LED bulbs for plant growth, which is best?

[Enigma]

Again you show your stupidity, maybe you should learn about wiring in series and parallel. Using the driver i mentioned can run 4 vero 29c's at 1050ma each for around 72w which is passively cooled. So yes they are comparable. See because you didnt know running a 2100ma driver in parallel and series will let you split the current you look like an idiot with your comment. Maybe you should go back to research.

I'm running two in series.

For my setup it would be inefficient driving at 50%.

You have to keep in mind the parameters.

 

[Rolla J]

What spectrum are the 10w chips?

3200k

 

[whitebb2727]

3200k

Is that for the unit farm?

 

[Rolla J]

Is that for the unit farm?

My diy flower light uses 3200k 10w chips. The unit farm light uses cree led diodes for veg nand osram led diodes for the flower switch. I noticed a mix of different colors on the unit farm light. Fkn love the UFO80 LED LIGHT

 

[Rolla J]

From whites to blues even see green yellow red orange. U name it. Looks purrty

 

[Cletus clem]

Yes.

However, you do not.

155 lm/W each:

"D" variant - 1170mA @ 35V produces 6,347.25 lm @ 40.95W.

"C" variant - 1710mA @ 69.4V produces 18,394.47 lm @ 118.674W.

If you would have payed attention to the amperage you would have understood and agreed.

At the exact same efficacy, the "C" variant produces almost three times the amount of light.

Maths, it isn't for everyone.

Were you raised on lead paint chips?

 

[Enigma]

Were you raised on lead paint chips?

I can see personal insults are your go-to when you've been proven wrong.

At the same efficacy the "C" variant produces almost 3X the light as the "D" variant.

Do you understand?

 

[Cletus clem]

the drive current dosnt fucking matter if you are almost doubling the voltage! The efficacy IS THE SAME!!!!! Talk about lack of understanding math.

 

[Enigma]

the drive current dosnt fucking matter if you are almost doubling the voltage! The efficacy IS THE SAME!!!!! Talk about lack of understanding math.

If you read my post you will find quantitative data proving you are wrong.

At the same efficacy the "C" produces almost 3X as much light as the "D" variant.

Do you understand?

 

[Cletus clem]

Efficacy=watts consumed/light output. If youre consuming the same amount of energy and putting out the same amount of light the only difference is the amount chips you need to run.

 

[nc208]

the drive current dosnt fucking matter if you are almost doubling the voltage! The efficacy IS THE SAME!!!!! Talk about lack of understanding math.

Not your fault Cletus were talking two different things here. Your using logic and math and science where @Enigma only uses Bro-science

 

[Enigma]

Read this and weep.

155 lm/W each:

"D" variant - 1170mA @ 35V produces 6,347.25 lm @ 40.95W.

"C" variant - 1710mA @ 69.4V produces 18,394.47 lm @ 118.674W.

At the exact same efficacy, the "C" variant produces almost three times the amount of light.

 

[nc208]

I'm running two in series.

For my setup it would be inefficient driving at 50%.

You have to keep in mind the parameters.

Seriously look up what wiring series and parallel together does.

 

[Cletus clem]

Read this and weep.

Read this and weep.

I think you need to read it yourself. Youre making my point.

 

[Enigma]

Seriously look up what wiring series and parallel together does.

I'm fully aware.

If I used the driver you proposed it would be around 50% which would make its efficiency very low. The graphs that I've seen for Mean Wells would make me estimate something like 60% efficiency when the driver I chose is around 94% efficiency.

You have to compare apples to apples.

 

[Enigma]

I think you need to read it yourself. Youre making my point.

Ok, last time.

The C is better than the D, bro!

Get it now?

 

[Cletus clem]

Ok, last time.

The C is better than the D, bro!

Get it now?

You truly dont have a fucking clue. Ignorance is bliss i suppose. Ill stick to my paint chips theory. Its not your fault man.

 

[mauricem00]

(scotopic) case.

Wavelength
λ (nm) Photopic Luminous Efficacy Vλ Photopic Conversion lm/W Scotopic Luminous Efficacy V'λ Scotopic Conversion lm/W
380 0.000039 0.027 0.000589 1.001
390 0.000120 0.082 0.002209 3.755
390 0.000120 0.082 0.002209 3.755
400 0.000396 0.270 0.009290 15.793
410 0.001210 0.826 0.034840 59.228
420 0.004000 2.732 0.096600 164.220
430 0.011600 7.923 0.199800 339.660
440 0.023000 15.709 0.328100 557.770
450 0.038000 25.954 0.455000 773.500
460 0.060000 40.980 0.567000 963.900
470 0.090980 62.139 0.676000 1149.200
480 0.139020 94.951 0.793000 1348.100
490 0.208020 142.078 0.904000 1536.800
500 0.323000 220.609 0.982000 1669.400
507 0.444310 303.464 1.000000 1700.000
510 0.503000 343.549 0.997000 1694.900
520 0.710000 484.930 0.935000 1589.500
530 0.862000 588.746 0.811000 1378.700
540 0.954000 651.582 0.655000 1105.000
550 0.994950 679.551 0.481000 817.700
555 1.000000 683.000 0.402000 683.000
560 0.995000 679.585 0.328800 558.960
570 0.952000 650.216 0.207600 352.920
580 0.870000 594.210 0.121200 206.040
590 0.757000 517.031 0.065500 111.350
600 0.631000 430.973 0.033150 56.355
610 0.503000 343.549 0.015930 27.081
620 0.381000 260.223 0.007370 12.529
630 0.265000 180.995 0.003335 5.670
640 0.175000 119.525 0.001497 2.545
650 0.107000 73.081 0.000677 1.151
660 0.061000 41.663 0.000313 0.532
670 0.032000 21.856 0.000148 0.252
680 0.017000 11.611 0.000072 0.122
690 0.008210 5.607 0.000035 0.060
700 0.004102 2.802 0.000018 0.030
710 0.002091 1.428 0.000009 0.016
720 0.001047 0.715 0.000005 0.008
730 0.000520 0.355 0.000003 0.004
740 0.000249 0.170 0.000001 0.002
750 0.000120 0.082 0.000001 0.001
760 0.000060 0.041 0.000000 0.000
770 0.000030 0.020 0.000000 0.000
Source: Table 6-1 of Williamson & Cummins, Light and Color in Nature and Art, Wiley, 1983. The Photopic conversion (lm/W) is obtained by multiplying Vλby 683 and the Scotopic conversion is obtained by multiplying V'λby 1700 as suggested by those authors. Index

Photometry concepts

Vision concepts

HyperPhysics*****Light and Vision R Nave
Go Back

Not a "fuller spectrum". Way too much above 700nm. Will only translate to heat, not par light hence the 120-130 lm/w.

IR does not raise LPW . clearly their is still disagreement about the best spectrum for plant growth among LED makers. this COB has a much broader spectrum of blue and violet light and a high LPW in spite of the small amount of green and large amount of deep red and IR. HPS produces a lot of IR (heat ) and seems to grow plants well.plants have close to 400 pigments and whereas they can be grown by targeting only a few of those pigments they do better with a fuller spectrum.heat or low humidity will cause plants to perspire more improving the movement of nutrients in plants

 

[Cletus clem]

IR does not raise LPW . clearly their is still disagreement about the best spectrum for plant growth among LED makers. this COB has a much broader spectrum of blue and violet light and a high LPW in spite of the small amount of green and large amount of deep red and IR. HPS produces a lot of IR (heat ) and seems to grow plants well.plants have close to 400 pigments and whereas they can be grown by targeting only a few of those pigments they do better with a fuller spectrum.heat or low humidity will cause plants to perspire more improving the movement of nutrients in plants

I was saying the infrared was hurting the lumens per watt. It being so abundent and not visable light means it dosnt contribute to the lumens as lumens is a unit of visible light to the human eye. Wasnt saying its a shit chip, way better than hps, not a bad option for a buget build.

 

[Enigma]

You truly dont have a fucking clue. Ignorance is bliss i suppose. Ill stick to my paint chips theory. Its not your fault man.

Basic Math, Wattage and efficacy elude you.

However, I have found a solution to your inflammatory posts and Bro-Science.

Iggy iggy iggy!

It is disadvantageous to be forced to dig through fifty pages of Bro-Science and elementary name-calling to find two pages of reliable information, accumulatively.