Canadian Farmer
Well-Known Member
Hey guys, I have a question. How many Vero29 COBs would you need to equate the light output of a double ended HPS 1000 in a SunMaster AC/DE reflector ?
DE vs Vero29
- Thread starter Canadian Farmer
- Start date
Randomblame
Well-Known Member
650-700w should be comparable. So 10x Vero29c@1,05A or 14-16x@700mA.
But the Luminus CXM22 is equally good in this range and you can get it for only 19$/pcs from cobkits.com
But the Luminus CXM22 is equally good in this range and you can get it for only 19$/pcs from cobkits.com
Randomblame
Well-Known Member
Unbeatable 
Canadian Farmer
Well-Known Member
Thanks guys
Bountykiller420
Well-Known Member
Cool story bro, but your DE is operating at 1150W, 250W more than the vero, NOT 1000W to get those numbers...at 1000W its pulling 1950umol according to the hortilux site, so vero wins, and how many times will you need to change those $120 bulbs before you need to change out 1 vero chip to keep those numbers? tell me that?????
mcnasty_nug
Well-Known Member
why do these threads always turn into a shit show? Like, can you all just talk about stuff like adults? From what we know, DE HPS pushes about 1.7 umol/j correct? And good cobs are hitting like 1.9. So we know for sure at some point cobs put out more light than the DE at a lower wattage. We also know that the LEDs heat is easier to deal with. I'm not sure what the heated debate is about? Yoda you just showed us that 900w of vero is 61 umols less than an 1150DE. So add a couple more watts of vero and you have it. DE matching and easier to deal with the heat, bigger up front cost.
And come on, we all know why big commercial ops are running DE (although thats not 100% true, there are PLENTY running led these days) It's because LED is still stigmatized by the blurple junk, it's still a much bigger up front cost, and much more work to set up. Also, when you have invested millions into a commercial op, its hard to take a risk on using tech that you personally dont know works 100%. It does, but if you dont KNOW that tech, why would one risk the investment? I know I wouldnt.
And come on, we all know why big commercial ops are running DE (although thats not 100% true, there are PLENTY running led these days) It's because LED is still stigmatized by the blurple junk, it's still a much bigger up front cost, and much more work to set up. Also, when you have invested millions into a commercial op, its hard to take a risk on using tech that you personally dont know works 100%. It does, but if you dont KNOW that tech, why would one risk the investment? I know I wouldnt.
a mongo frog
Well-Known Member
Because some LED guys hate it when the HPS lamp users talk about HPS being a good light source for cannabis.
They absolutely cant stand it.
Rahz
Well-Known Member
Vero 29C 3000K 90 CRI, LER-280 and QER-5
At .7 amps and 40C Tc output is 45.3 watts, 158 LPW = 56.43% efficiency
45.3 x .5643 = 25.56 PAR watts
25.56 x 5 = 127.8 PPF (127.8 / 45.3 = 2.82 umol/j) (want to run them at .5 amps? 3 umol/j)
1950 / 127.8 = 15.26
So at .7 amps it more or less takes 15 cobs to equal a 1000w DE
15 x 45.3 = 679.5 watts. Throw in the extra .26 and it's still under 700w.
It might be a stretch to suggest it can be done with 10 cobs.
At 1.05 amps, 69.8 watts, 144 LPW = 51.43% efficiency
69.8 x .5143 = 35.9 PAR watts
35.9 x 5 = 179 PPF (179 / 69.8 = 2.56 umol/j)
1950 / 179 = 10.89
At 1.05 amps it takes 11 cobs to equal a 1000w DE
11 x 69.8 = 768 watts.
If we want to be picky and remove that tenth of a cob it comes out to 760 watts.
However, maybe 10 (698 watts) would provide a similar PPFD. Anyone have both and a par meter?
Which spectrum is superior? Opinions are cheap. Anyone done the testing? 1:1 Par watt vs Par watt in a controlled environment? Or better, equal PPFD across the canopy vs equal PPFD across the canopy? I suspect not. 3000K 90CRI has a very nice spectrum... anecdotal evidence doesn't seem to indicate a huge advantage between various white spectrums anyway.
At .7 amps and 40C Tc output is 45.3 watts, 158 LPW = 56.43% efficiency
45.3 x .5643 = 25.56 PAR watts
25.56 x 5 = 127.8 PPF (127.8 / 45.3 = 2.82 umol/j) (want to run them at .5 amps? 3 umol/j)
1950 / 127.8 = 15.26
So at .7 amps it more or less takes 15 cobs to equal a 1000w DE
15 x 45.3 = 679.5 watts. Throw in the extra .26 and it's still under 700w.
It might be a stretch to suggest it can be done with 10 cobs.
At 1.05 amps, 69.8 watts, 144 LPW = 51.43% efficiency
69.8 x .5143 = 35.9 PAR watts
35.9 x 5 = 179 PPF (179 / 69.8 = 2.56 umol/j)
1950 / 179 = 10.89
At 1.05 amps it takes 11 cobs to equal a 1000w DE
11 x 69.8 = 768 watts.
If we want to be picky and remove that tenth of a cob it comes out to 760 watts.
However, maybe 10 (698 watts) would provide a similar PPFD. Anyone have both and a par meter?
Which spectrum is superior? Opinions are cheap. Anyone done the testing? 1:1 Par watt vs Par watt in a controlled environment? Or better, equal PPFD across the canopy vs equal PPFD across the canopy? I suspect not. 3000K 90CRI has a very nice spectrum... anecdotal evidence doesn't seem to indicate a huge advantage between various white spectrums anyway.
drgreentm
Well-Known Member
What’s the sq ft coverage on a setup like this?
Rahz
Well-Known Member
Another point worth making. One day one of the efficiency leaders will start integrating rectification circuits in their products. COB rectification circuits have already been proven to operate at up to 93% efficiency. Meanwell will not appreciate this advancement.
Anyone want to guess what the cost for 2000 PPF at 60% efficiency will be in 4 years?
Anyone want to guess what the cost for 2000 PPF at 60% efficiency will be in 4 years?
Rahz
Well-Known Member
Depends on what kind of intensity you want. Using some loose math (it will vary based on spectrum used, but not a lot),
15 PAR watts per foot (750 PPFD)
20 PAR watts per foot (1000 PPFD)
25 PAR watts per foot (1250 PPFD)
You can figure out the coverage depending on what intensity you'd like to work with. For instance, using the .7 amp option and 15 cobs, 383 par watts. To get 1000 PPFD, 383 / 20 = 19.15 square feet. in a 5x5 it will be closer to 800 PPFD. In a 4x4 it will be a tad over 1200 PPFD. It will be similar for the other examples I gave since they all have similar radiant output.
@Heil Tweetler stop with the name calling wanna donthat go to politics
Rahz
Well-Known Member
Quoting myself, @Greengenes707 I think has done both under a meter. Not specifically Vero 29, but I bet he can provide some insight.
a mongo frog
Well-Known Member
Its all about putting the puzzle together. Yea you want to take Rivers and Keenan, but Norman is getting someone. So Benjamin may be the play? 3,800.00 for christ sakes!!!!!
drgreentm
Well-Known Member
So it is safe to say that best numbers are achieved in a 4x4 area? Wouldn’t it be more camparable to a 600/750 de in coverage since 1000w de is meant to be mounted much higher and therefore covering a much larger footprint that a 4x4. I mean going from a 4x4 to a 5x5 you are saying the PPFD is cut almost in half.
Rahz
Well-Known Member
The "best" numbers depend on whether you're trying to maximize phototrophic efficiency, in which case you would be better off in a 5x5. It's only in the last year or two that people in the LED community have been intentionally trying to push the PPFD to 1000 and beyond. I've never used even 800 PPFD and yet managed to yield 60 grams per square foot. I'm sure peeps have done better with similar light levels as I don't consider myself a great grower, but 800 isn't weak sauce. Almost nobody outside the LED community is growing with +1000 PPFD. If you want to hit close to 1200 PPFD with DEs, try putting 3 600w bulbs over a 4x8. 1000w over 5x5 isn't going to do it. Even if you are running 1150 watts you still won't have a 1000 PPFD average.
It is true that whatever 800 PPFD can do, 1000 PPFD can do better (g/sqft), and while there is evidence that the yield curve is more linear than the vegetative curve, logically it's still going to be a matter of diminishing returns. Case in point, if you suggest a 1000w DE is appropriate for 25 sq ft and we're talking about a lamp providing 1950 PPF there's some simple math that will yield the PPFD. 1950 / 25 * 10.7 = 834 PPFD. If someone want's to blast their 4x4 with 1200 PPFD that's up to them, and if they don't have room for a 5x5 it can be a good strategy if they're trying to max their yield and they know how to take care of their plants, but that same lamp is going to provide better yield results in a 5x5. I would rather have 800 PPFD in a 5x5 than 1200 PPFD in a 4x4 if by best numbers you're talking about total yield.
Last edited:
CobKits
Well-Known Member
not my experience... i personally seem to run into limitations at higher ppfd
in my situation i can virtually guarantee a great crop by keeping it in the 800-900 ppfd range, its cake. full development and great yield and quality
Heil Tweetler
Well-Known Member
I find this to be true as well at least in my soil grow. The difference between running bro science soil mix loaded with everything the rols or organic crowd suggest vs running a tuned, tested, base saturation in balance soil is critical to success in high ppfd