High Light efficiency tests (TEKNIK) - 2.47 umol/j CRI 94.2

ANC

Well-Known Member
This opens some avenues if indeed it works...
I have been looking at a maker of diffused inserts for those extruded LED heatsinks you get.
They are getting quite fancy these days and can even redirect light at an angle making them useful for lighting things like pools, all this while claiming losses of 8% or less.
 

Ryante55

Well-Known Member
I'm not trying to make anyone look better or worse. I'm just looking for an explanation because normally I would have expected between CRI80 and 90+ no 0,4μMol / J difference.
I have no financial interest in this boards and there is no reason to make the boards look better. They are good as they are and will do exactly what they were designed for.
It was never planned to start a business just to sell whats left over.
You simply interpret me in your typically aggressive manner, bro. Go ahead .. It does not matter to me anyway. Just because we both believe something different we should no start getten unfriendly.
Greengenes is never "aggressive" that I have seen. You both provide alot of useful info i hope you can learn from each other so we can all learn from both of you without to much negativity. It's nice to have @Greengenes707 around to call-out the small details some people get wrong.
 

Ryante55

Well-Known Member
We're all adults here. I don't mind people telling things the way they are. I think @Greengenes707 may have the wrong idea about Randomblame's role in all of this - which may or may not have influenced what he said and the way he said it - but good info is good info and that's what we're here for.
Yeah I agree but I also think @Greengenes707 knows a little more about led testing because he has owned an led company for a while. It's hard to speak for someone that's not here @Randomblame seems like he's trying to speak for teknik it seems to create a little confusion. All that being said I can't wait to see how these boards perform. Maybe there should be a side by side with these vs the photo boost strips from plc?! Hopefully not an overly aggressive side by side like the hlg vs hgl fiasco haha but it would be interesting to see the difference and if the extra cost of these boards would be worth it.
 

Randomblame

Well-Known Member
Yeah I agree but I also think @Greengenes707 knows a little more about led testing because he has owned an led company for a while. It's hard to speak for someone that's not here @Randomblame seems like he's trying to speak for teknik it seems to create a little confusion. All that being said I can't wait to see how these boards perform. Maybe there should be a side by side with these vs the photo boost strips from plc?! Hopefully not an overly aggressive side by side like the hlg vs hgl fiasco haha but it would be interesting to see the difference and if the extra cost of these boards would be worth it.


Sorry, it was really not my intension to confuse anything. I already regret that I ever said anything.. I do not want to blow up the thread because of different opinions about accuracy.
I was just looking for an explanation. If I'm wrong, I've learned something.
I'm not looking for a fight. I never do! I'm rather addicted to harmony.
I respect GG and what he says, it's not wrong. Its exactly how it should work! I just think that if you compare the results across several different platforms, I mean in different independent light labs each with different test equipment, the differences tend to be more in the range of ±5%. But it starts to become an endless discussion and leads to nothing productive so I'm willing to stop it now to not further spam the thread with my useless opinion about accuracy.
 

Randomblame

Well-Known Member
The goal was never electrical efficiency anyway. PC wanted to create a more efficient spectrum that results in shorter flowering stage with same or better results like with CRI80 and better or same yield like from a 600w HPS bulb. We knowed from the beginning that we have to run this boards at half current to reach the same degree of efficiency like a CRI80 board. It was just a bit lower like I have expected and thought it could be because of the different test equipment. No more, no less.
 

Prawn Connery

Well-Known Member
The real aim was to simply broaden the spectrum with more emphasis on the red range 620-660nm with a bit more far red, some UVA (or near UV), and to have all of this on one board with one channel and one driver. The extra expense of the LEDs is offset by only needing one common driver. Plus, they're in no way inefficient - for CRI 95, they're actually pretty good!
 

Or_Gro

Well-Known Member
I think we just need to take some lessons from how nature does it.
As our lighting's PPFD approaches closer to that, that falls on the earth in nature and the fact we're approaching the limits of our current techs maximum, what's left except playing with different spectral outputs to dial our lighting too.
A simple, inexpensive, single dc controller that manages all the leds in my tent..,
 

Or_Gro

Well-Known Member
Yeah, one thing I'm interested to copy is that natural light is more like 60% of the time diffuse and of lower intensity because of clouds and/or measuring time.
Inside a grow room you have almost no shades an most LED light is directed light.
With midpower boards and strips we already create a slightly diffused light just because of the many many beam angles from hundreds of diodes. Diffuse light travels deeper inside the canopy but its not really diffuse.

Thing with diffusers is, even the best ones, have only 94% transmission in the best case. But diffuse light has proven to perform 12% better like directed light so the 6% transmission loss are maybe worth it. Theoretically up to 105% should be possible if that's true in a groom too!
I've thought on using something like a fresnel lens to see if there really is a difference inside a relatively small groom. These 12% tests they have done in greenhouses, one with clear acrylic walls the other with diffuser film on the walls.

I don't think it makes sense to copy all what mother nature does. When the plants get only 100% light for a few hours and the rest of the day its only 40 or 60% you'll probably end up getting less yield because of less Mols per day.
But a few things really make sense and a few are for sure worth to test it.
A flat spectrum means for instance and increased cyan and green range. Pigments like carotenoids and flavoniods are in this range. We also know that additional green light can drive photosynthesis as efficient as red light when the plants already get high amounts of blue and red wavelengths. So actually it should have a positive effect if we can flatten the spectrum.
Do you have link or pdf of study showing that last bit on green efficiency with high blue & red?

Thanks
 

Or_Gro

Well-Known Member
Just to set the record straight, @Randomblame has no vested interest in these boards, so he's not trying to make excuses or anything to promote them. I can't speak for him, but I do know where he is coming from: we were told not to expect super-high results from goniometer testing as the tester would not be "gilding the lily" so to speak.

In other words, he believed some manufacturers deliberately inflated their results (sometimes by testing LEDs when cold), while other sphere testing was not fully accurate depending on the age and type of the equipment used and when it had been calibrated etc. And there are atmospheric losses depending on how far away the light source is - though I'm not going to speculate how much (or little) difference that makes in tests such as these.

Again, I can't speak for the tester, as he's not here to defend himself! What I do know is, it's not so much the umol/j results he was interested in, as producing an IES file that we could use to PAR map our boards.

Look, it's a bit like having a musclecar and taking it down to the local dyno tuner. There are "happy" dynos and there are "grumpy" dynos. They are all meant to be calibrated, but obviously "happy" dynos give car owners higher horsepower figures than "grumpy" dynos. This makes customers happy . . . until they run their cars down the quarter mile and discover their "450hp" engine is really only making 400hp based on elapsed times and trap speeds.

The only way to compare two cars is to run them down the 1/4 mile, or put them on the same dyno. Forget about the total figures, it's the comparison that counts.

Anyway, back to Mr Randomblame. These boards we designed and put together by a few growers (myself included) and Randomblame was part of the process. We bounced ideas off each other and discussed what we thought would work and why. We talked about features that growers would find useful, and we confined our discussions to developing a pure flowering board with no compromises.

Once the design was finished, LEDs were bought, PCBs were commissioned and assembly went ahead in Australia. An initial run was made to supply all those who were interested - all the growers who were involved - but of course you can't just make a few dozen boards as you have to buy LEDs in reels of 5000 and PCBs are cheaper the more you produce etc.

So we made 96 boards, and obviously there were boards leftover. Randomblame isn't here trying to spruik those boards. They will sell, and we will recover our costs and all of us will have some nice flowering boards to grow with. You will start to see results soon enough.

This whole exercise was not about starting a new business venture, but to produce something we wanted but couldn't find anywhere else.

Having said that, we have received a lot of positive feedback, and most of the boards have now sold. If there is demand, then it's no stretch for us to produce some more boards. If that happens, then it starts becoming a business venture and we have to start looking at whether we want that responsibility or not!

Right now, I'm just sharing the results of what we've done, and enjoying taking about the reasons why we did what we did, such as adding a UV-based white phosphor LED and CRI98 LED to tune the spectrum, and an efficient CRI90 LED to drive the main output.

I get what you're saying - in an ideal world, goniometer and sphere testing should produce the same results - but perhaps that's not always the case. But I'm not qualified to say one way or the other.
Shit, you engineers lost me several pages back...all that matters to me is how they grow...and that part i’ll have a good enuff “garage” comparison with 288 v2s....maybe i’ll do a third tent and check against a less diffuse light, the 96....can’t friggin wait!
 
Last edited:

Frank Cannon

Well-Known Member
Well here's an idea for @Stephenj37826 how about stumping up for a couple or 4 of your new Trinity boards for Or_Gro to add to his new smackdown:

https://www.rollitup.org/t/the-monumentally-epic-knockdown-dragout-take-no-prisoners-slapdown-aussie-high-light-vs-hlg-288.988144/page-6#post-14887527

He has been a hell of a good promoter for you guys with your boards (a bit cankerous now and again but who isn't:hug: ) and I actually paid and shipped him 2 of the Aussie HL boards as thanks to him for all the hard work he did for everybody mapping the 96Elite engines and answering everyone's incessant questions about the 96s - this is a true story bro!

FWIW I am in no way affiliated with Prawns boards apart from having purchased some to try out after a couple of great grows using your 96s.

Sorry Prawn, might as well have a shot at the latest and greatest if ya can tho

FC
 

Or_Gro

Well-Known Member
Well here's an idea for @Stephenj37826 how about stumping up for a couple or 4 of your new Trinity boards for Or_Gro to add to his new smackdown:

https://www.rollitup.org/t/the-monumentally-epic-knockdown-dragout-take-no-prisoners-slapdown-aussie-high-light-vs-hlg-288.988144/page-6#post-14887527

He has Next OK going to go lay down go in one hour I got stuff to do in a badbeen a hell of a good promoter for you guys with your boards (a bit cankerous now and again but who isn't:hug: ) and I actually paid and shipped him 2 of the Aussie HL boards as thanks to him for all the hard work he did for everybody mapping the 96Elite engines and answering everyone's incessant questions about the 96s - this is a true story bro!

FWIW I am in no way affiliated with Prawns boards apart from having purchased some to try out after a couple of great grows using your 96s.

Sorry Prawn, might as well have a shot at the latest and greatest if ya can tho

FC
I know your plan is to kill me...after first blinding me...
 
Last edited:

SSGrower

Well-Known Member
The real aim was to simply broaden the spectrum with more emphasis on the red range 620-660nm with a bit more far red, some UVA (or near UV), and to have all of this on one board with one channel and one driver. The extra expense of the LEDs is offset by only needing one common driver. Plus, they're in no way inefficient - for CRI 95, they're actually pretty good!
Can you, are you willing? To discuss these chips. I am not as tuned to manufactures are doing but I am curious because this is the first I have heard of a production phosphor coated white led using something other than a blue led source.
A few years ago I suggested it was possible to tune a cob by using different led sources but that didnt seem to get any traction.
 

Or_Gro

Well-Known Member
Well here's an idea for @Stephenj37826 how about stumping up for a couple or 4 of your new Trinity boards for Or_Gro to add to his new smackdown:

https://www.rollitup.org/t/the-monumentally-epic-knockdown-dragout-take-no-prisoners-slapdown-aussie-high-light-vs-hlg-288.988144/page-6#post-14887527

He has been a hell of a good promoter for you guys with your boards (a bit cankerous now and again but who isn't:hug: ) and I actually paid and shipped him 2 of the Aussie HL boards as thanks to him for all the hard work he did for everybody mapping the 96Elite engines and answering everyone's incessant questions about the 96s - this is a true story bro!

FWIW I am in no way affiliated with Prawns boards apart from having purchased some to try out after a couple of great grows using your 96s.

Sorry Prawn, might as well have a shot at the latest and greatest if ya can tho

FC
I’d just like to clarify, that my attitude toward hlg has always been admiration for the technology and prodding for better support of its customers....yes, i have been hard on stephen and hlg, but it sincerely has been about pushing the company to live up to its potential.

On a personal note, i’ve been watching some gml show lately(still in the mid-60s episodewise) and really appreciate @Stephenj37826 ’s participation and contribution, especially at the end of a long day. He’s a good guy.

Not looking for handout, i usually pay retail for what i test, and surely not looking to outfit a fourth identical 4x4, as well as, all the work it takes managing individual dwc buckets while trying to do as close to identical conditions as i can...not to mention the f#cking trimming!

In fact, i’m near burnt out doing these smackdowns along with my two regular jobs...the HL smackdown will likely be my last...for a while, at least.

But if hlg wants in, i’ll consider it, and gladly return lights afterwards....could be the supplemented 288v2s that i’ll be running are essentiall mimicking the 288Rs....
 
Last edited:

Greengenes707

Well-Known Member
Sorry, it was really not my intention to confuse anything. I already regret that I ever said anything.. I do not want to blow up the thread because of different opinions about accuracy.
I was just looking for an explanation. If I'm wrong, I've learned something.
I'm not looking for a fight. I never do! I'm rather addicted to harmony.
I respect GG and what he says, it's not wrong. Its exactly how it should work! I just think that if you compare the results across several different platforms, I mean in different independent light labs each with different test equipment, the differences tend to be more in the range of ±5%. But it starts to become an endless discussion and leads to nothing productive so I'm willing to stop it now to not further spam the thread with my useless opinion about accuracy.
This is wrong. Why do you keep making things up? Please cite the 5% variation between labs and equipment. All you do is guess and make things up. If you don't know...which so far is clear you don't...then don't speak up. Calibration is for a reason and is standardized. Not to mention an expensive bulb for 28w just to calibrate...but it has to be done and used and is how it goes.

So please dude...stop making figures and ideas up. Stick to the facts of the matter and what is presented. If you have an "idea"...then support it with citations, examples, and facts supporting it. You have done none of that so far. Every thought you have tried to put forward has been wrong and mis lead by your involvement.
It's that simple.
I came in here saw some nice test results...but then saw this dude spewing BS to make the results look better thn what reality and data sheets say they should. And from someone "involved" nonetheless. That's not cool or acceptable.
 
Last edited:

Or_Gro

Well-Known Member
This is wrong. Why do you keep making things up? Please cite the 5% variation between labs and equipment. All you do is guess and make things up. If you don't know...which so far is clear you don't...then don't speak up. Calibration is for a reason and is standardized. Not to mention an expensive bulb for 28w just to calibrate...but it has to be done and used and is how it goes.

So please dude...stop making figures and ideas up. Stick to the facts of the matter and what is presented. If you have an "idea"...then support it with citations, examples, and facts supporting it. You have done none of that so far. And every thought you have tried to put forward has been wrong.
It's that simple.
I came in here saw some nice test results...but then saw this dude spewing BS to make the results look better thn what reality and data sheets say they should. And from someone "involved" nonetheless. That's not cool or acceptable.
You done? Jayzus, some guys..
 

Prawn Connery

Well-Known Member
Can you, are you willing? To discuss these chips. I am not as tuned to manufactures are doing but I am curious because this is the first I have heard of a production phosphor coated white led using something other than a blue led source.
A few years ago I suggested it was possible to tune a cob by using different led sources but that didnt seem to get any traction.
The Seoul Semiconductor Sunlike 3030 uses a 410-15nm pump with blue, green and red phosphors. Blue-based LEDs usually have green and red phosphors. The conversion factor from UV to other wavelengths is higher, so it is less efficient than blue-pump phosphors. But it has four peaks (415nm, 450nm, 515nm and 620nm) and a flatter spectrum curve than other LEDs, and so the manufacturers claim it is closer to sunlight - hence "Sunlike". We used the 6500K for the UV boost and a bit more cyan.
Screen Shot 2019-04-30 at 16.16.35.png


The old Sunlike LEDs used a 400-405nm pump and were about 10% less efficient, but they were further into the UV range. Here's the difference between the test boards (top) that used the old Sunlike, and and production boards that used the new LEDs.

Screen Shot 2019-02-15 at 16.36.35.png

Production Board.png
 

Prawn Connery

Well-Known Member
This is wrong. Why do you keep making things up? Please cite the 5% variation between labs and equipment. All you do is guess and make things up. If you don't know...which so far is clear you don't...then don't speak up. Calibration is for a reason and is standardized. Not to mention an expensive bulb for 28w just to calibrate...but it has to be done and used and is how it goes.

So please dude...stop making figures and ideas up. Stick to the facts of the matter and what is presented. If you have an "idea"...then support it with citations, examples, and facts supporting it. You have done none of that so far. Every thought you have tried to put forward has been wrong and mis lead by your involvement.
It's that simple.
I came in here saw some nice test results...but then saw this dude spewing BS to make the results look better thn what reality and data sheets say they should. And from someone "involved" nonetheless. That's not cool or acceptable.
I think you're reading a bit more into it than there is. It was an innocent attempt to try to explain the differences between sphere vs gonio testing. Maybe he expected different results. As I said, he wasn't tying to spruik the boards. They are what they are - as you can see.
 
Top