Replacing 400W MH Pendants w/ LED Floodlights?

[ElussssvReefSD]

Hey Lighting Gurus,


Anyone have any experience with commercial-grade LED floodlights specifically designed for aquarium applications?

Such as this one by Maxspect:

http://www.maxspect.com/index.php?lang=en&Itemid=487
Looking for a possible alternative to four 400W MH 10,000K Pendants but need a lot of coverage and light penetration for a 10 foot wide by 4 foot deep SPS tank mounted 2-3 feet off the water.

Thought these might be a more cost-effective solution versus buying 10-15 LED pucks at $600-800 a piece. Searched and didn't find much on this, I'm assuming since even the smallest ones would be way overkill for most tanks...

Thoughts?

 

[Phil D.]

I would go with the Maxspect as you would have a better spread. And bump it to the 300W model to have the ability to raise or lower PAR as needed.

 

[jda]

What are you trying to do? Save electrical costs? Bulb costs? Just try something new?

I beg you to read up on some of the other people with large tanks that have to light them - they will flat out tell you that electrical costs are going to be the same no matter what. Dr. Joshi has a tank very similar to yours and he replaced 3x 400w halides with 10x Radions and uses the same wattage. There is no efficiency here unless you can use less output, and I doubt that you can with a tank that size and still cover the area. With no real savings in running costs, you can buy a lot of bulbs for what that many units cost - don't forget that units need replaced too and the more that you have, the more chances for failure. Any "savings" are paper-based only and there are many tanks out there that will tell you this with their actual experience.

Also, keep in mind that those cannons and spotlights will shadow like crazy and you will need multiple units to get the spread that you do now with the reflectors.

In any case, do not get rid of the MH right away since you might want to put them back on. You can always sell them later. In the end, large tanks are more efficiently lit with reflectors, unless you are after the programs, thunderstorms, apps and all of that.

 

[ElussssvReefSD]

I would go with the Maxspect as you would have a better spread. And bump it to the 300W model to have the ability to raise or lower PAR as needed.

Have you used them before?

 

[ElussssvReefSD]

What are you trying to do? Save electrical costs? Bulb costs? Just try something new?

I beg you to read up on some of the other people with large tanks that have to light them - they will flat out tell you that electrical costs are going to be the same no matter what. Dr. Joshi has a tank very similar to yours and he replaced 3x 400w halides with 10x Radions and uses the same wattage. There is no efficiency here unless you can use less output, and I doubt that you can with a tank that size and still cover the area. With no real savings in running costs, you can buy a lot of bulbs for what that many units cost - don't forget that units need replaced too and the more that you have, the more chances for failure. Any "savings" are paper-based only and there are many tanks out there that will tell you this with their actual experience.

Also, keep in mind that those cannons and spotlights will shadow like crazy and you will need multiple units to get the spread that you do now with the reflectors.

In any case, do not get rid of the MH right away since you might want to put them back on. You can always sell them later. In the end, large tanks are more efficiently lit with reflectors, unless you are after the programs, thunderstorms, apps and all of that.

Oh do not worry, I am an MH fanboy in regards to what they can do for the corals and we are on the same page in regards to the standard LED fixtures available. I am 100% NOT looking to replace MH with an expensive squadron of LED pucks. I've never 100% understood the rationale of buying 4 $800 LEDs to replace 1 $400 fixture, since as you said, you wouldn't save on electricity to run the lights if the wattage is identical. I would be evaluating a 1 to 1 replacement only, and you're also correct in that it would need a reflector to combat shadowing, which on second look, would eliminate the Ecoxotic Cannon right off the bat--- deleted. The Maxspect Floodlight appears to have a reflector, I would just be curious to know how it performs IRL, to see if it'd even be a contender.

However, I live in Florida and my primary motivation to possible consider moving away from MH would be to cut down on heat transfer to the water (and the room ;)), thus decreasing house A/C usage, aquarium chiller usage, evaporation, and humidity. Even if it would only be possible to cut down on these a small amount, I feel that it could add up over time due to the volume of water. Also, avoiding having to replace constantly replace bulbs to maintain maximum performance and PAR would be a nice benefit on decreasing the maintenance routine a bit.

Again, not sure if I would even go this route, just fielding some options.

 

[oreo54]

55-80 x 12 = cost of 5 years of bulbs. Say $800-$1148

Hey Lighting Gurus,


Anyone have any experience with commercial-grade LED floodlights specifically designed for aquarium applications?

Looking for a possible alternative to four 400W MH 10,000K Pendants but need a lot of coverage and light penetration for a 10 foot wide by 4 foot deep SPS tank mounted 2-3 feet off the water.

Thought these might be a more cost-effective solution versus buying 10-15 LED pucks at $600-800 a piece. Searched and didn't find much on this, I'm assuming since even the smallest ones would be way overkill for most tanks...

Thoughts?

Don't forget Orphek.
https://reefbuilders.com/2018/05/02/orphek-amazonas-320/Best to inquire w/ the manuf on something that big.

The light itself will vary in price, depending on what type of LEDs are installed, but will retail somewhere around $770 USD with free shipping.

2 years ago..
Also how wide is the tank btw.?

At your height spec coverage is about 4x4ft at the water surface.
Estimated surface par is 700 baseline if fairly close to "daylight" (6500K).

PAR will increase as one goes cooler since lux underestimates blue and compensation for that increases..
eg 30,605 Lux w/ monochromatic 450nm diodes would be 3547 PAR :eek:

 

[ElussssvReefSD]

Thanks oreo! I appreciate the information, will definitely look into that Orphek light.

To answer your dimensions question: 120" x 48" x 48"

Sorry, I'm not quite sure I follow the conversion from Lux to PAR and how that changes with color temperature. Is that diagram measuring light output in free air or through water?

 

[oreo54]

Thanks oreo! I appreciate the information, will definitely look into that Orphek light.

To answer your dimensions question: 120" x 48" x 48"

Sorry, I'm not quite sure I follow the conversion from Lux to PAR and how that changes with color temperature. Is that diagram measuring light output in free air or through water?

i'll assume free air which is why I stopped at the water line.
Once in the tank refraction/reflections/dirt ect mess stuff up.
LUX measures lumens /area Lumens are measured on a spectrum that favors green as it's maximum.
so when you measure say 100 LUX in green it's 100 LUX
If you measure 100 LUX in blue the amount of light measured by the sensor is lower than the actual amount of light..
Call this chart meter sensitivity..
https://www.nightsea.com/articles/lumens-fluorescence-1/

Bottom line is it under samples LUX the bluer or redder one goes and you need to compensate..
Like it captures and records only one out of 10 photons of blue.

https://www.waveformlighting.com/horticulture/convert-lux-to-ppfd-online-calculator
You should contact Orphek for in tank deep par estimates and suggested #'s based on your needs ..
Way past guessing in this territory.
Also can confirm lens choice based on your plans and tank dimensions.

Note: Some people forgo surface coverage for more par at depth.
I , for any light type/organism prefer all light to hit inside the tank at the water line w/ little spill and let things fall as they do.
Lowering below ideal will of course mean that upper edges get missed but substrate par is more concentrated.
To me the worst thing is having fish come up to the surface and go dark-ish.
In other words ALL the tank is covered BUT it is a personal choice.
Obviously w/ non-dimmable lights sometimes you just need to throw some light out in order not to fry things.so raising is the only option.
You need to decide what you want covered moreso w/ LED's than other light forms.. The directionality thing.. ;)o
Probably not a concern w/ your tank atm.. ;)

On second thought if you want to replace 4 400mh's 4 320's w/ 60 degree reflectors is prob. a good start..:)
Saves 320W...The better directionality of LED's favors a better percentage of the photons will actually enter the tank.
Using 3...??? Maybe step up a notch in output..3 @ 500W
Generally speaking by getting beam angles mounting heights and not dimming channels (at least much)
75% of MH's watts is "usually safe".
Matching still saves some heat as in no IR(heat) from the LED's unlike halides.

From my point of view lighting anything w/ LED's going 75% watts or even the old 1/2W LED per MH/T5 W and
THEN dimming the fixture by 20-30% is what causes most people issues.. with lighting.

 

[ElussssvReefSD]

i'll assume free air which is why I stopped at the water line.
Once in the tank refraction/reflections/dirt ect mess stuff up.
LUX measures lumens /area Lumens are measured on a spectrum that favors green as it's maximum.
so when you measure say 100 LUX in green it's 100 LUX
If you measure 100 LUX in blue the amount of light measured by the sensor is lower than the actual amount of light..
Call this chart meter sensitivity..
https://www.nightsea.com/articles/lumens-fluorescence-1/

Bottom line is it under samples LUX the bluer or redder one goes and you need to compensate..
Like it captures and records only one out of 10 photons of blue.

https://www.waveformlighting.com/horticulture/convert-lux-to-ppfd-online-calculator
You would need to contact Orphek for in tank deep par estimates and suggested #'s based on your needs ..
Also can confirm lens choice based on your plans.
Some people forgo surface coverage for more par at depth.
I , for any light type/organism prefer all light to hit inside the tank at the water line w/ little spill and let things fall as they do.
Lowering below ideal will of course mean that upper edges get missed but substrate par is more concentrated.
To me the worst thing is having fish come up to the surface and go dark-ish.
In other words ALL the tank is covered BUT it is a personal choice.
Obviously w/ non-dimmable lights sometimes you just need to throw some light out in order not to fry things.so raising is the only option.
Probably not a concern w/ your tank atm.. ;)

On second thought if you want to replace 4 400mh's 4 320's w/ 60 degree reflectors is prob. a good start..:)
Saves 120W...
Using 3...??? Maybe step up a notch in output..3 @ 500W
Generally speaking by getting beam angles mounting heights and not dimming channels (at least much)
75% of MH's watts is usually safe.

From my point of view lighting anything w/ LED's going 75% watts or even the old 1/2W LED per MH/T5 W and
THEN dimming the fixture by 20-30% is what causes most people issues.. with lighting.

Oy vey, okay, thank you for the explanation re: lumens and lux. It makes sense, but also means that comparing apples to apples would be difficult without the conversion tool (so thanks for that as well) if specs use different units of measure.

I was under the general impression that in order to get the same PAR/PUR out of an LED vs MH you would need the approximate same wattage as well, which usually wipes out the "electricity cost savings" argument. You're saying that sometimes you can get by with up to 25% less wattage if you can figure out the ideal beam angle and mounting height?

I wish I could just take 400W of LEDs, stuff them into an E39 MH bulb form factor and plug it into my reflector. All problems solved. Shadowing? Fixed by using MH reflector. Heat transfer? Solved using LED bulb.

 

[Phil D.]

Have you used them before?

Haven't but knowing characteristics of LEDs, ( Electronics Tech here), you would have better efficiency. The statement above that they will use same amount of electric as MH's isn't true. Your bill would go down as they use less current which is what is measured by the electric company.

 

[ElussssvReefSD]

Haven't but knowing characteristics of LEDs, ( Electronics Tech here), you would have better efficiency. The statement above that they will use same amount of electric as MH's isn't true. Your bill would go down as they use less current which is what is measured by the electric company.

Ok, I'll bite, what do you mean by less current? I thought that "watts" is "watts" and that electrical companies bill $0.xx per kWh, at least that's what it says on my utility statement.

So if you ran 1000W of equipment for 1 hour, regardless of type of equip, and electricity was $0.10 per kWh, you'd be charged 10 cents (excluding whatever silly fees they use to pad the bill). Is that wrong?

 

[oreo54]

Oy vey, okay, thank you for the explanation re: lumens and lux. It makes sense, but also means that comparing apples to apples would be difficult without the conversion tool (so thanks for that as well) if specs use different units of measure.

Yes it's tricky but that's why "PAR" meters (really quantum meters that measure in PPFD) are popular..

I was under the general impression that in order to get the same PAR/PUR out of an LED vs MH you would need the approximate same wattage as well, which usually wipes out the "electricity cost savings" argument. You're saying that sometimes you can get by with up to 25% less wattage if you can figure out the ideal beam angle and mounting height?

Well technically "I'm" saying that.. PPFD measurements from Orchid growers to Reef tanks generally show that you def. can use less wattage than other light sources.
Recommending watt: watt and using a dimmable light source gives you the choice of saving watts or not.
Lets use lumens for a minute here..
MH's and t5's (HPS is different and since it isn't used .. ignored) have about 70-100 Lumen/watt efficiency.
HPS still, for the moment, beats out LEd's for efficiency ..in general.
There is still the geometry thing.
Cheap black box LEDs (last numbers I saw estimated) have around 60 Lumen/watt efficiency.
Using w: w bb's generally gives you less gross photons but better targeting.. thus W:W holds.
OH should mention that those black boxes list theoretical watts NOT the watts they are driven at.
110W is more the ACTUAL output (power used)
One could also go into the PUR/PAR thing or the dim the white channel thing to justify the W:W approach.
Keep in mind I mentioned that the lights like Joshi's radions were run at 100%.
The argument to power savings or not USUALLY falls on the line of ancillary costs NOT the light themselves.
MH's .. run chillers.. LED ..heaters run more ect. ect..
Thing is if/when all fixtures use "150 plus L/watt diodes you will generally save no matter how much you run a heater.
https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/my-electricity-savings-going-from-mh-to-leds.655277/
My only advice is usually to NOT let energy savings be the key driving force in your choice.

Current LED's are producing 100-140 Lumens/watt. Each color differs though and like w/ the LUX problem non-white colors on the edges of the Lumen chart usually are not measured in Lumens but in mW..

I wish I could just take 400W of LEDs, stuff them into an E39 MH bulb form factor and plug it into my reflector. All problems solved. Shadowing? Fixed by using MH reflector. Heat transfer? Solved using LED bulb.

Well you sort of can.. BUT not for "reef lights"..
Look up corn bulb led..Good for reflectors..
Amazon product ASIN B07SR8XCL5
Catch is the "ring" isn't transparent. Lots of photons hit the back side and are wasted..
There is a lot of geometry and physics here most of which isn't really necessary.
Regardless of reflector efficiency not all photons even make it out of the reflector in MH's either which IS the thing that changes the delivery factor.
LEd's also lose photons internally but at a very low level w/ modern designs..
Really a long-ish story.

 

[oreo54]

Ok, I'll bite, what do you mean by less current? I thought that "watts" is "watts" and that electrical companies bill $0.xx per kWh, at least that's what it says on my utility statement.

So if you ran 1000W of equipment for 1 hour, regardless of type of equip, and electricity was $0.10 per kWh, you'd be charged 10 cents (excluding whatever silly fees they use to pad the bill). Is that wrong?

Think they were referring to the ole W=V X A and the power supply voltage is sort of considered constant.. Thus only the current draw changes (amps)..

Like I mentioned in the long winded post above watt efficiency in leds is high compared to most commercial lighting and "targeting" is better .. thus one uses less current for an equal effect.
When talking home lighting LED's are 10x more efficient (draw less current (translated into watts if you like) than incandescents.
Slightly better than compact florescents (60L/w -ish) and being solid state should last much longer than either (let's not go into ancillary part failure for the moment).

When inefficient incandescent bulbs were still commonly found in businesses and homes, a high-bay metal halide’s 80-lumens per watt and rated life of two years were industry leading. Now, they’re trailing the pack.
“The LEDs have helped from a maintenance standpoint and an energy-use standpoint. It’s a little expensive up front, but it’s a pretty quick payback,” he says. “We determined the LEDs will pay for themselves in about three years; that’s pretty quick.”
LEDs use about half the energy of metal halides to deliver the same amount of light, and they last seven times longer, on average. A 20,000-lumen LED and a 455-watt metal halide produce roughly the same amount of light, but a typical LED fixture uses less than 200 watts to do so.

https://www.assemblymag.com/article...-than-metal-halide-lamps-for-factory-lightingYou may notice at 75% I consider myself conservative.. ;)

Well designed LEd lights should last at least 5 years w/ the only major failure is in power supplies. A few here and there (at no more than $30 to replace) isn't a factor.
Where they put power conversion in line w/ diode heat sources.. well that's a different story.

 

[Phil D.]

Ok, I'll bite, what do you mean by less current? I thought that "watts" is "watts" and that electrical companies bill $0.xx per kWh, at least that's what it says on my utility statement.

So if you ran 1000W of equipment for 1 hour, regardless of type of equip, and electricity was $0.10 per kWh, you'd be charged 10 cents (excluding whatever silly fees they use to pad the bill). Is that wrong?

Less current meaning, MH's use say for example, 3 amps of current, that would translate to (using p= I x V) 3a x 120v would be 360watts. So LEDs use very little current say .1 amp, so .1a x 120v would be 12w.

 

[ElussssvReefSD]

Less current meaning, MH's use say for example, 3 amps of current, that would translate to (using p= I x V) 3a x 120v would be 360watts. So LEDs use very little current say .1 amp, so .1a x 120v would be 12w.

So, let me try and understand this. What does the equation p = l x V stand for?

And by the above logic, wouldn't you need a lot more LEDs to equal the output of a MH that draws more amps of current then to get the same wattage?

 

[Phil D.]

So, let me try and understand this. What does the equation p = l x V stand for?

And by the above logic, wouldn't you need a lot more LEDs to equal the output of a MH that draws more amps of current then to get the same wattage?

Ohm's Law Power = Current times Voltage. Sorry I kinda goofed.. the supply voltage for the LED's not wall voltage. You wouldn't need more LEDs to equal the output, as LEDs have an equivalent output, for example you see the LED bulbs in the store that say equivalent to a 60w where it only draws 5w. Meaning the intensity of the light is greater with LEDs with less wattage used.

 

[ElussssvReefSD]

Ohm's Law Power = Current times Voltage. Sorry I kinda goofed.. the supply voltage for the LED's not wall voltage. You wouldn't need more LEDs to equal the output, as LEDs have an equivalent output, for example you see the LED bulbs in the store that say equivalent to a 60w where it only draws 5w. Meaning the intensity of the light is greater with LEDs with less wattage used.

Oh okay I follow you. But then that still doesn't account for the fact that you need multiple LED fixtures to cover the same area as a single MH fixture.

Is it the form factor of the LED itself? Being so small and compact, it makes it difficult to "spread that intensity around" so to speak?

I wonder if it would be possible to change the form factor of the and LED into a light tube for example in a T5 bulb form factor. They do it with the DRLs of automobiles to some extent...

Maybe if they started playing with the form factors, reflectors, and spread we would start having true cost-effective LED 1-to-1 replacements for MH and T5 that both hobbyists and corals enjoy.

 

[oreo54]

Regardless of power crunching the bottom line is photons per unit of energy and how to effectively get it to where you want it.

https://www.stouchlighting.com/blog/led-lights-versus-metal-halide

On average, an incandescent bulb produces around 14 lumens per watt, compared to 63 lumens for energy saving compact fluorescents (CFL) and 74 for LED bulbs. Some of the most energy to light efficient LED bulbs are now reaching over 120 lumens in Energy Star tests.
Metal Halide lights have average efficiency (75-100 lumens/watt source efficiency). They lose out to LEDs principally because their system efficiency is much lower (<30 lumens/watt) due to all of the losses associated with omnidirectional light output and the need to redirect it to a desired area.

 

[jda]

Here we go with this useless lumens stuff for reefing. Reefs do not use just the narrow wavelength that a lumen captures. If you are lighting a Costco or Warehouse, then fine. Too many reefing studies and actual experience say that there is NO EFFICIENCY when comparing source over a reef tank.

...and that nobody over a reef does not direct the light with a reflector.

The stupidity posted in #18 is why I call you an inexperienced troll because you know better and you post this garbage anyway to try and not be helpful. You make this board worse with your presence.

Too many folks who have actually solved this problem say no savings... but the internet troll says otherwise.

 

[oreo54]

Here we go with this useless lumens stuff for reefing. Reefs do not use just the narrow wavelength that a lumen captures. If you are lighting a Costco or Warehouse, then fine. Too many reefing studies and actual experience say that there is NO EFFICIENCY when comparing source over a reef tank.

...and that nobody over a reef does not direct the light with a reflector.

The stupidity posted in #18 is why I call you an inexperienced troll because you know better and you post this garbage anyway to try and not be helpful. You make this board worse with your presence.

Too many folks who have actually solved this problem say no savings... but the internet troll says otherwise.

Lumens were used as an expression of efficiency.
If I had par values I'd use PAR ect..

NONE of them used reef centric lighting therefore comparisons between the types is JUST FINE..
Lumens are a collection of photons.. subset of the visible and PAR spectrums..
A "sample" so to speak.
Already went through the Lumens/ PAR thing..

The savings or not is always based on INDIVIDUAL conditions. There is no commandment that states you could never save power..or money.
You think I'm annoying.. look in the mirror.

In your eagerness to be annoying you missed where I said "Don't use energy savings as a main criteria for choosing a light"