Putting the most popular PAR meters to the test | BRStv Investigates

[JVU]

@randyBRS
@Ryanbrs

Any update with the fixed MQ-510?

 

[JVU]

Hmmm.... I guess not

I think it’s worthwhile to circle back to this, since BRS still actively sells and rents these options including the most expensive and as yet untested MQ-510.

 

[scriptmonkey]

Holy Thread Necromancy Batman!

But now that it's been all thread Pet Cemeteried and what not, hey, @randyBRS or @Ryanbrs, how about an update like the man said?

 

[randyBRS]

Hmmm.... I guess not
I think it’s worthwhile to circle back to this, since BRS still actively sells and rents these options including the most expensive and as yet untested MQ-510.

Whew, missed this one somehow. Sorry about that.

We have not circled back to check or verify the updates/corrections made by Apogee on this one. I can't say that we won't someday, but I'm afraid this may not happen anytime in the near future. We haven't completely forgot about this one and it is documented on our laundry lists of BRStv ideas and to-do's.

That said, I do fully trust that because of the effort that Apogee put forth in testing their own equipment and reaching out to those affected, they actually did what they said they would and corrected the underlying issue. I wouldn't hope that we would have to circle back to this just to try and poke holes in how well they did at correcting an error, but rather circle back to re-evaluate the data and see if there is some solid usable information there that deeply impacts reefers. My personal guess is that we wouldn't see a massive change in the data so great that it would cause everyone to go change their current lighting setup, but there probably would be a change to some degree.

 

[JVU]

Whew, missed this one somehow. Sorry about that.

We have not circled back to check or verify the updates/corrections made by Apogee on this one. I can't say that we won't someday, but I'm afraid this may not happen anytime in the near future. We haven't completely forgot about this one and it is documented on our laundry lists of BRStv ideas and to-do's.

That said, I do fully trust that because of the effort that Apogee put forth in testing their own equipment and reaching out to those affected, they actually did what they said they would and corrected the underlying issue. I wouldn't hope that we would have to circle back to this just to try and poke holes in how well they did at correcting an error, but rather circle back to re-evaluate the data and see if there is some solid usable information there that deeply impacts reefers. My personal guess is that we wouldn't see a massive change in the data so great that it would cause everyone to go change their current lighting setup, but there probably would be a change to some degree.

Thanks for the reply!

Sorry if I wasn’t clear, I don’t doubt that Apogee fixed the errors pointed out to them. My question was getting back to the core of this original Investigates episode, of whether or not there is a measurable and significant difference between the different price point PAR meter options out there. You planned to test MQ-210, MQ-510, and Seneye, and among those the only high-end option with expanded spectrum was the 510, for which we don’t have any results. Comparison of the 2 lower-end options yielded similar results.

In my mind it is still an open question whether the price bump for the popular 510 is worth it since I don’t know how much better it is for reef tank use, particularly since it is supposed to be better at the lower wavelength ranges more popular now.