I had a thought for actinic lighting for nanos. I would like your comments.

[MarkS]

I was looking at a Jameco catalog (electronics supply) and they sell blue "super bright" LED's. They also quote the particular wavelength which is either 428 or 430 nanometers. This is the same as actinic bulbs. These things are small, but live up to the "super bright" label.

While they would be far too small and far too expensive to cluster in sufficient numbers to be practical( 10x - 20x the price of a "normal" red LED) in a large tank, a small cluster would provide a very viable and variable sized actinic light source for a nano tank.

An added benifit would be that this light source could run off of batteries during a power outage.

I would like some input on this. Lighting is not my specialty, so I would appreciate and "expert" opinion on this idea.

TIA,
Mark

[icemark]

does it list the lumins output of the LED?

[organicreefer]

yeah how bright is it?

[MarkS]

I don't really know. I do know that one will really hurt your eye if you look at it. I would assume that an array of ten of them would be as bright as a 15 watt NO actinic.

Mark

[MarkS]

OK, what I want to know from you lighting experts is if a light puts out light between 420 - 450 nanometers, is it considered actinic? As I understand it, this is the case.

These are INCREDIBLY bright point light sources that run cool and indefinitely. They are expensive however. I can buy them in lots of ten for < $3 each! Since they are so small I can fit dozens on a 5" x 3" prototype printed circuit board. This would create a light source that could fit in any size nano tank.

I want to build this, but if all I am doing is making a pretty and expensive light, then I would rather save my money.

So basically what I am asking is if 420 - 450 nanometers is in fact actinic?

Thanks,
Mark

[YoHo]

I believe it is. Also, another advantage is that the time to replacment is extremely long. as long as it fires up its good.