Noopsyche K7 Pro II Data

TheHarold

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
Oct 3, 2015
Messages
2,526
Reaction score
3,362
PAR numbers (PPFD) at various depths with K7 Pro II at maximum light intensity. Configuration of lamp support and aquarium overflow allows LED array to be a minimum of 6.5" from water surface. Horizontal adjustments to the lamp support allow the LED array to be centered over aquaria up to 24" wide, however, I did not realize this and the lamp was 5" off center. Depths were 17" deep (total of 23.5" to light), 13" (total of 19.5") and 8" (total of 14.5".) PAR measurements (every ~3.5") were made with an Apogee MQ-510 quantum meter with 'improved' sensor. Light was centered on the right side of a 120-gallon tank filled with water to the overflow level. PAR less than 100 micromole/m2/sec are colored black.
View attachment 917873
View attachment 917874
View attachment 917875
Quick question. Do you have analysis of any other fixtures, shown in this format? For comparison purposes.
 

dantimdad

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
Jun 24, 2009
Messages
6,462
Reaction score
24,729
Location
North Alabama
@TheHarold

No those are not. They are from an independent test at @Manose own expense with no compensation at all

There are distances and grids posted. I actually helped measure some of the lights in the test and can tell you that all the lights are given the exact same group of measurements in the same manner.
 

TheHarold

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
Oct 3, 2015
Messages
2,526
Reaction score
3,362
@TheHarold

No those are not. They are from an independent test at @Manose own expense with no compensation at all

There are distances and grids posted. I actually helped measure some of the lights in the test and can tell you that all the lights are given the exact same group of measurements in the same manner.
Okay, cool. Still, would be awesome if @Dana Riddle could post the par distribution of XR15, AI prime, XR30, etc!!

I have seen Noopsyche, Kessil A30x, and Orphek V4






 

dantimdad

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
Jun 24, 2009
Messages
6,462
Reaction score
24,729
Location
North Alabama
The Orphek is no joke. Amazing output but for the price, it should be.

I think they are the best looking light out there as far as the fixture too.
 

TheHarold

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
Oct 3, 2015
Messages
2,526
Reaction score
3,362
@TheHarold I wish I had the equipment @Dana Riddle had to get those measurements. There are literally about a hundred fixtures I would love to compare in the next couple years.
Same, its pretty sweet.

I find several things that made me doubt the precision within the real black box light study.
  • The Seneye meter is not optimized for LEDs, and no compensation was conducted.
  • Some readings have par increasing as one moves away from the center, while others decrease as it moves away from the center.
  • ^AKA: defy physics. I am being polite about this.
The data is impossible. It claims that at 23.5 inches of depth, 12 inches away from the light source, there is 280 par on one side, 140 par on another, etc.

See the PAR reading for the Noopsyche at 23 inches of depth- even 12" away from the fixture is 280. The manufacture shows us it should be 50-100.




Versus Dana's PAR readings at 17" depth. Notice that Manose's data at 23" ( much deeper than Dana), is SIGNIFICANTLY higher too (but perhaps that is due to instrumentation). But this graph does show how light spread works... declining as one goes away from the center. Not that in this graph, we are just seeing the "corner" of the full par map. But the point stands.




Example of the problem with Manose's data...... even more than 12" away from the center, if you go horizontally across the bottom of the tank, the values continue to INCREASE.

But if you go diagonally across the tank, they decrease. That is not how light spreads from point.... This is disregarding that there is more than 40% variation in the PAR based off of the distance from the center point.

 
Last edited:

Manose

Well-Known Member
View Badges
Joined
Sep 19, 2018
Messages
934
Reaction score
2,569
Location
Johnson City, Tn
Same, its pretty sweet.

I find several things that made me doubt the precision within the real black box light study.
  • The Seneye meter is not optimized for LEDs, and no compensation was conducted.
  • Some readings have par increasing as one moves away from the center, while others decrease as it moves away from the center.
  • ^AKA: defy physics. I am being polite about this.
  • Reason for bias: a test conducted by a vendor rather than a third party.
I can show many errors; but just looking at the measurements make it pretty clear that numbers are not "taken properly". Firstly, lets ignore how much higher Manose's readings are compared to Danas. Attribute that to "instrumentation".

This is a view from above. Take a look at how the diagonal measurements decline (a lot) from the center, while the horizontal and vertical measurements are increasing (A lot) from the center. I can further elaborate on that if necessary.

The data is impossible. It claims that at 23.5 inches of depth, 12 inches away from the light source, there is 280 par on one side, 140 par on another, etc.


See Manose's PAR reading for the Noopsyche at 23 inches of depth.




Versus Dana's PAR readings at 17" depth. Notice that Manose's data at 23" ( much deeper than Dana), is SIGNIFICANTLY higher too (but perhaps that is due to instrumentation). But this graph does show how light spread works... declining as one goes away from the center. Not that in this graph, we are just seeing the "corner" of the full par map. But the point stands.
If you want to bash my study then all I ask is that you do so in the appropriate thread and not take up Danna's thread to do it in.
 

dantimdad

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
Jun 24, 2009
Messages
6,462
Reaction score
24,729
Location
North Alabama
All I can say @TheHarold is that I was there for some of the testing and it was done consistently.

We are comparing apples to apples if they are all using the same meter.



They are good lights. And, what folks fail to see is that @Manose was doing this before he got involved with them or even thought about it.

It's not even his store. It is sustainable aquatics. He just helps Matt out.

Finally, let's let the lights speak for themselves. There are a host of people who have them now and soon enough, growth threads will reveal the results.

I gain NOTHING from any of this. I just want to see these folks get a fair shake because they are a sponsor and I think they work well.
 

TheHarold

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
Oct 3, 2015
Messages
2,526
Reaction score
3,362
All I can say @TheHarold is that I was there for some of the testing and it was done consistently.

We are comparing apples to apples if they are all using the same meter.

They are good lights. And, what folks fail to see is that @Manose was doing this before he got involved with them or even thought about it.

It's not even his store. It is sustainable aquatics. He just helps Matt out.

Finally, let's let the lights speak for themselves. There are a host of people who have them now and soon enough, growth threads will reveal the results.

I gain NOTHING from any of this. I just want to see these folks get a fair shake because they are a sponsor and I think they work well.

No, its not the meter. That would read a constant difference in PAR. I do know for a fact that at 24", you are not getting NEARLY 280 par from the Noopsyche. Tested it myself, with 6 fixtures.

However, in that data we see that par both climbs as you go more than 12" away from the light in one direction, and declines if you go 12" away from the light. .

I think Noopsyche is great; just the numbers there dont make sense.
 

TheHarold

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
Oct 3, 2015
Messages
2,526
Reaction score
3,362
Okay, let me present this differently.

I do appreciate the testing @Manose has done. I can both appreciate it and question certain aspects of the accuracy.

@Manose: the manufacture of the light, who has all the fancy instruments, gives us this very logical graph. 60cm is 24", same depth as you.
It shows, logically, that PAR decreases as you go away from the center. Same size tank too.


Your data actually show PAR INCREASING as you go away from the center. This is impossible. Honestly I dont see how this can be due to testing error; the numbers just dont make sense, no matter what device you are using.

It is not up to interpretation; the data is simply not correct.

You have 280 par where the manufacturer has 100. Or 170 par where the manufacturer has 50.


 
Last edited:

hotdrop

Active Member
View Badges
Joined
Jan 29, 2019
Messages
107
Reaction score
96
I agree the number seem off and that might be an indication of measurement error. The manufactures graph makes no sense though either and was likely not based on test data, because the light intensity graph should look more oval shaped to reflect the dual emitter nature of the fixture. Depending on the shape of the tank though its possible that you have effects from glass reflection that change our measured values but the amount of error seems high.
 

TheHarold

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
Oct 3, 2015
Messages
2,526
Reaction score
3,362
I agree the number seem off and that might be an indication of measurement error. The manufactures graph makes no sense though either and was likely not based on test data, because the light intensity graph should look more oval shaped to reflect the dual emitter nature of the fixture. Depending on the shape of the tank though its possible that you have effects from glass reflection that change our measured values but the amount of error seems high.
The error is too high. Par does not increase as you move further away from a fixture. That is why I am informing the experimenter that the data is illogical/impossible. I think it should be acknowledged: And then, if possible, the experiment conducted again. That’s the way of science. Something corrupted the data, gotta figure out what went wrong with the procedure.

Re oval: that’s not unique to noopsyche. Same with ecotech or any other brand. Fixtures are treated as single point light sources, so that orientation can be ignored.

Am I wrong? @Lasse @Dana Riddle
 
Last edited:

hotdrop

Active Member
View Badges
Joined
Jan 29, 2019
Messages
107
Reaction score
96
I can clearly see the oval in Dana’s data.
 

Jonreefer

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
Mar 13, 2009
Messages
1,133
Reaction score
549
Location
Pittsburgh PA
The Harold you do know light bounces off the glass and can show higher par closer to the glass then sometimes closer in to the light. Go look at all the BRS test. Plenty of them show a jump in par right on the outside edge deep in the tank because of that. Seem like another keyboard jockey that doesn’t have any equipment to run his test so just put what you think is correct.
Also BRS tested the seneye compared to the apogee 510 and they were within a few % of each other. So seems like a good enough tool for this hobby

Also I am sick of hearing about the number compensation. These are reef tanks. Even if off by 10% not going to make much difference. Stop acting like you need perfect scientific numbers like it’s actually meaningful for our use.
 
Last edited:
OP
Dana Riddle

Dana Riddle

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
Sep 10, 2011
Messages
1,698
Reaction score
3,499
Location
Dallas, Georgia
Quick question. Do you have analysis of any other fixtures, shown in this format? For comparison purposes.
Possibly. Do you have a particular light in mind?
 
OP
Dana Riddle

Dana Riddle

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
Sep 10, 2011
Messages
1,698
Reaction score
3,499
Location
Dallas, Georgia
XR15 Pro, really. Im curious how that looks compared to the Kessil 360x and noopsyche.
Unfortunately, I do not have any testing results on that Radion fixture. I'll save my allowance and purchase one of those one of these days.
 

Online statistics

Members online
861
Guests online
1,953
Total visitors
2,814
Top