Minimalistic multichip DIY LED build

[jerpa]

If you want mnore WHITE than run the white legs at higher current than the blue or visa-versa.

I understand this part of your argument to an extent. My problem with the above designs is that the emitter is still dominated by blue leds. I want seperate channels to dial intensity as I see fit and I want as many colors as possible but what I doubt is the need for so many blues on each channel. I understand I am in the minority in not loving the overly blue look. It just seems for my situation this would be the equivalent of running 250W 20k MH and supplementing with some GE 6500k T5's to whiten things up to a 10-12k look. I want headroom but I don't want to buy 6 emitters to run the whites at 100% while using very little of the blue.

Edited I see red is off the table

My vote would be
1) 10 420nm
2) 20 445nm
3) 20 455nm
4) 40 10000K
5) 10 6500K

 

[janne68]

Here's the reason why you can't have red (a email from a couple of weeks ago from AC-RC)

Chris, I don't think so that is a good color mixture. Let me expalin to you....the red chip which input voltage is 2.8V max but any other color are 3.6-3.8V max. If mix with 4% red so that all of other chips should decrease 26% voltage to accommodate the red in order to avoid the happen of burn it out. For example of 100W panel, it just can runs on 74W max under the color mixture you propose.

I don't know why people are keen on the 6500k, this range would promote algae growth, there isn't a single tank in the world that runs with a 6500k MH and even in a T5 fixture the lowest i've ran is a 10k.

This answer makes me wonder if they will share the plus or minus side for the strings! Do you know if the strings will have their individual plus and minus for each LED-string or if there will be any sharing of the connections?

 

[gtfcniles]

You can only have 5 legs of 20 though....so by adding red your losing a alot on the others in that 20 string. You will be better off running a 10w chip along side it and dim it that way to suit.

 

[gtfcniles]

I understand this part of your argument to an extent. My problem with the above designs is that the emitter is still dominated by blue leds. I want seperate channels to dial intensity as I see fit and I want as many colors as possible but what I doubt is the need for so many blues on each channel. I understand I am in the minority in not loving the overly blue look. It just seems for my situation this would be the equivalent of running 250W 20k MH and supplementing with some GE 6500k T5's to whiten things up to a 10-12k look. I want headroom but I don't want to buy 6 emitters to run the whites at 100% while using very little of the blue.

My vote would be
1) 10 420nm
2) 20 445nm
3) 10 455nm
4) 10 660nm
5) 50 10000K

You can't have 10 660nms without lowering the power to the other 10 on that string.

 

[gtfcniles]

This answer makes me wonder if they will share the plus or minus side for the strings! Do you know if the strings will have their individual plus and minus for each LED-string or if there will be any sharing of the connections?

You can share the connections just by soldering a connection between the legs you want to share.

 

[tomservo]

Bean: I tried adding turquoise/cyan and red to a build for a friend, and all it does is add a sickly cast to the tank. We keep them basically turned off, and I wish I had used more 420nm instead, it would have had far better effect. His light is 2:1 18000-20000k : 445nm Fedy, a 78" fixture with 198 emitters total. Otherwise everything in the tank looks great, nothing looks off or lacking in color but he doesn't have a lot of livestock yet.

The red/turq I used on his build was those OCW from led-group-buy, and I am very disappointed in them. I used 12 on his build (total 36 emitters) and they are the version with no optics. Everything just looks wrong.It's possible the culprit was mostly the cyan but the reds look off as well when that string is powered, even after allowing time for one's eyes to adjust..

 

[janne68]

You can share the connections just by soldering a connection between the legs you want to share.

I understand that
I was trying to ask if they will be shared in the hardware, for example a common minus side? I hope that that is not the case since that will limit some driver possibilites.

 

[Sonny n Colleen]

As long as they can be independently controlled this is great. You couldn't ask for much better than 100 x 10~ watt leds with the colors needed for my tank in one small package. Using a decent heatsink, you could possibly get away with passive cooling. Count me in for three chips for Option 1 or 2.

I prefer Option 1 in this configuration:

1) 20 x 445nm
2) 20 x 10000k
3) 20 x 420nm
4) 20 x 15000k
5) 20 x 455nm

IMO More than likely the 10K and 15K will see the higher voltages thus generating more heat. Spreading them out should keep the chip temperature somewhat distributed during use and not have hot spots. Plus, it just looks even...lol!!!

 

[BeanAnimal]

Bean: I tried adding turquoise/cyan and red to a build for a friend, and all it does is add a sickly cast to the tank. We keep them basically turned off, and I wish I had used more 420nm instead, it would have had far better effect. His light is 2:1 18000-20000k : 445nm Fedy, a 78" fixture with 198 emitters total. Otherwise everything in the tank looks great, nothing looks off or lacking in color but he doesn't have a lot of livestock yet.

The red/turq I used on his build was those OCW from led-group-buy, and I am very disappointed in them. I used 12 on his build (total 36 emitters) and they are the version with no optics. Everything just looks wrong.It's possible the culprit was mostly the cyan but the reds look off as well when that string is powered, even after allowing time for one's eyes to adjust..

Driving with one source or 3 seperate? I would imagine that they need trimmed to look balanced... but thanks for the input. I have not seen them so have no idea.

 

[gtfcniles]

I understand that
I was trying to ask if they will be shared in the hardware, for example a common minus side? I hope that that is not the case since that will limit some driver possibilites.

Ah sorry I miss understood, well looking the current chips they are all on the same side, so I would assume this would be the case.

 

[jerpa]

I would vote for option 3 if my arm was twisted. I'd still prefer an option with more white. If something closer to these three were available considering no reds and each channel must contain 20 leds I would buy one to play with. Garner enough interest and perhaps we could get a blue and a white version. Or I may just start shopping for ballasts and reflectors....


1) 20 10000k
2) 20 420 nm
3) 20 15000K
4) 10 445nm + 10 455nm
5) 20 10000k

1) 20 15000k
2) 10 420nm + 10 445nm
3) 10 6500K + 10 10000k
4) 10 420nm + 10 455nm
5) 20 15000k


1) 20 10000K
2) 20 455nm
3) 20 420nm
4) 20 445nm
5) 20 10000k

 

[BeanAnimal]

Maybe I am confused about what the output will look like... I like crisp (Iwasaki crisp) but not the "blue" that most folks appear to lean toward. The TOTM on the home page is pretty at a glance, but there is no way I would have anything near that blue in my home. It reminds me of the blue toilet water that used to be popular.

Crisp white sunlight with actinic for pop, but not BLUE water for me...

It is my understanding that most folks are starting to shy away from the CW 6500K because of the washed out and windex factor. The Neutral whites appear to be the better choice at around 5000K and closer to WHITE than BLUE. Some folks are adding in WARM whites in the 4000K neighborhood to get some sunshine/red

I have no idea what the 10000K and 20000K chips look like, but that is far more blue than the CW.

So I am confused. We are proposing little in the "WHITE" range and everything (other than the UV) in the BLUE range. Am I missing something?
420nm Actinic blue/violet
430nm bluer actinic blue/violet
445 Blue
455 Royal Blue
6500K Blueish white
10000K Even blue white
20000K super blue white

Is this not going to simply produce one awful laser blue output with UV that looks like smurf pee and windex or the headlights on a fancy sports car? What am I missing?

 

[tomservo]

Bean: driving them all with one source; 3 seperate dimmable drivers would have been a considerable added cost, not to mention a wiring disaster when you have 12 emitters spaced out over 36 feet of channel! With remote drivers I already had trouble sourcing 4 pair 18 gauge cable; I ended up using a 9 wire product intended for wiring car audio amps (4 speakers + remote on). Cable with more than 4 pairs of wires is hard to find in small quantities or is some absurd color, or solid wire only etc... Putting the drivers on the fixture was not an option in this case.

Two more channels would have required 6 pair cable, which is virtually impossible to find in smallish quantities or is absurdly priced. Who wants to pay $2-4/foot when you need a 10' cable? As it is the 9 wire stuff was ~$1/ft, but has a nice heavy outer jacket, is black, etc.

This is a consideration for these emitters as well IMO, but as long as I can drive the whites and or blues together it's no problem.

edit: As to the above post, don't be fooled by the numbers; those 18000-20000k whites I used on my friend's fixture are not as blue as you'd think; when the blue and white are driven equally it looks a bit more like 10000-12000k halide sort of shade.

My vote continues to go for option 1, I think it was, but like several others with the whites spread out:

1) 445
2) 10000k
3) 420nm
4) 15000k
5) 455

 

[bhazard451]

Maybe I am confused about what the output will look like... I like crisp (Iwasaki crisp) but not the "blue" that most folks appear to lean toward. The TOTM on the home page is pretty at a glance, but there is no way I would have anything near that blue in my home. It reminds me of the blue toilet water that used to be popular.

Crisp white sunlight with actinic for pop, but not BLUE water for me...

It is my understanding that most folks are starting to shy away from the CW 6500K because of the washed out and windex factor. The Neutral whites appear to be the better choice at around 5000K and closer to WHITE than BLUE. Some folks are adding in WARM whites in the 4000K neighborhood to get some sunshine/red

I have no idea what the 10000K and 20000K chips look like, but that is far more blue than the CW.

So I am confused. We are proposing little in the "WHITE" range and everything (other than the UV) in the BLUE range. Am I missing something?
420nm Actinic blue/violet
430nm bluer actinic blue/violet
445 Blue
455 Royal Blue
6500K Blueish white
10000K Even blue white
20000K super blue white

Is this not going to simply produce one awful laser blue output with UV that looks like smurf pee and windex or the headlights on a fancy sports car? What am I missing?

The problem is the different look of each led, and what we are all used to. My 6500-7000k Cree XT-E cool whites put out a near whitish blue when clustered together, while the 3W Epistar 6500k Neutral Whites in my other fixture are as yellow as can be on their own. They don't look anything alike.

This is what is making it so difficult to judge. The Ac-rc guy made a good point that no one ever used a 6500k MH bulb in a fixture, but he doesn't seem to realize that a 10k MH bulb still provided better visual appeal of warmer tones such as red compared to a 10k Epistar led alone. 10K Epistars (That I've used, not ac-rc's) with 1:1 Royal Blue look around 10-12k fully driven, but so much is missing in color tones that it is completely noticeable. My dragonet looked completely dull. Reds were muted and started to fade over time. There's something missing between a MH bulb and a led in which the same color temp cannot be viewed equally.

 

[jerpa]

Is this not going to simply produce one awful laser blue output with UV that looks like smurf pee and windex or the headlights on a fancy sports car? What am I missing?

I guess it depends on whether you, and the LED manufacturer, agree on what 10000K should look like. On the MH side of things there are no two alike and I expect much the same will apply to LEDs. IMO a true 10K light source should be bright white, but still a bit warm. I like a little additional blue/actinic to make the corals that should fluoresce do so. I've never seen an LED fixture that didn't have more than enough blue for me and less than adequate numbers of whites.

I'm currently running the new Kessils. One channel is a "10K" spectrum and the other is pure blue. The 10k is accomplished with 6500k whites, and at least three blues between 400-500nm. One is UV/near UV, one is 420ish and the other is ~475. It ends up looking a tad bit yellow but renders colors quite well and still has a bit of pop. I can turn the blue channel up to about 30-40% before it gets way too blue for my taste. At 20% Blue/ 100% white it is ideal I would say, just hardly bright enough. Based off this experience I would need an emitter that was upwards of 60-70% of low Kelvin emitters with the balance in a mixture of blues to have anything close to what I would like.

 

[gtfcniles]

I guess it depends on whether you, and the LED manufacturer, agree on what 10000K should look like. On the MH side of things there are no two alike and I expect much the same will apply to LEDs. IMO a true 10K light source should be bright white, but still a bit warm. I like a little additional blue/actinic to make the corals that should fluoresce do so. I've never seen an LED fixture that didn't have more than enough blue for me and less than adequate numbers of whites.

I'm currently running the new Kessils. One channel is a "10K" spectrum and the other is pure blue. The 10k is accomplished with 6500k whites, and at least three blues between 400-500nm. One is UV/near UV, one is 420ish and the other is ~475. It ends up looking a tad bit yellow but renders colors quite well and still has a bit of pop. I can turn the blue channel up to about 30-40% before it gets way too blue for my taste. At 20% Blue/ 100% white it is ideal I would say, just hardly bright enough. Based off this experience I would need an emitter that was upwards of 60-70% of low Kelvin emitters with the balance in a mixture of blues to have anything close to what I would like.

You can't compare these, most people use 2 blues to 1 white in diy builds which is why I think a 40% white 60% blues/uv is a good mix.

 

[bhazard451]

You can't compare these, most people use 2 blues to 1 white in diy builds which is why I think a 40% white 60% blues/uv is a good mix.

2:1 blue to white only applies to neutral and warmer whites in achieving a 14k look. 2:1 with 10k and up whites is extremely blue, pushing near 20k and up.

 

[jerpa]

You can't compare these, most people use 2 blues to 1 white in diy builds which is why I think a 40% white 60% blues/uv is a good mix.

That was my point. Almost every commercial fixture has too many blue for my taste as do almost all DIY builds. If I could deal with the disco effect I would build an array to suit my tastes. I like the color blending of multichip arrays but I can't find a commercial fixture that satisfies me aesthetically. My ideal multichip would be dominated by lower kelvin whites, UV, and at least two blues. IME I would need a 1:1 ratio of whites to blues to run it anywhere near full power. In my situation your ratios would look awful to me no matter what white I used. I could deal with one low Kelvin white but would prefer two whites. Aesthetics are a big part of that and to each his own but i fail to see how any of these options will allow me to get a satisfactory look. Perhaps these LEDs are able to accurately render reds and pinks. In that case I would still want it dominated by 10000K whites. The only ones I have seen that do warm colors well use lower Kelvin whites and based only on my experience i would need an emitter with a large number of them in relation to blues.

 

[bhazard451]

That was my point. Almost every commercial fixture has too many blue for my taste as do almost all DIY builds. If I could deal with the disco effect I would build an array to suit my tastes. I like the color blending of multichip arrays but I can't find a commercial fixture that satisfies me aesthetically. My ideal multichip would be dominated by lower kelvin whites, UV, and at least two blues. IME I would need a 1:1 ratio of whites to blues to run it anywhere near full power. In my situation your ratios would look awful to me no matter what white I used. I could deal with one low Kelvin white but would prefer two whites. Aesthetics are a big part of that and to each his own but i fail to see how any of these options will allow me to get a satisfactory look. Perhaps these LEDs are able to accurately render reds and pinks. In that case I would still want it dominated by 10000K whites. The only ones I have seen that do warm colors well use lower Kelvin whites and based only on my experience i would need an emitter with a large number of them in relation to blues.

Not as much as you think. While I'm a fan of warmer leds and use them in my current build, if you start using them in a 1:1 or 1:2 blue to white mix, your tank will look **** yellow, not white. Double the amount of blues are required to offset this into a 14k look. You could use a few less blues to bring it down to a 10k look. 3:2 Royal Blue to Neutral/Warm Whites with violets would most likely be the look you are trying to achieve.

You don't want UV either. 420nm actinic is much more beneficial than 405nm and lower nm leds. The florescence effect is almost tripled, and there is less of a chance of UV damage to coral.

 

[Lassef]

Lasse,

The color I'm trying to achive in my tank is what maglofster's Elos 120 looks like in his video. Do you think with the LED's I purchased I can achieve this or do I need to purchase additional LED's?

Thanks,
Tony

As I said before - your tank will be rather blue Maglofster use more the ratio 1:1 during peak hours but a ratio around 2 blue to 1 white during "whatching time"

But test and prepare for adding some more whites if you not are satisfied.

Sincerely Lasse