Kessil

Kessil Laser Canons...

NanoCrazed

NanoCrazed

Supporting Member
BARcard
Some yet to be released Kessils at Neptune. Look like laser cannons to me...with promise of firing off insane PAR.

Great colors in the tank!

Check them out if your in there next time. It's in their display room...

20210129_173000.jpg
20210129_173009.jpg
 
NanoCrazed said:
Some yet to be released Kessils at Neptune. Look like laser cannons to me...with promise of firing off insane PAR.

Great colors in the tank!

Check them out if your in there next time. It's in their display room...

View attachment 23668View attachment 23669
Click to expand...
Cannons hu? At the beginning if the LED revolution, an aquarium; perhaps San Diego? I really can't remember which aquarium; had LED cannons. I don't think Kessil was in the aquarium lighting business yet. Maybe Cal Academy had some as well but then again I can't remember. Cool things to penetrate deep into the water!
 
Was told these were meant to drive PAR straight t bottom. Neptune is running them at 40%... 100% probably will cook anything under the beam
 
Very narrow angle lens. Looks to me light the main application would be where you want to mount the lights high off the water for whatever reason.

Despite never ending marketing claims there’s no way for a light to change how deep the same wavelength and same intensity light photons travel through the water. You can’t make a photon less likely to be absorbed or scattered without changing the wavelength. You can throw more photons in the direction of the bottom of the tank with a narrower lens or turning up to a greater intensity.
 
NanoCrazed said:
Some yet to be released Kessils at Neptune. Look like laser cannons to me...with promise of firing off insane PAR.

Great colors in the tank!

Check them out if your in there next time. It's in their display room...

View attachment 23668View attachment 23669
Click to expand...
Looks like a cool lense.
Lenses will increase the PAR by concentrating the power spectrum density to a smaller distribution which make light go further.
Same concept used in the dish antenna of the satellite.
So yes, if its a lense it will increase the depth of where light reach or in other word, increase the par at a particular distance.
 
Last edited:
JVU said:
Very narrow angle lens. Looks to me light the main application would be where you want to mount the lights high off the water for whatever reason.

Despite never ending marketing claims there’s no way for a light to change how deep the same wavelength and same intensity light photons travel through the water. You can’t make a photon less likely to be absorbed or scattered without changing the wavelength. You can throw more photons in the direction of the bottom of the tank with a narrower lens or turning up to a greater intensity.
Click to expand...
"there’s no way for a light to change how deep the same wavelength and same intensity light"

What did you mean by that?

Why you think the ant burn when you use a magnifier (lense) and without it it will not burn? The source (sun) is not changing..
 
Last edited:
ofzakaria said:
"there’s no way for a light to change how deep the same wavelength and same intensity light"

What did you mean by that?

Why you think the ant burn when you use a magnifier (lense) and without it it will not burn? The source (sun) is not changing..
Click to expand...
A magnifying lens is a lens, just puts the same amount of light in a smaller area. The sun isn’t changing but you are focusing the area of the lens into a pinpoint area. If you use a magnifying lens above a fish tank it would focus the light into a smaller area so it would look brighter (at the expense of the surrounding area being darker) but you wouldn’t get less light absorbed/scattered in the process.

Lenses like that focus more intensity of light in a smaller area. They don’t change how deep any given light photons will penetrate the water. More intensity of light can be had with focusing or increasing intensity, either way it isn’t making the light reach the bottom better it is just directing more light towards the bottom as opposed to to the sides.

Say for example the water along the depth of your tank absorbs/scatters 50% of the light. If you direct a light downward that measures 300 PAR at the surface, you get 150 PAR at the bottom (ignoring glass reflection right now). If you use a wide angle lens that disperses the light over twice the area but turn up the intensity 2x, you still get 300 at the surface and 150 at the bottom, over twice the area. If you use a narrow angle lens like this new one that disperses the lens half as much and turn the intensity down by half, you still get 300 at the surface and 150 at the bottom, over half the area. It isn’t “throwing the light to the bottom” it is just focusing the same amount of light in a smaller area. Same percentage losses in the water on the way down. No magic.
 
JVU said:
A magnifying lens is a lens, just puts the same amount of light in a smaller area. The sun isn’t changing but you are focusing the area of the lens into a pinpoint area. If you use a magnifying lens above a fish tank it would focus the light into a smaller area so it would look brighter (at the expense of the surrounding area being darker) but you wouldn’t get less light absorbed/scattered in the process.

Lenses like that focus more intensity of light in a smaller area. They don’t change how deep any given light photons will penetrate the water. More intensity of light can be had with focusing or increasing intensity, either way it isn’t making the light reach the bottom better it is just directing more light towards the bottom as opposed to to the sides.

Say for example the water along the depth of your tank absorbs/scatters 50% of the light. If you direct a light downward that measures 300 PAR at the surface, you get 150 PAR at the bottom (ignoring glass reflection right now). If you use a wide angle lens that disperses the light over twice the area but turn up the intensity 2x, you still get 300 at the surface and 150 at the bottom, over twice the area. If you use a narrow angle lens like this new one that disperses the lens half as much and turn the intensity down by half, you still get 300 at the surface and 150 at the bottom, over half the area. It isn’t “throwing the light to the bottom” it is just focusing the same amount of light in a smaller area. Same percentage losses in the water on the way down. No magic.
Click to expand...
I think we saying the same thing.
Ofcourse nothing will change unless something changed.
In the case of the lense, the power spectrum density (the aggregated power over an area) is changing hense the par of the new area is changing..

In the context of this thread, the product (a lense) will increase the par over a smaller area (than without the lense).
Correct?
 
JVU said:
A magnifying lens is a lens, just puts the same amount of light in a smaller area. The sun isn’t changing but you are focusing the area of the lens into a pinpoint area. If you use a magnifying lens above a fish tank it would focus the light into a smaller area so it would look brighter (at the expense of the surrounding area being darker) but you wouldn’t get less light absorbed/scattered in the process.

Lenses like that focus more intensity of light in a smaller area. They don’t change how deep any given light photons will penetrate the water. More intensity of light can be had with focusing or increasing intensity, either way it isn’t making the light reach the bottom better it is just directing more light towards the bottom as opposed to to the sides.

Say for example the water along the depth of your tank absorbs/scatters 50% of the light. If you direct a light downward that measures 300 PAR at the surface, you get 150 PAR at the bottom (ignoring glass reflection right now). If you use a wide angle lens that disperses the light over twice the area but turn up the intensity 2x, you still get 300 at the surface and 150 at the bottom, over twice the area. If you use a narrow angle lens like this new one that disperses the lens half as much and turn the intensity down by half, you still get 300 at the surface and 150 at the bottom, over half the area. It isn’t “throwing the light to the bottom” it is just focusing the same amount of light in a smaller area. Same percentage losses in the water on the way down. No magic.
Click to expand...
But I think what you left out is the scenario where you leave it at 100% and use the narrow lens. By your theory you now get 600 at the surface and 300 at the bottom. This is also not taking into account focal point, beam waist, etc. What I'm not sure of (which I think may be your point) is if the lens enables you to maintain wavelength (or more importantly spectrum) at the bottom any more or less than another light.

I don't think anyone said it was magic, just a way to get higher par at the bottom of the tank, or, perhaps, mount the lights higher above the waterline and achieve the same affect in the tank. I would love to be able to mount lights super high with minimal light spill, and get good coverage in the tank. I don't necessarily need more par than what I have now. Conversely, people with a canopy they want to fit the lights in would want a wider angle lens, in order to get good coverage at a close distance.

I'm not sure what marketing claims have been made, as I have only seen the picture of the lights posted here. If the marketing claim is "great coverage with minimal light spill at 36" mounting height" then maybe it's valid?
 
Last edited:
Meshmez said:
But I think what you left out is the scenario where you leave it at 100% and use the narrow lens. By your theory you now get 600 at the surface and 300 at the bottom. This is also not taking into account focal point, beam waist, etc. What I'm not sure of (which I think may be your point) is if the lens enables you to maintain wavelength (or more importantly spectrum) at the bottom any more or less than another light.

I don't think anyone said it was magic, just a way to get higher par at the bottom of the tank, or, perhaps, mount the lights higher above the waterline and achieve the same affect in the tank. I would love to be able to mount lights super high with minimal light spill, and get good coverage in the tank. I don't necessarily need more par than what I have now. Conversely, people with a canopy they want to fit the lights in would want a wider angle lens, in order to get good coverage at a close distance.

I'm not sure what marketing claims have been made, as I have only seen the picture of the lights posted here. If the marketing claim is "great coverage with minimal light spill at 36" mounting height" then maybe it's valid?
Click to expand...
Yes that’s what I said.

Every couple years Kessil or another brand comes out with a light that indirectly or directly makes the claim I was debunking. If it sounds crazy to you, good.
 
ofzakaria said:
I think we saying the same thing.
Ofcourse nothing will change unless something changed.
In the case of the lense, the power spectrum density (the aggregated power over an area) is changing hense the par of the new area is changing..

In the context of this thread, the product (a lense) will increase the par over a smaller area (than without the lense).
Correct?
Click to expand...
Yeah all I’m saying it what is obviously true about how light works. But surprisingly that’s not how people often think about it when talking about how certain lights are better at getting the light they emit to the bottom of the tank. They aren’t.

Example again said differently:

Light B with half the area and the same wattage and light output as light A would have twice the PAR at every depth. But since it’s half the area, you’d need 2 light B’s to cover the same area as light A. If you had 2 light A’s overlapping, you’d have the same wattage, same light output, and the same PAR at the different depths including at the bottom. So light B isn’t better at getting light to the bottom of the tank. It is better if you want to mount the lights higher off the water though (light spillage outside the tank).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top