DIY LED

[TaylorPilot]

I am thinking about making my own LED system for a 75 gallon tank, and I have a few questions. I would like to make my own pucks. Does anyone know who the top manufacturers are for creating custom PCB boards for LEDs. I know they are different than a normal PCB because of the added cooling requirements. Also, for my layout, what do you all think would be minimal distance between diodes. I still haven't decided which bulbs I am going to use, but I think they will be 3-5 watt diodes. I know I could probably buy a light already assembled for allot cheaper, but to me the DIY is one of the most fun parts of the hobby. Any suggestions on bulbs would be helpful as well.

 

[mcarroll]

Sorry to appear agian....will be brief.

gu10.

:)

 

[TaylorPilot]

They are too spread out, I really want the bulbs close together.

 

[mcarroll]

Here's a small, basic in-wall build (not mine).

 

[mcarroll]

It emulates a T5 lightfield pretty well IMO....pretty even from end to end, still a bit of shimmer, but not too much shading. IMO, at least.

 

[TaylorPilot]

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2014/4/lighting#h1c

This looks like a pretty interesting read.

 

[Retro Reefer]

I know your looking for a DYI but I ordered these for a upcoming retro fit project, did weeks worth of reading and research and this unit is getting a big thumbs up from some well respected reefers.. The bulb selection and color choices seem to make since from what I have been reading.. May help give you a idea of spacing

* 2 - SEMILED Violet CH1
* 2 - REBEL ES Lime CH2
* 1 - Rebel Cyan CH3
* 1 - Rebel Blue CH3
* 4 - Luxeon T Royal Blue CH4
* 3 - Luxeon T Neutral White & Warm White CH2

 

[TaylorPilot]

I know your looking for a DYI but I ordered these for a upcoming retro fit project, did weeks worth of reading and research and this unit is getting a big thumbs up from some well respected reefers.. The bulb selection and color choices seem to make since from what I have been reading.. May help give you a idea of spacing

* 2 - SEMILED Violet CH1
* 2 - REBEL ES Lime CH2
* 1 - Rebel Cyan CH3
* 1 - Rebel Blue CH3
* 4 - Luxeon T Royal Blue CH4
* 3 - Luxeon T Neutral White & Warm White CH2

Who makes them?

 

[Retro Reefer]

Who makes them?

Nanobox reef.. Dave is a great guy to deal with, he hand makes each one of these

 

[TaylorPilot]

http://www.sinkpad.com/

These guys seem to make high end boards. They even make custom ones!

 

[TaylorPilot]

Nanobox reef.. Dave is a great guy to deal with, he hand makes each one of these

What size is the board?

 

[Retro Reefer]

What size is the board?

Not sure the exact size.. I'm guessing about 3x4, I will have it in a couple days and I can let you know.

 

[mcarroll]

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2014/4/lighting#h1c

This looks like a pretty interesting read.

I like most of the stuff AA puts out - at least 70% - Dana Riddle is definitely their main anchor as far as I'm concerned.

These authors put together a pretty good article and there are some good technical details in there, as well as a decent update on "the state of LEDs" (for the time), but it doesn't seem like they were doing much different from anyone else with the lighting. E.g. Pucks again. Hung up on extra red light. Where's the dead-horse Emoji!?

Those nibs for "O" and "R" are pretty short! (The ends of the orange and red wavelengths, respectively.)

The end of the nib is zero for that color, so visible levels of light penetrate even less than the nib shows - really no more than a few meters!

So...unless you're into tidal ponds....(which I know some are!!!)

Remember, this is what we're actually emulating? Supposedly because we like it?

To make some improvements is one thing...

Imagery:
http://disc.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/education-and-outreach/additional/science-focus/ocean-color/oceanblue.shtml

...but that's not where reef lighting has been trending in the last year or three.

That said, I have to give the authors additional credit for doing some experimentation with diffusers.

I was just posting on that very subject (diffusers as an untapped resource) yesterday - coincidence! :)

Maybe someone else has done it too, but these guys are the first people I've read of who are actually trying it. (...but for more time in the day and money in the bank, I would be!!!)

 

[TaylorPilot]

Their canister style lights use individual diodes but apparently they put 135 watts on a quarter sized board.

http://reefll.com/index.php?route=product/list&path=64

 

[mcarroll]

Interesting - will have to dig around on that link some later.....is that based on the "dream chip"?

 

[TaylorPilot]

I like most of the stuff AA puts out - at least 70% - Dana Riddle is definitely their main anchor as far as I'm concerned.

These authors put together a pretty good article and there are some good technical details in there, as well as a decent update on "the state of LEDs" (for the time), but it doesn't seem like they were doing much different from anyone else with the lighting. E.g. Pucks again. Hung up on extra red light. Where's the dead-horse Emoji!?

Those nibs for "O" and "R" are pretty short! (The ends of the orange and red wavelengths, respectively.)

The end of the nib is zero for that color, so visible levels of light penetrate even less than the nib shows - really no more than a few meters!

So...unless you're into tidal ponds....(which I know some are!!!)

Remember, this is what we're actually emulating? Supposedly because we like it?

To make some improvements is one thing...

Imagery:
http://disc.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/education-and-outreach/additional/science-focus/ocean-color/oceanblue.shtml

...but that's not where reef lighting has been trending in the last year or three.

That said, I have to give the authors additional credit for doing some experimentation with diffusers.

I was just posting on that very subject (diffusers as an untapped resource) yesterday - coincidence! :)

Maybe someone else has done it too, but these guys are the first people I've read of who are actually trying it. (...but for more time in the day and money in the bank, I would be!!!)

One thing that I will say is that when scuba diving (am actually a certified tech for Scuba Pro regs), people often either bring a torch (flashlight) or colored gels on their goggles in order to add back red colors to the corals and fish. Otherwise everything is monochromatic (blue) and not very fun to look at. I would imagine the red is added more for viewing pleasure than for a biological reason.

 

[mcarroll]

Yes. And that was partly my point....to make some adjustments (i.e. from fish photo #1 to fish-photo #2) so one's tank doesn't look so monochromatic all the time is one thing....and pretty hard not to do, regardless of intent, in fact.

Unless you leave out the white LED's altogether, your tank is going to be very viewable. It's not going to be high CRI, but then it's not a painting on the wall, its a saltwater fish tank! :cool::D:p

Adding "more red" to the basic blue+white formula (or even their formula) just seems a bit pointless....unless you're into (e.g.) tidal scenarios, like I already said.

It's aesthetic - just for us. No benefit to the corals, even possibly detriment. Although their symbionts can use red light, the combination of symbiont and host IS NOT particularly adapted to use it while at the same time they ARE adapted, almost universally, to thrive in red-free light. It's rarely discussed that way.

Again to give some additional credit to the article authors....at least judging from the Ack's at the end of the article, they did give more than average consideration to their use of reds. To me, it's still just such a dead horse that it's not funny.

Again, given more hours and dollars, I'd be experimenting with lighting that looked like photo #1 ninety-ninety percent of the time, but that would simply have some daylight I could ramp up as-needed for spot-viewing and/or maintenance to make things look like #2. (Neither photo looks like so-called full spectrum lighting today, BTW.)

 

[mcarroll]

Just found a page that explains the red issue better than I've seen it explained so far....maybe cuz it's an underwater photography website. (Not my usual milieu....thanks Google!)

http://www.uwphotographyguide.com/underwater-photography-lighting-fundamentals

A quote or two:

"Even water at 5ft depth will have a noticeable loss of red."​

"At what depth underwater does color disappear?​

• Red - 15ft
• orange - 25ft
• Yellow - 35-45ft
• Green - 70-75ft

Don't forget to add in the horizontal distance. If you are 10ft underwater, and you are viewing an object 10ft away, the light has actually travelled 20ft, and all of the reds will be filtered out."​

 

[Nano sapiens]

I use a small amount of 'Deep Red' (660nm) in my DIY arrays and have done so for years. I use it specifically to assist with color rendition, so not a 'must have', but more a 'do like' :) The key is 'small' as too much can have negative effects on coral growth and can contribute to an increase in algae growth.

Many of the corals collected for our aquariums have been collected in relatively shallow water as it's easiest for the collectors. As such, many have been exposed to some amount of red light in nature.

From the oft quoted article on red light in Advance Aquarist (http://www.advancedaquarist.com/blog/red-light-negatively-affects-health-of-stony-coral):

In layman's terms, the study reinforces the theory that corals use red light as their gauge for light intensity and regulates photosynthesis according to the amount of detected red light. With the popularity of red LEDs used in many modern lighting fixtures, reefkeepers should be conscientious of how much red light they use over their aquariums in light of this research. Note: red light is commonly found in proven lights such as Radium metal halides and numerous fluorescent bulbs as well as in wild reefs, so the idea is not that red light is necessarily harmful but that too much red light can have negative effects on how stony corals regulate photosynthesis.

 

[mcarroll]

Red Light

[cue dead horse]

I think it's easy to read too much into that quotation because a lot has been left out.

Corals that do receive red light react because of the stress associated with red light.

The reason that red light is associated with stress is that surface light is BRIGHT and deadly.

Many (most?) corals are stressed and apparently not as healthy under surface lighting conditions (studies show they heal from injury much more slowly than healthy corals at lower depths, for example)....presumably due to oxidative stress and having less energy to spend on their own upkeep. Corals are surviving at the peaks and depths of their light range, not thriving.

Also, the examples are specious. Here's why:

The Radion (as far as I can tell) was designed to emulate the truly respectable Radium 20K bulb. Ok, I saw Vivid's tank (online), I'll give them credit they did OK.

But the Radium bulb was designed for industry, achitecture - maybe even specifically for Lloyd's of London(see bottom of post)...I dunno. But it for-sure was not design for reef lighting.​

He may not know it or whatever, but what he omits is that hobbyists selected the Radium because it didn't stink royally like the lighting that came before it! Whether the red in the bulb had an effect on "rendition" or algae (et al) was NOT a question at the time....it was the blue we were after and what made it popular.

Coral Collection

As far as where corals are/are not collected.....I think that's an interesting question that will still deserve a good answer after this thread. :(

I have yet to find any authoratative data (with even just a hint of authority....nothing fancy required!) on where any hobby corals are collected.....which leaves us to infer a lot and guess about species.

80's and 90's - That said, word on the street back in the 80's and 90's was that a lot of the corals were collected by ordinary divers - not SCUBA which is expensive. "Ordinary divers" implies a very shallow collection range, and back then (it was said) the vast majority of corals were from shallow water. No doubt this collection is still happening, at least to some degree - cuz you can't beat cheap.

2000's - Supposedly (again, "it is said"...no data) in/around the 2000's (when it was clearly becoming a speculator's market, and the word on actinic light was out on the diving scene) it became more common to have specimens showing up from "deep water" that were much more colorful compared to what was showing up in the hobby through the 80's/90's. This is logical (and parallels the 1000% price spike in high end coral frags), so I tend to believe it.

"The corals are the most diverse on the reef slope between five and twenty meters of depth[...]"
From: http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/151489/

That's between about 15 feet and 60 feet - the first zone of light that's red-free. This is where the corals seem healthiest too. Seems like this should be the model we're working toward.

So as a rule of thumb, if a coral is colorful, I genearlly say it has no business seeing red light (as far as it is concerned).

A pic for the reference above...

No that's not a building full of reef tanks tucked into that cityscape. :p That's the Lloyd's of London building! Radium 20K's!