sammy113 Posted May 2, 2011 Share Posted May 2, 2011 I was testing my new lamp for temp hoping I can use it without fans (just for a cleaner exposed heatsink look) and I used a piece of electrical tape next to the LED's and the IR thermometer is reading ~125F how does that sound? the fins are about ~100F Any suggestion? Link to comment
Pilg0re Posted May 2, 2011 Share Posted May 2, 2011 Here's my revised 75 sps led plan. Still most likely overkill, but I don't mind as I probably wasn't going to run it full bore anyways. Link to comment
evilc66 Posted May 2, 2011 Share Posted May 2, 2011 how many would you recommend over my 40br? I've got room for 12 extra leds Two, maybe three if you are going to use the 5W LEDEngin LEDs. Anything more than that and I'd be afraid that the output could be getting too high. I haven't done a lot of measurements on those LEDs (I have some), so just be careful with them. I was testing my new lamp for temp hoping I can use it without fans (just for a cleaner exposed heatsink look) and I used a piece of electrical tape next to the LED's and the IR thermometer is reading ~125F how does that sound? the fins are about ~100F Any suggestion? Sounds good to me. I like to keep under 140F right next to the star. Here's my revised 75 sps led plan. Still most likely overkill, but I don't mind as I probably wasn't going to run it full bore anyways. Seems a little more practical than last time Link to comment
rhawnk Posted May 2, 2011 Share Posted May 2, 2011 I was testing my new lamp for temp hoping I can use it without fans (just for a cleaner exposed heatsink look) and I used a piece of electrical tape next to the LED's and the IR thermometer is reading ~125F how does that sound? the fins are about ~100F Looking good Sammy. What optics are you using, and is the coverage good enough to eliminate shadowing? I have a similar setup and have to raise the fixture about a foot or two. I am a little apprehensive to add optics if it will bring the shadows back. Rhawn Link to comment
Chris L Posted May 2, 2011 Share Posted May 2, 2011 I finished my lighting this weekend. I think it will look very good! RB---CW----RB---CW---RB---CW ---CW---CY---CW---CY---CW--- CW---RB---CW---RB---CW---RB Fyi- the cyan is more green than the pic makes it look. Link to build: http://www.nano-reef.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=270561 Link to comment
Pilg0re Posted May 2, 2011 Share Posted May 2, 2011 Seems a little more practical than last time Thanks! I'm still unsure about optics as I'm going to have an acrylic sheet cnc'd so my options are getting it drilled as just the emitters are visible or having it cut for the optics. At no more than 10" above the water I think I should be okay with just the bare emitters. But If I am having to go with optics sourcing the xm-l optics will be a pain but I'm sure someone makes them. For anyone that knows about color mixing, how's the sketch I did as far as the colors? Should I add more, or less blues? Link to comment
gabe_j Posted May 2, 2011 Share Posted May 2, 2011 wow they sterilze stuff... umm what kind of time should they even be left on they system? 2 maybe 3 hours? lol Link to comment
evilc66 Posted May 2, 2011 Share Posted May 2, 2011 Thanks! I'm still unsure about optics as I'm going to have an acrylic sheet cnc'd so my options are getting it drilled as just the emitters are visible or having it cut for the optics. At no more than 10" above the water I think I should be okay with just the bare emitters. But If I am having to go with optics sourcing the xm-l optics will be a pain but I'm sure someone makes them. For anyone that knows about color mixing, how's the sketch I did as far as the colors? Should I add more, or less blues? Looks good. Just leave optics off the blue LEDs. You want those to blend more than penetrate. They are just for color. wow they sterilze stuff... umm what kind of time should they even be left on they system? 2 maybe 3 hours? lol 365nm shouldn't sterilize. You need to be down way below 300nm for it to be bacteriacidal. Don't forget, 365nm is one of the peaks for mercury, which is used in most of our MH, T5, and PC lamps. Link to comment
gabe_j Posted May 2, 2011 Share Posted May 2, 2011 oh ok, i didn't know that. anyhow do you see the out put from these guys or do you just see the response from the excited protiens? Link to comment
evilc66 Posted May 2, 2011 Share Posted May 2, 2011 With just these on, you do see a slight purple light. With these on with normal day lights, you barely notice them. Link to comment
blasterman Posted May 2, 2011 Share Posted May 2, 2011 Could somebody tell me the purpose of <405nm LEDs again? Link to comment
evilc66 Posted May 2, 2011 Share Posted May 2, 2011 Most of it's all theorized. In one hand, the presence of UV-A could promote a difference in coral tissue health, hopefully for the better. The theory was that 365nm is present in virtually all other reef lighting solutions, and may remedy some of the odd health and color issues that we sometimes see with some corals under LED. Nothing is proven, but it keeps coming up every now and then. There has also been some evidence that some corals make use of wavelengths all the way down to about 350nm for photosynthesis. On the other hand, it does promote fluorescence in protiens that aren't normally seen in short wavelength visible light. I know you aren't fond of the blacklight look Blaster, but some are. Link to comment
herranton Posted May 2, 2011 Share Posted May 2, 2011 The last time I was working with an "almost UV" led, my eyes hurt like hell afterwords. They look dim, but they still put out a ton of light. Don't stare at them too long. Link to comment
blasterman Posted May 3, 2011 Share Posted May 3, 2011 It's a technical fact that halides throw substantial amounts of UV-A into a tank, although this tends to vary from bulb to bulb and *should* be filtered with glass. Can't remember if UV-A is a big deal with T5's or not. LED's obviously throw little to no radiation below 430nm....unless you're actually using the specific emitters. UV-A also penatrates into sea water a fair degree, although it degrades quickly after a few meters. This is well within the range of most SPS. If I wanted to suppliment my tank with 360-380nm light I'd get a cheap black light at a party store. It would throw vastly more UVA than any of the emitters discussed here and at a far lower price. IMHO, it's a snipe hunt in terms of growth given 99.999% of SPS problems with lighting are actually water problems with the tank owner being in denial about it. In terms of color....I dunno...The amount of UVA levels were talking about supplimenting with LED would have little 'actinic' effect comparted to royals, although the actual effect is different. Seems you'd need helluva lot of them to really do anything. Link to comment
Dustin11 Posted May 3, 2011 Share Posted May 3, 2011 I want to hear more about this black light thing. I searched a while back on the idea of using a black light on a tank and the consensus I found was that, "all your fish will go blind". Is this still the thinking? Link to comment
evilc66 Posted May 3, 2011 Share Posted May 3, 2011 It's a technical fact that halides throw substantial amounts of UV-A into a tank, although this tends to vary from bulb to bulb and *should* be filtered with glass. Can't remember if UV-A is a big deal with T5's or not. LED's obviously throw little to no radiation below 430nm....unless you're actually using the specific emitters. UV-A also penatrates into sea water a fair degree, although it degrades quickly after a few meters. This is well within the range of most SPS. If I wanted to suppliment my tank with 360-380nm light I'd get a cheap black light at a party store. It would throw vastly more UVA than any of the emitters discussed here and at a far lower price. IMHO, it's a snipe hunt in terms of growth given 99.999% of SPS problems with lighting are actually water problems with the tank owner being in denial about it. In terms of color....I dunno...The amount of UVA levels were talking about supplimenting with LED would have little 'actinic' effect comparted to royals, although the actual effect is different. Seems you'd need helluva lot of them to really do anything. Anything that uses mercury (basically, any fluorescent lamp, and most MH) will have some UV-A content. Mercury has two peaks. One at 365nm, and one at about 545nm IIRC. Even after UV glass, there is still some emitted into the tank. UV glass doesn't filter all UV. It attenuates UV-A and UV-B, and pretty much blocks all UV-C. Like I said before, the use of UV is a theory. It's possible that it could be a load of bunk, but I haven't had the time of late to really sit down and test the theory. Is it worth it to use them? No, especially at the costs we are looking at for decent LEDs. I want to hear more about this black light thing. I searched a while back on the idea of using a black light on a tank and the consensus I found was that, "all your fish will go blind". Is this still the thinking? It's all dependant on the wavelength of light emitted, and the intensity. They should have enough output to make a difference over a tank with normal daylights, but I'm not sure the wavelengths are controlled from manufacturer to manufacturer, or if it's in a wavelength range or intensity that could do some damage. It's not like UV produces the same fluorescence as royal blue, but just adds some more. It will only excite certain proteins. My war coral went from bright red under royal blue LEDs to nuclear orange under 365nm UV. Link to comment
CJO Posted May 9, 2011 Share Posted May 9, 2011 Like I said before, the use of UV is a theory. It's possible that it could be a load of bunk, but I haven't had the time of late to really sit down and test the theory. Is it worth it to use them? No, especially at the costs we are looking at for decent LEDs. Dana Riddle did a bunch of testing on UV lighting for Advanced Aquatics magazine. IIRC, he determined that the amount of UV needed to affect a change in coloration or excite much fluorescence was enough to be harmful to the coral. CJ Link to comment
herranton Posted May 9, 2011 Share Posted May 9, 2011 Dana Riddle did a bunch of testing on UV lighting for Advanced Aquatics magazine. IIRC, he determined that the amount of UV needed to affect a change in coloration or excite much fluorescence was enough to be harmful to the coral. CJ This? Link to comment
CJO Posted May 9, 2011 Share Posted May 9, 2011 This? That was a good article too, but the one I was referring to is this one: http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2004/8/aafeature CJ Link to comment
evilc66 Posted May 9, 2011 Share Posted May 9, 2011 Dana Riddle did a bunch of testing on UV lighting for Advanced Aquatics magazine. IIRC, he determined that the amount of UV needed to affect a change in coloration or excite much fluorescence was enough to be harmful to the coral. CJ Well, that article was more about seeing the effect UV had on photoinhibition more than coloration. The power levels we would be dealing with for UV LEDs wouldn't get to the point of causing wide spread tissue damage, but the fluorescing effects will be determined by the visual intensity of the light source used. Seeing as LEDs are typically lower output visually (but high PAR), UV LEDs may have a more pronouced effect. Either way, we still don't know enough. Link to comment
Pilg0re Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 Here's my revised 75 sps led plan. Still most likely overkill, but I don't mind as I probably wasn't going to run it full bore anyways. I made a typo, the Blue and Royal Blue LEDs will be XP-Es but that's not that big of a deal. So thinking about drivers for this build, how does this sound? TRC-040S070DS for the blues TRC-200S070DT for the Royal Blues TRC-200S245ST for the XM-l Neutral Whites maybe another TRC-040S070DS (I'm guessing they'll be 700ma instead of the 500ma they were) if by the time I build this the TVs come back out I really don't think I'll have to run the blues at 1050ma and that 700ma will work fine for my application. So what do you think? is my parts list complete? Or is there a more efficient way to run these leds? Link to comment
evilc66 Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 Yeah, you should be fine with that. Link to comment
Pilg0re Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 Yeah, you should be fine with that. Thanks evil We'd all be lost without you haha Link to comment
Chris L Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 Ok so my light is looking pretty much like a 13k aqualine-buschke halide to my eye. I would like to blue it up a little tiny bit 14-16k maybe. What leds should i add? About 4 more Royals or Cool blues? Current config: RB---CW----RB---CW---RB---CW ---CW---CY---CW---CY---CW--- CW---RB---CW---RB---CW---RB Maybe to this ?: RB---CW----RB---CW---RB---CW CB-CW-CY-CB-CW-CB-CY-CW-CB CW---RB---CW---RB---CW---RB Link to comment
Chris L Posted May 15, 2011 Share Posted May 15, 2011 Ok so my light is looking pretty much like a 13k aqualine-buschke halide to my eye. I would like to blue it up a little tiny bit 14-16k maybe. What leds should i add? About 4 more Royals or Cool blues? Current config: RB---CW----RB---CW---RB---CW ---CW---CY---CW---CY---CW--- CW---RB---CW---RB---CW---RB Maybe to this ?: RB---CW----RB---CW---RB---CW CB-CW-CY-CB-CW-CB-CY-CW-CB CW---RB---CW---RB---CW---RB Anybody?? Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.