# Chihiros RGB



## varanidguy (Sep 8, 2017)

Hey, I'm wondering if anyone has feedback regarding this light. Picking a light for a 45cm tank is more of a challenge than I thought it would be since Finnex doesn't make the Fugeray Planted+ or 24/7 CC in 18 inches (kind of a Finnex fanboy). lol

PAR reports are showing 71 at 30cm (about 12") which would be perfect for this nano.

I'm looking for something with decent color rendering as well as growing capabilities as the system will have co2 and I want to grow a carpet of s. repens, some AR mini/rosanervig, and maybe some finer colored stems/mosses.

I keep coming back to the RBG for affordability, I know the A series gives good PAR, but I've seen several reports that it washes colors out on some plants.

Anyways, any feedback would be greatly appreciated!


----------



## swarley (Apr 12, 2018)

It's more of a medium-light light. The color rendering is fairly good, definitely better than non-rgb. However, I'd consider the Twinstar 450E. Definitely more expensive than the Chihiros but also better par/color.


----------



## varanidguy (Sep 8, 2017)

swarley said:


> It's more of a medium-light light. The color rendering is fairly good, definitely better than non-rgb. However, I'd consider the Twinstar 450E. Definitely more expensive than the Chihiros but also better par/color.




You sure about that? The PAR reports don’t show it being a low or medium light.

Yeah, I was looking at the 450E as well, buce has it for $130 right now. Could always use a dimmer providing the PAR chart on the page is correct. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)




----------



## varanidguy (Sep 8, 2017)

*Chihiros RBG*



jeffkrol said:


>




Yeah, so granted the Twinstar threw out 15 more PAR, at 71 and 86, they should be able to grow the same plants, no?


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

varanidguy said:


> Yeah, so granted the Twinstar threw out 15 more PAR, at 71 and 86, they should be able to grow the same plants, no?



52 and 86 if you leave the diffuser on on the Chihros..


----------



## varanidguy (Sep 8, 2017)

jeffkrol said:


> 52 and 86 if you leave the diffuser on on the Chihros..




Would there be any harm in removing the diffuser for a nano tank?


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

varanidguy said:


> Would there be any harm in removing the diffuser for a nano tank?


Depends on what you mean by harm.
diffusers only to better mix the RGB and protect the diodes from splashes...
higher off the surface the less it really matters..


----------



## varanidguy (Sep 8, 2017)

*Chihiros RBG*



jeffkrol said:


> Depends on what you mean by harm.
> diffusers only to better mix the RGB and protect the diodes from splashes...
> higher off the surface the less it really matters..




Well the tank is about 11” tall, minus 2-3” for substrate, that would put the light about 3-4 inches above the rim. Also living in a desert, my evaporation is pretty bad so I’d probably add a class cover.

Also, I got this report from another user of the light on a different forum.


----------



## Captaindemo (Jun 29, 2018)

I love my Chihiros RGB ! Cheap and good light in my opinion as well as looks really eye catching. Hear is a shot shortly after I set up for a grow out tank in a 20 High. Pots are filled with Organic dirt and capped with the rock as you see, hence the cloudy water


----------



## varanidguy (Sep 8, 2017)

Captaindemo said:


> I love my Chihiros RGB ! Cheap and good light in my opinion as well as looks really eye catching. Hear is a shot shortly after I set up for a grow out tank in a 20 High. Pots are filled with Organic dirt and capped with the rock as you see, hence the cloudy water


Very nice! How long have you had the light? Do you find that it does well with red/not green plants?


----------



## Captaindemo (Jun 29, 2018)

I have had the light since mid april and to be honest I haven't used it much although I did start to see some growth. I also will state that I wasn't using co2 either. I am in the process of getting things rounded up for the co2 but haven't got it complete yet. I just put a Beamswork DHL 6500 on and the plants exploded in growth . Quite the light if you would ask me. I WILL be using the Chihiros once I switch to co2 as this is a eye appealing light for green plants as well as red .


----------



## agro (Nov 29, 2013)

I have one and haven't exactly used it on a full tank yet but theyre a lot brighter than finnex lights.


----------



## varanidguy (Sep 8, 2017)

Well, my new Seneye PAR meter arrived today so I filled the nano tank with water and affixed the light. Bare bottom, no furnishings, 12.75", the reading was bouncing between 114-116 PAR and steady at 60% PUR. This are just preliminary readings, once there's substrate in the tank with furnishings and all, I'll take more precise readings and post the results. I'm sure there was some reflection action going on with the glass causing the readings to be higher.


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

varanidguy said:


> Well, my new Seneye PAR meter arrived today so I filled the nano tank with water and affixed the light. Bare bottom, no furnishings, 12.75", the reading was bouncing between 114-116 PAR and steady at 60% PUR. This are just preliminary readings, once there's substrate in the tank with furnishings and all, I'll take more precise readings and post the results. I'm sure there was some reflection action going on with the glass causing the readings to be higher.



That's significantly higher than the chart I posted (52PAR 30cm(11.81") 50W 60cm fixture) even if open air (can't remeber and this site keeps removing my link) vs in water..but???

lets have some fun:
ukaps(dot)org/forum/threads/ada-wasmas-zetlight-twinstar-chihiros-led-par-data-the-power-of-light.43178/
then it is a bit old:


> 22 Oct 2016.


----------



## varanidguy (Sep 8, 2017)

jeffkrol said:


> That's significantly higher than the chart I posted (52PAR 30cm(11.81") 50W 60cm fixture) even if open air (can't remeber and this site keeps removing my link) vs in water..but???




Yeah, it surprised me too. I’ll take pictures and screen shots for you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## varanidguy (Sep 8, 2017)

@jeffkrol

I set it back up this time in my bathroom.

Ambient:









Depth:









Measurements:

















Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

It is what it is.. 

Hey looking back I found this:


> 30" DA FSPEC only
> 13" No water 0" offset
> 70 par


In water.. 100PAR..

Off topic a bit..Still having a hard time w/ their LUX numbers..








https://support.agi32.com/support/solutions/articles/22000221499-calculate-ppfd-for-horticulture
These conversion factors are for kilolux..
soo.....as an example:
4.088 x 14.6 (should be smaller at 6500k) = 59.7..

At that PAR LUX should be around 7500.. NOW I'm not expecting "exact" accuracy.. but that's a bit off..

my "usual" LUX/ 67 at the higher number is 111.9... 

I wrote to Seneye twice w/ a different question each time and never got an answer back..
The above and if it's accurate out of water.. crickets..


----------



## varanidguy (Sep 8, 2017)

jeffkrol said:


> It is what it is..
> 
> Hey looking back I found this:
> 
> ...




Yeah that is a bit off. By about 3k LUX going off the conversion. Interesting indeed. I know BRS compared it to a much more expensive unit and it was comparable, getting nearly identical results. Now I’m also left wondering if another Seneye unit would yield the same results.

Also, I thought water was supposed to reduce PAR...? Lots of stuff at play here that you likely understand way better than I do. The real test will be the results it yields with plants. 

I did take some PAR measurements in the main display tank and was somewhat dismayed. My foreground is getting around 30-40 PAR according to this meter. I wonder if that’s why the staurogyne porto velho is having algae grow on it. There is part of it that is more towards the middle of the tank that’s getting much stronger light and it’s algae free and beautiful. I didn’t get much of a difference of readings at all with and without the glass lid.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

LOL. I just realized something, you can't actually use it out of water because the red LED inside warning you it's out of water starts blinking..

At least I hope that was my issue w/ just now testing it w/ a cyan diode.
Measured 5300-5400k................... 
does this look like 5600K? Actually the same thing happened w/ a reefer when testing his light w/ just green..and that was in water..
I'll need to check that..











> BRS compared it to a much more expensive unit


They only did PAR.. It's just a matter of the LUX being wrong AFAICT.
Think that applies to the K temp too though..
I roughly trust the PAR measurements.. and the "cards" though..


----------



## varanidguy (Sep 8, 2017)

jeffkrol said:


> LOL. I just realized something, you can't actually use it out of water because the red LED inside warning you it's out of water starts blinking..
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I will put that to the test tomorrow but that would explain the discrepancy!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

varanidguy said:


> I will put that to the test tomorrow but that would explain the discrepancy!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Found it..
















PAR Shootout! Seneye Reef Monitor v2 VS. Apogee MQ-510 Full Spectrum Underwater Meter - Reef Central Online Community


----------



## varanidguy (Sep 8, 2017)

jeffkrol said:


> Found it..
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Interesting. I wonder what’s contributing to the discrepancy.

I tried it out of the water and the PAR seems to go down every time the light blinks. It’s hard to tell but I’d assume it’s less accurate out of water.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

Pretty sue they calculate K values from a RGB sensor..
Like this table..
RGB to Color Temperature | Andreas Sieß
6500: (255, 249, 253),R,G,B
3800: (255, 204, 153), R,G,B

ect..

Pure green would be 0,255,0.....

5300: (255, 233, 217)

IF it's actually seeing the red diode the numbers could be
255,255, and a bleed over into the blue w/ the green diode spread.. giving a >0 value to blue


Or just a screwed up function in the program


----------



## varanidguy (Sep 8, 2017)

jeffkrol said:


> Pretty sue they calculate K values from a RGB sensor..
> 
> Like this table..
> 
> ...




Not to throw a wrench into the whole thing, but would this effect their PUR calculations?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

varanidguy said:


> Not to throw a wrench into the whole thing, but would this effect their PUR calculations?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Sure but it could depend on where the error is..and intensity of the light..ect..


Sorry this is all guessing but the sort of bottom line is manipulating the data from the RGB sensor..
PUR is probably 100% red, 100% blue and a weighted green.. say 50%.. 



The "normal" filters are kind of wonky..


----------



## varanidguy (Sep 8, 2017)

jeffkrol said:


> Sure but it could depend on where the error is..and intensity of the light..ect..
> 
> 
> Sorry this is all guessing but the sort of bottom line is manipulating the data from the RGB sensor..
> ...




Interesting. I’ve heard the argument that if you can get a higher PUR % out of your lights, then PAR doesn’t need to be so high to get the same efficacy. I know it’s all important, but I’m left wondering what a good balance between PAR and PUR is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

The one that looks the best to you.. 

PUR isn't any more accurate that PAR really.

Well lets put it this way.. PAR is a "standard" PUR is "assumed"...
and "PUR" only differs by the amount of "yellow-green".. 
Neither is very SPECIES specific..
As an extreme example PUR if red algae is about the exact opposite as normal "PUR"








Just for reference in nature.. 








https://www.researchgate.net/figure...e-radiation-PAR-solid-line-and_fig4_228373573


> Vertical profiles of photosynthetically active radiation (PAR, solid line), and photosynthetically usable radiation (PUR) based on measured absorption spectrum (PURm; dashed line) and hypothetical action spectrum (PURh; dotted line) in (a) Belize and (b) the Indian River Lagoon (IRL), Florida. Profi les were normalized to the irradiance incident at the surface (100%).


----------



## varanidguy (Sep 8, 2017)

jeffkrol said:


> The one that looks the best to you..
> 
> PUR isn't any more accurate that PAR really.
> 
> ...




Very interesting, thank you Jeff!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------

