|
Post by Carl on May 24, 2017 9:31:30 GMT -5
I have updated my most popular article; "Aquarium Lighting" Here is an excerpt from this article: "In the end, we can prove our LED efficiency by comparing PAR at the same depth (15" of air is the standard). Using LED fixtures of similar lens angles (120/unlensed to 120, 90 to 90, etc.). Take the input wattage and divide it by the PAR reading. You will find efficiencies as high as .08 watt of input energy per point of PAR in the AAP Reef White NP 2000 LED to as low as 2.7 watt per point of PAR in the Beamswork EA Timer FSPEC LED. Most of the better LEDs are under .30 watt with most falling in the .4 to .50 watt range such as the SB Reef Light"americanaquariumproducts.com/Aquarium_Lighting.htmlCarl
|
|
|
Post by Carl on Aug 5, 2018 11:26:46 GMT -5
I have further updated the "Aquarium Lighting" article, still one of most read articles at AAP, and is based on decades of experience and research. Here is an excerpt from the Overview section: "Now we generally will start with the the PAR for what we intend to utilize our lights for (although many will often use higher PAR readings than necessary). Even then with the many LEDs available, we need to look at input energy versus output energy since often the same input in watts (joules of energy) can have a different output in PAR due to wasted heat energy in drivers, controllers, fans, etc. In fact these efficiencies just within LED light can vary greatly with some as efficient as .08 watt per mm of PAR (one model of AAP AquaRay) & as inefficient as 2.7 watt per mm of PAR (a Beamsworks LED). Then we get to the QUALITY of the light output as per the application & this too can vary, even with the same PAR output (photons of light), meaning one light with the same PAR reading can be superior over another.
There are other factors I will cover in this article affecting lighting for your aquarium. For example: You cannot compare the output of a 150 watt Metal Halide to a 150 watt outdoor floodlight. Nor an 85 watt standard incandescent to an 85 Watt 6400 K SHO Bulb. What I am trying to say is often it comes down to comparing apples to oranges.
If you are TRULY interested in the "BEST AQUARIUM LIGHTING", especially for your reef or planted aquarium, Please read this ENTIRE article to understand ALL parameters necessary for your aquarium light determination.
Products described in this article are primarily used because I & other professionals I trust have many years of real world experience with them. No one should come away with a feeling of obligation to purchase these products, rather a greater understanding of aquarium lighting & their applications. This said, I do not try to appeal to the "cool kids club" of lighting too. My recommendations are based on my experience & research, not being bought out. Many of today's modern lights will work on your planted or reef tank, but often you will find at much lower efficiencies, even though capable. So if you are looking for the best best on science & experience, please read on, if you want to be popular just go with what popular forums recommend. "Carl
|
|
|
Post by Carl on Aug 30, 2018 9:15:15 GMT -5
More from my update of "Aquarium Lighting; Facts & Information"Here is an excerpt from the section on "WATTS" "SECTION 8: WATTS:
Watts equal one joule of energy per second. For us, it's a measurement of how much energy our light fixture is using NOT of light output! This is why the old rule: "3-5 watts per gallon" can be deceiving, and this rule is only a starting point at best of late. This archaic rule was more accurate when all that was used were T12 lamps which is what this rule is based on. Keeping this in mind the average T12 has a lumens per watt rating of 40, which means you would need half as many watts of a bulb that produces 80 lumens per watt (assuming PUR & other aspects are equal).
The term "watts per gallon" is getting more archaic with the newer T-5, CFL, the SHO, & especially the new reef compatible LED lights. Even within LED Lights, one 30 watt LED is not equal to another 30 watt LED. An example, you cannot compare a 30 Watt AAP/TMC Reef White to a 130 watt EcoTech Radion. However if you were to use an equal wattage of the TMC Ocean Blue or Reef White, you would have more actual useful light energy (PUR) with these per watt of energy used (input energy) than the EcoTech (this is not to say the EcoTech Radion isn't reef capable LED). More importantly, when you measure input wattage per output of mmol of PAR (which both are easily measurable), you can quickly discern that the Reef White is considerably more efficient. Please read the FULL article to understand why I made this statement.
Expanding a bit more, wattage input of lights versus PAR/PUR output is where the actual watts used when comparing one light to another is simply not at all accurate. Keep in mind that PUR has nothing to do with input wattage, and PAR can vary due to light efficiency such fan use (fans waste input energy/watts), lenses, re-strike (in fluorescent lights in particular), and circuitry (such as daisy chaining of emitters common to many discount LEDs). An example; the Fluval, Finnex & Current Satellite are all discount LEDs that daisy chain their plethora of low quality/output emitters versus LEDs such as th Aqua Illuminations HD, EcoTech, or AAP AquaRay which use advanced circuitry/drivers with a lower number of HO quality emitters. The result is a much higher PAR output per wattage input. An example would be the Fluval Fresh & Plant 2.0 A3990 which uses 32 watts of input energy with a PAR output about 70 mmol at 400mm. This is .45 watt of input energy per mm of PAR compared to an AquRay NP 2000 at only .08 watt of input energy per point of PAR."Carl
|
|