T5 lightings

These lights fit in a standard MR16 fitting. The manufacturer says that they can be used in applications where too much heat would be a problem and that the whole light runs cool. When the fitting arrives I will run it for an hour or two and tell you if they were lying.

Of course since it fits into a standard MR16 fitting (without special cooling) and in such an application is said to have a lifetime of 50,000 hours I would suggest that in this case heat may indeed be the ultimate enemy of electronics but it is one the electronics are apparently coping with.

I’m not for a moment suggesting that your data regarding the Philips Luxor is in anyway less than accurate and up to date but if Optolum had showcased an 83.3 lumens for 3 watts fitting 3 years ago which clearly outperformed the 50 lumens for 3 watts figure quoted previously, it would perhaps indicate that technology is moving at some pace.

I have asked Ultraled if the 1 watt for 17 watts claim is perhaps a typographic error and, and the administration person I spoke to is attempting to confirm the data as we speak; I’ll update as soon as I know.

[BarraCuda™]

Originally Posted by aropal

These lights fit in a standard MR16 fitting. The manufacturer says that they can be used in applications where too much heat would be a problem and that the whole light runs cool. When the fitting arrives I will run it for an hour or two and tell you if they were lying.

Of course since it fits into a standard MR16 fitting (without special cooling) and in such an application is said to have a lifetime of 50,000 hours I would suggest that in this case heat may indeed be the ultimate enemy of electronics but it is one the electronics are apparently coping with.

I’m not for a moment suggesting that your data regarding the Philips Luxor is in anyway less than accurate and up to date but if Optolum had showcased an 83.3 lumens for 3 watts fitting 3 years ago which clearly outperformed the 50 lumens for 3 watts figure quoted previously, it would perhaps indicate that technology is moving at some pace.

I have asked Ultraled if the 1 watt for 17 watts claim is perhaps a typographic error and, and the administration person I spoke to is attempting to confirm the data as we speak; I’ll update as soon as I know.

I dont see much of a problem if the heat issues are properly engineered. The lumens depends on the voltage driving the LED. The max voltage for 3watt luxeon should around 3.7volts, whereas 55lumens is for 3volts.

1 thing is for sure that the 1watt LED cannot have an output of 170lumens and cannot light up the entire aquarium. You will need multiple pcs of them spread out to get even lighting.

Originally Posted by BarraCuda™

The max voltage for 3watt luxeon should around 3.7volts, whereas 55lumens is for 3volts.

It remains a fact that three years ago Optolum as described in the link were managing to generate an everage of 83.3 lumens for 3 watts. Perhaps Optolum were not using the device your were referring to?

Originally Posted by BarraCuda™

1 thing is for sure that the 1watt LED cannot have an output of 170lumens...

It does indeed appear to be rather an impressive claim and that is the reason I have specifically asked the manufacturer to confirm the 1w for 17w claim specifically.

Originally Posted by BarraCuda™

...and cannot light up the entire aquarium. You will need multiple pcs of them spread out to get even lighting.

Quite so, as originally suggested, even accepting the manufacturers claim of 17w equivalent for each fitting you would need at least four to produce the same amount of illumination as the two 35 watt Solux fittings.

Taking into account the refraction towards the normal created by the light moving from air to water the 35 degree led beam would produce a spot over 20cm in diameter for a light suspended 2 feet above the base of the aquarium.

Four such fittings would therefore continuously cover about a 20cm wide stripe along 80cm of tank floor; over two thirds of the length of a four foot aquarium. Of course the areas outside these pools of light would not be in total darkness due to the scattering effects of the light.

It would, I believe produce a pleasant effect if it were enough to penetrate 2 feet of water. Perhaps you have some data as to the absorbtion rate of water for light in the visible spectrum? I expect it would be significantly effected by tannins and suspended matter making definitive statements rather difficult.

[BarraCuda™]

Its difficult to give an definite answer.

However, its not just the refraction between air/water. The LED reflector have light loss, the glass lense will reflect some light back into the LED and the water surface will reflect light back to the ceiling.

The red/yellow spectrum will be absorbed more easily by water. Ultimately, it boils down to your own definition of brightness. I'm used to 500watts of MH which each bulb is 10600 lumens. If Optolum LEDs have the efficiency of 170 lumens per watt, I would dump my MH and go 100% LEDs instead.

If you wanted to produce 10600 lumens even at 170 lumens per led lamp, regardless of the number of lumens per watt you would need more than 62 led lamps. If each lasted 50,000 hours and you ran them 10 hours per day and they were bought at the equivalent of 30 SGD per led lamp you would spend over 140 SGD per year in replacement bulbs to equate to one 10600 lumen metal halide bulb!
If you ran a few MH bulbs this could become an expensive way to do things fast.

The only thing that is likely to compare to MH in terms of total lumens is high intensity T5’s.

What are you keeping under 500 watts of metal halids?

[BarraCuda™]

Originally Posted by aropal

If you wanted to produce 10600 lumens even at 170 lumens per led lamp, regardless of the number of lumens per watt you would need more than 62 led lamps. If each lasted 50,000 hours and you ran them 10 hours per day and they were bought at the equivalent of 30 SGD per led lamp you would spend over 140 SGD per year in replacement bulbs to equate to one 10600 lumen metal halide bulb!
If you ran a few MH bulbs this could become an expensive way to do things fast.

The only thing that is likely to compare to MH in terms of total lumens is high intensity T5’s.

What are you keeping under 500 watts of metal halids?

That is considered very cheap. Each MH bulb costs $110 and I change them every 9months. The 2 replacement bulbs alone is already enough to cover the costs of $140/year.

Not to mention I also have a 750watts chiller just to keep the water cool, my calculated monthly bill for my tank is estimated to be $80-$100 out of the total of $280+!!

You bet I will jump into LEDs if they are that efficient. Of today's technology, LEDs cannot replace MH in terms of brightness, wide spectrum and of course the intensity. T5s cant beat that either.

I keep corals and they need alot of good quality light to grow well.

I've just discovered this item on their site:

http://www.ultraleds.co.uk/product_i...b532838ed5c169

This is using the luxon led's.
It claims to make the equivalent of 20watts of light. This gives us a frame of reference to what they think of as 17 watts if nothing else.

Seems to require 3 watts for those 135 lumens.

[SGFunGuy]

I'm using 2x white 36W T5 and 2 x pink T5 & on 24/7. It's resting on my tank bracing. when I did change water for 1st week. To my shocking that the bracing glass surface turn mouldy and like kena sand polish. Will the light direct resting w/o stand cause the bracing silicon to give way?

Please advise.

Originally Posted by aropal

I've just discovered this item on their site:

http://www.ultraleds.co.uk/product_i...b532838ed5c169

This is using the luxon led's.
It claims to make the equivalent of 20watts of light. This gives us a frame of reference to what they think of as 17 watts if nothing else.

Seems to require 3 watts for those 135 lumens.

LED stilll cannot produce lighting with good coloration. And at that cost, I think it is better to focus on high CRI MH or T5.
Generally, those lgihting with higher CRI usually has lower lumens output, eg osram T5 54W 865 (CRI 80 series, 6500K)is around 4800 lumens, whilst T5 54W 965 (CRI 90, 6500 K) is about 3500 lumens.
Of course the CRI 90 T5 is not easily available here, & one may need to order from abroad.

[BarraCuda™]

Originally Posted by aropal

I've just discovered this item on their site:

http://www.ultraleds.co.uk/product_i...b532838ed5c169

This is using the luxon led's.
It claims to make the equivalent of 20watts of light. This gives us a frame of reference to what they think of as 17 watts if nothing else.

Seems to require 3 watts for those 135 lumens.

This is a narrow beam spotlight, it produces a very bright spot thats why they "claimed" to be so bright. If you spread the beam, it would be rather dim.