# Attractive light fittings?



## leonroy (4 Oct 2011)

I was all set to pickup some lights from the ADA Grand Solar range but after reading Tom Barr's assessment of them I'm loath to spend a lot of cash on what amounts to a very inefficient light.

Is there anything out there which is as good looking as the ADA range and also doesn't look like a spaceship has landed? (Arcadia I'm looking at you!).


----------



## Jim (5 Oct 2011)

I actually built a wooden surround for my 'spaceship' so as to inhibit it from lighting up the room to much. The unit is nearly 5 years old and I have no complaints -


----------



## leonroy (6 Oct 2011)

Thanks Jim, interesting ideas and cool photos. Anyone have any experience with LED light fittings? Are they as good as T5s or MH yet?


----------



## leonroy (28 Oct 2011)

Silence is golden eh? 

Short of making my own I guess I'll be picking up a few ADA Grand Solar I units then (despite their short comings).


----------



## Alastair (28 Oct 2011)

I've never used LEDs, but a believe they give the same shimmer effect as halides etc but not sure how effective they are in terms of growing plants. I know the green machine won't sell them, there's an article on their site about why they won't.


----------



## ceg4048 (28 Oct 2011)

leonroy said:
			
		

> I was all set to pickup some lights from the ADA Grand Solar range but after reading Tom Barr's assessment of them I'm loath to spend a lot of cash on what amounts to a very inefficient


Sorry if this sounds rude, but this is an extraordinarily poor interpretation of the information contained in the thread you linked to. This is also indicative of the symptoms which result in huge problems in the hobby.

Firstly did you read the part where Tom mentioned he was taking measurements from the tank that placed number 20 world ranking in the 2007 ADA aquascaping contest? That doesn't mean anything to you? What it should tell you is that al ow light tank was ranked number 20 in the world so that high light is not neccessary to grow so-called high light plants such as Glosso, HC, tennellus. So while everyone screams hysterically and clamors for massive lighting to grow carpet plants, the world number 20 camly goes about his/her business growing carpet plants with low light.

Despite that incredible finding you draw the conclusion that the lights are inefficient and are not worth your consideration?

What Tom is saying in that thread is that this proves that you don't need to go searching for massive "efficient" lighting unless your priority to have faster growth, and that in order to get the faster growth while maintaining healthy plants you must then use higher levels of CO2 and nutients. 

In fact, the concluding statement in his original post is "...keep light low not high..."

I'm flabergasted that people miss this point and would feel compelled to go off on a quest in search of super massive lighting after reading that.

Cheers,


----------



## leonroy (1 Nov 2011)

ceg4048 said:
			
		

> Sorry if this sounds rude, but this is an extraordinarily poor interpretation of the information contained in the thread you linked to. This is also indicative of the symptoms which result in hube problems in the hobby.



Hi ceg4048, appreciate the reply, but easy there  I simply stated above that ADA lighting has 'short comings'. They were found by Tom Barr to give lower PAR than one would expect given their advertised wattage. That was his conclusion, not mine (although the PAR readings speak for themselves).



			
				ceg4048 said:
			
		

> Firstly did you read the part where Tom mentioned he was taking measurements from the tank that placed number 20 world ranking in the 2007 ADA aquascaping contest? That doesn't mean anything to you?


While true and I certainly take your point that ADA lighting gives great results that's really besides the point. What is of concern is why the PAR readings from the ADA lights are lower than expected.



			
				ceg4048 said:
			
		

> Despite that incredible finding you draw the conclusion that the lights are inefficient and are not worth your consideration?
> 
> What Tom is saying in that thread is that this proves that you don't need to go searching for massive "efficient" lighting unless your priority to have faster growth, and that in order to get the faster growth while maintaining healthy plants you must then use higher levels of CO2 and nutients.



Again, Tom Barr's conclusion (as well as anyone reading the thread I linked to above) was that the ADA lights are inefficient. He puts it pretty bluntly:
...it's fairly safe to say that the ADA are more for looks and really are very poor as far efficiency...

Put simply ADA lights certainly give great results (why else would I buy them?  :?: ) but they shouldn't be consuming so much electricity (and generating so much heat) given their lower than expected PAR output.


----------



## ceg4048 (1 Nov 2011)

Hi,
    Well, the efficiency of the unit is one thing and it's usefulness is another thing entirely. If we are concerned with the electricity bill and if that is a high priority then it's something we have to consider very carefully. However, one has to consider that high PAR in tanks is the prime factor which triggers massive algal blooms. So for example, a unit which generates twice as much or thrice as much PAR for the same wattage would cause many more headaches unless flow, distribution and CO2 were higher.

Despite the fact that Barr points out the inefficiency in the unit, one needs to look deeper into his analysis. What he is actually complaining about is not just the fact that the units are inefficient, but instead he is complaining about the worldwide propaganda which encourages the concept that high lighting is required for plants. He is stating that ADA support the propaganda, yet, at the same time their units are not really high light. He is complaining about the hypocrisy, not the fact that the unit produces low PAR, which is actually a good thing. He would prefer that ADA admit that excellent results can be obtained by using reduced intensity, and that they support that admission by revealing that their units produce a lower intensity. Can you not see that in the very same post?


> ...Whether this is on purpose, or trial and error on ADA's part.......I cannot say. It's often dangerous to try and out think marketing and public's desire for "more is better", particularly if someone like me bothers to to test the product only to find that it has a conservative rating of 2X worse PAR output as other brands using the same bulb. I guess if you tell folks enough baloney, they will believe and not check to see if what you say is true...





> ...they are supporting the myth that high light is required and to telling you why their's works so well...



Barr is himself telling you that the hysteria about high light is a myth. You don't need high light. You therefore do not need to run away from the ADA unit to find something that produces better efficiency. the lower PAR is better for you, but he simply wishes ADA would state that and not support the myth about high light.

When you understand this at a fundamental level you will see that the efficiency of the unit in-and-of-itself is not the relevant issue and that using a unit that has higher efficiency and which produces high PAR values will not serve you. 

It's because people do not understand this very important concept about the relationship between PAR and plant health that they are easily sucked into the propaganda, and that is why many tanks fail while ADA and others continue the illusion of blaming phosphates and Nitrates for algal blooms when in fact alga results from high light. But if I tell you that I am using high light when in fact I am using low light then this is a distortion of the truth. And if I then tell you that my entire nutrient product range is based on enriching the substrate instead of enriching the water column to avoid algae then this is a further distortion of reality. If I then say that my light unit does not produce algae because of special magical or spectral properties, when actually it's simply because the unit produces a low PAR then this is an even more infuriating distortion of the truth.

Hope this clarifies.

Cheers,


----------



## leonroy (1 Nov 2011)

Thanks, ceg4048, appreciate the detailed reply. I did understand Tom's summary (honest  ) and I agree, too many people are hung up on 'more watts is better'. I was simply stating that ADA should really produce lights which are lower wattage and lower output rather than higher wattage and lower output.

It's not just disingenuous but it's also not good for the electric bill!

When I receive mine I'll be sure to do some measurements and report back - I don't believe Tom found the cause of the lower than expected PAR values although he suspected the ballast.


----------

