Astir Grow Led Panel Project...
- Thread starter stardustsailor
- Start date
stardustsailor
Well-Known Member
So,to continue philosophising about leds...
Where ,were we ?
Ohh.Yes...
So ,every little led emits a cone of light..
That cone resembles a lot ,of the cone created by a HID reflector...
Only ,that it is much smaller in shape & power...
What happens from here on ?
How we can utilise them efficiently for growing plants ?
Hmmm....
Lets take a theoritical example.....
We shall adapt to a 'versus',way of thinking...
For a while...
Two growers.
Same plants.Genetically identical.Clones,maybe ?
Same enviro.(substrate/ferts/temps/humidity/air/CO[SUB]2[/SUB]/ect)
Ok...
Two totally different approaches...
Let's examine them in the deepest possible....
50 Watt of led,each one...
For 1 m[SUP]2[/SUP] growing area....Just an indicative value.
Doesn't have to be according upon real conditions or requirements.
Now they are free to choose everything else ,
about how they are going to use ,those 50 Watts of
electrical power so, to grow...
With the exact same spectra.
Let's just say :
2:2:1 Warm Whites : Neutral Whites : Cool Whites.
.....
Grower A chooses " Power & Penetration Scheme "
Chooses to make (or have made by other(s) ) a led illuminaire,
to suit the needs of his "scheme"....
So :
- 25 x " 3 Watt " leds . Vf=3 V & If = 700 mA . =3*0.7=2.1 Watts.(x25=52.5 Watts)
-Additional high quality lenses.At 60°.( Extra cost...Keep that in mind...)
Grower B chooses " Long Term Economy & Coverage Scheme "
-50 x " 1 Watt " leds .Vf= 3 V & If= 350 mA =3*0.35=1.05 Watts(x50=52.5 Watts)
-No additionl lenses. 120° Lambertian II .
Grower A : Ends up with a small panel of 25 leds with lenses...
10 Warms ,10 Neutrals ,5 Cools....
Arranged them in 5 rows of 5 leds.
Each row having 2x Warms ,2x Neutrals ,1 X cool...
Kind of difficult to mix 'em equally in the square panel...
A single-point light source.
Now Grower A, wants penetration.
Grower A "gathers" / "concentrates" the light in tight cones of 60° ..
Every of @700mA led has 500 mW Φ power.
(Reminder: indicative values)
25 x 500 mW = 12.5 Watts light flux....
Every ,high quality- & expensive- ,lenses have a minimum of 10% light absorption..
The "crap-bay" lenses ,of course,they do not have the ...3% losses ,they claim to have ...
In fact the smaller the angle,the bigger the light losses,from PMMA polymer absorption...
That means,automatically 12.5 - 10 %
( 1.25 Watts ,and that's a really conservative value.
In real life is about 15%-25%..
Due to reflections-thus re-absorption- between led's lens & additional lens,not perfect contact between lenses,ect..)
Anyway...The best case taken ...)
= 11.25 Watts,light flux(..at the ideal,best case,do not forget..)
.....
Now...Very close to this panel ,the power is pretty much...
And the homogeneity of the light is not so good,because of the narrow "beam like" 60° cones...
So,in order not to cause any possible burns in the plant(s) leaves,but also for the light cone bases
to "overlap" each other,so that the different 'whites' ( wavelengths )to be as equally incident to canopy, Grower A
is obligated to increase the distance from the plant(s) canopy....
In that way ,also ,increases the coverage area,of light...
But light power diminishes with distance....
Following the Inverse Square Law....
Grower B :
Makes two identical square panels...
(IF had chosen to make one,Grower B would have,just,the double 'mixing' ability
...more "pixels' .(leds)...Double the number from Grower A )
Grower B has a two-point light source..
With an emission angle of 120°....
Now what about light power ?
Because of the same nature of the construction of die & materials used...
The lower the current ,the better the efficiency...
And that goes for all the leds ,without not even one exception.
No matter quality or crappy leds....
The 700mA driven leds have (approx.)1.75 more power than the 350 mA driven ones...
So while the 700s have 500 mW ,the 350s have just 285.714 (approx.) mWatts ...
So....
50 x 285.714 = 14.285 Watts
14.285-11.25 = 3 Watts approx.
( Grower A is 6 x "3 Watters" -6 x 500mW =3 W - in optical power ,left behind ,already....)
At this point we shall stand a bit....
For the same electrical power ( 52.5 Watts ) ..
Grower A has an optical output power of 11.25 Watts
Grower B has an optical output power of 14.28 Watts
...
Grower B "scheme" seems more efficient,concerning use of power....
Multiplied by "use" time,means also more efficient use of energy.
"Long Term Economic" part of "scheme",accomplished successfully !
Now..
What happens inside the growth chamber ?
Where ,were we ?
Ohh.Yes...
So ,every little led emits a cone of light..
That cone resembles a lot ,of the cone created by a HID reflector...
Only ,that it is much smaller in shape & power...
What happens from here on ?
How we can utilise them efficiently for growing plants ?
Hmmm....
Lets take a theoritical example.....
We shall adapt to a 'versus',way of thinking...
For a while...
Two growers.
Same plants.Genetically identical.Clones,maybe ?
Same enviro.(substrate/ferts/temps/humidity/air/CO[SUB]2[/SUB]/ect)
Ok...
Two totally different approaches...
Let's examine them in the deepest possible....
50 Watt of led,each one...
For 1 m[SUP]2[/SUP] growing area....Just an indicative value.
Doesn't have to be according upon real conditions or requirements.
Now they are free to choose everything else ,
about how they are going to use ,those 50 Watts of
electrical power so, to grow...
With the exact same spectra.
Let's just say :
2:2:1 Warm Whites : Neutral Whites : Cool Whites.
.....
Grower A chooses " Power & Penetration Scheme "
Chooses to make (or have made by other(s) ) a led illuminaire,
to suit the needs of his "scheme"....
So :
- 25 x " 3 Watt " leds . Vf=3 V & If = 700 mA . =3*0.7=2.1 Watts.(x25=52.5 Watts)
-Additional high quality lenses.At 60°.( Extra cost...Keep that in mind...)
Grower B chooses " Long Term Economy & Coverage Scheme "
-50 x " 1 Watt " leds .Vf= 3 V & If= 350 mA =3*0.35=1.05 Watts(x50=52.5 Watts)
-No additionl lenses. 120° Lambertian II .
Grower A : Ends up with a small panel of 25 leds with lenses...
10 Warms ,10 Neutrals ,5 Cools....
Arranged them in 5 rows of 5 leds.
Each row having 2x Warms ,2x Neutrals ,1 X cool...
Kind of difficult to mix 'em equally in the square panel...
A single-point light source.
Now Grower A, wants penetration.
Grower A "gathers" / "concentrates" the light in tight cones of 60° ..
Every of @700mA led has 500 mW Φ power.
(Reminder: indicative values)
25 x 500 mW = 12.5 Watts light flux....
Every ,high quality- & expensive- ,lenses have a minimum of 10% light absorption..
The "crap-bay" lenses ,of course,they do not have the ...3% losses ,they claim to have ...
In fact the smaller the angle,the bigger the light losses,from PMMA polymer absorption...
That means,automatically 12.5 - 10 %
( 1.25 Watts ,and that's a really conservative value.
In real life is about 15%-25%..
Due to reflections-thus re-absorption- between led's lens & additional lens,not perfect contact between lenses,ect..)
Anyway...The best case taken ...)
= 11.25 Watts,light flux(..at the ideal,best case,do not forget..)
.....
Now...Very close to this panel ,the power is pretty much...
And the homogeneity of the light is not so good,because of the narrow "beam like" 60° cones...
So,in order not to cause any possible burns in the plant(s) leaves,but also for the light cone bases
to "overlap" each other,so that the different 'whites' ( wavelengths )to be as equally incident to canopy, Grower A
is obligated to increase the distance from the plant(s) canopy....
In that way ,also ,increases the coverage area,of light...
But light power diminishes with distance....
Following the Inverse Square Law....
Grower B :
Makes two identical square panels...
(IF had chosen to make one,Grower B would have,just,the double 'mixing' ability
...more "pixels' .(leds)...Double the number from Grower A )
Grower B has a two-point light source..
With an emission angle of 120°....
Now what about light power ?
Because of the same nature of the construction of die & materials used...
The lower the current ,the better the efficiency...
And that goes for all the leds ,without not even one exception.
No matter quality or crappy leds....
The 700mA driven leds have (approx.)1.75 more power than the 350 mA driven ones...
So while the 700s have 500 mW ,the 350s have just 285.714 (approx.) mWatts ...
So....
50 x 285.714 = 14.285 Watts
14.285-11.25 = 3 Watts approx.
( Grower A is 6 x "3 Watters" -6 x 500mW =3 W - in optical power ,left behind ,already....)
At this point we shall stand a bit....
For the same electrical power ( 52.5 Watts ) ..
Grower A has an optical output power of 11.25 Watts
Grower B has an optical output power of 14.28 Watts
...
Grower B "scheme" seems more efficient,concerning use of power....
Multiplied by "use" time,means also more efficient use of energy.
"Long Term Economic" part of "scheme",accomplished successfully !
Now..
What happens inside the growth chamber ?
stardustsailor
Well-Known Member
Since both growers have exactly identical led panels,of 5 x 5 leds, both dimensional and spectral .
Let's consider the panels as "points" of light.
For cone with given top angle θ...
tan θ/2= base radius / height => Height = base radius / tan θ/2...
Correct ?
Ok...
Grower A:
60° lenses...
So θ/2= 60°/2= 30°
tan30°= 0.577
So to cover an area of 1m[SUP]2 [/SUP],with the circular base of his panel's cone ,grower A has to set his panel to a height of :
1m[SUP]2[/SUP]= π (3.14) * r 2 (radius) => radius= sq.root ( 1/3.14 ) = 0.564 m
Height = base radius / tanθ.=0.564 / 0.577 = 0.997 m from canopy...
And the Photosynthetic Photon Density will be...
Irradiance PPD=(Radiant intensity * solid angle of radiation[aka steradian angle] ) /Irradiated Area
Radiant Intensity for 1m[SUP]2[/SUP]=Radiant Power(Flux) [Watt] /4 π [sr]
Steradian angle = 1 /0.997[SUP]2 [/SUP]=1,006 [sr]
"Power Density " aka Irradiance ( W/ m[SUP]2[/SUP] )= 1.006 /{ ( 4 * 3.14 )* 1 m[SUP]2} [/SUP]x 11.25 Watt =0.901 Watt / m[SUP]2[/SUP]
So if the light power of Grower's A panel was evenly incident to 1m[SUP]2 [/SUP]of covered canopy area,
hanged above the canopy 99.7 cm ,would have the power of 0.901 Watts.
Grower's A(25x @700mA leds+lens 60°) PPD = 0.901Watt/m[SUP]2[/SUP]
Grower B :
Grower b has two panels to cover 1m[SUP]2 [/SUP]of canopy.
No lenses...
120°
θ/2= 120°/2=60°.
tan60°= 1.732
So to cover an area of 1 m[SUP]2 [/SUP],with the circular base of panel's cone ,grower B has to set the panel to a height of...
1m[SUP]2[/SUP]= π (3.14) * r 2 (radius) => radius= sq.root ( 1/3.14 ) = 0.564 m
Height = 0.564 / 1.732 = 0.325 m from canopy...
Steradian angle of 1m[SUP]2[/SUP] from 0.325 m away= 1 / 0.325[SUP]2[/SUP] =9.46 sr..
Each one of grower's B panels has a power of 14.285/2= 7.142 Watt
Optical power over 1m[SUP]2[/SUP] area, is 9.46/{( 4 * 3.14 )*1m[SUP]2[/SUP]} x 7.142 Watt =5.379 Watt/m[SUP]2..[/SUP].
So if the light power of Grower's B panels was evenly incident to 1m[SUP]2 [/SUP]of canopy area covered ,
hanged (both)above the canopy 32.5 cm ,would
have the power of 2 x 5.379 = 10.75 Watts
Grower's B(50x @350mA leds,no lens) PPD = 10.75 Watt/m[SUP]2[/SUP].....
Grower B has a more powerful coverage...
More than x10 power,for the same leaf canopy area, than Grower A ..
Grower A to cover the same area has to( more than )triple the distance canopy-illuminaire, from grower B
3x the distance means 9 times less power.....
Plus the ability to "manipulate" the position of incident power....
Wow!!!
But...Wait a minute....
Grower B used both his panels for the same area...
What about for 0.5m[SUP]2[/SUP] for each panel...?
0.5m[SUP]2[/SUP] =3.14 x r[SUP]2[/SUP] => r = sq.root ( 0.5 /3.14 )=0.399..
Height= 0.399 / 1.732=0.230 m
Steradian = 0.5 / 0.230 [SUP]2[/SUP]=18.83
Optical power per .5m[SUP]2[/SUP] = 18.83 x 7.142 / (4 * 3.14 )=10.712 Watt / 0.5 m[SUP]2[/SUP]
Now...Grower B has 10.712 Watt over half a 1m2....
5.35 Watts / m[SUP]2[/SUP] from each panel....
Again the same overall PPD...2 x 5.35 = 10.7 Watt / m[SUP]2[/SUP]...
...
With a small difference....
Now the panels are closer to the canopy....23 cm....
...
With better .."penetration" than before at 32.5 cm...
And more evenly distributed incident light power,in real .
(Cause of the Lambertian light distirbution ,from two separate panels,the incident light is
more evenly ,distributed than the analog incident light ,of a single-point ,"lambertian"-cone-shaped,light source..)
Grower B has multiple light sources....
Wherever& whenever , needed...
As needed...
"There" or there...
Top or sideways...
Everywhere...
Do we really have to analyse who has better ..."penetration"....???
..
-What about if grower B had decided that wanted five panels of ten leds ,each ?
(4 xWarms,4xNeutrals,2xCools)...
It would have had a difference from the choise of utilising two panels ?
He,he...
I'll leave that to you ,to calculate...
You'll might be very surprised,by the results....
Rhetorical Question,follows...
...
...
.....
Is it just "led-grow-light" company "brain-washing" ,
the reason why growers overlook/misjudge/underestimate/derogate/understate
"led grow light "implementations ,using 1 Watt dies,no lenses and multiple panels ?
..
...
Cause in "papers" ...
Things are quite different,I should say..
And maths,geometry,physics,ect never lie ...
...
...
Like "led-grow-light" manufacturers, do...
(Usually they don't give a sh!t about a quality & effective product..
They wanna just make Money....
Creating "Hypes" & "trends" ,that they cannot be scientifically supported or proved...
...
[video=youtube;VHhzi8PvDYw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHhzi8PvDYw[/video]
...
Now ...Other "things" ..
Like cooling options ,led quality,spectra and total cost to name a few ,later on.......
In deep...
....
Leds don't need raw ,'muscle' power....
Leds,need other leds....
Power by unity of many...
Not power of the few...
That's how they work,really efficiently, on plant growing...
...
Power by unity of many...
That's how something 'goes' efficiently ,generally speaking....
And plants are gods and goddesses..
Constantly & silently , teaching us...
Us ,the intelligent,but ignorant at the same time ,human beings....
.....
They gather light with many leaves...
It is more efficient,that way...
-If it wasn't so,they would not be bothered to waste valuable resources, to produce many leaves...-
They would have had just one (or few) ,big,'muscly', monstery leaf(-ves)...
Do you see the ..resemblance & the relation with leds ?
....
Universal Alchemy....
http://www.skyeinstruments.com/wp-content/uploads/LightGuidanceNotes.pdf
http://www.nichia.co.jp/specification/en/product/led/opticalunit.pdf
Let's consider the panels as "points" of light.
Coverage...& "Penetration"....
Replace in the equations the photometric measurements with the analog radiometric....
Illuminance=>Radiant Intensity ( Watt / sr )
Luminus Intensity=>Irradiance,PPD ( Watt / m[SUP]2[/SUP] ,umol sec[SUP]-1[/SUP] m[SUP]-2 [/SUP])
Luminus Flux=>Optical power Φ ,PPF (Watts / umol/sec )
For cone with given top angle θ...
tan θ/2= base radius / height => Height = base radius / tan θ/2...
Correct ?
Ok...
Grower A:
60° lenses...
So θ/2= 60°/2= 30°
tan30°= 0.577
So to cover an area of 1m[SUP]2 [/SUP],with the circular base of his panel's cone ,grower A has to set his panel to a height of :
1m[SUP]2[/SUP]= π (3.14) * r 2 (radius) => radius= sq.root ( 1/3.14 ) = 0.564 m
Height = base radius / tanθ.=0.564 / 0.577 = 0.997 m from canopy...
And the Photosynthetic Photon Density will be...
Irradiance PPD=(Radiant intensity * solid angle of radiation[aka steradian angle] ) /Irradiated Area
Radiant Intensity for 1m[SUP]2[/SUP]=Radiant Power(Flux) [Watt] /4 π [sr]
Steradian angle = 1 /0.997[SUP]2 [/SUP]=1,006 [sr]
"Power Density " aka Irradiance ( W/ m[SUP]2[/SUP] )= 1.006 /{ ( 4 * 3.14 )* 1 m[SUP]2} [/SUP]x 11.25 Watt =0.901 Watt / m[SUP]2[/SUP]
So if the light power of Grower's A panel was evenly incident to 1m[SUP]2 [/SUP]of covered canopy area,
hanged above the canopy 99.7 cm ,would have the power of 0.901 Watts.
Grower's A(25x @700mA leds+lens 60°) PPD = 0.901Watt/m[SUP]2[/SUP]
Grower B :
Grower b has two panels to cover 1m[SUP]2 [/SUP]of canopy.
No lenses...
120°
θ/2= 120°/2=60°.
tan60°= 1.732
So to cover an area of 1 m[SUP]2 [/SUP],with the circular base of panel's cone ,grower B has to set the panel to a height of...
1m[SUP]2[/SUP]= π (3.14) * r 2 (radius) => radius= sq.root ( 1/3.14 ) = 0.564 m
Height = 0.564 / 1.732 = 0.325 m from canopy...
Steradian angle of 1m[SUP]2[/SUP] from 0.325 m away= 1 / 0.325[SUP]2[/SUP] =9.46 sr..
Each one of grower's B panels has a power of 14.285/2= 7.142 Watt
Optical power over 1m[SUP]2[/SUP] area, is 9.46/{( 4 * 3.14 )*1m[SUP]2[/SUP]} x 7.142 Watt =5.379 Watt/m[SUP]2..[/SUP].
So if the light power of Grower's B panels was evenly incident to 1m[SUP]2 [/SUP]of canopy area covered ,
hanged (both)above the canopy 32.5 cm ,would
have the power of 2 x 5.379 = 10.75 Watts
Grower's B(50x @350mA leds,no lens) PPD = 10.75 Watt/m[SUP]2[/SUP].....
Grower B has a more powerful coverage...
More than x10 power,for the same leaf canopy area, than Grower A ..
Grower A to cover the same area has to( more than )triple the distance canopy-illuminaire, from grower B
3x the distance means 9 times less power.....
Plus the ability to "manipulate" the position of incident power....
Wow!!!
But...Wait a minute....
Grower B used both his panels for the same area...
What about for 0.5m[SUP]2[/SUP] for each panel...?
0.5m[SUP]2[/SUP] =3.14 x r[SUP]2[/SUP] => r = sq.root ( 0.5 /3.14 )=0.399..
Height= 0.399 / 1.732=0.230 m
Steradian = 0.5 / 0.230 [SUP]2[/SUP]=18.83
Optical power per .5m[SUP]2[/SUP] = 18.83 x 7.142 / (4 * 3.14 )=10.712 Watt / 0.5 m[SUP]2[/SUP]
Now...Grower B has 10.712 Watt over half a 1m2....
5.35 Watts / m[SUP]2[/SUP] from each panel....
Again the same overall PPD...2 x 5.35 = 10.7 Watt / m[SUP]2[/SUP]...
...
With a small difference....
Now the panels are closer to the canopy....23 cm....
...
With better .."penetration" than before at 32.5 cm...
And more evenly distributed incident light power,in real .
(Cause of the Lambertian light distirbution ,from two separate panels,the incident light is
more evenly ,distributed than the analog incident light ,of a single-point ,"lambertian"-cone-shaped,light source..)
Grower B has multiple light sources....
Wherever& whenever , needed...
As needed...
"There" or there...
Top or sideways...
Everywhere...
Do we really have to analyse who has better ..."penetration"....???
..
-What about if grower B had decided that wanted five panels of ten leds ,each ?
(4 xWarms,4xNeutrals,2xCools)...
It would have had a difference from the choise of utilising two panels ?
He,he...
I'll leave that to you ,to calculate...
You'll might be very surprised,by the results....
Rhetorical Question,follows...
...
...
.....
Is it just "led-grow-light" company "brain-washing" ,
the reason why growers overlook/misjudge/underestimate/derogate/understate
"led grow light "implementations ,using 1 Watt dies,no lenses and multiple panels ?
..
...
Cause in "papers" ...
Things are quite different,I should say..
And maths,geometry,physics,ect never lie ...
...
...
Like "led-grow-light" manufacturers, do...
(Usually they don't give a sh!t about a quality & effective product..
They wanna just make Money....
Creating "Hypes" & "trends" ,that they cannot be scientifically supported or proved...
...
[video=youtube;VHhzi8PvDYw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHhzi8PvDYw[/video]
...
Now ...Other "things" ..
Like cooling options ,led quality,spectra and total cost to name a few ,later on.......
In deep...
....
Leds don't need raw ,'muscle' power....
Leds,need other leds....
Power by unity of many...
Not power of the few...
That's how they work,really efficiently, on plant growing...
...
Power by unity of many...
That's how something 'goes' efficiently ,generally speaking....
And plants are gods and goddesses..
Constantly & silently , teaching us...
Us ,the intelligent,but ignorant at the same time ,human beings....
.....
They gather light with many leaves...
It is more efficient,that way...
-If it wasn't so,they would not be bothered to waste valuable resources, to produce many leaves...-
They would have had just one (or few) ,big,'muscly', monstery leaf(-ves)...
Do you see the ..resemblance & the relation with leds ?
....
Universal Alchemy....
http://www.skyeinstruments.com/wp-content/uploads/LightGuidanceNotes.pdf
http://www.nichia.co.jp/specification/en/product/led/opticalunit.pdf
PSUAGRO.
Well-Known Member
Ha^^^^^^^perfect................funny too.......but their are some of us that are using panels that have dimmers/or switches that control watt usage per growing phases, and have no SECONDARY crappy pmma lenses(all leds have a PRIMARY lens) that are at 106&123 degrees for optimal spread/uniformity, using top leds (can't just generalize and say "asian"/unknown bin leds are "just as good" when people have shown on "candlepower" forums that quality leds have up three times more "luminosity/lol" at the same ma) sparsely spread out for greater coverage and acceptable output for the wattage used(due to the use of great top bin leds)......what I'm saying is you have other factors to consider in your calculations..........cough*http://www.bonsaihero.com/ledgrow.html*
Now I've personally used this panel and vegged two plants(3g smartpots) with just 28w of power.....and those 3w leds driven to 700ma did a hell of a job till the finish under the "circumstances".....even Hans himself started off with 1w leds spread all around his plants(setup #8/9) and later started using 3w leds and got his highest gpw using them over the same area....he still refuses to use white leds in his panels(but that's for another time)
Now I've got to drink a bit.........oh and I still disagree about 660&FR not being beneficial for flowering cannabis.............Happy growing Star
Now I've personally used this panel and vegged two plants(3g smartpots) with just 28w of power.....and those 3w leds driven to 700ma did a hell of a job till the finish under the "circumstances".....even Hans himself started off with 1w leds spread all around his plants(setup #8/9) and later started using 3w leds and got his highest gpw using them over the same area....he still refuses to use white leds in his panels(but that's for another time)
Now I've got to drink a bit.........oh and I still disagree about 660&FR not being beneficial for flowering cannabis.............Happy growing Star
stardustsailor
Well-Known Member
Ohh...I should roll another spliff...
Same as...
Grower B can use from 1 panel,up to ....The maximum number of panels that-available-space-allows..
Grower B can custom order his leds,also, from 80° to 155° primary optics,without any additional cost.
Thing is ,that for example (values indicative) with 100 $ ,
you can afford 10-20 pcs more or less top binned quality leds...
(Which in 1 to 3 years time ,would be considered as 'tea-candles',in comparison with the "present",at that time.....Anyway... )
With the exact amount of money you get 10 times(approx) more leds....
And yes ,you have great results with 10x top binned quality leds....
As you have ,also, great results with 100x "crappy"
(never said that they aren't...But they have some .."good" aspects,too....)leds ....
3 times more power ? Ok ...
Ten hi-end leds are like 30 crappy you mean ?
I give you 50....Still I have 50 more ,for the same price...
So for the same price ,in fact,I possess x3.3
(based on people on "candlepower" forums...)the actual power .....
And I also have more leds=>More panels=>More coverage....And thus,finally...
Even more power than x 3.3,actually...(based on physics,this time...According to the example above....
More like x33 ..)...
I just mean that 28 Watt of 1 Watt leds ,can do an even better job...
Proved it ,with numbers...Soon,I hope I'll prove it with "deeds"..
I'm not suprised though...
Don't know the gentleman,really,but I can suspect many ..."faults"....
Only from your short 'description'........
Why do you think that, we disagree ?
In fact we agree...
What I have supported is that 660nm Leds DO NEED Far Leds to counteract .
( 1.2 : 1 red 650-680: far red 720-750)
Otherwhise ,there are many problems,that can occur , if either 660 or far red ,are used solely..
(FR leds though,can have some "limited duration" uses,solely..)
But is another "theme" that arises with those two leds...
Low Efficiency....Output Power / Input Power...
So,Warm whites come into play...
They contain both those wl ranges..Plus other wls..
Plus they are Tj more stable,plus they are more efficient....
Why ?
For what reason the combination 660/FR of leds should be in a
panel instead of the precious ( My preciouuuuusss.....) Warm Whites ?
Ok,maybe some could be, I suppose...
For that extra 'boost' on that wl area...
Thing is..
Is that boost really needed ?
Good question ....
..
Don't drink and drive...
Pleased ,that someone had the patience & the will , to read all these...
Okkk..
Same as...
Grower B can use from 1 panel,up to ....The maximum number of panels that-available-space-allows..
Grower B can custom order his leds,also, from 80° to 155° primary optics,without any additional cost.
Yes.No doubt about that....using top leds (can't just generalize and say "asian"/unknown bin leds are "just as good" when people have shown on "candlepower" forums that quality leds have up three times more "luminosity/lol" at the same ma) sparsely spread out for greater coverage and acceptable output for the wattage used(due to the use of great top bin leds)..........cough*http://www.bonsaihero.com/ledgrow.html*
Thing is ,that for example (values indicative) with 100 $ ,
you can afford 10-20 pcs more or less top binned quality leds...
(Which in 1 to 3 years time ,would be considered as 'tea-candles',in comparison with the "present",at that time.....Anyway... )
With the exact amount of money you get 10 times(approx) more leds....
And yes ,you have great results with 10x top binned quality leds....
As you have ,also, great results with 100x "crappy"
(never said that they aren't...But they have some .."good" aspects,too....)leds ....
3 times more power ? Ok ...
Ten hi-end leds are like 30 crappy you mean ?
I give you 50....Still I have 50 more ,for the same price...
So for the same price ,in fact,I possess x3.3
(based on people on "candlepower" forums...)the actual power .....
And I also have more leds=>More panels=>More coverage....And thus,finally...
Even more power than x 3.3,actually...(based on physics,this time...According to the example above....
More like x33 ..)...
I would really & deeply appreciate it ,if somebody,will show / reveal ,those "other factors to consider " ,to me...
Who said that they wouldn't ?
I just mean that 28 Watt of 1 Watt leds ,can do an even better job...
Proved it ,with numbers...Soon,I hope I'll prove it with "deeds"..
Hmmm..Yes,maybe better ,another time..
I'm not suprised though...
Don't know the gentleman,really,but I can suspect many ..."faults"....
Only from your short 'description'........
Oh..
Why do you think that, we disagree ?
In fact we agree...
What I have supported is that 660nm Leds DO NEED Far Leds to counteract .
( 1.2 : 1 red 650-680: far red 720-750)
Otherwhise ,there are many problems,that can occur , if either 660 or far red ,are used solely..
(FR leds though,can have some "limited duration" uses,solely..)
But is another "theme" that arises with those two leds...
Low Efficiency....Output Power / Input Power...
So,Warm whites come into play...
They contain both those wl ranges..Plus other wls..
Plus they are Tj more stable,plus they are more efficient....
Why ?
For what reason the combination 660/FR of leds should be in a
panel instead of the precious ( My preciouuuuusss.....) Warm Whites ?
Ok,maybe some could be, I suppose...
For that extra 'boost' on that wl area...
Thing is..
Is that boost really needed ?
Good question ....
..
Don't drink and drive...
Pleased ,that someone had the patience & the will , to read all these...
stardustsailor
Well-Known Member
Blind beliefs & blind faith ,build a wall between one and his fantasy...
And fantasy means search of the "impossible''..
Of that thought or idea ,that is not even , made yet...
But in our fantasy,nothing is impossible..
Fantasy is creation..
Evolution...
[video=youtube;iU2-r_0CtIo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iU2-r_0CtIo&feature=related[/video]
.....
And fantasy means search of the "impossible''..
Of that thought or idea ,that is not even , made yet...
But in our fantasy,nothing is impossible..
Fantasy is creation..
Evolution...
[video=youtube;iU2-r_0CtIo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iU2-r_0CtIo&feature=related[/video]
.....
PetFlora
Well-Known Member
My response to post # 83- didn't want to clog the thread by copying it-
OK, now I'M jealous
Maggies run < 4 ohms requiring gobs of power; 1000 watts to each bass panel + 500 to each ribbon. Super efficient speakers capable of providing similar sonic results are 4- 5Xs more expensive, as are their flea power amps to drive them, and neither does a good job with Pink Floyd & Roger Waters (Amused to Death), but my system will blow your mind. Well worth the swim (or ticket). Yes my electric bill is higher, but my net cost is way lower
Awhile back PSUAGRO mentioned 'Daisy Chaining" and you asked what he meant. Instead of each panel plugged into wall sockets separately, panels can be wired to also plug into each other, leaving only one plug into the wall.
OK, now I'M jealous
Maggies run < 4 ohms requiring gobs of power; 1000 watts to each bass panel + 500 to each ribbon. Super efficient speakers capable of providing similar sonic results are 4- 5Xs more expensive, as are their flea power amps to drive them, and neither does a good job with Pink Floyd & Roger Waters (Amused to Death), but my system will blow your mind. Well worth the swim (or ticket). Yes my electric bill is higher, but my net cost is way lower
Awhile back PSUAGRO mentioned 'Daisy Chaining" and you asked what he meant. Instead of each panel plugged into wall sockets separately, panels can be wired to also plug into each other, leaving only one plug into the wall.
stardustsailor
Well-Known Member
Music Listener A, with 100 Watts of amplifying rig.Speakers with sensitivity of 92 dB / Watt /m .
Music listener B ,with 1000 Watts of amplifying rig.Speakers with sensitivity of 82 dB / Watt /m .
For the sound intensity to increase 10 dB, 10x Power is needed....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decibel
Listener A :
Power of Amplifying : 1 Watt .Sound Intensity 92 dB.
Power of Amplifying : 10 Watts .Sound Intensity 102 dB.
Power of Amplifying : 100 Watt .Sound Intensity 112 dB.
Listener B :
Power of Amplifying : 1 Watt .Sound Intensity 82 dB.
Power of Amplifying : 10 Watts .Sound Intensity 92 dB.
Power of Amplifying : 100 Watt .Sound Intensity 102 dB.
Power of Amplifying : 1000 Watt .Sound Intensity 112 dB.
Either...
Too much power ,but lower quality speakers....
Or....
Much less power (class A amplifying ,maybe ? ) ,but higher quality speakers...
The 'output' power is identical.
Listener A ,gets the bonus of high quality.(speakers & Class A low power amplifier )
Listener B ,waste energy for less quality..
Same output power ,though....
Initial cost ,is the only 'bad news' for listener A....
Pretty bad,regarding the "hi-end sound"world....
But...
But!
Day 40 at 12/12 for my poor,sick lady...
Under 72 pcs of crappy leds....
66 Watts in total...
Either she's a quick finisher...
Or either something is going on...
Too fast maturing...
Probably too much Pr,if so...
Meaning...
Less warmer whites ?
Too much 660-730 ?
And this is something ,I got jealous of Guod...
Yes...Probably ,for this sick and 'torchered' lady,to bloom like that...
There's a big possibility, that she's really getting those 150 umol/sec .....
(from 3 panels)...
....
Give or take.....
Music listener B ,with 1000 Watts of amplifying rig.Speakers with sensitivity of 82 dB / Watt /m .
For the sound intensity to increase 10 dB, 10x Power is needed....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decibel
Listener A :
Power of Amplifying : 1 Watt .Sound Intensity 92 dB.
Power of Amplifying : 10 Watts .Sound Intensity 102 dB.
Power of Amplifying : 100 Watt .Sound Intensity 112 dB.
Listener B :
Power of Amplifying : 1 Watt .Sound Intensity 82 dB.
Power of Amplifying : 10 Watts .Sound Intensity 92 dB.
Power of Amplifying : 100 Watt .Sound Intensity 102 dB.
Power of Amplifying : 1000 Watt .Sound Intensity 112 dB.
Either...
Too much power ,but lower quality speakers....
Or....
Much less power (class A amplifying ,maybe ? ) ,but higher quality speakers...
The 'output' power is identical.
Listener A ,gets the bonus of high quality.(speakers & Class A low power amplifier )
Listener B ,waste energy for less quality..
Same output power ,though....
Initial cost ,is the only 'bad news' for listener A....
Pretty bad,regarding the "hi-end sound"world....
But...
But!
Day 40 at 12/12 for my poor,sick lady...
Under 72 pcs of crappy leds....
66 Watts in total...
Either she's a quick finisher...
Or either something is going on...
Too fast maturing...
Probably too much Pr,if so...
Meaning...
Less warmer whites ?
Too much 660-730 ?
And this is something ,I got jealous of Guod...
Yes...Probably ,for this sick and 'torchered' lady,to bloom like that...
There's a big possibility, that she's really getting those 150 umol/sec .....
(from 3 panels)...
....
Give or take.....
stardustsailor
Well-Known Member
ganja 2
Active Member
keep writing mister
stardustsailor
Well-Known Member
Yep....
Day 41...
Under 66 Watt (rated electric. power),of cheapo ,"crappy", leds...
With no added lenses..(Physics ,say you do not need them.In fact ,not only you gain...You loose...A lot ..)
Well,I do not have to bother either,for 'Emerson effect' ,or 'resonance' ,or who knows what else...
I supply with full spectrum white light (with a bit of red 630 ) and the plant 'picks up' whatever wl ,needs...
Try to make things simpler and efficient..
Trying to figure out whether (a non efficient ) 660 or 670 or 680 is better ,it's a waste of time & thought..
I have everything I need ,with just 3 different kind of white leds..
I let the plant do the rest,for me..
Simple,enough...
Plus ,with the crappy-cheapo leds ,I get the advantage of much more output power(by numbers) for the same price of "high-end" ,brand leds..
Next year,I can spend,same few 'bucks' ,to buy the newer -more powerful- crappy-cheapo leds....
To replace the old ones..
-If I feel like it..-
.....And keep growing ,happily,with leds...
But,hey brother.....
Do not forget...
I'm just a fool,talking bull....
.....Correct ?
P.S. :
Wait for my next grow...Just to see what a fool can do with 220 Watts of ..crappy leds..
[video=youtube;MpGJnUA0-7c]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpGJnUA0-7c[/video]
stardustsailor
Well-Known Member
For example...
http://www.satisled.com/index.php
http://www.poweredled.com/?page_id=332
(order after e-mail...They can take "custom" orders too...
They have cheaper leds than the first link & somewhat better...
But they accept order over 100 leds....0.40-0.50 $ per led ,their highest price..
If you order many ,ask for a discount...)
If you search ,you 'll find many-many-many more....
guod
Well-Known Member
no engineer or physicist takes advantage of optics to lose more but to win!
http://www.edn.com/file/15102-484530.pdf
"....LEDs conventionally have lenses that direct
light toward the target.
Luxeon,for instance, offers its devices with
choices that include batwing(low-dome) or Lambertian (highdome)
lenses with viewing angles of 110 and 140, respectively.
Crees Xlamp 7090 similarly includes an integral Lambertian lens assembly with a 100°viewing angle.
By contrast, Osrams Golden Dragon 170° viewing package is naked, with lenses available as optional accessories."
"Full-spectrum" is not a technical term when applied to an electrical light bulb but rather a marketing term implying that the product emulates natural light.
copy&paste from Wikipedia. can not say it better
simpler.. maybe
efficient..
...
All phosphor systems have been developed for use with blue LEDs (i.e. are absorbing blue radiation between 440nm and
470nm efficiently). This is because the blue LED proved to be a suitable workhorse for many applications due to its high
internal quantum efficiency, high stability and suitability for high current operation. Further, they are able to provide the
blue part of the emission in white LEDs. ...
The conventional down-conversion process used in such systems starts with the LED source emitting radiation of high
energy, or short wavelength (e.g., 460nm), respectively, that is at least partially absorbed by up to three different types of
phosphor particles dispersed within the optical path. These phosphor particles re-emit parts of the excitation energy in
form of lower energy photons in a relatively broad band (peaking, e.g., at 560nm). The associated energy loss within the
phosphor molecules is caused by two different effects:
- Lattice relaxation (phonons) that leads to an energy difference between the absorbing modes and the metastable excited
state (Stokes shift or losses), and
- Non-radiative relaxation of the excited state that is influencing the phosphors quantum efficiency
Both processes lead to an increase in local temperature within the phosphors, an effect that is no more negligible at
todays levels of high-power-LEDs (approaching 500mW of optical power). Especially for emitters that show rather
weak quantum efficiency well below unity this may lead to effects that are significant enough to prove to be suitable as
molecular heaters [5].
The higher the Stokes shift the more energy is lost. For example, a YAG-based white LED, when excited with a blue
LED with dominant wavelength of 455nm, suffers from Stokes losses of roughly 20%.
An alternative approach is to combine an optimized white (blue/yellow) phosphor-conversion LED and a separate red
LED side-by-side (see for example [6]). Red LEDs provide reasonably good quantum efficiencies, and the Stokes losses
can be avoided.
full text here:
Up and down: color conversion for solid-state lighting
http://144.206.159.178/ft/CONF/16427283/16427297.pdf
also
Efficiency evaluation of phosphor-white high power light-emitting diodes
https://lirias.kuleuven.be/bitstream/123456789/266749/1/efficiency+evaluation+of+phosphor-white+high+power+light-emitting+diodes+2010.pdf
stardustsailor
Well-Known Member
Well,never said that lenses are not usefull...
If you want the light to travel longer distance is the only way....
Like on torches...
Or lasers..(collimating lenses)...
But concerning radiating leaf canopy ...
You seek coverage...
More on that from Monday...
I Will be missing ,for the weekend...
Of course I know that....
When I say Full spectrum White light ,I mean other frequencies than Red- Green-Blue...
(What is "full spectrum" ,anyway..?....What exactly do we mean ? )
[/QUOTE]
Yes...
Most of them,already known ,some years now....
losses of roughly 10-20%.
Same goes with the lenses...
Also in blues ,reds,greens as whites....
Also ,leaves have many..."photosensors"....
Some(many ? ) of we don't ,even,know yet...
We keep discovering new ones...
And they do not collect light or respond to it,like the electronic light sensors..
They have evolved to use almost all the light they can gather...
For many different metabolic processes & functions....
More on that,from Monday...
Have a nice weekend ,everybody...
stardustsailor
Well-Known Member
http://www.opticalres.com/lt/illuminationfund.pdf
http://www.intl-lighttech.com/support/calculator/inverse_calc
http://iopscience.iop.org/0031-9120/47/2/174/article
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIbQUgOjC1A
http://physics.fullerton.edu/files/Labs/227/Inverse Square Law Experiment_2.pdf
http://www.pmodwrc.ch/newrad2005/pdfabstracts/Newrad044.pdf
http://www.energyrating.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/2009-ref-manual-lighting.pdf
http://www.instrumentsystems.com/fileadmin/editors/downloads/Products/LED_Handbook_e.pdf
http://ledlight.osram-os.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Gaggione-LED-Light-presentation2.pdf
http://www.intl-lighttech.com/support/calculator/inverse_calc
http://iopscience.iop.org/0031-9120/47/2/174/article
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIbQUgOjC1A
http://physics.fullerton.edu/files/Labs/227/Inverse Square Law Experiment_2.pdf
http://www.pmodwrc.ch/newrad2005/pdfabstracts/Newrad044.pdf
http://www.energyrating.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/2009-ref-manual-lighting.pdf
http://www.instrumentsystems.com/fileadmin/editors/downloads/Products/LED_Handbook_e.pdf
http://ledlight.osram-os.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Gaggione-LED-Light-presentation2.pdf
