How much testing do the aquarium lighting manufacturers really do?

[Nonya]

I'm wondering how much testing do the lighting manufacturers really do over a coral tank? Or do they put out what the hobbyists say they want and let them field test it after buying them? Do they go with fads, or with actual research and development? I can't find anything on the manufacturers' sites that say, "We tested these over out own R&D systems for a full year, so we're confident you'll grow great corals?

 

[Woodyman]

I don't know about others, or where this 'years of research' is located or what it looks like, but they claim to do it.

Lighting insights

In this video series we’ll explore all the lighting essentials, from understanding how light affects coral growth and coloration, the differences between PAR and PUR, to avoiding incorrect light settings and photoperiods.

www.redseafish.com

 

[blaxsun]

It's a good question, and I suspect the answer is a fair bit (especially companies like EcoTech, Kessil, etc.) I'm sure there's field testing/R&D happening with select clients to get invaluable feedback - but as this would be covered by an NDA we'll probably never hear about it.

From a competition standpoint it's probably in their best interest to share as little as possible, and at the end of the day if they can barely keep their products on shelves they don't necessarily need to, either.

 

[Sean Clark]

This is one of the reasons why I like lights from manufacturers like Kessil and Phillips. They are lighting companies that apply their lighting expertise to create niche products for our hobby. This is far better than someone taking random lights and putting them together and selling it to us as the best of the best.

 

[Nonya]

I don't know about others, or where this 'years of research' is located or what it looks like, but they claim to do it.

Lighting insights

In this video series we’ll explore all the lighting essentials, from understanding how light affects coral growth and coloration, the differences between PAR and PUR, to avoiding incorrect light settings and photoperiods.

www.redseafish.com

Could the years of research be just users in the field?

 

[Woodyman]

Could the years of research be just users in the field?

Could be. To my knowledge I never saw anything about what that years of research was. As stated by @blaxsun above I'm sure most don't want to publish any of that info from a lighting competition standpoint.

 

[Sean Clark]

Could be. To my knowledge I never saw anything about what that years of research was. As stated by @blaxsun above I'm sure most don't want to publish any of that info from a lighting competition standpoint.

Excellent

 

[Nonya]

I'd love to see their CEOs on YouTube showing everybody their private testing labs (a dozen reef aquariums full of SPS), and how well they work compared to the competition.



Wait. What was I thinking?

 

[Nonya]

Oh crap. Well, it appears that Ecotech may have done some testing for their Gen 3 Pros vs other lights. http://ecotechmarine.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/ReefWholesale_CoralLab.pdf

 

[Sean Clark]

Oh crap. Well, it appears that Ecotech may have done some testing for their Gen 3 Pros vs other lights. http://ecotechmarine.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/ReefWholesale_CoralLab.pdf

The link referenced does not show Ecotech light testing vs other lights. It only presents ecotech light fixtures.

 

[Nonya]

The link referenced does not show Ecotech light testing vs other lights. It only presents ecotech light fixtures.

Look at the side-by-side pics--halides, radions, even T-5. It starts on page 8. Did they cherry pick? Maybe.

 

[Sean Clark]

They are showing corals under different lights. They are not providing lots of important data. Cherry picking is a good analogy. This is marketing material and it's goal it to sell lights.


Page 8

Page 9

Page 10

 

[areefer01]

I'd love to see their CEOs on YouTube showing everybody their private testing labs (a dozen reef aquariums full of SPS), and how well they work compared to the competition.



Wait. What was I thinking?

Philips provided a couple documents with the Gen 1 and Gen 2. Also included their testing with corals and equipment. Also a few in-depth interviews with Luc.

Ecotech has the Coral Labs paper - I think that may be the G3 light kit though and not their initial release. Please don't hold me to that though as I may have the kit wrong.

Kessil - well, as noted above into other aspects of lighting so sort of a no brainer. I don't recall a paper though and I used to run the a360x's. Great kit.

As to CEO's and youtube, why? Not a CEO but just last year a company put their light on display with tanks ranging from new to almost 20 years old and they got shredded here on this forum.

There is always a method to the madness but as already said not sure how much of it is visible to the public. Especially when there are no standards in our hobby.

Hope all is well.

 

[Brucealmighty]

Red Sea led's claim to have been developed, I am 4-5 months in and I am leaning towards the fact they have had great benefits for my small reef so far and have to believe them in their claims of 'reef spec' development (Watch the video on YouTube if you want) but the previous lights I have had haven't been in the same class to even try and compare 3 sets of 'cheap' later and I have spent double in total what the expensive light costs in the first place and have lost corals too so even more money lesson learnt.

 

[jda]

They test them out on you... mostly. Then, you test them out by turning up or down channels that don't work.

CoralLab stuff was widely panned as propaganda. It was not accurate nor unbiased. Complete garbage.

 

[oreo54]

CoralLab stuff was widely panned as propaganda. It was not accurate nor unbiased. Complete garbage.

By who?
I'd love to see, in writing an analysis of why that is believed.
I do know some of the arguments but one needs to critique it fully, not just shoot the messenger.

Analysis of the message only.

Of course ONE coral does not make a "proof".

IF data is favorable to the tech there is no need to bias it.
Assuming it is biased because of results is not proof of bias..

 

[jda]

Buy some Gen 3 Radions, get a reef tank and then read the article after a year, or so. You will know all that you need to.

One of the biggest jokes is all of the terabytes of data that people had to type, store and display to explain that nearly nobody likes or the uses the AB T5 bulb... or that the actual phoenix 14k MH bulbs still kicks butt and I have had ice in a soda last longer than that PHX program. Probably developed by some person looking at spectrum on a screen with a bit of hubris who thinks that they can recreate it the same thing with a diode mix like nothing will be different... probably did not even have an actual reef.

 

[oreo54]

Cheap out and ignored the question..
I'm not saying you are wrong.. I want a honest point by point critique of their data using facts, not hearsay or resorting to emotional garbage.
Again, got real proof?

It was not accurate nor unbiased.

 

[jda]

I have to help people with actual tanks who have actual problems. I have made this clear many times over. I know that you like to work on the web with links, charts and all of that and while it can be helpful at times, it is not at others. I was there and lived through this... get some experience and then you won't have to ask stuff like this, although I think that you know the answer to most of the questions that you asked anyway.

Sometimes these posts of yours are as helpful as if I chimed into a LED build discussion with bin rates, wattages, drivers and all of that. I stay out of what I don't know and don't come on there asking for proof of stuff that happened 10 years ago when I did not build a LED then. I could search, link and suppose in all of those too, but that would not be helpful.

BTW - suggestion of getting actual experience and gained knowledge is never a cheap out... except to those who do not have any.

 

[oreo54]

I' m not judging its validity one way or another. It has nothing to do with me at all.
Those that judge it propaganda should be able to at least lucidly comment on why without reverting to personal attacks or " because it is" logic.

Sometimes I think halide people are afraid of running a decent experiment. Oh I get it .."what for". Cheap way out

You know one could agree with their findings in thier parameters and still consider mh superior in their own personal experience.
One doesn' t need to add conspiracy theories and/ fudged data to the arguement.

Do you actually understand what I'm getting at or is it just personal?