considering this bulb and have yet to find someone with personal experience. I was looking at the 13K bulb. Just curious about any positive or negative feedback.

Jason
 
How did you like the 14.5K? Was it more blue or white? I'm running two ATI Blue+, 1 UVL Super Actinic, and 1 KZ Fiji Purple so I'm not sure whether I should run the 12.5 or 14.5. My current halide bulb is an SLI 13K. I have SPS, LPS, Zoos, clams. I'm worried about my LPS getting cooked if I were to go to a 10K.
 
Change my HQI or Power cmpacts?

Change my HQI or Power cmpacts?

Question guys, I have a Current USA Setup with 2-150W 10K Hqi and 2-130 W Dual Actinics (420nm ans 460nm).

I was thinking about going with 14K Hqi but I don't want to stunt the growth of the SPS corals in my tank.

What do you think??

I want to see those babies grow as fast as they can!

Current also makes the bulbs in "all 420nm or all 460nm" which one gives me the dark blue color?

Check out the diffferent lamps below...

http://current-usa.com/sunpaq.html
 
They have it listed as a 14,000K 'Waterscape' lamp though... wonder if it will be a true 250wattDE version of the 15,000K.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top