24" spread back to front.

I see that is what they say but I still would like to see PAR measurements. There will be a drop off in intensity off center and PAR may only be good in the middle 10 to 12 inches of the tank. It's a compromise. Try to get wider coverage by skipping optics and you have less penetration and lower PAR at depth. Add optics and you need more emitters to cover the tank.

I really don't understand their layout. I have a 48" array using 80 LEDs spaced over the whole 48" by 15". They have 128 LEDs in their 48" array all clustered down the center. Maybe that's how they get the PAR up without optics; by using so many more LEDS. But they probably could have accomplished the same thing using fewer LEDS spaced more evenly with optics thus using less energy and keeping the cost down a bit.

Personally I would wait to see some independent reviews and PAR measurements before spending that sort of money on this fixture.

I wonder if they are alternating the angles of the LEDs so the first one shines back, the next one center then next one front ect.. this will give them a sleaker look, alows the use of optics but still maintain PAR on the edges good. this is actualy how I was going to do mine.. guess I can't do it that way if some one is already doing it, got to think up something different again now:mrgreen:

Steve

Doesn't look like that's how they are doing it and I believe I read that it uses no optics.

Just to add it looks like circular clusters of 8 LEDs every 6 inches down the center.

ya, what I ment is they could be milling a circle into it that has a slight angle profile. wouldn't take much and would hardly be noticable from any more than a couple feet, but untill some one buys one who knoes.

Steve

I would say probably not as they say the modules are replaceable. To me that says each one is a single circular MCPCB holding the emitters and I think it would be very difficult and costly to have those made angled or contoured rather than flat.

I suspect they are just clustering as many LEDS together as possible to increase the output in the assumption that the lack of optics will provide enough spread. In the end it may well work for many people as most probably have their SPS in the back and center part of the tank anyhow and the front is usually free of corals or has lower light corals further down. So perhaps they figured it will work for a good proportion of tanks. But its not how I would want to do it. I have the same size array using nearly 40% fewer LEDS and electricity with a much more even spread of light.

Pacific Sun “Deimos” 3×160W CREE LED & 2×80W T5
 

I received a response to my inquiry about PAR.

>> Begin cut and paste

Please see attached PAR analysis at 29" for Black Python 160W. Also, we offer 30 day money back gurantee if results posted are off by 10%. We will be submitting our lamp to well known US aquarists for additional test to support our claim.

at 29" BP 160W without any focal lenses has over 200 PAR reading. I think it is obvious that it is supperior to any MH or T5 lighting.

>> End cut and paste

The PAR anaylsis is here:

http://i666.photobucket.com/albums/v.../BP160W-70.jpg

While costly, the Pacific Sun "Deimon" 3 x 160W fixture with 2 x 80W T5 looks pretty sweet.

http://pacificsunusa.com/?page_id=507 - $3499.00USD

This really isn't much more expensive than the Solaris PFO fixtures.

I did see this chart, possibly on their website. It is only at one distance. Is this in air or in water? Also, what are the PAR measurements at different distances or depths. Such as 6 inches down the tank and 12 inches down etc. I would want to see independent measurements first as I have seen all sorts of manufacturers claims on PAR etc. that were to good to be true.

As for cost, the costs of LEDs has come down dramatically since the Solaris fixtures were available so I think these are a bit overpriced now.