PFO's Solaris LED System; Tested
- Thread starter Boomer
- Start date
Help Support Reef Aquarium & Tank Building Forum:
gman0526
Well-known member
There's very few people in this hobby that I actually listen to, Dana is definetely one of them and this article is very good.
One thing I didn't seem to see in the article was what kind of reflector was used with the MH setup.
All in all seems like this is a very good product and may be worth the ridiculous price tag it has at the moment. In the meantime I'll keep my MH bulbs
Even though this is a great product I just don't see a MAJOR breakthrough in lighting with it. This of course is IMO.
One thing I didn't seem to see in the article was what kind of reflector was used with the MH setup.
All in all seems like this is a very good product and may be worth the ridiculous price tag it has at the moment. In the meantime I'll keep my MH bulbs
Even though this is a great product I just don't see a MAJOR breakthrough in lighting with it. This of course is IMO.
Maxx
Staff Housemonkey
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2003
- Messages
- 2,935
Interesting read, but I dont think this lighting set up has the intensity it needs in order to be really competitive.
Unfortunately, this doesnt tell us which ballast the XM 20K was running on, which does affect performance of a bulb.
Checking on JBNY's website http://www.cnidarianreef.com/ you can see how various 250 SE bulb and ballast combinations performed. The XM20K bulb isnt a stellar performer by any means, and showed a range of PAR values from a high of 314 when being powered on a PFO HQI ballast, and a low of 228 while being powered by a Blueline E-Ballast. The average of the 8 different ballasts JBNY tested the XM20K bulb on was 260.125.
89.4% of 314 is 280.7
89.4% of 228 is 203.8
89.4% of 260.125 is 232.55
By way of comparison my set up of AB13K bulbs and IceCap ballasts is producing a PAR number of 422. The bulbs and ballasts tested by JBNY did not have a reflector mounted above the bulbs, so these are raw numbers...
All bulb/ballast combinations would have significantly higher numbers with a reflector added.
I notice there is no mention if a reflector is used over the xm20K bulb the LED system is being compared against.
IMO, this is very promising and will hopefully build in a more powerful product for home aquariums. I'm not so much concerned with the cost of the set right now, as its new, PFO has to re-coup R&D costs, and if you dont have to replace bulbs on a yearly basis, you will be saving money throughout the life of the system....
But the performance isnt there right now for me to switch.
Nick
Unfortunately, this doesnt tell us which ballast the XM 20K was running on, which does affect performance of a bulb.
Checking on JBNY's website http://www.cnidarianreef.com/ you can see how various 250 SE bulb and ballast combinations performed. The XM20K bulb isnt a stellar performer by any means, and showed a range of PAR values from a high of 314 when being powered on a PFO HQI ballast, and a low of 228 while being powered by a Blueline E-Ballast. The average of the 8 different ballasts JBNY tested the XM20K bulb on was 260.125.
89.4% of 314 is 280.7
89.4% of 228 is 203.8
89.4% of 260.125 is 232.55
By way of comparison my set up of AB13K bulbs and IceCap ballasts is producing a PAR number of 422. The bulbs and ballasts tested by JBNY did not have a reflector mounted above the bulbs, so these are raw numbers...
All bulb/ballast combinations would have significantly higher numbers with a reflector added.
I notice there is no mention if a reflector is used over the xm20K bulb the LED system is being compared against.
IMO, this is very promising and will hopefully build in a more powerful product for home aquariums. I'm not so much concerned with the cost of the set right now, as its new, PFO has to re-coup R&D costs, and if you dont have to replace bulbs on a yearly basis, you will be saving money throughout the life of the system....
But the performance isnt there right now for me to switch.
Nick
Ed Hahn
Life is A Highway...
Hello Boomer,
I have been talking to Carla at PFO lighting. I was hoping to see one of these at a club meeting. Ok, PFO may come to a PSAS Club Meeting in September 2006. That is not set in stone, but was talked about between PFO and myself. I think it would be awesome to learn about a product one on one and see it work. I am very curious about The Solaris Lighting system also.
I have been talking to Carla at PFO lighting. I was hoping to see one of these at a club meeting. Ok, PFO may come to a PSAS Club Meeting in September 2006. That is not set in stone, but was talked about between PFO and myself. I think it would be awesome to learn about a product one on one and see it work. I am very curious about The Solaris Lighting system also.
Boomer
Well-known member
That Max can be easily changed. The LED's they are using are not "stellar" either It is there first light. I recently sent Pat some info on very high output LED's. Some as much as 130 l / W but are 5.6 W = heat.. These 3-watt Luxeon Emitter in the PFO have an output of about 65 l /W at 1000mA. The new Cree 3-W are 57 l /W and 350 mA.
Just say post
Hi Ed
They will be at MACNA, me too
It is there first light. I recently sent Pat some info on very high output LED's. Some as much as 130 l / W but are 5.6 W = heat.. These 3-watt Luxeon Emitter in the PFO have an output of about 65 l /W at 1000mA. The new Cree 3-W are 57 l /W and 350 mA.Just say post
Hi Ed
They will be at MACNA, me too
liveforphysics
Banned
Boomer, did you just say 130L/w? Are you sure thats not a typo? The research I was last doing in reguards to LEDs placed the best HO units around the 70L/W area... I'm not doubting you, but I would really like to see info about what you are talking about. 130L/W would mean LEDs DOUBLED abilities in the last couple months and I somehow missed the new tech, as the SQ tech isn't going to get near that in any HO form.
Sushi Reef
Ebi
any shots of these things in action?
Boomer
Well-known member
Lifefor
Yes, that is a typo They actually can go up to 140 l /W @ 1500 mA You have to look at the mA current run rating.
Look for Luxeon K2- Emitters
http://www.luxeon.com/products/line.cfm?lineId=18
http://www.luxeon.com/pdfs/DS51.pdf
Yes, that is a typo
They actually can go up to 140 l /W @ 1500 mA You have to look at the mA current run rating.Look for Luxeon K2- Emitters
http://www.luxeon.com/products/line.cfm?lineId=18
http://www.luxeon.com/pdfs/DS51.pdf
Llarian
Well-known member
The biggest issue I think I have is that it appears these doesn't appear to have a wide enough dispersion for a tank wider than 18" or much deeper than 24" for SPS if I'm reading it correctly.
Looks like it might be nice for sane sized tanks though!
-Dylan
Looks like it might be nice for sane sized tanks though!
-Dylan
Scooterman
Well-known member
It has major solid state advantages, even at the higher cost IMO! The only downfall for now is IMO again, is not enough PAR but I would think in a few more years that problem could be resolved & equal a higher PAR MH lamp.
Are you sure that is 140 l/w? Am I reading it right that it takes on the order of 3.5 volts to run it at that 1500 mA? if so to get 140 lumens it took about 5.2 watts and thus it works out to about 27 lumens/watt?
liveforphysics
Banned
Boomer, I dont even feel right correcting you here because I have so much respect for you, but you are WAY off, and I dont want people to get misled.
The best LEDs you linked to are pushing 1500mA @ 3.6-3.9V (current controled supply) makeing Lumens per watt between 26 to 24 L/W...
I will quote myself from a previous thread in reguards to these lights:
"LED's actaully get slammed by T5's in reguards to power savings. LED's are pumping around 50-55lumens/watt, the best MH is pumping around 100lumens/watt, and the best T5's are pumping around 115lumens/watt.
LEDs lower light output/watt VS HID is compensated for with its ability to focus light in a mannor to get it into the tank. MH creates a ton of light, and essentially blows at getting it into the water where it can be used.
T5 bulbs make over double the amount of light per watt that the best LEDs do, and are also able to get over 75% of the light they produce into the water.
So, for general lighting applications, dont expect to see LEDs replacing everything yet.
Now, I have no experience with useing LEDs to grow coral, I am simply looking at this from a shallow acedemic perspective. It could be that simply pumping corals with a huge 460nm spike is all it takes to grow happy corals, and I think that actaully may be very possible.
Aside from the inconvience of changeing bulbs more often, I think useing T5 bulbs to produce double the amount of light per watt, while still being able to get it into the water is likely going to be a very difficult to beat. T5 is still the definate winner when it comes to power saveings."
The best LEDs you linked to are pushing 1500mA @ 3.6-3.9V (current controled supply) makeing Lumens per watt between 26 to 24 L/W...
I will quote myself from a previous thread in reguards to these lights:
"LED's actaully get slammed by T5's in reguards to power savings. LED's are pumping around 50-55lumens/watt, the best MH is pumping around 100lumens/watt, and the best T5's are pumping around 115lumens/watt.
LEDs lower light output/watt VS HID is compensated for with its ability to focus light in a mannor to get it into the tank. MH creates a ton of light, and essentially blows at getting it into the water where it can be used.
T5 bulbs make over double the amount of light per watt that the best LEDs do, and are also able to get over 75% of the light they produce into the water.
So, for general lighting applications, dont expect to see LEDs replacing everything yet.
Now, I have no experience with useing LEDs to grow coral, I am simply looking at this from a shallow acedemic perspective. It could be that simply pumping corals with a huge 460nm spike is all it takes to grow happy corals, and I think that actaully may be very possible.
Aside from the inconvience of changeing bulbs more often, I think useing T5 bulbs to produce double the amount of light per watt, while still being able to get it into the water is likely going to be a very difficult to beat. T5 is still the definate winner when it comes to power saveings."
hmmmm I think I said that in my post ....
I have had some experience here at work with LED lighting and I have to agree they are a number of years away from being 140 lumens/watt
The deceiving part of the brochure is 140 lumens per 1500 mA. They state the voltage required separately to produce the 1500 mA.
liveforphysics
Banned
maxx & scooter- In reguards to the PAR values, as the distance is increased between light source and coral, the MH will be dropping PAR much faster than the LEDs would be. This means that if the tester person would have increased the distance by around 50% or so, I would imagine that the LED array would have indicated higher values than the MH setup. This has to due to the way the light is columnated from the source, and is kinda beyond the scope of things here. Critical angle reflection is also going to favor the LEDs in a big way over the MH. These things will all result in the coral seeing more light.
Maxx
Staff Housemonkey
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2003
- Messages
- 2,935
Luke, I'm following you on the inverse square law w/ regards to intensity of lighting when it reaches the corals....
But how are the LCD's different? Yes, there are multiple sources of light, but the physics shouldnt change due to their being more than one source of light?
Nick
But how are the LCD's different? Yes, there are multiple sources of light, but the physics shouldnt change due to their being more than one source of light?
Nick
Boomer
Well-known member
Livfo and Dew
I do no what the hell I was thinking, must been the new coffee. It is a single LED @ 1500mA that puts out a total of 140 l, not 140l /W. How did I forget. Most of these LED's run between 1-5 Watts. I even posted 5.6 W but 5.6 W @140 l = 25 l /W ...dahh. Most of those that we are looking at are 3-5 W. The old std electrical equation W = V x A so, 1.5A x 3.9 V = 5.85 W = 24 l /W . I must have had a senior moment
Livefo
When one needs to be corrected one just corrects them ? I do not care who it is Errors are something nobody wants but leaving a error uncorrected willingly is not a good thing at all no matter who they are. I feel bad when I have to correct Randy but all he says is Thanks, so Thanks And last week on a fourm I made a big error, only I got ot correct before someone say it. Maybe that Randy (gone 3 wks) is back now I can slow down and not hurry so much. I know, poor excuse but the questions and PM were driving me nuts :lol: I have been going at a pace of +4 hrs / day on forums.
I do no what the hell I was thinking, must been the new coffee. It is a single LED @ 1500mA that puts out a total of 140 l, not 140l /W. How did I forget. Most of these LED's run between 1-5 Watts. I even posted 5.6 W but 5.6 W @140 l = 25 l /W ...dahh. Most of those that we are looking at are 3-5 W. The old std electrical equation W = V x A so, 1.5A x 3.9 V = 5.85 W = 24 l /W . I must have had a senior moment
Livefo
When one needs to be corrected one just corrects them ? I do not care who it is
Errors are something nobody wants but leaving a error uncorrected willingly is not a good thing at all no matter who they are. I feel bad when I have to correct Randy but all he says is Thanks, so Thanks And last week on a fourm I made a big error, only I got ot correct before someone say it. Maybe that Randy (gone 3 wks) is back now I can slow down and not hurry so much. I know, poor excuse but the questions and PM were driving me nuts :lol: I have been going at a pace of +4 hrs / day on forums.
shallowreef
Well-known member
I don't think that is worth the money.
Scooterman
Well-known member
So your saying they didn't test on even plains. I regards to critical angles, take the reflectors out of the equations what would you have then? You always seem to include reflected light, that isn't a fair comparison IMO.
Krish
RF STAFF
Don't sweat it Boomer...It happens to us all and besides, you are "Older than the cretaceous" I'm a bit lost with all the "physics" so I won't get into the mix here, but I do like the concept of LED's as opposed to those metal halide bulbs that cook your skin if you accidentally bump into them. I'll keep my eye on things to see how well they do as consumers start using them
I'm a bit lost with all the "physics" so I won't get into the mix here, but I do like the concept of LED's as opposed to those metal halide bulbs that cook your skin if you accidentally bump into them. I'll keep my eye on things to see how well they do as consumers start using themliveforphysics
Banned
Maxx- LCD + liquid crystal display LED = Light emmiting diode.
Inverse squared rule is used for situations from a omni directional point source onto a surface, like a MH bulb. Now think of a laser for example, if the mannor in which the light is columnated is in straight lines (think laser), then the inverse squared rule has no application. An LED is not a laser, but its certianly not a point source either, its kinda in-between things.
Exellent question BTW.
Inverse squared rule is used for situations from a omni directional point source onto a surface, like a MH bulb. Now think of a laser for example, if the mannor in which the light is columnated is in straight lines (think laser), then the inverse squared rule has no application. An LED is not a laser, but its certianly not a point source either, its kinda in-between things.
Exellent question BTW.
Similar threads
- Sticky
