PARwise

[telegraham]

ITC said to me, "there is a lot of concern how he making up those evedences (sic)."

"the graphs look scaled - is it real or is photoshopped? we can see our scale but no reference of the UPRtek one. Both instruments show the peak in number - why did he hide both?"

"And alignment of instruments..."

What are they implying?

They are implying that I'm making up information. I'm not fabricating data nor have they asked for data. I find that enjoyable, as I'm also not competing with them. I'm a full-price paying customer who is sharing what users should expect from real-world use.

The PARwise misses the mark defined by Apogee. It reads PAR low. When measuring individual spectrums, or typical reef lighting spectrums, the peaks don't align with dedicated spectrometers. The PARwise also overstates UV. PAR reading ~20% low can be a big deal. BRS' SPS recommendation of 200-350 looks like 160-280. If then turning up your light in an attempt to hit that 350 number, your actual number might be 420.

If my speedometer read 70, but I was going 56, I'd have the same issue.

ITC is offering excuses under the guise of "science," and given their FB post, working the victim thing for sympathy. They should simply shift that effort to making the device better. They should try harder.

 

[AKReefing]

They are implying that I'm making up information. I'm not fabricating data nor have they asked for data. I find that enjoyable, as I'm also not competing with them. I'm a full-price paying customer who is sharing what users should expect from real-world use.

The PARwise misses the mark defined by Apogee. It reads PAR low. When measuring individual spectrums, or typical reef lighting spectrums, the peaks don't align with dedicated spectrometers. The PARwise also overstates UV. PAR reading ~20% low can be a big deal. BRS' SPS recommendation of 200-350 looks like 160-280. If then turning up your light in an attempt to hit that 350 number, your actual number might be 420.

If my speedometer read 70, but I was going 56, I'd have the same issue.

ITC is offering excuses under the guise of "science," and given their FB post, working the victim thing for sympathy. They should simply shift that effort to making the device better. They should try harder.

My "new" 69 Camaro read 90 when my GPS said I was going 60. It eventually snapped off the needle. I'm switching to digital.

You already gave the conversion factor for PAR. Does that mean their PAR measurement, other than being consistently low, is nevertheless consistent?

 

[Nonya]

I'm ok with my PAR meters. I'm still waiting for the spectral data.

 

[telegraham]

My "new" 69 Camaro read 90 when my GPS said I was going 60. It eventually snapped off the needle. I'm switching to digital.

You already gave the conversion factor for PAR. Does that mean their PAR measurement, other than being consistently low, is nevertheless consistent?

+1 for the Camaro.

I'm calling the PAR reading, with multiplier, consistent with what you might get with the Apogee 500 series.

 

[Nonya]

Still no wavelength side-by-side comparisons with the Hopoocolor, PARwise and the expensive stuff. I have a feeling you're reluctant to show side-by-side comparisons. Why?

 

[BeanAnimal]

Repeatable or not - this hobby has a growing "PAR" fetish where people are using the values as some precise measure for coral placement, yet the devices all deviate from one another, as do the spectrums being blindly (pun no pun) measured by them along with a pile of other variables.

More Ironically to me, these "precise" values that are not at all precise are then being used to "tweak" coral and fixture placement in mixed reefs (or monoculture for that matter) with corals that do not come with "ideal" spectral intensity values listed and almost certainly come from a system with a different spectral composition and/or intensity altogether.

The whole process is laughable. Sure 150 "PAR" has more spectral intensity than "50" PAR - but what more can you garner? Does that coral need 127 PAR or 132 PAR and how do we know what spectrum to tune to that PAR.

The whole thing, IMHO is silly.

The light falling on any spot in our aquarium has slightly shifting spectrum and intensity as the water moves, other corals shade it, etc. as well as the fact that the light in any two given spots is not the same and the intensity varies throughout the whole aquarium (I don't care if it is a single point source or thousands of even spaced emitters).

But lets go even further - Let's say we all have state of the art spectrometers and spectrophotometers and incident light meters and we can count very photon of every wavelength coming from our fixtures, and we can also do the same for any single spot in our aquariums.... What does that really get us unless A) we track every spot on our aquarium and know what exact spots are best through trial and error? B) somehow prevent our corals from growing out of those spots or shading other spots and/or C) get the precise spectral data from the person the coral came from so that it can be mimicked in our tank?

For a reef keeper, Is a PAR meter useful? Sure, in a very ballpark kind of way. Is spectral analysis useful? Sure in a ballpark kind of way. Even then what looks close on a spectral plot may not actually be that close from a biology standpoint and getting two fixtures from two different vendors to match is really not easy (if possible) most of the time.

Cool tools - cool data - great for comparing raw fixtures and theoretical differences, but of precise use for the average, or even high end hobbyist... I don't see it - yet we have countless people running around saying that you just MUST have a PAR meter to keep coral.

 

[Nonya]

When so many people are saying that we need to fill in the gaps in the blue-violet region with specific wavelengths, three things are necessary. First, you need confidence that the person measuring the "gaps" needs an accurate measuring device. Second, you need confidence that the LED's you're getting are the actual wavelength(s) necessary to do the job. Third, you need to know that those LEDs will provide the intensity required. That means a decent spectrometer, and a decent PAR meter.

 

[Cichlid Dad]

If you're a PARwise user, multiply ANY of your PAR measurements by 1.26. I’ve compared the PARwise against the VBR-Aqua and Apogee MQ-500 (with immersion applied) at two different points in my tank. That data follows:

Sand
Apogee - 209
VBR-Aqua - 199 (4.75% low)
PARwise - 155 (22% low)

Rock work
Apogee - 243
VBR - 243 (spot-in)
PARwise - 194 (20% low)

Readings were taken with flow off and my ReeFi/GHL Mitras at their typical daytime settings. I made no changes to anything.

The same multiplier applies to the PARwise's plant mode.

That makes sense, I have only used ParWise and get 250ish at my arco rocks using xr15 g6 ab+ @ 100%. I figured that was all I was going to get out of the light so I took a wait and see. It's been 4 months and acro has never looked better

 

[BeanAnimal]

When so many people are saying that we need to fill in the gaps in the blue-violet region with specific wavelengths, three things are necessary. First, you need confidence that the person measuring the "gaps" needs an accurate measuring device. Second, you need confidence that the LED's you're getting are the actual wavelength(s) necessary to do the job. Third, you need to know that those LEDs will provide the intensity required. That means a decent spectrometer, and a decent PAR meter.

Yes - because none of us were successful growing coral for the last 50+ years and because LED fixtures are yet to be shown to grow coral without the use of a spectrophotometer or a PAR meter...

I will ask again - what standard for what coral and even what scientific study or data are you measuring both intensity and spectrum to, and even if you could, what about the other spots in the tank and the other coral varieties...

The tools feel important so people are making them out to be important when (save a few oddball fixtures) most well known fixtures have a known output and widely published settings that produce light that is not only capable of growing corals, but excel at doing so.

It is that simple - PAR meters are cool, spectrometers and spectrophotometers are cool. You don't need them to keep coral and they really don't provide any advantage to most people, even if they swear they do.

 

[Cichlid Dad]

When so many people are saying that we need to fill in the gaps in the blue-violet region with specific wavelengths, three things are necessary. First, you need confidence that the person measuring the "gaps" needs an accurate measuring device. Second, you need confidence that the LED's you're getting are the actual wavelength(s) necessary to do the job. Third, you need to know that those LEDs will provide the intensity required. That means a decent spectrometer, and a decent PAR meter.

I'm sorry but this is just not true. Any of the lights available for reef tanks, for the most part, will grow coral just fine including cheap black boxes. Some better than others. Coral have been found to be adaptive to light spectrum and over time will adapt. I'm just throwing out a number here but I would guess 90% of the reef tanks out there have never seen a light meter of any kind.

 

[telegraham]

Still no wavelength side-by-side comparisons with the Hopoocolor, PARwise and the expensive stuff. I have a feeling you're reluctant to show side-by-side comparisons. Why?

Your request is very (very) low on my priorities list, and I'm not reluctant to show a comparison. It's that I suspect it's of little, or no, value to most users, you want it to prove your point (and not being cool about it), and my interest was in providing users with a multiplier that puts them within a reasonable PAR range of an Apogee. I did that, and I hope some find that info useful. Others won't, and I'm perfectly comfortable with that.

The whole thing, IMHO is silly.

I don't disagree with you, I understand your position, but the info I've shared isn't for you.

Some want to know how their lights are performing or to be able to set their lights without having to rely on information from others. I'm absolutely one of those wanting to know people. I'm running three lights from two different manufacturers, and the recommended settings for my choice of lighting over my tank may not exist.

Regarding others' testing, what I've enjoyed is that so many who haven't tested, then have the opportunity to test, find that their range is much lower than expected. Not necessarily a bad thing, but it speaks to the state of modern reef lighting.

Concerning the PARwise, 20% low can be a pretty big number. I'm not at all targeting specific numbers, but maybe some are targeting BRS' SPS recommendation of 200-350. Looking for those numbers will look like 160-280 when using a PARwise. If those users then turn up their lights in an attempt to hit that 350 number, their actual number might be 420. That might not work out well. Or maybe it will. It's reefing.

 

[Nonya]

I'm sorry but this is just not true. Any of the lights available for reef tanks, for the most part, will grow coral just fine including cheap black boxes. Some better than others. Coral have been found to be adaptive to light spectrum and over time will adapt. I'm just throwing out a number here but I would guess 90% of the reef tanks out there have never seen a light meter of any kind.

I think you misunderstood me. I agree that any light will grow corals. I've done it with 465 and 450 alone.

My point is that multiple people on this site and others are actually discussing the gaps between 400 and 500nm, somehow thinking filling them will somehow benefit their corals. At best, adding to the blue-violet range will trigger additional proteins to fluoresce.

 

[Nonya]

Your request is very (very) low on my priorities list, and I'm not reluctant to show a comparison. It's that I suspect it's of little, or no, value to most users, you want it to prove your point...

It's ok, I have the data I need. You lost.

 

[BeanAnimal]

I don't disagree with you, I understand your position, but the info I've shared isn't for you.

Ohh I get that for sure, my comments were not directed toward you or anybody testing fixtures, that is what the tools are for and the data allows us to make meaningful comparisons. As well it is part of the dataset the negates the need for the average reefer to invest in the tools.

Some want to know how their lights are performing or to be able to set their lights without having to rely on information from others. I'm absolutely one of those wanting to know people. I'm running three lights from two different manufacturers, and the recommended settings for my choice of lighting over my tank may not exist.

You are using spectrum and intensity to tailor to self derived targets through a somewhat scientific process and trial and error, coupled with a deeper understanding of what you are trying accomplish. You are an edge case, as is Dana, as is Sanjay. As opposed to the average reefer using a PAR meter, no target other than somebody told them “227 PAR” and obsoletely no spectral reference to that PAR, let alone the understanding of spectral intensity to begin with.

Regarding others' testing, what I've enjoyed is that so many who haven't tested, then have the opportunity to test, find that their range is much lower than expected. Not necessarily a bad thing, but it speaks to the state of modern reef lighting.

I am not against people testing and learning and sharing (by any means). I think it is wonderful that our only option is no longer a $20K Minolta instrument.

Concerning the PARwise, 20% low can be a pretty big number. I'm not at all targeting specific numbers, but maybe some are targeting BRS' SPS recommendation of 200-350.

Exactly, and also somewhat the crux of my point. Error amongst devices and methods, and ballpark targets (sans spectral measurements) are about the useful limit of a PAR meter for most folks.


Thanks for the thoughtful response, sorry if my post came off as directed toward the measurement data you continue to provide to the community.

 

[telegraham]

Thanks for the thoughtful response, sorry if my post came off as directed toward the measurement data you continue to provide to the community.

No apology necessary, as I very much appreciated the thought provoking share. You made me see it from another perspective, and I’m grateful. Thank you!

 

[Reefer Reboot]

I just came across an interesting situation with my PARwise. When opening it with Microsoft edge I got a PAR reading of 248, but when I opened it with Google Chrome it read 203. Can anyone else duplicate this discrepency?
Edge

Chrome

 

[AKReefing]

Is there anything on the ITC page?

 

[Reefer Reboot]

ITC calls out both Chrome and Edge as working with the PARwise.

 

[Cichlid Dad]

I will have to test this weekend

 

[GiancarloM]

I just came across an interesting situation with my PARwise. When opening it with Microsoft edge I got a PAR reading of 248, but when I opened it with Google Chrome it read 203. Can anyone else duplicate this discrepency?
Edge

Chrome

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