# Who's running LED's?



## mmelnick (Mar 5, 2010)

Is anyone on here running an LED setup? I've been thinking about custom building an LED array for my salt water reef tank for a while. But some of the new LED bulbs coming out can be screwed into a standard light socket and put out tons of PAR. They are also rated at about 6500K so they seem like they would be perfect for a planted tank application.

I bet a single PAR 38 LED flood light would run a 24" tank with more PAR than a lot of high light setups.

Anyone else doing this?


----------



## Guest (Mar 17, 2010)

I would love to hear more about this...


----------



## inthewerks (Sep 13, 2009)

Well, as you know, led fixtures are still WAY to expensive for most people running around 3-6 grand for a fixture. These setups also are microprocessor controlled to simulate daytime, nighttime, cloudy days etc. But I think you are on the right track my friend. An edison based led bulb is going to be alot cheaper than those fixtures. The only problem I see is the type of led's being used in the bulb. Some led's emit light in a narrow pattern focusing light in a certain direction while others emit light in a wide pattern. If these led bulbs emit light in a wide pattern (which is my guess), then you might not get the full effect of your led light focused into your tank. Just something to think about.


----------



## trailsendcustom (Mar 17, 2010)

I just set up an LED system over my 29g tank as a retrofit to the standard NO flourescent that comes with a standard hood. I used six cree 3wt 6500k lights. I would not say its in the high or medium light category but it is an incredible increase over a 20 watt tube. My plants are taking off, as well as the algae unfortunately. The coolest thing is the shimmer that you get will LEDs. Just having six lights over the tank does not give complete coverage but I find it more interesting this way anyway. Oh yea, all for about $100.


----------



## Hoppy (Dec 24, 2005)

I use a DIY LED light on my 65 gallon riparium. It is the one the sticky above discusses. LEDs are good planted tank lights, but only if you distribute them across much of the top of the tank, to get good uniformity of the lighting in the tank. It does no good to have very high light intensity in one spot in the tank, with low light everywhere else. And, it doesn't look very good to have your tank appear to have a few spotlights above it, giving circles of high light several places in the tank.


----------



## mmelnick (Mar 5, 2010)

Well I'm certainly not looking at a $3,000 LED system. I could build something that has custom spaced LED's with whatever optics I choose. And I could even go as far as 80 degree optics for the same price, which would be to wide and would not give the spotlight effect. For those of you requesting more info on LED's you can get everything you need here:









It’s a simple DIY IF YOU ARE COMFORTABLE WITH WORKING WITH ELECTRICTY. You need a driver, a DC converter appropriate to the wattage you will be pulling, a heat sink, some LED’s and some soldering skills.



There are a lot more options for LED's that were built for aquarium use if you have a reef tank. This 21 watt bulb will keep pretty much any coral in a 2 foot tank. I think you would only need 42 watts to run a 75 gal tank. But it's basically just one of the LED type flood lights that you can get from Home Depot with some actinic supplementation built in.










Since I don't need any actinics for fresh water I'm looking at going with a PAR 20 flood bulb from Home Depot. It's right in the 6500K range, only uses something like 9 watts of electricity, will last for an entire decade and puts out as much light as a 35 watt halogen. This is $29.99, but I'm afraid that it will be waaaay to strong over my 2.5 gal. That's why I asked. (BTW you can also get a PAR 38 bulb for around $50 and that would easily run any 2 foot tank) 

I could be using the calculator in the articles section wrong, but since the PAR 20 is in the range of a 35 watt halogen isn’t that almost as much as 50 watts of NO florescent?


----------



## mmelnick (Mar 5, 2010)

Today I found a 2.4 watt LED desk lamp at Wal Mart that says it puts out the same as a 13 watt CFL or a 60 watt incandescent. I think that might be perfect for a 2.5 gal planted tank anyway. Any thoughts on that?

It's $20 for the fixture with the LED. I'm really leaning towards that now. 

Plus running a medium-high light planted tank on 2.4 watts of electricity is just pretty sweet!


----------



## bigboij (Jul 24, 2009)

post a pic/link on the lamp, my only concern would be is if their light is in the correct spectrum


----------



## kid creole (Dec 25, 2008)

mmelnick said:


> Today I found a 2.4 watt LED desk lamp at Wal Mart that says it puts out the same as a 13 watt CFL or a 60 watt incandescent. I think that might be perfect for a 2.5 gal planted tank anyway. Any thoughts on that?
> 
> It's $20 for the fixture with the LED. I'm really leaning towards that now.
> 
> Plus running a medium-high light planted tank on 2.4 watts of electricity is just pretty sweet!


If this claim was true, and an LED was 100% efficient (they're not), this would mean that CFLs are 18%. They've got to be better than 18%.


----------



## mmelnick (Mar 5, 2010)

bigboij said:


> post a pic/link on the lamp, my only concern would be is if their light is in the correct spectrum


That was my main concern too. I think I'll buy it tonight and test the spectrum. I can take a custom white balance reading with my camera and see what I get. If it's not in the propper range I'll just return it. Wal-Mart takes anything back!



kid creole said:


> If this claim was true, and an LED was 100% efficient (they're not), this would mean that CFLs are 18%. They've got to be better than 18%.


I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. Are you saying that a 13 watt CFL doesn't put out the same as a 60 watt incandescent so there is no way that a 2.4 watt LED can put out the same amount of light as a 13 watt CFL?


----------



## kid creole (Dec 25, 2008)

mmelnick said:


> That was my main concern too. I think I'll buy it tonight and test the spectrum. I can take a custom white balance reading with my camera and see what I get. If it's not in the propper range I'll just return it. Wal-Mart takes anything back!
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. Are you saying that a 13 watt CFL doesn't put out the same as a 60 watt incandescent so there is no way that a 2.4 watt LED can put out the same amount of light as a 13 watt CFL?



Yes, as far as planted tanks are concerned. Super-simplistically, a 13W CFL puts out as much light as a 13W incandescent.


----------



## mmelnick (Mar 5, 2010)

kid creole said:


> Yes, as far as planted tanks are concerned. Super-simplistically, a 13W CFL puts out as much light as a 13W incandescent.


But a 13 W CFL would be just about right for a tan this size too, which is why I was kind of optimistic. But are you saying that you don't think that it will work for a 2.5 gal tank?


----------



## ezcry4t3d (Apr 24, 2009)

I have 2 - 3.5 Watt LED screw in bulbs in the hood of my 90gal as a secondary light source. They produce an interesting effect and I use them to keep the tank viewable for 12 hours a day while the main lights (2x55w AH Supply 10K bulbs) are only on for 8.

The bulbs produce a fairly strong spotlight in the tank. You can tell that it would certainly be possible to light the entire tank up very brightly with them, but you would have to pretty much fill the entire hood to get full coverage.


The bulbs I am using, I believe they were ~$15 for a pair at Sam's Club.









What they look like when 2 of them are the only thing on in a 90gal tank:









The advantages of LED include:
Virtually ZERO heat emitted
No restrike, 100% of the light goes straight down into the tank.
Mercury Free
50K hour bulb lifetime (This is at least double that of T5s no matter how you do the math.)

When comparing putting 30 of these LEDs in my hood instead of my AHSupply LED:
Cost: $275 roughly ($7 x 30 bulbs + $2 x 30 sockets + $5 wire)
Watts: 105W (30 x 3.5W)
Heat: Minimal
Lumens: 9900 (30 x ~330 lumens)
Rated Lifespan: 50,000 Hours (17 years at 8 hours a day)
* May lose up to half it's light output by the end of 50K lifespan - reference

T5:
Cost: $120
Watts: 110W (2 x 55W)
Heat: Moderate
Lumens: 8400 - 9600 lumens depending on bulbs used
Rated Lifespan: 20,000 Hours (6.8 Years at 8 hours a day)
* Public opinion states that T5 bulbs should be changed at 18 months, which is only 4,500 hours at 8 hours a day.

It appears to me that LED vs T5 are virtually equivalent when comparing light output watt to watt.


----------



## mmelnick (Mar 5, 2010)

^^^ I think if you replaced those with something with a wider degree optic you could light the entire tank with 4 bulbs. But it looks like you have something with really narrow optics so you're getting the spotlight effect. Which can be kind of cool too.


----------



## insta (Jan 27, 2010)

mmelnick said:


> But a 13 W CFL would be just about right for a tan this size too, which is why I was kind of optimistic. But are you saying that you don't think that it will work for a 2.5 gal tank?


13W CFL and 13W incandescent (these are real watts, not "effective" / "as bright as" / etc) are very different in terms of light output. They'll generate the same amount of heat, but the CFL will make a LOT more visible light in the process. The incandescent will throw nearly all of that energy off as infrared radiation with a little visible light alongside for giggles. You might end up with massive algae problems in a 2.5G with a 13W CFL.

edit: I just looked it up on 1000bulbs for you. A 15W clear incandescent bulb outputs 95 lumens. A 13W CFL spiral outputs 900 lumens. If you replace them at the same time (half the lifespan of the CFL) the usable light should have dropped to about 600 lumens. Assume 40% losses for restrike and you're looking at 360 lumens end-of-life -- equivalent to the brightness of a brand-new 40W incandescent.. The 40% restrike is a very conservative number designed to illustrate worst-case scenarios.


----------



## ezcry4t3d (Apr 24, 2009)

mmelnick said:


> ^^^ I think if you replaced those with something with a wider degree optic you could light the entire tank with 4 bulbs. But it looks like you have something with really narrow optics so you're getting the spotlight effect. Which can be kind of cool too.


Yes, you'd have just enough light to see the whole tank. You're still only talking about 1300 lumens though. 0.15 watts per gallon. It's a similar light level to the middle of the night with a full moon. I'm not sure you can grow much of anything with that level of light. The camera is compensating for the low light level some with ISO and slow shutter speed, in reality it's darker than it looks in the picture. I like the spotlight effect because you can't make out the back glass or shadows, lending some mystique to the look.


----------



## mmelnick (Mar 5, 2010)

insta said:


> 13W CFL and 13W incandescent (these are real watts, not "effective" / "as bright as" / etc) are very different in terms of light output. They'll generate the same amount of heat, but the CFL will make a LOT more visible light in the process. The incandescent will throw nearly all of that energy off as infrared radiation with a little visible light alongside for giggles. You might end up with massive algae problems in a 2.5G with a 13W CFL.
> 
> edit: I just looked it up on 1000bulbs for you. A 15W clear incandescent bulb outputs 95 lumens. A 13W CFL spiral outputs 900 lumens. If you replace them at the same time (half the lifespan of the CFL) the usable light should have dropped to about 600 lumens. Assume 40% losses for restrike and you're looking at 360 lumens end-of-life -- equivalent to the brightness of a brand-new 40W incandescent.. The 40% restrike is a very conservative number designed to illustrate worst-case scenarios.


I agree with you, but that really has nothing to do with what I'm looking at. I'm not sure why you are comparing a 15 watt CFL to a 15 watt incandecsent. Of corse the CFL will put out more light per watt. That's exactly why a 15 watt CFL is about equl to a 60 watt incandescent, (which is what I mentioned earlier). That exact same principal of efficiency is how this LED can put out the same amount of visible light with a lot less wattage.



I went ahead and bought it this morning.

Here are some pics:

You can see that with the light raised it has a nice spread, no spotlight effect in the tank at all.










With the light lowered all the way the bottom of the tank is still completely covered.









I will probably run it about here if I decide to keep it.










And it's reading at about 4500K. Maybe even as high as 4800 or 5000K (it's hard to get an exact reading without a gray card, which I can dig out later). But it's at least 4500 for sure. This is slightly more yellow than a perfectly ideal setup, but I think it's a livable situation for sure.

Any input on this?


----------



## insta (Jan 27, 2010)

mmelnick said:


> I agree with you, but that really has nothing to do with what I'm looking at. I'm not sure why you are comparing a 15 watt CFL to a 15 watt incandecsent. Of corse the CFL will put out more light per watt. That's exactly why a 15 watt CFL is about equl to a 60 watt incandescent, (which is what I mentioned earlier). That exact same principal of efficiency is how this LED can put out the same amount of visible light with a lot less wattage.


I understand this, my reply quoted only you but it was more a reply to "a 13W CFL and 13W incandescent put out the same light" from kid creole.

Incidentally, it looks good


----------



## ezcry4t3d (Apr 24, 2009)

mmelnick said:


> And it's reading at about 4500K. Maybe even as high as 4800 or 5000K (it's hard to get an exact reading without a gray card, which I can dig out later). But it's at least 4500 for sure. This is slightly more yellow than a perfectly ideal setup, but I think it's a livable situation for sure.
> 
> Any input on this?


That looks like a perfectly acceptable amount of light for a low light tank. Mosses, Crypts, Java Fern, etc should do great in that tank. It does look like the light takes up more space than the tank though. Maybe take it apart and put the LEDs in a hood?


----------



## mmelnick (Mar 5, 2010)

insta said:


> I understand this, my reply quoted only you but it was more a reply to "a 13W CFL and 13W incandescent put out the same light" from kid creole.
> 
> Incidentally, it looks good


 OK, I was just making sure we were on the same page and I wan't missing something.

Thanks.


ezcry4t3d said:


> That looks like a perfectly acceptable amount of light for a low light tank. Mosses, Crypts, Java Fern, etc should do great in that tank. It does look like the light takes up more space than the tank though. Maybe take it apart and put the LEDs in a hood?


I was thinking of maybe doing a pendant style hanging fixture with it. Or just bending some pipe and painting it all black and having an arm come up over the tank and hang the LED fixture at the perfect height. But you're right, it's a little bit big for that small of a tank.

And as far as a low light setup, I was curious... Sp I took a pic of it at 1600 ISO, f/5.6 and a 1/30 of a second. This is what I got:








I also added some weeds from the yard to see what they would look like under the light. I'm happy with the coloration.


I then took a pic of my reef tank at the exact same camera settings (1600 ISO, f/5.6 and a 1/30 of a second) and the exposire was darker. So this tank is lit more than my reef tank with 2X T5 HO's. I was both surprised and pleased to find that the lighting in this tank is greater than the lighting in my reef tank, which successfully houses LPS coral (demands moderate to high light).









The difference in exposure was about 2 stops, which means that these LED's are providing ~4 times more light than my T5 setup on my reef tank!!!


----------



## kid creole (Dec 25, 2008)

mmelnick said:


> But a 13 W CFL would be just about right for a tan this size too, which is why I was kind of optimistic. But are you saying that you don't think that it will work for a 2.5 gal tank?


I guess I didn't directly answer your original question. No, the LED doesn't put out as much light as the 'comparable' fluorescent.

I like the camera test, but it's testing the light available to your eye, not to plants. And you don't have 4x the light from that led that you do in your reef tank.

Not to say you can't grow plants with it...but it could be tough.


----------



## mmelnick (Mar 5, 2010)

kid creole said:


> I guess I didn't directly answer your original question. No, the LED doesn't put out as much light as the 'comparable' fluorescent.
> 
> I like the camera test, but it's testing the light available to your eye, not to plants. And you don't have 4x the light from that led that you do in your reef tank.
> 
> Not to say you can't grow plants with it...but it could be tough.


I'm trying to find a PAR meter to do some tests. But I think I'll give it a try and see how a few plants react. I took the lamp apart and will be hanging it pendant style above the tank.


----------



## kid creole (Dec 25, 2008)

mmelnick said:


> I'm trying to find a PAR meter to do some tests. But I think I'll give it a try and see how a few plants react. I took the lamp apart and will be hanging it pendant style above the tank.


Cool, and I hope it is successful. Also, your reef tank is awesome.


----------



## mmelnick (Mar 5, 2010)

kid creole said:


> Cool, and I hope it is successful.


 Thanks!



kid creole said:


> Also, your reef tank is awesome.


And thanks!


I'll put up a build thread when I finally start this tank. I'm buying a house this Friday, so I'll be a bit busy for the next couple weeks. But I'll keep everyone posted.


----------

