# What's the skinny on LED lighting?



## dnrdarryl

I see some advertised for fish tanks in Foster and Smith. Can these be used for low light plants like Anubias and java moss? My fish room is getting a little too warm. I use flourescent shop lights and will be switching to T5 to reduce heat a little but was thinking LED would be alot less heat?


----------



## ray-the-pilot

dnrdarryl said:


> I see some advertised for fish tanks in Foster and Smith. Can these be used for low light plants like Anubias and java moss? My fish room is getting a little too warm. I use flourescent shop lights and will be switching to T5 to reduce heat a little but was thinking LED would be alot less heat?


I have LED lighting in my set up but it is designed to simulate moon light. I do not believe that there are LED's that emit enough light to simulate daylight.

BTW the moonlight LED's are really great because you can see the fish activity at night. There is plenty and it is interesting.


----------



## StevieD

If you buy a LED lighting system designed for daylight they pretty much are the best. They are expensive right now, but i think you will see they will be the lights of the future. In all tests that i have read not only are leds brighter, but the light is more evenly spaced, more consistant, less heat, way more efficient, bulbs last in upwards of 10 years and they have an unsurpassed amount of control with intensity and spectrum. A 4' unit will cost upwards of $1500 or even more, but i think we will see these prices start to drop in the near future.

By the way they are very effective in growing any type of coral very well, and some corals need much more light intensity than planted aquariums, so all around they are the best choice in my opinion...as long as the price comes down. If you think of electrical savings and cost of replacing bulbs even for only 5 years, especially compared to MH, it is actually cheaper to go the LED route, and you will be getting a much better light and less drawbacks.

Here is a video of the Lumenaqua Led Lighting system geared towards planted tanks.






Stevie D


----------



## freydo

LED's are capable of growing plants, however they are not very effective in deep tanks. gomer has/had done lots of testing, and at the time, it's not very cost effective as StevieD has also mentioned.

you can see one of gomer's posts regarding LED plant lighting and the results:

http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/diy-aquarium-projects/31815-here-we-go-again-led-lighting.html


----------



## Cliff Mayes

I agree that LEDs are the future but does anyone have a guesstamite about when the price will come down. DIY does not bother me but the cost does. When the great revolution takes place it will dramatically reduce the cost of aquarium keeping! It will not take too much to beat the normal offerings that come with tanks so it will be interesting to watch the changes that are coming.


----------



## StevieD

With a spread much greater and more consistant than MH, and can penetrate more than 30" just fine, what more do you need? Evaluation of NEW LED fixtures have more than been proven on reef aquariums just check out the forums...infact i'm sure you could light a planted tank 36" deep without any problem and have excellent growth. Yes they are expensive, but they have many benifits, and if you are factoring the cost of MH over 5 years they are definitely cheaper. Plus what you can do with a light controller and LED is incredible.

BTW there are some really good super scientific (at least scientific for out hobby) studies on LED lighting on the reef forums if you are in doubt read up on them. If reefers aprove of the LED we can be ASSURED they are good, especially for planted tanks. Ofcourse there are many that don't want to believe that they are when they have spent an arm and a leg for lighting for their tank and have to pay ridiculous amounts of money for their electrical bill... but like anything else you see this anywhere products are being compared.



Stevie D


----------



## Manwithnofish

Generally speaking, I agree with StevieD on this. No doubt that LEDs are more than capable of producing more than enough light. I'm sure there will be debates yet to come about he "color" and this and that (as there always has been on the subject of lights).

LEDs have become the lighting standard for web inspections systems in factories that produce paper, film, metal, foils, etc. I know some of these modules come in 12" lengths....maybe DIY can bring them on soon rather than later. 
LEDs are very long lasting and uniform. The prices will come down, but how soon...probably another few years.


----------



## ray-the-pilot

dnrdarryl said:


> I see some advertised for fish tanks in Foster and Smith. Can these be used for low light plants like Anubias and java moss? My fish room is getting a little too warm. I use flourescent shop lights and will be switching to T5 to reduce heat a little but was thinking LED would be alot less heat?


This is interesting. Everyone on this thread seems to think that LED's are the greatest thing since sliced bread! I'd like to try them out. Can you link me to someplace where someone has actually used them in a daylight set up?

The LED's that I have can just about light your wristwatch.


----------



## Cliff Mayes

LED Flashlights are common, and they are bright! I already own a bunch of them.

From all that I have read LEDs are going to revolutionize home wiring.

Read the links provided in this thread. There are postings that in the past have described experimenting with LEDs and planted tanks. This is old technology and I am sure that things have changed already. Technology is not waiting for anybody. This hobby is not driving anything but the large markets will and we (this hobby) can sponge off of the advances.


----------



## Raul-7

From what I've read on ReefCentral, they definitely are the future but with the current technology it just isn't worth the money.


----------



## Manwithnofish

I don't know of anyone using them in our hobby yet. I know of them being used in industrial applications. Let there be no doubt that they can light up your tank or anything else. The industrial applications are composed of an array of LEDs in modules that can be added together in any configuration you need. Again, it's not being marketed for home hobbist, but who know what will happen in a couple of years. A couple of sites below, just to let you know that I'm not making this up.

http://www.rpcphotonics.com/collimators.asp

http://www.cognex.com/ProductsServices/VisionSystems/InSightAlt.aspx?id=1750&terms=LED+lights

Having said all this, let me state right now that I'm no expert in this and someone may point out legitimate issues with this ever working for our hobby...but from I have have seen, I believe it is real promising.


----------



## dnrdarryl

Thanks for all the responses folks! I did some Googling on the subject and yes they are being marketed for commercial greenhouses and some outfits are selling aquatic gardening modules. The energy savings is incredible. Yes, they are pricey with a cost of about $50-100 per square foot that you light. A guy might be able to DIY a cheaper version but like when drip irrigation systems came out, the components are still pretty high.

If I win the Powerball I'll get one and report back. In the meantime I'm thinking of switching to electronic ballasts and T-5.


----------



## Cliff Mayes

Thank you for the replies. 

Soon but not just yet.

LEDs are coming and I can't wait!


----------



## Indignation

StevieD said:


> Here is a video of the Lumenaqua Led Lighting system geared towards planted tanks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stevie D


Did anyone else watch this? This light is definitely one of the coolest new technologies I've seen for our hobby yet! Can't wait for someone to actually try one and report if it is as awesome as it looks. Unfortunately, it's far too expensive for me ATM.


----------



## StevieD

I'm sure you will be able to DIY, but there are some lens filtering layers that the aquarium LED systems use that seem pretty important, and they use LED controllers for color/K so it really is a lighting system rather than just a light you flip a switch.


----------



## AquaVu

LED is absolutely be the future of all lighting applications. They have advanced so much but still a little pricey at the moment. I own several LED units from flash lights to DIY aquarium lights. The future is indeed VERY BRIGHT!!


----------



## AquaVu

This Xmas, find some LED Xmas lights at your "after holidays clearance". Try your hand at creating some homemade aquarium lights. They are bright, low energy, never burn out, stay cool, Etc. Can't say enough about LED lights. Good luck


----------



## squirrelproductions

AquaVu said:


> This Xmas, find some LED Xmas lights at your "after holidays clearance". Try your hand at creating some homemade aquarium lights. They are bright, low energy, never burn out, stay cool, Etc. Can't say enough about LED lights. Good luck


The Target by us always runs out of the LED lights -- even before Christmas  I'm tempted to pay full-price *shudder* for some DIY tinkering.


----------



## StevieD

This is what LED's can do with a light controller.... blows anything away we have seen so far. This link simulates a thunderstorm and clouds moving over the water.






This is just another example of an LED accessory to simulate a storm.






Stevie D


----------



## Supercoley1

ray-the-pilot said:


> This is interesting. Everyone on this thread seems to think that LED's are the greatest thing since sliced bread! I'd like to try them out. Can you link me to someplace where someone has actually used them in a daylight set up?
> 
> The LED's that I have can just about light your wristwatch.


Ray - Stick with us and you may learn some great things:

I use 15 x 3W 5500K luxeon LEDs which I underpower so they run at 2.8W. That makes 42W over a 33USG (1.25WPG!!!!) This is then raised 13" above the water level. Man that must be dark?? ROFL.

These are also setup in 5 series so my lights turn on in increments from left to right to simulate the sun coming from the left, reaching full spread and then turning off in increments from the left.

You would need in the region of 500+ standard LEDs to get this light!!!!

My setup does not use lenses, reflectors or collimators. I do not want focus points. I want even spread!!!

Here is the setup:









Here are the lights:









And the rig(s) in position (The main tank only has the left 3 series of 5 on here and is midway through sunrise  :










Here is the sequence from 1 light to full:









































You can use these for Nanos too. lol:









I don't think anyone needs to ask if they are any good at growing plants 

AC


----------



## Bunbuku

OMG! Be still my nerdy :nerd: heart! 
I noticed you have an array of hard drive cooling fans on both sides. What's the noise like?
Those Luxeon LEDs get pretty hot, looks like you mounted them directly on some heat sinks, right? How 'bout using heatpipes or watercooling you can keep the tank warm at the same time [smilie=u:. 

Seriously, impressive Supercoley! Hats off!


----------



## Supercoley1

The board is 6mm acrylic. Then each LED has a memory chip (quite small) heatsink on the rear of the star and this is then mounted to a cut up old reflector which doesn't act as a reflector but stops a little glare and acts as extra heatsinking. then the whole board is fixed into the 'luminaire'

Yes they get hot hence 4 fans blowing in at one end and 4 sucking out at the other plus the heatsinking.

The fans are silent as all 8 are being powered by a single 10V supply so are not running overly fast 

A couple more pics 

This is a single LED in the main unit:









A look from the end:









The Nano one uses lenses, collimators (not a very good spread as you can see in the previous post. Much better sread without them) and proper heatsinking!

The Nano unit from above:









A single LED:









A lense/collimator fitted to an LED:









Have a good night's sleep 

AC


----------



## helgymatt

*Supercoley1,*
You have a very cool setup there. Where do you get this stuff and how much did you have to spend? Is it economical if you DIY?

Like everyone has said LED's are going to be the wave of the future. NASA has funded a ton work with LED's for growing plants in space. A lot of the technology has come from that. They have LED panels that can emit single light wavelengths at a time to supply the plant with only what it needs. It looks pretty messed up to see a plant growing under red and blue light so that won't work for aquariums, but its pretty interesting stuff. Of course ee would need the full spectrum so it looks pretty to look at.


----------



## Bunbuku

I found this site that sells the Luxeon and Cree LEDs http://www.ledsupply.com/
The Luxeon K2 @ $9 each can pump out a blinding 6500K, 250 lumens with 1.5 mW! But it does get hot 150C so heat disspation is key.

Here's another one is a light strip format but its getting pricey http://www.ledsupply.com/06007.php

And for the Wall Street CEOs, ones for aquariums http://www.ledsupply.com/solaris.php.


----------



## helgymatt

Bunbuku said:


> And for the Wall Street CEOs, ones for aquariums http://www.ledsupply.com/solaris.php.


You sure they could afford it? They only make a half million now...


----------



## helgymatt

Bunbuku said:


> I found this site that sells the Luxeon and Cree LEDs http://www.ledsupply.com/
> The Luxeon K2 @ $9 each can pump out a blinding 6500K, 250 lumens with 1.5 mW! But it does get hot 150C so heat disspation is key.
> 
> Here's another one is a light strip format but its getting pricey http://www.ledsupply.com/06007.php
> 
> And for the Wall Street CEOs, ones for aquariums http://www.ledsupply.com/solaris.php.


How do you know what the right amount of light is for a given tank?


----------



## Coralite

I am guessing that you havent seen what is going on in the LED patent lawsuit which threatens to prevent anyone from making LED fixtures for resale without massive royalties to Orbitec. Full details can be found in *this blog post*.


----------



## Bunbuku

helgymatt said:


> How do you know what the right amount of light is for a given tank?


Not sure, maybe Hoppy knows if he still lurks around in APC. The other thing to consider is that the spectral output is different.

Here is the Luxeon K2 on page 14 http://www.ledsupply.com/docs/k2_tffc.pdf
Here is the ADA 8000K MH http://www.adgshop.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=108-036&Show=TechSpecs


----------



## Supercoley1

This LED unit is run (underpowered) at 42W and is visibly brighter than 48W T5HO!!

The plants are growing faster even though the LEDs are 13" above the water surface where the T5s were about 5 "

Cost about £110 to build (electric stuff)

The LEDs can be found on ebay here:
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=360121082853&ssPageName=STRK:MEWN:IT&ih=023#ht_1964wt_907

Don't forget current controllers for these babie or they won't last long  'regulated' power supplies won't cut the mustard when LEDs are involved because there is a very very fine line between underpowering and frying them!!! Current controllers are a must.

AC


----------



## Supercoley1

This LED unit is run (underpowered) at 42W and is visibly brighter than 48W T5HO!!

The plants are growing faster even though the LEDs are 13" above the water surface where the T5s were about 5 "

Cost about £110 to build (electric stuff)

The LEDs can be found on ebay here:
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=360121082853&ssPageName=STRK:MEWN:IT&ih=023#ht_1964wt_907

Don't forget current controllers for these babie or they won't last long  'regulated' power supplies won't cut the mustard when LEDs are involved because there is a very very fine line between underpowering and frying them!!! Current controllers are a must.

AC

Before anyone asks me more questions. lol Here is the thread (on another forum) that ran alongside the build so I was getting advice all the way through it on what to do and what to use (I have never soldered before this project ). Very useful and includes links to virtually all parts involved :

http://www.fishforums.net/index.php?showtopic=264895

AC


----------



## Bunbuku

Supercoley1:

I realize that the LEDs themselves are highly efficient, but I was wondering what the power consumption was for the whole beast. For instance my 150 watt Aquamedic MH light/ballast consumes 167 VA.


----------



## Supercoley1

The answer is.....I have absolutely no idea...nor what VA is  I am certainly no electrician 

All I can say is that each series of 3 runs from 12V regulated power supplys.

So 1 series is 12V into the current controller. The current controller takes 1.5V and that means 10.5V passed onto each LED.

The LEDs are 3.4 - 3.7V 700ma

There are 5 series, so 5 adaptors, 5 controllers and 15LEDs!!!

Maybe you can calulate from that 

I would assume they are more efficient that the T5HO of almost the same wattage that they replaced?

Also as it is on dayight mode each series only runs for 6½ hours with each overlapping another. All 5 are only at the same time for 4 hours. This should also be a reduction in power compared to previus where it was 3 hours @ 30W, 3 hours @48W and 3 hours @ 30W.

AC


----------



## Bunbuku

You work give a pretty good impression of an electrician or at least someone that builds his own PCs!

BTW I did not calculate mine. I measured it using one of these things :nerd: http://www.amazon.com/P3-International-P4400-Electricity-Monitor/dp/B00009MDBU. I was thinking that the efficiency of your luminaire cannot not be greater than the least efficient component, i.e., how much power is wasted (as heat for instance) driving the super-efficient LEDs.


----------



## helgymatt

SuperColey1,
I started reading your thread over on fishforums. Its very informative, but long. If I ever decide to DIY led's I'll read it more completely. 

Do you think this is overkill? In other words, do you really need 15 of those LED's on that tank? It seems WAY bright. Have you seen any growth responses yet or is it too early to tell? 

Matt


----------



## Supercoley1

Even though I put it up to 13" above from 4-6" above the improved growth was noticeable within a few days. As was CO2 uptake. My DC which I normally like to be a light lime green through the photoperiod went to a dark green so CO2 has now bee upped.

That change in CO2 said everything really 

Not overkill really. (I will use WPG even though I think the rule is one of the worst out there) If you believe in low light and high light plants (I don't) then this was a low light tank @ 0.9WPG T5HO for the majority of the photoperiod. Even in the 3 hour noon burst it was only 1.4WPG.

This setup on full is 1.25WPG and with the staggering of the lights, over the photoperiod there is much less W in total if you were to do the sums (basic and means nothing but you get my drift):

Fluoros
3 hours x 30W = 90W
3 hours x 48W = 144W
3 hours x 30W = 90W = TOTAL 324W

LEDs
1 hour x 8.4W = 8.4W (half hour in the sunrise, half an hour in the sunset)
1 hour x 16.8W = 16.8W " " "
1 hour x 25.2W = 25.2W " " "
2 hour x 33.6W = 67.2W 1 hour " "
4 hours x 42W = 168W All 5 series on for the noon period
TOTAL = 285.6W

Therefore following what people understand of lights and the planted aquarium I have gone from low light to very low light!!!!

Pictures tell a thousand words though. Personally I think overkill is when people use anything over 2WPG!!!! People with 3,4,5,6WPG now that is overkill 

AC


----------



## ALIFER

There are starting to be more LED light available. I was at Wallyworld yesterday and saw these 7watt LED lights 4-sale. http://www.gelighting.com/na/busine.../downloads/led/LED-PAR20_Sell_sheet-74440.pdf It would be relatively easy light a tank using these, just screw them in - no reflector needed, but they would be better if the light spread was wider & the 3000K should be closer to 6000K or 7000K. I'm hoping the price will continue to drop as more manufactures start selling reliable LED's.


----------



## overboard

I had a 50 gallon tank set up as low-light, with two 65w CFs. One of the fixtures fried somehow, so I replaced it with LED strips from this place here in town:http://www.exotic-aquarium.com/index2.html

I bought a 48" shop fixture from Home Depot and took it in and they removed the ballast and wired in two strips, equal to about 80 watts each. Total investment was about $300.00. They are suspended now, and the CFs weren't, and the tank seems to be a little brighter. They run extremely cool. They are 6500K, and the color looks the same as the 6700K CFs. The only difference in plant growth is a bolbitis fern, which has gone nuts. I may appreciate them more in the summer. Right now the tank heater is probably running harder, so there may not be a big energy savings. I still like T5's best, but I haven't burned any arm hair on the LEDs...


----------



## Supercoley1

ALIFER Those 7W ones use 3 LEDs to get their 7W I think.

There is no reflector needed with these high powered LEDs!!! There is a reflector behind the die!!! All you need to do is decide on the die shape you want (lambertian, Batwing, Side emitter) and then choose to use collimaters/lenses to further focus the light.

I chose lambertian for my setup without collimaters as then the light has a 120º output and gives a good spread. The ones on the Nano have 30º collimaters and you can see the result 

p.s. you wanna see a big powerful LED???? Check this baby out (100W )
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/100W-White-LED-6500LM-Lumen-Energy-Saving-Star-LED-Lamp_W0QQitemZ250368539672QQihZ015QQcategoryZ66954QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem#ht_2001wt_907

Now that is gonna burn your eyebrows off if you go to close 

OVERBOARD From the looks of those strips you bought they are standard 3mm/5mm LEDs. Thats why they run so cool  However you need so many to produce enough light that it defeats the object in my case. I wouldn't be so confident of getting this right having to solder 500+ small LEDs into position wheras 15 with nice large solder pads on them was a lot less daunting 

AC


----------



## helgymatt

Supercoley1 said:


> This setup on full is 1.25WPG and with the staggering of the lights, over the photoperiod there is much less W in total if you were to do the sums (basic and means nothing but you get my drift):
> 
> Fluoros
> 3 hours x 30W = 90W
> 3 hours x 48W = 144W
> 3 hours x 30W = 90W = TOTAL 324W
> 
> LEDs
> 1 hour x 8.4W = 8.4W (half hour in the sunrise, half an hour in the sunset)
> 1 hour x 16.8W = 16.8W " " "
> 1 hour x 25.2W = 25.2W " " "
> 2 hour x 33.6W = 67.2W 1 hour " "
> 4 hours x 42W = 168W All 5 series on for the noon period
> TOTAL = 285.6W
> 
> Therefore following what people understand of lights and the planted aquarium I have gone from low light to very low light!!!!


"low light to very low light"...not exactly. You are using more efficient bulbs! The point of LED's. WPG essentially has no meaning anymore, unless you have a different WPG rule just for LED's.

The fact that you raised the fixture up a lot makes me think you could have gone with fewer LED's. I'm not trying to put you down on this...I'm just thinking to myself how others (or I) could do it differntly by using less LED's lowering the fixture, etc. We just need some more experience with these! 

Also, do you see any advantage of having the staggered lighting period that "follows the sun"? Seems like it may be a lot of timers and mess with little advantage and an odd appearance of the tank with one half lit in the morning, etc....



Supercoley1 said:


> Personally I think overkill is when people use anything over 2WPG!!!! People with 3,4,5,6WPG now that is overkill
> 
> AC


Keep in mind your growing two of the most low light plants there are...ferns and anubius. Yes, some light systems are overkill, but the 2-4 watt per gallon range often works quite well for many.


----------



## Supercoley1

I agree on the WPG rule. If you saw me on other forums you would see how I berate this rule more than any other person on the planet  To the point where I will tell someone they don't need 3WPG unless they are T12s.

I raised the fixture because I am trying to get spread rather than areas of intensity. Most people think if they raise their lights they will go lower light and get poorer growth. My argument would be that you would have better spread and would probably see better growth!!!

The staggered lighting period is just something I wanted to try and thought the fish might like. I have had 4 spawns in 3 weeks from my Corys with no conditioning since I did this!!! Coincidence maybe but I quite like the effect too 

I don't believe in low light or high light plants. However would you say that Blyxia Japonica and Rotala Macrandra can grow under a photoperiod of 8 hours where it is 0.9WPG for most with a 2 hour noon burst at 1.5WPG?

People warble on about plants needing highlight. Why? Because they upped their light and it grew. Did they change anything else when they upped their light? Yes they upped their CO2 and ferts!!! Put the light back down but leave the CO2 and ferts up. See if those plants grow now. I believe in high CO2 / low CO2 plants and I didn't struggle with my previously low light (the flouros) with both DCs bordering yellow!!!

I agree the higher light bracket does work well for many but I wouldn't suggest it. I would also suggest it is the higher level of CO2 they use alongside the higher light that is doing the job!!!

Saying all of the above, I am no Tom Barr unfortunately and far from being able to test, control etc I have only 1 decent sized tank and therefore only theorise. I have nothing to back up my statements other than trying a plants and seeing if it works and then make assumptions. Dangerous game.

AC
[/QUOTE]


----------



## helgymatt

Supercoley1 said:


> I agree on the WPG rule. If you saw me on other forums you would see how I berate this rule more than any other person on the planet  To the point where I will tell someone they don't need 3WPG unless they are T12s.
> 
> I raised the fixture because I am trying to get spread rather than areas of intensity. Most people think if they raise their lights they will go lower light and get poorer growth. My argument would be that you would have better spread and would probably see better growth!!!
> 
> The staggered lighting period is just something I wanted to try and thought the fish might like. I have had 4 spawns in 3 weeks from my Corys with no conditioning since I did this!!! Coincidence maybe but I quite like the effect too
> 
> I don't believe in low light or high light plants. However would you say that Blyxia Japonica and Rotala Macrandra can grow under a photoperiod of 8 hours where it is 0.9WPG for most with a 2 hour noon burst at 1.5WPG?
> 
> People warble on about plants needing highlight. Why? Because they upped their light and it grew. Did they change anything else when they upped their light? Yes they upped their CO2 and ferts!!! Put the light back down but leave the CO2 and ferts up. See if those plants grow now. I believe in high CO2 / low CO2 plants and I didn't struggle with my previously low light (the flouros) with both DCs bordering yellow!!!
> 
> I agree the higher light bracket does work well for many but I wouldn't suggest it. I would also suggest it is the higher level of CO2 they use alongside the higher light that is doing the job!!!
> 
> Saying all of the above, I am no Tom Barr unfortunately and far from being able to test, control etc I have only 1 decent sized tank and therefore only theorise. I have nothing to back up my statements other than trying a plants and seeing if it works and then make assumptions. Dangerous game.
> 
> AC


[/QUOTE]

I buy just about everything you say. I believe you can grow just about anything unde 2WPG, but do you agree that the higher lighting and a corresponing good CO2 level will make the plants grow faster? Not sure what you meant about the Blyxa...I find it growing fine underneath my huge lily leaves. I wouldn't consider it very light demanding.

I also agree that raising a fixture will give you better light spread. I'm in a battle to raise my TEK T5 higher to give better coverage in the corners, but my damn crypts seem to be SO sensitive that I think they would all melt.

Anyway, sorry to get this off topic


----------



## Supercoley1

I agree that more light makes the plants grow faster but I don't think the plants that people call 'high light' plants actually need high light. I think they need high CO2 meaning a good high stable level. they will grow and well as shown in recent ADA tanks with great HC carpets under relatively low light with good spread (Tom Barr PAR tested the tanks) Of course all plants will grow faster with higher light as long as the ppm is kept stable alongside it.

What I mean by what I say is that I don't beleive there are any plants that 'need' 3,4WPG. They will grow perfectly well under 2WPG. If people want fast growth then the higher light will of course do that.

Blyxia is one of those plants that many call a high light plant. It nearly took over this tank before I got rid of it and like I said above I only had 0.9WPG for the majority of the photoperiod 

My Crypts (and there are loads in there with the ferns and Anubias) seem to melt at the slightest parameter change!!!

About 3 months ago when I decided to stop pruning and let the tank fill out I had flow problems and was struggling to keep the CO2 ppm up they melted.

When I put the Koralia1 in and got the ppm back they melted.

When I changed onto EI again after being on a lean dose (not as lean as PPSPro) they melted.

The are currently doing the melt again from the lighting change.

The Wendtiis, Undulata, Wilisii seem to be OK each time. It is the Becketti and Parva that seem to go each time. I don't worry too much. Established Crypts tend to come back and bigger and stronger pretty quickly.

AC


----------



## helgymatt

Mine are Wenditi...[smilie=m:


----------



## overboard

The appeal of what I got was that they fit into T12 or T8 fixtures, almost as simple as changing bulbs. Some reef guys are saying these aren't high powered enough, and the data given on them isn't sufficient, and that could be quite true. They are definitely better than Coralife's CFs, though. This afternoon I tore out a bunch of 20" tall tri-leaf java ferns that had taken over my 50 gallon tank (18" tall; it wasn't working) and wow, what a difference! I was worried that the strips wouldn't cover well front-to-back, but every inch of substrate is well-lit. And I found three anubias and a piece of driftwood that I had forgotten about. A good day.


----------



## Supercoley1

Not fan of CF lighting anyway. I would rather have T8 linears. better spread of light from a couple of those instead of being forced to pack a huge amount of light into one area!!!

The reef community are comparing the Solaris type setups to MH. Indeed they do not rate them to highly.

However the Solaris is using lenses and collimators etc and as you can see from my mini tank that uses lenses compared to my main tank which doesn't there is a huge difference. they both use the same LEDs.

I think the question is penetration within the reef side and they are using a mixture of colours. LEDs are notoriously bad when using the colours.

Not got PAR data but these figures are the Philips stated Lumens for my Lambertians:
White (5500K) = 80Lumens (per LED) x 15 = 1200Lumens
Blue (470nm) = 30Lumens (per LED) x 15 = 450Lumens
Red (627nm) = 100Lumens (per LED) x 15 = 1500Lumens
Red-Orange = 135 Lumens (per LED) x 15 = 2025Lumens

I have had to level the stated Lumens because some are figures stated at 1.4A and onthers at 1A. I have therefore done a simple calculation for example Red-Orange = [email protected] / 1.4 = [email protected]

Green show the same Lumens as White

Info taken from the Philips site:
http://www.philipslumileds.com/products/luxeon/luxeonIII

The above shows why they aren't looking so good for marine!!! In theory if you wanted a superhighlight tank you could mix a few of the reds or red-Orange in there. I just went for a nice spread of the whites 

AC


----------



## evilc66

Chalk me up as another proponent of LEDs. Anyone who knows me from Nano-Reef will know that I am a bit of an LED freak. I have had a ton of experience in setting up reef arrays, but haven't yet taken the plunge into lighting my planted tank with LEDs.

I'm not convinced that not using lenses/reflectors is ideal in all situations. It will depend greatly in the PAR levels you want in the tank. Granted, the levels of light in planted tanks are much much less than for reefs, but the use of even a wide angle lense can help to increase light level in tall tanks without killing the spread and evenness of the light.


----------



## Supercoley1

I see what you are saying r.e. lenses collimators but why use them when the lambertian die emits 120º ?

A couple of pics from mine. Both are 3 x 3W LEDs powered at 3.5V/700ma which equates to 7.45W (I am told)

This is a mini luminaire I made. It has 30º lense/collimators on the LEDS (7.45W):









This is 1 series from my luminaire on (still 3 x 3W = 7.45) exactly the same light output wise but no lense/collimators.









The series I have used in the second photo is in the same position as I had the luminaire. I have also lowered the luminaire so the LEDs are the same height.

Big difference don't you think 

It is 18" from LED to substrate in these photos.

AC


----------



## evilc66

Well, going from 120 degrees to 30 is a big change. The reason that we use optics in the reef end of the LED world is to get PAR levels higher in deeper tanks. We can also get PAR levels equivalent to MH output in any size tank. Obviously, with the decrease in optic angle, the quantity of LEDs increases to obtain good coverage. For example, when running an array at 1000mA with no optics, PAR levels are similar to a 14K 70W MH. Add 40 degree optics into the mix on the same array, and you have PAR levels that will rival almost any 250W MH, even at 24".

My point is that you can use optics to tweak your performance based on the requirements.You don't have to use 30 degree optics to gain anything. Even something as tame as an 80 degree optics can yeild a 20-30% increase in PAR, and can raise PAR levels at lower depths of the tank. A side effect from this can be that you can lower your driving current to reduce heat, while keeping the same performance level.

Increasing the number of LEDs used isn't an effective way of increasing PAR, but it does slightly as the overlap of each LED increases. It's not nearly as effective as adding a lens.

For most setups in the planted world, these kind of extremes aren't necessary, but the options are there to get better performance on deeper tanks with higher light requirements.

Whatcha think?


----------



## Supercoley1

I see what you are saying r.e. PAR but I would assume the following. Tell me if I am wrong:

If you don't use lenses/collimators then you get a lower PAR but over a wide area.

If you use the lense/collimator then you get higher PAR but in a much smaller area.

Just as in the pics above??

AC


----------



## evilc66

Right. Not saying that it has to be used on every setup, but it gives you more options if higher output is required.

Like I stated before, 30 degrees is a bit tight. 80 degrees doesn't kill your spread, but could bump the output up just enough to make a difference in some applications.


----------



## andyh

EVILC66, I hope I'm not just playing semantics with your words, but adding more LED's is certainly effective at upping the PAR, it's just not a very EFFICIENT way to do it.

I haven't played with lenses/collimators on my Cree XR-E (Q5 bin) LED's, which have a "natural" slightly narrower pattern of 90 degrees. Would you bother experimenting with lenses/collimators if the starting point is 90 degrees?


----------



## Supercoley1

I think you know I wouldn't


----------



## Cory Keeper

overboard said:


> The appeal of what I got was that they fit into T12 or T8 fixtures, almost as simple as changing bulbs. Some reef guys are saying these aren't high powered enough, and the data given on them isn't sufficient, and that could be quite true. They are definitely better than Coralife's CFs, though. This afternoon I tore out a bunch of 20" tall tri-leaf java ferns that had taken over my 50 gallon tank (18" tall; it wasn't working) and wow, what a difference! I was worried that the strips wouldn't cover well front-to-back, but every inch of substrate is well-lit. And I found three anubias and a piece of driftwood that I had forgotten about. A good day.


While they may work in the short term, don't expect them to last very long. 5mm don't have near the life as the HP 3w LEDs. And for $180 a bulb, change about every three years, forget it. I didn't spend that much on my LEDs, plus controller plus PWM dimmer.

BTW Evil, nice to see you here on the Fresh side  (Catfishboy is my name on the dark side) And do check out my thread on AC http://www.aquariacentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=165345

Oh yes, super job coley, really top notch.


----------



## evilc66

andyh said:


> EVILC66, I hope I'm not just playing semantics with your words, but adding more LED's is certainly effective at upping the PAR, it's just not a very EFFICIENT way to do it.


From what I have experimented with, the change in overlap of the LEDs will bring up the PAR levels more than a single LED would put out. It's not until the emiters are right on top of each other that the levels really increase substantially. I did some work for a while with triple Rebel stars that produced some significant PAR numbers without optics. Using a lense is certainly a lot cheaper way to gain a little more performance.

Like I said before though, they aren't needed in every instance, but can be effective when used correctly.



> I haven't played with lenses/collimators on my Cree XR-E (Q5 bin) LED's, which have a "natural" slightly narrower pattern of 90 degrees. Would you bother experimenting with lenses/collimators if the starting point is 90 degrees?


Depends on what the end goal is. If I need more PAR than a bare emmiter can produce at 90 degrees I'll use one. Even if it's only an 80 degree lens, if the increase in PAR is what I need, then it's totally worth it. At only a few dollars each, it's a lot cheaper alternative in some circumstances than adding more LEDs and drivers.

Again, I'm coming from an environment where high lighting is king. I guess it's going to take me a little while to get used to the calmer side of things


----------

