nfhiggs
Well-Known Member
Diode count mostly.
Rider's first foray into LED strip lighting - Samsung H Series GEN3
- Thread starter Rider509
- Start date
nfhiggs
Well-Known Member
Maybe if I could make some freakin sense out of their god damned search page. How in the holy fuck do you find what you are looking for?
BuddyColas
Well-Known Member
Easy...whose search page?
nfhiggs
Well-Known Member
Rider509
Well-Known Member
Are you talking about the Samsung website? Try this:
http://www.samsung.com/global/business/led/products/led-engine/ambient-light-engine
Under documentation you'll see a link to Data Sheets.
I hope this is what you meant.
If you're talking about Arrow, you're on your own! LOL
http://www.samsung.com/global/business/led/products/led-engine/ambient-light-engine
Under documentation you'll see a link to Data Sheets.
I hope this is what you meant.
If you're talking about Arrow, you're on your own! LOL
Rider509
Well-Known Member
OK, guys, I need help checking my train of thought on determining expectations for luminous flux on these F Series 100W strips. We have to take an educated guess on efficacy but given what we know from the data sheet it should get us very close. Here goes:
Driving the four strips at 500W puts us in the +/-185lm/W range.
500W x 185lm/W = 92,500lm
But I measured 98,000lm.
98,000lm / 500W = 196lm/W, which exceeds the max listed luminous efficacy of 190 lm/W.
What the hell am I doing wrong?
To add to the confucsion, the spec sheet lists max luminous flux of 19555 for these 3500K strips. For four strips that would be 78,220lm total.
Driving the four strips at 500W puts us in the +/-185lm/W range.
500W x 185lm/W = 92,500lm
But I measured 98,000lm.
98,000lm / 500W = 196lm/W, which exceeds the max listed luminous efficacy of 190 lm/W.
What the hell am I doing wrong?
To add to the confucsion, the spec sheet lists max luminous flux of 19555 for these 3500K strips. For four strips that would be 78,220lm total.
Rider509
Well-Known Member
I got around to playing with the H Series Gen3 44" strips. It seems like a slouch at 12" but what about at 8"?
The Inverse Square Law comes into play!
E2=(d1/d2)**2*E1
12 inches.................8 inches
44,100lm -----------> 99,200lm
460-520ppfd ------> 1030-1170ppfd
Think you could grow with that? Better break out the CO2! LOL. It def got me thinking. It's only drawing 212W at the wall and the coverage is insanely uniform, and the heat is spread out evenly over the 2x4 area.
The Inverse Square Law comes into play!
E2=(d1/d2)**2*E1
12 inches.................8 inches
44,100lm -----------> 99,200lm
460-520ppfd ------> 1030-1170ppfd
Think you could grow with that? Better break out the CO2! LOL. It def got me thinking. It's only drawing 212W at the wall and the coverage is insanely uniform, and the heat is spread out evenly over the 2x4 area.
is reading spec sheets THAT hard?
waynejohn
Active Member
Nope but it is much easier just to ask someone who already has them instead of going through 40 pages of specs just to find that one little bit of info, also if you have only started to looking at strips "8sx9p" doesn't mean a lot to you...that little quote is about all the info there is in the specs besides just counting the diodes on the pic
Is it HARD to leave just one topic on this subforum to the people interested in civilized exchange of opinions, ideas and information to the benefit of all and restrain yourself from comments that benefit no one?
That is that
@Rider509
Would be interesting to see the ppfd for different watts per square foot...setting the cobs and strips at the usual cob build(30-35w) and see what the numbers say at 12"
Saw the digikey has the F 1' strips also but MQ is 160 for some reason unlike the H, don't get why...and Arrow and their search lol, try using it from the phone...impossible
Eph3m3raL
Member
Can you explain?So guess what? The inverse square law isn't very damned accurate when you have a fricking gazillion point sources. Moving the lights down to 8" do next to NOTHING!
InTheValley
Well-Known Member
Yeah man, 18inch sweet spot.So guess what? The inverse square law isn't very damned accurate when you have a fricking gazillion point sources. Moving the lights down to 8" did next to NOTHING!
580-620 ppfd
These lights are powerful bro, 250-300 veg, 500-600 flower, golden. Mine are freakin loving it.
Stone_Free
Well-Known Member
You have to take into account the beam angle as well as other factors. Moving lights up or down by 4 inches has a bigger effect than you might think.
Rider509
Well-Known Member
Doesnt this just mean you will have better penetration? If the ppfd is the same from 12" to 8"?So guess what? The inverse square law isn't very damned accurate when you have a fricking gazillion point sources. Moving the lights down to 8" did next to NOTHING!
580-620 ppfd
Rider509
Well-Known Member
I gotta agree. Those numbers should make for some very happy plants. And the cost of that build is so fricking cheap!
Eight 44" H Gen3 strips, an HLG-185H-C1050, and a bit of Al. Total costs are under $300 for each 2x4 space of very uniform chlorophyll kicking plant growing light.
nogod_
Well-Known Member
The inverse square law only applies with a single point-source. The further down you measure from the source, the less dense the photons become as they spread out.
If you have hundreds or even thousands of emitters, they overlap each other in such a way that as you measure further and further away from the source(s) they maintain a relatively constant photon density. Even as one emitter's beam spreads out, many more spread out as well and fill in the gaps.
If you have hundreds or even thousands of emitters, they overlap each other in such a way that as you measure further and further away from the source(s) they maintain a relatively constant photon density. Even as one emitter's beam spreads out, many more spread out as well and fill in the gaps.