Solaris Led lighting systems

[kimoyo]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10630965#post10630965 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by BeanAnimal


Who cares what YOUR rate is, it was not in question. Secondly, I posted the map to show the averages. Did you read my post or are you just trolling? I also stated that the rate MAY be wrong. I did the math showing what I found to be the rate, but could easily do it at ANY rate you wish.

For your information, MOST municipalities post their CURRENT rates online at their websites. THAT is where I draw information from if it is available and that is what I use to base my comments on.

You say I have no clue? Get the REAL rates from those (3) people who you say I have lied about. YOU SHOW THE MATH.

Did congress not just pass laws regarding electric, phone and gas bills, using the reasoing that the AVERAGE AMERICAN can not read their own bill?

Was I saying that people can not read their own bills, or was I saying that people do not understand how to calculate electrical usage and the "Solaris savings" numbers were out of line with reality.

Honestly man... if you going ot attack me, do so armed with good information and an informed arguement. Not arguements like you posted above.

I would be more than happy to work through ANY set of numbers for ANY setup with ANY electrical rate. We can leave the attacks and silly tangents aside and get rigt to the the math.

Wow, you go on and on about how people don't attack what you say but you as a person. And now the first thing you do is call me a troll. I know my rates are 0.27kWh because I just paid the bill yesterday. Want to call me a liar too, go to the LIreefers forum and ask what they pay or go to MR and ask what they pay. Are you going to call all of them liars also??

Now its people don't understand how to calculate electrical usage even though you went on and on about how $0.36 kWh is unreasonably high. Well, move yourself from PA to NYC and you'll see what unreasonably high is.

 

[BeanAnimal]

I don't care what YOUR rates are, that is a straw arguement.

My comments were directed at a proposed savings due to the solaris, based in a anothers comments. I responded directly to those comments and the numbers given. Not YOUR rates or your clubs rates or anybody elses.

You tell me how much YOU claim to save by turning off a device and you post YOUR rates. Then we can talk about those rates and those savings.

You have NOT addressed the facts, and instead have used ad-hominem garbage to try and show I am wrong. It is silly.

There may be people that pay $1 a kWh, ,what does it have to do with this? Nothing! This people did not post their rates or their observed savings.

If you can't respond in context, what is the use of responding at all? Your trying to fight about something that is not relevant to the conversation.

 

[kimoyo]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10631037#post10631037 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by BeanAnimal


I suggest you read the Law of Conservation of Energy again.

Heat and Work are the only means by which energy can be transfered.

We are talking about transfering energy here are we not? We certainly are not storing it are we? Energy is imparted to the tank and the room. The only thing in either that stores energy is the life in the tank. Care to weigh it before and after? That is the only ENERGY stored, and therefore can be subtracted.

Care to talk about WORK. Do we have perpetual motion in our tanks or rooms? NO? Then what becomes of the energy that is transfered to WORK... ohh it becomes HEAT. ENERGY=HEAT

Spoken by someone who has only look at a thermodynamics book. It went from "Heat=Energy" to heat and work, lol. And how does light (which you have been talking about this entire thread) which stores and transfers energy fit into your "heat=energy" paradigm?

Yes!!! Life in the tank stores energy!! That is the whole point of my post and what you are missing. That store energy was not converted in thermal energy when it came out of the lights, so what you saying is incorrect! Even after the coral dies it doesn't release all of that stored energy and then we take the coral skeletons out of the tank. This is obvious because the coral needs energy to grow. The more coral usable radiation the less radiation that will be converted into heat. This IS the whole point that your skipping over. The aquarium has life in it, its not an empty box!

BTW, don't bash me, I'm not the one who has been spurting incorrect physics for the entire thread.

 

[kimoyo]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10631068#post10631068 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by BeanAnimal

So YOU truly understand the basics of physics, heat and energy. It sure does not appear that way here. All you have done is propose that an insignificant amount of energy is trapped by the corals in the process of their growth. Honestly... what a joke with regard to the amount of energy being used here.

Wowwww!! Say anything to prove you point. Now the bonds inside the corals have an insignificant amount of energy. Have you every heard of the atomic bomb? LOL. But I guess quantum mechanics means nothing either because its about small things, lol. Truely, spoken by someone who has only read a thermodynamics book.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10631068#post10631068 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by BeanAnimal
Not only that, but don't BOTH MH and LED lights add mass to the coral? Subtract that the difference and wow... we can talk about heat again.

Wowww, so finally understand that energy from the lights won't only go into heat. So wouldn't that take us back to the PUR discussion that you spent this entire thread dismissing? If LEDs produce more usable radiation than MHs? And if LED lighting would be more effective?

 

[BeanAnimal]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10631210#post10631210 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by kimoyo
Spoken by someone who has only look at a thermodynamics book.

Care to stop with the personal attacks? It does not better your position.

It went from "Heat=Energy" to heat and work, lol.

It did not go from anything to anything. I have not changed a word I said. You expounded that heat was not the only thing that energy could be.

We can STORE Energy
We can TRANSFER Energy to HEAT
We can TRANSFER Energy to WORK
Thats IT!

We do not have perpetual motion, so WORK also = HEAT. So all that is left is STORAGE. The only STORAGE we have is the corals mass. Little of which is ENERGY, most of which is calcium, minerals and water.

Do we really need to do the math to keep this in context, or are you going to argue about some miserable amount of stored energy that means nonthing to the debate.

Shall we also talk about the hum of the ballast and the fact that some of the sound is energy that ends up leaving the room? we can but this is getting silly.

And how does light (which you have been talking about this entire thread) which stores and transfers energy fit into your "heat=energy" paradigm?

Where does the light go? Ohh thats right, into the room. Light only stores energy until it is absorbed by something it strikes.

Furthermore, LEDs are LESS efficient at producing light than MH. Care to extrapolate what that means to your arguement?

Yes!!! Life in the tank stores energy!! That is the whole point of my post and what you are missing.

I am not missing it AT ALL. It means NOTHING to the context of this thread. NOHTING.

Your harping on in irrelevant point that is meaningless to the context of the thread or arguement. Your doing so in an effort to discredit me and it is nonsense.

Of course corals store energy. Nobody said they didn't. Of course some people pay a LOT for electricity. Nobod said they didn't. Of course some energy escapes the room, nobody said it didn't. Of course every joule of energy consumed by the lighting system does not end up bound in the room as heat, nobody said it did.

For our purposes, the room is a black box. We can treat any equipment in the room as the same thing. The equipment consumes energy and imparts HEAT or WORK into the room. The WORK becomes HEAT becuase it is not stored anywhere.

BTW, don't bash me, I'm not the one who has been spurting incorrect physics for the entire thread.

Who in the world is bashing you? Good grief. Typical. Come call somebody names and tell them they are full of it. When they reply they are bashing you.

 

[BeanAnimal]

Wowwww!! Say anything to prove you point. Now the bonds inside the corals have an insignificant amount of energy. Have you every heard of the atomic bomb? LOL. But I guess quantum mechanics means nothing either because its about small things, lol. Truely, spoken by someone who has only read a thermodynamics book.

Good grief, now we are splitting atoms in our tanks and still using personal attacks to try and argue?

Care to go any further out on a limb to discredit me? Are you saying that we can pack a shell full of xenia and get it to level a city? Are you saying that the LED grown XENIA stores more energy than the MH grown XENIA?

Wowww, so finally understand that energy from the lights won't only go into heat. So wouldn't that take us back to the PUR discussion that you spent this entire thread dismissing? If LEDs produce more usable radiation than MHs? And if LED lighting would be more effective?

Why act like you have taught something when you have done nothing but confuse the entire issue with nonsense attacks on my understanding of science?

Sure we can talk about PAR and PUR or whatever you like. I suspect that your responses will be more the the same, that is attacks and tangents to the real subject. It is a waste of my time, and every oersons reading this thread.

 

[kimoyo]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10631196#post10631196 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by BeanAnimal
You tell me how much YOU claim to save by turning off a device and you post YOUR rates. Then we can talk about those rates and those savings.

You have NOT addressed the facts, and instead have used ad-hominem garbage to try and show I am wrong. It is silly.

If you can't respond in context, what is the use of responding at all? Your trying to fight about something that is not relevant to the conversation.

Lol, not what I'm saying is garbage, and I don't even own a solaris, lol.

I'll give you context. Last year, I sold my 1/3 hp chiller to another MR reefer. At the time I had a 120 and he has a 120high. The same chiller would kick on maybe 5-10 mins each hour for me would basically stay on for him. Now there are a lot of difference in our setups but a major difference was he was using 400W MH and I was using t5's. And I realize he had a lot more watts going into his lighting setup. I'm sure because of where he lives he pays more for his electricity than I am. Believe me I've told him several times to drop down to 250W MH and improve his filtration but he doesn't want to. At his rates, if his chiller only came on half the time it does now that would be $40 worth of savings a month at my rates. At his rates probably $45 with the chiller just coming on half the time and thats on a 4' wide tank.

Now, I rarely believe what I read on these forums. I don't know how great the solaris is because I don't own one and it seems pretty expensive. I don't think one can say something is great without at least trying it out. But saying something is bad without trying it something I wouldn't do either.

But the growth shots in those first pages were very nice.

 

[GSMguy]

in the corner both of you. dang

the lock is coming on yet another solaris thread....

 

[BeanAnimal]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10631434#post10631434 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by kimoyo
Lol, not what I'm saying is garbage, and I don't even own a solaris, lol.

What does YOU owning a solaris have to do with anything?

You have made assetions that I am a crackerjack scientist and you are not. You have not provided a single shred of information to show EITHER that I am a crackerjack scientist or that you are not. All you have done is argue points that have nothing to do with the context here.

I'll give you context. Last year, I sold my 1/3 hp chiller to another MR reefer....Now there are a lot of difference in our setups...

Did you NOT just admonish armchair scientists? Yet, you are NOW going to use apples to oranges comparison to prove your science in a very non scientific way. More variables than a calc II proof and you are going to discredit my math with it? I am a bit baffled that after everything you have said, this is what it culminated with.

But the growth shots in those first pages were very nice.

I never said the growth shots were anything. I actually like the idea of LED lighting. I just don't like bogus claims based on bad numbers.

 

[kimoyo]

Wow, wow, wow. What's sad is that because your on RC all the time spurting this people will believe you. You've read one thermodynamics book and now your a physicist. You call me a troll and then say I'm doing the personal attacks, lol. By all means, don't talk about, throw a little bit of your math into it, lol, this I gotta see, it will be amusing.

BTW, you did say that all energy from the lights turns into heat, in fact I quoted it in my second post in this thread.

No, no credentials or name calling from me, I don't have time or the energy (lol) to argue stuff that was proven a long time ago on the internet when all you have to do is grab a few books and read them (Tipler, would be a great introductory for you).

And now I've said we are splitting atoms in our tanks, lol, okayyyyy.

What is ironic is that you were so definitive in your answers but in 2 or 3 post I got you dancing around, lol. Straight thermo stuff hehe.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10631373#post10631373 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by BeanAnimal
Care to stop with the personal attacks? It does not better your position.

It did not go from anything to anything. I have not changed a word I said. You expounded that heat was not the only thing that energy could be. Wow, what a revalation.

We can STORE Energy
We can TRANSFER Energy to HEAT
We can TRANSFER Energy to WORK
Thats IT!

We do not have perpetual motion, so WORK also = HEAT. So all that is left is STORAGE. The only STORAGE we have is the corals mass. Little of which is ENERGY, most of which is calcium, minerals and water.

Do we really need to do the math to keep this in context, or are you going to argue about some miserable amount of stored energy that means nonthing to the debate.

Shall we also talk about the hum of the ballast and the fact that some of the sound is energy that ends up leaving the room? Give me a break... this is getting silly.
-
Where does the light go? Ohh thats right, into the room. Light only stores energy until it is absorbed by something it strikes.

Furthermore, LEDs are LESS efficient at producing light than MH. Care to extrapolate what that means to your lack of an arguement?

I am not missing it AT ALL. It means NOTHING to the context of this thread. NOHTING.

Your harping on in irrelevant point that is meaningless to the context of the thread or arguement. Your doing so in an effort to discredit me and it is nonsense.

Of course corals store energy. Nobody said they didn't. Of course some people pay a LOT for electricity. Nobod said they didn't. Of course some energy escapes the room, nobody said it didn't. Of course every joule of energy consumed by the lighting system does not end up bound in the room as heat, nobody said it did.

For our purposes, the room is a black box. We can treat any equipment in the room as the same thing. The equipment consumes energy and imparts HEAT or WORK into the room. The WORK becomes HEAT becuase it is not stored anywhere.

Who in the world is bashing you? Good grief. Typical. Come call somebody names and tell them they are full of it. When they reply they are bashing you. I suppose what will come next are a list of your credentials and more name calling.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10631424#post10631424 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by BeanAnimal
Good grief, now we are splitting atoms in our tanks and still using personal attacks to try and argue?

Care to go any further out on a limb to discredit me? Are you saying that we can pack an shell full of xenia and get it to level a city?

Why act like you have taught something when you have done nothing but confuse the entire issue with nonsense attacks on my understanding of science?

Sure we can talk about PAR and PUR or whatever you like. I suspect that your responses will be more the the same, that is attacks and tangents to the real subject. It is a waste of my time, and every oersons reading this thread.

 

[kimoyo]

Lol, I'm done. You've already took back a few things you've said and there is no reason to continue, your just dancing around stuff now.

Please, Bean, lighten up. I'm a crackerjack scientist, will that help you to move on now. Its the internet, do you really think I'm trying to discredit you, on what, reefcentral??? Dude, its a forum, lol.

My first few posts were serious but now u taking it to another level and I'm just laughing now. I'm going to go enjoy the day and you continue to bash solaris all you want.

BTW, my growth shots comment were just that, not directed at you all but at those how posted them. They're nice pics.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10631502#post10631502 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by BeanAnimal
What does YOU owning a solaris have to do with anything. Can you not reply in conext with relevant information? All you have done is make assetions that I am a crackerjack scientist and you are not. Yet, you have not provided a single shred of information to show EITHER that I am a crackerjack scientist or that you are not. All you have done is argue irelevant points and make personal attacks.

Did you NOT just admonish armchair scientists? Yet, you are NOW going to use apples to oranges comparison to prove your science? More variables than a calc II proof and you are going to discredit my math with it?

With a straight face, how can you honestly even post this stuff?

I never said the growth shots were anything. I actually like the idea of LED lighting. I just don't like bogus claims based on bad numbers.

 

[BeanAnimal]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10631550#post10631550 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by kimoyo
Wow, wow, wow. What's sad is that because your on RC all the time spurting this people will believe you.

Can you please stop with the comments like this. They are starting to get anoying. They are personal attacks and they are not welcome.

You've read one thermodynamics book and now your a physicist.

Again with the personal attacks. You do not know what I have read, nor what my education or skillsets are. You have NOT shown anything I have said to be wrong and therefore have no ground to make such comments.

You call me a troll and then say I'm doing the personal attacks, lol.

You are trolling and you are making personal attacks. You are taking things out of context and making arguements that are tangent to the discussion.

By all means, don't talk about, throw a little bit of your math into it, lol, this I gotta see, it will be amusing.

Yet more attacks. I have not seen you discredit my math or show the errors in it. All you have done is say that I am wrong and laugh.

BTW, you did say that all energy from the lights turns into heat, in fact I quoted it in my second post in this thread.

Yes IT ALL TURNS TO HEAT at one time or another. It is the Law Of Conservation of Energy. For our purposes it ALL turns to heat in the room. As stated, of course SOME of it leaks out of the room and may be used by the corals. That is obvious but certainly well below the noise floor for our purposes. Furthermore, as stated several times, that amount of light would be nearly identical for BOTH types of setups. So again, your trying to veer this debate off in a tangent that means nothing to the context of this thread or the science being discussed.

in 2 or 3 post I got you dancing around, lol. Straight thermo stuff hehe.

You don't have anybody dancing around anything. Your not evening posting in context to the thread. Your doing nothing but confusing the issue and taking little personal swipes becuase you claim to know more. I have yet to see you post anything that directly speaks to the points made in this thread with regard to energy usage as it relates to teh differences between metal halide and LED light and heating of the tank and/or room.

You have said that corals absorb energy. Ok great, we already know that. You have said that an atom bomb releases energy. Ok, we know that. What you have not done is shown ANY corrolation to the context here.

 

[BeanAnimal]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10631595#post10631595 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by kimoyo
Lol, I'm done. You've already took back a few things you've said and there is no reason to continue, your just dancing around stuff now.

I am not dancing around anything, nor have I taken anything back. If it makes you feel better to tell people that then go ahead.

Please, Bean, lighten up. I'm a crackerjack scientist, will that help you to move on now. Its the internet, do you really think I'm trying to discredit you, on what, reefcentral??? Dude, its a forum, lol.

It sure does appear so on both accounts. If you are not trying to discredit me does that mean that you really are trolling?

My first few posts were serious but now u taking it to another level and I'm just laughing now.

Ahh so you do admit you were trolling.

I'm going to go enjoy the day and you continue to bash solaris all you want.

Why do you keep using the word BASHING. I have not bashed you or solaris. I have kindly replied to each of your assetions and attempted to defend myself against your insistance that I am wrong.

BTW, my growth shots comment were just that, not directed at you all but at those how posted them. They're nice pics.

Yes they are nice photos and nice corals... i replied in kind.

 

[mhurley]

Hey look everybody!! The LED thread is locked again because people can't talk like respectful adults.

 

[mhurley]

OK gang....I'm reopening this one.

I ask that before posting anything, you step back and reread your post prior to hitting Submit.

At some point, you may simply have to agree to disagree.

 

[crazzy]

Thanx Mike;
I would suggest that RC give a bann notice to those who want to flame others just as they do for those doing commercial activities in general forums. And then act on that warning if it happens again..
I think everyone agrees that LED's are somewhat revolutionary and may sooner or later become more used for our obsession. I would think that when one shoots poison arrows at another, that shooter should get one warning and then be banned.
This subject is for open learning not potshots.
I am not herein saying anyone has done this, BUT I would ask the Mods to ban anyone who does this and not let those selfish people who flame others win by having info forums like this "Locked" by the selfish aims of some.

 

[RichConley]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10700103#post10700103 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by crazzy
Thanx Mike;
I would suggest that RC give a bann notice to those who want to flame others just as they do for those doing commercial activities in general forums. And then act on that warning if it happens again..
I think everyone agrees that LED's are somewhat revolutionary and may sooner or later become more used for our obsession. I would think that when one shoots poison arrows at another, that shooter should get one warning and then be banned.
This subject is for open learning not potshots.
I am not herein saying anyone has done this, BUT I would ask the Mods to ban anyone who does this and not let those selfish people who flame others win by having info forums like this "Locked" by the selfish aims of some.

I completely agree. The problem is that people are making claims that aren't backed up by anything, and are contrary to pretty much every published piece of information. When one of us says something negative about the Solaris, then we're "bashing" instead of stating facts.

 

[RichConley]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10631285#post10631285 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by kimoyo
Wowwww!! Say anything to prove you point. Now the bonds inside the corals have an insignificant amount of energy. Have you every heard of the atomic bomb? LOL. But I guess quantum mechanics means nothing either because its about small things, lol. Truely, spoken by someone who has only read a thermodynamics book.

Kimoyo, what percentage of the light energy that goes into your tank gets absorbed by corals? I guarantee you it is a fraction of a percent,
and as such, is not really relevant.

If LEDs produce more usable radiation than MHs?

But they dont, so that hypothetical isnt going to lead us anywhere. The only think they produce more of, is heat.

 

[crazzy]

RichConley
Facts are facts but I don't think "baiting" [trying not to get this forum into being "locked again] will be very productive. Cooling this back and forth about I said he said will get us in trouble again!
This thread is more than "Solaris" and if someone says facts correcting Solaris, that should be fair game and not become accusatorial.
Sanjay gave a very eye opening presentation at ORCA in Orlando on LED's. A member of the audience [I did not receive an email from him identifying supplier, whom I believe was in California]said one could buy all the parts for building a complete unit utilizing the latest LED's and get on board with those that are about to be released as soon as they are released without waitng for Solaris or others to get up to speed as it were.
I have had no response to the simple question.
Where does one get array's etc so that one can get the latest LED's and build into a usable unit??

 

[RichConley]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10700584#post10700584 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by crazzy

Where does one get array's etc so that one can get the latest LED's and build into a usable unit??

I dont know where one would find a prefab board, but the design is quite simple, and could be done by a novice with some etchant and about $5 worth of copper clad pcb.