Pushing the envelope (Pulse lighting)

jawfishuk

New member
The purpose of this thread is to discuss the possible advantages and limitions of pulse / intermittent lighting using LEDs for reef aquarium lighting applications. This includes

1. Aquarium main lighting.
2. Frag tanks.
3. Refugium and turf scrubber lighting.
4. Phytoplankton culture.


The science of pulse lighting :

"Photosynthesis does not need to take place in continuous light. The solid state nature allows LEDs to produce sufficient photon fluxes and can be turned fully on and off rapidly (200 ns (yes nanoseconds!), which is not easily achievable with other light sources. The off/dark period means additional energy saving on top of the LEDs' low power consumption."

"Tennessen et al. use LEDs to study the effects of light pulses (micro- to milli-second) of intact tomato leaves. They found that when the equivalent of 50 μmol photons mp−2 s−1 is provided during 1.5 μs pulses of 5000 μmol photons mp−2 s−1 followed by 148.5 μs dark periods, photosynthesis is the same as in continuous 50 μmol photons mp−2 s−1. Data support the theory that photons in pulses of 100 ps or shorter are absorbed and stored in the reaction centers to be used in electron transport during the dark period. Pigments of the xanthophyll cycle were not affected by pulsed light treatments. This research suggests that, instead of continuous light, using effectively calculated intermittent light (which means less energy consumption) might not affect the plant production."

From the journal : High-brightness LEDs"”Energy efficient lighting sources and their potential in indoor plant cultivation (2009).

Thereby plants, corals , macroalgae , phytoplankton could achieve same/increase grow with significant reductions in electrical energy consumption. For example you could reduce your lighting cost by 50% by using a 2-3khz pwm signal on 50% duty cycle to a PWM dimmable led ballast.

However ambient light would significant effect the benefits from such a set-up ?


References

Red and blue pulse timing control for pulse width modulation light dimming of light emitting diodes for plant cultivation

(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1011134411001096)

Effects of Frequency and Duty Ratio on the Growth of Potato Plantlets In Vitro Using Light-emitting Diodes

(http://www.personal.psu.edu/u0y/nanoreef/papers/360204hs.pdf)

Effectiveness of Flashing Light for Increasing Photosynthetic Efficiency of Microalgal Cultures over a Critical Cell Density

(http://www.bbe.or.kr/storage/journal/BBE/6_3/6695/articlefile/article.pdf)
 
For example

1. DC = Continous lighting
2. PWM (red, blue, φ = 0°) = Pulse lighting
3. PWM (red, blue, φ = 0°) = other

pwm1.gif


pwm2.png


Notice the improved growth under pwm lighting (2) even though the PAR remains constant between the 3 test groups.
 
I don't quite buy it. Let me make a few reasonable assumptions. The amount of PAR is some fixed fraction of the amount of lumens. If so since in all 3 cases the PAR is the same then lumen output is the same. Do you buy that?

The problem is that in order to double the lumen you more than double the power used. If you double the current in LEDs (at least the Cree 3 watt variety) the voltage goes up some so power used is more the double, BUT the lumen output is less than double.

So IMHO what the three sets of growth say is that the plants prefer more brighter light over dimmer light even if that light is pulsed. I would love to see a 4th case where the lights were on 100% at double PAR. Or light level the same and PWMed at 50%. Then we would actually have a case of 50% saving in power to compare to.

So I don't think the growth tell us anything.
 
Back
Top