Umol/Watt - "Impossible" Readings

Status
Not open for further replies.

HydroGrowLED

Well-Known Member
I don't know what is truth or who to believe about what but I will say that @Stephenj37826 better tag @robincnn to take over cause @HydroGrowLED just slapped their strap on all up side your face with that fancy photosynthesis mathematical equation in the other thread and your in over your head :lol:
:lol: my strap-on... I'm laughing quite hard right now lol. He is in over his head though.

The mathematical equations are not valid until an efficiency test is done. They really mean nothing until you know the amount of photons that the light is emitting overall. You will see once an efficiency test is done that HLG will be in front simply because of the diodes used are of a higher efficiency.
Correct, the final piece missing from my equation (who am I kidding, there's plenty more that's not accounted for like penetration) is a umol/joule value. I am sending in my 84X on Friday to a lab for this test to be done. Once we have a umol/joule the equation will be complete. Right now the equation is based on both lights having similar or the same value for this number. But according to the lab, lights with a high percentage of red will have an easier time creating a higher umol/joule value. Since our lights are 71-75% red and I test LEDs yearly in my sphere to see which gives the highest PAR reading per wavelength we use, I'm guessing our numbers will come out a bit higher than HLG. But that's just a guess. In another week or two we'll have the results to see.
 

Stephenj37826

Well-Known Member
By doing zero innovation and slapping generic white LEDs on a board ;)
Lol. Zero innovation. We will see. You are trying to tell me that a billion dollar company such as Osram has it all wrong and you've got it all figured out eh. Stupid Osram buying Fluence for north of 250 million.

You seriously are the most arrogant person I've seen in a while lol. It will be very sobering for you when the results come in.....

Also you stating that you calculated assuming the lights being at the same output. Then later posting you think it will be higher than us lol.

P.S. sarcasm apparently doesn't translate over the internet so well.....
 

Stephenj37826

Well-Known Member
I'm discussing the efficiency and maths behind the calculations. Regarding the spectrum for plant growth some grow very well under heavy reds, I have seen it several times but then not do so good at other times. I know the efficiency of the reds that are being used is not very high although if they were good chips they would destroy a HLG efficiency because they are heavy reds.

The reds we are using on the fixture are clocking in at 3.1 umol/j @350 ma. We are running them at around 240ma. The whites are around 2.82 umol/j @65ma which we are at 70ma.

A super red heavy spectrum would be more efficient on paper but there is a point of saturation especially at 660nm.

Penetration is not a function of pushing photons through the canopy . A diffuse light with multiple point sources will have a much better canopy penetration do to so many incident angles of light. When I'm in the sun I have a shadow. If I stand in a room full of lights I don't...... Focusing light down with optics doesn't promote penetration.

Good luck......
 

hillbill

Well-Known Member
The reds we are using on the fixture are clocking in at 3.1 umol/j @350 ma. We are running them at around 240ma. The whites are around 2.82 umol/j @65ma which we are at 70ma.

A super red heavy spectrum would be more efficient on paper but there is a point of saturation especially at 660nm.

Penetration is not a function of pushing photons through the canopy . A diffuse light with multiple point sources will have a much better canopy penetration do to so many incident angles of light. When I'm in the sun I have a shadow. If I stand in a room full of lights I don't...... Focusing light down with optics doesn't promote penetration.

Good luck......
The multi points of light coming from at least several sources can can angle between and under leaves to land on the buds unimpeded. Noticed when I switched from HIDs to LEDs that leaves stayed green deep into and under canopy. Also noticed very little or no “deep shade” on the soil surface in the containers.
 

SSGrower

Well-Known Member

HydroGrowLED

Well-Known Member
Lol. Zero innovation. We will see. You are trying to tell me that a billion dollar company such as Osram has it all wrong and you've got it all figured out eh. Stupid Osram buying Fluence for north of 250 million.

You seriously are the most arrogant person I've seen in a while lol. It will be very sobering for you when the results come in.....

Also you stating that you calculated assuming the lights being at the same output. Then later posting you think it will be higher than us lol.

P.S. sarcasm apparently doesn't translate over the internet so well.....
That's exactly what I'm saying. I've had Osram reps here in my office numerous times trying to sell me their products. I told them the same thing I told Philips: "all that matters to me is how your LEDs perform relative to the others I've tested". So we loaded up their samples into my integrating sphere, we ran the test and their people were disappointed by the results. I know Osram makes a good red chip, but their packaging is poor. When you put Osram 660nm chips into alternate packages, they perform much better. In some tests they even beat our own 660nm by about 5%, but again, not in Osram's package. And despite the 5% gain using an alternate package, at over double the cost per chip it's not worth it to any grower. The cost has to justify the gain in output. Had you done any real LED testing of your own, I wouldn't need to educate you on these things or spectral science.

If Osram made a great grow light (they had their own for quite a while), then why buy Fluence at all? Osram as a company has far more money and could decimate fluence in marketing and free samples, but they chose to buy a competitor they thought was better than they were. Buying companies doesn't mean they're the best decision... Or even profitable. It just means you're looking for an easy way to penetrate a market you've had little success in.

You know what I find interesting Stephen? In all your replies not once have you ever backed up anything you've stated with actual facts, data or any evidence to support your claims. Not once have you posted any knowledge or scientific rebuttals to anything I've stated. Instead you come around poking fun at me, belittling me and are now calling me names. I can see you are great at talking and trying to keep people focused on something other than your complete lack of understanding of the scientific fact behind spectrum. Your lack of knowledge and ability to share it speaks volumes. But hey keep patting yourself on the back for putting white LEDs on a circuit board. Bravo!
 

HydroGrowLED

Well-Known Member
Penetration is not a function of pushing photons through the canopy . A diffuse light with multiple point sources will have a much better canopy penetration do to so many incident angles of light. When I'm in the sun I have a shadow. If I stand in a room full of lights I don't...... Focusing light down with optics doesn't promote penetration.
Penetration is a function of how well light intensity is maintained over distance. It is also a function of how well light travels through chloroplasts and how many layers of leaves it can illuminate. The more energy that penetrates through a leaf (upper and lower chloroplasts), the more can be absorbed. Thank you for again showing you have no idea what you're speaking about and are simply trying to justify the lack of development and technology in your own products. And for someone who talks so much about umol/joule, you sure seem to know nothing about PAR or PPFD. If you have a higher umol/joule than we do, you would also have higher PPFD distribution on your PAR maps posted to your website. But you like to talk and I like to back up what I say with actual data. Are you forgetting that I'm the single person who created PPFD PAR maps back in 2009 and made them standard practice? You're just someone using maps that I created without any real understanding of how they work, so let me continue to educate you as I've been doing these past few days.

For starters you don't supply enough data sets for anyone to evaluate your light fairly. You don't even cover a vertical distance of more than 6", while we provide 4 feet of PPFD data. You only post 3 maps at 18", 22" and 24" because your lights don't penetrate (and you know this). Now if your light is more powerful and far more efficient at creating umol/joule, then why don't you have more PPFD than we do? See that's something you can't explain, so you'll probably just call me names again and try to take the attention off you and your lack of knowledge.



At 24" we have 157% higher peak umol output than your fixture. Now you do have more light around the edges of your covered area due to your lack of lensing technology, but that also means your lights are throwing a lot of wasted energy at walls where plants are not growing... Our lights on the other hand cram every last photon possible into our usable coverage area with almost zero light waste outside of that area (aka we make sure all our photons are being directed at plants where they belong). All this talk about efficiency and yet you don't even have the sense to make sure that your photons are within the usable coverage area of your light? Seems you not only lack a scientific understanding of light, spectrum and PPFD, but also common sense. Why are we paying money to illuminate walls that don't grow plants?

Last I checked walls don't grow bud, plants do. I'm glad you hide your PAR data at 36" and 48" as it shows you lack confidence in showing those readings. Likewise you take far less readings than we do which doesn't give your clients a full view of your actual PPFD distribution. But now let's take your lower PPFD (despite your claim to be more efficient than we are) and do some practical math with it.

Let's say both of our lights have exactly the same umol/joule figure and the same spectrum with our X-lens being the factor making our intensity higher. Let's say plants can convert 50% of the PPFD we provide into usable energy (just for the sake of arbitrary calculations). Each layer of leaves as you move down the plants is receiving a different intensity in umol. So how much of the light those leaf layers can convert depends on how much umol intensity we can drive down to them. Because your company lacks sufficient data on your own products, I've gone ahead and used the inverse square law (which your lights follow) to calculate your peak output at 48". This way we have two data sets to compare despite your company only supplying one to use for this comparison. The results look as follows:



Hmm, so Penetration means nothing right? Lower light intensity levels at lower canopy levels = higher absorption and penetration in your eyes? The math contradicts your findings but go ahead and start calling me more names rather than explaining yourself or refuting my data with something concrete of your own. You're in way over your head Stephen.
 
Last edited:

pop22

Well-Known Member
And those generic white LEDs are kicking ass in the growroom, and doing so efficiently, and they provide a better spectrum than mixed single color or even " horticultural" leds can provide. When you see people like Growmau5 STOMP a Fluence light with white cobs, you know the community is onto something. I would love to see a multi room, single strain comparison grow between your light and QB lights of equal wattage. Its the only way you'll ever prove how great your light is or isn't. Talk is cheap, proof is in the growing.



By doing zero innovation and slapping generic white LEDs on a board ;)
 

OneHitDone

Well-Known Member
Penetration is a function of how well light intensity is maintained over distance.
Finally some one that get's it.
Just lining the ceiling with low power led's is not going to give you the intensities needed in the lower canopy.



Thanks for bringing some excitement to the forums.
This discussing is kinda reminding me of all the fanboys getting their panties in a wad over the Spectrum King video :lol:


 

robincnn

Well-Known Member
I don't know what is truth or who to believe about what but I will say that @Stephenj37826 better tag @robincnn to take over cause @HydroGrowLED just slapped their strap on all up side your face with that fancy photosynthesis mathematical equation in the other thread and your in over your head :lol:
@OneHitDone
@Stephenj37826 is the truth. He will soon slap whole industry with 2.9+. No fancy math equation. Real product that wont cost a month's salary.
here is some test reports for something we are working on

We are confident we can exceed 2.9 PPF/W, it will have a premium price and we are working on making it cost effective. Do not wait on this one. This tech and design is patent pending and will take time to mass produce launch.
In the meantime we have a new lamp for 04/20 :)

This is for people who do not understand all that math and just want a report evidence.
Sorry this report had grand jury material and is redacted. No math Collusion.
 

OneHitDone

Well-Known Member
@OneHitDone
@Stephenj37826 is the truth. He will soon slap whole industry with 2.9+. No fancy math equation. Real product that wont cost a month's salary.
here is some test reports for something we are working on

We are confident we can exceed 2.9 PPF/W, it will have a premium price and we are working on making it cost effective. Do not wait on this one. This tech and design is patent pending and will take time to mass produce launch.
In the meantime we have a new lamp for 04/20 :)

This is for people who do not understand all that math and just want a report evidence.
Sorry this report had grand jury material and is redacted. No math Collusion.
The biggest issue is that you guys keep ignoring the far red end of the spectrum....
Do you have numbers for PBAR?
 

HydroGrowLED

Well-Known Member
The biggest issue is that you guys keep ignoring the far red end of the spectrum....
Do you have numbers for PBAR?
You mean they ignore spectrum entirely? Or any plant science related to photosynthesis? Or the definition of light penetration? I mean all this guy has is umol/joule... and yet the testing companies themselves who create these measurements will tell you that it has very little to do with determining how well a light source can grow plants. If Stephen had ever asked the lab any questions, he'd already know this, but he's just as brainwashed as others here who think that the only thing that matters is how many photons you can create per watt, not whether or not those photons are actually directed at your plants or whether the plant can absorb them efficiently. He completely disregards science and focuses entirely on an arbitrary efficiency number. It's all he's got and it's all he knows.
 

Stephenj37826

Well-Known Member
Exactly the response (or complete lack thereof) I predicted. Glad we can all count on you knowing nothing Stephen. ;)
Oh I know quite a bit more than you think lol. I don't have too much time to spend educating someone who already knows it all.....I'd rather spend my time writing papers for people who matter...IE Samsung ..... PS Mcree did some studies on spectrum and it sure flys in the face of Chlorophyll peak targeting. He measured actual CO2 assimilation not what the "algae" "absorbs" but rather actual photosynthesis......
 

HydroGrowLED

Well-Known Member
Oh I know quite a bit more than you think lol. I don't have too much time to spend educating someone who already knows it all.....I'd rather spend my time writing papers for people who matter...IE Samsung ..... PS Mcree did some studies on spectrum and it sure flys in the face of Chlorophyll peak targeting. He measured actual CO2 assimilation not what the "algae" "absorbs" but rather actual photosynthesis......
Once again claiming to know something without any data, scientific studies or anything to back up a word of what you say. You're just expecting people to take your word for it and hiding behind cheap rhetoric because you have nothing else. I see you're excellent at making excuses though.
 

HydroGrowLED

Well-Known Member
Maintaining the power of light over distance, apart from a focusing device, seems to be a function of the inverse square law unless that does not apply?
With point source lights that use a lens angles below 120 degrees, light behaves different than what the standard inverse square calculations dictate. The tighter the beam, the higher the difference in intensity over distance.

Inverse square states a reading a 2' from a source has 1/4 the intensity as a reading at 1' from the source. At 3' from the source it should have 1/9 the intensity.

Our 336X delivers 1508 peak at 12", at 24" peak drops to 1155, at 36" it drops to 578 and at 48" it drops to 331.

Based on inverse square, we should have about 377 umol at 24" and 168 at 36" . Instead our reading at 4' is closer to what our 2' figure would be if based on the standard inverse square calculation. Now I'm sure there are various multipliers you can use to calculate inverse square with adjusted lensing angles, but that's not my area of study.
 

delstele

Well-Known Member
I never in business ( been self employed since 1991) would I bad mouth a competitor! It's shows lack of respect for the business industry as a whole not to mention breeds resentment that is bad for ones mental / physical heath...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top