ChilLed New Cob Replacement

[Purpsmagurps]

I ordered 8 of these yesterday, in my 9x6 ill have a p600 in the middle with 4 of these on each side @ 96w each with heat sink and thermal compound. what made me buy is the 2x2 footprint @18 inches they claim. running a higher number cobs I believe is pulling more amps so it fits in my already overstuffed breaker a little better( just added a hot tub), getting off running 10 amps over the whole 4x8 is less than the hlg-600h-48b which will run 12 cobs @1400ma but pulling like 16 amps. and I dont think that would sufficiently cover the whole 4x8.
batch 2 isnt coming out till may 30th tho so I have some time to build my hydro setup again.

 

[Ryante55]

Have to say that I think it would have been more compelling as an enhanced-spectrum strip, instead of this tight cluster of diodes in a small footprint.

Really? Isn't there already alot of options like that? I much prefer having something new out there and I'd bet you get alot better penetration from these.

 

[skoomd]

Really? Isn't there already alot of options like that? I much prefer having something new out there and I'd bet you get alot better penetration from these.

Nah you'd get better penetration from a strip just because there'd be lots more spread out angles for light to get into the canopy.

 

[Purpsmagurps]

Really? Isn't there already alot of options like that? I much prefer having something new out there and I'd bet you get alot better penetration from these.

Yeah I believe you would. its not like you are just going to put one of these over your whole room, 8 of them per 4x8 would give you plenty of spread

 

[Humple]

Really? Isn't there already alot of options like that? I much prefer having something new out there and I'd bet you get alot better penetration from these.

I've seen far red strips, but I haven't seen enhanced strips of similar size and power-capacity as - for example - the Samsung F Series. Some 22", 72-diode, 50w strips with a small percentage of far red, perhaps. Something that would take advantage of the popularity that strips are enjoying right now, and that would slot right into the many designs that are being used.

Personally, I'd still opt for straight 3000k, because I'm not yet a believer, but it seems like strips have a bigger market than a PCB of this design, which fits a limited number of heatsinks.

 

[skoomd]

I've seen far red strips, but I haven't seen enhanced strips of similar size and power-capacity as - for example - the Samsung F Series. Some 22", 72-diode, 50w strips with a small percentage of far red, perhaps. Something that would take advantage of the popularity that strips are enjoying right now, and that would slot right into the many designs that are being used.

Personally, I'd still opt for straight 3000k, because I'm not yet a believer, but it seems like strips have a bigger market than a PCB of this design, which fits a limited number of heatsinks.

Any link for far red/IR strips? I need some for my build, wanna use them to speed up flower

 

[a mongo frog]

wanna use them to speed up flower

What does speed up flower mean?

 

[Humple]

Any link for far red/IR strips? I need some for my build, wanna use them to speed up flower

There's this one from RapidLED: https://www.rapidled.com/emerson-effect-booster-board/

HLG had one too, but I don't see it on their site now. Might just be because it's out of stock.

 

[skoomd]

What does speed up flower mean?

Apparently you can speed up flower with IR by running only the IR for 15 minutes after the lights turn off, and it forces the plants to their dark cycle much faster than normal. I believe without doing that it takes about 2 hours before the plants enter the dark cycle. So in turn you can speed up flowering (finish flowering) by a week or so.

 

[Ryante55]

Nah you'd get better penetration from a strip just because there'd be lots more spread out angles for light to get into the canopy.

I'd have to see some ppfd reading to believe that I would think the more diodes you have in the same space the better penetration you get assuming they are at the same current.

 

[skoomd]

I'd have to see some ppfd reading to believe that I would think the more diodes you have in the same space the better penetration you get assuming they are at the same current.

Nope. That's a veeeery common misconception. The reason HPS works so well with light penetration is the hood gives many many points of reflection which gives all kinds of angles for light to get into your canopy. Hence why running your light higher up also gives better penetration (to a point, dont want the intensity to drop too much!). But running an HPS bulb in a 360 degree vertical setup gives piss poor light penetration. Intensity is always additive. My 320w samsung strip build for a 3x3 (10 strips spread apart) produces the same PPFD as any 320-350w 4-6 COB setup ive seen at the same distances (I've mapped out 12" and 18" in my thread), while also allowing me to have my plants much closer to the lights because each individual light source is spread out and so weak (meaning a much bigger "goldilocks zone"). If what you were saying was true, the PPFD of my 10 strip setup would only be similar at maybe 6" as a say 4 COB setup (at ~75w each) is at like 12-18".

Also just having more light sources in general is beneficial to light penetration. @nfhiggs did a fantastic explanation of why. https://www.rollitup.org/t/new-light-or.958507/page-12#post-14067829

I hate COBs for this very reason. I was wanting to swap over to DIY LED a long time ago but wasnt happy with the light physics of COBs. Quantum boards were a lot better, but strips came out right after the QBs and I had to hop on board.

THINK SPECTRUMKING! Some of the shittiest light penetration of any LED grow light.

 

[Ryante55]

Nope. That's a veeeery common misconception. The reason HPS works so well with light penetration is the hood gives many many points of reflection which gives all kinds of angles for light to get into your canopy. Hence why running your light higher up also gives better penetration (to a point, dont want the intensity to drop too much!). But running an HPS bulb in a 360 degree vertical setup gives piss poor light penetration. Intensity is always additive. My 320w samsung strip build for a 3x3 (10 strips spread apart) produces the same PPFD as any 320-350w 4-6 COB setup ive seen at the same distances (I've mapped out 12" and 18" in my thread), while also allowing me to have my plants much closer to the lights because each individual light source is spread out and so weak (meaning a much bigger "goldilocks zone"). If what you were saying was true, the PPFD of my 10 strip setup would only be similar at maybe 6" as a say 4 COB setup (at ~75w each) is at like 12-18".

Also just having more light sources in general is beneficial to light penetration. @nfhiggs did a fantastic explanation of why. https://www.rollitup.org/t/new-light-or.958507/page-12#post-14067829

I hate COBs for this very reason. I was wanting to swap over to DIY LED a long time ago but wasnt happy with the light physics of COBs. Quantum boards were a lot better, but strips came out right after the QBs and I had to hop on board.

THINK SPECTRUMKING! Some of the shittiest light penetration of any LED grow light.

So the f series strips have less penetration than h series assuming they are run at the same power per strip? I'll order a few of these growmou5 boards if I get the time I'll try to do a ppfd comparison with the quantum boards in a 2x2.

 

[Slinging PAR]

Uh, unless you are using lasers to pierce through plant matter then you aren't doing any penetration.

More diodes in the same space means higher density of the LES. That is why CoBs are superior to QBs for large scale growing. Or any growing for that matter if you were to completely cover the area with emitters.

The other myth of IR to speed up flowering is incorrect. Nothing is sped up; you were just prolonging the flowering cycle in the first place. Subjective harvest times are just that, subjective.

@skoomd you should get a PAR meter and measure your gear rather than basing it on some theoretical calculations. Hard to take anything you say seriously if you are basing your numbers on lux and conversions that have been floated out there by some random internet people.

And just because you can't grow with a particular vendor's gear doesn't mean it sucks. There are lots of people doing just fine with sk, wallets are significantly lighter mind you but they can work. For people slamming any manufacturer I would first ask whether the grower was skilled or not. Any skilled grower can grow under any type of light including incandescent.

It is called a weed after all.

 

[skoomd]

So the f series strips have less penetration than h series assuming they are run at the same power per strip? I'll order a few of these growmou5 boards if I get the time I'll try to do a ppfd comparison with the quantum boards in a 2x2.

Yeah, since the H series have fewer diodes per strip you'd need to use more of them to equate to an F series build of the same output, which is because the light sources (diodes) are more spread out.

Uh, unless you are using lasers to pierce through plant matter then you aren't doing any penetration.

More diodes in the same space means higher density of the LES. That is why CoBs are superior to QBs for large scale growing. Or any growing for that matter if you were to completely cover the area with emitters.

The other myth of IR to speed up flowering is incorrect. Nothing is sped up; you were just prolonging the flowering cycle in the first place. Subjective harvest times are just that, subjective.

@skoomd you should get a PAR meter and measure your gear rather than basing it on some theoretical calculations. Hard to take anything you say seriously if you are basing your numbers on lux and conversions that have been floated out there by some random internet people.

And just because you can't grow with a particular vendor's gear doesn't mean it sucks. There are lots of people doing just fine with sk, wallets are significantly lighter mind you but they can work. For people slamming any manufacturer I would first ask whether the grower was skilled or not. Any skilled grower can grow under any type of light including incandescent.

It is called a weed after all.

Canopy penetration is how well light can get to the lower areas of the canopy, via beaming through the layers of foliage. Which is based off of how many sources of reflection/light there is, AND the overall intensity of the light in the space. It isn't this fallacy of literally penetrating the leaves with light. Although green light and red light that does penetrate through the leaves would play a role, it isn't what anyone means when they mention "canopy penetration" or "light penetration".

Although you're correct, if you completely covered every square inch of the canopy in COBs, it would be better than covering every square inch in quantum boards because there would simply be more diodes with the COBs since they're packed tighter together. But a single QB288 ran at 100w would provide better canopy penetration than a single CXB3590 ran at 100w because the diodes are more spread out.

And I simply disagree with you saying lux coverted using steven's sphere conversions (the owner of HLG, the maker of quantum boards...) are not worth anything. They are easily within 10% of what a PAR meter would give me. I can't prove this to you without owning my own PAR meter and doing a comparison, but if you dont want to believe it than you dont have to.

It's not like I, or anyone else, can't grow using spectrum king or COBs. It's just not my preference. My dad taught physics, particularly LIGHTING physics at MIT and I know how it works because he taught me. I would prefer having more spread out light sources, and more of them so I don't like them. That's not to say they dont grow damn well, but they simply don't grow AS well as a better though out light design.

I love this commerical grow photo because it debunks the entire idea of having less, more intense light sources (like say using fewer 1000w HPS instead of more 400w HPS) is what makes for good canopy penetration. These are 300w "strips" and the plants are like 8-10 feet tall, with dense bud top to bottom. Idiots would assume something like this is only possibe with say a 1000w DEHPS because it's "more intense and therefore it penetrates better".

 

[a mongo frog]

via beaming through the layers of foliage.

Bull shit. No such thing

 

[blowincherrypie]

Yeah, since the H series have fewer diodes per strip you'd need to use more of them to equate to an F series build of the same output, which is because the light sources (diodes) are more spread out.



Canopy penetration is how well light can get to the lower areas of the canopy, via beaming through the layers of foliage. Which is based off of how many sources of reflection/light there is, AND the overall intensity of the light in the space. It isn't this fallacy of literally penetrating the leaves with light. Although green light and red light that does penetrate through the leaves would play a role, it isn't what anyone means when they mention "canopy penetration" or "light penetration".

Although you're correct, if you completely covered every square inch of the canopy in COBs, it would be better than covering every square inch in quantum boards because there would simply be more diodes with the COBs since they're packed tighter together. But a single QB288 ran at 100w would provide better canopy penetration than a single CXB3590 ran at 100w because the diodes are more spread out.

And I simply disagree with you saying lux coverted using steven's sphere conversions (the owner of HLG, the maker of quantum boards...) are not worth anything. They are easily within 10% of what a PAR meter would give me. I can't prove this to you without owning my own PAR meter and doing a comparison, but if you dont want to believe it than you dont have to.

It's not like I, or anyone else, can't grow using spectrum king or COBs. It's just not my preference. My dad taught physics, particularly LIGHTING physics at MIT and I know how it works because he taught me. I would prefer having more spread out light sources, and more of them so I don't like them. That's not to say they dont grow damn well, but they simply don't grow AS well as a better though out light design.

I love this commerical grow photo because it debunks the entire idea of having less, more intense light sources (like say using fewer 1000w HPS instead of more 400w HPS) is what makes for good canopy penetration. These are 300w "strips" and the plants are like 8-10 feet tall, with dense bud top to bottom. Idiots would assume something like this is only possibe with say a 1000w DEHPS because it's "more intense and therefore it penetrates better".

I still like the warehouse of 315s

 

[skoomd]

Bull shit. No such thing

Take a plant. And take 2x 13w CFLs. Spread them out evenly. Notice the shadows and how well the entire plant is illuminated. Now take 1x 26w CFL. place above the plant. And compare how the shadows look.

Also, walk into a Walmart. Notice how there are almost NO shadows, and the only ones you do see are directly underneath something. This is because they use a shitload of flourescent tubes placed waaaaay up.

It's frankly really simple stuff.....

 

[Slinging PAR]

Bull shit. No such thing

Bingo. skoomd must be part of the new crop of forum newbies. It will take a while for the koolaid to wear off.

It is actually funny when he talks about his dad being a teacher at MIT as if it would hold some weight. First off there is no way to verify and second, MIT is an engineering school, not a research institute. They build stuff based on technology discovered elsewhere. Haven't you watched the Big Bang Theory?

Besides if he was so knowledgeable in lighting then he would know to use a PAR meter instead of a lux meter for measuring his lights. That there is all that needs to be said.

 

[Dave455]

I still like the warehouse of 315s

Like the light monitor better !

 

[skoomd]

Bingo. skoomd must be part of the new crop of forum newbies. It will take a while for the koolaid to wear off.

It is actually funny when he talks about his dad being a teacher at MIT as if it would hold some weight. First off there is no way to verify and second, MIT is an engineering school, not a research institute. They build stuff based on technology discovered elsewhere. Haven't you watched the Big Bang Theory?

Besides if he was so knowledgeable in lighting then he would know to use a PAR meter instead of a lux meter for measuring his lights. That there is all that needs to be said.

Sigh....... It's like im talking to 3 year olds..... You don't need to believe me. But what I state is FACT.

"Crop photosynthesis to a large extent correlates with the light profile within the canopy (González-Real et al., 2007; Niinemets, 2007; Sarlikioti et al., 2011a). In the vertical profile of the canopy, light intensity decreases exponentially from top to the bottom of the canopy, as described by the Beer-Lambert–Bouguer law (Chandrasekhar, 1950; Monsi and Saeki, 2005) of which light extinction coefficient can be used to quantify the vertical light distribution in the canopy. Diffuse light exhibits a lower extinction coefficient than direct light (Urban et al., 2012; Li et al., 2014a) although the effect depends on solar position (Morris, 1989). This indicates diffuse light penetrates deeper into the crop canopy."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4559655/


And just to be CLEAR, more light sources literally means more diffuse lighting. Diffusion via a frosted glass panel simply spreads out the photons more. The same fucking way that adding more light sources would.