The real Black Box light study

[Manose]

The Kessil baseline is done.
These numbers represent the Kessil par numbers from 17 different points at a depth of 23.5 inches with intensity at 100% and color as seen in the pic below:

Using these settings we came out with the following par numbers @23.5 and light at 8in above water:

The spectrum can be seen from each of the 17 placements here:


*****ATTENTION*****
Noopsysche wanted a study on their light compared to these manufacturers Hydra 26hd,Kessil a360x, and Radion xr15w g4 pro.
We will compare these lights with each other and post the results, then use those numbers as a baseline for our main black box study.
Consider this a test within a test then we will get to the main study.

 

[wesman42]

The Kessil baseline is done.
These numbers represent the Kessil par numbers from 17 different points at a depth of 23.5 inches with intensity at 100% and color as seen in the pic below:

Using these settings we came out with the following par numbers @23.5 and light at 8in above water:

The spectrum can be seen from each of the 17 placements here:


*****ATTENTION*****
Noopsysche wanted a study on their light compared to these manufacturers Hydra 26hd,Kessil a360x, and Radion xr15w g4 pro.
We will compare these lights with each other and post the results, then use those numbers as a baseline for our main black box study.
Consider this a test within a test then we will get to the main study.

Those numbers are horribly underwhelming. I'm shocked! I'm also looking forward to the rest as your testing continues.

 

[dantimdad]

Agreed I was expecting way more for the cost.

 

[Ariel V Rosa]

Honestly it is what I expected gicen the new desings focus on more spread and less penetration.

 

[Mrx7899]

Thats pretty weak though it would be a little higher. But kessil have always been an the weaker side.

 

[Ariel V Rosa]

That's pretty weak though it would be a little higher. But kessil have always been an the weaker side.

I differ in opinion I guess, this is though 24 inches of water at an 8 inch high from a single point of light. The product is doing what it says on the box and manufacturer advertising. The only thing I am not seeing from the new X series is the claimed more light output. The older 360 have more light output, but less spread and color rendition is a bit different. Whats sad is they should have gone ahead and revised their AP 700 with these LEDs and lenses. Since this thing is spanking an AP 700. They probably wont till the AP 700 inventory depletes more, since they want to stick to this MAP pricing model driving small retailers and hobbyist out of the hobby. MAP is bad for the hobby as a whole.

 

[theKoolAidMan]

BRS did a video recently where they tested these new Kessils with a better PAR meter than the Seneye and from various heights and at various depths. Their results suggest that in more real world setups this light is unmatched in uniformity and spread. They also got a better spectrum from it using a much better par meter. The Seneye is known for being a bit off sometimes.

Basically I trust BRS and their methodology and equipment more than this test.

 

[User1]

BRS did a video recently where they tested these new Kessils with a better PAR meter than the Seneye and from various heights and at various depths. Their results suggest that in more real world setups this light is unmatched in uniformity and spread. They also got a better spectrum from it using a much better par meter. The Seneye is known for being a bit off sometimes.

Basically I trust BRS and their methodology and equipment more than this test.

True. And there is another thread in the lighting section with recent numbers that also show higher numbers. However, not everyone will be using those tools and most will probably have either the Seneye or the Apex module(s). If the same tool is used throughout the tests the numbers, while low, will still show some relevant data. The key to having useful data is doing the same steps, repeated to a T, with all units. If there is any deviation say even a slight angle of the measurement tool will skew the numbers.

Consistency is the key which was my issue with the Seneye - but it is a pretty decent device one of which BRStv also said did extremely well when compared to higher end tools.

 

[Ariel V Rosa]

True. And there is another thread in the lighting section with recent numbers that also show higher numbers. However, not everyone will be using those tools and most will probably have either the Seneye or the Apex module(s). If the same tool is used throughout the tests the numbers, while low, will still show some relevant data. The key to having useful data is doing the same steps, repeated to a T, with all units. If there is any deviation say even a slight angle of the measurement tool will skew the numbers.

Consistency is the key which was my issue with the Seneye - but it is a pretty decent device one of which BRStv also said did extremely well when compared to higher end tools.

WIth that being said, i would like to see a write up of all the individual steps and procedures during this test. Just so we as a community can see how the numbers were collected or derived. It also opens the doors to maybe see possible flaws and/or improvements in methods and practices.

 

[Randy the reef guy]

same here following i use 2 vipars

Following along as well. I'm running 4 vipars

 

[theKoolAidMan]

True. And there is another thread in the lighting section with recent numbers that also show higher numbers. However, not everyone will be using those tools and most will probably have either the Seneye or the Apex module(s). If the same tool is used throughout the tests the numbers, while low, will still show some relevant data. The key to having useful data is doing the same steps, repeated to a T, with all units. If there is any deviation say even a slight angle of the measurement tool will skew the numbers.

Consistency is the key which was my issue with the Seneye - but it is a pretty decent device one of which BRStv also said did extremely well when compared to higher end tools.

I agree mostly. However the value of this series of tests will be simply to look at the black boxes in relation to each other and to mainstream lights.

I just don't think we'll be able to use the par numbers or spectrum readings outside of this test as the Kessil test yields significantly different results than other tests using better testing equipment. We already have people here commenting about how they are disappointed with the Kessil results despite better tests already showing that the new Kessils are much better than this. This is problematic.

 

[dantimdad]

I don't believe that anyone is dogging kessil.

If someone is sold on kessil they aren't going to switch because of any test.

Just relax and let the comparison numbers speak for themselves and let folks draw their own conclusions.

Even if this test was done with equipment kessil approved of someone would find fault with it.

 

[theKoolAidMan]

I don't believe that anyone is dogging kessil.

If someone is sold on kessil they aren't going to switch because of any test.

Just relax and let the comparison numbers speak for themselves and let folks draw their own conclusions.

Even if this test was done with equipment kessil approved of someone would find fault with it.

I think you're missing the point though. These numbers for the Kessil being so off other tests results done with more reliable equipment throw any future findings in this series of tests into doubt. We can see that the results that are being had are not accurate.

 

[Mikeneedsahobby]

I think you're missing the point though. These numbers for the Kessil being so off other tests results done with more reliable equipment throw any future findings in this series of tests into doubt. We can see that the results that are being had are not accurate.

At worst case the absolute numbers are wrong but comparison tests (one higher or lower than another) and consistency around the lights can be trusted.

If you want the absolute numbers of one light then watch brs. If you want to know how does light a compare to light b then look here.

 

[theKoolAidMan]

I just now question what exactly is the point of this series? Is it to test how black boxes actually perform vs how name brand lights actually perform? Or is it for black box owners to get some data, no matter how inaccurate to point to in order to convince themselves they made a wise purchasing decision? My suspicion is that it has become the latter.

 

[dantimdad]

I think you are missing the point. Honestly. There should be no hostility here.

The point is that, if you measure all lights with the same meter, the lights will have a direct comparison to each other.

It doesn't matter if the meter costs $10000 or $10.

Again, people who like a particular brand are going to pick this test apart just to find fault.

You have already started and all the results aren't in.

If he posted really low numbers for the XYZ brand first you would probably have said "See, I told you it was junk" He just happened to post Kessil first so you jump on it.

Take a breath and wait for all the results.

BTW, I find a lot of fault with the BRS test as well. They even say they didn't test the same way on the two lights.

I appreciate their efforts though. Just like you should appreciate @Manose efforts here.

This guy stands to gain NOTHING by doing this really. BRS stands to gain $ for doing their test.

 

[dantimdad]

I just now question what exactly is the point of this series? Is it to test how black boxes actually perform vs how name brand lights actually perform? Or is it for black box owners to get some data, no matter how inaccurate to point to in order to convince themselves they made a wise purchasing decision? My suspicion is that it has become the latter.

By the same token, aren't you wanting data to say you made a wise decision buying kessil?

 

[dantimdad]

OH and, BTW, I love all LED lighting. I just happen to like to DIY and tinker so most brands are not for me.

I have a buddy that has a 90 corner with Kessils that is stunning. I really love the look of it.

Just so you know I am not out to get Kessil owners. It's just enjoyable to see this kind of test done.

 

[theKoolAidMan]

I think you are missing the point. Honestly. There should be no hostility here.

The point is that, if you measure all lights with the same meter, the lights will have a direct comparison to each other.

It doesn't matter if the meter costs $10000 or $10.

Again, people who like a particular brand are going to pick this test apart just to find fault.

You have already started and all the results aren't in.

If he posted really low numbers for the XYZ brand first you would probably have said "See, I told you it was junk" He just happened to post Kessil first so you jump on it.

Take a breath and wait for all the results.

BTW, I find a lot of fault with the BRS test as well. They even say they didn't test the same way on the two lights.

I appreciate their efforts though. Just like you should appreciate @Manose efforts here.

This guy stands to gain NOTHING by doing this really. BRS stands to gain $ for doing their test.

No hostility. Sorry if it came off that way. If we want to do science, then let's actually do science and be able to have a discussion on the merits of the testing equipment, methodology, and results.

Also, for full disclosure, I do not have, nor have I ever used Kessil lights, so I have no loyalty to them in any way. I have used black boxes and AI lights.

And I agree, if the same meter is used across all tests, but I'd also like to know exactly how it is being tested? Is the seneye being placed at the same angle at the exact same depth for each test? Or is it simply being held under the water by hand? Things like that will have an impact on the results and could make these tests utterly worthless.

Perhaps my biggest pet peeves in this hobby is how we all dance around talking about science, but at the end of the day us hobbyists do little more than play dressup and rely on flawed data and anecdote under the guise of it being science. The OP is potentially doing us all a service here, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't insist on doing this RIGHT in order to get reliable results. Flawed data is NOT better than no data.

 

[User1]

Well, I sure didn't mean to cause a ruckus. Apologies. I was only saying that the Seneye isn't that bad of a tool to use if done consistently across all units tested. Even BRStv noted how accurate it was compared to some of the other more expensive units. So just comes down to how the test is done, etc.

And yes - I don't think anyone is going to change from any brand but the exercise is fun never the less and may shed some light on stuff. In any case hopefully the people doing it are having some fun.