Suggestions for a 5x5 room?
- Thread starter goldenbudzz
- Start date
goldenbudzz
Well-Known Member
How much space do you cover with those 9? & Those are some pretty ladies in there!Here is 9 Vero 29's with pot pie reflectors. All dimmable. 4 weeks bloom.
goldenbudzz
Well-Known Member
Could you get me a link please? Exploring all ideas for now . Leaning towards building my own LED but not for sure yet
Greengenes707
Well-Known Member
Thank you sir.Greengenes, that light is an inspirational thing of beauty
I must make something similar but smaller, for a 1m X 1m
Somewhere you said that you were not going to go with the cxb3590, any reason why, or is it just because you are happy with what you have ?
You probably want something like my drone(6 3070's at 1400ma). It does great in 3x3+ area. Or 9 at 1050ma and push the spread a bit and bump the efficiency too. That would be the DIY way.
6 is a more production/cost conscious design.
The slight bump to me for the 3590 doesn't out weigh the cost over 3070's. At least right meow.
Rahz
Well-Known Member
So 12 is better than HPS but let's talk theory a bit because I don't want to end up with so much light I'm harming the plants. 4 CXB3070s in a 2x2 area (same as 16 in a 4x4) at 1.4A. That's about 28000 lumens in the 2x2. I realize it's overkill but is it too much?
For a comparison in a 4x4, 112,000 lumens versus 140,000 from a 1000w HPS. You can see why I'm wanting to do what I have in mind. The light quality on the HPS might not be as great but it's still 140,000 lumens coming down.
If that light level is unlikely to harm the plants, the second question is whether there would be any benefit over say 12 emitters rather than 16. I think for many growers maximizing their yield in a given area (typically smallish area) is more important than saving some electricity.
The other issue would be heat, but here again the CXBs would be emitting less heat than the HPS. Of course HPS could be enclosed in a vented hood or cool tube. While similar could be done with LED if heat was an issue it would be a DIY job and nothing as simple as a cool tube.
To the point, I assume you too are an evil genius, so why 12 instead of 16?
For a comparison in a 4x4, 112,000 lumens versus 140,000 from a 1000w HPS. You can see why I'm wanting to do what I have in mind. The light quality on the HPS might not be as great but it's still 140,000 lumens coming down.
If that light level is unlikely to harm the plants, the second question is whether there would be any benefit over say 12 emitters rather than 16. I think for many growers maximizing their yield in a given area (typically smallish area) is more important than saving some electricity.
The other issue would be heat, but here again the CXBs would be emitting less heat than the HPS. Of course HPS could be enclosed in a vented hood or cool tube. While similar could be done with LED if heat was an issue it would be a DIY job and nothing as simple as a cool tube.
To the point, I assume you too are an evil genius, so why 12 instead of 16?
Tim Fox
Well-Known Member
I have looked at many a lumen output chart, and if your happy with the dropoff in lumens as the hours of use go up? Then sure[Qhave lookedUOTE="bicit, post: 11452656, member: 499366"]I think you're overestimating how often bulbs are swapped out. 1 year for a hps is typical for the average joe. Keep in mind that HPS bulbs are rated for around 20,000 hours (+/-) depending on the manufacture. Even Ceramic metal halide is rated for 10,000 hours. Replacing a bulb that often is throwing money away lol.
It is really hard to beat HPS fiscally . The ROI is pretty long for most people. If you only plan to grow for a year, why bother with led? Cheap and dirty in that scenario. If you don't ever plan on stopping, led is the way to go. Since some of these emitters are estimated to last millions of hours when driven softly and properly cooled.[/QUOTE]
I
It is really hard to beat HPS fiscally . The ROI is pretty long for most people. If you only plan to grow for a year, why bother with led? Cheap and dirty in that scenario. If you don't ever plan on stopping, led is the way to go. Since some of these emitters are estimated to last millions of hours when driven softly and properly cooled.[/QUOTE]
I
Tim Fox
Well-Known Member
I am a big fan of the cxa3070 cob, currently building an LED array with them myself [Qam a big fan of the cxa3070, UOTE="Greengenes707, post: 11453079, member: 749428"]Thank you sir.
You probably want something like my drone(6 3070's at 1400ma). It does great in 3x3+ area. Or 9 at 1050ma and push the spread a bit and bump the efficiency too. That would be the DIY way.
6 is a more production/cost conscious design.
The slight bump to me for the 3590 doesn't out weigh the cost over 3070's. At least right meow.[/QUOTE]
I
You probably want something like my drone(6 3070's at 1400ma). It does great in 3x3+ area. Or 9 at 1050ma and push the spread a bit and bump the efficiency too. That would be the DIY way.
6 is a more production/cost conscious design.
The slight bump to me for the 3590 doesn't out weigh the cost over 3070's. At least right meow.[/QUOTE]
I
Greengenes707
Well-Known Member
Ok lets talk theory. I order to do that...forget about lumens. Lumens are bass on the spectrum and the luminosity function. If the spectrums are not 100% the same...lumens are worthless. And even then are better ways of measuring ouput.
Lumens are for humans. Plants use photons. About 8-10 per carbon molecule fixated to f we really get down to the details.
My goal was to make a 1:1 swap with a 1000hps that will actually save you money. There has been no doubt in anyone's mind for years that watt for watt led's are better. That just cost a lot, and no way of making it back over time. 12 does that based on the PPF(photosynthetic PHOTON flux) output and the PPFD( photosynthetic photon flux density/DISTRIBUTION) footprint.
PPF is how much his possibly emitted and the PPFD is how many are reaching the canopy. Both are important when designing. PPF for easier calculation purposes can be expressed in radiant watts...or PARwatts.
A CXB3070 fixture at 1400 producing close to 50% light(48+%) and pulling around 600w comes out to ~290-300PARwatts. And is emitting it in the correct direction...at the canopy with little or no need to redirect via reflectors lenses or anything. And will also maintain that efficiency and output indefinitely with the correct cooling system...which isn't hard to do at all.
A 1000w hps brand new out the gates is hitting ~36% efficient and producing 360 PARwatts. But is doing it in 360*and requiring at least 50% of it to be redirected back towards the canopy. That can not be done without a price...photos being that price. Reflectors are not truely very effective in the grand scheme. 98% reflectors do not reflect 98% or even close to it, closer to 85 at best. Also the bulb itself is blocking upwards of another 10% of that already penalized reflected light. The grand total after all losses has been tested to only emitt out 70-80% of the total PPF..and still has some straying off the canopy(but we'll let that slide for this). So we are looking at ~250-290 PARwatts available to hit the canopy.
That is for a brand new bulb. Check the arc rod in a hps bulb after 1, maybe 2 months use...bent from the heat...the heat that's degrading the bulb very fast. Their lm70 will shows you in perfect conditions that they drop below 90% their ouput very quickly. And below 85 by 3 grows. While the led is still at 100...actually about a month into led they get over 100% for awhile. Phosphorus likes a little use.
As detrimental as that sounds for hps...hps still kick ass as we know with that output. But we can clearly see their weaknesses and is exactly how we can capitalize on it using led's. And how I have come to what I have come to.
16 would work just fine I'm sure. Would not expect any kind of problems. Cost is up and savings are down...that is personal choice. Spread could be up. All depends on design.
Edit:
Oh ya...lets not forget about he spectral benifits of leds. Distributing all that quanta over a broad range, minimizing any over saturation and also improving plants physiological processes.
Last edited:
Greengenes707
Well-Known Member
I save 960$ a year per light based on lighting and fan power alone with no AC for either hps or led factored in. I dont need it most of the year, even blowing my room up with hps...but many need it and that savings is massive in my area.
Fuck pg&e...but makes my choice a no brainier and is why I have been using top end leds for many years and profiting from it regardless of what some consider rediculous prices.
Then think bulbs.
And the fact that my end product has a shock and awe that other lighting is not capable of. Even uvb additions don't add terpenes like I have seen from my leds.
Fuck pg&e...but makes my choice a no brainier and is why I have been using top end leds for many years and profiting from it regardless of what some consider rediculous prices.
Then think bulbs.
And the fact that my end product has a shock and awe that other lighting is not capable of. Even uvb additions don't add terpenes like I have seen from my leds.
Last edited:
Tim Fox
Well-Known Member
So after 3 months of usage with a 1000 watt HPS the bulb "dims" it not only loses lumens it also loses par levels and "photons" the bulb is not able to produce the output power that it once did when new, it loses those things across the board, in other words the bulb ages and loses function until it ultimately goes out, you cant expect to just keep running a 1000 watt bulb and expect to get the results that you did on your first crop with it, for me that is the huge advantage of leds, along with the massive savings in electricty costs
JimmyIndica
Well-Known Member
The cob opens up a lot! Servicing being # 1 with me. Its gonna be unscrew/bolt, unplug. Plug back in screw/bolt together and you never take the fixture down! Take the return for service basically out the question. Same goes with the power supply! All fixtures I purchase next year or two will be cob design! Until the next advancement is made of coarse! Will there be a ceiling in the near future? Really only thing left to do is commercial application! and effiency is always gonna be there
beodrone
Active Member
Well not quite that easy if you factor in thermal paste. I am currently testing a fixture without the TIM on HeatSinkUSA heatsink using a TMP36 temperature sensor under each light and they barely go above 90o without the paste so I am starting to have second thoughts on if we even need TIM when using this HeatSink/FAN combo. (within reason after sanding the sink to level it out)
Last edited:
Jeeyah
Well-Known Member
This is how you take a shit on HPS.
1. 16 COBS have a better spread than 5 or 9. (I was trying to save by running fewer COB's).
2. HLG-185H-C1400B is 94% efficient versus LPF-90 @ 90% efficient.
3. Using the HLG to run 4 COBS at 1.4 amps versus 1.9 amp on the LPF, I think you gain about 4% efficiency. (I think)
You can do this with less COB's or cheaper drivers. But, to take a shit on the 1k, this seems like the way to go.
Thanks @Rahz
SupraSPL
Well-Known Member
Bingo, if you can increase efficiency to the point that you don't need AC for most of the year and/or you are able to increase your yield, you hit the ganja jackpot and the LED pays for itself in weeks.
In my area electricity is relatively cheap but space is not. If I tried to pack a bunch of HPS in my space I would need huge ventilation and AC. Even with all that gear and noise, I believe quality would suffer.