(funky music)
- Today on #askBRStv, we answer
how does the AI Prime Fuge HD LED stack up?
(funky music)
Hey Reefers, Randy again with a long-anticipated
#askBRStv question that came to us from our
BRS sponsor forum on REEF2REEF.com,
where Rishma and a few other Reefers were wondering
how the AI Prime Fuge HD Refugium Light compared
to other refugium lights currently out there.
So to answer those questions,
although I didn't pit the AI Fuge LED
directly against other fuge lights,
I did gather a few data points in PAR and spectrum
that we can use to get a better idea of how this
LED will perform for your refugium,
so let's check out the results.
Okay, so right off the bat, I noticed
there are a couple of ways you could control this light,
manually by plugging in the AI Prime Fuge into a timer
and using one of the six preset intensities,
or by using the light's internal WiFi signal
and connecting it to the myAI app
for a more complete control of spectrum intensity
and lighting period scheduling,
which I'm sure 99% of Reefers will choose to do.
Much like we did in our BRStv Investigates episode,
where we tested multiple refugium lighting options
for PAR and spectrum,
I compared the spectrum output of the AI Prime Fuge
at a couple of settings against those known spectrums
for chlorophyll production in plants.
Along with that, I also tested the PAR output
of the Prime Fuge over a 24 inch by 24 inch area,
which likely represents a vast majority
of Reefers' refugiums on an average-sized tank.
As a quick reference to plant chlorophyll production,
it's commonly understood and agreed
that that peaks around 662 and 429 nanometer range
provide a majority of Chlorophyll A's
energy production for metabolic function.
And for Chlorophyll B production, it's slightly different
with a bit less red at 642 nanometers,
as well as a somewhat lighter blue color at 445 nanometers.
Comparing those spectrum peaks
to the spectrum produced by the AI Prime Fuge,
I set the entire cluster of LEDs to 100%,
which consists of six photo red, four red,
two cool white, and one UV diode.
And right away, we can see significant spectrum peaks
right at the red, 660 and 640 nanometer ranges,
as well as a pretty decent peak
in the 440-ish nanometer range.
Although these may not be exactly dead-on
in comparison to the chlorophyll spectrum peaks,
it's very close, and obviously optimized for this purpose.
I wanted to see if I could tweak the spectrum a bit more,
and try to gain higher peaks in the blues
by reducing some of the yellow and green spectrum,
but after turning the cool whites down to 50%,
I did get a slight decrease in the green and yellow,
but ultimately sacrificed the 440 blue spectrum peak.
That said, if I were going to run this light on my refugium,
I'd stick to each channel set equally
to the same percentages across the board.
Now, let's take a look at the PAR output data
with the AI Prime Fuge mounted at 12 inches
and 24 inches above the PAR meter.
As we did in our BRStv investigates testing,
I tested the light in air rather than underwater,
since a majority of the chaeto will float up
near the surface of the water.
Starting at the highest mounting height of 24 inches,
we can see an overall average on a 24 by 24 square
coming in at 62 total PAR, and what I would say,
a fairly evenly distributed, with 88PAR in the center,
77 in the inner ring, 52 in the outer ring.
Moving the light down to a 12 inch mounting height,
we can see an overall PAR average of 95 total.
However, the spread is less evenly
distributed across a 24 by 24 area,
as we can tell by the 365PAR hotspot in the center,
followed by an inner-ring average of 201,
and an outer-ring average that falls off to 25PAR.
I'm actually not surprised at the PAR readings
at the 12 inch mounting height,
because it is tough to expect a single puck of LEDs
to have a large, dispersed lighting area
at such a low distance from the surface.
All right, so here's my takeaway
from the data I found today.
First, I would absolutely use the
AI Prime Fuge LED to light a refugium
around 18 inches by 18 inches or less,
which is likely in the size range that
a larger majority of average refugium sizes tend to be in.
Although there is pretty even coverage
at the 24 inch mounting height,
I personally wouldn't choose to mount it
that high for a couple of reasons.
One, typically I just don't have
24 inches of space under my tank stand
to get 24 inches off of the surface of the sump.
And two, the lower PAR at those higher mounting heights
would likely be far less effective than
what I could achieve by mounting it lower.
So if it were me, I would mount the light at
14 to 18 inches to get a better spread and more PAR,
with less of a hotspot directly under the light,
which I could easily do with the
18 inch AI Prime Flex Arm Mount.
However, if I were putting the
AI Prime Fuge LED on a refugium
smaller than 18 inches by 18 inches,
I'd likely mount it at that 12 inches,
and simply tune the LED intensity sliders
down in equal proportions to reduce
those PAR hotspots directly under the light.
You know, the larger conversation around
using a refugium as the primary filtration method,
has really taken off in recent history,
specifically, as it relates to differences
in that spectrum and PAR intensity
among most common refugium lighting options.
The evolution of that conversation
was probably sparked by our BRStv Investigates,
which compares the most popular fuge lighting options,
where we saw some pretty unexpected results,
and continues to be a great resource
for understanding how it all works,
so if you want to check out that video, click on that link,
and we'll see you next time on #askBRStv.