High Light efficiency tests (TEKNIK) - 2.47 umol/j CRI 94.2

boilingoil

Well-Known Member
I mean, mother nature's been around a lot longer than we have. Should we be paying more attention to her?
I think we just need to take some lessons from how nature does it.
As our lighting's PPFD approaches closer to that, that falls on the earth in nature and the fact we're approaching the limits of our current techs maximum, what's left except playing with different spectral outputs to dial our lighting too.
 

Randomblame

Well-Known Member
I think we just need to take some lessons from how nature does it.
As our lighting's PPFD approaches closer to that, that falls on the earth in nature and the fact we're approaching the limits of our current techs maximum, what's left except playing with different spectral outputs to dial our lighting too.
Yeah, one thing I'm interested to copy is that natural light is more like 60% of the time diffuse and of lower intensity because of clouds and/or measuring time.
Inside a grow room you have almost no shades an most LED light is directed light.
With midpower boards and strips we already create a slightly diffused light just because of the many many beam angles from hundreds of diodes. Diffuse light travels deeper inside the canopy but its not really diffuse.

Thing with diffusers is, even the best ones, have only 94% transmission in the best case. But diffuse light has proven to perform 12% better like directed light so the 6% transmission loss are maybe worth it. Theoretically up to 105% should be possible if that's true in a groom too!
I've thought on using something like a fresnel lens to see if there really is a difference inside a relatively small groom. These 12% tests they have done in greenhouses, one with clear acrylic walls the other with diffuser film on the walls.

I don't think it makes sense to copy all what mother nature does. When the plants get only 100% light for a few hours and the rest of the day its only 40 or 60% you'll probably end up getting less yield because of less Mols per day.
But a few things really make sense and a few are for sure worth to test it.
A flat spectrum means for instance and increased cyan and green range. Pigments like carotenoids and flavoniods are in this range. We also know that additional green light can drive photosynthesis as efficient as red light when the plants already get high amounts of blue and red wavelengths. So actually it should have a positive effect if we can flatten the spectrum.
 

Prawn Connery

Well-Known Member
It's funny, I was thinking that the other day when it was cloudy. I noticed an area of my garden that is usually shaded, but whenever it is cloudy, it gets a lot more light, because obviously the sun's ray are diffused and reflected off the clouds at an angle the sun doesn't normally reach when it's directly shining.

Isn't it clever of plants to be able to use diffused light more than direct sunlight to make up for all those cloudy days! :P
 

Greengenes707

Well-Known Member
Yeah, in theory they all are calibrated to the same light source but there is still a difference from sphere to sphere or sphere to gonio.. And when using a gonio to compare 2 lights you need to test them at the same distance to the sensor. In the end the sensor readings are all interpreted by a bunch of algorithms so small difference within a few percent are normal. Like the 7% usually mentioned in datasheets. To make it a fair comp both should be tested with the same sphere or gonio.
No you don't. DISTANCE IS NOT A FACTOR between a gonio and sphere. Why do you keep making stuff up?
 

Randomblame

Well-Known Member
Yeah, there is almost no shade with diffuse light and it travels down the smallest gaps. This makes it so effective compared to direct light which always creates shaded areas.

I once had an impressive picture comparing two greenhouses, clear and diffuse, and in both 8' tall, 6' wide monster plants. While there was almost only shade on the bottom of the clear greenhouse the ways between the plants on the diffuse greenhouse where not shaded in either way all day long.
Espechially for several meters high tomato plants diffuse light is a huge benefit. The breeders can have smaller gaps between the rows and still have enough light where its needed.
I only don't know if there would be a benefit using diffuse lights in tents. We have multiple light sources plus reflecting walls and this creates already a certain amount of diffusity.

For this reason I though about using fresnels because it's a lens too and not only a diffuser. You could focus the light exactly "and" make it diffuse and the distance plays probably no roll anymore with haze factor 90+.
I really hope they have big enough samples to cover at least one of the 2 new lights. I'm willing to test it and compare results with my 4x 2,5' area split in half.
 

Randomblame

Well-Known Member
No you don't. DISTANCE IS NOT A FACTOR between a gonio and sphere. Why do you keep making stuff up?

Because they all have different dimensions and sensors and the sensors are not always suspendend in the same distance to the light source, not even in the same way. There is always an interpreting software in between and in a perfect world there should be no difference between these test methods because they try to take that out of the calculation as good as possible with modern algorithms but there are too many factors to get 100% identic results.
Manufacturers mention this up to ±7% not for nothing. Can we agree in a certain measuring tolerance between these test methods?
I don't wanna start to argue with you even more.. not because a few percent more or less.
I was a bit involved with the HL boards and this hopefully explains my over-enthusiasm.
 

Greengenes707

Well-Known Member
Because they all have different dimensions and sensors and the sensors are not always suspendend in the same distance to the light source, not even in the same way. There is always an interpreting software in between and in a perfect world there should be no difference between these test methods because they try to take that out of the calculation as good as possible with modern algorithms but there are too many factors to get 100% identic results.
Manufacturers mention this up to ±7% not for nothing. Can we agree in a certain measuring tolerance between these test methods?
I don't wanna start to argue with you even more.. not because a few percent more or less.
I was a bit involved with the HL boards and this hopefully explains my over-enthusiasm.
Over enthusiasm and making things up are two different things. You are blatantly making things up to show your product false as better than what reality measured.

DISTANCE IS NOT A FACTOR...PERIOD. You are literally making things up as you go along.
A calibrated sphere or gonio are IDENTICAL for all intents and purposes of total output and efficacy. I even showed you real world test of it... 0.005% variation.

Please feel free to call any NIST conforming service/lab. It's why they are BOTH used by the labs.

Suspended the same way? Your trying to say .5 of a degree(which is assumption on your part) is going to skew devices that measure light from every angle??? YOu really need to understand what these device actually are, what they measure, and how it's done.

Sphere or gonio...same results, same figure, same standards...same value of importance for total output and efficacy.

Why do you keep making things up? And your were involved and keep making things up for an excuse to why those boards performed exactly how they should have???


GONIO AND SPHERE ARE THE SAME THING...END OF STORY.
 

PSUAGRO.

Well-Known Member
I mean their both standardized testing equipment, calibration and operator are more of a concern........no need to fight friends.

Nick mentioned something about gonio sensor distance having some importance? In Sphere its irrelevant obviously, Don't quote me! Lol....ill look up the email and get back.
 

OneHitDone

Well-Known Member
Over enthusiasm and making things up are two different things. You are blatantly making things up to show your product false as better than what reality measured.

DISTANCE IS NOT A FACTOR...PERIOD. You are literally making things up as you go along.
A calibrated sphere or gonio are IDENTICAL for all intents and purposes of total output and efficacy. I even showed you real world test of it... 0.005% variation.

Please feel free to call any NIST conforming service/lab. It's why they are BOTH used by the labs.

Suspended the same way? Your trying to say .5 of a degree(which is assumption on your part) is going to skew devices that measure light from every angle??? YOu really need to understand what these device actually are, what they measure, and how it's done.

Sphere or gonio...same results, same figure, same standards...same value of importance for total output and efficacy.

Why do you keep making things up? And your were involved and keep making things up for an excuse to why those boards performed exactly how they should have???


GONIO AND SPHERE ARE THE SAME THING...END OF STORY.
Why do you have to be such a smug cocksucker?
Mind your own Botrytis anyways.
No more free exposure for your piddly Pacific Light Concepts

 

Greengenes707

Well-Known Member
I mean their both standardized testing equipment, calibration and operator are more of a concern........no need to fight friends.

Nick mentioned something about gonio sensor distance having some importance? Sphere is irrelevant obviously , Don't quote me! Lol....ill look up the email and get back.
Facts brother... facts only.
Facts are that gonio and spheres are the same form total output.
Gonios move around the whole light...negating any distance. Capturing ALL photons no matter what direction they scatter. And then will even tell where they are going and where they came from...and is the additional data a gonio supplies over a sphere. But that part is moot for total output. That is the same as a sphere
Sphere reflects them all to one point where the sensor is. Know reflectivity and losses.

Distance to the gonio sensor... based on lamp size
Sphere size...based on lamp size

No one here is assuming the sphere's being used are not to the correct size are they??? So why is a NIST calibrated gonio system being looked at differently???

Your assumption here is saying that tekniks testing was all outside of accepted parameters and setup. Which from what I have spoke with him about...is not the case. His system is calibrated and accurate as well as him using the proper setup for the testing.

We are not talking some garage testing by moving a par meter around. We are talking about two massive and expensive pieces of equipment ran and operated by very universal and strict standards and procedure.


So for someone who was involved in the board creation coming in and saying..."seems low", "different testing was why", and making up variable that don't exist... Sorry buddy, can't let it slide.

The boards were fine and perfectly respectable, and thank the OP for posting them. But this dudes attempt to falsely raise the perception of the results, is a really bad look.
 

PSUAGRO.

Well-Known Member
Facts brother... facts only.
Facts are that gonio and spheres are the same form total output.
Gonios move around the whole light...negating any distance. Capturing ALL photons no matter what direction they scatter. And then will even tell where they are going and where they came from...and is the additional data a gonio supplies over a sphere. But that part is moot for total output. That is the same as a sphere
Sphere reflects them all to one point where the sensor is. Know reflectivity and losses.

Distance to the gonio sensor... based on lamp size
Sphere size...based on lamp size

No one here is assuming the sphere's being used are not to the correct size are they??? So why is a NIST calibrated gonio system being looked at differently???

Your assumption here is saying that tekniks testing was all outside of accepted parameters and setup. Which from what I have spoke with him about...is not the case. His system is calibrated and accurate as well as him using the proper setup for the testing.

We are not talking some garage testing by moving a par meter around. We are talking about two massive and expensive pieces of equipment ran and operated by very universal and strict standards and procedure.


So for someone who was involved in the board creation coming in and saying..."seems low", "different testing was why", and making up variable that don't exist... Sorry buddy, can't let it slide.

The boards were fine and perfectly respectable, and thank the OP for posting them. But this dudes attempt to falsely raise the perception of the results, is a really bad look.
That's fine and correct.......youre entitled to post like everyone else.

I'm a field worker, not a light lab tech

Facts are always good. Peace
 

Stephenj37826

Well-Known Member
Gonio and sphere should give accurate total output measurements. As I stated in another thread IES files from a gonio are not really accurate as they treat the light as a point source. The simulation will not be correct unless the distance from the measuring plane is greater than 3 times the length of the longest light emitting surface. A gantry with a high resolution map would be more ideal in horticulture. Think 15'X15' grid with hundreds of data points. This could be compiled into an IES file and be very accurate in near field simulations IE ranges much closer than 3 times the longest light emitting surface.
 

Prawn Connery

Well-Known Member
Facts brother... facts only.
Facts are that gonio and spheres are the same form total output.
Gonios move around the whole light...negating any distance. Capturing ALL photons no matter what direction they scatter. And then will even tell where they are going and where they came from...and is the additional data a gonio supplies over a sphere. But that part is moot for total output. That is the same as a sphere
Sphere reflects them all to one point where the sensor is. Know reflectivity and losses.

Distance to the gonio sensor... based on lamp size
Sphere size...based on lamp size

No one here is assuming the sphere's being used are not to the correct size are they??? So why is a NIST calibrated gonio system being looked at differently???

Your assumption here is saying that tekniks testing was all outside of accepted parameters and setup. Which from what I have spoke with him about...is not the case. His system is calibrated and accurate as well as him using the proper setup for the testing.

We are not talking some garage testing by moving a par meter around. We are talking about two massive and expensive pieces of equipment ran and operated by very universal and strict standards and procedure.


So for someone who was involved in the board creation coming in and saying..."seems low", "different testing was why", and making up variable that don't exist... Sorry buddy, can't let it slide.

The boards were fine and perfectly respectable, and thank the OP for posting them. But this dudes attempt to falsely raise the perception of the results, is a really bad look.
Just to set the record straight, @Randomblame has no vested interest in these boards, so he's not trying to make excuses or anything to promote them. I can't speak for him, but I do know where he is coming from: we were told not to expect super-high results from goniometer testing as the tester would not be "gilding the lily" so to speak.

In other words, he believed some manufacturers deliberately inflated their results (sometimes by testing LEDs when cold), while other sphere testing was not fully accurate depending on the age and type of the equipment used and when it had been calibrated etc. And there are atmospheric losses depending on how far away the light source is - though I'm not going to speculate how much (or little) difference that makes in tests such as these.

Again, I can't speak for the tester, as he's not here to defend himself! What I do know is, it's not so much the umol/j results he was interested in, as producing an IES file that we could use to PAR map our boards.

Look, it's a bit like having a musclecar and taking it down to the local dyno tuner. There are "happy" dynos and there are "grumpy" dynos. They are all meant to be calibrated, but obviously "happy" dynos give car owners higher horsepower figures than "grumpy" dynos. This makes customers happy . . . until they run their cars down the quarter mile and discover their "450hp" engine is really only making 400hp based on elapsed times and trap speeds.

The only way to compare two cars is to run them down the 1/4 mile, or put them on the same dyno. Forget about the total figures, it's the comparison that counts.

Anyway, back to Mr Randomblame. These boards we designed and put together by a few growers (myself included) and Randomblame was part of the process. We bounced ideas off each other and discussed what we thought would work and why. We talked about features that growers would find useful, and we confined our discussions to developing a pure flowering board with no compromises.

Once the design was finished, LEDs were bought, PCBs were commissioned and assembly went ahead in Australia. An initial run was made to supply all those who were interested - all the growers who were involved - but of course you can't just make a few dozen boards as you have to buy LEDs in reels of 5000 and PCBs are cheaper the more you produce etc.

So we made 96 boards, and obviously there were boards leftover. Randomblame isn't here trying to spruik those boards. They will sell, and we will recover our costs and all of us will have some nice flowering boards to grow with. You will start to see results soon enough.

This whole exercise was not about starting a new business venture, but to produce something we wanted but couldn't find anywhere else.

Having said that, we have received a lot of positive feedback, and most of the boards have now sold. If there is demand, then it's no stretch for us to produce some more boards. If that happens, then it starts becoming a business venture and we have to start looking at whether we want that responsibility or not!

Right now, I'm just sharing the results of what we've done, and enjoying taking about the reasons why we did what we did, such as adding a UV-based white phosphor LED and CRI98 LED to tune the spectrum, and an efficient CRI90 LED to drive the main output.

I get what you're saying - in an ideal world, goniometer and sphere testing should produce the same results - but perhaps that's not always the case. But I'm not qualified to say one way or the other.
 

Randomblame

Well-Known Member
Facts brother... facts only.
Facts are that gonio and spheres are the same form total output.
Gonios move around the whole light...negating any distance. Capturing ALL photons no matter what direction they scatter. And then will even tell where they are going and where they came from...and is the additional data a gonio supplies over a sphere. But that part is moot for total output. That is the same as a sphere
Sphere reflects them all to one point where the sensor is. Know reflectivity and losses.

Distance to the gonio sensor... based on lamp size
Sphere size...based on lamp size

No one here is assuming the sphere's being used are not to the correct size are they??? So why is a NIST calibrated gonio system being looked at differently???

Your assumption here is saying that tekniks testing was all outside of accepted parameters and setup. Which from what I have spoke with him about...is not the case. His system is calibrated and accurate as well as him using the proper setup for the testing.

We are not talking some garage testing by moving a par meter around. We are talking about two massive and expensive pieces of equipment ran and operated by very universal and strict standards and procedure.


So for someone who was involved in the board creation coming in and saying..."seems low", "different testing was why", and making up variable that don't exist... Sorry buddy, can't let it slide.

The boards were fine and perfectly respectable, and thank the OP for posting them. But this dudes attempt to falsely raise the perception of the results, is a really bad look.

You won, I give up!
We will see when TN test them sometime.. If I'm wrong and the results are really within 0,005% to the sphere test, I have no problem admitting it.
Just because I believe that the results in real life do not deviate in such a small range, I'm not a fool! If you use a few independent light labs for testings each with different test equipment you don't get such a high accuracy. But that's what I believe, you can believe what you want.
I stop this discussion now..
 

Prawn Connery

Well-Known Member
Gonio and sphere should give accurate total output measurements. As I stated in another thread IES files from a gonio are not really accurate as they treat the light as a point source. The simulation will not be correct unless the distance from the measuring plane is greater than 3 times the length of the longest light emitting surface. A gantry with a high resolution map would be more ideal in horticulture. Think 15'X15' grid with hundreds of data points. This could be compiled into an IES file and be very accurate in near field simulations IE ranges much closer than 3 times the longest light emitting surface.
It's unfortunate that TEKNIK is not here to discuss this, as I'm sure he could explain to us all how his equipment works and under what conditions he conducts his tests.

Perhaps this thread on another forum might lead to something: https://ledgardener.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=4105&p=15619#p15619

I'm hopefully getting some IES files tonight and then I have to teach myself how to use the software. But once that's done, I can compare the results with the PAR mapping @Or_Gro has already done to see how they look in real life.

I've already discovered that my Lighting Passport under-reads PAR figures inside the tent compared to an Apogee 500, so I'm a bit handicapped in that respect until I get a better PAR meter. Hopefully the IES file will solve that. I guess I'll know soon enough.
 

BuddyColas

Well-Known Member
It's unfortunate that TEKNIK is not here to discuss this, as I'm sure he could explain to us all how his equipment works and under what conditions he conducts his tests.

Perhaps this thread on another forum might lead to something: https://ledgardener.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=4105&p=15619#p15619

I'm hopefully getting some IES files tonight and then I have to teach myself how to use the software. But once that's done, I can compare the results with the PAR mapping @Or_Gro has already done to see how they look in real life.

I've already discovered that my Lighting Passport under-reads PAR figures inside the tent compared to an Apogee 500, so I'm a bit handicapped in that respect until I get a better PAR meter. Hopefully the IES file will solve that. I guess I'll know soon enough.
What's a few umols among friends?
I don't live in a .005% world.
I am going along for the ride and learning a lot.
You'll have to post some bud porn from under you new photon generators.
Thanks for sharing where TEKNIK is posting.
 

Randomblame

Well-Known Member
Facts brother... facts only.
Facts are that gonio and spheres are the same form total output.
Gonios move around the whole light...negating any distance. Capturing ALL photons no matter what direction they scatter. And then will even tell where they are going and where they came from...and is the additional data a gonio supplies over a sphere. But that part is moot for total output. That is the same as a sphere
Sphere reflects them all to one point where the sensor is. Know reflectivity and losses.

Distance to the gonio sensor... based on lamp size
Sphere size...based on lamp size

No one here is assuming the sphere's being used are not to the correct size are they??? So why is a NIST calibrated gonio system being looked at differently???

Your assumption here is saying that tekniks testing was all outside of accepted parameters and setup. Which from what I have spoke with him about...is not the case. His system is calibrated and accurate as well as him using the proper setup for the testing.

We are not talking some garage testing by moving a par meter around. We are talking about two massive and expensive pieces of equipment ran and operated by very universal and strict standards and procedure.


So for someone who was involved in the board creation coming in and saying..."seems low", "different testing was why", and making up variable that don't exist... Sorry buddy, can't let it slide.

The boards were fine and perfectly respectable, and thank the OP for posting them. But this dudes attempt to falsely raise the perception of the results, is a really bad look.

I'm not trying to make anyone look better or worse. I'm just looking for an explanation because normally I would have expected between CRI80 and 90+ no 0,4μMol / J difference.
I have no financial interest in this boards and there is no reason to make the boards look better. They are good as they are and will do exactly what they were designed for.
It was never planned to start a business just to sell whats left over.
You simply interpret me in your typically aggressive manner, bro. Go ahead .. It does not matter to me anyway. Just because we both believe something different we should no start getten unfriendly.
 
Top