Solaris Led lighting systems

jmccalip · #1 06/30/2006, 08:43 PM

www.solarisled.com

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

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 · #2 06/30/2006, 10:28 PM

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

http://archive.reefcentral.com/forum...hreadid=852720

http://archive.reefcentral.com/forum...hreadid=849631

http://archive.reefcentral.com/forum...hreadid=868404

jmaschh · #3 06/30/2006, 11:23 PM

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

jmccalip · #4 07/01/2006, 12:39 AM

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

cindyolson · #5 07/01/2006, 01:26 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 · #6 07/01/2006, 01:29 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 · #7 07/01/2006, 01:47 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 · #8 07/01/2006, 02:48 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

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 · #9 08/23/2006, 11:53 AM

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

cindyolson · #10 08/29/2006, 12:20 PM

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 · #11 08/29/2006, 12:26 PM

Quote:

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

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

africangrey · #12 08/29/2006, 12:56 PM

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 · #13 08/29/2006, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted 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 · #14 08/29/2006, 03:43 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 · #15 08/29/2006, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted 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 · #16 08/29/2006, 04:00 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 · #17 08/29/2006, 04:05 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 · #18 08/29/2006, 04:09 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 · #19 08/29/2006, 04:18 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 · #20 08/29/2006, 04:42 PM

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

RichConley · #21 08/29/2006, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted 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 · #22 08/29/2006, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted 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 · #23 08/29/2006, 05:40 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 · #24 08/29/2006, 08:36 PM

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

Fliger · #25 08/29/2006, 10:13 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.