LED Lighting

[sprayin70]

Thanks looks great!

 

[cgill311]

Cameron wrote: This isn't correct either. M made a semi-good point with albiet poor wording. Light gets filtered out the less focused it is as it passes through water. One of the reasons MQ is such a good light is that it is highly directional with the reflectors. The glimmer effect on the surface focuses the light and causes narrower beams to "punch" more energy further down into the tank.

We're all thinking in the same general direction, but I thought I'd try to better explain "glimmer". I took this quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_aquarium">wikipedia</a>:

[I]... metal halide lamps produce light from a single "point source" and thus produce flickering "glimmer lines" on the aquarium floor, an effect prized by aquarists. </em>

Just like the sun and moon, metal halides can be considered point sources of light. This light can be focused and defocused using lenses. (Remember high school physics or burning ants with a magnifying glass?) Well, as light passes from the air into water, it is refracted and can be be focused or defocused by the surface agitation, producing the glimmer lines. (see crude diagram) Reflectors only serve to redirect light back into the tank. You would see glimmer lines with or without a reflector using a MH bulb.

The reason glimmer lines are not seen under PC or T5 lighting is because they are not point sources of light. They emit light in all directions at every point along the bulb. Refraction still occurs in these cases, but the because the light enters the water from various directions, all the focusing and defocussing cancels itself and averages out to a constant light intensity.

I would expect to see glimmer lines under banks of LEDs. However, I suspect they would never be as intense as seen under metal halide lighting due to the increased number of point sources of light.

[QUOTE=][B]Cameron wrote:[/B] This focusing effect actually does yield more usable energy (PAR, PUR) for a fraction of a second to the coral. Granted it is the same light energy at the start, but the end result is more energy to the coral.[/QUOTE]

Yes, it is more energy to the coral for a brief moment. However, taken as an average over time, I would disagree corals "see" more light energy per day/month/year due to glimmer. I would agree though that glimmer gives better depth penetration, allowing photosynthetic corals to survive in deeper water.
<fieldset class="gc-fieldset">
<legend> Attached files </legend> [IMG]http://atlantareefclub.org/boards/data/uploads/attachments/16944=1165-Glimmer.JPG_Thumbnail1.jpg>

class="gc-images" title="Glimmer.JPG_Thumbnail1.jpg[/IMG] style="max-width:300px" /></a> </fieldset>

 

[cameron]

CGill311 wrote: Yes, it is more energy to the coral for a brief moment. However, taken as an average over time, I would disagree corals "see" more light energy per day/month/year due to glimmer. I would agree though that glimmer gives better depth penetration, allowing photosynthetic corals to survive in deeper water.

Straight from Borneman's book Aquarium Corals and I do consider him an expert on the matter:

There is some research that suggests that the periodic amplication of light energy by the glitter lines is important in maintaining the health of light-demanding corals, as it servers to "punch" light deep into the coral tissue containing the zooxanthelllae. The flashes typically amplify light energy by approximately 200% from 1-4 times per second for about 0.1 of that second. Therefore, for up to one half of each second, corals receive greatly amplified light energy.

Now you can disagree with the "some research" part, but my experiments with a lense and ants concludes me to believe that there is truth in his statements and more light from 10-40% of the time does get to the coral which assuming the coral isn't already at its light saturation point is better. Another thread in here where a lot of people believe more light is just better. Also earlier in the same paragraph those light bursts have been measured up to 15x. That is a lot of light.

Back on subject, does the PFO have glitter lines or do the LEDs difuse the light similar to fluorescent?

Also, sorry about the 3500 as it can be had for under 3000 in certain places. My original point stands that at some point it is cheaper then MH which brings us into agreement.

 

[cgill311]

I think we're all saying the same thing regarding glimmer.

Back to LED lighting, who are the competitors with Solaris? Since competition benefits the consumer, I hope there's a few.

Any ideas when initial costs for these units will drop by about 50%?

 

[wbholwell]

Does Solais have any plans to develop a light bank without the electronic control? Yes, that's probably the coolest thing about this light, but I'm sure it adds considerably to the final cost.

 

[xyzpdq0121]

Ya I am fixing to be a competitor on this... Worked on the cost write up this weekend. I am meeting with some people that I know over at GTech that are going to take a look at the microcontrollers that would need to be done to reproduce the effects of the Solaris. Right now, I think I can reproduce that 48" lamp for about $300 without the microcontrollers. Granted it would not be in a nice pretty hood. If I can get away for under $400-$500 I am going to build one soon to test it out.

P.S. I am getting ready to accept investors for the marketplace.

 

[wbholwell]

Xyzpdq0121 wrote: Ya I am fixing to be a competitor on this... Worked on the cost write up this weekend. I am meeting with some people that I know over at GTech that are going to take a look at the microcontrollers that would need to be done to reproduce the effects of the Solaris. Right now, I think I can reproduce that 48" lamp for about $300 without the microcontrollers. Granted it would not be in a nice pretty hood. If I can get away for under $400-$500 I am going to build one soon to test it out.

P.S. I am getting ready to accept investors for the marketplace.

I love that e<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><span style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="font-size: 12px;">ntrepreneurial spirit! Keep us posted on how it goes! :up: </span></span></span>

 

[wbholwell]

Amphibious wrote: Ooops, I mean't without the electronic control. Sorry.

Why don't we have the ability to edit our posts???

Because it helps keep our egos in check!

 

[vettesarebest]

Amphibious wrote: Ooops, I mean't without the electronic control. Sorry.

Why don't we have the ability to edit our posts???

We do have the ability to edit our posts.

 

[cameron]

I am not going to do the business thing with this, but I did order 8 K2 stars, star reflectors and a 60W LED ballast from

 

[curious rash]

If my caculations are correct the price will drop by 50% 1-2 weeks after i buy one

 

[cameron]

Now that is some good math.