Elaborate Overdone DIY LED Fixture Help/Advice

[haysanatar]

I don't believe that there is any functional benefit to uv, but I could see it in small doses causing some pigments to be produced in larger amounts.

[haysanatar]

I got to looking at the pink led and I don't think its going to have any benefits at all...
http://www.aquastyleonline.com/produ...ED-3W-Red.html
http://www.aquastyleonline.com/produ...D-3W-Pink.html
the second one is the pink led the first is the red.
the spectrums are on the bottom
the pink doesn't seem to really have any light in the possible photosynthetic section of red anyways.

[TropTrea]

The frequency to avoid is 685 nm and both of these LED's do drastically fall off before they hit that frequency. Either could help with visual color effects, but only the pink with a lot of blue in the 448 range would be a help to photosynthesis.

As far as the UV's go I do not think anything under 417 nm would be worth the investment even it is minimal.

[haysanatar]

so you think the pinks would be better to go with than the reds?
the wavelength throws me though.. it really doesn't seem to have anything in the red spectrum hardly.

[TropTrea]

Originally Posted by haysanatar

so you think the pinks would be better to go with than the reds?
the wavelength throws me though.. it really doesn't seem to have anything in the red spectrum hardly.

The Pinks do show a peak in the blues that is where photosyntheses mainly occurs. The "red" peak is wider and while not extremely strong in the yellow range does cover some of the florescent excitation frequencies.

Personally adding a red or pink LED is strictly for visual effect in balancing the color spectrum so it does not look excessively Blue to Green. With a few full spectrum LED's I would not add additional reds unless it was on the dawn to dusk circuit to bring out more color than if you go all blue. But that is personal preference.

For growth and photosyntheses you only need light between 417 nm and 485 nm plus between 590 nm and 625 nm. With much less need in those longer wave lengths.

For florescence dependent on the corals your keeping there are some that fluoresces best at almost every frequency between 417 nm and 590 nm. However the various pigments that fluoresce are still divided up with many more excited by shorter wave lengths in that range than the longer wave lengths within that range.

Through millenniums of development corals have adapted to use the light that is available to them in nature. The deeper they are in the oceans the less red light they receive in proportion the amount of blue light. while in the hobby we mix corals from various deeps they even just under the surface of the water the reds are attenuated more so than the blues. We can only hope to get a good balance for the corals we are keeping with the balance between blue LED's and full spectrum LED's. Keeping in mind that the more we select deep water corals the more blues become important and reds become undesirable.

Looking at the link you listed Id try going with a ratio of
1 Pink
2 10,000K
4 blue from another source since they do not offer a blue
4 Royal Blues.

This would give you a lighting effect of about 18,000K. I would run the pink and some Royal blues on my dawn to dusk, and have an intermediate period running some additional blues and whites. Then everything on for mid day.

Think of it like mid day 100% of the LED's, intermediate 50% of the LED's, and Dawn to Dusk 25% of the LED's.

[haysanatar]

I was really thinking about running more pink led's at lower power I don't want to spot light the tank thats my main fear.
maybe 2 under driven led's per two foot section? thoughts?

[TropTrea]

Originally Posted by haysanatar

I was really thinking about running more pink led's at lower power I don't want to spot light the tank thats my main fear.
maybe 2 under driven led's per two foot section? thoughts?

Without a lens most led have about a 120 degree spread. With that in mind you do want some overlap on each of the pink LED's if your using them. If your going 4 inches above water level on a 20" tall tank I would suggest spreading them no more than 18" apart. With that in mind to cover an area 18" X 48" you would need 3 of them. One dead center of the tank and the other two 16" to each side of it.

Now it you start with the 3 pink then you should have 6 whites, 9 royal blues, and 9 Blues if your color taste is like mine. Thats 27 LEDs at 3 Watts each giving you about 81 Watts total. If that gives you the same amount of light as 6 HO T-5's using 324 Watts that is a great savings in your electric bill.

[Northside Reef]

Originally Posted by TropTrea

The known wavelength absorbed for photosynthesis are 417 nm, 436nm, 447nm, 452nm, 475 nm, 485 nm, and 590 nm. However not all corals contain the
seven photosynthesis chemicals that use these wave lengths are found in all corals. As an example only in shallow water corals are some of the red wave length chemicals found, and in some deep water corals the red wave lengths in excess can be harmful.


For Coral Growth light below 417 nm is virtually useless. And even below 436 is of very little benefit compared to the range between 436nm and 485 nm.

However the florescence to give us some of the colors is another thing but still a majority of those chemicals are in the 440 nm to 578 nm.

really good stuff here, where would green fall into the equation?

[haysanatar]

greens not going to have any effect on photosynthesis though is it?

[ReeferVinnEE]

Originally Posted by TropTrea

BonsaliNut The actual ratio between the ideal red light and blue light is very debatable. Amoungst multiple studies it has also been found the red light can be more harmull to some corals in excess than benificial.

What I find interesting about this set up the use of the UV LEDs. I have never seen anything clamining that light in wave lenghts shorter than 420 nm was benificial. Actual it is the shorter wave lenghts that are used in UV filteration that break down the walls of plant tissue.

420nm is the ideal as the algae make the most use of it: As you go to 400nm, its effectiveness drops off, however, these spectra do benefit the pigments (excitation spectra) of many stony corals.

Also, when talking about spectra for photosynthesis, keep in mind that the chloro in land plants is in the typical red & blue peaks, but corals have multiple peak spectra including one in the greens if I remember correctly. I would have to go back and double check some of Dana Riddle's and Sanjay's articles from a few years ago, but the main idea is that since beyond a few meters of depth red pretty much vanishes, corals have adapted to use other spectra.

Here: http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2009/1/aafeature1

You should consider spectra for pigmentation as well as photosynthetic growth.

Take a look at the action spectra graph in this one... not just a red peak and blue peak anymore like plants: http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2002/2/aafeature

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2006/1/aafeature1

[TropTrea]

Originally Posted by ReeferVinnEE

420nm is the ideal as the algae make the most use of it: As you go to 400nm, its effectiveness drops off, however, these spectra do benefit the pigments (excitation spectra) of many stony corals.

If you look at a listing of photosynthetic chemicals found in corals you will find an assortment of wave lengths that they are excited by.

415 nm Chlorophyll a
425 nm violaxanthin
436 nm Chlorophyll b
445 nm violaxanthin
452 nm lutein
447 nm B. carorene
475 nm B. carorene
475 nm violaxanthin
485 nm lutein
590 nm Phycoerythrin
625 nm Phycocyanin
655 nm Chlorophyll a
655 nm Chlorophyll b

while it is true that these chemicals not all in every coral different corals do have different ratios of several of these photosynthetic chemicals. Also keeping in mind that both Chlorophyll a and b while they do excite at 655 nm they also have shorter wave lengths that can utilize rather than the 655 nm that is close to red.

[QUOTE=ReeferVinnEE;19644143]Also, when talking about spectra for photosynthesis, keep in mind that the chloro in land plants is in the typical red & blue peaks, but corals have multiple peak spectra including one in the greens if I remember correctly. I would have to go back and double check some of Dana Riddle's and Sanjay's articles from a few years ago, but the main idea is that since beyond a few meters of depth red pretty much vanishes, corals have adapted to use other spectra.

QUOTE]

There are numerous articles written on these various florescent pigments. If you review some marine biology "none aquarium" related you will find there are hundreds of various chemicals found in corals that fluoresce at various frequencies. The range in these frequencies is from about 400 nm all the way up to around 590 nm. Yes probably 2/3 of them are between 420 nm and 500 nm. And even of those a majority are between 440 nm and 465 nm. However we also must remember the number of different corals out there that people are keeping. Sure there may a dozen common corals that look and grow great with all the light between 415 nm and 460 nm but what about the corals that someone may be keeping that needs 485 or even 535nm to fluoresce beautifully.

Then there is reflective element that many corals if not all have to varying degrees. If the pigment on the coral reflects yellow, orange, or red and we not have any of these colors in our lights these colors will simply look like very flat like a tinted gray or brown. I'm sure we have all heard stories where my beautiful coral was one bright color and after changing my lighting it changed to some other color.

The perfect lighting for all corals in all situations does not exist. We can only try to find the ideal balance between the properties of the corals we are keeping and our personal eye.

[Northside Reef]

Originally Posted by haysanatar

greens not going to have any effect on photosynthesis though is it?

I think there are some that will use the green, and as both VinnEE and TropTrea said there is also reflective elements to consider.

Now please take what I say with a huge grain of salt I am just learning about this myself. But when I look at this chart.



along with the other one I posted it looks like we can get plenty of yellow and red from the CW, NW, and WW LEDs but none of them really touch on the green wave length.

I am going to add some green to my fixture and see how I like it.

[haysanatar]

I know personally when I first got my led's and when I add corals to my tank
some colors do seem more pronounced immediately...
But I have also seen a slow gradual shift sometimes drastic shift in coloration
so to an extent color change is reflective but its more than just that.
there is a tangible change in pigments
befor I saw it myself I just thought shift from red to orange for instance was just the fact there wasn't alot of red light to reflect in the standard cool white and royal blue fixture, but its an actual change in coloration (for some cases in my experience)
hence my hope to diversify my wavelength

[ReeferVinnEE]

@Northside On those graphs, the green at 530-570nm is pretty strong. What I do see lacking is 420nm and lower...

@TropTrea I agree that wavelengths lower than 420nm are still very important for pigments, I think LED's that touch on UV-A are very important for some corals, but when looking for respiration, its a different story. When just looking at the photosynthetic value or PUR, 420nm is just more "efficient" of an energy source than 410nm, 405nm, etc... so for "growth", 420nm is just most effective. Having some 400nm though, just not tons of them, would still be valued for pigments though.

[TropTrea]

First off true green light is 535 nm as we go to shorter wave length we move to blue green, and as we move up longer frequencies we move to yellow green. The full spectrum LED's lack the most around 490 nm which is really in the heart of the blue green range. As you look at the blue and the green LED's this is also where even a combination of the two would leave a considerable valley.

Next was the need for UV light. First off UVA light starts is between 315 and 380 nm. Blue peaks at 435 nm. So as you go shorter wavelength it is commonly called near ultraviolet however in reality it will only excite the eye to think it is seeing blue but the eye is loosing sensitivity to this light until it actually hits about 380 nm when it becomes invisible to the eye.

I have seen many lists of pigments in corals and especially those that fluoresces. Form all of those lists the shortest wave lenght mentioned was 417 nm which is very close to the peak eyes sensitivity to blue light rather than UV light. There is Chlorophyll A however that is not a florescent pigment but a photosynthesis chemical that does excite from light at 415 nm. Producing light under 415 nm for your corals appears as a complete waste of energy.

Now if you can find a pigment either florescent or photosynthetic please inform me and you may sway my opinion as well as many experts.

[Northside Reef]

True violet LEDs are 420 nm

[racedout]

I run 8 420nm violets in my 72 led array and love the colors they help to bring out

Sent from my SGH-i917 using Board Express

[TropTrea]

Originally Posted by Northside Reef

True violet LEDs are 420 nm

There are multiple sires out there on color.

Violet is a combination of RED and BLUE light. They 420 nm LEDS do not produce Ultraviolet light which is produced only at wave lengths shorter than 380 nm.

while it is true some Atinic lights look like they are violet if you put them on a spectrum analyzer you will find they produce a lot of BLUE (420 nm) light that is barely recognizable to the eye and a small amount of Red Light that the eye is very sensitive to. The combination of the RED and Blue makes the mind think you are seeing Violet.

[ReeferVinnEE]

Originally Posted by TropTrea

First off true green light is 535 nm as we go to shorter wave length we move to blue green, and as we move up longer frequencies we move to yellow green. The full spectrum LED's lack the most around 490 nm which is really in the heart of the blue green range. As you look at the blue and the green LED's this is also where even a combination of the two would leave a considerable valley.

Next was the need for UV light. First off UVA light starts is between 315 and 380 nm. Blue peaks at 435 nm. So as you go shorter wavelength it is commonly called near ultraviolet however in reality it will only excite the eye to think it is seeing blue but the eye is loosing sensitivity to this light until it actually hits about 380 nm when it becomes invisible to the eye.

I have seen many lists of pigments in corals and especially those that fluoresces. Form all of those lists the shortest wave lenght mentioned was 417 nm which is very close to the peak eyes sensitivity to blue light rather than UV light. There is Chlorophyll A however that is not a florescent pigment but a photosynthesis chemical that does excite from light at 415 nm. Producing light under 415 nm for your corals appears as a complete waste of energy.

Now if you can find a pigment either florescent or photosynthetic please inform me and you may sway my opinion as well as many experts.

My point was just that those spectra seem to be represented in the spectral plots for the Cree's shown above.

As for the shortest wavelengths... once again, we must declare if we are considering for growth or pigmentation. If just for growth, going below 420nm is not as efficient. However, for pigmentation, you can see the excitation wavelength for Acropora aspera is 340nm.
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2006/9/aafeature

So depending on the species, UV-A spectrums can be used for pigmentation. It is also speculation, but there has been some discussion about high-light clams (maxima and crocea) and how they may not "like" LED's... the main idea being that perhaps these light-loving clams perfer some UV in their spectrum, that it might not just be for pigmentation, but growth as well. I know UV bulbs are the secret weapon of some clam farmers to get their clams to color up with more intensity.

[TropTrea]

Originally Posted by ReeferVinnEE

My point was just that those spectra seem to be represented in the spectral plots for the Cree's shown above.

As for the shortest wavelengths... once again, we must declare if we are considering for growth or pigmentation. If just for growth, going below 420nm is not as efficient. However, for pigmentation, you can see the excitation wavelength for Acropora aspera is 340nm.
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2006/9/aafeature

So depending on the species, UV-A spectrum's can be used for pigmentation. It is also speculation, but there has been some discussion about high-light clams (Maxim and crocea) and how they may not "like" LED's... the main idea being that perhaps these light-loving clams perfer some UV in their spectrum, that it might not just be for pigmentation, but growth as well. I know UV bulbs are the secret weapon of some clam farmers to get their clams to color up with more intensity.

Looking through that short list of 90 pigments there were 4 that listed wavelengths under 380 nm which would be UVA. If you look at the UVA range LEDs available you will not find a single LED that covers all of those 4 wave lengths. So now we are talking 2 or even three LED's in the UVA range to handle these wavelengths. Next you need to have the specific corals that fluoresce under these frequencies and have these pigments.

Then there is also the question if these UVA frequencies are harmful to other life in our aquariums. Remember that UV filtration is also used sterilization. While UVA is the least harmful of the three forms of UV radiation the shorter the wave length the greater ability for it to break down cellular walls.

[ReeferVinnEE]

You conclusion is correct TropTrea; there is no single LED that covers all of these wavelengths. This is why for those who believe that these frequencies are still important, other light technologies are still used to provide all of these. You can see LED's arrays that still have a few "true actinic 03" bulbs flanking them to provide not only actinic (not blue BTW), but some UV-A and UV-B. It would be nice if LED's existed that covered such a broad range of UV and actinic, like so many halides and some T5 bulbs provide, but so far this does not exist. The phosphors that produce these wide light ranges were restricted by Nichia (the same ones used in actinic VHO's and true actinic 03 T5's), but recently Cree reached an agreement for liscencing and use of these phosphors, so there is hope for the future: maybe cree itself will offer a "true actinic" LED. Otherwise this is why some still flank their LED's with some true actinic bulbs which cover all these wavelengths from the 420nm violet to UV-A and even a little UV-B. Otherwise to cover this whole spectrum with LED's we would be using several LED's that each have a very narrow contribution. This would mean alot of wattage wasted to have enough LED's to provide these frequencies across a whole aquarium, and many inhabitants wouldn't even need say, UV-B.

I would propose that the best solution is to figure out which corals like what, and "spotlight" them with the LED's that best serve them. Seperate from the "main fixture" with white, blue, and 420 actinic, I plan on building some DIY PAR38's that have nothing but UV-A, B, with maybe some 400nm or 420nm. These would have narrow optics and be positioned so they only shine on my maxima or crocea clams, or some light loving acro species that would actually have a use for say, 380nm light. That way I am providing for the special needs of these inhabitants but not wasting what could easily be another hundred watts or so on trying to suppliment those spectra across the whole aquarium where other deeper water species that dont have any use for say, UV-A, reside.

[haysanatar]

Originally Posted by ReeferVinnEE

So depending on the species, UV-A spectrums can be used for pigmentation. It is also speculation, but there has been some discussion about high-light clams (maxima and crocea) and how they may not "like" LED's... the main idea being that perhaps these light-loving clams perfer some UV in their spectrum, that it might not just be for pigmentation, but growth as well. I know UV bulbs are the secret weapon of some clam farmers to get their clams to color up with more intensity.

I have 3 clams under my leds.... of the 3 clams as of now under my lights I have seen color changes in one of the three so far i that one it was extremely small...
I could see why clams would color up though .. they're generally near the surface so are more exosed to uv rays so are obviously used to getting them.. and it seems like a lot of coral and clasms get a sort of tan which cosists of basically of darkening of clam pigments just like a human tan.

[TropTrea]

UVA runs from 400nm to 315nm or 380nm to 315nm dependent which standard you read. Visual light is either 380 or 400nm and longer dependent upon which reference you use as well. But UVB is from 280 to 315 nm. I serious doubt that there a single organism that requires this light in the ocean.

The old true atinic bulbs used to center on 420 nm and had about 2/3 of there light emitted between 410 nm and 430 nm. Yes they did get down to 380 and up to 460 but there light was really minimal in Th's ranges.

The Royal Blue LEDs peak at 460 nm but there cut off frequencies are roughly 400 nm and 525 nm. So I will agree that a 420 nm LED would probably be of benefit. Where I see a lack in the LED spectrum is in the range of about 485 to 490 nm. The Blues LED's are dropping off at that point as well as the green LED's from the other end of the spectrum. Similarly the white LED's all have this as basically there lowest emission wave length.

I believe that a lot of this is because when they design light they start with the three most sensitive eye wavelengths mainly blue at 435 nm, green at 535 nm and red at 580 nm. Any ability to increase PAR or have frequencies that are good for Reef Aquariums is secondary.

On your idea of adding UV lights good luck in finding the right LED's. But if you do and run them without lenses they can probably spread in about a 12" X 12" grid over a tank that is 24" tall. On a standard 120 gallon tank 4 in the front row and 4 in the back row would be more than enough to get full coverage. But as I said earlier I'd me more concerned in a slight boast around 485 to 490 nm than the frequencies under 415 nm.

[ReeferVinnEE]

I dont know about UV-B for sure; my only idea for it would be with clams. Metal halides put out a decent amount even with their shields. Some clam farmers swear by it. In the wild, many croceas are exposed to plenty of it on a daily basis. Since clams have a skin, pigmentation, muscles, gills, stomach, mouth, eyes, etc. (they are a little more like us than corals) and they do have UV-A and UV-B absorbing mycosporine-like amino acids in their tissues, it might be worth giving them some. We use UV-B for vitamin production, perhaps clams have a use as well. Maybe its what makes some clams color in more "ultra" with the gold spots and stripes. Maybe a little UV-B would help prevent pinched mantle or other parasites from growing since the clam can take it but most parasites cant as well; who knows.

All I know is that when I used to have "ultra" croceas under 20,000Kish halides and T5's w/o actinic03 (the bulbs that lack UV), the gold spots and rings would slowly vanish and some other colors like green would fade. If I put them under a Ushio 14,000K/10,000K (lots of UV-A and some UV-B) in a 'clam bake' setup, they would color back in. It could be from a likely increase in intensity as well, but spectrum might have something to do with it as well.

[TropTrea]

Originally Posted by ReeferVinnEE

All I know is that when I used to have "ultra" croceas under 20,000Kish halides and T5's w/o actinic03 (the bulbs that lack UV), the gold spots and rings would slowly vanish and some other colors like green would fade. If I put them under a Ushio 14,000K/10,000K (lots of UV-A and some UV-B) in a 'clam bake' setup, they would color back in. It could be from a likely increase in intensity as well, but spectrum might have something to do with it as well.

I remember reading an article years ago on Clams and clam farming. They made some interesting comments that some of the better clam farmers actually kept there clams in water that was beyond what we consider safe nitrite and nitrate levels. They also touched on lighting with the best being very shallow water (4 to 8 inches deep) with natural direct sunlight and those keeping them indoors usually used 6,500K Metal Hide bulbs exclusively without any atinic supplements.

Yes Vitamin B is produced from direct exposure to UV light. This also tans our skin as well as is being the most notable source of skin cancer. Even us humans today do not get enough Vitamin B from the exposure to UV light which is why many of us take vitamin B supplements. If we ran around nude every day like our predecessors did this would not be an issue. However our predecessors seldom lived to the age of 40 so they did not realize the long term negative effects we are seeing today from excessive UV exposure that is very common in senior citizens.