ttystikk
Well-Known Member
I don't. I illuminate from the side lol
LED vs vertical HPS (PPF and other things)
- Thread starter Prawn Connery
- Start date
Prawn Connery
Well-Known Member
I'm sorry, but if I could just point something out . . .
I've already been doing that for a decade. 2 x 600w HPS in 4'x4', no cool tube, circular trellis, and 3-4lb every single grow, averaging around 3.5lb.
If you're going to design a double-wall LED system, then my yardstick would be the above - only because it's proven (not because I'm showing off!).
I've currenlty got room for a 4'x2' flowering chamber and no more, due to confined space. For me to go LED, I need to yield at least 1.5lb to rival my old system. I'll likely be using a nine-week strain with run-to-waste organic nutrient coco. First run will be eight plants - 1 per square foot (from seed, and clones thereafter). So I need about 3oz per plant.
I'm inclined to go with something like a QB 2700k, but I'm thinking I need at least four boards running at 400+w - but I'm open to suggestions.
I'd also entertain the idea of supplementing the board with a couple of T5s running along each side for a bit of UV: http://www.eyehortilux.com/products/powerveg-fs-uv-white.aspx
In fact, any fluoro is a good, cheap source of UV, even if they aren't that efficient. Unless there's another (cost-effective) way to supplement UVA/B with strip LEDs? A bit of Far Red would also be nice.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
I'd recommend 3000K 90CRI for the direction and for UV supplementation go with tried and true T5. LED doesn't yet do UV well, gladly- or cheaply. Seriously, saw a UVB COB for $44,000...
That's a touch out of my price range.
Enigma
Well-Known Member
Everything is in the preliminary phase. It is nothing but calculation.
I'm sure by the time I'm done with this I could tell you exactly how much of every piece and what size to make them.
I'm just excited to think I could possibly fit 700-1900W of COB into one square meter.
Enigma
Well-Known Member
Wasn't it the quartz tubes we need to get for proper UV?
We would also want to stay out of the grow room when they are on.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Actinic super blue with UV. T5. It will still give you a sunburn.
Enigma
Well-Known Member
I never used them, everything seemed frosty enough. Besides, I spend too much time talking to my plants (honestly), I wouldn't want to have to budget that with UV rays.
Maybe one day, when I'm not that interested in watching the miracle of life.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Nice thing about T5 is that you can always shut them off while you're in there.
With UV lamps, I strongly recommend it.
Enigma
Well-Known Member
@ttystikk
They are best for ripening, IIRC.
Turn them on for the last 2-3 weeks?
I could manage that.
Where to put them though...
Dual or Quad.. the only room I could see is EB strips under the canopy.. and those won't even be necessary.
I bet the distance of those T-5's are the same as the rest, even without the coating and quartz?
They are best for ripening, IIRC.
Turn them on for the last 2-3 weeks?
I could manage that.
Where to put them though...
Dual or Quad.. the only room I could see is EB strips under the canopy.. and those won't even be necessary.
I bet the distance of those T-5's are the same as the rest, even without the coating and quartz?
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
I haven't felt the need for them, either. But I know some who run them the last few weeks and some who run them from seed.
Prawn Connery
Well-Known Member
All fluoros emit UV - even the ones in your house. The sun emits a lot of UV. The small amount emitted by supplemental T5s probably isn't going to hurt you, but I generally wear sunglasses if I have to work on my plants with the lights on. And as the sticky Thai said, you can always turn then off. Maybe harder if you eventually end up using UVA/B LEDs. I've seen cheaper strips, but I don't know if they are any better than T5s.
I would be most intrigued to see how a 4x4 back-to-back vertical LED grow would go. Don't get me wrong - I'm completely open to new ideas, but they do have to be measured by tried and trued methods to be considered a progression.
I would be most intrigued to see how a 4x4 back-to-back vertical LED grow would go. Don't get me wrong - I'm completely open to new ideas, but they do have to be measured by tried and trued methods to be considered a progression.
@Prawn Connery
Hey man, I was just wondering if there's an average percentage/number that can be applied to the manufacturer PPF ratings of HID (hps) bulbs to account for the fact (it is a fact, right?) that they're measuring the bulbs output from 360*, in a sphere, when in actual use half of their output is going upwards and being bounced/reflected several times before it heads back down towards the canopy? 25%? 35%?
Example, a 2100umol PPF rating for a 1000w hps can't be accurate for whats being put out towards the plant, after reflector losses, etc...?
Maybe I'm wrong.
Thanks.
Hey man, I was just wondering if there's an average percentage/number that can be applied to the manufacturer PPF ratings of HID (hps) bulbs to account for the fact (it is a fact, right?) that they're measuring the bulbs output from 360*, in a sphere, when in actual use half of their output is going upwards and being bounced/reflected several times before it heads back down towards the canopy? 25%? 35%?
Example, a 2100umol PPF rating for a 1000w hps can't be accurate for whats being put out towards the plant, after reflector losses, etc...?
Maybe I'm wrong.
Thanks.
Greengenes707
Well-Known Member
Depending on the size of the fixture, a sphere could still be used. If you're putting just a bulb in, that's the results you're going to get. But if you put a fixture in...you will get fixture level results.
Otherwise a goniometer would be used for larger fixtures. Same data of total light output as a sphere. With the additional information of light distribution angles via the IES file when using a gonio.
Gravita Pro 1000 DE HPS at 1000W - Goniometer Lab Report
Test results reported for: Gravita Samples Covered in Report: Gravita Pro 1000 DE (1000W setting) CSA Report: CHIH004-011 Original issue date: 3/16/2017 Revision Issue Date: 4/3/2017 Test Conditions Test Date: March 3, 2017 Method: goniophotometer, spectroradiometer x-axis Alignment: 0.0 ±...
chilledgrowlights.com
Thanks for the link GreenGene,
So, here's the HLG550 lab report (from hlg.ca site):
Total PPF (umol/s): 1178.05
The Gravita from the link you posted (I always thought it was Gavita, anyways),
Photon Flux, 350-750nm (μmol/s): 1920.0
From Ushio manufacturer website (https://www.ushio.com/product/hilux-gro-super-hps-single-ended-grow-light/)
1000 Watt HPS MMol/s (umol/s): 2100
600 Watt HPS MMol/s (umol/s): 1150
So, if I'm getting this right, and I might be missing something still, there is no "reduction"/percentage to be removed from these HID PPF output numbers? And if that's right, then the HLG 550 V2, for example, has an intensity/total PPF output comparable to a 600Watt HPS, not a 1000w single ended HPS?...
Edit:...And doubling a 550, would be similar power consumption to what a "1000w" HPS uses, right? Yet it would essentially be 2356.1 PPF - compared to 1900-2100 (ish) PPF from an HPS... Hmm...
So, here's the HLG550 lab report (from hlg.ca site):
Total PPF (umol/s): 1178.05
The Gravita from the link you posted (I always thought it was Gavita, anyways),
Photon Flux, 350-750nm (μmol/s): 1920.0
From Ushio manufacturer website (https://www.ushio.com/product/hilux-gro-super-hps-single-ended-grow-light/)
1000 Watt HPS MMol/s (umol/s): 2100
600 Watt HPS MMol/s (umol/s): 1150
So, if I'm getting this right, and I might be missing something still, there is no "reduction"/percentage to be removed from these HID PPF output numbers? And if that's right, then the HLG 550 V2, for example, has an intensity/total PPF output comparable to a 600Watt HPS, not a 1000w single ended HPS?...
Edit:...And doubling a 550, would be similar power consumption to what a "1000w" HPS uses, right? Yet it would essentially be 2356.1 PPF - compared to 1900-2100 (ish) PPF from an HPS... Hmm...
Barristan Whitebeard
Well-Known Member
That HPS bulb is going to output light in all directions. It needs a reflector to focus the light, and even still, not all of that light is going to hit the reflector and shine on the plants. So you would at least need to factor in a loss of PPF from the use of the reflector.
Greengenes707
Well-Known Member
Well that is a top of the line DE bulb and reflector. And it's really the reflector there doing so well at minimal losses.
For a single ended reference
Eye Hortilux Super HPS Enhanced 1000W SE - Goniometer Lab Report
Test results reported for: Hortilux Samples Covered in Report: Super HPS Grow Lamp CSA Report: CHIH004-031 Original issue date: 3/16/2017 Revision Issue Date: 4/3/2017 Test Conditions Test Date: March 9, 2017 Method: goniophotometer, spectroradiometer x-axis Alignment: 0.0 ± 0.01 m y-axis...
chilledgrowlights.com
The test that were linked/presented and what he is referring to take into account the reflector loss.
Thanks for taking the time to share these with me and answer my questions Greengenes.Well that is a top of the line DE bulb and reflector. And it's really the reflector there doing so well at minimal losses.
For a single ended reference
, and more importantly than the bulb difference is the lesser performing reflector. It is the big difference in output loss compared to bare bulb of probably 1800-1900umols for a single ended.Eye Hortilux Super HPS Enhanced 1000W SE - Goniometer Lab Report
Test results reported for: Hortilux Samples Covered in Report: Super HPS Grow Lamp CSA Report: CHIH004-031 Original issue date: 3/16/2017 Revision Issue Date: 4/3/2017 Test Conditions Test Date: March 9, 2017 Method: goniophotometer, spectroradiometer x-axis Alignment: 0.0 ± 0.01 m y-axis...
The test that were linked/presented and what he is referring to take into account the reflector loss.
Yea, so these tests/reports that you have linked are being done with a bulb in a reflector, so any losses are part of the measurement, for sure.
Wow, for the eyehortilux+reflector...
Photon Flux, 350-750nm (μmol/s): 1285.8
That is a very significant difference than the top of the line Gravita bulb+reflector, and seems to be much closer to an HLG 550 V2's output.
Thanks again, man. Much appreciated.
Didn't even see your post, even though GG quoted it, thought it was from way back or something.
Anyway, yes - this is what I assumed (that companies would do whatever test would result in the "biggest number" for marketing). But, it seems as though - at least from the tests/reports GG has shared, that they're using a reflector in these test and for the numbers reported, and that would mean there wouldn't be any more "reduction in output" from losses (due to reflector) to factor in.
Maybe there's other clever shit going on in the way they test them that can boost numbers, I'm new to this. But it seems reasonable when comparing something other than the ultimate top of the line brand, bulb, and reflector (ie: What "most" people would run/buy (who aren't absolute pros/commercial setups)).
Thanks.