LEDs and Global Warming - Page 3

RichConley · 05/19/2007, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jacmyoung

Or to put it this way, at such a price level, the Solaris will have to be much more energy efficient (say 1/2 of the MH fixture) to be worth the money. Are they? I am not too familiar with it.

THeyre not even close to as efficient as most MH fixtures at this point.

The solaris is using an LED that is about 3 years old, and has an efficiency around 45 lumens/watt. There are currently LEDs out that will do 100+. When they start making fixtures out of those, it'll be worth it.

jacmyoung · 05/19/2007, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by RichConley
THeyre not even close to as efficient as most MH fixtures at this point.

The solaris is using an LED that is about 3 years old, and has an efficiency around 45 lumens/watt. There are currently LEDs out that will do 100+. When they start making fixtures out of those, it'll be worth it.

Well then I don't know what's the attraction, if you spend so much to mimic clouds and sunset, you really need to go out more often.

useskaforevil · 05/19/2007, 09:53 PM

low heat so no need for a chiller, which also means alot less evap. good growth regardless of wether the lights arent as bright as MH, never going blind because the bulbs direct light straight down and not out at you, (which im sure helps with effciency) not having to change the bulbs for 5+ years. and i havent looked at every MH fixture, but ive never seen one that stayed at 90 degrees all day long. and i'll bet even if my tank didnt overheat, my apartment would, so id need to run my air conditioner even harder. at least that was my thoguht process, with little way to prove myself right or wrong, so it had to be whatever i was comfortable. its not like i couls ask anyoen else in my complex what they hd done for they're reef tank

(i live in the one nice complex surrounded by government housing)

they're not cost effecient. and im not trying to save the world with them it was partly just because it was much much easier to plunk down 2k then to worry about a fire or fish splashing the bulbs or burning myself when im cleaning glass.

Phyllia131 · 05/19/2007, 10:52 PM

Great, now I need a chiller

jacmyoung · 05/20/2007, 12:37 AM

After reading the Riddle article on the Solaris site, I have a few observations:

1) I must agree that the article at least has the appearance of bias in favor of Solaris simply because an unbiased review should not have been allowed on the product site as an advertisement.

2) A fair comparison should have used a similar sized MH fixture that is of very good quality, priced similar to the Solaris, not as much maybe but at least close. This way both fixtures come with their own splash guard and heat removal mechanism and adding some kind of unknown "UV shield" would be unnecessary. Nevertheless any splash guard would act to reduce the light penetration at some degree. So let's say instead of 20% removal we have only 10% removal.

If Rich you were right that a good 250W MH can do 80, after 10% we have 72, and the Solaris 75W does 38 (52.8% of the MH), it can be argued that the 75W Solaris is still more efficient because it uses only 30% energy of the MH.

Now they have the new H4 out which has higher output and also uses more energy, I wonder if anyone will try to do another but fair comparison.

dga · 05/20/2007, 04:03 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by jacmyoung
[B]I saw you in the Tunze forum, Tunze is not made in the USA

And do you know Germany is bigger in terms of exports, more than China?

QUOTE]

yes there made in germany. my reference was to chinese products... i purchase usa made items first. and shop diligintly not to purchase "made in china"

jacmyoung · 05/21/2007, 02:49 PM

I just ran across the website by Aquaillumination, the second company to roll out their LED fixtures:

http://www.aquaillumination.com/par.html

The PAR dry air tests they did appear to support the argument that the peak PARs of the Solaris are very much below the standard 250W MH fixture, including the old G series and the new H4.

It is also interesting to note Aquaillumination did not include the MH fixture in the Average PAR comparison and I think I know why. The average MH PAR could be much higher than all the LEDs simply because the Riddle's test indicated so, the MH light spreads out much more obviously that will help on the average PAR, even though the Aquaillumination new LED may have the highest peak PAR, it may just be focued on a very small area.

The energy consumption is similar among the LEDs, about 80W per foot. For a standard 4' tank covered by 2x250W MH fixture, it may take the LEDs 6x1 foot sections to have the similar average PAR coverage for the whole tank, so the total energy consumption is not very different. Of course if the MH fixture includes blue PC supplement the watts will be higher but so will the average PAR.

One thing to note is LED is a fast evolving technology, the turn around can be less than one year so anyone who thinks the 50,000 hour life is a selling point think again. You will have no use for your two year old LED fixture because two years from now the newer LEDs may make yours look very bad.

The MH of course is a mature technology, not much advances can be expected. So if I were at the starting point of selecting a light fixture right now, I would get a MH fixture and wait until the LED's cost to come down in the next year or two and by then the LED numbers will also be very different.

shred5 · 05/22/2007, 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by jacmyoung
I just ran across the website by Aquaillumination, the second company to roll out their LED fixtures:

http://www.aquaillumination.com/par.html

The PAR dry air tests they did appear to support the argument that the peak PARs of the Solaris are very much below the standard 250W MH fixture, including the old G series and the new H4.

I do not beleive much on that site. How does he know what the new Solaris is going to do. The fixture has not been released yet and not much info has been released yet.

Dave

jacmyoung · 05/22/2007, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by shred5
I do not beleive much on that site. How does he know what the new Solaris is going to do. The fixture has not been released yet and not much info has been released yet.

Dave

How much do you believe the Riddle's test then?

They said they used the H4 data released by Solaris, I doubt they were making up the numbers, else Solaris would have made some noise by now.

But my main point was we now have another set of data to support Rich's notion that the LEDs don't have the PAR yet to compete with a 250W MH, even Aquaillumination who claim superiority over the Solaris H4 did not dare to put the MH's average PAR on their chart, so the Riddle's test was very questionable at best.

RichConley · 05/22/2007, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by jacmyoung

2) A fair comparison should have used a similar sized MH fixture that is of very good quality, priced similar to the Solaris, not as much maybe but at least close. This way both fixtures come with their own splash guard and heat removal mechanism and adding some kind of unknown "UV shield" would be unnecessary. Nevertheless any splash guard would act to reduce the light penetration at some degree. So let's say instead of 20% removal we have only 10% removal.\.

Why would you ever put a UV shield/splash guard on an SE metal halide?

If you're gonna do that, then put the fixtures at the same height.

RichConley · 05/22/2007, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by shred5
I do not beleive much on that site. How does he know what the new Solaris is going to do. The fixture has not been released yet and not much info has been released yet.

Dave

Becuase we DO know which LEDs the H4 is using. Its pretty easy to calculate it.

jacmyoung · 05/22/2007, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by RichConley
Why would you ever put a UV shield/splash guard on an SE metal halide?

Because most all SE MH fixtures sold (not including DIY kits) have either a glass or acrylic over. That does reduce the light penetration, but my point was they should have used a good quality DE 250W MH fixture for comparison. I don't know if the Aquaillumination test did just that but from its description it appeared they used a standard SE fixture, if true at least they did not try to undermine the MH like the Riddle test.

RiddleLabs · 05/24/2007, 01:00 AM

Aloha all,

I see Rich has chosen to 'poor-mouth' my Solaris review again - which is OK (everyone's entitled to an opinion), but from my perspective this is getting old.

Rich, at first, blatantly stated that I had received a Solaris 'for free' and had therefore written a biased product review. He never checked with me, and just broadcast this as fact.

Please, Rich, when you make accusations, at least have the facts on your side.

Another disturbing comment - That my review was biased because Adavnced Aquarist accepted a Solaris advertisement.
Let's look at the reality of on-line e-zines (such as ReefCentral, Advanced Aquarist, Conscientous Aquarist, etc.). These journals rely upon advertising $ on keep them afloat. It is not the decision of a writer to determine which ads are accepted (or not) - that is the job of the Managing Editor. If anyone has a problem with a publication accepting money for a legitimate ad, then they should contact the publication's editor (In this case, Terry Siegel). A writer does not decide which ads are accepted, much less where they are placed within the magazine.

Now, to revisit the MH/UV issue. Unless you have a UV radiometer and can determine if a particular lamp/ reflector combination will produce 'UV hotspots", then you should use a UV shield. To do anything less is irresponsible to both your eyesight and your tank's inhabitiants.

I'm not going to spend anymore time on this particular thread. If you've done your homework, you'll know I'm right. Anything else is mere hearsay and nothing more.

Rich - Get rid of that 'Gremlin' photo and show us a picture of your tank!

Dana

jacmyoung · 05/24/2007, 12:29 PM

Dana, thank you for coming here and state your position.

It was me who raised the issue of allowing Solaris to use your article which is highly in favor of their products, whether you have received compensation as a result I don't know but it does not matter, even though you are correct writers may not have a choice if the manufactures like or dislike their reviews, whether they allow their reviews to be used as their advertisement or not does raise a credibility issue. Not everyone will have problem with this tactic, maybe not even most of people will feel this way but I do and I stated such.

As far as UV shield, I also stated a shield is reasonable, but a more fair comparison would be to select a high quality MH unit that already comes with its own splash guard/UV shield and test them this way, rather arbitrarily use your own.

Another fact I brought out was the AI tests, which seems to vindicate Rich that a good 250W MH bulb gives out much more average PAR than the LED units, even compared to the Solaris H4 and the newer AI LED unit.

While the means in which Rich makes his argument maybe less than desirable, and God knows how many heated debates I had with him on some other issues, I still look beyond emotion and see facts as what they are, and in this case at least some of his facts are verifiable and can stand on their own ground.

RichConley · 05/24/2007, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by RiddleLabs
Aloha all,

I see Rich has chosen to 'poor-mouth' my Solaris review again - which is OK (everyone's entitled to an opinion), but from my perspective this is getting old.

Rich, at first, blatantly stated that I had received a Solaris 'for free' and had therefore written a biased product review. He never checked with me, and just broadcast this as fact.

Dana, please point out exactly where i said you recieved a free solaris. I never made that claim.

[quote]
Please, Rich, when you make accusations, at least have the facts on your side.
[quote]
Dana, please review my math. If you have any problems with what I actually said, point them out, instead of making false claims of accusations that I "made"

Quote:

Now, to revisit the MH/UV issue. Unless you have a UV radiometer and can determine if a particular lamp/ reflector combination will produce 'UV hotspots", then you should use a UV shield. To do anything less is irresponsible to both your eyesight and your tank's inhabitiants.

Why? SE MH bulbs ARE shielded. Hundreds of thousands of aquarists use them and dont have any problems with corals being burned by UV.

Quote:

I'm not going to spend anymore time on this particular thread. If you've done your homework, you'll know I'm right. Anything else is mere hearsay and nothing more.

Rich - Get rid of that 'Gremlin' photo and show us a picture of your tank!

Dana

Dana, again, point out where I'm wrong instead of taking personal shots.

tprize · 05/24/2007, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tron87
And besides. the only thing that is going to stop global warming is fusion reactions. China is about 15-20 years away from achieving Fusion and that day will mark the shift of all power on the planet. The U.S. will see the end of it's 15 minutes. [/B]

Ya exactly.... Except the energy needed to start a fusion reaction exceeds the savings.

05/19/2007, 09:53 PM	#53
useskaforevil Registered Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: kent, ohio Posts: 1,012	low heat so no need for a chiller, which also means alot less evap. good growth regardless of wether the lights arent as bright as MH, never going blind because the bulbs direct light straight down and not out at you, (which im sure helps with effciency) not having to change the bulbs for 5+ years. and i havent looked at every MH fixture, but ive never seen one that stayed at 90 degrees all day long. and i'll bet even if my tank didnt overheat, my apartment would, so id need to run my air conditioner even harder. at least that was my thoguht process, with little way to prove myself right or wrong, so it had to be whatever i was comfortable. its not like i couls ask anyoen else in my complex what they hd done for they're reef tank (i live in the one nice complex surrounded by government housing) they're not cost effecient. and im not trying to save the world with them it was partly just because it was much much easier to plunk down 2k then to worry about a fire or fish splashing the bulbs or burning myself when im cleaning glass. __________________ "and the delicate mechanism stripped its gears" Current Tank Info: 80gallon bowfront

05/20/2007, 04:03 PM	#56
dga Registered Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: MI Posts: 360	[QUOTE]Originally posted by jacmyoung [B]I saw you in the Tunze forum, Tunze is not made in the USA And do you know Germany is bigger in terms of exports, more than China? QUOTE] yes there made in germany. my reference was to chinese products... i purchase usa made items first. and shop diligintly not to purchase "made in china" __________________ Got Salt?

05/19/2007, 10:52 PM	#54
Phyllia131 Registered Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: West LA Posts: 63	Great, now I need a chiller

05/20/2007, 12:37 AM	#55
jacmyoung Premium Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Sacramento, CA Posts: 1,421	After reading the Riddle article on the Solaris site, I have a few observations: 1) I must agree that the article at least has the appearance of bias in favor of Solaris simply because an unbiased review should not have been allowed on the product site as an advertisement. 2) A fair comparison should have used a similar sized MH fixture that is of very good quality, priced similar to the Solaris, not as much maybe but at least close. This way both fixtures come with their own splash guard and heat removal mechanism and adding some kind of unknown "UV shield" would be unnecessary. Nevertheless any splash guard would act to reduce the light penetration at some degree. So let's say instead of 20% removal we have only 10% removal. If Rich you were right that a good 250W MH can do 80, after 10% we have 72, and the Solaris 75W does 38 (52.8% of the MH), it can be argued that the 75W Solaris is still more efficient because it uses only 30% energy of the MH. Now they have the new H4 out which has higher output and also uses more energy, I wonder if anyone will try to do another but fair comparison.

05/21/2007, 02:49 PM	#57
jacmyoung Premium Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Sacramento, CA Posts: 1,421	I just ran across the website by Aquaillumination, the second company to roll out their LED fixtures: http://www.aquaillumination.com/par.html The PAR dry air tests they did appear to support the argument that the peak PARs of the Solaris are very much below the standard 250W MH fixture, including the old G series and the new H4. It is also interesting to note Aquaillumination did not include the MH fixture in the Average PAR comparison and I think I know why. The average MH PAR could be much higher than all the LEDs simply because the Riddle's test indicated so, the MH light spreads out much more obviously that will help on the average PAR, even though the Aquaillumination new LED may have the highest peak PAR, it may just be focued on a very small area. The energy consumption is similar among the LEDs, about 80W per foot. For a standard 4' tank covered by 2x250W MH fixture, it may take the LEDs 6x1 foot sections to have the similar average PAR coverage for the whole tank, so the total energy consumption is not very different. Of course if the MH fixture includes blue PC supplement the watts will be higher but so will the average PAR. One thing to note is LED is a fast evolving technology, the turn around can be less than one year so anyone who thinks the 50,000 hour life is a selling point think again. You will have no use for your two year old LED fixture because two years from now the newer LEDs may make yours look very bad. The MH of course is a mature technology, not much advances can be expected. So if I were at the starting point of selecting a light fixture right now, I would get a MH fixture and wait until the LED's cost to come down in the next year or two and by then the LED numbers will also be very different.

05/24/2007, 01:00 AM	#63
RiddleLabs Registered Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 94	Aloha all, I see Rich has chosen to 'poor-mouth' my Solaris review again - which is OK (everyone's entitled to an opinion), but from my perspective this is getting old. Rich, at first, blatantly stated that I had received a Solaris 'for free' and had therefore written a biased product review. He never checked with me, and just broadcast this as fact. Please, Rich, when you make accusations, at least have the facts on your side. Another disturbing comment - That my review was biased because Adavnced Aquarist accepted a Solaris advertisement. Let's look at the reality of on-line e-zines (such as ReefCentral, Advanced Aquarist, Conscientous Aquarist, etc.). These journals rely upon advertising $ on keep them afloat. It is not the decision of a writer to determine which ads are accepted (or not) - that is the job of the Managing Editor. If anyone has a problem with a publication accepting money for a legitimate ad, then they should contact the publication's editor (In this case, Terry Siegel). A writer does not decide which ads are accepted, much less where they are placed within the magazine. Now, to revisit the MH/UV issue. Unless you have a UV radiometer and can determine if a particular lamp/ reflector combination will produce 'UV hotspots", then you should use a UV shield. To do anything less is irresponsible to both your eyesight and your tank's inhabitiants. I'm not going to spend anymore time on this particular thread. If you've done your homework, you'll know I'm right. Anything else is mere hearsay and nothing more. Rich - Get rid of that 'Gremlin' photo and show us a picture of your tank! Dana

05/24/2007, 12:29 PM	#64
jacmyoung Premium Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Sacramento, CA Posts: 1,421	Dana, thank you for coming here and state your position. It was me who raised the issue of allowing Solaris to use your article which is highly in favor of their products, whether you have received compensation as a result I don't know but it does not matter, even though you are correct writers may not have a choice if the manufactures like or dislike their reviews, whether they allow their reviews to be used as their advertisement or not does raise a credibility issue. Not everyone will have problem with this tactic, maybe not even most of people will feel this way but I do and I stated such. As far as UV shield, I also stated a shield is reasonable, but a more fair comparison would be to select a high quality MH unit that already comes with its own splash guard/UV shield and test them this way, rather arbitrarily use your own. Another fact I brought out was the AI tests, which seems to vindicate Rich that a good 250W MH bulb gives out much more average PAR than the LED units, even compared to the Solaris H4 and the newer AI LED unit. While the means in which Rich makes his argument maybe less than desirable, and God knows how many heated debates I had with him on some other issues, I still look beyond emotion and see facts as what they are, and in this case at least some of his facts are verifiable and can stand on their own ground.