72 Solaris LED vs 250W MH / T5 Combo?

[oz]

In researching my new light fixture I am weighing the option of going with the Solaris I-5 72" LED system (vs. a 3x250W / T5 combo). I have concerns about the deadspots in the tank due to the lack of light spread from the LED clusters.

I can't find too many pictures but the cleanest I can find are below to compare. Anyone around Atlanta have the 72" Solaris on a tank?

First picture is of the new Soalris I-5 72" fixture on a tank then the same tank with MH/T5 combo. Due to the "tuning" ability of the LED, could you adjust the LED to look like the MH shot?

Due to the deadspots with the Solaris, I am leaning towards going back to a 3x250W / T5 combo. Looking at the Aquamedic Oceanlight MH/T5 combo or the Outer Orbit MH/T5 combo. The OO adds another set of actinics and moonlights but I would have retrofit a light deflection shield (that comes with the Aquamedic)

So thoughts on the "deadspots" with the LED system and thoughts on Aquamedic vs Outer Orbit? And is it just me or does the MH/T5 picture look better? (nevermind the cost difference!)

 

[mockery]

flying Army has a 30in talk to him

 

[oz]

Yeah, I sent Mark a PM earlier to see how his burn in is coming along. I wish there were more pictures online with the new Solaris I-5 72" fixture over a tank.

 

[george]

The LEDs will be bluer because the MH is producing a broader spectrum of the visible light range whereas the LEDs concentrate on the photosynthetic peaks.

However I can say from owning a G series, the pictures *always* make them look bluer than they are.

 

[crew]

another thing to consider is the dim on/off that you will get with the solaris.. I know you can do a dawn/dusk deal with the MH/t5 combo but it wont be quite like the LED's can produce with the fade on and off feature.. also think of the heat and electricity you will save..

 

[shromy]

all i can say is, i saw marks solaris on the ToT and all i have to saw is WOW. he had it on only 50% if i remember correctly, he turned it up to 100% just to show the difference. really just a remarkable light fixture. i would have to say the solaris if it is an option to you.

 

[johnr2604]

I havnt seen the 72 but all the solaris have the seperation between the banks and I have noticed no dead spots. You will also get more par out of the solaris than a 250 halide. I have sean this in person with a Par meter sitting next to a 400 and it was pretty equal and only pulling half the watts

 

[chris619]

For what its worth I struggled with the same deicision for my 120 and decided MH for color and beauty. Coral Bright 250+T5s

 

[oz]

I got an email from Patrick (PFO) about the "deadspots" and it boils down to 9". The lights merge 9" below the space in between the LED clusters. So as long as you have the fixture high enough (9" off the water) there shouldn't be any visible deadspots in the tank.

Problem is I don't have that much room in between the water and the flatscreen.

 

[oz]

Constellation is supposedly coming out with a new T5/LED fixture (like the expensive Sfiligoi prototype) That might be a great way to go 6+ months from now.

 

[xyzpdq0121]

I looked at both options. I even did some research with Cameron about a DIY LED fixture. Most of the LED fixtures that I have seen STILL user 3 watt LEDs instead of a 5 Watt. I said I would not consider one an option until they started to up the wattage. Most of the tests we did showed a bank of LEDs was about the same as a 250W Halide. You have to remember, that is at 100% output from the LEDs. So when you start to go with 75% output so you get a 14K color, you are limiting your PAR. So if you like full power then you HAVE to go with full white.

I am all about saving the planet and but the energy cost you save is paid up front because of the price of the fixture! So other then the "Cool" factor, you are not getting much out of it IMHO.

So I personally would wait for a few years for the price to come down and the technology to work out. It is not too different then when I came into the hobby. PC were about the best you could find 10 years ago. There were rumors of Halides but for a 175W fixture you were looking at about $2000 and the bulb selection was poor at best. It was not until the next few years that T-5s came into full production and Halides became affordable with more options.

 

[oz]

Hey Brandon. I believe you guys tested quite a while ago and the newer Solaris units [after July I think - manufactured here in the states vs China) are supposed to be closer to 400W equivalents at full power. I went with a Sunlight Supply Maristar 72" 3x250 / T5 combo.

I agree - 12-18 months from now there will be several LED choices which will cut the price in half.

 

[kwl1763]

ChrisOzment;239992 wrote: Hey Brandon. I believe you guys tested quite a while ago and the newer Solaris units [after July I think - manufactured here in the states vs China) are supposed to be closer to 400W equivalents at full power. I went with a Sunlight Supply Maristar 72" 3x250 / T5 combo.

I agree - 12-18 months from now there will be several LED choices which will cut the price in half.

You have to be careful with comparisons and the manufacturers should start stating PAR/PPFD values.

I mean a 175W 6500k Iwasaki would have more PAR then a 400W 20k crappy bulb. I not sure about the new ones. The original compared to a 250W 20k MH. It was on the lower end of 400W 20k PAR output so not a ringing endorsement but getting close.

I'm guessing (and that's all it is) that the new ones that they comare to a 400W MH in reality are a decent substitue for a 250W MH which means they should be able to be used for SPS on all but deep tanks (30" or more). I would expect within 2 years there will be several manufacturers with really viable options out there at costs less then double a MH and that will be made up in energy costs and bulb savings pretty quickly.

 

[oz]

agreed - if they are going to ask for so much $, they need to have a side by side chart comparison to a variety of 150, 250, and 400 bulbs.

 

[george]

Some thoughts from a Solaris owner (and fan of LEDs):

Unless, like me, you can make a compelling argument for the energy savings paying off the light quickly, I'd wait. Mine was on an upstairs tank and the AC was going nuts and it was still uncomfortable. The light paid for itself in less than a year.

However, you're locking yourself into a fixture that has a target lifetime of 7-10 years. That's 7-10 years of inovation you'll have to pass on or consider prematurely jettisoning your fixture. MH and T5 don't really change and you can swap out bulbs, balasts, etc anually to keep up with the latest.

On the subject of comparisons, be extra careful comparing PAR. There's the PAR spectrum which the meters read and the PAR spectrum the corals care about. The latter is the one LED fixtures tune to. Even at lower PAR readings, unless they're wildly lower, I guarantee you that the LED fixtures can do as much and sometimes more.

Yes, the tank will look more dimly lit to your eyes, less so if you're already used to 20K lights.

It will make for a spectacular display (the weather and sunrise/sunset effects are sweet and add a whole new dimension to your display), but it's a long-term commitment and as people mentioned, there is a lot of inovation in the area and performance boosts coming down the pike, unlike MH and T5.

 

[meledward23]

I have a small thought. My main past time is horticulture and a principle in horticulture may be applicable here.

Being LED's that do not generate teh heat that metal halide does, a polycarbonae panel below the fixture above the tank may help reduce deadspots.

In a green house, part of the advatnage to polycarbonate panels is they cause light to refract and disperse more evenly throughout the house no matter the origin of the direct sunlight. It does reduce the transmission of light to a small degree depending on many factors, but it does increase overall performance due to increase lighting on all surfaces.

Just a thought, may or may not be applicable. Personally I would try and get a small sample 2'x2' and test it on part of the tank.

Just throwing a thought out there, I am in now ways a reef or artificial lighting professional.

Note, the panels I am talking about are not like the acrylic panels you make a tank out of.

 

[cooper]

Chris:

I bought a 48 inch Solaris about a month ago to replace MHs. Several thoughts/observations: First, the fact that my chiller no longer runs **** near constantly makes this light worth every penny that I paid for it, and I am sure that next summer, when my air conditioner can actually make a difference again, it will be all the more valuable. With respect to the light, there are some dead areas at the very top of the tank because the LEDs direct the light so directly downward; however, this exists only in about the top 5 inches of the tank. The remainder of the tank is well lighted. I am looking at hanging the light from the old canopy so that it is higher. Another reason that I want to put the canopy back is so that I can run my VHOs again. There is some difference in the light quality now as opposed to when my MHs and VHOs were in use. Not enough to cause my any concern, but I believe once I run the VHOs with the Solaris, it will look great! I plan on timing the VHOs to go off before the Solaris begins its sunset feature. That is another great part of this light. The sunrise, sunset, fully programmable lighting is fantastic. The change in lighting is gradual, and the fish really prefer that to the on/off of my previous lighting system.

 

[george]

ares;240190 wrote: if you do try and claim that it will pay for itself, your often breaking even past where the light will fail in the enviroment we put it in with the units available.

Not at all true, really. The true break-even point is a fairly broad range as it depends greatly on the tank temp, the room temp, the AC setting, household humidity levels, seasons, and what kind of lights you were going to use otherwise.

However most people who argue that it's pretty far off leave out the effects of heat on evaporation in the tank which causes your household AC to work harder costing you more money. The reduced humidity also translates to less moisture getting into the electronics they way people typically assume they will with other lighting types. The further south you live in this country (in general), the sooner these fixtures pay for themselves. Even a conservative estimate in the Georgia area barely incorporating the secondary effects would be 3 years max to pay off the light. Far, far sooner than the light failure point.

The argument against (leaving out the eternal PAR/intensity back-and-forth) is the initial buy-in which means you sacrifice a lot if you do change your mind fairly soon and the fact that there is still so much more innovation coming that you'll be likely faced with significant advances from year to year with that same pricey buy-in.