LED lighting

[Bees]

Well yes, I did choose the Finnex Ray2 for its emission specs.  But it is worth it to set expectations regarding hardware.  I have oddball dimensions on this tank (39Wx16Lx19H) and I'm looking forward to see if I can get some carpeting going with the Ray2.  I may require a second unit, we'll see.

I ended up picking up some Lexan at Lowe's and siliconed together a little bridge.  Adequate for now.  Prior to that I used a couple of clip-on, bendable lights to support it.  The Ray2 is extremely light, probably only 1lb, and gets barely warm to the touch.

Incidentally, the Ray2 (36" model) was $123 on Amazon with free shipping.  Took 3 weeks because they were out of stock, but that's fine.

[exv152]

On the topic of LEDs for planted tanks....Finnex is currently developing new LED fixtures to address some of the planted tank concerns. They're coming out with a fixture that has more PAR than the ray2, has a timer, dimmer, full sunrise sunset and night light functions, as well as a hanging kit. Apparently the new PAR readings are 20-25% higher. But it'll be another six months min before they hit the market.

[zolta]

I recently purchased two Finnex led strips.  One is the ray 2 DS the other fugeray planted +.  Both 36".  They are being used on my 24" high plated tank.  So far the results are excellent, there is far more growth than with my DIY t8 hood I created, and with the planted + the red wave length makes the tank look far nicer.  I purchased the strips through amazon.ca, substantial savings over the Canadian distributor.

[angelcraze]

......... I... will continue to replace lights with LEDs, and for deep tanks, metal halides supplemented with LEDS.

As you can see, there are many LED fixtures to date that can provide enough PAR even for deep tanks, you might need to employ more than one fixture, especially if the tank is wide front to back, but the use of MH is so outdated, not necessary and a total waste of energy, something we should be aware of these days.  From researching and seeing for myself, brands like BML and Finnex seem to take the lead, Finnex for value.  You might find BML to be even more effective than MH.  Even for deep tanks.

[wolfiewill]

I found an article that tries to address the issue of power vs quantity of available light. Go down the page about half way, to the comparison chart entitled "Aquarium LED Comparison". The author states that the values and information in the chart comes from the manufacturers'. Notice the top row indicating 'Power Consumption Per Unit Carbon Foot Print'. The TMC Growbeam is lower and still provides comparable PAR. Also notice the cost to operate per year/per 5 years. Perhaps we're being fooled when we assume if the light is an LED that the will be a cost saving over HOT5 and MH?

Too bad Finnex aren't included. I saw zolta's tank this week and was really impressed with the colour and health of his plants under the Finnex lights.

http://aquarium-digest.com/

[zolta]

Thanks for posting this Greg,

The one thing about the TMC's is their grobeam like many of the other LED's are high in the 400-450nm range which is blue, which of course if good for all growing things in the tank, including algae.  However I have read that lights in the 650 nm range which is red is really good for plants but not so good for algae.  The Planted Tank posted a review of LED's a while ago, (link below), in it there is a brief discussion of the various light wavelengths and what they do. 

As for cost savings per year for power consumption, even if yearly operation cost is similar to HO fluorescents or t-8's as was my case the fact, for me anyway, is I do not have to replace the bulbs too frequently which is where I see the cost savings with LED's.

http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/showthread.php?t=160396

[angelcraze]

Greg, I don't understand?  Sorry, do you mean MH uses the same amount of electricity as let's say EcoTech or Evergrow?  Or were you referring to TMC?  As for comparable PAR, I don't know how they would diminish penetrating through a certain water depth.  TMC's PAR might (idk) be far less than Kessil's at 18" in depth.  It has to do with LED intensity and quality, beam angle, ect.  To be honest, I cannot compare the results of using LEDs vs. MH, I have never used MH, but I will say that at 140w per unit footprint is an insane amount of light in reference to LEDs, and imo, would have a better purpose for saltwater/reef.  Thank you for the article though, I hadn't seen that one yet.  Maybe I missing something completely?

[exv152]

The one thing about the TMC's is their grobeam like many of the other LED's are high in the 400-450nm range which is blue, which of course if good for all growing things in the tank, including algae.  However I have read that lights in the 650 nm range which is red is really good for plants but not so good for algae.  The Planted Tank posted a review of LED's a while ago, (link below), in it there is a brief discussion of the various light wavelengths and what they do. 

As for cost savings per year for power consumption, even if yearly operation cost is similar to HO fluorescents or t-8's as was my case the fact, for me anyway, is I do not have to replace the bulbs too frequently which is where I see the cost savings with LED's.

I've got the TMC grobeam 1500 ultima ~ natural daylight, and love it. The PAR rating is high for a tank in the 16-21" depth range (148 at 40cm), which is why I chose it. This is one of their newer models, not listed in the LED compendium. For me the major bonus is the fact that they use about a third of the wattage compared to a similar  intensity T5HO fixture, plus the fact that they're designed to last up to 50,000 hours (like 17 years at 8 hours a day) without having to replace any bulbs is a major bonus.

[wolfiewill]

Greg, I don't understand?  Sorry, do you mean MH uses the same amount of electricity as let's say EcoTech or Evergrow?  Or were you referring to TMC?  

Sorry for not getting back to respond 'till now. The issue I was trying to illustrate was that if we compare the different LED brands, TMC v Maxspect v Ecotech etc, with respect to 'Power consumption per unit Carbon foot print' and PAR (the first and second row of the chart) it appears that there is a high degree of variability between the group in the chart with respect to the amount of wattage consumed by the light, but not with respect to the PAR readings. This suggests that the TMC is the least costly to operate yet has a comparable quantity of light available for plant growth compared to the others (PAR). It also suggests that despite the brightness numbers of some of the brands (the lower number in the second row with the 'lm' or lumens units), they don't provide anymore light for plant growth (PAR) than does the TMC AquaRay.

As for comparable PAR, I don't know how they would diminish penetrating through a certain water depth.  TMC's PAR might (idk) be far less than Kessil's at 18" in depth.

There is a forum post that has attempted to gather all of the available PAR values for as many LED lights as possible - http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/showthread.php?t=160396 - and in it Kessil and the TMC 1500 are listed as are several of the others referred to in the above article. It is interesting to note that the numbers generally come from the manufacturers themselves and the only manufacturer to provide numbers which simulate an aquarium (light traveling through air and water) are the TMCs. All of the rest provide numbers at a distance away from the light source through air only. And the values for the TMC lights are still compare favourably to the others. I have a spread sheet with only the relevant numbers from this post if anyone wishes to see it (however since it's in QuatroPro, so y'all will have to come into Got Fish to see it 'cause I know none of you still use QuatroPro, eh). The point being that the TMC manufacturer has got it right, and they address concerns about loss in the water column that the others don't address, and they still come out as good or better than the others for planted tanks at 7 inches of air above the water surface and to depths of 25 inches of water.

Maybe I missing something completely?

And, hey, we're all feeling the same way in this regard. There is soooooo muuuuch information out there that no one can find and consume it all. And, we've got to help each other out in this area. There is too much BS coming from the light suppliers and it's hard to be sure who to believe, or where to look for quality information.

[zolta]

Greg,

Have you measured the TMC with your light meter?  I would be curious to know what your readings are for the TMC and compare them to the reading we got when you measured the Finnex on my tank.

[az]

we have led strips that we would like some of you to try on your planted tanks for few weeks and tell us how they did, available in all white and white/green, lmk if anyone want to test it and tell us how it did compared to what you have right now. thx.

[exv152]

Greg,

Have you measured the TMC with your light meter?  I would be curious to know what your readings are for the TMC and compare them to the reading we got when you measured the Finnex on my tank.

Using a lux meter is not exactly reflective of what the plants need, in fact it's only a measurement of what the human eye perceives (as it's a unit of lumens in a sq meter). You'll notice that some plants respond better to a lower lux fixture, and this is because lux is not an important reading in terms of photosynthesis, compared to PAR. I've had this happen with glossostigma. I tried growing it with strong 4x  T5HO bulbs, and tried growing it with the TMC fixture, and the colour and compact growth was better with the LEDs, even though the lux was lower on the TMC fixture. I measured the lux on my TMC 1500 ultima (ND) and recorded the readings at home, I can post it later tonight.

[wolfiewill]

Greg,

Have you measured the TMC with your light meter?  I would be curious to know what your readings are for the TMC and compare them to the reading we got when you measured the Finnex on my tank.

Ok, so I tested at one spot in my 25 g tank directly below a pair of TMC Grobeam 600 Ultima and I got an average of three consecutive readings of 3080 lx. That is below 2" of air, and 12 inches of water (and a few Silvinia floating by occasionally). What were the readings I got in yours? I vaguely remember them being in the 4000 range?

[wolfiewill]

we have led strips that we would like some of you to try on your planted tanks for few weeks and tell us how they did, available in all white and white/green, lmk if anyone want to test it and tell us how it did compared to what you have right now. thx.

az, I'll take you up on that. I would like to see them operating first. Do you have a planted tank using them now in operation? And when and where do I pick them up?

[zolta]

Ok, so I tested at one spot in my 25 g tank directly below a pair of TMC Grobeam 600 Ultima and I got an average of three consecutive readings of 3080 lx. That is below 2" of air, and 12 inches of water (and a few Silvinia floating by occasionally). What were the readings I got in yours? I vaguely remember them being in the 4000 range?

No, not that high.  With both strips on the reading averaged out to 2520 LUX.  This with about 3 inches of air space and about 22 inches of water.  With just the ray 2 on the reading was 2050, and with just the Planted+ on the reading was 1450.

When you took a reading roughly halfway from the top of the water level the reading was 3600.  It is difficult to compare due to the different heights of tank etc.  However it is interesting.  It is  interesting how the planted + strip is almost half that of the Ray2 .  The red spectrum that it provides clearly is not that bright.

[az]

az, I'll take you up on that. I would like to see them operating first. Do you have a planted tank using them now in operation? And when and where do I pick them up?

come by the store bet 1 and 6 today, what length is your planted tank?

[exv152]

Ok, so I tested at one spot in my 25 g tank directly below a pair of TMC Grobeam 600 Ultima and I got an average of three consecutive readings of 3080 lx. That is below 2" of air, and 12 inches of water (and a few Silvinia floating by occasionally). What were the readings I got in yours? I vaguely remember them being in the 4000 range?

I think I got similar readings with the TMC 1500, which would make sense since the 1500 has ten cree diodes, just like two 600's, just in a slightly different configuration. Greg, you're welcome to try your lux meter on my fixture. I'm fairly certain your meter is better than mine.

[wolfiewill]

come by the store bet 1 and 6 today, what length is your planted tank?

Today's not good. How about tomorrow? I'd put it on a 24" long tank with 11" of water depth to the substrate.