# Just switched to Kessil.



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

Kessils are short on red.. thus won't show subtle red tones in plants.. as you have already noticed..

"true" color (so to speak) take a clipping and look at it in daylight.. That will give you an idea of its natural color..
From there you can enhance or stifle.. depending on the light.


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

first "human perception" of brightness..









Lights rich in green/yellow will always appear brighter.
As to the Kessils and its more focused beam vs a more spread pattern..yes it can be brighter..

Your not going to have a PAR shortage w/ either setup..
https://www.fishlore.com/aquariumfi...or-ai-prime-kessil-and-current-marine.306653/


----------



## jellopuddinpop (Dec 12, 2016)

There's a very distinct difference between what you see as bright and what plants see as bright. Case in point is the SBReeflights that I'm using. On minimum settings they look dim to me, but the plants are absolutely loving it. If I crank up the intensity so the tank looks brighter to me, algae starts to bloom.

As far as the red plants go, keep in mind that your red plants use very little light in the red spectrum and use a lot more blue compared to green plants. They don't absorb red lighting, so it is reflected back at us. Your typical plants use reds and blues, but not greens and yellows. This is why they look green to us.


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

jeffkrol said:


> first "human perception" of brightness..
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks, yeah I just can't find good data for the freshwater version.. someone said it was only like 34 par at the substrate...

Not bad I guess but for my tank dimensions I'm 16 inches to substrate and the fixture is at about 7 inches from the water. 

Now my eyes are used to it it seems as bright or brighter than the two other fixtures.

Just a bit lacking in the red spectrum


----------



## Dragonxflare (Jul 1, 2014)

I believe the kessil at 100% and at that height, it would be putting out more power than your previous lights. From my understanding.... measuring Kessil Par is weird, given the way they create their lights.


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

Almost seems like the Kessil had some kind of burn in period programming cause it's a lot brighter than the first day I had it.

Ive been watching the node lengths on the plants...
My ludwigia under the old light, it had grown to the top of the tank and the nodes were still long. Now I have it at about half height after a trim and the new growth is very compact.

Plants seem happy.


----------



## sevendust111 (Jul 15, 2014)

Were you unhappy with the 2 Plus Pros? Reason I ask is because I am in a very similar situation. I have a 24.1g cube which is about 18" deep with 2 Plus Pros and I was thinking about getting the 360we. I didn't buy the 360 originally due to price and I didn't buy the 160 because I thought the two Pros would give more Par and options.


----------



## Dragonxflare (Jul 1, 2014)

sevendust111 said:


> Were you unhappy with the 2 Plus Pros? Reason I ask is because I am in a very similar situation. I have a 24.1g cube which is about 18" deep with 2 Plus Pros and I was thinking about getting the 360we. I didn't buy the 360 originally due to price and I didn't buy the 160 because I thought the two Pros would give more Par and options.


What is the length of the tank? Given the tank size though, the 360we would be more than enough for any light imo. I had one in the past and its quite strong.


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

sevendust111 said:


> Were you unhappy with the 2 Plus Pros? Reason I ask is because I am in a very similar situation. I have a 24.1g cube which is about 18" deep with 2 Plus Pros and I was thinking about getting the 360we. I didn't buy the 360 originally due to price and I didn't buy the 160 because I thought the two Pros would give more Par and options.





Dragonxflare said:


> sevendust111 said:
> 
> 
> > Were you unhappy with the 2 Plus Pros? Reason I ask is because I am in a very similar situation. I have a 24.1g cube which is about 18" deep with 2 Plus Pros and I was thinking about getting the 360we. I didn't buy the 360 originally due to price and I didn't buy the 160 because I thought the two Pros would give more Par and options.
> ...


This tank is 24x18x18 and I felt the sat pro lights were not very much par, my node lengths are much much shorter already with the Kessil.

The richness in color is much better with the Kessil.
I think the 360 would be Overkill though


----------



## sevendust111 (Jul 15, 2014)

Dragonxflare said:


> sevendust111 said:
> 
> 
> > Were you unhappy with the 2 Plus Pros? Reason I ask is because I am in a very similar situation. I have a 24.1g cube which is about 18" deep with 2 Plus Pros and I was thinking about getting the 360we. I didn't buy the 360 originally due to price and I didn't buy the 160 because I thought the two Pros would give more Par and options.
> ...


My tank is a 24.1 cube. 17.8x17.8x17.8


----------



## sevendust111 (Jul 15, 2014)

Chlorophile said:


> sevendust111 said:
> 
> 
> > Were you unhappy with the 2 Plus Pros? Reason I ask is because I am in a very similar situation. I have a 24.1g cube which is about 18" deep with 2 Plus Pros and I was thinking about getting the 360we. I didn't buy the 360 originally due to price and I didn't buy the 160 because I thought the two Pros would give more Par and options.
> ...


Interesting. I was told in a thread I made about my tank and lighting that the 160 would only be medium light and the 2 Plus Pros would be the better option. Looking at the growth and aesthetic of your tank, I think those who suggested this to me were wrong.


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

sevendust111 said:


> Dragonxflare said:
> 
> 
> > sevendust111 said:
> ...


A 160 would be perfect for a cube like that, you have to raise it slightly to get the 24" spread but for that size tank you could keep it lower and just dim it and never worry about lighting.


----------



## sevendust111 (Jul 15, 2014)

Chlorophile said:


> sevendust111 said:
> 
> 
> > Dragonxflare said:
> ...


How is the algae growth? With the Pros if I put them over 85% on all channels I get a lot of green dust but growth is still kinda leggy. I don't get compact braching until plants are only a few inches under the light. Very difficult for me to get balance with these lights.


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

More red.. longer internodes..

Leaves flat lower light than leaves pointing..










https://californialightworks.com/using-spectrum-control-design-plant-aka-photo-morphogenetics/


----------



## Dragonxflare (Jul 1, 2014)

Chlorophile said:


> This tank is 24x18x18 and I felt the sat pro lights were not very much par, my node lengths are much much shorter already with the Kessil.
> 
> The richness in color is much better with the Kessil.
> I think the 360 would be Overkill though


Chance are, if you get the 360, you will never be able to run it at 100%, it would be pretty overkill for that tank, unless you're hanging it pretty high.


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

For me the pro lights could never get the internodes short on anything even near the top.
The rgb lights on it I think are not really contributing to par, just color.

Here's how compact the growth is now under the Kessil, you can also see how leggy it was before.


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

Chlorophile said:


> For me the pro lights could never get the internodes short on anything even near the top..


This light wil get you practically zero internode expansion (proven at least w/ water wysteria).
Point is certain wavelengths change a plants morphology.. Is not totally related to PAR.










Chlorophile said:


> The rgb lights on it I think are not really contributing to par, just color..


Goes against all known science re: photosynthesis
not arguing at PAR differences. just limitations re: form..









EQUAL PAR across the trials.......


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

jeffkrol said:


> This light wil get you practically zero internode expansion (proven at least w/ water wysteria).
> Point is certain wavelengths change a plants morphology.. Is not totally related to PAR.
> 
> 
> ...


That is great, but what I am implying is that the RGB led's on the Sat + Pro, while subtly shifting the appearance to our eyes, are not really impacting the plant growth in any way. 

In my college days we grew poinsettia's in greenhouse management and could trigger them to flower by using a red light bulb at night when the greenhouse was dark, so I do understand what you are implying. 

I had my lights set to 100% blue and 100% red and 0% green, plus the led's that are actually growing the plants, and had very leggy growth even near the top of the tank. 

I'm now running the Kessil with 2 hours of warm at sunset and sunrise(so 4 hours total) 2 hours of transition, and 4 hours of midday cool, and seeing very compact growth. 
My Blyxa is growing prostrate against the floor, my Staurogyne is growing prostrate against the floor.

I know the wavelengths play a part of this, but are you implying even the dimmest blue light won't induce auxin production and stretching?

edit: there is also an inherent flaw in the data you provided. 
Par Balanced and Color Shifted light? Well hell yea. You're getting all your par from X Y or Z. 
In the case of the Sat Pro lights, you're still getting all your par from neutral white LED's and then some inconsequential amount of red LED or blue LED is providing 1/100th of that to a plant and it's completely washed out by the majority of other light.

double edit: You know as well as I do that the average color temperature is not important to plants. A bunch of warm white LED's will not produce the same anthocyanin's as having some parts cool and some parts red LED's that averages to the same color temp. 
In the case of the Sat+Pro's you might be hitting a certain color temp but not providing actual PUR in the spectrum needed to trigger that effect.


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

Sorry chart was for the Fluval 2.0..
Brain drifted from the actual light you have(had). 

30 Watts	20-6500K/9-RGBW, 29 LEDs total
So yes.. at that ratio the PAR contribution of the RGB (minus green) would be low.
Current doesn't state what chips or drive current but one could assume .2-.3w emitters for each ind color..
Color contribution to the 30w would be roughly 2-3W each color (RGB), leaving the heavy work for the 6500k white..say 20W...
Just ballparking here..

So you are right but has nothing to do w/ PUR.. just gross photons..and distribution.

As to the leggy my point was it's not "always" a lack of photons but which photons..
Doesn't apply much w/ balanced lighting though..

Lastly the Kessil vs the Current is more "physics" of light angles than anything else..especially deeper in the tank..
The current will "spread and dilute" much more rapidly..


Which is why your "deep water" plants responded.. Nothing to d w/ spectrum but distribution.
I was, initially only considering the upper "leggy" condition. 
You didn't mention the rest.. 


Not going to go into pigment production much but to say high white light works fine for the most part.
all "PAR" being equal. pretty sure K value has little to do w/ it.
Since few run high light low k lights.. well????? I'd bet 2000k lights of equal PAR output might just beat out 6500k whites (same PAR) for 
anthocyanin production.. 
Now being able to SEE it well is another story.. 
2 components.. pigment production and pigment visualization..



> When exposed to constant high-intensity white light, rough bluegrass plants significantly increased anthocyanin concentration compared to untreated plants. Light-treated plants exhibited an average 117.64-fold increase in anthocyanin content, and accumulated anthocyanins in both leaf blades and sheath tissue. "Our data show that the anthocyanin content of rough bluegrass after high-light treatment is comparable to or greater than many common fruits and vegetables, particularly red leaf lettuce, and consists of the same anthocyanins," Petrella noted.
> 
> To determine the primary wavelength(s) of light responsible for upregulating anthocyanin synthesis, dark-grown and light-grown rough bluegrass seedlings were exposed to blue, red, and far-red LED light. Blue light, at intensities between 150 and 250 mmol·m-2·s-1, was the only wavelength that increased anthocyanin content. However, when red light was applied with blue light at 30% or 50% of the total light intensity, anthocyanin content was increased compared with blue light alone.


Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2016-12-high-intensity-anthocyanin-accumulation-rough-bluegrass.html#jCp



> Anthocyanin biosynthesis as phytochemical response in cranberryplants was most sensitive to red light.


https://www.researchgate.net/public...nthocyanin_biosynthesis_in_American_cranberry


> Many lighting systems, including those with light emitting diodes, typically ignore the contributions of green wavebands in plant development, and ultimately may affect the potential value of horticultural products produced under them. It has been shown that green light can reverse anthocyanin accumulation in Arabidopsis thaliana. The goal of this work is to test the hypothesis that green wavebands can modulate the accumulation of these valued pigments in three varieties of microgreen seedlings. The results show that while anthocyanins are induced with far-red light, green light cannot reverse, and may enhance, their accumulation under low-fluence-rate conditions, but the trend reverses in some seedlings under high-fluence rate conditions. On the other hand, blue-light-induced anthocyanin accumulation may be inhibited by the addition of green wavebands, and the effect is fluence-rate dependent and varies in sensitivity and amplitude, depending on the genotype. These trials underscore the importance of considering the inhibitory effects of green light on anthocyanin accumulation when designing lighting systems.


https://www.actahort.org/books/1134/1134_2.htm

Soo which is it??? RGB... What combinations? WHICH anthocyanins?

PUR, to be an effective measurement, would have to be known for each cultivar..PUR is not "universal"


> PUR is the usable portion of PAR, and different photosynthetic species will have a different PUR range to which they respond.


https://orphek.com/pur-photosynthetically-useable-radiation/
and as such.. really kind of pointless...even where I took that quote from would disagree w/ me though.. but that's reefers for you...
Now if someone wanted to use strictly yellow-green lights for their aquarium. it would have a point..








Just see little utility in it w/ freshwater..well for tanks that look "normal" or aren't trying to maximize "yield"/watt..
PAr is "over-simplistic" in assuming equality across the visible spectrum BUT it is a "standard"..
Pitting PUR against PAR in normal situations is just a matter of futility or trying to get some sort of bragging rights..

but to come back to the orig. thing.. 
Yes 90 degree (ish) lensed diodes will have better penetration vs 120 degree lensed diodes..until you raise it too high..

Oh and one last thing..and unf. fairly universal.. You have no idea at the actual drive current (ie. "diode watt output") either of these fixtures are actually producing AT the diode nor watt efficiency.
Most of these are system watts..More of a problem w/ the constant voltage arrays used in Current-like light than IF (and no confirmation on this but assume correct)
you are running constant current ala the Kessil..
On an economic basis the Kessil is about $100 less than 2 Current lights and, in your case and your needs.. a better choice.
As to me.. I'd buy neither..  so I have little need to defend either..Except....... I prefer the Current's tune-ability over the Kessil..though the weakness of the colors is an issue.

BTW: I'm attempting to get a spectral analysis of the 160.. got me curious..



> . Incandescent and HPS lamps have higher emissions in the red region, resulting in excessive stem elongation, in contrast to fluorescent lamps which emit a higher proportion of light in the blue region and are hence limited to small-scale in vitro growth (Mitchell and others 2012; Pinho and others 2012).


http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1541-4337.12155/full


----------



## bud40oz (Dec 9, 2017)

the plants look the same red to me aside for the one thats missing from the right rear corner, which is totally gone in the after pic, also. i don't know if you noticed... but look at the wall in the before and after pics. i would say the kessil is much much more intense light so i would guess the par would be higher also. it looks like a flame of light on the wall with the kessil with all the shimmer going on from the water surface agitation. i bet it looks really cool watching the tank now also


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

bud40oz said:


> the plants look the same red to me aside for the one thats missing from the right rear corner, which is totally gone in the after pic, also. i don't know if you noticed... but look at the wall in the before and after pics. i would say the kessil is much much more intense light so i would guess the par would be higher also. it looks like a flame of light on the wall with the kessil with all the shimmer going on from the water surface agitation. i bet it looks really cool watching the tank now also


I didn't mean to compare to the earlier picture but just look how the nodes lower on the plant as much longer.
Also if you do compare pics you'll notice that the leggy growth was before a trim, when the ludwigia was nearly at the surface, i trimmed it and now it's growing compact at less than half the height.

But yes the light seems more intense, the cieling has a beautiful ripple pattern on it and when all the lights are out in the room and you lay on the couch it feels like you're in a ocean spa.


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

jeffkrol said:


> Sorry chart was for the Fluval 2.0..
> Brain drifted from the actual light you have(had).
> 
> 30 Watts	20-6500K/9-RGBW, 29 LEDs total
> ...


Sorry probably shouldn't have said PUR, I meant to imply that whatever radiation those little rgb LEDs are emitting is not usable and not enough to trick the plant into doing anything differently when the majority of light is coming in other spectrums.

I've read enough sources that show you can't trick the plants into responding to the average color temp or in other words the plants are selective to the invidiual light sources.
Not an issue with flourescent but with LED just because there are dinky RGB LED changing the color temp it doesn't matter to the plant.. the red led isn't gonna trick it into thinking it's getting 3-4k lighting.
But if you could provide the same amount of PAR and have it all come from that color temp then sure.

Like in the experiment you posted with the leggy plants, they didn't provide 165 par via a neutral white and then tint it and compensate for any extra par, they provided that par level with red or blue lighting

Edit: I still think it's fair to assume it's a difference in PUR when we're comparing two light sources of the same color temp and par.
A bunch of white with a bit of red vs a bunch of red with a bit of blue.. same color, usable radiation being very different will see very different results if you ask me.
Not equipped to prove it but I do believe it lol.


----------



## sevendust111 (Jul 15, 2014)

Chlorophile said:


> For me the pro lights could never get the internodes short on anything even near the top.
> The rgb lights on it I think are not really contributing to par, just color.
> 
> Here's how compact the growth is now under the Kessil, you can also see how leggy it was before.


I have didiplis diandra, rotala colorata, and blyxa directly under my back Pro which is set to all channels at 85%. The middle of the tank, which has a bunch of different java species on spider wood, is directly under the second light which is set to 60% all channels.

The diandra nodes get shorter and side shoots start to branch when 4-5in from the light but I get browning towards the base. The colorata stays leggy and doesn't get reddish until 3-4 inches from light. The blyxa actually grows quite well.


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

sevendust111 said:


> I have didiplis diandra, rotala colorata, and blyxa directly under my back Pro which is set to all channels at 85%. The middle of the tank, which has a bunch of different java species on spider wood, is directly under the second light which is set to 60% all channels.
> 
> The diandra nodes get shorter and side shoots start to branch when 4-5in from the light but I get browning towards the base. The colorata stays leggy and doesn't get reddish until 3-4 inches from light. The blyxa actually grows quite well.


Ahh I want both of those plants! 
My Blyxa does well, it actually seems to grow almost flat to the substrate now. 
It did well before though as well, just not quite as bushy. 

I need some new plants for sure though


----------



## Immortal1 (Feb 18, 2015)

Chlorophile said:


> Sorry probably shouldn't have said PUR, I meant to imply that whatever radiation those little rgb LEDs are emitting is not usable and not enough to trick the plant into doing anything differently when the majority of light is coming in other spectrums.
> 
> I've read enough sources that show you can't trick the plants into responding to the average color temp or in other words the plants are selective to the invidiual light sources.
> Not an issue with flourescent but with LED just because there are dinky RGB LED changing the color temp it doesn't matter to the plant.. the red led isn't gonna trick it into thinking it's getting 3-4k lighting.
> ...


Interesting topic. I have been less than satisfied with my current lighting arrangement. And oddly enough, the articles throughout this thread sheds some light on my problem. I am currently running (1) 48" Satellite Plus Pro - Full white, Red & Blue. (1) 48" Satellite Plus - Full Red, Blue and 20% white. And (2) 24" Fluval 2.0 running 70-80% power. Originally I had the Satellite lights and the plants just did not grow that well. I added the Fluval lights and things picked up nicely but not spectacular. The GSA algae seems to like things but I feel that was more due to the 1-2ppm Phosphate levels. I am now running 4-5ppm Phosphate and the GSA seems to be less annoying.

Back to the above, I am guessing the red & blue lights make less than 10% of the PAR generated (maybe I am giving the Fluval too much credit?). So as I said your above articles are giving me food for thought. I like the cost point of the AI Prime HD lights but I am not sure if (2) of them will generate enough PAR (PUR?) in my 75g tank. The Radion XR15 Freshwater would definitely have enough power, just at more money. The SB Reef Freshwater lights would be more than enough power but I just dont like the bulk. The Kessil lights are also an option but I am not as excited about the style of the light. So, the reading continues


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

Immortal1 said:


> Interesting topic. I have been less than satisfied with my current lighting arrangement. And oddly enough, the articles throughout this thread sheds some light on my problem. I am currently running (1) 48" Satellite Plus Pro - Full white, Red & Blue. (1) 48" Satellite Plus - Full Red, Blue and 20% white. And (2) 24" Fluval 2.0 running 70-80% power. Originally I had the Satellite lights and the plants just did not grow that well. I added the Fluval lights and things picked up nicely but not spectacular. The GSA algae seems to like things but I feel that was more due to the 1-2ppm Phosphate levels. I am now running 4-5ppm Phosphate and the GSA seems to be less annoying.
> 
> Back to the above, I am guessing the red & blue lights make less than 10% of the PAR generated (maybe I am giving the Fluval too much credit?). So as I said your above articles are giving me food for thought. I like the cost point of the AI Prime HD lights but I am not sure if (2) of them will generate enough PAR (PUR?) in my 75g tank. The Radion XR15 Freshwater would definitely have enough power, just at more money. The SB Reef Freshwater lights would be more than enough power but I just dont like the bulk. The Kessil lights are also an option but I am not as excited about the style of the light. So, the reading continues


I think the kessils look great, but thats a matter of opinion I guess, you start to really appreciate the open view into the top of the tank. 
However I'm debating t5ho at the moment, just gathering some data before I decide. 
If I were to do LED again, I'd probably go with Chihiros or Twinstar or ADA style lights.


----------



## trailsnale (Dec 2, 2009)

Chlorophile said:


> I think the kessils look great, but thats a matter of opinion I guess, you start to really appreciate the open view into the top of the tank.
> However I'm debating t5ho at the moment, just gathering some data before I decide.
> *If I were to do LED again, I'd probably go with Chihiros or Twinstar or ADA style lights.*


why are you moving on from kessils?


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

trailsnale said:


> why are you moving on from kessils?


Not enough red spectrum, not enough spread when as close to my tank as I want, not enough par when as far as I need to get good spread, hotspot makes things grow towards the middle of the tank. 
This thing would be amazing for a assymetrical or island nature aquarium style aquarium.. And I will keep it incase I ever do one of those, just imagine the gorgeous shadows the plants cast off into the sandy shore... 

And it does a very good job, I think its plenty of light for 9/10 people, when I look through the tank journals I think most people would actually struggle with the light and end up turning it down due to algae. I struggle with the light to some extent. 
But I am all or nothing so I've gotta keep pushing things.


----------



## Immortal1 (Feb 18, 2015)

@Chlorophile, those are pretty much the reasons I would not consider a pair of Kessils for my 75g tank. Too focused and not enough red. I am liking the Radion XR15's a lot more but wonder if the AI Primes would be enough? Given the fact that I have plants in the extreme corners of the tank, I am thinking neither would cover those areas well. Those running 4+ T5Ho bulbs would be able to cover the corners much better but I am just not sure if I want to go with a fixture that big. More research.....


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

Immortal1 said:


> @Chlorophile, those are pretty much the reasons I would not consider a pair of Kessils for my 75g tank. Too focused and not enough red. I am liking the Radion XR15's a lot more but wonder if the AI Primes would be enough? Given the fact that I have plants in the extreme corners of the tank, I am thinking neither would cover those areas well. Those running 4+ T5Ho bulbs would be able to cover the corners much better but I am just not sure if I want to go with a fixture that big. More research.....


Yes, that is my same hesitation to go with T5's. I have a rimless tank and I custom built a ADA style stand that fits it perfectly and my wife never complains and says oh what an eye sore. So thats +1 for kessil. 
AI Primes are okay if you ask me, but the mounting arm makes it look like a space ship








Here comes the mother ship!

To me the kessil just looks like a flexible desk style halogen light, a bit more industrial and clean. 
Not a fan of rounded edges and molded plastics especially over something that is a sharp crisp box. 


There is one brand which I am trying to remember the name of while I type this.. It is kinda square with a LCD on the front and a glass or plastic cover on one side, I think they compliment the shape of the tank more than the kessil. Kessil should be square! 

... Aquatic life Halo! not sure if its any good though.

The AI Hydra also looks good, but not sure if theres a freshwater version.


----------



## Immortal1 (Feb 18, 2015)

LOL, I see what you mean in that pic of the AI Prime. Curious what type of mounting system the Aquatic Life Halo has - will have to research them a bit. 
Bump - only 2 channel programmability and not overly impressed with lensing. 

Pretty sure there are no freshwater versions of the Hydra light.
What are your thoughts on the software that comes with the AI Prime HD light?


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

Immortal1 said:


> LOL, I see what you mean in that pic of the AI Prime. Curious what type of mounting system the Aquatic Life Halo has - will have to research them a bit.
> Bump - only 2 channel programmability and not overly impressed with lensing.
> 
> Pretty sure there are no freshwater versions of the Hydra light.
> What are your thoughts on the software that comes with the AI Prime HD light?


The Halo has 3 lense choices so you can do up to 36" per light afaik.

As for the AI Prime, the software seems good, I don't own the light but having watched lots of videos it seems like a good program. 
I personally don't know how much quality of life it would give me, nor do I think I'd fiddle with the spectrum much beyond day one, so it doesn't have to be very good IMO. 

Only thing I can say is for your tank you're certainly going to need multiple lights so make sure you're not buying something you're gonna wanna sell in a few weeks lol. 

I've been looking at the Aquatic Life Hybrid, it has 4 T5 bulbs and a slot in the middle for nearly any LED system... 
Could have a lot of fun with that, uniform spread and color from the t5's and then you could still get a pretty shimmer from the one kessil.


----------



## Immortal1 (Feb 18, 2015)

Interesting on the hybred light. As for the puck type lights, I am already planning on 2 fixtures to get the correct coverage. Basically assuming each light (puck) would be lighting an 18" x 24" space which AI Prime HD and Radion XR15 seem to be able to handle. One of the LFS here are a dealer for both brands so I figure I will be pressing them to "convince me" how good each light is.


----------



## Chlorophile (Aug 2, 2011)

Immortal1 said:


> Interesting on the hybred light. As for the puck type lights, I am already planning on 2 fixtures to get the correct coverage. Basically assuming each light (puck) would be lighting an 18" x 24" space which AI Prime HD and Radion XR15 seem to be able to handle. One of the LFS here are a dealer for both brands so I figure I will be pressing them to "convince me" how good each light is.


Yeah, I would be hesitant to take any LFS advice on lighting for high tech planted tanks.. Maybe you're lucky where you live but my people are the type that would recommend aquarium salt...


----------



## slythy (Sep 1, 2015)

I just switched from finnex 24/7 to 3 kessil A360WE's. The shimmer and light output is pretty crazy. I just wish the dawn/dusk lighting could go dimmer.


----------

