DIY LED Aquarium Lights.

[bitterman]

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1587273

[tandao78]

THIS could be an interesting Summer project.  Anyone interested in doing one,two or more.  We can save on shipping and would more likely get things done quicker.

[groan]

I WANT ONE!!!
oh, i need to find some money. anyone have some spare?

[bitterman]

This link has LED VS PC plant grown comparisons for those plan geeks 

http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/diy-aquarium-projects/1009-diy-led-lighting-via-luxeon-stars-5.html

[bitterman]

but not in my budget...

It is expensive, but there are a few things to think of
-Dimmable (Could even include moonlights into the design)
-Can mix colours to get different looks if desired based on needs and with dimming each colour on a different chanel almost totally change the color the tank gets to give a true and total Dust to dawn.
-Electricity cost..... way less power
-The article was for a SW reef setup a planted tank coudl most likely use less LED's and low PAR values and still do very well. You don't need 2 x 175MH on a 75 for Plants do you?
-No bulb replacements every year, Supose to be about a 10-15 year life of the LED's depending on the ones you use.

Bruce

[charlie]

This link has LED VS PC plant grown comparisons for those plan geeks 

http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/diy-aquarium-projects/1009-diy-led-lighting-via-luxeon-stars-5.html

I get good plant growth with cheapo 8.00 T5 bulbs, that i have not changed in over a year 

[bitterman]

I get good plant growth with cheapo 8.00 T5 bulbs, that i have not changed in over a year 

I know you do  the article wanted to show how much more efficient watt for watt LED's are compared to pc's for equal wattages.

By show that they are saying to get the same results you can be "Green" and use less watts and less electricity.

Right now these LED fixtures are so high in cost they are not worth it, but DIY might put them in a place that they are not that much more expensive then normal high end light components and you save the $ on electricity and bulb replacements that you would normally have with conventional lighting systems. So in turn my conclusion is thus we can still have the things that need high light in our tanks and have less of a carbon footprint and be more "Green" as we don't have those wasteful bulbs going to the landfill polluting our earth while we use less electricity.

Bruce

[charlie]

I know you do  the article wanted to show how much more efficient watt for watt LED's are compared to pc's for equal wattages.

By show that they are saying to get the same results you can be "Green" and use less watts and less electricity.

Right now these LED fixtures are so high in cost they are not worth it, but DIY might put them in a place that they are not that much more expensive then normal high end light components and you save the $ on electricity and bulb replacements that you would normally have with conventional lighting systems. So in turn my conclusion is thus we can still have the things that need high light in our tanks and have less of a carbon footprint and be more "Green" as we don't have those wasteful bulbs going to the landfill polluting our earth while we use less electricity.

Bruce

Can`t argue with the " Carbon footprint" platform   .

[Bob the Nano]

really cool set up..... but way out of my league

[Hookup]

This is awesome...  I have the bloddly corner tank and it's a nightmare to get light into evenly.. this LED setup could do that in a sinch..... and, save money!

Thank you, you've made my day!

People with NANO tanks should be looking at this, a simple 6LED system would cover them completely!  NANO's should be running this, imo.

[Hookup]

I am worried about the ColorTemp (wavelengths) produced by LED's... and what is required by corals... (SW stuff here)...

Reading the following thread gives some very clear definitions on PAR vs LUX vs Spectrum/Wavelengths...

http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1496092&perpage=25&pagenumber=1

[bitterman]

I am worried about the ColorTemp (wavelengths) produced by LED's... and what is required by corals... (SW stuff here)...

They refured to this article deep in the threads:

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2007/10/review#h4

Bruce

[Canoe]

I've only followed the original article. I like the concept, but I have some concerns regarding the light spectrum resulting from the choices of LEDs, as they are Royal Blue LEDs and Cool White LEDs. The LEDs are very peaky at a single wavelength in the blue, 450nm for the Royal Blue and 455nm for the Cool White.

I've tried to find out the corelation between light spectrum and PAR meters, but so far haven't been successful. I'm concerned that the peaky blue LED may spike the PAR meter thereby giving a high reading, but not provide adequate light over time as it's in too narrow a spectrum. Also, there is very little light energy provided in the red; will this be a problem over the long term?

The resulting blue light is extremely peaky, with hugely less energy at the 470nm optimum for peridinin and practically none at the 430nm peak for chlorophyll a. There is a Blue LED from the same manufacturer (CRE) that peaks at 465nm. A mix of Royal Blue and Blue would give a broader coverage in the blue range of light. Adding in LEDs from another manufacturer to provide something in the 430 to 440 range could be a big improvement. The blues provide no light beyond the blue range. It would be tempting to add in a UV LED to really pop the fluorescing colours, but there is a real risk to one's eyes.

The light requirement in the red at 675nm, for chlorophyll a, is hugely absent. I don't know how important it is to provide the red for chlorophyll a. Considerably more red could be provided by using the Neutral White LEDs or the Warm White LEDs, but the original builder chose not to (likely going for the brightest white LED).

*** my bad *** flux ratings in the following paragraph were originally quoted from CRE's MCE LEDs, not their XRE LEDs. Now corrected.

White LEDs are produced from a blue LED (lots of energy) that receives coatings that absorb some of the blue light energy and radiate it at other colours. LEDs are not generally good for good viewing light, as they tend to have a limited spectrum with a real peak of blue provided by the underlying blue LED. This is improving. The LED manufacturer used by the builder in the article provides white LEDs in Cool White, Neutral White and Warm White. Their light quality Colour Index are, in order, 75, 75 and 80. The Cool White is the most "blue" of the whites, as it redirects the least of the blue light; this also means it has the highest light output, with a flux rating of 80 to 107 lm. The flux is, in order, 80 to 107, 62 to 93 and 56 to 80 lm (they're a range as I don't know which specific XRE base model is mounted on the star purchased in the original article). The Neutral White absorbs more of the blue and gets considerably more of its light output in the 520 through 700 range (green, yellow, orange & red) than the Cool White. The Warm White is the least blue, the most pleasing to view colours under (closest to sunlight), but has the lowest light output.

*** and I got the drive currents from the wrong LEDs, now corrected...

It's difficult to tell the actual light output at the various wavelengths by looking at the spectrum graphs of the three different white LEDs: the manufacturer's graphs show the spectrum of each as a percentage of that LED's peak, not as a percentage of the brightest LED's peak. The spectrums provided are when driving the LEDs at 350ma, yet the blue LEDs, Cool and Neutral white LEDs are rated to 1000ma, Warm white is rated to 700 ma. The builder in the original article used 700ma for the blue and 1000 ma for his Cool white. Using the manufacturer's data, we're stuck comparing apples, oranges and bananas.

From a practical view, in addition to the potential energy savings, and cost savings (very long LED life (50,000+ hours) - no bulbs to replace), your choice of white LED can also result in the look you desire. Using Warm White LEDs would result in a look closer to shallow water, Neutral White a little deeper, and Cool White even deeper. Add in the blue of your choice to get a look of even deeper water.

If one had the money, a string of Warm White and a string of Cool White, along with a blue string (be it all one blue or a mix), with each string dimmable, should provide all the colour mixing required for creating different times of day. Much lower cost than mixing red/green/blue or red/green/yellow/blue.

The blue string running alone provides your moon lights, but possibly too bright unless their string is dimmable.

Personally, I like the look of shallow water. I'll probably build a LED canopy, but I'm looking at using Warm White LEDs, one or two strings, be it from the same manufacturer or another, with a blue string that provides more even coverage across the blue range. I'll likely drive the strings with high frequency pulses for even lower energy consumption and dimmable capability (side benefit of doubling the life of the LEDs as well).

[Hookup]

Srry, didn't read this all, but your statements right of the bat, I think, are a bit wrong.  Light spectrum all has the same energy...  Red vs Blue are the same amount of energy... only the frequency of the wave changes which effects color (spectrum).

Will read more of your post after EarthHour.   

[Canoe]

... Light spectrum all has the same energy...  Red vs Blue are the same amount of energy... only the frequency of the wave changes which effects color (spectrum)...

Corals need light at different frequencies/wavelengths within the spectrum. For our viewing quality, our eyes need light balanced across the spectrum.

I have a .gif comparing coral requirements to the LEDs, but apparently I can't post it to the gallery.

[Canoe]

Not in the OVAS gallery, but viewable as clickable thumbnails.

CRE blue LEDs

The blue used in the original article is Royal Blue. Its spectrum is shown as a dark blue line in the following graph.




CRE "white" LEDs

The white used in the original article is a Cool White driven at 1000 ma. Its spectrum while driven at 350 ma is shown as a blue line in the following graph.



The company does not provide spectrum of the LEDs at their drive currents that give the maximum brightness, instead providing spectrum at half or less than that. This I suspect - but have no data (the company does not provide it) - that the white LED's coatings (that absorb blue energy and release it at different wavelengths to create the "white" light from the blue) are less efficient at 1000 ma than at 350 ma, and hence would result in an even higher spectrum peak in the blue while reducing their output at the other wavelengths.

In their spec sheet, there's also a line:
        Lumen maintenance of greater than 70% after 50,000 hours
Light output can (will?) dim over time! 50,000 hours is over 11 years at 12 hours a day. But who wants their corals to slowly degrade and possibly die because we weren't aware that the light output of the canopy was degrading over time. Do we need to build more LEDs dimmed down to the desired light output, such that as they dim/fade/degrade in time, we can up the canopy light output by raising the dimming control?

[Hookup]

Corals need light at different frequencies/wavelengths within the spectrum.

Um, sorry to bust ya again, but this is not entirely correct either, though maybe it was what you were saying and I miss understood.  Corals utilize all light for photosynthesis, though not equally efficiently... And once saturation levels are reached, at any wave length, it doesn't matter any more.  So corals do not "need" that light range, it is a graph of how effectively they use the different light levels...

Think of it like a graph of how well your car engine uses different grades of gas... you cannot say your engine "needs premium" because it has a better graph... it simply needs gas... and if you want to be efficent about it use premium.  (ananlogy dies here) 

For the light/photosynthesis, there is a "maximum" level of photosynthetic reactions that can be achieved... ie. the electron transfer is limited through the number of available electrons in the system.. once you have reached this max-level, no matter how you reach it (ie. what color of light) you just cannot get more out of the system...   Also, photosynthesis, like your car, can use all types of light (the types we are talking about)... some more efficiently than others... but we do not need to worry about "how efficient" the process is with Type A or Type B of light, if we can get the entire process at Saturation using whatever light we have...

SPS lighting systems (LED/MH/T5) are believed to produce sufficent light in terms of PAR, to reach saturation levels.  I'm still researching this part because what I've read so far simply implies that this is true, but I have no "proof" on that... the above is all fact from scientific journals that is easily verified.

This basically summarizes that PAR is more important than specific wave lengths for the Photosynthesis process...

I suggest you also read the first 3 pages of Photosysthesis & Wavelengths Thread for a detailed discussion "by experts" on photochemistry, photosynthesis and corals.  This is where my "research" comes from..... so please do not consider me any type of an expert because I read some stuff from experts and I'm continuing to research... i could have miss interpreted what I've read.

[Canoe]

...  I've tried to find out the corelation between light spectrum and PAR meters, but so far haven't been successful. I'm concerned that the peaky blue LED may spike the PAR meter thereby giving a high reading, but not provide adequate light over time as it's in too narrow a spectrum. Also, there is very little light energy provided in the red; will this be a problem over the long term?... I don't know how important it is to provide the red for chlorophyll a. ...

thanks Hookup
I haven't read all that yet, but it looks like it's what I've been looking for. Sorry for the rush reply that used "need" instead of "use". The graphs were obviously utilization, but I couldn't find if corals needed light at a given wavelength. The graph also mixes chlorophyll A and peridinin as it's graphing for corals, not each. But what if the light provided didn't have any blue light, but Red, Green, Yellow (LEDs commonly mixed for "creating" white light prior to white LEDs). Would the absence of blue affect peridinin? Would it matter or would chlorophyll a photosynthesis be all the corals need for thriving?

What I'd like to know - and what I hope that article has - is that utilization curve the same for each coral and what is the threshold for photosynthetic reaction? That, and if a PAR meter can be mislead by a peak at a given frequency; as in, can PAR meters be reliably used to ensure adequate light levels, even with hugely uneven spectrum.

If it's all good, then as long as PAR is met, the unbalanced light spectrum of white LEDs wouldn't matter to corals, just our viewing quality/pleasure.

One of the threads there said that: until a threshold in light level is reached there will be no photosynthesis; photosynthesis will not take place at a lower rate at a lower light level, so it doesn't matter how long you leave the lights on if it isn't bright enough. This appeared to be accepted as true. Do you know? If so, then I'd need to know what the useful range of light is, threshold through saturation. I'd hate to spend $1000 CAD building a LED canopy, be fine for some years, and then as the LEDs degrade have the light level slip below optimum for my corals so they don't thrive, or even worse, below the threshold for photosynthesis and they die. In practical terms, is this a narrow range of brightness, or is there a lot of latitude?

And if you want to think about the next one. If LEDs are driven by high frequency pulses, LED life is greatly increased (doubled or more, if you keep the peaks below the max current - and perhaps their light output wouldn't fade? as much?). This would obviously be desirable. Also, to human eyes it looks just as bright for around 80% of the energy. But what affect would this have on useable light for corals? Would this "fool" PAR meters? Fluorescents flicker and Metal Halides flicker, hence some of the high frequency electronic ballasts; do we trust or compensate for PAR readings? I'm assuming that as PAR is used for these flickering light sources, pulsed LED light would also be measured fine, but I'd like to know. Perhaps the PAR levels in the original article, which seem to surprise quite a few people for their being so high, are due to the fact that those LEDS are continuously driven by DC current and hence - unlike slow or fast flickering fluorescents (metal halide anyone?) - the LED's "peak" light energy is continuously available to both the PAR meter and the corals.

[Hookup]

First, i'm no physists, nor am I a biologist... so I can only quote you what I read and understood.  Your milage may vary...

Would the absence of blue affect peridinin? 

Not specifically sure as this was not specifically mentioned or addressed in anything i've read. However, it was also included, many times, in the conversation, and the opportunity existed for many of the 'experts' to point out the effect of light on Peridinin as an exception, acting differently that Chloraphil A/B and it was never done.. therefore, it's my understanding of the effect of Peridinin in the process is that it too works with *any* wavelength, better with some, but works.

Would it matter or would chlorophyll a photosynthesis be all the corals need for thriving?

Good damn question... I do not know... But based upon my understanding of the above, the question might not be rellivant as the process should/will work anyhow.

What I'd like to know - and what I hope that article has - is that utilization curve the same for each coral and what is the threshold for photosynthetic reaction?

Each coral is specific.  In the thread I posted above, there is a link to a set of charts showing some more corals and their curves... but the mechanics are all the same, and each coral has a similar enuf curve, it doesn't matter specifically UNLESS you do not have enuf useable light (PAR)... if you are under powered, then these curves can make-up the difference... meaning that if you do not have enuf PAR, but it's all in the "most usuable" range (blue), then you can still achieve acceptable/saturated levels of photosynthesis.

That, and if a PAR meter can be mislead by a peak at a given frequency; as in, can PAR meters be reliably used to ensure adequate light levels, even with hugely uneven spectrum.

Yeah, no idea how PAR meters work, so I see the potential for a specific wave-length of light to provide a false reading... however, if that were the case, I'm sure that there would have been many discussions on measuring PAR for specific wavelengths... i.e. PAR readings under UV or Actinc vs Daylight bubls would all yield different results because of the TOOL, not because of the light-source... As I've not seen any of this, anywhere, I'm inclined to think that the measuring tool (PAR METER) is not susseptable to this type of error...

If it's all good, then as long as PAR is met, the unbalanced light spectrum of white LEDs wouldn't matter to corals, just our viewing quality/pleasure.

That is 100% the line of thinking that is in the above thread.  Get to saturation, however you want, and you win... Adjust for viewing preferences...

HOWEVER, LED's still have some inherant problems...(more below)

One of the threads there said that: until a threshold in light level is reached there will be no photosynthesis; photosynthesis will not take place at a lower rate at a lower light level, so it doesn't matter how long you leave the lights on if it isn't bright enough. This appeared to be accepted as true. Do you know?

This is 100% true, however we are talking abnormally minimal amounts of light... PC lighting will still produce photosythesis, just you are no where near saturation, and the corals cannot get enuf energy from those lights...   I wouldn't worry about not having *any* photosynthesis, but rather trying to reach close to or beyond saturation levels.

If so, then I'd need to know what the useful range of light is, threshold through saturation. I'd hate to spend $1000 CAD building a LED canopy, be fine for some years, and then as the LEDs degrade have the light level slip below optimum for my corals so they don't thrive, or even worse, below the threshold for photosynthesis and they die. In practical terms, is this a narrow range of brightness, or is there a lot of latitude?

LED's will cover that aspect of the problem, no issues...

And if you want to think about the next one. If LEDs are driven by high frequency pulses, LED life is greatly increased (doubled or more, if you keep the peaks below the max current - and perhaps their light output wouldn't fade? as much?). This would obviously be desirable. Also, to human eyes it looks just as bright for around 80% of the energy. But what affect would this have on useable light for corals?

This will have no effect because of answer below...

Would this "fool" PAR meters?

No, it *should not*... PAR meters are measureing available, useable light... flickering is not going to be an issue, because it's mesured in meters^2/sec, you can kind of think of that as a VOLUME measurement over time... and flickering is taken into account... so get  your PAR meter reading high-enuf to create saturated levels of photosynthesis and you win... flickering or not, no difference...



My thoughts on LED systems...
1.  They can produce the PAR required for saturation.
2.  They can be dialed-in for whatever color ranges your eye likes to see (nice feature)
3.  They last forever, compared to other systems
4.  They create a STRONG spotlight effect, this can be problematic for coral placement...  very small shifts in your corals can put them into and out of saturtion levels... initally this can cause corals to "burn" with too much light, or grow-slowly with too little PAR.
5.  Their performance over 50,000 hrs is not documented in terms of PAR output, to my knowlege.... What happens 2 years from now when they Look as bright, but are not... All of the documentation I've read says they "last" 50,000 hrs, but that is an On/Off thing... time till burnt out... there is alot of gray area there... Might be well published, i just haven't seen any, and I've only just started to look...
6.  The initial setup as described in the origional thread (first post) is NOT typical.... It's so far off the "normal" that it is suspect.  So few bulbs producing such high PAR is completely a unique event.. not saying it didn't happen, but this is NOT the norm... However the other unique thing about that build is the builder did NOT use focusing elements....  As discussed in that thread, at length, focusing elements are used to push the light into sharp-focused cones to get deeper penertration into the system.. this means coverage area goes down, so more LED's are added to fix the problem of coverage...


Personally, at this point i'm 50/50 on the fence about LED lighting systems...  Potentially, they have some HUGE advantages, and will dominate the entire lighting market if these prove out... but the research just isn't there, yet... 

Say we agree, that LED PAR is 100% constant over the 50,000 hr lifespan... woo-hoo, saturation levels achieved, long lifespan... win/win... wait, what about color temp of the lights... what if after 5,000hrs they shift into the yellow/green/red area... i.e. lose some of their blue-ness... well the corals do not care, but we do.. the colors are gone... now what?  Start replacing perfectly good LEDs??  Again, that's entirely spectulation... but that's the point.. no one is publishing this type of study data yet....

[Severum]

Great discussion guys! Very interesting.

I'd be interested in putting together a 6-12 bulb fixure for a nano tank. Anyone else on board?