Rgb fixture?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone with an interest in aquariums or fish keeping!
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Tobykourtney

Aquarium Advice Addict
Joined
Feb 16, 2013
Messages
1,347
Just bought this fixture and was wondering if anyone has an opinion on it? Specs are in the picture. It looks like the equivalent to the monster ray but uses 13 more watts. I was looking for something that adds red that the ray 2 is lacking without a lot of par. It was 89.95 shipped.

image-3062935090.jpg
 
Seems questionable to me, seeing that they describe it as a RGB LED when in reality its only the R haha. If you're looking to only supplement the red spectrum then it should be fine, if you're looking for anything else I would guess that this fixture would fall short.
 
Seems questionable to me, seeing that they describe it as a RGB LED when in reality its only the R haha. If you're looking to only supplement the red spectrum then it should be fine, if you're looking for anything else I would guess that this fixture would fall short.

Yea I was mainly just looking for red since the ray 2 is all blue. I've seen a few rgb fixtures that are are pink like the monster ray. Or the t5HO geissman aquaflora bulbs are pink and have a good spectrum for plants. I'm not interested in the color changing capability. I just want my plants to not be washed out anymore.
 
I think the new Finnex Fugeray Planted Plus is coming out in just over a month. It has red diodes.
 
I think the new Finnex Fugeray Planted Plus is coming out in just over a month. It has red diodes.

I wanted minimal par though and by the numbers that came out for the planted + it would be a medium light fixture by itself.
 
Oh okay... let us know how that beamswork one works out. Sounds interesting in that it might balance out the Ray with a rosette.
 
Oh okay... let us know how that beamswork one works out. Sounds interesting in that it might balance out the Ray with a rosette.

Yea and for 90 dollars. Ill post pics and par rating as soon as it comes in the mail.
 
Oh okay... let us know how that beamswork one works out. Sounds interesting in that it might balance out the Ray with a rosette.

Just realized something odd. The fixture has 164 .2 watt LEDs but uses 50 watts of power. The math doesn't add up. It should only use 32.4 watts. Can you or anyone shed some light on this?
 
Just realized something odd. The fixture has 164 .2 watt LEDs but uses 50 watts of power. The math doesn't add up. It should only use 32.4 watts. Can you or anyone shed some light on this?

There's a small creature called an electroid that lives inside the fixture. It eats 18 watts of power in exchange for paying rent and feeding your fish.
 
I read a book called "there are no electrons" and after for about a week I totally knew the answer to this question and the answer to most electronics questions... Too bad that was 6 months ago haha. Anyway I found this excerpt from a post on a random forum:

"Wattage is a measure of electrical power not light output. Light output is measured in lumens not wattage. A 60 watt A-19 incandescent lamp uses 60 watts of electricity with a light output in the range of 700-900 lumens. A 32 watt T8 fluorescent lamp is typically operated by an electronic ballast. The input wattage to a ballast operating a 32 watt T8 lamp will typically be lower than 32 watts due to the operating efficiency of the ballast, however the lumen output of the lamp will not be affected. A 32 watt T8 lamp puts out around 2500-3000 Lumens. This can vary drammatically depending on the lamp selected, but 2500-3000 lumens is typical. Regardless of the input watts into the ballast, the light output will remain the same. If you were using a magnetic ballast to power a fluorescent lighting source you would most likely not see the same thing as they are less efficient. "

I know that's not talking about LEDs but I'm sure the answer would be similar.
Basically, the 50 watt label for the fixture has nothing to do with the .2 watt diodes. the .2 watt diodes will always be .2 watts but due to the efficiency or inefficiency of the internal electronics it may draw more or less watts from the outlet. If I'm incorrect, aquachem will let us know haha
 
Last edited:
So I'm like spellcheck for planted tanks now?

A watt is a unit of energy consumption. In an ideal world, there would be a 100% conversion of electrical energy consumed to light energy produced, but that world doesn't exist yet. To explain that, lets look at an incandescent bulb: 40w, some light, lots of heat. In this case, much of the wattage used by the bulb is converted to heat energy rather than light energy, which is unfortunate. Now another example, a CFL bulb: 10w, more light, less heat. It's a much more efficient. The T12-T8-T5 paradigm roughly follows this as well, with newer technology being more efficient than its predecessors. This is also one of the major dooming factors in the watts/gallon rule, as it came about in the T8 days, and T5HO are a really dramatic improvement. LEDs continue this trend, with many of them working cooler and more efficient than old fluorescent bulbs.


Now, in this case, we're comparing watts to watts, to the comparison should be much more literal. 50 watts are being used, 32 watts are accounted for with the bulbs, so where is the remaining 18ish watts being used? Maybe some of it is lost in heat, but it seems very wasteful by LED standard. Possibly some inner computer works that need power? I don't know what's causing it, but I'm inclined to believe its a math error somewhere by someone, hopefully not a deliberate oversight.
 
Last edited:
Well said AC! That was a great read, very concise and informative. I have mad respect for your insight... so I think it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to the analogy of you being the "planted tank spell checker!" ;)
 
So I'm like spellcheck for planted tanks now?

A watt is a unit of energy consumption. In an ideal world, there would be a 100% conversion of electrical energy consumed to light energy produced, but that world doesn't exist yet. To explain that, lets look at an incandescent bulb: 40w, some light, lots of heat. In this case, much of the wattage used by the bulb is converted to heat energy rather than light energy, which is unfortunate. Now another example, a CFL bulb: 10w, more light, less heat. It's a much more efficient. The T12-T8-T5 paradigm roughly follows this as well, with newer technology being more efficient than its predecessors. This is also one of the major dooming factors in the watts/gallon rule, as it came about in the T8 days, and T5HO are a really dramatic improvement. LEDs continue this trend, with many of them working cooler and more efficient than old fluorescent bulbs.

Now, in this case, we're comparing watts to watts, to the comparison should be much more literal. 50 watts are being used, 32 watts are accounted for with the bulbs, so where is the remaining 18ish watts being used? Maybe some of it is lost in heat, but it seems very wasteful by LED standard. Possibly some inner computer works that need power? I don't know what's causing it, but I'm inclined to believe its a math error somewhere by someone, hopefully not a deliberate oversight.

Impressive lol. Hopefully it is just a math error. 32 watts would still be a pretty good bit though by led standards considering I'm only looking for 15-25 par. Anymore then that would be too much light for me. The fixture will be in today and I should have par readings up and a review. A kill-a-watt would only cost 20 bucks and my curiosity might get the better of me.
 
My concern with that fixture is that it will be too red to be used by itself. I may appear darker than daylight bulbs, and the greens might be slaughtered.
 
Oh that sucks! At least they're sending another...but the agony of waiting to see if your idea will come together nicely is excruciating, I'm sure! Do you have to send the damaged unit back? If not, is it totaled or are you going to tinker and see if it's fixable?
 
Back
Top Bottom