Light Intensity; LED vs HID

[churchhaze]

Yes friend I understand... A more efficient cob with produce more par for the same amount of power draw, but really that's not what I was talking about. Basically all I'm asking is, as per your example, if a guy wanted to push his CXA3070 because that's what he had.. Could he not run them harder than 1050ma and produce 20-21 par watts with them? With the cost being more electricity being used and an increase in heat produced?

Your right I don't have alot of experience messing with cobs and I never claimed to, but my lack of experience crunching efficiency peen numbers doesn't mean I lack common sense.

Since when did this become a "are cobs worth it?" thread? Everyone else was arguing whether a single powerful source penetrates better than many weaker sources. (one of the dumbest threads I've ever read)

You're clearly only posting on this thread to troll, and judging by your adoption of the word "e peen", i'm guessing this account is a sock. I only know 1 person who thinks "efficiency" and "peen" belong in the same sentence.

 

[puffenuff]

So for example, you guys would rather use (4) 250w hps instead of (1) 1000w hps in a 4x4?

 

[JorgeGonzales]

Since when did this become a "are cobs worth it?" thread? Everyone else was arguing whether a single powerful source penetrates better than many weaker sources. (one of the dumbest threads I've ever read)

You're clearly only posting on this thread to troll, and judging by your adoption of the word "e peen", i'm guessing this account is a sock.

"Epeen" is dismissive and unnecessary, but if he's a troll he's a pretty polite and unsuccessful one.

 

[JorgeGonzales]

So for example, you guys would rather use (4) 250w hps instead of (1) 1000w hps in a 4x4?

Absolutely, if the 250W didn't suck. Leds, unlike HPS, let you spread light and use less electricity.

You know why 600W and 1000W are popular? It's not "penetration".

 

[puffenuff]

Absolutely, if the 250W didn't suck. Leds, unlike HPS, let you spread light and use less electricity.

You know why 600W and 1000W are popular? It's not "penetration".

That's ridiculous, no way in hell I'd go with (4) 250's over one 1000w. 600s and 1000s are popular because they are more intense than 400s or 250s, and it's that intensity that helps get those solid dense nugs and allows one to grow larger plants.

I'm an LED guy by the way. Just not biased.

 

[JorgeGonzales]

That's ridiculous, no way in hell I'd go with (4) 250's over one 1000w. 600s and 1000s are popular because they are more intense than 400s or 250s, and it's that intensity that helps get those solid dense nugs and allows one to grow larger plants.

I'm an LED guy by the way. Just not biased.

Right, so...you are a complete ass. Got it. Nice troll, by the way.

 

[puffenuff]

Right, so...you are a complete ass. Got it. Nice troll, by the way.

What the fuck, because I disagreed with you...this is why I tend to not give my opinions in these types of threads. You said it yourself, 250s suck

 

[JorgeGonzales]

What the fuck, because I disagreed with you...this is why I tend to not give my opinions in these types of threads. You said it yourself, 250s suck

What was that? I can't hear anything over the giant fart sounds eminating from the ass you have for a head. The one you are talking out of.

I'll let you correct the other great Jorge, if you dare!

 

[puffenuff]

Puff out

 

[Bungalow]

I feel like there are two sides here arguing different points..

The original intent was to determine how a single focal point of intensity stacks up against multiple smaller arrays overlapping. I think the overlapping effect isn't being seen fully, or perhaps not understood. The intensity may be low for one COB's margins, but when a fixture is built with proper spacing the overlap will lead to full intensity at every angle.

On the other hand, it's also being argued that efficiency isn't the most relevant factor, and that total output is. This is actually a different topic than the thread's intention, albeit a highly relevant one to someone attempting to translate a smaller investment into more return. It seems to me this stance is about getting the most bang for your buck out of COBs.

Now penetration.. The sun comes to mind. Why is it superior to indoors? Diffuse lighting. It is, of course, incredibly intense, but the real advantage comes from less shading due to spread of angular lighting.

We're all trying to learn here, no need to be so bitter towards one another!

 

[Resinhound]

Since when did this become a "are cobs worth it?" thread? Everyone else was arguing whether a single powerful source penetrates better than many weaker sources. (one of the dumbest threads I've ever read)

You're clearly only posting on this thread to troll, and judging by your adoption of the word "e peen", i'm guessing this account is a sock. I only know 1 person who thinks "efficiency" and "peen" belong in the same sentence.

Sock... Lol. Ya I've been lurking around for a year just waiting for my time to strike.. Ok dude,judging by your hostility I guess I struck a nerve.. Well I'm sorry about that. I'm not intending to voice an opinion of "are cobs worth it" honestly I could care less.. My reason for piping in here wasnt to join an argument or take sides, I'm sorry you took my opinions to heart and if I hurt your vagina I'm truly sorry.

There was a person here expressing an opinion that running cobs harder rather than softer made more sense, my posts were purely about that part of the discussion. I suppose if you have a problem with that, then tough shit.

 

[churchhaze]

Sock... Lol. Ya I've been lurking around for a year just waiting for my time to strike.. Ok dude,judging by your hostility I guess I struck a nerve.. Well I'm sorry about that. I'm not intending to voice an opinion of "are cobs worth it" honestly I could care less.. My reason for piping in here wasnt to join an argument or take sides, I'm sorry you took my opinions to heart and if I hurt your vagina I'm truly sorry.

There was a person here expressing an opinion that running cobs harder rather than softer made more sense, my posts were purely about that part of the discussion. I suppose if you have a problem with that, then tough shit.

blah blah blah blah...

So which is better, 1x1000W or 10x100w?

 

[JorgeGonzales]

I feel like there are two sides here arguing different points..

The original intent was to determine how a single focal point of intensity stacks up against multiple smaller arrays overlapping. I think the overlapping effect isn't being seen fully, or perhaps not understood. The intensity may be low for one COB's margins, but when a fixture is built with proper spacing the overlap will lead to full intensity at every angle.

On the other hand, it's also being argued that efficiency isn't the most relevant factor, and that total output is. This is actually a different topic than the thread's intention, albeit a highly relevant one to someone attempting to translate a smaller investment into more return. It seems to me this stance is about getting the most bang for your buck out of COBs.

Now penetration.. The sun comes to mind. Why is it superior to indoors? Diffuse lighting. It is, of course, incredibly intense, but the real advantage comes from less shading due to spread of angular lighting.

We're all trying to learn here, no need to be so bitter towards one another!

Even the sun works better diffused by glass, not casting harsh shadows like on a cloudless day. I'm not sure it makes sense to use diffusers on artificial lighting, but it's another data point.

The only problem with your reply is the generosity of spirit thinking others are trying to learn.

 

[JorgeGonzales]

blah blah blah blah...

So which is better, 1x1000W or 10x100w?

Ask @puffenuff , he'll explain.

 

[Resinhound]

blah blah blah blah...

So which is better, 1x1000W or 10x100w?

Well i suppose it would depend on the relative amount of par produced by the individual sources and the amount of space and spread between the individual sources.

I tend to believe if the 10 were close enough to overlap this would provide more photon density within a given area.

Personally I still prefer many smaller diodes for this reason, I might be wrong from a science standpoint, but it makes more sense to me

 

[BM9AGS]

blah blah blah blah...

So which is better, 1x1000W or 10x100w?

20x50w cxbs!?!?With a light mover moving 2-3ft.

 

[BM9AGS]

@JorgeGonzales I'm always happy to learn. Weed-whacker as taught me some cool shit via pm.

Anyway. For a general consensus of all. If you had 10ft ceilings would you grow 6' tall plants with 16cxb 3590s (800w) while concurrently doing a side by side with a DE light??

Would this be fair? If not 6' tall and shorter then please explain.....for me to learn.

 

[puffenuff]

Ok putting bullshit to the side, here is why I would rather have (1) 1000w hps instead of (4) 250w hps in a 4x4

250w hps * 4 = roughly 112,000 lumens
1000w hps = around 140,000 lumens

I get the benefits of overlapping coverage from multiple units. Lumens are for humans, I know, but they speak to intensity. And in general, the more intense a light, the higher PAR it puts out.

I prefer to have as much intensity out of a single source as possible. I'll take the same approach any day whether hps or led. But that's just me and I'm ok if not everyone agrees

 

[JorgeGonzales]

Well i suppose it would depend on the relative amount of par produced by the individual sources and the amount of space and spread between the individual sources.

I tend to believe if the 10 were close enough to overlap this would provide more photon density within a given area.

Personally I still prefer many smaller diodes for this reason, I might be wrong from a science standpoint, but it makes more sense to me

I think the same PPF and coverage was implied, just concentrated vs spread out.

 

[Bungalow]

Even the sun works better diffused by glass, not casting harsh shadows like on a cloudless day. I'm not sure it makes sense to use diffusers on artificial lighting, but it's another data point.

The only problem with your reply is the generosity of spirit thinking others are trying to learn.

I can see it not making sense with artificial lighting due to current limitation of conveying the photons over distance. Low current cob fixtures themselves remind me of a cloudy day with the way they spread light (assuming spacing is well measured.) It's highly uniform and fairly diffuse (depending on how low the current and how many cobs.) I'm thinking more about this intensity-penetration concept and how photons work - which I don't really understand. I apologize if I missed a response to this, but I'll ask it for summary here: How does increasing levels of low driven cobs achieve "deeper penetration" (lol.) The comparison being a single focal point of intensity sending down harsh rays that can't be fully absorbed by the canopy - is it the same concept with increasing levels of intensity from multiple sources (angular lighting and bypassing the first level of canopy aside here) Basically - is photon density simply photon density regardless of source in terms of how far it can reach?