Algae Scrubber Basics

Been meaning to post this over there, I had put this up on another thread on a different site so now is a good time

------------------------

Here is my recommendation for LED lighting of a waterfall algae scrubber screen:

This is for a double-sided screen using Philips Luxeon ES 3W Deep Red 660nm LEDs without lenses (120-140 degree) running at 700mA at 2-3" from the screen to LED

Minimum coverage: One LED on each side of every 8 sq in of screen
Maximum coverage: One LED on each side of every 4 sq in of screen

Simple as that. For new screens (bare) if using the "Maximum" level, run at 350mA until mature, or use a diffuser. Might have to do this with the Minimum level also actually, but not typically. The minimum could probably be stretched to a larger area but screen will cure slower and generally have less capacity.

So for a 6x6 screen, which is 36 sq in, /8=4.5 per side. Make it 5.
So for a 6x6 screen, which is 36 sq in, /4=9 per side.

Supplementing with blue/violet: Always run at 350mA. Use one to two at this current level for every 5-6 reds, roughly. Lots of flexibility here, a little blue/violet goes a long way. I've used 440-445nm Royal Blue Luxeon ESs for this, but I know of at least one other that used to use RBs and switched to Deep Violets and almost doubled growth. Steve's used to carry a good one but it was on a bad substrate so he pulled them. They are getting a better one in but it will be about 3-4 weeks before it's available, and then I will be testing them out on some established scrubbers.


Regarding non DIY-LEDs in general, this is what I have roughed out to help with this.

The issue is that my DIY LED guideline is based on coverage. You can't say "I need 5 3W LEDs which is 15W, so a 15 W fixture is what I need". It doesn't work that way.

That's because a 3W LED does not necessarily consume 3W, and a purchased LED may rate it's intensity based on actual wattage used, or it may add up the LEDs and give a wattage but the actual watt draw is less. You have to watch for this.

A 3W Philips Luxeon ES 660nm LED will typically drop 2.2v across the LED at 700mA. Power = Amps * Volts so 2.2 V * 0.700 A = 1.54W. What? I thought it was a 3W. It is. That is something called MARKETING. The LEDs become more efficient, so a lover Vdrop and Idrive results in the same output, but instead of calling it a 1.5W and confusing everyone, they call it a 3W still.

So now on to your fixture you are looking at.

Converting the "LED per unit area guideline" to a "wattage" guideline is as simple as doing the math.

Figure out what you need per the "unit area" guideline. In the above example, 6x6 screen, minimum level (low intensity), 5x 3W per side. Each is actually drawing 1.5W, so 5x1.5 = 7.5W. Your light fixture should actually consume, at the wall, a minimum of 7.5W. The electronics built into the fixture will draw power also, meaning that you might want to add a little cushion to the number. So a 10W fixture on a 6x6 screen would be about right for a comparable replacement to an array of 5x 3W LEDs.

Now let's add that factor in and parallel it to screen size. A 6x6 screen = 36 sq in. Make it 40. you need a 10W actual-draw LED fixture on each side of this. So you could say that the rule of thumb for a pre-built LED fixture is that you need 0.25W per square inch of screen. That would get you into the Minimum light arena - or "Minimum Intensity".

Doubling that would put you on the higher end. 0.5W per square inch - actual wattage draw of fixture.

What you have to watch for is when they use a multi-chip that has 9 1W LEDs on it and they call that 10W. Not necessarily true. But 1W LEDs are actually more efficient than 3W LEDs when you are talking radiant flux output per unit of energy input into the LED, so it's not horrible, just shoot for the higher light level and you'll be OK usually. At best, you will actually be at the minimum level. At worst, you'll be on the low side but still OK.

------------------------

While re-posting this I actually caught a calculation error. So I will have to revise that post.

So Herring_fish, based on this, if you wanted to cover a 48x6 screen with the pre-built fixtures, I would consider a fixture for each 6x6 section, which means 8 fixtures.

For each fixture, you would need to cover 36 sq in and for horizontal you would want to shoot for the higher end of lighting, so 0.5W/sq in (fixture rating) or in this case 18W, so you would want 8 of the 20W fixtures.

Initially you might put a diffuser on the front of each of them, or maybe half of them, until you get growth. Kind of a guess there since I haven't ever run a horizontal.
 
Last edited:
SantaMonica:
I was originally planning on using single chipset fixtures from the same company as your BEST choice. Why do you think that the multi-chip lamps are better?

I bought two 50 watt, all 420nm lamps to replace my T5 actinic lamps after getting some advice. I got them from the same company. I was looking for a purely cosmetic improvement by upping the blue look in the presents of my white metal halides. I really liked the construction of the lamps.

Unfortunately, I felt that the color wasn't bright enough and I got some feedback from others that 100 watts of violet might burn the corals. Then I went back to them and ordered two 50 watt 455nm chipsets replacement LED's to put in the fixture. I really liked the brighter coral of the royal blue.

Floyd R Turbo:
You are giving me lost to think about. I went back the table on scrubber lighting from Dr. Adey's book. That is the one that I originally use to design my scrubber. I built mine with 300 watts of VHO light. Lets roughly round that to 25,000 lumens.

I will stop there because I may have already gone wrong but I think that this would be my starting point for LED equivalents. NO?
 
There's only a few of these I would recommend. Stay away from anything with low-power LEDs, and I do mean anything, which knocks these out


The rest are OK, the PAR lamps are usually OK, the "best" on is decent too

The multichip version is what I have seen used also and it works well

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/10W-20W-3...onic-Plant-Flood-LED-Grow-Lights/251263083641

~$30-35 for the 20W one, which had 16 reds and 4 blues, all 1W chips.

As for the lumen thing, the problem is that you can't measure 660nm Deep Red in terms of lumens, you need to use Radiant Flux. So however you do it, it has to be an apples to apples comparison
 
yeah that's the issue. Lumens are for humans. When you get into the Deep Red spectrum, our perception of brightness gets skewed. That's when I switch to the wattage per unit area for coverage calculations.

I'm not exactly sure how LED radiant flux/intensity translates over to lumens per Adey in order to give you a good comparison.

But if you were looking at 25,000 lumens for the whole screen, then 8 of the 20W units at 1300-1400 "lumens" would be 10,400-11,200 and then if you fudge factor in that their lumen measurement is likely lower than a radiant flux measurement, you would probably be in good shape.

I would think that 3x 10W fixtures would give you rather spotty coverage, that fixture is probably good for a 6x6 area or maybe an 8x8, going larger than that might be a stretch. But you could start with 3 of those, and then see how it goes, and if it's obviously lacking you can add a few 20W fixtures and decrease the spacing, observe some more, and so on.

Plus take all of this with a grain of salt since I haven't run horizontal or dump style scrubbers, I'm just going off of what seems to make sense logically.
 
I like the multi chips, because they apparently spread the light out more. That's the main limiting factor I find, since these lights are not meant to be 6" from a screen; they are meant to be 3 feet from a plant.
 
I like the multi chips, because they apparently spread the light out more. That's the main limiting factor I find, since these lights are not meant to be 6" from a screen; they are meant to be 3 feet from a plant.

Agreed. I think that this mainly is the issue with initial growth, which gets inhibited by too intense of light. Fortunately, those fixtures have a nice flat front on them, so it's easy to tape a piece of diffuser to the front and knock the intensity down and spread the light out a bit wider.

You can also further knock the center light intensity down by placing a small square of blue painters tape or black electrical tape directly in front of the chip (on the diffuser, or on the splash shield). Then, when you have a mature screen, you can remove these or make them smaller, and take advantage of a mature screen's ability to absorb more incident light.
 
If I were using lumens, I think that I would need five 50 watt LED's if they are white. I need super performance from my ATS because I will be feeding so much.

I'm thinking that I will need 250 Watts of power if I go with LED's. I have pumped a lot of energy into my ATS when I needed performance at max levels. I have needed to use that much power in the past and I get away with it. I don't get long cycle photo inhibition or burning.

I can play with coloration as I do more research but I will either build a controller for that wattage or "¦just go out in the garage and pull out my four T5 VHO's with an Ice Cap ballast. No risk.

Can someone point me toward studies that show how much more effective blue and red combinations are better than white? Maybe I can gain some trust in these babies.

Thanks
 
Yeah. I roughly calculated a 1000w metal halide would be approaching maximum intensity on a 13x10 inch screen, so about 300led watts I reckon. However this 1200 micro Einsteins thing is very confusing with regard to LEDs.
 
Brummie Where did you find your numbers for light input from. As I said, my ATS is sized for a 130 gallon and I am going to a 180 with the same unexpanded ATS unit so if there is information that I can go even higher with, then I would like to read the references. I do want to be able to potentially to go "the" max, what ever that is, when I need it.

If your screen is 13 by 10 for 130 square inches and mine is 48 by 6 for 288, then mine screen could possibly tank 2000 watts of power?

Also guys, where is this blue red stuff LED data coming from. Sorry, I haven't been reading every post. I have been following along but I missed that.

Thanks

P.S. I see studies that say what works well but where do they quantify how much better certain combinations work than others and by how much. This would help create a conversion from old data for white light to other colors.
 
Last edited:
Algae Scrubber Basics

Brummie Where did you find your numbers for light input from. As I said, my ATS is sized for a 130 gallon and I am going to a 180 with the same unexpanded ATS unit so if there is information that I can go even higher with, then I would like to read the references. I do want to be able to potentially to go "the" max, what ever that is, when I need it.



If your screen is 13 by 10 for 130 square inches and mine is 48 by 6 for 288, then mine screen could possibly tank 2000 watts of power?



Also guys, where is this blue red stuff LED data coming from. Sorry, I haven't been reading every post. I have been following along but I missed that.



Thanks


Try this;

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2424221&highlight=microeinsteins

If you see any glaring mistakes I'm only glad to hear of them :)
 
I have problems. (hehe) My system totals about 400 gallons, 5 years old, possibly a sick deep bed, and I can't get the water right. I've lost all kinds of coral. I want to put in an ATS. I have a tank on the system (7 tanks total) that was a species tank but the species died. I have 1 fish, a bit of coral which I need to figure out how to rehome and I can dedicate the whole tank to scrubbing. It is a 35 gallon tank that is 3 feet long and 2 feet high. I started reading this thread but holy moly it is long. So .. what size pump do I need? And how many and what type of lights -- not so high on the LEDS. I think I can I get away with 1 side? Thanks for all the information and hope you don't mind my questions...Floyd you rock.
 
[edited]

You can certainly try a scrubber, but just a word of advice, algae scrubber is not necessarily going to fix every problem. Ideally, a scrubber is what you should use to keep a system in good healthy shape and reduce some of your maintenance costs, etc. When it comes to using a scrubber to solve a problem, that may or may not work, such is the case with just about any type of filtration.

Again, ideally, fixing the underlying problem should be addressed first, and then you should set up the filtration system, whatever you choose to utilize, such that you will maintain stability in order to achieve long term success. But this is not always possible, so you do what you can.

So if it does turn out that your DSB is a problem, and you cannot easily remedy that, you can try the scrubber and see if that makes a difference, but it might just end up masking a deeper issue. Hard to say without a lot more information.

Anyways, off of my rant and back to your scrubber design, if you look at the posts in my signature that will get you a long way. LED is really the main thing that is not included in that set of posts, everything else is still the basics. Flow is dependent on screen width, screen size is dependent on load (feeding mainly, and tank size factors in on larger systems), and then LxW of screen is a design choice.
 
Last edited:
Until I get a lot of money and can replace the whole system -- the sand bed cannot be repaired. Call it bad design. I would need to find a place to put every single animal and redo the whole thing. Thanks for the help.
 
Sorry if my last my reply to you sounded a bit harsh, I didn't mean for it to come off as scolding you or anything, I just wanted to make it clear that some situations might not be remedied easily by changing filtration, in general. That's not to say that a scrubber won't go a long way in making a system work better, just that there is a good chance (depending on the setup) that it might not make a difference, or that it might take a long time to see results.

I can put this another way that might be more helpful - if you have a new system, or you tear-down and start over, you can design the scrubber to handle your projected load and be pretty close to hitting the target.

If you have an existing issue, then this becomes a little more problematic. In this instance, it might be wise to oversize the scrubber. The problem is that you have sort of a moving target. If you make the scrubber really big, and then it turns out that your problem is not as big as you thought, you might not get very good growth/results because your scrubber growth is spread out over too large of an area. If you make it too small, then you might have a hard time getting enough growth to help with the problem.

All in all, in such a situation, it's better to plan for a larger scrubber, because you can reduce the size a bit easier than you can increase the size.

For a 400g tank, if you went by the old volume-sized guidelines, that would be a 400 sq in screen. IMO, that would be too big. That would be 30 x 12 or thereabouts, and you get into a problem where you have a huge need for lighting and your cost goes way up.

I would start with a feeding-based sizing and then double it. Let me know how much you feed on an average daily basis and we'll go from there
 
Thanks Floyd -- I do understand but I just need to buy myself some time as the fix is very extensive that I can't afford to do right now.

I have 21 fish in the whole system. I feed algae sheets 1 to 2 times a week. I feed black worms once every four days and I feed about 4 frozen squares every four days. The fish are spread across 4 tanks.

It does sound very problematic getting the size right. Since I have a 35 gallon tank that can be dedicated, is the light issue reduced if I can make it not completely horizontal but angled? I would also be able to do just one side right? I need to do something quickly that will help things ... I do need help!

I also could make the the thing the full size but only water half of it to see how it grows. Just trying to figure it out...
 
A bit of rough guesstimating on the feeding might put you at 6 cubes/day, which is pretty heavy. Once you get into larger overall volumes of water, what I find helps more than increasing screen size is increasing the water flow.

Double-sided is the best way to do it if you can, because light to both sides of the growth screen means that the lower layers will survive longer, meaning you can let the screen grow for a longer period of time between cleanings, and this means longer periods of effective filtration. So all screen size calculations are based on that scenario.

If you go to a single sided screen, generally you need to double the screen size. Usually this is difficult bit you have a lot of space. Going with a slanted screen is still single sided, but you won't need to further increase the size (I used to say that slanted was "non-vertical", I have since backed off on that). Horizontal screens need to be double the size again, and there is still a bit of unknown about effectiveness, especially when they are static (not a dump-bucket type or surging style). Brummie would have the best info on that based on what he does currently.

So a double-sided 6 cube/day screen would be 12 sq in per cube/day or 72 sq in in total area (LxW) and making it slanted you would double that to 144 sq in (a 12" x 12" screen, for instance).

If you wanted to oversize it, a double-sided screen would be 144 sq in and singe sided would be 288 sq in (or 24" x 12"). This would fit in your sump but supplying water to it and getting even flow would be the main thing to overcome.

Then as far as flow rate goes, whatever length x width combination you decide on, you would want about 35 GPH per inch of width delivered to the screen (after head loss, so actual flow). So you can see how this gets to be a lot of flow for a 24" wide slanted screen, that would need over 800 GPH delivered.

A double-sided waterfall, 12" wide and 12" tall would need a minimum of 400 GPH of flow, and then you would want quite a bit of light on both sides, ideally, no less than 70 watts of CFL per side, with big reflectors. You could do 2 40W lamps hung vertically with reflectors, but getting them close means they would be in the tank, so you would want to make sure the drain on the tank was good so that they would never get submerged no matter what (sounds like this wouldn't be a big problem just put a couple big bulkheads low on the tank wall). If you wanted to go with LED, you can use a couple of the mutli-chip type fixtures discussed recently in this thread, use the more powerful ones (probably 2 of the 50W ones) and put those on the outside of the tank, and you could get good intensity and coverage even though they are a bit further away (you might go with an even larger LED fixture, you can always add a diffuser)

If you wanted to go with the slanted scrubber, you would have the same fixtures, just all on the same side. So a 24" wide x 12" long slanted with 2x 50W LEDs over the top, or 4x 40W CFL, something along those lines. I would have to run the exact numbers but that is just something to get you into the ballpark and get you thinking about what you can do
 
You DO rock. Thanks so much. I really appreciate the time you have taken to help me. The tank is narrow so perhaps the LEDs would be the way to go but it means they would still be 6 inches away -- is that still ok? I have a 65g tank that empties into a basement tank -- I'll have to figure out if
I could use that instead of a pump ... not sure what the GPH is.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top