Solaris Led lighting systems

[slow_leak]

I relooked at specs - 4 foot PFO High Output LED array had 100 3 watt bulbs. Previous articles suggested 25 bulbs is 90% PUR of a 250 watt bulb.

So the 4 foot lamp would be equivalent to about 3 1/2 - 250 watt MH bulbs with far less wasted heat.

I looked up stanard retail of a near equivalent bulb (perhaps more expensive and they came out at 7.95 each. They require heat sink mounting and electronic drivers. So in respect to a manufactured case and number of bulbs the PFO units are not out of line with costs, however the bulbs will certainly be cheaper in the near future if they are expected to catch on commercially.

I feel competent enough to build a light with these specs but I also think it may be wise to wait for aquarists feedback and stability of the accompaning heat sink.

 

[slow_leak]

http://www.fiberopticproducts.com/Luxeon.htm

Here is some basic info on high output LED's

 

[BeanAnimal]

slow_leak I thinl you need to take a hard look at your math and the reality of the situation. A 4' fixture is nowhere near "3.5" 250 watt MH bulbs (or 875 worth of MH with 300W of LED and NO HEAT). If that was the case, we would not have much of an arguement here in this thread....

 

[slow_leak]

Based on the report that 25-3 watt high output LED bulbs are equivalent to 90% PAR of a 250 watt MH bulb then 100-3 watt bulbs are equivalent to 90% PUR of 4- 250 watt MH bulbs. I rounded down to 3.5 since I have my own doubts.

Here is the source of my info:
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2006/8/review2

"Without going into a lot of detail, we can simply compare lamp wattage to PAR production over a given area. Using the data shown in Figures 2 and 4, plus standardized surface area, the 75-watt Solaris produced 89.4% of the PAR generated by the 250-watt XM 20,000K lamp."

Now you might be right as I have no way of seeing one myself but this is the limited info available. If you have an alternate source of the light output please share it.

 

[slow_leak]

I found some links to the philips emitter:

http://www.lumileds.com/products/family.cfm?familyId=1

compared with:

http://www.lumileds.com/products/family.cfm?familyId=1

so in this case 2.99 LIST PRICE times 100 = ~300 usd. So that leaves $2000 for 4 fans heat sinks, case and and electric driver and controllers.

 

[slow_leak]

http://www.lumileds.com/products/family.cfm?familyId=1

This should be the second link............... as a comparison

 

[badpacket]

Slow-leak, I can't shed any light on the efficiency or your math, however the price is certainly right.
Haven't shopped to much, however if a DIY solution is not wanted for experimenting, there are some cheap projects parts:
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache...ice&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=firefox-a

If someone does want to simply buy a Luxeon, get an AC/DC wall wart adapter, and buy a resistor and play, Luxeon's got you covered with the math, just click the resistor on the schematic:
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache...ice&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=firefox-a

Or to go really cheap:

http://ledsmagazine.com/press/13322

 

[BeanAnimal]

Lets step back a minute and away from the somewhat confusing (and IMHO lopsided) article by Dana Riddle...

According to PFO

The Solaris Illumination System will produce similar PAR Measurements on the bottom of the tank as a 250 Watt 20K MH Lamp. The LED's are designed in 12" increments. You would need a 24" LED hood to produce the same light as one 250W Metal Halide Lamp which would cover 24" of tank length.

Again (and others will argue, flame) but that is comparing 24" of solaris lighting (150W listed) to a VERY LOW par (~50 PPFD) 250W MH fixture with a UV shield. There are 150W MH bulbs that have GREAT color and more PAR than the 250W used in the test!

That is ignoring the narrow spread of the MH and the need to raise it higher over wide tanks (lookup inverse square).

Everybody seems to rant and rave about the light and the almost mystical savings and efficiency.... it is simply not true. Even Sanjay reportedly commented that it [SIC] "was nice, but not quite ready for prime time, maybe in 3-5 years it will be a viable technology".

Actually a well chosen 150W MH bulb will outperform the SOLARIS. Nobody seems to want to talk about that.

Nice fixture, nice concept, seemingly wonderful customer support.

However, the "efficiency" has to be taken in context, something that nobody here is able to wrap their head around. Instead we get cherry picked numbers and distortions of the reality because people are not comparing apples and oranges.

The silliness even makes it into the "review" when Dana says [SIC] we over-illuminate our tanks anyway, so the SOLARIS is a perfect fit (less overall light = good growth and better efficiency)..." but nobody can seem to wrap their heads around the fact that you can reduce the photoperiod or wattage of your MH (or fluorescent) setups and get the same effect and savings.

If all of the fact devioid hype and spin keeps up, these things will soon deserve their own entry in the snopes.com urban legand pages.

I am all for new technology and think the SOLARIS units are a GREAT start. Lets just keep them grounded in a realistic context.

 

[underpar]

Hey Mr. Bean, why don't you give it up?

 

[owsi]

He's lonely.

 

[jmchzn]

Yup that's what I've been saying.
ok
I buy a vette the mustang guys say " hey man I got a fast car too"
"It goes down the street too" Mine cost 25 yours cost 55 ha ha you got beat! Then I say to the Ferrari guy "hey man my car goes down the street too. Mine cost 55 yours cost 155 you got beat".
Bean says 'I got more light for less money you got beat'
I say but mine looks much better and is more pretty and has less heat and better controls and less wiring and hot ballasts all over my house and I don' need no stinking chiller and my electric bill goes down even if by 5 cents and its more prittier too!
Sorry I'm a capitalist pig who wantS the Ferrari every time.
I am NOT reality based. This whole freakin hobby is not reality based. We can not replicate nature and all of our tanks will eventually crash they all do. Anyone know of a tank set up w/ same corals and fish for more than or close to 10 years? If your on this site your a capitalist pig just like me! Don't you know people are starving in Africa. HAhahahahaha ok I'm done ranting. Solaris rules! OK now I'm done.

 

[the_anti_honda]

Thats over 10 years same system same corals!

 

[the_anti_honda]

Oh that hawk isn't little either..


BeanAnimal - I'm with you on this one.

 

[jmchzn]

I feel ALIVE! THANK YOU! I had a dream! No Kidding! One of the nicest tanks I've seen. If you can do it so can I. Give me 1 and ONLY 1 piece of advice. And forget the lights! Solaris rules. ANY other key? The single most important thing you do to keep that monster going!
See I NEVER take financial advice from a guy on the bread line. I don't take reef advice from a guy with a nano! I'll listen intently on every word you write. Don't confuse me I'm real slow so just give me 1 thing. PLEASE master.
oh and how do I take pics like that?

 

[BeanAnimal]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8923419#post8923419 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by underpar
Hey Mr. Bean, why don't you give it up?

Like I said, the way these things are portrayed, the UN may want to see of they can get them mandated in the next revision of the Kyoto Protocol and have MH outlawed for contribution to global warming.

The fixtures are starting to take on a life of their own and only a handful of people grasp the reality, they rest happily propagate the myth.

Somebody posted a statement regarding their efficiency and the suggestion that a 4' fixture would be as efficient as 3.5-4 250W MH bulbs. I guess the modern politically correct thing to do would be to either not say anything or post a comment in agreement, even when I know the statement is wrong. Sorry, I would rather people be given the opportunity to see the real facts so they can make an informed decision.

I could also take your comment as infering I am wrong. That would then beg the question as to why you are unable to show where I am wrong and instead want me to give up?

 

[the_anti_honda]

jmchzn - I don't want to seriously side track this thread but I can tell you what has helped me out the most. Stability!

PM me and I would love to answer any questions that you may have that would help you keep the reef you want, as long as you want.

 

[the_anti_honda]

I also have a nano LOL!

 

[slow_leak]

We all know technical reviews in the aquarium hobby are often hype and promotion. Remember that PCV tube with little rare earth magnets taped to it.

I also don't feel very strongly about the topic as I pointed out the bulbs set alone it only $300 at list price. A consumer might even get a 100 count discount. I feel I could mount them in a reasonable way if I wanted to.

I know a 250 20K is less PAR than 250 6500K. But the article was basing the results on PFO claims about light output. So I still don't think this has been refuted until another study has been done.

My initial opinion is that they could augment a MH set up but the differences in heat tolerances may not allow it. I do like the idea of the low heat output alone makes it an interesting topic.

I would hazard a guess that in the next 2-3 years the aquarium market will use a 5 watt or higher - high output LED bulb, even possibly with some kind of twist lock set up.

In searching for HO LED bulbs it shows the most frequent use as expensive flashlights, which I suspect in an early entry point into the commercial market.

 

[pjf]

Re: Re: Look at the Area Under the Curve

Re: Re: Look at the Area Under the Curve

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8887059#post8887059 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by BeanAnimal
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.

Several citations in Riddle’s article show that UVA is harmful to coral health. Spectral analyses by both Joshi and Riddle show large amounts of UV are emitted by MH lighting despite the “shields” that also filter PAR.

http://www.masla.com/reef/uvlighting.html
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/feb2004/feature1.htm

As for the desirability of coral fluorescence, aquarists do not use MH lighting to induce coral fluorescence. To do that, we use fluorescent lighting at night.

To reiterate, the fatal flaw in MH lighting is that the UV produced is harmful to coral health. This UV radiation is not sufficiently filtered and attempts to filter it also reduce PAR.

 

[owsi]

Why did I buy a Solaris? If it saves some electricity, great, But I bought the Solaris for;
Heat gain or lack there of in the tank, less ambient gain in the room(put this in for bean to sharp-shoot, lol).
Ability to adjust color and intensity at my fingertips, I grow mostly SPS and light acclimation on a display is a pain and ugly to look at for the week or two it takes.
The reputation of PFO for backing their products, this is cutting edge and I expect some problems, PFO will be there if needed.
I had never heard of Solaris till I saw a post that a local LFS was getting one in for their display. I went down to look at it and saw this was the future. I had been looking at getting LED spots to argument my color spectrum instead of PC's or T-5's, here was a whole fixture better then what I had planned.
And bean if we gave you your electric savings argument, what would you do with the rest of your life? This gives you purpose, something to live for, lol.