+mcallahan Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 It's time to cut through the "foo" and put some LEDs to the test Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Lamont Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 Cool video. I will be keeping up with that experiment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballistic.reefer Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 nice vid. cant wait to see what happens Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobR Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 Cool video, it will be interesting to see how the LED's compare side by side with the MH. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishypets Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 Nice Video! I like the Lab better than the pug but what' up with "The Great" someone stuck on their-self? I think so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robb in Austin Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 Are you, or have you, blocked the light coming from the 120? If you haven't, you need to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+mcallahan Posted March 24, 2011 Author Share Posted March 24, 2011 Are you, or have you, blocked the light coming from the 120? If you haven't, you need to. We haven't yet and I see the point and...I'm curious how much spill would we really get from the 120 that would then penetrate the cube...that would then throw off results? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robb in Austin Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 You may not get any, but it needs to be eliminated as a possible source that could throw off your results. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lotusstar Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 Good video. Can't wait to see the results Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbnj Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 What are the Vegas odds on MH vs LED? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Hydro Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 Cool Mark. Glad to see the experiment finally going. The tank with the aqualumination fixture doesn't look 1/2 as bright as the other tank and the LED is a much deeper blue. IMO I don't think that its a fair contest for the LED, that MH setup is going to kick its butt. Its like putting a 4 cylinder against a V8. The LED fixture in the video is more blue that what I personally like, the MH beside it has much better color for my personal taste. If a person doesn't like the color of the LED can they change out the LEDs to suit what they want? Of course with MH you can just swap out a bulb to get a different look or to get more growth from your coral, LEDs don't seem that easy to do that, plus it seems like if you could it would cost you a fortune. Is there a way to adjust the spectrum? How many watts does it use? What is it supposed to be comprable to...250 watt? IMO the best experiment with this setup would be to put the SPS at the same level in both tanks. In the big tank is should be to one side or another so that its only getting light from one of the MH bulbs to try and shorten the gap of power consumption between the 2. I hope that you guys choose harder to grow more sensitive acros and not a beginner coral to do this test with, beginner coral will grow under almost anything. Also what would be nice to see before you fill up the tank with coral is to put a piece of white plastic on the bottom and shoot some pictures from up top. This will show you the footprint of the light, so show if its mostly concentrated underneath the fixture or if it spreads out and covers the bottom of the tank. Good luck with it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Hydro Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 What are the Vegas odds on MH vs LED? You guys probably know where I have my money . I've probably had more experinece with LEDs than most anybody on the club because of being in the gardening industry for several years now, but I have no experience with them being used over an aquarium. They have been very dissapointing to say the least in my industry. But because of my lack of experience with them over an aquarium I find this experiment interesting, except now I worry that it isn't a fair contest for the LED. For me if it grows harder to keep sps, keeps their color, and uses 1/2 of the power of a comprable MH I will be impressed. If that fixture uses 100 watts or so then I would compare to a 250 watt MH light with digital ballast using about 200 watts. I have to admit now that that 60 gallon tank with a 250 watt over it with a good reflector would be much brighter than that LED if using a 12k-14k bulb. Mark I have 250 watt lights over my frag tank, if you want I can throw the same "test" frag in my frag tank at the same height as the 60 gallon and we can compare it against that growth...what do you think? Can't hurt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+mcallahan Posted March 24, 2011 Author Share Posted March 24, 2011 What are the Vegas odds on MH vs LED? Mark I have 250 watt lights over my frag tank, if you want I can throw the same "test" frag in my frag tank at the same height as the 60 gallon and we can compare it against that growth...what do you think? Can't hurt You must be forgetting about my 2x250's I have over my 90g...!! My thought will be to measure PAR ratings and place some SPS frags in similar PAR areas to the MH. That way we can try to level the playing field as much as possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbnj Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 I also appreciate the effort going into this experiment, but quite honestly, you can get significantly different growth rates on the same SPS colony in one tank. I think the best you can hope for in this experiment is to show that you can get respectable growth rates under LEDs with lower heat and energy consumption. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonJones Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 It sounds pretty good besides the self-aggrandizing headline, although I give the benefit of the doubt that it was supposed to say The Mr. Saltwater Great LED Experiment. My only concern is the substantial number of variables between the tests- e.g. different size tanks, different flow rates and patterns, different heights, different light reflections... I think all the variables will make it hard to determine whether any difference in results is caused by the light or one of the other variables. I would really like to see two exact tanks set up side by side sharing the same water to give a test that isolates the variables to only the lighting difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonJones Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 Also to Hydro's point, from everything I have heard from people who own LED fixtures, the light intensity doesn't show up well in photos or videos so it may actually be closer than it looks. Also, you don't have to change the LEDs to change the color. You can dial up or down either the blue or the white LEDs to achieve the color you prefer. As far as having experience with LEDs in the past. I think the consensus has been that it wasn't until the last couple of generations of high power LEDs have come out that the par has actually been substantial enough to use for tanks. The first fixtures that came out in 05-06 were woefully deficient compared to the current generation of fixtures. Most people running LED fixtures now have them running at under 100% power to prevent bleaching. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike M. Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 I am posting so I can follow the thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Hydro Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 Also to Hydro's point, from everything I have heard from people who own LED fixtures, the light intensity doesn't show up well in photos or videos so it may actually be closer than it looks. Also, you don't have to change the LEDs to change the color. You can dial up or down either the blue or the white LEDs to achieve the color you prefer. As far as having experience with LEDs in the past. I think the consensus has been that it wasn't until the last couple of generations of high power LEDs have come out that the par has actually been substantial enough to use for tanks. The first fixtures that came out in 05-06 were woefully deficient compared to the current generation of fixtures. Most people running LED fixtures now have them running at under 100% power to prevent bleaching. That's cool abut changing the color, I was wondering if they had something like that. So at 50/50 do you get the most power out of it or is it just splitting equally the energy created by the balllast at all times? I hear ya Jason, there were definitely more problems with them in the past but please know that I'm at every trade show that my industry has and have been going to all for more than 4 years. If there were LED companies out there with fixtures that worked I would be hearing about it. I offered an LED company to build me a Hydro Innovations LED fixture that we were going to water-cool. My requirements were that it perform like a 600 watt light and use 300 watts.....this is the only way I could justify the price to someone. That was almost 2 years ago, the guy will call me about every 6 months or so and tell me "we are still working on it". I hope he comes through, it would be awesome. Honestly my biggest complaint is how they are marketed, that they save money on electricity and they create little to no heat. Both are not completely true. In the gardening industry there are fixtures powerful enough to rival a MH production per sq ft but these fixtures are using over 500 watts, which is about the same as a 600 watt MH using a digital ballast. What's nice about using a MH is that in most cases the ballast are removed from the room so that none of the heat produced enters the garden. This leaves you with only bulb heat to deal with inside the gaden. LED fixtures have internal transformers in most cases can't be moved out of the gardening area. LED fixtures get very hot to the touch and the larger ones are even air cooled because they make so much heat. So much so that it causes the fixtures not to perform at maximum efficiency. There are 2 places were lighting makes heat, the light bulb itself and the ballast/transformer for the bulb. If the bulb is 600 watts then that creates 2,400 BTU of heat, a digital ballast makes 1,500 BTU of heat. The LED will work the same way, there will be heat created at the transformer because it is consuming power and then whatever wattage the bulbs are that will also create heat. Ok here is a good example. AI sells a 72" fixture that uses 432 watts of power and it cost $3,300. (3) 250 watt MH would rock a 72" long tank and with digital ballast you are looking at 562 watts. Although that is less you can't say wether you are actually comparing apples to apples. If comparing this to (3) 175 watt lights, which would also be just fine for a 72" tank, comsume 393 watts, considerably less than the LED fixture. So what do we compare this fixture to? We may never know unless someone can afford to buy one. Ok I will give them this. LED fixtures do not create much radiation like MH lighting does, this is what heats up the tank. With an LED its possible if you can keep the room cool that the fixture is in that you may not need a chiller for the tank. BUT just because you have MH lighting doesn't mean that you have to run a chiller either. LEDs in some cases can save you energy but I think there is no way that they will ever save you money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike M. Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 Man you type fast.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike M. Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 It sounds pretty good besides the self-aggrandizing headline, although I give the benefit of the doubt that it was supposed to say The Mr. Saltwater Great LED Experiment. My only concern is the substantial number of variables between the tests- e.g. different size tanks, different flow rates and patterns, different heights, different light reflections... I think all the variables will make it hard to determine whether any difference in results is caused by the light or one of the other variables. I would really like to see two exact tanks set up side by side sharing the same water to give a test that isolates the variables to only the lighting difference. I am pretty sure that it is not possible to address all the variables and create control groups for all the issue you raise above. That being said, both tanks are 24" tall and will be run on the same sump, chiller, skimmer, feeding. That's as close to controlling the variables as I have seen anyone do on any site yet. Yes, 6105s and an MP60 in the main display will provide more in tank flow than the two 6055's in Fat Jack. Yes, the lights are at different heights and have different reflectors. Last I heard, Lumenbrights are not available to house an AI LED fixture and AI optics are not available for metal halide lighting. That said, the height of the fixture dictates spread AND par and the lights in both setups are positioned to get light to the bottom of the tanks evenly (24" square area). They are set to manufacture specs with regard to height. If you would buy me another 60 gallon, I'll set it up in the mix with a halide to meet your objection to the 120 and 60 gallon tank issue. My guess is the results would be similar if not the same regardless. Guys and gals, this is not a scientific double blind study with controls. It is a side by side shoot off. We will not be measuring chlorophyll or zooanthellae density via centrification to see which lighting setup produces greater cell or functional density over the course of the upcoming months. Quite the contrary, we are gonna take photos every six weeks and see what is looks like side by side. If the differences are dramatic, it might make a good case for one system or the other. My bet is that it won't be a tremendous difference. I truly believe that we are going to see that both systems work and that if you like LED you will feel confident that if will grow SPS and if you like old school lighting....well at least we'll know that they haven't come up with something better in LED technology. This "experiment" is supposed to be fun. Any science minded person can poke holes in the variables and methods till the cows come home. Trust me, I know. I have done laboratory research in undergraduate. This is in no way a "proper" study. It is going to be interesting and fun for Mark and I as the pieces develop. I am hoping to get frags going in the tank this weekend and show off my custom PVC frag rack. I built it from scratch and its a pretty cool bit of homemade tinker toys! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbnj Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 By the way, what makes Jack technically "Fat"? Is it the 24" side-to-side, the 24" front-to-back, or a combination of the two? And if Jack's fat at 24x24x24, then what would the 48x24x24 120g be called? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nemirn Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 (edited) The tank in the corner is going to be more greatly affected by low frequency sound vibrations so you will have to refrain from playing booty bass music during the course of the study. Booty bass music has been implicated in the retardation of growth of SPS where polyps attempt to drop it like it's hot and, as a result, fall off their plugs. Edited March 24, 2011 by nemirn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+mcallahan Posted March 24, 2011 Author Share Posted March 24, 2011 The tank in the corner is going to be more greatly affected by low frequency sound vibrations so you will have to refrain from playing booty bass music during the course of the study. Booty bass music has been implicated in the retardation of growth of SPS where polyps attempt to drop it like its hot and, as a result fall, off their plugs. that's funny. i'm sure Mike bumps to rap all the time! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
innate1 Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 Nemrin that was awesome! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Hydro Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.