Is it better to use 2 of spider farms SF1000 or 1 of the SF2000 with coverage being equal.

R

Robogreen

Active Member
Given that using 2 of the SF1000 offers same light footprint of 1 of SF2000 . Appears that using 2 of Sf100 has less hot spot in the middle then just one of SF2000 and may have better overlapping coverage with less drop off at edges.
Any opinions with actual watts equal and the price pretty close. Better to use 2 smaller or one bigger?
Thanks everyone

on a side note I am assuming spider farms brand is pretty good for the money?
 
Last edited:
9

93OG

Well-Known Member
You can get the same diodes and driver sf uses from other companies for 1/2 the price.
I’d go 2 1000s more flexibility, less central hot spot.
 
HydroKid239

HydroKid239

Well-Known Member
2 separate boards would cover more canopy surface with less drop off on the edges.
Robogreen said:
Given that using 2 of the SF1000 offers same light footprint of 1 of SF2000 . Appears that using 2 of Sf100 has less hot spot in the middle then just one of SF2000 and may have better overlapping coverage with less drop off at edges.
Any opinions with actual watts equal and the price pretty close. Better to use 2 smaller or one bigger?
Thanks everyone

on a side note I am assuming spider farms brand is pretty good for the money?
Click to expand...
 
HydroKid239

HydroKid239

Well-Known Member
If you are in a 2x4 I recommend one of each.
However 2x Mars Hydro TS1000 would give you the same watts for about the same price as the sf2000.
I actually have that light too.
IMG_0635.JPG
IMG_7595.JPG
 
LowRange

LowRange

Well-Known Member
Get 2, i've done that with my ViparSpectra lights. More flexible having 2 you can spread them out, lower one but not the other, put them end to end or side to side to suit square and rectangle grow spaces and importantly if your light fails you still have a running one while you chase a replacement.
 
R

Robogreen

Active Member
I have a wired space 6' x 3 1/2' have a viparspectra V1200 ( enclosed unit with fans uses 5w LEDS) good for 3.5' square flowering.

Question now is should I add a smaller viparspectra say a 1000 ( enclosed with 10w LEDS0 good for a 2.5 x 2.5 flowering area. or is it time to step up to other newer designs such as spider farms or Mars or Bloomspec or similar built on heat sink board.

Would the newer designs allow me to remove and mount the drivers box outside space to control heat? Which brand is most amenable to that?
Thanks again
 
R

Robogreen

Active Member
LowRange said:
Get 2, i've done that with my ViparSpectra lights. More flexible having 2 you can spread them out, lower one but not the other, put them end to end or side to side to suit square and rectangle grow spaces and importantly if your light fails you still have a running one while you chase a replacement.
Click to expand...
I have a weird space 6' x 3 1/2' have a viparspectra V1200 ( enclosed unit with fans uses 5w LEDS) good for 3.5' square flowering.

Question now is should I add a smaller viparspectra say a 1000 ( enclosed with 10w LEDS0 good for a 2.5 x 2.5 flowering area. or is it time to step up to other newer designs such as spider farms or Mars or Bloomspec or similar built on heat sink board.

Would the newer designs allow me to remove and mount the drivers box outside space to control heat? Which brand is most amenable to that?
Thanks again
 
LEDTonic - Max

LEDTonic - Max

Active Member
Looking at the lamps and comparing them,
The SF1000 is listed at 100 watts draw on Amazon.
The SF2000 is listed at 200 watts draw on Amazon.
To keep it simple, we're pretending that the drivers are 100% efficient and that every watt reaches the LEDs.

The SF1000 looks to have 13 x 16 white diodes = 208 white diodes total
The SF2000 looks to have 12 x 24 white diodes on each board = 576 white diodes total

The SF1000 has 10 red diodes
The SF2000 has 30 red diodes

Red and white diodes together,
The SF1000 has 218 diodes total, and at 100 watts total, each diode gets 0,458 watts
The SF2000 has 606 diodes total, and at 200 watts total, each diode gets 0,330 watts

The SF1000 is 11.8 x 10.5 inches which equals 129.3 square inches
The SF2000 is 25.5 x 10.5 inches which equals 267.0 square inches

Each watt on the SF1000 has 1.293 sq.in of aluminum surface to spread over and dissipate from.
Each watt on the SF2000 has 1.335 sq.in of aluminum surface to spread over and dissipate from.

The softer a diode is pushed, the more efficient it is.
The cooler temperature a diode is experiencing, the more efficient it is and the longer it will last (L70).
The larger aluminum surface each watt has, the cooler the lamp will be.
Both lamps cost just as much per watt, but the SF2000 seems to be a more efficient option that will give more bang for the buck. Especially if comparing an SF2000 with two SF1000.

The devil is in the details.
Comparing lamps on this level is recommended to make an educated purchase.
PPFD maps are great but easy to manipulate. The number of diodes and size of the lamp are not as easy.
I recommend comparing all lamps like this if they are using the same parts. Two seemingly identical lamps can suddenly appear rather different.

I hope this helped a little :-)
 
Budzbuddha

Budzbuddha

Well-Known Member
SF boards can be daisy chained with patch cable ( included ) up to multiples .
THEN one could spread footprint / overlap as desired.
 
R

Robogreen

Active Member
LEDTonic - Max said:
Looking at the lamps and comparing them,
The SF1000 is listed at 100 watts draw on Amazon.
The SF2000 is listed at 200 watts draw on Amazon.
To keep it simple, we're pretending that the drivers are 100% efficient and that every watt reaches the LEDs.

The SF1000 looks to have 13 x 16 white diodes = 208 white diodes total
The SF2000 looks to have 12 x 24 white diodes on each board = 576 white diodes total

The SF1000 has 10 red diodes
The SF2000 has 30 red diodes

Red and white diodes together,
The SF1000 has 218 diodes total, and at 100 watts total, each diode gets 0,458 watts
The SF2000 has 606 diodes total, and at 200 watts total, each diode gets 0,330 watts

The SF1000 is 11.8 x 10.5 inches which equals 129.3 square inches
The SF2000 is 25.5 x 10.5 inches which equals 267.0 square inches

Each watt on the SF1000 has 1.293 sq.in of aluminum surface to spread over and dissipate from.
Each watt on the SF2000 has 1.335 sq.in of aluminum surface to spread over and dissipate from.

The softer a diode is pushed, the more efficient it is.
The cooler temperature a diode is experiencing, the more efficient it is and the longer it will last (L70).
The larger aluminum surface each watt has, the cooler the lamp will be.
Both lamps cost just as much per watt, but the SF2000 seems to be a more efficient option that will give more bang for the buck. Especially if comparing an SF2000 with two SF1000.

The devil is in the details.
Comparing lamps on this level is recommended to make an educated purchase.
PPFD maps are great but easy to manipulate. The number of diodes and size of the lamp are not as easy.
I recommend comparing all lamps like this if they are using the same parts. Two seemingly identical lamps can suddenly appear rather different.

I hope this helped a little :-)
Click to expand...
Appreciate the detail info.
Begs the question; Why all the hype from some manufactures touting 10w LEDS. Seems they don't even drive them near that power.
Any big difference between Samsung, or SMD leds. Been said some leds burn.
 
LEDTonic - Max

LEDTonic - Max

Active Member
Robogreen said:
Appreciate the detail info.
Begs the question; Why all the hype from some manufactures touting 10w LEDS. Seems they don't even drive them near that power.
Any big difference between Samsung, or SMD leds. Been said some leds burn.
Click to expand...
Generally, the smaller the diode, the more efficient it is. Larger isn't better.
A 0.5w diode ran at half power is more efficient than the typical 10w diode, ran at half power.
 
R

Robogreen

Active Member
LEDTonic - Max said:
Looking at the lamps and comparing them,
The SF1000 is listed at 100 watts draw on Amazon.
The SF2000 is listed at 200 watts draw on Amazon.
To keep it simple, we're pretending that the drivers are 100% efficient and that every watt reaches the LEDs.

The SF1000 looks to have 13 x 16 white diodes = 208 white diodes total
The SF2000 looks to have 12 x 24 white diodes on each board = 576 white diodes total

The SF1000 has 10 red diodes
The SF2000 has 30 red diodes

Red and white diodes together,
The SF1000 has 218 diodes total, and at 100 watts total, each diode gets 0,458 watts
The SF2000 has 606 diodes total, and at 200 watts total, each diode gets 0,330 watts

The SF1000 is 11.8 x 10.5 inches which equals 129.3 square inches
The SF2000 is 25.5 x 10.5 inches which equals 267.0 square inches

Each watt on the SF1000 has 1.293 sq.in of aluminum surface to spread over and dissipate from.
Each watt on the SF2000 has 1.335 sq.in of aluminum surface to spread over and dissipate from.

The softer a diode is pushed, the more efficient it is.
The cooler temperature a diode is experiencing, the more efficient it is and the longer it will last (L70).
The larger aluminum surface each watt has, the cooler the lamp will be.
Both lamps cost just as much per watt, but the SF2000 seems to be a more efficient option that will give more bang for the buck. Especially if comparing an SF2000 with two SF1000.

The devil is in the details.
Comparing lamps on this level is recommended to make an educated purchase.
PPFD maps are great but easy to manipulate. The number of diodes and size of the lamp are not as easy.
I recommend comparing all lamps like this if they are using the same parts. Two seemingly identical lamps can suddenly appear rather different.

I hope this helped a little :-)
Click to expand...
Appreciate the detail info.
Begs the question; Why all the hype from some manufactures touting 10w LEDS. Seems they don't even drive them near that power.
Any big difference between Samsung, OLD or SMD leds. Been said some leds burn.
LEDTonic - Max said:
Generally, the smaller the diode, the more efficient it is. Larger isn't better.
A 0.5w diode ran at half power is more efficient than the typical 10w diode, ran at half power.
Click to expand...
I get it. Thanks. Will a 10w driven at its optimum power penetrate deeper?
its been said about CFLs for an example that one 23w what has better penitraton than two 13w
 
LEDTonic - Max

LEDTonic - Max

Active Member
Robogreen said:
I get it. Thanks. Will a 10w driven at its optimum power penetrate deeper?
Click to expand...

I think penetration is a fuzzy word, much like "full-spectrum" has been and still is. What is it that we're really trying to say or figure out?

If you want light to reach all leaves on your plant, light penetrating deep into a thick and bushy canopy (in gaps between leaves, canopy penetration), you'll want light coming from as many angles as possible and the photons will find their way in between the leaves to a greater extent. Coming from a single point above, some light will penetrate through leaves and continue its way further down the canopy, but the very majority of light will be absorbed by the first leaf. If the canopy is bushy and there are several layers of leaves, the lower leaves just won't get a lot of light and nowhere near as much as they need, just from a single-point light source above. Adding 100w of side-lighting will be a lot more beneficial than adding another 100w on the top, if the top already is experiencing high intensities.

If you want light to penetrate deep into a leaf (leaf penetration), you'll want strong light coming from right above.
Everest Fernandez has a video on this with some nice pictures and explanations.


There are pros and cons with every lamp, setup, and theory.
Personally, I think it's on a very detailed level which barely makes any difference for most growers. Most growers are struggling with getting enough light, and the size of the diode just won't make any large difference in that context.

Growing cannabis and aiming for good results (for most growers), you'll want 20w/sqft as an absolute minimum and with 35w/sqft close to maximum.

In a 6x3.5' space (21sqft) that lands you at:
420w min
735w max

Wattage is handy but PPFD maps are better. Ideally, you'll want to see a PPFD map that has the same size and shape as your grow space. Changing the shape of the grow space will change the shape of the light footprint.

Here's our Q7 at 320 watts in a 3x3' and 4x4' space at three different heights, showing us the difference between 20w/sqft and 35w/sqft. We also see that not only the overall intensity changes between the two setups, but also the shape and size of the footprint (with a certain intensity).
3x3ft 1-1xQ7 group.png
4x4ft 1-1xQ7 group.png
 
R

Robogreen

Active Member
LEDTonic - Max said:
I think penetration is a fuzzy word, much like "full-spectrum" has been and still is. What is it that we're really trying to say or figure out?

If you want light to reach all leaves on your plant, light penetrating deep into a thick and bushy canopy (in gaps between leaves, canopy penetration), you'll want light coming from as many angles as possible and the photons will find their way in between the leaves to a greater extent. Coming from a single point above, some light will penetrate through leaves and continue its way further down the canopy, but the very majority of light will be absorbed by the first leaf. If the canopy is bushy and there are several layers of leaves, the lower leaves just won't get a lot of light and nowhere near as much as they need, just from a single-point light source above. Adding 100w of side-lighting will be a lot more beneficial than adding another 100w on the top, if the top already is experiencing high intensities.

If you want light to penetrate deep into a leaf (leaf penetration), you'll want strong light coming from right above.
Everest Fernandez has a video on this with some nice pictures and explanations.


There are pros and cons with every lamp, setup, and theory.
Personally, I think it's on a very detailed level which barely makes any difference for most growers. Most growers are struggling with getting enough light, and the size of the diode just won't make any large difference in that context.

Growing cannabis and aiming for good results (for most growers), you'll want 20w/sqft as an absolute minimum and with 35w/sqft close to maximum.

In a 6x3.5' space (21sqft) that lands you at:
420w min
735w max

Wattage is handy but PPFD maps are better. Ideally, you'll want to see a PPFD map that has the same size and shape as your grow space. Changing the shape of the grow space will change the shape of the light footprint.

Here's our Q7 at 320 watts in a 3x3' and 4x4' space at three different heights, showing us the difference between 20w/sqft and 35w/sqft. We also see that not only the overall intensity changes between the two setups, but also the shape and size of the footprint (with a certain intensity).
View attachment 4832713
View attachment 4832714
Click to expand...
Thanks again. very informative.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top