CXB3590 1500W

[yoda954]

@SupraSPL hey just trying to work my specs out using this formal and just a couple of questions

what or how is the .9/wall reflectors worked out...I'm not using lens but have reflective walls, is the .9 just a average or something?

where does the 4.65 umol/s/PAR W come from?

and how has the 10.7 (sq meter conversion) been worked out? to me this is saying its the sq meter conversion of 14 sq ft? but that can't be right because 14sq ft to sq meters is 1.3 sq meters

also 7.24 + 4.65 x 10.7 = 56.95

Sorry man not trying give ya any shit just trying to work this stuff out for myself

hello

because multiply first 7.24 x 10.7 which is equal to 77.468
and then multiplying by 4.65 umol/s/PAR W
So this gives here 77.468 X 4.65 = 360.2262 -> (360 PPFD averaged)

I'm not a math student
and I started like you but I immediately understood calculate SupraSPL ^^

it's just that this is the formula that is incomprehensible in form, but when you know how to read or decipher it
it's simple

buy and have a good day

and again
excuse me for my bad english.........

 

[threetwobravo]

hello

because multiply first 7.24 x 10.7 which is equal to 77.468
and then multiplying by 4.65 umol/s/PAR W
So this gives here 77.468 X 4.65 = 360.2262 -> (360 PPFD averaged)

I'm not a math student
and I started like you but I immediately understood calculate SupraSPL ^^

it's just that this is the formula that is incomprehensible in form, but when you know how to read or decipher it
it's simple

buy and have a good day

and again
excuse me for my bad english.........

Thanks Yoda,

ok the equations are written incorrectly it should read like this

7.24 x 10.7(sq meter conversion) x 4.65=360.22

instead of 7.24 + 4.65 umol/s/PAR W * 10.7 (sq meter conversion) = 360 PPFD averaged


But still where did the 10.7 (sq meter conversion) come from, a square meter conversion of what?

 

[yoda954]

Thanks Yoda,

ok the equations are written incorrectly it should read like this

7.24 x 10.7(sq meter conversion) x 4.65=360.22

instead of 7.24 + 4.65 umol/s/PAR W * 10.7 (sq meter conversion) = 360 PPFD averaged


But still where did the 10.7 (sq meter conversion) come from, a square meter conversion of what?

Hi

I can not answer you for the 10.7 ( sq meter conversion)
car je ne sais pas comment on l'obtiens
or if it comes from a table or other
if someone else can explain this as SupraSPL such that only he will really answer you ^^

 

[ttystikk]

Thanks Yoda,

ok the equations are written incorrectly it should read like this

7.24 x 10.7(sq meter conversion) x 4.65=360.22

instead of 7.24 + 4.65 umol/s/PAR W * 10.7 (sq meter conversion) = 360 PPFD averaged


But still where did the 10.7 (sq meter conversion) come from, a square meter conversion of what?

There's 10.7 ft² in one m².

 

[threetwobravo]

There's 10.7 ft² in one m².

Thanks ttystikk

 

[bggrass]

I come up with 360 PPFD:

3.75' X 3.75' = 14 sq ft
50W X 4 = 200W * 56.3% efficiency = 112.6 PAR W
112.6 PAR W * .9 lens/wall reflector losses = 101.34 PAR W
101.34 / 14 sq ft = 7.23 PAR W/ sq ft
7.24 + 4.65 umol/s/PAR W * 10.7 (sq meter conversion) = 360 PPFD averaged

The way I like to find the best spacing quickly is to make a mockup. You can put a slight bias to ward the walls because the center benefits from the overlap

Hi guys, I saw the discussion here and I'm trying to figure out the same calculations.

3.75' X 3.75' = 14 sq ft
50W X 4 = 200W * 56.3% efficiency = 112.6 PAR W
112.6 PAR W * .9 lens/wall reflector losses = 101.34 PAR W
101.34 / 14 sq ft = 7.23 PAR W/ sq ft

Now here's where I don't understand:

7.24 * 4.65 umol/s/PAR W * 10.7 (sq meter conversion) = 360 PPFD averaged

Why multiply by 10.7? I understand that there are 10.7 sq ft in 1 sq m. But in the calculation we are converting 7.24 parWatts per sq ft to 7.24 parWatts per sq m.

That is 7.24 parWatts per 1 sq ft.

1 sq ft = 0.092903 sq m.

Therefore, don't we have to multiply by 0.092903 instead of 10.7?

 

[yoda954]

hey

Here are some units you could scale up to fit your space. To some extent, you can adjust the coverage by adjusting the distance to canopy.

@43.3%
(4)Vero 29 3500K @ 1.4A (51W ea) $112
(1) HLG-185H-C1400 $65
202 dissipation W -> 114.5W heat ->
active cooled heatsink 4590 cm² -> 3.5"X36" $45 + 80mm fan+psu $10
(4) lenses $16
87.4 PAR W covering about 5ft² = 783 PPFD
$248 = $2.84/PAR W

@45.7%
(2) CXB3590 3500K CD 36V @ 2.5A (91.65W ea) $95
(2) HLN-80H-36A $90
183 dissipation W -> 99.37W heat
(2) Arctic 64 Plus CPU coolers $26
(2) lenses $8
83.63 PAR W covering 5 ft² = 749 PPFD
$219 = 2.62/PAR W

@49.7%
(2) CXB3590 3500K CD 72V @ 1.05A (75.5W ea) $95
(1) HLG-185H-C1400 (running at ~1050mA) $65
151 dissipation W -> 76W heat ->
passive cooled heatsink 9120cm² -> (2) 10"X10" heatsink $75
or
active cooled heatsink 3040 cm² min -> 3.5" X 30" heatsink (for spread) $40 + 80mm fan+psu $10
or
(2) Arctic 64 Plus CPU coolers $26
(2) lenses $8
75 PAR W covering 4ft² = 840 PPFD
75 PAR W covering 5ft² = 672 PPFD
$243 = $3.24/PAR W passive cooled
$218 = $2.91/PAR W active cooled on bar heatsink
$194 = $2.59/PAR W active cooled on CPU coolers (uniform spread, best value?)

@ 56.3%
(4) CXB3590 3500K CD 36V @ 1.4A (49W ea) $190
(1) HLG-185H-C1400 $65
196 dissipation W -> 85.7W heat ->
passive cooled heatsink 10284cm² -> 5.88" X 38" heatsink $72 (could split in 2 to improve uniformity/spread)
or
active cooled heatsink 3428cm² min -> 3.5"X36" heatsink (for spread) $45 +80mm fan +psu $10
(4) lenses $16
110.3 PAR W covering 6ft² = 824 PPFD
$311 = $3.07/PAR W passive cooled (great value point IMO, very efficient use of driver)
$326 = 2.96/PAR W active cooled

@61.2%
(5) CXB3590 3500K CD 36V @ 1.05A (35.5W ea) $237.50
(1) HLG-185H-C1050 $65
177.5 dissipation W -> 68.9W heat ->
passive cooled heatsink 8268cm² -> 4.9"X36" $70
or
active cooled heatsink 2756cm² -> 3.5"X36" heatsink (for spread) $45 + 80mm fan + psu $10
(5) lenses $20
108.63 PAR W covering 6ft² =
$392.50 = $3.61/PAR W passive cooled
$377.50 = $3.48/PAR W active cooled

@64%
(8 ) CXB3590 3500K CD @ 700mA (23W ea) $380
(1) HLG-185H-C700 $65
184 dissipation W ->66W heat ->
passive cooled heatsink 7920cm² -> 4.23"X44" $68 (could split these into 2 or 4 units)
or
active cooled heatsink 2640cm² -> 3.5"X36" heatsink (for spread) $45 + 80mm fan + psu $10
active cooled heatsink 2640cm² -> 1.8"X44" heatsink $34 + 80mm fan + psu $10
(8 ) lenses $32
117.8 PAR W covering 6ft² = 879 PPFD
117.8 PAR w covering 7ft² = 754 PPFD
$545 = $4.63/PAR W passive cooled (great option if your area is high electrical cost, Hawaii, NYC, SoCal etc or if your grow is already heat limited and you want to increase yield without running more AC, ducting and fans)
$532 = $4.52/PAR W active cooled 3.5"
$521 = $4.43/PAR W active cooled 1.8"


So in summary, the higher the efficiency goes, the more appealing passive cooling is. Less wires, less moving parts, less points of failure for about the same cost.

Hi friend

I come to you because I have a project with a friend who also want to put it in and remove LED is 3200 watt hps
My friend has a room which is 10' X 8'
I would like to know how it would cxb3590 ?
and on what basis it over in your calculation of efficiency should this based ?

thank's you so much

 

[SupraSPL]

Now here's where I don't understand:
7.24 * 4.65 umol/s/PAR W * 10.7 (sq meter conversion) = 360 PPFD averaged
Why multiply by 10.7? I understand that there are 10.7 sq ft in 1 sq m. But in the calculation we are converting 7.24 parWatts per sq ft to 7.24 parWatts per sq m.
That is 7.24 parWatts per 1 sq ft.
1 sq ft = 0.092903 sq m.
Therefore, don't we have to multiply by 0.092903 instead of 10.7?

So the idea is, if we have 7.24 PAR W in 1ft², we need to scale that intensity up to 1 m² because PPFD is denominated in m².

So we are not converting 7.24 PAR W/ft² to 7.24 PAR W/m², we are converting 7.24 PAR W/ft² to 77.5 PAR W/m².

 

[SupraSPL]

hey Hi friend
I come to you because I have a project with a friend who also want to put it in and remove LED is 3200 watt hps
My friend has a room which is 10' X 8'
I would like to know how it would cxb3590 ?
and on what basis it over in your calculation of efficiency should this based ?
thank's you so much

Hello, 3200 HPS representing 400W X 8? Any walkways in the 10X8?

 

[bggrass]

Thanks Supra, that makes sense.
Would you say that

PAR x umol/s = PPF ?

and do we generally use 9-10% loss from various factors (lenses, reflectors, walls)?

And do we use another function for distance from canopy? In other words, do PPF and PPFD change if the lights are at 6", 12", 18"....?

 

[yoda954]

Hello, 3200 HPS representing 400W X 8? Any walkways in the 10X8?

yes it is, on adjust à wing

so he should how cxb
and how or panel?

and on what basis should this efficiency based

thank's

 

[sethimus]

so much confusion just because some ppl still don't use the metric system :/

 

[alesh]

Thanks Supra, that makes sense.
Would you say that

PAR x umol/s = PPF ?

and do we generally use 9-10% loss from various factors (lenses, reflectors, walls)?

And do we use another function for distance from canopy? In other words, do PPF and PPFD change if the lights are at 6", 12", 18"....?

It's funny that you code a calculator for such things
PPF is all the light that goes from a source.
PPFD on the other hand is the light over area. The actual PPFD (impossible to calculate w/o advanced simulation software) will change but what you calculate is averaged PPFD. It basically tells you what would the intensity be at any point provided that light is distributed evenly and there are no more losses. Of course the higher the light is from the canopy, the higher losses are.

 

[bggrass]

It's funny that you code a calculator for such things
PPF is all the light that goes from a source.
PPFD on the other hand is the light over area. The actual PPFD (impossible to calculate w/o advanced simulation software) will change but what you calculate is averaged PPFD. It basically tells you what would the intensity be at any point provided that light is distributed evenly and there are no more losses. Of course the higher the light is from the canopy, the higher losses are.

The calculator I did because I got tired of running the configurations by hand. I deal with coding every day now, so once you in the groove, it's really not that much to put it together. I thought I'll post as I'm sure there are other guys doing it by hand all the time. I did not put PPF and PPFD values in it, as I wasn't sure how to do it. Somebody asked if I can put them in, and that's why I'm asking. All I really need are the formulas. It does the calculations by itself after that. I understand that some of the calculations that we do here are simply estimates, but it still gives us something to work with. I'm not judging anyone for the info. There is so much written in this website, in so many different threads, that it's hard to find it all. I'll put the values in, the way you guys do it, if someone knows better after that, than he/she can explain and I'll adjust, and we all learn something new

So, to the best of your knowledge,

powerWatts x efficiency = parWatts

parWatts x umol/s/W = PPF

Does this seem right?

To be honest, I still don't know what to make out of the PPF and PPFD numbers, once I get it. What's the necessary value that needs to be reached for good results? I'm fine with lumens and power watts per sq ft myself...

 

[alesh]

The calculator I did because I got tired of running the configurations by hand. I deal with coding every day now, so once you in the groove, it's really not that much to put it together. I thought I'll post as I'm sure there are other guys doing it by hand all the time. I did not put PPF and PPFD values in it, as I wasn't sure how to do it. Somebody asked if I can put them in, and that's why I'm asking. All I really need are the formulas. It does the calculations by itself after that. I understand that some of the calculations that we do here are simply estimates, but it still gives us something to work with. I'm not judging anyone for the info. There is so much written in this website, in so many different threads, that it's hard to find it all. I'll put the values in, the way you guys do it, if someone knows better after that, than he/she can explain and I'll adjust, and we all learn something new

So, to the best of your knowledge,

powerWatts x efficiency = parWatts

parWatts x umol/s/W = PPF

Does this seem right?

To be honest, I still don't know what to make out of the PPF and PPFD numbers, once I get it. What's the necessary value that needs to be reached for good results? I'm fine with lumens and power watts per sq ft myself...

Generally we're aiming for 500-1000 µmol/s/m^2.

I don't want to offend anyone - but guys, this is a simple high school physics. I understand that getting LER out of SPD chart might be complicated for some but converting units isn't...

Input power [W] x efficiency [dimensionless quantity] = radiant power [W]
luminous flux [lm] / LER (luminous efficiency of radiation) [lm/W] = radiant power [W]
radiant power [w] x QER (quantum efficiency of radiation) [µmol/J] = photon flux [µmol/s]
photon flux [µmol/s] / area [m^2] = photon flux density [µmol/s/m^2]

QER could be in the whole range or restricted to the 400-700nm (400-700nm values are lower) range.

 

[ttystikk]

Generally we're aiming for 500-1000 µmol/s/m^2.

I don't want to offend anyone - but guys, this is a simple high school physics. I understand that getting LER out of SPD chart might be complicated for some but converting units isn't...

Input power [W] x efficiency [dimensionless quantity] = radiant power [W]
luminous flux [lm] / LER (luminous efficiency of radiation) [lm/W] = radiant power [W]
radiant power [w] x QER (quantum efficiency of radiation) [µmol/J] = photon flux [µmol/s]
photon flux [µmol/s] / area [m^2] = photon flux density [µmol/s/m^2]

QER could be in the whole range or restricted to the 400-700nm (400-700nm values are lower) range.

Jeff Foxworthy proved it; there is no one in America who's smarter than a fifth grader.

 

[REALSTYLES]

Generally we're aiming for 500-1000 µmol/s/m^2.

I don't want to offend anyone - but guys, this is a simple high school physics. I understand that getting LER out of SPD chart might be complicated for some but converting units isn't...

Input power [W] x efficiency [dimensionless quantity] = radiant power [W]
luminous flux [lm] / LER (luminous efficiency of radiation) [lm/W] = radiant power [W]
radiant power [w] x QER (quantum efficiency of radiation) [µmol/J] = photon flux [µmol/s]
photon flux [µmol/s] / area [m^2] = photon flux density [µmol/s/m^2]

QER could be in the whole range or restricted to the 400-700nm (400-700nm values are lower) range.

Wow I need to turn down my lights lol

 

[bggrass]

Generally we're aiming for 500-1000 µmol/s/m^2.

I don't want to offend anyone - but guys, this is a simple high school physics. I understand that getting LER out of SPD chart might be complicated for some but converting units isn't...

Input power [W] x efficiency [dimensionless quantity] = radiant power [W]
luminous flux [lm] / LER (luminous efficiency of radiation) [lm/W] = radiant power [W]
radiant power [w] x QER (quantum efficiency of radiation) [µmol/J] = photon flux [µmol/s]
photon flux [µmol/s] / area [m^2] = photon flux density [µmol/s/m^2]

QER could be in the whole range or restricted to the 400-700nm (400-700nm values are lower) range.

Thanks alesh, looks like I picked it right. As of physics, I took what was required from my school and light, current and all that was a class above but not required so I never took it. I have the book for it, but I thought I can ask since someone seems to know around here. The thing with physics is, in some cases there are alot of variables to deal with, and I tend to usually forget one and the whole thing comes out wrong at the end. No offense taken. Thank you for your response.

 

[guod]

photon flux [µmol/s] / area [m^2] = photon flux density [µmol/s/m^2]

photon flux = 1000 µmol/s
Area = 1 m^2
1000 / 1 = 1000 µmol/s/m^2
so for one square meter the photon flux = photon flux density!

ever heard about the inverse law of light?
distance is a main factor in this calculation



from: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vision/isql.html

a distance change from 12 to 18 inch and your numbers are going down to 50%

From: https://www.rollitup.org/t/how-to-plot-ppf-chart-with-quantum-sensors-for-led-light-comparison.881113/#post-11844361


Inverse-square law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law

and the next big factor is the "Beam angle"

Generally we're aiming for 500-1000 µmol/s/m^2.

I don't want to offend anyone - but guys, this is a simple high school physics. I understand that getting LER out of SPD chart might be complicated for some but converting units isn't...

Input power [W] x efficiency [dimensionless quantity] = radiant power [W]
luminous flux [lm] / LER (luminous efficiency of radiation) [lm/W] = radiant power [W]
radiant power [w] x QER (quantum efficiency of radiation) [µmol/J] = photon flux [µmol/s]
photon flux [µmol/s] / area [m^2] = photon flux density [µmol/s/m^2]

QER could be in the whole range or restricted to the 400-700nm (400-700nm values are lower) range.

 

[alesh]

photon flux [µmol/s] / area [m^2] = photon flux density [µmol/s/m^2]

photon flux = 1000 µmol/s
Area = 1 m^2
1000 / 1 = 1000 µmol/s/m^2
so for one square meter the photon flux = photon flux density!

ever heard about the inverse law of light?
distance is a main factor in this calculation


View attachment 3548424
from: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vision/isql.html

a distance change from 12 to 18 inch and your numbers are going down to 50%
View attachment 3548447
From: https://www.rollitup.org/t/how-to-plot-ppf-chart-with-quantum-sensors-for-led-light-comparison.881113/#post-11844361


Inverse-square law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law

and the next big factor is the "Beam angle"

Yeah heard about that once or twice...
You ever heard about reflective walls or overlapping light sources?