So do u think that the apache will loose against the 1000w?I hear that, HID is hard to beat. A pair of 190s will consume 380W and a 400 HPS will consume 440W so there is not much power savings there. The upside of the LED is higher quality buds and no need to replace the bulb every 6 months. I was using some 18 month old bare 600 HPS and only getting .3-.4 grams/W on my OGs.
Been there done that,EXACTLY, and that is why it is perfect to supplement your HID main light with LEDS so that your BUD takes advantage of the 640-665nm red spectrum from the LEDS.
Higher quality buds, isn't that everyones end game?
Assuming it is a new bulb, the 1000 HPS is 36% efficient so 360 PAR Watts - 25% for reflector/glass losses = 270 PAR Watts in the canopySo do u think that the apache will loose against the 1000w?
I HIGHLY doubt that apache uses mid-tier nichia bins on their panel for that price.............600w/1000w hps is hard to beat until the "white" led tech evolves;photons be photonsAssuming it is a new bulb, the 1000 HPS is 36% efficient so 360 PAR Watts - 25% for reflector/glass losses = 270 PAR Watts in the canopy
The AT600 dissipates about 610W but we dont know the efficiency because the bin is not specified. Assuming mid bin and 30% efficient that is 184 PAR Watts - 15% lens losses = 156 PAR Watts in the canopy.
This case is slightly different than the XGS-190 comparison because the AT600 actually does have a better spectrum than the HPS. Despite that, there is no way spectrum can make up for the problem that there are only half as many photons in the canopy. So from a math perspective, the AT600 can not hope to replace a 1000 HPS.
Yes led's directional output is in their favor big time......apache/a51/most led panels with light losses from the primary+secondary lens & even led coverings on top off that== can't afford too lose any lumens with a primary "white" source IMO........par/umol meter's sensors aren't 100% accurate at what is being emitted/spectral distribution??IDKAm I under standing it right that the calculations are is photons released by the source? How are you accounting for the directional bias of the led...and the columiztation of the lenses.
Stardust touched on it already...I know in actual use, there is fairly even and equal spread of photons(PPFD/PAR meter) over the canopy. Meaning that the same amount of photons are REACHING the canopy. Even though the math says the source has less emitted in total, the same amount ends up at the canopy/plants. Where do all those extra photons go...they don't show up on the meter.
And I mean this for every led basically.
$2000 (I think there is a $400 coupon right GG?) for 610 dissipation watts = $3.27/W. Based on that I suspect they are mid or even low bins, and like all LED panels they are guilty until proven innocent.I HIGHLY doubt that apache uses mid-tier nichia bins on their panel for that price
Well then apache needs to come CLEAN on the bin #s @ the prices their asking(actually the at 600 is drawing around 700w according to growers house http://growershouse.com/blog/apache-tech-at600-led-review/) ,which doesn't sit well with me either.$2000 (I think there is a $400 coupon right GG?) for 610 dissipation watts = $3.27/W. Based on that I suspect they are mid or even low bins, and like all LED panels they are guilty until proven innocent.
I tried the bare VERT HPS and got decent results but it was not a good use of vertical space for my situation and a lot of light was escaping upward and downward. So I ended up doubling my wattage and switching to horizontal. My grams/watt decreased but my overall yield increased along with my power bill and cooling requirements. LED alleviated all those problems but cost and arm and a leg up front.
That's the best way to run hid. Pretty sure I heard the apache is pulling 680 watts.Well then apache needs to come CLEAN on the bin #s @ the prices their asking(actually the at 600 is drawing around 700w according to growers house http://growershouse.com/blog/apache-tech-at600-led-review/) ,which doesn't sit well with me either.
The closest I got to 1gpw(HID) was with a 600w(mag) philips hps vert/bare bulb with umbrella reflector 2ft above using a stadium set-up. It is the most efficient way IMO, but isn't the best setup for everyone.
I thought greengenes said his was pulling 680, I may be mistaken.PSU's link mentions 748W, here it is listed as 750W.
That's why they are saying AROUND 700w......220v/120v minor efficiency fluctuations on voltage use. Drivers aren't exactly equal from panel to panel, also each driver won't have exact ac to dc conversion %.PSU's link mentions 748W, here it is listed as 750W.
yeah I agree puff about the quality of the diodes used, BUT apache really needs to give us the bin#s so we can stop speculating........it's stupid, we all know their using nichia now.When I asked about the data sheet supplied to growershouse in regards to the at200, I was told they were using different drivers at that time. Now using more efficient drivers to get same output at less Watts. Perhaps the same is true for the at600. After all, we are just all speculating here now. Going from there, I HIGHLY doubt they use anything other than top bin leds. Nothing in my experience with the company or product suggests they cut corners or take the cheap route. Using everything else top of the line then skimping out and going with bottom or mid bins just doesn't make sense when all else is considered.
........................Wavelength = speed of light / frequency
λ = c/ν
λ = wavelength
ν = frequency
c = speed of light
.........Energy = Plank's constant × Frequency
E = hν = hc/λ
Where h = Plank's constant is 6.626 × 10[SIZE=-1][SUP]-34[/SUP][/SIZE] joules per second
Energy is measured in units called joules.
As the frequency of the radiation increases (wavelength gets shorter), the amount of energy in each photon increases.
.....These basic equations provide us with the relationship between wavelength, frequency, energy and photons, and can be used to go back and forth as seen in the following examples.
Example: What is the energy in a single photon of light at 500nm?
E = 6.626 × 10[SIZE=-1][SUP]-34[/SUP][/SIZE] × 3.0 × 10[SIZE=-1][SUP]8[/SUP][/SIZE]/(500 × 10[SIZE=-1][SUP]-9[/SUP][/SIZE])Example: How many photons per joule exist for light at wavelength λ = 500nm?
E = 0.039756 × 10[SIZE=-1][SUP]-17[/SUP][/SIZE] J
E = Energy/photon, so to create 1 J of energy we will need N photons.As seen above, to produce 1 Joule of energy by light at a wavelength of 500nm requires a very large number of photons. To avoid having to deal with such large numbers, we can measure the number of photons in "moles" where 1 mole = Avagadro's number = 6.02 × 10[SIZE=-1][SUP]23[/SUP][/SIZE]. So 25.15 × 10[SIZE=-1][SUP]17[/SUP][/SIZE] photons would correspond to .000004177 moles. Now, this number is too small, so instead we will measure in "micromoles," where 1 micromole (denoted as µmol) is 10[SIZE=-1][SUP]-6[/SUP][/SIZE] mole, giving us 4.177 micromoles of photons.
N × E = 1 joule, hence N = 1/E
N = λ/hc = 25.15 × 10[SIZE=-1][SUP]17[/SUP][/SIZE] photons
http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2006-03/sj/A light source is basically a continuous source of photons, in our case converting electrical energy into visible photons. So when we characterize a light source, we are interested in determining how many photons it generates per unit of time. This is called its photon flux. These photons are generated and spread in all directions, and ultimately land on some object of interest (often in our case, the corals). A light source generates photons at a constant rate, and as we move away from the source, the photons will spread over a larger area, hence fewer photons land on the target area the further we move from the light source. We are interested in how many photons land on a given area, usually 1 meter square, and this number is called the photon density. Additionally, we are interested in the photons that are available for photosynthesis, which happen to be photons in the range 400-700nm (the same as visible light). These are called photosynthetic photons. These three entities of interest combine to comprise the Photosynthetic Photon Flux Density (PPFD), which is a measure of the number of photons in the range of 400-700nm falling on a 1 meter square area per second. PPFD is a measure of Photosynthetically Available Radiation abbreviated as PAR. Recall from Part 1 that to generate 1 watt of power we would need 25.15 × 10[SIZE=-1][SUP]17[/SUP][/SIZE] photons/sec at 500nm. This is a lot of photons!!! Since we are dealing with a large number of photons, the number of photons are measured in units called micromoles (1 mole = Avogadro's number = 6.022 × 10[SIZE=-1][SUP]23[/SUP][/SIZE], hence 1 micromole = 6.022 × 10[SIZE=-1][SUP]17[/SUP][/SIZE]). Hence the units of PPFD are micromoles/m[SIZE=-1][SUP]2[/SUP][/SIZE]/sec, so, a PPFD of 1 corresponds to 6.022 × 10[SIZE=-1][SUP]17[/SUP][/SIZE] photons falling on a 1 meter square per second. In the aquarium hobby we often refer to light output in terms of PAR. Technically, this is incorrect. PAR is typically measured as PPFD.
Different light sources have different distributions of photons in the 400-700nm range. The light source can be characterized by determining this distribution of the photons, and this is done using an instrument called a spectroradiometer. A spectroradiometer simply is an instrument that has a sensor and associated hardware and software to determine the distribution of energy (measured as power density in Watts/m[SIZE=-1][SUP]2[/SUP][/SIZE]) at different wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum. This is usually displayed as a graph with the wavelength on the X-axis and the power density on the Y-axis, and is called the Spectral Power Distribution (SPD) plot. One such SPD plot is shown in Figure 2 below. This is the most important piece of information about a light source, and all relevant light measures can be derived from it.