LED Patents - Action Needed!

[Ron99]

Well I don't know if everybody saw the post at reefbuilders:

http://reefbuilders.com/2010/01/30/stop-orbitec-continuing-overreaching-broad-patent/

Basically, a company called Orbitec (which is developing LED based grow lights for space and other applications) managed to get a patent for the use of LED aquarium lights with controllers to vary intensity and timing which means anybody wanting to make a fixture with built in controller has to pay them a licensing fee. While it is the subject of debate, many of us feel this patent should never have been issued for various reasons. And to make matters worse, Orbitec is now filing for a continuation of that patent that will cover any LED lighting for aquariums whether they have a controller or not which I think is really overreaching and should be fought.

So I thought I would start a thread here where we can discuss it and also to urge people to go over to reefbuilders and support them in this fight. Especially if you know of any posts on web boards or publications that discuss LED lighting for reef tanks prior to late 2003. They need to gather as much prior art together to show that the idea was already in the public arena before Orbitec filed for their patent.

[ScubaSteve]

I can see how they were able to get a patent for an LED unit with a controller but they haven't got a hope in hell of being able to patent all LED units for aquariums as, at least to my knowledge, it is prior public knowledge. If they applied for a patent of this back then, this patent would have likely been granted by now.

A few threads that come to mind are:
http://www.nano-reef.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=200335
http://www.nano-reef.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=138608

Contact the author of the first thread. He is an LED aquarium lighting guru and could give you a plethora of info.

[StirCrazy]

ok here are some threads for ya to look through

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aquaria.marine.reefs/browse_frm/thread/04283d0ac0201430?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fhl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DISO-8859-1%26safe%3Doff%26q%3DLED%2Blights%26btnG%3DGoogle% 2BSearch%26meta%3Dgroup%253Drec.aquaria.marine.*

http://www.canreef.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=3480&highlight=LEDs

http://www.canreef.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=4873&highlight=LEDs

heres a good one to
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/august2003/feature.htm

http://www.canreef.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=15763&highlight=LEDs

anyways after these we are getting into 2004

Steve

[Ron99]

Hi Steve,

The patent with a controller is marginal to me as I think it is an obvious extension of what has been done with other types of lighting for a long time is therefore obvious and not patentable. As for the new continuation they have filed, who knows what the patent office will allow if others don't bring stuff to their attention.

I am aware of the stuff on nano-reef and I think Evilc66 over there is involved in this already. I was thinking more from the perspective of anything Canadian that could help them that they aren't already aware of. The US guys probably don't spend much time on Canadian boards :) The one you linked to from Canreef is probably to late as it would have to be before Orbitec filed their PPA in December of 2003.

[Ron99]

Sorry, meant the last Canreef link you posted. The others might be helpful to them.

[StirCrazy]

Sorry, meant the last Canreef link you posted. The others might be helpful to them.

ya I thought that was a little late, but threw it in anyways.. if you need the pictures that are missing I could probably find the ones of the lighting over my tank. but it could take a while to find them LOL

Steve

[banditpowdercoat]

Along for the ride :D

[sphelps]

I'm a little confused and don't see a problem from my point of view

1) You don't have to worry about any patent infringement if you're just building your own fixture, only if you're manufacturing and selling it. DIY'ers are safe.

2) There are a number of problems with LED systems, they are too expensive, they are more complicated than the average system, and they are yet to be proven as a sustainable and effective alternative to existing products for the average reef keeper. No matter how you look at it LEDs are low power which makes them less practical for this industry. I see great potential in residential lighting if the cost can be reduced but not so much in our hobby, well except for moon lights.

3) LED is just a new idea and popular as a result of marketing more than anything else. In five years something else will be out that's far better, even as we speak there are better things on the horizon.

[StirCrazy]

I'm a little confused and don't see a problem from my point of view

1) You don't have to worry about any patent infringement if you're just building your own fixture, only if you're manufacturing and selling it. DIY'ers are safe.

2) There are a number of problems with LED systems, they are too expensive, they are more complicated than the average system, and they are yet to be proven as a sustainable and effective alternative to existing products for the average reef keeper. No matter how you look at it LEDs are low power which makes them less practical for this industry. I see great potential in residential lighting if the cost can be reduced but not so much in our hobby, well except for moon lights.

3) LED is just a new idea and popular as a result of marketing more than anything else. In five years something else will be out that's far better, even as we speak there are better things on the horizon.

actualy if you build your own they can take you to cort for infringment. usaly they don't as it costs to much for what they would get from an individual. now if they had proof of 100 people that built there own that might be worth it.

LEDs have actualy been testing out at higher PAR levels than MH when set up right, with none of the heat issues or buble replacment issues.

and finaly, they are not new.. been on systems in DIY sence 2001-2002, been avilable comercialy since 2004. so about as new as T5s.

Steve

[sphelps]

actualy if you build your own they can take you to cort for infringment. usaly they don't as it costs to much for what they would get from an individual. now if they had proof of 100 people that built there own that might be worth it.

LEDs have actualy been testing out at higher PAR levels than MH when set up right, with none of the heat issues or buble replacment issues.

and finaly, they are not new.. been on systems in DIY sence 2001-2002, been avilable comercialy since 2004. so about as new as T5s.

Steve
No company with half a brain would sue a guy who built a similar product for personal use in his garage. If you're that worried maybe don't be so quick to show off your new light online with detailed plans on how you built it. But either way it will never happen, you're no threat to the company and they have better things to do with their money. The fact that they have such a patent should tell you they're not that stupid.

If they've been around for so long (6 years isn't that long BTW) then show me a pictures of a tank that has used LEDs for a good period of time for mostly SPS corals. If such a light fixture can't be used to support SPS corals it's about as useful as PCs and NOs. From what I know LEDs don't have the intensity to penetrate water deep enough, they have the par at the surface but that's it. This is why we need high output lighting and why you'll have a difficult time finding someone with success using LEDs alone.

[Ron99]

ya I thought that was a little late, but threw it in anyways.. if you need the pictures that are missing I could probably find the ones of the lighting over my tank. but it could take a while to find them LOL

Steve

Thanks, I'll forward the link to reefbuilders and see if they need pics.

I'm a little confused and don't see a problem from my point of view

1) You don't have to worry about any patent infringement if you're just building your own fixture, only if you're manufacturing and selling it. DIY'ers are safe.

2) There are a number of problems with LED systems, they are too expensive, they are more complicated than the average system, and they are yet to be proven as a sustainable and effective alternative to existing products for the average reef keeper. No matter how you look at it LEDs are low power which makes them less practical for this industry. I see great potential in residential lighting if the cost can be reduced but not so much in our hobby, well except for moon lights.

3) LED is just a new idea and popular as a result of marketing more than anything else. In five years something else will be out that's far better, even as we speak there are better things on the horizon.

1. Yes, technically they could sue you but it would not make economic sense to spend tens of thousands of dollars on lawyers to recover a few thousand dollars in damages so in practice no DIYer would have a problem. However, it could endanger companies that sell DIY kits or parts to aquarists such as nanocustoms etc.

2. The only problem with LED systems at the moment is cost. And that is really an up front cost as the long term costs are probably less over 5 to 8 years when you look at lower energy consumption, less heat added to the tank so probably less chance of needing a chiller or other cooling mechanism for your tank and the elimination of bulb costs compared to MH or other systems where you change bulbs every 8 months to a year depending on what you're running. So if you actually do the math the overall costs of an LED system are probably lower, just all up front instead of over time.

3. LEDs are not just marketing but an advanced and energy efficient lighting source that, if done right, can accommodate any lighting needs you have from a cheaper fish only lighting fixture to a high PAR fixture for corals. There has been plenty of experience now with LEDs and lots of testing to show that they can produce as much or more PAR as any HM setup. In fact, some testing shows that the light is more tightly contained if using optics and the fall off of PAR as you go deeper in the tank is more linear with LEDs than with MH. that means that if you compare a MH to an LED setup that have the same PAR at the surface of the tank, you will likely have higher PAR at the bottom with LEDs than with MH. Many examples of great SPS colour and growth are out there too. Just check out some tanks on nano-reef.com or at reefcentral that run LEDs.

[sphelps]

So what's the issue? Are you looking to build and market LED fixtures and retro fits? If not I would let the people that want to worry about that. I assure you there is always a way around patents like this, monopolies only last so long. This type of thing happens all the time but competition always finds a way if there is potential market share available.

However I don't see much potential. I have never seen an LED system alone support an average size tank with mostly SPS corals. You could with the same reasoning stack a ton of NO florescence over one tank in hopes of it meeting the demands but it simply won't work.
I don't believe the intensity is there, simple as that. Yes they are efficient and very cool with all the programing options but that's it. The cost is not why these lights are not popular, if they worked as well as you say then more people would use them but unfortunately no one has really proven these to work as suggested. I offer the same challenge to you, very simple just present a tank that proves me wrong.

If they did work as well as the alternative I for one would use them, I love efficiency but it still needs to work. I spend plenty of money on good equipment that works well and is efficient.

[JDigital]

These are quite the LED tanks... I'm sure the LED setups weren't cheap at all, but sure does look like the tanks are doing well..

http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/2020/001tgn.jpg

http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/8827/123le.jpg

http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/5988/001qmv.jpg

http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/2351/002plw.jpg


Now, I certainly am not an LED advocate, just thought I would post a few LED tanks to stir up discussion.

[StirCrazy]

the biggest problem is finding the stuff for a reasonable price. for example it is going to cost me about 600 bucks give or take to build the set up for my 30 gal tank, Ron is about 1200 for his tank.

money waise for me this is still not back concidering two 250 watt MH over the same tank would cost about 600 to get going also. the differance is I should get about 10 years of use from my system with no more money added. two MH on a 30 gal will definatly need a chiller, so there is another 600 bucks, then two bulbs a year for 10 years is another 2K. and if the calculations are right I will have over 400 PAR on the bottom of my tank wich is about inline with 250 watt DE MH. so I will have the same par output but only consume 200 watts of power instead of 500. and no heat issues as all the heat is disapated through the heat sink up into the air. then to top it all off I will be able to dim each color seperatly so I can get any color temp I want for the tank, and if I spend another couple hundred bucks I can put togeather a digital controler to slowly fade in the colors to different degrees at different times of the day and fade out again at sunset. since I will be running two white controlers and two blue, if I gwet some new frags, I can drop the intensity on one side of the tank where the new corals are and slowly bring it back up over a week or so to get the frags used to the light. features you just cant buy in systems that are out there right now.

Like I said the company could sue, but would they, no.. like I said and Ron said the cost is against it. it would be like metalica sueing the 20K people that downloaded there music, they wouldn't have sued 50 people, but if there are enough people to make the lawsuit worth itin the end then ya.

the reason we want the patent squashed is to encourage compatition. this would bring the overall cost of LEDs down making it cheeper to build. also it would allow bigger lighting companies the creat system. for instance if PFO would have been entering a market at the same time as 4 other lighting companies with the solaris, you can bet it would have been about 500 to 1K cheeper. Also it would open the doors for compinies to produce retrofit kits. right now the market is limited to people who can figure out resisters, electronic soldering, drilling and tapping, and you have to source the parts from about 4 different places.. heatsink from one, led's and drivers from another.. thermal paste from another, ect. So LEDs right now are only feasable to a slice of the reefing comunity than has the knowlage and skill sets to build them.

[bvlester]

Well I don't know if everybody saw the post at reefbuilders:

http://reefbuilders.com/2010/01/30/stop-orbitec-continuing-overreaching-broad-patent/

Basically, a company called Orbitec (which is developing LED based grow lights for space and other applications) managed to get a patent for the use of LED aquarium lights with controllers to vary intensity and timing which means anybody wanting to make a fixture with built in controller has to pay them a licensing fee. While it is the subject of debate, many of us feel this patent should never have been issued for various reasons. And to make matters worse, Orbitec is now filing for a continuation of that patent that will cover any LED lighting for aquariums whether they have a controller or not which I think is really overreaching and should be fought.

So I thought I would start a thread here where we can discuss it and also to urge people to go over to reefbuilders and support them in this fight. Especially if you know of any posts on web boards or publications that discuss LED lighting for reef tanks prior to late 2003. They need to gather as much prior art together to show that the idea was already in the public arena before Orbitec filed for their patent.


From what I understand you would have to pay them only if your led design and controler was the same as theirs. That is how patenets work, you can not copy someone elses work, YOu don't even have to have a registered patent. YOu can do it the poor mans way disign and build a prototype and mail it to your self by registered mail your patent is validated by the post mark now you can not open the pakage unless you sue someone and it has to be opened in cort to proov that you disned and it object first then the other guy is lible for damages only if his design is the same sa yours. even if only one resister is different then he would not be lible at least in canada.

Bill

[Ron99]

The issue is that this patent is going to harm the growth of LED lighting and innovation. Most small aquarium lighting companies will not want to pay royalties to Orbitec and it's a dodgy patent in many people's opinion. If Orbitec gets the continuation allowed they will be able to control all aquarium LED lighting except for moonlights. I don't think that will be a good thing for the hobby.

it is pretty well established now that LEDs are a viable alternative to other types of light. i don't have time to hunt for lots of information but here's two quick links that show what some people are seeing with LEDs:

http://www.ultimatereef.net/forums/showthread.php?t=321387

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1639666

And yes, the intensity is there. Don't try to look directly into a high power LED. Way bright. Lot's of PAR readings too and people bleaching and and killing corals with LEDs out there.

I am planning on starting my 48" LED array build soon so you will all see what it does on my 75 gallon mixed reef.

[Red Coral Aquariums]

The issue is that this patent is going to harm the growth of LED lighting and innovation. Most small aquarium lighting companies will not want to pay royalties to Orbitec and it's a dodgy patent in many people's opinion. If Orbitec gets the continuation allowed they will be able to control all aquarium LED lighting except for moonlights. I don't think that will be a good thing for the hobby.

One simple sticker on your proposed LED fixture would solve the whole patent issue.

" NOT FOR AQUARIUM USE"

Kevin

[naesco]

So what's the issue? Are you looking to build and market LED fixtures and retro fits? If not I would let the people that want to worry about that. I assure you there is always a way around patents like this, monopolies only last so long. This type of thing happens all the time but competition always finds a way if there is potential market share available.

However I don't see much potential. I have never seen an LED system alone support an average size tank with mostly SPS corals. You could with the same reasoning stack a ton of NO florescence over one tank in hopes of it meeting the demands but it simply won't work.
I don't believe the intensity is there, simple as that. Yes they are efficient and very cool with all the programing options but that's it. The cost is not why these lights are not popular, if they worked as well as you say then more people would use them but unfortunately no one has really proven these to work as suggested. I offer the same challenge to you, very simple just present a tank that proves me wrong.

If they did work as well as the alternative I for one would use them, I love efficiency but it still needs to work. I spend plenty of money on good equipment that works well and is efficient.

I see a fantastic potential for LED lighting. Many reefers are tired of the static though beautiful SPS tanks and are looking to LPS coral which offer the opportunity to view florescense that LED deep blue lighting provides. The difference is colour is shocking.
The newer LED systems provide this opportunity. You can focus light beams, programme different lighting and dim which is not available on dated MH lighting.
I would encourage the lighting experts on this board to experiment with DIY and bought systems.
I am defineately not knowledgeable of the details of LED but IMO LED is the future.
Wayne

[StirCrazy]

One simple sticker on your proposed LED fixture would solve the whole patent issue.

" NOT FOR AQUARIUM USE"

Kevin

ahh great, when you going to start selling the Kevin? :mrgreen:

Steve

[StirCrazy]

From what I understand you would have to pay them only if your led design and controler was the same as theirs. That is how patenets work, you can not copy someone elses work, YOu don't even have to have a registered patent. YOu can do it the poor mans way disign and build a prototype and mail it to your self by registered mail your patent is validated by the post mark now you can not open the pakage unless you sue someone and it has to be opened in cort to proov that you disned and it object first then the other guy is lible for damages only if his design is the same sa yours. even if only one resister is different then he would not be lible at least in canada.

Bill

not in this case Bill, they did not patent a machien, but rather a novel idea. the idea is running 1 or more leds with a controler and powersupply which can alowing for local or remote operation.

this is the problem as it is a blanket patent. and yes it is valid in canada as all US patents are.

Steve

[Ron99]

One simple sticker on your proposed LED fixture would solve the whole patent issue.

" NOT FOR AQUARIUM USE"

Kevin

If only it were that simple :biggrin: If you built in aquarium friendly features like timers and sunrise/sunset, splash shields etc. they might be able to argue in court that you were in fact targeting the aquarium market. you would have to spend a bunch of money marketing it to the hydroponics industry etc. to protect yourself and be very quiet about aquarium marketing. In practice I don't think it would really work.


not in this case Bill, they did not patent a machien, but rather a novel idea. the idea is running 1 or more leds with a controler and powersupply which can alowing for local or remote operation.

this is the problem as it is a blanket patent. and yes it is valid in canada as all US patents are.

Steve

I think the patent is iffy because we have been running timers and controllers on our lights for sunrise/sunset and spectral control by timing different colours of bulbs before so doing that with LEDs is not really novel.

Also, US patents are not enforceable in Canada. They would need a Canadian patent (which they may have applied for. I'm not sure if the Canadian office publishes applications and they can be kept in the application/limbo phase for a while in Canada). But you could not make a product in Canada and sell it in the US, only Canada.

[saltcreep]

Ron99,

I've been searching for something else on the Canadian patent site tonight, so it's kind of funny this topic is being discussed.

It doesn't appear that there are any patents or patent applications in Canada. You can search the Canadian patent database for current patents and for applications.

I'm also an owner of a Solaris system and I can attest to the fact that SPS has done well in my tank. However (answering another thread), being in the industry has kind of made me slip on my maintenance on my tank so the SPS are longer with me. I've settled for much more forgiving corals since my care for my tank is rather spotty (much like the kids of a cobbler having crappy shoes).

I agree that the US patent was rather sketchy at best as there didn't appear to be a whole lot of research put into the approval to see what technology was already in the public domain.

[StirCrazy]

Also, US patents are not enforceable in Canada. They would need a Canadian patent (which they may have applied for. I'm not sure if the Canadian office publishes applications and they can be kept in the application/limbo phase for a while in Canada). But you could not make a product in Canada and sell it in the US, only Canada.

my mistake, they have to wait 1 year after being aproved for there US patent befor they can submit a blanket patent that covers most industrealized countries.

Steve.

[StirCrazy]

Ron99,

I agree that the US patent was rather sketchy at best as there didn't appear to be a whole lot of research put into the approval to see what technology was already in the public domain.

what I don't understand is acording to the US patent system you will know if you have been aproved in most cases with in a year. why did this one take 4 years? that just makes me think they looked at it real hard.

Steve

[saltcreep]

It was my understanding that the patent was approved. Maybe it was for a shorter period than the usual 20 years. There was an application in 2003, then another in 2004 which apparently was approved in 2007. I think that was the time that PFO was forced out of business. Without going through the documents, there must be a valid reason for the continuation of the applications.

[bvlester]

not in this case Bill, they did not patent a machien, but rather a novel idea. the idea is running 1 or more leds with a controler and powersupply which can alowing for local or remote operation.

this is the problem as it is a blanket patent. and yes it is valid in canada as all US patents are.

Steve

I have to see the actual patenent from what I know you can not patenent an Idea or a number or letter. that is why Intel started naming there processors they lost a huge law suet aganst AMD when AMD use intels specs to form a processor chip. AMD won the law suet were told to be very carful. Intel was told that they could not patenent a number leter or an idea. You can patenent a process of construction or a design. Not all US patenents are valid in Canada they have to be registered in Canada to be recognised. When you applie for a patenent you have to list all countries that you want it registered in or someone can use your design and make one of their own. My father has been involved in patenents before it can be a huge night mare ever if the wording is not just right. As apple found out when microsoft stole the windows concept from them. Apple thought that their patenent for their computer also covered the operating system. The wording was there but it was not clear so microsoft was alowed to keep their version of windows which was exactly the same as apples. microsoft patenented it and now we have a operating system ment to work with an IBM processor not an intel chip. back during the battle for the operating system of the future there was some thing like 10 different operating systems.

Bill

[Slick Fork]

I think there's some misunderstanding as to how patents work. You can patent a specific mechanism or manufacturing process, but I don't think you can patent something as general as "light bulbs on a controller". If you had a specific LED board/controller design you could patent that but they certianly don't have the patents on LED light bulbs, and they don't have the patent on controllers so the only way they would have anything patented is if it was a specific design.

Patents aren't an evil thing and they don't discourage innovation, they are a way for people to protect their hard work. PFO patented Solaris (both the name, and the product), Aquarium Illusions Patents their LED light system and the interface with profilux.

The way LED lighting will get more affordable is when
1: The product is ready
2: Mainstream reef keepers accept that the product is ready and are willing to buy it en masse
3: More than a handful of companies produce it.

I'm really not optimistic that we'll see it anytime soon... lots of people will still argue the efficiency of T5's Vs. Power Compacts. I think that T5 lighting will be advanced in other fields such as industrial lighting LONG before we ever see it go mainstream in our aquariums.

[StirCrazy]

I think there's some misunderstanding as to how patents work. You can patent a specific mechanism or manufacturing process, but I don't think you can patent something as general as "light bulbs on a controller". If you had a specific LED board/controller design you could patent that but they certianly don't have the patents on LED light bulbs, and they don't have the patent on controllers so the only way they would have anything patented is if it was a specific design.

Patents aren't an evil thing and they don't discourage innovation, they are a way for people to protect their hard work. PFO patented Solaris (both the name, and the product), Aquarium Illusions Patents their LED light system and the interface with profilux.

The way LED lighting will get more affordable is when
1: The product is ready
2: Mainstream reef keepers accept that the product is ready and are willing to buy it en masse
3: More than a handful of companies produce it.

I'm really not optimistic that we'll see it anytime soon... lots of people will still argue the efficiency of T5's Vs. Power Compacts. I think that T5 lighting will be advanced in other fields such as industrial lighting LONG before we ever see it go mainstream in our aquariums.

I think we all need to quit debating about weather they can patent the concept/idea/whatever as they have, so aparently you can. now thew issue is wheather there is prior art from 2003 and befor as thats the only way to bring it down. the continuation is a seperate patent that is even more encompasing. so if prior art cannot bring down one of the original patents it can stop the next one. If the original patent was so blaintently wrong and should have never been issued, PFO would have won there court battle and wouldn't have run out of money.

A us Patent runs for 20 years if issued after 1996, 14 year if issued prior to 1996. they do have to make maintance payments at 4, 8 and 12 years. if they mis any of thoes the patent is voided and they can only make changes to the patent in the first year.

Steve

[sphelps]

These are quite the LED tanks... I'm sure the LED setups weren't cheap at all, but sure does look like the tanks are doing well..

Now, I certainly am not an LED advocate, just thought I would post a few LED tanks to stir up discussion.
Those don't support LED potential in my books, first one has no sign of any high light demanding corals and that fixture has 400 LEDS which is at least 400Ws, if that's a 6 foot tank then I think 10 36" T5 bulbs would be brighter.
The second tank is too short, if you want to prove the potential of LEDs we need to see them setup on an average size tank which is clearly a 90 gallon and 2 feet deep. That tank also seems to have gotten a lot brighter in the second pic and the fixture is conveniently out of frame :wink:

[sphelps]

I see a fantastic potential for LED lighting. Many reefers are tired of the static though beautiful SPS tanks and are looking to LPS coral which offer the opportunity to view florescense that LED deep blue lighting provides. The difference is colour is shocking.
The newer LED systems provide this opportunity. You can focus light beams, programme different lighting and dim which is not available on dated MH lighting.
I would encourage the lighting experts on this board to experiment with DIY and bought systems.
I am defineately not knowledgeable of the details of LED but IMO LED is the future.
Wayne
Yes I've seen some nice thanks that use LEDs as supplemental to halides and/or T5s. LEDs can create the spotlight effect which is very nice. I agree and see potential as supplemental but not so much on their own. I see more potential in the plasma light than LED, the plasma is 1000x smaller and more efficient. The other problem is LEDs is limited spectrum.

[banditpowdercoat]

Ya, who's gona patent Plasma lighting for Aquarium use????!!!!!!!!!

[sphelps]

As far as the patent issue if concerned I'm pretty sure you could still build and market another LED fixture pretty easily. But in order to do so you'll have to have some obvious difference and fork out the money to patent your own fixture. The reason PFO lost so badly is they didn't have a patent and the other company just so happened to have one that described the solaris quite nicely. This is a risk you take if you're going to sell and market a new new idea without a patent, it's also why you see patent pending around more than actual patents. The trick is to fill out the initial paper work for a patent but never complete the process, that way if someone else comes into the market you can complete your patent and because your initial paper work was in first you'll win.

Really I don't think the patent is the issue stopping more competition. First off the patent applies only to the US and yet I don't see any large advances from other countries like Europe or even China. The problem is this lighting source is too expensive, too complicated, not as efficient as people think, and not as effective as people think. It's a gimmick product more than anything and it really can't compete with the leaders in the market, T5s and MHs.

[banditpowdercoat]

How the heck is Aqua Illumination able to make and sell LED fixtures? AND, they state assembled in the US
http://www.aquaillumination.com/?page_id=38

[lastlight]

I believe they pay orbitech a licensing fee.

[naesco]

Yes I've seen some nice thanks that use LEDs as supplemental to halides and/or T5s. LEDs can create the spotlight effect which is very nice. I agree and see potential as supplemental but not so much on their own. I see more potential in the plasma light than LED, the plasma is 1000x smaller and more efficient. The other problem is LEDs is limited spectrum.

You may be right on the plasma.
The the point I was trying to make was that with LED is available now and Plasma technology is around the corner it would not be a good move to invest in expensive MH lighting at this time. It would be much better to invest in a cheap T-5 option.

MHs are expensive, have a huge demand for electricity, create tremendous heat which has to be dealt with chillers or noisy supplementary fan additions, require frequent bulb replacement, cannot be programmed to dim and require supplemental lighting.

Would anyone by an analog TV today? Would anyone buy an ordinary LCD TV today when the 3D technology is available for sale this summer?

[banditpowdercoat]

I sure wouldn't buy a 3d tv just yet!!!

[StirCrazy]

Would anyone by an analog TV today? Would anyone buy an ordinary LCD TV today when the 3D technology is available for sale this summer?

ya, cuz I bought them 2 months befor the anouncment :cry:

Steve

[StirCrazy]

Yes I've seen some nice thanks that use LEDs as supplemental to halides and/or T5s. LEDs can create the spotlight effect which is very nice. I agree and see potential as supplemental but not so much on their own. I see more potential in the plasma light than LED, the plasma is 1000x smaller and more efficient. The other problem is LEDs is limited spectrum.

ya and the plasma is a ugly color, not adjustable, expensive as heck, and has been comming soon for 6 years.. and it isn't realy smaller, it is big and bulky due to the magnet design, housing, ect.. looks ugly over a tank. I was all excited about the plasma 6 years ago when it was first showen for fishtanks, but since then it has been all talk.

LEDs may be overall a larger surface area but you can do them 1.5" thick if you want. so it is hardly noticable over a tank.

man are you ever negitive to some things. somepeople grow SPS under T5's LEDs blow them out of the water, you said there are not a lot of high light corals in the tanks, but I see a tone of SPS in them.. as for spotting, if you space them right there is no spotting, even if you have the fixture 1" above the water and for colors, you can make them any color you want.. you like 10K, maby 14, maybe 20, heck you want 12.3K the color is adjustable to anything between the color of the white wich is usaly abut 8K to the color of the royal blue which is abut 24K. you get the shimmer effect of the MH, with the total coverage of the T5, and can be dimmed anywhere from 0 to 100% instead of a couple steps like lights we are using now. here is a write up/review. now he is talking about a LED board that replaces MH lights, the differance between what he is talking about and what we are is that we will get that same intensity over the whole tank instead of a just a footprint simular to a mh pendant. to do these we use more led and yes it costas a bit more, but like I said.. I can build a setup that will replace two MH bulbs for about the same money as it costs to go buy two MH pendant setups.

"Aquarium LED lighting must be differentiated in two different categories:
1. Very low power aquarium LED light
2. High power aquarium LED light
1. Very low power LED lighting
These lighting systems have become very popular now and are easily obtained. The major benefits are that they only use very little power so the electricity cost is close to zero and they increase the visible attractiveness of your reef.
With the low power Aquarium LED light it is easy to prolong the light step down process by switching them on just before the main lights turn off. This light is very weak and therefore doesn t disturb the fish or corals, and many aquarists also use them to add the moonlight effect on the corals which enhances coral spawning.
When the main lights are switched off, the aquarium LED light gives a flickering moonlight effect to the reef tank. It does look lovely when the beams of weak LED light dive through the water and ripple over the rock and coral formations.
2. High power aquarium LED light
I have changed my aquarium light around 2 years ago and have found out that there are some great benefits and advantages compared to my previous metal halides. I will try in this post not to become too technical so that also novice aquarists will understand the benefits of this fish tank light system.
High power aquarium LED light systems come in 250 Watt and 400 Watt arrangements, which are the most popular for reef aquariums. The set up is similar to the metal halides in a rectangular box above the aquarium.
Producing only about half the heat of the common metal halides, they can be installed much closer to the water surface and don t require a chiller anymore, which reduced my electricity bill.
Due to a combination of white and blue LED s, the lighting color is very similar to that of the fluorescent tubes, with a Kelvin rating of about 20.000 so that they equal metal halides in color output.
The by far biggest benefit of the LED s is their endurance. They will produce the same light quality for around 50.000 hours which equals 11 years if the LED s run for12 hours a day. That is more than 5 times the life span of metal halides bulbs and 11 times of the fluorescent tubes.
Aquarium LED light can be dimmed from maximum output to zero output making them better adjustable for any aquarium needs, while hardly any UV radiation comes from them.
The aquarium light offered by LED s produces the same attractive glitter lines that make your reef appear more natural than that produced by the metal halides.
Concerning the aquarium light there is in my personal opinion not a single disadvantage using aquarium LED light over the common lighting methods like metal halide bulbs or fluorescent light tubes.
However, the LED technique is still new and therefore the initial cost of a complete aquarium LED light system is higher. But in the long run you will save money on buying a chiller and paying this chillers power usage. Please also don t forget that common lighting systems have to be replaced every year or two which calculated over a 11 year period also accumulates to a significant cost. This means that you will have less maintenance work on your fish tank light compared to continuous bulb changing.
The final big plus is that with the aquarium LED light you can easier adjust the simulation of a natural reef which will significantly increase the success rate in growing corals yourself."


Steve

[StirCrazy]

here is a review of the solaris, keep in mine the systems Ron and myself and other are building will generaly have more coverage as were making bigger systems and we are using newer LEDs at a higher amprage which put out a lot more light than the ones used in the solaris.

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

Steve

[sphelps]

You may be right on the plasma.
The the point I was trying to make was that with LED is available now and Plasma technology is around the corner it would not be a good move to invest in expensive MH lighting at this time. It would be much better to invest in a cheap T-5 option.

MHs are expensive, have a huge demand for electricity, create tremendous heat which has to be dealt with chillers or noisy supplementary fan additions, require frequent bulb replacement, cannot be programmed to dim and require supplemental lighting.

For the average size tank MH can be cheaper than T5s or about the same, they don't need supplemental if you use the right bulb and they don't require a chiller if done properly.
All I'm currently running is 500W of halide and the color is good. I only need a small fan on hot days (no ac in house) and replace the bulbs once a year which runs for about $140. If I had all T5 I would spend about the same or more on bulbs, still require a fan on hot days but I'd save a little in power but not enough to make much difference. T5 bulbs also burn out prematurely and take up more space which is why I'm now using halides.

LEDS can't touch the intensity and penetration of halides, for clams and SPS halides win. For a softy and LPS tank LEDs may work well but you'll never get your money back in energy savings and I'd still like to know how long the bulbs actually last. LEDs do burn for 10 years but halides will also burn for 5+ years but you still have to replace them every year. My guess is that LEDs will require replacing somewhere around 3-4 years and the cost will be ridiculous, likely cheaper and easier to buy a new fixture.

And who really cares about dimming? :lol:

[sphelps]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[freezetyle]

http://www.rapidled.com/servlet/the-DIY-Retrofit-Kits/Categories

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

[banditpowdercoat]

http://www.rapidled.com/servlet/the-DIY-Retrofit-Kits/Categories

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

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

[freezetyle]

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


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

[Nebthet]

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

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

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

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

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

24 led array info in 5'x2'x2' tank
http://www.nano-reef.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=224860&st=0&p=2667131&#entry2667131

47g Column 32 led 40 degree optic array
http://www.nano-reef.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=224973&st=0&p=2667635&#entry2667635

The Ultimate LED Guide by EvilC66
http://www.nano-reef.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=186982

Coral Growth with LEDS
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1764832&highlight=LEDs



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

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

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

Marineland has come out with it's own LED lighting now, although far inferior. IMO best used for freshwater applications.
http://www.petsolutions.com/Marineland-LED-Aquarium-Lights+I47432990+C1.aspx

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

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

[StirCrazy]

LEDS can't touch the intensity and penetration of halides, for clams and SPS halides win.

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



LEDs do burn for 10 years but halides will also burn for 5+ years but you still have to replace them every year. My guess is that LEDs will require replacing somewhere around 3-4 years and the cost will be ridiculous, likely cheaper and easier to buy a new fixture.

And who really cares about dimming? :lol:

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

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

Steve

[bvlester]

I think there's some misunderstanding as to how patents work. You can patent a specific mechanism or manufacturing process, but I don't think you can patent something as general as "light bulbs on a controller". If you had a specific LED board/controller design you could patent that but they certianly don't have the patents on LED light bulbs, and they don't have the patent on controllers so the only way they would have anything patented is if it was a specific design.

Patents aren't an evil thing and they don't discourage innovation, they are a way for people to protect their hard work. PFO patented Solaris (both the name, and the product), Aquarium Illusions Patents their LED light system and the interface with profilux.

The way LED lighting will get more affordable is when
1: The product is ready
2: Mainstream reef keepers accept that the product is ready and are willing to buy it en masse
3: More than a handful of companies produce it.

I'm really not optimistic that we'll see it anytime soon... lots of people will still argue the efficiency of T5's Vs. Power Compacts. I think that T5 lighting will be advanced in other fields such as industrial lighting LONG before we ever see it go mainstream in our aquariums.

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

Solaris has trade marked thier name and patenented their product.

Bill

[sphelps]

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

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

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

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

[lastlight]

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

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

[Ron99]

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

[StirCrazy]

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

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

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

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

Steve

[lastlight]

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

[banditpowdercoat]

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

[StirCrazy]

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

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

Steve

[banditpowdercoat]

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

Steve


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

[banditpowdercoat]

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

http://glassbox-design.com/2010/tmc-cree-xp-g-led-aquarium-light/

[Ron99]

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

http://glassbox-design.com/2010/tmc-cree-xp-g-led-aquarium-light/

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

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

http://www.nano-reef.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=220198