I'm not being negative just realistic. The first picture provided has no SPS corals or high light corals that I can see. It also looks like a new setup so it doesn't show sustainability. It also has 400 LEDS!!! How many watts does one LED use, isn't it 3W? Cause that's 1200Ws! Sorry but that's just ridiculous. The second tank has obvious flaws, it clearly looks like a different light is used in the second pic and the tank looks a little shallow. A link to the source would be helpful.

LEDs obviously work but my point is they don't replace halides or T5s, they do work well as a replacement for lower light requirements.

I've read the article provided before, in fact it's where some of my problems with LEDs are from. The spread of the LED fixture is very small in comparison to the halide and you're already at 70% less output at the surface. The article clearly states the need to place high light corals directly below the light. Plus it provides no information about light levels at different water depths. Can it provide enough light for clams at 24" depths? Hard to tell when they only measured up to 9" and didn't actually provide the numbers. Realistically you'll need more LEDs than the manufacture provides and you can't fit enough LEDs over a tank to actually match halides. Then the LEDs don't have the power to to penetrate enough light to the bottom of deeper tanks.

I'm also not saying plasma is best either but the ballasts can be remote just like halides and the bulbs are small but in all fairness LEDs have been around a very long time, new to aquariums but old technology, plasma is quite new in lighting technology all around. The only plasma light available right now is pretty nasty which is why time is still needed just like LEDs. The difference is plasma has the intensity whiles LEDs just don't. You can make more than one color with plasma so time will develop better spectrum bulbs if the technology fits the requirements of the hobby.

I guess whether LEDs work or not is different subject and I apologize for taking away from this thread.

On the subject of patents though I really don't think the patent in question is going to prevent retrofits and other types of LED fixtures from entering the market if someone is brave enough to invest in the manufacturing of a product that costs 10x the price of the proven alternative. This all seems like a bunch of hype caused by what happened to PFO which in all fairness is a result of poor execution on their part.

http://www.rapidled.com/servlet/the-...its/Categories

found this scrolling through RC. didn't seem to bad

48 LEDS for $525 and for a 5' tank I'll need what, 200??

Yea i can see your point. I guess its more directed for people with smaller tanks who don't want to order things from various suppliers. Other than a heat-sink

There appears to be some misinformation here regrding the LEDS and what they can and cannot do in your tank.

The main thing I see here is that no one is mentioning the use of Optics which increase the effectiveness of the LEDS and essentially make them useable for marine tanks, particularily the deeper ones.

There are a lot of good articles on Nano-reef and RC regarding the Cree 3w leds, and the optics required.

One of the most recent to come out is information on the PAR Plots of the PAR38 lamps sold by nanocustoms where not only depth of tank was taken into consideration, but also the optics.
http://www.nano-reef.com/forums/inde...pic=221433&hl=

For a deeper tank, of 31" 40 degree optics would be necessary to ensure usuable par reaches the sand bed. Even when making a LED array. Therefore in a deeper tank, you will need to use more LEDS to cover the same area available in a shorter tank with 60 degree optics.
Obviously though, you with currently with LEDS you will be unable to keep SPS on the bottom of the tank, but placement from top to middle with good growth and color is achievable.

24 led array info in 5'x2'x2' tank
http://www.nano-reef.com/forums/inde...&#entry2667131

47g Column 32 led 40 degree optic array
http://www.nano-reef.com/forums/inde...&#entry2667635

The Ultimate LED Guide by EvilC66
http://www.nano-reef.com/forums/inde...owtopic=186982

Coral Growth with LEDS
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/sh...highlight=LEDs



Now to get back to the topic of patents. While it really sucks that Orbitec patented the use of LEDS with a controller, such as the Solaris, we have to remember that this great world of ours revolves around one thing. Money.

It is PFO's fault they didn't check for a patent before marketing their product. Plain and simple. But honestly, the patent is not what is keeping lighting companies from developing more LED lighting.

AquaIllumination has developed controller based lighting and are more than likely paying royalties to Orbitec.
http://www.aquaillumination.com/?page_id=38

Marineland has come out with it's own LED lighting now, although far inferior. IMO best used for freshwater applications.
http://www.petsolutions.com/Marinela...432990+C1.aspx

Additionally, AquaIlluminations lighting is licensed under Orbitec's U.S. Patent Nos. 7,200,018 B2 and 7,473,008 B2.
http://glassbox-design.com/2009/aqua-illumination-led/

It is within my opinion, that the U.S. Patent office needs to change how they do things. I think it is fine if someone wishes to Patent something, however, they should be required to create the product for use within the patent within a 5 year period.
Specifics to the actual application of the product should also start to be noted within a Patent.
Orbitecs wants to use their LED lighting for sustainablility of marine life.
This is too broad an application and they should be made to specify whether this for space application, home aquarium application or industrial aquaculture applications.
As such, they would have 5 years to develop their lighting system around each of those applications for sale on the market.
Failure to do so would then allow another company to step in to create such a product thus creating a more competative market for products and keeping large companies from owning patents on items they have no intention of creating for consumer use.

actualy they can and have less frop off through the water colume. people switching from MH to a good LED set up are finding they have to dim there lights to between 40 and 50% and slowly increase them over a couple weeks to prevent bleaching. quite a few get to about 75-85% and leave them there as they are getting better growth and color than they did with there old MH or T5s.


MH have a drop off of 20-30% in intensity and they also have a color shift after 1 year aprox. thats why it is recomended to change them yearly.
LEDs are rated for 11.4 years at 12 hours a day and at that time they will have a 30% drop off in intensity and no color shift. so you can guess what you like but just shows you haven't read about them or bothered to look up the specs.

I don't know.. I always wished I could do a gradual ramp up in the morning over say 2 hours for my sun rise instead of the 2 stage sun (actinics then MH :mrgreen:) then the reverse for night time..

Steve

You are prity much right except LED's them selves are patenented that is why there is a difference in the light given off by different manufactures. You can do a exsparament with incondesent light bulbs each manufacturer has a different way of producing the same amount of luminas you can take a can and punch holes in it and put it over a bulb the light that shows up on the celing through the holes is from the tungstine carbide filament each manufacturers filiment should give off a different patern. I saw this a exibit some where I believe it was in Edmonton science world or some thing like that now it's called some thing else. The holes had to be the right size to let enough light through but not to much this is how you get to see the patern from the filaments.

Solaris has trade marked thier name and patenented their product.

Bill

All talk my friend, I'd love to meet these people.

Has anyone tested these claims, I've read them but I don't buy it. All LED lamps used in residential applications are rated for around 10 years, so how can they last as long in aquarium applications. If they did wouldn't they last longer in other applications? Part of the reason our aquarium lamps don't last as long is due to the conditions they are used in, was this considered?

StirCrazy...weren't you pushing mh lighting HARD still only a few months ago? From what I gather you're now pushing LED even harder and haven't actually run a tank with them for any period of time? You have every right to your opinion I was just curious...

I'm certainly one to read till my eyes are sore...but so much about LEDs seems to be specualtion as I see it. If these bulbs last forever like the claims why did the Solaris have them burning out on people etc?

Good discussion even though it diverts a bit from the main topic. So let's keep discussing but also post any prior art you can find along the way:smile:


Yes, user evilc66 at nano-reef.com is a bit of an LED lighting guru and has built and tested countless systems including testing PAR. He is the one that found that the drop off in intensity was greater with MH than LED. I don't have the exact link at the moment but you can see a lot of LED info at nano-reef if you try.

As for whether they produce enough intensity or not, just look at the numbers. A really efficient MH can put out up to 115 lumens/watt. Good LEDs are now well over 130 lumens/watt and Cree just announced that their prototype emitters have hit 200 lumens/watt. So which one has more intensity? For longevity, LEDs are affected more by heat than anything else. Run them to warm and they will degrade faster. Cool them properly with a good heatsink and a couple of fans and they will last the rated time which is approximately 50,000 hours. We would have to see how the 10 year household rating is calculated. Also, most household LED replacement bulbs or fixtures that I have seen have minimal thermal management. So they probably run at higher temps and degrade faster.

Goes back to thermal management. The one Solaris unit I saw dismantled had only aluminum I beams for heatsinks and I don't remember them having good airflow over those. This was probably woefully inadequate and led to overheating of the emitters and burn outs. They also had problems with the power supplies they were using (modified PC power supplies) so I suspect a good portion of the problems were actually burned out power supplies rather thean burned out emitters.

I still puch MH over t5s, ect.. but I have been exparamenting with LEDs and reasearching it a lot over the last couple years. well started playing with them on tanks in 2002/2003. the reason I am going so hard and building some myself now is I retired and moved and downgraded.. so I will be running at 30 gal tank with a 30 gal sump. I was planing on setting up a 250 gal tank but the house we bought can't support a tank that big soooo... anyways. I still want the tank to be a very high light SPS tank with massave amount of water flow, but heat is going to be a killer as to get the light I want I have to put two 250 watt HQI over a tank that has a surface area that is 12" X 30" so I would be looking at a 1/4hp chiller just to handle the heat from the lights. now the tank is 17" deep with 40 degree optics I calculated I will be pushing about the same PAR or a little higher than I would with the MH, but I will get non of the heat radiation to the water, the top of the tank will be cleaner, and if I don't like the color of the light.. I don't have to wait a year till I buy new bulbs, I just adjust it.

So to put it plainly I don't nessasarly push MH, I push what is best for the situation. now for some one who doesn't want to build there own light or spend the initial setup costs, I will still recomend MH with T5 for suplmental color. in the last 10 years I think I have spent clost to 13K on different lights.. and I don't think thee is somthing out there I haven't tried but this was because 10-12 years ago there was no info on lighting.. VHO was the standard, PCs and MH new. and a lot of people still using HO, T8s and no T12s.
my first setup was two 96 watt PC (10K) and two phillips 03 photocopyer tubes overdriven at 3X the normal current. it only got crazy from there on:mrgreen:

Steve

Well regardless of how effective these are in practice I am very interested to see what you guys can do with them. I'm always one to go with what is tried, tested and true only because I can't afford to experiment. To be honest the LED craze doesn't really interest me all that much for my own tanks but that doesn't mean I won't be watching closely just in case.

Ya, IIRC, PFO had more power supply issues then burnt out LEDS. But, these high power LEDS NEED cooling. Just cause they don;t heat your tank up, doesn't mean they don;t make alot of heat.

they make a fraction of the heat a MH or T5 do because of the efficiency of the LED chip its self, so a very small amount of the power supplied is turned into heat. the cooling they need is for the actual die of the LED chip, if it gets to hot it decreases the life of the chip. if you keep it cool the chip is happy. so they are mounted to a heat sink, with a couple fans blowing air into the fins of the heatsink. so yes there is a small amount of heat produced, but it is put into the room the tank is in instead of the tank.

Steve

Guess I should have specified, Alot of heat for their size. yes, it's not as much as MH or T5, but heat still kills LED's

Another maker coming to the US market. Just read on Glassbox

http://glassbox-design.com/2010/tmc-...quarium-light/

The reviews on the TMC fixtures aren't great. They may also be paying Orbitec a royalty on US sales.

I also came accross this which shows some side by side pics of 2 months of coral growth under LEDs (post #9). Looks alright to me :smile:

http://www.nano-reef.com/forums/inde...owtopic=220198