|
|
|
|
#76
10/12/2007, 02:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
It will be great to see that once released. Bottom line, both will work fine, which one is better is all in what your going to use it for, size, depth and preference.
__________________
There's no such thing as a normal reef, there's just reef |
|
#77
10/12/2007, 02:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Being the owner of a couple of lumenbright reflectors (large and mini) and a light rail, my deciding factor over the LA's was the shape. With a square LA and a relatively enclosed space, there was a chance that a cable could get looped under the corner while moving, and I really don't want to know whether the reflector would beat the motor on the light rail or not. Not that likely to happen with good cable management, but if something were to work loose (and it is surprising what can happen over time when something is being moved backwards and forwards a couple of hundred times a day) the chance is there. With a lumenbright's rounded shape, this cannot happen, and I can sleep easier at night.
Plus, with a light mover, if there really is a spot with 16% more PAR than a LA, then that love gets spread around the tank more. I'm not sure there is anyone out there that can definitively answer whether that is a good thing or not, but it kinda sounds good for some reason. At least the fish seem to have acclimated to the sun moving in the sky. Dave |
|
#78
10/13/2007, 11:11 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I am not trying to argue with you but to debate the points that have been made already. I really don't feel my perceptions are skewed in any way shape or form. I do understand how much light SPS, LPS, and softies need(after 12 years of reefkeeping), which is why I am so interested in these reflectors. Just to give everyone a litte more background on these types of graphs it is important to note that the microMol/m2/s that are listed are what these reflectors are showing at the "surface" of the water. When you break the surface of the water, things change in a big way. So again, when you look at these graphs you will see that when you start moving "away" from directly under the bulb you are losing light intensity significantly. If 3x3 spread is what you are looking for again for "aesthetic" reasons, just know that 1.5ft away from the bulb produces a light intensity of 100-200 microMol/m2/s at the surface of the water. What do you suppose it would look like at the bottom of a 24"-30" tank a 1.5ft away from the bulb? This is the point I am trying make Hahn. Unless you have your rock at the surface of the water 1.5ft away from the bulb, anyone will have trouble recreating optimal conditions for growing SPS and most LPS with this set up. The hobby has changed quite a bit leaving the "wall" of rock behind and opening up the aquascape for pillars and open sand to grow SPS and Clams for instance. The LumenBrites were designed with this in mind as an aquarium hobby product and not to stretch light over the tops of plants. I do feel the LumenArcs have been a great welcome to the hobby and will have their applications - obviously as I own two. I like the fact that over the past few years the technology has taken off in this hobby to better serve us in our ultimate goal, "to grow coral" which is why the LumenBrites were designed. If I remeber correctly Tom Obrecht has an 8ft tank and has 4 LumenArcs over the display. I am not surprised by the results you posted because this is what the Lumenarcs are spec'd for, a 2'x2' area. If he is wider than 24" than I am sure he has the large LumenArcs or should if he does not already. And also giving data of 200microMol/m2/s at the bottom of his display right under the bulb does not tell me much because I would expect this with 400w 12K bulbs and especially with a large LumenArc. Have Tom measure 1ft to 1.5ft away from the bulb on the bottom and we will see what it shows. Here is another graph using a 400w XM10K bulb which I am sure is plenty strong enough for most people's tastes. I realize it is a double ended bulb but should be comparable to say the least.  This graph was taken from Dr. Sanjay Joshi's article here: http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issu...04/feature.htm Hahn, also you have included some graphs in past posts but did not link any information about how those are related to the LumenBrite or LumenArc in a factual situation. Are these graphs your own creation and speculation or are they referenced from somewhere as concrete data in regard to either the LumenArcs or LumeBrites? Again, I am not trying to pick a fight. I think we have good conversation going here and just want to know if what you are showing is referenced from something factual or if it is your own speculation. |
|
#79
10/13/2007, 02:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I think you are misunderstanding things... So you really believe that the LB's are designed to 'grow coral' better than the LA's? Thats where you and I differ. BTW, Im the one who took the readings in Tom O's tank, and I can tell you what the light values were at any level in his tank (actually, I thought I did already in the last response) with my PAR meter. Lets just say that that if he had LB's on his tank, the problems he had would be even worse, as he would have a beaming hot-spot from top to bottom under the center of each bulb, but the sides would be left in the dark. Pretty much what I am saying is 'thank goodness' that as you move away from a LA it loses intensity... since its way too intense otherwise. You think that the Lumenarc loses intensity as you move away from it? Well, it loses density, yes. But it you will stop trying to get your info from the graph, and look at the stats in that article, you need to compare the total incidental light at various distances (provided in my last post as well), to see that the conservation of light with distance with a lumenarc is perhaps the best on the market. That 'bright patch' that a LB has isnt a bonus, its a problem, IMO. With corals, you dont want a reflector with such 'hot spots' in its output... you want the one with a more even spread.
Im tellin you... the LB is no better than the LA... its most likely worse. I was suspect of it at first just upon seeing it, but after seeing the reasouts, now I know its for sure...  "The approx. 16.5% brighter spot is directly in the center, then goes quickly down from there. At 6" away from center it's about even, then the Lumen Bright tapers quickly off. We'll be taking more spreads from different heights in the near future, but this first one is at 2' away, perfect for an 18" deep tank, with the lights 6" above the water. Note that even the lumenarc loses approx. 50% of it's light by the time it gets out to 2'X2' spread. The Lumen Bright loses approx. 75%, which is approx. 67% less light compared to the Lumenarc which doesn't start as bright in the direct center. 33% light vs. 50% light at 2' X 2', approximately." The greater 'spread' of a Lumenarc, if nothing else, allows it to be mounted closer to the water surface, because it can cover a wider area and still be closer to the water... to maintain its intensity as you would say. So either way you want to interpret it... also, keep in mind that these are all 'open air' tests, and that the angle of refraction of the water will bend all the light coming in to be more focused anyways... so even the LA's will be more concentrated when you add water to the system. All light entering at 45 degrees will travel at 30 degrees (from vertical) under the water, so the hot spot of the LB's will be even smaller with water, and the LA's information will be slightly different as well.
__________________
"If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it" -Al Einstein Last edited by hahnmeister; 10/13/2007 at 02:58 PM. |
|
#80
10/13/2007, 02:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
The graphs show a spotlight. Not only that, but one that trails off in intensity very quickly.
Notice the Depth of the larger bands on the 3D distributions. See the yellow and pink bands and the difference in overall footprint? Very telling... I could care less either way, as I do not (and likely will not ever) own either reflector. Last edited by BeanAnimal; 10/13/2007 at 03:05 PM. |
|
#81
10/13/2007, 08:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hey Hahn - do you have the actual PAR figures? I'd love to see the numbers rather than the percentages - how much brighter is the LB at its hot spot than the LA? Is it really brighter at all?
Like I said - I own mine for the shape as much as anything else, so I'm not all that vested in this whole argument, I'm just curious to know what kind of figures I am likely to be seeing further down my tank. Dave |
|
#82
10/13/2007, 10:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
It is 16.5% brighter in the hot spot. Sorry, no, I dont have comparative graphs with PAR. That wasnt provided except in the text.
__________________
"If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it" -Al Einstein |
|
#83
10/13/2007, 11:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Holy Cow Hahn
 I have to tell you, you have severely lost me brother. First of all, what do the numbers in the graphs you have provided represent? I guess percentages or something or another. What really surprises me Hahn is your graphs seem obscurely unsymmetrical as I would not expect from two absolutely symmetrical reflectors in the LumenBrite and Lumen Arc. Most grids will show true symmetry except in the area where the mogul socket intersects the reflector. And it is interesting to hear you rant and rave about a hot spot in the middle of the LumenBrite but have shown graphs that show a much larger hotspot on the LumenArc. Must have been a shocking discovery. It is amazing how 12 additional facets can create such a concentrated beam of light but less facets can actually create the bigger hotspot than a reflector that was intended for that purpose. I am sorry man, you really have got my head spinning and none of it makes sense. Please explain furthur, I am dying to hear what comes next... Some of your language is all over the place and it is hard to follow. I have counted several contradictions since this whole thing began. I don't know what to follow with you. It seems like you keep changing your mind or coming up with something new to make an argument over. I will tell you one thing man, you have not swayed my view on what I beleive is true that much light is lost to the sides when using a LumenArc and new technology can help provide what we all are looking for in a reflector. One that concentrates the light within the aquarium where we want it. People have been compromising in this hobby long enough and due to forums like these we hobbyists can truly influence what the market provides. That is not a bad thing,but one that should be appreciated. |
|
#84
10/13/2007, 11:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Holy cow, I am suprised how patient he is with you guys.
Seems like he has repeated himself 100 times and you still dont understand? Then you always seem to try and make him out to be the bad guy? I guess for the 101st time they need more clarification, hahn! Also didnt coralvue pretty much copy the lumenarc not exactly but they also even call it the "Lumen" bright. ALmost like you think you are getting a newer version of the lumenarc, which isn't exctly true. |
|
#85
10/13/2007, 11:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Everything lines up with what I said before really bubbletip2. You arent interpreting the data correctly either from the graph according to what you are asking/saying. The lumenarc has a larger hot spot, but also more spread... as in, it has a 'wider beam' or focus. It is not as intense as the LB though... not a bad thing though. Less intense, wider spread.
If you find the graphs obscurely unsymmetrical, then you might want to look at Sanjay's as well again... not much different. I must agree with kdblove_99 though... I am coming down with the flu and dont want to keep spinning my wheels. Perhaps Bean, kdblove, or one of the other 'smart guys' here can explain it to you better than I can. I just dont seem to be getting through... not your fault... not mine. Perhaps someone else can do better.
__________________
"If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it" -Al Einstein |
|
#86
10/13/2007, 11:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
tagging along...
__________________
Tank-125 gallon Starphire Lighting- 3 x 250w SLS Pendent W/ Icecap ballast Protein Skimmer- Modiffied MRC 2 Custom MRC Sump Refugium Circulation Tunze Wave Box Main Pump - Sequence 3200 Cooling 3 - 119MM Fans and 1/4 HP Aqua Logic Chiller Controller-Aquacontroller III Korallin C-1502 Calcium Reactor MRC Kalkreactor |
|
#87
10/13/2007, 11:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Excuse me sir,
Hahn and I have been having this conversation for a while and I am sorry but I am getting impatient myself. I have been as polite as I can up to this point. He keeps thinking I misunderstand and tells me so in his posts. What is misunderstood is the mode at which he is providing information. It is all over the place. I am just so unclear on what his arguemnt is about that I am getting dizzy thinking about it. At least I have made a clear stand on what I feel. Hahn keeps back peddling and not giving a definitive answer to discount what I am saying. First he has stated that no reflector can provide more light than another and clearly there has been scientific testing that shows that no reflector provides the same amount of light. Instead of defending his claim he has abandoned it for another to try to prove another point that has no scientific merit in my opinion. The LumenArcs will not be able to grow coral outside a 2x2 foot area as optimal as most would like, period! He has done nothing to show me that this is untrue as it is hard to discount what Dr. Sanjay Joshi has shown us in his data regarding the "Lumen Arc." I think I can trust Sanjay as his testing methods have been provided for us with a literary discription as well as pictures of his set up. If anyone wants to argue the graphs I have presented, feel free. I can't wait to hear how they get picked apart, mind you they do represent a "LumenArc." |
|
#88
10/14/2007, 01:27 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I'll go with the luminarc...not really into japanese style "spotlight reefs"
 Bubbletip2: I must say that I have gotten quite a bit out of Hahnmeisters posts, and I think his side is coming across very clear. all of sanjay's tests clearly show that the luminarc is by far superior to anything on the market (prior to the LB's introduction). The graphs that hahn posted are from lumenbrite, as part of their marketing i think. Top me they clearly show that the LA is better at covering the spread so to speak...the LA has 25-30% of it's peak output at the edges of a 36"square )notice edges, not corners), while the LB has 15-20% (reading the blue area on the 3D graph). that data clearly tells me that if my tank is wider than 18" the LA will cover more area with more useable light. for 18" and narrower tanks the LB might be better (it's kind of hard to interpret those graphs at 12"from center and closer).
__________________
Jeff |
|
#89
10/14/2007, 10:48 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
The data clearly shows that 1 reflector is MUCH more of a spotlight than the other.
1 type of unit puts down a square focus that has a large portion of the energy spread over a majority if that focus. The other type of unit puts down a circular focus that concentrates MOST of the energy in a very small inner section of that foucs. So what is so confusing here? There is not much to explain. Choose your reflector based on your preference. Most folks would prefer a more balanced focus that provides a more uniform easthetic. It is clear that some folks prefer a spotlight that concentrates energy over a smaller area. |
|
#90
10/14/2007, 01:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
good thread . . . nice to see everyone working together.
think i like the square ones, but i do have a question in regards to the round ones. Since the lbs create a very focused energy, a point that is possibly 'too' bright and focused. what would the +/- of raising the lb higher, than usual? + wider spread, more usuable light. + less heat transfer. - less par. seems like the lbs might just be best suited for deeper more narrow set ups . . . |
|
#91
10/14/2007, 02:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
So there you have it when raising the lights to an applicable position for our reef systems - 1. less heat transfer/evaporation 2. a larger spread/ with a reciprocal loss in light intensity 3. less salt spray on your reflector. 4. less par? - this is the one question none of us will have a concrete answer on until controlled testing is done in the right environment. My take here is the LuemnBrite was designed to keep the light in the aquarium and not in the living room. My simple mind(  ) tells me more light in the aquarium means a higher light intensity so my specualtion would be that at 12" from the top of the water the LumenBrite par readings would be significant enough to note the purpose off its design.Up to now this is just speculation so until those tests are done(Sanjay please help us out , man  ) and comparisons are made people will have to decide what they feel is accurate. I think for most a visual test of what the reflectors look like on tank applications is more than enough evidence at least for now. So in the interest of taking this a step furthur I am heading over to Mike's to take some shots of the LumenBrites and give a visual look of what these reflectors can do at an appropriate height for an aquarium application.
|
|
#92
10/14/2007, 02:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Actually, raising the reflector with the Lumenbright may not help as much as you might expect because it has such a narrow beam of an output. I mean... what do you get if you move farther away from a beam of light? The same beam of light! Its output isnt a total beam, granted, but do you know how far away you must have to move the reflector to increase its spread by 2x? It would seem like alot to me.
__________________
"If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it" -Al Einstein |
|
#93
10/14/2007, 09:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
So which reflector would be best in my case. I have 250w DE on HQI mag ballasts running Phoenix bulbs. My Hamilton and Reef Optix reflectors are not giving me the punch I need at mid to lower depths in my 36 inch deep tank. Tank is 96x30x36 tall. I was not sure if either would help but I searched and found this could possibly help me a ton. I'll be buying 4. Trying hard to avoid 400 watters. Thanks!
|
|
#94
10/14/2007, 09:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Lumenarcs, because your tank is too wide for the coverage a LB provides, and LB's dont come in DE socket as far as I know. At that, 250's will cut it, but only if you go with 10,000Ks. This will leave you wanting some more blue no doubt, so you could add 8x54wattT5s with blue+ / Super Actinic bulbs to bring up the blue. That would be a very nice combo for corals.
__________________
"If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it" -Al Einstein |
|
#95
10/14/2007, 09:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Alright, just got back a couple hours ago and had time to look at a few pics. I thought it would be a nice change of pace for everyone to see a real world reef aquarium application instead of the majority of speculation that has been presented so far. Here is a shot for you that should clear up a lot of questions for people deciding on the spread theory. Take a look at the top of these rock canopies and tell me the spread is not evident. The middle canopy for instance is clearly 20" across and only 6" underneath the surface of the water. The reason you know this is the reflector itself is 16" across. Look how lit up it is all the way across it. Also, please look behignd the tank and see the minimal light spread out on the back wall and fan. A LumenArc will light up a huge section of the back wall of the room. Who wants to waste expensive lighting to the walls of our house? I want my light in the tank where it belongs. The LumenBrites are for real people, and this is what I have been trying to explain. I guess I was wrong in my approach as well as a picture can tell it all. On a 32" wide tank used in the right application(one bulb per two feet) these reflectors will give you all the spread you need. Mike will say himself on this 32" wide tank that the big LumenBrites would be optimal. Yes people these are the "mini" reflectors. On a 24" wide tank I truly beleve you should not have a problem at all. The back wall is lit up like a Christmas tree and the bottom coral even off to the sides are heavily illuminated because these reflectors aim the light "down." The design is for real and I do not see a narrow beam of light anywhere in this photo. Looks like a pretty even spread to me. For all of those wondering , yes this is Mike Leonard's(Acropora Nut's) tank. Mike got a little bored and not only changed up his lighting system but his rockwork as well. Menard, Austin, Mike, and I spent a good eight hour day building these pillars and reaquascaping the tank. It was a pretty fun day and buckets of coral were given out like souveneirs from his wonderful TOTM.
Ok what you all have been waiting for the shot of 3 miniLumenBrites streched over the top of a good portion of Mike's tank: 
|
|
#96
10/14/2007, 09:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Take a look at the photo and decide for yourself. You are 30" wide as opposed to 32"wide in the photo of mike's tank. If you use 4 reflectors you should be just fine. Optimally you may consider the large LumenBrites unless your aquascape is carefully planned out. I saw it again for myself today and certainly would recommend mini LumenBrites to anyone especially on a 24" wide tank. Anything 30" and wider and you might want to consider the larger model. 36" deep is pretty deep for any reflector with a 250w bulb. The LumenBrite was designed to drive the light to the bottom of the tank so if oyu are going to stick with 250's than the LumenBrite might be your best option. |
|
#97
10/15/2007, 12:18 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
WOW. There has been a lot of speculation in this thread and a few harsh words. Jon and Jim both have both made some points. I first sided with Jon when I saw the reflector, before being placed above a tank, I thought it was like a flashlight reflector"spot light". But the I got to thinking, Why would this be so bad? It will direct more light within the tank and less outside the tank.
After all is said and done, everyones reef is differently set up with different results in mind. Even now more than ever with custom cube tanks becomming more popular than the standard AG dimension. For me, I personally think LB ar optimal for rectangular tanks "more light restricted in the tank and not outside". That is why I am putting three LB over my 180gal. This will give me more light + deeper in my tank and less spread out in the surrounding room. I would like to see some scientific data of the LB reflector, inside and outside the the tank. It would be interesting to see the difference in waisted light each reflector produces. Off topic, I do like Mikes tank better with the pillars than the wall he had before.
__________________
180 Gal Reefready, 75 gal Sump/Fuge, Reeflo 200 skimmer, 3 250 Reeflux Bulbs in Lumen Bright reflectors powered by coralvue electronic ballasts, PM Kalk reactor, 2 Vortechs, Geo 618 calcium reactor |
|
#98
10/15/2007, 12:47 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
the LB's don't come in a DE version, so without modifying the relector He would have to go with the LA's.
Quote:
__________________
Jeff |
|
#99
10/15/2007, 09:18 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hahn - hope the flu bug didn't get a hold of you! Again, excellent straight-forward information.
Bubbletip2 - looking forward to seeing those pics. My work has web filtering implemented so the pics are filtered out. Will have to check them out when I get home. Thanks for posting them.
__________________
ScubaTC |
|
#100
10/15/2007, 09:33 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
|
Linear Mode
