Just when u think led is lasting...

[LittleBurger]

Just read in RC. Someone pointed out a link.

http://hennings-miniriff.jimdo.com/vortrag-sindelfingen-2013/messungen/verluste-von-led-modulen/

Ophek Atlantik loses 80% in 8mths!?!

Led may last but not the spectrum n par. Not sure how accurate are these studies and do the corals response negatively to this. So planning to monitor the kessils based on the response of the corals.

[youdontnowm]

and about radion loosing 60% par after 2 years

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2388439

[Evolutionz]

am i right to say the sol lost 9% and razor 13% lost? in just 8 months? this alone is bad enough..

[youdontnowm]

am i right to say the sol lost 9% and razor 13% lost? in just 8 months? this alone is bad enough..

AI SOL = 9.76%/year

razor = 13.5%/year

orphek = 80.09% /year

verlust pro jahr = loss per year ( google translate ) lol

[LittleBurger]

If all of them use Cree led but performance differ greatly then something fishy.

This is sibey sian news.

[youdontnowm]

If all of them use Cree led but performance differ greatly then something fishy.

This is sibey sian news.

orphek not using cree haha thats why drop till so jialat i guess ?

hmmm i expected razor to drop the least par as their design seems to help the cooling alot. lol

the tests also didn't state if its hung in the canopy or open air lol. if hang in the canopy, surely theres more heat inside which will heat up the lighting

[Quas111]

Spectrum drop because of improper heat management, too high voltage or crappy diodes. I would say it's crappy diodes and heat management

[Evolutionz]

number 1 killer for led is heat.

[LittleBurger]

I thought heat will just kill the led. So need to self diy water cooled heatsink of led just like the CPU processor? So need to change led every few years liao ah. More ex than mh bulb le.

[Evolutionz]

no led will last what they said 50,000 hours, not one is even close. even if they can last 5 years without losing more than 10% PAR, not much people will stick to the same fixture for 5 years due to always improving LED technology.

[diki88]

As with any new tech stuff, all these are planned obsolescence on the manufacturer's part as well.

[Quas111]

As with any new tech stuff, all these are planned obsolescence on the manufacturer's part as well.

planned obsolescence works when they quote a products lifespan and it stops working at nearly exactly the end of its lifespan(or warranty). If they are losing spectrum like this it's smearing their reputation so it's unlikely this is a result of planned obsolescence

[youdontnowm]

Yup, i wouldnt use more than 2years. I plann to change led after 1.5-2years. Hahaha

Sent from my GT-N7105 using Tapatalk

[diki88]

planned obsolescence works when they quote a products lifespan and it stops working at nearly exactly the end of its lifespan(or warranty). If they are losing spectrum like this it's smearing their reputation so it's unlikely this is a result of planned obsolescence

for this case bro, im more leaning towards the other end result of planned obsolescence, which is making the said product unfashionable or needing further upgrades. we have seen how after a while that a light set is released, there is a "lens upgrade" that is released to boost PAR and whatnots so that it will be up to par,forgive the pun, with a newly released light set. Most respected LED makers set their warranty at 2 years when the claim of 25,000 -50,000 hours is actually 2.5 to 5+ years.

[Evolutionz]

I wonder if lost 80% in par can claim warranty? Any orphek user with their leds over the tank for more than a year?

[Jamie @ Vertex]

As one who is in the business (and reads German), I thought I should comment a bit on this.

First Henning's article needs to be taken in context. He admits his measurements are done at home and one cannot consider his results as firm fact. They are simply what he measured, under his parameters from a single unit of any specific type. There are no controls, simply imperical information. He is comparing various types of LED technology, which, quite simply, cannot be compared to each other using the same parameters. Also, if what he is reporting were a consistent truth, then I think we would have heard this from customers. Believe me, disappointed customers are generally loud and public! I've not heard from any related complaints. To cut to the quick, I do not agree with his methods, results or conclusions, although I certainly appreciate his efforts. It is an excellent example of how information is collected and published. The interpretation is pretty open (and I must compliment you all for your scepticism. Just because it is in the internet, doesn't make it true)

Mind you, LEDs are not created equal by any means. Of the products tested by Henning we are seeing a wide range of quality, both in build, and LED, not to mention the technology involved. Add to this, the fact that older LEDs may carry the same name as newest models, without a bin number, one cannot evaluate the quality of the LED. Older LEDs are often dumped on the market at cheap prices. You need to know what you are getting.

For the record, Cree LEDs from their XT series have a life of 50,000 hours with at least 70% efficiency. If you look at the data they offer, you see there is a stronger drop-off in the first 2 years, which then levels out. This is well below 10% and does not coincide with Henning's results. Why? Well, I can't say for sure, but there are quite a few factors involved, which we know little about, such as the actual measurement technique, as well as the quality of other components involved, such as the optic involved with the technology. As you may well know, an optic has only limited transparency and looses 10%+ of the light immediately. They are made of plastic and this may (will) loose transparency, resulting is loss of intensity. Clearly not the LEDs fault!

I don't find planned obsolescence a real theme. Think about it. LEDs last many times longer than other light sources. Obsolescence? Not really. Quite the opposite. Theses light sources are designed to last as long as the technology allows....if they are from quality. There is a lot of crap on the market, no matter where you look. Someone is always looking for a bargain and will certainly find one. But was is a bargain? Depends on your definition, doesn't it? That is why there are many products on the market. We all have our own standards.

I didn't really want to discuss the Vertex Illumina, but it is the lamp I know best and I have been using it since its beginnings, well before I started working for Vertex Aquaristik. It is an example of well developed LED aquarium lighting offering the best available technologies to the aquarist. Yes, it is very popular and it does cost more than many lamps available. It delivers, which is the key to its success and, yes, it has been copied a few times (not very well, but so are copies! so much for the sincerest form of flatery!). Some of what it has that many other lamps do not offer are: effective passive and active cooling. Yes, heat is the worst enemy for LEDs. Proper heat management is a must! The Illumina actually monitors the temperature and will reduce the LED intensity to compensate, should the temperature becomes an issue. Finally, the lamp would shut down, if a real danger was there (such as ventilator failure in a hot room). It does not use additional optics, thus no loss of light and no hot spots. It is completely modular, meaning you can update and/or modify the lamp at any time. It uses best materials; the heatsink is massive aluminium. No corrosion., the LEDs are top Cree bins and offer high lumen per watt, the modules may be replaced by the user, no need to send it in, you can create very complex day/night programms or very simple ones. A very versatile and useful tool for the marine and freshwater aquarist.

I mention these features as they give you an idea of what is actually involved in a premium aquarium product. It is not just the LEDs. There is a great deal more involved, the result of research and developement, much of which assures the long life of the LEDs, as well as giving one the option to follow technology advances, creating lighting programms that suite your tank, change your lighting to suite you changing needs. Not to mention having a product that will serve you for years to come.

In the end, comparing something like PAR is akin to comparing the colour of oranges. Certainly the colour may be indicative, but it is not definitive to the actual quality of the fruit.

I do not plan to replace my lamp every few years. I personally expect 10 years from a premium lighting system, assuming I take care of it, just like any other investment product, such as a skimmer, media filter, circulation pump, etc.

I hope this helps put thing into perspective.

Jamie

[erikokelf]

Very detail and informative stuff by Jamie =)

Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk

[LittleBurger]

As one who is in the business (and reads German), I thought I should comment a bit on this. First Henning's article needs to be taken in context. He admits his measurements are done at home and one cannot consider his results as firm fact. Jamie

actually I just feels he's putting tat sentence as being "polite" to the manufacturers and concerned of being flame by diehard supporters. I feel that the measurement methods conducted by him may somewhat be the same as that utilize by the light manufacturers. As I feel there isn't much high tech equipment involved when testing the various parameters. How I reached this conclusion is all the product pamphlets from the manufactures are showing the charts of the same parameters being tested. I agree that different light fixtures uses different grade LEDs which would correlate to quality issues due to profit margin. However most of these light fixtures are not cheap. And consumers shouldn't be paying for a highly priced USA/Europe made light fixtures but its performance can only last 2-3years due to known & unknown parts quality issue which affect the high quality LED's performance. I do understand the led tech is still young but parts quality which lead to reduction of led performance(heat highest factor) shows the poor R&D of a company. They could have use some methods to determine the failure rate of the parts that directly affect the heat dissipation of the led. In my eyes, they are no different from Chinese made light fixtures. Just use high quality LEDs (if they really do) add some heat sinks n fans n make a fanciful housing with programmable logics and price it highly. I hope the light manufacturers take note of Henning's test and make an effort to show the longevity of their product. That way, they can increase the market share. I know people embrace new technology and tends to change frequently but my opinion is after some time, u will realize that changing of led fixtures is different from changing a mh bulb. Whole livestock risk is involved.

[Jamie @ Vertex]

One cannot ignore that Henning's opinions are his. We cannot dispute his right to express them. Likewise, one does not need to agree with him and certainly has the right to find the results questionable. To extrapolate from what he has published, that LEDs are not what you expect, is a personal opinion. I think one should leave it at that, instead of trying to hammer a square peg into a round hole.

There is a big difference between designing and copying a design. At Vertex we use a light laboratory to test the lamp parameters during the design process. This testing is to prove or disprove our own theories and calculations in LED lighting. Do other companies do similar tests? Some certainly do, while others (with the number of copy-cat fixtures, we could say most) simply offer the public that which they want in an untested fixture. In other words, they copy that which is already available, at least visibly. Other than components integrated into a fixture and their subsequent programming and driving, there are many factors involved in good lighting.

I would have to disagree with your statement:

" all the product pamphlets from the manufactures are showing the charts of the same parameters being tested. "

You may be finding similar info in lamps that are copies, of course. What would you expect, if one simply copied? Such statements are gross generalisations and do not support your argument. You are not considering why a product is sold using particular parameters. It is telling the customer what he/she has asked to know about. These infos are a reflection of current interests and understandings amongst the buying public. Blinding your public with abstract science is not going to sell you many fixtures.

With so much written about PAR, Kelvin, Watts, Lumens, etc., of course we will find these statistics used. Are they actually of interest to the aquarist is the question. Most are not, in the context of modern LEDs. What was usefull with static light sources, such as halides and T-5s, are now only relative qualities that need to be taken into context or not used at all. Still, these catch words will remain until the general public is re-educated to understanding the new technology. We have a true paradigm shift in aquarium lighting. Even spectrum, which is really at the core of proper lighting, has become an abstract, as we can now change the spectrum at will with the better fixtures. It is a new world for lighting.

cheers,

Jamie

[LittleBurger]

One cannot ignore that Henning's opinions are his. We cannot dispute his right to express them. Likewise, one does not need to agree with him and certainly has the right to find the results questionable. To extrapolate from what he has published, that LEDs are not what you expect, is a personal opinion. I think one should leave it at that, instead of trying to hammer a square peg into a round hole.

There is a big difference between designing and copying a design. At Vertex we use a light laboratory to test the lamp parameters during the design process. This testing is to prove or disprove our own theories and calculations in LED lighting. Do other companies do similar tests? Some certainly do, while others (with the number of copy-cat fixtures, we could say most) simply offer the public that which they want in an untested fixture. In other words, they copy that which is already available, at least visibly. Other than components integrated into a fixture and their subsequent programming and driving, there are many factors involved in good lighting.

I would have to disagree with your statement:

" all the product pamphlets from the manufactures are showing the charts of the same parameters being tested. "

You may be finding similar info in lamps that are copies, of course. What would you expect, if one simply copied? Such statements are gross generalisations and do not support your argument. You are not considering why a product is sold using particular parameters. It is telling the customer what he/she has asked to know about. These infos are a reflection of current interests and understandings amongst the buying public. Blinding your public with abstract science is not going to sell you many fixtures.

With so much written about PAR, Kelvin, Watts, Lumens, etc., of course we will find these statistics used. Are they actually of interest to the aquarist is the question. Most are not, in the context of modern LEDs. What was usefull with static light sources, such as halides and T-5s, are now only relative qualities that need to be taken into context or not used at all. Still, these catch words will remain until the general public is re-educated to understanding the new technology. We have a true paradigm shift in aquarium lighting. Even spectrum, which is really at the core of proper lighting, has become an abstract, as we can now change the spectrum at will with the better fixtures. It is a new world for lighting.

cheers,

Jamie

firstly, I started this thread is to have awareness for consumers to understand abt led fixtures after someone(not a big company I suppose) took the time and effort to conduct some tests. Tests on par, kelvin, watts, lumens etc. which are what the light companies have been using to advertise their lights to inform the public to buy their lights. Tests which the consumers(aquarists)look at when they first look at the lighting fixtures.

What I am hoping is since companies have more $ and smart people around, they should be able to conduct tests to counter Henning's hypothesis, unless they dun have confidence in their own products or they simply know Henning's is right.

Consumers pay for what the companies advertise. It's not about hammering a square peg into a round hole. If consumers buy stuff without thinking, then I probably would set up a company and sell stuff to them.... Ignorant consumers, easy money.

By the time when the habitants of reefers' tank start to show problems, definitely responsible reefers would conduct the same tests. And if the tests coincide with Henning's, then it would be a coffin nail into the hole.

I hope a lighting company will take the lead and prove otherwise Henning's finding. It will definitely get the attention and win some market share.

[Jamie @ Vertex]

I don't want to get into a discussion about marketing and product developement, this is not what I see as the topic of this thread. Maybe this is part of your original motivation. We could both carry on forever, as it is a fascinating and complex subject.

You ask if companies take heed of what individuals, such as Henning, write. To be honest, I do not know. I can tell you that Vertex did have a lamp in his original tests (year ago) and his results didn't come even close to our lab results. Why? He wasn't taking proper readings. The information he was providing was incorrect in the context of the lamps design. As an example, the Illumina is designed to be hung 15cm over the water surface. He was hanging it at different heights. The lamp was not designed to be used in this manner. In the end, you have apples and oranges. He was attempting to fit everything into the same mold.

Bulk Reef Supply did a great video review of the Illumina, on a real tank, with PAR readings and they tell a very different story. They were even higher than our lab results! Why? Well, there are many factors, but one that is not considered is the reflection from glass, which we took advantage of in the Illumina design. In our lab readings and calculations it played a role and in a tank, with its decor, it can play an even stronger role. Most users do not even realise this can change light intensity by 10%.

As in his latest readings, he is concentrating on a specific item and taking it out of relationship to the lamps. He may be showing an important degradation in the end product....or not. From the method and data, one cannot take this seriously. If the data was correct, I think we would have heard a lot more from users on the various forums. When I read peoples complaints, it typically involves an inexpensive copy-lamp and/or incorrect use.

Again, we come back to design and purpose.

I don't want you to think I am jumping on you, but I think you are looking for more than is presented in this data, as well as not comparing it to other data already out there.

cheers,

Jamie

[LittleBurger]

I don't want to get into a discussion about marketing and product developement, this is not what I see as the topic of this thread. Maybe this is part of your original motivation. We could both carry on forever, as it is a fascinating and complex subject. You ask if companies take heed of what individuals, such as Henning, write. To be honest, I do not know. I can tell you that Vertex did have a lamp in his original tests (year ago) and his results didn't come even close to our lab results. Why? He wasn't taking proper readings. The information he was providing was incorrect in the context of the lamps design. As an example, the Illumina is designed to be hung 15cm over the water surface. He was hanging it at different heights. The lamp was not designed to be used in this manner. In the end, you have apples and oranges. He was attempting to fit everything into the same mold. Bulk Reef Supply did a great video review of the Illumina, on a real tank, with PAR readings and they tell a very different story. They were even higher than our lab results! Why? Well, there are many factors, but one that is not considered is the reflection from glass, which we took advantage of in the Illumina design. In our lab readings and calculations it played a role and in a tank, with its decor, it can play an even stronger role. Most users do not even realise this can change light intensity by 10%. As in his latest readings, he is concentrating on a specific item and taking it out of relationship to the lamps. He may be showing an important degradation in the end product....or not. From the method and data, one cannot take this seriously. If the data was correct, I think we would have heard a lot more from users on the various forums. When I read peoples complaints, it typically involves an inexpensive copy-lamp and/or incorrect use. Again, we come back to design and purpose. I don't want you to think I am jumping on you, but I think you are looking for more than is presented in this data, as well as not comparing it to other data already out there. cheers, Jamie

Hi Jamie, thanks for your inputs. It's good to have someone to discuss on this. Wonders does the companies of his test subjects will do anything to rebut his finding. I consider the test subjects in Henning's test to be expensive fixtures, which is the reason I'm shock about the degradation of par after a year. I know that good things dun come cheap and hope that expensive stuff better be good.

[sherman]

I do not agree with the test result.

I have being using LED aquarium light since solaris time.

During that time there is very little choice and is expensive.

The leds are all running near to peak allowable and the

life is short

Today with the price of LED dropping and performance greatly

improve .Choices are many.

The prices you paid some come is in relation to the component

quality ,design ,material quality and service quality.

LED as we know come in many different bin.

The more tolerance tight bin is going to cost you more.

And I mean a drastic different in cost

That is where the price different fall .

But on the whole most of the led Light set today have rather

acceptable quality.

So the drastic drop off from original spectrum in a short time

is not possible.Although there are drop off.

Today the weakest link in any LED light is the power supply.

Most of the time they are the culpit and upon changing a new unit

every thing is back to normal.

Hope this explain why I do not believe in the test result publish

[LittleBurger]

I do not agree with the test result. I have being using LED aquarium light since solaris time. During that time there is very little choice and is expensive. The leds are all running near to peak allowable and the life is short Today with the price of LED dropping and performance greatly improve .Choices are many. The prices you paid some come is in relation to the component quality ,design ,material quality and service quality. LED as we know come in many different bin. The more tolerance tight bin is going to cost you more. And I mean a drastic different in cost That is where the price different fall . But on the whole most of the led Light set today have rather acceptable quality. So the drastic drop off from original spectrum in a short time is not possible.Although there are drop off. Today the weakest link in any LED light is the power supply. Most of the time they are the culpit and upon changing a new unit every thing is back to normal. Hope this explain why I do not believe in the test result publish

power supply, that's a great finding. High resistance, Low current, dim lights? So also due to heat? Will adding more heat sinks to the power supply help? I find that for radion n kessil, their ps quite hot. Last wk just went sim lim for 2 heatsinks with fins.

[RockyBoy]

I do not agree with the test result.

I have being using LED aquarium light since solaris time.

During that time there is very little choice and is expensive.

The leds are all running near to peak allowable and the

life is short

Today with the price of LED dropping and performance greatly

improve .Choices are many.

The prices you paid some come is in relation to the component

quality ,design ,material quality and service quality.

LED as we know come in many different bin.

The more tolerance tight bin is going to cost you more.

And I mean a drastic different in cost

That is where the price different fall .

But on the whole most of the led Light set today have rather

acceptable quality.

So the drastic drop off from original spectrum in a short time

is not possible.Although there are drop off.

Today the weakest link in any LED light is the power supply.

Most of the time they are the culpit and upon changing a new unit

every thing is back to normal.

Hope this explain why I do not believe in the test result publish

Yes agree with you with your disagreeness..

Also, true, power supply plays major part on the life/performance of the LED.