# PAR Settings from Fluval for Aquasky 2.0 12w & Plant 3.0 22w



## Swim Shady (18 May 2022)

I sent the team at Fluval an email earlier this week asking for the PAR information on their Aquasky 2.0 12w and Plant 3.0 22w and they kindly replied with the requested info.
Thought it might be of some use on here as there doesn't seem to be anywhere online that has this information and its certainly not on the product package.

Aquasky 2.0 12w




Plant 3.0 22w




I've sent a follow up email to see if they can supply this information for the full range so fingers crossed they are just as helpful with that. 

Cheers all


----------



## John q (18 May 2022)

Thanks for the information 👍 

I can assist with adding a couple more figures for the Aquasky 2 lights, these are also from fluval, not independently tested.

Aquasky 2 16w.

3"  220 Par
6" 157
12" 57
18" 31

Aquasky 2 33w.

3" 245
6" 177
12" 66
18" 44
Cheers.


----------



## Hufsa (18 May 2022)

Great post!
I would be highly interested in the PAR values for Plant 3.0 46W if you could get it "straight from the horses mouth"


----------



## John q (30 May 2022)

Hufsa said:


> Great post!
> I would be highly interested in the PAR values for Plant 3.0 46W if you could get it "straight from the horses mouth"


Took the liberty of asking fluval for some info regarding another thread and they came up with the goodies.

Plant 3 32w




Plant 3 46w


----------



## Hufsa (30 May 2022)

John q said:


> Took the liberty of asking fluval for some info regarding another thread and they came up with the goodies.


Thank you very much for this! 


John q said:


> Plant 3 46w
> View attachment 189267


Is there someone good with numbers who could tell me what the PAR would be at 35 and 40 centimeters using this table above?


----------



## jaypeecee (30 May 2022)

Hufsa said:


> Is there someone good with numbers who could tell me what the PAR would be at 35 and 40 centimeters using this table above?


Hi @Hufsa

I'm somewhat nervous about the PAR figures that Fluval have provided. But, I'd feel more confident if I knew which PAR meter they had used to conduct the tests. I'd be interested to hear if @oreo57 has any thoughts about these lights and Fluval's PAR figures. A couple of quick calculations that I did would suggest that the lighting doesn't incorporate a simple lens or no lens at all as the figures don't match a simple inverse-square relationship of light intensity. In other words, they cannot be treated as point sources.

JPC


----------



## Hufsa (30 May 2022)

jaypeecee said:


> I'm somewhat nervous about the PAR figures that Fluval have provided.


I agree. I have seen at least two previous PAR readings of the Plant 3.0 which reported quite different figures. It has left a very wishy-washy impression with me.
This post I believe is referring to the 59 W model, the general increase seems to fit in line with the values reported previously in this thread for shorter models.
This review has tested with water, it doesnt say which model of light was used but based on the affiliated links I would guess its the 46 W. In this one the readings are quite a lot higher than the values given by Fluval.

I would also like more information, meter used like you mentioned, but also where readings were taken and was it in air or water? What settings were the lights tested on, everything on 100% or one of the presets? Stuff like that.


----------



## jaypeecee (30 May 2022)

Hufsa said:


> I would also like more information, meter used like you mentioned, but also where readings were taken and was it in air or water? What settings were the lights tested on, everything on 100% or one of the presets? Stuff like that.


Absolutely. I also place a good deal of importance in seeing the lighting spectrum/spectra.

JPC


----------



## Hufsa (30 May 2022)

jaypeecee said:


> Absolutely. I also place a good deal of importance in seeing the lighting spectrum/spectra.



Apparently its this:




The weirdest spectrum I have ever seen. I wonder if this is with the Blue channel on 100% or not.
The terms on the left make absolutely no sense together


----------



## jaypeecee (30 May 2022)

Hi @Hufsa

The graphic in your post above is showing yellow from 530 nm to 580 nm. But, yellow light is 570 nm to 590 nm. IMHO, the above image is merely a graphical representation and not a _measured_ spectrum. As such, it has limited credibility.

JPC


----------



## John q (30 May 2022)

jaypeecee said:


> I'm somewhat nervous about the PAR figures that Fluval have provided. But, I'd feel more confident if I knew which PAR meter they had used to conduct the tests.



I suspect like most manufacturers we have to take the figures they give us with a pinch of salt. Unfortunately and i said this in another thread there hasn't been much par data available for these lights over the years,  so for now anything is better than nothing.



Hufsa said:


> What settings were the lights tested on, everything on 100% or one of the presets? Stuff like that.



I can only imagine these tests were taken with all channels at 100% and probably in air.



Hufsa said:


> This post I believe is referring to the 59 W model, the general increase seems to fit in line with the values reported previously in this thread for shorter models.



There are other hobbyist posts the give similar figures to this for the 59w model.








						Apogee MQ-510 PAR readings for Fluval LED 3.0 48-60"
					

I have the Fluval 3.0 over a 90 gallon tank, and today I was able to take readings with an Apogee MQ-510 PAR meter. I thought some others might be interested in the data.   About the tank  Distance to substrate: 23" Glass top? Yes, and it has some water staining, too. Center brace? Yes, so a...




					www.plantedtank.net
				




When all said and done the only acid test that matters in this instance is if these lights will grow plants, if they do then the par data and spectrum used is kind of redundant.

Hopefully one day I'll win the lottery, buy a fancy par meter and test all the above lights to see how accurate the hagen supplied figures were.
P.s I don't play the lottery so don't hold your breath.


----------



## oreo57 (30 May 2022)

jaypeecee said:


> Hi @Hufsa
> 
> I'm somewhat nervous about the PAR figures that Fluval have provided. But, I'd feel more confident if I knew which PAR meter they had used to conduct the tests. I'd be interested to hear if @oreo57 has any thoughts about these lights and Fluval's PAR figures. A couple of quick calculations that I did would suggest that the lighting doesn't incorporate a simple lens or no lens at all as the figures don't match a simple inverse-square relationship of light intensity. In other words, they cannot be treated as point sources.
> 
> JPC


Right but that also has to do with tank reflections/ refractions
Also within certain ranges it is more linear than logrithemic.
Put the light 10ft away and measure at 10ft and 20 ft it will behave more inverse sq-y.
More linear 5" vs 10".

Fluval I believe states 120 degrees " on chip" lensing. Most leds are. Going less than 120 usually involves secondary optics.
Lumiled hort. diodes are like 140 on chip.

You get different measurements in free air vs dry tank vs wet tank but all are useable.
Then of course you have " capture" vs light spill outside the tank area.
Quantum sensor quality differences aren' t as important for fw lights in general.
Heavy blue ( esp royal blue) or red lighting around 660 nm would be the exception.

Keep in mind measurements are probably dead center at the highest par area l,r front, back will drop. At the bottom sometimes f,back may be higher due to " bounce" off the glass. Think photons as pool balls.


----------



## oreo57 (30 May 2022)

Hufsa said:


> Apparently its this:
> View attachment 189281
> 
> The weirdest spectrum I have ever seen. I wonder if this is with the Blue channel on 100% or not.
> The terms on the left make absolutely no sense together


Spectrums fine.
The 3 whites have heavy royal blue ( well less @ 3000k) add 460 and some from " pink" which is probably mostly royal blue and deep red or red phosphors.
Numbers speak to the color.
Overall a decent spectrum though I believe some consider it too warm or yellow.
If they use a broad spectrum red phosphor in the pink it somewhat explains the err red bump, along with the red/ yellow phosphored 3000k
Plants don't care.


----------



## oreo57 (30 May 2022)

Spectrum estimate. I just picked 2000 lumens btw 
* MIXING LIST
----------------------------------------
  myData fluval.txt [120°] x1
----------------------------------------

* SIMULATION DATA
----------------------------------------
  Luminous flux: 2,000 lm
  Radiant flux: 6,933 mW
  PPF: 31.6 umol/s
  TCP: 6710 K
  CRI: 95
  λp: 453 nm
  Color: #FFD5E8
----------------------------------------

* PERFORMANCE @ 30cm
----------------------------------------
  Irradiance: 8.17 W/m²/s
  Illuminance: 2,357 lx
  PPFD: 37.3 umol/m²/s
----------------------------------------

by RAYCAL 2.0 @ 1.023world








						SPECTRA
					

SPECTRA can perform the optical simulation of many required for coral breeding. SPECTRAはサンゴ飼育に必要な多くの光学シミュレーションを行う事が可能です。




					spectra.1023world.net


----------



## jaypeecee (30 May 2022)

oreo57 said:


> Quantum sensor quality differences aren' t as important for fw lights in general.





oreo57 said:


> Overall a decent spectrum though I believe some consider it too warm or yellow.



Hi @oreo57 

The reason I was interested to know which model of PAR meter was being used was largely to confirm that a measurement of PAR had actually been made. Not because I was concerned if it was an Apogee or a Li-Cor.

JPC


----------



## jaypeecee (30 May 2022)

John q said:


> When all said and done the only acid test that matters in this instance is if these lights will grow plants, if they do then the par data and spectrum used is kind of redundant.


Hi @John q 

We may not want to encourage algae and/or Cyano. And, of course, spectrum plays its part in the tank aesthetics.

JPC


----------



## oreo57 (31 May 2022)

*FIXING an error.. !!!*
It was bugging me when the spectrum looked a little off.
Above data is not for the 3.0 but the earlier version.
Not terribly different though..


> * MIXING LIST
> ----------------------------------------
> myData fluval3.txt [120°] x1
> ----------------------------------------
> ...


GREY shaded area is the "cooler" 3.0.
Since their chart doesn't have the best x axis tics it is subject to some error but AFAICT minimal.
Assumed 380 is 0,0
780 is defined for the calculations
royal blue peak is approx 452-3nm


----------

