FLIP CHIP OPTO LUNA 300!!!

URSA LED

Well-Known Member
Hi! We like to under drive COB chips to boost efficiency, so likely the burning question on everyone's mind is what the current droop curve looks like for this chip, especially below 50% of rated output?

Also, I'm sure we'd love to hear your recommendations for heat sink typesand performance?
Hello Ttystikk,

If you under drive our COBs, the efficacy will definitely increase. We are looking at about 130lm/w and a 150 lm/w difference on a 50% drive.
My answer to your droop curve is to not drive our COB's lower than 50% and you will look at an increase in efficacy.

Regarding your question on heatsinks, please take a look at Flip Chip Opto's sister company, Starlite LED that produces heatsinks specifically tailored to Flip Chip Opto's COB's. Although, some specs may not be listed on the website at this time, submit a contact request through the website and I can personally send it over to you.
 

URSA LED

Well-Known Member
Welcome Alex !

I've some questions ...

1) When we should expect the Duet series to hit the " shelves " ?

2) Why so much " blue" output power ,comparing to the " red " one ( Duet 2400 ) ?

3) Have you considered the homocentric circles design( like a " target " ) instead of the " BMW logo -style" or " Yin-Yang" , for better spatial & polar spectral distribution over leaf canopy ( Duet 2400 ) ?

4) 56 % radiant efficiency for the "blue " part at 6A .. ( Duet 2400 )
Seems rather fine ...
What about the "red " part ? Can we have a radiant efficiency figure there ,please ?
(You will save us ,from some reverse engineering trouble ...)
http://www.fcopto.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Duet-2400-Data-Sheet.pdf

5) Should we expect some more of Duet models (i.e. less wattage or other spectral combinations , like i.e. 5000K CW -instead of 455 nm - plus Broadband Conversion 660 nm ==> for a bit less "blue" output and a tad more "green" & "amber " content ) ?

Cheers from Hellas and Thank you in advance ..
:peace:


P.S.
Please take a look > here < ...

Hello Stardustsailor,

Our Duet series is expected to hit the market within a couple of weeks. Duet 2400 has been released. The next product we are looking to push is Duet 250, along with Duet 1200 and Duet 600.
These Duet series feature independently adjustable sections (so you can turn off RED during vegging and turn off BLUE during flowering.

As well as that, I'm excited to announce our Fixed Ratio Grow Series that will be released very very soon. The ratio can be adjusted on order. Take a look at this picture:



To answer your question on "why so much blue compared to red on the Duet 2400", the blue and red sections feature 608 watts of maximum power. Can you elaborate a little bit on your question, maybe I'm not hitting the right spot or understanding what you mean.

To answer your question on homocentric circles, just take a look at that picture above ;)

For question number 4, I'll have to get back to you on that.

For question number 5;
Our team is actually rather puzzled and we've been trying to answer this question in a commercial/efficiency way. Why would anyone want to use white light to grow marijuana? The absorption level for green is extremely low on plants, and those chemicals that marijuana produce within the green spectrum (cartoene, zeaxanthin, lycopene etc) and peaks at the green spectrum, also shows a peak in the blue wavelengths. But, yes, it is possible for us to adjust the blue light 450nm into white light (but why?)
 

nogod_

Well-Known Member
Interested in starlite's pending "grow light" section. :-P

@Alex Lau what level of lumen maintenance can we expect from some of the higher wattage chips? We've seen them get turned into Swiss cheez, had any burning 24/7 for the last couple months?

@nevergoodenuf any reason you didn't go with the 185W starlite sink?


Hello Ttystikk,

If you under drive our COBs, the efficacy will definitely increase. We are looking at about 130lm/w and a 150 lm/w difference on a 50% drive.
My answer to your droop curve is to not drive our COB's lower than 50% and you will look at an increase in efficacy.

Regarding your question on heatsinks, please take a look at Flip Chip Opto's sister company, Starlite LED that produces heatsinks specifically tailored to Flip Chip Opto's COB's. Although, some specs may not be listed on the website at this time, submit a contact request through the website and I can personally send it over to you.
 

PurpleBuz

Well-Known Member
Hello Stardustsailor,

As well as that, I'm excited to announce our Fixed Ratio Grow Series that will be released very very soon. The ratio can be adjusted on order. Take a look at this picture:

To answer your question on "why so much blue compared to red on the Duet 2400", the blue and red sections feature 608 watts of maximum power. Can you elaborate a little bit on your question, maybe I'm not hitting the right spot or understanding what you mean.
what is the blue:red ratio for the duet 2400 when both sections are run at nominal power ? do you have an SPD with both sides illuminated ?

what typical blue:red ratios will be available for the new Fixed Ratio Grow Series ?

I'm very interested in a fixed ratio red/cool white with 10% blue.

is the red section driven by red phosphors or are these red diodes ? whats the mw/watt like ?

For question number 5;
Our team is actually rather puzzled and we've been trying to answer this question in a commercial/efficiency way. Why would anyone want to use white light to grow marijuana? The absorption level for green is extremely low on plants, and those chemicals that marijuana produce within the green spectrum (cartoene, zeaxanthin, lycopene etc) and peaks at the green spectrum, also shows a peak in the blue wavelengths. But, yes, it is possible for us to adjust the blue light 450nm into white light (but why?)
white light actually grows better than red+blue.
red 620nm/cool whites grow better than, red 660/cool whites.
if its for greenhouse cloudy day supplemental doesn't matter much Red/Blue or white or any combo.

maybe you'all should hire a plant guy, like me :)
 
Last edited:

URSA LED

Well-Known Member
Hey Alex, I hope Danny didn't take that critique the wrong way. Just we have been trying to get away from the blurple (red blue) panels and 1100 watts of blue and red from a point source would need to be way to high. Me and my plants are loving the Luna 300 though. These will be great on a HLG 240. I have this one on a HLG 320 just to see if I can hit over 1.2GPW, but vegging right now at under 240 in a 4'x2' tray. Some type of holder would be nice, I don't like the look of the exposed wires. This is the second time I have cut this hood down for a led light.

Interested in starlite's pending "grow light" section. :-P

@Alex Lau what level of lumen maintenance can we expect from some of the higher wattage chips? We've seen them get turned into Swiss cheez, had any burning 24/7 for the last couple months?

@nevergoodenuf any reason you didn't go with the 185W starlite sink?

Hi nogod,

I'm glad you are very interested in our pending grow light section :)
Please come visit us at hempcon in two weeks, we will be show casing our prototype grow lights in San Jose featuring our Duet 2400 and our Duet 250 in Fixtures.

Regarding, the lumen maintenance, our Apollo 600 just surpassed 1000 thermal shock cycles without any chip damage / decrease in lumen/efficacy. To give you a comparison, cree only standardizes to 200 thermal shock cycles. In other words, because of our extremely low thermal resistance properties, it results in higher heat transfer, thus resulting in longer life span. With how we structure our COB Flip Chips, even if one LED chip dies on the COB, the remaining LEDs will continue to work.

It is recommended that your power supply have efficient surge protection to protect the LED chips. As a matter of fact, all LED chips (even those not from Flip Chip Opto) require a decent surge protection to prevent damage in fluctuations.
 

URSA LED

Well-Known Member
Hi nevergoodenuf,

I'm sure Danny didn't take it in the wrong way.
Thanks for using our Luna 300 and I'm glad it's going well for your plants.

Please come to Hempcon in San Jose and find us in two weeks.
We will have a Duet 250 and Duet 2400 Fixture on display using our Starlite Heatsink and power supply.

There are a lot of people that are over killing the cooling solution on our chips. You can get away with passive cooling on our chips because of the extremely low thermal resistance.



Hey Alex, I hope Danny didn't take that critique the wrong way. Just we have been trying to get away from the blurple (red blue) panels and 1100 watts of blue and red from a point source would need to be way to high. Me and my plants are loving the Luna 300 though. These will be great on a HLG 240. I have this one on a HLG 320 just to see if I can hit over 1.2GPW, but vegging right now at under 240 in a 4'x2' tray. Some type of holder would be nice, I don't like the look of the exposed wires. This is the second time I have cut this hood down for a led light.

 

nevergoodenuf

Well-Known Member
@nogod_ I just wanted more cooling and I wasn't convinced that the Coolbay TeraAs could cool the Luna 300 @ 330 watts. I was wrong, that cooler can cool the CLU550 up to 470 watts, so the Luna will passively cool just fine at over 300 watts.
Alex, I look at it this way. The cooler it runs the more light I get. And for the moment I only need 2 more. I have 2 empty heat sinks.
 

stardustsailor

Well-Known Member
Thank ,once again ,for your answers .

To answer your question on "why so much blue compared to red on the Duet 2400", the blue and red sections feature 608 watts of maximum power. Can you elaborate a little bit on your question, maybe I'm not hitting the right spot or understanding what you mean.
The question is like that- ( rephrased ) :
Why 552.4 umols/sec of the ( red nitride ? ) phosphor output ( broadband 660 nm ) versus
1036,2 umols/sec of the 455 nm chips output ?
For most plants it should be the other way around ..
(Duet 2400 @ 6A )

For question number 5;
Our team is actually rather puzzled and we've been trying to answer this question in a commercial/efficiency way. Why would anyone want to use white light to grow marijuana? The absorption level for green is extremely low on plants, and those chemicals that marijuana produce within the green spectrum (cartoene, zeaxanthin, lycopene etc) and peaks at the green spectrum, also shows a peak in the blue wavelengths. But, yes, it is possible for us to adjust the blue light 450nm into white light (but why?)
- Why would anyone want to use white light to grow marijuana?

( Quick answer ? Cause white light grows plants ,better than any monochromatic combination .... Real Life Field tested 101% ! )


For quite a few reasons,to be more precise :

a ) Firstly to check upon plants for under or over fertilisation , pathogens and/or other plant health issues .
White light helps our vision ,for doing so ..
Furthermore white light makes a nice and relaxed "environment " for human vision ,
when attending the garden ...

b ) Green wavelengths serve as a "slow down " signal to the photosynthetic systems .
Very useful ,when growing under ( of non- variable characteristics ) artificial lighting,
for 12 hours or more .
Nobody wants oversaturated & exhausted chloroplasts .

c ) " The absorption level for green is extremely low on plants " ...
Rather false statement ,I should say ,If I may be excused ...

Lower than blue and red wavelengths yes ,but not " extremely low " .
Extremely low is the absorption over ~730 nm .

Furthermore ,the " Relative Quantum Efficiency " of green wls ,
is actually higher than of blue ones ...
( As also RQE of 600-620 nm amber-red wls is higher than of 660 nm )

d ) "Green window " ...Quite a few folks ,like to call it " light penetration " ..
As blue & red wls ,tend to be readily absorbed by the top layer foliage ,
something has to be "left " for the lower parts of canopy ,to be "fed "...
That "something " is the green and yellow wls ,that are being transmitted through the top layer leaves to the underlying leaves ...

During the early era of LED growing ,many had pointed out that "LEDS lack penetration " ,
when compared with the "trad" HIDs ...
HIDs do emit a good amount of green and yellow wls ..(power-wise )
Blue and Red monochromatic LEDs do not ...
Thus ,they lack ....penetration ..
( ...Damn ,those Kevlar-reinforced leaves ....:P ... )

e ) Blue wls output should not be more than 10-20% of the total output ,in power terms ...
(photobleaching & photoinhibition await somewhere around here ...check question #2 )
Cool white ( phosphor converted ) ,can easily provide the blue wls needed (in power terms ),
plus it also supplies the plants with the VERY useful green and amber wls ..

.....
Hope I was helpful...
More info > here < .

( You should consider hiring an experienced grower as an advisor ...
LOL!
Me for example
...:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:... )

Cheers.
:peace:
 
Last edited:

FranJan

Well-Known Member
These Duet series feature independently adjustable sections (so you can turn off RED during vegging and turn off BLUE during flowering.

As well as that, I'm excited to announce our Fixed Ratio Grow Series that will be released very very soon.
Question, so they're not true dual channel lights, you can't drive the Blue + Red separately, right? That would be better than turning off the Blue and Red since you're most definitely going to need some of the other, regardless of mode.

Whut up @stardustsailor? Hope everything is Μεγάλο for you and yours. Couldn't agree more about green in the lower canopy. It's more natural and that can't be a bad thing in the flowering room.
 

stardustsailor

Well-Known Member
Question, so they're not true dual channel lights, you can't drive the Blue + Red separately, right? That would be better than turning off the Blue and Red since you're most definitely going to need some of the other, regardless of mode.

Whut up @stardustsailor? Hope everything is Μεγάλο for you and yours. Couldn't agree more about green in the lower canopy. It's more natural and that can't be a bad thing in the flowering room.
Thank you ,my dear brother for your kind wish.
Well ,actually ,things are quite tough here ,right now ....
Seems that the most part of the people ,are devoid of ...money ...
The whole country is fallin' apart and it seems that we stand at the edge of a big disaster ...
Funny thing is ,that it also seems , that nobody gives a $hit about it ....
Greeks ..:P
Anyway ..I 'm forced to kinda " steal " my internet connection -
as I can't afford anymore to pay for ,
that's why I 've gone MIA.
Still ,I won't be dying any time soon ..8)
But neither DIYing ,too ..

I wish for you that all the best of 2015 ,to be the worst of 2016 ,Fran .:hug::peace: bongsmilie
.................
Now ...
Some further info about green light ,for our new friend Alex ,from Flip Chip Opto ..
Pretty much known to most of us ,though ....
Read on ,Alex .
Hope that you and your team ,will stop being puzzled and move on
from " but why ? " to "why not ? "
:hump:
Hope that you will provide us ,growers ,with a superb series of growing-dedicated COB LEDs .
You are the first planning to do so ,afterall.
:clap:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(...) Although the light absorption profiles calculated by Nishio (2000) are spurious (Vogelmann and Evans 2002), his argument has nevertheless been proven experimentally to be correct using our differential quantum yield method. Namely, red light is more effective than green light in white light at low PPFDs, but as PPFD increases, light energy absorbed by the uppermost chloroplasts tends to be dissipated as heat, while penetrating green light increases photosynthesis by exciting chloroplasts located deep in the mesophyll. Thus, for leaves, it could be adaptive to use chlorophylls as photosynthetic pigments, because, by having chlorophyll with a ‘green window’ the leaves are able to maintain high quantum yields for the whole leaf in both weak and strong light conditions.(...)
" Green Light Drives Leaf Photosynthesis More Efficiently than Red Light in Strong White Light: Revisiting the Enigmatic Question of Why Leaves are Green"
http://pcp.oxfordjournals.org/content/50/4/684.full


(...)True efficiency, at least in terms of total spectrum absorption, would require black leaves, rather than green. However, it seems as though most plants are somewhat resistant to this simple but radical dietary hack, and for reasons that are not well understood: the prevailing theory is that higher-energy wavelengths of light are just too hot to handle, damaging a plant’s photosynthetic machinery.(...)
" The Photosynthetic Habits of Highly Effective Plants "
http://www.ediblegeography.com/the-photosynthetic-habits-of-highly-effective-plants/


(...)CONCLUDING REMARKS
The light qualities associated with leaf cover represent the solar spectrum minus a significant fraction of UV, blue, and red wavelengths. The shade environment is rich in far-red, and the effects of far-red are well understood. There also is a marked shift in the ratio of blue and red to green and a decrease in total fluence rate. The growing body of documented responses to these green wavelengths shows that they are most conspicuous in low-light conditions. They are mediated by cryptochromes as well as by a hypothetical sensory system. The phot1 receptor also is active in low light conditions. Understanding and separating the physiological changes induced by green light from known photosensory systems and unraveling the transduction mechanism of green light signaling will help us deepen and expand our knowledge about how different portions of the light spectrum independently or cooperatively regulate plant morphogenesis. Ultimately, this information may serve agricultural production by helping to produce better-yielding crop plants by optimizing light energy utilization.(...)

" Contributions of green light to plant growth and development "
http://www.amjbot.org/content/100/1/70.full


(...) Conclusions
Recent findings of cry-dependent and cry-independent green photoresponses suggest that green, in addition to red, far-red, blue, and UV sensory mechanisms, monitor and adjust plant growth and development. For the most part, the recent findings mesh well with central themes from older studies performed before the advent of molecular-genetic tools and modern techniques. One theme presented throughout this review is that the effects of green light tend to reverse the processes established by red and/or blue light. In this way, green light may be functioning in a manner similar to far-red light, informing the plant of photosynthetically unfavourable conditions. Although seemingly counterintuitive at first, these conclusions make sense in the context of normal plant growth in natural settings. In terms of basic science, together these findings remind us that nature tends not to ignore a conditional environmental input and that inductive biological systems often have antagonistic systems that counter their progression. In this way plants use the full spectrum and the relative ratios of energies within to adjust their form, composition, and physiology to best exploit prevailing conditions.(...)

" Green light: a signal to slow down or stop "
http://jxb.oxfordjournals.org/content/58/12/3099.full


(...)Green light, like far-red light, also passes through plant tissue with greater efficiency than red or blue light, leading to enrichment of green wavebands within the understory. (...)
" Green light signaling and adaptive response "
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.4161/psb.7.1.18635


(...)Research conducted in-house at our research center in Sweden to test the difference in spectral quality between the use of green and white LEDs has shown that white LEDs emit enough green light and can be used as an efficient source of green wavebands for LED grow lights without any negative effect on plant growth and development. It also has shown a significantly lower energy consumption compared to using pure green (530nm) diodes.

At Heliospectra we recommend horticultural lights containing green LEDs for applications where a high level of spectral control is prioritized or needed for a certain experiment. But for commercial growers, prioritizing energy efficiency and using white (5700 K) light LEDs is sufficient for great plant health and making sure the energy costs stay low.(...)

" The forgotten spectrum - The importance of green light for crop quality "
https://www.heliospectra.com/blog/forgotten-spectrum-importance-green-light-crop-quality

Cheers.
:peace:
 
Last edited:

stardustsailor

Well-Known Member
Alex ,here's a rough idea ,but nevertheless worth of further testing ....

horticob1.jpg
A two (or four ) channel COB ...

The outside LES "ring" is using a broadband red phosphor ,with a peak of 640 nm .
Why not 660 nm ?

1) 640 peak red phosphor still emits plenty of 660 nm light ,but also " fills " better
the "lower " red region ,thus "taking care " for both the ChA nad ChB absorption peaks and supplying the highest RQE red light ( 600-620 nm ) .
2) Less power is wasted in the NIR region of over 730 nm ,than when utilising 660nm peak broadband red phosphor .
(as the latter is converting too much of excitation energy into unwanted and useless NIR radiation.)
3) Stokes shift losses are less with a broadband 640 nm phosphor ,than with the broadband 660 nm one.Thus a higher radiometric efficiency is achieved ,when utilising the former.

The inside LES circle is a mix of green and yellow phosphors*
This phosphor mix will emit a cool white light of ~ 5000 °K ,80-Ra .

(* can be GAL (Aluminate ) or NYAG ( Garnet) phosphors ,
but rather not Silicate ones, due to the relatively large particle size - D50(V)- of the latter )

If this COB outputs totally 1500 umol/sec ,then it could be "broken down " to something like that :

Channel #1 ( 5000° K )
400-499 nm : ~250 umol/sec (peak 450-455 nm )
500-599 nm : ~400 umol/sec
Channel #2 ( broadband 640 nm )
600-730 nm : ~850 umol/sec (peak 640-645 nm )

......
Just a rough idea ,there ...

With the use of dimmable drivers and this COB ,the grower can possibly achieve quite a few things ...

During seedling and early vegetative stages of plant growth ,the grower can set
the Channel #1 at 100% output and channel #2 at 20% output ...

~820 umol/sec totally ,is more than enough radiation for a vigorous vegetative growth ..
Plus the fact ,that the spectrum emulates closely enough ,the sunlight during early spring ,
thus resulting in a greater female:male ratio of plants and a "stocky " stature .
From late vegetative growth to midst of flowering ,the grower can have at 100% ,both channels ...
And then ,during late reproduction stage (towards harvest ) ,the grower can
set the channel #1 at 20% and channel #2 at 100% ( total ~980 umnol/sec ) ,
so to avoid the unwanted foxtailing and the degradation of the cannabinoids
(trichomes turning amber/brown ) ,due to high energy / short wavelength photons.

Throw in a microcontroller ,and then the " spectrum shift " will be handled automatically ,
during the whole growing cycle ..." Spring light =>Summer light => Autumn light " ....

Alex ....
I'm hoping that you and the rest of the FCO team ,will think it over ...
You can always make some "beta" CObs and let us do the actual testing ..
(:

Cheers.
:peace:
 
Last edited:

PurpleBuz

Well-Known Member
Don't forgot about McCree, which at the end of the day is much more important than the absorbance spectrum of chlorophyll a+b found from algae in a test tube.

I found a copy of the mcree 1972 paper for those interested, definitely worth a read. has a lot more data than the one mcree curve that's been copied all over the place.

http://www.inda-gro.com/IG/sites/default/files/pdf/ACTION-SPECTRUM-KJMCCREE.pdf

and the hunt for the secret lighting sauce of cannabis flower production continues ....
 

nevergoodenuf

Well-Known Member
@Alex Lau - Why aren't you at work? I was going to run down for 2 more Luna 300s. Can I get a Duet 250 to play with? Now I won't be able to get there unless your office calls me back soon with stock, otherwise I will get them Friday.
 
Top