Solaris Led lighting systems
- Thread starter JohnL
- Start date
RichConley
New member
Then you have no idea what you're talking about.
I'm sorry for being a jerk, but this isnt a matter of oppinion. Its pure physics. You can't create or destroy energy.
hilgert
Excessive Minimalist
You are exactly correct, and have demonstrated a better understanding of this concept than a few others have most recently on this thread.
A 1500 watt hair dryer consumes 1500 watts of power (watts = power), and most of it (practically all of it) is turned into heat energy (with little if any visible light from the heating elements, certainly not enough to light a room with 1500 watts of light energy).
A 75 watt incandescent light bulb consumes 75 watts, much of which is turned into heat energy (which is why you burn your hand when you touch it).
A 16W flourescent flood light consumes 16 watts, is cooler to the touch than a 75 watt incandescent bulb, but produces about the same amount of light energy.
Watts is NOT exclusively turned into heat or light - heat and light are forms of energy. Watts is used to measure the amount of electrical power required to generate heat or light energy. Also, a water pump consumes X watts of power to move the water, and the most efficient pumps generate very little heat (ie - they are very efficient in moving the water). Some pumps on the other hand can be sources of heat in a tank since they are less efficient into converting the electrical power (watts) into mechanical energy (moving water).
-Hilgert
"Watts is NOT exclusively turned into heat or light"
Nope. When you talk about lighting, it's pretty much those 2.
When light hits an object, it is either reflected, transmitted, or absorbed. If absorbed, it is either turned into heat, or into stored energy by photosynthesis. Photosynthesis isn't really a BIG storage sump, as far as we are concerned with our tanks. Realistically, MOST of that light energy is turned into heat in our tanks. SOME is reflected out the sides/top. But most gets turned into heat - either as it travels thru the water, or when it hits objects in the tank. As said earlier, "simple physics".
Nope. When you talk about lighting, it's pretty much those 2.
When light hits an object, it is either reflected, transmitted, or absorbed. If absorbed, it is either turned into heat, or into stored energy by photosynthesis. Photosynthesis isn't really a BIG storage sump, as far as we are concerned with our tanks. Realistically, MOST of that light energy is turned into heat in our tanks. SOME is reflected out the sides/top. But most gets turned into heat - either as it travels thru the water, or when it hits objects in the tank. As said earlier, "simple physics".
stimpy4242
New member
I also want to add, that the statements that watts relate to heat is also wrong...when it comes to lighting the majority of the wattage usages becomes heat...but for someone who constantly talks about simple physics and then says that, is wrong...like they said....a light is very inefficient at using the power as the purpose of a light is to ...well you know illuminate, but the majority of the energy is heat...not light...but like they said before...a pumps wattage is used mostly for turning a turbine...some of that wattage is heat...but do you really think the 300 watts of a sequence pumps is put right into the water as heat??? Of course not...that would be a 300w heater running 24 7 and if you ever had a heater malfunction...we know what that would do....a heater is a big resistor in the water...just pointing this out....
Stimpy, a 300w pump on a closed loop, let's say, that actually consumes 300w of power? ALL of that power is converted to heat. Much of it may be dissipated elsewhere (via friction), but it's all converted to heat. If it's a submersible pump, it ALL goes into the water as heat.
Energy can neither created nor destroyed. If the device consumes 300w, unless it is STORED (like in stored kinetic energy when you pump up from a sump to a tank), when it is "unstored" - like on an overflow, it releases that energy mostly via friction (heat). And yes, a submersible pump is just like putting a big resistor into your sump.
Now when you talk about non-submersed pumps, most of the heat is released to the surrounding air. But, you might be surprised at how much friction there is inside of that pump!
Energy can neither created nor destroyed. If the device consumes 300w, unless it is STORED (like in stored kinetic energy when you pump up from a sump to a tank), when it is "unstored" - like on an overflow, it releases that energy mostly via friction (heat). And yes, a submersible pump is just like putting a big resistor into your sump.
Now when you talk about non-submersed pumps, most of the heat is released to the surrounding air. But, you might be surprised at how much friction there is inside of that pump!
Musho3210
New member
Energy is NOT only heat and light, there is sound, chemical, mechanical etc.
And no when you are talking about light it doesnt mean it has to be about heat, like i said before, touch a 25 watt incandescent bulb that has been on for about an hour. Put on a bandage and use your other hand to touch a 25 watt PC bulb. Which one is hotter? They are both light....
And no when you are talking about light it doesnt mean it has to be about heat, like i said before, touch a 25 watt incandescent bulb that has been on for about an hour. Put on a bandage and use your other hand to touch a 25 watt PC bulb. Which one is hotter? They are both light....
UGH!
OK, now can we all buy into the the First Law of Thermodynamics (...energy can be neither created or destroyed..."? We do agree that this is valid, right?
In the above examples, can we now all agree that the 25 watts of power goes completely into light & heat (last time I checked, I couldn't HEAR a PC, and it didn't move - I'm not sure what "chemical energy" is - but I don't think it's going on either)?
OK, then if the the 25 watt PC puts out less heat, it must put out more light.
Look folks, I realize I'm kind of new here, but I've been in this hobby for over 35 years, and I'm a molecular biologist by education. There are many things I know little or nothing about. And then there are some things I know a bit about. If a light fixture consumes 25w of electricty, and it doesn't store any electricty, the 25 watts of energy is converted to a combination light and heat energy. Period.
OK, now can we all buy into the the First Law of Thermodynamics (...energy can be neither created or destroyed..."? We do agree that this is valid, right?
In the above examples, can we now all agree that the 25 watts of power goes completely into light & heat (last time I checked, I couldn't HEAR a PC, and it didn't move - I'm not sure what "chemical energy" is - but I don't think it's going on either)?
OK, then if the the 25 watt PC puts out less heat, it must put out more light.
Look folks, I realize I'm kind of new here, but I've been in this hobby for over 35 years, and I'm a molecular biologist by education. There are many things I know little or nothing about. And then there are some things I know a bit about. If a light fixture consumes 25w of electricty, and it doesn't store any electricty, the 25 watts of energy is converted to a combination light and heat energy. Period.
hyperfocal
Active member
Not a fair test anyways -- you must also include the energy lost as heat from the PC ballast. Touching both bulbs only gives part of the (qualitative) story.
hyperfocal
Active member
There's a ballast in there either way 
stimpy4242
New member
again i said with lights you are right...but you are saying all energy is heat...again you are wrong in a pump the energy is mechanical energy...not radiation energy in the light spectrum...gosh darn..
stimpy4242
New member
if it were all heat, the pump would not turn...
stimpy4242
New member
Electrical Energy is the movement of electrical charges. Everything is made of tiny particles called atoms. Atoms are made of even smaller particles called electrons, protons, and neutrons. Applying a force can make some of the electrons move. Electrical charges moving through a wire is called electricity. Lightning is another example of electrical energy.
Radiant Energy is electromagnetic energy that travels in transverse waves. Radiant energy includes visible light, x-rays, gamma rays and radio waves. Light is one type of radiant energy. Solar energy is an example of radiant energy.
Thermal Energy, or heat, is the internal energy in substancesâ€"œÃ¢â‚¬"œthe vibration and movement of the atoms and molecules within substances. Geothermal energy is an example of thermal energy.
Motion Energy is the movement of objects and substances from one place to another. Objects and substances move when a force is applied according to Newton’s Laws of Motion. Wind is an example of motion energy.
Sound is the movement of energy through substances in longitudinal (compression/rarefaction) waves. Sound is produced when a force causes an object or substance to vibrateâ€"œÃ¢â‚¬"œthe energy is transferred through the substance in a wave.
Radiant Energy is electromagnetic energy that travels in transverse waves. Radiant energy includes visible light, x-rays, gamma rays and radio waves. Light is one type of radiant energy. Solar energy is an example of radiant energy.
Thermal Energy, or heat, is the internal energy in substancesâ€"œÃ¢â‚¬"œthe vibration and movement of the atoms and molecules within substances. Geothermal energy is an example of thermal energy.
Motion Energy is the movement of objects and substances from one place to another. Objects and substances move when a force is applied according to Newton’s Laws of Motion. Wind is an example of motion energy.
Sound is the movement of energy through substances in longitudinal (compression/rarefaction) waves. Sound is produced when a force causes an object or substance to vibrateâ€"œÃ¢â‚¬"œthe energy is transferred through the substance in a wave.
hahnmeister
In Memoriam
Re: lumens/watt
Re: lumens/watt
Thats a pretty weak combo to compare to still. I would say its about 8 years outdated... you shouldnt be comparing this product to what people have from years ago, but what else they can pick from right now on the market... and right now, I would say more people are going DE/HQI with HQI or electronic ballasts, and with decent reflectors like the lumenarcs, reef optics, or lumenmax... One popular combo would be to match it against the pheonix 14,000K 250wattDE on a HQI ballast with a lumenarc DE pendant. Sure, it may be some stiff competition, and at the higher end of what halide buyers will consider (or is it these days?), but its still loads cheaper than even the cheapest Solaris... and you have to give a comparison that at least... a person who is looking at buying a Solaris isnt going to be looking at outdated M58/59 ballasts, SE probe bulbs, and crappy reflectors as 'other options'... they will be looking at the best the technology has to offer. The XM 20,000K in the setup you have is not that at all.
Re: lumens/watt
Thats a pretty weak combo to compare to still. I would say its about 8 years outdated... you shouldnt be comparing this product to what people have from years ago, but what else they can pick from right now on the market... and right now, I would say more people are going DE/HQI with HQI or electronic ballasts, and with decent reflectors like the lumenarcs, reef optics, or lumenmax... One popular combo would be to match it against the pheonix 14,000K 250wattDE on a HQI ballast with a lumenarc DE pendant. Sure, it may be some stiff competition, and at the higher end of what halide buyers will consider (or is it these days?), but its still loads cheaper than even the cheapest Solaris... and you have to give a comparison that at least... a person who is looking at buying a Solaris isnt going to be looking at outdated M58/59 ballasts, SE probe bulbs, and crappy reflectors as 'other options'... they will be looking at the best the technology has to offer. The XM 20,000K in the setup you have is not that at all.
hahnmeister
In Memoriam
They put out similar amounts of heat really... its just that the power compact has more surface area to shed that heat over. Sure, the halogen is maybe what... 20 lumens per watt at best (that might even be too high, but Im not looking it up right now), and the power compact could be 50 or 60 in an ideal situation... but considering 80% of the energy that is going into the better of the two is still converted to heat... that makes the worse of the two something like what... 90% heat? Oh yeah... like there is a huge difference between 20 watts of heat, and 22.5 watts of heat to the touch if given the same surface area.
The key here is the PC has more surface area to shed that heat... just like how T5s seem so much cooler than halides.... well... area/watts-wise, a T5 has about 40x the surface area compared to a halide.... so of course the T5 feels cooler. But put both inside a calorimeter, and the results will be very similar.
This also relates to LEDs. They are about just as efficient as halides and T5s heat-wise... its just that with LEDs, now you can put a heat sink right on the back of the 'bulb'... wicking away excess heat very quickly (which is great for the LED phosphors). This heat is merely transferred to sinks and swept away with a fan so the unit seems cooler.... but its effect on your home's A/C will be exactly the same. Put a Solaris in a calorimeter, and you will get just as much net heat from it as the equal wattage halide or T5.
The idea here is to decrease wattage needed by increasing the lighting efficiency though... so that is the slight edge of LED's... in the future at least. Right now, the luxeon versions are running at about 7 lumens/watt if I remember correctly. The newer ones only slightly better really. The Luxeon Rebels and Cree components though... 60 lumens per watt... now we are playing ball.
hahnmeister
In Memoriam
Re: lumens/watt
Re: lumens/watt
I do appreciate the table there Patrick. I was wondering if you had any lumens/watt comparisons for T5 bulbs that are commonly used in the trade? ATI blue+ or G-man actinic+ would be interesting to compare to ATI aquablues or G-man midday bulbs... or even GE 6500Ks and 3000Ks. I suppose its not fair though, as when you go bluer, the PAR can stay the same, even though the lux decreases, given the lux photometric scale's lack of registering blue light in a fair manner. I wonder how much those seeming drops in lumen output as you go bluer with halides would change if compared in PAR instead.
Re: lumens/watt
I do appreciate the table there Patrick. I was wondering if you had any lumens/watt comparisons for T5 bulbs that are commonly used in the trade? ATI blue+ or G-man actinic+ would be interesting to compare to ATI aquablues or G-man midday bulbs... or even GE 6500Ks and 3000Ks. I suppose its not fair though, as when you go bluer, the PAR can stay the same, even though the lux decreases, given the lux photometric scale's lack of registering blue light in a fair manner. I wonder how much those seeming drops in lumen output as you go bluer with halides would change if compared in PAR instead.
Similar threads
