Algae Scrubber Advanced

[el aguila]

The 660s were double the price of the 625s at about $1.30 ea for the 660s.

Well the Test Dummy has ordered his 1W LEDs. If they get here before Christmas, I wonder if my wife would be too unhappy if I took them with us while traveling out of state for Christmas?

It would be a good chance to knock them out. I've been doing a side job and can hardly find time to do anything on the tank - Extra $$ for Christmas and some NICE Frags!!!

[TheFishMan65]

Tell her they are Christmas decorations. The green ones just aren't in yet. Show her a picture of Turbo's house she will have to approve

[Floyd R Turbo]

Here is a bit of good news. Someone was performing a test on a T5HO 3D scrubber with one side using a Nova Extreme 1127 (or whatever) with 2 2700-3000K T5HO lamps, and the other side was a e-Shine 50W or whatever that small fixture they have is - it matches the length of the Nova but is a bit narrower. This is the fixture http://www.eshinegrow.com/grow/3g-50...row-light.html

He did this for 10 or so weeks (he cleans "when he can" so some growth periods were longer) The results are telling:

After about 10 or so cleanings, without a doubt the LED side is better. Grows sooner, thicker, and one that I did not expect... the light penetrates deeper to keep the roots alive longer, which makes sense because since green absorbs blue and yellow, the red continues through it.

Keep in mind that his system runs 2 of these scrubbers so the LED is outperforming not just 1 T5HO 2-lamp fixture, but 3.

This means I don't have to run my experiment against a T5HO, or at least it puts it on the back burner. If I get bored I might try to see how many T5HOs it takes to compare.

Incidentally the fixture I have runs all 1W Cree 630/435/455 and Bridgeluxe 660nm I believe.

[BluScrnOdeth]

very good to know becaus eim going to be buying some LEDs in the next couple months once i get my system designed.

[slow_leak]

It's been some time since ATS links and poss have been here.

Can some one redirect me to best in class examples of this technique? I want photos and actual results. I have run one for a year but ended up running with a skimmer to get the results I wanted.

[parrotchute]

I'm running the eshine LEDs, and they definitely seem bright and capable of growing algae. I was just told my screen is probably too big (allowing the algae to spread out and burn), which could explain why I'm having trouble growing thick green algae.

Not sure how to fix it effectively without rebuilding my box.

I'll post a video if anyone wants to see the eshine LEDs.
Thanks for the info Floyd.

[el aguila]

My LEDs arrived just before Christmas; got back from visiting relatives late last night.

I need to pick up some black acrylic and get my heat sink figured out. Hoping to get it done this weekend.

After what has been recently posted, I'm cutting my screen size down which is presently 21" long. It basically just grows brown algae. Originally I went bigger thinking that if something went wrong in the tank - I would have a safety factor. I guess I need to do a little redesigning on size.

[Floyd R Turbo]

After several epic failures to convert an excel file to a html table format, I just uploaded this to google docs

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...WZrS3Z6endKTXc

This is a comparison spreadsheet of PAR readings below an e-Shine 50W fixture and a Nova Extreme 1127 T5HO fixture with 2 x 24W 3000K grow lamps (the ones I use).

A few considerations to make:

The e-shine readings were taken with the fixture out of the box and turned on a sum total of less than 5 minutes prior to the test. So there might be some variation in long-term readings.

1) I ran out of new T5HO lamps so I had to use ones I had removed from the scrubber already. So the T5HO lamps are at the end of their useful scrubbing life, 90 days x 18 hours = 1620 hours. I'm not sure how this affects the PAR readings. The Nova Extreme 1127 fixture was brand new out of the box, I just switched the lamps.

2) All readings were taken with an Apogee meter with the fixture approximately 2" from the top of the sensor. The sensor was pointed straight up. I made a stand-off bracket our of Duplo Legos (highly scientific) and laid white graph paper on the table below the fixture and marked each measurement point on 1" increments. I measured along the center axis of the fixture, then along lines 1" and 2" from the center axis.

3) I did the e-Shine fixture first, then the Nova. The Nova fixture has an extra row of data points at the ends nearest the endpoints of the lamps. I didn't realize this until afterwards. Removing these data points (A ans S) raises the sum and lowers the average so that the E-Shine is about 140% of the Nova on both overall.

4) I had to let the Nova fixture warm up for a while before the readings were consistent along the axis. I took one set of readings along half of the center axis, then did 1" and 2" off that half, then went back to the center axis on the other side and the readings did not mirror the first half. When I went back to double-check the first half center axis, the PAR values had dropped 10-15%. I let the fixture run for about 20 minutes, then the readings had stabilized. Perhaps someone can shed some light on what is going on there. I thought T5HO was supposed to get more efficient as they heated up.

As you can see from the results, the e-Shine fixture, even though it has a smaller profile (both the enclosure and with respect to the element exposure, meaning the T5HO are longer and the window area on the fixture is wider), it is higher on every number except for the extreme corner data points.

On the flip side, the max to min ratio on the e-Shine fixture is much higher. Meaning that the readings in the center of almost 700 PAR and 120ish on the edges is a larger swing than the Nova of 460 to 110ish

The PAR meter reads out a little higher under the blue LEDs. Being this close to the fixture, there is little blending effect so the e-Shine fixture has a much higher variance of intensity throughout the sample field. The Nova fixture has a much more consistent peak intensity in the middle of the fixture and the number generally drop off as you get away from the dead center of the fixture.

I messed around with the PAR meter a bit to test a few things. Obviously pointing the sensor straight up all the time did not result in the maximum reading. On the +/-2 lines, if I pointed the meter towards the source, the number would increase, significantly at times. At the center line, I was able to get maximum PAR readings of over 800 on the e-Shine fixture. I was able to get readings of about 500 on the Nova fixture, but barely. +/-2 readings on the Nova fixture would also increase, but not as noticeably as the e-Shine fixture.

So being my first run at doing this, the results are far from scientific, but nonetheless very interesting.

What it tells me is that at the worst case, the e-Shine LED fixture is comparable if not better than the Nova T5HO fixture. Even if you de-rate the e-Shine fixture by, say, 20% for end-of-life after 7 years of running at 18 hours/day, then compensate the Nova fixture to take into effect the lamp intensity drop-off from 1600 hours of use over 3 months (increase output by 20%) then they are equal with the Nova at it's best and the e-Shine at it's worst.

Another factor that seems to be making a big difference is, as predicted, spectrum specific focus. The e-Shine fixture with 660nm LEDs has been shown, at least in a couple of instances, to equal and somewhat outperform T5HO. The intensity readings I measured seem to support the concept that the LED fixtures tuned to a specific output wavelength provide a much higher amount of useable light for the algae than T5HO, which has a lot of 'wasted' bandwidth. I think it's fair to say you can de-rate the T5HO fixture by 25% and maybe as much as 50%, which, at worst case, put the LED fixture at about double the useful light. Experiments performed long ago (meaning more than 6 months ago) have resulted in similar results (real-life results of algal growth on scrubbers). With this taken into consideration, and incorporating the 'double-light' scrubber, you could likely run an LED fixture such as the e-Shine fixture for half the time that you would need to run the Nova T5HO fixture, meaning the 50,000 hour life would make the fixture last for 14 years instead of 7, if the driver doesn't burn out before then (which it probably would).

So, talking life-cycle cost, the equivalency point of the Nova to the e-Shine, not taking energy savings into account, works out to be about 9 months.

The e-shine fixture runs about $70, plus $75 shipping for 2, and add 3.9% + $0.30 paypal fees that they make you pay when you buy from them bring the cost of 2 fixtures to about $220.

The Nova fixture costs $70 with shipping if you shop around. You will need to buy new lamps, cheapest is 8 for $50 with shipping. So 2 fixtures runs about $140 and 12 lamps about $75, for a total of $215. That would give you the fixtures plus lamps for 270 days. After that, it's going to cost you $100/year in materials (4 lamps x 4 lamp changes per year = 16 lamps @ $50 for 8 lamps). If you compare to the e-Shine fixture at 7 year life, you will have saved over $600 in material cost alone.

This also assumes that the non-waterproof e-Shine fixtures don't fail prematurely due to inadequate construction or lack of appropriate moisture protection by the end user.

As far as energy costs go, I know that the Nova pulls about 57 watts each and the e-shine about 47 watts. So there's not a whole lot of savings there. The LEDs likely pull about 30 watts, add the driver and 2 fans and you're at about 47. However, if you run then half the time per day, and you probably could, then you save 50%. In that case, 2x57 = 114 W * 18 hr = 2 kWh for Nova, 2x47 = 94 W * 9 hr = 0.85 kWh. In CA, that's huge. In Iowa, at $0.07-$0.08/KWh, not so huge.

I haven't ran any numbers to compare CFLs to LEDs but I would expect the life-cycle cost to be a little better for CFL as the initial costs are lower, but using comparable CFL to T5HO wattage, the average and max/min will be much worse for CFL, so I would expect LED to reign supreme.

But, it looks like any way you cut it, LED beats the pants off of fluorescent, hands down. Now it's just figuring out exactly how badly shredded the pants are after the beat-down is over.

[stormrider27]

/\ Excellent summary!

[OkStudent]

[el aguila]

Got my heat sink figured out - area for LEDs is 11 1/4 x 9".

Just wondering for those of you who have 1W LEDs how close together did you place them and are you happy with this over a period of time?

I used 50 LEDs per side 4 RB, 10 630, 36 660. Without any prior expermintation, I placed them on a 1" grid as follows:

X 1" X 1" X 1" X
1" X 1" X 1" X 1"
X 1" X 1" X 1" X

I got one side wired up at about midnight last night (Sorry no pics - it was late, and I'm writing this from work - pics later). In looking at the unit, I feel like it could be brighter. Right now I'm having an algae issue because of changing DT lighting and my CFL scrubber is being outcompeted in algae growth by the DT.

There is enough room in between LEDs to add another LED in the center and almost double the amount of LEDs. I am considering this - any input from anyone who has had a 1W LED scrubber going for awhile?

Presently going to go ahead and assemble everything and try it out. If I add more LEDs I'll have to order more plus another driver. As an experiment, I may run it as is for a month and then add the LEDs to see the difference.

Hopefully I'll be able to get the scubber boxes put together today. Pics will follow once I have time.

[OkStudent]

This is on a hypo tank at 1.009. It is 10 x 7 with 300 GPH which is 30 GPH per inch. I could only get 300 GPH out of the Mag supreme 7.0 with about 4' of head. Lighting is a 45 watt full spectrum on the second pic and a 23 W 2700k on the top pic. They are on 16/ 8 schecule. Just felt obligated to post my results from all I have learned from this thread. I am happy with the growth and my PO4 was .35 Nitrates 0. Will test again when it gets going good in a few weeks. Chato was growing good with the full spectrum and it is still shining on the chaeto. Will probably put a ATS on my 180G in a month or two. I feed this hypo tank about 80 1mm pellets a day and a protein skimmer will not work at such low salinity.
Thanks again guys for all your info.
[IMG][/IMG]
[IMG][/IMG]

[trueperc]

Just concerning using the led in this set up. I may be looking building a nicer set up with a led fixture. I might have a choice of either getting a grow fixture with either 1w or 3w leds but I am curious with the power of leds how close are you guys putting them to the screen.

[ReefTeacher]

where can you buy the e-shine fixture? and what wattage recommendations do you make for a given screen?

[el aguila]

Duuuh, I was looking at my driver last night and figured out that I had it hooked to double the amount of LEDs that it is supposed to work with. I guess you chalk it up to a midnight error. Everything is brighter now!

Unless another emergency pops up at work, it looks like I'll have to wait until next weekend to glue up the scrubber.

[Ansphire]

Hey guys revisiting the photohibition topic.. any one else tested it yet?.. i tried it on my screen and the algae turned a slimmy red.. weird.. i was running 4on 4off.

Something else i was thinking about is the idea of running the scrubber lights opposed to dt lights.. to me it makes no sence.. specially if you have gha in the dt.. u hqve a scrubber during the day (display algae with massive water movement) and then a scrubber at night.. i feel like they tag team instead of compeeting.. wouldnt it be a better idea tu run them together.. at least till the dt algae dies off?

[redneckgearhead]

Originally Posted by Ansphire

Hey guys revisiting the photohibition topic.. any one else tested it yet?.. i tried it on my screen and the algae turned a slimmy red.. weird.. i was running 4on 4off.

Something else i was thinking about is the idea of running the scrubber lights opposed to dt lights.. to me it makes no sence.. specially if you have gha in the dt.. u hqve a scrubber during the day (display algae with massive water movement) and then a scrubber at night.. i feel like they tag team instead of compeeting.. wouldnt it be a better idea tu run them together.. at least till the dt algae dies off?

I don't think it works that way. The idea of running them opposite is to help stabilize your PH. The scrubber should give the HA better flow and better lighting than your DT. Giving the HA a preferred place to grow. Since in theory the screen has better conditions for HA growth, it robs the HA in the DT of nutrients causing it to die off.

[Ansphire]

Sure but when you feed constantly.. every hour there are always nutrients.. and the display algae also has food. The ph with or without scrubber always remains the same in my tank.

[redneckgearhead]

Originally Posted by Ansphire

Sure but when you feed constantly.. every hour there are always nutrients.. and the display algae also has food. The ph with or without scrubber always remains the same in my tank.

Ok, but the HA in the scrubber should have better conditions for growing HA, so that makes it more efficient at removing nutrients from the water. Therefore it should be out competing the HA in the DT.

[Ansphire]

If on at the same time yes.. but opposite they BOTH have good conditions... Lots of light and nutrients provided constantly.

[redneckgearhead]

Well, Ansphire if you want to run your scrubber lights on the same schedule as your DT then by all means go for it. Like i mentioned earlier most run it opposite because of the PH and if PH is not a problem for you then I see no problem with running it as you wish. All I can attest to is that I ran my lights opposite of my DT and my HA in my DT vanished!
Good luck.

[der_wille_zur_macht]

Floyd, a delayed thanks for your efforts in this area. It's refreshing to see some hard numbers.

aguila, looking forward to seeing your results.

[Ansphire]

Originally Posted by redneckgearhead

Well, Ansphire if you want to run your scrubber lights on the same schedule as your DT then by all means go for it. Like i mentioned earlier most run it opposite because of the PH and if PH is not a problem for you then I see no problem with running it as you wish. All I can attest to is that I ran my lights opposite of my DT and my HA in my DT vanished!
Good luck.

Oh no im not arguing with you.. im running it opposite!!... I wanted to discuss the reasoning behind it and get peoples results and opinions thats all.

[OkStudent]

One of the moderators could delete all my posts on this thread if they wanted to clean it up. I meant to put those pics on the "algae scrubber basics" thread. Sorry, won't do it again!

[Floyd R Turbo]

The timing of lights on/off in scrubber vs. DT should really be irrelevant w/r to how well the DT algae grows. Yes it may have more access to nutrients (waste) during scrubber lights off period on a continuous feed system, but since the preferred area of growth will be the scrubber, the long term effect should result in the scrubber out-competing the DT algae. What is still unresolved in my opinion however is the high-light system (LED included) which has the scrubber lights on for a shorter period of time, such that the DT and scrubber light cycle do no necessarily overlap, and this might allow the DT algae to grow a little more aggressively. Might.

Willie, thanks for the delayed comment. My delayed thanks was due to spending a week in Maui and I was strictly forbidden from going online to do anything except check e-mail. I did however manage to get a few nice pics of algae on rocks near the ocean, and also noted a total lack of foam fractionation. That may be because the water there is relatively free of pollutants, even with hundreds of humpback whales right offshore at any given time.