1W vs 3W LED PAR values

[Reesj]

It seems that 3W LED have quite a lot less lumen output going from 1W to 3W percentage wise. Mainly the LED other than white and what we are mostly concerned. The blues and violet.

as can be seen from 1W to 3W the average blue value seems to change from 40 lumen to 55lumen. Which is almost nothing. Seems like 37.5% increase for 200% power increase. This means a crap load of heat if I'm understand this right. OR am I missing something. Are the PAR values not reflect this,
@Dana Riddle or anyone with a PAR meter,

Does 1W to 3W LED PAR values sort of same? For example:- does under a 1W blue light it change from say 30 PAR to 40-45 PAR under 3W LED ?

This would be soo helpfuly in understanding how much of Energy we waste if it is the case. Thanks

 

[oreo54]

3.3 x .350 =1.16w @105L 90.5 l/w
3.3 x .7 = 2.31w @270L 116.9L/w

Lumens don't really count for royal blues

 

[oreo54]

Convert Lumens to PPF - Online Calculator | Waveform Lighting

Online calculator to convert luminous flux (lumens) to PPF (micromoles per second).

www.waveformlighting.com

For fun plug in lumens here..
54 lumens of 450 nm blue spits out 6.34 PPF

54 lumens Natural daylight 1.24 PPF

PPF

is photosynthetic photon flux. PPF measures the total amount of PAR that is produced by a lighting system each second. This measurement is taken using a specialized instrument called an integrating sphere that captures and measures essentially all photons emitted by a lighting system. The unit used to express PPF is micromoles per second (μmol/s). This is probably the second most important way of measuring a horticulture lighting system, but, for whatever reason, most lighting companies don’t list this metric. It is important to note that PPF does not tell you how much of the measured light actually lands on the plants, but is an important metric if you want to calculate how efficient a lighting system is at creating PAR.

 

[Reesj]

I do understand that that lumen are PAR are diffrent metrics. The thing I'm asking is,percentage wise, is there a corelation between lux level to PAR which seems plausible.
If so, three is a huge amount of energy lost from going 1W to 3W LEDs.

Anyway only way to test this properly is for some one with PAR meter 1W and 3W Blue LED. Just power the LED and measure the PAR value directly below a certain distance. We can easily check the PAR ratio.

 

[AcroNem]

Interesting. Tagging along

 

[jda]

Lumens do not matter AT ALL. It is a measurement of a narrow subset of light for human eye viewing and not coral growing. You can Google search up videos by Tullio Del Aquila (reefbrite owner) who describes it better.

There is no way to correlate one to another, so just ignore it. This is not possible with the tools that we have... and even if it were, you would not be using the diodes in the light over a tank in the range to maximize lumens anyway.

Please just ignore lumens or LUX. It might be all that you have in some cases, but it is as helpful to figuring out how effective a light is over a reef as testing/measuring Nitrogen Oxide from a car's exhaust and trying to figure out how many horsepower the engine has.

FWIW - PAR is still only a subset of what corals can use, still in the human-eye range. It takes a $1000+ meter to measure it all beyond what the eye can see and a coral can use... and when you do, you find that well focused and reflected kinds of ANY light work out pretty near the same watt-for-watt and that there are no efficiences (all within a margin of error). Again, Tullio explains this well in his videos and he has better tools than us. Any perceived "efficiences" come with numbers that matter not over a reef tank, like Lumens and LUX. ...so... a 3w LED is about 3x as strong as a 1w LED for all practical purposes if you can focus and direct it correctly.

 

[Reesj]

Lumens do not matter AT ALL. It is a measurement of a narrow subset of light for human eye viewing and not coral growing. You can Google search up videos by Tullio Del Aquila (reefbrite owner) who describes it better.

There is no way to correlate one to another, so just ignore it. This is not possible with the tools that we have... and even if it were, you would not be using the diodes in the light over a tank in the range to maximize lumens anyway.

Please just ignore lumens or LUX. It might be all that you have in some cases, but it is as helpful to figuring out how effective a light is over a reef as testing/measuring Nitrogen Oxide from a car's exhaust and trying to figure out how many horsepower the engine has.

You seems to have completely missed the point of the thread.

FWIW - PAR is still only a subset of what corals can use, still in the human-eye range. It takes a $1000+ meter to measure it all beyond what the eye can see and a coral can use... and when you do, you find that well focused and reflected kinds of ANY light work out pretty near the same watt-for-watt and that there are no efficiences (all within a margin of error). Again, Tullio explains this well in his videos and he has better tools than us. Any perceived "efficiences" come with numbers that matter not over a reef tank, like Lumens and LUX. ...so... a 3w LED is about 3x as strong as a 1w LED for all practical purposes if you can focus and direct it correctly.

PAR is the best tool we have to determine a light usability for coral growth. specially considring that almost all reef light are already used in optimally for coral usable spectrum. PUR is completely usless term practically.

The point of the thread is your last sentance and I know for a fact that 3W LED is not 3x effective as a 1W LED. I just don't know how much of a fall off, it has. Almost always higher the wattage of a LED less efficiant it is for doing its job.

 

[jda]

I think that I understand this more than you think that I do...

PAR is not even close to the best tool that we have. A LiCor with a wider range would be even better. There are also spectrometers that cost $10-100k that are even better than that. There are hobbyists who access to both of these who have posted results over the years.

See if you have a university near you with an integrating sphere and a good spectrometer that you can use or rent - I am able to test some stuff at my alma mater if I have a grad student with me and agree to let them use all of the data if they want it for their own gains. When you find out that an input watt will produce the same output watt, regardless of source, when considering all useful light, at least have the balls to come back and tell me that it was true - the last few just disappear but one did send me a PM. The manufacturer testing and readings for general lighting are worthless.

Just know that there are no efficiencies unless you cut spectrum... which is what Lux and Lumen are... a cut spectrum which is worthless to our creatures which require a full spectrum. 3w LED is 3x as powerful as 1w LED when the same spectrum is applied. If you don't believe me or the testing that I have done, then why don't you ask all of the LED manufacturers who don't use 1W LEDs very much any more. If 1W LEDs were indeed/actually more efficient over a real reef tank, then they would line them up like crazy in a panel... instead 3w and 5w are used.

In nearly all applications that i can think of, you are wasting your time with 1w LEDs... I did not miss that point.

 

[Reesj]

PAR is the best available usfull tool we have. Also that is what I'm concerned about.

In LED or any light source, we are converting Electrical Energy -> Light energy. In this process there are quite few by products and the main undesirable one being heat energy.
Almost always (as I have mentioned previously), lower Wattage LED tend to have better efficiency in this conversion process. Reason why most people tend to use high wattage lumanaries is the size and ease of use.

Anyway lets try to get back on topic reguarding PAR Values for diffrent wattage Blue lights...

 

[oreo54]

PAR is the best available usfull tool we have. Also that is what I'm concerned about.

In LED or any light source, we are converting Electrical Energy -> Light energy. In this process there are quite few by products and the main undesirable one being heat energy.
Almost always (as I have mentioned previously), lower Wattage LED tend to have better efficiency in this conversion process. Reason why most people tend to use high wattage lumanaries is the size and ease of use.

Anyway lets try to get back on topic reguarding PAR Values for diffrent wattage Blue lights...

jda adds the "heat" back in w/ the huge IR and moderate UV output (depending) of MH's..thus his position (did I get that right?)
Unfortunately (or furtunately) this "extended spectrum" only applies to MH's.. Not t5's (except for a few specialty bulbs not normally used) not LED's

And most is lost in nature anyways.. See Meter lines

To be honest, it's more of a philosophy than a necessity.
Someone much smarter in this that me
Quote:

On another note, I don't think UV is necessary for photosynthesis but might help in showcasing fluorescent proteins. Far-red (740nm) could help in shallow waters where light intensity is super-saturating. At depth, far-red is not there but neither is super-saturating light intensity.

 

[oreo54]

If 1W LEDs were indeed/actually more efficient over a real reef tank, then they would line them up like crazy in a panel... instead 3w and 5w are used.

In nearly all applications that i can think of, you are wasting your time with 1w LEDs... I did not miss that point.

Don't think that has much to do w/ anything. There are plenty of 1W high efficiency emitters.
Using "3W" emitters cuts down on part count and also easier to lens.

There are some high price point French and German reef arrays (<3W emitters) using them.
You are confusing manf/market choices w/ science.

Fact is you can use 2 1W vs 1"3w" in most commercial fixtures if 1) available and 2) marketable and 3)designed around.

 

[jda]

Only counted up to 850nm where there is a lot of evidence that this matters. Beyond this is waste... anywhere from 1 to 5% depending on bulbs that we tested each with their own formula (I am not counting heat here which is not a waste to some people, but also not helpful here). I have averaged this at 3% in some places. There are T5 bulbs that get up to 850nm. There are some LED panels now too. I really want to test some of the new Hamilton and Giesemann offerings which are formulated to have very little wasted IR compared to older bulbs.

UV over 350nm is important - which you would know if you ever had a tank, like we have talked about a lot. What that somebody smarter than you is saying is that when you have high light intensity, then you need the red. He was also subtly saying that photosynthesis is not the only point for concern... and even then, necessary and useful are two different things. We have been over this and you forget or are seeing what you want to see... He has even said so.

350-850nm is the range of usefulness that I am talking about. ...which by the way, LED manufacturers like Pacific Sun, Orphek, EcoTech and many others all agree is good, but cannot source long lived diodes much outside of the 400-700 visible range so they do not use much of them outside of Orphek who is giving it a go to some degree.

Again, I don't want to argue with somebody who has just read about what others have done instead of doing something him/her self. Use some of these and you will start to understand some of the stupidity of what you have read and reposted.

I will bow out since you all just want to look at internet numbers from other stuff. My apologies for trying to relate some actual impact over actual tanks. You can have some mods delete my posts if you want...

 

[oreo54]

Only counted up to 850nm where there is a lot of evidence that this matters.

How? School me.

since you are bowing out.. I'll even help you:

Infrared penetration into water, Emerson effect, Orphek Atlantik V4 new spectrum •Orphek

ORPHEK CHANGING HISTORY! We are very happy to announce that now we have the research to share with you about our new spectrum and the penetration of infrared into the water. Till today you heard that in general infrared light from 780 nm can no longer penetrate the water. In addition, that light...

orphek.com

Poppycock, hearsay ,and zero scientific validity..
Would like more decent studies..

I'm guessing your webcam uses a LED with radiation peaking at 840nm. By itself, 840nm causes the electron transport rate in zooxanthellae photosynthesis to become erratic, although I am uncertain why. The erratic rate stops and becomes normal when 840nm is blended with other wavelengths.

Related:

Theory of Operation

The FieldScout CM1000 Chlorophyll Meter determines Relative
Chlorophyll Content Index through measurement of two
‘light’ wavelengths – 700 nm (red) and 840 nm
(near-infrared). The device senses these wavelengths from the
light source and those reflected from the targeted surface. Since
chlorophyll absorbs red light (700nm) and reflects near-infrared
(840nm), the instrument compares the results of these
measurements and calculates an estimate of chlorophyll
content.

Product Review: An Early Warning Device for Coral Bleaching?: The Spectrum CM1000 Chlorophyll Meter

Based on technology developed by NASA, Spectrum Technologies markets a 'chlorophyll meter' - the FieldScout CM1000. This instrument is a simple point-and-shoot device.

reefs.com

 

[oreo54]

 

[Reesj]

Wow, So no one in this forum got a PAR meter and a 1W,3W Blue LED ??

 

[blasterman]

This thread is so bad....not sure where to start.

PAR is just a quasi blue / red weighted measurement of visual light that uses a simple light meter with a purple filter attached. That's all it is...a calibrated light meter that filters out most green and yellow. Reef based PAR meters are supposed to have a switch where you can turn off red sensitivity because the vast majority of PAR meters are made for the horticulture / dope growing industry and not reef tanks. Tomato plants care about red light. Acropora don't.

If you double lumens via whatever method you want then PAR will increase proportionally as well. Lumens is simply green weighted measurement. Unless they are over heating LEDs do not change their spectral balance - much, so doubling the value of one spectral band doubles the other. Phosphors tend to behave differently at different temps caused by current loading, but it's not a big deal given royal blue is what matters for coral. AKA, PAR is, under most circumstances is proportional to lumens.

There is no such thing as a 1 or 3 watt LED. LEDs are rated according to the optimum current, and if it's Chinese it's likely much lower rating.

Let's start with a real LED, like a Cree XPG3, which is one of the best performing LEDs on the market. If you look at the attached PDF and scroll down to the luminous flux vs current graph you can see for yourself how radiometric output matches current. Doubling from 500mA to a amp doesn't double lumens (or PAR), but it's around 85% or more depending on T^, which is case / environment temp. Going from an amp to 2 amps gains us around 80% more light output, so the curve is leveling. The fact is, I can drive an XPG3 at 2 amps with no issues and only nominal efficay loss as current increases. Good luck driving a chinese LED at 2 amps (> 6watts).

Last, you guys yacking about wavelengths of light beyond the typical 450nm centered reef light should maybe, some day actually set up a salt water tank because you obviously don't have one. If it's not 400nm then it's infrared...and next month it will be something equally absurd. Zooxanthellae are not bandpass filters and chlorophyll is just a molecule that converts electromagnetic radiation to chemical energy. As long as that radiation is in a broad range of ~420-475nm the energy conversion is about the same. Posting links from light or LED manufacturers on the topic is like posting magazine copy from car manufacturers in the 1970s.

https://www.cree.com/led-components/media/documents/dsXPG3.pdf

 

[oreo54]

PAR is just a quasi blue / red weighted measurement of visual light that uses a simple light meter with a purple filter attached. That's all it is...a calibrated light meter that filters out most green and yellow.

That's not even close to accurate..

Comparison of Apogee SQ-500 and LI-COR LI-190R Quantum Sensors

A comparison between the Apogee SQ-500 and LI-COR LI-190R quantum sensors.

www.apogeeinstruments.com

doesn't filter out green/yellow per se..
The Photodiode needs to be corrected for it's own inherent non-linearity ..
Yes "sort "of a "purple" filter though more correctly red/blue is magenta..

A "perfect" quantum sensor would have a 100% photon capture from 400 to 700nm as "defined" though it is only a standard

 

[Reesj]

This thread is so bad....not sure where to start.

PAR is just a quasi blue / red weighted measurement of visual light that uses a simple light meter with a purple filter attached. That's all it is...a calibrated light meter that filters out most green and yellow. Reef based PAR meters are supposed to have a switch where you can turn off red sensitivity because the vast majority of PAR meters are made for the horticulture / dope growing industry and not reef tanks. Tomato plants care about red light. Acropora don't.

If you double lumens via whatever method you want then PAR will increase proportionally as well. Lumens is simply green weighted measurement. Unless they are over heating LEDs do not change their spectral balance - much, so doubling the value of one spectral band doubles the other. Phosphors tend to behave differently at different temps caused by current loading, but it's not a big deal given royal blue is what matters for coral. AKA, PAR is, under most circumstances is proportional to lumens.

There is no such thing as a 1 or 3 watt LED. LEDs are rated according to the optimum current, and if it's Chinese it's likely much lower rating.

Let's start with a real LED, like a Cree XPG3, which is one of the best performing LEDs on the market. If you look at the attached PDF and scroll down to the luminous flux vs current graph you can see for yourself how radiometric output matches current. Doubling from 500mA to a amp doesn't double lumens (or PAR), but it's around 85% or more depending on T^, which is case / environment temp. Going from an amp to 2 amps gains us around 80% more light output, so the curve is leveling. The fact is, I can drive an XPG3 at 2 amps with no issues and only nominal efficay loss as current increases. Good luck driving a chinese LED at 2 amps (> 6watts).

Last, you guys yacking about wavelengths of light beyond the typical 450nm centered reef light should maybe, some day actually set up a salt water tank because you obviously don't have one. If it's not 400nm then it's infrared...and next month it will be something equally absurd. Zooxanthellae are not bandpass filters and chlorophyll is just a molecule that converts electromagnetic radiation to chemical energy. As long as that radiation is in a broad range of ~420-475nm the energy conversion is about the same. Posting links from light or LED manufacturers on the topic is like posting magazine copy from car manufacturers in the 1970s.

https://www.cree.com/led-components/media/documents/dsXPG3.pdf

There is Soo much missinformation here I don''t even know where to start; or if it is even worth replying to..
Most of the things here are either irrelevant to the topic or completely false.

 

[oreo54]

Well think it would be your "civic" duty to correct it.............