• Folks, if you've recently upgraded or renewed your annual club membership but it's still not active, please reach out to the BOD or a moderator. The PayPal system has a slight bug which it doesn't allow it to activate the account on it's own.

Debate: Is Solaris LED Lighting worth it?

Re: To MH or not to MH?

Phyl said:
How about Solaris? I've heard they rival MH from people who've used both!

This is possible, but see the thread on this topic. Many interesting points made on LED lighting.

No matter how you slice it, Solaris lighting is extremely expensive.
 
Re: To MH or not to MH?

The "burn" people see with the Solaris isn't because of "more" light output at all. The corals are getting exposed to different wave lengths of light then they previously were getting.

Like any type of light change a drastic shift if Kelvin needs to be done gradually.

Carlo
 
Re: To MH or not to MH?

Carlo said:
The "burn" people see with the Solaris isn't because of "more" light output at all. The corals are getting exposed to different wave lengths of light then they previously were getting.
Carlo

I think this is the case. If you go up to Absolutely Fish you can see Solaris on a tank side by side with MH and "visually" it is not nearly as bright. The corals in the tank seem to look fine, but I don't think there were an SPS in there.
Ken
 
I am still not 100% sold on these lights. I love the convenience of them and the ability to adjust them but I also have T5 on the other 1/2 of the tank and I am trying things out before buying the other 1/2 of Solaris. I will post new pictures on my tank build site probably in a couple hours showing what I am talking about.

I really have to see some more long term test to see if I really like them. They did burn two of my acros and 1 birds nest but everything else is doing fine and including one acro and a few frags of acros. I will need to buy more and adjust them properly to see how this will work out long term becuase I moved them up way too fast before.
 

Phyl

Officer Emeritus
Officer Emeritus
Bits of the To MH or Not to MH thread have been split off and merged into this thread as Arvin is purely looking at MH v. T5.

Just a reminder: Make sure to keep your conversations production and not judgemental.
 
Phyl said:
Just a reminder: Make sure to keep your conversations production and not judgemental.

Hehe, I knew my comment: "Because he's looking to upgrade, not downgrade" was going to get me in hot water, but I think it's more of a scientific thing then a person judgement. :)

Carlo
 
Lighting can raise passions higher than a good sandbed debate these days! ;D

That's why I sick to VHO's, everyone just ignores me as a crazy old dinosaur.

I think Solaris's claim to be as effective as halides seems to center on two aspects. First, the majority of the light produced is directed into the tank. Second, the led's produce light concentrated in the most useable spectrums.

I surfed over to the RC forum for the first time in a while; I needed new glasses after several months of reading all the T5 threads. It seems that the Solaris crowd are tossing around what appears to me to be a new term, PUR. As opposed to PAR, photosynthetic available radiation, PUR is photosynthetic useable radiation. First we used watts per gallon, the it was lumens, then PAR and now PUR. What's next?? :eek:

I think a year of using these things will prove whether or not they are as effective as halides. And for now, the payback on the energy savings seems to be longer than the average hobbyist keeps a tank up. I do like all the neat controls, but it will be a while before I test these waters.
 
Below highlights swiped from: http://www.aquabotanic.com/lightcompare.htm
Lumen is a measure of flux, or how much light energy a light source emits (per unit time). The lumen measure does not include all the energy the source emits, but just the energy with wavelengths capable of affecting the human eye.

Lux is a measure of illumination, not flux. Flux refers to the light energy that leaves the source. Illumination refers to the light energy that reaches the receiving surface. Lux is equivalent to lumens/m2. Lux cannot be computed only from the know data of a light source. Additional information regarding the illumination geometry, reflectors, distances, intervening media (glass covers, water) must be taken into account.

PAR is the standard measure that quantifies the energy available for photosynthesis is "Photosynthetic Active/Available Radiation". Contrary to the lumen measure that takes into account the human eye response, PAR is an unweighted measure. It accounts with equal weight for all the output a light source emits in the wavelength range between 400 and 700 nm. PAR also differs from the lumen in the fact that it is not a direct measure of energy. It is expressed in "number of photons per second", whose relationship with "energy per second" (power) is intermediated by the spectral curve of the light source. One cannot be directly converted into the other without the spectral curve.

If you take the PAR measured with an average Photosynthesis Action Spectrum, thus generating a figure of merit akin to the lumen rating, but targeted towards plant use, not human use. The figure of merit thus created is usually called "Photosynthetic Usable Radiation" or PUR.

END QUOTE

What I don't like about PAR/PUR in general is that it was developed for PLANTS. We assume corals use the same light as plants but do they? I know from experimenting with same wattage "plant grow bulbs" (high PAR) compared to "Daylight" bulbs (lower PAR) the daylight did better. Based on this my personal opinion is that trying to use "plant" measurements ratings in bulbs leaves a lot to be desired.

Carlo
 
Carlo said:
...
What I don't like about PAR/PUR in general is that it was developed for PLANTS. We assume corals use the same light as plants but do they? I know from experimenting with same wattage "plant grow bulbs" (high PAR) compared to "Daylight" bulbs (lower PAR) the daylight did better. Based on this my personal opinion is that trying to use "plant" measurements ratings in bulbs leaves a lot to be desired.

Carlo

An excellent point about PAR/PUR.

Could you be more specific about the "plant grow bulbs"? Some that are more or less full spectrum bulbs would be ok, but other's like the original "grow lux" bulbs are just about worthless for growing anything.
 
A VERY interesting fact............ I have T5 on 1/2 my tank and Solaris on the other 1/2. The fish are OBVIOUSLY more fond of the Solaris. They will not even go to the other side of the tank unless I feed them over there! It is almost like they are scared of that side.
 
Carlo said:
That's pretty strange Jazz. Want to play with them? Switch the 2 lights around every couple of days. :)

Carlo

That would actually be a great test but the way I have the lights up on the tank it would take about 2 hours to move the around and a major pain because of lack of planning on my part.
 

Phyl

Officer Emeritus
Officer Emeritus
I was also wondering what would happen if you switched the lights. I know in our old tank the fish CLEARLY perferred on side of the tank over the other. They were always on the same side. With the bigger tank (and the pumps arranged differently, there seems to be less preference on the part of the fish for which side of the tank to hang out on.
 
Instead of going through the hassle of moving the lights I think I am going to just try to always feed on the T5 side and see if that makes any changes. I heard that fish will stay in the side of the tank they always get fed on but I am not sure if that is really true.
 
jazzsam said:
Instead of going through the hassle of moving the lights I think I am going to just try to always feed on the T5 side and see if that makes any changes. I heard that fish will stay in the side of the tank they always get fed on but I am not sure if that is really true.

I seriously doubt that is true in general case, unless you are feeding them continuously throughout the day, or the small amount of food are left at the same spot. It is definitively the component, but the location of the fish is completely species specific. Predator/prey relationships, source of food, preferred hiding places, preferred water flows, type of swimming, geometry of the tank and rocks will ALL contribute where fish will prefer to "hang out". Of course, it is quite possible that fish can learn certain clues and will congregate to the "feeding ground" when they detect some pattern in their environment which they will associate with the feeding. Mine did.

That being said, I would suggest that there might be more of the case that fish DISLIKED one of the parameters more then anything else and tried to stay away from that.

Switching the lights around would be the only real test.
 

Phyl

Officer Emeritus
Officer Emeritus
Isn't all of your rock under the solaris? It wouldn't surprise me that they wanted to be near the rock...
 
Phyl said:
Isn't all of your rock under the solaris? It wouldn't surprise me that they wanted to be near the rock...

If you look at the newest pics on my tank build you will see that I have added much more rock so it is balanced.
 
jazzsam said:
Phyl said:
Isn't all of your rock under the solaris? It wouldn't surprise me that they wanted to be near the rock...

If you look at the newest pics on my tank build you will see that I have added much more rock so it is balanced.
maybe they are more comfortable with the "old house" or the old rock is richer with the pods and algae which they are huntin' :)
 
Top