PARwise

[Reefer Reboot]

It is not the browser one in air mode - the other in water - aka immersion factor

DOH! I can't believe I didn't catch that. Thanks. I'll have to retest this once the lights come on. Strange how it opens in different modes. I imagine it has to do with having been opened the day before in Edge when I switched it to water mode.
Curious as why it has to show no readings instead of zero when the lights are out. Can't even look at the Time Analyser when the lights are off.

Or am I not catching something again?

 

[AKReefing]

They have a contact

It is not the browser one in air mode - the other in water - aka immersion factor

Good catch.

 

[RevMH]

Following for future updates. Interesting topic.

I compared my Apogee 510 with the PARwise underwater and found I need to correct it by 1.30 - 1.35 to align with the Apogee. 1.35 if both instruments were lying flat. 1.30 if I angled the PARwise toward the light.

I haven't compared it to my Seneye, but I'll get around to that at some point, too.

 

[RevMH]

I'm not sure if this is helpful, because I didn't take the comparable spectral measurements, but it's what I have, so I wanted to share. Take it for what it is.

Using the Reefi Uno (1st gen), I measured individual channels with the PARwise and compared it to the review Dana Riddle took using the Ocean Optics USB2000 spectrometer (attached).

400nm
Dana - 398
PARwise -385

420nm
Dana - 420
PARwise - 425 - 430 (bounced between the two)

430nm
Dana - 430
PARwise - 435

450nm
Dana - 450
PARwise - 444

470nm
Dana - 472
PARwise - 472 - 477 (bounced between the two)

All On
Dana - 420 peak
PARwise - 444 - 446 peak (bounced between the two)

I did not measure lime, amber, warm white, or cool white.


One peculiar trait I noticed, when I turned on my Aquatic Life Coral Cover fixtures I use for fill light, which has a peak at 620nm, the PARwise would detect the peak only if my 430nm channel was turned off (nothing else changed). As soon as I turned the 430nm channel on, the 620nm peak flattened. I checked the other channels, but it only happened with the 430nm.

 

[AKReefing]

I'm not sure if this is helpful, because I didn't take the comparable spectral measurements, but it's what I have, so I wanted to share. Take it for what it is.

Using the Reefi Uno (1st gen), I measured individual channels with the PARwise and compared it to the review Dana Riddle took using the Ocean Optics USB2000 spectrometer (attached).

400nm
Dana - 398
PARwise -385

420nm
Dana - 420
PARwise - 425 - 430 (bounced between the two)

430nm
Dana - 430
PARwise - 435

450nm
Dana - 450
PARwise - 444

470nm
Dana - 472
PARwise - 472 - 477 (bounced between the two)

All On
Dana - 420 peak
PARwise - 444 - 446 peak (bounced between the two)

I did not measure lime, amber, warm white, or cool white.


One peculiar trait I noticed, when I turned on my Aquatic Life Coral Cover fixtures I use for fill light, which has a peak at 620nm, the PARwise would detect the peak only if my 430nm channel was turned off (nothing else changed). As soon as I turned the 430nm channel on, the 620nm peak flattened. I checked the other channels, but it only happened with the 430nm.

Were your measurements underwater?

 

[RevMH]

Good question. Yes, all of my measurements were done under water. I measured roughly 11 inches under water, the lights sit about 10 inches above the water. The "reeflectors" have been removed. I don't know if any of it matters, but that's the set up.

Each channel was set to 100% when I measured.

 

[AKReefing]

Good question. Yes, all of my measurements were done under water. I measured roughly 11 inches under water, the lights sit about 10 inches above the water. The "reeflectors" have been removed. I don't know if any of it matters, but that's the set up.

Each channel was set to 100% when I measured.

That could explain the wavering results with surface turbulence. I have a feeling Dana may have measured the spectral points out of the water. Why not repeat the measurements out of the water and see if you get more stable numbers?

 

[RevMH]

That could explain the wavering results with surface turbulence. I have a feeling Dana may have measured the spectral points out of the water. Why not repeat the measurements out of the water and see if you get more stable numbers?

I agree. The pumps were turned off, but the return pumps were still on.

For fun, I took the measurements again in the air (PARwise in "air" mode) with no movement.

CW 446

WW 602-610 (drifted up and down in the entire range)

Lime 547

Amber 600, 601, 603, with shoulders in 440 and 460

B 471,472, 473,474 (drifted)

RB 441 and 447

430 430

420 423

400 384, with a shoulders in 440 and 460

All 429, but the peak was very narrow and and 500+ drifted up and down often

Reefi and Coral Cover at 100%, the peak was 444, very narrow, and 500+ was flat unless I turned off 430.

Hope that helps!

 

[AKReefing]

Weird. Mine has been rock solid so far. I just need my other spectrometer to get here for comparison. I also found another reading online that was very precise.

 

[AKReefing]

So let's say, for a second, that the PARwise is not only inaccurate, but inconsistent in both spectrum and PAR readings. Of what use would it be to an average reefer? The sales pitch seems to be rather generic: "PARwise makes you wise about light...the tagline we're going with."

Second, I've seen several "famous" and wannabe-famous YouTubers posting online, talking about what a wonderful idea it is--without the slightest mention of accuracy--while getting more views and likes. The Par-wise.com website seems to dodge the whole accuracy subject.

So maybe a little brainstorming here: Of what real purpose would it serve to the hobbyist if ITC refuses to provide specifics regarding wavelength(s) and PAR accuracy?

 

[RevMH]

Weird. Mine has been rock solid so far. I just need my other spectrometer to get here for comparison. I also found another reading online that was very precis

So let's say, for a second, that the PARwise is not only inaccurate, but inconsistent in both spectrum and PAR readings. Of what use would it be to an average reefer? The sales pitch seems to be rather generic: "PARwise makes you wise about light...the tagline we're going with."

Second, I've seen several "famous" and wannabe-famous YouTubers posting online, talking about what a wonderful idea it is--without the slightest mention of accuracy--while getting more views and likes. Their website seems to dodge the whole accuracy subject.

So maybe a little brainstorming here: Of what real purpose would it serve to the hobbyist if ITC refuses to provide specifics regarding wavelength(s) and PAR accuracy?

In my case, there's certainly the possibility of "tester" error. I'm sure there's criteria I've missed, variables I didn't notice or of which I am unaware, because I don't do this for a living.

I have a few tools, found the thread, decided to post my "data" and observations in case it was helpful to anyone.

Regarding your last question, I'd like to see the answer, too. Good question!

 

[Nonya]

So maybe a little brainstorming here: Of what real purpose would it serve to the hobbyist if ITC refuses to provide specifics regarding wavelength(s) and PAR accuracy?

I've had a few online chats with ITC, and I felt the responses were a bit too evasive. When I suggested that they change their algorithms to account for the inaccuracies I got a noncommittal response. I wonder why.

In my case, there's certainly the possibility of "tester" error. I'm sure there's criteria I've missed, variables I didn't notice or of which I am unaware, because I don't do this for a living.

I have a few tools, found the thread, decided to post my "data" and observations in case it was helpful to anyone.

Regarding your last question, I'd like to see the answer, too. Good question!

I wasn't suggesting any error in testing on your part. I just clamped mine to the cross-brace on top of the tank and took measurements of each LED color. Maybe clamping it was the key to stability? If not, then you will have discovered a problem with QC.

 

[RevMH]

I've had a few online chats with ITC, and I felt the responses were a bit too evasive. When I suggested that they change their algorithms to account for the inaccuracies I got a noncommittal response. I wonder why.


I wasn't suggesting any error in testing on your part. I just clamped mine to the cross-brace on top of the tank and took measurements of each LED color. Maybe clamping it was the key to stability? If not, then you will have discovered a problem with QC.

I absolutely didn't think you (or anyone else) were suggesting an error in my testing. I just wanted to clearly state my limitations in case anyone looked at my data as "facts" instead of a small piece of the overall pie.

When I took the air measurements, there was no movement on the device. When I took the measurements in water, there was absolutely some movement. It was slight, but I didn't have it clamped on.

 

[AKReefing]

In my testing, I've determined the PARwise is not only inaccurate when it comes to wavelength identification, but the granularity of measurements is just too coarse to identify individual peaks in the spectrum. They're generally grouped together to appear as a single, wider appearing peak. See below where the PARwise identifies the highest peak in a fluorescent bulb is at 580nm, where the actual max peak is at 546 (mercury). Whe I overlaid the two, matching the correct points of both scales, the PARwise actually seems to ignore certain wavelengths with high peaks, such as those around 490 and 710nm. Weird. I'm thinking about buying yet another spectrometer to compare findings.

 

[Nonya]

Interesting

 

[telegraham]

In my testing, I've determined the PARwise is not only inaccurate when it comes to wavelength identification, but the granularity of measurements is just too coarse to identify individual peaks in the spectrum.

You already know this, but it cannot measure MH or T5 accurately. It's an LED-only device, and even then, it's meh when used as a spectrometer.

 

[Nonya]

Why would anyone want to measure lights in demise?

 

[AKReefing]

You already know this, but it cannot measure MH or T5 accurately. It's an LED-only device, and even then, it's meh when used as a spectrometer.

Already sold it. There's a new game in town.