Lighting yet again!

[Ron Reefman]

Compare the number of leds to the wattage and the new Pro system is still just a bit lower than 0.6 watts per led. And I have not seen or tested PAR on a new system.

Current Orbit Pro led vs watts by Ron Lindensmith, on Flickr

And now they show PAR of between 70 and 100 at 24" deep. That's not half bad, especially if their prices (I didn't bother to look) are below what other fixtures with similar features are charging. But it's still less PAR than any black box fixture gets at 24" deep. And it's still a long way from 200 PAR at 30+ inches deep. And I get 200 PAR at 20" deep running my leds at 80% power on the blue and violet channels, 30% on the white channel and zero on the red & green channels.

Current Orbit PAR chart by Ron Lindensmith, on Flickr

 

[WVNed]

I was under the impression the Orbit Marine Pro has been discontinued in favor of the new IC version.
For a 72" light
The new version has 126 watts of LEDs with 90 degree lenses
the old version has 176 watts with 60 degree lenses.

It appears I screwed this up
it's 126 watts with 90 degree lenses vs 100 watts with 60 degree lenses.

hadnt had my coffee yet.
sorry

My Photon V2 is 260 watts and I run it at 50%.
2 Marine Pros would have about the same wattage over that same length.

 

[jda]

I would need to know what meter was used and what sensor to get 200 on the bottom of a tank that deep. I tested a Orbit Pro and could not even get 200 PAR on the top of the rock work (about 8-10 inches) with an Apogee 510. 200 PAR at 30-32 inches is no joke.

There is a logical explanation to all of this, but like so many other things in this hobby the details matter a ton.

FWIW - I can barely get 200 PAR at 24" depth with my Metal Halides, but I also have not really tried since 250 at 20" is just fine for my smooth skinned acropora and I do not want any more. I have never tested a Radion, RB V2 or any other LED that could do this either except for maybe a very small conical area in the middle. Again, this is with an Apogee 510 - it is cosine corrected, is the newer model (fixed by apogee) and has the immersion factor applied already.

 

[mcarroll]

if you divide the total wattage of the fixture by the number of leds (whether it's 50 or 250) and you get somewhere around 0.25 watts per led.

The Current Orbit line of fixtures are really nice if they are used over a 12" deep tank

The Orbit (which fits what you are describing) is not the same light as the Orbit IC (nor as the old Orbit Pro).

The plain Orbit looks similar on the outside, but it is definitely not the same.

It appears I screwed this up
it's 126 watts with 90 degree lenses vs 100 watts with 60 degree lenses.

You're fogiven....Current's product lineup has always been a little confusing to me. Seems better now than it's been, but still..

The 72" Orbit Pro was 100w per strip and had 60º lenses – it was a beast.

They offered a "DUAL" kit that was two Orbit Pro's packed together.

That's all discontinued.

The 72" Orbit IC is a 63 watt strip with 90º lenses.

The Orbit IC Pro is two IC strips packed together.

 

[Ron Reefman]

The Orbit (which fits what you are describing) is not the same light as the Orbit IC (nor as the old Orbit Pro).

The plain Orbit looks similar on the outside, but it is definitely not the same.

Sorry but I think I'm correct. Look at post #21. It has the number of leds and total wattage for all 3 versions and that is straight off the Current Orbit website from this morning!

 

[Sarah24!]

@Ron Reefman as I was reading I’m not sure if I mentioned that I have the dual marine pro with 60 degree lens. I do not have the ic loop version. The older marine pros 60 degree vs 90 degree are much more powerful than the new ones and much more expensive. (I think 809 each).

When speaking with current the sheet they put out was I guess something they could always guarantee would happen but they were capable of more. When I was doing research for the aquariums and lab research, we did a lot of things that @Dana Riddle mentioned, but we were also using high high end lab equipment as well. So based on equipment and how one tests can change or aka give different readings. The one current has released was done with Any level of par or lux meter.

I have had tremendous success with these lights, and I think corals will do well with any light of they start with them and keep growing with them. As @mcarroll hae stated it’s very true the old orbit marine pros (the ones before the ic version are a beast and will absolutely grow anything you throw at it).

 

[jda]

I would really still like to know exactly what equipment was used to test this. If these things can really do 200 PAR at 30 inches for next to no wattage (6 feet for 200w?), then people need to know about this. I would also like to know how the SPS are not burning from too much PAR up higher where they have to be getting 500+ from LEDs... people need to know about this too since no other LED fixture can send 500+ PAR to SPS without burning them... especially with so many white diodes and so focused of lenses. I am not doubting anything, just need to get the details...

 

[Sarah24!]

I do have a couple of more questions We seem to evaporate about 5 gal a week is that normal? We also seem to have a algae problem atleast 1 time a month too. We have about 4 fish and 4 corals several different crabs and a shrimp. I don't really want add much more till we get algae more under control. Our testing shows the water is always in great condition. Should we use a sterilizer? I have a used one sitting around here somewhere. We have been very careful on our feeding and have gone that route all ready! lol

Hello,

Sorry I was finally able to get to the other questions. As opinions vary I have had very good luck with my uv sterilizer and yes it has help control algae. It also makes my water very clear. I don’t think it would be a bad idea to run one.

 

[WVNed]

200 watts over 72" is a beast?

I have 260 watts over 48" with my Photon V2.

I looked for Marine Pros when I set up my tank. Found they where discontinued and moved on. The IC version is slightly more powerful than my FOWLR lights and I have no interest in their pumps.

 

[Sarah24!]

Hello,

The orbit marine pros non ic version are extremely powerful lights. They are very well designed lights and I have had little to zero issues with them. Now during my lab days lol I can’t remember what lab room I was in not alone the equipment we used. What I do know is that it’s not for sale to consumers and it’s been used by the national oceangic institute. I’m sure once I get some time I can call some friends there still and ask what they use. It also depends on your method and placement. Most do not realize that currents are placed directly on top of the tank. In other lights I have examined they hang so many feet above the tank, which to me personally drives me bonkers.

As far as bleaching corals I have ran them on preset mode 4 and three the most. Four seems to be the best all around and has a smaller light cycle. It is their acclimation mode. Three is designed to grow sps quickly like radions a+ b schedule. I’m curious as to why people don’t complain about those being so powerful and bleaching corals? Anyway, my setting even on three my brights are st 45% and blues about 80%.

Yes if your not careful, you will cry your corals and extremely fast. In my short span of reefing I have tested most led fixtures, of those the current marine pros non ic version are built like a tank and they will either stay right with the g4 radions or hydras or simply out pace
Them.

 

[Ron Reefman]

200 watts over 72" is a beast?

I have 260 watts over 48" with my Photon V2.

I looked for Marine Pros when I set up my tank. Found they where discontinued and moved on. The IC version is slightly more powerful than my FOWLR lights and I have no interest in their pumps.

I'll be interested in seeing a Current Orbit led fixture someday but I still have serious doubts about their ability with 0.5 watt leds.

On the other hand, I have a pair of Current wavemaker pumps in my tank and for the past year they have worked flawlessly. I like them much better than the Jebao wavemakers I've been using for years. No noise, very adjustable and the remote control is a nice issue. I can control both pumps with the single remote. One other point in favor of Current, I spilled some water on my remote and ruined it. It was over a year old and Current sent me a new one, no questions asked. Good customer service.

 

[mcarroll]

Not sure it explains all the difference since we're comparing spotlights and strip lights....this comparison is akin to comparing T5 and halide.

But most of the confusion here seems like it is either conflating the different models of light fixtures or disregarding/underestimating the differences between them – which is mostly the lenses.

Stronger lenses put the same number of photons into a smaller space.

Imaging a 10 watt LED suspended 12" over a tank of water that we test with all these different lenses:

These charts are based on the math, not actual readings, in case that's not clear.

Just trying to convey the idea of why LED's with 60º lenses or 30º lenses are vey different in performance...especially in intensity...from fixtures with "plain" 120º lenses, or even 90º lenses.

The plain Current Orbit would be like the LED at the far-left of those curves, so its watts are the most spread out, covering a whopping 48" diameter area of 1800+ square inches.

The Orbit IC (and Photon V2 I think) has 90º lenses, so its watts are not nearly as spread out, only having to cover a 24" diameter area of 450+ square inches.

My DIY LED uses 30º lenses (off the charts ), so it's watts are the least spread out, only covering less than a 10" diameter area of less than 80 square inches.

Intensity = light ÷ surface area

With coverage areas of <80 vs 450 vs 1800 square inches, it's easy to see why the different fixtures mentioned perform VERY differently even if some stats are similar.

LED strips, much like T5's, tend to "unpack" that hot spot that's typical of spotlights, so how this intensity is applied in one model vs the other is another big factor in final performance.

Hence why you see ATI offer T5 fixtures allowing up to 8+ tubes at one, and why Current offers multiple strips in one pack. And why way back when I was using simple LED strips (12 watts, 1-watt LED's, no lenses), I used them four at a time in a custom frame, and took their spread into account when I planned the mounting height. (Meaning I didn't want to be blinded by it, so I put the fixture right on the tank-top...this was pre-light meter for me so I was heavily winging it at the time. Still the early days of LED's. )

200 watts over 72" is a beast?

I have 260 watts over 48" with my Photon V2.

Just to simplify, compare 60º lenses like in those old Orbit Pro's (not IC) and 90º lenses like what I think your Photon V2 has on those charts above. Each emitter in the Pro is more concentrated and each emitter in the Photon is more spread out – to a significant degree; there are almost double the number of square inches under a 90º lens as under a 60º.

It would take more watts (or more stacked LED's) for the 90º lenses to achieve the same intensity as 60º lenses. The old Orbit Pro's were stout, but they were expensive as heck too.

My lights with the 30º lenses are the real monsters though. ;Mask Don't let the 39 watts fool ya!

(Sidenote: No, seriously, don't let your lights fool you like my DIY did me back in the day...switching lights can be very painful. ;Hurting;Dead Use a light meter. Do not guess at your lights' intensity levels.)

 

[WVNed]

Notice the x2 is already factored in.

 

[jda]

I am not confusing anything. The ones that I help to get readings on are the older Orbit Pro Duals (non IC) with three rows of LEDs on each strip. These are the exact same ones. BTW - the person who had these got a 6 bulb T5 to put on the tank as well (they both easily fit) since the output was so low.

While it is totally possible that Current has found some LED combinations and a way to drive them that makes them have more output with less wattage than what every other manufacturer can figure out, it does not seem likely. This is why I need to know exactly how this was tested and all of the details. What I saw with my own eyes says no. Besides, why would a company discontinue a product that could out pace a Radion G4 for a price of $900 for a 6 foot tank - considering that many people buy 6x G4s to cover a 6' SPS Tank, these are 1/4 to 1/5 the cost?

Did everybody forget all of the posts from 5 years ago about the dangers and problems with focused lenses? Why is this all of a sudden no issue again?

Lastly, the recommendation of giving 100-200 PAR to clams is downright incompetent. If you had a larger (6+ inch) T. Squamosa or T. Deresa (or even a T. Gigas if you could ever find them), then maybe and probably, but smaller clams and Maxima or Crocea need at least twice that. I with that they would take that off of the list. I have the same issue with they putting 'nems in there, but I guess that there are so few people that want Mags and Gigs that this is not as much of an issue - BTAs are certainly no issue since they thrive under 36w PCs in a biocube.

 

[mcarroll]

Notice the x2 is already factored in.

x2 factored in, and 3rd and 4th strip also suggested. There is no controversy here.

Will be interesting to hear what if any feedback the OP gets from Current.

I do have a couple of more questions We seem to evaporate about 5 gal a week is that normal? We also seem to have a algae problem atleast 1 time a month too. We have about 4 fish and 4 corals several different crabs and a shrimp. I don't really want add much more till we get algae more under control. Our testing shows the water is always in great condition. Should we use a sterilizer? I have a used one sitting around here somewhere. We have been very careful on our feeding and have gone that route all ready! lol

Be careful following the typical algae fighting advice which says to take your nutrients to zero and keep them there. There are plenty of algae which will thrive under such circumstances, but not much else will.

Manage nutrients by being disciplined with the livestock you add....quantity, quality and timing all count. Too much livestock, too many or too soon can all increase likelihood of problems in a new tank, including pest outbreaks of all kinds. Adding things slowly allows you to stay on top of all transitions much more easily...sometimes to the point where transitions may not even be noticed – this is ideal.

A UV sterilizer can definitely help if things seem out of control, as can be the case on a dead-rock tank, but should not be necessary in the long run, or really at all on a live rock tank.

Don't try to use UV in place of basic husbandry, like keeping the rocks and sand clean, assuring adequate flow (which will keep the rocks and sand clean), hand pulling algae as needed, beefing up your CUC as needed, etc.

Just speaking generally, preventing outbreaks is the best.

But falling behind on basic husbandry is what lets an algae outbreak get out of control.

Most of the time basic husbandry is all it takes to get back on track, but sometimes help (like UV) is required or can shrink the amount of hand labor significantly. In the long run, such help should be unneeded.

 

[Sarah24!]

Lastly, the recommendation of giving 100-200 PAR to clams is downright incompetent. If you had a larger (6+ inch) T. Squamosa or T. Deresa (or even a T. Gigas if you could ever find them), then maybe and probably, but smaller clams and Maxima or Crocea need at least twice that

@jda I’m confused on what your confused about? As stated university labs use extremely high end test equipment (Yes working on that also) but my Maximus clam does amazing under my marine orbit pro (non ic version) in addition you realize the power supply to the ones I have are 180-200 watt power supply? I will do the math for you or show you the equations to use to help get the answer you need. But my clam does simply amazing. Also the reason current went away from the older marine pros well two is first they were very expensive at 809 each. Secondly I believe this next spring (not positive) but current is discontinuing the new ic pros and releasing another orbit pro that is actually twice as strong as what I have. This is coming from Brandon directly from current. They will all have 3 watt cree leds and will be about twice the power of the older marine pros (that I have) but will feature in the new Bluetooth features and other features with the loops system. The new ic pro were built for the main reason of low budget reefers. The marine pros were designed for the higher end reefers, again directly from current.

So far the lights I have been researching (and bought) for my new tank are the new mitras ghl 7200. Those seem to be the new high high end of led lights which will far surpass currents (not sure on the new ones but have already surpassed radions and aqua and others). But let’s not forget every tank is different and animals adapt to their environment. But @mcarroll his math is dead on which numbers do not lie. In addition let’s not forget all the lights are good, but still comes down to what the owner of the tank believes in. I have tried radions on my tank and I didn’t like them or their color at all. Now that’s just me, (me personally ) and to their defense I’m not very tech WiFi savoy. Which made the currents a huge huge plus for me, plug them in and everything is done by remote. But I’ll post the math and equations here shortly. They are actually in my Urgh seriously thread already.

Another point to consider about power of lens, imagine lol frying ants with a magnifying glass. Small the glass hotter it burned, larger the glass less heat and had to be much further way to get the right angle on the convex lens. I’m all yes we still fried ants lol, but the smaller ones were always hotter and faster.

 

[BedrockIOMC]

I am tourchering myself trying to figure what to do with lighting. Our tank is 72 long x 30 deep x 18 wide
We have an older Current lighting fixtures over it and they have gone bad. Now I'm looking at fixture set up and am totally confused. I can't spend a fortune yet hubby wants the wifi type set up. It's deep and we want to have corals and clams not hard coral. Obviously we are new! We have a frogspon and a brain and a few fish. I was thinking LED, then T5, then both. lol I love the current 'playfulness" and was thinking about their new loop 72 in double pro system but have been doing some reading and don't think it's enough light for a deeper aquarium? I also looked at several 300 watt leds but am thinking I may need 3 or 4 for the length or would it be better to get 4 165's? More affordable for sure. I also looked at the ATI combo's, holy cow $$$$$$ I would so appreciate some suggestions. I am at a loss and need something quickly. I'm about ready to throw in the towel and stick a lamp over there

I am about to get a new Red Sea Reefer 170 and I am going to go with the Current Ordit Marine IC. I looked at a few site and they rated them #1 over all other lights and they have a great price. If I was you I would go with them. The IC was rated first and the pro rated 10th. I hope I have giving you a good idea and help you save some money and get a better light system.

 

[jda]

I am not confused. I need to know what equipment that you used to test this and probably at what university. I tested the exact same model of light that you have with an Apogee MQ-510 and it was about 30-40 PAR at 22 inches. At about 60w per 24 inches of tank, I have no idea how this could yield 200 PAR at 30 inches of depth - this seems to defy everything else that exists in the real world. I guess that I am a little bit confused that we do not yet know which equipment was used to test this.

If you used a solid, high quality piece of equipment, then I need to look into this more since nobody else has been able to duplicate these results. On the surface, however, it looks like paper math and not reality. I do not care about any equations... reefing on paper does nobody any good. A good LiCor, Apogee or the like will tell you all that you need to know.

I also know all about lenses... if you had the kind of power that you think that you do through 60 degree lenses, most of your corals would be dead... or at least all of the other people who have done this have killed their corals.

I am not saying that these do not work, or that you should not be happy with them... I am only saying that without more details somebody else might buy one of these and not get the same results that you are posting about. Details matter, so please post some.

 

[DanTer]

Hello,

@DoriShults I would call current usa and more than likely they will replace your lights with their newest ones or
Fix them for free. I have the marine orbit pros the ones right before the ic pros. Three was simply extreme over kill, on my 240 which is 34 inches tall.

If you ran three ic pros on your tank you should have plenty of light to do whatever you want. I still wouldn’t place high powered sps or clams at the very bottom, but you will have the par to grow what you need to. I highly suggest you call current and speak with Brandon, tell him your situation and he may just send you the new currents aka ic pros in exchange. Their warranty and service is the best I have ever dealt with.

I would definitely contact Current USA. I filled out a warranty because the LED display receiver on my lights stopped working. I had owned them for over a year so they were outside the warranty timeline. I simply asked them if they could fix them and how much it would cost to do. They got back quickly, asked me to run a few tests, and then sent me a new one without me even asking. The customer service was A+, so you have nothing to lose. Good luck!

 

[Sarah24!]

I am not confused. I need to know what equipment that you used to test this and probably at what university. I tested the exact same model of light that you have with an Apogee MQ-510 and it was about 30-40 PAR at 22 inches. At about 60w per 24 inches of tank, I have no idea how this could yield 200 PAR at 30 inches of depth - this seems to defy everything else that exists in the real world. I guess that I am a little bit confused that we do not yet know which equipment was used to test this.

If you used a solid, high quality piece of equipment, then I need to look into this more since nobody else has been able to duplicate these results. On the surface, however, it looks like paper math and not reality. I do not care about any equations... reefing on paper does nobody any good. A good LiCor, Apogee or the like will tell you all that you need to know.

I also know all about lenses... if you had the kind of power that you think that you do through 60 degree lenses, most of your corals would be dead... or at least all of the other people who have done this have killed their corals.

I am not saying that these do not work, or that you should not be happy with them... I am only saying that without more details somebody else might buy one of these and not get the same results that you are posting about. Details matter, so please post some.

I sent you a pm but as in further, as in nobody else (who exactly is nobody else) did they use the same equipment I used? Even so did they caliberate correctly and or match mine exactly. Because if not as a researcher, the numbers will be scewed. Look at all the tests down for Chinese black boxes or heck radions, how often are their number exact or per say close? Were they done in actual research labs, or home labs? Were they don’t with a controlled environment or was it random? Between both labs that I studied in, for my undergrad I’m certain they were accurate. Why, because we had more than one test study, we had more than one group, and we all checked the Specs of the equipment used.

Plus I’m sorry as most of us have stated these lights are discontinued, how are people going to buy them? Finding them used is a chore alone, if at all.

So if you go to my post think it’s page 15-16 in my thread here is where I use paper math (which worked) on the difference between two and three of the orbit pros. This will get you started and if not here are pics of those but may be hard to see where I’m coming from. (Yes I confuse my self also)! Actually I think I’m pretty sure but will check it was a Ly core Ly- 1500 logger (that sounds close maybe li-core it was pretty advanced) light meter among other test equipment and sensors. I know we used that as a base tester (gosh that was a while ago) but we used that as a base test and a then a more advanced one for final results and comparisons. But lol I sent an email to one of my good friends and we will see if she even remembers. No I’m pondering if I wanna dig through boxes of my old papers hmmmmm gosh not really but I’m curious. I’m also curious if led manufacturers still send their lights out to be certified in separate led testing facilities? I thought that most led places have to send their lights out to testing facilities where they do a number of tests in order to be verified. I’m thinking they have to test for light output color and efficiency but not certain on that. If so wouldn’t they all come with a certificate of some kind?