The real Black Box light study

[madweazl]

...The only thing I am not seeing from the new X series is the claimed more light output...

I've done a fair amount of testing on the A360X and there actually is more output over the WEs but it comes from the ability to run the light lower to the water than the WE because of how wide the new lens projects light. To cover the same are as a WE, the X model can be set three inches lower and doing so increases PAR by a huge margin (approximately 50% for the configuration I used). With the X mounted 2.25" off the top of a 24" cube, it will cast light to the top of all sides (missing the corners a bit); the WE had to be mounted 5.5" above the tank to cover the same area. The down side to this is that you may end up dangerously close to the water if you decide to take advantage of the huge spread for the increase in PAR (I ran the WEs 5" above the water for almost two years without issue and would be comfortable running the X at the same height).

Dropping the light 3" from its current mounting height in this thread would produce at least 30% higher PAR results with no compromise to coverage (it would likely be even better with the additional light being reflected off the glass vice falling outside the tank altogether).

 

[naterealbig]

This is not about BRS as this is about what we can do to make this study better. I will say that BRS did inadvertently create a bad stereotype when they chose the cheapest made Chinese light they could find to do their study with. We have all seen the comments people make when you say you have a "Black Box" light. "OMG dude your house is going to burn down" NOT all lights made in China are crap and we need to use this study to see what is good or maybe good with more advanced testing. To do this we need to use some lights that WE KNOW will perform such as the Kessil 360x,Hydra 26,and Radion xr 15pro gen 4 to get some numbers to go by as to formulate which of the BB lights might be worth a better look.
BRS has done some amazing things for this hobby and I support them 1000% and will always appreciate what they do for us.

Thank you for your reply Manose, and my comments on BRS were not directed at you. I see some of the comments in the thread suggesting that some suppliers aren't being honest - which I will vehemently disagree with. I cannot imagine the money they are spending to do real testing for products, including the capital expenditures on setup, equipment, and film-making, and as you eluded to - these things should be recognized and respected. These are also concepts that cannot get lost, with regards to the work, time, money, and effort that you and others are devoting to this study. I'm sure it is discouraging to listen to critical comments, and I should have included some appreciative words in my last post along with the others. Thank you for the work that you are doing!

I agree, there was an insinuated and unfair stereotype for the CBB's that I'm sure many watchers walked away with from that video. I also agree that some products are better than others, and we cannot extrapolate a single test to all less expensive lighting options. I am planning on XR15's for my current build, but I am not married to a particular product or brand. One thing that I refuse to support however, is the blatant copy-catting of products with little-to-know research and development and quality control. Unfortunately, products like this feed the "cheap chinese" stereotype, and are incredibly detrimental to the companies that are doing the hard work and innovation, and to the end-user who is swayed by deceptive marketing and ignorance regarding what is required to produce a quality product.

Either way, I am interested to follow along and see what the results are. As others have mentioned, I think there are some critical aspects that should be measured that carry just as much weight as PAR (quality construction goes without mention). These are:

1. Spectrum blending (getting rid of the color separation)
2. Even coverage over a specific area

I would highly recommend tuning each light to spectrum that is likely to be used on a reef tank, and taking data points from there. This definitely introduces many variables into the testing, however, I believe the results will be much more useful to the end-user.

 

[symon_say]

Keep the good work, waiting for more results.

 

[b4tn]

This is a great study. Tagging along.

 

[cvrle1]

Jeebus, person decides to spend his precious time and hard earned money to do extensive test like this, and few know-it-all get their panties in a bunch with 1st set of results. I havent seen you folks trying to step up and help out, instead all i saw was complaining how inaccurate test is and seneye meter, and how number are wrong, and how this is not right and thats not right. Instead of crapping on this test, either try to help out in some meaningful way, or do your own test the way you think it should be done and leave tis thread alone. There is absolutely 0 need for pompous smart ***** and fan boys, and unfortunately few of you look exactly that way.

/end rant

 

[madweazl]

Lighten up, Francis...

 

[theKoolAidMan]

Jeebus, person decides to spend his precious time and hard earned money to do extensive test like this, and few know-it-all get their panties in a bunch with 1st set of results. I havent seen you folks trying to step up and help out, instead all i saw was complaining how inaccurate test is and seneye meter, and how number are wrong, and how this is not right and thats not right. Instead of crapping on this test, either try to help out in some meaningful way, or do your own test the way you think it should be done and leave tis thread alone. There is absolutely 0 need for pompous smart ***** and fan boys, and unfortunately few of you look exactly that way.

/end rant

By pointing out possible flaws in the methodology or equipment we are helping out. It's called peer review. I was a bit too aggressive in one of my posts for which I've apologized and had that apology accepted.

We shouldn't hold OP's work to a lower standard just because he's being nice and doing it for free for us, and I think he would agree with that. Studies like this are only actually beneficial if they take into account variables like people have pointed out. I think the OP will get useful data from this, but we ALL (you included) play a role in that by helping to find issues or raise questions about the tests and results to help the OP ensure that the data he's getting is reliable and significant. When a light that has been tested using higher quality and more reliable equipment has its results come back markedly different from those other baseline tests, we need to question why, as that has implication for the reliability and accuracy of any other data collected in the study. Did the Kessil's test out like this because of the Seneye? Because of the way they were mounted or held? Because of some other variable not accounted for.

No one (other than me, which I've apologized for) are attacking the OP or the work he's doing. It's like your mom proof-reading your essay before you hand it in. When she corrects a misspelled word or adds punctuation she's not telling you that you're a crappy son or that you're stupid...

 

[Porpoise Hork]

Jeebus, person decides to spend his precious time and hard earned money to do extensive test like this, and few know-it-all get their panties in a bunch with 1st set of results. I havent seen you folks trying to step up and help out, instead all i saw was complaining how inaccurate test is and seneye meter, and how number are wrong, and how this is not right and thats not right. Instead of crapping on this test, either try to help out in some meaningful way, or do your own test the way you think it should be done and leave tis thread alone. There is absolutely 0 need for pompous smart ***** and fan boys, and unfortunately few of you look exactly that way.

/end rant

I wasn't complaining about any accuracy issues with the Seneye. My point was simply if there was any correction that needed to be applied to the PAR readings it collects like you do with the Apogee units. Keep in mind these are $500+ PAR meters and they tell you in the instructions that it needs this correction for accurate readings when taken under water. So it stands to reason that the Seneye may also require a correction as well.

 

[User1]

I wasn't complaining about any accuracy issues with the Seneye. My point was simply if there was any correction that needed to be applied to the PAR readings it collects like you do with the Apogee units. Keep in mind these are $500+ PAR meters and they tell you in the instructions that it needs this correction for accurate readings when taken under water. So it stands to reason that the Seneye may also require a correction as well.

You may have seen it - not sure - but BRStv when comparing the Seneye to more expensive brands said it performed well when compared to the others and didn't mention any correction. I own one and did not read a need to perform corrections in any documents or their forum/support/FAQ. I do not own nor have rented the other products so can't compare what I've measured so take it for what it is worth.

 

[That Crusso Kid]

I will be honest and say that I am somewhat discouraged right now, but I started this and I will finish it with all the gathered knowledge here.

@Manose - First of all; THANK YOU for using your time and effort toward these tests!

Do not get discouraged. There are many of us following along who truly support what you are doing. It's a great service for the community and I do believe we all trust the methodology you are employing. Being open to suggestions and alternate ideas, if better, tells the whole story. I also believe you have nothing to gain from this experiment so, on the flip side, do not allow others to make it about something to lose. In other words, do your best not to take anything too personally.

I, for one, am looking forward to seeing all of the results as they come in and trust the methods being used as reliable.

 

[DirtDiggler2823]

As long as the testing is consistent, everything should be good. If the tester is using a certain meter for the baseline, and using that same meter for the rest of the testing, as well as the same processes and procedures, I see the test is being impartial, and good to go. If the testing was to be conducted in a lab with more resources, I assume the numbers might look a bit different, but the differences between the results would probably be about the same. I look forward to seeing what these tests come out with. I trust BRS to a certain extent, but I understand their job is to sell me stuff, so I have to take everything they say and run it through that filter.

 

[Manose]

Here is a few pictures of the setup we have for the Seneye...
We use the frag plugs because the fit perfectly between the 2 zip ties holding the meter to the wand and the center of the frag plug also corresponds to the center of the Seneye.

 

[Manose]

Also just found out the mount for the Noopsyche K7 pro2 also works perfectly with the AI26hd. We just tried this cause we did not have a mount for the AI26. All we did was use the screws that came with the AI.

 

[Manose]

Got some more numbers for today. I also cleaned up the par grid to make it look more presentable.
Noopsyche asked me to test his lights directly with the Kessil 360,Hydra 26hd, and the Radion XR15 pro gen4.
Using the same parameters and as the Kessil 360x (light mounted 8in above the waterline, testing at bottom 23.5in deep 100% intensity)

 

[Manose]

Tomorrow I will be testing the AI Hydra 26hd with the same settings as the other 2 lights.

 

[Johniejumbo]

Some strong numbers. Grid looks good btw! That’s a lot of points how long does this process take?

 

[Manose]

Some strong numbers. Grid looks good btw! That’s a lot of points how long does this process take?

It takes 2 of us about 1.5 hours to get the measurements then I take those screen shots of each 17 par readings and put them in a file and use the numbers to put on the grid. After each measurement we rinse the probe off on ro water and clean it.
The long part is getting each number add to the grid as I am slow.

 

[Johniejumbo]

So realistically you can do about one a day then. I’m sure it would be possible to do more, but if it were me it would be one a day :). How many other lights do you have so far? I remember you listed off a bunch of them earlier in this thread but I wasn’t sure if you were still accumulating more.

 

[Manose]

So realistically you can do about one a day then. I’m sure it would be possible to do more, but if it were me it would be one a day :). How many other lights do you have so far? I remember you listed off a bunch of them earlier in this thread but I wasn’t sure if you were still accumulating more.

Yea one day per light so far :) The first four lights are Kessil 360x,Noopsyche K7 pro2 ,Ai Hydra 26hd and then the Radion XR15. I am doing this test before we start on the regular Black Box test because Noopsyche said he wants his lights tested in that group.
This is like a mini test before we do the BB numbers test but we can use the numbers from this test as to form a good baseline for all the other lights.

 

[Johniejumbo]

Yea one day per light so far :) The first four lights are Kessil 360x,Noopsyche K7 pro2 ,Ai Hydra 26hd and then the Radion XR15. I am doing this test before we start on the regular Black Box test because Noopsyche said he wants his lights tested in that group.
This is like a mini test before we do the BB numbers test but we can use the numbers from this test as to form a good baseline for all the other lights.

Good idea!