48" LED Array - Up and Running...Mostly

[StirCrazy]

Originally Posted by Ron99

Since the drivers are capable of handling an additional 24 LEDS I will probably add a few 3 or 4 near UV (395nm) LEDs as an experiment and to bring out the coral florescence a bit. I will most likely run them without optics as I want them more for some supplementary wavelength rather than producing PAR. I also read a bit about using some green LEDs to bring out coral colours and am toying with the idea of similarly adding some green ones without optics for that purpose.

Have you thought of going full UV instead of near? I think the UV is something were missing in the Led light set ups and they will make your corals pop like crazy. as for the green, I wouldn't waist my time, unless you got nothing better to do I think green will have the same results of when people were trying the red ones mixed in. lead to more algae.

Steve

[Skimmerking]

So you are saying there Ron that those lights have better PArs then the 8x 54 w t-5's and what is the life span of the LEd's and if one blows how easy is it to change.

really good work man.

[Ron99]

Originally Posted by StirCrazy

Have you thought of going full UV instead of near? I think the UV is something were missing in the Led light set ups and they will make your corals pop like crazy. as for the green, I wouldn't waist my time, unless you got nothing better to do I think green will have the same results of when people were trying the red ones mixed in. lead to more algae.

Steve

Thought about it Steve but the near UV ones at 395nm were had for $15 vs. closer to $100 for true UV-A at 365nm. I'm looking at options for 365nm but until the cost comes down I won't be trying them. As for the green ones, it's just a notion right now. I'll probably let the nano-reef.com crowd experiment with that first However, I don't think a bit of green will have the same effect on Algae that red would. The red is really into the spectrum algae likes for photosynthesis. Green is much closer to the blue end of the spectrum. If I did it I would only use maybe six emitters with no optics just too add some colour to the tank and help the red and orange pigments pop a bit. the blue and UV are great for the green pigments and to some extent the red but green apparently really brings out the reds and oranges.

Originally Posted by asmodeus

So you are saying there Ron that those lights have better PArs then the 8x 54 w t-5's and what is the life span of the LEd's and if one blows how easy is it to change.

really good work man.

Yes, better PAR than my fixture which is a Sunlight Supply Sunblaze fixture. It's a pretty good one with contoured reflectors etc. but I am sure some of the others with true individual reflectors and active cooling will give a bit more PAR than mine. It was doing a great job and SPS were growing just fine under it. However, the LEDs have really blown it away with nearly twice as much PAR with about half the energy consumption. That's the beauty of LEDs as a light source. They are way more efficient than other methods.

Their life span, as long as they are adequately cooled, should be 50,000 hours. At 8 hours per day of lighting that is nearly 8 years. I am saving $250x8= $2000 in bulb changes alone not to mention using less electricity. Changing them is not that hard. Unsolder the wires and pry it off the heatsink (I used adhesive pads but if I had drilled and tapped the heatsink then it would just be a matter of undoing the screws holding the LED down). New adhesive pad and new LED and resolder the wires and you're good to go.

[Canadian]

Great build. And you've done a great job of documenting things for everyone to mimic should they so choose.

But I have to comment on the PAR. Your old T5 fixture is not a very good comparator for a moderately good T5 fixture. Your PAR values with the T5 fixture are abysmal and not reflective of typical high quality T5 fixtures with 54W lamps (presumably your reported T5 PAR values are with new lamps as well given you're comparing this to brand new LEDs). Secondly, the PAR values with your DIY LED fixture are still quite low. Every time a discussion about LEDs comes up the comparison to 250W and 400W MH is made. These numbers clearly show they aren't even close in the manner in which you've designed this fixture. I've maintained that until real numbers for PAR are measured and reported the propaganda of "equal to a 400W MH" is absurd. So far the data I've seen do not support the marketing BS. In all honesty, did you expect the PAR values to be that low?

And as far as lifespan goes: again there is no long term data for PAR as far as I know (unless you have info I haven't seen yet). T5 lamps have a reasonable lifetime but their effective PAR drops much faster. At this point we don't have any good data to support the numbers being batted around about 50,000 hours lifespan. Sure, the emitter may continue to emit light for 50,000 hours but at what PAR?

[StirCrazy]

Originally Posted by Canadian

But I have to comment on the PAR. Your old T5 fixture is not a very good comparator for a moderately good T5 fixture. Your PAR values with the T5 fixture are abysmal and not reflective of typical high quality T5 fixtures with 54W lamps (presumably your reported T5 PAR values are with new lamps as well given you're comparing this to brand new LEDs). Secondly, the PAR values with your DIY LED fixture are still quite low. Every time a discussion about LEDs comes up the comparison to 250W and 400W MH is made. These numbers clearly show they aren't even close in the manner in which you've designed this fixture. I've maintained that until real numbers for PAR are measured and reported the propaganda of "equal to a 400W MH" is absurd. So far the data I've seen do not support the marketing BS. In all honesty, did you expect the PAR values to be that low?

And as far as lifespan goes: again there is no long term data for PAR as far as I know (unless you have info I haven't seen yet). T5 lamps have a reasonable lifetime but their effective PAR drops much faster. At this point we don't have any good data to support the numbers being batted around about 50,000 hours lifespan. Sure, the emitter may continue to emit light for 50,000 hours but at what PAR?

Andrew, you have to go do some reading in this thread, he is getting higher par at 5 times the distance. T5 was at 3.5" and he is still getting higher PAR at 17" above the tank, which he did becasue he didn't have his dimming setup done yet. At 8" he was over 500 PAR where at 3.5 with the T5 he was at 300 PAR, Also this is with 60 and 80 degree optics, no one ever said thoes optics will give you 250 - 400 MH levels, it is 40 degree optics you need to get that, the best you will get with 60's is around a 150 watt MH which he is pretty close to as a 150watt mh isn't much higher than a good T5 set up. if you want a good comparason maybe Ron will take a PAR reading at 3.5" with the LEDs then you can see how much more punch he is realy getting, I am going to guess that he will be around 700 at the surface and probably close to or over 400 at the bottom, but thats a guess.

now as for the PAR output, you are thinking along the lines of a gas filled cathode tube. you can't think that way with LED as there is no gas to break down and change the spectrum. it has been showen there is absolutly no shift in spectrum in a LED over its life, only a 15% decrease in intensity, so there is no reason to think other than a 15% decrees in PAR as there will be no spectrum shift to compound the drop as it does in MH, PC, CF, ect. so if we look at that the average MH has a 20% drop by the time it is changed, and most of that drop occures int he first 6 months, floressents have a even steaper drop off, so going with LEDs after 5000 days (10 hours per day) you will have 15% less intensity with no spectral shift so you should not get nusence algae ect..

Steve

[Ron99]

I think Steve pretty much summed it up. Just to add to it, my PAR reading on the T5 were with the old bulbs so yes, the reading would have been higher with newer bulbs. Couldn't do that as I just recently borrowed a PAR meter for this testing and had no way to test when my bulbs were new. And I wasn't about to spend $250+ on new bulbs at this point I would love to see others posting PAR numbers from their fixtures so we can do comparisons.

And for the record, I wasn't making any claims as to comparisons with 250w or 400W MH as I haven't done any PAR readings from those but a guess as to where my light output would end up. If anybody else has let's see the numbers as it would be interesting to compare.

But what I do know is that with the LEDs lower down, at about 7 to 8 inches above the water I was seeing just over 500 PAR in the upper part of the tank and 300 just above the sand bed of the tank about 18 inches down. That's pretty good from my understanding. I didn't test with the fixture even closer to the water but if I lowered it to where I had the T5s then I suspect Steve is correct and PAR would be 600 to 700 in the upper part of the tank. Maybe I'll try it tomorrow and see. The reason I raised the fixture for now is that I would burn all my corals switching them from say 300 PAR to 500+ PAR. They need to be acclimated and I plan to slowly lower the fixture every few days to acclimate them to the higher light.

Give this article a read:

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2010/2/aafeature2

It shows comparisons in air, not water but it's a start. Also you have to note that the LED fixtures used in the article are not the best. One is a PFO Solaris which used older LEDs that do not have the same output as the newer generations of emitters and the other is the Eco-Lamps one that under drives their LEDS at just over 1 watt instead of 3 watts. Even so they compared well to a high end T5 (about equal performance) and a 250W MH (a little less but not by much; about 15 to 16% less output). I guarantee you my fixture will outperform both the Solaris and the Eco-Lamps as I used very good Cree emitters driven at a full 3W and 1000mA for the whites and about 900mA for the blues.

Even so Dr. Joshi states that most Acropora and light loving corals will thrive at PAR levels of 300 to 400 which this fixture can provide throughout my tank if I wish. That's good enough for me. In a 30" deep tank for example you could keep high light SPS in the top 2/3 of the tank. I don't have a deeper tank to test on but I suspect PAR would still be close to 200 by 30" down. That's pretty good performance in my book.

[Ron99]

For comparison purposes Eugene at Oceanic Corals tested their 400W MH fixture (in their LED spotlight thread) and says that PAR was 500 at 12" below the water. I had 400 PAR at about that depth with the fixture say 7.5 inches above the water. I'll try to test with the fixture closer to the water at 12" depth and see what I come up with.

But I think my 400PAR as tested so far shows pretty well against the MH.

[Ron99]

Oh, and just to Spam my own thread a bit testing by the LED leaders at nano-reef.com shows that the drop off in PAR vs. depth is less with LEDs vs. MH. That makes sense as with the optics virtually all the output of the LEDS is focussed down into the tank. T5s and MH, even with good reflectors, probably have less cohesive light with more scatter from the reflectors as they emit in all directions and then rely on the reflectors to focus the light down if that makes sense.

[Canadian]

Originally Posted by StirCrazy

Andrew, you have to go do some reading in this thread, he is getting higher par at 5 times the distance. T5 was at 3.5" and he is still getting higher PAR at 17" above the tank, which he did becasue he didn't have his dimming setup done yet. At 8" he was over 500 PAR where at 3.5 with the T5 he was at 300 PAR, Also this is with 60 and 80 degree optics, no one ever said thoes optics will give you 250 - 400 MH levels, it is 40 degree optics you need to get that, the best you will get with 60's is around a 150 watt MH which he is pretty close to as a 150watt mh isn't much higher than a good T5 set up. if you want a good comparason maybe Ron will take a PAR reading at 3.5" with the LEDs then you can see how much more punch he is realy getting, I am going to guess that he will be around 700 at the surface and probably close to or over 400 at the bottom, but thats a guess.

now as for the PAR output, you are thinking along the lines of a gas filled cathode tube. you can't think that way with LED as there is no gas to break down and change the spectrum. it has been showen there is absolutly no shift in spectrum in a LED over its life, only a 15% decrease in intensity, so there is no reason to think other than a 15% decrees in PAR as there will be no spectrum shift to compound the drop as it does in MH, PC, CF, ect. so if we look at that the average MH has a 20% drop by the time it is changed, and most of that drop occures int he first 6 months, floressents have a even steaper drop off, so going with LEDs after 5000 days (10 hours per day) you will have 15% less intensity with no spectral shift so you should not get nusence algae ect..

Steve

Steve,

You'll have to read Ron's post after yours. The PAR measured with the low quality T5 fixture was on more than 1 year old T5 lamps and therefore a very poor comparator - forget about the height of the fixture comparison. Additionally, I'm less concerned about the comparison to T5s than I am to MH (the only reason I commented on T5s was because the comparison was hugely favorable to the LEDs based on the manner in which it was performed). Various qualities of LEDs make them favorable to T5s IMO. With that said, comparisons are being made all over the place to MH by retailers, manufacturers, and hobbyists. When you were standing on your soap box about MH a few months ago you pounded your chest about getting over 1000 PAR at the surface and 500 on the bottom of the tank. Clearly, the numbers being reported here don't fall in line with what you've purported constitutes adequate PAR for your SPS tanks.

And as far as the theory behind intensity drop in LEDs goes - it's just that: a nice theoretical expectation based on presumed qualities. Until there is some long term data for PAR the theoretical musings can carry on but with a healthy dose of skepticism.

[Ron99]

Originally Posted by Canadian

Steve,

You'll have to read Ron's post after yours. The PAR measured with the low quality T5 fixture was on more than 1 year old T5 lamps and therefore a very poor comparator - forget about the height of the fixture comparison. Additionally, I'm less concerned about the comparison to T5s than I am to MH (the only reason I commented on T5s was because the comparison was hugely favorable to the LEDs based on the manner in which it was performed). Various qualities of LEDs make them favorable to T5s IMO. With that said, comparisons are being made all over the place to MH by retailers, manufacturers, and hobbyists. When you were standing on your soap box about MH a few months ago you pounded your chest about getting over 1000 PAR at the surface and 500 on the bottom of the tank. That's all I am trying to say. I would love to compile Clearly, the numbers being reported here don't fall in line with what you've purported constitutes adequate PAR for your SPS tanks.

And as far as the theory behind intensity drop in LEDs goes - it's just that: a nice theoretical expectation based on presumed qualities. Until there is some long term data for PAR the theoretical musings can carry on but with a healthy dose of skepticism.

First I think you are being overly critical of my light fixture. I would not call it low quality but about a middle of the road one. Sunlight Supply makes good fixtures and these were not much different then the first generation Tek fixtures in terms of lighting output. Slightly better reflectors and active cooling would improve it somewhat but how much do you think that would be? 10%? 20%? Secondly, while the bulbs were old, the only references I could fine say that T5s lose about 10% output over 2 years. The problem for reef tanks is the shift in colour which can lead to undesirable algae etc. But let's say that the degradation was 20% for the sake of argument. So my 300 PAR with the T5s could mean 375 PAR with new bulbs. Still much less than 500 PAR with the LEDs higher above the tank then the T5s were. Argue all you want but however you set up my test, new bulbs or not etc. my LEDs handily outperform my T5s. That's all I am claiming. I would love to test different lighting setups for comparison but I don't have easy access at the moment. Maybe we can do that and arrange to test various people's lights with the same meter which will give some idea. it's not as good as a side by side comparison under the same conditions in the same tank but it would be a start.

I would also take manufacturers claims with a grain of salt as they are in the business of marketing their products and most likely set up tests to skew results in favour of their products. However, independent test are being done like Sanjay Joshi's comparison I linked in my last post. That clearly showed the "lower quality" LED fixtures performing as well at or slightly better then a high end T5 fixture and only 15 to 16% lower output then a good 250W MH setup. Dr. Joshi is an engineer and has been testing all sorts of lights, especially MH, for a long time so I would consider him a good independent reviewer. Here's also a more recent review of a top of the line LED fixture, the AquaIllumination:

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2007...searchterm=PAR

This one clearly shoes the AI unit outperforming a 250W MH unit. Granted, the MH ballast used may not be top of the line but is probably typical of one used by many people.

With respect to who has the biggest PAR; really, who cares. Stoney corals appear to photosaturate between 400 and 500 PAR so having 700 or 1000 PAR is probably pointless other than for bragging rights. I doubt it will do the corals much good.

As for longevity and degradation of LEDS, that is fairly well established. While high powered LEDs are fairly new to our hobby they have been around for a decade and are well tested. Low power LEDs have been around far longer then that so the degradation of LEDs is well understood.