Author Topic: Fiber optic lighting? (Read 9206 times)

Dankicity · « **on:** February 07, 2009, 21:59:27 »

I've been watching a buddy -- fellow Ohio Reef member -- try to get his tank the most light per buck and as it happens I was looking around for a natural lighting system for my home using fiber optics and became curious how plausible it would be for his tank.

I have read about others using natural tank lighting from well placed windows and it's pros and cons -- mostly the need for a chiller to handle temperature fluctuation -- which made me think that fiber optics would be a good alternative if it can bring enough light in.

I'm figuring -- with what little knowledge I have on the subject -- that you could at least use a 50/50 mixture of natural/artificial lighting to reduce costs.

Has anyone already done this? Err is anyone willing to take the time to type it up or post the links that I obviously didn't find?

Would a simple Fresnel lens work to focus light onto the ends of fiber optic lighting cables?

How large would the lens have to generally be? -- I understand it's relative to my longitude, season, weather and what not but a general min and/or max would help me to know it's plausibility, for example, if I would have to have my whole roof covered for it to work.

Thanks prior for any effort.

PS by now and by my # of posts you should understand I'm a nub reefer... forgive me.

Dankicity · « **Reply #1 on:** February 07, 2009, 22:41:30 »

Concept -- http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/246/
Really cheap FO but beyond my energy level --

LED & Natural FO ex --

lazylivin · « **Reply #2 on:** February 08, 2009, 03:03:54 »

Sounds like a neat idea although would probably loose ultraviolet and infrared rays through the fiber cable. But if you are trying to add Lux (what you see) apposed to PAR it could work. Here is a neat Solar Setup.
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1457056&highlight=Gone+Solar

ohioreef · « **Reply #3 on:** February 08, 2009, 06:13:53 »

Ive read about people using solar tubes above their tanks for natural lighting. I believe I saw it on ReefCentral.

MechanicalEngineer · « **Reply #4 on:** February 08, 2009, 20:05:35 »

It would work for a fish-only tank, but I don't know enough about fiber optics for coral growth. LED's are pretty popular for smaller coral tanks. Like Lazy said, you'll probably be missing some key light spectrum/PAR...and I'm sure the depth penetration isn't great.

Dankicity · « **Reply #5 on:** February 08, 2009, 20:38:34 »

That sounds like a better solution than what I was looking at. I was just hoping that the fiber optics would not require... three

massive holes in the ceiling and roof.

I guess I didn't think anyone would mind the loss of infrared(just means heat, right?) and that maybe the ultraviolet could be replaced with LEDs.

The cool thing I noticed when reading about the combo LED and Natural lighting is that you put the LEDs at the receiving end on the fiber optics -- I probably need to do up a Blender model to give an example -- but it means that you can mix & pack all your LEDs (and heat) far away from the spots that need light and not have to build the crazy -- salt encrusted -- wiring for the LEDS in your fixture.

I'm definitely going to try this in my house... probably the half bath for starters. Buy that light-meter app for my iPhone [insert oohs and ahhs] and see how that matches up to my buds tank.

jeremyt · « **Reply #6 on:** February 08, 2009, 21:10:19 »

wha......you found a light meter app for your iphone?

MechanicalEngineer · « **Reply #7 on:** February 08, 2009, 21:19:04 »

Does it give Lux or PAR? I'm assuming lux...which means you'll need to know the spectrum of your lighting to calculate PAR. (Lux isn't too useful with aquariums.) If it gives PAR...I think I might have to get me one of those fancy dancy doo-dad phones.

lazylivin · « **Reply #8 on:** February 08, 2009, 22:30:09 »

If you could get the fiber optic thing working it would be pretty cool. You know how corals always look so good from top down because light is coming from top down. Well you could run the fiber into to the tank and have it pointing at the corals from front to back. Kinda of like landscape spot lights pointing out a house at night. Have them run under the sand bed pointing toward the corals. If you could do that it would be revolutionary.

MSUJenn · « **Reply #9 on:** February 09, 2009, 16:58:41 »

Do you happen to know the name of the light meter application for iPhone? I'm interested in reading about it, but I can't find it in the app store.

Dankicity · « **Reply #10 on:** February 09, 2009, 18:40:19 »

Yea, not quite sure where I had seen the light meter -- late night searching -- but it was only for lux and a couple people said it wasn't all that accurate. Another downside is that it was for cracked iPhones because it used the still camera to take video -- which the iPhone can easily do but doesn't allow. Nail in the coffin -- for now -- is that Apple broke the 'jailbreak' crack with the 2.2.1 update. So who knows. Got a mac mini on the way so I can finally make an app myself (=$$$).

@ Lazy -- I had all sorts of crazy designs running through my head of what you could do but most of them I feared would give the fish a heart attack! Damn near gave me one thinking about it.

I mean having something like those Solaris LED fixtures running it... just makes your mouth water.

As for how much light fiber optics can handle. From everything I've read -- which I'm less nub than on reefing -- says that fiber optics can handle any wavelength of light.

"which means it can deliver more light than traditional systems; and it delivers full-spectrum sunlight" -- http://spie.org/x8708.xml

and "Full-spectrum light is light that covers the electromagnetic spectrum from infrared through near-ultraviolet," -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full-spectrum

So far so good.

lazylivin · « **Reply #11 on:** February 09, 2009, 20:58:55 »

Sounds like you could be on to something. It would be a lot easier running fiber cable from the roof then trying to install sun dome's.

cyberwollf · « **Reply #12 on:** February 09, 2009, 21:06:16 »

I have always wanted to "pipe" light into my basement window, but i figured elbows on solar tubes would have horrible losses. What is the loss coefficient of fiber?

Dankicity · « **Reply #13 on:** February 10, 2009, 00:08:49 »

The best I could find was in communication terms...
"new generation....where fiber loss is 0.2 to 0.3 dB/km" -- http://inventors.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.sff.net/people/Jeff.Hecht/history.html

Really it looks like it depends on how you send in the light and quality of any splices (which look really complicated...best avoided). From my previous post link they had made it seem that light would basically traffic jam and not go with the fibers unless you focused them right.

Guess I need to find out how to build an intake that doesn't need to track the sun to get a stable light source...and focuses the sun right... in the right spectrum... with a minuscule budget... gulp

cyberwollf · « **Reply #14 on:** February 11, 2009, 20:19:35 »

awhile back i was talking to an airman from comm squadron about splices. Apparntly it uses a $90k machine to weld the ends of fiber togeather while preserving the crystal lattice to transmit light without a seam. Probably dont need that precision for this project

Dankicity · « **Reply #15 on:** February 12, 2009, 00:20:24 »

I can't find the pic of the splice again but it basically looked like one of those pictures from a particle accelerator http://blog.wired.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/2007/06/19/higgsboson350px.jpg

Thinking this for testing cable

250 Strand EndGlow which is for outdoor landscaping but if I understand correctly they don't vary all that much.
http://cgi.ebay.com/225-Strand-End-Glow-Fiber-Optic-Lighting-Cable_W0QQitemZ360121078480QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH_DefaultDomain_0?hash=item360121078480&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14&_trkparms=72%3A1205|66%3A2|65%3A12|39%3A1|240%3A1318|301%3A1|293%3A1|294%3A50

What I'm thinking for a test rig. In a real world the LED's would maybe be a ring around the outside with sunlight being focused through the middle -- could melt circuit board.

I'm still trying to find a solid answer if a Fresnel lens could replace the expensive lenses ... even though they are quite small.

Dankicity · « **Reply #16 on:** February 12, 2009, 01:41:55 »

What an "Illuminator" does for fiber optics
http://www.thefoa.org/tech/lighting/illuminator.jpg

With a better render... from looking at the illuminators I think you'd need one of these for each tube for the sake of simplicity
..and most likely not that many LEDs ... those cables at scale would be about 3in. wide.
Started as an array 19x19 = 360ish LEDs = Very hot which is why you now see fans slots above the circuit board...and power supply

Dankicity · « **Reply #17 on:** February 12, 2009, 03:02:37 »

Last one... US spot for LEDs with so many options and details -- http://www.superbrightleds.com/leds.htm

Dankicity · « **Reply #18 on:** February 13, 2009, 00:45:35 »

Time to start making some purchases.

This video helps clear up a couple questions. First part is interesting but I was only interested in the power wires and soldering process.

in use with this board
http://www.ledsdirect.com/circuitboards2.htm

and a good indicator of what the end lighting should be
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2006/8/review2

Good Information ... for me..
http://www.aquaristsonline.com/blog/aquarium-equipment/aquarium-lighting/aquarium-led-lighting-a-major-advance-or-is-metal-halide-still-the-light-of-choice/

Anyone know what I could dip the cables in to make sure they didn't leach chemicals? -- So you can put them under water

Some kind of epoxy dip?

cyberwollf · « **Reply #19 on:** February 13, 2009, 09:45:34 »

Did you go with a 5mm led or something with a high power in the 3watt range. 5mm do not have the power to support anything photosynthetic. I was really close to a DIY led build, but never did it. If you want more information on the cheapest way to do leds that have the power check out nano-reefs.com. Any thread that evil66 has posted in would be a good start. What size tank was this project for? be aware the led cost for lighting something around 20 gallons will still be around $200. Add to that any losses from the fiber... If you use LEDs why do you want to physically separate them from the tank by fiber?

Did you find out anything more on a lens to focus sunlight? I find that possibility interesting.

I really think you are going to need PAR meter for this project too. There any many times when people say "that looks bright" only to find out they are less than 50 PAR with LEDs

Dankicity · « **Reply #20 on:** February 13, 2009, 11:21:44 »

I wanted LEDs for a couple reasons.

Knowing the composition of light lets me judge the loss in the fiber optics or my method of focusing it, distance etc.. Then if I find the light makes it through I can replace the top part -- seperates at the top lens -- with a parabolic mirror or Fresnel lens.

Once you have the light coming through the fiber optics -- with natural light or with the LEDs -- you have an light source for the tank(s) that doesn't emit heat or carry an electric current -- meaning it can be submerged. Given that LEDs are best -- at least the ones I was looking at -- if kept less than 24" from the target. Even the fancy Solaris sets are recommended for nano, which I didn't know.

While still sticking with LED's you might make a group of maybe 4 LEDs that are in the green spectrum and target fiber optics on only the corals that like green light. Or if you're really crafty, you can send the natural light trough a prism that breaks the spectrum up and sends it toward the fiber.... ok maybe not that one.

Plus, I wanted to also use this to light my house during the day and night. I need to incorporate a balance of both for that to work.

Looking up at it. Fibers at the bottom in the white blur -- render times and lighting mistakes don't mix

Sun Tracking?

PS... I just put it to scale and to do 14 cables I need a Fresnel lens that is 80" wide or so... about the size of a small kitchen... lol

Dankicity · « **Reply #21 on:** February 13, 2009, 12:00:34 »

To scale on a 1500ft home. Forgive the lighting, The scene was setup for indoors.

cyberwollf · « **Reply #22 on:** February 13, 2009, 12:36:12 »

What is your electrical experience level? that sun tracker looks fairly simple if you decide to go down that road. I have all the equipment to program and burn ICs

Dankicity · « **Reply #23 on:** February 13, 2009, 12:46:29 »

This requires electrical experience?

I'm going off of what I think is most useful from the 200-some websites I've been on in the past couple of days -- errr what I can remember to jot down before I forget.... hence this absurd diary of the project.

I've always wanted to learn how to do that. I make websites -- mostly (enjoy) flash -- but have always wanted to get a bit deeper down the rabbit hole.

I know I will need something that slides the LEDs over to let the natural light in if I were to do a day and night lighting setup.

Anyway, I'm waiting to hear back from a couple people on how well different options would work. I think it's going to be plenty of light if it all makes it through the cables.

I pictured the lens curved so that it would catch the sunrise and sunset but in that case I don't really need it to be fresnel.

Dankicity · « **Reply #24 on:** February 13, 2009, 13:23:08 »

Could you make Lunars turn on from a light sensor?... that would be cool.

cyberwollf · « **Reply #25 on:** February 13, 2009, 14:11:19 »

just LED lunars? Yea that could easily be done all analog. Phototransiter, NPN transistor, and potentiometer, $2 in parts

cyberwollf · « **Reply #26 on:** February 13, 2009, 15:22:42 »

Heres circuit, that uses a comparator and relay (not sure if local radioshacks still sell them)

Tune VR1 to the desired darkness.

For the work and price, a $5 cheapo timer is my choice. Unless for some reason your lights are on a random sequence??

Dankicity · « **Reply #27 on:** February 14, 2009, 06:25:47 »

Welp just ordered a 22.5" fresnel lens that's already curved @ $130 -- only one I've see that's not flat. I read that I should put the fiber between the lens and focal point but I'm not sure if the light I don't catch will melt the cable. Which is another reason why I opted for a second lens that shines in on the cable... which I think I can just use a plain on magnifying glass set at the right distance.

Also just purchased 10' of the EndGlow 50 strand .75mm per strand cable @ $3.45 ft. Using the 22.5 inch lens I'm thinking you could support a bunch of these cables, estimated at a minimum of 8-10' per cable -- going pretty much straight down. So about $500 for the fiber optics for a full rig.

Lighting reference -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Us_pv_annual_may2004.jpg -- we get about 4-5 Kilowatt-hours per square meter per day. Now how much light is that really?

And I finished up the concept for my home lighting which might be pretty close to what a reefer might light.

That break light circuit board had two rings and I figured jigsawing out the inner ring would let me slide in the cable and only power the outer ring. Hoping to encase it in a standard light fixture. Planning on ordering those today.

Still debating LEDs as I'm looking to get some of those Philips ones that are used in the Solaris sets, which are said to be the strongest -- until we get printable OLEDs from Kinko's or somewhere

Oh yea, I do need to have a bottom cover for the fresnel lens because unless it tracks the sun the focal point will subtly move through the day and could possibly start melting or even burn your roof/house/occupants.

cyberwollf · « **Reply #28 on:** February 14, 2009, 10:21:06 »

White price did you find the phillips at? I think you can get Cree XR-Es for $7 a piece, mounted on a metal core PCB.

Dankicity · « **Reply #29 on:** February 14, 2009, 12:20:48 »

I've been looking all over for them but most places I find just tells you about them and then links to someone that supposedly sells them but doesn't. But I did realized that those high flux LEDs aren't just the LED but a platform with an LED on it. Which is about 10x larger than a normal LED -- so my light fixture is out of the question for reefing.

I need to go back and read those posts you suggested. I'm betting that will help me find a solution.

cyberwollf · « **Reply #30 on:** February 14, 2009, 13:12:40 »

yea the "star" they come on is a metal core circuit board to disperse heat. You can't just run them like that either. The stars have to be mounted on a larger heatsink. 3 watts is a tremendous amount of power to put through a doped semiconductor junction. It generates a lot of heat and it has to be dissipated or the junction will destroy in seconds.

Nano-reef has more information than you would ever want. DIY is catching on pretty fast in the nano world. few hundred for a light that will put out 300+ PAR, and suppose to last 50,000 hours as long as cool properly.

Dankicity · « **Reply #31 on:** February 14, 2009, 13:42:20 »

Yea, I definitely need to do some more research on aquarium lighting. Kinda feels the same as web-development, just seems like there is always something your missing and should have known or had years ago... more so the latter with web.

Really I just want that lens so I can start playing with fire again.

ahh those were the days...

I just had a crazy thought of putting fiber optics in your sand bed. I remember my bud saying something about how detritus(sp?) builds up under the top couple inches because it doesn't get light below that point -- Think I'm wrong on this. If you put light down there would it help act as a larger filter? Not cause as much trouble when siphoning the sand?

Or on a more realistic note: having shelves of frags stacked in a single tank with fiber optics lighting each shelf. No more one shelf gets this light and this gets that... etc. That would probably be the biggest benefit of using the central light source and fiber optics.

Dankicity · « **Reply #32 on:** February 15, 2009, 10:13:03 »

Videos old but the basis of my whole thought... basis... it is my whole thought.

(why do some of these videos not play or say video not found?)

"2 fibers (look like 2mm strands) = 60 watt light bulb." They "have 127 strands" fed from a 50-60" parabolic mirror. == 3810 watt light bulb

So that's roughly 340 .75mm strands which would carry -- the equivalent of -- about 20 watts each -- or was it 10 watts...

Leaving my 22.5" lens capable of roughly equaling a 1430 watt light bulb -- depending on a wild list of variables that I don't have a clue on.

Their mirror has a UV and IR filter in the mirrors focal point reflector/mirror (haven't found what they call that..yet) which cuts down on heat in the fiber optics. Still yet to figure out why this is good besides maybe cool cables means more light. Narrator doesn't sound like they gave a good reason for it.

They also say that they use GPS to track the sun... LOL, you seriously need a GPS chip in that thing to track a massive ball of light above you? ... maybe use 3 cheap light sensors and get a Dev to script up something ONCE.

Cyber.. how tough would it be to make sure LEDs balance out any fluctuation with the natural light? Close to doing the lunar lighting sensor?-- outside having

.. LEDLvl = TargetLvl - LightLvl; ? Man I wish it was that simple

cyberwollf · « **Reply #33 on:** February 15, 2009, 11:03:01 »

I could probably work up a circuit that could compare what a photoresister sees to a bank of LEDs. If you tune it to sunlight at noon, varrying number of LEDs could turn on during cloudy times to supplement.

As far as tracking the sun, I think you could get away with a single axis of movement and timer, and adjust the base to the trajectory of the sun maybe once a month. As long as you are in the proper direction.

cyberwollf · « **Reply #34 on:** February 15, 2009, 11:10:26 »

wow, I should of watched the video before i posted

That was impressive. The fiber you ordered, Is it of the same quality in the video, or is that some super expensive stuff he has? Starting to make me think its possible. There are several Folks on RC that can do light spectral tests and whatnot once you get it going to see if there are any deficiencies in photosynthetic ranges.

Dankicity · « **Reply #35 on:** February 15, 2009, 17:36:56 »

I'm assuming that the one I bought is of a lesser quality but they are both used for lighting and I'm hoping that the difference is < 5%... 10% max which still leaves me with at least 1000 watts coming through.

Actually been downloading courses trying to find a couple lessons that deal with fiber optics. I know they all use the same drip method for stringing up the cables (thanks "How's It Made" but the quality of the plastics is probably a biggie....I get that it similar to good and bad chocolate in that one type melts to a grainy paste while the other melts to a smooth liquid.

cyberwollf · « **Reply #36 on:** February 15, 2009, 19:24:11 »

The only classes I had dealing with Fiber was Physics of the incident rays of light. for each material there is an incident ray angle that with all very close to 100% is transmitted and 0% reflected (used to get light into the fiber) and a second angle at which the light needs to be reflected inside the fiber so that 100% of light is reflected and very little it transmitted out (loss). I think these only come into play during the manufacturing of the fiber.

Dankicity · « **Reply #37 on:** February 16, 2009, 08:49:57 »

http://www.atmosphericzone.com/images/uploads/media/az-tech-endglow.pdf

Spectral Attenuation Max = 250 DB/KM -- still trying to understand how this relates -- laymen -- to light.

Wikipedia does a decent job of highlighting the differences but I'm still missing some specifics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Optical_fiber_types.svg -- Single mode looks to be the best but the one I ordered is Graded -- If I read it all right.

cyberwollf · « **Reply #38 on:** February 16, 2009, 09:22:25 »

if running through 20ft of fiber = 0.006096 kilometers, so thats 1.524 dB of attenuation? (is that total attenuation?) Not too bad, in power applications you use 3dB of losses as the Half power point (point at which you have lost half of your power). so you are below that, and dB is logarithmic so you are pretty well off. The pic you posted was in reference to the impulse response of fibers. That is much more important in the analog communication world (you have to know the impulse response so you can determine how it will affect your modulation) than "light distribution" When does the lens and fiber come it? I'd like to check it out. There has been alot on interest in a club PAR meter, so that might be an option later for tests.

Also, is the fiber your bought actually hollow as the wiki pic suggest? or is solid like the DIY fiber video you posted?

Dankicity · « **Reply #39 on:** February 16, 2009, 11:04:23 »

Yea, I believe that is the most loss found when tested between temps of -40c to 60c. Also of note was that the cables shrink... falloff starts at about 35c at 1 % to beyond 5% @ 60c and higher. That could cause some problems and probably why they filter out the IR, since anytime things expand and contract you probably loose some structure of the fibers...cracks etc.

The PDF shows it as having a pvc core surrounded by the fibers and then casing. I'm guessing that I'm going to have to strip a couple inches of the casing and core so that I can compact all the fibers, which could be a real pain when using a bunch of cables that then need to be recovered. -- that could spin up that loss to 3db and higher real quick.

I'm using the lens as a replacement to their parabolic mirror (same prices range) -- also skipping the 2nd mirror where they have the filters. Thinking that having the curved fresnel lens will let me catch the sun without tracking it -- as much. If not I'll have to go back to a design more like theirs, using the IR filter but not the UV -- if no problems found that way.

-- Just finished watching the Berkley Physics 10 lessons on google. Sadly I've watched them before but I remember it having a lesson that specifically dealt with fiber optics... but of course I didn't find it. -- strike that breif mention
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7784318168349672868&ei=gJGZSdzrH43m-AH-gNGBDQ&q=Physics+10+-+&hl=en#24m26s

Dankicity · « **Reply #40 on:** February 19, 2009, 10:57:16 »

Fibers came in ... no core (whew)... lens will probably arrive tomorrow or Monday.

It's just sweet how you can put one end under your shirt and still see light coming through the other end. Took a 3" magnifying glass to it... a 4" or 5" would have been about the right scale... but the principle works.

Dankicity · « **Reply #41 on:** February 20, 2009, 21:10:04 »

Lens came in today. Quick $100 lesson why a parabolic is better... Focal length. The fresnel lens has roughly a 34" focal length. It focuses all 22.5" into about an inch but I'm not sure how many would like a 3'x23" cylinder sticking above their roof/backyard. That and the focal point varies, somewhat wildly, with a moving light source even though it's domed.

I was able to get most of the light (60% or so) from an ordinary LED focused onto a single .75m strand that I had led into the hall. The single, uncovered strand was able to match the LEDs strength but only within about a foot from the wall. I'm hoping that is just because it's just a single -- .75mm -- strand without anything to direct the exiting light.

I just ordered two 24" mirrored acrylic pieces that are supposedly easy to form in an oven ($40 for 2 compared to $100+ for a single parabolic mirror). As well 12' of a single 3mm strand. A single 490ft spool of 3mm fiber would about cover this and everywhere I look it's priced around $380. Giving you about an inch in diameter bundle (36 fibers) at 12' in length.

You want bigger fibers because the casing that they send the fibers in are JACKED and you're better off with double sided tape and arranging them yourself (light interference from tape?). I used 20 strands to match what I got with the 50 strand cable just by binding them together more tightly... and the fibers in the cable didn't like staying even on both ends even when gripped tightly.

[edit] 3mm cable 0.2 DB/m ... 0.8 @ 12'

lazylivin · « **Reply #42 on:** February 21, 2009, 08:56:10 »

Dankicity, been enjoying your thread. Keep the info and your progress coming.

cyberwollf · « **Reply #43 on:** February 21, 2009, 10:12:41 »

I don't know exactly how much light we need here, but there is a mythbusters show on a Archimedes weapon burn off. They make several mirror variants that focus light without parabolics.

jeremyt · « **Reply #44 on:** February 21, 2009, 11:53:56 »

you should post the pics of the cable pretty sweet looking

Dankicity · « **Reply #45 on:** February 21, 2009, 12:30:12 »

Thx Lazy. I started getting a bit worried that I'd be that guy spouting nonsense like a fire hose

Just watched that Archimedes Revisited -- Just so happens to have been on TV

-- That mirror cutting doesn't look that bad but the two guys had the same results with a much smaller parabolic mirror and it had a much shorter focal length. With the flat mirrors you're not compacting the light like with a parabola, so the focal point of flat mirrors is always the same size as the mirrors you used.

The guys idea of spinning plaster to get parabola form is a great idea. Use a string to trace half of the shape onto cardboard, cut it out and tape the edge. Put some plaster on a turn table and use the cardboard to get the right shape as it solidifies. Sand the plaster to a smooth finish. Then just place the mirrored acrylic on the shape and place in the oven.. or outside with my lens (why I got 2 pieces). Mirrored Tape or small mirrors might work as well.

Only now you need the 2nd lens that focuses the light back onto the fibers from above the parabola. I need to looks around for what can be use to let the IR out and still reflect everything else so I don't cook the fiber. Hopefully they sell acrylic like that.....

Dankicity · « **Reply #46 on:** February 21, 2009, 13:58:52 »

Left is the lens on top a dinky lamp. On right is the result of a single unfocused LED shining on 20 uncovered .75mm strands. Taken from my iPhone while holding everything in place.

good article on those hybrid lighting guys.
http://www.photonics.com/Content/ReadArticle.aspx?ArticleID=33892

Riderc82 · « **Reply #47 on:** February 21, 2009, 16:28:10 »

I've been following the thread it's over my head but I'm interested in how the finally product will come out.

cyberwollf · « **Reply #48 on:** February 21, 2009, 16:37:12 »

As for the IR, There should be some low cost gel filter for photography somewhere. I know all digital camera have an internal IR filter. Shooting IR film used to be pretty big few decades ago. See whats in the photography world that could be put before the focal point. that way you could still filter it out, but not burn through the gel with the main power of the focal point.

Dankicity · « **Reply #49 on:** February 22, 2009, 12:18:58 »

Found some better cables - 2% loss per ft... 0.12 db/m. Now I just need to find where to order it. Assuming these guys only sell spools.
http://www.advancedlighting.com/products/fibercable_megabrite.html

and I think these are the types of filters that I'm looking for. Not sure if it's narrow, small or wide band. Need to read more.
http://www.jdsu.com/products/custom-optics/products/bandpass-filters/filter-narrow-bandpass.html

It has to only reflect the visible spectrum. Photography lenses let the visible light through and absorb the IR, so they're backwards... at least that's what I understood from the ones I looked at. I'm guessing I'll have to order one. I did manage to see one that did look close, 2" lens for $40. Hope I can get it to let light through from above as well -- looks like what the hybrid guys did.

If this cost $1,000 total to get running how long would it have to run to be economical? If it could (ex.) replace 8 x 4' T5's for a 100 gallon tank (4'x2'x2' I think).

Fixture - $400,
Fixture Lifespan - 5 years

Ballast # - 2x
Ballast Cost - $40
Ballast Lifespan - 1 year

Bulb # - 8x
Bulb Cost - $30
Bulb Watt - 60 watt
Bulb Lifespan - 6 months

Electricity Cost - $0.08 kw/h (pretty sure I'm off on this number)
Electricity Durr - 12 hrs (10hrs on display & cumulative 2hrs for reverse cycle sump)
Electricity Usage - 5.4 Kw/h a day ... (seriously only 43 cents a day?.. $150 a year?)

Rough Total = $800 a year to light a 100 gallon tank w/ 25 gallon sump... let me know how off I am. In all probability actinics will still be needed but who knows how badly.

cyberwollf · « **Reply #50 on:** February 22, 2009, 16:34:50 »

Oh yea, i was thinking wrong with that photography example of IR film

But there are filters. Most people use a skylight filter simply to protect the lens, but those are made to filter out UV. Dont some people have to use a UV filter with MH? Would we need to filter that out here too? Since most 15k-20k lighting setups are meant to reproduce the look of 30+ feet below water, UV is naturally absorbed by then i think.

Dankicity · « **Reply #51 on:** February 23, 2009, 01:45:32 »

Had to post this before I passed out for the simple reason of how impress I was that Blender actually did it right. I knew that I wanted light to hit the 2nd mirror at the opposite angle from which it hit the first mirror, except just a tad off so it focuses inward -- but I'm no math whiz -- [insert Blender] -- Just mess around until light bounces where you need it and take measurements.

Render Pic is from the fibers point of view looking straight up at the 2nd mirror. Above is the alphabet followed by a "Sun Lamp" as Blender calls it. Notice that you are seeing the reflection successfully bounced off the first mirror, the second, and continue straight toward the fiber.

Oh yea... the 2nd mirror is the whole deal. I don't know if I can find something that does the job. I mean borosilicate glass with multilayer dielectric coating. Extreme thermal temperatures and narrow band dielectric mirrors.

cyberwollf · « **Reply #52 on:** February 26, 2009, 17:18:13 »

Any full sun tests yet?

Dankicity · « **Reply #53 on:** March 08, 2009, 06:20:24 »

Not yet. I've burned through a couple inches of fiber optics with ease and successfully ruined the first 24" acrylic mirror... if that counts as progress.

Fresnel lens is cool though. Wrote my name in a piece of wood with mild sun light in about 15 seconds. -- and about killed my retina from staring at it. In full sun light it will create a 6" flame coming from anything I point at... and its really easy to point it at something... you don't want it point at.. like the siding of a house.

I made a cheesy holder for everything but I'm evidently terrible at cutting pieces according to my own measurements because 10 cuts later and it still doesn't focus on the right spot.... I guess I could just suck at measuring.

I'm going skiing in NY before it all melts but I'm planning on ordering some serious lengths of cable when I get back. After that I planned on setting up a simple LED test rig on my buds tank. Hopefully some candy corals (i think) will show results.

cyberwollf · « **Reply #54 on:** March 26, 2009, 11:37:19 »

Any updates?

Dankicity · « **Reply #55 on:** April 05, 2009, 21:52:41 »

I finally got the lens stable enough and far enough away from the fiber (as to not melt it) but getting that to where I can test the growth of something is a bit different.

The setup works as a flash light (and death-ray) but does little given the fibers short length and it being daylight. Really the sun tracking and IR are show stoppers. Unless you want a collector the same size as the area you're lighting you need it to track the sun and without limiting the IR you are only using about 30% of the collected light -- even then I think these fibers would continue to melt in a couple hours if I could keep tracking the sun.

Oh and I did contact those guys about a custom IR lens.... note to self: when people laugh at your questions... it's not a good sign. I got the impression the conversation was likened to a poor kid talking about beefing up his station wagon to a race car driver. Which is ok. God knows I've been there before with web clients. But dag-nab-it, I want that lens!... and don't have a $200k budget for research, designing, testing, designing, bla-de-bla-bla.

[edit] Actually I did think about going small on it. If I put normal plastic caps (lens) on the end of fibers (which they sell.. cheaply) and spread them out on a grid (on roof again probably) it would probably be low enough heat and high % of light captured. So, that's where I've been. Deciding if there is a whole different approach that could be taken -- for uber cheap of course.

2024 Ohio Reef Frag Swap

Author Topic: Fiber optic lighting? (Read 9206 times)

Dankicity

Dankicity

MechanicalEngineer

Dankicity

MechanicalEngineer

Dankicity

Dankicity

Dankicity

Dankicity

Dankicity

Dankicity

Dankicity

Dankicity

Dankicity

Dankicity

Dankicity

Dankicity

Dankicity

Dankicity

Dankicity

Dankicity

Dankicity

Dankicity

Dankicity

Dankicity

Dankicity

Dankicity

Dankicity

Dankicity

Dankicity