LEC - Light-Emitting Ceramic

C

churchhaze

Well-Known Member
genuity said:
@rollitup knew what he was doing..lol

I like all the information,and the side talk....I was just saying,it's funny.
Click to expand...
I've gotta say, even if unintended, this whole thread seems like a way to respond to multiple requests of a new section or moderation for this section by showing up and posting a thread about HID. How about an LED section?

There's a difference between healthy debate and the shitslinging that's been going on for the past few weeks.
 
Last edited:
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
GroErr said:
Apologies but I have no experience/insight in a vert setup like that, but I'd expect fantastic results considering I'm running just soil in pots and got over 1 gpw with mixed strains. In a numbers run like I'm running with those 4x Blue Dreams if I can reach 1.2 - 1.4 gpw, a vert setup should pull significantly higher. The only one I know in here running these mogul bulbs in a vert bare-bulb is @a senile fungus. I think you'd be fine in covering the vertical part with 4x bulbs, just not sure how the 2.7' radius would be for coverage/penetration. I've found the best output for my setup has been to have the bulb 20" above the canopy, with some strains it's penetrated and provided decent size buds right down to 24" below the canopy, so 44" from the bulb.
Click to expand...
Vert is tricky; first, I'm expecting the lights to reinforce one another's output. Second, they don't need to penetrate more than maybe a foot. Third, as mentioned; NO reflector, so no losses- but none of the concentration, either. Finally, I could always add more.

I'm pulling as much as 5 1/2# per 4 kW of tired HPS on magnetic(!) ballasts now. Would 8 of these be at least equivalent?
 
PSUAGRO.

PSUAGRO.

Well-Known Member
SupraSPL said:
According to Beta Test Team:

"The values are correct, they were measured by a 3rd party accredited lab using NIST certified integrating sphere (for lamp AND fixture irradiance measurements, separately) and the most current protocols.

...there's not much difference between the real-world efficiencies of Greenbeams and Gavita PRO DE, yet, Greenbeams is vastly better than Gavita in terms of irradiance uniformity over the canopy:"

Greenbeams with Philips Green Power CMH 315W
-- Greenbeams reflective material reflectivity, according to Cycloptics: 95%
-- Relative amount photons emitted by the lamp that exit the reflector after a single bounce, according to Cycloptics: 95%
-- Relative amount of photons emitted by the lamp that exit the reflector, according to Cycloptics: 92.3%
-- Relative amount of photosynthetic photons emitted by the lamp (400-700nm) that exit the reflector: 76.84%
-- Reduction in photosynthetic photons (400-700nm) exiting the reflector as compared to emitted by the lamp: 23.16%

Gavita PRO DE HPS 1000W
-- Gavita 'HortiStar' reflective material reflectivity, according to Gavita: 96%
-- Relative amount photons emitted by the lamp that exit the reflector after a single bounce: unknown
-- Relative amount of photons emitted by the lamp that exit the reflector: unknown
-- Relative amount of photosynthetic photons emitted by the lamp (400-700nm) that exit the reflector: 80.95%
-- Reduction in photosynthetic photons (400-700nm) exiting the reflector as compared to emitted by the lamp: 19%
Click to expand...
Thanks for the repost....................did they ever say why the unknown results on the gavita de?? can't un-see that
 
C

churchhaze

Well-Known Member
SupraSPL said:
First post says, CMH > LED. Seems like a topic well worth discussing.
Click to expand...
This is exactly the part that gets under my skin. LEDs are more like computers. Someone with minimal knowledge of computers will likely buy the cheapest Packard Bell they can find... who cares what's in it.. it's a computer! You have a computer, and I have a computer! We can both play games!

Of course, you won't be able to play the latest games on a 486. Could you imagine if people tried to do it anyway and came to the conclusion that "computers can't play games for shit"? Did you try using a real computer? :P
 
Last edited:
C

churchhaze

Well-Known Member
In other words, people get burned by shitty leds because of lack of research, and a closed mind. People don't want to listen to supra's reasoning because they don't want to stop and ask for directions when they're lost.

Instead, they usually buy some red+blue mono based units with leds of unknown origin (epistar), and then complain about the airy buds they get... Their conclusion? It was computers fault because my computer sucked.
 
C

churchhaze

Well-Known Member
genuity said:
I don't know about the first,but I wouldn't known it was running at 210 watts,if it was not for someone from the LED section.
Click to expand...
Oh, so now this is the LED section? Why not turn the fluorescent section into "fluorescent and other" and make this exclusively the LED section? It would make so much more sense.
 
C

churchhaze

Well-Known Member
And if we're going to talk about time to pay itself back, generic HPS lamps with magnetic ballasts are a proven winner.

Now if you want to start spending to beat that... consider this

It cost me 449.25 to make a 49% efficient lamp (exists outside a lab) 192W dissipation, that's 94W of PAR and handles a 4'x2'. I used one 94% efficient driver with active power factor correction, that outputs 400VDC. (400V and 94% efficiency... where does that sound familiar? *cough gavita*). I threw aluminum at it, so it weights a ton. More metal = quality. I could have saved 50-100 dollars using less and relying on fans more.

49%, like supra posted a few pages back, (he listed the model and current I run at) translates to an output of 2.4uMol/J dissipated for that SPD (3000k 80cri phosphor). Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

IMAG0293.jpgIMAG0297.jpg IMAG0311.jpg
 
Last edited:
GroErr

GroErr

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
Vert is tricky; first, I'm expecting the lights to reinforce one another's output. Second, they don't need to penetrate more than maybe a foot. Third, as mentioned; NO reflector, so no losses- but none of the concentration, either. Finally, I could always add more.

I'm pulling as much as 5 1/2# per 4 kW of tired HPS on magnetic(!) ballasts now. Would 8 of these be at least equivalent?
Click to expand...
From what I'm seeing and the numbers you're quoting, based on vert being a more efficient method for yields, I'd say for sure.

If you take my last run with 3 different strains, 2 of them being good producers and one medium (good with a ton of training), getting 1.1 gpw in a traditional grow (soil/pots). Now replicate that with 8x 315w in vert you'd be looking at ~6# from 2500w of these Elite Agro's @1.1 gpw. Could take a grow or two to fine tune but from what I understand of vert, 1.5 gpw with these Elite Agro's shouldn't be out of the question.
 
PSUAGRO.

PSUAGRO.

Well-Known Member
genuity said:
I don't know about the first,but I wouldn't known it was running at 210 watts,if it was not for someone from the LED section.
Click to expand...
Oh shit maybe it was @tenthirty ......LOL.....someone in her ran a prototype from cycloptics tech, fuck I'm not even forty yet and I can't remember!

sorry I made you go to the hydrostore to get it fixed:wink:
 
bicit

bicit

Well-Known Member
Sativied said:
I don't think going over the classic led vs hps arguments is going to do this thread any good but that argument is so hard not to refute because, nothing personal, it's so typical and cliche.
Click to expand...
Agreed, LED isn't what this thread is about. The subject is the sunsystem LEC and it's kin.

The "not everyone wants it cheap and dirty" is a straw man. I didn't claim everyone or even I want it cheap and certainly not dirty. That's obviously taking it to one extreme and not an argument from me. It's also the same thing as if I would say "not everyone wants to buy the most expensive and dirty diy". Not really a great argument is it.
Click to expand...
This part a textbook example of a strawman. My point was, that for some people the higher initial purchase price is a non-issue. Everyone has a different situation, an individual need's to pick the best solution for their situation. Sometimes LED's are best, sometimes CFL's might be the best option...

LED folks lists $ per par watt. Surely that is not because you want it as expensive as possible. Surely the efficiency goal is also about saving money on electricity and not just about claiming efficiency in comparisons to HID... I hope anyway
Click to expand...
It's simply a metric we use to work out 'which is the better deal'. To which almost everyone in this section would agree, HID wins this benchmark almost everytime, with few if any exceptions. For the most part, people just use this to compare the relative cost to build/buy different LED lights rather than to directly compare to HID's.

That longer ROI is also highly debatable. Above all, "context", read the initial post, read what comparison I replied to, and you will see price is relevant. A highly skewed comparison is skewed only further by boasting how efficient LEDs can be if you just forget about the cost for a sec.

If you correct the inflated price in Supra's own comparison to the factual one (and that kit is more plug and play than DIY) the outcome of his own math looks very very different. For the cost of that optic vero example you can buy roughly 2x, currently 3x with that deal, the ppf of that vero. And you can run 2 of those for many years (well ok, fail rate is higher) without becoming a worse investment.

That's quite a big difference, and no cliches from the bibled about reflector losses and IR spikes balance that out.

It sure is an easy way to troll HID threads though... There's always a more efficient led possible... If there would be a HID tomorrow that is 4x better in every way Supra will refer to the more than 100% efficient LED in a lab I posted about...
Click to expand...
The rest of this is just an out of context rant that has little to do with my post. Moral of the story, if the sunsystem LEC fit's the grow space and budget, buy that. If the optic grow light fits the grow space and budget, buy that. If either one looks more shiny than the other and it fits the budget, buy that. In any case the results will be grand as both options are on the cutting edge of lighting tech
 
Last edited:
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
churchhaze said:
In other words, people get burned by shitty leds because of lack of research, and a closed mind. People don't want to listen to supra's reasoning because they don't want to stop and ask for directions when they're lost.

Instead, they usually buy some red+blue mono based units with leds of unknown origin (epistar), and then complain about the airy buds they get... Their conclusion? It was computers fault because my computer sucked.
Click to expand...
So if I'm spending a couple thousand, what can I expect to get if I'm doing a serious DIY?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top