Prawn Connery
Well-Known Member
Nice test results.
HLG 550 V2 Vs 1K HPS Single end.
- Thread starter augusto1
- Start date
ChiefRunningPhist
Well-Known Member
Nice boards. The more diodes the better imo, I like hanging higher so that the penetration is better.
Last edited:
SPLFreak808
Well-Known Member
If any of you are actually going to purchase an HLG product, why the 550 still? HLG has a complete 1500+ ppf kit at 620w for $739, the quad r spec 288's.
OneHitDone
Well-Known Member
Most will only point to @Greengenes707 HPS vs Apachetech grow from way back. Would be nice to see someone do a side by side with more modern HPS gear (those USHIO lamps you mentioned above @2.1umole) and also of course DE's.
I have a hunch those AT 600's would hold their own against all the latest led's on the market assuming one could get past the price tag and all the fan noise
Prawn Connery
Well-Known Member
The problem with DEs is you get reflector losses because you can't hang them vertically (that I know of). The bulb efficiency is measured at total, 360-degree light output, but there's no way to mount them in a way to take advantage of that. LEDs, however, emit all their light in one plane (direction), so at least you get the full amount of light if yo hang them horizontally – unlike reflector-hung HID bulbs.
eyderbuddy
Well-Known Member
The HPS produces more light, but a lot of those photons are actually infrared.
But...
You can replace a 1K HPS (SE or DE) for 640W of bridgelux eb strips and distribute them as you see fit. That'd be 16 bridgelux eb (~13 us each), and a couple of low cost LRS-350-36 mean well drivers. It's easy to wire, and will only cost around ~300.
But...
You can replace a 1K HPS (SE or DE) for 640W of bridgelux eb strips and distribute them as you see fit. That'd be 16 bridgelux eb (~13 us each), and a couple of low cost LRS-350-36 mean well drivers. It's easy to wire, and will only cost around ~300.
wietefras
Well-Known Member
Apart from the point that that really isn't practical and that you will not realize "much better efficiency" with these planks at all.
Fixed that for you
Wrong and wrong. Those efficiency figures can just as easily be achieved by strips (2.5umol/J is even less than current strips will do at default test currents) and light distribution of strips will always beat that of boards. For the latter, at best you could claim that from 8 boards or 4 strips there is not much to gain. Apart from much better ease of use and open ventilation with 4 or 8 strips vs 4 or 8 of those planks.
But agreed I have you on ignore and your two last posts clearly demonstrate why that's still a good idea. So I will leave you at it, further with your misinforming the good people here I guess.
Prawn Connery
Well-Known Member
Well that was constructive. I provided PAR maps, IES files and goniometer testing. You provided nothing.
You claimed you could cover a 4'x4' at an average 1000PPFD with 600W of strips. I proved you could cover a 4'x4' with 1000PPFD with 560W of boards.
It must be convenient to hide from facts by putting people on ignore.
You claimed you could cover a 4'x4' at an average 1000PPFD with 600W of strips. I proved you could cover a 4'x4' with 1000PPFD with 560W of boards.
It must be convenient to hide from facts by putting people on ignore.
OLD MOTHER SATIVA
Well-Known Member
i like visual side by side tests over words and figures...
i like leds for their convenience..
but hps adds other factors..
lets see a sideby side..debates are so opinionated
i like leds for their convenience..
but hps adds other factors..
lets see a sideby side..debates are so opinionated
Prawn Connery
Well-Known Member
Former member Or_Grow started a thread on RIU and measured a pretty even 1000 PPFD at 670W at 24" with eight panels in a 4'x4' which correlated with the Dialux simulations I created for him prior to physical testing: https://www.rollitup.org/t/the-monumentally-epic-knockdown-dragout-take-no-prisoners-slapdown-aussie-high-light-vs-hlg-288.988144/page-4
Here's an IES file for 1.5A that Dialux shows just under 1000 PPFD at 24". When Or_Grow did his physical PAR map of the tent, his results were within 5% of Dialux, so we know it works in the real world.
Of course, he could have hung them lower and run the LEDs softer for better efficiency, which is what he ended up doing. Here's one of the tents towards the end of the grow.
Here's a 4x2 with four panels hanging at staggered heights over some sativa hybrids and indica hybrids.
And at even heights over the start of another grow.
I'm happy to put my PAR maps up against @wietefras
Here's an IES file for 1.5A that Dialux shows just under 1000 PPFD at 24". When Or_Grow did his physical PAR map of the tent, his results were within 5% of Dialux, so we know it works in the real world.
Of course, he could have hung them lower and run the LEDs softer for better efficiency, which is what he ended up doing. Here's one of the tents towards the end of the grow.
Here's a 4x2 with four panels hanging at staggered heights over some sativa hybrids and indica hybrids.
And at even heights over the start of another grow.
I'm happy to put my PAR maps up against @wietefras
wietefras
Well-Known Member
It's common knowledge that better spread out light sources better gives better uniformity
Just try to think a little. If you were to spread 8 led strips of 112cm over a 4'x4'. How would you do that? Would you clump sets of four strips together in two narrow bands? No that clearly would be sub-optimal. One would spread them out uniformly over the space to get the best uniformity.
With boards you miss that extra spread since the leds are clumped together on boards. That's why strips will always beat boards on light spread/uniformity and lower required hanging height .
The value of 2.5umol/J was a given target. Nothing needed to measure there either.
No I did not.
I said:
Which would be about 1250umol/s/m2 average when spread out over 4'x4'.
This is just the best though:
So again, you demonstrate that your charts are useless? You are off by 110W!
Plus you then add a PAR map which shows only 900PPFD average at best!!!
Please stick with reality and don't tire us with these charts which really show nothing.
ps Are you overly aggressively defending/spamming those boards because you sell them to unsuspecting members here? If so, at least have the decency to pay for the advertising then. Also mark your posts as advertisements so people know you are not speaking independently.
Prawn Connery
Well-Known Member
I see this is going to be a painful argument again.
But are you being overly aggressive because you have had me on ignore for the past year and suddenly re-discovered why?
If you know nothing about IES files or Dialux, it's OK, you can learn.
Here is your claim.
Prove it.
One PAR map is at 60cm, the other is 40cm, there is a third at 20cm. That is why they have different PAR simulations. Please keep up.
My post history will show I have been neither aggressive nor secretive about the boards we've produced.
But are you being overly aggressive because you have had me on ignore for the past year and suddenly re-discovered why?
If you know nothing about IES files or Dialux, it's OK, you can learn.
hybridway2
Amare Shill
Right now im getting an 800ppfd over a 5x6 with 860w Bars.
This SE-HPS in a 4x4 doesn't even come close.
Here's what i can say about this topic.
Both style light up an area unbelievably even & bright. Its just i have problems with boards. Maybe not so bad with these longer FoTop style but the condensed diode boards are tough for me. Even dimmed down.
Here's a Bar-8 ,SS-C using 660w over a 4x4 with protceive, gasgeted glass over the diodes @ 4' down.
Anyone care to show some 48" measurements?
Thing about this is, yes its a high number 4' down but you can still grow within 6"-12" if you want @ the same wattage w/o overduing it.
Closer you get to a board the higher those #'s go unless you dim it substantially which in turn would drop the total distance it covers.
Prawn, i dig Your Highlight boards. They are different then I'm used to so maybe I'm totally wrong.
I can say 200w of a board in one spot centered looks allot brighter to the eye then 200 spread evenly over an area.[/Quote]
This SE-HPS in a 4x4 doesn't even come close.
Here's what i can say about this topic.
Both style light up an area unbelievably even & bright. Its just i have problems with boards. Maybe not so bad with these longer FoTop style but the condensed diode boards are tough for me. Even dimmed down.
Here's a Bar-8 ,SS-C using 660w over a 4x4 with protceive, gasgeted glass over the diodes @ 4' down.
Anyone care to show some 48" measurements?
Thing about this is, yes its a high number 4' down but you can still grow within 6"-12" if you want @ the same wattage w/o overduing it.
Closer you get to a board the higher those #'s go unless you dim it substantially which in turn would drop the total distance it covers.
Prawn, i dig Your Highlight boards. They are different then I'm used to so maybe I'm totally wrong.
I can say 200w of a board in one spot centered looks allot brighter to the eye then 200 spread evenly over an area.[/Quote]
Last edited:
OneHitDone
Well-Known Member
OneHitDone
Well-Known Member
Not really brother - just grab a DE remote ballast and pop in one of the newer 2.0 umole SE lamps
hybridway2
Amare Shill
I know, i know. btw, i didnt say that above there, it was a quote i was responding too.Oh but those led deficiencies.......
Edited now.
What good is high ppfd if i cant grow under it? Im trying. Just not hard enough apparently.
rob333
Well-Known Member
My qb solskin 150 tested is doing about 350-450 of hps 1 150 will drill a single 400hps
Prawn Connery
Well-Known Member
Hey mate, I didn't want to get into a pissing match with wietefras – clearly there's history there (not sure why he took me off ignore to challenge my post in this thread?) – but the point I'm making, which he can't seem to understand, is that you can certainly fill a grow tent with large LED boards and cover almost the entire roof for unsurpassed even coverage.
That's why I posted photos above of this exact set-up. And why I asked wietefras for PAR maps of his strip builds to compare with our own.
Strips concentrate rows of closely-spaced LEDs on a narrow stip, and each strip is hung so that it overlaps light with the strip next to it. You can space strips as widely or narrowly as you like.
But one constant remains: the more LEDs you space evenly over a canopy, the more even the spread of light, and the more efficient the LEDs will run (more LEDs = less current = better efficiency).
You can do it with strips, or you can do it with boards. It's really just a matter of how you space them.
There is more than one way to skin a cat. And some LEDs boards have their LEDs more widely spaced than others. Ours are spaced 13mm x 13mm – they are not "clumped" tightly on the board. This means they can be placed close to each other to cover most of the canopy. It also means they can be run at lower currents to improve efficiency, as well as hung quite low over the canopy – if that's what you wish to do (I even provided real-world examples above).
You do not have to run them at 200W – I run mine at 85W each – but you can if you wish. Different strokes for different folks (and budgets).
And that's why blanket statements such as the one below are completely misleading as they have no context:
Prawn Connery
Well-Known Member
In fact, you don't have to use reflectors at all. I grew with 1200W of HPS in a 4'x4' for almost a decade, averaging 1.3-1.4gpw (3.5+lb) each grow.
And this is what I mean about people who refuse to think outside the box and tell everyone else there is only one "best" way to do something – they're not always right!
There are two bare 600W HPS bulbs stacked on top of each other in this 4'x4'x6' (high) box. I don't see any burning – do you?
And this is what I mean about people who refuse to think outside the box and tell everyone else there is only one "best" way to do something – they're not always right!
wietefras said:
There are two bare 600W HPS bulbs stacked on top of each other in this 4'x4'x6' (high) box. I don't see any burning – do you?