Solaris Led lighting systems

[Amphibious]

Wow cool thread I read the whole thing (wish I would of skipped to the last two pages but hey that reef central) . To me it looks more blue than I would like but that's just my opinion. I just put 14K in my 250 watt DE fixtures and I don't know if I would like it any bluer but like it was said before cameras do strange things when it come to blue light. I am really thinking hard about getting one of these can't wait to see how much different your electric bill is. Mine went up quite a bit when I upgraded to my 180 but I did add a large pump for the closed loop. Anyways glad to see all of you that got one like it and keep the updates coming.

Mako56, remember you can cut white and blue LEDs to suite your eye and you are right about digital camers and blue light.

 

[RandalB]

Exactly, From my understanding, you can tune the Kelvin Rating of the fixture from 5500K to 20000K....

Good News on the energy savings!

RandalB

 

[Amphibious]

Yes. The range is 6500 t0 20,000K.

 

[DaveWC]

But won't the brightness diminish if you make it whiter? I assumed the maximum brightness was with all LEDs on at max, which also makes it so blue. It would be nice to see a pic that showed the lights in their "white mode" to see how bright the tank looked.

 

[mako56]

Amphibious very very nice it would be cool to see a pic of them with not so much blue. I don't know if you said this before but what size lights did you have before and what do you have now?

 

[RichConley]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8364140#post8364140 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by cindyolson
No electric bill yet. I'll post as soon as it comes in. I can say I've seen a huge reduction of algae. I haven't had to wipe the sides down in over a week.

Cindy

Thats because you've got much less light.

may not be a bad thing, as you may have had more than you needed before.

 

[Amphibious]

Thats because you've got much less light.

That's not the algae limiting factor. Just like the amount of light isn't the coral growing factor. PAR is more important for growing coral and the LEDs shine over MHs in that department. MH lights throw light in every direction, they are multidirectional. Hence more light is bounced off the the front, back and sides of the aquarium. This light plus nutrients is what grows algae on those surfaces. LEDs are one directional, down. So, even if the mutrient levels are the same LEDs will grow less algae on the front, back and side surfaces. Cindy's observation is not surprising to me and probably other Solaris owners, too.

 

[steve the plumb]

very nice I like the look of it and the fact you can program the unit.Its pricy but for those who can afford it I think its a good buy.I would have bought one myself but since my kalk disaster I won't be needing one any time soon.I will wait and see when I will setup again.My wife wants me to sell everything.I have some lps left that are in my friends tank.I still think acros are the most interesting corals to keep because of the challenge although I do find its very demanding on your time and wallet.

 

[Amphibious]

Amphibious very very nice it would be cool to see a pic of them with not so much blue. I don't know if you said this before but what size lights did you have before and what do you have now?

I had an Aquactinics 72", 3 175W 10K, and 4 39W Actinics. Now the Solaris 72" 250W unit. I wouldn't go back to MHs. I'm very satisfied with the results I'm getting. MHs do the job but you pay a price in energy and bulb replacement forever. The Solaris run cooler and much more efficiently.

 

[pprmntshrmps]

I am impressed so far with the results from the actual tanks with LED lights.

I would be interested if somone could do a cost matrix of what they paid for MH lighting vs. LED in the same tank for initial set-up not maintinance or bulb replacement, just the start-up.

 

[RichConley]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8386719#post8386719 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Amphibious
That's not the algae limiting factor. Just like the amount of light isn't the coral growing factor. PAR is more important for growing coral and the LEDs shine over MHs in that department. MH lights throw light in every direction, they are multidirectional. Hence more light is bounced off the the front, back and sides of the aquarium. This light plus nutrients is what grows algae on those surfaces. LEDs are one directional, down. So, even if the mutrient levels are the same LEDs will grow less algae on the front, back and side surfaces. Cindy's observation is not surprising to me and probably other Solaris owners, too.

The solaris fixture uses 45' dispersion angle LEDs, which makes the dispersion about the same as a half decent metal halide reflector. SO, again, you're wrong.

Shes growing less algae because shes running less light. Algae is photosynthetic.

"PAR is more important for growing coral and the LEDs shine over MHs in that department."

Actually, we've gone over that like 9 times, and its absolutely not true. The Solaris LED fixture generates about 45 PPFD. The average 250w halide fixture does about 100.

"So, even if the mutrient levels are the same LEDs will grow less algae on the front, back and side surfaces."

Yup. Because theres less light. Its like running PCs.

 

[xlayedoutx]

I think the new light looks great. Can't wait to get one myself. Pictures are worth a thousand words and everything seems to be doing great and growing nicely, even the SPS. Keep posting pictures guys.

 

[xlayedoutx]

I think the new light looks great. Can't wait to get one myself. Pictures are worth a thousand words and everything seems to be doing great and growing nicely, even the SPS. Keep posting pictures guys.

 

[PFO Lighting]

RichConnely,
I clearly understand that you believe that the Solaris LED produces a lot less light than a 250W 20K metal halide. You have all the right to speak your opinion on these news groups as you always do. However, I believe you are doing a disservice to your fellow reefers when you make bold statements as facts when they are your opinions. If they are your opinions state that they are your opinions. I think your statement should be "In my opinion I don’t believe that the Solaris will light the tank as well as a 250W 20K metal halide lamp"

Your 45 degree beam spread is incorrect. There are many places which state what our actual beam spread is. Read the literature that has been produced that explains the Solaris fixture. Next take your geometry and apply that to where the light goes. I think you will find that it doesn't light up the sides of the tank. This is a good feature for not having to clean algae because the light is not landing on the tank wall. The down side of this is that if you have corals placed in the top front or top back of your tank the light will have a difficult time lighting these areas. I believe Cindy has already commented on this situation.

I would be very interested to know where you learned the PPFD of the Solaris is 45 PPFD. As far as I know there has not been anyone who has measured the PPFD of the Solaris. I believe what you are trying to comment on is lumens/watt of energy.
The following is the lumens/Watt of various color temperature metal halide lamps:

Bulb Watt-Color Lumens Watts lumens/watt
250W 4K Sylvania 20,000 295 67.79661
250W 10K ushio 10500 295 35.59322
250W 20K ushio 5000 295 16.94915
400W-4K Sylvania 36000 465 77.41935
400W-10K Ushio 18500 465 39.78495
400U-20K Ushio 8000 465 17.2043


Since most people don't go and buy a 4K lamp from Home Depot for $15 to light their tank that comparison of lumens/watt is a null point. What would be more accurate is comparing a 20K lumens/watt to the LED lumens/watt. In this comparison you will see that the LED's start to compete very well.

I can think of many reasons why the Solaris is a better solution than metal halide and I can also think of many reasons why the metal halide is a better solution than the Solaris. By the way we sell both and our metal halide business is better than ever.

If all you want to do is bash the Solaris give me a call and I will give you many factual reasons why the metal halide solution is better than the Solaris solution. This way you can at least present true facts rather than spread your opinions which tend to be false facts when you bash the Solaris.

Patrick Ormiston
PFO Lighting Inc.
800-577-9690

 

[owsi]

Thank you Patrick, I'll be waiting on my 60" here in Tucson, Rob said about the 2nd week of November. John

 

[PFO Lighting]

RichConely,
I made a mistake on the degree of beam spread. You are correct on the literature stated 45 degree. I have been so busy looking at different lens and what the literature states in relation to what is actually happening that I forgot the literature states 45 degrees. Still do the geometry math and look where the light travels to inside the tank.

I also want to thank all of you who have supported the Solaris. We have definately had some hickups with some of the fixtures. We are working very hard to resolve these quality control issues. I just finished inspecting our next load of Solaris that will be shipping in late November and all the issues that we have seen have been fixed.

Thank You,
Patrick Ormiston

 

[Amphibious]

Thanks for jumping in here Pat, I appreciate it.

 

[RichConley]

I clearly understand that you believe that the Solaris LED produces a lot less light than a 250W 20K metal halide. You have all the right to speak your opinion on these news groups as you always do. However, I believe you are doing a disservice to your fellow reefers when you make bold statements as facts when they are your opinions. If they are your opinions state that they are your opinions. I think your statement should be "In my opinion I don’t believe that the Solaris will light the tank as well as a 250W 20K metal halide lamp"

Patrick, the problem is that its not oppinion. Its fact. Even Dana Riddle's numbers back this up. You guys chose just about the poorest bulb combination possible, put an extra shield on it to cut out an additional 10-15% of the light, and it STILL could not stand up.

Heres from earlier int he thread

quote:Originally posted by Untamed12
I didn't read it that way... The Dana Riddle test says...

"the 75-watt Solaris produced 89.4% of the PAR generated by the 250-watt XM 20,000K lamp."

He then goes on to suggest that the Solaris produces a higher % of PUR (photosynthetically USABLE Radiation). That is, a higher percentage of the Solaris light production falls between 400-550nm (approx 87% vs 82%). I think that just means that the Solaris would be more effecient at producing useable wavelengths without wasting energy producing non-usable wavelengths. (are non-usable wavelengths waste...or do they contribute to the "look" of the aquarium?)

If one buys into that point of view, then you conclude that the Solaris produces about 94.8% of the PUR of the MH system tested.



Exactly. But then you have to take into effect that the XM has an unneeded glass shield on it in that test, so that drops the PUR number downfrom 95% to roughly 80%.

Consider the fact that a 20K XM puts out roughly 50 Par, and according to Sanjay, PUR is generally pretty proportional to PAR in MH bulbs. If you put a shield glass on the XM 20K, that puts you at roughly 42 PAR. If the Solaris is 95% of that efficiency, that puts it at having equal PUR to a halide bulb that puts out 40 Par.

Patrick, I've seen your units. At Imac, on tanks, at our clubs auctions this week. They're very nice. Theyre not NEARLY as bright as a 250w halide though, and its not even close.

Theyre very cool, but its less light for less electricity. All the marketing speak is getting old. Get some of the new, more efficient LEDs in there, and I'll buy one.

 

[alexmit]

The PBR of my lighting system is roughly a 12-pack. You can't deny it, it is fact. After those 12 PBRs everything seems brighter.
;-)

 

[PFO Lighting]

Rich,
6 months ago people were saying there is no way an LED light can compete with a Metal halide lamp. Now the statement is it can not compete with a specific lamp ballast combination. We have come a long way!

We sell 80% of our 250w ballasts in the M58 version. Therefore the majority of the people are using the standard M58 ballast. Now on reef central users this may not be true. We have chosen the highest 20k m58 ballast combination we could find per Sanjays tests. I have cut and pasted a portion of Sanjays table.

plot Happy Reefing 250W 20000K SE 1 Magnetek 250W (M58) N 53 0 272 123 2.69 0.1982
plot XM 250W 20000K SE 1 Magnetek 250W (M58) N 73 0 319 123 2.87 0.2288
plot Coralvue 250W 20000K SE 1 Magnetek 250W (M58) N 52 9004 276 123 2.68 0.1884
plot Sun Aquatics 250W 20000K SE 1 Magnetek 250W (M58) N 45 0 229 123 2.52 0.1965
plot Agromax 250W 20000K SE 1 Magnetek 250W (M58) N 60 0 284 123 2.72 0.2113
plot EVC 250W 20000K SE 1 Magnetek 250W (M58) N 45 0 261 122 2.64 0.1759
plot South Pacific Sunlight 250W 20000K SE 1 Magnetek 250W (M58) N 69 0 298 120 2.81 0.2342

Whether you agree or disagree with using the M58 ballast, this is what we see that is the most common as far as our sales numbers are.

If you would like to discuss your other issues more I will gladly do it privately with you over the phone or direct email. I try very hard not to post on the news groups because I believe it is for the hobbiests and not the product suppliers to promote their products.

Now I hope I can count on you to follow through on your word of buying a Solaris when we use more powerful LED's. It just might be coming........

Pat