Holy LED light Hood Batman. Solaris.

[pjf]

The LED lifetime charts are located in the 2nd link in Philwd’s post above (http://www.essc.co.kr/_HOMEPAGE/home...eliability.pdf). Page 22 shows the luminous degradation of a model P4 LED used in the AI fixture when driven at 2.5 watts. 2.5 watts per LED matches Dana Riddle’s report that 24 white LEDs in the AI fixture consumes 63 watts.

Per AI, the junction temperature is 35 to 45 degrees Celsius (http://archive.reefcentral.com/forum...n#post11095842). Per the chart on page 22, the P4 LED will lose 30% of its output after 275,000 hours! This certainly beats the longevity of MH and fluorescent lighting that we see in aquaria.

[pjf]

Originally posted by BeanAnimal
Yes scarletknights's post was certainly not a distraction, but the answer you gave was not to the question he asked!

I believe scarletknight asked you:

Can someone link me to the threads where it has been disproved that there are actual energy savings?

[JCTewks]

Originally posted by pjf
It's no distraction. Per Dana Riddle’s review (http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2007/10/review/view):

“The metal halide (an XM 250-watt 20,000K; burn time ~100 hours) used a polished aluminum parabolic reflector and was driven by a Coralife ballast. There was no ‘shield’ between the lamp and sensor. PAR measurements were taken every 1” across a black grid.”

The measurements (figures 9 & 11) show that the 88-watt Aquaillumination 12” fixture produces more PAR and PUR than the 277-watt (lamp plus ballast) XM metal halide fixture. The difference in energy consumed (88-watts versus 277-watts) is quite significant.

Keep in mind that the Aquaillumination fixture employs LEDs that are more efficient that those cited earlier in the DOE document.

That is probably one of the crappiest MH combos out there as far as PAR is concerned. I'd like to someone actually test one of these against a real world setup...like a Pheonix 14K on a magnetic HQI ballast in a luminarc mini that would be a good mark to beet for the LED industry IMO.

I doubt that the XM 20K with that reflector would adequately light my 26g tank.

I'm not against LED main lighting...I just hate people trying to say that it is the new MH, when it can barely compete in output with one of the worst output MH out there.

In 10yrs I'm guessing that lighting reef tanks with MH will be like looking back when reefing was in it's infancy and everyone ran overdriven T12's

[pjf]

Originally posted by JCTewks
That is probably one of the crappiest MH combos out there as far as PAR is concerned.

On the contrary, it's probably one of the more representative MH combos. Here are a couple of things to ponder:

"Lighting requirements of many, if not most, corals is overestimated by many hobbyists and lower light intensity offer advantages. This is why. Many corals are stressed by high light intensity and have natural means to deal with excessive radiation, either through dynamic or chronic photoinhibition. Chronic Photoinhibition, from the coral/zooxanthellae perspective, is by far the worse of the two – it could eventually kill zooxanthellae. Obviously, we want to avoid this. On the other hand, dynamic photoinhibition involves biochemical conversion of excess light energy to non-radiant heat. This is normal and does no apparent harm to either coral or symbiont. However, it is a waste of light and the electricity needed to power the lamps. And you’ll pay for it every month." (http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2006/8/review2)

"Strong illumination apparently caused drastic changes within the photochemical reactions, and seems to indicate a symbiotic relationship in distress. This suggests that photoinhibition can indeed occur at relatively low light intensity - we see the possibility of sharply reduced photosynthetic rates at only 260 µmol·m2·sec. Light intensity of this level is certainly within the potential of efficient lighting systems, including standard, VHO and PC fluorescent lamps, and metal halide bulbs of singular (or combined) wattages of about 200 and upwards. Significant non-photochemical quenching (NPQ, exceeding 0.5) is seem at lower light intensity - that of ~100 µmol·m2·sec."
(http://advancedaquarist.com/issues/july2004/feature.htm)

Bottom line:

Both the XM 20000K MH and the LEDs can produce the 260 µmol·m2·sec to photoinhibit corals. If you believe that the "average" MH lamp is more efficient (PUR/watt?) or better for corals (growth/watt?) than the AI LED fixture, then do as you were requested - cite the test results.

[JCTewks]

Personally, I'm not in for an argument PJF....nor do I really care about someone's tests I like real world results...and the 175w Hamilton 14K im a luminarc L3 is doing GREAT on my 26gal tank with mainly LPS (no photo inhibition here )

btw...the 175w Hamy 14K outs out almost as much PPFD as the 250w XM 20K that the LED fixtures are compared to according to Sanjay's sight


Well, looks like it's hard to read...but the xm is at 53 PPFD, and the hamy is at 48 PPFD, both on their respective wattage Icacap ballasts.

[scarletknight06]

Let's not kid ourselves that the MH the AI was tested against is the best out there. But it's also inaccurate to argue that its unrepresentative of what is actually used by aquarists. I know many people that use the xm 20k's and I know many people that use the pfo parabolic/spider reflectors. This doesn't make the LED fixtures any better of a light, but let's be honest if you're going to hold something to a standard of comparison, this is not a "bad" one. Not everybody uses lumenarc, lumenarc mini's, lumenmaxes, or whatever other high performing reflector's out there, and I would guess that actually most don't; especially those that don't read RC.

From what I read from this thread, there have been many similar threads, so there has to be some other numbers out there. I don't really understand all the measurements in Riddle's article, nor all of the one's on Sanjay's website. But can't someone take Riddle's measurements of the AI and compare them to a high performing bulb/ballast/reflector combo from Sanjay's sight? Sorry if I'm oversimplifying. Please enlighten me if I am wrong.

[JCTewks]

the problem is that sanjay's sight doesn't have measurements with reflectors...so you are only getting point source figures...so that wouldn't be all that fair either. but the MH would still beat out the LED's.
http://www.cnidarianreef.com/lamps.cfm
If you look at these tests...the XM20K is in the bottom half on ALL ballasts tested, in the bottom few on a couple of ballasts.

Also, if you were compare the xm20k with the AI/Solaris set to a mode that LOOKS like the XM20K...the MH would win. So we're still not doing a fair comparison...even if people are using low output "blue" MH bulbs, the LED's can't beat the PAR if set to the "look" that particular aquarist likes.

[pjf]

Even if we extrapolate the AI LED versus XM20K comparison, it will be difficult to make the case for MH. The AI bested the XM20K using only one-third the wattage (88-watts versus 277-watts). Are there many MH lamps that are 3 times as efficient as the XM20K?

[JCTewks]

yes, but what if you turned off most of the white lights in the AI to mimic the look of the 20K....what would the PUR be then? MUCH lower is my guess....then how many of the AI's would be needed to match the total PUR output of the MH? what would that total wattage be?

The comparisons just aren't on the level if you ask me! If you want to take a reading of the AI with all bulbs on, then compare it with a bulb that matches the look of that...not a bulb that is almost entirely blue. If you are going to compare the AI with a blue MH...turn the whites on the AI down. For an on the level test...put the AI against 12-14K bulb...heck, the XM15K has a lower output than the 20K...compare it with that...but how many people really run the XM15K, if you want that look you buy a hamy, or pheonix, or any of the better performing bulbs in that color range.

And to answer your question...YES, there are lots of MH lamps (well, combo's) that re 3x as efficient as the XM20K on a PAR/watt scale.

[JCTewks]

on a level test...the MH wins, even in efficiency. Until LED technology advances to another level, you can't beat a MH or T5...period! The PAR just isn;t there with the LED's...YET, and I epmhasize YET!

[BeanAnimal]

Originally posted by pjf
I believe scarletknight asked you:

I directly answered the question without the need to post a link. That is the problem PJF you are only capable of posting links and excerpts from the work of others. The problem is that those links and excertps rarely mesh with the actual content of the topic and in context many times hurt your point.

The "threads" or "links" in question would have been those by yours truley. Myself, Hahns and a few others have elaborated on this subject with YOU and several other parties on the other side of the fence.

Thanks again for trying to side track the topic at hand.

[BeanAnimal]

Originally posted by pjf
Even if we extrapolate the AI LED versus XM20K comparison, it will be difficult to make the case for MH. The AI bested the XM20K using only one-third the wattage (88-watts versus 277-watts). Are there many MH lamps that are 3 times as efficient as the XM20K?

It is not at all dificult to make the case. How many times do we have to point out that you are cherry picking only the figures that support your point and ingnoring the rest. I would elaborate but we have been around this merry-go-round a dozen times and your still posting the exact same quotations and arguements.

[GSMguy]

Originally posted by pjf
Even if we extrapolate the AI LED versus XM20K comparison, it will be difficult to make the case for MH. The AI bested the XM20K using only one-third the wattage (88-watts versus 277-watts). Are there many MH lamps that are 3 times as efficient as the XM20K?

there are tests that prove just the reflectors can make 3x the difference, there are some halide bulbs with 4x the output of an xm 15k. i would bet that even a 175w iwasaki 14/15k in a reef optix would have more PAR vs "400w" led.

The tests of MH vs LED to date are all lopsided and skewed in the favor of the the LED.

Id really love to see one of the LEDs vs a nice T5 like the ATI powermodule.

[pjf]

Originally posted by JCTewks
And to answer your question...YES, there are lots of MH lamps (well, combo's) that re 3x as efficient as the XM20K on a PAR/watt scale.

Originally posted by BeanAnimal
It is not at all dificult to make the case.

Originally posted by GSMguy
Id really love to see one of the LEDs vs a nice T5 like the ATI powermodule.

Cite your examples, sources or test results, gentlemen!

[GSMguy]

Originally posted by pjf
Cite your examples, sources or test results, gentlemen!

Truth is i dont care if you dont understand it, Bean and others has made it so simple to understand 500000 times on 500000000000 threads.

all i said is i would like to see a powermodule vs the solaris, not that i had both and the equipment to test....

one thing i cant get past is that users of solaris are not willing to back up their fixture with a pic of healthy SPS colonies growing.

i'm talking about colonies not frags....

[beaglelax]

Well if you guys really wanna know if they work or not go across the pond, the asian will let you know they are the leaders in technology, get on there boards and see what they have to say..

just my 2 cents,

Hey i have always said if you dont ask "why", nothing will ever change who knows what will be out after leds, i have seen some prototypes of even smaller led version on tanks that wont be out for years and they are in the testing phase, will you knock on that too when it comes out ???

[JCTewks]

Originally posted by pjf
Cite your examples, sources or test results, gentlemen!

Geez man...I posted a link that had tests of various bulb/ballast combos!!! Did you look at the link?

Now take the data from those tests, and imagine that you put those into a good reflector. PLenty of info for me!

PJF, will you please just open your mind enough to allow some data in other than the 3 articles you've read about LED lighting. People in this thread and countless others you've been involved in have posted an overwhelming amount of information to dispute the info you seem to be stuck on (most of even posted with links, tests, and other bulleted points ).

[bstreep]

Well, it would certainly "help" if EITHER of the websites had some decent photos. Even the guy here selling the units hasn't posted photos of his in action in 10 months. You would think he'd have a cool photo of that bali tricolor... Hint, hint.

[dhnguyen]

^ I agree, sure is strange isn't it

[roblack]

Here is a pic of my Solaris lit tank. I know there are much better out there, but my point is to show that LEDs are working well on my tank. MHs looked brighter, but the corals are growing better with the LEDs.

[pjf]

A key point of Dana Riddle’s review (http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2007/10/review#h5) is that the Aquaillumination (AI) LED fixture is far more efficient than the XM20K/Coralife lamp/ballast. The AI LED fixture produces greater PAR than the metal fixture with one-third the power (88 watts versus 277 watts). The peak PAR measurements of the AI LED (1200 µmol•m²•sec) are one and a half times that of the XM20K/Coralife (800 µmol•m²•sec) per figures 9 & 11 of the review. Even if a metal halide lamp & ballast combination was found that produces 3 times the PAR per watt of the XM20K/Coralife combination, its efficiency will still be bested by that of the AI LED fixture.

What metal halide lamp & ballast combinations exceed 3 times the PAR/watt of the XM20K/Coralife combination?

We cannot immediately tell from the link (http://www.cnidarianreef.com/lamps.cfm) posted by JCTewks since this link does not show measurements of the XM20K/Coralife combination in the review and does not compute efficiency (PAR/watt). But we can analyze the data to find the most efficient metal halide lamp/ballast combinations. In the table below are measurements and PAR per watt calculations of the XM20K & PFO-STD lamp/ballast. This combination consumes 285 watts which is close to the 277 watts consumed by the XM20K/Coralife system in the review. Also in the table below are two combinations of lamps & ballasts that have the highest PAR/watt and appear to be 3.2 & 3.0 times respectively as efficient as the XM20K/PFO-STD (Relative Efficiency):

Lamp	Ballast	PAR	Watts	PAR/Watt	Relative Efficiency
XM20K	PFO STD	242	285	0.85	1.0
Iwasaki	PFO HQI	950	355	2.68	3.2
Iwasaki	Icecap	651	252	2.58	3.0

Do the last two lamp/ballast combinations in the table above produce more PAR/watt than the AI LED fixture? That is not clear since the AI LED fixture registered one and a half times the peak PAR readings of the XM20K/Coralife. What is clear is that out of 149 combinations of lamps & ballasts, only 2 combinations have 3 times the efficiency of the base XM20K/PFO-STD combination. If the XM20K/PFO-STD is comparable to the XM20K/Coralife, this implies that the AI LED fixture may have greater efficiency than 99% (147/149) of the metal halide combinations presented in the link.

[JCTewks]

But you are still comparing apples to oranges! Turn the white LED's in the AI off (or almost off) to match the color of the XM...What is the ouput like then? Probably cut by 1/2 at minimum (more like 75% less I would guess). Also, the readings taken on Sanjay's sight as well as the Cnidarian tests were without reflectors...put a respectable reflector on those and the PAR/watt will go up considerably.

Bean posted a graph on the last page i believe that clearly showed the LED as being far less efficient in actual light output than MH or T5.

LED's still have a ways to go before they will best a MH on an even test.

It would be nice to put the AI and Sfiglio in a side by side test (you mentioned them earlier as being alike in features) since they are relatively comparable. My guess is the Sfiglio will downright spank the AI on output...Yes the watts will be more, but what would the watts be of a LED fixture that could produce the same output? Probably close to the same

[pjf]

In my previous post, I showed that the Aquailluminiation LED produces more PAR/watt than the metal halide lamps by using data supplied in your link. If you disagree, show your calculations as I have.

The fragmentary graph posted by Bean Animal does not include the performance of the high efficiency LEDs in the Aquaillumination and Solaris LEDs. To get the data you want, you can examine the 2006 industry data posted by Philwd (http://www.dialight.com/misc/Lightfa...20(6-1-06).pdf). Pages 5 & 6 show that LED efficiency was poised in 2006 to overtake MH efficiency. If you think the Bean graph is better than Philwd's data, post its source so we can look at it in more detail.

In this thread, we have heard a lot of unsupported opinions and misrepresented data. The currently available tests show that the Aquaillumination LED produces more PAR with more than 3 times the efficiency of the XM20K/Coralife metal halide system (http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2007/10/review#h5). If you can find a metal halide system that is more efficient, then let's post and examine the test results.

If you want to compare two systems with the same spectral output, all of us will appreciate it if you can find the test results and present the data here.

[GSMguy]

on the Solaris I4 site it says 88 lumens per watt, but dont t5s have over 100 lumens per watt

[pjf]

Originally posted by GSMguy
on the Solaris I4 site it says 88 lumens per watt, but dont t5s have over 100 lumens per watt

Some T5 efficiency data is available from the Lighting Research Center (http://www.lrc.rpi.edu/programs/nlpi.../lat5/pc1a.asp). That data is based on initial light output which drops off over the life of the T5 bulb. The Solaris LED is expected to last longer and maintain its light output longer. I understand that the Aquaillumination LED has even higher efficiency.