ttystikk
Well-Known Member
No way. I've got 225W CXB3590 modules that I'll go head to head with a 315W CMH light. Let's make sure it actually pulls only 315W first, cuz I'm betting there's an additional 15-25W being used to push the driver itself.
LEC - Light-Emitting Ceramic
- Thread starter potroastV2
- Start date
hyroot
Well-Known Member
My phantom 315 in a 120v is pulling 339 watts at the wall. The ballast is 2.83 amps on 120v
Different ballast than the sunsystem lec. I'd imagine it's around the same power draw.
I'm still cleaning and rearranging shit. But I should have plants under it tonight.
BOBBY_G
Well-Known Member
same 340W from my phantom at the wall
these seem to put out a lot more light for the wattage, i had burning/stress where i didnt expect it. theyre intense for sure
penetration is a myth btw.
but 315W of cobs in a single place like that and it will penetrate identically (well prob more due to more efficient)
these seem to put out a lot more light for the wattage, i had burning/stress where i didnt expect it. theyre intense for sure
penetration is a myth btw.
but 315W of cobs in a single place like that and it will penetrate identically (well prob more due to more efficient)
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
More cuz they're more efficient. Like I said, I think 4 CXB3590 driven at 54W each will be very stiff competition indeed for a 315W CMH system.
StashToker
Well-Known Member
Apples and apples.
StashToker
Well-Known Member
Anyone have a take on the Gavita Plasma 300W ? I know it's $1500... but is that cost worth it vs LEC or COBs?
PSUAGRO.
Well-Known Member
Last edited:
hyroot
Well-Known Member
That's a contradiction. . They're intense for for sure. The penetration is a myth... Which is it? Did you use a par meter?
BOBBY_G
Well-Known Member
brighter that i was expecting after using leds for years
yeah with 4x 315 in a 5x5 i was a super uniform 1000 umol @18-24" and was too much. did not behave like 1000 mol with LEDs would, it was too intense w/burning and tacoing. maybe all the UV (which the par meter would ignore) stressed them too much. next time im going with a strict 700 umol on the lec setup
penetration is only related to the brightness of a light and the distance, based on inverse square rule. the best penetration (with any light source) is very intense lighting at as far of a distance from the canopy as possible to give you ideal ppf at teh canopy. in other words, t5 at 6" and hps @ 36" can both deliver 700 umol to a canopy. but go 12" down and youve only increased the distance from the hps by 33%, youve increase the distance of the T5 by 300%. does that make sense? if you doulbeled or tripled the wattage of the t5 and hung it at 36 " to get 700 umol at the canopy, it would 'penetrate' the same as the hps does, simple physics (well not 100% simple as it doesnt account for reflected light but you get the gist
ideal light source: sun millions of miles away. equal lighting at top and bottom of plant
yeah with 4x 315 in a 5x5 i was a super uniform 1000 umol @18-24" and was too much. did not behave like 1000 mol with LEDs would, it was too intense w/burning and tacoing. maybe all the UV (which the par meter would ignore) stressed them too much. next time im going with a strict 700 umol on the lec setup
penetration is only related to the brightness of a light and the distance, based on inverse square rule. the best penetration (with any light source) is very intense lighting at as far of a distance from the canopy as possible to give you ideal ppf at teh canopy. in other words, t5 at 6" and hps @ 36" can both deliver 700 umol to a canopy. but go 12" down and youve only increased the distance from the hps by 33%, youve increase the distance of the T5 by 300%. does that make sense? if you doulbeled or tripled the wattage of the t5 and hung it at 36 " to get 700 umol at the canopy, it would 'penetrate' the same as the hps does, simple physics (well not 100% simple as it doesnt account for reflected light but you get the gist
ideal light source: sun millions of miles away. equal lighting at top and bottom of plant
hyroot
Well-Known Member
I understand all that. You forgot the mcree curve and leaf shade avoidance via green wave lengths.
Intensity and penetration are one in the same as to why your statement was a contradiction. .. Also 4 315's in a 5x5 would be over kill imo. Maybe better in a 7x7 or 6x6.
T5's are linear not a single point of light also.
BOBBY_G
Well-Known Member
great point i get phenomenal results with blurples at 1000 umol
well sort of. penetration is a factor of intensity *and* distance and is purely a factor of geometry, photons from any one light source do not penetrate more than another (spectrum aside as you mentioned)
next setup is a 5x9 with short linear rail movers jsut to even out the hotspots
yes but at a distance even canopy coverage is even canopy coverage regardless of tech, and behaves the same
BOBBY_G
Well-Known Member
you need to move faster!
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
I know. I just haven't quite worked out the logistics of moving the greenhouse at 1100mph...
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
The Gavita plasma puts out a lot of green and yellow light relative to 315W CMH and especially COB LED.
I think the tech has been superceded.
StashToker
Well-Known Member
Seems like the price would drop then.
SSGrower
Well-Known Member
The stated distances to which the various lights must be placed from the canopy instantly makes this not a question of which light emits the most light, but rather what light is able to most effectively light the vegetation. Does this also present a whole nuther set of inaccuracies or lack of accounting for light that is not perpendicular to the meter?
So question to bring back to topic what distance to canopy for lec and can/should they be mounted directionally?
So question to bring back to topic what distance to canopy for lec and can/should they be mounted directionally?
BOBBY_G
Well-Known Member
4/20 brah think outside the box
BOBBY_G
Well-Known Member
24 min 30 prob better