Popbloom Turing75 - Any one have input/suggestions?

[Raege]

I wouldnt use these personally.I did use 3DSuny for a bit seemed good I only grew Xenia and gsp fine and cpl zoa tho. In the end tho being cheap and from China did it in. WiFi control was nice then it stopped working just dissapeared from the App Store no contact with DSUNY multiple tries. Also on 2 of three lights lost a cpl channels in less than a year they just faded to barely illuminating no control and after finnaly bring told yeah there’s something wrong multiple pictures sent option was I pay for shipping to China if it’s our fault we will fix. Not a great option without back up light and cost wise for a maybe get them fixed. I Saved a buck to spend hundred later not a good investment. If your good with a soldering iron and kit bashing maybe they are a good option.

 

[spideybry]

wow - looks good so far, looks like your using 7''x5'' zones in the spread. if they hold an equivalent ratio of par, at lets say 50%, i think its safe to assume par can be calculated at any %.

if your able to get 6" depth that would be great, i would be able to calculate the difference accurately

I tried getting a screw driver back there to loosen it, but I don't have enough space sadly. If I had one of these shorty https://amz.run/3YL9 screw drivers - I might be able to drop it a bit. Maybe if I make it out to Lowes or Home Depot tomorrow and they have them I can try. No guarantees though lol.

The squares work out to be 7"x4.333" btw.

What I will test next is probably just stick to 1" under water and mid sand bed 12" deep at 50% power to see how the par drop off is, then drop it down to like... 25% maybe. All channels running at the same time so I don't have to worry about individuals again lol.

If I do drop them down a bit - I will have to redo most these numbers smh.. lol

I wouldnt use these personally.I did use 3DSuny for a bit seemed good I only grew Xenia and gsp fine and cpl zoa tho. In the end tho being cheap and from China did it in. WiFi control was nice then it stopped working just dissapeared from the App Store no contact with DSUNY multiple tries. Also on 2 of three lights lost a cpl channels in less than a year they just faded to barely illuminating no control and after finnaly bring told yeah there’s something wrong multiple pictures sent option was I pay for shipping to China if it’s our fault we will fix. Not a great option without back up light and cost wise for a maybe get them fixed. I Saved a buck to spend hundred later not a good investment. If your good with a soldering iron and kit bashing maybe they are a good option.

Good to know as well - I got these since they came with the setup I bought. Initially I was going to go with a trusted brand, but figured why not keep these and see what they can do, save some money in the process (at least short term). If and when they do break down I am definitely going to get something else.

 

[spideybry]

wow - looks good so far, looks like your using 7''x5'' zones in the spread. if they hold an equivalent ratio of par, at lets say 50%, i think its safe to assume par can be calculated at any %.

if your able to get 6" depth that would be great, i would be able to calculate the difference accurately

So, good news and bad news. I was able to get a short screw driver and drop the lights... but the farthest I could get it to go down was just under 8”.

I plan on testing a lot tomorrow. Another thought I am thinking is that PAR isn’t the only thing that matters for a coral, we need to take into consideration the spectrum and what peaks are being hit - without a spectrometer, that isn’t going to happen.

 

[GSnake]

that is great news, the picture looks like 7.5 inches now, was it 9 on the dot before?

im sure 1 or 1.5 inches will show a difference in par

 

[spideybry]

that is great news, the picture looks like 7.5 inches now, was it 9 on the dot before?

im sure 1 or 1.5 inches will show a difference in par

Roughly 9” to 9 1/4” give or take. This was the initial photo (ignore the rough iphone sketch lol).

 

[Nano sapiens]

I was looking at your channels and that's an 'interesting' way to group LEDs. Since the channels are not well segregated IMO, makes it tough to dial in.

In your situation, I'd first start by selecting a base point such as 'central point' and 'mid depth' of the tank (for reference, the mid point/mid depth of my tank is 9" from the light source and I read ~160 PAR for a mixed reef). For a bluer look, in general blue/violet should be ~70%, white ~20%, cyan/green ~8%, red ~2%.

If you can't find someone with the same (or similar) lights and get their settings, I think you'll just have to make some educated guesses. as long as your violet/blue is intense enough, the corals should do well.

 

[GSnake]

from the color charts and the NM included - the spectrum looks great, better than my old blackbox which was similar to this spectrum, but much less 420nm. and im growing all coral not much problems. i have a mixed tank. as nano said, im not too keen on how they group the LEDS, but spectrum wise its pretty good imo. dsuny made a lot of improvements tos spectrum on this model compared to the older ones, (shannon and turing 30 - which lots of people complained about, the older models that is).

i could have paid them extra to change the spectrums, but i wouldnt change a thing. i think we can work around the arrangement -- hopefully ^^

 

[spideybry]

from the color charts and the NM included - the spectrum looks great, better than my old blackbox which was similar to this spectrum, but much less 420nm. and im growing all coral not much problems. i have a mixed tank. as nano said, im not too keen on how they group the LEDS, but spectrum wise its pretty good imo. dsuny made a lot of improvements tos spectrum on this model compared to the older ones, (shannon and turing 30 - which lots of people complained about, the older models that is).

i could have paid them extra to change the spectrums, but i wouldnt change a thing. i think we can work around the arrangement -- hopefully ^^

Here are the preliminary numbers at 6 points in each “zone” of the tank. The spread of the light is a bit concerning, since I dropped it to 7.5”, the hotspot effect is more pronounced I think. It is what it is though, the tank is small anyway.

I will be taking some comparisons from the grid, but I feel like this approach will be more beneficial to me.

 

[GSnake]

Interesting how some orange readings are higher than yellow.... Pt 2 and 4 for example, on the 100%.
Do the readings get halved if at 50% intensity. It should right? Just checking for consistency.

 

[GSnake]

would you be able to do the channel measurements at 1'' depth (maybe 3 too?) as in the first grid style you did, so i can compare par difference in height
thanks

(or vice versa, change the height and do same 2nd grid again?) which height are you gonna end up keeping ? .. minding the light spill

 

[spideybry]

Interesting how some orange readings are higher than yellow.... Pt 2 and 4 for example, on the 100%.
Do the readings get halved if at 50% intensity. It should right? Just checking for consistency.

I was thrown off when I looked back at the numbers too, so I went and rechecked for the sake of being sure. When I said the spotlight effect was bad, this is one of the effects visually. Included is a semi-top down shot so you can see how the few inches of difference being off center from the light affects the spotlight.

2 and 4 are both further toward the back of the tank and the drop off is severe in terms of PAR even though points 2 and 4 technically "higher" than the other points.

 

[spideybry]

would you be able to do the channel measurements at 1'' depth (maybe 3 too?) as in the first grid style you did, so i can compare par difference in height
thanks

(or vice versa, change the height and do same 2nd grid again?) which height are you gonna end up keeping ? .. minding the light spill

Here are the revised grid numbers (1" and 3") for all channels, first individually and then all on at 100%:

I think I am going to keep the lights where they are now. They could be raised back up but I don't feel like it lol. The difference isn't that huge.

Also I just realized that some of the numbers are a bit off on that other post since I missed a spot when typing -_- I will be going back and fixing those numbers but I can't edit that post any more so... yeah lol. I will re-post the updated numbers in a bit.

Specifically I need to fix:
Channel B, Mid Level, Point 4 (blank)
All Channels, Mid Level, Point 5 (looks wrong so I will double check that one.)

 

[ReefZKD]

Awesome, do you have them up and running? Do you have them tuned in how you like? How long have you had them?

Yes I have them running and I have them in a 12 hour period, 4 hours ramp up, 4 hours peak Channel 1 at 50%, channel 2 at 100%, Channel 3 at 100% and Channel 4 at 50%, then 4 hours ramp down. No moonlight

 

[spideybry]

Yes I have them running and I have them in a 12 hour period, 4 hours ramp up, 4 hours peak Channel 1 at 50%, channel 2 at 100%, Channel 3 at 100% and Channel 4 at 50%, then 4 hours ramp down. No moonlight

Awesome, have any tank shots? What are the dimensions of the tank? Have you had any issues with coral placement/colors/growth?

 

[spideybry]

Alright, tons of screenshots incoming lol. Quick notes, then if someone wants to keep reading, feel free.

Among some of the things to note, the spread on these can be pretty rough. Spotlighting is very apparent and there is a significant drop off at the 7.5" mounting height from the surface of the water. That being said, I think I am going to keep them at this height because I am not redoing all the numbers again pretty much. Eventually when I get the Seneye, I may raise it up and redo stuff.

I measured each channel individually at 100% and 50%, then all channels on at 100%, 50%, and 25%.

If you try to figure out PAR for a certain combination of percentages, you get very close by taking the 100% PAR value and plugging in the percentage you want.

For example, this screenshot below, I used the 100% values and did some rough math to take guesses at what the PAR would be of Chan. A 0%, Chan. B 25%, Chan. C 55%, and Chan. D 0%. Essentially used the 100% measurements, multiplied them by the new percentage I wanted to get to, then added them together.

100% Channel PAR Value at POINT x New Percentage = NEW PAR VALUE

Pretty simple stuff, but still I am happy it actually seems to work - below was the top points figured using the formula and the actual readings.

For sake of keeping good data consistent, I may post up each point's depth for anyone else who is curious - though how centered or off centered a point is GREATLY impacts the PAR measurement.

Here are the channels individually lined up with my tank:

100% Channel Breakdown with ALL ON at 100% as well:

50% Channel Breakdown with ALL ON at 50% as well:

ALL ON at 25%:

So... next steps, I will probably dial in the light to the settings I feel will work for my reef tank, and note down the PAR as well as measure the heights of each point.

Any input, very open to feedback here.

 

[Dana Riddle]

Alright, tons of screenshots incoming lol. Quick notes, then if someone wants to keep reading, feel free.

Among some of the things to note, the spread on these can be pretty rough. Spotlighting is very apparent and there is a significant drop off at the 7.5" mounting height from the surface of the water. That being said, I think I am going to keep them at this height because I am not redoing all the numbers again pretty much. Eventually when I get the Seneye, I may raise it up and redo stuff.

I measured each channel individually at 100% and 50%, then all channels on at 100%, 50%, and 25%.

If you try to figure out PAR for a certain combination of percentages, you get very close by taking the 100% PAR value and plugging in the percentage you want.

For example, this screenshot below, I used the 100% values and did some rough math to take guesses at what the PAR would be of Chan. A 0%, Chan. B 25%, Chan. C 55%, and Chan. D 0%. Essentially used the 100% measurements, multiplied them by the new percentage I wanted to get to, then added them together.

100% Channel PAR Value at POINT x New Percentage = NEW PAR VALUE

Pretty simple stuff, but still I am happy it actually seems to work - below was the top points figured using the formula and the actual readings.

For sake of keeping good data consistent, I may post up each point's depth for anyone else who is curious - though how centered or off centered a point is GREATLY impacts the PAR measurement.

Here are the channels individually lined up with my tank:

100% Channel Breakdown with ALL ON at 100% as well:

50% Channel Breakdown with ALL ON at 50% as well:

ALL ON at 25%:

So... next steps, I will probably dial in the light to the settings I feel will work for my reef tank, and note down the PAR as well as measure the heights of each point.

Any input, very open to feedback here.

Looks like all channels at 100% will supply enough light. The MQ-510 with the silver sensor is full spectrum and OK for underwater measurements without correction. That meter should calculate a Daily Light Integral, so look for a DLI of 7 or above.

 

[spideybry]

Looks like all channels at 100% will supply enough light. The MQ-510 with the silver sensor is full spectrum and OK for underwater measurements without correction. That meter should calculate a Daily Light Integral, so look for a DLI of 7 or above.

Thanks. Based off the DLI, equation - I would be around 13 DLI if I averaged all the numbers from the 100% chart.

The article of yours I was reading (linked below), there is no set scale - so to speak of in terms of how much DLI to use in a reef tank setting that I can find within that article (just that 7 looks like the base line considering the intensity of the spectrums we are using in the hobby) - or I can't find it. Is 7 the minimal acceptable? What would be the roof of that?

Considering, like you stated in the article - it could be detrimental. Should wavelength factor into the DLI equation somehow?

“It is important to remember that the light intensity of the LED strip is relatively low. If the PAR value were to increase to 300 µmol·m²·sec, many corals’ zooxanthellae would be at their photosynthetic saturation point, and increasing the amount of light might be detrimental. Note that blue wavelengths (431 – 471nm) at a PAR value of 300 would exceed those seen by a coral at 10 feet in clear water during the summer.”

Imitating Natural Light Quality, Intensity, and Dosage in a Reef Aquarium – Do We Really Want To?

When it comes to reef aquariums, Mother Nature has always been the de facto benchmark aquarists aspire towards. Dana investigates in great detail the quality and quantity of light over natural reefs in order to lay the groundwork to answer the age-old question: what is the best light for...

reefs.com

 

[GSnake]

Just threw it together yesterday. Rocks are still scattered. I'll have to arrange it better this weekend

 

[spideybry]

Just threw it together yesterday. Rocks are still scattered. I'll have to arrange it better this weekend

Nicee, you have a ton more depth to deal with than I do. You can probably get away with running your lights a bit higher power-wise, but LEDs penetrate extremely well so I wouldn't risk it. Maybe limit the output to 50%?

 

[GSnake]

yes 50% is right, 50% for me at 10.5 depth where my sps are is 250 par. so my range is 50%-71% = 250-350 @ 10.5 depth and 3'' height. i only used mid point for calculation, ill use an average point 2,3,4 to make more accurate range for sps along midline under lights.

i havent programmed anything yet , its just 50/50/50/50, and i manual it to 0/5/0/0 for the night but i guess ill use something like 25/85/60/30?
what are channels are you using? you can also set the limit % and run vivid settings it looks like, i plan on using the preset lunar cycle + an off period at the least.

im also wondering why point 2 and 4 are higher than point 3 .

just my opinion but why did they put white 20k along the back only,.. i dont mind much , but i would have put a few in the front for equality . what side is your front?