At ORCA the info was that not even Solaris made their own Arrays. Has anyone made their own Aquarium unit or somehow gotten the very latest LED's which are increasing in power even faster than Computer chips [ according to presentation at ORCA ] LED suppliers are easily available but making an array is more an off the shelf item in my opinion [ an array as I understand, is the reflector the LED's fit/mounted into]. One can choose whatever mix of LED's for whatever "look" one wants.
Solaris Led lighting systems
- Thread starter JohnL
- Start date
SWSaltwater
New member
I think a DIY LED with on off capability might be easy for a novice. But the advanced controller features and pulse rates might need a bit more know how. I can program but my circuit board skills are limited and rusty.
kimoyo
Active member
This is a message I wrote while the thread was being locked.
I'm not trying to be facetious or disrespectful. What you just said is that corals barely use any energy from lights. Maybe its true, but it goes against mostly everything I've seen in this hobby. So please, show us the numbers, show us the experiments that prove what your saying. I don't have any numbers, I'm not going to get any either, but I'm not asserting something that goes against the vast amount of empirical evidence I and others have seen. From hobbyist and commercial tanks to coral facilities.
Your stuck on the first law of thermodynamics and looking at energy from only that perspective. I asked you about light (because thats what we're talking about), here's a specific example, what about the energy from a laser being directed into an experiment? The laser adds energy to the system without being work done or heat added, how does that fit into what your saying? This is a very common example that flies in the face of your interpretation of the first law of thermo. Its not as simple as your trying to make it, this is a question of how light (photons) interact with matter.
You also finally mentioned work, what is work done? That is such a broad term, its a force and a distance. Electric fields, magnetic fields, gravitational fields, etc, can all store and transmit energy. When you add work to that law, it tells you there is a bunch of other stuff that could impact the system and everything is not just heat. Taking the approach that Energy = Heat on face value is just incorrect. You could wait many, many years and part of the light energy that goes into our tanks will still not be converted to thermal energy. Our reef aquariums are not a black box, treating them as such will lead to very wrong conclusions.
BTW, please don't just skip over the laser example I just gave.
I apologize for posting that remark. But I hope you realize that remark was just a verbatim repost of what I thought was a rude and condescending comment made by you a few pages earlier in this thread directed toward someone else.
This is a general comment. I don't own nor will I purchase a Solaris in the near future, its too expensive for me to buy. I have a general rule of not believing what I read on the net so I don't know if what some of the solaris users are posting is correct. I don't like to come on RC to debate, now I try to log on just too look at pictures and read stuff. The only reason I posted is because I started reading this thread (a friend mentioned solaris to me the day before I posted) and I wanted to read user feedback. As I continued to read, there was pages and pages of stuff being thrown around that I think is incorrect. If it was one or two pages I wouldn't have posted but it was about 10 pages when I finally stopped and posted. All I wanted was to look at some pics in peace so I'm not sure why I was called a troll.
I'm not trying to be facetious or disrespectful. What you just said is that corals barely use any energy from lights. Maybe its true, but it goes against mostly everything I've seen in this hobby. So please, show us the numbers, show us the experiments that prove what your saying. I don't have any numbers, I'm not going to get any either, but I'm not asserting something that goes against the vast amount of empirical evidence I and others have seen. From hobbyist and commercial tanks to coral facilities.
Your stuck on the first law of thermodynamics and looking at energy from only that perspective. I asked you about light (because thats what we're talking about), here's a specific example, what about the energy from a laser being directed into an experiment? The laser adds energy to the system without being work done or heat added, how does that fit into what your saying? This is a very common example that flies in the face of your interpretation of the first law of thermo. Its not as simple as your trying to make it, this is a question of how light (photons) interact with matter.
You also finally mentioned work, what is work done? That is such a broad term, its a force and a distance. Electric fields, magnetic fields, gravitational fields, etc, can all store and transmit energy. When you add work to that law, it tells you there is a bunch of other stuff that could impact the system and everything is not just heat. Taking the approach that Energy = Heat on face value is just incorrect. You could wait many, many years and part of the light energy that goes into our tanks will still not be converted to thermal energy. Our reef aquariums are not a black box, treating them as such will lead to very wrong conclusions.
BTW, please don't just skip over the laser example I just gave.
I apologize for posting that remark. But I hope you realize that remark was just a verbatim repost of what I thought was a rude and condescending comment made by you a few pages earlier in this thread directed toward someone else.
This is a general comment. I don't own nor will I purchase a Solaris in the near future, its too expensive for me to buy. I have a general rule of not believing what I read on the net so I don't know if what some of the solaris users are posting is correct. I don't like to come on RC to debate, now I try to log on just too look at pictures and read stuff. The only reason I posted is because I started reading this thread (a friend mentioned solaris to me the day before I posted) and I wanted to read user feedback. As I continued to read, there was pages and pages of stuff being thrown around that I think is incorrect. If it was one or two pages I wouldn't have posted but it was about 10 pages when I finally stopped and posted. All I wanted was to look at some pics in peace so I'm not sure why I was called a troll.
kimoyo
Active member
Rich,
If you and Bean want to assert that coral doesn't use much light then you should support what your saying. Show us the numbers, the experiments, don't say something and tell us to take your word for it. I know it goes against most of the literature and empircal evidence I have seen but I am open to reading any reliable and good info. I have a tank in my room in the hopes that it will be packed full of corals, I don't want a black box. Trivializing the impact of the corals we're trying to keep makes no sense to me.
I have almost the same tank (68X36X25) and I had to use two (serries G). In order to light the full width your light would have to be about 12 inches above the tank. Not enough umph for the G, but the H serries might pull it off. My acros have been doing very well lately, tank going on 10 mo. now. My tank is viewable from three sides, so my rock is in the middle 24 inches.
Ken
Ken
RichConley
New member
I ask the opposite, you're assuming that they do use a significant amount of light, and I ask you to post information.
Theres a TON of energy in light. If they were efficient, they'd need very little of it. We know thats not the case.
A laser does add heat. It fits, because your presumption is wrong.
RichConley
New member
An LED controller with all the capability of the Solaris unit is available for well under $50 (with some minor DIY).
You could do a whole lot more than the Solaris is capable of with a WRT54G, or similar, and some 1-wire.
RichConley
New member
No, you'd need atleast 2, maybe 3.
kimoyo
Active member
-
Rich,
I'm not sure where you got this but please look back over my posts and quote when I made an assumption or inferred it? I have said nothing about the amount of light energy corals use in this discussion. But both you and Bean have directly asserted that the amount of light corals use is insignificant. Why are you asking me to prove something I haven't even said? Please stop the semantics and show proof of what both you and Bean have claimed so definitively.
I've posted scan pages from text books before to show explanations and it accomplishes nothing. So this time I asked myself how hard would it have been for you without textbooks and just the internet, to search and find out what's correct. So I went to Wikipedia and did a search on heat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat
"In physics, heat, symbolized by Q, is energy transferred from one body or system to another due to a difference in temperature."
then I decided to do a search on energy and found under the energy transfer section
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy
"More generally, the energy transfer can be split into two categories:
delta(E) = W + Q (2)
where Q represents the heat flow into the system.
There are other ways in which an open system can gain or lose energy. If mass if counted as energy (as in many relativistic problems) then E must contain a term for mass lost or gained. In chemical systems, energy can be added to a system by means of adding substances with different chemical potentials, which potentials are then extracted (both of these process are illustrated by fueling an auto, a system which gains in energy thereby, without addition of either work or heat). These terms may be added to the above equation, or they can generally be subsumed into a quantity called "energy addition term E" which refers to any type of energy carried over the surface of a control volume or system volume. Examples may be seen above, and many others can be imagined (for example, the kinetic energy of a stream of particles entering a system, or energy from a laser beam adds to system energy, without either being either work-done or heat-added, in the classic senses)."
I've seen a lot of this stuff before but it took me all of FIVE minutes to find this info.
Please explain, why don't you at least do a search to know if the statements you're giving out so definitively are correct or not?
Rich,
I'm not sure where you got this but please look back over my posts and quote when I made an assumption or inferred it? I have said nothing about the amount of light energy corals use in this discussion. But both you and Bean have directly asserted that the amount of light corals use is insignificant. Why are you asking me to prove something I haven't even said? Please stop the semantics and show proof of what both you and Bean have claimed so definitively.
I've posted scan pages from text books before to show explanations and it accomplishes nothing. So this time I asked myself how hard would it have been for you without textbooks and just the internet, to search and find out what's correct. So I went to Wikipedia and did a search on heat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat
"In physics, heat, symbolized by Q, is energy transferred from one body or system to another due to a difference in temperature."
then I decided to do a search on energy and found under the energy transfer section
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy
"More generally, the energy transfer can be split into two categories:
delta(E) = W + Q (2)
where Q represents the heat flow into the system.
There are other ways in which an open system can gain or lose energy. If mass if counted as energy (as in many relativistic problems) then E must contain a term for mass lost or gained. In chemical systems, energy can be added to a system by means of adding substances with different chemical potentials, which potentials are then extracted (both of these process are illustrated by fueling an auto, a system which gains in energy thereby, without addition of either work or heat). These terms may be added to the above equation, or they can generally be subsumed into a quantity called "energy addition term E" which refers to any type of energy carried over the surface of a control volume or system volume. Examples may be seen above, and many others can be imagined (for example, the kinetic energy of a stream of particles entering a system, or energy from a laser beam adds to system energy, without either being either work-done or heat-added, in the classic senses)."
I've seen a lot of this stuff before but it took me all of FIVE minutes to find this info.
Please explain, why don't you at least do a search to know if the statements you're giving out so definitively are correct or not?
BeanAnimal
Premium Member
Not relative to the amount of energy being consumed by the lighting system. Even if they did, we are comparing similar growth under two or more different systems so the point is moot either way.
In other words, as we discuss this topic we need to keep in mind that we are comparing lighting systems that grow corals and other life at reasonably similar rate. We are not comparing dissimilar environments or processes. The comments in this thread are related to that subject and not intended to be an all encompassing discussion on the minutia of thermodynamics at a molecular level. It is also not meant to be a discussion of the complex systems by which energy transfer can occur.
The discussion here is about the difference in heat imparted to the system (tank and/or encompassing room).
We are talking about operational cost differences between the systems in a fixed environment. I.E. replacing MH or Fluorescent fixtures with LEDs over the same tank, in the same room.
We were actually talking about the heat load on a tank or room as it relates to two or more different pieces of equipment.
• If you add energy: You add heat and/or work or store the energy. There are no other options.
• If the experiment is closed it will gain energy.
• If it is open then it can lose energy.
• If you store the energy, it will at some point become heat.
• If no work is done, Energy is converted to heat or stored.
Lasers are interesting in many ways but do follow the same laws we are talking about. They are tangent to the point at hand so we can safely leave them behind in our discussion.
We are looking at the difference in HEAT load between two or more known systems in a fixed environment. We want to draw reasonable comparisons between those systems. I know I keep saying this, but it is very important to the context of the conversation.
You have to take it at face value, for it holds dominion over everything else. HEAT = ENERGY, we can time shift the relationship. That does have great meaning in many systems and calculations, but is not a factor for our discussion.
The growing life in both tanks will have stored a very similar amount of energy. We can therefore safely ignore that energy in terms of our discussion and focus on the power consumption of the equipment and the heat it produces.
They (and our fish rooms) are black boxes with regard to our discussion. Our concern is the difference in HEAT load to the tank and room as it relates to the different lighting systems.
• Both systems will have similar biomass.
• Both systems are constrained by the same environment.
• We can then compare the energy pumped into that environment and determine a difference in operating cost for something like a room air conditioner or a chiller.
Last edited:
I have made a diy led light that has the same light output of the solaris system but cost a lot less, I have had it up and running for two months now and coral growth is better on the led side of the tank then the half I left as the control side using a 10k XM 175 watt metal halide and two 96 watt actinic compact fluorescents, I have the capability of lighting the blue 455nm leds separate from the 6500k leds but do not have the fancy controller. that the solaris has the way I see it we have all been growing corals by turning the lights on first blue then white. so I do not know what the advantage of the controller is. I would love some one to tell me how it helps the corals grow (this is a sincere request) to see if it is worth trying to make a controller.
I have $385.00 in the system and it runs on 88.5 watts of power and looks beautiful and to answer the question of does it glimmer oh yea!
I put this out because I am curious to see if there is enough of an interest to make a website to show how it is done. if there is then I will put one up if not then I will not waste the money on web space.
I have $385.00 in the system and it runs on 88.5 watts of power and looks beautiful and to answer the question of does it glimmer oh yea!
I put this out because I am curious to see if there is enough of an interest to make a website to show how it is done. if there is then I will put one up if not then I will not waste the money on web space.
BeanAnimal
Premium Member
I am sure that plenty of people would be interested in your project. Many people do not understand electronics enough to undertake such a project on their own, even if the details of such a project are rather simple.
As for the controller, I think most people like the ability to change the spectral output and theretofore aesthetic of the tank. A small PIC or AVR would easily do the trick for spectral options and dimming on a schedule.
As for the controller, I think most people like the ability to change the spectral output and theretofore aesthetic of the tank. A small PIC or AVR would easily do the trick for spectral options and dimming on a schedule.
An Aswer to my questions previously posted???
An Aswer to my questions previously posted???
I have posted a number of times as to how to go about doing what you have , it seems done. I attended ORCA in July in Orlando where Sanjay really piqued my interest about this LED thing and how they are being exponentially improved similar to computers only faster. Count me in for whatever needs to be done to help etc.
Also, where did you get the different components, seems that the arrays for the LED's I could not find. Should all be simple, but I, an electronic genius am not. What about "bulk" orders for many cpmplete sets??
An Aswer to my questions previously posted???
I have posted a number of times as to how to go about doing what you have , it seems done. I attended ORCA in July in Orlando where Sanjay really piqued my interest about this LED thing and how they are being exponentially improved similar to computers only faster. Count me in for whatever needs to be done to help etc.
Also, where did you get the different components, seems that the arrays for the LED's I could not find. Should all be simple, but I, an electronic genius am not. What about "bulk" orders for many cpmplete sets??
this is copied from another thread I am writing it up in also
quote:Originally posted by dhnguyen
^^ Of course there is interest in a DIY for this. Please, by all means share your knowledge.
Thanks for the quick reply, I have been reading rc for a long time and have seen you rip people for not having a well thought out idea so I will do my best to lay out all of my "knowledge" for you, please let me know where I fall short. This will take a few posts so please have patience with me.
This all started when I read a post here on rc where a diy guy asked the head of PFO what the leds he used where and what the colors were. I will not repost his response but it was rather harsh (which surprised me because he always seems like such a nice guy when people ask him questions, must be a sore spot with him) but it ended with go out and find out for yourself and then you will know. Well I am an engineer by trade and a statement like that is the same as throwing a pork chop to a starving Chihuahuaââ"šÂ¬Ã‚¦ LOL so I went out and researched what he had done.
So lets start we know from Dana Riddleââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢s write up that there are 13 blue and 12 white leds, that they are 3 watt and that they are Philips Lighting 3-watt Luxeon Emitter batwing design. Also used is a lens holder and a 45-42 degree lens to give the 45 degree in one direction and 42 degree in the other direction light spread. We know that it favors 431-480 nm light spectrum. For a refresher look here at the review.
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2006/8/review2
So letââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢s look at the components closely.
http://www.luxeonstar.com/item.php?...artno=LXHL-LR3C
The blue emitter.
LXHL-LR3C Specifications
Lumens 450 mWMax
Continuous Current 1000 mAForward
Voltage 3.9 VfDominant
Wavelength 455 nmLED
Type StarRadiation
Pattern LambertianWeight 5.5g
13 of these total of 450*13= 5850mW
The white emitter.
LXHL-LW3C Specifications
Lumens 80 lm
Max Continuous Current 1000
mAForward Voltage 3.9 Vf
Dominant Wavelength 5500 KLED
Type StarRadiation
Pattern LambertianWeight 5.5g
12 of these total of 80*12= 960 lm
The holder.
http://www.luxeonstar.com/item.php?...FHS-HWB1-LL01-H
Fraen lenses fit over top of any Luxeon I, III and V lambertian LED and efficiently focuses the output to a 40-45Ã"šÃ‚° beam of light. (Depending on the LED color.)
These lenses come with a staked holder that holds the lens in position over the LED. For more information about how to use the staked holder, see the Heat Staking application note in the Additional Information section below.
ââ"šÂ¬Ã‚¢ Amber, Red LEDs - 40Ã"šÃ‚° beam
ââ"šÂ¬Ã‚¢ Blue, Cyan, Green LEDs - 42Ã"šÃ‚° beam
ââ"šÂ¬Ã‚¢ White LEDs - 45Ã"šÃ‚° beam
ââ"šÂ¬Ã‚¢ Up to 85% efficiency
ââ"šÂ¬Ã‚¢ Fits all Luxeon Lambertian LEDs (Except Star/O)
ââ"šÂ¬Ã‚¢ Software optimized aspheric profile
Note: the 85% efficiency, this means we have 5850 mW* .85 = 4972.5 mW of blue light
And 960 lm * .85 = 816 lm white light.
For more reading on the led look at the full spec sheet here.
http://www.lumileds.com/pdfs/DS46.pdf
How am I doing so far?
The problem was building one of these using these components was going to be hard and expensive in the long run for a one off. Not to mention heat control was going hard at best.
So at that point I had given up. Until two events happen. Number one, one side of my light housing gave up the ghost in a very spectacular fashion. I was now looking at buying a new icecap, a new xm 10k 175 bulb a two new 96 watt compact florescent tubes and new compact florescent ballasts, a total of $415.00+ in stuff. And two enter the rebel (http://www.lumileds.com/pdfs/DS56.pdf ) all the color spectrums needed, the perfect light output and the perfect light throw (right up there with a spider reflector) in a very small package just one problem packaging. But not to fear within six months out came the rebel star ( http://www.luxeonstar.com/7007-endor-datasheet.pdf ), a diy dream come true (kind of).
Remember the 816 lm white led output of the solaris? Wellââ"šÂ¬Ã‚¦.
7007-PWC-08-3 Specifications
Lumens 240 lm @ 350mA
435 lm @ 700mA
Max Continuous Current 1000 mA
Forward Voltage 9.45 Vf
Dominant Wavelength 6500KLED
Type Tri-EmitterRadiation
Pattern Lambertian
Weight 5.5g
816 lm/435 lm = 1.8 rebel stars need. I used 5 at 435 lm to equal 2175 lm or 2175 lm / 816 lm= 2.66 times the out put of the stars the prototype Solaris used
Now the blues that was hard. There is no one making or selling the rebels on a star. After some phone calls I was able to get the un-mounted pads and make them myself. I have since found a source for the blue stars.
I used this rebel for the build.
LXML-PR01-0275 Specifications
Lumens 275mW @ 350mA
525mW lm @ 700mA
Max Continuous Current 1000 mA
Forward Voltage 3.15 Vf
Dominant Wavelength 455 nmLED
Type EmitterRadiation
Pattern LambertianWeight 0.070238g
Remember we were trying to meet the 4972.5 mW of power?
525 mW* 12 (four stars three rebels each) = 6300 mW or 6300 mW / 4972.5 = 1.26 times the light out put of the stars the prototype Solaris used.
I am also giving you the numbers if you run the system at 700ma I am running my system at 800 ma so my light output is higher then these numbers. The rebel can be run at up to 1 amp as long as you have the heat dissipation handled. Look at both the pn junction temperatures in the pdf manuals and you will see one amp is easily attainable if you have the right heat sink.
Constant current circuit was the next problem the easiest way to do that is using this link.
http://www.instructables.com/id/Pow...nstant-current/
The numbers he gives and the assumptions he has DO NOT work for the rebel but the transistor and FET were a perfect fit, the resistor values are different do your testing very carefully and do not assume anything. Also note that you can use one of the circuits to run the whole system or five or six modules but remember that just like in the Solaris if you lose a led you lose the whole string of leds in the case of Solaris it is a $300-$500 replacement. It took me $45 of parts to make each star have its own driver this way a failure of a star means an $11.00 replacement star. Also remember that the led lose light level over time 70% over 11 years a simple adding of a 100k resistor to each driver will bring up the light level back to original (increasing amps) as time goes on. I am not listing numbers right now because I am at work writing this and my notes are at home.
Heat sink, here was the hard one, you have to get out 8-11 watts of heat not an easy task, I was lucky in that I found a heat sink that is way over kill for what I am doing at a local surplus supply house so this was not a problem, I did try bolting one star to a 12 x 4 x 0.25 inch plate and running one, the plate hit 250 degrees f in about 30 seconds. So pick your heat sink carefully, and use the best heat sink paste you can find (arctic silver works great).
If there is more interest shown then I will set up a site with all the information and photos. I will probably put a donation link to help pay for the site. Any ideas on this would be greatly appreciated.
So how did I do so far? Does anyone have any questions? I will post photos of the tank as soon as I figure out how to post them.
As a side note, how do I know the led works better, more coral growth hard corals on the led side then the metal halide/pc side, better extension on polyps softies, zoos extend better, more calcium intake, and my clam added a new ridge. But the number one way I know the giant devils hand dead center between the two systems went from leaning toward the Metal halide sided of the tank toward the LED system side in about two days of running and is fighting for space to move over.
Hobby Experience: 25 years
Current Tanks: 150 gal with two 64 side tanks, and 18 refugium, ssb and dsb mix setup, softies, hards, clams
Interests: reef, motorcycles, scuba
Last edited by divernm on 12/06/2007 at 02:22 PM
quote:Originally posted by dhnguyen
^^ Of course there is interest in a DIY for this. Please, by all means share your knowledge.
Thanks for the quick reply, I have been reading rc for a long time and have seen you rip people for not having a well thought out idea so I will do my best to lay out all of my "knowledge" for you, please let me know where I fall short. This will take a few posts so please have patience with me.
This all started when I read a post here on rc where a diy guy asked the head of PFO what the leds he used where and what the colors were. I will not repost his response but it was rather harsh (which surprised me because he always seems like such a nice guy when people ask him questions, must be a sore spot with him) but it ended with go out and find out for yourself and then you will know. Well I am an engineer by trade and a statement like that is the same as throwing a pork chop to a starving Chihuahuaââ"šÂ¬Ã‚¦ LOL so I went out and researched what he had done.
So lets start we know from Dana Riddleââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢s write up that there are 13 blue and 12 white leds, that they are 3 watt and that they are Philips Lighting 3-watt Luxeon Emitter batwing design. Also used is a lens holder and a 45-42 degree lens to give the 45 degree in one direction and 42 degree in the other direction light spread. We know that it favors 431-480 nm light spectrum. For a refresher look here at the review.
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2006/8/review2
So letââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢s look at the components closely.
http://www.luxeonstar.com/item.php?...artno=LXHL-LR3C
The blue emitter.
LXHL-LR3C Specifications
Lumens 450 mWMax
Continuous Current 1000 mAForward
Voltage 3.9 VfDominant
Wavelength 455 nmLED
Type StarRadiation
Pattern LambertianWeight 5.5g
13 of these total of 450*13= 5850mW
The white emitter.
LXHL-LW3C Specifications
Lumens 80 lm
Max Continuous Current 1000
mAForward Voltage 3.9 Vf
Dominant Wavelength 5500 KLED
Type StarRadiation
Pattern LambertianWeight 5.5g
12 of these total of 80*12= 960 lm
The holder.
http://www.luxeonstar.com/item.php?...FHS-HWB1-LL01-H
Fraen lenses fit over top of any Luxeon I, III and V lambertian LED and efficiently focuses the output to a 40-45Ã"šÃ‚° beam of light. (Depending on the LED color.)
These lenses come with a staked holder that holds the lens in position over the LED. For more information about how to use the staked holder, see the Heat Staking application note in the Additional Information section below.
ââ"šÂ¬Ã‚¢ Amber, Red LEDs - 40Ã"šÃ‚° beam
ââ"šÂ¬Ã‚¢ Blue, Cyan, Green LEDs - 42Ã"šÃ‚° beam
ââ"šÂ¬Ã‚¢ White LEDs - 45Ã"šÃ‚° beam
ââ"šÂ¬Ã‚¢ Up to 85% efficiency
ââ"šÂ¬Ã‚¢ Fits all Luxeon Lambertian LEDs (Except Star/O)
ââ"šÂ¬Ã‚¢ Software optimized aspheric profile
Note: the 85% efficiency, this means we have 5850 mW* .85 = 4972.5 mW of blue light
And 960 lm * .85 = 816 lm white light.
For more reading on the led look at the full spec sheet here.
http://www.lumileds.com/pdfs/DS46.pdf
How am I doing so far?
The problem was building one of these using these components was going to be hard and expensive in the long run for a one off. Not to mention heat control was going hard at best.
So at that point I had given up. Until two events happen. Number one, one side of my light housing gave up the ghost in a very spectacular fashion. I was now looking at buying a new icecap, a new xm 10k 175 bulb a two new 96 watt compact florescent tubes and new compact florescent ballasts, a total of $415.00+ in stuff. And two enter the rebel (http://www.lumileds.com/pdfs/DS56.pdf ) all the color spectrums needed, the perfect light output and the perfect light throw (right up there with a spider reflector) in a very small package just one problem packaging. But not to fear within six months out came the rebel star ( http://www.luxeonstar.com/7007-endor-datasheet.pdf ), a diy dream come true (kind of).
Remember the 816 lm white led output of the solaris? Wellââ"šÂ¬Ã‚¦.
7007-PWC-08-3 Specifications
Lumens 240 lm @ 350mA
435 lm @ 700mA
Max Continuous Current 1000 mA
Forward Voltage 9.45 Vf
Dominant Wavelength 6500KLED
Type Tri-EmitterRadiation
Pattern Lambertian
Weight 5.5g
816 lm/435 lm = 1.8 rebel stars need. I used 5 at 435 lm to equal 2175 lm or 2175 lm / 816 lm= 2.66 times the out put of the stars the prototype Solaris used
Now the blues that was hard. There is no one making or selling the rebels on a star. After some phone calls I was able to get the un-mounted pads and make them myself. I have since found a source for the blue stars.
I used this rebel for the build.
LXML-PR01-0275 Specifications
Lumens 275mW @ 350mA
525mW lm @ 700mA
Max Continuous Current 1000 mA
Forward Voltage 3.15 Vf
Dominant Wavelength 455 nmLED
Type EmitterRadiation
Pattern LambertianWeight 0.070238g
Remember we were trying to meet the 4972.5 mW of power?
525 mW* 12 (four stars three rebels each) = 6300 mW or 6300 mW / 4972.5 = 1.26 times the light out put of the stars the prototype Solaris used.
I am also giving you the numbers if you run the system at 700ma I am running my system at 800 ma so my light output is higher then these numbers. The rebel can be run at up to 1 amp as long as you have the heat dissipation handled. Look at both the pn junction temperatures in the pdf manuals and you will see one amp is easily attainable if you have the right heat sink.
Constant current circuit was the next problem the easiest way to do that is using this link.
http://www.instructables.com/id/Pow...nstant-current/
The numbers he gives and the assumptions he has DO NOT work for the rebel but the transistor and FET were a perfect fit, the resistor values are different do your testing very carefully and do not assume anything. Also note that you can use one of the circuits to run the whole system or five or six modules but remember that just like in the Solaris if you lose a led you lose the whole string of leds in the case of Solaris it is a $300-$500 replacement. It took me $45 of parts to make each star have its own driver this way a failure of a star means an $11.00 replacement star. Also remember that the led lose light level over time 70% over 11 years a simple adding of a 100k resistor to each driver will bring up the light level back to original (increasing amps) as time goes on. I am not listing numbers right now because I am at work writing this and my notes are at home.
Heat sink, here was the hard one, you have to get out 8-11 watts of heat not an easy task, I was lucky in that I found a heat sink that is way over kill for what I am doing at a local surplus supply house so this was not a problem, I did try bolting one star to a 12 x 4 x 0.25 inch plate and running one, the plate hit 250 degrees f in about 30 seconds. So pick your heat sink carefully, and use the best heat sink paste you can find (arctic silver works great).
If there is more interest shown then I will set up a site with all the information and photos. I will probably put a donation link to help pay for the site. Any ideas on this would be greatly appreciated.
So how did I do so far? Does anyone have any questions? I will post photos of the tank as soon as I figure out how to post them.
As a side note, how do I know the led works better, more coral growth hard corals on the led side then the metal halide/pc side, better extension on polyps softies, zoos extend better, more calcium intake, and my clam added a new ridge. But the number one way I know the giant devils hand dead center between the two systems went from leaning toward the Metal halide sided of the tank toward the LED system side in about two days of running and is fighting for space to move over.
Hobby Experience: 25 years
Current Tanks: 150 gal with two 64 side tanks, and 18 refugium, ssb and dsb mix setup, softies, hards, clams
Interests: reef, motorcycles, scuba
Last edited by divernm on 12/06/2007 at 02:22 PM
the tank
left is metal halide with two 96 watt pc over it and right is one led system this was taken on day one
![url]](/proxy.php?image=http%3A%2F%2F%5Burl%5Dhttp%3A%2F%2Freefcentral.com%2Fgallery%2Fshow...rt%3D1%26thecat%3D500%5B%2Furl%5D&hash=8eb315d90c22cbebf9eaf1c0f20f5ec7)
Hobby Experience: 25 years
Current Tanks: 150 gal with two 64 side tanks, and 18 refugium, ssb and dsb mix setup, softies, hards, clams
Interests: reef, motorcycles, scuba
Last edited by divernm on 12/06/2007 at 03:02 PM
left is metal halide with two 96 watt pc over it and right is one led system this was taken on day one
Hobby Experience: 25 years
Current Tanks: 150 gal with two 64 side tanks, and 18 refugium, ssb and dsb mix setup, softies, hards, clams
Interests: reef, motorcycles, scuba
Last edited by divernm on 12/06/2007 at 03:02 PM
you can grow anything also aros, clams, softies, polyps, leathers, lsf, sfs, mushrooms, Zenia it is all in the photo
http://reefcentral.com/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=232845&papass=&sort=1&thecat=500
and here is the same tank with an acrylic lens under it and the light moved more toward the center of the tank, still up against the 175 watt xm metal halide and the two 98 watt one 420nm actinic and one 03 actinic compact inflorescent
http://reefcentral.com/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=232846&papass=&sort=1&thecat=500
Hobby Experience: 25 years
Current Tanks: 150 gal with two 64 side tanks, and 18 refugium, ssb and dsb mix setup, softies, hards, clams
Interests: reef, motorcycles, scuba
Last edited by divernm on 12/06/2007 at 06:38 PM
http://reefcentral.com/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=232845&papass=&sort=1&thecat=500
and here is the same tank with an acrylic lens under it and the light moved more toward the center of the tank, still up against the 175 watt xm metal halide and the two 98 watt one 420nm actinic and one 03 actinic compact inflorescent
http://reefcentral.com/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=232846&papass=&sort=1&thecat=500
Hobby Experience: 25 years
Current Tanks: 150 gal with two 64 side tanks, and 18 refugium, ssb and dsb mix setup, softies, hards, clams
Interests: reef, motorcycles, scuba
Last edited by divernm on 12/06/2007 at 06:38 PM
Similar threads
