Greenstreet.1
5000 Club Member
Thank you but was not looking to change anything was just asking to see if there’s a recommended height to keep the mix as I seen reefers say that t5’s can’t be to hi off the tank.
6500k T5 Bulbs - Important Spectrums Missing in LEDs?
Thank you but was not looking to change anything was just asking to see if there’s a recommended height to keep the mix as I seen reefers say that t5’s can’t be to hi off the tank.
Well it's mostly simple geometry and physics but w/ multiple light sources and reflectors it gets a bit tricky..
you want most of your light in the tank.. well most do..sooo
Take the fixture and hang it over a large white surface..turn it on and raise or lower it till your tank surface area"profile" is well represented w/ the light pattern..
Once you get a maximum coverage at the surface of the tank most falls in line due to refraction and reflection off the glass..
think of this backwards..
https://www.khanacademy.org/science...s/reflection-refraction/v/refraction-in-water
and consider this as well
https://www.advancedaquarist.com/2012/5/equipment
w/ a PAR meter one can skip everything above and just raise and lower it till you get max PAR where you want it..
Back to how we notice colours from other corals. Below a graph showing sensitivity of the human eye. If we see reflecting colours from 400 nm and 560 nm with the same physical strength – we will see the 560 as very much brighter than the 400 nm. In reality the wavelengths between 500 and 600 nm will dazzle your sight and if there are weak light sources, like fluorescence, you will not see its colours because the reflective wavelengths take over
If we only use wavelengths that promote florescence we will be able to see these weak light sources. One example is blue wavelengths like this below. Nothing will hinder you too see even the weakest colour source in the lumen window
Now we start to ad white LEDs We get a rather white looking aquaria but the wavelength between 500 and 600 will dazzle away all weak sources like fluorescence. We will see a lot of reflecting colours - but we miss the beautifully colours of fluorescence. They are there but we can´t see them - our eye does not detect them.
If we instead use single reed and green diodes and mix to 10 000 K - we gett some windows there it is possible to detect weak light sources for our eyes. This light is white - believe me and some of the fluorescence will show up. To use this RGB trick - it is easy to run an heavy blue tank but for your eyes - it is bright white
I normally run this set up for 8 hours a day
And this for around 3 hours
RGB LEDs is used by GHL Mitras LED bar 2 and is very good in order to obtain a whitish hue even when you run a very blue pattern. And it give the fishes beautiful colours too.
When I chose my set up - I chose one bar Oceanic blue 1 bar actinic and 2 bars deep actinic. The reasons for Oceanic blue is that it contain 10 pcs 4500 K LED (of 344 pcs of LED for my four bars) I want them because of that I want some LED that give wavelengths over 700 nm. I´m very sure that Far Red has importance even for corals (735 nm)
The chart below show the absorption peaks for some single isolated chlorophylls - It not the same as the whole organisms absorption.
If you made a comparison between my charts here and charts for MH - you will note that there is no wavelengths below the radar as we no it for the moment. If other facts will show up later on - with a LED fixture - its easy just to add these monochrome LED that´s will be needed. I have one bar - done by my self - with only 735 nm far red- will add this later on.
I prefer - for my self to work with green and red monochrome diodes instead of getting these wavelengths from "white" LEDs. As far as the - IMO - rather ridicules fear for red monochrome LEDs - just look att spectra for MH and/or low Kelvin white LEDs - there is tons of red wavelengths in these sources. But if you run 4500 K in heavy way - you maybe not should add tons of 660 nm LEDs.
One last thing - the use of PWM dimming. The photosyntetic process is by natur a quantum mechanical process - it means that it act in a digital maner - on/off with a frequency. The wet dream would be to find this frequency and send out photons of the right wavelengths and with the right frequency in order to optimize this. The problem, however - what is the frequency and how stable is it? What´s happen if the frequency is wrong? Some commercial producers of LED fixtures for green houses do only use PWM for the first 10 % and after that 1-10 V signal to manage the current. Are there any biological reasons for that? I do not know and probably will not ever know - but since I realized this - I run at 100 % or limit the current. Just ramp up and let it be there.
Sorry for long post
Sincerely Lasse
If we only use wavelengths that promote florescence we will be able to see these weak light sources. One example is blue wavelengths like this below. Nothing will hinder you too see even the weakest colour source in the lumen window
Now we start to ad white LEDs We get a rather white looking aquaria but the wavelength between 500 and 600 will dazzle away all weak sources like fluorescence. We will see a lot of reflecting colours - but we miss the beautifully colours of fluorescence. They are there but we can´t see them - our eye does not detect them.
If we instead use single reed and green diodes and mix to 10 000 K - we gett some windows there it is possible to detect weak light sources for our eyes. This light is white - believe me and some of the fluorescence will show up. To use this RGB trick - it is easy to run an heavy blue tank but for your eyes - it is bright white
When I chose my set up - I chose one bar Oceanic blue 1 bar actinic and 2 bars deep actinic. The reasons for Oceanic blue is that it contain 10 pcs 4500 K LED (of 344 pcs of LED for my four bars) I want them because of that I want some LED that give wavelengths over 700 nm. I´m very sure that Far Red has importance even for corals (735 nm)
I prefer - for my self to work with green and red monochrome diodes instead of getting these wavelengths from "white" LEDs. As far as the - IMO - rather ridicules fear for red monochrome LEDs - just look att spectra for MH and/or low Kelvin white LEDs - there is tons of red wavelengths in these sources. But if you run 4500 K in heavy way - you maybe not should add tons of 660 nm LEDs.
One last thing - the use of PWM dimming. The photosyntetic process is by natur a quantum mechanical process - it means that it act in a digital maner - on/off with a frequency. The wet dream would be to find this frequency and send out photons of the right wavelengths and with the right frequency in order to optimize this. The problem, however - what is the frequency and how stable is it? What´s happen if the frequency is wrong? Some commercial producers of LED fixtures for green houses do only use PWM for the first 10 % and after that 1-10 V signal to manage the current. Are there any biological reasons for that? I do not know and probably will not ever know - but since I realized this - I run at 100 % or limit the current. Just ramp up and let it be there.
Sorry for long post
Sincerely Lasse
Lasse, thank you for your insight on PWM. Comparing it to waves in the ocean is pretty foolish, IMO. Since the title of this thread hovers around something being missing, then you have to consider this since it is a big difference and not just explain it away. This could be the next big breakthrough. Radions use PWM, right? ...and the best tanks that are around use them at 100%? This says a lot to me.
Sorry , currently the PWM is pure speculation and running a light at 100% means 100% of the photon output.
Certainly no surprise there...
and no the "flinging" of light intensity is certainly not stupid in regard to hot-cold spots hitting organisms..
Same w/ light through a forest canopy and wind..
Light field is incredibly dynamic..
BTW:
Certainly no surprise there...
and no the "flinging" of light intensity is certainly not stupid in regard to hot-cold spots hitting organisms..
Same w/ light through a forest canopy and wind..
Light field is incredibly dynamic..
BTW:
If you are going to use false equivalencies, at least use some that the human eye cannot see, like Humming Bird Wings, Flying Rods, UFOs, or the like. However, I cannot come up with anything that would be so constant and also this fast. Comparing something so fast and deliberate as PWM to tree leaves or ocean waves is just stupid.
OMGitsManBearPig
Active Member
I don't think any of the last few previous posts were attempting to draw any conclusions. I do agree with you that what Lasse is talking about regarding PWM and simply turning your Radions to 100% are two very different things.
This thread is so good - then such crap - and then knee jerks back to good again. I've got a lot of takeaways to consider here.
To better comprehend this PWM theory... and where this thread is going: Are we talking about timing photon arrival to be just in time for intake into chlorapolast? Am I understanding that correctly?
OMGitsManBearPig
Active Member
Haven't we had enough ****** behavior in this thread? No need to be a jerk.
It is a huge difference between difference of the amount of photons and that all sends out in short pulses. Dimming with current just manage the amount like the leaves shadowing in the wind. PWM means that max photons sends out in short, very short pulses with equal pauses. It is digital - on - off, Dimming with current and light going through a windy canopy is analogue - it is just the amounts of photons that vary.
True or false - it is not up to me to say I only report what I know about these things and how other industries handle the problems. Stupid or not - it is in the eyes off the beholder
Sincerely Lasse
True or false - it is not up to me to say I only report what I know about these things and how other industries handle the problems. Stupid or not - it is in the eyes off the beholder
Sincerely Lasse
I just mentioned that both PWM dimming and photosynthesis is on/of and with a certain frequency. It could be opportunities but also problems - and leading manufacturer of LED lighting for greenhouses use a combination of PWM and analogue control.
Sincerely Lasse
Think of PWM as a strobe light, just faster than we can see - nobody wants to be around one for more than a few hours. What Lasse and I are saying is that there is a case to be made that PWM can be harmful since organisms in nature are not used to full blast, then nothing, then full blast, then nothing - some other industries are going away from it. It might not matter in the end, but there is also a pattern or use to suggest that there is something to it and it needs to be looked into and not just marginalized with some false equivalencies. This could be a real breakthrough. Voltage regulation dims with out the strobe light effect - this is the true equivalency to being under leaves or in the shade.
OMGitsManBearPig
Active Member
Got it. That would be the holy grail of horticulture, wouldn't it. I don't see how it would be anything stable. Too many variable and it's organic.
thanks!
thanks!
OMGitsManBearPig
Active Member
understood. I misunderstood your first point. Sorry for the defensive comment; it's just been a divisive thread... :/
https://arizona.pure.elsevier.com/e...upplemental-led-lighting-on-cucumber-seedling
LED pulsing is several orders of magnatude lower than any photon capture/transport..
The leaf strobing and PWM are closer aligned than PWM and quantum/electron responses..
There are visual responses in higher organisms that may be affected and I'm certainly not saying it is IMPOSSIBLE but pretty much unproven. Currently seems more a hearsay to bash LEDs than anything real...
bottom line.. "IF" I worried about PWM I'd worry more about the fish and invertebrates (and ME) than corals..
http://www.lighting.philips.com/main/support/support/faqs/dimming-with-leds/disadvantages-of-pwm
https://reefbuilders.com/2016/11/25/philips-coralcare-5-months-and-counting/#
Prefer hard evidence..
I am not completely inflexible.. just don't see it..
whether 10,15,20 (or less)-100% or 0 to 100% seems to be splitting hairs.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiF9vTp5abdAhURGKwKHcpDDDQQFjADegQIBxAB&url=https://www.osapublishing.org/oe/viewmedia.cfm?uri=oe-26-4-4135&seq=0&usg=AOvVaw1jzNao2fcmWOKCPGt1ViW7
consider the fact that in multi- driver arrays the chance all are in synch and "pulsing" in harmony is prac. zero. Consider also latency in phosphors in whites..
Point is from 0-100% it smears.. leaving few times that it is EXACTLY ZERO light..
Last edited:
Thought it was worth adding this old thread for some interesting links..
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?p=22799381
Well @jda.. actually you were right sort of IF this paper holds..
https://www.researchgate.net/profil...and-development.pdf?origin=publication_detail
But here is the kicker.. most PWM rates w/ drivers is usually set between 500Hz and 1000Hz, w some higher..
Paper basically shows a break even or greater efficiency w/ a range of .1Hz to 2000-10000Hz.....@ 50% duty cycle..(only one used )
So to sum it up ..
In a sense, w/ this study we were both sort of right..and wrong..
Of course nobody's going to PWM their lights at .5Hz..
told you I'm not inflexible..
thanks for the push to dig deeper..
"sigh" another factor to iron out..
again.. it's not "THE" Led but it's implementation.. a reoccurring theme..
also these are "orchestrated" drivers, not really equiv. to multi-channel LEDs but would be to monochromatic ones. messy..
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?p=22799381
Well @jda.. actually you were right sort of IF this paper holds..
https://www.researchgate.net/profil...and-development.pdf?origin=publication_detail
But here is the kicker.. most PWM rates w/ drivers is usually set between 500Hz and 1000Hz, w some higher..
Paper basically shows a break even or greater efficiency w/ a range of .1Hz to 2000-10000Hz.....@ 50% duty cycle..(only one used )
So to sum it up ..
.
In a sense, w/ this study we were both sort of right..and wrong..
Of course nobody's going to PWM their lights at .5Hz..
told you I'm not inflexible..
thanks for the push to dig deeper..
"sigh" another factor to iron out..
again.. it's not "THE" Led but it's implementation.. a reoccurring theme..
also these are "orchestrated" drivers, not really equiv. to multi-channel LEDs but would be to monochromatic ones. messy..
Last edited:
Back to the OP
Question there was about T5 bulbs and their spectra. This is significant IMO
It show a spectra that is pure RGBA (Red,Green,Blue and Amber). It will give a white hue and "windows" in the 500 - 600 nm that let us see weak sources of fluorescence. It gives photons in wavelengths that promote photosynthesis and hence growth. From this OP put up some questions
As a summary of my different post I will answer like this
1)I run elevated Red Green and blue as RGB chip because I want to see fluorescence but still have a white shimmer
2) RGB chip - maybe RGBA chip
3) In the context of seeing colours without fading out colours of fishes - fort growth - most run heavy blue LEDs
4) No
The large amount of photons of 500 - 600 nm from white (phosphorous coated) LED will mask the colours of our corals and according to growth they can be replaced of other monochrome LEDs like 630 and 660 nm LEDs. Still - there is problems with some monochrome LEDs like the greens, they are ineffective and expansive- but in the coming years I think that we will see many more monochrome LEDs in our fixtures.
According to PWM or current regulating - I prefer to use a method that is known to cause no harm before I use a method that can be harmful - but we do not really know for the moment
Sincerely Lasse
Question there was about T5 bulbs and their spectra. This is significant IMO
It show a spectra that is pure RGBA (Red,Green,Blue and Amber). It will give a white hue and "windows" in the 500 - 600 nm that let us see weak sources of fluorescence. It gives photons in wavelengths that promote photosynthesis and hence growth. From this OP put up some questions
As a summary of my different post I will answer like this
1)I run elevated Red Green and blue as RGB chip because I want to see fluorescence but still have a white shimmer
2) RGB chip - maybe RGBA chip
3) In the context of seeing colours without fading out colours of fishes - fort growth - most run heavy blue LEDs
4) No
The large amount of photons of 500 - 600 nm from white (phosphorous coated) LED will mask the colours of our corals and according to growth they can be replaced of other monochrome LEDs like 630 and 660 nm LEDs. Still - there is problems with some monochrome LEDs like the greens, they are ineffective and expansive- but in the coming years I think that we will see many more monochrome LEDs in our fixtures.
According to PWM or current regulating - I prefer to use a method that is known to cause no harm before I use a method that can be harmful - but we do not really know for the moment
Sincerely Lasse
Last edited:
From the paper.. The meat (of the tomato).
Above the green lines = better than continuous light..
NOW this doesn't "prove" much esp. w/ corals but a starting point to us FOR corals..
Remember @ 50% duty cycle..
Is it similar in corals, trees, algae, mosses ect???????
Above the green lines = better than continuous light..
NOW this doesn't "prove" much esp. w/ corals but a starting point to us FOR corals..
Remember @ 50% duty cycle..
Is it similar in corals, trees, algae, mosses ect???????
What if it can be helpful???
I am not saying that I am right. I do not even care if I am right. I am just saying that there is evidence that should be considered at and not discounted... Radion at 80% burns coral, but at 100% does not? RB Photon definitely burns coral with too high of percentages, but at 100% also appears to be better/OK (I cannot confirm this like with Radions). Coincidence, maybe... but maybe not. I think that it is worth looking into.
I am sticking around for when the implementation gets good. I do not care to be a guinea pig with my tank right now. I am losing faith that it ever will get good since it has been 10-15 years and there is still a long way to go. I have not really seen a real innovation since panels changed from just blue and white to multicolored. I am ready for the next disruptive advancement.
I am sticking around for when the implementation gets good. I do not care to be a guinea pig with my tank right now. I am losing faith that it ever will get good since it has been 10-15 years and there is still a long way to go. I have not really seen a real innovation since panels changed from just blue and white to multicolored. I am ready for the next disruptive advancement.
What controlled study shows the 80/ 100 thing?
Heck using the above "stuff" I posted.. What is the frequency of Radions PWM?
POINT is you can't just say "PWM BAD!"....
Maybe the PWM "overdrove" PSII.. not likely but a possibility..
which channel was what % ect There are a dozen factors..
Sulfur Plasma...
Heck using the above "stuff" I posted.. What is the frequency of Radions PWM?
POINT is you can't just say "PWM BAD!"....
Maybe the PWM "overdrove" PSII.. not likely but a possibility..
which channel was what % ect There are a dozen factors..
Sulfur Plasma...
Last edited:
From the paper.. The meat (of the tomato).
Above the green lines = better than continuous light..
NOW this doesn't "prove" much esp. w/ corals but a starting point to us FOR corals..
Remember @ 50% duty cycle..
Is it similar in corals, trees, algae, mosses ect???????
What if it can be helpful???
Interesting - normal LED PWM works above 2000 Hz (2kHz) and T5 tubes has a frequency of around 40 000 kHz
Sincerely Lasse
Similar threads
