CXB3070AD, CXB3590CD, 420nm, 660nm, and 730nm oh yes.

NWbordergrower91

NWbordergrower91

Member
Next set up I intend to build in the coming weeks. However, unsure of a few details so I thought I'd put it up and allow some cob veterans give a greenie some input. Here's the plan, roughly.

8 new CXB3070AD's- 4@3500k and 4@3000k?
to go along with my already set up 4 CXB3590CD 3500k

http://kingbriteled.en.alibaba.com/product/60276802411-801574224/CREE_CXB3070_3000K_AD_3500K_AD_4000k_BB_5000K_BD_is_available.html

2 more new HLG-185H-1400B drivers to match my existing 1.

2 new LPC35-700 drivers for 10 UV 410-420nm stars, and ten more 660nm red stars

http://www.rapidled.com/mean-well-lpc-35-700-constant-current-driver/

http://www.rapidled.com/semileds-violet-uv-led-410-420nm/

http://shop.stevesleds.com/Philips-Luxeon-ES-Deep-Red-3-Watt-LEDs-RARE-Version-8794102435.htm?categoryId=-1

Re-spread out the 730nm initiators for the whole table? Or buy more? Not sure. (have 12 stars already of the 730nm)

4 new 28'' 4.230 heatsinks for whole fixture, with 2 fans per heatsink, outer perimeter only.

Center top of fixture will mount/house drivers, run perpendicular to 28'' heatsinks connecting all 4 heatsinks, be 4ft in length (possibly 4.5ft?), and will have fans as well. Not sure on size of fans yet, but know for sure it will be at least 10 overall. 8 small for the 4 heatsinks, and 2 large for the bigger connecting driver housing.

Going to center the 420nm UV's just outside of the CXB3590's that will be centered 1 per 28'' heatsink. All deeps and initiators will be spread out evenly amongst each 28'' bar.

Each outer CXB3070 will be mounted 1'' from the end of the heatsink, making them sit at about 27'', though about matching 26'' to sit just at the edge of the table.

Ultimately use the above to cover 26''x60'' table. Thoughts?

Overall goal is to get plants up to 3 or 3.5ft high, in low as possible 5 gallon fabric pots to run under this light. Hope to fit 6-8 under the set up listed above.
 
littlejacob

littlejacob

Well-Known Member
Bonjour
Did you grew 3/3.5 ft tall plant with the cxb 3590 already?
I would say 2 feet penetration no more...but I haven't lens maybe you have some!?
Or maybe it is because I only have 4 over a 3.5x3.5?
Anyway with the leaves the light don't go farther than 2 feet or maybe a double crop!?
CU
 
NWbordergrower91

NWbordergrower91

Member
littlejacob said:
Bonjour
Did you grew 3/3.5 ft tall plant with the cxb 3590 already?
I would say 2 feet penetration no more...but I haven't lens maybe you have some!?
Or maybe it is because I only have 4 over a 3.5x3.5?
Anyway with the leaves the light don't go farther than 2 feet or maybe a double crop!?
CU
Click to expand...
I did last round with 4 cxb3590 3500k's, along side an Area 51 150w (first led). Under the 4 cxb's, it seemed like plants at 3ft max height did just fine as long as proper training of the tops and shoots was done well enough during veg. Basically train them out the keep the middle as open as possible.

But as you could imagine, the lower 6'' of the plant's budding was fluffy and small. Hoping that increasing the area I used the 4 cxb's over (26''x3ft) upto about 6 cxb's in the same area will make up for the lower end of the plant. I'm also going to be using more deep reds and initiators over the entire table (26''x60'') to go along with the 12 cxb's.

Also, decided to just run with cxb3590's across the fixture. Looked into 3070's to save a few bucks, but honestly at the end of the day I'd feel better getting the 3590's for about $10 more a pop. Not going to run UV at all most likely at this point, but need to look at some spread sheets on spectrum output of the different cree's.

New idea is to look into mixing 4000k with my 3500k's, and finding a good balance. Obviously with my 660nm I will have enough on that side of the things, but as for the 400-430nm range I want to see if possibly some 4000k's will still have enough output in that spectrum at what I'll run them at.

As for you're 3.5x3.5, I would honestly suggest a solid 600w's like I am trying to reach. After you do the math its about 340 PAR watt's, which isn't amazing, but I do feel with the right mix of different temps in the cobs, you could really get the maximum output for that amount of PAR watts. And also, if you keep them smallish, in that 2-3ft range (your plants) then I would say that 340 PAR would do more than well enough. Still very new to this, but from what I've read over time and been told from other local growers running similar set ups, 600w's is a good rule of thumb for 3x3.
 
Greengenes707

Greengenes707

Well-Known Member
PurpleBuz said:
carefull not to jump to that conclusion based on efficiency alone. 3000K ad bin and 3500k BB bin only differ by 500 lumens, which is about 5%. HOWEVER the 3000K photon efficiency is also significantly higher. It really depends on what spectrum your aiming for.
Click to expand...
Do the math. Not the concept.
 
Rahz

Rahz

Well-Known Member
NWbordergrower91 said:
Any input on Vero's and their benefits is welcome as well, can't seem to find too much.
Click to expand...
Vero's aren't going to be as efficient as CXBs but for the price you can get a bit more light for the money. It's not as much as people might think though since at same drive current the CXB is putting out more light. Getting into a larger space more Veros will be needed for the same light level. This might be of interest to some though.
 
Greengenes707

Greengenes707

Well-Known Member
PurpleBuz said:
I did the math 3500k bb is more efficient, no debate about that.
Click to expand...
Re-read what you said...then actually do the math behind it and come back to validate that statement.

@NWbordergrower91...your plan is good. Stick with the the 3590's if you have already gone down that way before. The monos aren't going to make or break the plan...the 3590's are the main horsepower.
Your current 730's should be enough as is to trigger the phytochrome response for the whole table. Skinny table, but will make coverage easier.

Good luck, and keep us posted on some results.
 
Greengenes707

Greengenes707

Well-Known Member
PurpleBuz said:
point was efficiency while a primary criteria isn't the only criteria.
Click to expand...
The photon efficiency is not better with 3K nor is the electrical efficiency. Do the math and it clearly shows that and why I said do the math not, the concept.
QER is not the chips photon efficiency...it's the spectrums. Potential photon efficiency is higher with a warmer K because of the concepts behind it all. Potential...not actual. The electrical efficiency is what determines the actual photon efficiency.
I'll do it...
-50w of 3000k AD at 43% efficiency producing 4.87µmols/radiant watt...(50w)(.48%)(4.87µmols)= 116.88µmols
-50w of 3500k BB at 51% efficiency producing 4.76µmols/radiant watt...(50w)(.51%)(4.76µmols)= 121.38µmols

Same price, same absolute red, more blue for the 3500K. Stands true for the 3590 3500K too...plus the highest bins(mostly just 3590 bins) are 1000 lumen differences so it widens more. Plants want photons...as many as possible while within their preferences(<20% blue). That is the goal.
 
P

PurpleBuz

Well-Known Member
I see what your saying. by photon efficiency, I meant something simpler, so yes that was a bad choice of words. What I really meant was the photon count is higher for the 3000K than the 3500K for the same amount of wattage. and your right that isn't photon efficiency.

Greengenes707 said:
The photon efficiency is not better with 3K nor is the electrical efficiency. Do the math and it clearly shows that and why I said do the math not, the concept.
QER is not the chips photon efficiency...it's the spectrums. Potential photon efficiency is higher with a warmer K because of the concepts behind it all. Potential...not actual. The electrical efficiency is what determines the actual photon efficiency.
I'll do it...
-50w of 3000k AD at 43% efficiency producing 4.87µmols/radiant watt...(50w)(.48%)(4.87µmols)= 116.88µmols
-50w of 3500k BB at 51% efficiency producing 4.76µmols/radiant watt...(50w)(.51%)(4.76µmols)= 121.38µmols

Same price, same absolute red, more blue for the 3500K. Stands true for the 3590 3500K too...plus the highest bins(mostly just 3590 bins) are 1000 lumen differences so it widens more. Plants want photons...as many as possible while within their preferences(<20% blue). That is the goal.
Click to expand...
 
NWbordergrower91

NWbordergrower91

Member
Greengenes707 said:
Re-read what you said...then actually do the math behind it and come back to validate that statement.

@NWbordergrower91...your plan is good. Stick with the the 3590's if you have already gone down that way before. The monos aren't going to make or break the plan...the 3590's are the main horsepower.
Your current 730's should be enough as is to trigger the phytochrome response for the whole table. Skinny table, but will make coverage easier.

Good luck, and keep us posted on some results.
Click to expand...
Easy enough, and will do on the results. Will be a bit of time though, probably a month until I can start up again. Got thrips, and got really tired of cramped elbow space in my bloom so we tore it down and are redesigning/building it. Going from a 4x8ft room to a 9x11 with a slanted ceiling of just under 7ft as tall as 9.5ft. Still going to use the 26''x60'' table so i don't bite off more than I can chew or smoke ha.

About 1/3 upto just under 1/2 of the new bloom room will also house my watering station (mostly sealed off, but not too much), and the veg will be apart of it as well with a separate external door. 2x4 for veg, just about 3x5 for flower. Hope to upgrade the table size by summer.

How do you feel about 630 mono's?
 
Greengenes707

Greengenes707

Well-Known Member
NWbordergrower91 said:
Easy enough, and will do on the results. Will be a bit of time though, probably a month until I can start up again. Got thrips, and got really tired of cramped elbow space in my bloom so we tore it down and are redesigning/building it. Going from a 4x8ft room to a 9x11 with a slanted ceiling of just under 7ft as tall as 9.5ft. Still going to use the 26''x60'' table so i don't bite off more than I can chew or smoke ha.

About 1/3 upto just under 1/2 of the new bloom room will also house my watering station (mostly sealed off, but not too much), and the veg will be apart of it as well with a separate external door. 2x4 for veg, just about 3x5 for flower. Hope to upgrade the table size by summer.

How do you feel about 630 mono's?
Click to expand...
Nice. Room to work is key. I've dealt with low ceilings and it's definitely a big limiting factor.
I love 630's.
 
NWbordergrower91

NWbordergrower91

Member
Greengenes707 said:
The photon efficiency is not better with 3K nor is the electrical efficiency. Do the math and it clearly shows that and why I said do the math not, the concept.
QER is not the chips photon efficiency...it's the spectrums. Potential photon efficiency is higher with a warmer K because of the concepts behind it all. Potential...not actual. The electrical efficiency is what determines the actual photon efficiency.
I'll do it...
-50w of 3000k AD at 43% efficiency producing 4.87µmols/radiant watt...(50w)(.48%)(4.87µmols)= 116.88µmols
-50w of 3500k BB at 51% efficiency producing 4.76µmols/radiant watt...(50w)(.51%)(4.76µmols)= 121.38µmols

Same price, same absolute red, more blue for the 3500K. Stands true for the 3590 3500K too...plus the highest bins(mostly just 3590 bins) are 1000 lumen differences so it widens more. Plants want photons...as many as possible while within their preferences(<20% blue). That is the goal.
Click to expand...

When you say <20% blue, referring to running cxb3590's, would a balance (out of a total of 12 cobs) of about 1 4000k for every 2 3500k? I'm looking to drop the uv plan....for now...and see what I can do with 4000k instead. I looked at the data sheet on digikey and from the best of my understanding it looks like the biggest benefit of the 4000's is the higher power in the 440-450nm ish range, that the 3000k and 3500k don't seem to have as much of. But they make up for it in the 600-620nm range it looks like.

So with that in mind, and also knowing in the future I hope to mess around with a spectral boost to the lower 400's, 630, 660, and 730 to go with my cxb's, what would you say would best mimic closest to that range? My thought was 1 4000k per 2 3500k, but seeing how the data sheets spectral graph only shows 3000, 4000, and 5000 in different cri, it's hard for me to decide. I assume my 3500k's would be a rough in between the 3000k and 4000k? Or is it more of a considerable difference.

50 questions right? Sorry, got carried away
 
C

churchhaze

Well-Known Member
Don't get caught up in how well your lamp can "penetrate". Penetration is BS! What's important is how much total light is being emitted in your grow area, whether it be power (W) or photon flux (umol/s).

Penetration has more to do with how well leaves absorb particular wavelengths. (yellow and far-red penetrate well, blue and red barely penetrate).. Replace the word "penetration" with transmission..
 
littlejacob

littlejacob

Well-Known Member
Bonjour
It sound pretty cool and it is what I will do...2x cxb 3500ºk with one 4000ºk!
But first I will try those alone...4 on an hlg-185-1400b to see how 4000ºk @61% grow!?!
And since Jerry have the new 4000ºk DB it will more UV and more efficiency!
It will be 180$ well spent!
CU
 
NWbordergrower91

NWbordergrower91

Member
KarmaPaymentPlan said:
i was curious how you feel about them now that you use 3500k more
Click to expand...
so I got wayner all interested in cobs, he wants to see any prefabs that are of actual consideration, or what it would cost to build something similar and or better.

Rough and quick math I told Wayne we could do a cxb3590 set up, all 50's, 1000w for about $1500 give or take 100. Told him too he could invest on my set up to see how far he really wants to get into this, if not then ill buy him out for invested equipment. Send me some links or gimme a call soon, asshole.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top