LED lights

[Bugsy]

Anyone here have the new LED lights on their tanks??

I have been reading about these lights, the so called replacement oneday for MH. Just curious if anyone has them and what your opinion is using them on a reef tank.

[Ron99]

I have some on my Pico and they are great. I have a few last parts in the mail right now and then I am starting in on building a 48" LED fixture for my 75 gallon. LEDs give you control over your lighting spectrum, excellent PAR and possibly even better penetration than MH with less energy consumption and less heat to deal with.

[Bugsy]

I have a pico as well, may i ask how many gal is your pico??

which fixture do you have??

is it the 18"??

What corals do you keep in this pico??

Do you have a picture of your tank?

I have rics, zoas gsp and anthelia and I currently have the 9" coralife 18 watt pc on this tank. I was looking at getting a new fixture the 12" coralife 36 watt pc but then these lights have been recommended by some and other say they are not strong enough for saltwater tanks with corals.

[LeeR]

im thinking about ordering one of these with my tax refund money

http://www.fish-street.com/maxspect_programmable_led_aquarium_lighting?catego ry_id=126

[the marine apprentice]

thats a pretty cool led set up. what one you gonna get?

[LeeR]

g1 180W :mrgreen: its like a 250W mh.. i think the clams will be happy

[the marine apprentice]

me and a buddy are diggin into a diy led set up right now. and we figured over the lifetime of the lights it will payfor itself 10-15 times over, compared to MH setups.

[LeeR]

oh right on. what sort of parts are you using?

[the marine apprentice]

he found the thread on an RC i cant remember what it all is i already closed the page, oops. but we are both pretty good with electronics and such and we are gonna go for the most light for the least amount of cash for the first try and then upgrade as we need it

[roblarss]

I setup an array of about 60 luxeon rebel LEDs with no lenses on half of my 120gal. When I get that straightened out then I will build another for the other side. Currently have t5 bulbs on that side.
Does anyone know of a place to get larger heatsinks? I cant seem to find a dealer in canada.

[Ron99]

I have a pico as well, may i ask how many gal is your pico??

which fixture do you have??

is it the 18"??

What corals do you keep in this pico??

Do you have a picture of your tank?

I have rics, zoas gsp and anthelia and I currently have the 9" coralife 18 watt pc on this tank. I was looking at getting a new fixture the 12" coralife 36 watt pc but then these lights have been recommended by some and other say they are not strong enough for saltwater tanks with corals.

My Pico is the iReef from the last nano contest; about 2 gallons for the display portion. Here is the link to the thread where you can see the DIY LED setup:

http://www.canreef.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=53597

It's really not hard to build your own and is much more cost effective then buying a fixture. For a shallow Pico with easy corals you could probably get away with some of the cheaper fixtures using 1 watt LEDs but 3 watt LEDs are preferable. Avoid any of the fixtures using less than 1 watt emitters, especially the ones with the regular 5mm LEDs. They may look bright to your eye but they have very little usable PAR for the corals.

im thinking about ordering one of these with my tax refund money

http://www.fish-street.com/maxspect_programmable_led_aquarium_lighting?catego ry_id=126


The thing I don't like about the Maxspect lights is that they use a few single 30W white emitters rather than an array of good quality 3W emitters. The 30W ones are not very efficient in terms of output and heat and not a good choice for aquarium lighting. Personally I wouldn't buy one.

I setup an array of about 60 luxeon rebel LEDs with no lenses on half of my 120gal. When I get that straightened out then I will build another for the other side. Currently have t5 bulbs on that side.
Does anyone know of a place to get larger heatsinks? I cant seem to find a dealer in canada.

Heatsinks is a problem. The few electronics suppliers I found that could get one were very expensive. I ended up buying 3 large used ones on eBay that will do the trick for me.

Maybe we should set up a local LED DIY group:biggrin:

[freezetyle]

Ron. where did you order those LED from?

[StirCrazy]

I setup an array of about 60 luxeon rebel LEDs with no lenses on half of my 120gal. When I get that straightened out then I will build another for the other side. Currently have t5 bulbs on that side.
Does anyone know of a place to get larger heatsinks? I cant seem to find a dealer in canada.

only one I found was www.heatsinkusa.com (http://www.heatsinkusa.com)

prices are good I guess. this is the one I am ordering
http://www.heatsinkusa.com/storename/heatsinkusa/dept/263913/ItemDetail-10502850.aspx

I am mounting 48 LEDs to this run off 4 controlers, but I am also looking at putting a few UV LEDs in the mix also.

Steve

[Crytone]

Not that this will likely help much but I know of a heatsink company in Canada but I'm nearly positive they don't deal in such low quantities (ie- 1 heatsink) and if they do it's likely a bit pricey. The name of the company was R-Theta Thermal Solutions (they were bought out about a year back iirc). Their standard size is 6 foot lengths with many different profiles available but I don't know their cost on anything.

We used to order from R-theta where I used to work but we didn't deal in single unit orders and usually ordered 50+ heatsinks at a time. Might be worth a shot still and if you can find someone who wants the same profile as you, you can likely place an order and reduce the cost. If there's any interest I can try to contact the parts acquisition guy at my old job and see if he knows of anything else since I know they weren't the only company we dealt with.

[StirCrazy]

Not that this will likely help much but I know of a heatsink company in Canada but I'm nearly positive they don't deal in such low quantities (ie- 1 heatsink) and if they do it's likely a bit pricey. The name of the company was R-Theta Thermal Solutions (they were bought out about a year back iirc). Their standard size is 6 foot lengths with many different profiles available but I don't know their cost on anything.

We used to order from R-theta where I used to work but we didn't deal in single unit orders and usually ordered 50+ heatsinks at a time. Might be worth a shot still and if you can find someone who wants the same profile as you, you can likely place an order and reduce the cost. If there's any interest I can try to contact the parts acquisition guy at my old job and see if he knows of anything else since I know they weren't the only company we dealt with.

they look like there more of a semi conductor specilist type thing. and water cooled ones.. didn't see anything that wasn't way overkill and probably to much money also.

Steve

[Ron99]

Ron. where did you order those LED from?

I bought them all through a group buy on nano-reef.com so we got a very good deal. nanocustoms sells some for a decent price along with drivers and optics etc. You could also try ledsupply.com as I have ordered buckpucks from them and service was good.

they look like there more of a semi conductor specilist type thing. and water cooled ones.. didn't see anything that wasn't way overkill and probably to much money also.

Steve

Look under the aluminum extrusion section. Looks like there are several potentially good ones but it is a matter of price and minimums.

[StirCrazy]

I bought them all through a group buy on nano-reef.com so we got a very good deal. nanocustoms sells some for a decent price along with drivers and optics etc. You could also try ledsupply.com as I have ordered buckpucks from them and service was good.

I just missed that one, how much did ya end up saving per led on the group buy? Are you using the meanwell drivers Ron?

Steve

[Bugsy]

They are available at Bigals.ca here in Canada but are not recommended for reef systems. I went to the Marineland site and they recommend them for saltwater fish only or freshwater with low light plant tanks only. So guess these will be no good for my 5 gal and I will have to go with the t5's instead.

[Ron99]

They are available at Bigals.ca here in Canada but are not recommended for reef systems. I went to the Marineland site and they recommend them for saltwater fish only or freshwater with low light plant tanks only. So guess these will be no good for my 5 gal and I will have to go with the t5's instead.

Ahh, I see which ones you are looking at. On a 5 gallon you could probably get away with them if you are only keeping softies/zoas but, and it's a big BUT, the colour spectrum will be lousy because it's all white LEDs (except for the low output moonlight ones which won't do much to help). So it won't look nice and will make you prone to nuisance algae etc.

I just missed that one, how much did ya end up saving per led on the group buy? Are you using the meanwell drivers Ron?

Steve

The group buy was a while ago; last May or June I think. IRRC we saved a bit over a dollar per LED, $.25 per optic, and I think over $10 on each driver. So with 80+ LED's 80+ optics and 6 Meanwells I saved a decent amount of money. The only problem with the group buy was that the organizer ended up overwhelmed by the huge participation (I'm not sure how many drivers were ordered but the group ordered well over 1000 LEDs) and it took a long time for the stuff to get shipped out. But it was worth the wait as the price was great.

[StirCrazy]

Anyone here have the new LED lights on their tanks??

I have been reading about these lights, the so called replacement oneday for MH. Just curious if anyone has them and what your opinion is using them on a reef tank.

just a tidbit. they are not a "so called replacment" for mh, t5, ect.. they are a very viable alternative to them which can produce the same lighting levels if done right.

the reason you don't see a lot of premade LED lights is that one company holds a patent for the way there done which is preventing any other company from makeing a lighting system with a controler. which is why solaris went out of business. the only way areound this is by selling DIY kits or you can just buy all the parts your self and build one.

so if you want to get the output of a 250 watt HQI set up it can be done easy, you just need a good heat sink, good drivers, a wack of leds, and optics, and the skill to put it togeather. its not cheep to start off with but in the long run it works out to be very cheep.

for me to do a tank with a 12X30 opening I am looking at 400 to 600 bucks (closer to 600 porobably) but when you think about it I will have higher PAR levels than a 250watt HQI, no heat transfered to the water and no bulb cvhanged for 15 years?

if I were to do a 250 watt HQI on that tank it would cost me 300 to get started then 100/year for bulbs so there is 1000-1500 (10 to 15 years)
plus I would need a chiller so another 700.00 for a total of 200 to 2500.

but with the leds I am also getting infanate color as they are dimable and I can dim the white and the royal blue seperatly so I can pick the color I like, and if in a few days I decide I want it more white I can. Also the drivers I am looking at use a 0-10v signal for the dimming so if I wanted to put togeather a PLC, I could have simulated sunrise/sets with the colors shifting also. because I am using 4 drivers, I will b abvle to change the intensity in 1/2 the tank also so if I get new corals, I can place them on one side and dim it down and gradualy bring the light levels up over a week or so to get them used to the lighing levels I want.

the only problem is (and it maynot be a problem but rather a benifit) is you have to build everything, even your housing which can open the doors for some very creative looking lighting systems.

Steve

[naesco]

My Pico is the iReef from the last nano contest; about 2 gallons for the display portion. Here is the link to the thread where you can see the DIY LED setup:

http://www.canreef.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=53597

It's really not hard to build your own and is much more cost effective then buying a fixture. For a shallow Pico with easy corals you could probably get away with some of the cheaper fixtures using 1 watt LEDs but 3 watt LEDs are preferable. Avoid any of the fixtures using less than 1 watt emitters, especially the ones with the regular 5mm LEDs. They may look bright to your eye but they have very little usable PAR for the corals.




The thing I don't like about the Maxspect lights is that they use a few single 30W white emitters rather than an array of good quality 3W emitters. The 30W ones are not very efficient in terms of output and heat and not a good choice for aquarium lighting. Personally I wouldn't buy one.



Heatsinks is a problem. The few electronics suppliers I found that could get one were very expensive. I ended up buying 3 large used ones on eBay that will do the trick for me.

Maybe we should set up a local LED DIY group:biggrin:

Ron can you expand further on your comments on the Maxpect LED lighting. I am looking for lighting particularly blue lighting which will optimize the florescense of particularly LPS coral. On the basis of their article, it appears they would fit the bill. Why would the wattage of the emitters matter? Why would efficiency matter and wouldn't the heat sink be designed to take the heat?
Thanks

[Ron99]

Most of that comes from what I have gleaned from the LED expert at nano-reef.com. The problem with the high wattage LEDs is that if you look at their lumen/watt output it is actually far less than a good 3 watt Cree XR-E for example (not to mention the new XP-G series).

These numbers are from what I remember off the top of my head so don't take them as hard fact. The typical 30 watt LEDs produce around 300 to 350 lumens vs. well over 100 lumens for a 3 watt cree XR-E. So 3 times the light output but 10 times the power consumption and higher heat production. Very poor efficiency for the 30 watt ones.

Also, they are trying to produce a good spread of light with good PAR and penetration with 4 emitters of 30 watts with no optics which will not give as good a spread and penetration as a larger number of 3 watt LEDs spread out over your tank. Now add some optics to the 3 watt LEDS and you get higher effective PAR and penetration and they will blow away the performance of the smaller number of high wattage LEDs. They are saving money and thus producing a cheaper fixture by using a smaller number of inferior LEDs. If you want MH equivalent lighting then stick to something using Luxeon or Cree emitters with good coverage and optics to increase penetration and have higher PAR at depth. Cree are the market and technology leaders in terms of output and efficiency. The Luxeons are also quite good but a bit behind Cree from my understanding.

[Canadian]

Most of that comes from what I have gleaned from the LED expert at nano-reef.com. The problem with the high wattage LEDs is that if you look at their lumen/watt output it is actually far less than a good 3 watt Cree XR-E for example (not to mention the new XP-G series).

These numbers are from what I remember off the top of my head so don't take them as hard fact. The typical 30 watt LEDs produce around 300 to 350 lumens vs. well over 100 lumens for a 3 watt cree XR-E. So 3 times the light output but 10 times the power consumption and higher heat production. Very poor efficiency for the 30 watt ones.

Also, they are trying to produce a good spread of light with good PAR and penetration with 4 emitters of 30 watts with no optics which will not give as good a spread and penetration as a larger number of 3 watt LEDs spread out over your tank. Now add some optics to the 3 watt LEDS and you get higher effective PAR and penetration and they will blow away the performance of the smaller number of high wattage LEDs. They are saving money and thus producing a cheaper fixture by using a smaller number of inferior LEDs. If you want MH equivalent lighting then stick to something using Luxeon or Cree emitters with good coverage and optics to increase penetration and have higher PAR at depth. Cree are the market and technology leaders in terms of output and efficiency. The Luxeons are also quite good but a bit behind Cree from my understanding.

However, there's a strong argument for not utilizing optics whenever possible with LEDs. If you can get away without optics you don't have to worry about the potential for spotlighting and you get a more uniform distribution of light and blending of different colors (if your fixture employs different colored LEDs).

Here's a post on the Reefbuilders blog:

http://reefbuilders.com/2010/01/27/led-optics-explained/

Seeing the light: LED optics explained
Posted on January 27th, 2010 by Brian Blank 9 Leave a comment

LED secondary optic focussing lensLED lighting is beginning to take hold in the aquarium hobby and it can be a very complex subject to master when trying to make an informed purchase decision as a consumer. We touched on the topic of underdriving or overdriving LED’s with coralSky’s Jeff Littlejohn earlier and were fortunate enough to get a hold of some great information on LED optics by Jeff from his forum post at coralSky to share with our informed readers.

Typically, when we think of LED optics, what comes to mind in a plastic lens of some sort used over the LED itself to focus or disperse the light. We need to take a step back and realize the LED itself has a protective casing called the primary optic. The primary optic serves two purposes: to protect and to shape the light output of the diode.

Manufacturers will use the spatial distribution (or shape of the light) when describing the LED, referring to the spread of the light from the central axis of the unit. In the aquarium setting, LED’s are mounted facing down and into the tank and if we imagine a line running vertically from the center of the LED, the spatial distribution of the light is measured in degrees from this central axis. For example, a 120-degree LED will extend the beam 60-degrees to either side.

“This is one of the reasons why LED lighting is more efficient than metal halide or fluorescent light sources, which emit light in a nearly spherical pattern,” says Littlejohn. “This means that most of the emitted light is directed away from the intended subject, and a reflector must be used to redirect this light to a useful direction. Since there is no such thing as a perfectly reflective surface, this results in a loss of efficiency.”

But just because an LED is rated at 120 degrees, it doesn’t mean you get the lighting punch of the LED across the entire spectrum. Just like any other point of light source, it’s going to be stronger the closer you travel to the center. Along the central axis the LED emits 100 percent of its relative luminous intensity and will lose intensity the farther you move away from the central axis.

For simplicity’s sake, if a 100 lumen will produce 100 lumens of light at the center and a measurement taken 25 degrees from its central axis, the output of the LED will appear to drop to only 80 lumens. Continuing on the path away from the center axis a measurement taken 45 degrees off axis will yield only 40 lumens, and so on, until at 60 degrees, only 10 lumens or so are emitted.

Now that we have a better understanding of the primary optic, let’s delve into secondary optics. The secondary optic are separate components that are usually made from optical-grade acrylic or polycarbonate mounted over the primary to help further shape the beam of light. The purpose of the secondary optic is to increase the relative luminous intensity. An example Littlejohn uses is the Fraen 8 degree optic that can actually increase the intensity of the LED 27 times.

“2,700 lumens out of a 100 lumen LED sounds great, right?,” notes Littlejohn. “Not so fast. All of this extra intensity is still only achieved directly under the central axis of the LED. In the case of a narrow optic, there is a SEVERE drop off in light intensity only a few degrees from the central axis. A narrow optic creates a “pencil” of high intensity light, and almost no light is emitted outside of this very narrow beam.”

The numbers sound incredible but in your typical aquarium lighting application the light would have to be mounted so high above the tank to get any usable spread off the LEDs making them unusable from a practical standpoint. There are some more practical secondary optics for use in the hobby, Fraen wide beam or the Ledil Rocket W for example, that do increase the light output of the LED but at a much smaller scale. The Fraen wide optic increases output 2.4 times and directs it into a 58-degree come.

“Besides the obvious advantage of achieving more light from the same number of LEDs, for deeper tanks, the addition of a secondary optic will greatly benefit the light penetration through the water column,” he adds. “In my opinion, for tanks up to 24-inches deep, LEDs do not require a secondary optic to reach the bottom with a significant amount of light energy intact. For tanks over 24-inces deep, the extra light penetration provided by the secondary optic overrides enough of their disadvantages to warrant their use.”

So why aren’t optics used everywhere then? According to Littlejohn, there are disadvantages of secondary optics with some of them being pretty significant:

1. They can be expensive. They typically add between 25%-50% to the cost of each LED.
2. With few exceptions, they create a harsh transition from bright to dark. In other words, the “edges” of the cone-shaped light pattern can be very distinct. This creates a “flashlight effect”, where everything within the light beam is very bright, and everything just outside the beam is very dark.
3. They hinder color blending. Since most of us like the actinic effect of all blue lighting, and since most of us prefer a cooler color than the coolest white LED available, we must use a combination of royal blue and white LEDs in our systems. When secondary optics are added, you may see obvious white and blue spots in your tank. This effect can be reduced by reducing the center to center spacing of each LED, so that the cones effectively overlap, but it may still be very apparent as our corals grow towards the top of the tank. Also, our rock formations and corals cast shadows, which may be distractingly blue or white under secondary optics.

So what is the bottom line from all of this? For Littlejohn, there are two significant takeaways from his post.

“On shallower tanks, I’m a proponent of using straight LEDs without secondary optics,” he states. “I’ve found that achieving a sufficient amount of light for high-light corals is possible, there will be no flashlight effect, no spotting, and more uniformly colored shadows.”

What exactly is a sufficient amount of LED lights for light-intensive corals you may ask? Littlejohn recommends a LED density of around 24 LEDs per square foot for 10- to 12-inch deep tanks, 36 per square foot or 12- to 18-inch tanks and 48 per square foot for tanks 18 to 24 inches deep using a nominal drive current he outlined in the previous post here at Reef Builders.

“On deeper tanks over 24 inches, I like to add a mix of secondary optics to the LED array. I’ve observed that a relatively small number of secondary optics can provide enough extra light penetration while minimizing spotting and colored shadows,” he says. “It may take some trial and error, but I believe a good starting point is to cover 15 to 25 percent of the LEDs with a good secondary optic, and LED densities of 54 or even 60 LEDs a square foot may be required, at a nominal drive current.”

We see great potential in the hobby over the upcoming years with LEDs and other advanced lighting and we will continue to bring you more quality information on the advances in this promising technology.

[StirCrazy]

there few little bits of wrong info in that Andrew. first they say secondary optics are expensive costing between 25 to 50% of the LED.

a cree led is a shade over 6 bucks and the optic is 1 buck.. not realy expensive at all. as for spotting this is easily overcome with spacing. make you max spacing between LEDs 2" and between rows 3" and you can run 40 degree optics. I am spacing mine at 1.75" and 2.5" respectivly.

I don't know why anyone would want to run 8 degree optics but I am assuming that was just and example. 40degree optics will give you about 250 MH levels or bettwe, 60 degree will give you 150 watt mh or better and no optics will be like running T5's . now of course this all depends on the distance. on a shallow tank you might be able to use 60 degree optics and get the same PAR as a 250watt MH.

the down side to optics is simple.. the lower the degree the tighter the spacing of the LEDs must be to avoid spotting. so if you want to run the 40 degree optics you must use more LEDs to cover the same space. a good example is the system I am building. with no optics I can get away with 16 leds to evenly light a 30 gal tank. If I wanted to run 60 degree optics I would need 20 to 24 LEDs but I want lots of par so I am going with 40 degree optics so I need between 36 and 48 Leds (depending on how I arange them. so in a way optics are more expensive but not much and the extra expence isn't because of the price of optics but rather from the extra LED's needed.

Now having said this, I will probably hit 250 watt levels in my ank with no optics (tank is only 17" deep) but I want to be able to go even higher than 250 watt levels to test a couple theories

If you want to see some good info on LEDs I am going to recomend a left field place. RC has a couple good threads, but overall not much else. Nano_reef.com is the most info and support I have ever seen for LEDs. they have one guy there "the LED god" who designs lighting systems and is actualy very helpfull with questions about LED lighting. I usaly don't recomend boards other than Canreef as I generaly feel we have all the info some one needs unless they want to get way over the top, but this is one time I will say that the nano board is the board for LED questions and info.

Steve

[naesco]

My tank will likely be 18-24 inches.
It looks like to get the whiteish rather than the yellowish look these leds do it.
When the white led lights are out and the blues come on is it possible to get the overall blueish look and in addition the deep blue flashlight effect which would highlight certain flourescent corals?
What I gleaned from their website is that this might be possible because it is programmable.
Am I missing something? Am I missing lots?

I plan to restrict my new tank to florescent corals, inverts and fish. The reason is that I want to enjoy the tank when I get home after work.
I also want to 'hunt down' uber-florescent species and specimens. I want to frag the best.
Thanks

[Canadian]

Hi Steve,

I know about nanoreef being THE site for LED info. I don't really have any particular interest in LED right now so I can't be bothered to stay abreast of the ins and outs. From what I have read there does appear to be some disagreement about optimal designs (for example whether or not it is better to over, under, or normal drive them). Given the still experimental nature of LED lighting over reef tanks I'll let the manufacturers figure things out and people such as yourself continue experimenting before I get too worked up about it. I'd love to change to LED ASAP but it looks to be at least another year before we start to see some quality, reliable, readily available, and attractive LED fixtures hit the reefing market.

[StirCrazy]

Hi Steve,

but it looks to be at least another year before we start to see some quality, reliable, readily available, and attractive LED fixtures hit the reefing market.

the way the company that holds the patent is going I don't think we'll ever get anything nice.. well at least for 20 years when the patent runs out.

Steve

[Ron99]

+1 to what Steve said above. That info from Coral Sky may be slightly biased as they are obviously marketing a product without optics. As Steve said the cost of the optics is small and they help with concentrating the light so you get better PAR deeper in the tank.

As for the patent, I think all it needs is to be challenged in court and invalidated. I can't see how that patent was issued as they found nothing new or revolutionary or surprising that merits patentability. There was also a bunch of prior art that the patent examiners obviously didn't see. PFO was in financial difficulty before Orbitec went after them so they obviously didn't have the finances to fight it out in court. Hopefully somebody can do that at some point.

[Crytone]

the way the company that holds the patent is going I don't think we'll ever get anything nice.. well at least for 20 years when the patent runs out.

Steve

From what I read recently the company who owns the patent (Orbitec) is filing for a continuation of their patent. This is where people are stepping in and submitting a Third-Party Submission against Orbitec to hopefully stop their monopoly. If they can prove "prior art" (basically meaning someone was using this idea before Orbitec claims they invented it) then they are hoping to overturn the patent. Big problem though is Orbitec has big pockets- iirc they got money from NASA for something. I believe money speaks a lot in the patent biz.

The patent is pretty broad too. Summed up it's basically "adjustable/dimming LED lights over an aquarium". Did they invent the LED? No. Did they invent the dimming/adjusting of the LEDs? No, PWM's have been around a long while for this purpose.. Did they invent the aquarium? Of course not! So All they claim they invented was the IDEA of putting an adjustable LED over an aquarium! Orbitec doesn't seem to be doing anything substantial with this patent either- except suing everyone who infringes it.

[Canadian]

+1 to what Steve said above. That info from Coral Sky may be slightly biased as they are obviously marketing a product without optics. As Steve said the cost of the optics is small and they help with concentrating the light so you get better PAR deeper in the tank.

As for the patent, I think all it needs is to be challenged in court and invalidated. I can't see how that patent was issued as they found nothing new or revolutionary or surprising that merits patentability. There was also a bunch of prior art that the patent examiners obviously didn't see. PFO was in financial difficulty before Orbitec went after them so they obviously didn't have the finances to fight it out in court. Hopefully somebody can do that at some point.

If optics are inexpensive why do you think a company would produce a fixture without them? They obviously have reason to believe that not having them provides some type of performance benefit. I believe the new Vertex LED fixture also lacks optics. So there are obviously some companies performing some R&D that leads them to believe LEDs without optics provides a performance, efficiency, or cost advantage. The application of LED technology is still in its infancy in this hobby. Over time I guess we'll see how things pan out. It wasn't that long ago that MH reflectors were designed with the intent of focusing the light and we got to a point where fixtures were producing fairly acute hot spots. Then reflector design transitioned to providing an even spread of light without hot spots.

[Ron99]

From what I read recently the company who owns the patent (Orbitec) is filing for a continuation of their patent. This is where people are stepping in and submitting a Third-Party Submission against Orbitec to hopefully stop their monopoly. If they can prove "prior art" (basically meaning someone was using this idea before Orbitec claims they invented it) then they are hoping to overturn the patent. Big problem though is Orbitec has big pockets- iirc they got money from NASA for something. I believe money speaks a lot in the patent biz.

The patent is pretty broad too. Summed up it's basically "adjustable/dimming LED lights over an aquarium". Did they invent the LED? No. Did they invent the dimming/adjusting of the LEDs? No, PWM's have been around a long while for this purpose.. Did they invent the aquarium? Of course not! So All they claim they invented was the IDEA of putting an adjustable LED over an aquarium! Orbitec doesn't seem to be doing anything substantial with this patent either- except suing everyone who infringes it.

My experience comes from pharmaceutical patents but in order to patent something it has to be something novel and non-obvious. Orbitec's patent is neither and never should have been allowed (however, inappropriate patents get issued all the time and subsequently invalidated). lighting aquariums with different types and sources of light has been going on for a long time so LEDs are a natural and obvious continuation of that. Changing colour spectrum has been done by using different bulbs and combinations of bulbs before so nothing new there. Timing of lighting has been done for a long time so nothing new there too. So I really believe it is a patent that shouldn't stand for those reasons alone, let alone the prior art. Orbitec invented nothing.

If optics are inexpensive why do you think a company would produce a fixture without them? They obviously have reason to believe that not having them provides some type of performance benefit. I believe the new Vertex LED fixture also lacks optics. So there are obviously some companies performing some R&D that leads them to believe LEDs without optics provides a performance, efficiency, or cost advantage. The application of LED technology is still in its infancy in this hobby. Over time I guess we'll see how things pan out. It wasn't that long ago that MH reflectors were designed with the intent of focusing the light and we got to a point where fixtures were producing fairly acute hot spots. Then reflector design transitioned to providing an even spread of light without hot spots.

Money. Without optics you can use fewer LEDs spread out further. Cheaper to produce and hopefully cheaper to buy. It all depends on the performance and PAR you want. If you want high PAR deeper in your tank you need optics. If you only plan to have higher light corals near the top of the tank then no optics will most likely be good for you. But the optics make a big difference in concentrating the light to get good PAR at greater depth.

BTW, those Maxspect lights seem to produce significant hotspots below the 30W LEDs that may be a concern for some tanks and affect coral placement. The other issue that seems to come up is that the LEDs used in the Maxspect fixtures are not as durable as the Cree emitters. Maxspect is suggesting replacement of the LEDs in 18 to 24 months which will not be cheap. The Crees should last for 5+ years if they are cooled adequately.

[StirCrazy]

simple, they want to make more money.. using optice relates to more LEDs, the more LEDs they have to use the more expensive to build.

As for the patent, it was filed in tow parts in 2002 and 2003, and awarded in 2007

here it is

Overview
A method and apparatus of lighting a marine habitat for growth utilizing an LED light system. The light system includes an LED light source, a power supply for such light source and a controller for controlling the activation status and the intensity of the LED light source.

Claims
What is claimed is:

1. A combination marine habitat and lighting system therefor comprising:
a marine habitat having an open top defined by a top edge and
a lighting system including: a housing connectable to said top edge to substantially cover said open top, said housing further including an inner side facing said open top when said housing is connected to said top edge and an opposite outer side;an LED light source mounted to the inner side of said housing, said LED light source comprising at least one light engine having a plurality of individual LEDs capable of providing light at a wavelength from about 380 nm to about 690 nm; a power supply sufficient to drive said LEDs; a controller connected with said power source for controlling the activation status and the intensity of one or more of said individual LEDs; and a cooling system provided in said housing.
2. The combination of claim 1 wherein said LED light source, when activated, is sufficient to support marine growth.
3. The combination of claim 1 wherein said LED light source includes at least one of chip-based, organic or discreet LEDs.
4. The combination of claim 1 wherein each of said light engines is capable of providing light intensity of from 0 to 1000 micro mols per square meter per second.
5. A lighting system for a marine habitat of the type having an open top defined by a top edge, said lighting system comprising:
a housing connectable to said top edge to substantially cover said open top, said housing further including an inner side facing said open top when said housing is connected to said top edge and an opposite outer side;
an LED light source mounted to the inner side of said housing, said LED light source comprising at least one light engine having a plurality of individual LEDs capable of providing light at a wavelength from about 380 nm to about 690 nm;
a power supply sufficient to drive said LEDs;
a controller connected with said power source for controlling the activation status and the intensity of one or more of said individual LEDs; and a cooling system provided in said housing.
6. The lighting system of claim 5 wherein said LED light source, when activated, is sufficient to support marine growth.
7. The lighting system of claim 5 wherein said LED light source includes at least one of chip-based, organic or discreet LEDs. 8. The combination of claim 5 wherein each of said light engines is capable of providing light intensity of from 0 to 1000 micro mols per square meter per second.



As you can see any system built that is desirable to us would be infringing on the copyright.

I don't think there is anything wrong with this one.. a few guys had a good idea and jumped on it. it was tried with skimmers also but was filed to late.

No I don't think this company had any desire to build lights for fish tanks, but I do think they want some one else to and pay them royalties, or lease the right to make stuff from them. this way they can get money for nothing.

they will have this pattent untill 2027 but have to make utility payments at 4 years, 8 years and 12 years. if either of these are missed then the patent is open. so the earliest anyone would be able to sell a LED system is 2011 and only if they miss there payment, other wise we have to wait till 2015 and see if they make that one.

makes me wish I would have applied for this myself in 99 when I was playing with LEDs over tanks.

one other thing to note, in my reading I discovered there is no way around this patent by selling DIY kits in there entirity, and if you build them your self you are able to be sued by the company from infringment on there patent, but seeing as the cost of dammages they would get from one individual compared to what it would cost them to sue.. they wouldn't go after an individual.

Steve

[Ron99]

Sorry but I have to disagree. There is no invention in that patent. Aquarists have been using light sources to light reef tanks and grow corals for long before Orbitec came along. Jsut because a new type of light comes along does not mean that it is a novel invention to use that light for aquariums. Has anybody been able to patent LEDs as replacements for home light bulbs? If somebody invents a new type of light tomorrow; say a bioluminescent film of some sort should we patent that for use in aquariums? In order to patent there should be some invention. They would have to show that the LEDs surprisingly did something that other light sources don't for coral growth etc. and it does not look like they have done that. It is an inappropriately issued patent as far as I can tell and if challenged in court would likely be invalidated? Why have Orbitec not gone after Aquailluminations? They probably just smelled blood with PFO who were in financial difficulties due to poor products and returns and warranty claims etc. and are using that to try to scare others since they "defeated" PFO (pretty much financially rather then legally). That's my take on it anyhow. There is no invention in that patent as the use of LEDs for aquariums is obvious to anyone skilled in the art. It HAS to be non-obvious to be patentable.

In fact take a look at this old post at glassbox design; particularly the last part. perhaps we should get some people together and send a submission to the USPTO asking to have the patent invalidated.

http://glassbox-design.com/2009/patents-101-benefits-faults-recourse/

[Canadian]

Sorry but I have to disagree. There is no invention in that patent. Aquarists have been using light sources to light reef tanks and grow corals for long before Orbitec came along. Jsut because a new type of light comes along does not mean that it is a novel invention to use that light for aquariums. Has anybody been able to patent LEDs as replacements for home light bulbs? If somebody invents a new type of light tomorrow; say a bioluminescent film of some sort should we patent that for use in aquariums? In order to patent there should be some invention. They would have to show that the LEDs surprisingly did something that other light sources don't for coral growth etc. and it does not look like they have done that. It is an inappropriately issued patent as far as I can tell and if challenged in court would likely be invalidated? Why have Orbitec not gone after Aquailluminations? They probably just smelled blood with PFO who were in financial difficulties due to poor products and returns and warranty claims etc. and are using that to try to scare others since they "defeated" PFO (pretty much financially rather then legally). That's my take on it anyhow. There is no invention in that patent as the use of LEDs for aquariums is obvious to anyone skilled in the art. It HAS to be non-obvious to be patentable.

In fact take a look at this old post at glassbox design; particularly the last part. perhaps we should get some people together and send a submission to the USPTO asking to have the patent invalidated.

http://glassbox-design.com/2009/patents-101-benefits-faults-recourse/

They haven't gone after AI, from what I've read, because AI has "partnered" with them and is paying Orbitec a licensing fee. However, i can't verify the veracity of that statement.

[Ron99]

They haven't gone after AI, from what I've read, because AI has "partnered" with them and is paying Orbitec a licensing fee. However, i can't verify the veracity of that statement.

Looks like you are right. That's pathetic. This patent really needs to be invalidated. I have managed to find Orbitec's full patents (apparently there are two of them) and will have a look at them in the next day or two.

[StirCrazy]

Looks like you are right. That's pathetic. This patent really needs to be invalidated. I have managed to find Orbitec's full patents (apparently there are two of them) and will have a look at them in the next day or two.

Ron you don't have to invent something to have a patent. you can have a patent for specific ways of using pre exhisting products. which is what this one is. and all it has to be is an idea not the actual product. a computer is a good example. IBM patented there arcatexture.. so no one could make accesories for the IBM with out there permission. IBM didn't invent the chips, boards, ect.. but they did invent how to use them togeather in a specific way for a specific purpose.

there is nothing wrong with there patents, or PFO would have wone the lawsuit plane and simple.

it is like the wheel barrow.. the inventer was given a 50 year patent.. remember when you were a kid there was only one type of wheel barrow.. now theres like 50. the pattent ran out about 30 years ago if I remember corectly. even though man had been using buckets with wheels, platforms with wheels ect.. for 100's of years no one ever though to patent it.. one man did and for a long period of time was the only wheelbarrow manufactuer.. now you see pattents on wheel barrows like crazy but there for parts or uneque features or concepts.

trying to say a patent is invallid because all the parts are alreayd being used of have patents would mean there owuld be no patents issued on anything. if I came up with a new type of wave maker I would not be able to get a patent as all the electronics already have a patent. Heck no electronic manufacture at all would be able to patent anything.. just think of it as different types of patents. here is the def of a utility patent

" In general, a utility patent protects the way an invention is used and works. Utility patents may be granted to anyone who invents a new and useful method, process, machine, device, manufactured item, or chemical compound - or any new and useful improvement to the same."

they invented a new and usefull machine.

Steve

[Ron99]

I am aware of how patents work as I have been involved in several and have read many more.

In order to patent something there does have to be some invention. You can get priority for an idea using the PPA (provisional patent application) which gives you a year to file your RPA (regular patent application. The RPA usually does have to have some supporting information to support your claims. To use your wheelbarrow analogy, I can't just say that the existing wheelbarrows are rectangular so I am going to patent an icosahedral wheelbarrow. I would have to describe or show how the icosahedral wheelbarrow is an improvement over the rectangular wheelbarrow. Also, if the icosahedral wheelbarrow would be an obvious application of wheelbarrow technology to anybody skilled in the art of wheelbarrows it would not be patentable.

Thus my opinion of Orbitec's patents. Using LEDs as light sources for aquariums is obvious. It is a natural evolution as new forms of lighting become viable. Just like CF, MH, T5HO, plasma lighting etc. As lighting improves or changes it gets adopted for aquarium use. Now they are trying to claim some spatial and spectral control that leads to better growth. So they should have shown exactly how that spatial and spectral control affects growth and is an advantage over other light sources etc. The patent is way to broad and if issued should have been for a specific set of wavelengths and time periods demonstrated to have an advantage over other set ups.

In any case, I am going to read the full patents when I have a chance in the next day or two and give you a summary then. But from first glance they are not accurate as they imply that other forms of lighting have not been used to promote growth in corals which is wrong. The problem is that patent examiners are usually not experts in the fields of the patents they are reviewing and rarely do the research necessary to understand and qualify the information in the patents. It goes both ways. We had a horror of a patent examiner once who didn't understand our patent, didn't understand the responses to her comments and held up our patent for a while because she was disinterested in doing her job properly and was completely wrong about her understanding of the technology. We finally had to complain to the USPTO about her conduct to get the patent issued.

[monocus]

i have been looking into led lighting as well and i've found two places.for my nano i've found on ebay a do it yourself kit from waterkei-around $70.00 powered by a computer powerbox with different coloured leds and for my 220 gallon at alibaba complete led lighting at 150 ,250 and 350 watt.for two units of the 250s the price is $500 plus delivery and about $200 in brokerage fees

[Ron99]

Just to add to the above, a utility patent also has to have an invention. The new use for an old something has to be novel and non-obvious. Again, using the wheelbarrow analogy, if I wanted to patent the use of wheelbarrows for something different such as being a mobile platform to stand on so I can reach up higher that use has to be a new one that it was not used for before (i.e, no prior art) and it has to be non-obvious so nobody had ever thought to move the wheelbarrow over to that wall and stand on it to reach the light fixture and change the lightbulb.

[Ron99]

i have been looking into led lighting as well and i've found two places.for my nano i've found on ebay a do it yourself kit from waterkei-around $70.00 powered by a computer powerbox with different coloured leds and for my 220 gallon at alibaba complete led lighting at 150 ,250 and 350 watt.for two units of the 250s the price is $500 plus delivery and about $200 in brokerage fees

Make sure you know what you are getting. The actual LED emitters used (brand, colour and wattage and optics or no optics) make all the difference. All the cheap LED fixtures I have seen, especially those out of China, would probably only be useful for fish only tanks or maybe low light softies at best.

The Eco-Lamps ones are a great example. I haven't looked at the newer KR92 series but after some emails to them about the KR91 series I found out that the emitters were o.5 watt chinese LEDs with no optics so there is no way you could keep anything but lower light demanding corals with it. They would definitely not support SPS. Don't get me wrong, the Eco-Lamps look really nice and probably well built but just know what you are getting in terms of light output vs. what you require in lighting for your livestock.

[banditpowdercoat]

Ya Alibaba doesnt care about patent's LOL

[monocus]

the ones on alibaba are 1 watt -14000k-20000k(probably more 14000) and blue at 460 nm.as i mostly have gargonians(8)sun coral(4) and carnations(6)lower lighting is not the problem.if i do buy them i am going to j&l aquatics and test them on a meter-still it probably be better than the coralifes i have now(4 over a 220 gal).the only thing i heard that there might be a problem is if one bulb burns out they all go

[StirCrazy]

Just to add to the above, a utility patent also has to have an invention. The new use for an old something has to be novel and non-obvious.

and to play devils advocate, they do have an invention of a novel idea that is usefull. and they regestered for a patent befor anyone else had applied or was even using such a system comercialy.

personaly I think looking into this is a waist of your time, but if you have time to waist.... PFO had there court battle claiming it was to broad and encompasing and tried to have the pattent revoked and lost..

Pattents serve a purpose and I suport them.. we can't just arbatrarly not honor the ones that incoveniance us. that would be like me taking you to court to have your patent revoked because we don't like the fact that we can't do it to.

Steve

[albert_dao]

PFO lost that battle because they ran out of money, not because the patent was valid.

[Ron99]

the ones on alibaba are 1 watt -14000k-20000k(probably more 14000) and blue at 460 nm.as i mostly have gargonians(8)sun coral(4) and carnations(6)lower lighting is not the problem.if i do buy them i am going to j&l aquatics and test them on a meter-still it probably be better than the coralifes i have now(4 over a 220 gal).the only thing i heard that there might be a problem is if one bulb burns out they all go

Yeah, that might work for you and hey, it's your buck :biggrin: I would just worry a bit about the quality of those no name fixtures in terms of build and cooling. if LEDs are run to hot then their lifetime will be severely degraded; lasting 18 to 24 months instead of 5+ years.

Now, as for the patent (sorry to kind of keep the side tangent going on this thread but I think it is a good discussion), I have given the first one a quick read. I'm not an expert on engineering patents as my experience is primarily on the pharmaceutical side. However, I would say at worst this patent should never have been issued and at best it should have been narrowed in scope.

As it is I think you could build an LED fixture without any controller for dimming etc. and not be subject to this patent. What is patented seems to be the whole shebang with controller.

Now, the big question for me is whether the patented technology is obvious or not. If obvious it should not have been patented. Right off the bat their description of prior art is flawed and incorrect:

2. Description of the Prior Art

There are many lighting systems currently available that either promote growth for land-based plants or are used for decoration or illumination of marine life. However, none of the prior art describes a system for promotion of marine life using light-emitting diode based lighting.

Plant growth lighting systems and apparatus are common in many fields that include crop production, germination, tissue culture growth, horticulture, landscape architecture, and specialty growth systems. Although these systems provide for support of plant growth and development in terrestrial applications, none is suitable as a growth system for plants in aquatic settings. For productive growth, marine plants and animal life such as coral and algae require (at least in a limited manner) light of a specific intensity and within a specific range of wavelengths. Light quality and quantity are degraded as you go deeper in water which can preclude healthy sustenance at depths below a few feet without powerful lighting systems.

So the implication is that the existing light systems are not suitable for aquarium use which is just plain wrong. My corals grow fine under my Sunlight Supply Sunblaze fixture which is exactly identical to their hydroponics fixtures. Really, other than public aquariums and a few really wealthy individuals who has a tank more than a couple of feet deep? Are the existing MH, fluorescent and CF systems completely inadequate to support growth? I think not. Furthermore, LED light also degrades as it penetrates deeper into water as opposed to their implication that it magically penetrates the water like a scalded cat.

Marine growth apparatus are available for cultivating or permitting the growth of marine life. These systems typically consist of structures that provide a surface that permits the growth of coral, algae and other marine life, or provide a portable or permanent habitat for marine life to grow within. These include systems that are used for artificial coral reef development, coral reef regeneration, harvesting of marine life for food, and marine aquaculture for jewelry and ornamental aquariums. These inventions are typically passive apparatus that rely on natural solar light for illumination and do not use spatially or spectrally controllable artificial lighting to promote or accelerate growth.

This really has little to do with aquarium lighting.

Finally, aquarium lighting systems are also common and include light sources using fluorescent, incandescent, metal halide or light emitting diodes. These systems can be classified into two types. In type one, the primary purpose is to provide illumination to an underwater space. They contain a housing, light source within said housing, and means of power supply or connection to power supply. The light is not spatially controllable, but instead attempts to provide a consistent intensity above an area of the marine habitat. These systems use fluorescent, incandescent or metal halide light sources, which provide low intensity light with high radiant heat output and no user-defined spectral control. Maintenance is required on these systems (through light source bulb replacement) to maintain light intensity over time.

In type two, the primary purpose of the lighting system is to provide decorative lighting, including artificial moon light or colored lighting, to the marine landscape. These systems are not intended to provide sufficient quantity of light and are only supplemental to other light that supports healthy sustenance and growth. They contain a housing, a colored light source usually consisting of light-emitting diodes, lasers, color wheels or filters combined with a light source, or ultra-violet illumination, and a power supply or connection to power supply. They may or may not be portable or submersible systems that direct light at specific marine features.

Neither of these two types of marine lighting systems and apparatus is designed with an LED source offering spatial control of spectral output which can allow a user-defined or preprogrammed appropriate spectrum for growth of specific marine plant and animal life. Though the above are satisfactory for their designed applications, there is a continuing need for a marine lighting system that can be used to promote marine plant and animal life while offering the user spatial and spectral control.

They imply that other forms of aquarium lighting are low intensity and meant to illuminate the aquarium rather than support growth of corals and algae etc. They also imply no spectral control which is not true as we do that by using different bulbs in different combinations. We also use timers on separate actinics and whiter lights to simulate sunrise and sunset. Not much different then the LED systems as you have spectral control by varying the intensity of separate LEDs of different spectrums. Not really any different then what has come before other than having somewhat finer control of the process.

Now let's examine the actual invention:

DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

The present invention provides a lighting system for marine growth and more specifically to a light-emitting diode-based (LED) lighting system that delivers spatially and spectrally controlled light with optional optimal spectral output for growth of marine life. Such systems are particularly applicable to photobioreactors, fish hatcheries and aquariums, among others. Improved growth is achieved due to user programmable spectral and spatial control of light to allow for organism-specific lighting conditions with optional portability and submergibility for even greater light intensity delivery.

LED lighting technology is able to deliver high intensity light into a marine environment in a new way when compared to traditional systems. The use of LEDs enables the system to independently control the intensity of each spectral component as a function of time. This allows a user to provide the optimal wavelengths between 380 nm to 690 nm used by specific marine plant and animal life to support photosynthesis and/or optimum biological development. It provides a single controllable system which can also be used to simulate natural lighting conditions including sunrise, daylight, sunset and moonlight to provide a natural growth cycle, or to alter the lighting schedule to enhance growth during a particular phase of species development. Specific wavelengths can also be programmed to enhance the fluorescence and colors of certain species of fish and coral.

Uuuhhhh, do we not already have systems that can provide optimal wavelengths between 380nm to 690nm and can be controlled with timers to provide sunrise, daylight, sunset and moonlight? How is doing this with LEDs non-obvious? Do we not already have light sources (i.e specific colour bulbs) that enhance the fluorescence and colours of fish and corals?

This system's LED lighting is provided with much greater intensity and lower radiant heat that traditional fluorescent-based lighting systems, changing the formerly high cooling requirements of a complete marine habitat. Another feature of this lighting technology, which is important for promoting and sustaining marine life, is that it does not experience degradation of wavelength with age as does fluorescent lighting. Fluorescent's loss of light intensity over time reduces the growth rate of certain species of marine life by minimizing the photosynthetic energy provided. These variations can also lead to the appearance of certain types of organisms such as cyanobacteria in marine habitats that occur as different light wavelengths are emitted from degraded fluorescent tubes.

Not really true. While LEDs, if properly cooled, will have a lifetime of 5+ year they do degrade over time. Cree emitters will probably loose 20% to 30% of their output over 5 or 6 years. So, yes they do last longer then other sources but they do also degrade over time. That statement is not accurate and I fail to see the invention because a more long lasting light source has been developed by others. Remember, Orbitec did not invent any of these LEDs, they are trying to claim a new use that was not thought of by others and is not obvious to those with knowledge of aquarium lighting.

In addition, LEDs are much more efficient than incandescent lamps and equal to or slightly more efficient that most fluorescent lamps. Safety of the system will also be improved due to low operating voltages and less heat dissipation. The lack of glass bulbs in the system when compared to all other light sources also improves safety by eliminating the explosive failure mode of previous systems.

A weak argument on their part and hardly something worthy of issuing a patent. Most lighting systems have a splash shield to prevent broken bulbs getting into tanks. while it can and does happen on occasion I hardly think that is a major breakthrough.

Specific to the design of this system, the LED light engine can be housed in a waterproof system that, unlike traditional systems, can be submersed into the marine environment. The ability to secure high intensity lighting at any point within the environment enables light to be directed at marine life features that reside at depths far from surface top-mounted lighting. Marine plants and animals require specific light intensity for optimal growth. By providing a means to deliver light of greater intensity, lower power-usage and lower thermal delivery deeper in a tank than comparable overhead lighting, better growth of plant and animal life can be achieved at depths previously unable to sustain some types of marine growth.

I'm not familiar enough with other forms of underwater lighting to comment on this. Maybe underwater fluorescent or MH systems exist?


In general, the system of the present invention includes LED lighting, a controller, a power supply, a light housing, and a cooling system. Optional software can be included to provide users with complete programmable control of spectral, spatial, intensity or pattern of light output. The LED lighting consists of small light engines that are configured into a non-submersible top or side lighting system, or used independently to create a submersible planar, point, or line source of light. The LED light engine consists of a cluster of light-emitting diodes, including both chip, organic and discreet LEDs dependent on the preferred embodiment of the system. The control system can be configured with or without closed loop control, and is the mechanism that allows for user or manufacturer programming of lighting period and pattern, spectral content, or spatial content of the light delivered. The cooling system uses either natural convection with the air to dissipate heat in a top-mounted lighting system, or through water cooling via conduction, forced water cooling or an air-water loop to cool the submersible lighting configurations.

In any case, the only thing I can see that is significantly different from other lighting systems is a finer degree of on the fly control of the lighting (spectrum and intensity etc.) but the question still remains as to whether that would be obvious or not. To me it is.

It's to bad PFO ran out of money before they could really fight this. Also, I think the patent should be attacked from the obviousness standpoint rather then trying to establish a bunch of prior art or by a combination of tactics. Going the prior art route alone is probably subject to to many uncertainties.

[Ron99]

and to play devils advocate, they do have an invention of a novel idea that is usefull. and they regestered for a patent befor anyone else had applied or was even using such a system comercialy.

personaly I think looking into this is a waist of your time, but if you have time to waist.... PFO had there court battle claiming it was to broad and encompasing and tried to have the pattent revoked and lost..

Pattents serve a purpose and I suport them.. we can't just arbatrarly not honor the ones that incoveniance us. that would be like me taking you to court to have your patent revoked because we don't like the fact that we can't do it to.

Steve

Well see my last post to decide whether they have an invention or not. Some say yes, some say no.

I do support patents wholeheartedly but the patent system has its flaws and sometimes stupid patents like this one get through that cause problems for an industry and favour people who really invented nothing (ever heard of patent trolls?). Sorry, using LEDs for aquarium lighting is not an invention, it is obvious. You can't patent something that is obvious or an obvious improvement on existing technology. At the risk of repeating myself it HAS to be non-obvious and novel.

In pharmaceuticals if there is a drug out that treats arthritis by an anti-inflammatory mechanism we cannot patent that drug for the treatment of another autoimmune disease by means of anti-inflammatory activity. That would be an obvious extension of its utility. We could however, file a use patent on that drug if we found that it had another activity besides being an anti-inflammatory that say prevented hair loss. The hair loss prevention is unrelated, unknown and unexpected in relation to the anti-arthritis activity. So I fail to see how using a light source to light an aquarium is not obvious :biggrin:

Now if Orbitec have some specific control scheme or can demonstrate that specific spectra over specific time periods enhance growth then that would be an invention. They have not done that. They have simply stated that throwing a controller on an LED array to control colour spectrum and time is something new that wasn't obvious and and they were the first to think of it. That's BS.

And as mentioned above, the PFO lawsuit never reached its conclusion because they went belly up.

[banditpowdercoat]

I totally agree with you and will back you if you decide to fight it. But really, what can we, a group of reefers do? If PFO ran out of money fighing, then Orbitec has some deep pockets or REALLLY good lawyers. I couldnt afford a PFO fixture when it came out, and I certainly can't afford to fight Orbitec for the Patent

[Crytone]

What gets me is the LED manufacturers likely HATE this patent. They'd easily sell more LEDs if this patent didn't exist.

[StirCrazy]

Well see my last post to decide whether they have an invention or not. Some say yes, some say no.

I do support patents wholeheartedly but the patent system has its flaws and sometimes stupid patents like this one get through that cause problems for an industry and favour people who really invented nothing (ever heard of patent trolls?). Sorry, using LEDs for aquarium lighting is not an invention, it is obvious. You can't patent something that is obvious or an obvious improvement on existing technology. At the risk of repeating myself it HAS to be non-obvious and novel.

In pharmaceuticals if there is a drug out that treats arthritis by an anti-inflammatory mechanism we cannot patent that drug for the treatment of another autoimmune disease by means of anti-inflammatory activity. That would be an obvious extension of its utility. We could however, file a use patent on that drug if we found that it had another activity besides being an anti-inflammatory that say prevented hair loss. The hair loss prevention is unrelated, unknown and unexpected in relation to the anti-arthritis activity. So I fail to see how using a light source to light an aquarium is not obvious :biggrin:

Now if Orbitec have some specific control scheme or can demonstrate that specific spectra over specific time periods enhance growth then that would be an invention. They have not done that. They have simply stated that throwing a controller on an LED array to control colour spectrum and time is something new that wasn't obvious and and they were the first to think of it. That's BS.

And as mentioned above, the PFO lawsuit never reached its conclusion because they went belly up.


ok one thing here is your caught in the time warp.. you keep reading this as if it was applied for today.. they files in 2002 and at that time there was no discusion of using LEDs for anything but acent lighting as crees wern't out/afordable yet and we were only playing with 5mm LEDs. so at the time this was aplied for we were only using leds for decrative purposes. I even did PAR tests on 5mm leds and they were junk. untill 3watt leds were redily availble no one used leds as a primary lighting source then a while later solarus came out with 3 watt leds but they were off shore cheep ones that had a lot of burn out problems.

also you should get 50000 hours befor you lose 15 to 20 % or the brightness only the spectral wavelenth stays the same where in other lights both the brightness and wavelenght are decreased/changed. so there is some valid points there.

I don't know if you would get away with making a system with out a controler.. it looks like the controler is an inclusion to the main patent of using one or more LEDs over an aquarium to permote grother of marine life.. I would have to read it agin though.. one thing that did pop into my head is you could maybe sell a system for fresh water tanks and sell it as an ornamental light.. the only thing I would wonder about is the spectral wavelenth for color they mention.. that might be a catch all for fresh water use.. but if it is sold as an accent light it might be able to squeek through as long as you don't think anyone would use it as a primary light.. :mrgreen:

now from my understanding the drug trade is heavy regulated by the goverment to do with patents also to allow the goverment and medical system access to clone drugs for cheep.

with this one you have to look at it not as you you would a drug where you are dealing with a specific compound but rater.. hmm whats the best way to look at it.. lets say I go to home depot and buy a bunch of off the shelf stuff. with that I go home and build a system that automates a rotatiller so it will follow a string and keep your garden tilled inbetween the rows. did I invent the rotatiller... no.. did I invent any parts I used.. no, but I did invent the process and use of the combanation of these parts to achieve a purpose. so I can now patent it and sell them myselves or go in partnership with another company who wants to build it and sell them and give me a cut.. that is what they have done.

Steve

[Edmonton newbie]

i have been searching for some good leds in canada but nobody seems to carry the good cree ex-r mounted on the star boards if anybody is thinking about a group buy out of the states count me in

[StirCrazy]

What gets me is the LED manufacturers likely HATE this patent. They'd easily sell more LEDs if this patent didn't exist.

not realy... we are a very small slice of the market that would buy leds. automotive, industreal, and flashlights are way bigger markets that we would ever be. don't forget 50000 hours works out to about 11 years on a 12 hour cycle befor you should need to replace the leds. so when you look at it that way if I bult a whole new system every 11 years I would buy about 30 bucks in LEDs a year.. and 50000 is a concervitive estimate, most leds are rated at 100000 hours, but I cut that in 1/2 as I would run at 1000mA instead of 700. but with proper cooling that souldn't affect the life.

Steve

[Ron99]

ok one thing here is your caught in the time warp.. you keep reading this as if it was applied for today.. they files in 2002 and at that time there was no discusion of using LEDs for anything but acent lighting as crees wern't out/afordable yet and we were only playing with 5mm LEDs. so at the time this was aplied for we were only using leds for decrative purposes. I even did PAR tests on 5mm leds and they were junk. untill 3watt leds were redily availble no one used leds as a primary lighting source then a while later solarus came out with 3 watt leds but they were off shore cheep ones that had a lot of burn out problems.

also you should get 50000 hours befor you lose 15 to 20 % or the brightness only the spectral wavelenth stays the same where in other lights both the brightness and wavelenght are decreased/changed. so there is some valid points there.

I don't know if you would get away with making a system with out a controler.. it looks like the controler is an inclusion to the main patent of using one or more LEDs over an aquarium to permote grother of marine life.. I would have to read it agin though.. one thing that did pop into my head is you could maybe sell a system for fresh water tanks and sell it as an ornamental light.. the only thing I would wonder about is the spectral wavelenth for color they mention.. that might be a catch all for fresh water use.. but if it is sold as an accent light it might be able to squeek through as long as you don't think anyone would use it as a primary light.. :mrgreen:

now from my understanding the drug trade is heavy regulated by the goverment to do with patents also to allow the goverment and medical system access to clone drugs for cheep.

with this one you have to look at it not as you you would a drug where you are dealing with a specific compound but rater.. hmm whats the best way to look at it.. lets say I go to home depot and buy a bunch of off the shelf stuff. with that I go home and build a system that automates a rotatiller so it will follow a string and keep your garden tilled inbetween the rows. did I invent the rotatiller... no.. did I invent any parts I used.. no, but I did invent the process and use of the combanation of these parts to achieve a purpose. so I can now patent it and sell them myselves or go in partnership with another company who wants to build it and sell them and give me a cut.. that is what they have done.

Steve

Hi Steve,

You raise a few good points but still not accurate in my opinion.

1. The first high power lumiled LEDs came out in 1998 or 1999 I believe. Yes they were expensive but they were already being incorporated into products such as flashlights by 2001. Orbitec filed their patent on December 15th, 2004 and IRRC they may have filed a PPA a year earlier so that would have been no earlier than December 15th, 2003. So high power LEDs had been around. There is also some prior art published in Advanced Aquarist and possibly elsewhere testing LEDs as aquarium lighting earlier in 2003. Besides, Orbitec's patent simply stated LEDs and does not make a distinction between low power or high power etc. They state that no commercial LED systems were available which is true but the idea had already been published by others. There is also the issue I have raised about obviousness. The question still remains as to whether using a newly available lighting source to light aquariums is novel or obvious.

2. Yes it is true that LEDs degrade more slowly and differently than other lights but their rate of degradation is entirely dependent on how they are cooled and on the particular environment and use. Orbitec implied that they do not degrade which is somewhat inaccurate. In any case, if you invented the longer life LEDs then you could patent them but I do not think a longer duty cycle is a valid patenting point for a use patent. It is obvious because the emitters last longer so you don't have to change them as often. Nothing surprising there.

3. If you read the patent it is very specific as to what is claimed (as patents must be). That is why you see multiple claims in patents to try to cover various bases. The patent claims:

1. A combination marine habitat and lighting system therefor comprising: a marine habitat having an open top defined by a top edge and a lighting system including: a housing connectable to said top edge to substantially cover said open top, said housing further including an inner side facing said open top when said housing is connected to said top edge and an opposite outer side; an LED light source mounted to the inner side of said housing, said LED light source comprising at least one light engine having a plurality of individual LEDs capable of providing light at a wavelength from about 380 nm to about 690 nm; a power supply sufficient to drive said LEDs; a controller connected with said power source for controlling the activation status and the intensity of one or more of said individual LEDs; and a cooling system provided in said housing.

2. The combination of claim 1 wherein said LED light source, when activated, is sufficient to support marine growth.

3. The combination of claim 1 wherein said LED light source includes at least one of chip-based, organic or discreet LEDs.

4. The combination of claim 1 wherein each of said light engines is capable of providing light intensity of from 0 to 1000 micro mols per square meter per second.

5. A lighting system for a marine habitat of the type having an open top defined by a top edge, said lighting system comprising: a housing connectable to said top edge to substantially cover said open top, said housing further including an inner side facing said open top when said housing is connected to said top edge and an opposite outer side; an LED light source mounted to the inner side of said housing, said LED light source comprising at least one light engine having a plurality of individual LEDs capable of providing light at a wavelength from about 380 nm to about 690 nm; a power supply sufficient to drive said LEDs; a controller connected with said power source for controlling the activation status and the intensity of one or more of said individual LEDs; and a cooling system provided in said housing.

6. The lighting system of claim 5 wherein said LED light source, when activated, is sufficient to support marine growth.

7. The lighting system of claim 5 wherein said LED light source includes at least one of chip-based, organic or discreet LEDs.

8. The combination of claim 5 wherein each of said light engines is capable of providing light intensity of from 0 to 1000 micro mols per square meter per second.

The operative part to look at is this:

an LED light source mounted to the inner side of said housing, said LED light source comprising at least one light engine having a plurality of individual LEDs capable of providing light at a wavelength from about 380 nm to about 690 nm; a power supply sufficient to drive said LEDs; a controller connected with said power source for controlling the activation status and the intensity of one or more of said individual LEDs; and a cooling system provided in said housing.

What is claimed is that combination of elements. So a straight LED array without a controller for controlling the activation status and intensity should be outside the scope of the patent. I have reviewed enough patents to be fairly sure of that. That is why you are seeing a bunch of fixtures with LEDs and no controller or combo fixtures with LEDs and T5s etc. but no controller. AI felt they had to license the patent because they have a controller.

4. Yes the drug industry is heavily regulated from the standpoint of marketing approval and sales but that is separate from the patenting. Dugs are patented like anything else and are subject to the same criteria as mousetraps or toothbrushes when it comes to patents. Completely separate criteria and governance than drug approvals. You can have a patent issued on a drug but have it fail in testing and not be approved for sale.

5. The same principals apply no matter what you are patenting. If your rotatiller guide is obvious to those skilled in the art of rotatillers and is similar to other rotatiller guides, even if you made it out of different parts, it is not novel and non-obvious and you could not patent it. You would have to have some surprising improvement over other rotatiller guides in order to be able to patent it. Have a look at this:

http://web.mit.edu/invent/h-chapters/h-three.html

The really important part in my opinion is:

Nonobvious: To be patentable, your invention must give new and nonobvious results compared to known approaches. Ordinary differences in size, materials or other obvious modifications are generally not patentable.

So even though I am not an expert on lighting systems and engineering I do know how patents work and understand the criteria to make something patentable. I still don't see anything surprising or non-obvious in Orbitec's patent. Using LEDs to light an aquarium does not give new and non-obvious results compared to T5, Mh etc. I can almost guarantee that they had a patent examiner who didn't know much about lighting systems or aquarium lighting and just went with what was in the patent with minimal research into it.

Cheers,

Ron

[banditpowdercoat]

The Patent may have been filed in 2002, but people WERE thinking of using LED's on tanks. It;s just the 3w LED's were not mainstream enough. I do not see the patent as an un-obvious use of LED's, or a lighting controller. We (reef community) had allready experimented with LED's, and were waiting for better ones to come on the market. To me, this patent has some pretty serious holes/Grey area's in it.

ok one thing here is your caught in the time warp.. you keep reading this as if it was applied for today.. they files in 2002 and at that time there was no discusion of using LEDs for anything but acent lighting as crees wern't out/afordable yet and we were only playing with 5mm LEDs. so at the time this was aplied for we were only using leds for decrative purposes. I even did PAR tests on 5mm leds and they were junk. untill 3watt leds were redily availble no one used leds as a primary lighting source then a while later solarus came out with 3 watt leds but they were off shore cheep ones that had a lot of burn out problems.

also you should get 50000 hours befor you lose 15 to 20 % or the brightness only the spectral wavelenth stays the same where in other lights both the brightness and wavelenght are decreased/changed. so there is some valid points there.

I don't know if you would get away with making a system with out a controler.. it looks like the controler is an inclusion to the main patent of using one or more LEDs over an aquarium to permote grother of marine life.. I would have to read it agin though.. one thing that did pop into my head is you could maybe sell a system for fresh water tanks and sell it as an ornamental light.. the only thing I would wonder about is the spectral wavelenth for color they mention.. that might be a catch all for fresh water use.. but if it is sold as an accent light it might be able to squeek through as long as you don't think anyone would use it as a primary light.. :mrgreen:

now from my understanding the drug trade is heavy regulated by the goverment to do with patents also to allow the goverment and medical system access to clone drugs for cheep.

with this one you have to look at it not as you you would a drug where you are dealing with a specific compound but rater.. hmm whats the best way to look at it.. lets say I go to home depot and buy a bunch of off the shelf stuff. with that I go home and build a system that automates a rotatiller so it will follow a string and keep your garden tilled inbetween the rows. did I invent the rotatiller... no.. did I invent any parts I used.. no, but I did invent the process and use of the combanation of these parts to achieve a purpose. so I can now patent it and sell them myselves or go in partnership with another company who wants to build it and sell them and give me a cut.. that is what they have done.

Steve

[StirCrazy]

Hi Steve,



1. The first high power lumiled LEDs came out in 1998 or 1999 I believe. Yes they were expensive but they were already being incorporated into products such as flashlights by 2001. Orbitec filed their patent on December 15th, 2004 and IRRC they may have filed a PPA a year earlier so that would have been no earlier than December 15th, 2003.
Cheers,

Ron

um the patent I am reading by them was filed in early 2002, if they did a provisional that would put them early 2001, which means they were at the same time as the release of high power LEDs . now they do have two patents on theses so maybe the one your reading is the second one?

Steve

[Ron99]

um the patent I am reading by them was filed in early 2002, if they did a provisional that would put them early 2001, which means they were at the same time as the release of high power LEDs . now they do have two patents on theses so maybe the one your reading is the second one?

Steve

What's the patent number? I have two patents I am looking at:

1. 7,220,018 which was filed on Dec 15, 2004 (and I now see it lists a PPA filed Dec. 15, 2003) and issued on May 22, 2007.

2. 7,473,008 filed March 22, 2007 which is the new continuation where they are now trying to claim all LED lighting even without a controller. :cry:

[StirCrazy]

ok so the first patent was applied for on dec 2003. the 2002 one was a supporting doccument. in there prior art statment they say there are many systems availble producing light capable of sustaining marine life, but none using LEDs as the light source. so that is a valid point.

one thing I have been wondering about is the anti trust laws pertaining to monopolies.. I think for them to get around this they would have to grant all licencing rights to companies willing to pay there fee.

proving prior art in court seams to be the only way to bust this patent but.. it costs 180.00us just to file your prior art for them to concider and prior art has to be certified by a qualified inspector at the time. so pictures of systems over our tanks 10 years ago doesn't cut it.

I would like to see this busted as much as anyone but I think that most big companies are just waiting for review years to see if they renew, or waiting till it expiers as it is to hard and very very expensive to fight a patent that is inplace.

Steve

[Ron99]

ok so the first patent was applied for on dec 2003. the 2002 one was a supporting doccument. in there prior art statment they say there are many systems availble producing light capable of sustaining marine life, but none using LEDs as the light source. so that is a valid point.

one thing I have been wondering about is the anti trust laws pertaining to monopolies.. I think for them to get around this they would have to grant all licencing rights to companies willing to pay there fee.

proving prior art in court seams to be the only way to bust this patent but.. it costs 180.00us just to file your prior art for them to concider and prior art has to be certified by a qualified inspector at the time. so pictures of systems over our tanks 10 years ago doesn't cut it.

I would like to see this busted as much as anyone but I think that most big companies are just waiting for review years to see if they renew, or waiting till it expiers as it is to hard and very very expensive to fight a patent that is inplace.

Steve

Yes, the fact that no commercially available systems were out is a valid statement but you have to ask why that is? Is it because nobody thought of it or it wasn't an obvious application or because the costs would have been to high. The PFO solaris fixtures were thousands of dollars when they came out in 2005 or 2006. imagine what a decent LED fixture would have cost in 2003 or 2004? Would a 3' or 4' light fixture costing $10,000 have been a viable product? The fact nothing was commercially available does not make the idea patentable. Should I be able to patent a personal rocketship? No personal rocketships are available now because the costs would be astronomical (sorry for the pun:lol:), not because it is a new and patentable idea.

Apparently there are some moves afoot in the US for a third party submission to review the patent but it's not all public yet. It's tied into the recent request for prior art references on reefbuilders. There is some discussion of it on nano-reef as well. I'm happy to lend whatever support they need for that if I can. I think I should probably start a new thread for that later today when I have time...

[StirCrazy]

or because the costs would have been to high. The PFO solaris fixtures were thousands of dollars when they came out in 2005 or 2006. ...

ya they were a couple K, but about 1 to 1.5K of that was probably profit for PFO. I actualy think PFO was stupid and let greed run there release of the solaris, as they new there was a patent aplication but they decided to cash in on it while they could befor the patent was granted, which is viable, but instead of just stopping production when the patent was granted they decided to figh it as the solaris was a cash cow for them..

they were using exhisting extrusions which cost them next to nothing, they were using off shore LEDs which are a fraction of the price of the cree. and they were driving them at lower levels which reduced the requirment for a heat sink. I would be willing to bet including labour there cost was under 500 bucks, and they probably sold the one unit to the stores for about 1700 and then the stores resold for about 2 to 2.5K

If they wouldn't have had as many problems they did with the cheep LEDs burning out they would have made a killing, but they had to many warenty issues which ate into there profit a little to much.

Steve

[Ron99]

ya they were a couple K, but about 1 to 1.5K of that was probably profit for PFO. I actualy think PFO was stupid and let greed run there release of the solaris, as they new there was a patent aplication but they decided to cash in on it while they could befor the patent was granted, which is viable, but instead of just stopping production when the patent was granted they decided to figh it as the solaris was a cash cow for them..

they were using exhisting extrusions which cost them next to nothing, they were using off shore LEDs which are a fraction of the price of the cree. and they were driving them at lower levels which reduced the requirment for a heat sink. I would be willing to bet including labour there cost was under 500 bucks, and they probably sold the one unit to the stores for about 1700 and then the stores resold for about 2 to 2.5K

If they wouldn't have had as many problems they did with the cheep LEDs burning out they would have made a killing, but they had to many warenty issues which ate into there profit a little to much.

Steve

I don't think that is a completely fair assessment. PFO used Phillips Luxeon emitters in their fixtures from day one. Now I have spent around $1200 to $1300 so far to buy parts for my DIY 48" fixture and that is with very good volume pricing through the nano-reef group buy for alot of it and also includes a free housing and cheap used heatsinks from eBay.

So I would be surprised if the cost of materials for a Solaris fixture was significantly less than that in 2006 even with their crappy excuses for heatsinks (which were probably responsible for the emitters burning out). now that also doesn't account for the R&D work to create a commercial fixture, tooling for bespoke parts if necessary, labour (even if it is cheap in China), shipping from China (not cheap), and any safety/electrical certification they required in North America. And then you have your operations cost in North America for offices, warehouses, staff etc.

Now normal retail markup is 40% so if the retail was $3500 then the wholesale price from PFO was probably $2100. I don't think it is unusual for a manufacturer to have a markup of 100% over the cost of materials therefore I don't think the pricing was wildly out of line. You may want the manufacturers to have razor thin margins but they won't bother if they can't make any money.

[StirCrazy]

I don't think that is a completely fair assessment. PFO used Phillips Luxeon emitters in their fixtures from day one. Now I have spent around $1200 to $1300 so far to buy parts for my DIY 48" fixture and that is with very good volume pricing through the nano-reef group buy for alot of it and also includes a free housing and cheap used heatsinks from eBay.

.

how many LED's you putting on that sucker ?? I think I am spending 600.00 total on a 30" long unit using 40 degree optics, and nothing was free or cheep..

the luxton stars were 1 watt leds, and at the time they were making the solaris they were cheeper than we can get the crees for, but that doesn't matter much.. what we get as a group buy is nothing compared to what a company can get things for. I know when I had my company going and I was looking at buying a significant quantity of something if I couldn't get it for about 1/3 of the retail price I would shop elsewhere. I never had to look around much. generaly I found there are 3 price ranges, retail, wholesale, and distrubitor. I am working on a deal right now that will get me distrubitor+ pricing on a produce that the rights to BA/AB with a few exclusions. nothing to do with the aquarium industry but the structure is the same.

Basicly I know a guy who has the canadian distrubution rights to a line of products, he has a few avenues that he sells directly to in a specific industry. I can sell to any industry but the one he sells directly to and my cost is his cost plus 10%. when I sell to a company I am oblagated to sell at a lower price than if I sold directly to the public otherwise why would a company buy the product to resell. so lets pick a number of 100 bucks. I buy the product for 110.00 because of my deal, so for wholesale I sell at 180 to 200. for retail I would charge 280.

with the group buys we are involved with in the diy fish tank things, we are dealing with retailers so the price we get is going to be better than if you go to a store and buy a product, but not anywhere near wholesale and distrubitor. now what would be ideal is if we had some one with a reg company that could contact cree sales directly and order a large volume. you would probably see the price down about 2 bucks a LED. same thing would apply to the heat sink, if I knew I would use 100 30X10 heat sinks, you could probably get at least 50% off the regular price and if you were to do some digging and find the smelter that actualy makes them and they are a generic die, not customer owned you could get them cheeper.

at anyrate I digress. the company PFO makes it, sends it to there distrubitors and then the distrubitors sell to the stores so something that costs 3500 in the store probably cost the store about 2500-3000 (usaly less mark up on expensive stuff), would cost the distrubitor rep about 1500 to 2000, and the company about 700 to 1000. if there made off shore then you can cut that number way down. I am just pulling numbers out of my a$$ here, but the idea is that there are usaly 3 or 4 steps along the way and usaly each one of thoes steps is 50 to 100% mark up on pricy things, and more on cheep things.

Steve

[Ron99]

how many LED's you putting on that sucker ?? I think I am spending 600.00 total on a 30" long unit using 40 degree optics, and nothing was free or cheep..

the luxton stars were 1 watt leds, and at the time they were making the solaris they were cheeper than we can get the crees for, but that doesn't matter much.. what we get as a group buy is nothing compared to what a company can get things for. I know when I had my company going and I was looking at buying a significant quantity of something if I couldn't get it for about 1/3 of the retail price I would shop elsewhere. I never had to look around much. generaly I found there are 3 price ranges, retail, wholesale, and distrubitor. I am working on a deal right now that will get me distrubitor+ pricing on a produce that the rights to BA/AB with a few exclusions. nothing to do with the aquarium industry but the structure is the same.

Basicly I know a guy who has the canadian distrubution rights to a line of products, he has a few avenues that he sells directly to in a specific industry. I can sell to any industry but the one he sells directly to and my cost is his cost plus 10%. when I sell to a company I am oblagated to sell at a lower price than if I sold directly to the public otherwise why would a company buy the product to resell. so lets pick a number of 100 bucks. I buy the product for 110.00 because of my deal, so for wholesale I sell at 180 to 200. for retail I would charge 280.

with the group buys we are involved with in the diy fish tank things, we are dealing with retailers so the price we get is going to be better than if you go to a store and buy a product, but not anywhere near wholesale and distrubitor. now what would be ideal is if we had some one with a reg company that could contact cree sales directly and order a large volume. you would probably see the price down about 2 bucks a LED. same thing would apply to the heat sink, if I knew I would use 100 30X10 heat sinks, you could probably get at least 50% off the regular price and if you were to do some digging and find the smelter that actualy makes them and they are a generic die, not customer owned you could get them cheeper.

at anyrate I digress. the company PFO makes it, sends it to there distrubitors and then the distrubitors sell to the stores so something that costs 3500 in the store probably cost the store about 2500-3000 (usaly less mark up on expensive stuff), would cost the distrubitor rep about 1500 to 2000, and the company about 700 to 1000. if there made off shore then you can cut that number way down. I am just pulling numbers out of my a$$ here, but the idea is that there are usaly 3 or 4 steps along the way and usaly each one of thoes steps is 50 to 100% mark up on pricy things, and more on cheep things.

Steve

I'm going to use 80 to 85 LEDs and start with 60 degree optics but I have some 80 and 40 as well to try and may mix and match a bit to have some higher and lower PAR areas.

As for the Solaris, they were 3 watt luxeons. Here's a review of the first units:

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2006/8/review2#h8

I did a bit of searching and it looks like the bare emitters sold for $3.45 each in quantities of 10,000 or more back in 2006. That doesn't include the cost of any MCPCB and mounting. I see where you are coming from and the reality is probably somewhere in between your estimate and mine. But there is more to a product then just the cost of the parts and while PFO may have been making a healthy gross margin on each fixture the volumes were probably low and then you still have to factor in all the overhead. So while expensive, the prices were probably in line for an expensive new technology that will sell in low numbers. I remember when 42" plasma TVs first came out in 1990 or so and they cost in excess of $25,000.

[Ron99]

I just realized my cost estimate is off as I have only spent about $1000 so far but will probably need another $100 worth of stuff to finish it off.

[StirCrazy]

I'm going to use 80 to 85 LEDs and start with 60 degree optics but I have some 80 and 40 as well to try and may mix and match a bit to have some higher and lower PAR areas.



what are you using for spacing? I just realized your tank is 18" front to back.. mine is 12" so that is going to add an extra row or two for ya.. so that why you need a lot more than I do.

you one thing I don't like about the DIY leds is how ugly the bottoms look. I wish there was an easy way to cover that up so you don't see all the wires.

are you making an enclosur for yours or just leaving the heat sink bare?

Steve

[Ron99]

I figured 4 rows 3" apart and 2" to 2.25" spacing in each row. I may also include a few UV LEDs along the centerline. I haven't laid it out yet. I finally received my last supplies including some Berquist adhesive thermal pads. That will be easier then drilling and tapping 160 holes :)

I have a Hamilton light fixture housing (I think it may have been a MH fixture once) I plan to use to enclose it all and it has a bottom cover with acrylic splash shield

[PACMAN416]

Hello Gentlemen,

Quick question. what size heatsink should i run for a 50 gallon tank. 36Lx18Wx18H. and how many LEDs will do it for me. and just wondering where you guys found large heatsinks in Canada! all i hear about is heatsinksusa, but i would rather buy it from a canadian supplier.

you guys should document your builds!!!!


Thanks for your future reply!

[StirCrazy]

Hello Gentlemen,

Quick question. what size heatsink should i run for a 50 gallon tank. 36Lx18Wx18H. and how many LEDs will do it for me. and just wondering where you guys found large heatsinks in Canada! all i hear about is heatsinksusa, but i would rather buy it from a canadian supplier.

you guys should document your builds!!!!


Thanks for your future reply!

I was going to buy mine from heatsink USA myself.. didn't find anything like that in canada.

as for the amount of LED's it depends on how much light you want. so like anything else what are you intentions for the tank.

Steve

[Ron99]

I will start a build thread as soon as I start to build it :lol:

For heatsinks, I found some used ones on eBay. I bought three that were 12" by 15" in size so that will give me good coverage over 48" x 18". For your tank you will probably need something around 12 to 13 inches wide and 28 to 30 inches long.

And as Steve said, the number and spacing of LEDs along with what optics to use will depend on what your stocking plans are. I am using 4 rows spaced 3 inches apart front to back and then the LED spacing along each row will be 2.25" with 60 degree optics. That should give me similar or slightly better performance to a set up using 2 x 250W MH. You could go with 40 degree optics but then your spacing needs to be no further apart then 2" between LEDs in the rows and that would probably give you PAR equivalent to a 400W MH. Probably overkill in an 18" deep tank. I may use 80 degree optics in a few areas or set it up so i can dim it by sectors to have some lower PAR sections for LPS etc.

If I were setting one up for a reef in a tank your size I would probably do 4 rows of 12 or 13 emitters with 60 degree optics.

[PACMAN416]

thanks for the reply! i was thinking 4 rows of 12 as well. so 60 degree optics will give me the light i need to grow anything? (sps, lps, softies, clams, anemones)? I shall begin my planning asap if this is the case!


also, i wish i lived in BC! love the rockies!
also, also, I will definitely be watching your build! (I have a 75 gallon freshwater, that i may, in the future, convert to saltwater, once i get the hang of things on this 50G build)!

[Ron99]

Sounds like a good plan. Try to get dimmable drivers so you can adjust the lighting for acclimation etc. If you get ambitious you can make a controller to do fancy sunrise and sunset, cloudy periods etc. :)

BTW, where are you in Etobicoke? I grew up right around Dixon Rd. and Kipling. Been on the west coast for 18.5 years now so I guess I have assimilated.

[PACMAN416]

I'm technologically inept. a controller would be amazing, but i dont think i could do it. maybe in the future. Small world, I'm at Kipling and princess margaret!

[StirCrazy]

personaly I think 60 degree optics would be more about T5 lighting levels, to get MH levels I think you need to use 40 degree optics on anything over 18" deep.

Steve

[Ron99]

I'm technologically inept. a controller would be amazing, but i dont think i could do it. maybe in the future. Small world, I'm at Kipling and princess margaret!

Doesn't hurt to build it with the future expandability. Most reef controllers can output 0-10v signals for dimming so if you get drivers that are capable of being dimmed that way you are ready to add the controller in the future. And it is a small world. I went to High School at Martingrove not far from you :biggrin:

personaly I think 60 degree optics would be more about T5 lighting levels, to get MH levels I think you need to use 40 degree optics on anything over 18" deep.

Steve

Depends what set ups you are talking about. It's all comparing apples to oranges but evilc66's testing at nano-reef seems to show performance equal to MH set ups. I don't think he has made many PAR measurements of T5 systems for comparison.

[Stephanie1974]

Will you have to change the lighting as often as the MH and other forms of lights?? LED's great idea!

[freezetyle]

I could be way off here as I do not know much about patents and how far they go but seeing businesses like nano tuners got me thinking.

Couldn't someone come out with an array of led on a heat-sink that "coincidentally" fit inside of a lighting hood that is also supplied by that same supplier, and again "coincidentally" has a compatible driver? The parts could be sold as a sort of a retrofit idea. all portions being offered separately?

[Stephanie1974]

I read the posts and ANswered my own question. !5 years! WOW! That alone would put these other lighting companies searching for other means to make money...to make even better lighting than the LED's.

[PACMAN416]

Will you have to change the lighting as often as the MH and other forms of lights?? LED's great idea!

Hi Stephanie, LEDS last for a looooong time!! i think its something like 10-11 years. so you will not have to change the bulbs! that is why LEDS are a key advancement in aquarium lighting. they may cost more now, but in the long run (i think its something like a 4-6 year breakeven) it will pay off!

[PACMAN416]

Doesn't hurt to build it with the future expandability. Most reef controllers can output 0-10v signals for dimming so if you get drivers that are capable of being dimmed that way you are ready to add the controller in the future. And it is a small world. I went to High School at Martingrove not far from you :biggrin:

yes i will definitely be using dimmable drivers (meanwells). So your using 3xheatsinks. I like the idea of breakign the heatsinks up, but how will you wire that? i assume you would run the clear whites separately from the royal blue LEDs using different drivers. but will you have, lets say, leds being connected from heatsink to heatsink on the same driver?

Yes i know Martingrove Collegiate H.S. I went to Michael Power though:razz:

[PACMAN416]

I could be way off here as I do not know much about patents and how far they go but seeing businesses like nano tuners got me thinking.

Couldn't someone come out with an array of led on a heat-sink that "coincidentally" fit inside of a lighting hood that is also supplied by that same supplier, and again "coincidentally" has a compatible driver? The parts could be sold as a sort of a retrofit idea. all portions being offered separately?


im not sure how patent laws work. but if you sell all the parts in a package, i guess it would be okay, just as long as they are not assembled.

[Crytone]

im not sure how patent laws work. but if you sell all the parts in a package, i guess it would be okay, just as long as they are not assembled.

This is actually incorrect. Still illegal if sold as a DIY 'package' or kit. It's even against patent laws to assemble your own with your own parts but it's rather unlikely you'd ever get sued for this (the cost of suing you >>> money they'd get from you).

[PACMAN416]

This is actually incorrect. Still illegal if sold as a DIY 'package' or kit. It's even against patent laws to assemble your own with your own parts but it's rather unlikely you'd ever get sued for this (the cost of suing you >>> money they'd get from you).


:doh:My bad, thanks for clearing it up. But how does nano-customs get away with what they do then?

[Ron99]

But how does nano-customs get away with what they do then?

The current patent covers systems with controllers. No controller means no infringement. However, and it's a big HOWEVER, Orbitheft is trying to get an extension to the patent to cover all LED lighting, whether it has a controller or not. If they do then Nano Customs will either have to stop selling their retrofits or pay a license fee to Orbitec.

Hence my earlier thread asking for any examples of prior art that anybody knows of. There is a move afoot in the industry to try to have the patent re-examined and hopefully overturned. Any examples of people publicly discussing or displaying LED aquarium lighting for more than moonlighting before December 2003 could serve as prior art making Orbitec's patent application invalid.

[PACMAN416]

yes i will definitely be using dimmable drivers (meanwells). So your using 3xheatsinks. I like the idea of breaking the heatsinks up, but how will you wire that? i assume you would run the whites separately from the royal blue LEDs using different drivers. but will you have, lets say, LEDs being connected from heatsink to heatsink on the same driver?

Yes i know Martingrove Collegiate H.S. I went to Michael Power though:razz:


Ron, i think you missed one of my replies.

Can you provide a link to the heat sinks you picked up on ebay? I can't find anything with the appropriate width. maybe im blind?

[Ron99]

Hi,

They were just salvaged used heatsinks, not new retail ones. So no link, sorry. The one advatage is that they already have a whole bunch of mounting holes drilled and tapped in them so that makes it easier for me to mount them and possibly mount fans right on the heatsinks. There are lots of used heatsinks in different sizes available on eBay if you search. The only catch might be shipping to Canada. I have a mailbox just across the border in WA state that they were shipped to. Saved me something like $25 in shipping costs as they were heavy and no taxes or duties. Just a confused look from the border gaurd as I tried to explain what a heatsink was and what I was going to do with them :lol:

I haven't figured out eaxctly how I am going to wire them yet but they will be on 8 separate drivers (4 for whites and 4 for blues) so some will likely span heatsinks. I could probably put a connector in to go across heatsinks but they will all be mounted flush against each other in the housing. They are 15" long for a total of 45" in a 48" housing so I will just leave 1.5 inches on each end open. Right now I am trying to figure out how I am going to mount them in the housing. I'm a biologist, not an engineer :) Once I figure that out the wiring is the easy part.

[PACMAN416]

maybe L brackets to create a lip that the heatsinks can rest on? yeah, this is definitely out of my scope as well. you are lucky about the US address. i checked shipping form heatsinkusa for a 10wide x 30long, and it'll cost $125 for the heatsink, and $75 for shipping!!!!!!!!!!!! :laser::scared:

[StirCrazy]

maybe L brackets to create a lip that the heatsinks can rest on? yeah, this is definitely out of my scope as well. you are lucky about the US address. i checked shipping form heatsinkusa for a 10wide x 30long, and it'll cost $125 for the heatsink, and $75 for shipping!!!!!!!!!!!! :laser::scared:

hmm did you ask about shipping options.. I asked them about USPS ground and it was about 35 bucks for the shipping on a 10X28. never use UPS as there will ba a 35 buck extra charge from UPS to "clear customs"

Steve

[PACMAN416]

hmm did you ask about shipping options.. I asked them about USPS ground and it was about 35 bucks for the shipping on a 10X28. never use UPS as there will ba a 35 buck extra charge from UPS to "clear customs"

Steve

I think it was USPS as well :( sigh. i will keep my eyes open for a heatsink.

[StirCrazy]

I was going to buy it anyways as I wasnted a one piece design, but ya there has to be something in Canada.


Steve

[RuGlu6]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Z5l7xjfFS0&feature=player_embedded#
Above is the video of LED lited SPS tank. He's got 3 ballasts so looks like 3 LED strips.

here is the store that sells them.

http://www.fish-street.com/weipro_led_lighting_led-c
Could it work for a Nano or a small cube tank ?

[Ron99]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Z5l7xjfFS0&feature=player_embedded#
Above is the video of LED lited SPS tank. He's got 3 ballasts so looks like 3 LED strips.

here is the store that sells them.

http://www.fish-street.com/weipro_led_lighting_led-c
Could it work for a Nano or a small cube tank ?

I would say no. It says it's 180 LEDs and 21 watts so regular 5mm LEDs probably putting out very little PAR. Also, lifespan of those types of LEDs is iffy as they are very difficult to cool effectively. The tank in the video looks like it has T8s or something as well in addition to the LEDs.

[StirCrazy]

I would say no. It says it's 180 LEDs and 21 watts so regular 5mm LEDs probably putting out very little PAR. Also, lifespan of those types of LEDs is iffy as they are very difficult to cool effectively. The tank in the video looks like it has T8s or something as well in addition to the LEDs.

the life of the 5mm will be very good, and they don't need cooling to get that life. but like you said there is no par to speak of.. they are about the same PAR output as a NO T12 bulb from my testing about 7 years ago.

this light are good for FOWLR or FO tanks, not anything with coral.

Steve

[wayner]

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1767811&page=15

[Ron99]

the life of the 5mm will be very good, and they don't need cooling to get that life. but like you said there is no par to speak of.. they are about the same PAR output as a NO T12 bulb from my testing about 7 years ago.

this light are good for FOWLR or FO tanks, not anything with coral.

Steve

Well, it all depends on how well ventilated the housing is on those units. 5mm LEDs will suffer from heat too. it's just that thermal management of high power LEDs is more critical because they put out alot more heat. But a tight, enclosed fixture with 180 5mm LEDs in it could potentially build up heat and reduce the life of the emitters. And you can't really use heatsinks and fans to cool the plastic type LEDs.

[StirCrazy]

Well, it all depends on how well ventilated the housing is on those units. 5mm LEDs will suffer from heat too. it's just that thermal management of high power LEDs is more critical because they put out alot more heat. But a tight, enclosed fixture with 180 5mm LEDs in it could potentially build up heat and reduce the life of the emitters. And you can't really use heatsinks and fans to cool the plastic type LEDs.

doesn't matter at all, I had potted 5mm leds that have been running for 4 years 24/7 the heat production from a 5mm at 3.7 volts (rated input) is nill. the ones I have arew potted in the middle of 1.5 X 1" clear acrylic potting material. I actuly threw them out when I moved as I was doing an exparament to see how long submersable leds would last in a waterproof enclosure.

Steve

[lodidodi]

Has anyone heard anything about the Maxspect led lights? It seems interesting especially for that price.

http://www.fish-street.com/maxspect_programmable_led_aquarium_lighting?catego ry_id=118

[BlueAbyss]

Stupid Orbitech.


Sorry, just throwing that out there :wink:

[Ron99]

Stupid Orbitech.


Sorry, just throwing that out there :wink:

I hear you brother :lol:


Has anyone heard anything about the Maxspect led lights? It seems interesting especially for that price.

http://www.fish-street.com/maxspect_programmable_led_aquarium_lighting?catego ry_id=118

They look alright but I have a couple of concerns which would keep me from buying one. Firstly, they are not adjustable. You can't dim the LEDs or the blue and white separately. to adjust brightness or colour temperature. secondly, i don't really like the approach of using a few really high wattage LEDs rather than a good array of 3 watt emitters. That will lead to some really bright hotspots and areas of extremely high PAR that could bleach some corals right under those emitters and then the PAR will drop off alot more outside those hotspots. May be okay if you want to put your high light SPS right under those LEDs and then lower light stuff in other areas of the tank.