Let's talk yields!

Greenup

Active Member
I choose to go with the led cuz of the heat issues running a 600 or 400 hps in my tent I feel adding in the fan is still going to run the electric bill as well as being noisy.
 

foreverflyhi

Well-Known Member
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.
So do u think that the apache will loose against the 1000w?

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?
Been there done that,

i personally think the quality is determine by the genetics/medium/environment/lighting (some could be re-arranged, but for the most part, in that order)

Dont forget about the cooling cost ( some maybe higher then others depending on where u live)
plus not everyone can pay for the breaker upgrade and or able to maintain a hid grow, led is a step towards achieving that with minimum footprint. Btw contrary to the popular belief, leds are alot cheaper then they are or where being advertise.

Btw theres still a diffrence between 100% led grown herb and hid grown with led supplemental grown herb.

i vouch for the quality difference
 

SupraSPL

Well-Known Member
So do u think that the apache will loose against the 1000w?
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 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.
 

Greengenes707

Well-Known Member
Am 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.
 

PSUAGRO.

Well-Known Member
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 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.
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 photons:p


Am 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.
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??IDK

you can also run vert/bare bulb setup which will MOSTLY alleviate hid's omni-directional flaw/losses from the reflector
 

Greengenes707

Well-Known Member
The PAR meters do have a degree of error...but it's not anything to not take the reading as a valid measurement...at least as a guideline. Also spectroradiometers backs up the PAR meters findings. My apogee is tuned for apache's R2 spectrum anyways. Apache sent them the spectral sheet and they configured it to be most accurate for that spectrum.

I agree with the math and theory...but like I said, I see the numbers with my own eyes and they say slightly different. That is why I asked.
 

SupraSPL

Well-Known Member
I HIGHLY doubt that apache uses mid-tier nichia bins on their panel for that price
$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.
 

SupraSPL

Well-Known Member
GG you raise important points. The math starts off with the amount of photons emitted and attempts to take into account the amount lost in the reflectors or scattered. Some % of the photons convert into heat every time they interact with the plastic of the lens or any surface, some get scattered and bounce a bunch of times before they get to the canopy, each bounce taxing them. Some get scattered and head off in the wrong direction. So I penalized their output by 15%.

This effect is much worse with the HPS as you can imagine. When I penalized the HPS by 25% that might have been an underestimate of the reflector losses. If you can imagine a sheet of aluminum so thin you could see through it, many of the HPS photons actually pass through that thin layer of the reflector and get taxed, then they bounce many times before reaching the canopy if they happen to have been scattered in that direction. This is all made much worse if the HPS has a sheet of glass to get through. You get the picture.

LEDs have a huge advantage because of their directionality but that is offset somewhat their relatively low efficiency and the use of lenses. That is why I strive so hard to get the highest efficiency possible and to get the panels close to the canopy to avoid the need for lenses.
 

PSUAGRO.

Well-Known Member
$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.
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.
 

Jbone77

Well-Known Member
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.
That's the best way to run hid. Pretty sure I heard the apache is pulling 680 watts.
 

Scotch089

Well-Known Member
He has the prototype that is driven softer.

May be worth noting for those looking at filling a 4x4' and watching the side by side.
 

puffenuff

Well-Known Member
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.
 

PSUAGRO.

Well-Known Member
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 %.

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.
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.
 

stardustsailor

Well-Known Member
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])
E = 0.039756 × 10[SIZE=-1][SUP]-17[/SUP][/SIZE] J

Example: How many photons per joule exist for light at wavelength λ = 500nm?
E = Energy/photon, so to create 1 J of energy we will need N photons.
N × E = 1 joule, hence N = 1/E
N = λ/hc = 25.15 × 10[SIZE=-1][SUP]17[/SUP][/SIZE] 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.
.....

http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2006-02/sj/
 

stardustsailor

Well-Known Member
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.
http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2006-03/sj/
 

stardustsailor

Well-Known Member
http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2006-04/sj/


A 400 Watt HPS transforms ~120 Watts into visible light,spectral normalised into ~600umol/sec..
400 Watts of monochromatic hyper red T3T4 Oslons will emit 196 Watts of light ,spectral normalised into ~1078 umol/sec ...

a 400 Watts mixed white-red leds,depending on type and ratio of leds used,can be less,equal or surpassing a 400 Watt HPS 's umol/sec
value....HPS peaks at green-yellow-ambers ...thus 120 Watts => 600 umol/sec...

Red 660 leds with an average of 5,5 umol/sec per watt (emitted watt ) ...if 120 watts=>660 umol/sec
But still..
Would that be ideal to grow with only 660 nm red leds ?

Hmmm..Maybe ...
First you go for that diagonal 'ideal ' line of 'perfect PAR spectrum ,from 400 nm ,in low power ,
increasing, to peak around 670-680 nm( or maybe 700 ,who knows ? )...

The pick your ..leds ,to try to mimic as much as possible the diagonal line ....

In the wanted power levels of course..

Maybe ...
 

SupraSPL

Well-Known Member
I would take issue with both the numbers they gave. The 400 HPS should emit closer to 140 PAR Watts and the 400W of Oslon SSL 3T is would emit 156 PAR Watts. I am not hating on the Oslon 3T, I use them in all my panels.

Regarding the AT600 dissipation wattage, I assumed it is consuming 720 watts based on the lower of the 2 numbers growershouse gave us. Then I subtracted 15% for driver losses and fan consumption = 612W of actual dissipation. It would be cool if we had a measurement from the new lamps though.
 

stardustsailor

Well-Known Member
Haven't the oslons an efficiency of ~48% ..
Or they do emit some power beyond 700 nm ?
Don't remember their spectral distribution ...
 
Top