DIY with Quantum Boards

[hom3mad3]

I am sure @robincnn could clear this up for you. I have a couple of the 600 kits and I can tell you they blew the hps out of the water. I got around the same yield actually more with the hlg by a few grams in the same space with less watts. With the same strains and the same food. Have fun trying to convince this group that have used these lights and the hps. That they don't keep up. I'd have your light checked lol.

 

[Toohighmf]

I use the .5/500 scale also, 500ppm is 1.0ec. You must be based on the .7/700 scale for your numbers to work since 1.4ec on the .7 scale is about 1000ppm.

Possibly your running wrong amount of nutrients causing lockout of certain nutes or creating deficiencies because of the confusion of thinking your based on .5 scale when really your probe is based off .7 scale going off you saying 1.4ec = 1000ppm.

I honestly go off ppm from old habits with a Hanna combo meter set at .7. I’m for a fact at 1000ppm @ .5 scale. I threw the EC in there in case experienced users work in EC lol. Old dog new tricks I guess. Things seem to be normalizing and my new growth is lush green. This K.I.S.S is hard to adjust to when you’re used to using 7-8 bottles. Thanks for your input.

 

[CCCmints]

You keep using the term "quantum board" interchangeably with the HLG550, that would be like us using the term COB and PLC-6 interchangeably.

An HLG550 is 4 quantum boards at 2100ma, but you can use any number of quantum boards in any configuration to achieve the spread you desire. Just like a PLC-6 is made of 6 COBs in a small fixture, but your cob build is more COBs spread further apart.

An HLG-550 is just 4 quantum boards. I think my point can be easily surmised…Are HLG-550s not quantum boards? Semantics…

I have tested HLG 300 which is 280w in a 4 x 4 tent against a cheapy 600w (680ish watts actual draw).

I mapped both lights using 16 data points and I found the optimal height for HLG 300 is 18" in 4 x 4.


But here is the kicker 280w of QB power produced 72.3% of the light output of 680ish watts of HID's.


This means it costs the HID 400watts more in power just to produce 27.7% more light.


Based on those figures alone, I can easily surmise that an HLG 550 is going to keep up with a 1000watt single ended HID lamp.


With regards to uniformity, I have not worked it out yet, but you can do so by calculating the variance,


But just by eyeballing HLG 300 dataset vs HID dataset I can see there is a wider variance in the HID dataset, meaning it is less uniform.


Even by the design of HLG lamp... i.e multiple points of light emitting from a larger area vs an HID lamp... i.e one point source of light emitted from a small area, it is blatantly obvious which lamp is going to be better when it comes to uniformity. So I completely fail to understand how you have arrived at the conclusion that the HID is better uniformity wise?


I have got an HLG 550 on order and I am going to plot it out then I will know for sure what is what, but common sense, design, and maths dictate that it is likely going to be as good if not better than a 1000w SE, which seriously makes me wonder about your graphs and figures!

First difference between my tests and yours is that I didn’t use “cheapy” components, I gave HPS a fair shot. There are substantial differences between low quality bulbs/reflectors, etc. and high quality equipment. You can find data supporting this with a quick google search.

Second problem, a 16-point test. Why would you choose to test only 16 points? I’d be interested in seeing how you spread a mere 16 points across a 4’x4’ footprint. HLG at-least did a 33 point uniformity test. They wouldn’t want to showcase a 49 point test because that would likely produce an even lower value. A 16 point test isn’t even credible in my opinion. There’s 0 reason to conduct such a low-point test, aside from creating the illusion that the test subject is better than it really is.

I’m in full agreement with you in that QBs are more efficient than HPS. 50% less power draw, 30% less light output. Again, I’m not saying QBs are worthless garbage. My point is that the “1000w HID replacement with 50% less power draw” claim is nothing more than a marketing ploy, and its working (for now).

You cannot come to any valuable conclusions with your figures. “eyeballing” datasheets cannot trump physically testing these technologies. A 16 point test over a 4’x4’ space is utterly worthless. Using “cheapy” equipment to test against is obviously flawed practice.

With regards to uniformity, I have worked it out. It’s a click away. It doesn’t matter what you think is “blatantly obvious”. You have not conducted proper tests, and so you do not have credible data. I never stated HPS has better uniformity than HLG-550. I said there is no meaningful difference, but the graphs show HPS may have marginally better uniformity.

Even by the design of HLG lamp... i.e multiple points of light emitting from a larger area vs an HID lamp... i.e one point source of light emitted from a small area, it is blatantly obvious which lamp is going to be better when it comes to uniformity.

Yeah, that’s why my COB array produced better results. My fixture has multiple powerful light sources spread across a 42”x42” frame. So I suppose based on that logic, it should be blatantly obvious that my fixture is better than a 26”x20” fixture. Since you’re so skeptical, hop over to the HLG-550 product page, load up an online graph generator, and input the values yourself. Its going to look identical to what I’ve posted, but at-least then you will know these aren’t fabricated representations of the product's performance. And to amend your skepticism of the HPS graph, you could purchase HIGH QUALITY components this time, and then invest in a good quantum sensor. The data you produce from this test will also be nearly identical to what I’ve shared.


Common sense would suggest you observe the data I’ve posted and try to think about it as if you weren’t biased towards the light you just dropped a stack on.

Care to point out from where on their site you gleaned this data? I'm not seeing anything like the graph you posted.

Sure. Kinda’ hard to miss though, wouldn’t you agree? https://horticulturelightinggroup.com/collections/all/products/hlg-550

I made the graph myself using the data provided on HLG-550s product page. You can do the same, and you will receive the same result. Let me know if you have any trouble.

Based on your findings wouldn't a HLG 550 need about 20% more light to compare to a single end 1k hps or possibly surpass it when it comes to light output. I personally don't care about efficiency or watts used, I care about end results in my product. So with that said I'd guess HLG should produce a 750watt fixture with maybe 6 boards to really be equal to a 1k hps?

Ding Ding Ding! We have a winner.

You cannot go by figures alone and hope to scale it up, lighting is fickle and does not work like that.

Fixture design, and the optimal hanging height of each fixture in a given area are factors that are going to come into play.


Having said that I think you will find your maths are out because I have it that 350ish watts should be the equivalent of a 680 watts of HID that puts it around the 50% mark, which makes it in theory at least, that HLG 550 is going to keep up with, or possibly outperform 1000 watt SE.


I will do the test when my HLG 550 arrives and I will post the results here, but for now, I am calling BS on those graphs based on what I have seen/tested so far!

”I have it that” – What do you even mean by that? What is it that you have? Go make the graphs yourself. You can literally copy exactly what I’ve done within the span of 8 minutes. If you don’t believe the HPS graph, that’s all fine too, but that means its time for you to go do the tests yourself.


Contempt prior to investigation – The mantra of HLG cultists.

 

[CCCmints]

I am sure @robincnn could clear this up for you. I have a couple of the 600 kits and I can tell you they blew the hps out of the water. I got around the same yield actually more with the hlg by a few grams in the same space with less watts. With the same strains and the same food. Have fun trying to convince this group that have used these lights and the hps. That they don't keep up. I'd have your light checked lol.

You won't be seeing him chiming in on this discussion, I assure you of that.

Oh shut the fuck up kids, go grow some plants and do something useful.

Oh how useless it is to closely examine products before purchasing them. I did my research, and that's why I don't own any quantum boards. If you did your research, you wouldn't own one either.

 

[Humple]

An HLG-550 is just 4 quantum boards. I think my point can be easily surmised…Are HLG-550s not quantum boards? Semantics…First difference between my tests and yours is that I didn’t use “cheapy” components, I gave HPS a fair shot. There are substantial differences between low quality bulbs/reflectors, etc. and high quality equipment. You can find data supporting this with a quick google search.

Second problem, a 16-point test. Why would you choose to test only 16 points? I’d be interested in seeing how you spread a mere 16 points across a 4’x4’ footprint. HLG at-least did a 33 point uniformity test. They wouldn’t want to showcase a 49 point test because that would likely produce an even lower value. A 16 point test isn’t even credible in my opinion. There’s 0 reason to conduct such a low-point test, aside from creating the illusion that the test subject is better than it really is.

I’m in full agreement with you in that QBs are more efficient than HPS. 50% less power draw, 30% less light output. Again, I’m not saying QBs are worthless garbage. My point is that the “1000w HID replacement with 50% less power draw” claim is nothing more than a marketing ploy, and its working (for now).

You cannot come to any valuable conclusions with your figures. “eyeballing” datasheets cannot trump physically testing these technologies. A 16 point test over a 4’x4’ space is utterly worthless. Using “cheapy” equipment to test against is obviously flawed practice.

With regards to uniformity, I have worked it out. It’s a click away. It doesn’t matter what you think is “blatantly obvious”. You have not conducted proper tests, and so you do not have credible data. I never stated HPS has better uniformity than HLG-550. I said there is no meaningful difference, but the graphs show HPS may have marginally better uniformity.

Yeah, that’s why my COB array produced better results. My fixture has multiple powerful light sources spread across a 42”x42” frame. So I suppose based on that logic, it should be blatantly obvious that my fixture is better than a 26”x20” fixture. Since you’re so skeptical, hop over to the HLG-550 product page, load up an online graph generator, and input the values yourself. Its going to look identical to what I’ve posted, but at-least then you will know these aren’t fabricated representations of the product's performance. And to amend your skepticism of the HPS graph, you could purchase HIGH QUALITY components this time, and then invest in a good quantum sensor. The data you produce from this test will also be nearly identical to what I’ve shared.


Common sense would suggest you observe the data I’ve posted and try to think about it as if you weren’t biased towards the light you just dropped a stack on.

Sure. Kinda’ hard to miss though, wouldn’t you agree? https://horticulturelightinggroup.com/collections/all/products/hlg-550

I made the graph myself using the data provided on HLG-550s product page. You can do the same, and you will receive the same result. Let me know if you have any trouble.

Ding Ding Ding! We have a winner.

”I have it that” – What do you even mean by that? What is it that you have? Go make the graphs yourself. You can literally copy exactly what I’ve done within the span of 8 minutes. If you don’t believe the HPS graph, that’s all fine too, but that means its time for you to go do the tests yourself.


Contempt prior to investigation – The mantra of HLG cultists.

Slow your roll there, hoss. You come in telling people that have replaced HPS with QBs (and seen the results) that they're swallowing bullshit, because of your test. Lots of other people have tested these lights, and plenty of them disagree with you. One nameless dude on a forum shouldn't expect to garner the consideration that you apparently feel is due. While I agree with your statement on uniformity, I also know that there are real-life examples of the 550 outperforming SE HPS. Now you can say that those HPS must have been cheap, shitty bulbs, or that those people just didn't know how to use HPS, but again - your word isn't gospel. Congrats on your COB fixture, but you need to chill with the hostility, arrogance, and insults.

 

[Ryante55]

I have tested HLG 300 which is 280w in a 4 x 4 tent against a cheapy 600w (680ish watts actual draw).

I mapped both lights using 16 data points and I found the optimal height for HLG 300 is 18" in 4 x 4.

But here is the kicker 280w of QB power produced 72.3% of the light output of 680ish watts of HID's.

This means it costs the HID 400watts more in power just to produce 27.7% more light.

Based on those figures alone, I can easily surmise that an HLG 550 is going to keep up with a 1000watt single ended HID lamp.

With regards to uniformity, I have not worked it out yet, but you can do so by calculating the variance,

But just by eyeballing HLG 300 dataset vs HID dataset I can see there is a wider variance in the HID dataset, meaning it is less uniform.

Even by the design of HLG lamp... i.e multiple points of light emitting from a larger area vs an HID lamp... i.e one point source of light emitted from a small area, it is blatantly obvious which lamp is going to be better when it comes to uniformity. So I completely fail to understand how you have arrived at the conclusion that the HID is better uniformity wise?

I have got an HLG 550 on order and I am going to plot it out then I will know for sure what is what, but common sense, design, and maths dictate that it is likely going to be as good if not better than a 1000w SE, which seriously makes me wonder about your graphs and figures!

When you say 4x4 do you mean 4'x4' or is it a tent that is labled 4x4 but is actually larger?

 

[Ryante55]

An HLG-550 is just 4 quantum boards. I think my point can be easily surmised…Are HLG-550s not quantum boards? Semantics…First difference between my tests and yours is that I didn’t use “cheapy” components, I gave HPS a fair shot. There are substantial differences between low quality bulbs/reflectors, etc. and high quality equipment. You can find data supporting this with a quick google search.

Second problem, a 16-point test. Why would you choose to test only 16 points? I’d be interested in seeing how you spread a mere 16 points across a 4’x4’ footprint. HLG at-least did a 33 point uniformity test. They wouldn’t want to showcase a 49 point test because that would likely produce an even lower value. A 16 point test isn’t even credible in my opinion. There’s 0 reason to conduct such a low-point test, aside from creating the illusion that the test subject is better than it really is.

I’m in full agreement with you in that QBs are more efficient than HPS. 50% less power draw, 30% less light output. Again, I’m not saying QBs are worthless garbage. My point is that the “1000w HID replacement with 50% less power draw” claim is nothing more than a marketing ploy, and its working (for now).

You cannot come to any valuable conclusions with your figures. “eyeballing” datasheets cannot trump physically testing these technologies. A 16 point test over a 4’x4’ space is utterly worthless. Using “cheapy” equipment to test against is obviously flawed practice.

With regards to uniformity, I have worked it out. It’s a click away. It doesn’t matter what you think is “blatantly obvious”. You have not conducted proper tests, and so you do not have credible data. I never stated HPS has better uniformity than HLG-550. I said there is no meaningful difference, but the graphs show HPS may have marginally better uniformity.

Yeah, that’s why my COB array produced better results. My fixture has multiple powerful light sources spread across a 42”x42” frame. So I suppose based on that logic, it should be blatantly obvious that my fixture is better than a 26”x20” fixture. Since you’re so skeptical, hop over to the HLG-550 product page, load up an online graph generator, and input the values yourself. Its going to look identical to what I’ve posted, but at-least then you will know these aren’t fabricated representations of the product's performance. And to amend your skepticism of the HPS graph, you could purchase HIGH QUALITY components this time, and then invest in a good quantum sensor. The data you produce from this test will also be nearly identical to what I’ve shared.


Common sense would suggest you observe the data I’ve posted and try to think about it as if you weren’t biased towards the light you just dropped a stack on.

Sure. Kinda’ hard to miss though, wouldn’t you agree? https://horticulturelightinggroup.com/collections/all/products/hlg-550

I made the graph myself using the data provided on HLG-550s product page. You can do the same, and you will receive the same result. Let me know if you have any trouble.

Ding Ding Ding! We have a winner.

”I have it that” – What do you even mean by that? What is it that you have? Go make the graphs yourself. You can literally copy exactly what I’ve done within the span of 8 minutes. If you don’t believe the HPS graph, that’s all fine too, but that means its time for you to go do the tests yourself.


Contempt prior to investigation – The mantra of HLG cultists.

I was on your side until this post. Now I see that's you are clearly wrong and won't admit it.

 

[PurpleBuz]

@CCCmints is correct. It takes a liitle bit more than 510 watts of top bin white phosphor leds to replace a new 1000watt hps bulb. I currently aim for 600 watts to replace a 1000 watt single hps.

However the HLG550 does grow well in a 4x4 as it exceeds 30 watts per square foot (480 watts) and is a very efficient light.


check out the cree hort reference for a decent comparison of led vs 1000w single hps.
Check out the ppfd matrix to see how many points are being measured.
http://www.cree.com/led-components/media/documents/HorticultureReferenceDesign.pdf

 

[Humple]

@ccmints is correct. It takes a liitle bit more than 510 watts of top bin white phosphor leds to replace a new 1000watt hps bulb. I currently aim for 600 watts to replace a 1000 watt single hps.

However the HLG550 does have enough to grow well enough in a 4x4 as it exceeds 30 watts per square foot (480 watts) and is a very efficient light.

Personally, I shot for 60% of HID wattage as well, but I'm finding that I'm actually getting better results at lower wattage than that. In the case of Quantum Boards, I think the spread and the ability to run them closer to the plants makes up some of that difference. But I'm talking observed practical results, not theory or tests, so what do I know!

 

[Budzbuddha]

For the DATA NERDS - Who cares about spreadsheets and numbers ....
QBs are more efficient in light with less power PERIOD. Actually they get MORE efficient with LESS power ( Hence Mid Power labeling ) they close in 190+LM/watt when powered around 50-60 watts per board.

SO STARE AT THIS ..... WALK to the Fridge Grab a beer and Relax. There is many previous HID boys here now , and are happy with what the QBs are doing.

 

[Viceman666]

@ccmints is correct. It takes a liitle bit more than 510 watts of top bin white phosphor leds to replace a new 1000watt hps bulb. I currently aim for 600 watts to replace a 1000 watt single hps.

However the HLG550 does grow well in a 4x4 as it exceeds 30 watts per square foot (480 watts) and is a very efficient light.


check out the cree hort reference for a decent comparison of led vs 1000w single hps.
Check out the ppfd matrix to see how many points are being measured.
http://www.cree.com/led-components/media/documents/HorticultureReferenceDesign.pdf

Yes but keep in mind ccmints mentionned a 1000w hps has a better uniformity then a hlg-550 which is total nonsense - whatever he says after that could be just as much bullshit imo.. anyway to each their own.. he built a cob set up, trash talk on hlg, tell everyone strips are shit when they have proven to have better uniformity compared to cob.. maybe he is just trolling time to relax and

 

[PurpleBuz]

I think the spread and the ability to run them closer to the plants makes up some of that difference. But I'm talking observed practical results, not theory or tests, so what do I know!

better spread applies to any lights depending on footprint.

 

[BuddyColas]

Because my COB arrays outperform HPS on all fronts. You can see that in the data I've posted (which you seem to believe is fabricated, but you probably won't conduct any tests yourself to find out if that's true).

14 more powerful light sources, in an optimal configuration, laid out over a 42"x42" frame VS. strips of smaller, weaker diodes in a 26”x20” frame. If you’re trying to cover a 4’x4’ canopy, how could you expect a fixture nearly half the size of your target footprint, with weaker diodes, to evenly spread its light output across the entire 4’x4’ space?

Quantum boards simply do not have the power required to succeed 1000w HPS. Which is understandable, since their power draw is half that of 1000w HPS. Even in a 1’x1’ space, the HLG-550 has lower PPFD than 1000w HPS over a 4’x4’ space.

Problem with HPS is the massive PAR spikes in its output. You can’t place your HPS as low as you could a quantum board because its highest point is 1427µmoles/m2/s while its PPFD is only 892.79µmoles/m2/s. With my COB fixtures, higher PPFD was achieved without massive PAR spikes skewing the data.

Highest point: 1188 µmoles/m2/s

PPFD: 970.41 µmoles/m2/s

You're not the first hps guy to get a chubby for QBs...nor will you be the last.

The only valid comparison would have been to test and compare readings from a HLG-550 in YOUR tent with YOUR meter. Then your comparison graphs might have meant something.

 

[WeedSexWeightsShakes]

Or better yet.
Have a comparison of an actual fucking grow lol.

My buddy, an HPS grower, was shocked at how much bud I was able to grow with only ~1100 watts.

The proof is in the harvest my dudes and these qb provided me all the proof I need.

 

[PurpleBuz]

ccmints mentionned a 1000w hps has a better uniformity then a hlg-550

@CCCmints mints did not say that.

with the right hood in a 4x4 reflective area at 24" height the 550 coverage is only slightly better than a 1000w hps.

Keep in mind the hlg550 unit is 26" x 20" still relatively small compared to a 48"x48" square.

 

[CCCmints]

Yes but keep in mind ccmints mentionned a 1000w hps has a better uniformity then a hlg-550 which is total nonsense - whatever he says after that could be just as much bullshit imo.. anyway to each their own.. he built a cob set up, trash talk on hlg, tell everyone strips are shit when they have proven to have better uniformity compared to cob.. maybe he is just trolling time to relax and

Never said that, and I've already clarified this twice now. I said there is no meaningful difference, because there isn't.

You're not the first hps guy to get a chubby for QBs...nor will you be the last.

The only valid comparison would have been to test and compare readings from a HLG-550 in YOUR tent with YOUR meter. Then your comparison graphs might have meant something.

I'm not an 'HPS guy'. I spent nearly $10k on LED. The data HLG provides for their products isn't good enough for you? Do you think I'm going to produce better results than what the company advertises by testing it myself? My graphs do mean something, to me. That's why I have a real 1000w HPS replacement. Does HLG's data not mean anything to you? You support their products but not the data they advertise?

Very strange.

 

[Johnnycannaseed1]

First difference between my tests and yours is that I didn’t use “cheapy” components, I gave HPS a fair shot. There are substantial differences between low quality bulbs/reflectors, etc. and high quality equipment. You can find data supporting this with a quick google search.

Yeah, and the other difference is that I actually compared an HLG to an HID, where is your direct comparison?

Second problem, a 16-point test. Why would you choose to test only 16 points? I’d be interested in seeing how you spread a mere 16 points across a 4’x4’ footprint. HLG at-least did a 33 point uniformity test. They wouldn’t want to showcase a 49 point test because that would likely produce an even lower value. A 16 point test isn’t even credible in my opinion. There’s 0 reason to conduct such a low-point test, aside from creating the illusion that the test subject is better than it really is.

Clearly, you missed the bit about the test being relative, as in I compared the HLG directly against HID, what about you?16 points is more than enough to see how the light is spreading, I find it seriously funny, that there you are, over there sitting on your high horse when your methodology is flawed.

But best of all, you killed it with your uniformity blag

At this point, I realize you are one of those shit talkers who is always right even when are wrong, and instead of just admitting it, you come up with some next level BS in order to keep your ego intact.

On that note, I can see you really do not have a clue or anything useful to offer the community, so I am going to jog on, and leave you and your funny graphs to it

.

 

[Johnnycannaseed1]

When you say 4x4 do you mean 4'x4' or is it a tent that is labled 4x4 but is actually larger?

I meant a 4-foot x 4-foot (120cm x 120cm) tent

 

[BuddyColas]

CCCmints

Not strange at all. Tent reflectivity can vary considerably. Even a quality PAR meter like yours can vary +/- 5% easy between meters. The true test is an independent PPF reading from a sphere. That withstanding, same tent, same meter would have been a much better comparison test. That's all I'm saying.

 

[Johnnycannaseed1]

Not strange at all. Tent reflectivity can vary considerably. Even a quality PAR meter like yours can vary +/- 5% easy between meters. The true test is an independent PPF reading from a sphere.

Agreed but I am just a simple man on a limited budget

That withstanding, same tent, same meter would have been a much better comparison test. That's all I'm saying.

Now I am lost, and not sure what you mean, because I did run the test in the same tent, same meter, clearly I have missed something here, or I am just fried and have missed something here