Can 700 watts of LED strips grow trees???

BillyPilgram

BillyPilgram

Member
BGT - How are you Platinum Blues?

I was reading about the power supplies and LCD displays you spoke of earlier on this post. Did you get one of the displays? Can you tell us what how much power you are using and how it comparable to the specs of the LEDs.

I am wondering if LCD displays (AC version) can be installed directly on a circuit of my grow or even on the circuit breaker? It would be useful to understand the draw of the whole grow and in understanding the cyclic fluctuations or when system adjustments are made.
 
Last edited:
Big Green Thumb

Big Green Thumb

Well-Known Member
The PBDs are growing good and always very popular. The displays I use are also available in AC form that would work perfectly for what you are suggesting. You would be using them basically light a kill-a-watt. Note: I have no idea how accurate these are, but they sure help me figure out how much light each of my setups is producing.
 
InTheValley

InTheValley

Well-Known Member
Yeah, I like mine too, thanks to BGT,lol.. Very useful.

something else for ya guys. If you take a Lux meter, and drill a hole in the cap, size 3/16, you can get pretty close to the PAR your lights are throwin off.
 
Randomblame

Randomblame

Well-Known Member
InTheValley said:
Yeah, I like mine too, thanks to BGT,lol.. Very useful.

something else for ya guys. If you take a Lux meter, and drill a hole in the cap, size 3/16, you can get pretty close to the PAR your lights are throwin off.
Click to expand...
To simply remove the lens/greenfilter or what?
This would make the photo sensor able to recognize much more/all wavelenghts but you need to limit it with UV380 and IR780 filters to get approximately accurate results between 380 and 780nm. Otherwise, the result is overestimated, so that it outputs far too high values. But even with filters, you will not get accurate results. The whole measurement is interpreted quite differently.
IMO, converting Lux to μΜol/s/m² is certainly more accurate ...
 
nfhiggs

nfhiggs

Well-Known Member
Randomblame said:
To simply remove the lens/greenfilter or what?
This would make the photo sensor able to recognize much more/all wavelenghts but you need to limit it with UV380 and IR780 filters to get approximately accurate results between 380 and 780nm. Otherwise, the result is overestimated, so that it outputs far too high values. But even with filters, you will not get accurate results. The whole measurement is interpreted quite differently.
IMO, converting Lux to μΜol/s/m² is certainly more accurate ...
Click to expand...
For most common CCT's a conversion factor of 70 gets you to μΜol/s/m² within 10%.
 
Randomblame

Randomblame

Well-Known Member
Yeah,
or the other way round, 1000lx white LED light corresponds to about 13-16μMol/s/m2, depending on spectrum and CRI.
 
InTheValley

InTheValley

Well-Known Member
Randomblame said:
To simply remove the lens/greenfilter or what?
This would make the photo sensor able to recognize much more/all wavelenghts but you need to limit it with UV380 and IR780 filters to get approximately accurate results between 380 and 780nm. Otherwise, the result is overestimated, so that it outputs far too high values. But even with filters, you will not get accurate results. The whole measurement is interpreted quite differently.
IMO, converting Lux to μΜol/s/m² is certainly more accurate ...
Click to expand...
Hey randomblame, I went by a thread where dude did DIY Par meters, and the end result was simply drilling a hole in the cover. It pretty much is spot on with the divide by 78 perimeters, which i guess is the universal Lux conversion. I went thru and also watched many videos of Lux then Par, and they all are not on the money with the 78 value. The meter I made, which was calibrated to my Mars300, was actually almost 78% More then the 78 value.

There is a photodiode you can change out also, and there is a roscofilter combination the dude did. But at the end of the day, he said the 3/16 hole had the best results on par with a gavita i think it was.

With the meter i use now, its exactly the 78 conversion. So 20,000 lux, my PAR is about 260. 30,000 lux, is 385 par.
 
Randomblame

Randomblame

Well-Known Member
Hmm!
May I ask how calibrating works with a Mars300?
Maybe you have simply luck and the values are only a bit under-estimated. Which lux-meter did you use? Maybe the one you use gives out approximate real values, but this is luck. I bet the most will not do.
If I remember correctly, this was also said in his DIY thread.
If it was really so easy, they would not cost $150+ or far more. The better ones go in the thousands ...
 
InTheValley

InTheValley

Well-Known Member
Randomblame said:
Hmm!
May I ask how calibrating works with a Mars300?
Maybe you have simply luck and the values are only a bit under-estimated. Which lux-meter did you use? Maybe the one you use gives out approximate real values, but this is luck. I bet the most will not do.
If I remember correctly, this was also said in his DIY thread.
If it was really so easy, they would not cost $150+ or far more. The better ones go in the thousands ...
Click to expand...
Oh, without a doubt man, I agree. I would love to be able to get one, but cant, lol.. Just a tool to get a general idea is all it is.

So, with the calibration of the Mars300. I found dudes thread back in history when i had my mars300. So i drilled a hole, and it wasnt on par with a review I seen with a real par meter, so i enclosed the hole with tape, till i got the same reading. Then, when the dude put lenses on the mars300, I did the same, and got the same par reading he got with his real par meter, and I didnt adjust anything to get the same he did.

and Those Mars300s have very little green light, as we know, so its tuff to say, " green light is brighter" in this case to get high reading.

Then I did replace the diodes and it got even higher reading, with same calibrated meter i used on the Mars300 OG.

Ill eventually get a real par meter, but till then, *shruggs, gets me close,. The meter Im using is a Dr.Meter LX1330B, which I have to replace because the wire is pulling out, and it goes blank if i dont hold it a certain way. $30 lux meter i think it was.

Have a great Saturday Bro,
 
InTheValley

InTheValley

Well-Known Member
So, if i go by the 70" number, at 16 inches im getting a PAR of 420. Thats almost at max of my settings of 245 watts, 12.04 volts. If I got by my OG meter, that is calibrated to the MARs, I get a 680 par, at 16inches.

BigGreenThumb, just tellin ya, since you know my setup.

Im not to happy about those numbers to be honest. alot of heat to im finding out.
 
Randomblame

Randomblame

Well-Known Member
Haha,
a completely new approach of calibrating, LOL!
Very interesting!
Sounds good, but has nothing to do with real calibration. You have rebuilt the same device, it should also deliver the same results...!?
Whether with without without lenses does not matter.
But it can give you clues of your ppfd, so everything is good!
 
Randomblame

Randomblame

Well-Known Member
InTheValley said:
So, if i go by the 70" number, at 16 inches im getting a PAR of 420. Thats almost at max of my settings of 245 watts, 12.04 volts. If I got by my OG meter, that is calibrated to the MARs, I get a 680 par, at 16inches.

BigGreenThumb, just tellin ya, since you know my setup.

Im not to happy about those numbers to be honest. alot of heat to im finding out.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's unfortunately because of the cheap 12v LED strips. While the EpiLED SMD5630 is anyway inefficient it getting even more worse because of the resistors.
You need much more power to get the PAR you want and therefor you have also more heat.
A 100-120lm/w diode gives out 33% more heat as a 180lm/w diode.
While the 180lm/w diode is +55% efficient reaches the 100-120lm probable only 30-33%.

But, it will do its job and you can buy better strips from the proceeds.
If you start with LED's, this is a hole without ground and you can spend thousands to build the best. Half a year later, it is already overtaken.
But we've already talked about this matter and the most important thing is, it lights and is bright enough.

BTW,
for your heat problems, I recommend running it at night. ;-)
 
nfhiggs

nfhiggs

Well-Known Member
InTheValley said:
Oh, without a doubt man, I agree. I would love to be able to get one, but cant, lol.. Just a tool to get a general idea is all it is.

So, with the calibration of the Mars300. I found dudes thread back in history when i had my mars300. So i drilled a hole, and it wasnt on par with a review I seen with a real par meter, so i enclosed the hole with tape, till i got the same reading. Then, when the dude put lenses on the mars300, I did the same, and got the same par reading he got with his real par meter, and I didnt adjust anything to get the same he did.

and Those Mars300s have very little green light, as we know, so its tuff to say, " green light is brighter" in this case to get high reading.

Then I did replace the diodes and it got even higher reading, with same calibrated meter i used on the Mars300 OG.

Ill eventually get a real par meter, but till then, *shruggs, gets me close,. The meter Im using is a Dr.Meter LX1330B, which I have to replace because the wire is pulling out, and it goes blank if i dont hold it a certain way. $30 lux meter i think it was.

Have a great Saturday Bro,
Click to expand...
Problem with "calibrating" to a blue/red mono light like that it its not going to be close at all for white light.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top