Led Users Unite!

[BlackMesa]

nice to come back to this thread and see the same people i saw 6 months ago ripping on blackstars are still at it............. i have 3 240w and 1 100w and $/watt they are the best around and use the same guts as the rest minus snake oil tactics such as "switchable spectrums" or "finned heatsinks" im not building a monster computer or growing a bunch of different things.......... i grow weed and these panels do it efficiently.

I wouldn't discredit finned heatsinks as a snake oil tactic as a finned heatsink will spread heat far better then a non finned heatsink. I have 2 - 240w Blackstars and am looking into if the heatsinks could be improved with modding or they might just be perfectly fine at that wattage. I had a decent talk with Victor on the phone about the heatsink and at least according to him, he hasn't had a return or repair issue with the units regarding a overheating problem. I will run some good testing soon and find out if a improvement is even needed, I'm a PC modder so I can mod that sucker to run cooler if needed should be easy since I have a plate to work with. Shit I could water cool 3 panels together on 13 watts which would actually save even more wattage but like I said, it may not even be an issue.

 

[newworldicon]

I'm not convinced that there would actually be a point where using multiple larger watt panels would make sense over using a even larger array of smaller wattage panels. If let's say a 180 actual wattage panels has all the perfect spectrum's blah blah blah... and will light bleach a plant at 8 inches but not at 9 inches then you could come to the conclusion that 9-10 inches away would be the optimal amount of light @ 180 watts. Now figure out that same optimal light distance on say a 440 watt LED and if the distance ends up being 15 - 20 inches, using 2 180w lights should have more of a optimal coverage zone at the same light intensity or close to that of the 440. So the end result would be bigger yield/same quality then that of the 440W while using less wattage even. (see my attachment for a quick sketch on the coverage).

Now if the LED light company decided to increase the size and diode spacing of their panels to match the wattage increase, then is when using an array of higher wattage panels would make sense. Ever wonder why for some strange reason a higher wattage panel is only slightly bigger then its sibling? They just stuff more diode's in a slightly larger space and use more drastic angles on the diode themselves which isn't efficient.

Tent #2 should be able to yield more at the identical quality of the Tent #1 setup.

Ive seen the image before but what does not get mentioned is the angle at which the light comes down to define the sweet spot nor the grey area. Who gave you this info so I can look at their panels and specs plz. Also it is assumed that the sweet spot on the larger panel is found at double the height of the smaller panel, but GLH's discovery shows a 3 fold increase in height of the sweet spot. No offense but I would rather like to see a more accurate and scientific analysis of the light spread vs. intensity.

I do however agree that spacing the diodes would help increase the sweet spot, it just has to be wondered why manufacturers are making larger panels then if this is supposedly common knowledge in the industry. If our personal favoured brand is making a bigger panel that works less effectively then it's smaller siblings then why are we not asking them these questions. And if there is valid reasoning for their development of the bigger panels then why are they not making this known to growers seeking to cover larger than average spaces..

 

[bmf725]

Speaking of all the Sweet spots of the lights and angles of the lenses. I just realized something when I was adjusting my lights today. You really have to make sure the lamp is hung close to level as possible. Because the led's are so light directional if they ain't level the light spread wont be even on the canopy. I had one that wasn't level and when I leveled it I could see the difference on the canopy.

 

[newworldicon]

Speaking of all the Sweet spots of the lights and angles of the lenses. I just realized something when I was adjusting my lights today. You really have to make sure the lamp is hung close to level as possible. Because the led's are so light directional if they ain't level the light spread wont be even on the canopy. I had one that wasn't level and when I leveled it I could see the difference on the canopy.

yeah I had the same problem on the lengths my wire cable hangers on the panel, had to make a little jimmy to fix the problem.

 

[ColoradoLove]

nice to come back to this thread and see the same people i saw 6 months ago ripping on blackstars are still at it............. i have 3 240w and 1 100w and $/watt they are the best around and use the same guts as the rest minus snake oil tactics such as "switchable spectrums" or "finned heatsinks" im not building a monster computer or growing a bunch of different things.......... i grow weed and these panels do it efficiently.

AND you obviously know very little about LEDs. A finned heatsink and switchable spectrums are not snake oil and you are not building a monster computer because you are not smart enough. Go away

 

[Bad Karma]

nice to come back to this thread and see the same people i saw 6 months ago ripping on blackstars are still at it............. i have 3 240w and 1 100w and $/watt they are the best around and use the same guts as the rest minus snake oil tactics such as "switchable spectrums" or "finned heatsinks" im not building a monster computer or growing a bunch of different things.......... i grow weed and these panels do it efficiently.

From the May 2011 issue of Maximum Yield magazine:

Please educate yourself sir, then, learn to shut up.

 

[BlackMesa]

Ive seen the image before but what does not get mentioned is the angle at which the light comes down to define the sweet spot nor the grey area. Who gave you this info so I can look at their panels and specs plz. Also it is assumed that the sweet spot on the larger panel is found at double the height of the smaller panel, but GLH's discovery shows a 3 fold increase in height of the sweet spot. No offense but I would rather like to see a more accurate and scientific analysis of the light spread vs. intensity.

I do however agree that spacing the diodes would help increase the sweet spot, it just has to be wondered why manufacturers are making larger panels then if this is supposedly common knowledge in the industry. If our personal favoured brand is making a bigger panel that works less effectively then it's smaller siblings then why are we not asking them these questions. And if there is valid reasoning for their development of the bigger panels then why are they not making this known to growers seeking to cover larger than average spaces..

For one thing, angling a LED diode is a way to increase optimal coverage zone but at the cost of light intensity. This can be proven by simply taking a ruler drawing 2 lines both running parallel to each other at say...6" apart, now 6 inches is the maximum efficiency you can possibly obtain for this example, that's fact. Now make a 35 degree line from the top line down to the bottom line then measure that line and you will find that its longer then 6 inches. This is why putting angles on diodes will give you less light intensity but it is indeed needed with LED lighting because LED's are insanely directional and if your entire panel was filled with diode's pointing directly down you would have shit coverage.

I'm not concerned about double height or triple height because even at triple height the smaller wattage multiple panels will have more coverage. Actually Quote me down for the higher you need to raise the light the further my point is proven that coverage is key over light intensity. It obviously doesn't take a huge light intensity or raising the light so high would be counter productive but it's clearly not.

These are yes and no questions:

-Do you acknowledge that by raising the light up on that higher wattage panel gives you a larger coverage, or larger sweet spot?

-Do you acknowledge that by raising the light up to gain coverage, you lost light intensity?

If you answered yes to both I can show the math, exact math that will prove 2 smaller wattage panels will have a even larger coverage at near the same intensity, shit they will still have the larger coverage at maximum intensity and maximum meaning 2" up from the distance that would light bleach a plant.

 

[newworldicon]

For one thing, angling a LED diode is a way to increase optimal coverage zone but at the cost of light intensity. This can be proven by simply taking a ruler drawing 2 lines both running parallel to each other at say...6" apart, now 6 inches is the maximum efficiency you can possibly obtain for this example, that's fact. Now make a 35 degree line from the top line down to the bottom line then measure that line and you will find that its longer then 6 inches. This is why putting angles on diodes will give you less light intensity but it is indeed needed with LED lighting because LED's are insanely directional and if your entire panel was filled with diode's pointing directly down you would have shit coverage.

I'm not concerned about double height or triple height because even at triple height the smaller wattage multiple panels will have more coverage. Actually Quote me down for the higher you need to raise the light the further my point is proven that coverage is key over light intensity. It obviously doesn't take a huge light intensity or raising the light so high would be counter productive but it's clearly not.

These are yes and no questions:

-Do you acknowledge that by raising the light up on that higher wattage panel gives you a larger coverage, or larger sweet spot?

-Do you acknowledge that by raising the light up to gain coverage, you lost light intensity?

If you answered yes to both I can show the math, exact math that will prove 2 smaller wattage panels will have a even larger coverage at near the same intensity, shit they will still have the larger coverage at maximum intensity and maximum meaning 2" up from the distance that would light bleach a plant.

I would answer I don't know to the first and probably to the second only because I do not know. I'd love to see the maths providing the maths is based on solid data garnered from countless testing, afterall without accurate scientific testing and results anyone can make assumptions. I do not argue with the fact that multiple smaller panels speak for themselves in documented grows and your theory of the saturation increase + less electricity consumption makes perfect sense but let's be honest, there are more people buying smaller panels than people who have bought larger panels so there seems to be much less documented evidence or experience which brings me back to one of my questions which you did not seem to want to comment on, why are manufacturers making larger panels? what is their train of thought on that?

http://www.blackdogled.com/products/platinum-xl
http://www.blackdogled.com/products/bd700

Do you think this panel would still not be as good as more smaller panels in a 4x4 flowering room? Also taking into consideration the shell design seems to be pretty much the same size as most other panels? And if not then why are these manufacturers not making a larger more spaced panel, is the end user really thinking ahead of them in this aspect? It seems as though too much R&D is focussed on smaller panels.

 

[jdizzle22]

I would answer I don't know to the first and probably to the second only because I do not know. I'd love to see the maths providing the maths is based on solid data garnered from countless testing, afterall without accurate scientific testing and results anyone can make assumptions. I do not argue with the fact that multiple smaller panels speak for themselves in documented grows and your theory of the saturation increase + less electricity consumption makes perfect sense but let's be honest, there are more people buying smaller panels than people who have bought larger panels so there seems to be much less documented evidence or experience which brings me back to one of my questions which you did not seem to want to comment on, why are manufacturers making larger panels? what is their train of thought on that?

http://www.blackdogled.com/products/platinum-xl
http://www.blackdogled.com/products/bd700

Do you think this panel would still not be as good as more smaller panels in a 4x4 flowering room? Also taking into consideration the shell design seems to be pretty much the same size as most other panels? And if not then why are these manufacturers not making a larger more spaced panel, is the end user really thinking ahead of them in this aspect? It seems as though too much R&D is focussed on smaller panels.

Train of thought is:selling people what they want, making money,bigger lights on light movers, 1 bigger light in a small tent, etc etc

If one can reasonably fit more smaller LED panels to achieve an ~= wattage with a large panel, do so. You get more coverage, more watts, more control, and more units in case some go bad. If you are like me and your tent is 4x4 or less, one might as well just get a good single unit (which is what i think these 500s are for besides light movers). A true 500w LED panel should handle a 4x4 plenty well, although I imagine 2 lights each as few as 150-200w would do better because you spread out the didoes over the growing area.

 

[BlackMesa]

I would answer I don't know to the first and probably to the second only because I do not know. I'd love to see the maths providing the maths is based on solid data garnered from countless testing, afterall without accurate scientific testing and results anyone can make assumptions. I do not argue with the fact that multiple smaller panels speak for themselves in documented grows and your theory of the saturation increase + less electricity consumption makes perfect sense but let's be honest, there are more people buying smaller panels than people who have bought larger panels so there seems to be much less documented evidence or experience which brings me back to one of my questions which you did not seem to want to comment on, why are manufacturers making larger panels? what is their train of thought on that?

http://www.blackdogled.com/products/platinum-xl
http://www.blackdogled.com/products/bd700

Do you think this panel would still not be as good as more smaller panels in a 4x4 flowering room? Also taking into consideration the shell design seems to be pretty much the same size as most other panels? And if not then why are these manufacturers not making a larger more spaced panel, is the end user really thinking ahead of them in this aspect? It seems as though too much R&D is focussed on smaller panels

Manufacturers are making larger wattage panels to increase light intensity which is the simplest way of increasing coverage which then in return increases yield. The real question should be why aren't the panels increasing in size when increasing in wattage. They do slightly increase but and no where near the ratio they should. It would actually make sense to buy the bigger wattage panel if it was double the physical size of the smaller panel. Now I can give some theory to why they don't double the size which are:

- Possible cooling challenge (though unlikely)
- Cost to produce, ship & stock (double the heat sink & more fans)
- They rely on a larger distance above canopy & higher angles on diodes for coverage (likely)

They seem to think that you will get all excited over the watts and lumens like you would for HID...who the hell knows? Any way the answer is indeed yes to both of the questions, those things happen when the laws of physics are applied to photonics but the rest of my take on it does indeed need testing before I can cast it out as fact. And for the record the manufacturers have to know... this is how it is. I mean just look into light bleaching and how even 140 watts when put close enough will over light the tops of plants! Why they don't wrap their minds over that and figure out the maximum light intensity with out light bleaching and then base all panels designs around that concept is beyond me? I actually have 2 electrical engineers at my disposal but too bad I don't have boat loads of cash or I would just design the perfect light.

 

[BlackMesa]

Train of thought is:selling people what they want, making money,bigger lights on light movers, 1 bigger light in a small tent, etc etc

If one can reasonably fit more smaller LED panels to achieve an ~= wattage with a large panel, do so. You get more coverage, more watts, more control, and more units in case some go bad. If you are like me and your tent is 4x4 or less, one might as well just get a good single unit (which is what i think these 500s are for besides light movers). A true 500w LED panel should handle a 4x4 plenty well, although I imagine 2 lights each as few as 150-200w would do better because you spread out the didoes over the growing area.

Excellent points you have there, couldn't have said it better! More units is a huge plus! If your growing from a single panel and it dies, your buying a HID locally to save your ass but having one go in an array would buy you a back up plan till the replacement comes.

 

[Gary Busey]

My 240 watt Blackstars measures just 8 1/2 x 16 1/2, and the 500 watt version measures 11 x 18, not really much bigger, so the light within the larger panel (at the same wattage per diode) would essentially have further to travel to cover the ends of the larger footprint that the higher wattage panel would need. Makes more sense to me to use an array of small to medium sized panels.

Manufacturers are making larger wattage panels to increase light intensity which is the simplest way of increasing coverage which then in return increases yield. The real question should be why aren't the panels increasing in size when increasing in wattage. They do slightly increase but and no where near the ratio they should. It would actually make sense to buy the bigger wattage panel if it was double the physical size of the smaller panel. Now I can give some theory to why they don't double the size which are:

- Possible cooling challenge (though unlikely)
- Cost to produce, ship & stock (double the heat sink & more fans)
- They rely on a larger distance above canopy & higher angles on diodes for coverage (likely)

They seem to think that you will get all excited over the watts and lumens like you would for HID...who the hell knows? Any way the answer is indeed yes to both of the questions, those things happen when the laws of physics are applied to photonics but the rest of my take on it does indeed need testing before I can cast it out as fact. And for the record the manufacturers have to know... this is how it is. I mean just look into light bleaching and how even 140 watts when put close enough will over light the tops of plants! Why they don't wrap their minds over that and figure out the maximum light intensity with out light bleaching and then base all panels designs around that concept is beyond me? I actually have 2 electrical engineers at my disposal but too bad I don't have boat loads of cash or I would just design the perfect light.

 

[jdizzle22]

Because different strains of different/same species of plants will bleach at different distances?

Just because its 2 inches away from the bleaching zone doesn't mean life will grow there better than it will at 8 inches away

GLH is saying their cannabis test grows showed that cannabis produced the most bud with their new 500w panels at 24-28 inches and not closer. Claims to have grown controlled groups with lights at set heights above canopy (ex: 24 in at all times) and the plants ~24-28in away yielded the most

The light produced by LEDs is far more useful to plants than that from HPS (if its a good LED), you don't need it near bleaching distance that is way too much light. You can/need to get HPS so close because >70% of the energy put out is not useful to the plant, with LED its >70% is useful

***I'm not saying HPS isn't viable, absolutely it is a better option for many people than expensive LED

 

[newworldicon]

Manufacturers are making larger wattage panels to increase light intensity which is the simplest way of increasing coverage which then in return increases yield. The real question should be why aren't the panels increasing in size when increasing in wattage. They do slightly increase but and no where near the ratio they should. It would actually make sense to buy the bigger wattage panel if it was double the physical size of the smaller panel. Now I can give some theory to why they don't double the size which are:

- Possible cooling challenge (though unlikely)
- Cost to produce, ship & stock (double the heat sink & more fans)
- They rely on a larger distance above canopy & higher angles on diodes for coverage (likely)

They seem to think that you will get all excited over the watts and lumens like you would for HID...who the hell knows? Any way the answer is indeed yes to both of the questions, those things happen when the laws of physics are applied to photonics but the rest of my take on it does indeed need testing before I can cast it out as fact. And for the record the manufacturers have to know... this is how it is. I mean just look into light bleaching and how even 140 watts when put close enough will over light the tops of plants! Why they don't wrap their minds over that and figure out the maximum light intensity with out light bleaching and then base all panels designs around that concept is beyond me? I actually have 2 electrical engineers at my disposal but too bad I don't have boat loads of cash or I would just design the perfect light.

Well that was my original question which is why are they not making larger sized panels all along, thinking about this last night and bearing in mind I am seventeen years in industrial design, I can only assume that the demand for larger more commercial panels are just not there yet so hone the tech in the smaller application and then spread the tech on a bigger scale later on.

If ever you get your hands on the data please share it in the forum, I still however think that without knowing the parameters no one can predict anything.

 

[BlackMesa]

Because different strains of different/same species of plants will bleach at different distances?

Just because its 2 inches away from the bleaching zone doesn't mean life will grow there better than it will at 8 inches away

GLH is saying their cannabis test grows showed that cannabis produced the most bud with their new 500w panels at 24-28 inches and not closer. Claims to have grown controlled groups with lights at set heights above canopy (ex: 24 in at all times) and the plants ~24-28in away yielded the most

The light produced by LEDs is far more useful to plants than that from HPS (if its a good LED), you don't need it near bleaching distance that is way too much light. You can/need to get HPS so close because >70% of the energy put out is not useful to the plant, with LED its >70% is useful

***I'm not saying HPS isn't viable, absolutely it is a better option for many people than expensive LED

I generally agree and am not saying that the height right before light bleaching is the perfect amount of light intensity (though that could be the case) but will say for sure that it would be the upper limit of light intensity before the plant responds negative. Yes the light from LED's is more useful but at some point you would have to put the light closer if your using a less intense source (lower wattage panel). By raising that one light up 28", that is a clear statement that says the light has more light intensity then what is actually needed and by raising it so high you are gaining coverage at the cost of not needed intensity but again, that formula ultimately fails compared to just using more smaller wattage panels that accomplish even better results (even more coverage/same light intensity).

I would bet that if you took that light placed it at 18" above the canopy but placed the diodes much farther apart along with the entire panel, you would have the same light intensity but with even more coverage. If I had the funds I would run some field tests that could show this all play out but since I don't have a higher wattage panel and separate grow tent all I can do is graph out as much data that's out there.

 

[newworldicon]

I generally agree and am not saying that the height right before light bleaching is the perfect amount of light intensity (though that could be the case) but will say for sure that it would be the upper limit of light intensity before the plant responds negative. Yes the light from LED's is more useful but at some point you would have to put the light closer if your using a less intense source (lower wattage panel). By raising that one light up 28", that is a clear statement that says the light has more light intensity then what is actually needed and by raising it so high you are gaining coverage at the cost of not needed intensity but again, that formula ultimately fails compared to just using more smaller wattage panels that accomplish even better results (even more coverage/same light intensity).

I would bet that if you took that light placed it at 18" above the canopy but placed the diodes much farther apart along with the entire panel, you would have the same light intensity but with even more coverage. If I had the funds I would run some field tests that could show this all play out but since I don't have a higher wattage panel and separate grow tent all I can do is graph out as much data that's out there.

I think the day that we see 600x600mm sized panels with the diodes spaced evenly over that space is the day LED really starts to come into it's own...

 

[bmf725]

I am willing to bet the cost has a lot to do with why they are not using physically bigger lights. They can make 2 or 3 different spectrum/watt lights within the same case probably saves on manufacturing cost and in return lowers the cost to the consumer. And another thing I have been pondering is most if not all the panels that I have seen including my blackstars have a sheet of plexi glass over the bulbs. I would assume that removing the glass would Increase the cooling, lumens, and possibly increase the footprint because the glass is not distorting the light traveling through the glass. Any thoughts on this??

 

[ColoradoLove]

If you do it let us know. I think that "plexi glass" is your lense though.

 

[newworldicon]

I am willing to bet the cost has a lot to do with why they are not using physically bigger lights. They can make 2 or 3 different spectrum/watt lights within the same case probably saves on manufacturing cost and in return lowers the cost to the consumer. And another thing I have been pondering is most if not all the panels that I have seen including my blackstars have a sheet of plexi glass over the bulbs. I would assume that removing the glass would Increase the cooling, lumens, and possibly increase the footprint because the glass is not distorting the light traveling through the glass. Any thoughts on this??

Yeah I think the acrylic is holding some of the light but I don't know if the heat would be reduced unless there was a sufficient airflow over and away from the diodes, my panel at full illumination can generate a bit of heat on the acrylic so i would assume effective air movement is necessary.

However I can't see how a larger heatsink to mount the diodes to is that much more costly including other casings etc..these are neglegible, besides this is not the way manufacturers think, they simply pass on the cost providing the product does what it should as a customer is willing to pay for a working product. I suspect that they have not found the way to increase the core footprint vs light intensity vs light mix on a bigger scale but this is just assumption....

 

[newworldicon]

If you do it let us know. I think that "plexi glass" is your lense though.

protective casing only......