SomeGuy
Well-Known Member
3000k will do it all. anything beyond 35w sq ft is a waste IMO.
...All Things Vero...
- Thread starter AquariusPanta
- Start date
3000k will do it all. anything beyond 35w sq ft is a waste IMO.
AquariusPanta
Well-Known Member
In your situation, I'd advise either 700mA or 1050mA. You get 40% efficiency with the V18 @ 700mA, while with 1050mA you gain a little more light and heat, while lowering the efficiency close to 38%.
You could certainly grow a 'weed' from start to finish with either 2700K or 5000K. The results will vary though, some more desirable than others.
The 3000K seems to be a popular choice for seed-to-harvest but things change over time so again, results may vary with newer products. If your feeling chancy, roll with the 3500K on the Vero side.
I'm assuming that the one-half gram per watt is based off of the total draw (watts) from each cob and then added together and divided by dry weight. The only problem that I have with this methodology ($/W or Grams/W) is that the formula takes into account wattage of both PAR and heat. So technically and more reasonably, if one your COBs is producing 50W off the killa-watt meter and is running 33% efficient, than only 16.5W of PAR are being transferred and consumed. This being said, 10x COBs (all giving 16.5W PAR each) gives you 165W PAR output, raising your ratio of grams over watts to 1.6 grams per PAR watt.
Some people are most likely going to get grumpy and throw a hissy fit at this point in the discourse because most are accustomed to old ways of thinking but the former method undermines the purpose of solving for PAR/heat efficiencies. Heat doesn't grow buds, PAR does.
Last edited:
Scornfulheal
Active Member
If I have the Arctic 11 plus cooler, do you think I could be able to stick 2 V18s on one of them? That way I could run 4x Vero 18s on 2x heatsinks.
AquariusPanta
Well-Known Member
You could always try but I wouldn't advise it.
Scornfulheal
Active Member
Even better with 3500k + reds and blues? Or just go solo Veros to get a feel for it and keep things simple and costs down?
AquariusPanta
Well-Known Member
Supra and some others like the reds and blues stars because they typically super efficient (from what I've heard, not tested). In your case, start with some Veros and later on, if you feel the urge, throw in some blue and red stars as supplemental lighting.
uzerneims
Well-Known Member
daaaamn, that is kind of low compared to cxa dudes...
i'm waiting for final decision and i will go in digi-key and buy veros29. But don't know which spectrum. Feeling kind of lame
And how was the bud look? Quality? Trychs?
SomeGuy
Well-Known Member
I was at 68w per sqft.. past the point of diminishing returns.. LOL less wattage would have done as much IMO I expect to yield twice as much by using twice the space and bringing my w per sq ft down to 30ish.
What I am saying is... I could have used less watt and got the same yield IMO. AAAANNND I feel I can easily hit the g per w goal by simply distributing the watts I did use over a larger area.
What I am saying is... I could have used less watt and got the same yield IMO. AAAANNND I feel I can easily hit the g per w goal by simply distributing the watts I did use over a larger area.
Scornfulheal
Active Member
Also AP, am I reading Supra's spreadsheet wrong? I thought a single Vero 18 @ 700 mA would bring a little under 20 watts, while you're saying that 2 of them would bring 16 watts.
I was thinking of 2x Vero 18 3500k @ 1050 mA if I could get close to 30w out of each of them, if not I'd want to go to 2x Vero 29s at 800-1050 mA instead.
I was thinking of 2x Vero 18 3500k @ 1050 mA if I could get close to 30w out of each of them, if not I'd want to go to 2x Vero 29s at 800-1050 mA instead.
AquariusPanta
Well-Known Member
Didn't you have your bars set up and operating before or around September? I think the newer Vero series will provide better results (data sheets depicting better numbers were updated and released late August, early September).
Your reading it right but your understanding of the efficiency is undeveloped. While the V18 produces 20W, like you see, it's made up of both PAR/visible light and heat. The efficiency is around 40%, meaning 40% is PAR - the stuff we and the plants are after; the heat, not so much. Take another look at the sheet upon page four. You will notice how the efficiency gets better at lower currents but less total wattage is produced.
According to Supra's 'cheat' sheets, 2x V18's (3000K, 3500K will be slightly more efficient) will bring around 23W (PAR) @ currents of 1050mA.
The V29's are more efficient, boosting possible PAR watts at given currents hence the prince difference.
Last edited:
Greengenes707
Well-Known Member
Do not start using radiant watts for g/w calculations. That is ridiculous. You pay for the whole watt, no matter how much goes to light or heat.
There are 2 ways to calculate input to output of you grow(taking just lighting into consideration
1) is basic g/w of flowering lamp and the way most know and go by. With hps they usually just use the bulb wattage instead of the whole system as we do with less cause it all comes as one...but whole system(bulb and ballast, or fans and drivers) is the best way considering this way isn't the most accurate to begin with.
Ex
300w led pulled 250gs...250g/300w=.83g/w
2)This way is g/KwH...and it takes into account your veg wattage as well as the time/duration of the whole grow. This way is the most accurate and will also let you plug your own power cost into it and see how many grams per dollar spent your are growing.
Ex
vegged at 18/6 for 30 days using 200w(or .2 Kw)... .2kw*18*30=108KwH's used
+
flowered at 12/12 for 60 days using 600w(or.6Kw)... .6kw*12*60=432KwH's used
= 540KwH used in the whole grow(just for lighting)
And say the whole thing yielded 600grams(1g/w by the basic way).
So 600w/540Kwh's= 1.11g/KwH used
And then you pay $0.25/KwH...and used 540KwH...
540kwh*.25$= 135$
Last but not least...
You produced 600g at a cost of 135$...
135$/600g=$0.23 per gram is what your bud cost you(just considering lighting)
And I have one question...I don't think it is a new vero...I thought they just updated/corrected some stuff in the data sheet...????
There are 2 ways to calculate input to output of you grow(taking just lighting into consideration
1) is basic g/w of flowering lamp and the way most know and go by. With hps they usually just use the bulb wattage instead of the whole system as we do with less cause it all comes as one...but whole system(bulb and ballast, or fans and drivers) is the best way considering this way isn't the most accurate to begin with.
Ex
300w led pulled 250gs...250g/300w=.83g/w
2)This way is g/KwH...and it takes into account your veg wattage as well as the time/duration of the whole grow. This way is the most accurate and will also let you plug your own power cost into it and see how many grams per dollar spent your are growing.
Ex
vegged at 18/6 for 30 days using 200w(or .2 Kw)... .2kw*18*30=108KwH's used
+
flowered at 12/12 for 60 days using 600w(or.6Kw)... .6kw*12*60=432KwH's used
= 540KwH used in the whole grow(just for lighting)
And say the whole thing yielded 600grams(1g/w by the basic way).
So 600w/540Kwh's= 1.11g/KwH used
And then you pay $0.25/KwH...and used 540KwH...
540kwh*.25$= 135$
Last but not least...
You produced 600g at a cost of 135$...
135$/600g=$0.23 per gram is what your bud cost you(just considering lighting)
And I have one question...I don't think it is a new vero...I thought they just updated/corrected some stuff in the data sheet...????
Scornfulheal
Active Member
Okay so I am looking for an ideal around 30W (PAR) per sqft flowering, and drive them down in order to get about 5W (PAR) per sqft during veg stage? Is this a decent goal?
[edit] And thank you for clearing up the tables for me! I felt like I was missing out on something important haha.
AquariusPanta
Well-Known Member
Thanks for sharing.
To comment with your question, you could totally be right about that, as I never thought about it that way. Although, if they went back and corrected numbers like you have considered, they must have really been high during the initial data testing and recording (Spring 2014) because numbers, such as thermal resistance and efficiency, have CLIMBED all across the board.
O? That could have been, as I started getting into all this DIY/COB stuff around late August/early September (2014), so my memory of the old data sheets and the new data sheets is somewhat of a mix/blur.
SomeGuy
Well-Known Member
Im challenging myself this next round to try and hit 1lb from the 4x4 tent. thats not even a g p w. I am
I think thats because those new numbers reflect typical not minimums.
I think thats because those new numbers reflect typical not minimums.
SomeGuy
Well-Known Member
See how he has close to the right amount of wattage per sq ft?
That has a lot to do with it IMO.