• You are viewing the forum as a Guest, please login (you can use your Facebook, Twitter, Google or Microsoft account to login) or register using this link: Log in or Sign Up

Led DIY

medlight

Member
Joined
28 Dec 2021
Messages
43
Location
España
I have been working on DIY led screens for a long time, I have always had very good results with them, two years ago for changing I acquired two vivid 2 chihiros, and the truth is, they are powerful, but they do not finish convincing me as to the response of the plants and we are talking about two screens for a surface of 100 * 40 * 40 in height, I think the spectrum is weak anyway and after all we are talking about three monochrome. so I have decided to create a study of what will be my new configuration to create.
The materials will be of good quality XPG-2-S4, Semiled, Bridgelux, Epiled.
 

Attachments

  • 420V2.JPG
    420V2.JPG
    122.1 KB · Views: 231
A couple of suggestions for your project:

1.
It seems to me like you have fallen into the pit of trying to get a spectral power distribution that fits your needs by mixing LEDs with fairly discrete wavelength output. Why not go with one of the better white LEDs on the market and then suplement the spectral power distribution up where you feel you need to do so?
I do not have any experience with any of the brands you mentioned, and after having looked them up and the specs, the only one that really made a positive impression is the Thrive98 LED from Brigdelux. I noted that most of them seems to run pretty hot and that will in turn reduce both lifetime and efficacy. I assume this is due to the lens they have, as that will help generate more heat on the LED itself (transmission of the light and reduced airflow over the LED).
With regards to the Thrive98 I would like to point out that I am a bit unsure about the spectral power distribution they present, as the y-axis does not have clear divisions on it and I can’t get to be perfectly normalized. That being said I would assume that using a Thrive98 (provided the spectral power distribution is correct) and suplement it with some discrete LEDs at 730 nm and 400-405 nm (or even 380-385 nm) would make for a pretty nice array.


2.
Why the extra 730 nm? yes it helps with photosynthesis, mainly as a booster, but it can also make the plants more leggy and adding to much would probably not be helping you get the look you are after, unless that is leggy plants you are after. I do not use any extra in the 730 nm range, as I like my plants more compact, but I still have an intensity in the 730 nm range around 20% of the peak intensity. I know there are different results from research on this, but I am going with moderate levels in the IR range.

3.
The different white LEDs, are they for simulating sunrise and sunset? And if so have you seen an actual benefit in plant response to it? I have used it in the past but have come to the conclusion that if there are any benefits they are so small that it is not worth the efford.

4.
More of a comment to your take on the RGB lights. I 100% agree with you, I see RGB lights as a misguided fad.

As a help to some I’ll add a link to a presentation from 2018 regarding the spectral power distribution, plant response and requirements, and why PAR is really not a good metric with the knowledge we have gained over the last couple of decades: https://fhi.nl/app/uploads/sites/32/2018/11/Alcom_LED.pdf.
It is easy to read presentation, with a couple of links that will be more aimed at scientifically minded people.
 
Last edited:
Hi @Aquahorti

I just want to thank you for the attached presentation, which I found very informative.

I have a question for you - to what extent is horticultural* lighting applicable to the aquarium environment? I ask because I've watched several video presentations by Dr Bruce Bugbee (Apogee Instruments). In one of the videos, he says something on the lines of - blue light shrinks plants. But, most of his research appears to be in the field of crop plants. So, does blue light shrink submerged aquatic/aquarium plants?

Thanks in advance.

* As your User Name is Aquahorti, I assume your work is in the field of horticulture?

JPC
 
A couple of suggestions for your project:

1.
It seems to me like you have fallen into the pit of trying to get a spectral power distribution that fits your needs by mixing LEDs with fairly discrete wavelength output. Why not go with one of the better white LEDs on the market and then suplement the spectral power distribution up where you feel you need to do so?
I do not have any experience with any of the brands you mentioned, and after having looked them up and the specs, the only one that really made a positive impression is the Thrive98 LED from Brigdelux. I noted that most of them seems to run pretty hot and that will in turn reduce both lifetime and efficacy. I assume this is due to the lens they have, as that will help generate more heat on the LED itself (transmission of the light and reduced airflow over the LED).
With regards to the Thrive98 I would like to point out that I am a bit unsure about the spectral power distribution they present, as the y-axis does not have clear divisions on it and I can’t get to be perfectly normalized. That being said I would assume that using a Thrive98 (provided the spectral power distribution is correct) and suplement it with some discrete LEDs at 730 nm and 400-405 nm (or even 380-385 nm) would make for a pretty nice array.


2.
Why the extra 730 nm? yes it helps with photosynthesis, mainly as a booster, but it can also make the plants more leggy and adding to much would probably not be helping you get the look you are after, unless that is leggy plants you are after. I do not use any extra in the 730 nm range, as I like my plants more compact, but I still have an intensity in the 730 nm range around 20% of the peak intensity. I know there are different results from research on this, but I am going with moderate levels in the IR range.

3.
The different white LEDs, are they for simulating sunrise and sunset? And if so have you seen an actual benefit in plant response to it? I have used it in the past but have come to the conclusion that if there are any benefits they are so small that it is not worth the efford.

4.
More of a comment to your take on the RGB lights. I 100% agree with you, I see RGB lights as a misguided fad.

As a help to some I’ll add a link to a presentation from 2018 regarding the spectral power distribution, plant responce and requirements, and why PAR is really not a good metric with the knowledge we have gained over the last couple of decades: https://fhi.nl/app/uploads/sites/32/2018/11/Alcom_LED.pdf.
It is easy to read presentation, with a couple of links that will be more aimed at scientifically minded people.
*1 I use these chips because the vast majority of high-performance commercial screens use them, with them I get power, in addition to being able to make them work at a low level, which means they emit little heat.
*2 I add very few of them in relation to other waves
*3 the whites only have the lighting function for the dime effects, Arduino is in charge
Good contribution I will take a look at your pdf. A cordial greeting
 
Hi jaypeecee,

I have no knowledge of blue light shrinking plants, but research have shown that light from 300 nm up to something like 430 nm will help the plants get more dry matter, that in turn will help them withstand external stresses. I guess (I have no basis for saying that this is the case) this could trigger something that would make the plants lower (pure speculation) but could be something like dry matter per stem vs growth time.
Good question though, and it will give me something to look into.

There so many mechanisms that kick in when plants go from emersed to submerged that it is hard to guess based on what you see in emersed growth. Just look at some of Ole Pedersens research (he is with Københavns Universitet and also works with Tropica. On top of that he does scape).

With regards to my nick:

Heh, no not at all, have a couple of degrees in Mathematics and Physics but nothing within the field of biology. I do like reading about research on plants, especially with regards to light as it ties back to one of my degrees in Physics and aquascaping as well. I does not make me an authority in the field in any way, I just like to read And expand my knowledge.
And work wise I have sold my soul to the dark side as I work in Oil and Gas.
 
Hi @Aquahorti

Entonces, ¿la luz azul encoge las plantas acuáticas / de acuario sumergidas?
For quite some time I have always read that the high spectrum in blue caused the stems to bend and it is certainly true, when I have subjected my tank to changes of tubes of 6500k by 10000kº automatically the plants shrinks , why? It is something that I never found information, every time there are less of the old school
 
For quite some time I have always read that the high spectrum in blue caused the stems to bend and it is certainly true, when I have subjected my tank to changes of tubes of 6500k by 10000kº automatically the plants shrinks , why? It is something that I never found information, every time there are less of the old school
That could be a function of the spectral power distribution. With the higher K rating you have less red wavelengths, and some research suggests that light around the 730 nm help plants grow longer stems.
But again K rating of light really doesn’t tell us much about the spectral power distribution other than you have more light towards the blue or red for high and low K ratings.
 
I have a question for you - to what extent is horticultural* lighting applicable to the aquarium environment?
Forgot to answer this question.

To the same degree that sunlight is applicable to plants that can thrive above water as well as under water.
I know this is repeating myself from other threads, but if we focused more on having light that mimics natural sunlight, so that it is only the intensity we change, we would make our lives much easier.
My experience is that growing plants in aquariums becomes a walk in the park. At home I use Yuji VTC series lights and my wife uses more traditional aquarium lights, and I can get away with cleaning the glass once every 1-2 months, where she needs to do it every 1-2 weeks.
I do have a couple of aquariums with traditional lights (Fluval Spec and ADA Solar II/ADA Solar Mini M) and they require much more cleaning as well. I will over time redo the lights in those setups as I do not find the extra cleaning required particularly fun.
 
I always took the studies on reaction to blue light to mean that deficiency of blue light causes stem elongation rather than excess of blue light causes shrinkage.

Generally, blue light suppresses extension growth; plants
grown with blue light are usually shorter and have smaller,
thicker and darker green leaves compared to plants grown
without blue light
From https://www.canr.msu.edu/floriculture/uploads/files/blue-light.pdf

Of course sunlight always contains plenty of blue light, so natural outdoors growth might be considered to be growth in the presence of blue light.

Anyway, I look forward to seeing your DIY light when completed @medlight
 
At Maf 2500.

Reading your link, the last section:

they have not been able to make consistant results in the greenhouse with regards to suppressing plant hight.

I would say there is need for further research and possibly tweek more parameters to eliminate other factors. Doesn’t mean they are not on to something.
 
Personal observation: In some stem plants high blue and low red content shrinks the length of internodes..
Hygrophila difformis is easily manipulated by blue light .
I suppose things like sword plants really have nowhere to go.

Many effects are species dependent.
As to using hort. "principals" to a planted tank isn't really err practical since many " targets" just don't apply. Like maximizing dry weight with minimum energy useage. Sounds worthwhile but is it really?

About the only factor that is important is pigment production. Which regardless of spectrum can be stimulated by intensity and usually by any " blue" from 460 to 380nm (generalization).
 
Personal observation: In some stem plants high blue and low red content shrinks the length of internodes..
Hygrophila difformis is easily manipulated by blue light .
I suppose things like sword plants really have nowhere to go.

Correlation is not causation.

You postulate that it is due to the high levels of blue light and low levels of red, but just like in the link that Maf 2500 gave, you can not say that based on the data. They had used a faulty test methodology where they changed two parameters at the same time, something people should have been tought in science classes, not to do (in Denmark that is 5’th grade curriculum). It might turn out that it is the blue levels that causes it or it might be the red levels. I am not saying that you have to prove what mechanism it is, but there is research done that can give us hints:
Red light and stem development https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpls.2016.00480/full
Interaction of white, blue and red light in different quantities: Long-Term Effects of Red- and Blue-Light Emitting Diodes on Leaf Anatomy and Photosynthetic Efficiency of Three Ornamental Pot Plants


Personally I prefer looking at work done in the area, and gain inspiration from it to help me get better at obtaining the results I am after. Not guessing based on hunches.




About the only factor that is important is pigment production. Which regardless of spectrum can be stimulated by intensity and usually by any " blue" from 460 to 380nm (generalization).


Let us just be clear on what is blue light. Blue light is defined as light between 400 nm and 500 nm, not 380 nm to 460 nm. UV-A is between 315 nm and 400 nm, so your range partly covers UV-A and blue light and thus it is not correct to use the term blue light about it. I have a link to an article about pigmentation in plants, and when it comes to light blue light is ranked 3’rd, after high white light (that also contains blue light) and UV-A in moderate levels. I can’t find the link right now but will post it once I get some time to look for it. So your above statement is just wrong.
UV-A and plant health: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpls.2019.01563/full

And I value healty plantgrowth over pigmentation that in some cases is detrimental to the plants health.
 
Love it.

Each absorbed wavelength will yield a unique potential “growth” for the plant (dependent on if the photosystems etc are present for conditions given). Provided everything is there, the “growth” can happen.

A nice thought through this thread for me has been to via McGree curve, consider the influence that wavelengths and combinations will have on nutrient demand.

About a year ago, my co2 was a bit high for the fish so I shifted my lights to have more red and can't remember how long but next time I looked fish were fine - this in conjunction with a darker drop checker.

Understanding how the plant reacts to nutrient restrictions, if we can link wavelength to demand, we can predict plant forms.

I’m thinking changing demand on co2 indirectly and influencing nodes/leaf size. But it’s not so simple as that —> likely morphology will be influenced by what is needed to capture and metabolize certain wavelengths and to cope with different energies/conditions.

It’s too much!!!
 
I hope someone will actually do tests of near infrared and UV-B LEDs on aquatic plants to see if there is any difference. I'm following Dennis Wong's FB where he is testing out the Week Aqua P600 (with UV LEDs) but so far he has not mentioned anything (which suggests that the effect if any may be too subtle).


This page shows that NIR had opposite results with different terrestrial plants - if response to spectrum is so species dependent it may not be possible to draw any general conclusions : The Effect of Near-Infrared Radiation on Plants - All Things Lighting Association
 
Correlation is not causation.

You postulate that it is due to the high levels of blue light and low levels of red, but just like in the link that Maf 2500 gave, you can not say that based on the data. They had used a faulty test methodology where they changed two parameters at the same time, something people should have been tought in science classes, not to do (in Denmark that is 5’th grade curriculum). It might turn out that it is the blue levels that causes it or it might be the red levels. I am not saying that you have to prove what mechanism it is, but there is research done that can give us hints:
Red light and stem development Spatiotemporal Phytochrome Signaling during Photomorphogenesis: From Physiology to Molecular Mechanisms and Back
Interaction of white, blue and red light in different quantities: Long-Term Effects of Red- and Blue-Light Emitting Diodes on Leaf Anatomy and Photosynthetic Efficiency of Three Ornamental Pot Plants


Personally I prefer looking at work done in the area, and gain inspiration from it to help me get better at obtaining the results I am after. Not guessing based on hunches.







Let us just be clear on what is blue light. Blue light is defined as light between 400 nm and 500 nm, not 380 nm to 460 nm. UV-A is between 315 nm and 400 nm, so your range partly covers UV-A and blue light and thus it is not correct to use the term blue light about it. I have a link to an article about pigmentation in plants, and when it comes to light blue light is ranked 3’rd, after high white light (that also contains blue light) and UV-A in moderate levels. I can’t find the link right now but will post it once I get some time to look for it. So your above statement is just wrong.
UV-A and plant health: UVA Radiation Is Beneficial for Yield and Quality of Indoor Cultivated Lettuce

And I value healty plantgrowth over pigmentation that in some cases is detrimental to the plants health.
Def of uv is artificial and actually variable .
Ultraviolet (UV) light falls in the range of the EM spectrum between visible light and X-rays. It has frequencies of about 8 × 1014 to 3 × 1016 cycles per second, or hertz (Hz), and wavelengths of about 380 nanometers (1.5 × 10−5 inches) to about 10 nm (4 × 10−7 inches).

None of this is peer reviewed science. No need for real exact definitions.
Not going to defend my circumstantial evidence though and yes I am well aware of the concept of correlation is not causation but my " observations " follow general principals.
And keep in mind even well documented experiments on " plant a" means nothing to " plant b"......

Except for people there is not a single organism on earth that could probably tell the difference between 400nm (blue) and 399nm(UV by "some" definitions) light..

500nm is also not blue by Hunt's definition...I have no idea who Hunt is btw.. ;)
I used terminology found in Hunt's book on light.
Definitions of Spectral Bandwidths: Since there is a gradual transition between colors in the spectrum, it is not surprising that definitions of bandwidths vary among reference sources. These are as used for this report: UV-A: 350-399nm; Violet: 400-430nm; Blue: 431-480nm; Green-Blue: 481-490nm; Blue-Green: 491-510nm; Green: 511-530nm; Yellow-Green: 531-570nm; Yellow: 571-580nm; Orange: 581-600nm; Red: 601-700nm. Technically, the red portion of the spectrum should be reported as that radiation of up to about 750nm, but most quantum meters report to only 700nm. Apogee Instruments has released a ‘ePAR’ quantum meter that extends further into the absorption range of P700 found in Photosystem I.
Really the use of any "color index" just adds to confusion.. Things should be determined by energy level ranges regardless of where it ends up on a color spectrum.
 
Last edited:
absorption-spectrum.jpg


and..for fun
uvbluechart.jpg

uvchart.jpg

 
Last edited:
Back
Top