# Did someone say something about LED lights??



## aspidites73 (Oct 2, 2012)

Hello all. This is a companion to a documentary thread, showcasing an experiment in lighting. My goal is to compare and contrast two different LED lights. One, a name brand (Jungle Dawn™) by one of our sponsors, Lightyourreptiles.com, and another, which will represent the newest, non branded LED, available to our hobby, and sold on this board. This is NOT about advertising. I have NO financial interest in who's bulb performs best. I have NOT brokered any deals for kickbacks, commissions, or future monetary interests. I am simply here to answer one main question: Is the name brand bulb really better than available generics? This question is divided into several sub-sections. As part of this experiment, I will be testing for cost of operation in Kilowatts/Hr. I will test for color temperature in Kelvin, lumen/foot squared, and overall appearance. Last, and probably the most important test, will be carried out by life, itself. I have personally selected 11 different species of plants (two of each) based on their response to higher qualities of light. I have also selected an additional 6 cultivars of Tillandsia, again for their response to more intense, and higher quality of light. Please subscribe to this thread, and when made available, it's sister thread, which will contain photographic documentation and various measurements. Although I will do my best to maintain proper scientific method, this is by no means a thorough and/or peer reviewed study. This is simply to determine if there is any real difference that may warrant further study. The gauntlet was layed down by Todd in a previous discussion on Jungle Dawn™ Bulbs. I quote, "let's have a showdown", as proclaimed by Todd. I thought it was a great idea and, here we are! So, let the showdown begin!!!! Over the course of the next couple days, I will start a thread in the "Parts and Construction" section of this board. Please stop by and see my progress as it unfolds. It will be a lot of fun, and will help my fellow froggers determine what's best for them and their charges. Thank you, everyone!


*****NOTE*****

The reason I am doing two separate threads is to discern between discussion and data collection. Please refrain from posting to the data collection and display thread, as it will only lead to a dilution of the experimental data. PLEASE, *DO* make any comments, criticism (preferably constructive as we do not need another thread on who's the bad guy), and suggestions on *this thread*. I will do my very best to keep up with questions, and the like. If you have any non constructive criticism, please PM it directly to me. No need to impede progress just because someone thinks my meter is a cheap piece of $4it. It is!! This is about a comparison, not a PhD dissertation, to be published in a peer reviewed journal. Again, and above anything, this is supposed to be fun! After all, it is a hobby. Thank you. ~David


----------



## aspidites73 (Oct 2, 2012)

Here is the link to the thread containing all photos, data, and "THE POLL"

The LED Experiment Thread


----------



## aspidites73 (Oct 2, 2012)

I'm going to need to let the power consumption test run longer than expected. My meter resolution is only to hundredths of a Kw/Hr. Over six hours, both bulbs consumed the same. Depending of what the thousandths, an so on values are, the difference could very well be in the multiples. I am also getting a lower than I thought wattage rating. This time, both are slightly different, significant to the tenths of a watt. Any input on this? Both are rated at 13 watts.


----------



## jacobi (Dec 15, 2010)

Why don't you do one more with a popular brand of CFL, just because?


----------



## bobrez (Sep 10, 2011)

To me it looks like youre getting more watts from right side bulb. This would make test unfair, anyway to use the same leddriver on both bulbs? That should even it out, you should ask LYR for a driver. Far as i know his have better qc.


----------



## fishieness (Jun 26, 2009)

Your eyes see yellow light better than blues, which is what gives a yellow light a more white spectrum. It's possible that it has to do with the efficiency, but is also affected by the spectrum of the light


----------



## Venutus1 (Feb 13, 2010)

So true...

But some of the non Jungle dawn® bulbs are being advertised as "13 watts"... even though some only contain 54 diodes.

(The 54 diode Jungle Dawns® are sold as 11 watts.)

I actually have no idea what others sent him to use in this test, 

or _even if they realized that their "13 watt LEDs" were possibly not pulling a full 13 watts and re- grouped and sent him a 60 diode unit.?? _

That being said, 
I think the test IS matching what I call a 13 watt unit with what my competitors are selling as a 13 watt unit.

Is that true David?

and can you also tell us how many diodes in the right and the left units?

Thank you!
Todd

PS.
The LED driver component at the heart of the Jungle Dawns® is made inhouse by the factory that produces them. 
It is not a generic component. 
They are pretty heavy duty as far as little drivers go.... a real work horse.



bobrez said:


> To me it looks like youre getting more watts from right side bulb. This would make test unfair, anyway to use the same leddriver on both bulbs? That should even it out, you should ask LYR for a driver. Far as i know his have better qc.


----------



## Venutus1 (Feb 13, 2010)

fishieness said:


> Your eyes see yellow light better than blues, which is what gives a yellow light a more white spectrum. It's possible that it has to do with the efficiency, but is also affected by the spectrum of the light


So true...

The spectrum of natural sunlight ranges from about 5500K to 6800k

And it is very true, the yellower the light is, the brighter it seems.

4.5k will appear to our eyes much brighter than 6.5k

A light meter reading would be interesting to see on these set ups, if you have one handy!

Cheers!
Todd


----------



## aspidites73 (Oct 2, 2012)

The second bulb being tested contains 64 diodes, all of which appear to be the same. There is no yellow row, or even a single yellow diode. This bulb was sent to me as a 13 watt bulb, according to the person who supplied it. Both bulbs are testing at the same whole watt. The difference is a tenth of a watt. 



Venutus1 said:


> So true...
> 
> But some of the non Jungle dawn® bulbs are being advertised as "13 watts"... even though some only contain 54 diodes.
> 
> ...


----------



## aspidites73 (Oct 2, 2012)

I will be comparing a few aspects of the CFL and T8 florescent lights. Having used florescent t8 tubes and cfl bulbs in my collection for years, and once i began using these LED's, I assure you the standard daylight florescents could not hold a candle (pun intended) to the Jungle dawn bulb. That being said, I will still offer certain parameters of florescent lighting for everyone to see. My main interest is cost of operation.



jacobi said:


> Why don't you do one more with a popular brand of CFL, just because?


----------



## aspidites73 (Oct 2, 2012)

I do have a light meter, Todd. I will be posting those results within the coming days.

Oh, the bulb on the right is the 13 watt, 64 diode, generic. The 13 watt Jungle dawn bulb is on the left.




Venutus1 said:


> So true...
> 
> The spectrum of natural sunlight ranges from about 5500K to 6800k
> 
> ...


----------



## B-NICE (Jul 15, 2011)

Getting interesting...


----------



## Venutus1 (Feb 13, 2010)

B-NICE said:


> Getting interesting...


yes. I agree

he he ... b-nice -- I see you upped from 52 diodes to 64, that was a good call.

I love this sort of thing!

Now I wonder about how one would compare actual color rendering properties (CRI) on the actual frogs?


Go David!

Cheers!
Todd


----------



## B-NICE (Jul 15, 2011)

Those are about to be old news though. I have something with 28 Diodes, 14w, and 1400 Lumens...


----------



## Trey (Sep 10, 2008)

I'm gonna throw this here again since no one seems to want to answer my question. Why are we not measuring PAR on these bulbs, that's what really matters..

PAR and spectrum/kelvin are really all that matter to me, I mean I want it to grow plants well and look good to my eyes. 

Can somebody PLEASE enlighten me on why we don't use PAR measurements on anything in this hobby.


Edit for above post: lumens? Really? This is exactly what I'm talking about, why don't we just start talking about foot candles too? It's so antiquated and does not directly correlate to what we are trying to accomplish, which is growing plants.


----------



## B-NICE (Jul 15, 2011)

My thoughts Trey, Par Meters look to be very costly.


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

Trey said:


> I'm gonna throw this here again since no one seems to want to answer my question. Why are we not measuring PAR on these bulbs, that's what really matters..
> 
> PAR and spectrum/kelvin are really all that matter to me, I mean I want it to grow plants well and look good to my eyes.
> 
> ...


I think some of it is simplicity... 

It is easier for lay people to get their minds around 2-3 watts per gallon average as a general rule of thumb, or 1200-2000 lumens for a 10 gallon or something like that. 

Lumens may not technically have much to do with what a plant actually needs to grow, but if you are using full spectrum lighting and can achieve a tank that looks bright to the human eye, then generally you'll be getting enough light to grow most plants adequately. 

Some of us are interested in PAR, spectrum, etc... others not so much. They just wanna know what light their viv needs over it to look good and grow some plants and don't wanna do a bunch of math to figure that out. 

The watts per gallon rule of thumb has served me well enough over the years. I modify it a bit depending on tank height and type of light source, and I find I tend to like my tanks closer to 3-4 watts per gallon, but overall it is a simple way to find a place to start from, and once you have some experience lighting some vivs and using different types of lights you can pretty much eyeball it and know what you'll need. 

I'm all for delving into more though...It is interesting and leads to good things sometimes


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

B-NICE said:


> Those are about to be old news though. I have something with 28 Diodes, 14w, and 1400 Lumens...


I know those bulbs


----------



## Trey (Sep 10, 2008)

I guess my thoughts on it are why not evolve? If we are discussing which bulb is best, especially putting a board sponsor against an unknown brand, or comparing any lighting system why not have the most useful and relevant information? 

There's a reason the reef hobby uses par, and if anyone is good at growing photosynthetic organisms its them.


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

Trey said:


> I guess my thoughts on it are why not evolve? If we are discussing which bulb is best, especially putting a board sponsor against an unknown brand, or comparing any lighting system why not have the most useful and relevant information?
> 
> There's a reason the reef hobby uses par, and if anyone is good at growing photosynthetic organisms its them.


I agree, I just think that increased complexity is a hurdle for some.


----------



## bsr8129 (Sep 23, 2010)

aspidites73 said:


> I do have a light meter, Todd. I will be posting those results within the coming days.
> 
> Oh, the bulb on the right is the 13 watt, 64 diode, generic. The 13 watt Jungle dawn bulb is on the left.


Wait did you say the bulb on the *left* is the jungle dawn, it looks much dimer then the one on the right!!!


----------



## Trey (Sep 10, 2008)

I agree Dave. And there are multiple different levels of experience in this hobby just like any other. I think the basic lighting "rules" will always be there to serve most everyone, and I'm not suggesting we nix them altogether. Rather, as lighting units advance for our hobby, and competition ( not to mention price) rises between makes/brands/ bulbs etc. I think it would be wise from a business standpoint to note PAR readings.


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

bsr8129 said:


> Wait did you say the bulb on the *left* is the jungle dawn, it looks much dimer then the one on the right!!!


*Ya is that our left or your left?* because when I look at my screen the one on my left looks more blue and dimmer...and the one on the right looks like JD's spectrum, and brighter. It is hard to believe the one on the left of my screen is JD just from the spectrum color alone, not to mention the brightness. I've got a JD and generic and the bulb on the left in the pic looks like my generic compared to the bulb on the right which looks like what I'd expect from my JD. 

So if that is in fact correct, it does not match my experience with these bulbs.


----------



## aspidites73 (Oct 2, 2012)

My bad guys. From the perspective of someone looking at the photograph, the Jungle Dawn is on the right, the generic is on the left.


----------



## Scott (Feb 17, 2004)

I've seen a few posts here that are getting close to actual Ads.

Please don't go there.

s


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

aspidites73 said:


> My bad guys. From the perspective of someone looking at the photograph, the Jungle Dawn is on the right, the generic is on the left.


Ahhh...ok, that is much more what I would expect. I'm sure Todd will be glad that is cleared up now


----------



## Pubfiction (Feb 3, 2013)

Dendro Dave said:


> I think some of it is simplicity...
> 
> It is easier for lay people to get their minds around 2-3 watts per gallon average as a general rule of thumb, or 1200-2000 lumens for a 10 gallon or something like that.
> 
> ...


But at the same time what would be so hard about PAR or just learning to look at a spectrum? I think personally that people learn what ever they are told to learn but what really happens is that in a poor attempt to make things simpler for people we end up making it a cluster $&*#. And this is way more complicated than it ever would have been had we just learned to do things right from the start. My favorite example is resolution on monitors where companies said oh consumers do not understand what numbers like 1920x1080 are, so we are going to name things something more simple. So when they started moving away from "standard definition" they started to call it HD, but then when they moved up HD became too broad a term and they could not sell people more "HD" so they tried to make up another stupid name full HD, now we have another step 4K, qhd, wvga, wsgx+, look at this File:Vector Video Standards4.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ok now you tell me if any normal consumer is going to have the slightest clue what any of that junk means? If they are lucky they can remember 3 of them and some how those were suppose to convey aspect ratio too? I got a better idea, pixels, width x height and size. 3 numbers describes everything you would ever need to know and if you care you can calculate everything else. May that have been slightly harder than HD, sure but in the end look at the mess we have created by simply not just learning to understand the simple concept of resolution. I promise most consumers have no clue what they name of their resolution is on any of their displays now. 

Lights have gone through the same BS, first it was watts, then because of the stupidity of measuring in watts we now have to measure in lumens and combine in color temperature, but because we taught everyone watts any maker is also going to list their light bulbs in current watts and Watt equivalents to an incandescent lamp. Now lights have to list like 4 different things on every package. Should you care about any specific ability such as growing plants we now need to throw in new numbers like PAR. 

Ultimately though if we are in a hobby where we need plant growth we really need to at least have some way of measuring the red + blue light output and PAR seems to be the only thing we have now. I think the bigger issue is that the vast majority of LED makers don't know this data because they just buy stuff from China and they are not primary producers of anything.


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

Pubfiction said:


> But at the same time what would be so hard about PAR or just learning to look at a spectrum? I think personally that people learn what ever they are told to learn but what really happens is that in a poor attempt to make things simpler for people we end up making it a cluster $&*#. And this is way more complicated than it ever would have been had we just learned to do things right from the start. My favorite example is resolution on monitors where companies said oh consumers do not understand what numbers like 1920x1080 are, so we are going to name things something more simple. So when they started moving away from "standard definition" they started to call it HD, but then when they moved up HD became too broad a term and they could not sell people more "HD" so they tried to make up another stupid name full HD, now we have another step 4K, qhd, wvga, wsgx+, look at this File:Vector Video Standards4.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ok now you tell me if any normal consumer is going to have the slightest clue what any of that junk means? If they are lucky they can remember 3 of them and some how those were suppose to convey aspect ratio too? I got a better idea, pixels, width x height and size. 3 numbers describes everything you would ever need to know and if you care you can calculate everything else. May that have been slightly harder than HD, sure but in the end look at the mess we have created by simply not just learning to understand the simple concept of resolution. I promise most consumers have no clue what they name of their resolution is on any of their displays now.
> 
> Lights have gone through the same BS, first it was watts, then because of the stupidity of measuring in watts we now have to measure in lumens and combine in color temperature, but because we taught everyone watts any maker is also going to list their light bulbs in current watts and Watt equivalents to an incandescent lamp. Now lights have to list like 4 different things on every package. Should you care about any specific ability such as growing plants we now need to throw in new numbers like PAR.
> 
> Ultimately though if we are in a hobby where we need plant growth we really need to at least have some way of measuring the red + blue light output and PAR seems to be the only thing we have now. I think the bigger issue is that the vast majority of LED makers don't know this data because they just buy stuff from China and they are not primary producers of anything.


Good points, I'm with ya man...you're preaching to the choir 
...now we just got get everyone else to do their research


----------



## aspidites73 (Oct 2, 2012)

Dendro Dave said:


> Good points, I'm with ya man...you're preaching to the choir
> ...now we just got get everyone else to do their research


I must admit, on PAR values and measurement, I am with the ignorant group. However, now that I am aware, I will be doing research into it. When I began this experiment, I knew it would be a journey of learning. Thank you Pubfiction and Dendro Dave, for pointing out something I need to gain some knowledge in. In the meantime, I just updated the data thread to include the lumen and Lux measurements I made this afternoon. Other than what has already been stated about these parameters, are there any other comments? I am currently working with a Dendroboard sponsor, to acquire a higher quality meter. I will keep everyone updated! Here is a link to the data thread: http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/pa...light-jungle-dawn-vs-generic-alternative.html


----------



## frogfreak (Mar 4, 2009)

pubfiction said:


> but at the same time what would be so hard about par or just learning to look at a spectrum? I think personally that people learn what ever they are told to learn but what really happens is that in a poor attempt to make things simpler for people we end up making it a cluster $&*#. And this is way more complicated than it ever would have been had we just learned to do things right from the start. My favorite example is resolution on monitors where companies said oh consumers do not understand what numbers like 1920x1080 are, so we are going to name things something more simple. So when they started moving away from "standard definition" they started to call it hd, but then when they moved up hd became too broad a term and they could not sell people more "hd" so they tried to make up another stupid name full hd, now we have another step 4k, qhd, wvga, wsgx+, look at this file:vector video standards4.svg - wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ok now you tell me if any normal consumer is going to have the slightest clue what any of that junk means? If they are lucky they can remember 3 of them and some how those were suppose to convey aspect ratio too? I got a better idea, pixels, width x height and size. 3 numbers describes everything you would ever need to know and if you care you can calculate everything else. May that have been slightly harder than hd, sure but in the end look at the mess we have created by simply not just learning to understand the simple concept of resolution. I promise most consumers have no clue what they name of their resolution is on any of their displays now.
> 
> Lights have gone through the same bs, first it was watts, then because of the stupidity of measuring in watts we now have to measure in lumens and combine in color temperature, but because we taught everyone watts any maker is also going to list their light bulbs in current watts and watt equivalents to an incandescent lamp. Now lights have to list like 4 different things on every package. Should you care about any specific ability such as growing plants we now need to throw in new numbers like par.
> 
> Ultimately though if we are in a hobby where we need plant growth we really need to at least have some way of measuring the red + blue light output and par seems to be the only thing we have now. I think the bigger issue is that the vast majority of led makers don't know this data because they just buy stuff from china and they are not primary producers of anything.


what??? ........


----------



## Raptor22 (Nov 23, 2012)

I think it is unfair to use lumens as a measurement of the light produced, because lumens read higher from yellow light sources. Since the jungle dawn is half warm LED's, it will always read significantly higher for an equivalent amount of light.


----------



## Pumilo (Sep 4, 2010)

If somebody HAS a PAR meter, why don't you offer it to aspidites73 as a loaner for this test. Otherwise, can we please allow the test to continue with the methods he DOES have available.
I think people are forgetting that the real test is how these plants are going to grow over time. 
It's not simply about PAR. Which tank will grow plants faster? Which one will have tighter internodes? Which one will stay bright for longer? Who cares if one starts out brighter if it loses half it's intensity after 3 months?
It seems like a fair enough test to me. 
Thanks for doing this! I almost offered, but when I'm already running 29 Jungle Dawns, I think my results could be looked at as biased.


----------



## B-NICE (Jul 15, 2011)

Raptor22 said:


> I think it is unfair to use lumens as a measurement of the light produced, because lumens read higher from yellow light sources. Since the jungle dawn is half warm LED's, it will always read significantly higher for an equivalent amount of light.


That thought crossed my mind too...


----------



## aspidites73 (Oct 2, 2012)

Lumens may well not be the fairest comparison, but let's not exagerate. The Jungle Dawn bulb uses 25% "warm" LEDs, not "half" as you suggest. Despite this, it is more than 60% brighter than the 64 diode, all white bulb. I am looking into better tests, but as Pumilo and myself have already stated, floral life is going to be the best test. Plant growth and coloration will not lie, nor will it prefer a bulb with better ratings. Their response will be from better light. Again, as Pumilo mentioned, and I have asked, if anyone has the ability to test other parameters, or a suggestion on how I can improve the quantity of data, I am both open-minded, and willing to accept responsibility for any equipment loaned to me.

Edit: If I were to allow personal preference to speak, I like the look of a "cooler" bulb. However, this is not about what I like. It has always been about what's best for the plants, animals, and environment in my care, and value for my, and my fellow froggers, dollar.



Raptor22 said:


> I think it is unfair to use lumens as a measurement of the light produced, because lumens read higher from yellow light sources. Since the jungle dawn is half warm LED's, it will always read significantly higher for an equivalent amount of light.


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

aspidites73 said:


> Lumens may well not be the fairest comparison, but let's not exagerate. The Jungle Dawn bulb uses 25% "warm" LEDs, not "half" as you suggest. Despite this, it is more than 60% brighter than the 64 diode, all white bulb. I am looking into better tests, but as Pumilo and myself have already stated, floral life is going to be the best test. Plant growth and coloration will not lie, nor will it prefer a bulb with better ratings. Their response will be from better light. Again, as Pumilo mentioned, and I have asked, if anyone has the ability to test other parameters, or a suggestion on how I can improve the quantity of data, I am both open-minded, and willing to accept responsibility for any equipment loaned to me.
> 
> Edit: If I were to allow personal preference to speak, I like the look of a "cooler" bulb. However, this is not about what I like. It has always been about what's best for the plants, animals, and environment in my care, and value for my, and my fellow froggers, dollar.


Well I expect the JD to win in plant growth simply because it has the more optimal spectrum for plant growth, as long as it doesn't loose much intensity over time. I think the only question is how noticeable the difference will be, and if their are any other factors in the test that contribute to one viv showing more growth then the other.


----------



## Ultravincent (Sep 3, 2012)

aspidites73 said:


> let's not exagerate. The Jungle Dawn bulb uses 25% "warm" LEDs, not "half" as you suggest.


Since it's one row out of five, I would suggest it's even less. 20% yellow LEDs.


----------



## aspidites73 (Oct 2, 2012)

Ultravincent said:


> Since it's one row out of five, I would suggest it's even less. 20% yellow LEDs.


I stand corrected, Thank you!


----------



## aspidites73 (Oct 2, 2012)

Dendro Dave said:


> Well I expect the JD to win in plant growth simply because it has the more optimal spectrum for plant growth, as long as it doesn't loose much intensity over time. I think the only question is how noticeable the difference will be, and if their are any other factors in the test that contribute to one viv showing more growth then the other.


I believe, and agree with you, Dave, the difference should be noticeable. Further, I believe it will be dramatic. I have tried to grow several of these plants under various styles of florescent bulbs with dismal results. Granted, the generic bulb does present better than florescent in both lux and lumens but, I was combining different kelvin temperature, something the generic doesn't do. 

As far as confounding variables are concerned, there are quite a few. Where were the plants that I received cuttings from grown? Where they grown in the sun, and have a thicker wax coating to protect the leaves? Were clippings taken from the same plant, the same area of the plant, and are of the same maturity? The plants I used as rooted specimines, were they the same age? Were they grown from clippings? If so, were they taken from the same mother plant? A single extra, and/or, errant leaf could give a plant more surface area for photosynthesis. I have always maintained that this is not science, it is just a comparison with a few measurements and a considerable amount of time to allow for growth and color change. Again, I suspect the difference to be profound. Only time will tell for sure. Meanwhile, I will do my very best to provide information, if not answers, to help me and my fellow froggers make a more informed decision.

Edit: amoung other surprises I have in store for this experiment, I am thinking of putting a seed or two in a starter pot on a bare spot of the viv floor. Maybe something that is a fast starter, like a sunflower. Any other ideas to help us gain more data is always welcome!


----------



## curlykid (Jan 28, 2011)

okay, what you should be using is par.


----------



## aspidites73 (Oct 2, 2012)

curlykid said:


> okay, what you should be using is par.


Duly noted (x3+). I do not have a PAR meter, so I am doing the best I can. Surely, if there is any difference in PAR between the two lights, plant growth should show it. That is what PAR measures, growth spectrum, correct?


----------



## curlykid (Jan 28, 2011)

aspidites73 said:


> Duly noted (x3+). I do not have a PAR meter, so I am doing the best I can. Surely, if there is any difference in PAR between the two lights, plant growth should show it. That is what PAR measures, growth spectrum, correct?


Exactly. However, a long term test would have to be done for that to work. With led's, lumens almost never show the actual light that is going to be utilized through photosynthesis. So if a lumen meter is all you have, I think it's okay, but the results would be more meaningful with a PAR meter.


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

Ok so serendipitously one of my off brand LED sticks decided to crap out on me last night. Now to be fair I will take some responsibility because I forgot to remove the aluminium reflectors inside the old black perfecto style aquarium light. These have the effect of shielding higher wattage bulbs from melting the plastic vents at the top of the fixture but also trapping heat inside around the bulb. 

Now I've used CFLs like that and even though their life was generally shortened they lasted way longer then a couple months, which I think I got these bulbs back in May...maybe April  So not impressed with this off brand's longevity even with me not removing the reflectors since CFLs routinely last much much longer under the same conditions. Now this is just 1 bulb...so maybe I got a dud. But I had 2 and one is messed up now so that is a 50% fail rate (in a very small sampling)

I guess I'll hook it up to a remote control outlet, or one of these motion sensor plugs I have, and try to use it as a strobe light for an extra lightning effect on the 30gal storm viv... Till it breaks completely, or burns my house down 

*Here is a vid of the off brand failure...*


----------



## Pumilo (Sep 4, 2010)

Dendro Dave said:


> Ok so serendipitously one of my off brand LED sticks decided to crap out on me last night. Now to be fair I will take some responsibility because I forgot to remove the aluminium reflectors inside the old black perfecto style aquarium light. These have the effect of shielding higher wattage bulbs from melting the plastic vents at the top of the fixture but also trapping heat inside around the bulb.
> 
> Now I've used CFLs like that and even though their life was generally shortened they lasted way longer then a couple months, which I think I got these bulbs back in May...maybe April  So not impressed with this off brand's longevity even with me not removing the reflectors since CFLs routinely last much much longer under the same conditions. Now this is just 1 bulb...so maybe I got a dud. But I had 2 and one is messed up now so that is a 50% fail rate (in a very small sampling)
> 
> ...


Dave, without a PAR meter, this information is apparently useless.  Thanks anyway though.


----------



## aspidites73 (Oct 2, 2012)

Ok folks, as promised I have been doing some research into PAR. So we have a definition in place, PAR stands for Photosynthetic Active Radiation. The spectrum of light, more specifically a light wave, is measured in nanometers (nm). PAR is ALL light between 400 and 700 nm. PAR, in and of itself, is not a measurement. It is simply a "chunk of the light spectrum". PAR roughly equates to visible light so, if you can see it, it is most likely PAR. So why all the fuss here on DB about PAR? I had a sneaky suspicion that it was regurgitated words heard, but not completely understood. After a bit of reading, I was able to confirm this. If PAR is a range, then what is the measurement? The measurement that people think they mean when they say PAR is actually Photosynthetic Photon Flux Density (PPFD). This is a measurement of how many photons (1 photon = 1 unit of light) within PAR, hit a 1 square meter area, per second. Alternately, PAR can also be expressed in terms of how much energy those same photons are depositing and in that case it is Watts/square meter (hmmmm sounds like the rule of thumb Todd and others spoke of). So, PARheads, if we are to ignore the Watts/gallon (BTW Watts/gallon is totally acceptable within the reef and light community for aquariums up to 18 gallons, nearly twice the size of my experiment) what is the best PPFD value for plants? Be careful, this is a trick question. Please don't cop out to "buy a PAR meter". In the true sense of the term, you mean spectroradiometer. 



curlykid said:


> Exactly. However, a long term test would have to be done for that to work. With led's, lumens almost never show the actual light that is going to be utilized through photosynthesis. So if a lumen meter is all you have, I think it's okay, but the results would be more meaningful with a PAR meter.


----------



## NathanB (Jan 21, 2008)

Dendro Dave said:


> Ok so serendipitously one of my off brand LED sticks decided to crap out on me last night. Now to be fair I will take some responsibility because I forgot to remove the aluminium reflectors inside the old black perfecto style aquarium light. These have the effect of shielding higher wattage bulbs from melting the plastic vents at the top of the fixture but also trapping heat inside around the bulb.
> 
> Now I've used CFLs like that and even though their life was generally shortened they lasted way longer then a couple months, which I think I got these bulbs back in May...maybe April  So not impressed with this off brand's longevity even with me not removing the reflectors since CFLs routinely last much much longer under the same conditions. Now this is just 1 bulb...so maybe I got a dud. But I had 2 and one is messed up now so that is a 50% fail rate (in a very small sampling)
> 
> ...


Dude, did you see how much Marty is selling lightning affects for? You lucked out!


----------



## curlykid (Jan 28, 2011)

Wow I've never been flamed as many times for a simple post as I have on this forum. I didn't say anything controversial or offensive, so please calm down. I was just saying that ideally a PAR meter would yield instant answers to _will bulb A grow plants better than bulb B_ or vice versa.


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

Pumilo said:


> Dave, without a PAR meter, this information is apparently useless.  Thanks anyway though.


LOL..WHAT?!!??!



aspidites73 said:


> Ok folks, as promised I have been doing some research into PAR. So we have a definition in place, PAR stands for Photosynthetic Active Radiation. The spectrum of light, more specifically a light wave, is measured in nanometers (nm). PAR is ALL light between 400 and 700 nm. PAR, in and of itself, is not a measurement. It is simply a "chunk of the light spectrum". PAR roughly equates to visible light so, if you can see it, it is most likely PAR. So why all the fuss here on DB about PAR? I had a sneaky suspicion that it was regurgitated words heard, but not completely understood. After a bit of reading, I was able to confirm this. If PAR is a range, then what is the measurement? The measurement that people think they mean when they say PAR is actually Photosynthetic Photon Flux Density (PPFD). This is a measurement of how many photons (1 photon = 1 unit of light) within PAR, hit a 1 square meter area, per second. Alternately, PAR can also be expressed in terms of how much energy those same photons are depositing and in that case it is Watts/square meter (hmmmm sounds like the rule of thumb Todd and others spoke of). So, PARheads, if we are to ignore the Watts/gallon (BTW Watts/gallon is totally acceptable within the reef and light community for aquariums up to 18 gallons, nearly twice the size of my experiment) what is the best PPFD value for plants? Be careful, this is a trick question. Please don't cop out to "buy a PAR meter". In the true sense of the term, you mean spectroradiometer.


Ya thats why I don't think watts per gallon on most standard aquarium sizes up to 75 gallon (same height as a 55) is to to bad since they all range from like 12-20 inches high? ...And I tend to use 1-2 rows of lights and roughly a bulb per foot of length, or add a 3rd row of lights on larger tanks, so basically I just guestimate a modification to the watts per gallon rule of thumb, factor in brightness to my eyes and come up with something that tends to work well for my vivs.



NathanB said:


> Dude, did you see how much Marty is selling lightning affects for? You lucked out!


LoL ya!  In his defense though I doubt getting the programming for those FX especially on a brand new product, one not building on a previous generation or past programming is cheap, nor is adding in remote control functionality and whatever other bells/whistles there are. It is a fairly impressive light, I just wish it was longer so it was suited for more variety of tank sizes.



curlykid said:


> Wow I've never been flamed as many times for a simple post as I have on this forum. I didn't say anything controversial or offensive, so please calm down. I was just saying that ideally a PAR meter would yield instant answers to _will bulb A grow plants better than bulb B_ or vice versa.


Ok guys lets all hug this out...watch the hands, watch the hands!!!


----------



## Pumilo (Sep 4, 2010)

aspidites73 said:


> Ok folks, as promised I have been doing some research into PAR. So we have a definition in place, PAR stands for Photosynthetic Active Radiation. The spectrum of light, more specifically a light wave, is measured in nanometers (nm). PAR is ALL light between 400 and 700 nm. PAR, in and of itself, is not a measurement. It is simply a "chunk of the light spectrum". PAR roughly equates to visible light so, if you can see it, it is most likely PAR. So why all the fuss here on DB about PAR? I had a sneaky suspicion that it was regurgitated words heard, but not completely understood. After a bit of reading, I was able to confirm this. If PAR is a range, then what is the measurement? The measurement that people think they mean when they say PAR is actually Photosynthetic Photon Flux Density (PPFD). This is a measurement of how many photons (1 photon = 1 unit of light) within PAR, hit a 1 square meter area, per second. Alternately, PAR can also be expressed in terms of how much energy those same photons are depositing and in that case it is Watts/square meter (hmmmm sounds like the rule of thumb Todd and others spoke of). So, PARheads, if we are to ignore the Watts/gallon (BTW Watts/gallon is totally acceptable within the reef and light community for aquariums up to 18 gallons, nearly twice the size of my experiment) what is the best PPFD value for plants? Be careful, this is a trick question. Please don't cop out to "buy a PAR meter". In the true sense of the term, you mean spectroradiometer.


Sorry, I didn't have time earlier or I could have explained that. As an ex coral farmer, I'm somewhat familiar with them, and have used a couple types, years ago. Very nice, and yes, it would be great in someone had one. A PAR meter, however, is not the end-all to end all. The absence of a PAR meter does not make this inaccurate, or unfair. It does not invalidate the test as some seem to be implying. A PAR meter won't show us longevity of each bulb. PAR won't reveal which bulb colors up the plants better. PAR won't even give a ghost of a suggestion which bulb the frogs look more natural under.
The growth test, over 6 months, and then a year, are what I am looking forward to.



curlykid said:


> Wow I've never been flamed as many times for a simple post as I have on this forum. I didn't say anything controversial or offensive, so please calm down. I was just saying that ideally a PAR meter would yield instant answers to _will bulb A grow plants better than bulb B_ or vice versa.


Don't worry about it Nick. Nobody is getting flamed and it's nothing personal. There have been several suggestions that this "LEDs at the OK Corral", is not a valid test without a PAR meter. That should simply be put to rest. Those with a problem are welcome to donate the temporary use of their PAR meter. 
And Nick, after talking with you in private, I'm impressed with your knowledge of lighting. You were obviously paying attention during your time in the coral hobby. I'm just very, very glad that I don't need high end coral tank lighting over each of my vivs.  I have well over a grand wrapped up in frog lighting right now. If I had to put coral lighting over each viv, I'd be in for 10 G's!


----------



## Pumilo (Sep 4, 2010)

It's a joke, Dave!  I'm pointing out that there is a lot to be learned that a PAR meter cannot tell us.


----------



## curlykid (Jan 28, 2011)

Doug, I understand. I just would like to see the hobby grow and advance, that's all.


----------



## B-NICE (Jul 15, 2011)

Lately I've been finding myself thinking about lights more than Frogs lol...


----------



## Scott (Feb 17, 2004)

What part of this did you guys not get?

Infractions forthcoming if this doesn't stop.

s


Scott said:


> I've seen a few posts here that are getting close to actual Ads.
> 
> Please don't go there.
> 
> s


----------



## Ash Katchum (Dec 20, 2012)

This thread is very informative for someone like myself who does not know much about lighting. I learned quite a bit and plan on doin some extensive reading on it. Thank you for taking the time to write this out and keep up the study.

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

Pumilo said:


> It's a joke, Dave!  I'm pointing out that there is a lot to be learned that a PAR meter cannot tell us.


I figured


----------



## Scott (Feb 17, 2004)

And thank you Lou for removing all the crap from it (which constituted more than 50% of the posts when he did it).

s


Ash Katchum said:


> This thread is very informative for someone like myself who does not know much about lighting. I learned quite a bit and plan on doin some extensive reading on it. Thank you for taking the time to write this out and keep up the study.
> 
> Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

Scott said:


> What part of this did you guys not get?
> 
> Infractions forthcoming if this doesn't stop.
> 
> s


What is it that is happening? I'm not seeing anything that feels much like an ad or infraction worthy  Just a comparison/discussion of different lights.

If it is me, I'm happy to stop...I'm just not sure what I'm doing wrong 

Love you Scott!!!  (Brotherly love...watch the hands!!!)


----------



## Markw (Jun 27, 2011)

Are you by chance controlling the settings of your camera? When comparing lights through photos (we all see the photos first and foremost), you really need to make sure that you are representing it accurately. 

Using your cell phone is the worst way to take the photos. I see you're using your cell phone. Not a good idea. First thing is that you can't control the white balance at all. So, you have no control over the actual representational colors of the lights in the photo.

You have no way of making exposure or white balance (colors) consistent between shots of the tanks. Not good when you are trying to compare plant color. Also, the dynamic range of the cell phone sensor is nowhere near that of any decent camera. That is why the highlights are being blown out with no detail.

So, the photos are only as good as any would be if you squinted your eyes. 

That being said, if you're anywhere near Baltimore, MD, I'd be happy to come and give you accurately-taken photographs of the comparison with my setup. I'm a photographer by trade, so I have constant access to my equipment.

Just a note.
Mark


----------



## Scott (Feb 17, 2004)

It appears that Lou removed a bunch of crap from a _different _thread on LED lights.

Geeze, how many do we need?!?

Don't answer that.

s


Dendro Dave said:


> What is it that is happening? I'm not seeing anything that feels much like an ad or infraction worthy  Just a comparison/discussion of different lights.
> 
> If it is me, I'm happy to stop...I'm just not sure what I'm doing wrong


----------



## Pumilo (Sep 4, 2010)

6? (10 characters)


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

Pumilo said:


> 6? (10 characters)


Zardoz only needs 1 

P.S. LOL...My Azureus just tried to get a fly that buzzed by the OUTSIDE of the tank...and is looking quite confused 

Ok back on topic...

Bla bla bla, LEDs....bla bla, leds good....bla bla, I'm poor.

Meh... It is late


----------



## aspidites73 (Oct 2, 2012)

Thank you for the information! It seems I must add photography to the list of things this project is helping me to better understand. As you have seen, I am using my smartphone for a camera but, I do have control of white balance, exposure, etc.









I am in South Florida.I may still have access to a better camera as my sister-in-law is a photographer, too. I will see her this weekend and ask if she may be able to stop by periodically and photograph the enclosures. If not, I seem to remember her saying I could borrow one of her cameras when I had previously asked about it.



Markw said:


> Are you by chance controlling the settings of your camera? When comparing lights through photos (we all see the photos first and foremost), you really need to make sure that you are representing it accurately.
> 
> Using your cell phone is the worst way to take the photos. I see you're using your cell phone. Not a good idea. First thing is that you can't control the white balance at all. So, you have no control over the actual representational colors of the lights in the photo.
> 
> ...


----------



## aspidites73 (Oct 2, 2012)

curlykid said:


> Doug, I understand. I just would like to see the hobby grow and advance, that's all.


I have placed an ad on craigslist asking for someone with a PAR meter that would be willing to stop by and take readings of these bulbs. I will post here if I get any positive results! Also, my apologies for creating a feeling of being flamed. It is not what I intended on doing!


----------



## aspidites73 (Oct 2, 2012)

I am happy to report that I have acquired a D/SLR camera (Nikon, I believe) that I will be picking up from my sister-in-law, a photographer, this Sunday. Although the experiment has already started, I feel it's early enough to take a second set of baseline photographs of each tank/plant. That will be my project for Monday. I will post in the data/photograph thread located here: http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/pa...light-jungle-dawn-vs-generic-alternative.html


----------



## Markw (Jun 27, 2011)

Great! If you hav any questions as to what your settings should be, or how to handle the comparison, feel free to shoot me a PM, or a text. Id be happy to help. 

Mark

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## aspidites73 (Oct 2, 2012)

My apologies, everyone. I did not get the D/SLR camera from my sister-in-law, Sunday. She will be dropping it off to me on Wednesday. I am still following through with the experiment. At this point, and to give an update, we are waiting to see if the seeds I planted and placed in the vivs sprout/grow any difference. This is a little side experiment to help pass the time while the other plants/clippings acclimate, and start to show new growth and color change. Meanwhile, watch out for my newest experiment usimg a 24" dripwall coated in Folius moss mix. I am excited to report that this newest experiment idea will be with 2 differnt LED lights. This experiment has me rather excited. This will give all my fellow froggers a benchmark on the newest generation of LED light. Stay tuned for more!


----------



## therizman2 (Jul 20, 2008)

I am unclear why you guys are so focussed on PAR and for that matter, any other readings. This "experiment" from my understanding was setup solely to see which light grew the plants better. I can show anyone all sorts of evidence that a light is supposed to work, but seeing it perform in the real world is an entirely different deal. I have bought some very very high end LED lights in the past and was very disappointed in their overall performance. In the end, as I am sure many will agree, the only reason people buy these LEDs is to get better plant growth and possibly for the overall effect LEDs have on the appearance of the tank vs conventional lighting choices. I am unclear why reef people ever got so obsessed with PAR, vs seeing what the actual results are. Yes it is important, but when the experiment has been setup solely to see plant growth, why cloud it with a bunch of information that really has no reason to be included. The plants will either grow, or they wont, they will keep color, or they wont.

*I should add that the one important reading, and only one that really matters to me is the actual power consumption of each unit... I have bought LEDs that are 20w and are only using 12-15w of power, and I have other conventional setups that are rated much lower than what the actual usage is. When you get a big enough frog room, power consumption begins to become an issue not only for cost, but the more power you use, the more heat that is generated (yes, that is right, LEDs do still produce heat).


----------



## NathanB (Jan 21, 2008)

People like par because it's a measurement of the strength of the light, unlike watts.


----------



## aspidites73 (Oct 2, 2012)

Agreed, Mike! Plant growth and coloration has always been my main objective. I will provide as many 'test results' that I can, if for no other reason that some people want to know, and I have the ability to test for. I do not have a meter that measures light spectrum as photon density (what PAR analysis really is) and, it's not important enough to warrant the purchase of a $300+ meter. I do, however, have the ability to to measure actual Kw hours used. This test needs to be run for an extended period of time on each seperate bulb in order to see if there is a difference. I will post those results in several weeks. I have already posted wattage draw and both the jungle dawn and the generic were quite close. There is still a lot of waiting that needs to be done before we start to see plant growth. I will also be providing better quality photos in the comming week. Stay tuned!


----------



## therizman2 (Jul 20, 2008)

I understand what PAR is, I have used PAR meters before and I do not question that it has its place in some experiments. For this one I do not see it having a place though, either the plants grow or they dont. If everyone wants this to be an actual scientific study and examination of the bulbs, lots of things should be changed, noted, etc. This was only setup to see how the plant do.


----------



## aspidites73 (Oct 2, 2012)

NathanB said:


> People like par because it's a measurement of the strength of the light, unlike watts.


Light strength (brightness) is measured in lumens and lux. PAR (phphotosynthetic active radiation) is a measurement of the number of photons in the range off 400nm-700nm, that hit a 1 sq. meter area. PAR is quantified as micro moles/square meter/ second, and expressed as ppfd (photosynthetic photon flux (area) density). 400nm-700nm is not only PAR, it is also what we know as visable light. For the purpose of areas smaller than an 18 gallon aquarium (I'm using 10 gallon zoomeds) watts/gallon is perfectly acceptable. Measuring the amount of a specific range of light is simply overkill. In larger and more heavily planted tanks, PAR becomes important. Either way, we will not be testing for PAR value in this experiment. It is a mute point.


----------



## NathanB (Jan 21, 2008)

I think it was more a general criticism of the bulbs, not necessarily the experiment.


----------



## NathanB (Jan 21, 2008)

The problem with watts/gallon, as shown so far in your experiment, is that it is meaningless in measuring the amount of light a bulb produces, as every model of diode has a different light per watt ratio. And in this case, even similar diodes. (which makes one wonder about the lessers quality)


----------



## therizman2 (Jul 20, 2008)

Just to add to what Nathan said, watts per gallon is a general rule, but not always the best way to figure it out. If you have a tank that is deep (24+ inches), you need something that can not only have a good output, but can also penetrate. The issue with a lot of LEDs is that they are bright to the eye, but in reality, the light isnt traveling very far. It looks bright, but it is just the way the eye perceives the light. 

All of this is getting a bit off topic for this thread though I think... lets just focus on the plants, and having David get a real camera


----------



## aspidites73 (Oct 2, 2012)

I also think that people, myself included, wat to see some meaningful information, asap. This is an experiment of life on life's terms. I added the seedling portion so we could get some information faster. We will see if it's a significant difference soon enough. Over the next 3-8 months (ill continue it for at least that long) the differences, in my opinion, will be drastic. The generic, again in my opinion, is out of it's league. If only in safety compliance alone (the generic is NOT CE or UL rated). Another experiment is forthcomming that will be more of a competition. Please lookout for the "Folius Moss Mix on a 24" treefern panel drip wall" experiment. I assure everyone there are some big things comming.....stay tuned!!


----------



## aspidites73 (Oct 2, 2012)

therizman2 said:


> All of this is getting a bit off topic for this thread though I think... lets just focus on the plants, and having David get a real camera


Once again, Mike. I concur. I was very disappointed that the D/SLR camera I'm getting from my sister-in-law was not available for pickup, yesterday. I WILL be getting it this week, probably Wednesday or Thursday. And, as I said in my above post, many more good things are comming to this experiment and my next. The moss mix/treefern dripwall experiment has two, yet to be named, "new" LED's!

Edit: I am also looking into a better meter so I may post quantity of light (full spectrum, it will not discern wavelengths) measured at further distances. My current light meter is not cosine corrected, making it difficult to take accurate measurements at multiple distances. You should have seen my engineering feat just to get an accurate reading at 12"!


----------



## therizman2 (Jul 20, 2008)

Another note... most all cell phones can be used as a light meter too. Even if it isnt 100% accurate, the readings would be equally off for both tanks. I know Android has several free apps that can do it, I am sure others do as well. I use it on my tanks, I know it isnt perfect, but it is good enough for me without having to buy a good one.


----------



## toksyn (Mar 5, 2011)

Some more thoughts - I know the primary metric for this study appears to be plant growth, but are physical growth characteristics, eg. internode spacing, growth pattern, etc. the sole metric? Do you care about coloration? 

This affects all light, not just LEDs, but sometimes the coloration of flowers and foliage is not apparent because that portion of the spectrum is missing in the lighting. Reds in particular can lose quite a bit of intensity and look pretty flat or dead, giving you the impression that the LEDs aren't really "coloring up" your plants. In all likelihood, they may not be. Eg., I'm growing Ludwigia senegalensis (aquatic) under a custom LED fixture with a blend I selected, and the leaves are a very deep orange-red with strong veins. I placed clippings from the plants under an ADA Aquasky, and the same plants immediately appeared to be greener with the the red muted to an orange. I'm not entirely thrilled with that observation considering the price delta between the fixtures. 

I'm probably beating a dead horse here, but PAR is demanded because it's a metric for light useful for photosynthesis - it's an easy metric for gauging the useful intensity. It's certainly not the end-all figure because there is nothing in that figure about power distribution. You can have great PAR and very inefficient distribution thereby getting lackluster results (except, maybe that one plant in the one spot that is doing great ... actually it's probably bleached).

WPG really doesn't make any sense as a metric because you're trying to relate a volume with undefined dimensions to a power figure with undefined distribution: you could place a 20W spot with 10cm radius over a volume of 1 gallon with width and length of 2m and still accurately state that you have 20WPG. 0.8% efficient use of all that power. It's just a feel-good number and an easy (albeit completely misleading and incorrect) way of estimating or justifying required lighting.

Using watts as some sort of characterization for fixtures is also risky because you're assuming that every fixture and LED has equivalent efficiency in conversion to light. Two 13W fixtures, one with 86% and the other with 60% electricity to light efficiency, are going to have very different output intensities. Things get even worse when you include the efficiency of the regulator circuits that power the LEDs - you are most definitely not getting the full 13W to the LEDs themselves. That 60% efficient fixture I mentioned earlier is probably best used as a mug warmer. Mentioning watts could be useful _because_ of this situation so long as the figure was brought up with that intent, ie. for the sake of comparison between fixtures and not as a description for the output intensity of one fixture.

What actually does make sense, outside of PAR, is lumens per square area - this doesn't necessarily take into account what is photosynthetically useful nor actual power distribution across that area (assumed constant though the assumption is quite inaccurate). 

Aside from that, I'm still glad someone is doing this study! At the very end of the day, it's going to come down to whether you are happy with the results. 



... unless, of course, we're comparing horsepower, or otherwise.


----------



## aspidites73 (Oct 2, 2012)

toksyn said:


> Some more thoughts - I know the primary metric for this study appears to be plant growth, but are physical growth characteristics, eg. internode spacing, growth pattern, etc. the sole metric? Do you care about coloratIon



All very good points. Thank you. The short answer to coloration is: Yes. Nearly all of the plants I am using were specifically selected for their individual color responses to better/more intense lighting. I will gladly add PAR readings if someone will loan a PAR meter. That offer was already put out there.

I am not aiming the below comments to you, toksyn. I'm just re-stating my goals for eveveryone's benefit.

I understand that PAR is useful. Simply stated: we are not going to use that measurement. PAR roughly translates to visable light. We know we have some of the PAR spectrum because the light is visable. I don't want to discuss the reasons why it will or will not work. I wan't to discuss results. That is all I ever cared about, and have never kept that secret. I was very specific in my OP about my goals. We will either see results, or lack thereof. That is this experiment, period. I am already seeing differences in the individual vivs. When I have a better camera (very soon) and when the results become apparent via photography (I suspect soon if not now), we will see a successful experiment. Thank you, everyone, for your participation in this discussion. Keep it up!


----------



## toksyn (Mar 5, 2011)

Hey, no problem. I wasn't trying to hound you about anything - hopefully I was clear that I understand the objectives of your particular experiment - but I was trying to respond to some of the other posts in this thread. There were just some statements or suggestions that didn't really seem to be ... up to date.

Additionally, I don't think it's a good idea to say that LED light (versus something else) produces light that doesn't "travel very far". It "travels" as far as light produced from any other source with the same spectrum and energy. All light decays as modeled by an inverse-square relationship with distance. In fact, I'd argue that LED light "travels" further because while the luminous flux might be the same, the actual illuminated area for an LED is much more focused - greater power through a smaller area means that the light "travels" a further distance, ie. at a given distance, the intensity of LED light should be greater than, say, CFL. An obvious example is a laser. I think everyone can agree that they project light quite a far distance _but they do this while using mW of power_. It's just extremely focused.

Sorry if you guys find this boring or pedantic. I just see a lot of misinformation and feel the urge to contribute. Because, science.


----------



## aspidites73 (Oct 2, 2012)

toksyn said:


> Hey, no problem. I wasn't trying to hound you about anything - hopefully I was clear that I understand the objectives of your particular experiment - but I was trying to respond to some of the other posts in this thread. There were just some statements or suggestions that didn't really seem to be ... up to date.
> 
> Additionally, I don't think it's a good idea to say that LED light (versus something else) produces light that doesn't "travel very far". It "travels" as far as light produced from any other source with the same spectrum and energy. All light decays as modeled by an inverse-square relationship with distance. In fact, I'd argue that LED light "travels" further because while the luminous flux might be the same, the actual illuminated area for an LED is much more focused - greater power through a smaller area means that the light "travels" a further distance, ie. at a given distance, the intensity of LED light should be greater than, say, CFL. An obvious example is a laser. I think everyone can agree that they project light quite a far distance _but they do this while using mW of power_. It's just extremely focused.
> 
> Sorry if you guys find this boring or pedantic. I just see a lot of missinformation and feel the urge to contribute. Because, science.


I'm not bored, just frustrated that a measurement I never included in my objective keeps popping up on this thread. Maybe we should have a seperate 'light discussion' thread for conversations about things outside the scope of this experiment. Unless, noticing you too are in Florida, you want to swing by with a PAR meter. Please respond via PM, or I can pm you my phone number. I'm always up for an intellectually stimulating conversation!


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

therizman2 said:


> Just to add to what Nathan said, watts per gallon is a general rule, but not always the best way to figure it out. If you have a tank that is deep (24+ inches), you need something that can not only have a good output, but can also penetrate. The issue with a lot of LEDs is that they are bright to the eye, but in reality, the light isnt traveling very far. It looks bright, but it is just the way the eye perceives the light.
> 
> All of this is getting a bit off topic for this thread though I think... lets just focus on the plants, and having David get a real camera


You guys are both kinda right, but on the other hand I wonder if we aren't being a little to scientific here (OMG did I just say that?)  My basis for this is on some of my taller tanks when using CFL's...I just put an extra fixture or 2, and/or used bigger bulbs and got all the plant growth I could ever need, and didn't overheat my tank. CFL light, or even some leds that don't have a ton of power may spread out more, and not penetrate as well as other lights but just putting more light over the tank can make up that difference. 

I also somewhat disagree with the part about the tank looking bright but not getting adequate spectrum intensity to the floor for good growth. I think this is a matter of perception of brightness rather then actual brightness. My reasoning for this is I've had tanks that standing there alone look bright enough to my eyes, but I don't feel like I'm getting good growth. Then I'll have another tank in another room of similar size that looks bright and I am getting good growth. Move those tanks side by side and the difference in brightness that you didn't see before becomes immediately noticeable. Sometimes you need a point of reference. It is like how outside in the shade is often pretty dang bright compared to what we call full sun in a vivarium. 

It isn't like the red/blue plant growing spectrum of light just stops 12 inches in mid air, it just isn't hitting the floor of the tank in as high a concentration...thus more bulbs = More good light hitting the tank floor. There is a point of diminishing return though, and especially on a taller tank with not much roof space it can be difficult to fit enough fixtures on the top to get light to the floor without cooking everything at the top of the tank.

So I think sometimes it is just a question of having more...even if what you are throwing on there is kinda crappy compared to other options, but sometimes that just isn't practical


----------



## toksyn (Mar 5, 2011)

Really like this particular statement, because it definitely sums up a lot in a hurry:



Dendro Dave said:


> I think this is a matter of perception of brightness rather then actual brightness.


Our eyes are incredibly good at adjusting to different light conditions and have great dynamic range, but are also easily fooled. Numbers _usually_ don't lie.


----------



## Pubfiction (Feb 3, 2013)

I think Reefers got into PAR values for several reasons. 

1 Light does not penetrate water as easily as air so you do get significant loss of light. 

2 Over the years the hobby has developed and you have every one and their brother peddling a new better spectrum light system. Then come along LEDs, well now any one with a computer can go to alibaba.com and hook up with a Chinese supplier and have any multitude of LEDs strapped onto just about any form factor. And these lights range in price from cheapo $15 strips to a thousand dollars or more. They range in size and source from compact spots like kessils to long bars like finnex. And its damn near impossible to make any sense of it all. Few if any people have both the time and money to try any number of these options. And since many of these sellers are fairly small / novice they often completely leave out lots of information. 

3 Cost of collection, since many reefers have thousands of dollars wrapped up on a single tank it could be a very costly endeavor to screw up if they were grossly off because they had no specs from which to work from other than rules of thumb. You could burn or lose half your coral. 

While PAR is not perfect it is a common and cheap measurement and seems to be better than any alternative I have seen proposed. And even then the PAR numbers can be manipulated by sellers but at the very least it gives them something to work from without just shelling out a bunch of money throwing it on their tank and saying lets see how it goes. Most people do not have massive collections and cannot get a good frame of reference. With PAR values in reefing or nice resources like planted tank.net you can at least get some sort of vague comparison of how many lights you need and should you have a non standard sized tank you can make some rough calculations to figure it out.


----------



## jacobi (Dec 15, 2010)

By the way, in case nobody realised it, I think we should discuss PAR values... 

In all seriousness, there are new Jungle Dawn lights coming out, you need to test those too!


----------



## aspidites73 (Oct 2, 2012)

jacobi said:


> In all seriousness, there are new Jungle Dawn lights coming out, you need to test those too!



Lookout for my newest experiment featuring the latest and greatest technology of LED lighting for our hobby. It will be called: 'The Folius moss mix drip wall experiment'. It will feature a new comer to the LED market!


----------



## Markw (Jun 27, 2011)

Just as a side note, I did a pseudo-comparison between the 13w Jungle Dawns and 96w Power Compacts on my Chazuta thread. Link in my signature.

Mark


----------



## aspidites73 (Oct 2, 2012)

Hello All! Sorry for the delay in this post. I have just arrived home with a Nikon D/SLR camera and am learning a crash course in operating it. Thanks to MarkW, who had offered some advice, I'm not alone. Photos will be soon coming. Thank you for your patience.

Also, After realizing there was a conflict of interests in my Folius Moss Mix Drip Wall experiment, I have decided not to test one of the bulbs submitted to me. After speaking on the subject with our Mods, it is now clear to me that the negative vibe is simply not worth striking. Meanwhile, I still have a brand new Jungle Dawn Glow and Grow that WILL be put to the test. I have reached out to another vendor to see if I can secure a bulb that is at least in the same ball park as the Jungle Dawn. If anyone else has a multicolored diode bulb, and wants to challenge, please PM me.


----------



## aspidites73 (Oct 2, 2012)

The photo/data thread has been updated with the latest photos, taken today. I am still getting use to this camera. Big thanks to Markw for his advice! I also must report that I lost a plant and a tillandsia in the viv with the generic bulb. This early in the experiment, I can't rule out that it may have simply been 2 that just didn't transition well. NO worries!! I am replacing both plants (I should have them tomorrow). One is the Columnea 'lava flow', the other, a Tillandsia stricta. I still have a few more parameters to test, namely cost of operation of both bulbs, a CFL, and a 4' dual t8. I need another timer in order to make sure all bulbs receive the same amount of ON time. I will have one soon. I may have good news on my Folius Moss Mix Dripwall experiment. I am waiting on the specs of the bulb to make sure it is even close to worthy of challenging the NEW Jungle Dawn Glow and Grow. Updates will follow! Thanks to everyone enjoying this info! I hope to provide at least some answers to the many questions concerning the value of LED lights and how well they work. Your not off the hook yet, Todd!  there still is plenty more experiment time to come!!


----------



## ecichlid (Dec 26, 2012)

aspidites73 said:


> ...The generic, again in my opinion, is out of it's league. If only in safety compliance alone (the generic is NOT CE or UL rated).


 And for me, not having at least the CE stamp means the challenge is over. I don't care how good of a "deal" a generic may be, these aren't paper towels your testing here, there are electronic devices. I'm not interested in increasing the chance of burning my house down in order to save five bucks. And before someone points it out, yes, the CE is a stamp for the EU market, but it does mean the manufacturer is following guidelines under the low voltage directive. That means something. The generic lamp would be illegal to sell in the EU for a very good reason - safety!


----------



## Pubfiction (Feb 3, 2013)

Or because the company did not want to pay some regulatory board to certify the product. 

I am not saying you are wrong but if you take that approach it is kinda like saying it is dangerous to use any driver for a computer that is not WHQL, but people know that's not really true, WHQL drivers can bring down computers and companies get sick of going through the rigorous process so often so the irony of it all is that sometimes a bad product sticks around because the company does not want to go and pay and take the time to recertify the fixed product again for a while. 

Lots of smaller companies and open source programs are the same.


----------



## aspidites73 (Oct 2, 2012)

I have never stated that a goal in this experiment was to find a better deal. Todd claimed to have a better product, the person selling the generic claimed there was no real difference, and our fellow froggers were asking what the difference really was. The result was this experiment. I'm guessing that you quoting one of my statements, born from this experiment, I am accomplishing just that. You don't have to simply accept Todd's word. An un-biased tester (me) has confirmed it, and you didn't have to spend any of your money to find out. Well, what else should we know? People were buying them. The seller couldn't keep them in stock. Because of my results, they are no longer being offered. In fact, the person who was selling the generics is now using at least 1 Jungle Dawn product. This experimemt is valid. It is providing real data, and will continue. I am happy to hear you make an informed decision. That is exactly my reason for even attempting this! Thank you for the input and for validating my observations. We may have saved someone an unnecessary risk.



ecichlid said:


> And for me, not having at least the CE stamp means the challenge is over. I don't care how good of a "deal" a generic may be, these aren't paper towels your testing here, there are electronic devices. I'm not interested in increasing the chance of burning my house down in order to save five bucks. And before someone points it out, yes, the CE is a stamp for the EU market, but it does mean the manufacturer is following guidelines under the low voltage directive. That means something. The generic lamp would be illegal to sell in the EU for a very good reason - safety!


----------



## ecichlid (Dec 26, 2012)

Pubfiction said:


> Or because the company did not want to pay some regulatory board to certify the product.
> 
> I am not saying you are wrong but if you take that approach it is kinda like saying it is dangerous to use any driver for a computer that is not WHQL, but people know that's not really true, WHQL drivers can bring down computers and companies get sick of going through the rigorous process so often so the irony of it all is that sometimes a bad product sticks around because the company does not want to go and pay and take the time to recertify the fixed product again for a while.
> 
> Lots of smaller companies and open source programs are the same.


 You are off base in your comparison. CE does not involve any sort of payment to a regulatory board. It's a self certification process.


----------



## ecichlid (Dec 26, 2012)

aspidites73 said:


> I have never stated that a goal in this experiment was to find a better deal. Todd claimed to have a better product, the person selling the generic claimed there was no real difference, and our fellow froggers were asking what the difference really was. The result was this experiment. I'm guessing that you quoting one of my statements, born from this experiment, I am accomplishing just that. You don't have to simply accept Todd's word. An un-biased tester (me) has confirmed it, and you didn't have to spend any of your money to find out. Well, what else should we know? People were buying them. The seller couldn't keep them in stock. Because of my results, they are no longer being offered. In fact, the person who was selling the generics is now using at least 1 Jungle Dawn product. This experimemt is valid. It is providing real data, and will continue. I am happy to hear you make an informed decision. That is exactly my reason for even attempting this! Thank you for the input and for validating my observations. We may have saved someone an unnecessary risk.


 It's been a fun post to follow. Are you still continuing your experiment even though this generic is no longer being offered by the mystery seller?


----------



## Pubfiction (Feb 3, 2013)

But you still have all the other issues with certification that cost money and time.


----------



## aspidites73 (Oct 2, 2012)

ecichlid said:


> It's been a fun post to follow. Are you still continuing your experiment even though this generic is no longer being offered by the mystery seller?


Yes, I will be continuing this experiment. Although we know the Jungle Dawn puts out a more complete spectrum (we knew this from the start due to the row of yellow leds), and we know the Jungle Dawn is brighter (see the data thread for lux and lumen measurements), we still do not know if it makes any difference in plant growth. One could postulate that it does, but we don't know for sure. The generic bulb could offer just enough to get the job done. The Jungle Dawn could be overkill. Again, we simply don't know for sure. At least, I don't. There are several testimonials that JD is a great bulb. However, I don't take things for granted. There is also a possibility of hidden benefits/negatives. Above and beyond, I am curious what else can be learned. Besides, it's fun!

Oh yeah, the mystery supplier. He was mentioned in my credits but these aren't his bulbs, they are generic. Knowing who sold them wouldn't guarantee you would even get the same bulb I'm testing. What is important is that, at least in part, this experiment moved him 'off the fence' between generic and Jungle Dawn. He is welcome to lay claim to this generic. If he does, I will confirm or deny it was him.


----------



## aspidites73 (Oct 2, 2012)

Pubfiction said:


> But you still have all the other issues with certification that cost money and time.


I don't think CE certification, or lack thereof, is important. These are generics. Certification would be done by the company who brands them. No one can say for sure if these generics would or would not pass. The internet has given us access to manufacturers, effectively avoiding the middle man who takes an idea, improves on it (in theory), puts a brand to it, and sells it. It's that middle man who stands to lose the most from poor workmanship. That is why he/she would seek uniform testing and certification. CE does not imply safety. It is, simply put, compliance. That is what CE stands for, European Compliance. The US version, UL certification is done by Underwriters Laboratory, in Canada. Both are merely a measure of liability.


----------



## B-NICE (Jul 15, 2011)

ecichlid said:


> It's been a fun post to follow. Are you still continuing your experiment even though this generic is no longer being offered by the mystery seller?


The GENERIC 5630's will be available next week. I'm trying to stay away from posting here, but the light can easily have anything printed on it if I really wanted to. It's like a Blank tee shirt, you can get anything screen printed on it.


----------



## aspidites73 (Oct 2, 2012)

I just posted an update on the photo/data thread, concerning my seedling "experiment within an experiment". You can find the post here: http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/1394913-post10.html


----------



## ecichlid (Dec 26, 2012)

B-NICE said:


> The GENERIC 5630's will be available next week. I'm trying to stay away from posting here, but the light can easily have anything printed on it if I really wanted to. It's like a Blank tee shirt, you can get anything screen printed on it.


 If that's all it takes you may want to print UL on them. I double dog dare ya.


----------



## aspidites73 (Oct 2, 2012)

I just posted an update to the Data/Photo thread with some random, albeit modest, photography. See it here: http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/1401689-post11.html


----------



## aspidites73 (Oct 2, 2012)

Are there any opinions to discuss, or questions to be made? I'm really seeing the difference between the viv's, under their respective light. The jungle dawn lit viv shows a lot more life. Colors are comming out nicely, even the Cryptanthus on the floor. I understand there were several people who bought this generic bulb, which begs the question: What are these bulbs good for? The amount of light, as measured in lumens/sq. foot and LUX is a definate improvement over my 4' t8 dual daylight tubes, even at close distances. I'm thinking about modifying this experiment, and would love some input. I would like to plant, even slightly overplant the jungle dawn viv. Make it a nice dense canopy of colorfull tillandsias. Allow smaller leaved vines to crawl amongst their foliage, even some more expensive ones. The peperomia prostrata is showing 2+ nodes of growth in some areas. How about ficus sp. Panama? I could definately scavange some cuttings from my mother plant. I want to really put the jungle dawn to the test. Can it support a more demanding ecosystem? We'll see!

Meanwhile, the generic bulb. I would like to set this one up as a somewhat glorified tank for a pair of breeding imitators. It will be planted. Some of the same plants will be used, new and more common terrarium plants will be used. More focus on the improvements over florescent tubes. Still, no PAR (offer still stands at coffee and finger foods plus a tour of my facility (small room with 15 tanks) for anyone who has a meter and want's to do some quick readings).

AND.......last but certainly not least...the competition for the jungle dawn 15w grow and glow has arrived. It's another generic, but does have mixed blue/red diodes. So, onward with the Folius moss mix on a 24" dripwall of 1.5-2" thick slab of tree fern experiment! Look out for the thread, comming very soon!

I suspect, with how easy it to do with a smart phone and a wifi connection, that should these bulbs perform well, there will be several sellers before you know it. I will NOT be selling these bulbs, or supplying ANY information to obtain them. And I repeat: I have no financial interest in any of these products. I'm simply here to provide information. It is up to you, who you choose to patronize.


----------



## aspidites73 (Oct 2, 2012)

Just posted a photo update of the viv under a 13w Jungle Dawn bulb:

http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/1476066-post13.html


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

Just thought I'd let everyone know my 2nd generic with the white ring around the base (not green like JD's and some others) failed the other day. Same thing as the first one, started strobing.* Both JD's still working, and were in use in the same type of fixtures.*

I also picked up both bulbs and noticed the JD is noticeably heavier. It has more leds packed on it so that is part of it, but I think it is the "guts" inside making most of the difference. The new ones with the venting ought to be even better.


----------

