Neptune SKY LED

[A. grandis]

Some good info:

 

[reefiniteasy]

I see it as phillips is making a buck with neptune in a partnership.... no?

Edit: I deleted this post. Even though it is my opinion, I guess I have no basis for it.

 

[nornicle]

Do not have analytics on anything except for pricing, power, LED count. Pricing is in line with other 200 W leds:

SKY: $870 (219 W, 104 LEDs)
Orphek: $770 (160 W, 42 LEDs) to $1100 (210 W, 78 LEDs)
XR30: $840 (205-215W, 102 LEDs)
Kessil a500x: $740 (185 W, 100 LEDs)
CC: $900 (170 W, 68 LEDs)
GHL: $820 (195 W, 72 LEDs)

ATI Straton $1100 (230w 153 LEDs) passively cooled and does 30”x30” and 9.4lbs which I don’t think is that crazy heavy (one of the reasons given for active cooling).

I’m biased as I use them but I think they are quite uncommon in America. After using g5 XR15s in my office I’m not sure I’ll go back to active cooling, sounds too much like I’m living next to a pc with a running graphics card!

Everything else is speculation until we see the #’s. The only place that has given a consistent data set of data on a broad set of lights is BRS... so that is the video I am looking forward too.

 

[elysics]

That’s what I disagree with. It’s not a partnership. They may have purchased their diodes but they violated their patents.

You are aware that a company can pay money to another company to use their patents, right? Or do you have inside information that Neptune didn't?

 

[reefiniteasy]

You are aware that a company can pay money to another company to use their patents right? Or do you have inside information that Neptune didn't?

Absolutely, very aware. The question is did they?

 

[elysics]

Absolutely, very aware. The question is did they?

Maybe they did, maybe they did not, maybe they don't violate the patents due to technicalities. The question is, why do you have an opinion on the matter to the point that you wrote that you disagree? Do you have a reason to disagree instead of going with the assumption that a companies lawyers did their jobs properly?

 

[reefiniteasy]

Probably they did, maybe they did not, maybe they don't violate the patents due to technicalities. The question is, why do you have an opinion on the matter to the point that you wrote that you disagree? Do you have a reason to disagree instead of going with the assumption that a companies lawyers did their jobs properly?

Good points. I don’t know. I tend to see the negative side of things and seeing the patented tech and the Sky I took it from that point of view. But you are right, who knows and it’s probably a partnership. I will remove my comments as they are not warranted.

 

[rtparty]

I got to see these in person over the new BRS 900. The max coverage people are going to get is 24*18. It is a 14*10 panel and Neptune can't break the laws of physics here. Of course, don't bring this up though or you'll be ridiculed by Neptune for it.

Can you imagine if people said you could cover a 60" tank with a 24" T5? I don't care what designs anyone ever came out with, it's just not happening. Why then do people honestly believe a 14" wide fixture can cover 36"?

The truth is, they can't. Light is only being distributed from one angle and there in lies the problem with so many LEDs. You need twice the recommended amount. You must cover every square inch with a diode. Go look at the most impressive LED tanks. They all run more fixtures than these companies claim are needed

 

[oreo54]

When comparing to the sunlight over the reef in nature we see why halides is the king of artificial lights. Corals were supposed to be illuminated by the sun. Halides are the closest we can get to that in terms of physical application for their metabolism. Shimmer, penetration, deliver of photons, reflection abilities and spectrum blending and action (matrix) are some of the great qualities halides have that no other light source can substitute, except for the real deal: the sun.

So which of these is close to sunlight?
unless you are running a 6500k Iwasaki none are close to sunlight...at any depth.

 

[bobnicaragua]

Thanks very much! Every time I get tired and think I should stop publishing my comments I receive good compliments like this. It's a pleasure to know we are not wasting time here!

You were an influence on me switching to halides as well. Acropora coloration, growth, & polyp extension have all been better with halide & T5.

 

[flourishofmediocrity]

I got to see these in person over the new BRS 900. The max coverage people are going to get is 24*18. It is a 14*10 panel and Neptune can't break the laws of physics here. Of course, don't bring this up though or you'll be ridiculed by Neptune for it.

Can you imagine if people said you could cover a 60" tank with a 24" T5? I don't care what designs anyone ever came out with, it's just not happening. Why then do people honestly believe a 14" wide fixture can cover 36"?

The truth is, they can't. Light is only being distributed from one angle and there in lies the problem with so many LEDs. You need twice the recommended amount. You must cover every square inch with a diode. Go look at the most impressive LED tanks. They all run more fixtures than these companies claim are needed

I forget the dimensions of Marc's 400G tank, but he only has 3 sky over his reef and these are the PAR numbers he recorded:

 

[Jon's Reef]

All of which are lower than his halide readings. Which is to be expected when running less wattage. His 250w bulbs on his older tank were putting out over 220 PAR on the sand bed. Double what the SKY is putting out in some spots.

150/58% = 258 PAR @ 100% ?

Not to mention the spectrums are not even in the same ballpark between the two light sources.

Other than the emission spikes, could one not adjust the SKY to the same spectrum if one wanted to?

 

[zalick]

I love all the arm chair scientists and old men hugging their metal halides....

what does age and sex have to do with any of this discussion?

 

[oreo54]

All of which are lower than his halide readings. Which is to be expected when running less wattage. His 250w bulbs on his older tank were putting out over 220 PAR on the sand bed. Double what the SKY is putting out in some spots. Not to mention the spectrums are not even in the same ballpark between the two light sources.

Sadly, just another bought off YouTuber and I don't mean that with any disrespect towards Marc or his channel. I have long followed Marc and his tanks. Clear back to the Reef Central days before he was banned over there.

Neptune isn't stupid. They made sure influencers had their lights. Smart business move but does nothing for the hobby. The last thing this hobby needs right now is more $900 lights.

Love the judgement before any real data is in.

At 100% est par would be 302.

 

[rtparty]

150/58% = 258 PAR @ 100% ?


Other than the emission spikes, could one not adjust the SKY to the same spectrum if one wanted to?

I missed the % at the top...the far right corner sitting at 100 PAR might bump up to 130 or so at 100%. PAR is not linear. Upping the lights 42% will not result in 42% more PAR.

No, to the second question. The SKY contains zero UV and zero IR. LEDs also smooth out their spectral plots quite heavily. There should be larger gaps in between but marketing does some funny things. Years ago, I worked with an LED company and tested lights and configurations for them. I was sent true plots for each LED so I could better understand how to mix and match to the best of our ability. Quite eye openeing to see it all. I have lost those plots over the years.

People will argue what spectrum corals actually use. I can say that "science" in this regard is always evolving as we learn new things. I can also say that experience tells me that a lot of corals prefer the true, full spectrum that halides provide. There is a theory floating around with some of the big names in the industry who study all this, that corals will change colors depending on the spectrum they receive and what is lacking in that spectrum. Hence, all the rainbow stuff under LEDs. There is so much missing, the corals are changing pigments all over the place so they can change the wavelength of light they receive.

 

[A. grandis]

You were an influence on me switching to halides as well. Acropora coloration, growth, & polyp extension have all been better with halide & T5.

Thanks for letting me know! Very happy for you!!!

 

[oreo54]

Upping the lights 42% will not result in 42% more PAR.

Probably close though the higher you drive leds and create more heat efficiency does drop ..a bit.

There is a theory floating around with some of the big names in the industry who study all this, that corals will change colors depending on the spectrum they receive

Old news. Sooo what is the real color?
Tricky question

Revealed: why some corals are more colourful than others

The stunning colours of coral attract many divers to the world’s reefs but, for us coral scientists, one mystery has always remained. Swimming over a reef, you can frequently spot brightly coloured coral…

theconversation.com

Aquarium Corals: Making Corals Colorful: New Information on Acropora species

We will look at colors of some of the most popular reef aquarium corals - Acropora species (Family Acroporidae). There is a considerable amount of relatively new information presented in this article.

reefs.com

 

[Terence]

I got to see these in person over the new BRS 900. The max coverage people are going to get is 24*18. It is a 14*10 panel and Neptune can't break the laws of physics here. Of course, don't bring this up though or you'll be ridiculed by Neptune for it.

Can you imagine if people said you could cover a 60" tank with a 24" T5? I don't care what designs anyone ever came out with, it's just not happening. Why then do people honestly believe a 14" wide fixture can cover 36"?

The truth is, they can't. Light is only being distributed from one angle and there in lies the problem with so many LEDs. You need twice the recommended amount. You must cover every square inch with a diode. Go look at the most impressive LED tanks. They all run more fixtures than these companies claim are needed

Sadly, just another bought off YouTuber and I don't mean that with any disrespect towards Marc or his channel. I have long followed Marc and his tanks. Clear back to the Reef Central days before he was banned over there.

Ryan Thomson, first off, if the light panel of 10x14 cannot cover more than 24x18" then there must be a lot of manufacturers lying out there about their coverage (or breaking the laws of physics) when their lights have 1/3 or less that surface area of light than the SKY. This comment is complete nonsense as the actual coverage any light gets is related to its height mounted off the water. The question is whether or not you can get good enough light intensity, with the right spectrum, in the places you want to grow coral, and if you are lucky, hitting as much of that coral surface as possible with the power you have and the light height you have chosen. Furthermore, with only four of these sized lights over my 96x32x32 tank for many years, I guess my 30", edge to edge tank colonies I have grown also defied the laws of physics. If anyone reading this wants to see the light coverage, I encourage you to go to my Sunday morning RAP live video on FaceBook and see the tank there - 72"x28"x22" and see if it looks dark and then see the PAR, measured clear in the corner of the tank, next to the black back wall, measuring 207.

On all of this I really do not have the time to engage in a ton of back and forth. So please do not expect it. We know the SKY blankets the aquarium with light - measured by many instruments. We know it grows great colored coral, really well. We have personal tanks to show it. So at this point, I will simply leave this for those who will continue to use it and show the results to you all over the coming months and years rather than spend time answering to speculations. For those of you who will be in Florida for Aquashella on 6/12-6/13 or in NYC for RAP there on 6/26-27, I encourage you to come on down and see for yourself. Bring your own spectrometers, par meters, whatever you wish and you can make measurements.

As for your comments about Marc Levenson, just saying "I don't mean that with any disrespect" does not alleviate a person from said disrespect. Marc Levenson is one of the most trusted, long term, successful, and honest people in this hobby. You calling into question his ethics is just uncalled for, a bit gross and below what I thought @revhtree has as expectations of behavior as he been trying to build as an ideal reefing community here on R2R.

 

[revhtree]

I have removed several posts and posts that quoted those posts. Flaming people or companies, being rude and calling names isn’t acceptable here at R2R. Other platforms may be more appropriate for flaming people and companies, NOT R2R. You are welcome to offer your opinion in a respectful way. Anything other than that will be addressed.

Thanks.

 

[A. grandis]

Ryan Thomson, first off, if the light panel of 10x14 cannot cover more than 24x18" then there must be a lot of manufacturers lying out there about their coverage (or breaking the laws of physics) when their lights have 1/3 or less that surface area of light than the SKY. This comment is complete nonsense as the actual coverage any light gets is related to its height mounted off the water. The question is whether or not you can get good enough light intensity, with the right spectrum, in the places you want to grow coral, and if you are lucky, hitting as much of that coral surface as possible with the power you have and the light height you have chosen. Furthermore, with only four of these sized lights over my 96x32x32 tank for many years, I guess my 30", edge to edge tank colonies I have grown also defied the laws of physics. If anyone reading this wants to see the light coverage, I encourage you to go to my Sunday morning RAP live video on FaceBook and see the tank there - 72"x28"x22" and see if it looks dark and then see the PAR, measured clear in the corner of the tank, next to the black back wall, measuring 207.

On all of this I really do not have the time to engage in a ton of back and forth. So please do not expect it. We know the SKY blankets the aquarium with light - measured by many instruments. We know it grows great colored coral, really well. We have personal tanks to show it. So at this point, I will simply leave this for those who will continue to use it and show the results to you all over the coming months and years rather than spend time answering to speculations. For those of you who will be in Florida for Aquashella on 6/12-6/13 or in NYC for RAP there on 6/26-27, I encourage you to come on down and see for yourself. Bring your own spectrometers, par meters, whatever you wish and you can make measurements.

As for your comments about Marc Levenson, just saying "I don't mean that with any disrespect" does not alleviate a person from said disrespect. Marc Levenson is one of the most trusted, long term, successful, and honest people in this hobby. You calling into question his ethics is just uncalled for, a bit gross and below what I thought @revhtree has as expectations of behavior as he been trying to build as an ideal reefing community here on R2R.

I want to thank you for coming here and participate. This is great!
I will take advantage to ask you if the SKY will grow corals BETTER than metal halides and/or T5s in any way. Please define "better", if you think that is.
That has been used several times by many LED companies as a step to promote their products and gives the impression that LEDs are superior in QUALITY OF LIGHT to halides and T5s, growing corals.
Why don't you guys just compare LEDs to LEDs?
That's my only problem with your LED advertisement.
Does SKY mimic the sun???? In which way?
Thanks in advance!