Reef Central Online Community

Reef Central Online Community (http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/index.php)
-   Lighting, Filtration & Other Equipment (http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=212)
-   -   Solaris Led lighting systems (http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=876845)

jmccalip 06/30/2006 07:43 PM

Solaris Led lighting systems
 
www.solarisled.com


Don't know if this is a repost, but check them out!

http://www.solarisled.com/Portals/0/...risAdLarge.jpg

PFO Lighting is proud to introduce the Solaris LED Illumination System. The Solaris is the first LED System designed to replace Metal Halide and Fluorescent lighting for the Aquarium Reef Tanks. It has been in development for over two years. It will change the way Aquarists light their tanks from now and into the future.

The current design produces PAR light output levels equal to a 250W MH 20K. It uses 40% less energy than the Metal Halide Fixtures it replaces. The life of the LED's is 50,000 hours, so it almost eliminates metal halide and fluorescent bulb replacements. All heat is radiated up and away from the tank Therefore, it does not heat the water like Metal Halides or Fluorescents. This eliminates the need for Chillers. The room air conditioner needs to work 1/2 as much since the light fixture produces only half the heat of Metal Halides which saves even more energy over traditional lighting methods.

There is a built in microprocessor that controls the Solaris. This not only eliminates timers, but it allows the unit to dim the actinic blue LEDs, white LEDs, Lunar actinic blue LEDs and Lunar White LEDS independently from 0-100%. This dimming capability opens many opportunities. The light can be adjusted from 6.5K to 22K, or anywhere in between, to set the ideal color temperature. Sunrise, Daylight, Cloud Cover, Sunset, and the lunar cycle, can all be set independently.

Coral Growth has been outstanding with the new lights. There is excellent water penetration of the light. Many authors have been testing the units since early May and will be printing their results shortly.

scottfarcuz 06/30/2006 09:28 PM

Been a lot of discussion about them lately. Here are a few of the recent threads

http://reefcentral.com/forums/showth...hreadid=852720

http://reefcentral.com/forums/showth...hreadid=849631

http://reefcentral.com/forums/showth...hreadid=868404

jmaschh 06/30/2006 10:23 PM

I can't wait to hear some comments on this from somebody that actually uses it.

jmccalip 06/30/2006 11:39 PM

Huh, I wish the search button would work for me...

cindyolson 07/01/2006 12:26 AM

I've ordered one so I hope they really work. The $200 per month my electric bill went up is a strong argument in the pro... The saves in bulb costs, 8 floresent and 3 MH per year. It should pay for it's self quick.

hahnmeister 07/01/2006 12:29 AM

cindyolson, you are now on my buddy list of people whose every post I will watch. I want to see some reviews...lol.

cindyolson 07/01/2006 12:47 AM

Sanjay's going to be talking about this lighting solution at MACNA. So, I figure, what the hay, if he's supporting it, it should be good, right?

jcraft 07/01/2006 01:48 AM

it's been about 3 months now since the system was first announced . . . you'd think they would have some test results by now:rolleyes:

I was looking at them again yesterday thinking that exact thing. Couldn't find anything other than them saying they produced more PAR than 20k Radiums . . .

I don't have the means to drop 2 grand on lights that may or may not be effective . . . show us the spectral plots!!!

hahnmeister 08/23/2006 10:53 AM

For those who didnt see it already... its very interesting....
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2006/8/review2

cindyolson 08/29/2006 11:20 AM

PFO will finally ship my light on Friday. It will arive at the retailer somtime the following week. I'll pick it up on Sept 9th. Then we'll see how my tank likes it. Wish me luck.

Acroholic 08/29/2006 11:26 AM

Quote:

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7996703#post7996703 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by hahnmeister
For those who didnt see it already... its very interesting....
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2006/8/review2

:hmm2: ...hmmmmmmm....interesting..but reads more like a biased advertisement........gotta give a good review in exchange for the free swag......

africangrey 08/29/2006 11:56 AM

Cindy,
I can't believe there are people will actually spent more than two grand for light, but please do take a few pics and share your observation after some initial testings.

RichConley 08/29/2006 12:59 PM

Quote:

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7662606#post7662606 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by cindyolson
I've ordered one so I hope they really work. The $200 per month my electric bill went up is a strong argument in the pro... The saves in bulb costs, 8 floresent and 3 MH per year. It should pay for it's self quick.
Cindy, if your electricity went up $200 a month, its got nothing to do with lighting....

Unless you're (ADDED) 1400w of lights....24 hours a day.


Also, take the bulb changes with a grain of salt.... that 50K hours is how long it takes for the solaris to lose 30% of its par. You want to replace well before its lost 10%, so you're really talking about replacing every 2-3 years...

pair that with the fact that the par on these things is abysmal (about 75% of a Xm20K bulb) and its not all that impressive.

Untamed12 08/29/2006 02:43 PM

Quote:

pair that with the fact that the par on these things is abysmal (about 75% of a Xm20K bulb) and its not all that impressive.
I didn't read it that way... The Dana Riddle test says...

"the 75-watt Solaris produced 89.4% of the PAR generated by the 250-watt XM 20,000K lamp."

He then goes on to suggest that the Solaris produces a higher % of PUR (photosynthetically USABLE Radiation). That is, a higher percentage of the Solaris light production falls between 400-550nm (approx 87% vs 82%). I think that just means that the Solaris would be more effecient at producing useable wavelengths without wasting energy producing non-usable wavelengths. (are non-usable wavelengths waste...or do they contribute to the "look" of the aquarium?)

If one buys into that point of view, then you conclude that the Solaris produces about 94.8% of the PUR of the MH system tested.

Quote:

You want to replace well before its lost 10%, so you're really talking about replacing every 2-3 years...
I would be interested in seeing a graph of the decline. If it loses 30% over 11 years...how fast does it lose 10%? 2-3 years might be a good estimate, but it might not be a linear decline.

This just goes toward how quickly the lamps need replacing. We know that the MH is going to need replacing every year. How often you need to change the LEDs contributes toward how economical these LEDs truly are. I doubt they are going to be worse that MH in that respect. Regardless, there is probably a good financial argument just based on the electrical savings alone. I also have not found any info on what it is actually going to cost to replace the LED arrays, however.

Anyway, I'm no expert. I'm just trying to interpret the results offered by people who've done better testing that I can.

RichConley 08/29/2006 02:55 PM

Quote:

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8037831#post8037831 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Untamed12
I didn't read it that way... The Dana Riddle test says...

"the 75-watt Solaris produced 89.4% of the PAR generated by the 250-watt XM 20,000K lamp."

He then goes on to suggest that the Solaris produces a higher % of PUR (photosynthetically USABLE Radiation). That is, a higher percentage of the Solaris light production falls between 400-550nm (approx 87% vs 82%). I think that just means that the Solaris would be more effecient at producing useable wavelengths without wasting energy producing non-usable wavelengths. (are non-usable wavelengths waste...or do they contribute to the "look" of the aquarium?)

If one buys into that point of view, then you conclude that the Solaris produces about 94.8% of the PUR of the MH system tested.

Exactly. But then you have to take into effect that the XM has an unneeded glass shield on it in that test, so that drops the PUR number downfrom 95% to roughly 80%.

Consider the fact that a 20K XM puts out roughly 50 Par, and according to Sanjay, PUR is generally pretty proportional to PAR in MH bulbs. If you put a shield glass on the XM 20K, that puts you at roughly 42 PAR. If the Solaris is 95% of that efficiency, that puts it at having equal PUR to a halide bulb that puts out 40 Par.


So for 75 watts, you get PUR comparable to that of a halide bulb that puts out 40 PAR.

With an XM 10K you get PUR comparable to that of a halide bulb with 125 PAR for 255 watts.

Thats .533 PUR/PAR per watt for the Solaris, and .50 for the XM10K. Theres NO efficiency difference there. Theres no energy savings there.

You're getting less light for less energy, in an almost exactly proportional sense.

Because of this, we're looking at multiple solaris arrays to replace a single halide bulb, so say 3 years worth of $75 Xms, or, over the same period replacing 2 arrays of LEDs at $300 each. I dont see any Solaris savings there.

theatrus 08/29/2006 03:00 PM

Figure the 3W wide-dispersion Luxeon LEDs are bout $20-30 volume priced. Multiply by number of LEDs. Include many hours soldering all the connections, and hope they're not all epoxyed in :)

RichConley 08/29/2006 03:05 PM

theatrus, I think theyre attached in strips of 5, so $150 minimum.

Each bank (every 1 foot) has 25 of the LEDS. SO $500-$750 to replace a whole bank)


Like I said, when these are similarly priced to Halides, they'll be some savings, but still not a huge amoutn. Right now, buy them for coolness factor, but theres no way you're even going to come close on saving $$.

Untamed12 08/29/2006 03:09 PM

Ok...I had to read that a few times, but I think I understand what you are saying.

According to the Solaris website, a 72" Solaris draws 450W (6 x 75W arrays). If I were to light 72"L x 24"W with 250W MH, I would need 3 of them. That suggests that I'm using 450W instead of 750W. (40% less power used)

So..you are saying that in the above example that I would be getting 40% less PUR?

cindyolson 08/29/2006 03:18 PM

All I know is that when I went to MH from PC my cost went up $200 per month. I know it's due to chiller running more and MH using more power the PC. It'll cost me $800 per year to replace bulbs in MH fixture and even if I recoop $100 in electrical savings it'll pay for itself inside of 2 years. My only worry is the tank itself. I'm keeping the MH fixture for at least 6 months in case it doesn't work out. Expensive test, but may be worth it in the end.

Acroholic 08/29/2006 03:42 PM

Cindy...You don't have SPS do you?

RichConley 08/29/2006 03:53 PM

Quote:

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8038029#post8038029 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Untamed12
Ok...I had to read that a few times, but I think I understand what you are saying.

According to the Solaris website, a 72" Solaris draws 450W (6 x 75W arrays). If I were to light 72"L x 24"W with 250W MH, I would need 3 of them. That suggests that I'm using 450W instead of 750W. (40% less power used)

So..you are saying that in the above example that I would be getting 40% less PUR?


YES!


The comparison they make is the most efficient part of the LED spectrum (Blue) against the least efficient part of the spectrum on halides (blue).

Dana riddle justifies that getting less for less by saying that most aquarists have too much light anyways. WHich I agree with, but is just a stupid argument. You could run 175s instead.

RichConley 08/29/2006 03:56 PM

Quote:

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8038077#post8038077 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by cindyolson
All I know is that when I went to MH from PC my cost went up $200 per month. I know it's due to chiller running more and MH using more power the PC. It'll cost me $800 per year to replace bulbs in MH fixture and even if I recoop $100 in electrical savings it'll pay for itself inside of 2 years. My only worry is the tank itself. I'm keeping the MH fixture for at least 6 months in case it doesn't work out. Expensive test, but may be worth it in the end.

$800 a year to replace bulbs? What are you running, 12 x 250?


Like I said, the efficiency here is almost exactlyt he same. Any decrease in wattage you see is going to come with a direct decrease in usable light. Same with decreases in heat.


you'd recoup your money better by removing one or 2 of the halides. You'd still have more par than the solaris.

Fliger 08/29/2006 04:40 PM

Cindy, there are people on RC who know everything. Even without trying it. Or make inaccurate factual statements on just about every thread I see. Kinda like the 1400W of light 24hr/day - when they don't take a chiller into account. Or that it takes a $5K Bubble King to equal a sub $2K Deltec. I really don't know where they get the time.

Put it up, I'm sure you'll love it - and let us know how it works. There are many ways to skin a cat and I'm sure this is a very viable way, with other benefits. I'd love to come by & see it sometime.

africangrey - lots of people spend that kinda money on lighting. They just don't hang around websites. Particularly outside the US. Do some searches on Interzoo and you'll see US reefers are quite a bit different than European/Asian reefers.

steve the plumb 08/29/2006 07:36 PM

Flinger for some reason I am getting some vibe that you don't like Rich or hie perspective.

Fliger 08/29/2006 09:13 PM

I like everyone. ;-) But he does seem to post incorrect information with authority, and I'll correct or at least give my opinion any time I see it. As I would hope someone would correct me if I gave incorrect info. I probably bite my tongue more often than I'd like.

As a few of us "early adopters" have found out, there is no shortage of people to ridicule you when you try a new product - and it doesn't fall into their paradigm of "the perfect reef tank". And they are usually my way or the highway type folks.

I hope somewhere down the line LED lighting equals MH, and you gotta start somewhere.

steve the plumb 08/29/2006 09:43 PM

The lighting sytem looks nice but very pricy.I don't know if its worth the price.Some of the guissmen systems are just as expensive so I don't know if you would compare this system to that brand.I do like the fact that you can dim the lights and play around with it.I don't know if I would buy it at the present cost.Flinger hows the tunze 9020I ordered mine I should get it this week

dirtyreefer 08/29/2006 10:58 PM

Quote:

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8038679#post8038679 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Fliger
Cindy, there are people on RC who know everything. Even without trying it. Or make inaccurate factual statements on just about every thread I see. Kinda like the 1400W of light 24hr/day - when they don't take a chiller into account. Or that it takes a $5K Bubble King to equal a sub $2K Deltec. I really don't know where they get the time.
Thank gad for this post! :p I've bitten my tongue so many times reading some of the crap you mentioned above. You go Cliff Clavin :cool: IF these answers are even remotely correct, who has time to calculate this sort of useless trivia/facts? Someone who's 46 and lives at home with their mother :rolleyes: The tone of these posts kinda reminds me of some of the bare-bottom posters who used to cause arguements (before that mass exodus), let's try not to relive those days...

Cindy, I hope you are extremely happy with your new lighting. In the long run I think there will definitely be savings, just make sure you keep us updated with pics and your results! :D

chrisstankevitz 08/30/2006 12:21 AM

Quote:

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8040527#post8040527 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Fliger
there is no shortage of people to ridicule you when you try a new product - and it doesn't fall into their paradigm of "the perfect reef tank". And they are usually my way or the highway type folks.

Well said, Fliger. Thanks for posting.

RiddleLabs 08/30/2006 12:31 AM

Aloha,

There seems to be quite a few misconceptions being touted as facts. I'm not sure of the motivation of a few individuals, but doing some homework before posting would be appreciated - it's your credibility, not mine.

I've invested $60,000 of my own $ in lab equipment so I don't have to rely on opinions. I'm disappointed to see that self-appointed experts want to claim that I got the Solaris unit for 'free' (I did not).

I've been writing for aquarium magazines since 1984 and I will not sell my intregrity for any price.

In situations where artificial lighting is required, I am using a Solaris. No UV, no heat and darn little wasted light - just as the article said. My decision - backed up with facts, not heresay or idle opinions.

Dana

Acroholic 08/30/2006 06:37 AM

Dana,
I truly believe you are missing the whole point here. There are a lot of hobbyists out here “myself included” who WANT to use the latest and best technology on their Reef systems available. I myself am more than willing to purchase a LED hood, when “AND ONLY WHEN” they can meet the requirements that my Reef/SPS tank needs. There is absolutely nothing against PFO, as I use a custom PFO MH/VHO fixture as my primary lighting over my main display currently, and I absolutely love it. It is a first class unit.
As far as your claim to purchase your Solaris, in your article you did claim to receive a beta unit.
QUOTE: “I was fortunate enough to receive a beta model from PFO for testing. Although this prototype lacks some of the progressive features of the production models, it enabled me to evaluate a high intensity LED array. The prototype I received has 25 3-watt LED lamps (13 blue and 12 white) with an advertised Kelvin rating of 20,000” unquote
As far as the article is concerned, truly Dana Riddle, to me, this did read like a biased advertisement. I was disappointed to say the least that you did not perform any “real world” testing on this unit. And not like you performed any tests that did not reiterate/propagate PFO’s own biased claims. Did you check this, or did you just take PFO’s word for it before you printed it?
QUOTE: “PFO claims the electronics within the luminaire are encapsulated with a material impervious to the inevitable salt spray. Unprotected circuitry was an issue with some of the LED banks produced 5 or so years ago. PFO has apparently overcome this problem and their protective circuit coating should go a long way in preventing corrosion.”unquote
You claim to have tested the LED light fixture against a lamp that is not used in the real world reef/sps systems, as did PFO. I.E: the LED performed at X% PAR as compared to X MH, which in the real world is only X% of PAR compared to a bulb that is actually used in this hobby. This is “REEF CENTRAL” BTW and most of us have reef tanks and many have SPS, and we have been keeping an eye on LED technology. Are you telling me now that the SOLARIS unit will meet all the lighting requirements/needs of my SPS/Reef Tank?
I guess I’ll wait for Sanjay’s test, at least we can be rest assured that his testing will be more unskewed/real world unbiased testing that we have all been looking forward to, so we can make a better decision on whether this technology has truly reached our hobby yet.
Thank you all for your time.

toastman 08/30/2006 08:16 AM

I have to agree....being rather new to the posting thing here on RC, that people are quick to take off the gloves and start swinging, if your opinion differs from theirs.....one thing I know is that LED lighting looks pretty cool, and we have to start somewhere, I remember when I got my first 175 watt MH, the spectrum was somewhere around 2700k, I added some Actintic 40watt flourescents to it, and well, believe it or not, the tank looked awesome, and the corals/rock flourished, now here we are 15+ years later, and looking into LED lights...... times change, everyone is entitled to an opinion, just dont rip someones head off for dissagreeing with your opinion. Cindy enjoy the lights, post some pictures up, and let us know what you think!

RichConley 08/30/2006 08:39 AM

Quote:

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8038679#post8038679 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Fliger
Cindy, there are people on RC who know everything. Even without trying it. Or make inaccurate factual statements on just about every thread I see. Kinda like the 1400W of light 24hr/day - when they don't take a chiller into account. Or that it takes a $5K Bubble King to equal a sub $2K Deltec. I really don't know where they get the time.

Put it up, I'm sure you'll love it - and let us know how it works. There are many ways to skin a cat and I'm sure this is a very viable way, with other benefits. I'd love to come by & see it sometime.

africangrey - lots of people spend that kinda money on lighting. They just don't hang around websites. Particularly outside the US. Do some searches on Interzoo and you'll see US reefers are quite a bit different than European/Asian reefers.

Fliger, give it up. Its quite clear you dont like me, but absolutely NONE of the above has anything to do with this thread.


Please point out ANYTHING in my post about the solaris that is innacurate.

RichConley 08/30/2006 08:41 AM

Quote:

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8040527#post8040527 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Fliger
I like everyone. ;-) But he does seem to post incorrect information with authority, and I'll correct or at least give my opinion any time I see it. As I would hope someone would correct me if I gave incorrect info. I probably bite my tongue more often than I'd like.

As a few of us "early adopters" have found out, there is no shortage of people to ridicule you when you try a new product - and it doesn't fall into their paradigm of "the perfect reef tank". And they are usually my way or the highway type folks.

I hope somewhere down the line LED lighting equals MH, and you gotta start somewhere.

Fliger, please point out what is innacurate about what i Have posted in this thread, and back it up with facts.

pulse13 08/30/2006 08:43 AM

theatrus, how do you figure 20-30 per Lux III volume priced? They retail for less than $10 each including the optic.

pulse13 08/30/2006 08:52 AM

I'd also like to see a more detailed explaination as to why the LED fixture which produces about 1/3 the total lumens per watt actually gives higher par.

Funny how this fixture using the same LEDs and optics as PFO, with lower color temperature (lower color temperaure = more radiant energy per lumen), is advertised as being more efficient than most halogens:

http://www.luxeonstar.com/item.php?i...rtno=NL-12-4-3

tacocat 08/30/2006 10:11 AM

Acroholic,

To be fair, I wouldn't bothered doing real world tests on a prototype. Why?, the results will be different from production models.

Why do folks get hung up on PAR and such. Let's wait until a few production units get out there and see what people think of them. I have a friend who uses 3 - 250w 20K bulbs over a 28" deep 265g tank. On paper you would think that it wouldn't work, but the results speak for themselves.

toastman,

I'm glad someone remembers the old days. That 175w 2700K lighting system probably cost you $500 a unit also. I think reading negative posts about a product that hasn't been realeased yet gets tiring.

I'm looking forward to this new technology. If allwe ever did was sit around and pick apart new aquarium products, we would most likely discourage many manufacturers from developing new products.

Fliger 08/30/2006 10:29 AM

Steve - you must be comparing the Solaris to the 260 Moonlight Giesemann. The other cool Giesemanns aren't released yet. The 230 Eco is ok, but there is a fatal flaw in the design with the T5's right next to the MH. Worth the price usually should read "worth the price for me" though. Kinda like my chiller - it was a few hundred more than a standard chiller but it was extremely worth it for me. Just like the Solaris will be extremely worth it for some people. Oh and I'm really happy with the 9010 still. I don't know about the 9020, never seen one, please let us know how it works!

I'm just happy Cindy lives close to me. I love some of the options that Solaris has, it might work really well especially on my 20" deep tank.

LOL Rich. Trust me, there are plenty of people who feel the same way about anyone who runs around RC knowing it all, you just seem to be the poster boy. There are so many comments, such as the $200 comment (have you ever owned a 200+ gallon system with a chiller?), the $5K BK vs Deltec statement (that one really makes me laugh), recently the tank needing to be +30" to use 400W - all said with such fact, its laughable. You seem to know everything, with your 58G tank.

Its not that I don't like you, as I mentioned before - but having OWNED and USED a lot of equipment rather than just reading about them the internet - if I see something false I'll usually point it out. But spam on, buddy!

tacocat 08/30/2006 11:07 AM

Quote:

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8039881#post8039881 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by steve the plumb
Flinger
I like that. :D

Example: Some dude cut me off on the highway, so I gave him the Flinger.

guilford 08/30/2006 03:05 PM

A lot the early posts in this thread are comparing one 25 LED bank of Solaris lighting to one 250w MH bulb using the data from Dana's review in Advanced Aquarist.

But don't a majority of people with 48" tanks probably have only 2 halide bulbs over their 48" tanks, whereas the 48" Solaris fixture will have 4 banks of 25 LEDs each? Doesn't that work in favor of the Solaris - not that it will necessarily match high output MH bulbs, but I would think the 4 banks of LEDs vs 2 halides surely makes it a lot closer than some of the posts on this thread would make it appear.

Am I missing something?

Acroholic 08/30/2006 03:30 PM

Quote:

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8045304#post8045304 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by guilford
Am I missing something?
YES.....50watts....QUOTE FROM ARTICLE: "the 75-watt Solaris produced 89.4% of the PAR generated by the 250-watt XM 20,000K lamp."

They are comparing an entire LED fixture output to one 250W XM20k bulb.......

guilford 08/30/2006 03:38 PM

That's right, they were comparing the entire fixture, which was the 14" version. The 14" version has 25 LEDs at 3 watts each equals 75 watts. That's for the 14" fixture. A 48" Solaris fixture has four banks of 25 LEDs each. That a total of 100 LEDs for the 48" fixture, which is four times the light output of the fixture reviewed in Advanced Aquarist.

Untamed12 08/30/2006 03:45 PM

I agree, Guildford...but there may have been an area compensation applied since the MH cast it's light over a wider area.

I guess this is all just a waste of words. Suffice to say that I, personally, am very interested in these things because I need to decide how I'm going to light the tank that I'm currently building.

Until we get some hands-on experiences from people who've switched from T5 or MH to LED...we're just speculating.

So...to all those who are awaiting delivery...I'm really interested in some personal experience as soon as you feel ready to share.

Acroholic 08/30/2006 03:46 PM

sorry..correct.....:p

hahnmeister 08/30/2006 05:31 PM

When these luxeon LEDs were developed, the output/watt of LED's was not quite what you can find today. Only within the past two years have discoveries been made that allow the lumens/PAR per watt of LED's to surpass that of halides, and these developments take some time to end up in our homes. The rapid development of LED's has lead to many MFG's simply 'holding tight' in anticipation of when the tech might finally be ready to mass produce, without the threat of simply being surpassed in a few months like right now.

The good news is, from any way you look at it, that 'buy-in' is very expensive right now, but its only a matter of a few years before we are replacing our halides and T5s with LED's, and since reflectors and ballasts will go away in the process, the ease of use, longevity, hundreds of available spectrums, and low heat output of these devices will be a great deal for all of us, and prolly be cheaper to buy in the long run than any other lighting we use.

RichConley 08/30/2006 06:35 PM

Quote:

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8043425#post8043425 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Fliger
\
LOL Rich. Trust me, there are plenty of people who feel the same way about anyone who runs around RC knowing it all, you just seem to be the poster boy. There are so many comments, such as the $200 comment (have you ever owned a 200+ gallon system with a chiller?), the $5K BK vs Deltec statement (that one really makes me laugh), recently the tank needing to be +30" to use 400W - all said with such fact, its laughable. You seem to know everything, with your 58G tank.

Again Fliger, grow up. Please provide evidence that anything I have said in this thread is incorrect. STAY ON TOPIC.


I HAVE NEVER said you need to be 30+" deep to use 400w. I just said theyre entirely not needed until you go that deep.

I have no idea what the hell your talking about with the $200 comment.

No, I havent owned a 200+ gallon tank. WHat the hell does that have to do with any of this. Again. GROW UP AND STAY ON TOPIC, OR TAKE IT TO PM.

Fliger 08/30/2006 06:57 PM

Well put Untamed12. My thoughts exactly. I can't wait to see it.

Man Rich - just like the last time, you really are paranoid aren't you (take the meds!!). I have stayed on topic unlike your last few posts. I don't know why you think this is all about you. Trust me, I'm all grow'd up with a real job and career and lots of fun toys. Thanks for your concern though!

BTW the $200 comment was the rise in Cindy's electricity bill. All the MH she added not only sucked MH wattage, but chilling a 200+ gallon tank is pricey. But you wouldn't know that since you haven't owned one. Yet you commented. Get it?

steve the plumb 08/30/2006 07:21 PM

PFO still states that the lights do get hot.The unit is vented and cooled with a fan from above the unit.Other than hanging it from the ceiling or mounting it on the tank I don't think you can place it inside a canopy.Those with a canopy more than likely will have to vent it properly even then if its not desighned to be used in a canopy it does leave out alot of potential buyers.Flinger the 9020 is 2 9015 stuck together with a foam fractionator instead of a collection cup

toastman 08/30/2006 08:15 PM

Hey tacocat, that 175watt 2700k MH did cost a bundle, it was made by a little company called Hamiton Technology, right when they were just starting out......lol.... I have two nice Peristaltic, "waterchange" pumps new in boxes from those days too....never got around to using them, might use them now.....

jmkins 08/30/2006 08:31 PM

Quote:

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8046990#post8046990 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Fliger
but chilling a 200+ gallon tank is pricey.
While upgrading from PCs to MH will definetly cause an increase in electrical use, chilling a tank during mid-summer in Arizona is likely to be the culprit. That or increased AC usage. There are several things to look at when cutting back on electricity besides lights, most likely even with the LEDs running the electric bill will go up $150+ during summer.

I do believe that LEDs will eventually take over the reef lighting market, but without spectral plots, or true equivalent comparisons to typical lighting set-ups I would not sink money into them. The technology still has a lot of room for improvement and the second, or third, generations of LEDs will have significant improvements over these first releases. Thats not saying that these prototypes will not be sufficient, but rather that the current state of the art LED technology has to first prove itself versus the readily available and cheaper alternatives.

With that said, I really look forward to the day when my lighting is progammable over the entire range of spectrums and can hook up to the internet to mimick the lighting conditions of any given reef at any given moment. I dont see anything but LED being able to do this in the near future.

hahnmeister 08/30/2006 10:34 PM

Actually, most of the bright white LEDs have spectral curves very similar or identical to the ones in the Solaris... very nice spectrums. Add to that the LEDs you can buy with specific outputs that peak at 420nm and 450nm, and you get the idea.

As is, there are several people over at nano-reef.com that are making and using LED arrays (including myself) on nanos with great results. I wouldnt say that the spectrums need improvement... just the output, which is exactly what has been happening over the past few years... the technology is accelerating faster than computers, and in just the last couple years the efficiency has in fact surpassed that of halide... only we wont see it in our homes/reefs for a bit longer... factories take a while to build after all...


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:01 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.