|
|
|
|
|
#1
02-07-2010, 07:58 PM
|
|||||
|
|||||
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. Last edited by sphelps; 02-07-2010 at 10:10 PM. 
|
|
#2
02-07-2010, 09:51 PM
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
http://www.rapidled.com/servlet/the-...its/Categories
found this scrolling through RC. didn't seem to bad
|
|
#3
02-07-2010, 10:08 PM
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Quote:
__________________
Dan Pesonen Umm, a tank or 5
|
|
#4
02-07-2010, 10:51 PM
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Quote:
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
|
|
#5
02-08-2010, 12:35 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
There appears to be some misinformation here regrding the LEDS and what they can and cannot do in your tank.
The main thing I see here is that no one is mentioning the use of Optics which increase the effectiveness of the LEDS and essentially make them useable for marine tanks, particularily the deeper ones. There are a lot of good articles on Nano-reef and RC regarding the Cree 3w leds, and the optics required. One of the most recent to come out is information on the PAR Plots of the PAR38 lamps sold by nanocustoms where not only depth of tank was taken into consideration, but also the optics. http://www.nano-reef.com/forums/inde...pic=221433&hl= For a deeper tank, of 31" 40 degree optics would be necessary to ensure usuable par reaches the sand bed. Even when making a LED array. Therefore in a deeper tank, you will need to use more LEDS to cover the same area available in a shorter tank with 60 degree optics. Obviously though, you with currently with LEDS you will be unable to keep SPS on the bottom of the tank, but placement from top to middle with good growth and color is achievable. 24 led array info in 5'x2'x2' tank http://www.nano-reef.com/forums/inde...&#entry2667131 47g Column 32 led 40 degree optic array http://www.nano-reef.com/forums/inde...&#entry2667635 The Ultimate LED Guide by EvilC66 http://www.nano-reef.com/forums/inde...owtopic=186982 Coral Growth with LEDS http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/sh...highlight=LEDs Now to get back to the topic of patents. While it really sucks that Orbitec patented the use of LEDS with a controller, such as the Solaris, we have to remember that this great world of ours revolves around one thing. Money. It is PFO's fault they didn't check for a patent before marketing their product. Plain and simple. But honestly, the patent is not what is keeping lighting companies from developing more LED lighting. AquaIllumination has developed controller based lighting and are more than likely paying royalties to Orbitec. http://www.aquaillumination.com/?page_id=38 Marineland has come out with it's own LED lighting now, although far inferior. IMO best used for freshwater applications. http://www.petsolutions.com/Marinela...432990+C1.aspx Additionally, AquaIlluminations lighting is licensed under Orbitec's U.S. Patent Nos. 7,200,018 B2 and 7,473,008 B2. http://glassbox-design.com/2009/aqua-illumination-led/ It is within my opinion, that the U.S. Patent office needs to change how they do things. I think it is fine if someone wishes to Patent something, however, they should be required to create the product for use within the patent within a 5 year period. Specifics to the actual application of the product should also start to be noted within a Patent. Orbitecs wants to use their LED lighting for sustainablility of marine life. This is too broad an application and they should be made to specify whether this for space application, home aquarium application or industrial aquaculture applications. As such, they would have 5 years to develop their lighting system around each of those applications for sale on the market. Failure to do so would then allow another company to step in to create such a product thus creating a more competative market for products and keeping large companies from owning patents on items they have no intention of creating for consumer use.
__________________
Quote:
|
Hybrid Mode
