Solaris Led lighting systems

[BeanAnimal]

PJF with all due respect... you keep bringing up the same straw arguments. Of course Dana's article mentions UV, it is his number one favorite topic (along with the need to reduce lighting levels in captive reefs).

I am responding to the recent posts by slow-leak in order to clarify the assumptions drawn in the post.

I am responding to the fact that the 250W XM bulb with UV shield is a very poor example of 250W MH lighting. Popular or not, it has crappy PAR that comes in below that of some lower wattage MH and most other 250W bulbs.

Fatal Flaw? The 175W XM 20K comes in with a par of 51, That would make the lamp with the FATAL FLOW more efficient than the SOLARIS!
150W and 175W 10K offerings come in at the 70-90 PPFD mark. Even with their "fatal flaw" they blow the SOLARIS away.

So the "fatal flaw" of the SOLARIS unit is that it is not yet competative with better MH lighting in terms of efficiency (watts per PAR/PUR) if a good MH bulb is chosen.

Nothing is perfect, anything can have a "fatal flaw" sir.

I would add, that you keep saying UV is harmful to coral health, yet the MH bulbs simply do not put out that much UV. You make it sound like somehow we are all killing our coral.

You keep saying the same thing in an attempt to show these units in a good light and MH in a bad light (no pun) and infer that I do not understand. You are not "refuting" a point being made, you are sidetracking the point with fluff.

I am talking about (and grounding) the inflated claims and fallacies that keep circulating about these lighting systems. You are ignoring the conversation and keep saying "yeah but the fatal flaw is....". There is no "fatal flaw" sir. The units operate differently and until the LED units surpass ALL MH units/technology across the board in efficiency and growth, then your "fatal flaw" is nothing more than your own pet peeve based on narrow thinking or interpretation.

Yes, a UV free source would be nice for reef lighting. The SOLARIS is a step in the right direction. As is easily illustrated, it is not the most efficient option and likely will not be for several years. If you have a 250W SE XM 20K with a UV shield and are slightly overlit and have a heat problem, then the SOLARIS unit could be considered as viable energy saver if you keep it in place for 10 years! Your not going to save $113 a month by removing (2) 250W MH bulbs...

 

[BeanAnimal]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8925192#post8925192 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by 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.

There is nothing wrong with the reasons you purchased the unit. I have no problem with the units or the company. The product appears to be well thought out and engineered with some nice features. I never said it any differently.

Several of you do not seem to understand that. Nobody is asking you or anybody to defend your reasons for purchase. Nobody (at least not me) is saying that these are junk. I am saying that a large portion of the claims about them and their operating parameters are either incorrect, inflated, or need to be taken in context. None of "you" seem to be willing to step in and say "yeah I own one but..." Instead many of you are helping to give these claims credibility instead of putting them in a truthful context.

With regards to the childish comments about what I do with my time and what motivates me? Stop with the personal swipes and stick to the subject or do not respond at all.

 

[howie1]

With regards to the MH bulb PFO chose for the comparison to the Solaris. PFO said on this thread further back, that they chose this MH bulb because it was their best selling MH bulb. It would make sense that they use that type of MH bulb as the comparison as it means there are more of those MH bulbs out there.

 

[slow_leak]

Well what if they packed in 500 - 5 watt bulbs?

Would you like it then??????? :>

 

[BeanAnimal]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8925877#post8925877 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by howie1
With regards to the MH bulb PFO chose for the comparison to the Solaris. PFO said on this thread further back, that they chose this MH bulb because it was their best selling MH bulb. It would make sense that they use that type of MH bulb as the comparison as it means there are more of those MH bulbs out there.

No, they chose the bulb because they could compare their fixture to it. To think anything less is nonsense. Do you think they would have chosen a bulb that showed their fixture to be less efficient? Give me a break!

So the XM 20K popular. Do you think if it had a par of 80 or 120 they would have chosen it because it was "most popular"? No way.

This is a perfect example of the problem!! The comparison is perfectly valid but not representative of the conclusions that keep being formed. What conclusions you ask? In a nutshell, that the SOLARIS fixture is more efficient than MH lighting! No, it is as efficient or slightly more efficient than a poor performer in the MH arena. If a better MH bulb was chosen, the results would be greatly lopsided against the SOLARIS, yet to talk about that is somehow bashing PFO or the fixture.

The popularity of the bulb is a straw argument. It would be much cheaper to switch to a more efficient MH bulb than to switch to a fixture that costs thousands of dollars. If you are going to make a comparison and draw conclusions from it, then they need to be kept in context. This whole thread is full of conclusions that are drawn out of context from a single comparison.

The fact that corals can grow with less light is a straw argument. The photoperiod of conventional lighting can be reduced to realize energy savings. Light movers can be used in a similar manner. This keeps getting glossed over.

We could go on and on... but this is getting old.

 

[jnb]

before my solaris, i was running 20k xm's 250 times 2 and loved it - so the comparison was valid for me - it was disclosed and anyone who will read it can make an informed accruate decision -

so far everyone else who has one, seems to love their tank with it

 

[howie1]

bean. you did not read thru this whole thread. right? I can tell.

 

[BeanAnimal]

jnb you seem to be so blinded by your happiness with your purchase that you are missing the big picture. Nobody is finding fault with your setup or the fact that you like the fixture. In converse, many of you owners have brought up many good reasons to be happy with these units. Please stop framing your comments in that manner [that you are somehow being attacked and have to defend the PFO fixture].

Several of you keep defending these things against attacks that are not being made and on the same token ignoring the reality of the comments that are being made.

Yes, the comparisson is VALID for you. But it is not valid as a comparission between MH and LED in general. It does show a good case study but that case study is not representative of the MH technology as a whole. You may have disclosed that, but the average poster here does not appear to understand. The overall notion is that LED lighting is more efficient than MH and better in every aspect. It may very well end up that way some day, but today we are not there.

The fact that people love them and their tanks with them is also irrelevant. People love their eBay RO/DI units and defend them with as much ferver. Ford and Chevy folks fight it out to the death because they are happy with their purchases. It does nothing but prove an individuals or groups happiness with a purchase. Using statements do nothing but cloud the issue instead of clarify it.

 

[BeanAnimal]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8927541#post8927541 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by howie1
bean. you did not read thru this whole thread. right? I can tell.

No, I just jumped in here in the last page or two. My new keychain flashlight has an LED in it and I think I understand how they work (I looked it up onthe internet). It is not as bright as my MagLite even though the package said it was. Those LED people are lying to everybody.

Gimme a break howie... I could as easily say "you have read the whole thread and don't understand a word I have said. Right? I can tell."

 

[jmchzn]

Slowleak,Bean all you guys
Thanks I play devils advocate because quite frankly I need to know and it's great that you spend the time to research and give us the benefits. I see the detail and sometimes question accuracy but for the most part Solaris does fall short for certain applications. I'm sure PFO is on it and I'm sure guys like you will in time have LED systems because your always looking for the ultimate reef.
That being said SOLARIS RULES.
I need skimmer advice.

IF you had all the money in the world what skimmer and why?
I know off thread you can pm me.

 

[skydancer]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8927573#post8927573 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by BeanAnimal
jnb you seem to be so blinded by your happiness with your purchase that you are missing the big picture. Nobody is finding fault with your setup or the fact that you like the fixture. In converse, many of you owners have brought up many good reasons to be happy with these units. Please stop framing your comments in that manner [that you are somehow being attacked and have to defend the PFO fixture].

Several of you keep defending these things against attacks that are not being made and on the same token ignoring the reality of the comments that are being made.

Yes, the comparisson is VALID for you. But it is not valid as a comparission between MH and LED. You may have disclosed that, but the average poster here does not appear to understand. The overall notion is that LED lighting is more efficient than MH and better in every aspect. It may very well end up that way some day, but today we are not there.

The fact that people love them and their tanks with them is also irrelevant. People love their eBay RO/DI units and defend them with as much ferver. Ford and Chevy folks fight it out to the death because they are happy with their purchases. It does nothing but prove an individuals or groups happiness with a purchase. Using statements do nothing but cloud the issue instead of clarify it.

Bean, give it up man...

It's not even funny anymore. If anyone dares to say anything positive about their Solaris, you personally attack them, about NOT SEEING IT... whatever you think the "IT" is...

IT IS ACTUALLY ANNOYING THAT WE GET AN EMAIL TO COME BACK AND READ NEW INFO.. TO ONLY FIND OUT IT'S YOU AGAIN, ATTACKING ANOTHER SOLARIS OWNER.

PLEEEEEEEEEAAAAASSSSSSSEEEEEEE.....

 

[MiddletonMark]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8926733#post8926733 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by BeanAnimal
The fact that corals can grow with less light is a straw argument. The photoperiod of conventional lighting can be reduced to realize energy savings. Light movers can be used in a similar manner. This keeps getting glossed over.

But if your MH provides enough light to cause photoinhibition, you can't reduce photoperiod to affect that.

 

[BeanAnimal]

I am also sure PFO is on it. It is in their best interest to keep plugging away at high efficiency LED setups and stay right on top of the technology curve. It is not "their fault", but rather a lack of maturity in the technology they are using. As the LEDs become better, so will the products that are built around them.

Like I said, when you see these things start popping up in warehouse and industrial floor lighting applications, they have hit the prime time point. Until that happens, you can bet that the efficiency is simply not quite there.

 

[BeanAnimal]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8927663#post8927663 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by skydancer
Bean, give it up man...

It's not even funny anymore. If anyone dares to say anything positive about their Solaris, you personally attack them, about NOT SEEING IT... whatever you think the "IT" is...

IT IS ACTUALLY ANNOYING THAT WE GET AN EMAIL TO COME BACK AND READ NEW INFO.. TO ONLY FIND OUT IT'S YOU AGAIN, ATTACKING ANOTHER SOLARIS OWNER.

PLEEEEEEEEEAAAAASSSSSSSEEEEEEE.....

I have not attacked anybody. Why do you folks frame any disagreement as an attack. Unsubscribe if you don't want the email skydancer. Respond to my comments with relevant information or don't respond at all. You are to busy attacking me and my motives or demanding that I shut up to see that you are the one filling the thread up with nonsense. Honestly, this is a public forum and people come here to trade ideas and information. Every so often you pop in and tell me to shut up and give up. What exactly is your point? You do not agree with me? I am wrong? You are right? You do not like me? You only want to hear what interests You? What exactly is it that I have done wrong here?

I am NOT here attacking, flaming, trolling, or spamming anybody so stop trying to make it look that way.

 

[BeanAnimal]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8927676#post8927676 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by MiddletonMark
But if your MH provides enough light to cause photoinhibition, you can't reduce photoperiod to affect that.

I would certainly agree Mark. But the question becomes one of what exactly that level is, and does simply using the LED negate the effect and add enough benefit to call all MH "evil" or "fataly flawed"

My contention (and I think the facts support it) is that no, not yet. Maybe in the coming future, but not yet. I certainly do not disagree that the SOLARIS unit appears to be a viable option for reef lighting. So far it appears to be supporting the corals in the tanks that it is installed on.

The enegy savings may be realized on some tanks, depending on the bulbs that were rerplaced and the overall need for light. Just the same, there are tanks that this setup would not be able to do justice or support.

 

[MiddletonMark]

Bean and others ...

It seems like it's time to take a break from this thread.

Take a walk, play with your tank ... just step away for a while.

As I'm seeing it - none of y'all are perfectly innocent.
Seems like I've seen mud thrown, little jabs in many posts here.

Whether you think you're attacked or not - I'd strongly suggest refraining from responding back and forth. It takes two to tango, and I see a lot of tango-ing going on here.

Before it goes further, before you force the thread to close or other actions to restrain your commentary about each other ... just let it go.

It's time for this thread to move forward.
If you can't, or won't, stop this negative commentary [on all sides] ... expect repercussions.

 

[MiddletonMark]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8927888#post8927888 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by BeanAnimal
I would certainly agree Mark. But the question becomes one of what exactly that level is, and does simply using the LED negate the effect and add enough benefit to call all MH "evil" or "fataly flawed".

If we're trying to avoid problematic UV and perhaps certain wavelengths as well [as Dana's IMAC talk suggested] ... then MH is certainly problematic [or less than ideal].

How you want to categorize that is up to you, but `not ideal' would probably be the best way.

IME, it's best to avoid categorizing the opposing argument to what you're saying with such polarizing words. [such as evil] Beyond creating straw men, you're misrepresenting some folks who are trying to discuss an opposing viewpoint.

 

[jnb]

nevermind - except to say - it is of no surprise that you don't have any partners on your website

 

[owsi]

The thread name is Solaris Led lighting systems. It started as an exchange of information, Pic's and set ups. Most was positive, then the power usage, then the comparison with MH. Now the choice of the 20K XM is questioned, yes its a smart marketing decision. Why not use one of the most used MH for a comparison, most people have or have used the XM's so its relevant. I have gone through a lot of brands/K's and money looking for the right color/growth combo. All produced a lot of heat in tank that required a fan, chiller and supplementation to bring out the colors. Have you ever worked in your reef with UV shields in place and got sunburned, dumb, yes, but I've done it. Does this hurt the corals? Have your corals ever lightened up over time, even with a short photo-period? I am not here to sell Solaris's or get people to buy them. I am here to speed up my learning curve about this system and get the most out of it possible. I am experimenting with settings and would like feedback from other users. If someone saved on their bill, that's great, not a reason to suspect fraud. My Reef is as bright as I would ever want it and the blues are not as visible to our spectrum, so I am sure I will be cutting back on the percentages soon. But to keep asking us to find fault with your statements is annoying. You might be right that we will never see any great savings on our power bill, I don't agree, but even more important I don't care. I want to learn from others how to get the most out of my Solaris!

 

[BeanAnimal]

I certainly would also categorize MH as "not ideal" with respect to UV and or radiated heat (even per WATT if you like).

That does not however mean that LED is "ideal", it may illustrate that the LED source is "better" or "ideal" if UV is the only consideration.

However many of these posts and topics touch on the "efficiency" of the fixtures, and that is not a cut and dry topic.

If and when it can be shown that watt for watt LED lighting grows corals healthier and faster AND do use by using less energy, then the LED can be considered "better" or more "efficient" if you will. We are simply not at that point yet.

I think that is what is being lost here. There are many valid points being made, but they are being used to draw conclusions that are not really supported by the facts.

I used the word "evil" to compliment (in an adjective way)the "fatal flaw" point of few that jnb keeps putting forth. If one is straw, so is the other, as they refer to the same thing. The point being, that "fatal flaws" are inherit in any of the technologies, it is just a matter or perspective with regards to operating parameters and goals.

At this juncture the "fatal flaw" of the LED is that it is not more efficient at producing light in THIS arena (and many others). The "fatal flaw" could also as easily be the cost to implement this technology. So are they really fatal flaws or just aspects of the cost and operation of a technology that need to be considered in the overall picture?

Bean