A Curved Shaped LED Light
- Thread starter thewaytogrow
- Start date
chazbolin
Well-Known Member
Residential rates are going up as of 9/1/13 another 40% for the tier one rate. i got the letter. It's BS cuz they say its a result of having to shut down the san onofre nuke plant. WTF other business gets to raise rates and provide less service.
i have no idea how many folks are on lower wattage systems. in my group it's 90%. It would be 100% but a few of these can't close a crop and set anything aside.
The future of is SSL in hort is going to be big if it truly can replace HID. Let's face it that switch is expensive, filled with uncertainty and belittled by the 'serious' grower. Sooo I see a hybrid approach as the easiest way to slide attention over to an alternative that brings results, creates a natural color environment with ALL the advantages that brings, and you don't have to pull a second mortgage on your house to put em in. Brother P I gotta tell ya them money is in big ag for indoor binging these on and that is happening as we speak.
As to 'copying HID' I'm not sure what you mean? We need to bring improvements to our gardens beyond HID. To that end I'd rather copy incandescent. It's got more red in it.
Re the 2 200 watt CMH lights vs the pro-420 I would try it but I'm cheap so I either get a single 400 CMH to trial fixtures/lamps on 1 to 1 or I find a way to get one in P's capable hands.
Light rail or not I take the bet and ask for a response to my previous question on how he got to the 215 watts?
CaliJoe
Member
215w is total wattage drawn by the light. All 96 LEDs, 14 LEDs per string, run by 7 meanwell 700mA drivers plugged into a kill-a-watt meter.
As for the light rail.. my light is a rail.. 4 rails actually. lol. I have a theory I am going to start experimenting with this weekend, if it works it will blow any light rail away and be a million dollar idea.. but it could be a complete failure also. Here is a clue to what my idea is. Hint: Look at the graph at the bottom of the article. http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2006/5/aafeature
As for the light rail.. my light is a rail.. 4 rails actually. lol. I have a theory I am going to start experimenting with this weekend, if it works it will blow any light rail away and be a million dollar idea.. but it could be a complete failure also. Here is a clue to what my idea is. Hint: Look at the graph at the bottom of the article. http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2006/5/aafeature
ellydee
Well-Known Member
DWC NUTRIENTS
SUPERNATURAL GRO AQUA AND BLOOM AQUA
http://www.supernaturalbrand.com/products/
Check this thread
https://www.rollitup.org/dwc-bubbleponics/478010-flowering-undercurrentdwc.html
I'm using it now in coco w/dripclean and in my DWC set ups.
It smells like really good cheese or really bad meat.
SUPERNATURAL GRO AQUA AND BLOOM AQUA
http://www.supernaturalbrand.com/products/
Check this thread
https://www.rollitup.org/dwc-bubbleponics/478010-flowering-undercurrentdwc.html
I'm using it now in coco w/dripclean and in my DWC set ups.
It smells like really good cheese or really bad meat.
tags420
Well-Known Member
I believe that there is more to the middle region(wasted) than we think and I have shown you guys the link supporting that 70% is used(but that doesn't mean I think it's the goal). So I don't believe that you can accurately set PUR because what light makes up PUR is not defined/accepted enough. PAR on the other hand, is all the energy available to photosynthesize with and also valued evenly.
Until someone matches the par across a whole 4x4 of a 1000w hps, you are all just trying to take short cuts and will fall short. Match the par and then tell me it was too much/wasted and you can do more with less. Then you can dial it back till you're getting the same results with less PAR...and finally you will have an actual PUR definition and some solid data to show the world.
OHH WAIT...that's what the at660 is doing...matched(and higher) PAR over the whole canopy...and 40% less watts(only 660w) than the 1000w hps(over 1100w). The most important is the matching the out coverage readings, and is the biggest improvement over older and smaller led's. I believe that they could possible create the same results with around only 500w instead of 660w, but that is what they could do at this time...and eventually will come down.
EDIT:
I am paying $0.31/KwH...and that's what got me into led's in the first place.
Until someone matches the par across a whole 4x4 of a 1000w hps, you are all just trying to take short cuts and will fall short. Match the par and then tell me it was too much/wasted and you can do more with less. Then you can dial it back till you're getting the same results with less PAR...and finally you will have an actual PUR definition and some solid data to show the world.
OHH WAIT...that's what the at660 is doing...matched(and higher) PAR over the whole canopy...and 40% less watts(only 660w) than the 1000w hps(over 1100w). The most important is the matching the out coverage readings, and is the biggest improvement over older and smaller led's. I believe that they could possible create the same results with around only 500w instead of 660w, but that is what they could do at this time...and eventually will come down.
EDIT:
I am paying $0.31/KwH...and that's what got me into led's in the first place.
Of course you could divided the three V-C-F values by the power consumed, however you need an accurate voltage to get a real radiant flux efficiency
Anyway, Datasheets are shitty, even the graphs are inexact.
V-C-F values or radiant flux efficiencies whatever, I don't think that it will happen.
Everyone has used lumens since a decade in indoor growing, they have found a good means to fuck us, I think they will keep it
calijoe if you can build an approximately 200 watt led light that can produce more product then a 1000 watt halide you will become a millionaire selling those lights. i wish you luck and appreciate your determination. to date i have use alot of different leds. i love them and there potential. i have used hydro grow, advanced, illumitex, spectra, and lighthouse chrome. i am certainly not a diy led builder just a guy that buys panels pre made. to date my best yield have been off the chrome series. there not the highest quality but are bang for the buck. to date i have been consistently pulling .9 grams per watt off the leds. what you are suggesting is far above that. i have heard of some very advanced grows pulling 2.2 grams per watt and your proposed light would far exceed even those numbers. not to be a skeptic here but your light would revolutionize the growing scene..
CaliJoe
Member
I completely understand where your coming from... and my claims are 'way out there', I understand and agree with that. I just spent another $180 yesterday to 'refine' my light a little better (adding Cyan, few more warm whites, 475nm blues, in place of some of the reds so that the wattage is still the same). My dream goal is to break the '3GPW barrier' using various techniques (scrog/super cropping), but if I can reach 2.8GPW (600grams / 215w) I won't complain, but I know that is an unheard of yield, even for me. I am making my 'shimmer plates' right now to test if that idea will also help increase yield and I will post some videos/pics by tomorrow of that test to show if it does function or not. If it does function like I hope I will scale it up to use on my second grow.
This is my 'light to beat' right now. I will be updating my light hopefully by Friday (when the other parts/LEDs come in) and when that happens I will do an official test, hanging the light above a 4'x'4' grid and take readings. I strongly believe I will have better numbers both in the center and along one axis (since my light is rectangle) and match the other axis at the edges. Testing/video/pics I will post next weekend will tell us all the answer to that.
This is my 'light to beat' right now. I will be updating my light hopefully by Friday (when the other parts/LEDs come in) and when that happens I will do an official test, hanging the light above a 4'x'4' grid and take readings. I strongly believe I will have better numbers both in the center and along one axis (since my light is rectangle) and match the other axis at the edges. Testing/video/pics I will post next weekend will tell us all the answer to that.
tags420
Well-Known Member
That black dog is one of the lowest output units growershouse tested. I talked to the owner and he said they can't keep up with a 1000w. And just look at the actual output and it is clear why.
Here is the link to the blog section...check out everything on any lighting to get a better goal. http://growershouse.com/blog/
I love these graphs cause they show how much less lots of led's cover compared to what they say. Look at what 1000w hps are doing(@24")...I know you think all that par is not necessary but you still need to get closer to it than all those led's IMO.
Slolis tek(best in there, hard to see)
Center: 925umols
2x2 avg:679.5umols
4x4 avg:378umols
Those numbers can be improved by using a better hood.
And here is a rough graph of my at660(14/50 lens combo) I made @24 when I first saw it.
But all 14 is actually a little better plus still covers the 4x4 just as well. Either way it is way closer(basically the same) to HID than anything else. And that is all usable light, so as we know should mean more than then the hps's par because of that efficient spectrum for the plants.
With all 14 lenses I did once I got my own actually home...
Center: 1637umols
2x2 avg: 1058.75umols
4x4 avg: 293umols
So with all that said and the fact that none of the growershouse tested led's produce close to 2lbs, it just furthers my point that more quanta(par) is needed. The at660 can deliver it in high intensities, and ideal and efficient growth spectrum. Plus they do it all over the canopy not just under the center. I will get something going under mine soon to show how important getting more actual light(par) to the whole canopy is. It is still not technically out yet but no one else has anything in the same league.
Here is the link to the blog section...check out everything on any lighting to get a better goal. http://growershouse.com/blog/
I love these graphs cause they show how much less lots of led's cover compared to what they say. Look at what 1000w hps are doing(@24")...I know you think all that par is not necessary but you still need to get closer to it than all those led's IMO.
Slolis tek(best in there, hard to see)
Center: 925umols
2x2 avg:679.5umols
4x4 avg:378umols
Those numbers can be improved by using a better hood.
And here is a rough graph of my at660(14/50 lens combo) I made @24 when I first saw it.
But all 14 is actually a little better plus still covers the 4x4 just as well. Either way it is way closer(basically the same) to HID than anything else. And that is all usable light, so as we know should mean more than then the hps's par because of that efficient spectrum for the plants.
With all 14 lenses I did once I got my own actually home...
Center: 1637umols
2x2 avg: 1058.75umols
4x4 avg: 293umols
So with all that said and the fact that none of the growershouse tested led's produce close to 2lbs, it just furthers my point that more quanta(par) is needed. The at660 can deliver it in high intensities, and ideal and efficient growth spectrum. Plus they do it all over the canopy not just under the center. I will get something going under mine soon to show how important getting more actual light(par) to the whole canopy is. It is still not technically out yet but no one else has anything in the same league.
CaliJoe
Member
I can't see your attachments. EDIT: now I see them, thanks!
I just used the Blackdog graph because it was a nice graph. If you have another light graph that is better I will use that instead. I am actually trying to match a 1000w HPS in PAR output on a 4x4 grid. I don't think I can quite reach 2000 PAR in the center, but I am hoping to get 1500 evenly over a 4x2 area, not sure what I will see on the outer 2' not directly under my light. I think if you averaged all the numbers it would be about the same, if I can get 1500 PAR, but then I think I will have a better spectral output. After looking at my light under a spectrometer and putting it against the standard absorption graph, I decided to make a few changes. I understand I am putting a lot of faith into the absorption graph being close to an ideal spectrum.
EDIT2: After seeing your graphs, I still am hoping to beat all of them in the center and have more even coverage.
To recap, my light currently consists of:
6ea of 420nm, 430, 445, and 455 (royal blue)
6 cree warm whites
20 cree 630nm
12 'china' 640/650 multichips
36 OSRAM 660nm
And after updating will consist of (all with 60degree optics):
Blue Spectrum: 6ea of 420nm, 430, 445, and 455, and 4ea 475nm
6 505nm Cyan
10 cree warm whites
20 cree 630nm
6 'china' 640/650 multichips
28 OSRAM 660nm
I just used the Blackdog graph because it was a nice graph. If you have another light graph that is better I will use that instead. I am actually trying to match a 1000w HPS in PAR output on a 4x4 grid. I don't think I can quite reach 2000 PAR in the center, but I am hoping to get 1500 evenly over a 4x2 area, not sure what I will see on the outer 2' not directly under my light. I think if you averaged all the numbers it would be about the same, if I can get 1500 PAR, but then I think I will have a better spectral output. After looking at my light under a spectrometer and putting it against the standard absorption graph, I decided to make a few changes. I understand I am putting a lot of faith into the absorption graph being close to an ideal spectrum.
EDIT2: After seeing your graphs, I still am hoping to beat all of them in the center and have more even coverage.
To recap, my light currently consists of:
6ea of 420nm, 430, 445, and 455 (royal blue)
6 cree warm whites
20 cree 630nm
12 'china' 640/650 multichips
36 OSRAM 660nm
And after updating will consist of (all with 60degree optics):
Blue Spectrum: 6ea of 420nm, 430, 445, and 455, and 4ea 475nm
6 505nm Cyan
10 cree warm whites
20 cree 630nm
6 'china' 640/650 multichips
28 OSRAM 660nm
tags420
Well-Known Member
Ya I fixed the graph pics
The center is not the as important as matching the out coverage to get a better total yield is what I have come down to. I understand that you have a smaller area but I would really like to see it applied to exactly what a 1000w can do in coverage too...not just intensity. Which actually can be looked at as either a lack of physical size of your light to spread the intensity evenly, or the lack of center intensity to still maintain power as it disperses. Even coverage is ideal but reaching a strong enough minimum intensity on the out skirts is a big key imo, even if it is a little over kill in the center to do so. 1500umols of photosynthetically targeted light should be plenty and a great goal. But you see that a certain high PAR energy is still necessary despite great spectrum advances.
The center is not the as important as matching the out coverage to get a better total yield is what I have come down to. I understand that you have a smaller area but I would really like to see it applied to exactly what a 1000w can do in coverage too...not just intensity. Which actually can be looked at as either a lack of physical size of your light to spread the intensity evenly, or the lack of center intensity to still maintain power as it disperses. Even coverage is ideal but reaching a strong enough minimum intensity on the out skirts is a big key imo, even if it is a little over kill in the center to do so. 1500umols of photosynthetically targeted light should be plenty and a great goal. But you see that a certain high PAR energy is still necessary despite great spectrum advances.
PetFlora
Well-Known Member
Most panel designers overlook (fail to realize) the importance of balanced light across the entire foot print
It is easily accomplished by staggering every other row instead of running the rows in perfect parallel
Additionally, with multiples of 5 rows the Merkaba shape is created
It's like adding a turbocharger.
It is easily accomplished by staggering every other row instead of running the rows in perfect parallel
Additionally, with multiples of 5 rows the Merkaba shape is created
It's like adding a turbocharger.
