The Modified Black Box Thread

[NY_Caveman]

Headliner glue for cars. Dm77 should work too.
If your frame is rigid , like stretching a canvas it should work fine. Mine is actually curtains, so I ran a few stiches in it to hold it. The flex pulled the glue in a couple spots.
Magic of Velcro to hold em on

One panel pulled for frame illustration.

Excellent. Thank you!

 

[rushbattle]

No need to reconcile...I was just talking theory and made up that number on a rational basis to help. ;)

But...

My first question would be what angle are the primary lenses?

Primaries are often 120º, but they can be whatever the mfgr spec's...so as usual in life, assuming isn't a great idea when it matters. ;) (In fact are you positive about the angle on all your secondary lenses? Especially the ones that came with the light. Trust your measurements at least as much as the sticker on the box.)

You may be able to interpret what the primary lenses are from comparing similar measurements for the secondary lenses you have. It's conceivable that the primaries are closer to 180º, so if you're curious it's a worthy question to answer IMO. ;)

This next part may not be as relevant since I suspect you actually have wider primaries, but another thing to consider is whether you're losing any more light outside the tank – aka "light spill" – than you were with the stronger, more narrow lenses. (Maybe this applies to @reeferfoxx's conversion too? Read on...thinking out loud here, so brace yourselves... :D)

If you are spilling more light outside the tank, then that's obviously reducing the amount of light inside the tank.

But if you are not spilling more light, then you know that in spite of the lens change, you're still putting the same amount of light into the tank. A seeming contradiction, but not.

Your light meter is measuring incident irradiance....which is a technical term for light coming direct from the source.

The pancake-shaped sensor on your meter will indeed be hit by less light from the source when you remove the strong lenses. Lower PAR readings would seem predictable. But what about the fact that we verified no light is escaping the system?? (Let's assume you're pulling the same watts from teh wall as well.)

How can can we not be losing light AND find that measured levels are less?

There's more light bouncing around at odd angles in the tank, and less beaming in from directly overhead.

The net amount should be close to the same as before the lens change, if you had a meter that could capture it.

If you had the meter to do that, it would be measuring scalar irradiance....which is a technical term that means "from all directions".

You'd be using a sensor something like this:


In reality, when removing strong lenses you're lighting up the glass of your tank more and that glass is what's doing a lot of the reflecting. (Sand bed and anything else white too.)

It's likely that more algae will grow on the glass as a result, and that will impact the reflectivity. Upgrade you CUC and glass scraper if needed! :)

It's also glass and not a mirror (duh) so there's some loss of light through the glass during reflection....why you can see into the tank. :p :D

But if you measure that light coming through the glass from the inside, I bet it accounts for almost all the "loss in PAR" between lenses and no-lenses if you could measure "all light" in the tank.

The point?

Corals are designed to make full use of scalar irradiance – which could hypothetically be a mixed blessing during a lens switch like this.

If you've taken a coral that had deep shade on it anywhere and by this lens swap have converted that deep shade area to "low light", that would be a huge increase in photosynthesis in a part of the coral that was adapted to shade. A part like that is likely to be relatively unshielded to light AND densely populated by Symbiodinium. This can be really rough on the coral, and bleaching would be the result....dino's expelled.

I wouldn't really worry as long as 1) flow is good, 2) nutrients in the system are positive (especially P) and 3) the rest of the coral is not responding similarly. Hopefully the bleached parts of the coral will be supported by the rest of the colony until those parts can adapt to the new light situation. The bleached parts are technically now safe from further damage due to "unprotected photosynthesis".

Great post, thanks for the input!

 

[McPikie]

I am looking to have a fiddle with my IT2080 I have just picked up (SB Reefbuilders I think for the US market).

I used to have a pro-reef which I still have the board for, but I picked off all the LEDs and bagged them up:

2018-04-13_08-15-14 by Phil Cookson, on Flickr

However, does anyone have any advice as to what to actually replace. I'm thinking all the warm whites at 6500k need to be swapped for the 20k items from the pro reef. They look like every other LED on the white channel on top and bottom rows

D7K_6471 by Phil Cookson, on Flickr

In the middle 2 rows I have 4 reds and 4 greens, should I take 2 of each out and, if so, replace them with more blue? I have been advised to take all 10 yellows out and replace with UVs, but don't UVs run lower voltage and would therefore burn out quicker? I am probably going to leave the blue channel as it is.

D7K_6467 by Phil Cookson, on Flickr

I will only be running up to 60% on blues and probably 30% on whites, and going to keep the lenses on as the lights are so tightly packed and will be around 8" off the waterline

 

[Jonathan Troutt]

So I have really battled with myself on what to do about a second light. I was considering getting a SB light and comparing the two.

I think I have finally decided to just get a second viparspectra and swap the majority of the white leds over to 20k or 30k or a mix.

I’ve also considered switching the drivers to meanwell drivers for the purpose of pushing these at more than 2w per led. Which is what I’ve read they are driven at.

Thoughts on my decisions?

 

[Jonathan Troutt]

So looking up the part number of the drivers that are in the viparspectra 165w light. Part numbers are
LT-2G-B3856W-F

Rating on is
80-100v DC 510-530mA
60w 0-10v PWM dimming.

Are meanwel drivers driving the blue channel closer to 800mA possible?

 

[Jonathan Troutt]

McPikie I am going to be replacing warm and neutral whites with 20k-30k whites. They are rated for the same voltage as the warmer whites so shouldn’t be a problem with that channel on mine.

The way I understand if all leds are in series you want to run leds of the basic same voltage as the rest the reason for this is because in series a lower voltage led will be driven harder. It would be possible to run a lower voltage led but you would have to run a high power resistor of the right resistance with the led to get the voltage needed for that particular led. For 3 watt leds I would use no less than a 5 watt resistor. Which isnt really a small resistor. You could probably get by with a lower wattage but it would run hotter and we all know that higher temps shorten life span of electronic components.

 

[Jonathan Troutt]

Sorry for the multiple posts here. But I noticed the two pots on inside of these drivers. They are labeled as 60w drivers. Do you think they are turned down from the factory? I guess I could just measure it and do the calculations myself. A task for tomorrow.

Just out of curiosity is there anything else anyone would like measured inside this light while I have it apart tomorrow?

 

[McPikie]

McPikie I am going to be replacing warm and neutral whites with 20k-30k whites. They are rated for the same voltage as the warmer whites so shouldn’t be a problem with that channel on mine.

The way I understand if all leds are in series you want to run leds of the basic same voltage as the rest the reason for this is because in series a lower voltage led will be driven harder. It would be possible to run a lower voltage led but you would have to run a high power resistor of the right resistance with the led to get the voltage needed for that particular led. For 3 watt leds I would use no less than a 5 watt resistor. Which isnt really a small resistor. You could probably get by with a lower wattage but it would run hotter and we all know that higher temps shorten life span of electronic components.

I've not taken the unit apart yet

This is the board from my "pro-reef" set up. All Whites were 20k items, the missing ones would be 420-450nm blues

2018-04-17_09-05-09 by Phil Cookson, on Flickr

I wanted to replicate this really as it ran so well on my last tank, but I'd also like to get it better if I could.

Now, this is the white channel and I was thinking of swapping the warm whites out for the blues and purples, and the yellows to 20k whites

2018-04-17_09-05-22 by Phil Cookson, on Flickr

Really need to find a program that I can make a grid 24 x 4 layout and play with the colours

 

[McPikie]

ProReef by Phil Cookson, on Flickr

 

[Jonathan Troutt]

So just a quick update here. I have replaced all of my warm white and neutral white leds with either 20k or 30k white. There is on pot that makes a noticeable affect and it’s the one labeled MIN-SET. Makes the channel dimmer if it’s set low already.

 

[Barnacle1]

Anyone have a fix for lights turning themselves on randomly? Or a source for a replacement WiFi board?

 

[reeferfoxx]

Anyone have a fix for lights turning themselves on randomly? Or a source for a replacement WiFi board?

Did you try resetting the light? Also make sure the last two time slots in your schedule are all zeros.

 

[Barnacle1]

Did you try resetting the light? Also make sure the last two time slots in your schedule are all zeros.

Hi reeferfoxx,

Thanks for the response. I’m going to reset the light now, but my gut tells me the issue is the program. I forgot to mention that I changed the program 2 days ago and went from using half the time slots to all 24. I also started turning the lights completely off overnight.

So by last two time slots all zeros, you mean the time too not just the LED values, correct?

 

[Jason mack]

Is there anybody running theirs without any lenses in .. and what are your findings ???

 

[reeferfoxx]

So by last two time slots all zeros, you mean the time too not just the LED values, correct?

Correct.

Is there anybody running theirs without any lenses in .. and what are your findings ???

I tried it. Ran it for a couple days. For me the quality of light may have improved but the light spill was too much.

 

[Jason mack]

Correct.


I tried it. Ran it for a couple days. For me the quality of light may have improved but the light spill was too much.

Ok well I have got some 120 • lenses so where would be best to change them out , only the whites ?

 

[reeferfoxx]

Ok well I have got some 120 • lenses so where would be best to change them out , only the whites ?

Jason, I did this after testing the box without lenses. I felt this would blend the light better as well as increase par drop off around the edges of the unit.

 

[Flippers4pups]

Is there anybody running theirs without any lenses in .. and what are your findings ???

I'm running my modded Mars Aquas without lenses. Blending is very good, had to turn up the intensity a tad. Working well now for about a year.

 

[Jason mack]

I'm running my modded Mars Aquas without lenses. Blending is very good, had to turn up the intensity a tad. Working well now for about a year.

Jason, I did this after testing the box without lenses. I felt this would blend the light better as well as increase par drop off around the edges of the unit.

Thanks @reeferfoxx I’m gonna try this ..!!!!!!

 

[rushbattle]

Jason, I did this after testing the box without lenses. I felt this would blend the light better as well as increase par drop off around the edges of the unit.

This is a great idea. I am using all 120° lenses, and that is my preference. But for a higher mounting height, this would be better.