Solaris; Dana Riddle Review; AA mag.

[tacocat]

Most excellent pk. I guess I should have clarified.

How will acros appear over time. It would be cool if thse lights bridged the gap between 20K and 10K. 10K produces the nice subtle color variations in acros and 20K loses the subtlety but delivers fluorescence. It would be cool if the LEDs did both things well.

 

[Covey]

I like the technology too, hope it goes some where but they talk about LED and MH like there the ONLY lighting technology.

Lets see where trying to develop a light with lower energy cost, far lower heat transfer, and something that doesn't cost more than my car.

Wait a minute. Hello T-5HO.

The LEDs are claiming very little over what T-5HO can already do.

 

[jay2525]

^^ t5 lighting still has heat issues as well as bulb replacement. these are major selling points in this system. as well as the fully controllable dimmable function. It's very similar to the acls system, however, without bulb replacement and heat as a factor...

 

[tacocat]

I thought about running T-5s myself, but my buddy told me not to. He runs T-5, and it makes your acros look pale and funny. Here's his blog.

http://blogs.frags.org/member.php?limit=10&offset=10&uid=2561

 

[pk1]

The controllable dimming was very cool...talk about simulating sunrise/sunset. I wouldn't be surprised to see timer's that simulates the exact cycle of a certain area, including moonlight. If I remember correctly the one at IMAC had the white and blue lights on different dimming dials...so if you felt like a 20k day, or you felt like a 13k day, it was just a turn away.
As for the life of the bulbs, according to Tullio, PFO is using a very high quality bulb, which seems to be all the difference in LED's. I would want to see a long term warranty offered by PFO...say 5 years? With the quality claims they are making, that's a minimum....

PK

 

[Arch01]

IMO, this is a great product for early adopters and equipment buffs with a lot of cash. There needs to be a product out there that can show results before the rest of us can jump on the bandwagon. By the time those results are out there for everyone to see, the price will have dropped and the technology will have improved significantly. At the current rate of development, it is hard to imagine this not being a viable lighting option in the future.

Imagine if every reefkeeper in California using MHs switched to LEDs... they might not have to deal with rolling blackouts ever again

 

[RichConley]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7961661#post7961661 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by pk1
I saw no big difference between the 250w XM and the Solaris side by side at IMAC this year. Other than with the hand held par meter they had there, the Solaris blew the XM away. I am not sure how old, what ballast, or what K rating the XM bulb was though.
To me, the Solaris looked like a MH set up.

It was a 20K Xm bulb, on an electronic ballast, with a glass shield over it (not needed for SE bulbs, cuts 20% of par)

IE the fact that the solaris kept up with it isnt that impressive.

 

[pk1]

IE the fact that the solaris kept up with it isnt that impressive

Actually, IIRC it was some 25-30 unit's higher on that meter. I wouldn't really call that "keeping up". Are you sure it was a 20k? I thought they said 10k? Here is the plot for a 20k XM on Icecap...PPFD of 53 if you can't read it.

I think the Solarais was in the 120's and the XM in the 80's actually. That was a while ago though, I can't swear to those #'s. Visually, it was much brighter. Did you happen to catch any of the presentations on the LED's?

Patrick

 

[RichConley]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7964094#post7964094 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by pk1
Actually, IIRC it was some 25-30 unit's higher on that meter. I wouldn't really call that "keeping up". Are you sure it was a 20k? I thought they said 10k? Here is the plot for a 20k XM on Icecap...PPFD of 53 if you can't read it.

I think the Solarais was in the 120's and the XM in the 80's actually. That was a while ago though, I can't swear to those #'s. Visually, it was much brighter. Did you happen to catch any of the presentations on the LED's?

Patrick

Yes, it was a 20K. They also had a totally unneeded glass shield on it.

I dont know about the exact number comparison, maybe sanjay was testing closer or something. I'm 100% sure it was a 250w XM20K though.

 

[pk1]

Also, "to be fair", the solaris was also shielded.

 

[Travis]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7964020#post7964020 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by RichConley
It was a 20K Xm bulb, on an electronic ballast, with a glass shield over it (not needed for SE bulbs, cuts 20% of par)

IE the fact that the solaris kept up with it isnt that impressive.

I agree 100%. In fact I wouldn't say "it isn't that impressive". I would rather call it unimpressive. I would never think of running a 250w 20k XM bulb over any sps tank, well maybe a 10-20 gallon tank. The bulb is very dim and produces very little par. And the Solaris can't even keep up with that.

I think the Solaris may have its place in this hobby, just not on medium to large sps tanks. It would be better suited for softies and LPS.

 

[Travis]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7964094#post7964094 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by pk1
Actually, IIRC it was some 25-30 unit's higher on that meter. I wouldn't really call that "keeping up". Are you sure it was a 20k? I thought they said 10k? Here is the plot for a 20k XM on Icecap...PPFD of 53 if you can't read it.

I think the Solarais was in the 120's and the XM in the 80's actually. That was a while ago though, I can't swear to those #'s. Visually, it was much brighter. Did you happen to catch any of the presentations on the LED's?

Patrick

The MH bulb that they were comparing the solaris against at IMAC was the 250w XM 15k SE. Undoubtedly, the lowest PAR 250w bulb on the market. That is what I call a skewed comparison.:lol: The solaris wouldn't hold a candle agains an XM 10k.

I also attended all the presentations at IMAC and don't remember any presentations on the Solaris. I know Dana mentioned the Solaris but had not done any hands on testing so anything he mentioned at that time would have been anecdotal. And anything the PFO guy said has to be taken with a grain of salt as he obviously has a lot of commercial interest in selling the units.

 

[Travis]

One thing these Solaris lights do have going for them is the heat factor. I put my hand directly on the lens of the Solaris at IMAC and it was literally cool to the touch. Not warm but cool. It is definitely the coolest lighting setup available (no pun intended). I know heat can also be transferred as light energy and not just heat from the source but you can still feel that type of heat by putting your hand under the light source. The Solaris lights didn't produce any significant heat.

 

[RichConley]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7964263#post7964263 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by pk1
Also, "to be fair", the solaris was also shielded.

The solaris NEEDS to be shielded. An SE MH bulb already IS shielded. They put another shield on it, so it had 2.

 

[pk1]

So it was 15k or 20k XM? I don't think it NEEDS to be shielded..I am not sure how hot LED's get, will they burst if splashed with water? An unshielded MH will, that's for sure. I've had it happen, and the dead corals from UV burn to prove it .

Tullio's presentation was more on LED lighting in general than the Solaris, and he did have a unit there with him that he was taking some PAR readings with. No one is saying it will out produce anything. The only fact is this LED lighting scheme produced more PUR than an XM 250 20k bulb, and less PAR. At lower energy costs. And, over a long term investment, cheaper than MH. That's if the LED's quality is up to the marketing coming out of PFO of course. For now, and for the next few years, I'll stick with my 400w XM20ks and VHOs, I love em. High electric bill, bulb replacements every 10-12 months, heat, I can do without though. When the cost comes down, and the technology grows with LED's...I'll be considering a switch. I'm also looking forward to Sanjay's testing....

Patrick

 

[King-Kong]

Its kind of annoying to hear people's primary complaint as being cost.

This is the first of it's kind for our hobby (mass produced). Chill out. Do not dismiss the product based purely on it's cost.

That is obviously the one attribute we know WILL get reduced over time and improve.

Instead, focus on what it will bring to the table. Focus on how or what it will force other lighting companies to do in response. Focus on the overall movement and progress it is bringing to the hobby.

 

[ikatobiko]

Agreed

Agreed

I totally agree. We are really lucky that LED lighting has even entered the hobby. LED lighting, regardless of the application or market, is in its infancy and as such is just beginning to replace other forms of lighting. However LED lighting IS the future in many applications including the reefkeeping hobby, in my opinion.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7964752#post7964752 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by King-Kong
Its kind of annoying to hear people's primary complaint as being cost.

This is the first of it's kind for our hobby (mass produced). Chill out. Do not dismiss the product based purely on it's cost.

That is obviously the one attribute we know WILL get reduced over time and improve.

Instead, focus on what it will bring to the table. Focus on how or what it will force other lighting companies to do in response. Focus on the overall movement and progress it is bringing to the hobby.

 

[sfsuphysics]

the shielding on the solaris has nothing to do with splash damage hurting the LEDs but hurting all the electronics that need to be in there, as such this includes the most minute of salt spray too (powerhead sucks in some air burps some fizz into the tank... spray gets into electronics, bye bye circuitboards) as such the shield IS NEEDED. With MH bulbs a little salt spray isn't going to hurt anything except maybe block some light over time if you don't periodically wipe the bulbs off.


I sort of agree with price, but think of this way, if the cost is so high it keeps out all but the richest of reefers then the technology is going to die a quick death, the only saving grace is the "cheaply made chinese manufacturer" version comes out as well, then people can make the "quality" argument.

For me the price is really astronomical, combined with the fact the "pay off" time is about as long as the life of the system if you already have a MH setup. But a lot of the claims seem out way out there, even those who've done testing and published results seem to be wording things in a funny way that makes me question the validity of said tests.

 

[Clouded]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7960215#post7960215 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by tacocat
What the....? Hype. What is with reefing and the word hype?

Anyway, LED technology isn't cheap righ now, and I'm sure the R&D to bring these things to market wasn't free, hence the cost.

Will corals grow under these lights? Sure they will, it simple physics. Will they appear the same as they do under MH? THat's the million dollar question for me.

Mike, I agree on the light energy equals heat point.

I agree the word hype is over used in this hobby...however I am using it correctly...Everyone is jumping this whole idea, because a few people have claimed it is so wonderful, but there is no proof of that, in the sense that no one has had a good sized tank with heavy SPS and kept track of growth rates with orginal lighting (MH for sake of arguement) and then growth rates with the new LED set up...so yes people claiming how great these are with out most of the people ever seeing in physical proof is hype.

Yes a PAR meter can show how far the light reaches, but can not show if corals are liking the light, there is no meter that proves that.

There has been countless moments in time when things looked great on paper, but when it was actualy constructed or made, it did not work out as it was shown to do so on paper...so there is no difference here.

Also when magazines or any written article get free stuff to review they tend to talk up what ever they get, it is just how the media works. I am willing to bet that most of the stuff they get is not that great, but if article compaines got stuff and always put it down and it was truth they would never receive anything for free. So I want an unbiased thought on this product from someone who spent the money to buy one and could give us their true thoughts on it.

Again, there is just a few people talking here...I have heard from countless people that have seen this running and say that the spread sucks, so over a tank that is 24" deep, you need to have it close to 2ft above the tank to cover everything, not practicle at all.

So yes, everything surronding this is hype, becuase we have no multiple cases and proof of unbiased people...backing up these claims.

 

[clkwrk]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7965355#post7965355 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by sfsuphysics
But a lot of the claims seem out way out there, even those who've done testing and published results seem to be wording things in a funny way that makes me question the validity of said tests.

like a paid endorsment