Minimalistic multichip DIY LED build

[Lassef]

The deal was that it was needed at least 50 orders to have this to happen. Thats the reason for the huge batch of "samples"

The people involved in this "experiment" know very well what it is about. The reason for the choice of five channels is obvious if you go back in the thread to the pages where this was discussed. 10 (number of rows of LED) is not evenly divisible by 3 and 2 channels becomes too small. There was a desire to control 10,000 K and 16,000 K white separately - same with the included blue wavelengths (445, 455 and 420/430), in the first instance in order to fine tune the aesthetic but also in order to get maximum photosynthesis.

This is not a cheap solution, and perhaps not for everyone. It is not clear either if it only gets that number produced or if it will be made ​​more.

Its also important to stress that nobody involved (excludet the vendor of course) earn a cent. For me it will be a cost around 1000 to 1200 $ to have this to happen.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Lassef]

Im on post 49 and have a ways to go, but, what is, if any, conclusions on a heatsink can be used with a 100w single chip LED running 100w max and use NO fans? 72"L x 24"deep tank (22" with sand) 125g divided by 3 at the top, 22"wide each x 16"

Not 120w/140/160w but 100w LED.....



Okay, for the second question... since I have a 125 divided by 3 at the top, 22"wide each x 16" deep I was thinking of two ways to do my lights. This would be on a panel about the size of a keyboard. I am not sure of exact size as I have not heard back from the guy yet. Now, of course I would space the leds out a bit compared to what is showing, but, thats the general layout. I plan to blast the blues only for the coral when I am at work and have the white on for me from 5pm to 11pm? I may mix it up too for my liking, depending. Just a FYI, for aesthetics, I like the natural sunlight look with maybe a little, just a little blue.

1) Each Panel

9 - 10w 445nm
4 - 30w 20k

RB-RB-RB
--W--W--
RB-RB-RB
--W--W--
RB-RB-RB


2) Each panel

5 - 20w 445nm RB
1 - 100w 20k


RB------RB
---W/RB---
RB------RB



Key Notes:

Is this a good placement or should I come up with a differant pattern?

Since I want to use blue for growing when not at home, i can blast them with blue so need lots of blue power. Do I need more blue if only using/depending on blue to grow? How much white do I need just for viewing? I think 80w should give me enough to view, and, if I want to mix in the future, that flexibility.
I would rather have more power and dim than not have enough, if dimming will not cause problems.

Whats the best blues to go with for coral growth out of all the colors from 420 to 460 if I had to pick just one?

I also need to figure what drivers will allow me one of the scenarios if not both.

Hi

I prefer panel 1.

Personally, I'd probably use both 16,000 K and 20,000 K white and put each of them diagonally - see below
20 -16
16 - 20.
For the blue, I would take a mix of 20 watt 420/430 and 10 445 watt and 10 watt 455 - something like this

445 ------ 430 ------445
--- 16000 --- 20000 ---
455 ------ 420 ------455
--- 20000 --- 16000 ---
445 ------ 430 ------445

A total of 120 W and 120 W white blue. If you want more blue so take 20 watts to 455 and 445 instead of 10 watts.

If you only has ability to take one RB - I would prefer 445 nm

Sincerely Lasse

 

[007Bond]

Don't get me wrong, I would love to see a compact fanless heat sink, but it's going to take some exotic materials and creative engineering.

Ya know... I heard there is a place in Rachel Nevada that has access and sells some of these materials.

 

[Sonny n Colleen]

I am excited to be part of this "experiment". I was in the process of drawing up a LED system for my tank that was to have multiple individual LEDs mounted to three huge heatsinks hanging over my tank when I found this thread. After going to the single chip design, my setup to drive the LEDs hasn't changed, but now I don't have to wire up 21+ chips, I just have to wire up 3. So for me it will be less complicated.

 

[mr.wilson]

The deal was that it was needed at least 50 orders to have this to happen. Thats the reason for the huge batch of "samples"

The people involved in this "experiment" know very well what it is about. The reason for the choice of five channels is obvious if you go back in the thread to the pages where this was discussed. 10 (number of rows of LED) is not evenly divisible by 3 and 2 channels becomes too small. There was a desire to control 10,000 K and 16,000 K white separately - same with the included blue wavelengths (445, 455 and 420/430), in the first instance in order to fine tune the aesthetic but also in order to get maximum photosynthesis.

This is not a cheap solution, and perhaps not for everyone. It is not clear either if it only gets that number produced or if it will be made ​​more.

Its also important to stress that nobody involved (excludet the vendor of course) earn a cent. For me it will be a cost around 1000 to 1200 $ to have this to happen.

Sincerely Lasse

First of all, I want to be clear that my intention is to be constructive, not critical. I have participated in the thread for a while now and have noticed that many of the people "experimenting" have no experience with any multichips, much less the individual chip spectrums from any vendor.

Why would the three colour channels have to be evenly dispersed? There is no need for more than one row of red chips, so that leaves 4 white + 5 blue (mix) or any other uneven combination there of (5W + 4B, 6W + 3B etc.). If you pick the correct chip mix from the beginning, there is no need for extra drivers and channels to fix the mistake.

The other issue I see is that many people are planning to run the multichip at only 100w. While this is perfectly adequate at 100% power, dimming down to correct the array will fall short on intensity requirements unless the aquarium is shallow (<24").

The cost of using five 20w drivers is much higher, bulkier and hard to wire in comparison to just three higher watt drivers. Also many controllers are designed for only 3 or four channels.

As far as fine tuning/dimming goes, the 10,000K & 16,000K chips will be very similar in appearance and will blend together as if they are one, so there is little value in colour separation. The same is true of the 445 & 455nm chips. A 10nm range is possible within the chips themselves anyway. I will admit, that I've never used a 445nm chip, as 465 royal blue & 480nm blue are the most popular "blues" on the market. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, these are all lower nm blues in your mix and will not be as visible as the harder blues most people are accustomed to seeing in reef lighting.

Most end users will run the 420/430nm at 100% because it is barely visible and likely on the low side in the first place, as we are all used to using multiple 39 or 55w actinics (420nm). The blues are all dim looking so they too will be at 100%. The 10,000K & 16,000K will overpower the others and will likely be dimmed down to 50%, thus lowering overall intensity significantly, as I believe you went with a high white ratio (60-70%?). In order to correct the imbalance, I suggest that the blue chips be run at higher current (2w ea.) and the whites at 1w or less. The red channel is likely just one row (10 chips) and most people would dim it down to only 20%, but it looks very nice during dawn & dusk.

Again, I hope my comments are taken as constructive criticism and come from my experience in using multichips. I believe the technology and methodology will advance faster if we all share our experiences, whether we agree on the finer details or not. I paid to have a company develop a five channel multichip but it didn't run safely during the manufacturer's testing, so they refunded my money. In my case it was only a few hundred dollars and after rethinking the whole thing, 3 channels made more sense.

 

[tomservo]

Im on post 49 and have a ways to go, but, what is, if any, conclusions on a heatsink can be used with a 100w single chip LED running 100w max and use NO fans? 72"L x 24"deep tank (22" with sand) 125g divided by 3 at the top, 22"wide each x 16"

Not 120w/140/160w but 100w LED.....

I believe what you are looking for is the NoFan CR100 or CR95. I think cooler master also has a fanless unit but that one expects some ambient airflow. No matter what, you will not be putting a bunch of these in a hood and calling it good with no airflow. Pendants are likely do-able with absolutely no fans, though, or an open top hood.

 

[Lassef]

I have the whole afternoon trying to figure out how to explain why 420, 430, 445 and 455 nm was selected. It is no coincidence. It has to do with the photosynthetic quantum mechanism. Each photon having a particular wavelength, i.e. a specific quantum of energy. We see this as different colors.

It has been demonstrated that the substances responsible for photosynthesis absorbs different wavelengths to different degrees. They have some absorbance peaks, such a peak means that all photons with that particular wavelength is taken up very well and can pass on their energy to the substance in question. All other photons of different wavelengths (energy quanta) is reflected more or less. Does anybody be surprised if I tell you that just 420, 430, 445 and 455 nm are such known peaks of some of the various substances that can handle photosynthesis. These photons then go directly into the photosynthesis and with minimal waste of energy.

These wavelengths are therefore not selected to provide a pleasing aesthetic appearance but to provide the maximum requirement for the zooxanthellae of corals.

Probably, we could have cut down the current wavelength regions further, but we know too little about the different zooxanthellae and their active substances in order to make it (at least for me)

The white light (which contains many different wavelengths) then plays the role of complement and assures us that we have with other biologically active wavelengths. The aesthetic aspect also catered to the white light.

The number of channels means that you get maximum flexibility as you control the light.

My opinion is that only three channels is not enough (with the knowledge I have today) to control the light the way I want.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[megadeth72]

end user can run multiple channels off same driver anyway

 

[ReefUrchin]

Hi

I prefer panel 1.

Personally, I'd probably use both 16,000 K and 20,000 K white and put each of them diagonally - see below
20 -16
16 - 20.
For the blue, I would take a mix of 20 watt 420/430 and 10 445 watt and 10 watt 455 - something like this

445 ------ 430 ------445
--- 16000 --- 20000 ---
455 ------ 420 ------455
--- 20000 --- 16000 ---
445 ------ 430 ------445

A total of 120 W and 120 W white blue. If you want more blue so take 20 watts to 455 and 445 instead of 10 watts.

If you only has ability to take one RB - I would prefer 445 nm

Sincerely Lasse

Hi Lassef, first of all, thanks for the input. Here are a few more thoughts and reasons.

Like you say, 20k-ish is more for human eyes. I am thinking this project has 2 parts. 1 is for growing coral and 2 for human eyes.

1) For coral...... I wanted the most (130%) light needed in the blue spectrum to grow coral properly (with the knowledge we know). I pick 130% as a number/goal because maybe one day I may have a 30" deep tank (180 or 2??). For now, I have a 22" deep tank. Having LEDs give the proper spectrum (compared to a lot of spectrum overlap) I wanted to pinpoint the correct spectrum for coral, again, saying not our eyes. Also, I do not mind using one single chip, it makes it very easy, but, I am thinking of the spread in the tank. I want to make sure everybody gets a good bath of coral growing color. The lower 400nm chips are crazy expensive. If you said preferred spectrum of certain color was in 400nm range, I would have to rethink this project because that would end up being a lot of money to get the light down deep. I know a 100w blue (thats why I mentioned one color also) would punch down to the bottom, but, can the 20w punch to the bottom too with the same effect? Looking at your layout (and it can be whatever, mine was just an example) is one 420nm enough? I can rearrange the LEDs. My diagram is not set in blood . I know there will be tradeoffs, but, I would rather have growing light punching to the bottom than well mixed "okay" light at the bottom, or, would "okay" well mixed better?

2) Human eyes..... I have seen pictures of 20k light (the cheaper 100w units) which look perfect for me and seem to visually duplicate my tank, looking at the fixtures and color inside the tank on the pictures and mine, and, I am scratching my head. If 20k in our pea colored tanks comes out to a sunlight color, wouldn't I want a 25k light that has more blue? You suggest a 16k, and, with all due respect, makes me wonder. Now, maybe you have a cleaner tank than I do with less organics floating around in it and see less yellow than I do, so, maybe 16k IS better for you? Even if that is the case, wouldn't 16k promote more algae than say a 20k or even 25k?


Bonus notes: Again, first and most important is to grow coral. If I must always have all blue tank I will. So, tank can be all blue when I am at work for 8 hours of time. When I come home, lights will adjust to my "visual" liking. from 5pm? to ?? That will be at least 12 hours total light, adjusted accordingly. This should be enough light for everybody, correct?

Also, I am scared to death of the disco effect and that white/blue double layered effect, you know, the one lik when your looking at normal objects with 3D glasses for example.

The 20k chips I talk about are the cheap $28 100w chips on ebay. AC-RC chips might have a different K spectrum at 20k.


Also, I repeat many things here, but, I want to make sure Lasse will see same thing in translator and understand me correctly

 

[jt41time]

Lassef,

looks like I bought the same driver as your first post driver but in 50w. After reading this thread over and over again, I noticed that my 3x50w 20000k setup is gonna be a little over kill for my 60x18x7" deep frag tank. Is there a way to make that driver dim able? I only bought one chip and driver to see how I liked it. So if I have to change to 20w' I'm not out too much $$$$$.

 

[tomservo]

I built one of those spectrometers earlier, and just as I was getting the hang of it, the webcam stops giving me output (all black). Anyways I did get one shot of the 60w 45mil multichip, the calibration is a bit off and it got a bit hosed with light (you can see the background splash). Thought I'd post it anyways. I'll try and get the cam working again (it's been a saga for me this weekend). With a better light level the blue peak is a bit higher ratio but the stuff to the right of it is similar in shape.

 

[mr.wilson]

end user can run multiple channels off same driver anyway

Good point.

 

[mr.wilson]

I have the whole afternoon trying to figure out how to explain why 420, 430, 445 and 455 nm was selected. It is no coincidence. It has to do with the photosynthetic quantum mechanism. Each photon having a particular wavelength, i.e. a specific quantum of energy. We see this as different colors.

It has been demonstrated that the substances responsible for photosynthesis absorbs different wavelengths to different degrees. They have some absorbance peaks, such a peak means that all photons with that particular wavelength is taken up very well and can pass on their energy to the substance in question. All other photons of different wavelengths (energy quanta) is reflected more or less. Does anybody be surprised if I tell you that just 420, 430, 445 and 455 nm are such known peaks of some of the various substances that can handle photosynthesis. These photons then go directly into the photosynthesis and with minimal waste of energy.

These wavelengths are therefore not selected to provide a pleasing aesthetic appearance but to provide the maximum requirement for the zooxanthellae of corals.

Probably, we could have cut down the current wavelength regions further, but we know too little about the different zooxanthellae and their active substances in order to make it (at least for me)

The white light (which contains many different wavelengths) then plays the role of complement and assures us that we have with other biologically active wavelengths. The aesthetic aspect also catered to the white light.

The number of channels means that you get maximum flexibility as you control the light.

My opinion is that only three channels is not enough (with the knowledge I have today) to control the light the way I want.

Sincerely Lasse

Reaching the compensation point for zooxanthellae to provide carbohydrates for coral is easy, exciting coral pigments is the art. If you are focusing on symbiotic algae growth, your corals will have a nice green colour, but lack reds, blues and purples. Tanks lit with too much blue light invariably have poor colour. Red light is important for photo pigmentation. Red is completely overlooked in your chip mix. The most effective blues for coral pigmentation are 465 & 480nm. I'm not big on green light and feel most white chips have too much of it, but you do need some. Many Zeovit users add copper and other chemicals to their tanks to kill off zooxanthellae which masks the bright underlying colours. The result is gaudy pastel colours that don't appeal to me, but a drab green colour of too much zooxanthellae is also unappealing.

In addition to theory, one needs to consider empirical evidence. The chips you have selected fall outside of convention so time will tell if they work. I'll leave it at that.

 

[tomservo]

Reaching the compensation point for zooxanthellae to provide carbohydrates for coral is easy, exciting coral pigments is the art. If you are focusing on symbiotic algae growth, your corals will have a nice green colour, but lack reds, blues and purples. Tanks lit with too much blue light invariably have poor colour. Red light is important for photo pigmentation. Red is completely overlooked in your chip mix.

More like we aren't convinced that we need to add a boat load of 660nm red to the equation. I still think that we should have asked for one of the white channels to use the red emphasis phosphor mix. Also, I'm personally not convinced that 660 is the right red to add; 635 is much brighter to our eyes. Or do coral pigments tend to reflect longer wavelength red better? This kind of stuff can be frustratingly specific re wavelength.

The most effective blues for coral pigmentation are 465 & 480nm.

I'd be interested in a reference for this, or at least an explanation.. Are you suggesting that 465 and 480nm excite the fluorescent pigments more than shorter wavelengths?

I'm not big on green light and feel most white chips have too much of it, but you do need some.

And yet most reef MH bulbs have a huge spike of green around 540nm. T5's too because this is a mercury emission spike.

 

[mr.wilson]

More like we aren't convinced that we need to add a boat load of 660nm red to the equation. I still think that we should have asked for one of the white channels to use the red emphasis phosphor mix. Also, I'm personally not convinced that 660 is the right red to add; 635 is much brighter to our eyes. Or do coral pigments tend to reflect longer wavelength red better? This kind of stuff can be frustratingly specific re wavelength.

Red light cannot be reflected by corals if it isn't there in the first place. A lower nm red like 635 does appear to be brighter, but brightness is the key problem with red in the first place. 660nm light is hard to create with phosphors added to a blue chip, so it's best added on its own. I agree, boatloads aren't necessary.

This graph shows that chlorophyll a peaks at 660nm and chl b has a peak at 465nm. Both of these spectra are missing from your mix. As I said before, growing algae isn't everyones primary goal in reef lighting so there are many other factors in achieving fluorescent colours.

I'd be interested in a reference for this, or at least an explanation.. Are you suggesting that 465 and 480nm excite the fluorescent pigments more than shorter wavelengths?

These higher nm blues have a lower absorption rate so they are reflected more and also appear to be brighter. While 420nm actinic light shows off green fluorescent proteins well, it is easily drowned out by white light, as is 430 & 445nm. 465 & 480nm on the other hand are readily seen by the human eye. Blue light throughout the full spectrum excite GFPs. Red light has also been proven to excite GFP-like proteins. Wavelengths throughout the full spectrum are used for photosynthesis, so focusing solely on blue light isn't necessary. While I'm a big fan of blue light, we need to keep in mind that the corals we keep are grown in shallow water where the full spectrum is represented.

Here are some articles on blue light...

http://coralmagazine.coverleaf.com/coral/20111112#pg67
http://img2.tapuz.co.il/forums/1_139783005.pdf

References from the Coral Mag article...

http://www.coralmagazine-us.com/content/blue-light-online-references

Here is one on red light (if you subscribe)...

http://www.springerlink.com/content/p252155840t58060/

And yet most reef MH bulbs have a huge spike of green around 540nm. T5's too because this is a mercury emission spike.

Yes, most MH bulbs have quite a bit of green light (too much in my opinion), but 10,000-20,000K MH bulbs still don't have as much green light as Cree 7,500 whites.

This article shows that corals grew faster with (greener) plasma lights than (bluer) LED lights, but again it requires a subscription. Most people are focused more on colour than growth rates so blue light wins out.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004484861200186X

 

[kuya_cesar]

This is so cool, and I am currently building one for my self, but decided to do the mobile phone version.

Just want to share and i believe it is still relevant with topic.

Spectral Graph of...

CREE ROYAL BLUE 450NM 3W

CREE COOL + WARM WHITE 3W

CREE COOL + WARM WHITE + ROYAL BLUE 3W

AND ALL PUT TOGETHER.

 

[tomservo]

Red light cannot be reflected by corals if it isn't there in the first place. A lower nm red like 635 does appear to be brighter, but brightness is the key problem with red in the first place. 660nm light is hard to create with phosphors added to a blue chip, so it's best added on its own. I agree, boatloads aren't necessary.

This graph shows that chlorophyll a peaks at 660nm and chl b has a peak at 465nm. Both of these spectra are missing from your mix. As I said before, growing algae isn't everyones primary goal in reef lighting so there are many other factors in achieving fluorescent colours.

I've experimented some with 660 reds and I have yet to see any coral that fluoresces or reflects it; certainly it seems entirely possible to get good growth without it. Not saying there's no benefit at all; I just haven't seen any. Certainly it works a real treat in an algae scrubber.

These higher nm blues have a lower absorption rate so they are reflected more and also appear to be brighter. While 420nm actinic light shows off green fluorescent proteins well, it is easily drowned out by white light, as is 430 & 445nm. 465 & 480nm on the other hand are readily seen by the human eye. Blue light throughout the full spectrum excite GFPs. Red light has also been proven to excite GFP-like proteins. Wavelengths throughout the full spectrum are used for photosynthesis, so focusing solely on blue light isn't necessary. While I'm a big fan of blue light, we need to keep in mind that the corals we keep are grown in shallow water where the full spectrum is represented.

The nice thing about 420nm is that it achieves strong fluorescence without washing the tank with windex; also it is a strong action spectra for photosynthesis, which is one reason why it's so biologically important to us. 475nm has strong action on beta carotene, certainly present in many algae (don't know about zoox types) but there's also strong action at 440nm, and you can do without the super windex blaster 475-485nm. I just got done removing all of those from my fixture, and good riddance. Even my wife noticed!

Yes, most MH bulbs have quite a bit of green light (too much in my opinion), but 10,000-20,000K MH bulbs still don't have as much green light as Cree 7,500 whites.

Nobody has as much green light as higher kelvin crees; they're engineered for maximum luminousity and so are loaded for bear with green phosphors. You can see on a CCT color bin chart that all of the available higher efficiency bins (and many of the lower bins) are above / left of the black body curve, which indicates a green/yellow shift. This is why there's no Cree in my fixtures, although their blues and single colors are very good.

 

[JACOXVIII]

what chip is bluer the epistar 60w hybrid or the epistar 100w hybrid i see the 100w uses 40 chips 20500K

 

[Lassef]

The main goal of the configuration is to provide the best possible quality of light for coral photosynthesis. You do that; you can reduce the energy input. You can also put a little more energy to get a good aesthetic experience. There is also no direct link between a good quality light and the amount of zooxanthellae. Nutrient levels determine the amount - the quality of light determines how good the zooxanthellae, which are available at a given time, can utilize the light.

There are also two concepts one has to distinguish, reflective colours and colours originating from fluorescence (actually special cases of luminescence).

A reflective colour is a pigmentation, which certain wavelengths are absorbed, and some bounce back (reflects). White and black are special cases - white -> all visible wavelengths reflects, black -> all visible wavelengths are absorbed.

If we highlight a white (or a surface that reflects many wavelengths) with a largely monochromatic source (one or a few wavelengths) reflects these wavelengths for us as the colour of the monochromatic source.

If we highlight a black surface (or a surface that reflects few wavelengths) with the same source, we see no colour or we see it as very weak and grey.

All reflecting colours is between this two extremes but the corresponding wavelength (or wavelengths if it is a mixed colour) must be in the source we use or a blending

Fluorescence is a totally different thing. It is more an active process than a passive reflective event. In short, it is a substance that captures a photon with a specific wavelength and sends out a photon of a different wavelength (wavelength - read energy quanta) Usually, the photon emitted again has a longer wavelength (lower energy quanta)

There are rare special cases where it is emitted a photon of lower wavelength (higher energy quanta) or an identical photon. If it occurs in corals I do not know but normal fluorescence is extremely common.

The photons in the blue area are those that occur most frequently in conjunction with fluorescence and corals. Around 420 nm is known to be extremely potent in this regard.

In a normal light (white light) are the colours we see with our corals a mix between the reflective colours and those from fluorescence. If we only use blue light so besides blue reflected light then just we see only colours from fluorescence. Is a coral red in the blue light, it is converted photons we see - the coral is a radiation source in itself!

@ mr.Wilson: with full respect: Your argument mixes wildly between reflective colours and colours we see due to fluorescence (and why does Google all the time spell colours like colors). I think that we must separate them in the discussion. I do not know any fluorescence based on red wavelengths (i.e. – red is the ingoing photons wavelength). It might be – do you have any links?

Your scientific links was helpful but after reading them – I’m more convinced than before that I’m on the right track.

However – the Israeli stuff point out something very important. If we get an optimal photosynthesis - a problem related to active oxygen radicals occurs. These wavelengths we use now can be so potent that we can cause bleaching of corals. The corals have weapons on this, they can develop anti-radicals, but it takes time. It requires a long habituation. There is reason to take it very gently at first with these wavelengths (420-460). Much more cautious compared with base the blue wavelengths at 460-475 nm.

If I look at the spectrum of the LED and LEP used in the article from Aquaculture. (Showing along the bottom of the page in the link), so I interpret it completely different from you. You have looked to the right of the blue peak at 470 nm in order to explain why the LEP was better in this trial. I am Swedish and look to the left of the peak and find my explanation there


@ tomservo

I still think that we should have asked for one of the white channels to use the red emphasis phosphor mix

You're probably right there

The spectrum of 60-watt hybrid chip looks to me almost like a full-spectrum chip. This means that 10 000 K will produce a lot of green. Too bad we did not know this from the beginning.

@ Kuya Cesar: I cannot see the images - you need to probably change the rights in Google

@ JACOXVII : Probably the 100 W chip

@ jt41time: Can you post a link to the driver?

@ ReefUrchin: I’ll coming back to you later on

 

[BeanAnimal]

A year or so I began work on a basic "light" and "LED" article... looks like I am going to have to put the finishing touches on it