Can High Powered LED replace reef lighting? - Page 2

imbuggin · 04/21/2006, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Scuba_Dave
I know, I've just finished replacing almost all of my lights in the house with PC bulbs. Started 2 years ago when we moved here.
Bargain store near us _ Building #19 has them for .49 cents

Here is a site that has started offering solutions for normal lighting
http://autolumination.com/tracklights.htm

Gee thanks scuba Dave. You just cost me $500 with that link ordering led's for much of my home.

pfolight · 04/22/2006, 02:26 AM

Well PFO Lighting is doing what you are talking about. We will have our Beta LED hoods on show at IMAC in Chicago. They will come in lengths of 12" to 72". They produce similar light outputs as a 250W 20K double ended or some 400W 20K bulbs. Please stop by our booth if you are in Chicago. We are looking for comments/suggestions. We will be finalizing our design after IMAC and they should be available for sale in early July.
Patrick Ormiston
PFO Lighting Inc.

tkeracer619 · 04/22/2006, 10:10 AM

LED's have come a long way.

Installing 10,000 led's on a board would have taken 50 years to solder up. Thanks to robots that can be done in a few minutes.

I would have to agree that this project would be too much for anything larger than a nano for the DIY person. For guys like patrick in the prior post, i'm sure he has some nice automated procedures to make the construction easy and cost down. As an end result LED's are going to slip there way into our tanks over the next 10 years.

If I can power my 150g tank on LED's and it looked like my halides while costing a fraction of the price im sold. For some reason I don't think you are going to get the shimmer lines like you want with so many led's. They are caused by point source bulbs and the rippling of the water surface together. Having 1000 point source lights will almost certainly mask the shimmer. I could very well be wrong on that last statement.

Siapin · 04/22/2006, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by pfolight
Well PFO Lighting is doing what you are talking about. We will have our Beta LED hoods on show at IMAC in Chicago. They will come in lengths of 12" to 72". They produce similar light outputs as a 250W 20K double ended or some 400W 20K bulbs. Please stop by our booth if you are in Chicago. We are looking for comments/suggestions. We will be finalizing our design after IMAC and they should be available for sale in early July.
Patrick Ormiston
PFO Lighting Inc..

That means we have to go all the way to Chicago if we want to see this?!

Quote:

Originally posted by tkeracer619
Having 1000 point source lights will almost certainly mask the shimmer.

You're probably right about this. And that's kind of a bummer, because one of my most favorite things about MH is the shimmer that makes it look real. I've gone scuba diving a few times in the tropics, and that's exactly what it looks like.

tkeracer619 · 04/22/2006, 11:08 AM

Yup. gotta have the shimmer. I can go without it in the QT b/c i cant put up with the electric bill. But in the display tank. Shimmer away.

hahnmeister · 04/22/2006, 08:35 PM

"Having 1000 point source lights will almost certainly mask the shimmer. " -----

depends on if the LEDs are spread out, or clustered together in reflectors...if they were clustered together, they would have shimmer lines.

hahnmeister · 04/26/2006, 11:04 PM

I was reading an article today about LED lighting used overseas (Japan seems to be the hot-spot for it since efficiency is their forte).

"...92% less electrical energy than the standard tungsten bulbs"

holy crap...thats better than a halide or T5 in efficiency terms... From what I remember, halides are about 8x as efficient, so thats 87.5% (and that was a marketing term so its truth might be distorted), and T5s are about the same with the reflectors.

Wow.

BeanAnimal · 04/26/2006, 11:20 PM

when you can show me where a real world lighting setup with LEDs is 92% more efficient than a standard incandescent lamp, I will kiss you and your pet frogs. Note: We are not comparing an overhead light to a focused desk lamp (what many of these studies do to get heir numbers. In other words this is lumen per lumen, not application vs application.

Bean

hahnmeister · 04/27/2006, 12:14 AM

You are correct, this is comparing lumens, so there is no 'for-sure' as of yet. But the results I have seen at NR, along with PFO's new unit coming out...something is up.

The smaller nanos I have seen are using about 1/5 the wattage that they would if they were using PC/halide.

Otherwise, I was reading this article...
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2005..._led_break.php

130 lumens per watt!!! Granted, its lumens...but that should be good news for us as well, for the spectral curve on most every 'white' LED that I see is similar to the graph I posted on the last page...so the PAR would be decent as well.

Here is the link for the 92% greater efficiency.
http://www.iloveled.com/
The gallery used to pay $295.20 for lighting...now $23.40

I wish I could take a chunk like that out of my reef's electric bill!!!

Im gonna go buy a frog now...shall I ship it to you? Lol.

BeanAnimal · 04/27/2006, 12:27 AM

Only if it's not a prince...female frogs only please

hahnmeister · 04/27/2006, 12:33 AM

Did you see these Bean?
http://autolumination.com/home.htm

There is some objective comparison to be done still, but if the outputs of some of those bulbs rival the original, then at .07 cents a month, thats about a 1watt bulb thats replacing what they would suggest is a 100watt flood, or, even if only a 60 watt or even a 40watt bulb...thats a great ratio.

Im going to order some and experiment.

Its no total shocker...many concept cars have been using high intensity LED arrays as their headlamps for a while...so the potential is there.

Ahhhh. Some day, I will be able to light my 500g reef with only 100watts...

Im thinking I will light the Jawfish's 20H with a 120LED cool white spotlight-type screw-in, and a couple of the 60LED saphire units. There are 420nm and 460nm LEDs out there, but I dont feel like wiring up the buggers myself...that project I will save for later in the year.

BeanAnimal · 04/27/2006, 12:45 AM

I am not spending ~$40 to find out. I hav eyet to see a fluorescent replace an incandescent and be as bright.

That 18W as bright as a 100W bulb is BS. I have a box full of the incadescent replacments. I tried em in the house, the floodlights outside... etc. What a waste of money. I don't even like the one melev raves about for use over the refugiums...

Lets put this another way. If those are standard "bright" leds, then they sure will not be as bright as they claim (at least to the human eye).. and if they are HIGH OUTPUT models, they will give as much or more heat than an incandescent and have a short lifespan in many applications (due to heat).

I am not trying to be totaly negative... but after reading hundreds of LED whitepapers and applications briefs... LEDs just are there yet. I see a lot of hype and consumer buzzwords and marketing, but have yet to see anything that will blow your socks off.

Those may be the ticket... but like I said, I am not spending $40 to see.

Another RCer was kind enough to send me a pile of the new Luxeons and a prototype board as well. I am in the process of playing with them. They are super bright if you look AT them. But so is a lightbulb, esp one with e lens in front of it.

I will let you know how my progress goes (on hold until I can get some boards etched with integral heatsinks so I don't burn them up). The prototype board is on the bench but I have yet to really fiddle with it other thatn to confirm it works.

BeanAnimal · 04/27/2006, 01:11 AM

That looks to be about 150 LEDs. They seem to be using $.06 a kWh (tell me where that is and I will move!) we pay $.15 here I think.

lets say it uses 2 watts (for the claimed 98%) as compared to a 100W bulb

1.6 watts x 24 hours x 30 days = 1.15 kWh or about $.11

The 100w bulb will use $5.04

Let go backwards...

That is a little over 98%.

there appears to be ~150 leds in the unit.

1.6 watts / 150 = .01 watts per LED Something just does not jive here. How does one light 150 LEDS with 1.6 watts of power? A typical led at 12v 30ma uses .2 watts or more.

I may be missing something here... but it just does not add up.

BeanAnimal · 04/27/2006, 01:25 AM

It is way to late.... and I am not thinking well... The figures for single LED power consumtion are not correct. .2 watts is to much. I do however think .01 (what they are basically claiming) is a bit low. When I have had some rest I will look into it some more.

Time to count sheep

hahnmeister · 04/27/2006, 03:02 AM

Note: they compare the two by saying only that a regular bulb uses $4. and some change a month...no time period per day given. A regular 100 watt flood would cost me ($.1 /kwh) $7.20 a month.

I thought about getting some 5w Luxeons and some 420/450nm LEDs and making an array... like I said...not until I finish up more of my current projects.

pfolight · 04/28/2006, 06:47 PM

Just wanted to give you an update on our LED hoods. I have posted our IMAC flyer on our website as will as pricing for the IMAC show specials. So far the response has been great.

http://www.pfolighting.com/Aquarium-LED-Lighting.aspx

As far as shimmer effect. There is some shimmer effect. Not as much as Metal Halides but definately more than fluorescent. We are using 25 3 watt LEDs in a array of about 6" square per foot of hood.

We are taking preorders now and are expected to ship in early July. We have sold a number of them here at the show. Sanjay Joshi, Dana Riddle, and Mike Paletta are all taking hoods home with them to test them for coral growth and Par.

We should have some solid coral response from these Speakers shortly

Patrick Ormiston
PFO Lighting Inc

TheNaked Reefer · 04/28/2006, 10:36 PM

OMG that is sooooo SCHWEET!!! Being able to control the K across such a huge range is awesome, 50,000 hours, and 40% less electricity than halide?

If it grows corals as well...Im up on it. Do you have any PAR readings on the units so far (c'mon, you have to).

The only bummer is the cost...almost $600 for a single 70watts of LED?

You guys should pay me to run tests on it (I have a nice spectrometer)...lol.

Just an idea...I dig the USB connection idea. But that means that there is a plug on the unit? So in order to plug it in, I have to move the entire unit (cleaning salt off of a USB port seems like a hazard) to my computer, and plug it? I think Wi-Fi would be a better idea. No ports to get salt in (or around) which could arc and short something out. No cables. You could just leave the pendant in place and 'dial it up' from the computer in another room.

pfolight · 04/29/2006, 12:45 AM

I am starting to lose interest in a USB cord quickly. I am quickly thinking of an onboard digital input device to set the parameters. As far as Par ratings go I will let others do the posting. We have a PAR meter on the tank where people can take a PAR reading of the LED's and compare them next to a 250W DE hood or a 250W Mogul hood. My personal favorite part of the weekend is watching their expression after they perform the tests themselves!

If you have more suggestions please don't hesitate to comment. I am finalizing the design next week and am looking for input of what you like and dislike.

Thanks
Patrick Ormiston
PFO Lighting Inc.

TheNaked Reefer · 04/29/2006, 03:14 AM

Thanks Patrick,

Thats great that you are getting input before finalizing. I would can the USB as well (USB is an outlet thats pretty sensitive as is...adding salt to the mix seems risky to me...like those Dell pocket PCs that were frying computers if lint got into the terminal), but on board controls sound costly too...hmmmm. Is the Wi-Fi too expensive? That would be the neatest option. You could control it from a pocket pc or computer then.

Or, the controls could be seperate from the fixture and connected via RF. That way, the control unit/box could be kept in a seperate spot from the fixture (somewhere cooler) nearby, and have the USB connection on the control unit itself if anything. Then the USB could be kept away from the salt as well.

slovan · 04/30/2006, 08:25 PM

Hi Patrick,
Could you tell me what the equivelancy of the LED lighting is to MH? E.g. a 48" Solaris hood, would that equal to 2) 250W MH lighting? Or is the entire 48" Solaris hood equal or better to 1) 250W MH?

Zoalander · 04/30/2006, 09:18 PM

I was at IMAC this weekend and saw a 300 watt LED lighting system on display. The tech had a par meter and at the surface of the water the par was over 400 and at the bottom of the tankit was at 140. This was higher then a 250 watt MH that was right next to the display, I was very impressed. The 48" fixture was $1500 but I was told that you don't need to replace any bulbs for 5 years and it ran very cool. Later I was talking to a gentlemen from a huge company (I don't want to mention the name) He said par doesn't mean much, they had tested LED lighting on their grow out tank and all the corals suffered after 2 weeks and most died.

imbuggin · 05/01/2006, 08:55 AM

when I stood there sanjai walked up. The par meter read 104 at the bottom of the shallow tank. Under a 20k 250 se hallide next to it the par reading was 85-90.

In conclusion if they can grow corals and they seem to have the spectrucm that does. They should work well for shallow tanks. I saw little heat and being able to dial in the Kalvin is cool

hahnmeister · 08/23/2006, 10:56 AM

For those who havent seen it already, very interesting...

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2006/8/review2

BeanAnimal · 08/23/2006, 12:50 PM

Looks more like an advertisement than a well balanced review... even going as far as saying [SIC] "reduced lightoutput is good for corals because people put to much light over their tanks".

It sure will be nice to get some user reviews after people have these setup for a few months.

raaden · 08/23/2006, 01:19 PM

At 2k a shot it may still be a while before we see anyone post a user review.

04/22/2006, 10:10 AM	#28
tkeracer619 Registered Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Westminster, CO Posts: 17,289	LED's have come a long way. Installing 10,000 led's on a board would have taken 50 years to solder up. Thanks to robots that can be done in a few minutes. I would have to agree that this project would be too much for anything larger than a nano for the DIY person. For guys like patrick in the prior post, i'm sure he has some nice automated procedures to make the construction easy and cost down. As an end result LED's are going to slip there way into our tanks over the next 10 years. If I can power my 150g tank on LED's and it looked like my halides while costing a fraction of the price im sold. For some reason I don't think you are going to get the shimmer lines like you want with so many led's. They are caused by point source bulbs and the rippling of the water surface together. Having 1000 point source lights will almost certainly mask the shimmer. I could very well be wrong on that last statement. __________________ Hobby Experience: 9200ish gallons, 26 skimmers, and a handful of Kent Scrapers. Current Tank: Vortech Powered 600G SPS Tank w/ 100gal frag tank & 100g Sump. RK2-RK10 Skimmer. ReefAngel. Radium 20k.

04/22/2006, 11:08 AM	#30
tkeracer619 Registered Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Westminster, CO Posts: 17,289	Yup. gotta have the shimmer. I can go without it in the QT b/c i cant put up with the electric bill. But in the display tank. Shimmer away. __________________ Hobby Experience: 9200ish gallons, 26 skimmers, and a handful of Kent Scrapers. Current Tank: Vortech Powered 600G SPS Tank w/ 100gal frag tank & 100g Sump. RK2-RK10 Skimmer. ReefAngel. Radium 20k.

04/30/2006, 09:18 PM	#46
Zoalander Registered Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Oak Park Illinois Posts: 1,571	I was at IMAC this weekend and saw a 300 watt LED lighting system on display. The tech had a par meter and at the surface of the water the par was over 400 and at the bottom of the tankit was at 140. This was higher then a 250 watt MH that was right next to the display, I was very impressed. The 48" fixture was $1500 but I was told that you don't need to replace any bulbs for 5 years and it ran very cool. Later I was talking to a gentlemen from a huge company (I don't want to mention the name) He said par doesn't mean much, they had tested LED lighting on their grow out tank and all the corals suffered after 2 weeks and most died. __________________ Previously known as Vetter1980 Current Tank Info: 36x36x10 frag tank

05/01/2006, 08:55 AM	#47
imbuggin Moved On Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: chicago Posts: 1,495	there when I stood there sanjai walked up. The par meter read 104 at the bottom of the shallow tank. Under a 20k 250 se hallide next to it the par reading was 85-90. In conclusion if they can grow corals and they seem to have the spectrucm that does. They should work well for shallow tanks. I saw little heat and being able to dial in the Kalvin is cool

04/22/2006, 02:26 AM	#27
pfolight Moved On Join Date: Apr 2000 Location: vancouver, wa usa Posts: 19	Well PFO Lighting is doing what you are talking about. We will have our Beta LED hoods on show at IMAC in Chicago. They will come in lengths of 12" to 72". They produce similar light outputs as a 250W 20K double ended or some 400W 20K bulbs. Please stop by our booth if you are in Chicago. We are looking for comments/suggestions. We will be finalizing our design after IMAC and they should be available for sale in early July. Patrick Ormiston PFO Lighting Inc.

04/22/2006, 08:35 PM	#31
hahnmeister Moved On Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Brew City, WI Posts: 10,156	"Having 1000 point source lights will almost certainly mask the shimmer. " ----- depends on if the LEDs are spread out, or clustered together in reflectors...if they were clustered together, they would have shimmer lines.

04/26/2006, 11:04 PM	#32
hahnmeister Moved On Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Brew City, WI Posts: 10,156	I was reading an article today about LED lighting used overseas (Japan seems to be the hot-spot for it since efficiency is their forte). "...92% less electrical energy than the standard tungsten bulbs" holy crap...thats better than a halide or T5 in efficiency terms... From what I remember, halides are about 8x as efficient, so thats 87.5% (and that was a marketing term so its truth might be distorted), and T5s are about the same with the reflectors. Wow.

04/26/2006, 11:20 PM	#33
BeanAnimal Registered Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Pittsburgh Posts: 20,772	when you can show me where a real world lighting setup with LEDs is 92% more efficient than a standard incandescent lamp, I will kiss you and your pet frogs. Note: We are not comparing an overhead light to a focused desk lamp (what many of these studies do to get heir numbers. In other words this is lumen per lumen, not application vs application. Bean

04/27/2006, 12:14 AM	#34
hahnmeister Moved On Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Brew City, WI Posts: 10,156	You are correct, this is comparing lumens, so there is no 'for-sure' as of yet. But the results I have seen at NR, along with PFO's new unit coming out...something is up. The smaller nanos I have seen are using about 1/5 the wattage that they would if they were using PC/halide. Otherwise, I was reading this article... http://www.treehugger.com/files/2005..._led_break.php 130 lumens per watt!!! Granted, its lumens...but that should be good news for us as well, for the spectral curve on most every 'white' LED that I see is similar to the graph I posted on the last page...so the PAR would be decent as well. Here is the link for the 92% greater efficiency. http://www.iloveled.com/ The gallery used to pay $295.20 for lighting...now $23.40 I wish I could take a chunk like that out of my reef's electric bill!!! Im gonna go buy a frog now...shall I ship it to you? Lol.

04/27/2006, 12:27 AM	#35
BeanAnimal Registered Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Pittsburgh Posts: 20,772	Only if it's not a prince...female frogs only please

04/27/2006, 12:33 AM	#36
hahnmeister Moved On Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Brew City, WI Posts: 10,156	Did you see these Bean? http://autolumination.com/home.htm There is some objective comparison to be done still, but if the outputs of some of those bulbs rival the original, then at .07 cents a month, thats about a 1watt bulb thats replacing what they would suggest is a 100watt flood, or, even if only a 60 watt or even a 40watt bulb...thats a great ratio. Im going to order some and experiment. Its no total shocker...many concept cars have been using high intensity LED arrays as their headlamps for a while...so the potential is there. Ahhhh. Some day, I will be able to light my 500g reef with only 100watts... Im thinking I will light the Jawfish's 20H with a 120LED cool white spotlight-type screw-in, and a couple of the 60LED saphire units. There are 420nm and 460nm LEDs out there, but I dont feel like wiring up the buggers myself...that project I will save for later in the year.

04/27/2006, 12:45 AM	#37
BeanAnimal Registered Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Pittsburgh Posts: 20,772	I am not spending ~$40 to find out. I hav eyet to see a fluorescent replace an incandescent and be as bright. That 18W as bright as a 100W bulb is BS. I have a box full of the incadescent replacments. I tried em in the house, the floodlights outside... etc. What a waste of money. I don't even like the one melev raves about for use over the refugiums... Lets put this another way. If those are standard "bright" leds, then they sure will not be as bright as they claim (at least to the human eye).. and if they are HIGH OUTPUT models, they will give as much or more heat than an incandescent and have a short lifespan in many applications (due to heat). I am not trying to be totaly negative... but after reading hundreds of LED whitepapers and applications briefs... LEDs just are there yet. I see a lot of hype and consumer buzzwords and marketing, but have yet to see anything that will blow your socks off. Those may be the ticket... but like I said, I am not spending $40 to see. Another RCer was kind enough to send me a pile of the new Luxeons and a prototype board as well. I am in the process of playing with them. They are super bright if you look AT them. But so is a lightbulb, esp one with e lens in front of it. I will let you know how my progress goes (on hold until I can get some boards etched with integral heatsinks so I don't burn them up). The prototype board is on the bench but I have yet to really fiddle with it other thatn to confirm it works.

04/27/2006, 01:11 AM	#38
BeanAnimal Registered Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Pittsburgh Posts: 20,772	That looks to be about 150 LEDs. They seem to be using $.06 a kWh (tell me where that is and I will move!) we pay $.15 here I think. lets say it uses 2 watts (for the claimed 98%) as compared to a 100W bulb 1.6 watts x 24 hours x 30 days = 1.15 kWh or about $.11 The 100w bulb will use $5.04 Let go backwards... That is a little over 98%. there appears to be ~150 leds in the unit. 1.6 watts / 150 = .01 watts per LED Something just does not jive here. How does one light 150 LEDS with 1.6 watts of power? A typical led at 12v 30ma uses .2 watts or more. I may be missing something here... but it just does not add up.

04/27/2006, 01:25 AM	#39
BeanAnimal Registered Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Pittsburgh Posts: 20,772	It is way to late.... and I am not thinking well... The figures for single LED power consumtion are not correct. .2 watts is to much. I do however think .01 (what they are basically claiming) is a bit low. When I have had some rest I will look into it some more. Time to count sheep

04/27/2006, 03:02 AM	#40
hahnmeister Moved On Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Brew City, WI Posts: 10,156	Note: they compare the two by saying only that a regular bulb uses $4. and some change a month...no time period per day given. A regular 100 watt flood would cost me ($.1 /kwh) $7.20 a month. I thought about getting some 5w Luxeons and some 420/450nm LEDs and making an array... like I said...not until I finish up more of my current projects.

04/28/2006, 06:47 PM	#41
pfolight Moved On Join Date: Apr 2000 Location: vancouver, wa usa Posts: 19	Just wanted to give you an update on our LED hoods. I have posted our IMAC flyer on our website as will as pricing for the IMAC show specials. So far the response has been great. http://www.pfolighting.com/Aquarium-LED-Lighting.aspx As far as shimmer effect. There is some shimmer effect. Not as much as Metal Halides but definately more than fluorescent. We are using 25 3 watt LEDs in a array of about 6" square per foot of hood. We are taking preorders now and are expected to ship in early July. We have sold a number of them here at the show. Sanjay Joshi, Dana Riddle, and Mike Paletta are all taking hoods home with them to test them for coral growth and Par. We should have some solid coral response from these Speakers shortly Patrick Ormiston PFO Lighting Inc

04/28/2006, 10:36 PM	#42
TheNaked Reefer Moved On Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Knightsbridge or worldwide Posts: 12	OMG that is sooooo SCHWEET!!! Being able to control the K across such a huge range is awesome, 50,000 hours, and 40% less electricity than halide? If it grows corals as well...Im up on it. Do you have any PAR readings on the units so far (c'mon, you have to). The only bummer is the cost...almost $600 for a single 70watts of LED? You guys should pay me to run tests on it (I have a nice spectrometer)...lol. Just an idea...I dig the USB connection idea. But that means that there is a plug on the unit? So in order to plug it in, I have to move the entire unit (cleaning salt off of a USB port seems like a hazard) to my computer, and plug it? I think Wi-Fi would be a better idea. No ports to get salt in (or around) which could arc and short something out. No cables. You could just leave the pendant in place and 'dial it up' from the computer in another room.

04/29/2006, 12:45 AM	#43
pfolight Moved On Join Date: Apr 2000 Location: vancouver, wa usa Posts: 19	I am starting to lose interest in a USB cord quickly. I am quickly thinking of an onboard digital input device to set the parameters. As far as Par ratings go I will let others do the posting. We have a PAR meter on the tank where people can take a PAR reading of the LED's and compare them next to a 250W DE hood or a 250W Mogul hood. My personal favorite part of the weekend is watching their expression after they perform the tests themselves! If you have more suggestions please don't hesitate to comment. I am finalizing the design next week and am looking for input of what you like and dislike. Thanks Patrick Ormiston PFO Lighting Inc.

04/29/2006, 03:14 AM	#44
TheNaked Reefer Moved On Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Knightsbridge or worldwide Posts: 12	Thanks Patrick, Thats great that you are getting input before finalizing. I would can the USB as well (USB is an outlet thats pretty sensitive as is...adding salt to the mix seems risky to me...like those Dell pocket PCs that were frying computers if lint got into the terminal), but on board controls sound costly too...hmmmm. Is the Wi-Fi too expensive? That would be the neatest option. You could control it from a pocket pc or computer then. Or, the controls could be seperate from the fixture and connected via RF. That way, the control unit/box could be kept in a seperate spot from the fixture (somewhere cooler) nearby, and have the USB connection on the control unit itself if anything. Then the USB could be kept away from the salt as well.

04/30/2006, 08:25 PM	#45
slovan Gold Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: IA Posts: 3,544 Blog Entries: 1	Hi Patrick, Could you tell me what the equivelancy of the LED lighting is to MH? E.g. a 48" Solaris hood, would that equal to 2) 250W MH lighting? Or is the entire 48" Solaris hood equal or better to 1) 250W MH?

08/23/2006, 10:56 AM	#48
hahnmeister Moved On Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Brew City, WI Posts: 10,156	For those who havent seen it already, very interesting... http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2006/8/review2

08/23/2006, 12:50 PM	#49
BeanAnimal Registered Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Pittsburgh Posts: 20,772	Looks more like an advertisement than a well balanced review... even going as far as saying [SIC] "reduced lightoutput is good for corals because people put to much light over their tanks". It sure will be nice to get some user reviews after people have these setup for a few months.

08/23/2006, 01:19 PM	#50
raaden Registered Member. Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Raleigh NC Posts: 505	At 2k a shot it may still be a while before we see anyone post a user review.