Floyd R Turbo
Either busy or sleeping
I wouldn't say that they don't work, but by themselves they don't seem to produce as well as 660s. Mix 50/50 630/660 and you are good, but at that point, you might as well go all 660.
Algae Scrubber Basics
- Thread starter srusso
- Start date
salty joe
Active member
SantaMonica is now part of RC! There seemed like there was some tension for awhile-good to see the hobby ending up being the winner.
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2231506
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2231506
sail33
New member
So even though my cheato may die after the scrubber starts kick, I thought I should ask since I don't see it as part of the post.
Is 660 red good for cheato AND algae ?
I did my "test build" with CFLs and I can see it's not enough. LEDs should bump it up.
I was thinking of 5 LEDs per side but I'm seeing designs with 2 LEDs. Is there an LED per sq inch recommendation ? Lens angle ? Distance from the algae? is 1 watt enough or is 3 watt required?
Is 660 red good for cheato AND algae ?
I did my "test build" with CFLs and I can see it's not enough. LEDs should bump it up.
I was thinking of 5 LEDs per side but I'm seeing designs with 2 LEDs. Is there an LED per sq inch recommendation ? Lens angle ? Distance from the algae? is 1 watt enough or is 3 watt required?
Floyd R Turbo
Either busy or sleeping
If it's any consolation, I have a scrubber I just installed on a 225g FOWLR, which has N > 500 and P > 5.0 and after a whole month, without ever cleaning the screen, I have only a bit of growth around the edges, and the rest is still pretty much white.
I've seen results all over the board, from solid mass of 2" thick at 3 weeks to no growth whatsoever. So much depends on the specific setup that it is impossible to explain everything.
Saitoking, your growth would tend to indicate high nutrient, not enough flow, not enough light, or a combination of one of more of these. But, I would tend to advise that you just leave it be and see what happens. If your waste nutrient levels come down and/or you have a reduction in algae in the display tank, etc, then your goal is being accomplished. Tweaking and fiddling with it only does you good after you hit a stable point, meaning that if it only takes care of part of your problem, then you need to adjust something.
Time is the factor that you have to allow to take place. Check and track your water parameters and take regular full tank shots to see the progress/effects, then make changes as you see fit.
I've seen results all over the board, from solid mass of 2" thick at 3 weeks to no growth whatsoever. So much depends on the specific setup that it is impossible to explain everything.
Saitoking, your growth would tend to indicate high nutrient, not enough flow, not enough light, or a combination of one of more of these. But, I would tend to advise that you just leave it be and see what happens. If your waste nutrient levels come down and/or you have a reduction in algae in the display tank, etc, then your goal is being accomplished. Tweaking and fiddling with it only does you good after you hit a stable point, meaning that if it only takes care of part of your problem, then you need to adjust something.
Time is the factor that you have to allow to take place. Check and track your water parameters and take regular full tank shots to see the progress/effects, then make changes as you see fit.
Floyd R Turbo
Either busy or sleeping
Yes, you are correct here, Chl-A is 660 and 425-435, Chl-B is 630 and 455. All of the major LED grow light manufacturers have been using 660 & 455 and most studies are using those bandwidths as well.
The only explanation I can come up with is that 455 has some lower bandwidth component to it, and that is enough to affect Chl-A range. 455 LEDs are much brighter visually as well as stronger in overall radiant power than violet LEDs. I was once told that 630nm LEDs while less effective of a plant growth bandwidth would actually outperform 660nm LEDs because they simply had much more radiant effective power. This, I was told, is true for house plant type growth. However most that have tried 630nm for scrubbers have gotten better results with 660nm.
The other part of this might be the availability and reliability of 420-430nm violets. It may have simply been unfeasible to use them. This may no longer be the case. I have been planning experiments to do side-by-side comparisons for quite a while and have enlisted the help of others to perform this since I can't seem to find the time...
saitoking
New member
Thanks, I am watching to see what is changing in my tank. The hair algae is turning lighter and in going away slowly and nitrates are very low and phosphate are staying around .25 ppm (mg\L) Thanks for your help. saitoking
crn005
New member
I think this might be a big influencer as well. The violets just don't seem to pack as much punch as the 455s.
Do you have some violets that you have in mind? The only ones I'm really finding are the ones on rapidled but they hit the 410-420 bandwidth. That still seems to hit a major requirment of the Chl-A spectrum, but skips out on the Chl-B spectrum. If these were coupled up with only 660s then it seems that Chl-B is going to be fairly neglected.
I move back to America in December. I already have a 46g bowfront opperating there (under mom's supervision right now) and I'm going to completely redo it. I have no problem trying out a new approach on the LEDs but it will take a couple months from now to get everything up and running. It's for the greater good after all!
Saitoking, just out of curiosity, how much light are you using. I think you and I are in a similar situation, but i'm about 1 month ahead of you. My ATS is on a 120 FOWLR, but my nitrates were in the 100 range before I began. My growth looked very similar to yours up until two or three weeks ago. At that point, I began seeing small clumps of the green stringy stuff.
A couple days ago I added two more 23 watt CFL bulbs, which brings my total to 6 - 23 watt CFL's on a 14" W x 10" screen.
I've tried to post some pictures, but they are always too huge for the site. What do you use to take your pictures with, I'll try to post a set up of what I have going on.
A couple days ago I added two more 23 watt CFL bulbs, which brings my total to 6 - 23 watt CFL's on a 14" W x 10" screen.
I've tried to post some pictures, but they are always too huge for the site. What do you use to take your pictures with, I'll try to post a set up of what I have going on.
crn005
New member
Perhaps I found an answer.
It seems that the lower down the spectrum you get, the more effeciently the light is being used. Basically, a little bit seems to go a lot farther for a much wider range of wavelengths than in the higher end of the spectrum. Also, it seems that straddling the two peaks is a pretty good idea. Not just this chart, but almost all others that I found show the absorption spectrum flatten out inbetween the two peaks, instead of taking a dive. Couple that with a very high photochemical efficiency, and it seems that one light source can effectively meet the Chl-A and Chl-B requirements with a high success rate. This probably explains why the lower end of the spectrum isn't as successful at growing algae on scrubbers. The algae requires very little light from this spectrum because it is used to accepting a wider range of wavelengths at a much more efficient rate. The dimishing returns kick into action pretty quickly it seems.
What I took away from this is that if you were running a large enough scrubber that would warrant using two LEDs to hit the lower wavelengths, then it would be in your best interest to have one royal blue hitting the 440nm-460nm and a violet hitting the 410nm-420nm range. I'm going to be running a 2-cube-a-day scrubber with five 3w LEDs on each side of an 3"x8" screen, so I don't think I should be putting more than one blue/purple LED per side.
Last edited:
Floyd R Turbo
Either busy or sleeping
You're right, one blue or two at half-power, which is what I do. I wire them into the (+) on the first blue, then I connect the (+) and (-) of the first to the second, then out of the (-) on the second blue, effectively making a current divider so that each blue runs at 1/2 power within a series string of reds. If your LEDs are not matched well then you might get a little more out of one LED, but from what I have been able to tell, there's really no problem doing it this way. I would not mix a blue and a violet this way though.
Regarding the graph, I've looked at many graphs and the peaks are all over the place. The one above makes it look like the B peak is at 655 and the A peak at 690, and on the other end it's A at 435ish and B at closer to 490. Seems far off what I have seen, don't know who to trust sometimes!!
But your discussion seems to make sense.
As far as the LEDs, Rapid seems to carry the lower spectrum, Steve's LED carries a "true violet" which peaks at 422.5nm and runs at 700mA, and I have a few, and will be testing these.
Regarding the graph, I've looked at many graphs and the peaks are all over the place. The one above makes it look like the B peak is at 655 and the A peak at 690, and on the other end it's A at 435ish and B at closer to 490. Seems far off what I have seen, don't know who to trust sometimes!!
But your discussion seems to make sense.
As far as the LEDs, Rapid seems to carry the lower spectrum, Steve's LED carries a "true violet" which peaks at 422.5nm and runs at 700mA, and I have a few, and will be testing these.
The theory is that the type of algae on the scrubber grows more quickly, therefore being a better filter than chaeto. For me, I still have both, my scrubber does alright, but I have never seen growth like others.
Some people doing both have seen their chaeto die off because of the efficiency of the scrubber. I guess it is a good way to know yours is doing well if it out-competes the chaeto!
Similar threads
