• You are viewing the forum as a Guest, please login (you can use your Facebook, Twitter, Google or Microsoft account to login) or register using this link: Log in or Sign Up
  • You can now follow UKAPS on Instagram.

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

Swim Shady

New Member
Joined
15 May 2022
Messages
15
Location
UK
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
Aquasky 2.0 12w PAR.png

Plant 3.0 22w
Plant 3.0 22w PAR.png


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

Member
Joined
6 Jan 2021
Messages
1,259
Location
Lancashire
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.
 

jaypeecee

Member
Joined
21 Jan 2015
Messages
2,816
Location
Bracknell
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
 
Last edited:

Hufsa

Member
Joined
22 Aug 2019
Messages
1,444
Location
Norway
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

Member
Joined
21 Jan 2015
Messages
2,816
Location
Bracknell
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
 

jaypeecee

Member
Joined
21 Jan 2015
Messages
2,816
Location
Bracknell
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
 
Last edited:

John q

Member
Joined
6 Jan 2021
Messages
1,259
Location
Lancashire
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.

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.

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.

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

Member
Joined
19 Jun 2020
Messages
352
Location
USA
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. ;)
 
Last edited:

oreo57

Member
Joined
19 Jun 2020
Messages
352
Location
USA
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.:)
 
Last edited:

oreo57

Member
Joined
19 Jun 2020
Messages
352
Location
USA
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
 

jaypeecee

Member
Joined
21 Jan 2015
Messages
2,816
Location
Bracknell
Quantum sensor quality differences aren' t as important for fw lights in general.
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

Member
Joined
21 Jan 2015
Messages
2,816
Location
Bracknell
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

Member
Joined
19 Jun 2020
Messages
352
Location
USA
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
----------------------------------------

* SIMULATION DATA
----------------------------------------
Luminous flux: 2,000 lm
Radiant flux: 6,892 mW
PPF: 31 umol/s
TCP: 7690 K
CRI: 88
λp: 453 nm
Color: #FDD4FF
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

fluval23.JPG
 
Top