Modern LED scrubber light

[whites]

Cost to my door was $109au, $94us something like that pretty close to it anyway this was the best I could come up with, Others were the same price for 37w and a 45w, the diffrent lights stay the same price from this particular company. I guess that they make so many of the damn things they can make it cheap. The cost of delivery is almost the same as the unit 2.5kg. Unit on its own was $62us + $32us del.

If it dosent grow the algea then I can grow tomatoes

So what was your choice inkidu? I thought the same about full range and vegative seemed to pinpoint spec a little.

Thanks for the thoughts guys btw its been a big help making things clearer. My drama is I really wanted to get as close to the spec as possible for the hobbys sake but I still think a fuller spec is the way to go. including the orange I sure the plant would use this as well in its healthy growth.

[inkidu]

You sure beat me on price. $83 on rebels, $36 on 3 drivers, and $30 on two 10 watt prolights

with $221 in ledengin leds and $85 in meanwell drivers on the way.

I hope that there long life pays off.

[whites]

pluss your time making them thats at least $50 p/h lol

[SantaMonica]

I still think a useful design would be a large number of low power led's, spread evenly across the screen (1W X 200). Just do some wave soldering. And use the water for cooling, by extending the ground grid up into the flow, through the sealing resin.

Also, I'll re-post my earlier idea of a light-screen:





A light-screen is a scrubber where the screen IS the light, and the light IS the screen. Compared to regular scrubbers, these plastic-covered LED light screens:

o Are ultra small/thin.
o Have no algae die-off (see drawing below).
o Are practically unbreakable.
o Are electrically safe (12 volts or less).
o Can be made as small as desired for nano's.
o Can easily be built into the hood of a nano.
o Are double-sided with almost no increase in size.


Disadvantages:

o They will be expensive (equivalent to good skimmers).
o They are impossible to DIY







Here is my version of a nano scrubber:





Same concept, just smaller, and replaces the skimmer, mechanical filter, and other filtering "devices" in pre-fab nano's like Aquapods, Red Sea Max's, etc. Would actually make nano's less expensive, better filtered, more compact, and more reliable.
.
.

[rygh]

Something along those lines might be a fiber optic version.

Use large 10W+ LEDs, so reasonably easy to DIY.
Each LED drives the end of a small packet of SIDE GLOW fiber optic cables.
Basically, a bundle of small cables.
Now each of those cables you spread out, and simply weave into the standard plastic mesh.
The "side glow" fiber optic cables let out a bit of light on the entire length, unlike standard fiber optic cables that
purely transmit from one end to the other.
Something like 6 bundles at 10W each, 15 small fiber optic cables for each bundle.
So 90 little light pipes, about every 1/8 inch.

Another thought is to find a broken LCD TV that has the new LED backlighting.
On those, there is a fancy glass backing, where LEDs drive at the sides, and are spread out very evenly over the front.
A bit like a freznel lens.
Maybe you can even buy replacement glass for the back.

[SantaMonica]

I like the side-glow idea. A mesh of these in resin could be either a light-screen, or a light source for a regular screen. No heat, no electricity.

[whites]

Any links to this side glow led fiber optic cable??

[rygh]

Just an example:
http://www.thefiberopticstore.com/purchase/sideglow.htm
You could take the 84 strand one, and maybe strip the PVC jacket off of part of it.

Another idea would be "LED rope lights".
These are a large series of small LEDs, already connected together.
http://www.affordablequalitylighting.co ... index.html
I think there was some industrial version as well, with simply LEDs mounted on a flexible PCB.

But I really have three problems with all of these ideas:
1) Efficiency. Smaller LEDs are rarely as efficient. Light is lost in various resins and such. Definitely a big loss in fiber optic.
Basically, a huge point of LED is to beat CFL in efficiency. I hate to cut into that win.
2) Light up from the roots seems backwards.
My impression was that hair algae grows simplistically like a tree, with a root of sorts on one end, and major growth on the other.
So it seems that light from the screen itself would be blocked by the older already grown algae, and not hit the new tips.
3) All of the heat goes into the tank.
Ok, not huge, but still, if lighting is part of the screen, 100% of the heat will be transferred to the water.
Of course, conversely, no need for a heat sink.

[SantaMonica]

Light up from the roots seems backwards. My impression was that hair algae grows simplistically like a tree, with a root of sorts on one end, and major growth on the other.

Algae just grows where it has nutrients and light. No real roots. So a light-screen will reduce growth as it gets thicker (and farther away from the light).

The major, huge, gigantic advantage of a light-screen is that it can be left unattended, forever. Well, in theory at least; it has not been tried yet. Regular screens must be cleaned weekly because new growth smothers the old. But a light-screen stops growing once it's full, and then just sits there. Therefore there is no new growth to smother the old. True, the filtering will slow down and stop too until cleaned, but the advantage is still a huge one for new users who many not know (or want, or be able) to clean weekly.

True about the heat.

[rygh]

Has anyone tried the simpler version of this:
A single sided design, with a solid clear backing on the mesh, and put the lights on the other side.
Making sure no water is on the light side.
Basically, light it conventionally, but from screen side.