General DIY LED thread
- Thread starter Kampo
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Lingwendil
Well-Known Member
Well, the 40 breeder project is going very slowly, and there hasn't been any progress on the pendant lights so far. I ordered the 3up amber/blue/violet to swap in but haven't gotten around to it.
So, I stumbled upon the 2.5 gallon old-school pico contest over on Nano-Reef, and joined up
Since the BlueAcro pucks are sitting unused, I pressed one into service for the pico build. I added an additional royal blue inline with the blue channel, and a cyan (my only spare) in line with the white channel. I have to say, cyan is definitely a "secret sauce" tpe of LED- it adds much more than you think it should.
Full shot of the tank- with a bit of visible color separation. This will be fixed with a diffuser of some sort. I like it
Close shot- this is a very accurate representation of how it actually looks
$12 tank, $12 heater, $11 filter, and some parts on hand for a cheap little high quality build!
So, I stumbled upon the 2.5 gallon old-school pico contest over on Nano-Reef, and joined up
Since the BlueAcro pucks are sitting unused, I pressed one into service for the pico build. I added an additional royal blue inline with the blue channel, and a cyan (my only spare) in line with the white channel. I have to say, cyan is definitely a "secret sauce" tpe of LED- it adds much more than you think it should.Full shot of the tank- with a bit of visible color separation. This will be fixed with a diffuser of some sort. I like it
Close shot- this is a very accurate representation of how it actually looks
$12 tank, $12 heater, $11 filter, and some parts on hand for a cheap little high quality build!
That looks pretty good. Definately looks bigger than the 2.5g that it is. What are the dimensions on that one? The depth and height look pretty closely matched.
I was considering the contest as well, but some people are getting far too nitpicky with certian rules and I can't do what I would like to with the tank, so I think I'm going to end up sitting it out.
I was considering the contest as well, but some people are getting far too nitpicky with certian rules and I can't do what I would like to with the tank, so I think I'm going to end up sitting it out.
Lingwendil
Well-Known Member
12"x6"x8" (8" tall) it's actually one of my favorite "stock" sizes. My first reef was in one
Join anyway! they even have a "rulebreaker" category, less swag but still fun. I haven't been this excited for a build in years. The community aspect is neat too.
Join anyway! they even have a "rulebreaker" category, less swag but still fun. I haven't been this excited for a build in years. The community aspect is neat too.
Steven Garland
Valuable Member
I wanted to join in on that too but I have a 12"x6"x6". I just can't really deal with that forum nowadays.
@Lingwendil tag me (Reefkid88) and I will follow along.
@Lingwendil tag me (Reefkid88) and I will follow along.
Lingwendil
Well-Known Member
Sorry, delayed reply-
Check it out here-
https://www.nano-reef.com/forums/topic/404915-25g-pico-contest-team-jank/
Lingwendil
Well-Known Member
Heads up- the CLU048 Royal blue CoB is on sale at RapidLED for ~12$ currently!
https://www.rapidled.com/citizen-ro...m_medium=retargeting&utm_campaign=lowerfunnel
If I wasn't broke I would grab a couple, looks like a killer base for a larger build, 75W of blue should do the job, with reflector/lens options available. Little lower forward voltage drop than the K16, so you have room to add a couple of individual LEDs in a string with it on a typical 48 volt supply, could be handy if you are adding a couple regular blue and running them all at 1000mA or less together.
(I'm not affiliated with them, just though it may be useful to some of you)
https://www.rapidled.com/citizen-ro...m_medium=retargeting&utm_campaign=lowerfunnel
If I wasn't broke I would grab a couple, looks like a killer base for a larger build, 75W of blue should do the job, with reflector/lens options available. Little lower forward voltage drop than the K16, so you have room to add a couple of individual LEDs in a string with it on a typical 48 volt supply, could be handy if you are adding a couple regular blue and running them all at 1000mA or less together.
(I'm not affiliated with them, just though it may be useful to some of you)
el aguila
Active Member
I’ve read through this thread and thought that I’ld ask for input on ratio of LEDs on a larger deeper tank. 60” x 24” x 30”
I have an old build with about 180 LEDs.
Looking to use mostly LEDs from Steve’s with a mini bluefish controller.
Channel 1 RB
Channel 2 Deep blue
Channel 3 Violet
Channel 4 Lime Green and possibly some Cyan
Channel 5 Sunplus White
Channel 6 Red ?? (I know that most of you don’t like red, but I’ld like to have some for night viewing plus slight tweaks in color). If some of you have bad experience with red and algae, I may rethink this. I was thinking 6-10 in the highest portion of my build.
I have an old build with about 180 LEDs.
Looking to use mostly LEDs from Steve’s with a mini bluefish controller.
Channel 1 RB
Channel 2 Deep blue
Channel 3 Violet
Channel 4 Lime Green and possibly some Cyan
Channel 5 Sunplus White
Channel 6 Red ?? (I know that most of you don’t like red, but I’ld like to have some for night viewing plus slight tweaks in color). If some of you have bad experience with red and algae, I may rethink this. I was thinking 6-10 in the highest portion of my build.
dantimdad
7500 Club Member
Red shows up enough in the Sunplus white. It's not that I don't like it, it's just not necessary in most cases.
Now, for night viewing in a tank your size, I would say a max of 6 x3 watt 660nm would be good.
Lingwendil
Well-Known Member
Definitely do the cyan if you have them or can source them. Last I checked Steve's no longer does them except on special request with a lead time and additional charge. One cyan to four parts regular/deep blue is a good start, and personally I think cyan makes a big difference in recreating a more natural tone.
Ditto to the above on the red. No harm in using separate reds but good whites will have enough already. Separate reds for observation and color tuning doesn't hurt though. I would think three would be plenty but maybe but six just in case? Depends in how bright you want them at night when you use them. Red is visually very bright at lower power so I would think three is enough.
Ditto to the above on the red. No harm in using separate reds but good whites will have enough already. Separate reds for observation and color tuning doesn't hurt though. I would think three would be plenty but maybe but six just in case? Depends in how bright you want them at night when you use them. Red is visually very bright at lower power so I would think three is enough.
el aguila
Active Member
How about the ratio between RB, Violet, and the Sunplus Whites?
I do have 4 Cyans that are about 4 years old. If I can’t source any from somewhere else, I’ll just use them.
I’m thinking of 10 lime green on the same channel as the cyan.
I do have 4 Cyans that are about 4 years old. If I can’t source any from somewhere else, I’ll just use them.
I’m thinking of 10 lime green on the same channel as the cyan.
Lingwendil
Well-Known Member
How blue do you like it? I'm an underdriven Radium 20K sort of guy, and like it blue heavy mostly. I tend to go for something around a ratio of 1 cyan, 4 blue, 8-14 royal blue, 1-3 white, 1-2 lime/mint, and 2-6 violet depending on how much PAR you want/need. I'm not a heavy SPS guy so I lean towards less violet usually. I try to tune the look with driver selection, and then dim as needed from there. Using the sunplus cool white you could probably go down to 2-3 regular blues, and dim back the cyan. I still think a separate cyan is a good idea though, so throw them in if you have them- they really help offset that purpley-fake blue effect you can get from using lots of royal blue, and get a more realistic tone to the whole look. Lime/cyan helps too but not as much.
These are all assuming individual "3W" stars, and can be a good rough guideline to start with. Use more white and/or lime/mint to get it whiter if that's what you need to get the look you're after, but I wouldn't change the blues up too much. Every time I've replaced royal blues with something else I've ended up putting them back and just adding something instead. You can always dim them back.
These are all assuming individual "3W" stars, and can be a good rough guideline to start with. Use more white and/or lime/mint to get it whiter if that's what you need to get the look you're after, but I wouldn't change the blues up too much. Every time I've replaced royal blues with something else I've ended up putting them back and just adding something instead. You can always dim them back.
MichaelA18454
Community Member
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2019
- Messages
- 50
- Reaction score
- 40
Hi Lasse,
I have been reading many articles in regard to lighting, and here you raise some interesting comments. So from what I am reading, providing light in the range of between 400nm - 500nm is for coral photosynthesis generally speaking, and other colours are used for human perception. Here you say you wanted some 700nm, may I ask why?
I also like the comment on RGB led's in that you can create any colour and have all the tools for human perception, so why all the fuss/marketing hype over Lime, PC Amber and now Mint. The question here is, do you believe that adding these colours particularly red, will have adverse effects by way of unwanted algae?
Another observation I have made while reading is that there is no mention of the PWM frequency and how or if these frequencies affect the corals verse analog control. I am not sure a strobe effect would be a good thing, but then again if the frequency is sufficiently high then corals may not be sensitive to this condition.
I am also perplexed as to why high power led's are the focus (efficiency) and there isn't discussions on blanketing the surface with high density low wattage led's as used for things like television. After all everyone complains about the disco ball effects and shadowing from indivadual wave lengths.
Maybe there is a bus about to come my way, and deservedly so!
Thank for any comments.
Note - what I am writing below is my own thoughts - putted together from many articles and rather much experiences - it does not mean that it is the truth - but maybe a better truth than "the only blue school" But it also a chance that is pure poop of the male cow too
@Dana Riddle correct me in the parts that I´m wrong or have to much fantasy.There have been a lot of research going on according to LED and plants - some new ideas and facts have been showing up. Mostly around two (before) worthless span of wavelengths - green and wavelengths over 700. Red (which are a huge NO-NO for many reefers have been known as one of the most important wavelengths for long time according to terrestrial plants, fresh water plants and many macro algae. However red at the wavelengths between 620 - 700 disappear rather quickly in clear salt water - at 5-7 meters - it is mostly gone. But it is plenty of these wavelengths in water not deeper than 3 m. However - red light will promote a fast and strong photosynthesis (because the wavelengths is close to both photo system I and II demanded energy quanta. It is true that 660 nm photons have lesser energy quanta compared with 450 nm photons but the energy quanta from the 450 nm photons have to be transferred down to quanta close to wavelengths around 670 - 700 nm - a lot of loss of energy. But a wavelength that promote a huge photosynthesis will help to produce a huge amount of oxygen, hence also free oxygen radicals. All photosynthetic organisms must have a strategy to regulate the fee oxygen radicals that will be produced. Plants can just shout i down but it is not so easy for the coral animal to do that. Instead do they need to develop pigment that can act as anti radicals (compare us and melanin (sunburn)) However - it seems that most corals lack triggers for anti radical production when they meet red light, but blue light trigger that production. Hence - we need to have both blue and red light and if we have enough of blue light we can put our power into 630 and 660 nm photons as well (it is more energy effective and red will also penetrate deeper in the flesh of the corals, hence promote photosynthesis in a more 3 dimensional way - important for me with more "fleshy" corals. The corals can use red light - and it maybe also is the most energy effective wavelengths we can give our corals. But they need to get a chance to build up a defense line of anti radicals - and the production of that type of pigment/proteins need to be triggered by blue wavelengths.
This was the red light
Now 740 nm or far red. It have been shown that this wavelength have a importance in balancing the electron streams between photo system I and II. Occurrence or absence of these wavelengths (around 720 - 780 nm) impact the growth pattern of plants very much. This wavelengths disappear faster in the water compared to the red wavelengths - maybe gone already at 2 m (or I know that - we have tested). However - I´m not convinced that it is a worthless wavelength
The worthless green photon
Look at this photos. They show the top side and the underside of a leaf from a pot plant illuminated from the top side by an LED flashlight with white LED (phosphorous coated). The top side get hit of all type of photons between 400 and 700 nm (photo 1) - the underside is only green (Photo 2) it means only green photons pass through.
This means that green light penetrate living tissue nearly as good as red wavelengths. It means that even if green photons do not give so much photosynthesis - but it can promote photosynthesis deeper in the flesh. And there is a lot of green photons down to around 200 m.
If you do not want to use phosphorous coated white light you maybe need some of these leds (Lime, PC Amber and now Mint) but in my option - a good high K white LED helps with that and much more
Red promoting algae growth? - I have not that experiences. I have huge CUC taking care of my algae and I think that red wavelengths not only promote algae growth (read photosynthesis) - it promote coral photosynthesis as well.
In one post - you succeed to cover all of my thoughts
I´m not sure of this - if PWM is good or bad. Photosynthesis is a quantum process - on - off and it has an frequency. If you could run PWM at the same frequency - Bingo. Maybe this is behind statements like this - 100 % kill my corals but 80% intensity make the grow like...... But I´m very unsure of this. One of leading companies according to LED and agriculture only use PWM in 10 % intensity and lower. 10 - 100 % they use 1-10 V. They say - plants does not like PWM - but they have not want to explain why.
I think it is a question of efficiency. Today most producer use 3 watts LED (they manage 1050 mA) but they run them at 350 mA. In this way they can optimize the amounts of photons produced by every watt that the light fixture use from the power grid.
After my answer you maybe see the light in the tunnel - or was it a freight train coming in
Sincerely Lasse
Dana Riddle
2500 Club Member
Well said @Lasse, as usual. My comments:
I think I quote Charles Delbeek when I say this: The ocean is not an aquarium, and an aquarium is not the ocean. In our artificial worlds within glass boxes, we are the masters of our captive animals' environment. Hence, reactions to the unnatural combinations of light we use are still under investigation.
Red light: For reasons unknown to me, the protective xanthophyll cycle offers protection only at light intensities higher than seen with blue light (this being when exposed to only red light.) Wijgerde made similar observations and offers ratios of red to blue, if memory serves me.
Red light/Far red (IR, if you will) can stimulate P-700 in Photosystem I thus allowing it to accept more electrons from PS-II.
Green light: Depends upon peak wavelength, photons up to about 550nm can be absorbed by the accessory pigment peridinin.
I think I quote Charles Delbeek when I say this: The ocean is not an aquarium, and an aquarium is not the ocean. In our artificial worlds within glass boxes, we are the masters of our captive animals' environment. Hence, reactions to the unnatural combinations of light we use are still under investigation.
Red light: For reasons unknown to me, the protective xanthophyll cycle offers protection only at light intensities higher than seen with blue light (this being when exposed to only red light.) Wijgerde made similar observations and offers ratios of red to blue, if memory serves me.
Red light/Far red (IR, if you will) can stimulate P-700 in Photosystem I thus allowing it to accept more electrons from PS-II.
Green light: Depends upon peak wavelength, photons up to about 550nm can be absorbed by the accessory pigment peridinin.
funny since you have both the frequency of the PWM and also the duration.
Most PWM LIGHTS use 500Hz to a few KHz.. This is an artifical construct of the driver/controller.
Meanwells function at 100Hz to 1KHz..
fun way to think about it.. If I threw 100 ping pong balls at you every 1/2 second or 50 constantly.. which would allow you to catch more and put in your pockets.???
Dimming would just be 50 every 1/2 second vs 50 constantly..
It's a bit dated (2017..
..Light Emitting Diodes for Agriculture
This book presents a comprehensive treatise on the advances in the use of light-emitting diodes (LEDs) for sustainable crop production and describes the latest photomorphogenesis research findings. It introduces readers to the fundamentals and design features of LEDs applicable for plant growth...
books.google.com
Last edited:
MichaelA18454
Community Member
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2019
- Messages
- 50
- Reaction score
- 40
Note - what I am writing below is my own thoughts - putted together from many articles and rather much experiences - it does not mean that it is the truth - but maybe a better truth than "the only blue school" But it also a chance that is pure poop of the male cow too
There have been a lot of research going on according to LED and plants - some new ideas and facts have been showing up. Mostly around two (before) worthless span of wavelengths - green and wavelengths over 700. Red (which are a huge NO-NO for many reefers have been known as one of the most important wavelengths for long time according to terrestrial plants, fresh water plants and many macro algae. However red at the wavelengths between 620 - 700 disappear rather quickly in clear salt water - at 5-7 meters - it is mostly gone. But it is plenty of these wavelengths in water not deeper than 3 m. However - red light will promote a fast and strong photosynthesis (because the wavelengths is close to both photo system I and II demanded energy quanta. It is true that 660 nm photons have lesser energy quanta compared with 450 nm photons but the energy quanta from the 450 nm photons have to be transferred down to quanta close to wavelengths around 670 - 700 nm - a lot of loss of energy. But a wavelength that promote a huge photosynthesis will help to produce a huge amount of oxygen, hence also free oxygen radicals. All photosynthetic organisms must have a strategy to regulate the fee oxygen radicals that will be produced. Plants can just shout i down but it is not so easy for the coral animal to do that. Instead do they need to develop pigment that can act as anti radicals (compare us and melanin (sunburn)) However - it seems that most corals lack triggers for anti radical production when they meet red light, but blue light trigger that production. Hence - we need to have both blue and red light and if we have enough of blue light we can put our power into 630 and 660 nm photons as well (it is more energy effective and red will also penetrate deeper in the flesh of the corals, hence promote photosynthesis in a more 3 dimensional way - important for me with more "fleshy" corals. The corals can use red light - and it maybe also is the most energy effective wavelengths we can give our corals. But they need to get a chance to build up a defense line of anti radicals - and the production of that type of pigment/proteins need to be triggered by blue wavelengths.
This was the red light
[M] That's a very interesting response, thank you.
There seems to much debate in regard to the use of "RED" and the use of natural sun light, with a focus on probable causes of algae blooms.
I don't believe the light source is the cause of algae blooms, but rather the nutrient levels.
There are many research articles detailing "RED" as with other wavelengths being filtered with depth of water, but how can we determine the spectrum for the species of corals we choose to keep!
Now 740 nm or far red. It have been shown that this wavelength have a importance in balancing the electron streams between photo system I and II. Occurrence or absence of these wavelengths (around 720 - 780 nm) impact the growth pattern of plants very much. This wavelengths disappear faster in the water compared to the red wavelengths - maybe gone already at 2 m (or I know that - we have tested). However - I´m not convinced that it is a worthless wavelength
[M]My thoughts are that most of the corals we keep in an aquaria are from near surface water, and as you have indicated, certain wavelengths are filtered with depth, I believe this have been tested and documented many times along with other factors and causes.
So from here I see that corals from greater than 5-7Mt react differently to different wavelenghts.
Higher light intensities in the range 660-700 nm also caused tentacle contractions in F. favus. Tentacles
Photobehavior of stony corals: responses to light spectra and intensity
Tentacle expansion and contraction were investigated in four zooxanthellate coral species and one azooxanthellate coral ( Cladopsammia gracilis ). Favia favus, Plerogyra sinuosa and Cladopsammia gracilis expand their tentacles at night, while tentacles in Goniopora lobata and Stylophora...jeb.biologists.org
I found this article identifies this, hence why my question in regard to 700nm.
It's as if, for one to keep a specific species of coral then it's lighting requirements could be categorise by the depth at which it was collected or generally known to exist.
The worthless green photon
Look at this photos. They show the top side and the underside of a leaf from a pot plant illuminated from the top side by an LED flashlight with white LED (phosphorous coated). The top side get hit of all type of photons between 400 and 700 nm (photo 1) - the underside is only green (Photo 2) it means only green photons pass through.
This means that green light penetrate living tissue nearly as good as red wavelengths. It means that even if green photons do not give so much photosynthesis - but it can promote photosynthesis deeper in the flesh. And there is a lot of green photons down to around 200 m.
If you do not want to use phosphorous coated white light you maybe need some of these leds (Lime, PC Amber and now Mint) but in my option - a good high K white LED helps with that and much more
Red promoting algae growth? - I have not that experiences. I have huge CUC taking care of my algae and I think that red wavelengths not only promote algae growth (read photosynthesis) - it promote coral photosynthesis as well.
In one post - you succeed to cover all of my thoughts
I´m not sure of this - if PWM is good or bad. Photosynthesis is a quantum process - on - off and it has an frequency. If you could run PWM at the same frequency - Bingo. Maybe this is behind statements like this - 100 % kill my corals but 80% intensity make the grow like...... But I´m very unsure of this. One of leading companies according to LED and agriculture only use PWM in 10 % intensity and lower. 10 - 100 % they use 1-10 V. They say - plants does not like PWM - but they have not want to explain why.
I think it is a question of efficiency. Today most producer use 3 watts LED (they manage 1050 mA) but they run them at 350 mA. In this way they can optimize the amounts of photons produced by every watt that the light fixture use from the power grid.
After my answer you maybe see the light in the tunnel - or was it a freight train coming in
Sincerely Lasse
MichaelA18454
Community Member
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2019
- Messages
- 50
- Reaction score
- 40
funny since you have both the frequency of the PWM and also the duration.
Most PWM LIGHTS use 500Hz to a few KHz.. This is an artifical construct of the driver/controller.
Meanwells function at 100Hz to 1KHz..
fun way to think about it.. If I threw 100 ping pong balls at you every 1/2 second or 50 constantly.. which would allow you to catch more and put in your pockets.???
Dimming would just be 50 every 1/2 second vs 50 constantly..
It's a bit dated (2017..
Light Emitting Diodes for Agriculture
This book presents a comprehensive treatise on the advances in the use of light-emitting diodes (LEDs) for sustainable crop production and describes the latest photomorphogenesis research findings. It introduces readers to the fundamentals and design features of LEDs applicable for plant growth...books.google.com
Very well put, and thats the point, LED's have very little capacitance and so react to the PWM frequency.
And because I can't find a study of the effects, then I believe the capacitance has to be part of the output circuit of the LED driver, and charge the capacitor to supply the led's with a true required DC current.
Normal OUTPUT pattern of many constant current drivers.
you can see more her (and better if logged in)
Mean Well LDD-H vs XPPOWER LDU56
Is it just me or does that also look like a PWM output? :eek:
www.ultimatereef.net
There is no "dwell" in power or in photons really (well always some esp w/ phosphor types) so.. AFAICT it really is an efficient "strobe" of photons..
Of course w/ multiple channels not sure if all can be in sync to have all be off at the same time.
Yea it has some "conflicts" w/ nature..
good slide show..slide 18 in particular..
National Semiconductor Power Products - Seminar 3 (LED Lighting) - PDF Free Download
National Semiconductor Power Products - Seminar 3 (LED Lighting) Dr. Iain Mosely Converter Technology Ltd. Slide 1 Overview Background on LEDs Power Electronics for Driving LEDs LED Driver Specific Solutions
MichaelA18454
Community Member
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2019
- Messages
- 50
- Reaction score
- 40
Normal OUTPUT pattern of many constant current drivers.
you can see more her (and better if logged in)
Mean Well LDD-H vs XPPOWER LDU56
Is it just me or does that also look like a PWM output? :eek:
There is no "dwell" in power or in photons really (well always some esp w/ phosphor types) so.. AFAICT it really is an efficient "strobe" of photons..
Of course w/ multiple channels not sure if all can be in sync to have all be off at the same time.
Yea it has some "conflicts" w/ nature..
good slide show..slide 18 in particular..
National Semiconductor Power Products - Seminar 3 (LED Lighting) - PDF Free Download
National Semiconductor Power Products - Seminar 3 (LED Lighting) Dr. Iain Mosely Converter Technology Ltd. Slide 1 Overview Background on LEDs Power Electronics for Driving LEDs LED Driver Specific Solutionsdocplayer.net
Thanks for that, I will go through it in detail.
My tests show that when I use a photo transistor to observe the PWM, the LED is sufficiently fast to provide a similar input / output response.
Similar threads
