# What LED fixture would be best for my 24" tall tank?



## cg49me (Oct 25, 2014)

The Green Element (also a BeamsWork, if I'm not mistaken) and the Ray2 will put you in low/med, and maybe med light territory. It's tough to get there with taller (> 20") tanks. The other two are only going to give you low light.


----------



## Brian_Cali77 (Mar 19, 2010)

I'd get the Finnex Planted+ if it were to be a Finnex. Current Satellite LED+ are nice too, but at that distance, it'll be good for just low light plants, unless you double up.


----------



## monster mac (Mar 15, 2014)

What i would do is look into Build My Led. Given the fact that you have a skinny deep tank i would order one with either a 45deg. or 60deg. beam angle to insure you get that high par at the substrate. The only thing i would be worried about is if your plants grow to tall at the edges it may get no light. Also if you can order the adjustable dimmer for it to tone it back accordingly so that you won't need CO2. If you finally decide to go the high tech route you could just adjust it to full output.


----------



## Squrl888 (Oct 3, 2014)

monster mac said:


> What i would do is look into Build My Led. Given the fact that you have a skinny deep tank i would order one with either a 45deg. or 60deg. beam angle to insure you get that high par at the substrate. The only thing i would be worried about is if your plants grow to tall at the edges it may get no light. Also if you can order the adjustable dimmer for it to tone it back accordingly so that you won't need CO2. If you finally decide to go the high tech route you could just adjust it to full output.


+1 on that. I used RapidLed.com


----------



## rhiro (Sep 21, 2012)

I was in the same situation as you are. After much consideration I settled on a Planted+. I felt the Ray2 might put me at the high end of medium light and possibly cause algae problems although that is just my opinion. I figured if I needed more light I could add a Stingray which is pretty inexpensive. My Planted+ is on order so I have no results on plant growth to report.


----------



## amcoffeegirl (May 26, 2009)

I would go with a planted+ also. I have them on 21 inch tall tanks and it's going well.


----------



## ijaco (Nov 2, 2014)

Thanks everyone! I've had a couple people tell me the planted+ wouldn't be bright enough on a 24" tall, so that's why I wasn't considering it, but I'll definitely look into it more. Let me know how it works out for you rhiro. As for the build my led's, the fixture came out to be $269 which is a little too much for my budget. I like the idea of being able to convert it to a high tech, but $269 is a little steep. I'm trying to figure out rapidled, it seems a lot cheaper than buildmyled.

Bump: Also just a quick question, how much would a basic C02 system cost me? Thanks!


----------



## Squrl888 (Oct 3, 2014)

For rapidled what I did is bought the solderless LEDs(really simple to connect) and the non-dimmable driver. All you need to do are connect the LEDs to the driver and the driver to a power chord (the driver comes with bare wire so you just have to use a wire but to connect the driver wire to the electric plug wires).
In your case I would get the proper optics so you focus your light down into the tank.
Also, I bought aluminum channel to mount my LEDs onto. It acts as a heatsink. If you have heatsinks lying around, even better.
If your willing to do a little DIY it is very economical. Also I like that I can take apart my fixture any time I want with the solderless LEDs.

For your tank I would guess it might cost $150


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

ijaco said:


> Thanks everyone! I've had a couple people tell me the planted+ wouldn't be bright enough on a 24" tall, so that's why I wasn't considering it, but I'll definitely look into it more. Let me know how it works out for you rhiro. As for the build my led's, the fixture came out to be $269 which is a little too much for my budget. I like the idea of being able to convert it to a high tech, but $269 is a little steep. I'm trying to figure out rapidled, it seems a lot cheaper than buildmyled.
> 
> Bump: Also just a quick question, how much would a basic C02 system cost me? Thanks!


IF you want basic "on off".. one or even 2 of theses is really quite economic..
http://www.aquatraders.com/LED-Aquarium-Lighting-Beamswork-Freshwater-Plant-p/56427p.htm

Fixture Size: 48.00" x 5.00" x 1.00" (Add 0.65" in height with bracket installed)
LEDs Count: 54
3340 Lumens
Super energy efficient 1 watt HQ LEDs
46x 6,500K LEDs
8x 6,500K LEDs
Use 54 watts

$73.............. 

Replacing some 6500k w/ 3500k makes it even more interesting... 

DIY "regulator based" CO2 would run anywhere from a lucky $100ish to a more usual $200 plus.. tank/reg/solenoid/metering valve....


----------



## ijaco (Nov 2, 2014)

So I decided to go with the Finnex planted+ for now and just run it with the crappy lights that came with the aquarium. I'll see how it works out with my low light plants, and might end up adding a finnex stingray or one of the aquatrader led's. Might go the DIY route a little later on once I know what I'm doing a little more :icon_bigg
Thanks again for the help everyone! roud:


----------



## fearsome (Feb 16, 2013)

I am curious about why people don't suggest this 48 inch pent 0.5W light? According to all the people listing them the lumen output is way above many comparably sized 1 or 3 watt LED arrays from the same company. In addition they spread the light out more meaning you are more likely to a more even lighting which will make it easier for more leaves on more plants to catch a few rays. 

Recently I was trying to pick some beamswork lights and I couldn't find any spec or reason to go with the simpler 3 watt LED arrays over these unless you want to modify them. It just seems they are more efficient LEDs period and so you get more light / watt and in most cases more total light period.


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

fearsome said:


> I am curious about why people don't suggest this 48 inch pent 0.5W light? According to all the people listing them the lumen output is way above many comparably sized 1 or 3 watt LED arrays from the same company. In addition they spread the light out more meaning you are more likely to a more even lighting which will make it easier for more leaves on more plants to catch a few rays.
> 
> Recently I was trying to pick some beamswork lights and I couldn't find any spec or reason to go with the simpler 3 watt LED arrays over these unless you want to modify them. It just seems they are more efficient LEDs period and so you get more light / watt and in most cases more total light period.


for comparison:


> Fixture Size: 46.50" x 5.00" x 1.00" (Add 0.65" in height with bracket installed)
> 
> LEDs Count: 32
> *4320 Lumens*
> ...





> Fixture Size: 47.75" x 5.00" x 1.00" (Add 0.65" in height with bracket installed)
> 
> LEDs Count: 66
> *4400 Lumens*
> ...



the lumen efficiency is higher but overall output is roughly equal.
Then you arguably have depth vs spread, as you mentioned..

Taking off or changing the lenses on the 3w is an option not available on the .5w LED's..

Last note, I'd suspect the "watt" measurements are not accurate...

Though it is accurate for the .5W


> So in the middle of my diy strip light build I came across this: <$50
> LED 30" 0.5W 6500K Freshwater Plant Bright LED by Beamworks 4th Generation
> 110 x 0.5w LEDs. I could not help myself.
> 
> I tested this unit on a kill-a-watt meter. It consumes 56w that includes the power supply.


http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/showthread.php?t=627826


----------



## fearsome (Feb 16, 2013)

The light you are mentioning is not the pent 0.5 W its the triple 0.5W 

The first light you mention is this one I believe. And aquatraders sells it for $92.97. 

The second one is this one and it is $52.98 almost $40 cheaper. And puts out the same amount of light in half the electricity usage.

But this thread is about a deep tank that will require more light and the light I linked is this one. Which is $79.97, that is still $20 cheaper and puts out 57% more light. 



While you may suspect the wattage measurement is not accurate unless someone measures it differently we need to make decisions based on what specs they release. And we don't know they are liars yet to discredit their specs. Second it would have to be really different because the difference is huge, almost double the efficiency. Right now the first bulb is half as efficient for the same output of light. So the only thing left is the OP has to spend more money on optics and calculate or know those optics will lead to at least a 60% increase in the intensity of light deeper down. All of this means either I am missing something or other people here have real measurements that point to the 0.5W arrays performing significantly worse than they are speced in power consumption or light out put or some combination of both. But if a company was lying that bad I think it would come out. I personally purchased 3 of the pent 0.5 W leds and measured their LUX with my phone under some fairly diffused conditions and still came up with what I thought was pretty good light. looked to be at least 80 par at 15 inches. This was after they passed through privacy glass that scatters light which I use on my vivariums to hide the upper infrastructure. Unfortunately I do not have the 3W arrays to directly compare but I am noticing in many places a bias against these new 0.5W arrays that I do not understand.


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

fearsome said:


> The light you are mentioning is not the pent 0.5 W its the triple 0.5W
> 
> The first light you mention is this one I believe. And aquatraders sells it for $92.97.
> 
> ...


I'm certainly not biased against them.. but consider them for what they are.. 

Watts are useless to plants. and lumens or LUX are only an approx. for PAR. That said PAR meters besides the Li-Cor are only approximations of LED reality as well..

ALL of this has to be taken w/ a grain of salt so to speak..
w/ Beamswork the best we can go off of is lumens...

Why I question the 3W-er is because 44 lumens/watt is a bit poor.. 
The quad .5w you posted is about 76 lumens/watt 
93 lumens/watt for the tri-row... and measured.. 

Problem w/ watts and LED efficiency "we" have no way to know what is due to losses and what is the actual Wattage the LED's are at.

So the bottom line is lumens mean much more to plants than watt efficiency which is really more important to your utility bill.

current LED efficiency is exceeding 100 lumens/watt..and 100 is the "break even" point w/ fluorescent technology (roughly)..PROBLEM is that LED's are more efficient in spectrum and delivery so even w/ equal l/w an LED is more "efficient" for plants.. so you don't need to mathc l/w to equal other technologies.. PAR wise LED's are 2x more efficient than fluorescent technology..

now lumens and light delivery (directional point sources (LED) vs diffuse collimated (focused flourescent)..) also play into this, as well as spectral content..

In other words it is "messy"....  

Personally, I prefer 1W or better LED's, both for geometry concerns and ease of build.. Few will argue that the deeper the tank the more "focused" the LED should be.. Can you make up for this on sheer "bulk" of small LED's yes, yes you can.. but density and heat come into play..

So it is easy to say.. deeper tanks, higher watt LEDs w/ optics... watt efficiency be darned as long as the photon count is there..

Oh and the reason to question the wattage (esp in the high Watt LEDs) is few cheapish fixtures have the heat removing capacity to run a fairly high density group of LED's at full wattage (at the LED). Same w/ a high density small SMD's.. The numbers are too convenient..so to speak..

Oh and this:









a simplistic division by 1/2 still has PAR quite decent at depth 65PAR at 17"....

http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/showthread.php?t=415522


----------



## fearsome (Feb 16, 2013)

I am not completely following what the main point of your post is, are you suggesting that beamswork and sellers are falsifying the specs on the 3W leds to make them look far worse then they actually are? Or lying about the specs on the 0.5W arrays? Why would they do this on a more expensive product they carry? One that should also be easier to assemble given you don't have to solder on hundreds of tiny SMDs to the 0.5W units. 

I understand if you are going to modify this you want the 1 or 3W arrays because you can easily purchase and replace or add optics. But I think if that is the main motivation it should be asked if the OP is willing to do all that work. Most people who purchase pre made lights do so because they don't want to do extra work. And it should be brought out to the OPs attention that these are only better if they OP is willing to pay more and do more work. 

I do not think it is fair to assume they liars and use that as evidence to suggest another product they sell. It's kinda weird its like saying oh well ford lies about the focus and makes the efficiency look too good so you should buy an F-150 its probably more efficient than ford claims. Why wouldn't ford be lying about all of their line in a similar direction? Why would they only lie about some of them? Without independent verification we shouldn't be assuming that the older model 3W are way better than they are speced or the newer 0.5W are way worse or any combination in the middle. 

In the thread you linked another person measured wattage on a 30 inch pent LED and came out with 56W which is right in line for the fixture he purchased. I also have 3 of these and I used a ubiquity mFi to measure 2 of them and they both read about 48 watts for a 30 inch fixture note that my device often reads lower than the stated specs by a little. 

So IMO we have a few verifications that the wattage they claim is not far off. I have also measured the LUX and the 30 inch fixture has higher light than a 36 inch finnex ray 2 once again more evidence these are powerful lights. 

So someone is going to have to dig up any numbers that have been released for the 3W figures in order for anyone to claim that something is wrong with the specs of that one. IMO unless such informations surfaces then we should stick to making decisions based on the manufacturer based specs and avoid guessing about all the complications involved in electronics.


----------



## Raith (Jun 27, 2014)

Subscribing to this as this is informational.


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

fearsome said:


> I am not completely following what the main point of your post is, are you suggesting that beamswork and sellers are falsifying the specs on the 3W leds to make them look far worse then they actually are? Or lying about the specs on the 0.5W arrays? Why would they do this on a more expensive product they carry? One that should also be easier to assemble given you don't have to solder on hundreds of tiny SMDs to the 0.5W units.
> 
> I understand if you are going to modify this you want the 1 or 3W arrays because you can easily purchase and replace or add optics. But I think if that is the main motivation it should be asked if the OP is willing to do all that work. Most people who purchase pre made lights do so because they don't want to do extra work. And it should be brought out to the OPs attention that these are only better if they OP is willing to pay more and do more work.
> 
> ...


to try to clear this up a bit... 

to PLANTS wattage is less important than lumens which is less important than PAR which is less important than PUR (photosynthetically useable radiation) ... 

Using watts for anything besides calculating how much energy you are using (heat plus light) is a bit meaningless.. 

where efficiency gets "important" is when you are paying a premium price for a premium fixture.. Using "standard" or "cheap" diodes would be unacceptable..

Secondly, LED "efficiency" actually increases based on a decrease in drive current.. but the "output" decreases... In other words underdriving LED's increases their efficieny but decreases their luminous output.

In effect you can increase l//w by under driving them and making up for the loss w/ more diodes.. not to mention extending their life span significantly..which leads me to the "rated spec" thing.. I do doubt that, if you tested the diodes in a 3W LED fixture they would not be consuming 3W but a reduced percentage. IF overall system losses i.e current limiting resistors and PS efficiency create the magic "watt consumption" (which is real) this does not reflect the inherent "efficiency" of the LED , only overall system losses..
In the case of the Beamswork 3W light, if indeed it consumes 3W times x diodes overall and has an "efficiency" of 40l/w it would be more a reflection of "system losses" not diode inefficiency... but I admit this is speculation on my part.
They could very well be driving each @ 3W.. but then again.. only the output matters.
Most likely if you measure the current/voltage at 1 3w LED you'd find it is not running @ 3W....


uding a random data sheet on a Bridgelux "die" you can see that "normal" rating of a drive current of 700mA @ 3.4V w/ junction temp of 150C is "only" 2.38W..at the LED..
http://www.bridgelux.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/BXCD4545_revE-BXCD4545-Datasheet1.pdf

But this is just an example.. but the point is most manuf will not run the LED's at max W due to heat effects on "average" heat sink designs.......

I would like to see more real world data on Beamswork lights, and yes we need to take some of the manuf. data as a "guide" but only a guide, not anything set in stone, particularly from batch to batch.....

Beamswork has the lumen output.. so "watts" don't really matter, but as I said I find their watt numbers to "convenient"........

AFAICT the 1W or larger Beamswork LED's run 4 diodes in series and one "current limiting" resistor.. Assuming the PS is 14V (which if memory serves me right) thhen the voltage to the LEDs is 14 minus the resistor voltage drop divided by 4..So the V(f) cannot be more than 3.5V and w/ the resistor a bit less..Which brings us back to the I being around 700mA and the "real" diode wattage at under 3W......


----------



## fearsome (Feb 16, 2013)

I understand all of that, but it doesn't answer the question why do you think the 3W are likely to be somehow better in actual performance? 

How many real Lumens do you think the 3W and 0.5 watt arrays are putting out? And why do you think the company would lie about one and not the other?


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

fearsome said:


> I understand all of that, but it doesn't answer the question why do you think the 3W are likely to be somehow better in actual performance?
> 
> How many real Lumens do you think the 3W and 0.5 watt arrays are putting out? And why do you think the company would lie about one and not the other?


I don't think they "lie" but they may 1)test 1 fixture out of 1000's and 2)maybe just use "theoretical" based on average electrical characteristics

I don't doubt their lumen output measurements on average...since they show a low "average". As I said 44l/w for the 3w fixture is a best a very average figure. Not something to be faked...

lumen for lumen I consider the 3W "delivery system" to be more effective for deeper tanks..
The point is arguable....












> If you take a look at the LED itself for instance, you can see the various lens types, which result in the angles of emitted radiation. This helps boost our PAR values, keep the light where it needs to be, and also reduces the glare across the room.


http://marinelifetech.wordpress.com...y-beam-angle-and-led-optics-explained-part-1/

We are talking about a 24" deep tank here...
http://www.reefdup.com/2014/04/20/leds-analysis-and-results-part-iv/



> Lighting penetration is also of concern, so optics should be used for tank depths greater than 25 inches. 80-degree optics should be used for deeper tanks up to 30 inches deep. Deeper tanks, such as the author’s 31 inch-deep tank should use 40-60 degree optics as well as higher wattage LEDs (such as 5W rather than the standard 3W).


Lets just say I'd err on the side of caution ..


----------



## fearsome (Feb 16, 2013)

What optics are on the beamswork 3W fixtures?


----------



## Xiaozhuang (Feb 15, 2012)

jeffkrol said:


>


10 points for gryffindor !


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

fearsome said:


> What optics are on the beamswork 3W fixtures?


I had always thought 90 degrees but apparently.......









http://www.fish-street.com/beamswork_3w_x_16_led_purple_blue_marine_lighting


----------



## DerangedCorgi (Oct 15, 2010)

@jeff, so much information! It brings me back to my old analog circuits class (cringe). I agree that the 1W+ beamworks are better for deeper tanks. I have the tri led one (gen 4?) atm and it's great for shallow tanks (my 20g long) but it's lacking on regular height tanks (30g's, etc.).


----------



## fearsome (Feb 16, 2013)

So if I interpret this right you feel that 95 degree optics is enough to focus more than 60% of the light to make up for the difference?


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

fearsome said:


> So if I interpret this right you feel that 95 degree optics is enough to focus more than 60% of the light to make up for the difference?


No, I'm saying the optics give you a better chance of getting higher PAR to the bottom of a deeper tank..

As to exactly what % this "assumed" efficiency translates between 3W(@95) and .5W(@ 120 degrees) is anyone's guess.



















http://www.apsa.co.za/xenforo/threads/lighting-basics-for-people-new-to-the-aquascaping-hobby.11329/
But like I said.. 1) You can make up for geometry w/ brute force (like 60% higher lumens) and 2) there are other factors involved (ease of repair/replace LED's adj. lens angles.

IF asked to choose for myself between the 2 I'd still lean to the 3W (lower lumens) over the 0.5W (higher lumens)

In a sense, between the one you like and the one I like one could just flip a coin. both would probably be functionally equivalent..
It is unfortunate that so little attention is paid to getting PAR for Beamsworks..


----------



## fearsome (Feb 16, 2013)

Well if its anyone's guess then we cant really be recommending one over the other can we? Because all this theory is only applicable if we can use it to calculate the gain and know that that gain will result in more PAR at depth than the cheaper, more efficient light that just puts out more lumens. For instance if you assume that 120 degrees is wide open optics, and 95 is what you have then you have a 25 degree concentration of light. Looking at BMLs site we see that a 30 degree increase in optics from 90 to 60 degrees only results in less than 20% increase in PAR at 24 inches between 2 equivalent lights. So unless you have a good calculations or good measurements that can show otherwise I don't think it is fair to point people to the 3W fixtures without real evidence they are going to be better. 

I think every one knows that if you have 2 equal lights that the one with a more acute angle for optics will win. But we aren't talking about a system that simple. And so far you have presented tons of descriptions of the basic physics but when pressed for how you could apply it to real numbers in this system you always stop short of doing the back of the envelop calculations needed to give us some estimates of real PAR or lumens. Without either calculations that show worst case and or best case scenario gains or actual measurements we should not be recommending 1 light over the other.


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

fearsome said:


> Well if its anyone's guess then we cant really be recommending one over the other can we? Because all this theory is only applicable if we can use it to calculate the gain and know that that gain will result in more PAR at depth than the cheaper, more efficient light that just puts out more lumens. For instance if you assume that 120 degrees is wide open optics, and 95 is what you have then you have a 25 degree concentration of light. Looking at BMLs site we see that a 30 degree increase in optics from 90 to 60 degrees only results in less than 20% increase in PAR at 24 inches between 2 equivalent lights. So unless you have a good calculations or good measurements that can show otherwise I don't think it is fair to point people to the 3W fixtures without real evidence they are going to be better.
> 
> I think every one knows that if you have 2 equal lights that the one with a more acute angle for optics will win. But we aren't talking about a system that simple. And so far you have presented tons of descriptions of the basic physics but when pressed for how you could apply it to real numbers in this system you always stop short of doing the back of the envelop calculations needed to give us some estimates of real PAR or lumens. Without either calculations that show worst case and or best case scenario gains or actual measurements we should not be recommending 1 light over the other.


I give enough info for others to fill in the blanks for them individually. Using your logic nobody but someone who has measured each and every light they mention is entitled to an opinion. impractical at best. 
http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/showthread.php?t=415522

Using the above info it is not hard to interpret the fact that the 3w look to be more efficient at depth..

Technically 
I don't think anyone not using a Li-Cor should post any PAR measurements.. Again impractical and a bit snobbish..


this is a land of opinion.. not fact... At best we can guesstimate based on what we know..

So I suppose from now on I'll just add the disclaimer "in my opinion" then technically it is unarguable.. 

like you said the "obvious" geometry makes them better..


> I think every one knows that if you have 2 equal lights that the one with a more acute angle for optics will win.


Besides almost ANY fish store "recommends" lights based on little more and sometimes less than "I" try to bring to the table..

As to BML they don't have 120 degree figures so you can't compare losses in the same way either.. Your inference is as specious as mine.. 
I prefer to make people think not think for them.. 
http://temp.coralvue.com/maxspect-mazarra-efficiency-performance/

And as a back of the envelope calculation, on all my recommendations I'd be surprised if more than 25% EVER bought anything based on it.. Heck most people either 1)get more than one point of data or 2)already have their own opinion and/or bias and are just looking for support... funny thing about people. They actually DO make up their own mind..

BTW: If you happen to have a good case to disprove my "theories" feel free to post them. contrary to my wife's opinion I really will admit being wrong......

for some odd reason you seem to want me to say that the 60% higher lumen LED is better than the 3W one for a 24" deep tank..but, besides lumen output, you hang your hat on as much air as you accuse me of using..funny isn't it.



> I am curious about why people don't suggest this 48 inch pent 0.5W light? According to all the people listing them the lumen output is way above many comparably sized 1 or 3 watt LED arrays from the same company. In addition they spread the light out more meaning you are more likely to a more even lighting which will make it easier for more leaves on more plants to catch a few rays.
> 
> Recently I was trying to pick some beamswork lights and I couldn't find any spec or reason to go with the simpler 3 watt LED arrays over these unless you want to modify them. It just seems they are more efficient LEDs period and so you get more light / watt and in most cases more total light period.


without real measurements you really shouldn't be saying that.. by your own logic......I tried to explain why hanging your hat on lumens alone is not very accurate..bordering on practically useless


> The difference between Lumens and Lux is that the Lux takes into account the area over which the luminosity is spread and for our purpose, is a more desirable rating than lumens. A flux of 1000 lumens concentrated into an area of one square meter lights up that square meter with a luminance of 1000 lux. If the same 1000 lumens were spread out over ten square meters it would produce a dimmer luminance of only 100 Lux. A lux reading on inexpensive lux meters available for the aquarium hobby can be converted to Lumens by use of this formula.
> 
> 1 lux = 1 lumen per square meter. This is equivalent to: 1 lux = 0.0929 lumens per square foot.


https://orphek.com/about/kelvin-lux-lumens-par-pur/


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

Gee looks like we have a new one to debate.........
http://www.aquatraders.com/LED-Aquarium-Lighting-EVO-Quad-Freshwater-Plant-p/56576p.htm

Now we got your 4 rows in a 3W version...



> Fixture Size: 47.00" x 9.25" x 1.25" (Add 0.65" in height with bracket installed)
> LEDs Count: 64
> 8640 Lumens
> Super energy efficient 3 watt high output LEDs
> ...





but it is 2x the price of this one.......


> Fixture Size: 47.50" x 7.50" x 1.25" (Add 0.65" in height with bracket installed)
> LEDs Count: 180
> 6800 Lumens
> Super energy efficient 0.5 watt high output LEDs
> ...


One very interesting note on the "new guy".........



> Individual & replaceable lenses (**New & Improved Wider Angles**)


----------



## fearsome (Feb 16, 2013)

jeffkrol said:


> http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/showthread.php?t=415522
> 
> Using the above info it is not hard to interpret the fact that the 3w look to be more efficient at depth..


What information are you using to make this assumption. The numbers I see in that are for 2 - 48 " fixtures which are producing 130 PAR at 17 inches. 

That is all the information I see.


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

fearsome said:


> What information are you using to make this assumption. The numbers I see in that are for 2 - 48 " fixtures which are producing 130 PAR at 17 inches.
> 
> That is all the information I see.


this one:









Hui Lumen double bright uses .5W led's
He also measured the 1W and 3W models..

http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/showthread.php?t=415522


----------



## fearsome (Feb 16, 2013)

Which fixture is this Hi Lumen Double bright?


----------



## Kubla (Jan 5, 2014)

Ordered an 18" 10X3 watt and a 24" 16X3watt Green Element EVO yesterday. The 18" is for the very front (in front of a 36") and the 24 is for the back of a 92 gallon corner tank. 2" of substrate in the front so it's right at 22" from substrate to the top surface of the tank. The back slopes up and is about 6" shallower. If they work like I hope I'll be ordering a quad 36" 44X3 watt for the main slot. I just wish they were dimmable!


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

Kubla said:


> Ordered an 18" 10X3 watt and a 24" 16X3watt Green Element EVO yesterday. The 18" is for the very front (in front of a 36") and the 24 is for the back of a 92 gallon corner tank. 2" of substrate in the front so it's right at 22" from substrate to the top surface of the tank. The back slopes up and is about 6" shallower. If they work like I hope I'll be ordering a quad 36" 44X3 watt for the main slot. I just wish they were dimmable!


some here have added programmable dimmers to these lights.. AFAICT they run constant current and can easily be controlled using things like this:
http://reefbuilders.com/2012/09/28/one-touch-controller-ecoxotic/Ther are exotic "clones" out there..

.. Only thing to watch for is amp draw..and of course each (if using 2) fixture uses the same voltage PS.. and you may need to buy a bigger one than the one that comes w/ it..

all really minor issues............ 

http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/showthread.php?t=685697


----------



## Kubla (Jan 5, 2014)

Thanks Jeffkrol Looks like it will be pretty easy to get something set up. (The first link has a few extra letters in it, but I figured it out and got to the page). I'm not real familiar with controllers. I've only had a planted tank going for a few months and there's a lot to learn! Now I just need to get my lights and see how they work!


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

fearsome said:


> Which fixture is this Hi Lumen Double bright?


Well for a start.. from the owner.. 



> Should be .5w diodes


so it is either the 3 row or 5 row..
Guesstimating it is 3 row.. and comparing to a 5 row @ 10" PAR would be around 70 (1.56x lumens)

dividing the 3W by 2 = 100PAR @ 10"
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-...AAAAH5w/7q_RM5fNf1Y/w985-h554-no/IMG_2958.JPG

The .5W is 4000 lumens, 3W is 3400 lumens.. .. All napkin guesses of course..

As I stated above you can compensate for beam spread w/ a higher density.. Though to be honest I'd suspected the 3W to be a bit higher than the .5W..which it seems to be.

The logic seems to hold considering the orig choice was between the 3 row .5w and the 3W light..
Napkin calculation based on lumens, the best the 3 row could do is 45x1.33 = 60 PAR 1/2 of the 3w (double fixture) is 100 PAR at the same depth......adjusting for lumen differences..

If the above .5W LED IS the 5 row.. well what can I say.......


----------



## Kubla (Jan 5, 2014)

Got my 2 EVO lights and temporarily installed them. (In the process of designing, building a new hood)
They look to be decently put together. This is a serious amount of light! These suckers are bright. I think I need to get them a little farther off the tank. I'm definitely going with some more of these but I need to get my pattern laid out to help eliminate the shadows in the corners. I can take some shading in the front corners (and actually prefer that look on this tank) as I have a large Anubius and java ferns growing on each side.
If they last at all, I would say these lights are an amazing value!


----------

