Holy LED light Hood Batman. Solaris.

[tmcelveen]

Originally posted by roblack
SPS growing better under LEDs than MHs. Go figure...

I think the whole point Bean and others are making is that statements like this can be very misleading to people...especially when you're talking about shelling out $$$$ for one of these units.

What does this statement mean? Faster growth? More polyp extension? More expansion? Compared with what? I'm assuming that waterflow, feeding, filtration, temperature have not changed at all. What MH bulbs, ballasts, wattages were you using? What distance were the MH's from the water and what distance are the LED's from the surface?

I agree with GSM (I think) that everyone would just like to see pics which demonstrate the theory that "SPS grow better under LED's than MHs". I think we would all agree that if you were shown all the statistical data on why brand "x" bulb was bad but you saw with your own eyes a full fledged SPS tank thriving under that same brand bulb, you would probably give that brand a shot.

A picture's better than a thousand words...

[jnarowe]

I agree. The best thing for the hobbiest would be monthly growth pictures like so many people post here on RC. Once that is reconciled with electrical usage and estimated life-span, then we can make better conclusions as to what their efficiencies really are. So far, I have a hard time buying it, based on what I have seen personally.

I think there may be a bit of a Deltec phenomenon going on here where customers that have shelled out big bucks for the latest most expensive technology really want everyone else to think it is the best that can be bought. And no offense meant, it's just a fact of life. It's how we are as human beings.

[BeanAnimal]

Im shocked that Bean hasn't jumped on you already.

As I have already mentioned, I just don't have the energy to make comments or corrections on this subject anymore. It gets old when you have to cover the same facts and science over and over. Sanjay had the right idea when he posted a few pages back

[roblack]

TMC, the only thing that has changed in 4 months is the light, I was using two 250w MHs (Aquamedic, 20 K Ushio and Aqualyne) prior to shifting over to LEDs (H4). Current, placement, filtration, etc have not changed. Top corals are 6 inches or so from the light. My tank is about 22 inches deep. I have recently cut my lights down to 70% because I realized the LEDs were a little too bright. What does faster growth and more polyp extension mean you ask? It means my corals are now growing faster and the polyps stick out more than they did with MHs. The negativity and skepticism expressed by many on this thread is amazing to me. I thought people would be interested in hearing about how well corals are doing (bad or good) with any new product. I also like MHs, running them on my frag tank, just like LEDs better. Save up!

[tmcelveen]

Originally posted by roblack
The negativity and skepticism expressed by many on this thread is amazing to me. I thought people would be interested in hearing about how well corals are doing (bad or good) with any new product.

We don't have aquariums so that we can listen to them. We have aquariums so that we can look at them. Hence, the request for pictures.

Noone is being negative (except for those who resort to namecalling). We are happy the LED's work for you, but we are not shelling out big bucks to buy lights for YOUR tank. I think it is very reasonable to want as much proof as possible before committing to ANY large purchase.

Skepticism is good. Would you rather us spend our hard earned money on something merely because someone "says" it's good? Without people like Beanie and the rest, all us layman reefers would have to go by is the information from the manufacturer which is by nature going to be biased. They aren't going to tell you the flaws in their product, and they're not going to tell you that you don't really need their product.

We've had all this talk about efficiency of LED's vs MH's but what I think the underlying question is the efficiency of our dollars spent in terms of positive effect on our tanks. Let's say for a moment that the Solaris is better (whatever you want that to mean) than a particular MH setup. Okay, the question is, is it $1000 better? Does the difference in performance justify the difference in price?

Please don't think we're being negative but some of us scrape every penny to be able to afford our "hobby" and we have to pick and choose what we spend that money on based on what we think will benefit the our tanks the most.

[roblack]

I have posted pics, the request has been fulfilled. Check earlier in this thread or look at my gallery of tank pics.

[roblack]

BTW TMC, I am not arguing about cost and energy efficiency issues. However, I am one of the few people posting on this thread that actually owns LEDS and MHs. I have remarked upon my personal experience with LEDs vs MHs, and I have had much better results with LEDs, all other things equal. The fact that you and others would respond with such sarcasm and doubtfulness is therefore interesting to me.

Also, I have no need to convince myself that my lighting system is better because I shelled out so much money for my LEDs (I am familiar with the concept of cognitive dissonance). Anyone who has a tank worth looking at has shelled out ridiculous cash. For those who care not to believe the truth, enjoy yourselves. But you really don't know what you are talking about.

[dhnguyen]

no offense roblack but your tank could hardly be used for any sort of growth comparison. I can't see much but a few small SPS colonies and frags.

[purebullet417]

allright i have the solaris h4 on a 210 so ill post what i think. first i never had mhs on this tank so i cant say if there better or not. but i can say coral colors are fantastic. the blues and greens really pop out. now i have had growth but i cant tell you what that growth had been had i had mh lights. if you guys like i can try to snap pics of growth if you like

[roblack]

Look at that M. Cap, that thing is large (8-9 inches across). Small acro colonies, the Pectinatus is 7+ inches across. Nasutas 4-5 inches. Sunset Monti is 4 inches. No offense taken. Sorry I don't have hard proof of a "growth comparison" but I have better things to do. Wasting too much time as it is trying to share info with people here on this thread. Growing faster under LEDs than MHs, but then again, I am sure you will not believe me anyway.

[tmcelveen]

Originally posted by roblack
BTW TMC, I am not arguing about cost and energy efficiency issues. However, I am one of the few people posting on this thread that actually owns LEDS and MHs. I have remarked upon my personal experience with LEDs vs MHs, and I have had much better results with LEDs, all other things equal. The fact that you and others would respond with such sarcasm and doubtfulness is therefore interesting to me.

Also, I have no need to convince myself that my lighting system is better because I shelled out so much money for my LEDs (I am familiar with the concept of cognitive dissonance). Anyone who has a tank worth looking at has shelled out ridiculous cash. For those who care not to believe the truth, enjoy yourselves. But you really don't know what you are talking about.

I would qualify "you really don't know what you're talking about" as a "negative" statement which you have already accused us of.

Let me break this down simple for you:

Noone has said you are wrong.

Noone has said your input is wasted on us.

Don't take it personal that we want more proof.

Your experience has been noted and as you yourself said there is no need for you to waste any more time trying to convice us "sarcastic", "negative" , "disbelievers".

[sjediets]

I had an H4 on my tank for a period of time that I returned because of an uncommon technical problem (I was told)

While I didn't enough time to judge coral growth qualities, I did have a few observations:

Pluses:

1. The heat (or lack thereof) is a great advantage.

2. The programmability (sunrise/sunset/clouds) is awesome.

3. One cord and no timers.

4. The light is PLENTY bright.

Minuses:

1. I didn't think the color of the light was very natural. It seemed somewhat stark...and the blue didn't seem to make colors pop as well as an actinic bulb does. I adjusted the various levels quite a bit and never was too happy with the overall light visual quality. I think its similar to a digital vs analog sound.

2. In some parts of the tank the LEDs weren't blended very well...On the rock in various places I would see blue spots, white spots, pink spots, etc because they were being illuminated more strongly by one color of LED.

3. The user interface was a bit kludgy. Being a s/w engineer I'm a little more picky than others, but I thought a better job could have been done with the firmware programming. Maybe in the next rev.

4. The membrane switches were a pain. There has to be a better waterproof switch out there.

5. The display was a bit cheesy. For the money these command, a few more bucks in a decent display would be worthwhile imo.

I truly believe LEDs are the way of the future but I compare these fixtures to the early Motorola cell phones. I'm going to wait it out with T5s for another year or so until they mature.

[sherm71tank]

Reefers that have been in the hobby for a while don't generally believe claims about products without proof. Be it protein skimmers, lights, whatever. It's not important for people to believe what someone says if there is solid evidence (growth rate comparisons) to back it up. I think that's what we want to see. All of us want the LED lights to be the next great thing. There just isn't proof that day is here yet.

[roblack]

Fair enough Sherm. I would like more proof too, that's why I look at my tank everyday. I can't prove anything to anyone here, am just happy to share my experience. I think the main issue for most people is whether or not LEDs are cost effective, and that has not been proven yet. We really don't know how long the bulbs actually last. I am convinced that all of my SPS and LPS grow faster under LEDs.

TMC, thanks for your comments. If you think about it, if you don't own and use both MHs and LEDs, then you actually do not know what you are talking about in terms of differences in coral response with each light. Maybe you read something or somebody told you what you believe. If me stating the truth is negative to you, then I am sorry that you are hurt by my statements.

[PSam]

Originally posted by roblack
Look at that M. Cap, that thing is large (8-9 inches across). Small acro colonies, the Pectinatus is 7+ inches across. Nasutas 4-5 inches. Sunset Monti is 4 inches. No offense taken. Sorry I don't have hard proof of a "growth comparison" but I have better things to do. Wasting too much time as it is trying to share info with people here on this thread. Growing faster under LEDs than MHs, but then again, I am sure you will not believe me anyway.

Those pics don't do it for me. M. capricornis can grow at the bottom of a tank under PC's, and your acros there look great, but they're 3" under the surface - they should be growing. Under PC's they may do great if just a few inches under. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for this technology. Just waiting until it can compete.

[roblack]

Okay Psam. But can you explain why the same corals in the same placement are now growing faster under LEDs than they were under MHs? I posted pics in response to the statement that No One has posted pics of SPS colonies growing under LEDs. I have SPS colonies thriving under LEDs.

[jcltok]

Just how much data do I have to provide for you to listen. Maybe a Physics Professor from the University of Arkansas can explain to you:

You state: "There is no way you can convert lux to PAR/PPFD... you are talking two different things! You need to stop posting bad info. Also, you can not use a meter like that to get a lumen or PAR per watt figure!! It just doesnt work like that. There are reflectors in involved with what you did, so the intensity will vary with position. Lumens per watt calculations need to be done without a reflector, and are done by calculating the total incidental light from every angle around a light source, not by taking any spot readings. It can be determined by a point reading sometimes, if you know what your total area is and how it varies over that area, but you need integral calc to determine this ratio then.

You need a physics course on optics and the EM spectrum. Seriously... your info is just not right. You arent helping anyone.

Im shocked that Bean hasn't jumped on you already."

Here it is...

Date: Mon Jul 31 16:38:51 2000
Posted By: Jeff Robertson, Faculty, Physical Sciences, Arkansas Tech University
Area of science: Physics
ID: 964457090.Ph
________________________________________
Message:

Light measurements can be complicated but illuminating...

Photometric units, illuminance:
Footcandle = one lumen per square foot. The 16th General
Conference on Weights an Measures (CGPM), Oct. 1979, decided that the candela is the luminous intensity of a source emitting monochromatic radiation of frequency 540 x 1012 Hz and radiant intensity 1/683 watt per steradian. This corresponds to 683 lumens per watt of radiation at approximately 555 nm wavelength, which is near the maximum of the standard photopic spectral luminous efficiency curve.
Lux = one lumen per square meter.

Quantum units, photon flux density:
Microeinstein per second and square meter (µE m-2 s-1). The
einstein has been used to represent the quantity of
radiant energy in Avogadro's number of photons and also
Avogadro's number of photons. The second definition has the
einstein equal a mole of photons, While commonly used as a
unit for photosynthetically active radiation (PAR),
the einstein is not an SI unit.
Therefore: microEinsteins per m2 per second is identical to
micromoles per m2 per second.
(1000 µE m-2 s-1 = 1000 µmol m-2 s-1)
Micromole per second and square meter (µmol m-2 s-1). This term is
based on the number of photons in a certain waveband incident per
unit time (s) on a unit area (m2) divided by the Avogadro
constant (6.022 x 10e23 mol-1). It is used commonly to
describe PAR in the 400-700 nm waveband.

The approximate conversion factors given below will help to
convert absolute energy units or irradiance units (PAR)
as recommended by the plant scientist into illuminance
or photometric values (lux).

Radiometric PAR - Photometric
Source* W m-2 µE m-2 s-1 fc lux

HP Sodium 1 5 33.5 360
(400 w) 1 6.7 72.3
1 10.8

Metal Halide 1 4.6 29.6 319
(400 w) 1 6.5 69.5
1 10.8

Mercury 1 4.7 30.8 332
(400 w) 1 6.5 70.0
1 10.8

CW Fluorescent 1 4.6 34.2 367
(215 W) 1 7.44 80.0
1 10.8

To convert from either W m-2 or µE m-2 s-1 to photometric units, multiply by the appropriate factor." Here is the hyperlink: http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives...6947.Ph.r.html

Charmed by your graciousness!

[jnarowe]

Originally posted by sjediets
Minuses:

1. I didn't think the color of the light was very natural. It seemed somewhat stark...and the blue didn't seem to make colors pop as well as an actinic bulb does. I adjusted the various levels quite a bit and never was too happy with the overall light visual quality. I think its similar to a digital vs analog sound.

2. In some parts of the tank the LEDs weren't blended very well...On the rock in various places I would see blue spots, white spots, pink spots, etc because they were being illuminated more strongly by one color of LED.

These are my observations as well. Every time I have seen one of these operating on a reef tank, I have found the color somewhat unnatural to my eye. That doesn't negate the benefits to corals, but I just haven't liked what I have seen. True they will adjust color throughout the light cycle, but with that and the occassional spotting, it just seems to me that they need to do a little refining yet.

It's a lot like my experience with the Vortech MP-40, a product that I have had inumerable problems with. I am a firm believer in the technology, but the bumps in the road are tearing up my muffler!

[tmcelveen]

Originally posted by roblack

TMC, thanks for your comments. If you think about it, if you don't own and use both MHs and LEDs, then you actually do not know what you are talking about in terms of differences in coral response with each light. Maybe you read something or somebody told you what you believe. If me stating the truth is negative to you, then I am sorry that you are hurt by my statements.

Jeez...I guess that Einstein guy didn't really know what he was talking about since he didn't own any trains...hmmm gonna have to rethink that relativity thing!

I'm sorry, I've been polite to you and let you know that we appreciate your input but would like ADDITIONAL input, but statements like if you don't own LED's then automatically you don't know what you're talking about are flat out childish.

I have not said one thing against LED's. Quote one statement that I made concerning the performance of LED's. I have not made any statements other than to the fact that we would like more input.

And don't worry...you didn't hurt me by your statements. That would be as sad as complaining about having better things to do than convince us and then continuing to try and convince us.

I feel like you are the LED Prophet come to save us and convince us that reef lighting has been born again!

Lighten up and get rid of that chip on your shoulder, man!

[jnarowe]

Originally posted by sherm71tank
Reefers that have been in the hobby for a while don't generally believe claims about products without proof. Be it protein skimmers, lights, whatever. It's not important for people to believe what someone says if there is solid evidence (growth rate comparisons) to back it up. I think that's what we want to see. All of us want the LED lights to be the next great thing. There just isn't proof that day is here yet.

I don't know, I believed that the Vortech would actually have a wireless controller for some reason.

[hahnmeister]

Jeff Robertson, Faculty, Physical Sciences, Arkansas Tech University is incorrect Joe. Just because you can find it on the internet doesnt make it true. There is no way to convert PAR to Lumens... its only an approximation at best if the spectrum is constant. As soon as you are dealing with two different spectrums, that whole idea goes out the window.

A PAR reading of 200 may come up as 1000 Foot Candles (relative numbers) if the light source is full spectrum. But a blue bulb that has a PAR of 200 may only come up with 500 foot candles.

As long as the spectrum is constant, yes, then you could compare PAR and Lux... but in this application they arent. PAR or PPFD is an unfiltered, true energy reading because its based in the radiometric scale. A photometric reading is a 'filtered' result... which reads blue light with less importance because our eyes pick up blue light less, and the sunlight above water is short on blue.

Come on man, I saw you trying to tell someone that the UV spectrums are at either end of the visible EM spectrum... UV-A at one end, and UV-B at the other... wow. Im not trying to be mean about it... just stop before you really embarass yourself.

I see what you are trying to do... trying to search for details to back up 1/5 of the incorrect statements you have made, and tell me to go back and read up or something. Sorry... its not going to work. Think of it this way, if it wasnt for me, someone else would be correcting you.

Your argument about how Lumens/Lux, etc are important as far as photosynthesis goes are ill-advised. All you have to do is look at what PAR actually stands for to realize this.

Your examples of how you determine the lumens per watt of a bulb by testing bulbs in fish stores is not even possible to be done correctly.

Did YOU read those links I posted? I still await you to PM your email to me so I can send the info from Dana. Sorry I dont show more 'graciousness', but you are seriously doing harm when you tell some people what you do.

[roblack]

TMC, I think you need to re-read what I have written. I specifically wrote "...if you don't own and use both MHs and LEDs, then you actually do not know what you are talking about in terms of differences in coral response with each light". Coral response to LED and MH light can only truly be known by experimentation and by actually comparing results using both.

Thanks for your rude criticisms of me. Why are you so angry? Have I insulted you? Do you disagree that if you don't have experience with both types of lights that you really don't KNOW what results can be expected? LEDs are new, and few people really know how well they do with corals. This forum provides a place for people to share their experiences. Yet you feel inclined to disparage and attempt to discredit someone who has experience in the area being discussed. "Childish?" Sounds like someone is projecting their own image onto others. LOL!

[jnarowe]

We need to set up a PPV Octagon for reef discussions. Hmmm...

Rule #1: No kicking in the nuts.

Rule #2: No spitting blood.

Rule #3: If you have a really big skimmer, you get to use a bat.

[tmcelveen]

Originally posted by roblack
TMC, I think you need to re-read what I have written.

No, because you keep repeating it every third or fourth post.

Originally posted by roblack
I specifically wrote "...if you don't own and use both MHs and LEDs, then you actually do not know what you are talking about in terms of differences in coral response with each light". Coral response to LED and MH light can only truly be known by experimentation and by actually comparing results using both.

Actually, you are comparing what you see in front of you right now with what you REMEMBER the growth to be. Not exactly what I would call "experimentation".

Originally posted by roblack
Thanks for your rude criticisms of me. Why are you so angry? Have I insulted you? Do you disagree that if you don't have experience with both types of lights that you really don't KNOW what results can be expected?

I'm actually laughing pretty good at your paranoia. And yes I do disagree with you that experience with both types is a requirement to predict results. I have no experience with having a 100lb weight dropped on my foot but I CAN know what results can be expected.

Originally posted by roblack
LEDs are new, and few people really know how well they do with corals. This forum provides a place for people to share their experiences. Yet you feel inclined to disparage and attempt to discredit someone who has experience in the area being discussed. "Childish?" Sounds like someone is projecting their own image onto others. LOL!

Again, feel free to quote how I've tried to "disparage and discredit" you.

[tmcelveen]

Originally posted by jnarowe
We need to set up a PPV Octagon for reef discussions. Hmmm...

Rule #1: No kicking in the nuts.

Rule #2: No spitting blood.

Rule #3: If you have a really big skimmer, you get to use a bat.

What if my little skimmer produces less heat, uses less electricity, but produces more PAR than your big skimmer?