pjf
Premium Member
These references were included in my earlier posts:
http://www.masla.com/reef/uvlighting.html
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/feb2004/feature1.htm
Solaris Led lighting systems
- Thread starter jmccalip
- Start date
- Status
http://www.masla.com/reef/uvlighting.html
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/feb2004/feature1.htm
BeanAnimal
Premium Member
OWSi that is a function of the reflector, not the bulb. The same "spread/focus" of the LED can also be a drawback depending on tank dimensions.
Ohh you can change the configuration of the LEDS? Well you can change the shape of a reflector.
Bean
Ohh you can change the configuration of the LEDS? Well you can change the shape of a reflector.
Bean
jnb
Premium Member
Energy = Heat
375W is 375W Light spill is a function of the relfector design. The visible light is only part of the energy. You are correct, the LEDs do give off more of their energy in the form of visible (to the human eye) light. However everything radiated from the bulb falls someplace on the electromagnetic spectrum.
375W is 375W Light spill is a function of the relfector design. The visible light is only part of the energy. You are correct, the LEDs do give off more of their energy in the form of visible (to the human eye) light. However everything radiated from the bulb falls someplace on the electromagnetic spectrum.
BeanAnimal
Premium Member
Yes I have read both of those articles (and a few more done by educational institutes on animals in the ocean and UV-A and UV-B from sunlight).
Remember we are looking for the amount of light generated between 280-400nm.
You may want ot notice that most of the UV is during MH lamp strike... NOT NORMAL OPERATION.
The 280-320 portion is the dustrucive (UV-B) The UV-A is of little consequence.
The first is by Dana who is strongly in the "less light is better" camp. The article is well written, but please look at the AMOUNT of UV compared to the PUR or PAR of a lamp (the bulk of it's output). Ohh wait... that is not really the focus of the article.
The second article illustrates that GLASS between the bulb and tank will reduce the overall PAR. No suprise there.
Like I said... you are taking something that has factual basis and using it to support an open ended arguement. "LEDs are better because they do not produce UV" The fact is that most of the MH bulbs drop off quickly at around 400nm, long before the UV-B. Again look at the numbers in Danas article as they compare the the bulbs whole output, not just the full scale UV graph.
Did I mention that I never said LEDs were less efficient or produced more UV?
Put the numbers on context and get back to me... I will be glad to change my mind if you can show what percentage of light is "wasted" to UV.
Bean
Remember we are looking for the amount of light generated between 280-400nm.
You may want ot notice that most of the UV is during MH lamp strike... NOT NORMAL OPERATION.
The 280-320 portion is the dustrucive (UV-B) The UV-A is of little consequence.
The first is by Dana who is strongly in the "less light is better" camp. The article is well written, but please look at the AMOUNT of UV compared to the PUR or PAR of a lamp (the bulk of it's output). Ohh wait... that is not really the focus of the article.
The second article illustrates that GLASS between the bulb and tank will reduce the overall PAR. No suprise there.
Like I said... you are taking something that has factual basis and using it to support an open ended arguement. "LEDs are better because they do not produce UV" The fact is that most of the MH bulbs drop off quickly at around 400nm, long before the UV-B. Again look at the numbers in Danas article as they compare the the bulbs whole output, not just the full scale UV graph.
Did I mention that I never said LEDs were less efficient or produced more UV?
Put the numbers on context and get back to me... I will be glad to change my mind if you can show what percentage of light is "wasted" to UV.
Bean
BeanAnimal
Premium Member
And? I never said anything to contradict that.
You guys are trying to force an arguement where there is none.
LEDs can be considered "more efficient" with regards to some aspects of their operation.
BTW... LEDs do have FILTERS what do you thank the lens is? The lens is designed with a "pass band" to filter out unwanted wavelengths (including UV). Hint: white leds are UV LEDS with a fluorescent material as part of the filter.
Bean
Last edited:
pjf
Premium Member
Look at the Area Under the Curve
Look at the Area Under the Curve
As to how much UV light is generated and wasted, irrespective of filtration, simply look at Dr. Joshi's spectral curves. The area under the curve to the left of the 400nm mark indicates the amount of UV generated. Compare that area (and the IR area) to the total amount of light generated. You will find that wasted UV and IR radiation form a significant amount of the light generated.
Look at the Area Under the Curve
I am glad that we are looking at the same material and the same 280nm-400nm spectra. Did you notice in Table 1 of Riddle's article that the outer envelop of SE bulbs transmits 80% of the UV generated? Did you notice in Figure 2 of Dr. Joshi's article that the DE "UV shield" transmits more UV than it filters?
As to how much UV light is generated and wasted, irrespective of filtration, simply look at Dr. Joshi's spectral curves. The area under the curve to the left of the 400nm mark indicates the amount of UV generated. Compare that area (and the IR area) to the total amount of light generated. You will find that wasted UV and IR radiation form a significant amount of the light generated.
BeanAnimal
Premium Member
Re: Look at the Area Under the Curve
Re: Look at the Area Under the Curve
Again I have never said that the MH units are more efficient. I am simply saying the "fatal flaw" is not as "fatal" as you make it sound.
We can go back and forth with many pros and cons of each type of light. The LEDs do not have the intensity to penetrate and there is a los of PAR/PUR at depth. That can be easily illustrated to be an inefficiency.
That is why in the end the measure of PAR (PUR of you feel better about it) per WATT consumed is of interest here. However the only standing comparison is of the PFO and a rather poor MH bulb that was done by Dana. Dana chose the bulb according to the PFO claim. A closer inspection of the article will reveal that the PUR readings are compared to their full scale PAR readings, not to a common PAR. I am to lazy to do the math (and do not care that much) but the actual side by side would be interesting. As it would with a 10,000K bulb.
Bean
Re: Look at the Area Under the Curve
Yes, the envelope is rather useless... and yes using a glass (or other) shield between the lamp and water may reduce overall UV, but also reduces overall PAR. Note that most SE users do not use a shield. Anyway, I never contended any differently [about the UV or waste].
Yes the area LEFT of 400nm does indicate the amount of UV generated. The UV-A component is not harmful and the "waste" as you call it does cause fluorescence, something that some corals have learned to use to their advantage and something that some humans like to see. Furthermore the UV-B component is VERY SMALL (as shown by the measurements on Danas articles as well). In any case the combination of UV-A and UV-B is not a "large percentage" of waste as some of your posts have appeared to suggest.
Again I have never said that the MH units are more efficient. I am simply saying the "fatal flaw" is not as "fatal" as you make it sound.
We can go back and forth with many pros and cons of each type of light. The LEDs do not have the intensity to penetrate and there is a los of PAR/PUR at depth. That can be easily illustrated to be an inefficiency.
That is why in the end the measure of PAR (PUR of you feel better about it) per WATT consumed is of interest here. However the only standing comparison is of the PFO and a rather poor MH bulb that was done by Dana. Dana chose the bulb according to the PFO claim. A closer inspection of the article will reveal that the PUR readings are compared to their full scale PAR readings, not to a common PAR. I am to lazy to do the math (and do not care that much) but the actual side by side would be interesting. As it would with a 10,000K bulb.
Bean
cindyolson
New member
I thought I would post some new pic's. See if you notice changes.
This is my Green FrogSpawn under the Solaris Moonlights
This is my Hammer under the Solaris Moonlights
This is my Pinktip FrogSpawn under the Solaris Moonlights
This is a full daytime tank shot
Left Side
Right Side
Cindy
This is my Green FrogSpawn under the Solaris Moonlights
This is my Hammer under the Solaris Moonlights
This is my Pinktip FrogSpawn under the Solaris Moonlights
This is a full daytime tank shot
Left Side
Right Side
Cindy
AVALover5498
*Zoa Freak*
I'm in love!
Very inspirational.
Good luck!
-Chris-
Very inspirational. Good luck!-Chris-
BeanAnimal
Premium Member
Very nice looking tank... though tank photos do not tell much about the light above the tank, the corals do look healthy.
Amphibious
New member
Very nice pics, Cindy. Love the colors. Thanks for the update.
pjf
Premium Member
Promising Future
Promising Future
I believe that the following trends will provide a promising future for LED lighting:
• Lower Light Intensity. In the past, we have tried to duplicate natural sunlight. Now it has been determined that SPS corals are dynamically photoinhibited by mid-day sun and depend on lesser morning and afternoon light for photosynthesis. SPS corals tolerate mid-day sun rather than seek it. Future lighting will be based on actual coral needs. (http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/july2004/feature.htm)
• Simple Electrical Load. LED’s are powered by DC, require no ballasts, turn on instantly, and can be easily dimmed with PWM.
• Dawn-to-Dusk & Moonlight. LED’s can be easily controlled to produce dawn-to-dusk and moonlight regimens.
• Mass Production. LED’s can be easily and cheaply mass-produced. With mass-production, aquarium lighting will join the mainstream instead of being supported by a specialized cottage industry.
• Targeted Spectra. LED’s can emit the intended light spectra without the need for filtration.
• Environment & Safety. There is a growing awareness of the disappearing coral reef. The public is turning away from fluorescent lighting that uses mercury vapor and away from MH lighting that generates UV and high heat. LED lighting is safer.
• Efficacy. New LED’s emerging from laboratories can produce 150 lumens per watt, outstripping the efficacy of MH and T5 lighting. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LED)
• Modularization. LED’s can be modularized to allow the user to modify his lighting.
• Redundancy. The failure of a few LED’s will not cripple the lighting system.
• Even Lighting. A bank of LED’s can provide more even lighting.
• Aesthetics. LED’s produce glitter lines and the spectra desired by the user.
Promising Future
I believe that the following trends will provide a promising future for LED lighting:
• Lower Light Intensity. In the past, we have tried to duplicate natural sunlight. Now it has been determined that SPS corals are dynamically photoinhibited by mid-day sun and depend on lesser morning and afternoon light for photosynthesis. SPS corals tolerate mid-day sun rather than seek it. Future lighting will be based on actual coral needs. (http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/july2004/feature.htm)
• Simple Electrical Load. LED’s are powered by DC, require no ballasts, turn on instantly, and can be easily dimmed with PWM.
• Dawn-to-Dusk & Moonlight. LED’s can be easily controlled to produce dawn-to-dusk and moonlight regimens.
• Mass Production. LED’s can be easily and cheaply mass-produced. With mass-production, aquarium lighting will join the mainstream instead of being supported by a specialized cottage industry.
• Targeted Spectra. LED’s can emit the intended light spectra without the need for filtration.
• Environment & Safety. There is a growing awareness of the disappearing coral reef. The public is turning away from fluorescent lighting that uses mercury vapor and away from MH lighting that generates UV and high heat. LED lighting is safer.
• Efficacy. New LED’s emerging from laboratories can produce 150 lumens per watt, outstripping the efficacy of MH and T5 lighting. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LED)
• Modularization. LED’s can be modularized to allow the user to modify his lighting.
• Redundancy. The failure of a few LED’s will not cripple the lighting system.
• Even Lighting. A bank of LED’s can provide more even lighting.
• Aesthetics. LED’s produce glitter lines and the spectra desired by the user.
jnb
Premium Member
very nice shots - I have trouble shooting my solaris tank - you are using a d200; yes? - the white balance shows as shaded? never heard of that setting but it makes sense - interesting.
you seem to have captured the colors right on based on what I would expect to see from the various life forms in your water - jmo
I have more fun when the thread stays less intense and more oriented towards first hand experience -
you seem to have captured the colors right on based on what I would expect to see from the various life forms in your water - jmo
I have more fun when the thread stays less intense and more oriented towards first hand experience -
Last edited:
BeanAnimal
Premium Member
FWIW "color" is something that comes up all the time with pictures of peoples tanks. Sadly, there are just too many variables to accurately capture and reproduce the colors we see with our eyes.
Just a few of the variables:
*The Camera or scanner:
The CCD or other sensor
The white balance settings
The compression settings
The mode settings
The ambient room light
The tank light
The flash temperature and settings
The exposure and ISO settings
*The Image Editing Software:
The compression settings
The white balance and colorspace settings
The auto (or manual image adjustments)
The color depth and interpolation settings
*The Viewers Monitor
The monitors phosphors
The monitors calibration settings
The windows (or other) colorspace settings
The browsers color settings
...and a dozen other things.
If you go into Circuit City, Tweeter, Best Buy, Fryes, CompUsa, Sears, or any store with a large number of TVs and monitors, you will see a HUGE difference in color even with they are playing the same video from the same source! Broadcast source material is painstakingly color corrected and compensated for AT EVERY STEP of the production cycle from the studio lighting to the cutting room. All of the equipment is carefully and continuously calibrated and we still struggle to view correct colors on TV in our homes.
The average joe does a poor job at capturing color, working with color and displaying color. Few of us have calibrated monitors, let alone an understanding of colorspace.
What does this mean? Tank photos can be VERY pretty, but they rarely are a true representation of what one would see in person. Furthermore each one of us that look at the photos (as above) is not seeing the same colors.
Why here you ask? Again, what seems so very simple can be so very misleading. For all I know the colors in her tank are more brilliant that what I see on my monitor and it is a fully calibrated Viewsonic VP2030b (I am an ISF certified technician... that is I color calibrate high end display devices, mostly for home theaters)
Those who had no idea, just learned something. Those who choose to ignore it have the right too!
Again, very nice looking tank.
BeanAnimal
Premium Member
mako you can't trust the color of the pictures at all. Your best bet is to find an LFS or local reefer that has one. I would imagine that many LFS will soon be getting their display units.
Bean your killin me! who cares about the light when Cindy's tank looks so good? C'mon now it's about the animals and as you can see the light looks great with great color and if she turns down the daylight blues to about 75% she'll get the MH look and zoot down to 14-16k. Down to 10k if you like. C'mon now give us SOLARIS users some love. 2100.00 is way less than all top line MH systems. Do we really want to grow corals so big and so fast that we're fraging everyday. What about color. I look at some MH tanks that the growth is great but the color is not as intense. I do realize that certain color in corals is to protect from harsh sun which the MH simulate. I so appreciate all your info. I can't do w/o it. So please take my posts light heartedly. We are in an amazing hobby that keeps us all alive and loving life. Non reefers are missing all the hijynx! Thanks BEAN!
BeanAnimal
Premium Member
Her tank does look great... and I am excited about the prospect of LED lighting (I have been using it for years in my electronics projects... ) I just like to keep things in the realm if reality...
Tank photos are one of this things that get lots of oohhs and ahhhs (rightfully so) but are useless in terms of demonstrating bulb color (MH, T5, LED, or whatever).
Many people aks for photos of "so and so" bulbs so they can get an idea what they look like, but do not realize the silliness of it.
Before anybody paints me as a tank photo basher... I have just ordered a 105mm macro lens for my Nikon DSLR for the sole purpose of taking tank photos
I would even try one of the PFO fixture out, but simply can not justify the cost as compared to the (2) 150W DE pendents I use.
Bean
Tank photos are one of this things that get lots of oohhs and ahhhs (rightfully so) but are useless in terms of demonstrating bulb color (MH, T5, LED, or whatever).
Many people aks for photos of "so and so" bulbs so they can get an idea what they look like, but do not realize the silliness of it.
Before anybody paints me as a tank photo basher... I have just ordered a 105mm macro lens for my Nikon DSLR for the sole purpose of taking tank photos
I would even try one of the PFO fixture out, but simply can not justify the cost as compared to the (2) 150W DE pendents I use.
Bean
BeanAnimal
Premium Member
Nothing to sink in. Why blissfully ignore reality just because it makes people feel good? It helps nobody, other than those who do not want to hear the truth and are happy with anything that sounds good.
- Status
Similar threads
