ChilLED grow light

V

VegasWinner

Well-Known Member
Growmau5 said:
View attachment 4006992

ahhh, now I remember the genesis of all this hate. Hey man, sincerely I apologize for being mean to you back in May 2016. Ill try to be nicer and more respectful next time, if possible.
Click to expand...
I live by the concept of human revolution or internal transformation. In order to achieve this result a change from within must occur to initiate this transformation followed by action imbued with this new ideal.
Packing up and moving from everything that brings you comfort is just such an action.
Congratulations
namaste my friend
 
Growmau5

Growmau5

Well-Known Member
VegasWinner said:
I live by the concept of human revolution or internal transformation. In order to achieve this result a change from within must occur to initiate this transformation followed by action imbued with this new ideal.
Packing up and moving from everything that brings you comfort is just such an action.
Congratulations
namaste my friend
Click to expand...
I sincerely appreciate that man. And I appreciate all of the wonderful people that still remain in these pages.
 
CobKits

CobKits

Well-Known Member
@Growmau5 is there any photometric data for the complete lights? all i see are board level tests. would like to see some apples to apples numbers of the assembled fixtures
 
DISTRESS0R

DISTRESS0R

Active Member
Just about to upgrade my set of light fixtures from HPS to Chilled!
Having a hard time choosing between the 600w fixture for 4x4 vs 2x 800w for the option to get a higher PPFD and crank some co2. Going to stick a 200w single fixture in to my veg area.
Vitaly and Growmau5 know wtf is up, and i will vote with my money. Will report back after first grow. We need more quality information in these threads
 
JJFOURTWENTY

JJFOURTWENTY

Well-Known Member
Man these new Chill LED lights (the new quantum ones, not the old PCBs) are friggin' gorgeous! But man oh man.. you guys priced them out of EVERYONE's range. The smallest 200w unit along with the outboard controller would clock in well north of $800. I mean these new hand built lights are like the Ferrari of led tech at the moment, I get that, but man are they expensive. With a 20% discount code I was able to snag an HLG 550 for around the same price.

I'm not knocking these lights in any way shape or form, in fact I really REALLY would love to own the aforementioned equipment from Chilled. Just think at eight bills with options that push up the price even higher, it just seems that it's unfortunately priced outside of a realm 95% of us would be willing to shell out money like that for.
 
SoOLED

SoOLED

Well-Known Member
Maybe GM, is gonna work with them to open up thier product segment(s)

I think maybe once he gets settled in, he will do a journal with them. He's in WA soO many great seed options it should be fun.
 
nfhiggs

nfhiggs

Well-Known Member
Oochicoochi420 said:
Has anyone told him he needs to flush that shit...sounds like some nasty chemicals are running through the bloodstream....that's at least 3 people he's fell out with...maybe i'm next....oh shit....nooooooo!! I like my ears.
Click to expand...
Add me to that list - I dared to tell him he had the double slit experiment described wrong. And then proved it. I earned a place on his ignore list for that.

Guy is a fucking whack job in my opinion.
 
nfhiggs

nfhiggs

Well-Known Member
Enigma said:
I'll test this myself.

I have lights on the way as is, I'll just add this to the list.

There should be a temperature difference between COB and HID of equal wattage.
Click to expand...
I had trouble wrapping my brain around this at first as well, but it absolutely follows the laws of thermodynamics. Energy cannot be destroyed and virtually all energy fed to a luminaire becomes direct heat or light. And ALL light in a sealed space will be absorbed by the objects and walls in the space and be converted to heat.
 
nfhiggs

nfhiggs

Well-Known Member
Enigma said:
Less electrical energy is converted to light with HID as compared to LED, this is apparent with 100lm/W and 180+lm/W respectively.

Now, where does all of that "extra" energy go?

Heat.

It is almost as if some have forgotten the advantages of LED, i.e. Lower heat output at any given wattage compared to HID.

Now, it is also plainly clear if you run a COB up to 150W its efficiency will drop and more heat and less light will be produced.

No one does this, it makes no sense.

It would be far more efficient to add another COB, run both @75W and have a higher PPFD at the same wattage. With every COB added, the total wattage will remain the same but broken up over several emitters making each emitter run softer and more efficient to produce less heat and more light per Watt.

Maths.
Click to expand...
"Lower heat output at any given wattage compared to HID."

That is a misconception. The REAL advantage is "Less wattage required for an equal amount of light output". Those two things are very different.

In your last example, what you are missing is that TOTAL WATTS remains the same and all the radiant light watts decay to heat.
 
nfhiggs

nfhiggs

Well-Known Member
ganjamystic said:
dude, you're misunderstanding this concept. look up the law of conservation. all the electrical energy that is converted to light (photons) and absorbed by the plant will still eventually become heat. the photons aren't just "used up" by the plant. they don't disappear. they heat up the plant, they radiate from the plant, they heat up the walls of the tent, the air, etc. every watt of electricity drawn from the wall will eventually convert to 3.412142 btu of heat. a more efficient light will convert more watts into light first, but that light will eventually become heat. a less efficient light just converts more electrical energy directly into heat... 1000W of hid or 1000W of led will ultimately generate the same amount of heat that has to be dealt with, but 1000W of led can give you more usable light for that 1000W. the efficiency increase in led technology means that it's possible to achieve the same light levels with less watts. in other words, 600-750W of high-efficiency led can replace 1000W of hid, resulting in less heat being produced because less watts are being used.. make sense?
Click to expand...
Actually the energy directly absorbed by the plant for photosynthesis is converted to stored chemical energy rather than heat. But its a relatively small amount of the total light energy falling on the plant that drives photosynthesis - something like 7%.
 
nfhiggs

nfhiggs

Well-Known Member
hillbill said:
Empty tent or tent with plants that are harvesting photons to do the "work" of growing? Is there a difference?
Click to expand...
Yes there is a difference. Amount of light energy converted to potential chemical energy (plant matter) would show up as missing heat. This experiment should be done in an EMPTY tent with no ventilation, completely sealed.
 
nfhiggs

nfhiggs

Well-Known Member
xX_BHMC_Xx said:
Don't you have to consider how efficiently the energy is converted into heat once it has served it's initial purpose? For instance, in that article they use the example of a water pump. They say out of a hypothetical 100w pump, 40w goes right to heating the pump room, the other 60w goes to heating the water through friction. Let's say this pump is submerged, not in a room. Now take a hypothetical 100w water heater, 60w goes to heating the water, 40w is first converted to light, then heat. I find it hard to believe that the pump would be nearly as effective at heating the water as the heater. Any thoughts?
Click to expand...
Water does not absorb light very well. most of the light would be absorbed by the container rather than the water itself.
 
coreywebster

coreywebster

Well-Known Member
nfhiggs said:
Actually the energy directly absorbed by the plant for photosynthesis is converted to stored chemical energy rather than heat. But its a relatively small amount of the total light energy falling on the plant that drives photosynthesis - something like 7%.
Click to expand...
Which is what makes me believe there is a difference in heat from one light emitting device to another, even though it would be very negligible.

Photosynthetic Efficiency.

100% sunlight → non-bioavailable photons waste is 47%, leaving
53% (in the 400–700 nm range) → 30% of photons are lost due to incomplete absorption, leaving
37% (absorbed photon energy) → 24% is lost due to wavelength-mismatch degradation to 700 nm energy, leaving
28.2% (sunlight energy collected by chlorophyl) → 32% efficient conversion of ATP and NADPH to d-glucose, leaving
9% (collected as sugar) → 35–40% of sugar is recycled/consumed by the leaf in dark and photo-respiration, leaving
5.4% net leaf efficiency

Forgetting about the sun. HPS would have more light outside the 400-700nm range so the percentage of non bioavailable photons. LED would have a higher percentage within that range. So the net leaf efficiency would be higher under LED. The 5.4% listed above is for the sun, both the HPS and LED would be higher than this.

I know its still negligible, but no matter how small, there's a difference.

Would you agree?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top