Solaris; Dana Riddle Review; AA mag.

<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.
Click to expand...
I agree... but it is hard to get people to buy it, who will giveunbiased thoughts, when the price tag is so high. Cause most people getting this product, will be people who have gotten them for free and they will more then likely not talk abd about it, because in the future they will not get stuff for free.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7965539#post7965539 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by clkwrk
like a paid endorsment ;)
Click to expand...
Correct, my point exactly...the article only had a bunch of numbers and tech mumbo jumbo...no one cares...if you said that it grew coral faster then any lighting out there and could show proven results, everyone would buy them...and that is all you would have to say.

Another thing I find really funny now, is that before this article no one talked about PUR... I have read so many (hundreds) of light threads on here ( I to am wanting the best lighting for my tank, so I am always reading) and no one has talked about PUR, it has always been PAR...now that someone wrote an article, people are jumping on this new acronym and bandwagon of PUR...Now, before you guys jump down my throat...I am not saying that no one had talked about it, but it is more apparent now..that is humors.
 
There is a way to tell if a coral "likes" light. PUR measures it. As I understand (???:))

From Sanjay " The absorption spectrum for zooxanthellae has been shown to have a broad peak in the 400 to 500 nm waveband (blue-green) and a narrow peak in the 650 to 700 (red) waveband."

So it would seem that light falling in this spectrum is used? It would also seem that the Solaris light produces light in this range?
Also, I don't think it is appropriate to call into question the character of Dana Riddle without proof. Basically, your saying that because the review if favorable, it's false? IMO that's ridiculous.

Patrick
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7965611#post7965611 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by pk1
There is a way to tell if a coral "likes" light. PUR measures it. As I understand (???:))

From Sanjay " The absorption spectrum for zooxanthellae has been shown to have a broad peak in the 400 to 500 nm waveband (blue-green) and a narrow peak in the 650 to 700 (red) waveband."

So it would seem that light falling in this spectrum is used? It would also seem that the Solaris light produces light in this range?
Also, I don't think it is appropriate to call into question the character of Dana Riddle without proof. Basically, your saying that because the review if favorable, it's false? IMO that's ridiculous.

Patrick
Click to expand...

No, I am saying its biased, not false...please read what I write.
 
Last edited:
My fault. So let's try that again. Since the review is positive, it is "biased"? Doesn't sound much better to me. Still, an unproven accusation, that (IMO) is unwarranted...unless you have proof?
"the article only had a bunch of numbers and tech mumbo jumbo"
That is another statement that makes no sense. The author used #'s and tests to back up his research, and you call it "mumbo jumbo"? How would you prefer the tests to be done? The term PUR is more apparent now because it applies to this article, and this review procedure. And I know from my readings, that PUR is more accurate way of testing a light for our purposes. I am not on any bandwagon??

For the record, I love my MH's, and I am not impressed with LED's...yet.
 
FWIW, Dana seems like someone unlikely to give into significant bias, IMO. Based on the history I've seen, he seems pretty straight-shooting [nice fellow, too].

What struck me seeing the Solaris @ IMAC is that they `compared' PAR about 1" below the water surface. At that distance, I'd think PC's would compare favorably.

From what I remember, down about 6-9" [below water surface] there was greater decrease in light with the LED vs. MH. Though of course, anyone who studies PAR would tell us that such a simple comparison is hardly valid.

Time will tell, very intriguing setup and likely our future in 10 years. But I'll let someone else guinea pig it until its affordable and tested.
 
If you only care about PAR and growing coral, I might could part with my 6500K setups after I get my next tank running. You'll love them.

I don't think Dana Riddle or PFO have done anything to deserve some of the comments made here. I also don't think that Dana has cooked the numbers to make the Solaris look better than it is. I think he tried to make a reasonable and objective comparison.

The key word with the Solaris is "viable". Dana shows that it is making enough light in the right spectrum for some tanks. It could help simplify some tank setups by reducing the need for multiple lighting fixtures to get a good spectrum and by reducing the need for heat control equipment.

If you don't need or want it, pass on it. Where is all this venom comming from?
 
piercho
Premium Member
Registered: Jun 2001
Location: Kitsap CO WA
Occupation: EE: contractor to USN
Posts: 1886



If you only care about PAR and growing coral, I might could part with my 6500K setups after I get my next tank running. You'll love them.

I don't think Dana Riddle or PFO have done anything to deserve some of the comments made here. I also don't think that Dana has cooked the numbers to make the Solaris look better than it is. I think he tried to make a reasonable and objective comparison.

The key word with the Solaris is "viable". Dana shows that it is making enough light in the right spectrum for some tanks. It could help simplify some tank setups by reducing the need for multiple lighting fixtures to get a good spectrum and by reducing the need for heat control equipment.

If you don't need or want it, pass on it. Where is all this venom comming from?


__________________
Howard

Hobby Experience: 5 years reef
Current Tanks: 65G IP Lagoon: clams, plants, stonies, Zoanthids
Interests: Getting Tank2 running: 140G lagoon

^^^^^
I agree....with all the different trendy things that have come and go in this hobby...from trendy mods, to types of skimmers, and which 250w bulb is best , bb or dsb, t5 or mh, and everything else ridiculously linked to these boards, the hate is unreal....I've seen this system and obviously a couple months is not long enough to determine anything....however I can say that none of the corals changed or have appeared any less healthy in the interim... the exciting factor of possibly reducing heating, bulb changes, and for the people who have to run a chiller due to lighting , is a hobby changing type of phenomenon. I understand the price is an issue, but jeez...I don't know how many of you have bought more than one set of lighting, due to circumstances, but Im sure I've spent +$1500 on lighting in the last couple years. Not to mention a couple hundred a year on new bulbs...
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7966025#post7966025 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by pk1
My fault. So let's try that again. Since the review is positive, it is "biased"? Doesn't sound much better to me. Still, an unproven accusation, that (IMO) is unwarranted...unless you have proof?
"the article only had a bunch of numbers and tech mumbo jumbo"
That is another statement that makes no sense. The author used #'s and tests to back up his research, and you call it "mumbo jumbo"? How would you prefer the tests to be done? The term PUR is more apparent now because it applies to this article, and this review procedure. And I know from my readings, that PUR is more accurate way of testing a light for our purposes. I am not on any bandwagon??

For the record, I love my MH's, and I am not impressed with LED's...yet.
Click to expand...
I am not saying what he said is false, or inaccurate...I am saying that when people tend to get stuff for free to review it, they tend to have to really look at the positives and not the negative...ask anyone who has writtne reviews for big magazines, this is trend...in order to continue to recieve free items.

look at it this way...if you were a company trying to get some "buzz" about your new product coming out, are you going to send a free one to someon who is known to focus on both the positives and negatives or someone who will really focus on the pros and set the cons to the non-heated back burner? It is just how it works.

My point about PUR is, whether it is relevent to this article more then others, is that I feel it is relevenat with other lighting threads but now one person metions it and now people are talking about it.

I get the reasons for the numbers, but if you want me to buy something ( in this case lighting)...show me it produces less heat, uses less electricity, and grows corals the same as a MH...but then has the plus of being able to adjust light color then you have me sold...but just throwing numbers at me are just that...they are numbers not real world. agian to my example of things looking good on paper. There has been countless times were the best engineers in the world have brought together to build a mega structure...once it is all set on paper and it looks great but once they start to build it, things to not work out right.
So until it is proven that corals grow under these lights, the numbers prove nothing.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7966146#post7966146 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by piercho
If you only care about PAR and growing coral, I might could part with my 6500K setups after I get my next tank running. You'll love them.

I don't think Dana Riddle or PFO have done anything to deserve some of the comments made here. I also don't think that Dana has cooked the numbers to make the Solaris look better than it is. I think he tried to make a reasonable and objective comparison.

The key word with the Solaris is "viable". Dana shows that it is making enough light in the right spectrum for some tanks. It could help simplify some tank setups by reducing the need for multiple lighting fixtures to get a good spectrum and by reducing the need for heat control equipment.

If you don't need or want it, pass on it. Where is all this venom comming from?
Click to expand...

Venom, there is none...I apologize that i do not have over 3k to drop on this system in hopes that this new product works...So until i have that kind of money to spend on something unproven or they prove them selves, I will be skeptical...Me being skeptical and anyone who is, is the way things are proven right or wrong...otherwise if a company made any claim we would listen and trust everything they said, not a good idea in my mind.
 
If I where PFO, I would want someone who is not "biased" to do my products review. I wouldn't insult my customers with anything less. Especially considering my company is well respected within the reefing community. If I where Dana Riddle, I would not jeopardize my career by giving a biased review of a product. I understand that this happens, and I'm sure alllll to often. What I'm telling you here, and what Mark backed me up on, is that this is not the case. Dana Riddle is a respected man in this industry, and so is the PFO name. No one said trust everything? No one here said go out and buy it. In fact, no one on this thread has said they are going to buy it anytime even remotely soon.
Well, not sure what else to say, other than these are not just some "numbers". It is known. The wavelengths of light that zooxanthellae use for photosynthesis is known. This light produces that wavelength. Your corals will grow. Is it the most powerful, light of god, cover every inch of your tank, cost nothing, actually cool your tank, end all, be all in reef lighting? Heck no. Does it show a lot of promise?? Heck ya. Did I have to spell check this last paragraph and correct numerous mistakes? You betcha. :)
 
Local fish store guy...said he talk to someone at PFO and rumor has it that the small unit is suppose to be down to 500 bucks and is suppose to be equal to a 150w DE
 
I ran the calculator...

I would recoupe the cost of the system after running it for 10.7 years. Supposedly the LED's die off at 11 years, but we all know that won't really happen. It will more likely be around 4 years when they start loosing strength slowly.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7969272#post7969272 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Clouded
Local fish store guy...said he talk to someone at PFO and rumor has it that the small unit is suppose to be down to 500 bucks and is suppose to be equal to a 150w DE
Click to expand...

I heard the exact same thing from a LFS who just happened to have signed up as a new vendor for Solaris at MACNA. Apparently the current model with all the various modes ( cloud cover etc), will be supplemented with a much simpler and therefore significantly cheaper model in very short order. How often do you replace two or three MH bulbs at $80 a crack.

For all the venom I am reading, you would think some of you are holding a long position in IceCap or Hamilton Technologies.
 
these sound amazing , i know i have spent a ton of money on lighting then replacment then on my chiller then on the cost to run the mh t5's and chiller in ny we pay the 2nd highest rate in america for electric
Eric did ypu include the costs for bulbs electric and chiller use ???
T.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7966709#post7966709 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by pk1
If I where PFO, I would want someone who is not "biased" to do my products review. I wouldn't insult my customers with anything less. Especially considering my company is well respected within the reefing community. If I where Dana Riddle, I would not jeopardize my career by giving a biased review of a product. I understand that this happens, and I'm sure alllll to often. What I'm telling you here, and what Mark backed me up on, is that this is not the case. Dana Riddle is a respected man in this industry, and so is the PFO name. No one said trust everything? No one here said go out and buy it. In fact, no one on this thread has said they are going to buy it anytime even remotely soon.
Well, not sure what else to say, other than these are not just some "numbers". It is known. The wavelengths of light that zooxanthellae use for photosynthesis is known. This light produces that wavelength. Your corals will grow. Is it the most powerful, light of god, cover every inch of your tank, cost nothing, actually cool your tank, end all, be all in reef lighting? Heck no. Does it show a lot of promise?? Heck ya. Did I have to spell check this last pararaph and correct numerous mistakes? You betcha. :)
Click to expand...


PK1, people are saying the article seems like a bought review, because it does.

The numbers say that this thing is vastly inferior to a 250w metal halide pendant, as far as light output goes, but Riddle dances around that, and then says something along the lines of "you dont need that much light anyways"

Basically, he likes the product, even though his numbers dont back up that feeling, so hes trying to justify his oppinion. This article sounds like a local beat writer talking about why the local NFL franchise should be a darkhorse superbowl pick, when theyre really going to win 7 games. Its all about intangibles, and morale, and "clutchness" etc.



As to people talking about chiller use, etc. Who says you need a chiller with metal halides? I run 500w of MH on a 58 gallon tank, and with a 10w fan, I have to run a heater all year.


Chillers are needed because of big pumps, not big lights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
September 17th Meeting RASOC meeting featuring Dana Riddle
Replies
0
Views
865
blackbeltmom
B
DiscusHeckel
My Reading List
Replies
11
Views
4K
thenewguy997
thenewguy997
J
Dimmable Chinese 155w/120w LED Quality Review
Replies
0
Views
644
johanasu
J
S
Pacific Sun Hyperion S LED review
Replies
3
Views
1K
Blueline12
B
C
Algae Scrubber LED's- 630 v. 660nm?
Replies
19
Views
7K
CTS90
C
Back
Top