Solaris Led lighting systems

[stimpy4242]

Are you kidding, my statements are very clear...and the convo is a joke...bottom line is the solaris works...but keep throwing your numbers out there...and I will just keep saving on electricity and lack of chiller...oh and my corals are just fine.

 

[RichConley]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10108311#post10108311 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by stimpy4242
I don't give a crap what your numbers say, it is working...did anyone ever stop to wonder if MH were too much in themselves? Just curious...i know they are better than pcs, but are they so much better that really a unit that is less, IF THE SOLARIS IS, is just fine? The most light possible is also NOT GOOD!

All of this is totally irrelevant. It doesnt matter if 250w MHs are too much. It doesnt have anything to do with this conversation, because there are 150w mhs, and 70w mhs.

Like I've said previously, the Solaris puts out light between a 70wmh and a 150. It isnt any more efficient than either one of them. You're NOT saving money on electricity. You'd have the same bills, and the same light with a 70w MH.

you're argument is a wonderful example of cognitive dissonance. You've convinced yourself that you dont need all that light because your fixture can't compete, and you paid a huge amount of cash for it.



Please tell me, what advantage does your setup give you over a 70w MH?

 

[stimpy4242]

Here is the problem, par reading are showing the solaris to be at roughly 92% of a 150w MH which is not 70wmh and you have not shown they are 70wmh...so it burns 40% less than the same 150w...so if 8% = 40% then you are right, but my math shows it doesn't so I guess I am saving...also I don't have to replace my leds every year...which means around year 5 I am ahead of the game...probably sooner with elec savings and lack of chiller since I am not heating my water so that is a saving and elec saving as well...plus the unit simulates the actual lunar cycle and provides a more, while still not, realistic lighting scenario than MH on, MH off, pc on pc off, moon light on moon off...i have sunset and sunrise moonrise and set and cloud cover that randomly comes and the light mimcis exactly what is happening outside my house...when the sun has set outside so has my tank...I can of course change the time and make it later or make it CA in my tank in MD...haha...so those are the reasons...its not just about math, although I am showing that as well.

 

[stimpy4242]

an image for sure

 

[prugs]

stimpy,
Nice meter, where did you get it?
Are those light sensors water proof?

 

[stimpy4242]

Yeah the water question is of course a concern, but one that I think is going to affect light in the same way...regardless...so while the par will be less, it will be equally less, actually that is a lie the leds have a much narrower beam so it may show a stronger par for the led in water, where as the MH disperse over a greater area...i am not sure...and that picture is thanks to dick hilgers of the cultured reef.

 

[purebullet417]

just ordered the 72" 400w for my uncles 125 it should be in this week

 

[SWSaltwater]

wow, on a 125 that will be a ton of light. welcome to the Solaris club.

 

[purebullet417]

thanx we may be upgrading so wanted to make sure we had the extra should we need it. well just lower the intensity if needed

 

[RichConley]

Stimpy, now test it with a bulb that doesnt suck. Like a phoenix.


what the heck is an HPF8? Lets use a real reflector, like a lumenarc. Now lets do a real test and test the PAR in a grid 24" by 24" wide.

 

[hahnmeister]

The other thing to compare is the spread... a readings from every 2" point on a 2'x2' grid should show the spread of both.

prugs, yes, the sensor is waterproof, its the same one I use to do the PAR readings on WRS member's tanks from inside the tanks.

stimpy4242,
there are some details lacking in your comparison that would be interesting to see...

bulb age of the radium
reflector design
which solaris unit is being compared (it looks like a 250 eq., but 13 or 20,000K?)
the spread of each's output.... I can use a reflector to spread out the output of a halide bulb so much that it will have 1/8 the PAR that it would with a more focused reflector. From those pics, the spread of the LED looks very contained... as one would expect. The spread of the Radium is lighting up the surrounding area much more. So the total light output of the Radium could still be much more than the LED. Simply 'fishing around' for the high value does not tell the whole story of the 'total output'...

For example...

Only, in this case, the LED has the higher output in the center, and 0 around the edges where the halide will still have a value.

You are sorta correct about the LED passing the surface. On a totally calm surface, the LEDs would penetrate the water surface better... but my tanks, with their 80-90x turnover... yeah, right.

 

[stimpy4242]

Well see again you go and mention nearly never situation, who has 8-90x turnover...i have 40x in my tank and people think that is crazy....no one does what you said for turnover...i mean MY GOD your poor fishies....anyhow...with that being said...its not my image as I said earlier...ask dick hilgers of the cultured reef these questions...but you know I am getting the feeling that if we were to do what you asked and it came up in our favor...there would be something else wrong with it and you wouldn't be satisfied ever...also the turbulent surface would have the same effect on the MH as LED and once again i think the LED would penetrate through it better....i will agree that perhaps the spread to the outer areas is less with an LED...i only say this because the do shine straight down...so they have slightly less spread...

 

[stimpy4242]

Now you can see why I said from the beginning all your numbers are worthless...bottom line, once again, is my solaris is growing my corals just fine, they have not suffered they seem like they are doing just as fine, maybe a little better...but certainly not worse...else I would hook up a MH system...don't want to lose my system over pride...but I do think in a year they will be even better because of the naturally created environment...

 

[stimpy4242]

Do any of you arguing against one....own one? Just curious...because maybe your just jealous...haha...and no one ever responded to my cost savings stuff...guess I was right there huh?

 

[prugs]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10113629#post10113629 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by stimpy4242
Do any of you arguing against one....own one? Just curious...because maybe your just jealous...haha...and no one ever responded to my cost savings stuff...guess I was right there huh?

I'm not investing thousands into sketchy technology. Sure it works, but how well it works is the question.

You can buy a Honda Civic hybrid & get fuel economy in the 40's, or you can buy a Volkswagon TDI & get fuel economy in the 50's.

 

[BeanAnimal]

Here is the reflector that was used in the misleading photos above (that are then used to bolster misinformed arguements). It is a PFO horizontal unit

Read all about in Sanjays Reflector Article here: http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/mar2003/feature.htm

Notice how that reflector is BLOWN away by the lumenarc???

NOTE OF POINT! Before anybody says "but not everybody owns a LUMENARC", remember that somebody that is going to spend $3000 on a fixture could as EASILY purchase a $200 Lumenarc. So the "argument" is 100% nonsense. You consider the PFO LED fixture to be the "BEST", then compare it to the "BEST" MH fixture. Otherwise you are handicapping the MH bulb to skew the results.

That PFO fixture used has a high intensity focus in 1 very small area, and drops off pretty quickly after that, as well as spreading the light out in a long path. Is the ssensor placed in that area... not a chance with par numbers like that. The lumenarc puts down a fairly consistent and tightly focused pattern. That is what SHOULD be used for the comparison.

Here is the graph from Sanjays website. See for yourself:

Also from Sanjays website:
RADIUM 20K SE BULB
85 PAR with MAGNETIC Ballast
66 PAR with ELECTRONIC BALLAST

Phoenix 10K SE:
160 PAR with HQI
133 PAR with MAGNETIC
94 with ELECTRONIC

What an utter bunch of CRAP those photos are above. Honestly, this is starting to get old. Notice how PFO jumps in here to defend their boxes, customer service etc. But they do not say a word about any of these arguments?

We are not trying to belittle the light. Many of us are just trying to show that IT IS NOT more efficient and that the logic being used to show that is more efficient is more than skewed.

When push comes to shove the "well coral does not need that much light" argument is used. So spend less money and use less MH. Less heat, less electricity and more savings. The further inflates the cost difference between the MH and LED fixture.

This should be a no brainer.

When LED technology steps forward, these fixture may very well become MORE efficient. THEN, when the price drops to a reasonable level they will possibly be a VALUE in Total Cost Of Ownership. At this point they are an EXPENSIVE ALTERNATIVE TO LOW WATTAGE MH OR FLUORESCENTS. That's it. They have some nice features and certainly have some niche uses that MH may not fill well.

 

[BeanAnimal]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10113629#post10113629 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by stimpy4242
Do any of you arguing against one....own one? Just curious...because maybe your just jealous...haha...and no one ever responded to my cost savings stuff...guess I was right there huh?

Why does this always turn into the last ditch effort to discredit people. Some of us have a higher level understanding of mechanics, physics, and the universe. We don't have to "own" something to understand how it works.

With regards to energy savings... it has been argued several times. Your not saving as much as you think. I am not being rude, but if you don't understand that, then explaining it to you is not going to help.

 

[Blutowski]

I have been following this thread from the beginning and have read each and every post so I figured I might chime in with my 2 cents. I find the concept of LED lighting very exciting. The possibilities offered by the LED solution are unsurpassed and I am confident that one day most people in this hobby will be using LED technology. However I have to say that at this time I have to agree with Bean. I doubt he would be so vocal had PFO tempered their marketing approach. They really are comparing apples to oranges with their claims vs MH and I think that is his point. He is not slamming the new adopters, in fact everyone associated with reef keeping owes you all a large debt of gratitude for taking the plunge and then sharing your experiences for the rest of us.
My main objective when I put my tank together is to make it as simple a system as possible (The fewer the moving parts, the less there is to go wrong). That means absolutely no chiller. Obviously the Solaris is a very attractive alternative but based on the counter arguments made by bean and others, I can put a 400w lumenarc 10k bulb on a light mover with a couple of tek t5 acintics on a 4'x2'x2' 120g tank for $600 +- and have an optimum lighting system and save $1400. I figure with adequate air movement within the canopy, I should not have any heat issues.

 

[Paulairduck]

this hobby can get you in trouble

this hobby can get you in trouble

This is how you know how much this hobby costs !!!

solaris 72" led 20k
brand spanking new $3100 negotiable on a small scale. friend going thru a divorce. pm me for more details

:eek1: :eek1: :eek1:

 

[Musho3210]

Why do people say when you have an MH light you spend more to get a chiller? Who said MH lights NEEDED a chiller?

I am not arguing against the solaris, IMO it seems like it is a very workable piece of technology, but the comparing price with MH to solaris in the long term, some info is biased there. Like what was said before, electricity costs are pretty much the same, MH dont need chillers, a set of computer fans work just as well. Your pretty much saving money on bulbs.