PDA

View Full Version : Led's is it worh the money??


swsmr
02/24/2008, 03:45 AM
hi I am starting this thread just to give a peace of mine to everyone concerned about the electric bill.
I've done some research and contacted the power company and asked about there rates and how I'm being charged and the answer was simple I get charged by the kilo watt per hour

so I decided to make some calculations on how much energy my aquarium uses each month and I found out it not as much as I though, my calculations was based on the number of watts, the hours of use each day multiplied by 30 days , I found out that I only use $84 for the whole setup ,


834 watt X 10 hour x 30 day= 250,000 watts /1000 = 250 KW per month at rate of 11 cents per kilo watt that's $27.50


so if the light only cost about $27.5 is it really worth is spending $1000 on an LED fixture to save 40% of that??

swsmr
02/24/2008, 03:51 AM
any feedback, corrections, speculations are welcome,

Roy G. Biv
02/24/2008, 07:29 AM
$27.50 * .40 = $11
$11 * 12 = $132

$1000 - $132 = $868 (1 year)
$1000 - $660 = $340 (5 years)

Plus you save on yearly bulb replacements.
Plus you dont need to run a chiller!!

datablitz
02/24/2008, 08:22 AM
the led tank i have seen doesnt look right color wise, everything looks bleached. yes you do save money on electricity. and bulbs. chillers are not necessary unless you dont regulate your house temp, or have proper ventalation on your tank

varga
02/24/2008, 08:32 AM
I think LED is yet another attempt to out-do halides.
Plus, i did not put stadium lights on my tank thinking its gonna be cheap :)

discocarp
02/24/2008, 10:59 AM
the led tank i have seen doesnt look right color wise, everything looks bleached.

I've only seen 1 led tank and it looks phenomenal.

I have no idea if they're worth the money or not, but they definitely work.

tkeracer619
02/24/2008, 11:16 AM
Has there been a TOTM with LEDs?

Twz
02/24/2008, 11:24 AM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11927235#post11927235 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by datablitz
the led tank i have seen doesnt look right color wise, everything looks bleached. yes you do save money on electricity. and bulbs. chillers are not necessary unless you dont regulate your house temp, or have proper ventalation on your tank
Could you post images?
I am currently thinking of going to the LED's
Thank You

jay24k
02/24/2008, 01:42 PM
I just did their online calculator and it came back at 74 months before it is equivalent to my setup. Now I don't know about anyone else, but after the warranty runs out and the issues I've already heard with the equipment, Buying something that has a ROI in 74 months is not very smart. Not to mention, you are stuck with that setup. The whole point of reefing for me is changing different bulb options or trying different equipment.

If you also consider it this way, imagine taking the extra 2000 dollars this will run you and invest it wisely. Now you are looking at a significantly longer time frame.

I can see comparing costs and what not. For example, a 100 watt powerhead vs a tunze 30 watt. It might take a year to pay for itself but it is 200 dollars difference. It isn't 2000.

If these were to come down in price about 50% of their cost now, I think it would definetly be alot better. However, I'm still not convinced and I'd rather let someone else be the lab rat on a product that just doesn't seem there yet.

useskaforevil
02/24/2008, 01:55 PM
i don't think there has been a TOTM with led,s, but they've only been around for a couple of years and most TOTMs have been up longer than that. my tank works great with LEDs but they're not as strong as halides, money wise this made sense to me after about 3 years (warrenty is only 2 so theres a bit of a worry, i've already had one bank of lights (5 of 100) die and i'm, waiting for a free weekend to replace it. the worry if fired with halides and the need for a chiller s what pushed me to LEDs, plus i'm a sucker and i loves me a gimmick

jay24k
02/24/2008, 06:18 PM
That's what worries me. It seems everyone I know had had something similiar to what happened to you. How much does that bank cost when it isn't under warranty?

swsmr
02/25/2008, 12:58 AM
$3715 FOR A 600 WATTS fixture, that's just ridicules

BLKTANG
02/25/2008, 01:04 AM
My LFS has a 90g mixed reef mostly SPS with the Solarious (sp) LED fixture,& it looks awesome.Clams and all in there.But its like $2800 smackers.

jay24k
02/25/2008, 10:13 AM
Yup. I'd personally would go T-5's before LED's. Low wattage and bulb replacements are low. I would imagine the ROI would equal out in about 12 years with T-5's.

tkeracer619
02/25/2008, 10:29 AM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11929419#post11929419 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by useskaforevil
i don't think there has been a TOTM with led,s, but they've only been around for a couple of years and most TOTMs have been up longer than that. my tank works great with LEDs but they're not as strong as halides, money wise this made sense to me after about 3 years (warrenty is only 2 so theres a bit of a worry, i've already had one bank of lights (5 of 100) die and i'm, waiting for a free weekend to replace it. the worry if fired with halides and the need for a chiller s what pushed me to LEDs, plus i'm a sucker and i loves me a gimmick


You can easily put a new LED system over a tank that has been set up for years.


<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11934526#post11934526 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by BLKTANG
My LFS has a 90g mixed reef mostly SPS with the Solarious (sp) LED fixture,& it looks awesome.Clams and all in there.But its like $2800 smackers.

Go take a pic please. I would like to see an awesome tank with leds. Everybody says it but I never see any photos to back up the claim.

BLKTANG
02/25/2008, 10:43 AM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11936298#post11936298 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by tkeracer619
You can easily put a new LED system over a tank that has been set up for years.




Go take a pic please. I would like to see an awesome tank with leds. Everybody says it but I never see any photos to back up the claim.


Ok im goin there in a few days.

Savas
02/25/2008, 11:02 AM
The neat thing about led's is that they come in colors, so you can easily achieve any color scenario you are looking for.

Also the cost/benefit comparison needs to take into account increasing electricity costs/resale of the units/maintenance to fully understand if this expenditure makes sense. Plus you may also "value" saving the world through less consumption and just being on the cutting edge.

useskaforevil
02/25/2008, 11:08 AM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11936298#post11936298 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by tkeracer619
You can easily put a new LED system over a tank that has been set up for years.


of course you could but if you had an amazing tank that was doing incredibly well would you say to yourself "Gee i should change all the lighting to something new that might be just as good"

Fiziksgeek
02/25/2008, 11:10 AM
MH is still the best bang for the buck...in the future that will likely change. Its like buying the first hybrid car, they dont actually perform so well and cost more, but now they are getting to be a decent deal, and pay off for some, but not for others, and in the future, I am sure they will be great for everyone...but not yet..

Savas
02/25/2008, 11:20 AM
You may also consider leds as supplemental lighting instead of wholesale changing.

jay24k
02/25/2008, 11:28 AM
If people want to value saving the world, then they can cut their AC temp up some so it doesn't run as much. You can save much more that way than changing out your lights. I've seen some tanks with LED's and they look nice. I don't think the look is what people are discussing.

useskaforevil
02/25/2008, 11:32 AM
oh if you're planing on saving the world don't get a reeft ank at all ever.

tufacody
02/25/2008, 12:20 PM
I have a Solaris on order. Most of the people on this thread haver never seen or owned one and are posting opinions.

I can tell you exactly why I ordered one:

1)The cost issue. No way the above calculations take into consideration the cost of yearly replacement of MH bulbs. Also, how many halides were you figuring??? On a 6 foot tank, I need three, plus actinics. Did you add in the actinic cost as well?

2)The heat issue. Not only the heat to the tank that MH produces, but the actual risk of fire. A few extra thousand is steep, but I would pay anything to protect my family.

3)The appearance. C'mon, have you seen tanks with these things??? The Solaris is fully adjustable not only in intensity but in the white/actinic blend. Look, I did the lux metering of this thing and it DOES surpass MH if you want it too.

4)The success. I have seen tanks lit with the Solaris (4, to be exact) and each one was fully thriving.

datablitz
02/25/2008, 12:25 PM
the last tank i saw with a solaris everything was bleached out, after having the light on the tank for over a year. i saw another that looked decent, but it was not an old tank, and the light was 2 feet off the surface.

sjames
02/25/2008, 12:30 PM
and no one has ever seen bleached corals under MHs.:p

PorscheReef
02/25/2008, 12:46 PM
YOUTUBE.COM HAS VIDEO OF SOLARIS LED LIGHTING, EVERYONE SHOULD CHECK IT OUT IF YOU'VE NEVER SEEN IT.

tkeracer619
02/25/2008, 01:14 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11936414#post11936414 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by BLKTANG
Ok im goin there in a few days.

Sweet, thanks!



<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11936591#post11936591 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by useskaforevil
of course you could but if you had an amazing tank that was doing incredibly well would you say to yourself "Gee i should change all the lighting to something new that might be just as good"

Maybe. I imagine myself cherry picking frags out of my amazing tank and putting them into a smaller system to make another amazing tank.

Mattmcf
02/25/2008, 02:03 PM
A local lfs has a solaris setup and it looks sweet. I like the idea of the system and once they drop in price over the next year I will probably make the switch. Remember with the solaris you have a 10 year lifespan. You do not change the bulbs, you do not need a chiller, you do not need a timer. The thing is so sweet you can control it to mimic moon cycles and cloudy days... I will post a link later to a friends tank on a local forum who is running a solaris on their 180 and the tank is doing phenomenal.

tufacody
02/25/2008, 02:07 PM
yep, the solaris is expensive at first but does a LOT more. No chillers needed. No expensive bulb replacement. No timers needed or fancy controllers. No burnt out ballasts.

If you got the cash, its a no-brainer.

discocarp
02/25/2008, 02:11 PM
Mattmcf, are you talking about SITC? That is the tank I was referring to and its a SWEET looking tank. A little zero edge with pfo led lighting. Its gorgeous. That little tank probably rivals my 265 in retail cost though hehe (completely wild guess pulled out of my butt :P).

You guys can debate the cost issues until you are blue, but IMO they work great.

jay24k
02/25/2008, 02:35 PM
1)The cost issue. No way the above calculations take into consideration the cost of yearly replacement of MH bulbs. Also, how many halides were you figuring??? On a 6 foot tank, I need three, plus actinics. Did you add in the actinic cost as well?

Yes that considered all of it. That was according to their web page. And XM 10K's actually last longer then a year. I change mine at 18 months with ZERO issues and no bleaching.

2)The heat issue. Not only the heat to the tank that MH produces, but the actual risk of fire. A few extra thousand is steep, but I would pay anything to protect my family.


No risk to fire if everything is done correctly. It is no different than a regular light bulb except the bulb gets hotter. I think this is a non valid excuse imo.

3)The appearance. C'mon, have you seen tanks with these things??? The Solaris is fully adjustable not only in intensity but in the white/actinic blend. Look, I did the lux metering of this thing and it DOES surpass MH if you want it too.

It might seem brighter than metal halid although from my personal experience it wasn't, but the light that is usable from it is not greater than MH. Many spectrums these lights have are not even used by the corals. There is already a thread on that. I would suggest reading it.

4)The success. I have seen tanks lit with the Solaris (4, to be exact) and each one was fully thriving

I've seen successful tanks with it as well. I'm not discussing if it works for lighting. I just think it isn't something that is there yet. Alot of mechanical issues with it and cost are the biggest factors. If you feel it is a good investment for you, then great. But in reality it is not a good defintion of a investment compared to Metal Halide.

tufacody
02/25/2008, 02:57 PM
Well, what is it that you think is missing? I am not aware of any problems with the latest series. I just can't believe anyone would consider MH a better investment! 90% of it gets replaced in a few years. Ballasts blow w/o explanation all the time. I know!

How many MH were you figuring?? And what size solaris were you comparing it too? How many flourescents? C'mon, if you are gonna post numbers give all the details.

MH no different than a regular light bulb??? Who are you kidding? Not too many "regular" light bulbs can melt canopies or blind you. Not too many regular lightbulbs can heat a 180 gallon an extra 10 degrees.

Look, if you wanna say you feel MH are more aesthetically pleasing, then I can respect that. But throwing up a lot of bogus numbers and claiming mechanical issues because 2 people complained on the web site doesn't cut it for me. Every product has complaints.

Harlikwin2000
02/25/2008, 03:10 PM
Ok, so I like the fact that the Solaris looks sweet, I like the fact that it is a more "green" way to light your tank, and by all means if you have the disposable income to invest on lighting a marine aquarium which is a luxury after all in the first place, by all means buy one. However, it's an area where there is no competition in the marketplace, and it's newer technology, so don't expect to pay anything less than an exorbitant price for it until there is competition available in the marketplace. Given enough time and more manufacturers offering a similar product, they might be more affordable. In the mean time, look at it like that big plasma TV, you don't buy it because you need it, you buy it because you want it. Or if you're like me and can't afford it just keep telling yourself it's junk and it'll break down in no time and then when someone tries to tell you otherwise promptly cover your ears tightly and sing or hum "I'm walkin on sunshine" loudly....@#$%!

jay24k
02/25/2008, 04:48 PM
Have you not read the issues people are experiencing? Many of the parts are going out. Are they under warranty? Yes. Are they getting fixed? Yes. But if it is happening this soon, imagine what will happen later? Ballasts blowing? I haven't had one blown on me yet. I have some from 2003. How does a bulb burn down a canopy? I personally think it is the installer as if they are done correctly, there is no issue. I'd like to know 90% of what gets replaced in a few years as the only thing I have swapped out is my bulbs on my setup.

I dont have heat issues on my 3 MH setup over my 180. I live in florida, don't run a chiller, and my tank runs 80-81.

I've seen some tanks with LED's and they look nice. I don't think the look is what people are discussing.


Apparently you can't read either because I said they look nice and I wasn't discussing the look. As I said, if you feel the need to justify your purchase to satisfy yourself, then by all means do it. But please don't spout on here how it saves all this money because there is NO history with this product after warranty life and in reality, there is no savings for at least 5 years and then even then it is skeptical.

If after 5 years, this product is proven, then I will consider it. The same was said for T-5's and while they are a suitable lighting, they don't seem to still compare to metal halide. Would I love to get rid of my halides to something more effecient? Who wouldn't. However, I'm not dropping 3500 on it.

reefing102
02/25/2008, 05:10 PM
i know a guy who bought a 30 inch fixture for his tank, he didn't like it at all - to difficult to adjust the temp of the bulbs and getting everything settled in so he sold the fixture and went back to halides.

just my 2 cents

tufacody
02/25/2008, 06:03 PM
Jay, you say that "it isn't something that is there yet". And still I have no clue what you mean. ANY new product runs the risk of warranty issues, and if you are the kind of person who wants to play it safe and not expand the borders of the hobby, I have no beef with that. But clearly the technology IS there. The lights can outperform the intensity and spectrum of MH without all the negatives of MH.

How can you possibly slam a product for something that "might" happen? None of the people I know who are running the Solaris have had one problem. Of course you hear about the few that do, because those are the people that post. But every week I hear people complaining that their ballast blew up on MH.

There are many people that don't want the cost of MH and run flourescent. But these people made their choice based on money, not on performance. I'll admit I wanted the best and I got it. That is enough justification for me. The money had nothing to do with it.

Fiziksgeek
02/26/2008, 09:11 AM
Simply incorrect...the best LED fixtures today can match the worst MH bulbs of today in terms of intensity, but they are very limited spectrally, and most often do not hit the key absorption bands for chlorophyl A. Also, to date there simply ins't any data, good or bad, about the long term affects narrow spectrum sources on reef inhabitants. It may turn out better, worse, or make no difference...but to claim that they out perform at this point in time is an irresponsible statement.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11940379#post11940379 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by tufacody
But clearly the technology IS there. The lights can outperform the intensity and spectrum of MH

tufacody
02/26/2008, 10:12 AM
My comments were made based on the progress of four tanks, each of which have been under Solaris lighting for a year or more. I suppose one could argue that the long-term effects are unknown, but when I see corals not only thriving but mutiplying under these lights, kinda hard to believe they are lacking in any absorption bands. I would think a year would be enough to at least knowledgably postulate on the lonf term affects.

However, I'm always up for real scientific data. Can you point me to this study that claims the Solaris is lacking spectrally?

tkeracer619
02/26/2008, 10:32 AM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11946077#post11946077 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by tufacody
My comments were made based on the progress of four tanks, each of which have been under Solaris lighting for a year or more. I suppose one could argue that the long-term effects are unknown, but when I see corals not only thriving but mutiplying under these lights, kinda hard to believe they are lacking in any absorption bands. I would think a year would be enough to at least knowledgably postulate on the lonf term affects.

However, I'm always up for real scientific data. Can you point me to this study that claims the Solaris is lacking spectrally?

Lets see those 4 tanks! Put up the thriving pics please.

tufacody
02/26/2008, 10:38 AM
Intrigued by fiziks comments, I did some googling on this issue. Check this out:
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2002/2/aafeature/view

Now clearly this is not the end all be all of lighting arguments, but the jist of this scientific study is that spectral quality might be subordinate to intensity anyway. As long as the lighting source is full spectrum (lets say at least 400-500nm) it really doesnt matter if the light source range is a little more on the blue end or a little more on the yellow end.

So, where does the Solaris fall? This is taken from a study on the Solaris by Advanced Aquarists:

When all LEDs are on, their emission peaks at 458nm. Without the 4 LEDs that can act as ‘moonlight’ the spectral peaks shifts ever so slightly to ~459nm. This is well within the absorption bands of and other photopigments founds within zooxanthellae. See Figure 5.

So, the two studies which I could find conclude two things 1)that spectrum may not be as important as thought 2)that the Solaris' spectrum is well within the needs of zooxanthellae, and 3) that the intensity of the Solaris can equal or exceed that of MH.

Another advantage to the Solaris that hasn't even been discussed is the lack of ultra-violet radiation, which is a known cause of bleaching.

In short, the only disadvantage of the Solaris that I have seen either in person of by way of scientific study is that because the LED's are so much more focused than MH, placement of corals under these lights has to be more exact.

bwoody62
02/26/2008, 10:43 AM
I'm curious what this discussion would be if the price wasn't as high for the LED's?????

Fiziksgeek
02/26/2008, 10:48 AM
I have reviewed my post, I do apologize if my tone was harsh...or at least "not friendly"

Controlled experiments are very difficult to do and require large sample sizes to get statistically significant results. There are a ton of variables to take into account when we start comparing results of one hobbiest to another. I am not arguing that LED lighting doesn't work, however, it is easy to argue that they may not be the best.

I am a laser guy by education and career. I feel I have earned the right to make statements like "LED's have a narrow spectral output".

The Solaris systems can be adjusted to give us what we want visually, but that does not means its giving the corals what they need or want. And growth and good color does not mean that other forms of lighting could not provide more growth or better colors.

I have no doubt that in the future, LED's will be the way to go, but right now they are adequate at best in performance and very costly. So I simply choose to wait and see where the technology goes...

tkeracer619
02/26/2008, 10:48 AM
I bet there would be more people willing to post pictures of their tanks.

tufacody
02/26/2008, 10:52 AM
I have no problem posting pics, but will have to take them first! For now, perhaps these threads will satisfy you:

http://www.reefsanctuary.com/forums/reef-chronicles/15694-dentoids-reeforama.html

http://www.reefsanctuary.com/forums/reef-chronicles/23146-chronicles-my-clients-tanks.html

tufacody
02/26/2008, 10:58 AM
Fizik: isnt all lighting spectrally narrow once it is on (and in the case of MH, heated up?) I mean, any light source that isn't changing in color is going to emit one spectrum. For the Solaris, it is 459nm. For any given MH on any given day it is going to be "x".
Another advantage of the Solaris is that the spectrum of the LED's doesn't shift (as much) as halides do as they age.

I apologize if I appear argumentative as well, but I don't see your point.

useskaforevil
02/26/2008, 11:02 AM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11937554#post11937554 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by tkeracer619
Sweet, thanks!





Maybe. I imagine myself cherry picking frags out of my amazing tank and putting them into a smaller system to make another amazing tank.


yea, but then would your cherry picked frags be worthy of a TOTM?

sure its possible a tank thats only 2 years old could be a TOTM but i would think simply through statistics it'd be unlikely a solaris would be there.


anyways heres a thread where the tank uses a solaris and iot looks amazing
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1196290

and here's a picture of my tank, it won't prove much because i just bought sps frags lately so it doesent say much about growth rates compared to halides (but i'd still bet it grows slower under a solaris)
http://www.thereeftank.com/photopost/data/500/medium/IMG_0258.JPG

nattarbox
02/26/2008, 11:08 AM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11937349#post11937349 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by PorscheReef
YOUTUBE.COM HAS VIDEO OF SOLARIS LED LIGHTING, EVERYONE SHOULD CHECK IT OUT IF YOU'VE NEVER SEEN IT.

Do you have links? I tried searching for a variety of combinations with the terms "solaris", "led" and "reef" but didn't get any results.

tkeracer619
02/26/2008, 11:09 AM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11946398#post11946398 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by tufacody
I have no problem posting pics, but will have to take them first! For now, perhaps these threads will satisfy you:

http://www.reefsanctuary.com/forums/reef-chronicles/15694-dentoids-reeforama.html

http://www.reefsanctuary.com/forums/reef-chronicles/23146-chronicles-my-clients-tanks.html

Nope, not at all satisfied. Im sure there were some pics in the 103 page thread but I browsed around and couldnt find what I was looking for. Grab a camera and show us thriving tanks please.

useskaforevil
02/26/2008, 11:16 AM
look up two posts, and then click the link.

tkeracer619
02/26/2008, 11:23 AM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11946487#post11946487 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by useskaforevil
yea, but then would your cherry picked frags be worthy of a TOTM?

Yes, eventually it could be. When you start with colony sized frags anything is possible.


Thanks for posting that link, that is the best group of photos so far! Still not what I am after but very close.

useskaforevil
02/26/2008, 11:34 AM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11946676#post11946676 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by tkeracer619
Yes, eventually it could be. When you start with colony sized frags anything is possible.


Thanks for posting that link, that is the best group of photos so far! Still not what I am after but very close.

of course it could happen, but lets say that 2 percent of the people who own saltwater tanks use solaris lights, and lets say that 2 percent of people with kickass tanks use solaris lights (which is still way way way high) it could take up to (or actually even longer) 4 years before we saw one as a TOTM just out of probability. how long have these lights been out? 2 years? and yea EVENTUALLY i could be, but you're giving just a year or so unless the person went out the day they came out, set up a great tank with colonies, and was great with husbandry and etc. so give it time, and eventually one wil be a TOTM.

Fiziksgeek
02/26/2008, 11:40 AM
All light sources have a spectrum. LED's have a spectrum that is narrower than MH lights.

Its not quite right to talk in terms of a specific wavelength for MH, color temperature is preferred. But with LEDs, they are almost always talked about specific wavelengths. This is the first clue that they have a narrow spectrum!

My point is that there are a lot of people who believe and promote the idea that LEDs are the best and cheapest (in the long run) for all sorts of reasons which simply aren't true! So occasionally, I like to share my opinion. My biggest pet peve is when people come on here saying that the cost to set up a reef tank is around $100 per gallon. Boy that gets me going, mainly because it scares of people who would otherwise join the hobby, but feel that they can't afford it just cause one guy blew his kids college funds trying to build a TOTM...and HE happened to be the guy responding to the newbie!

I digress...haha Maybe I should do some actual work today...

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11946458#post11946458 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by tufacody
Fizik: isnt all lighting spectrally narrow once it is on (and in the case of MH, heated up?) I mean, any light source that isn't changing in color is going to emit one spectrum. For the Solaris, it is 459nm. For any given MH on any given day it is going to be "x".
Another advantage of the Solaris is that the spectrum of the LED's doesn't shift (as much) as halides do as they age.

I apologize if I appear argumentative as well, but I don't see your point.

tufacody
02/26/2008, 02:13 PM
Well Fizik, either you or I are missing something here. You put any light source in from of the right meters and you call tells its wavelength and its intensity. Color temperature IS wavelength. Maybe you mean LEDS aren't available in the various spectrums that halides are? That may be, but that is the beauty of being able to independantly adjust the actinics and white LEDs to dial in any "temperature" you want.

I'll admit that it is my opinion that the Solaris is the best option for lighting, but for ALL the reasons, not just cost. Which reasons have I stated that aren't true?

Fiziksgeek
02/26/2008, 02:29 PM
Wavelength is most definitely not color temp...go hit wikipedia or similar site for some definitions.

Solaris allows you to adjust the color temp by changing the relative intensities of the different LEDs....your not changing the wavelength of anything!

tufacody
02/26/2008, 02:59 PM
Fizik, I'm done with you. Color temp is dependant on wavelength. This is high school stuff. You can drop out the actinics completely if you want to in a solaris. With all the LEDS on you get a specific wavelength, just like you get a specific wavelength when your combination of halides and actinics are on.
There is no "dial" on a halide either that lets you switch wavelength or temp or whatever you want to call it.

You are clearly going to argue against anything I present even when you are wrong or confused. Good day sir!

DeadlyMuffin
02/26/2008, 03:20 PM
tufacody, can you point me towards the studies you mention that place spectra subordinate to intensity?

Fiziksgeek has an interesting point that has not been addressed. To expand on it a little bit, since the wavelength output by an LED depends on the band gap, you're going to have a very very narrow spectrum. This can be supplemented by different LEDs with different band gaps, but, if you can picture, you'll have a spectrum that is 0 except for a series of very sharp peaks that correspond to the LED wavelengths. The adjustments on the LED lights sound like juggling the relative height of these peaks, but there are still only a small number of individual wavelengths present.

MH lights put out a much broader spectrum, instead of your flat graph with a few peaks, you instead have much smoother peaks with far more individual wavelengths present.

I don't know if the broader spectrum is better or worse (which is why I'm quite interested in the studies tufacody brought up), but if I understand it, that's the gist of what Fiziksgeek is saying.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, I think I have a decent grasp of the physics, but I'm new to reefing and had never even heard of LED lights for tanks until this thread.

DeadlyMuffin
02/26/2008, 03:30 PM
Just to follow up my previous post, if, as tufacody has suggested, intensity is really the only important variable (in terms of tank health/coral growth) then all the discussion is purely subjective based on what each person finds more appealing.

I am very interested to see the studies though, from my own experience I've had algae blooms when I've changed lights or bulbs, I'm curious if the trigger is the change in intensity or the change in spectrum.

jay24k
02/26/2008, 03:33 PM
You aren't changing the wavelengths. According to their site, the white leds are specific wavelength and the blues are a specific wavelength. You are changing the amount or intensity of the light. To me, it is simple as this. There is no difference in wavelength if you have 500 watts of actinic vs 1000 watts of actinic. It's just the matter of brightness. Your thinking might be correct to a degree but it is wrong here. If I change the wavelength, yes color changes. But in the solaris, you are changing the brightness of the blue which does not affect the wavelength. By adding more blue, the appearance is more blue. However you still have the same wavelength being emitted from the white therefore, nothing has changed. Your arguments are failing and therefore flawed.

Here is from their site.
"The Solaris uses a combination of actinic blue and daylight LEDs. By adjusting the amount of actinic Blue output the color range can be from 6500K to 22000k "

tufacody
02/26/2008, 03:34 PM
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2002/2/aafeature/view

Deadly, the wavelength of any lightsource that does not modulate is going to be one specific wavelength. MH do NOT put out a broader spectrum. Yes its true that you can buy different kelvin lamps, but once you pick the bulb the spectrum is the spectrum.

tufacody
02/26/2008, 03:43 PM
Jay, I NEVER said you are changing the wavelength of the Solaris, in fact I have said several times that with all the leds on the wavelength is 459nm!!! This is well with the range needed for symbiotic alage. The beauty of the Solaris is that you CAN change color appearance w/o affecting wavelength.

Fiziksgeek
02/26/2008, 03:45 PM
DeadlyMuffin, you hit the wavelength issue right on the head. It may or may not be a significant issue, but the point is there is insufficient data to claim either way.

I would also like to add that if intensity plays a more important role than wavelength, then MH lighting is still the way to go. A decent 10K bulb will have significantly more output than a Solaris unit. Why do you think that PFO compares the Solaris to a no name 15K bulb and don't mention the brand/type of ballast either? And even in that comparison they are just equal aren't they?

Tufacody, I am sorry that my discussion has left you with a bad feelings after only your 11th post. I hope this does not stop you from being a contributing member of RC.

And please go look up the definitions of wavelength and spectrum. They are not interchangeable terms.

tkeracer619
02/26/2008, 04:11 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11946783#post11946783 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by useskaforevil
of course it could happen, but lets say that 2 percent of the people who own saltwater tanks use solaris lights, and lets say that 2 percent of people with kickass tanks use solaris lights (which is still way way way high) it could take up to (or actually even longer) 4 years before we saw one as a TOTM just out of probability. how long have these lights been out? 2 years? and yea EVENTUALLY i could be, but you're giving just a year or so unless the person went out the day they came out, set up a great tank with colonies, and was great with husbandry and etc. so give it time, and eventually one wil be a TOTM.



I would hope the people who go out and spend 2 grand on a light system in development would know about husbandry. 2 years is plenty of time to show growth pics and have a tank full of great coral, since a lot of it grows like weeds. Most of the pictures contain frags, new tanks, some blurry growth, ect. I am looking for shots of tanks like we see all over the rest of this site and could care less about any other aspects of the argument.

tufacody
02/26/2008, 05:04 PM
Fizik, I have no clue what report you are looking at. If you even bothered to read the study done by advanced aquarists, you would see that their referance MH bulb is an XM 250 watt 20k bulb.

If you read the report, the 75 watt (75 watt!!!) Solaris produced 89.4% of the PAR generated by the 250 watt XM. So, arguably the MH is a little more intense -- except for one fact. The Solaris is much more focused, directing intensity over smaller spaces than the MH, which are known for their flooding. It is extremely difficult to compare the PAR between a single light source like a MH and a multiple light source like the Solaris. I noted that this could be considered one disadvantage, as coral placement has to be more precise under the Solaris. This could also be an advantage, depending on how you look at it.

And again, please don't misquote me. I never said wavelength and spectrum were interchangeable. But you can't even talk about spectrum w/o considering the wavelengths. As noted by this article, the blue and white LEDs do indeed produce full spectrum light. The percents of each color from violet to red are even given. What is TRUE is that the percents of each color are different between the Solaris and the XM bulb, but from what I can tell the advantage is in favor of the Solaris because it produces less UV.

useskaforevil
02/26/2008, 07:40 PM
if the pictures from the link i just showed you aren't good enough for you then you should say why.

useskaforevil
02/26/2008, 08:12 PM
and to add 2 years is plenty of time, but who has had a solaris for 2 years? find me bad pictures of tanks that have a solaris. pictures of tanks with this lighting aren't incredibly common good or bad. "most of the pictures have frags" most of the pictures that anyone has taken have frags, especially for new tanks which is what most people with a solaris will have. the only corals i've had under the solaris for a year are growing well, but how would i know if they would've grown better under different lights? the pictures that are in that link are really the only pictures i've seen of a great ank with a solaris, but i very rarely see pictures of solaris lit tanks.

its fry
02/27/2008, 12:47 AM
I'd really like to see some pics of an all LED tank.

Does the whole 10k 14k 20k argument apply to LED's?

Costazul
02/27/2008, 06:43 AM
I agree with several statements from either side, but I’m skeptical about investing an insane premium... to just throw out of the window my successful 3 years MH system to experiment with LED.

LED look promising no doubt about it, nevertheless the cost still out of the question. It’s too risky…perhaps later when the price get competitive.

Fiziksgeek
02/27/2008, 07:33 AM
This will be my last post to this thread. I don't have the time or patience to keep up the discussion. You won't convince me, I won't convince you. And thats fine, people can disagree. So it doesn't much matter. I have better things to do with my time.

My parting jab will be this: I used PFO's ROI calculator...looks like I would break even in 80.8 months if were to purchase a G, and 103.3 months if I purchase an H. Seem like a bad investment in my case. My belief is that in 80.8 months, the LEDs available will be much better and likely cheaper. When the ROI gets down to a couple years, it will make a lot more sense!

I am also pretty sure I've read the Advanced Aquarist article you refer to. Where the 75 watts, 12" solaris produces about 90% of the output of a 250W, XM 20K. Is that the one where they don't mention the brand of reflector, though the do mention it is a simple parabolic reflector? They also don't mention what the ballast was? And they included an acrylic shield of unknown thickness on the MH? Lets see what the results look like with an XM10K in a quality reflector like a lumenmax, lumenbright or lumenarc and without a shield.

tufacody
02/27/2008, 07:56 AM
Well, at least you've made one sensible argument on your way out. I agree 100% that the costs of LEDs will fall heavily as this technology slowly pushes aside MH. I also agree that it doesn't make sense to trash an already viable MH system that has been working for you.

But for me, with a brand new 180, this was the logical choice.

DeadlyMuffin
02/27/2008, 11:27 AM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11955072#post11955072 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by tufacody
Well, at least you've made one sensible argument on your way out.

I think your parting shot is out of line. Let's keep this friendly.

That being said, I think the point about width of spectrum is well taken. My understanding was that "white" LEDs are made by combining several LEDs of different wavelengths to give the appearance to the human eye of white, but without a broad spectrum. Apparently there is a newer method that uses a YAG (Yttrium Aluminium Garnet) coating on a blue LED to produce a broad spectrum. I'll do a bit more reading on it and report back.

My understand is the wavelength (energy) of a photon produced by a LED with no coating is dependent on the band gap of the material. This means that you're only going to have a very narrow spectrum around a single peak wavelength corresponding to the band gap energy. There is no argument here, as I understand it, this is how diodes operate. I will look into the coatings that are used, but dismissing this argument out of hand seems premature.

DeadlyMuffin
02/27/2008, 11:37 AM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11948824#post11948824 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by tufacody
Deadly, the wavelength of any lightsource that does not modulate is going to be one specific wavelength. MH do NOT put out a broader spectrum. Yes its true that you can buy different kelvin lamps, but once you pick the bulb the spectrum is the spectrum.

I'm not sure I understand this. A spectrum is made up of many wavelengths. MH lights definitely put out a spectrum of more than one wavelength, to say otherwise makes no sense at all. I believe the color temperature measurement is simply using Wein's law to match the most abundant wavelength to the peak wavelength of a black body at a particular temperature. No one is trying to say that their light outputs at one and only one wavelength unless they're manufacturing lasers.

And as far as I can tell from the Solaris, nothing is being modulated, the brightness of the different color LEDs is adjusted relative to each other.

tydtran
02/27/2008, 12:03 PM
Well stated, DeadlyMuffin. In several of these posts, I think people were confused about the meaning of a wavelength spectrum and the peak emission wavelength within a spectrum. No matter how you adjust the individual LED's in the array, you can't change the width of the spectrum. You only change the intensity peaks of different wavelengths within the spectrum and as you pointed out, LED's intrinsically have a narrow spectrum. A MH has a broader spectrum, end of story.

tufacody
02/27/2008, 01:55 PM
You are right. It has been hard for me to talk appropriately in this thread because it appears that everyone wants to claim this and that about MH, without producing any reports or tests, and completely disregards the excellent one on the Solaris.

And you are also right. I have no clue what "wavelength spectrum" is supposed to refer to. We all know that colored light can be defined by its wavelength, and that white light is composed of a spectrum of those colors, which can be measured.

MH produces much UV light, whereas the Solaris almost none. Thats what your broader spectrum gets you. And this is good how?

steveoutlaw
02/27/2008, 02:40 PM
I know I'm jumping in late here but I think you guys are way off. The light doesn't make the tank......it's only one component. I've seen amazing tanks with all VHO, all MH and all T5s (not to mention combinations of them).....and I'm sure there are some amazing tanks with LED lighting.

DeadlyMuffin
02/27/2008, 02:40 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11957878#post11957878 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by tufacody
MH produces much UV light, whereas the Solaris almost none. Thats what your broader spectrum gets you. And this is good how?

The UV light produced by MH lights are definitely a symptom of a broad spectrum. I'm not sure it's a negative in terms of raising animals though, natural sunlight has a pretty broad spectrum, including a UV component.

I did some digging, and this is the result. Note, the y-axes of these graphs show intensity or counts, they're not easily compared between graphs, instead what we're interested in is the shape.

Below is a graph of a "white" LED from wikipedia that was made using a coating. The LED itself is blue, and the coating shifts some of that blue light downward towards the yellows/reds, giving you the white light. Notice the two peaks: One large sharp peak on the left is the light produced by the LED itself, and the broader, shorter peak on the right is the light produced by the coating.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/48/White_LED.png/350px-White_LED.png

Below is an image I got from the Solaris site showing two graphs. Note how similar the bottom graph is the the graph I posted above, the Solaris white LED are obviously using a coating similar to the one I've been talking about.
http://www.solarisled.com/Portals/0/Images/Blue%20LED%20Wavelength.bmp

The picture below is the spectrum for a Aquarium Lighting Systems 12,000°K "Sunburst" metal halide lamp that I stole from the article that tufacody recommended (http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2002/2/aafeature/view). Note how much more broad this spectrum is. Instead of two peaks you have many peaks, with many elevated areas between them. This is what I was talking about when I called it a "broad spectrum". The reason this graph is so much more jagged looking than the others is it's based on actual measurements instead of an idealization like the Solaris graph appears to be.

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2002/2/aafeature_album/figure4edit.gif/variant/medium

So, I think we can safely conclude, MH lights provide a broader spectrum than LED lights. That being said, I cannot find anything that says a broader spectrum is better or worse than a narrow spectrum. The article tufacody recommended compares two MH lights, one at 4000K one at 12000K, and concludes that there is little difference in terms of photosynthesis between the two. This has little to no bearing on our discussion because it's comparing two broad spectrum light sources. Although one is shifted towards shorter wavelengths than the other, neither one of them is anywhere near as narrow a spectrum as the LED lights are.

I would really like to see a study like the one tufacody recommended comparing MH lights and LED lights. Since there is none, I really can't draw a conclusion. Personally, I would be more worried about intensity than spectrum, but then again, I run my tank under 6 T5s, 5 of which are 6500K bulbs, so I realize I'm not your normal reefer. Note that the information I dug up says nothing about the intensity of the Solaris relative to MH lights, it only discusses the spectrum. It is also definitely worth noting that LED technology has progressed by leaps and bound in a very short time, I can not even guess where the technology will be in a few years.

useskaforevil
02/27/2008, 02:56 PM
a broad spectrum is possibly worse because photosynthesis only occurs with wavelengths around 430 and 662 nm anything else really is waste. do fish need uv rays to make vitamin D ?

DeadlyMuffin
02/27/2008, 03:33 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11958370#post11958370 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by useskaforevil
a broad spectrum is possibly worse because photosynthesis only occurs with wavelengths around 430 and 662 nm anything else really is waste. do fish need uv rays to make vitamin D ?

Actually, if you read the article tufacody recommended (http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2002/2/aafeature/view), it says photosynthesis occurs over a pretty broad spectrum. From the article:

To believe that blue (430-480 nm) and red (600- 700 nm) wavelengths are required is only partially true. As Figure 1 demonstrates, a wide range of wavelengths are absorbed by chlorophylls A and C2; however, peridinin and perhaps other photopigments, effectively harvest light energy outside of the range normally associated with photosynthesis.

If you could find a spectrum that was perfect for photosynthesis and keep your lighting there it would be ideal, but it doesn't seem like it's as short a range as you're saying. Frankly, I think it's probably a small enough difference that most of the arguments (both ways) are based purely on appearance are are therefore subjective.

As for waste, I would think the excess heat produced by MH lights is far more wasteful than a broader spectrum. Frankly, the fact that I can passively (no fans) cool my T5s is the reason bought them.

tufacody
02/27/2008, 07:00 PM
Thats an interesting look Muffin. I wish I knew exactly what the y axis was measured in in each study. Also keep in mind that you are comparing the white LED only to the MH graph, instead of a combination of the blue and white LEDs.

Now I can't claim I know how this works, but if I understood the Solaris article correctly, it is the combination of the blue and white LEDs that give the Solaris full spectrum. I'm not sure how a Solaris graph would compare to the MH graph if both blue and white LEDs were taken into consideration.

Also, it looks to me that the graphs are relatively similar, except that MH has a spike at around 575 nm.

I think a more accurate look at the two comes from the Solaris study that uses a spectrometer to measure the colors produced by the Solaris and MH. The second spike on the MH graph seems to come from a predominance of red. According to the Solaris study, the Solaris is at 3.68% red whereas the MH is at 8.06%. Again, not really sure where that gets us. More notable, in my opinion, is that the Solaris blue color is at 78% whereas the MH is at 53%. The only reason I find this notable is that there is a general consensus that the blue wavelengths are in fact hugely important to coral health.

Finally, I really don't know anything about LED coating, but it is my understanding that the Solaris only uses two types of LEDS - white and blue. I could be wrong on that.

useskaforevil
02/27/2008, 07:26 PM
that graph shows that photosynthesis can work outside of the ranges but works best in those ranges. which really supports what i just said.

tufacody
02/27/2008, 08:19 PM
I'm with ya on that one Use. I'm not sure that broader spectrum is better. I do know that UV is the cause of a lot of bleaching. I will be very interested to see if the Solaris tanks generate the algae problems that MH can.

useskaforevil
02/27/2008, 08:22 PM
i will say that i havent gotten the algea i've heard about with old MH bulbs, but my solaris is only 1 year old so its not fair to compare for another few years.

Hella
02/27/2008, 10:04 PM
I own a 72 inch and had to send it back today. Now im not here to bash on PFO. I love the light and love the way it looked on my tank, I just happened to get one of the first units that had some of the problems of being the first batch. Bad wires, LED banks and some of the cables. I got mine for all the same reasons that the other people got theres. Am I upset that I had to send back a three thousand dollar light at a shipping cost of $98? You bet your butt I am. Would I buy it again? Indeed I would. I understand that being the first has it drawbacks, but if some of us are not the first, the rest will not benefit.

Rob

tufacody
02/27/2008, 11:05 PM
Amen Hella. How about some pics and reports?

DeadlyMuffin
02/27/2008, 11:08 PM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11960420#post11960420 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by tufacody
Thats an interesting look Muffin. I wish I knew exactly what the y axis was measured in in each study. Also keep in mind that you are comparing the white LED only to the MH graph, instead of a combination of the blue and white LEDs.

The graph is for a "white" LED and should reflect the entire spectrum for the Solaris light, I got it directly from their website. This type of white LED is actually a blue LED with a coating.

Hella
02/28/2008, 05:47 AM
There is a long story about how mine sat on the floor for the last year just about because the guy who was finishing off our basement was also going to build the tank stand. I will give you the short ver. In one of the rooms in the basement the wall was not nailed to the foundation after reminding him a few times about it. He went ahead and drywalled it. I get home from work and the base of the wall could be moved with my foot, so I take down some of the drywall and start pulling back the insulation to find a Pepsi bottle full of urine. He got fired and we had to find people to start where he was.

So the light had a total of about 6 days on it. 2 days right after I got it, that is where some of the things were found, the rest with in the last week.

When I get it back I will get some pics of it over my tank.

waif
02/28/2008, 07:23 AM
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11929333#post11929333 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by jay24k
I just did their online calculator and it came back at 74 months before it is equivalent to my setup. Now I don't know about anyone else, but after the warranty runs out and the issues I've already heard with the equipment, Buying something that has a ROI in 74 months is not very smart. Not to mention, you are stuck with that setup. The whole point of reefing for me is changing different bulb options or trying different equipment.

If you also consider it this way, imagine taking the extra 2000 dollars this will run you and invest it wisely. Now you are looking at a significantly longer time frame.

I can see comparing costs and what not. For example, a 100 watt powerhead vs a tunze 30 watt. It might take a year to pay for itself but it is 200 dollars difference. It isn't 2000.

If these were to come down in price about 50% of their cost now, I think it would definetly be alot better. However, I'm still not convinced and I'd rather let someone else be the lab rat on a product that just doesn't seem there yet.


You can change the kelvin rating of led fixtures.

tydtran
02/28/2008, 08:35 AM
If we all agree that there is a difference in the spectra of MH vs. LED, then we can move on to the next points:

1) Is the difference in spectra better, worse, or neutral for corals? There is no good data, so we don't know. But to address the issue first posed in this thread, should you pay more money for LED than metal halides, the answer seems like a clear no. Mh has a track record of promoting the growth of just about any photosynthetic coral you would want to keep whereas LED is an unknown. So why put in the extra money to get the LED.

This may change in the future of course. When the LED's are cheaper and better, then I think the choice will be less clear cut.

useskaforevil
02/28/2008, 09:31 AM
haha, that was a pretty weak argument. you pretty much just said, if metal halides work then use those. once again the reasons for led, are customized output, low heat, built in controller, last much longer, save money in the long run (i dont know why it was 80 months for most people, i pay dirt for electricity and it was about 4-5 years for me, maybe you didnt plan on paying retail on MH bulbs?) and possible better performance.

what you just said was, well if we haven't proven it yet it must be false.

tydtran
02/28/2008, 10:42 AM
Wrong. What I said was: why put more money in for what is unproven versus what is proven?

useskaforevil
02/28/2008, 11:57 AM
haha, i dont think you read what you wrote. its not proven metal halides are better.

tydtran
02/28/2008, 12:37 PM
It is proven that MH allows growth of photosynthetic corals.

useskaforevil
02/28/2008, 12:56 PM
its also proven that leds allow growth of photosynthetic corals.

Costazul
02/28/2008, 01:11 PM
I really hope this technology will work; it will save bulb replacements, electricity and heat. The price is not right at the moment.

I don’t know which was the company strategy, studies and production cost, but they just throw at once the product at a greedy price (speculating, not sure cost involved) instead with a little more vision, better should be to position first the product as standard, then with right demand they would be able dictate term about pricing. Very sad...

tufacody
02/28/2008, 01:11 PM
I'm not sure what more evidence is needed to convince people that LEDs have everything needed for a successful reef. If you want to wait 20 years to find out, I guess that's your perogative.

Frankly, I think the cost argument is stupid. Most people that can lay out the cash for the Solaris are probably not all that concerned with the long term savings. Its just a benefit that I think is there, but certainly wasn't the deciding factor for me. In my mind it just reduced the total cost a little. I was also fairly convinced that I would need a chiller if I went MH, which further reduced the total cost of the unit for me. Once you factor out those costs, plus the costs associated with regular bulb exchanges, it didn't appear that unreasonable.

J3REEF
02/28/2008, 01:51 PM
My 2cents..

Setup a 120 tech w/Solaris H series about a 18 months ago.
Dealt with all the intial problems several other folks had - power supply issues, LED issues, quality issues, etc.

I worked with PFO all that time, but never got to the point of it working 100%.

I did like the less heat.
SPS, LPS & Fish all did great.
Good coral growth.

In the end, I returned the unit and put in a low cost MH setup.
Too much time spent on keeping the unit running.
I know many happy people that have a Solaris, but there are also people that have had issues. When it runs, it runs great.

I am noticing that all my SPS seem to be doing better under the MH setup. Nothing else has changed. It's been about a week and I am seeing more color from my SPS, growth, encrusting, etc.

Since I have a 120, I had parts of the tank that were unusable due to the focus output of the light. Front, back and corners would not support ilfe. SPS started to die off and I had to move them. Also had SPS at the top of the tank between the LED banks that didnt receive much light and had to be moved as well.

So, Lived with Solaris for 18moths and now MH.
My take is I am happy with MH.
Heat is not much of an issue.
I will compare electrical costs over the next couple of months, but since I drop $100.00 a weekend on SPS frags, not sure I will notice the uptick or downtick in my electrical bill ;-)

Pics for those of you who think the LED units are great.
I prefer my tank visible - all parts.
Later...

Solaris 100% blue & 100% whites
http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x309/J3REEF/Solaris.jpg

MH Odessea w/14k Phoenix & Lumatek ballasts
http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x309/J3REEF/mh.jpg

http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x309/J3REEF/mh3.jpg

tufacody
02/28/2008, 02:00 PM
Thanks for your input J. I was aware that the H series had some issues. It is my understanding the the I series had worked out some (maybe not all) of those bugs, but is also signifcantly brighter.

jonnydalejunior
02/28/2008, 02:05 PM
i think those 2 pictures say alot more than any one has put in to words.

J3REEF
02/28/2008, 02:07 PM
Not so says I..;-)

LED problems exists in ALL series.

Folks with I series have LEDs go out all the time and request replacments. Check PFOs board and solaris boards on RC.

If your lucky and you have a functional unit - great.
Some of us are not so lucky.

Lots of money for led technology and I dont mind spending my hard earned cash. Just want what I pay for to work 100% of the time.

tufacody
02/28/2008, 04:17 PM
Well, I expect you to be bitter J, so would I. But of the 4 that I know with the I series no one is having problems.

DeadlyMuffin
02/28/2008, 11:48 PM
I think most (almost all) of this is completely subjective. There's definitely a difference in spectra, there is no data I can find that says if that's good or bad. From what I have seen, I wouldn't let the narrow spectrum stop me from buying LED lights.

Another interesting point is on the Solaris website, when they spec a 10 year life, but keep in mind at the end of the 10 years the reduction in light is 30% (from their site somewhere). I'm not sure if you can replace the individual LEDs, but this might be a consideration.

useskaforevil
02/28/2008, 11:53 PM
replacing the indivual LEDs would probably be more expensive than buying whatever new lighting system is out in 10 years. i plan on replacing these lights at their 7 year mark. hopefully they last that long. i'll probably end up supplimenting them if its a noticable decrease before then.

xlayedoutx
02/29/2008, 02:06 AM
Yeah they do. When I look at those two pictures posted i can honestly say I like the look of the Solaris better.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11966851#post11966851 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by jonnydalejunior
i think those 2 pictures say alot more than any one has put in to words.

xlayedoutx
02/29/2008, 02:23 AM
This conversation is always the same. People with the Solaris swear by it. People with MH's Swear by them. Most of the people that I talk to that have the Solaris have had MH's or T-5's in the past and wouldn't trade their Solaris for anything. Most of the people that swear by MH's have never had a Solaris. And then theres a few that have had the Solaris and switched back to MH's and say that MH's is the best. It's never ending.

Another thing that always pops up in this conversation is people claiming that the Solaris has problems. Well maybe some of them do, but its not all of them, and don't sit there and try to tell me tha tno other lights have problems.

I had a Coralife Aqualight Pro on my fist tank. One of the Ballest went out after 2 weeks. That was replaced and then my PC's stopped working. The light was sent back and another one was sent out. Everything was good for 2 months and then one bulb started giving off a yellow light and the other was giving off a blue. I changed bulbs twice at Corallife's request before they told me it was another bad ballest and that light was also sent back. I was refunded and tried a Current fixture. That one also worked great for a few months and then the LED boards went out and the timers stopped working. I switched over to a current T-5 setup and it worked great untill the fan stopped and something started smoking inside. The only thing I had some sucess with was when I put a canopy on the tank and ran a MH Pendent, but then I started having Heat issues. I sold that tank but not because any of my lighting problems.

I'm starting to think that I'm jinxed when it comes to lights. On my 60 cube that I'm setting up I ordered another current T-5 setup and that fan is the loudest thing I've heard. I also ordered the Solaris to try out and I'm going to keep my fingers crossed.

I know that was alot of rambleing but the point I'm trying to make is these arguements never make since because we're always going to argue about whats better, and that all lights have problems, not just the Solaris.

This arguement is like two people with two different cars argueing about which is better
Ford vs. Chevy
Toyota vs. Honda
, when all it really comes down to is WHAT YOU LIKE BEST AND NOT EVERYBODY ELSE.