Changes at Timber Grow Lights

RainDan

RainDan

Well-Known Member
Good Morning,

I wanted to address the recent changes to the product lineup at Timber Grow Lights. We recently updated our product offering exclusively to COB based lighting. This decision is based on both commercial as well as hobbyist grower/customer feedback and analysis.

We feel that our COB based fixtures provide the grower with both the proper amount of PPFD as well as even and symmetrical placement of the photons across the entire intended coverage area. Our COB based lights are designed to address typical issues with indoor lighting such as corner/edge coverage, canopy heat output and evenness of PPFD spread at low (12-18” above canopy or less) operating heights. We focus on providing this at a good $/PPF price point using only the top components from leading manufacturers. We stay on top of the current technology and have designed a product that is intended to be expandable/configurable and able to withstand the rigors and demands of a high usage environment with respect to efficiency, reliability and safe operation.

On behalf of everyone at Timber Grow Lights, I also wanted to thank our current, as well as future customers, for your support. We realize we would not be here were it not for you, and we are grateful for the trust you place in us and our products.

Have a great day.

Take care,
Dan
 
Or_Gro

Or_Gro

Well-Known Member
RainDan said:
Good Morning,

I wanted to address the recent changes to the product lineup at Timber Grow Lights. We recently updated our product offering exclusively to COB based lighting. This decision is based on both commercial as well as hobbyist grower/customer feedback and analysis.

We feel that our COB based fixtures provide the grower with both the proper amount of PPFD as well as even and symmetrical placement of the photons across the entire intended coverage area. Our COB based lights are designed to address typical issues with indoor lighting such as corner/edge coverage, canopy heat output and evenness of PPFD spread at low (12-18” above canopy or less) operating heights. We focus on providing this at a good $/PPF price point using only the top components from leading manufacturers. We stay on top of the current technology and have designed a product that is intended to be expandable/configurable and able to withstand the rigors and demands of a high usage environment with respect to efficiency, reliability and safe operation.

On behalf of everyone at Timber Grow Lights, I also wanted to thank our current, as well as future customers, for your support. We realize we would not be here were it not for you, and we are grateful for the trust you place in us and our products.

Have a great day.

Take care,
Dan
Click to expand...
Best wishes Dan, put the fuckers out of business!
 
K

kushedy

Well-Known Member
So, the boards are not a match for cobs then? Not stirring just curious. I have a friend looking to switch from hps to led & boards or strips seemed to be the current favourite.
 
Or_Gro

Or_Gro

Well-Known Member
wietefras said:
Good one. It's time more people see past the boards hype.
Click to expand...
The 301b boards aren’t hype, i am currently proving it here on indica- and sativa-like strains.

But, you do need to have enough of them, in the right spacing, to give an even intensity in the 1000 ppfd range, “optimal” conditions also play a major role at these light intensities.

Apparently, Dan’s change is based on the idea that you can get the intensity and spread at a more efficient cost performance ratio with cobs.

I haven’t used cobs, but my understanding is that they do, also have some downsides vs qbs.

Competent growers can reasonably & successfully deal with both types.
 
Last edited:
wietefras

wietefras

Well-Known Member
Or_Gro said:
The 301b boards aren’t hype, i am currently proving it here on indica- and sativa-like strains.
Click to expand...
They grow plants you mean? The point is that they are overpriced and offer poor light uniformity at low distances. ie you need to hang them way too high which causes loss of light on the walls. Up to 50% of the light can be lost in a 2'x2' tent with a single QB at 18". As demonstrated by ledgardners PPFD measurements of such a setup.

Now change that one board to 4 spread out COBs and you can half that hanging height and therefore cut in half the wall losses. Or go for led strips and cut down on hanging height and wall losses even more.

So that "better spread" that he is talking about can really have a big impact on performance.

I haven’t used cobs, but my understanding is that they do, also have some downsides vs qbs.
Click to expand...
They cost a lot less than QB's? Not sure how that is a downside though.
 
Last edited:
wietefras

wietefras

Well-Known Member
Belko said:
are there CoBs more effective than nichia 757 v2 / v3 or lm301b?
Click to expand...
Well a combination of four of the old Citizen 1212 gen 5 COBs mounted on a QB heatsink were shown to be just as efficient as a QB v1 at the same wattage.

Anyway, it really never is a matter of one being more efficient than the other. It's not a fixed value. Efficacy depends on power through the diodes. Run them softer and efficacy increases. The question is more, what does it cost to get a certain efficacy. A COB light will generally be cheaper to get at say 2.5umol/W/s than a QB. ie four Citizen 1212 COBs are cheaper than a QB.

Apart from the fact that distributing more COBs than boards over the growing area allows for better light uniformity and therefore lower heights and therefore lower light losses on walls or gangways. Which further increases the efficacy of COBs when regarding "actual light on the plants" as opposed to marketing figures in the specs.

You need that board to be up to 20% more efficient to overcome the extra wall losses which you won't have with COBs.
 
Humple

Humple

Well-Known Member
wietefras said:
They grow plants you mean? The point is that they are overpriced and offer poor light uniformity at low distances. ie you need to hang them way too high which causes loss of light on the walls. Up to 50% of the light can be lost in a 2'x2' tent with a single QB at 18". As demonstrated by ledgardners PPFD measurements of such a setup.

Now change that one board to 4 spread out COBs and you can half that hanging height and therefore cut in half the wall losses. Or go for led strips and cut down on hanging height and wall losses even more.

They cost a lot less than QB's? Not sure how that is a downside though.
Click to expand...
Let's qualify this. By "boards" I presume you mean QB288s. I have yet to see a PPFD map for the "light-ceiling" style of build being done with the QB120/QB132. No need to hang them high. And it would be difficult to argue that those boards are overpriced compared to COBs.

I know that you believe a simple strip build will outperform a low diode-density board build, and I can certainly concede that possibility, but I'm still not convinced that COBs are definitively superior. Could be? But I haven't seen anyone put up the data on the baby QBs in this kind of configuration.
 
Or_Gro

Or_Gro

Well-Known Member
wietefras said:
They grow plants you mean? The point is that they are overpriced and offer poor light uniformity at low distances. ie you need to hang them way too high which causes loss of light on the walls. Up to 50% of the light can be lost in a 2'x2' tent with a single QB at 18". As demonstrated by ledgardners PPFD measurements of such a setup.

Now change that one board to 4 spread out COBs and you can half that hanging height and therefore cut in half the wall losses. Or go for led strips and cut down on hanging height and wall losses even more.

So that "better spread" that he is talking about can really have a big impact on performance.

They cost a lot less than QB's? Not sure how that is a downside though.
Click to expand...
No need to tell me about spread or height, i have posted par mapping of individual and paired 48sams (better/less expensive version of hlg550) on this site for anyone to review - basicaly eight 301b boards can provide almost spot on 1000ppfd across a 4x4, at heights 18” to 48”, and intensities up to ridiculously high 2200+ at 12”, though not uniformly at that height.

I already suggested that cost may be cheaper per ppfd unit in my comment about dan’s decision.

I know i am fortunate not to have to be concerned about cost. And as legalization expands, many would-be growers in my situation will come into the market, making the bmw/mercedes growlight segment a worthwhile and very profitable one.

You underspin the cob downsides, but that’s expected here, i guess.

Again, a competent grower can make both types work successfully.
 
Lordhooha

Lordhooha

Well-Known Member
wietefras said:
Well a combination of four of the old Citizen 1212 gen 5 COBs mounted on a QB heatsink were shown to be just as efficient as a QB v1 at the same wattage.

Anyway, it really never is a matter of one being more efficient than the other. It's not a fixed value. Efficacy depends on power through the diodes. Run them softer and efficacy increases. The question is more, what does it cost to get a certain efficacy. A COB light will generally be cheaper to get at say 2.5umol/W/s than a QB. ie four Citizen 1212 COBs are cheaper than a QB.

Apart from the fact that distributing more COBs than boards over the growing area allows for better light uniformity and therefore lower heights and therefore lower light losses on walls or gangways. Which further increases the efficacy of COBs when regarding "actual light on the plants" as opposed to marketing figures in the specs.

You need that board to be up to 20% more efficient to overcome the extra wall losses which you won't have with COBs.
Click to expand...
I love my citizen 1818's still.
 
wietefras

wietefras

Well-Known Member
Or_Gro said:
No need to tell me
Click to expand...
You boast a lot, but you say very little that shows any understanding.

You underspin the cob downsides, but that’s expected here, i guess.
Click to expand...
And yet you haven't named a single downside.

Again, a competent grower can make both types work successfully.
Click to expand...
See? That shows you completely lack any understanding of rating different solutions.

You can grow plants under CFL just fine. So we should all be using that?

That both can grow plants is not the issue. That one costs almost twice as much and then offers less efficacy on the plants does. Less value for more money. You don't overcome that with imagined skillz
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top