36xLuminus CXM22 CRI90 or 16xSamsung LM301B Quantum Boards

Porky101 said:

Its rather simple, like it or not, if you have 100k lumens in a dot the size of a laser and point it at the plant, you would not see much growth. It doesent matter how much light the middle gets, if the rest of the plant is not getting the light it cannot possibly photosynthesis properly.

Click to expand...

I’m not sure what a lumen or 100,000 of them have to do with anything? I’m not aware of meter even capable of measuring a spot that small, let alone any of the products we use or mentioned in thread capable of doing so. So hypothetically you’re correct, but that’s the worst example you could possibly use because it doesn’t apply to anything.

In s real world scenario. Can you with a straight face tell me there would be a significant difference of something like four 12.5 watt cobs and a single 50 watt cob of the same photon efficacy in something like a 2x2 space?

dbrn32 said:

I’m not sure what a lumen or 100,000 of them have to do with anything? I’m not aware of meter even capable of measuring a spot that small, let alone any of the products we use or mentioned in thread capable of doing so. So hypothetically you’re correct, but that’s the worst example you could possibly use because it doesn’t apply to anything.

In s real world scenario. Can you with a straight face tell me there would be a significant difference of something like four 12.5 watt cobs and a single 50 watt cob of the same photon efficacy in something like a 2x2 space?

Click to expand...

Im not talking about efficacy, im talking about the fact that if you want the plant to grow its flowers, you need to give it light, a lot of it, directly. Im saying if you "give the plant" 100,000 Lumens, you cant just give a portion of the plant strong light and expect the parts that are getting side lighting too grow as big as the ones in the middle....

To answer your question, it would depend on the specifications of the COB, I would assume a single 50W COB would run more efficiently than 4 x 12.5W cobs would if driven to their max.

Porky101 said:

Im not talking about efficacy, im talking about the fact that if you want the plant to grow its flowers, you need to give it light, a lot of it, directly. Im saying if you "give the plant" 100,000 Lumens, you cant just give a portion of the plant strong light and expect the parts that are getting side lighting too grow as big as the ones in the middle....

To answer your question, it would depend on the specifications of the COB, I would assume a single 50W COB would run more efficiently than 4 x 12.5W cobs would if driven to their max.

Click to expand...

Huh? Maybe read my response again and it will make more sense. I’ll give you a hint, there’s something I typed in there to level the playing field.

dbrn32 said:

Huh? Maybe read my response again and it will make more sense. I’ll give you a hint, there’s something I typed in there to level the playing field.

Click to expand...

Clearly I am not getting what your saying. Please stop dropping hints and tell me what you are saying as clearly neither of us understand one another..

Your response is an absolutely pointless one. Your dropping me hints and wasting my time. Please tell me what you mean otherwise I'm not going to share anymore of my knowledge with you.

Clearly one of us is about to learn something, so we’ll see about that wasted time.

What would a difference in efficiency be or mean if the photon efficacy is the same?

Provided voltage and current are measured on the dc side to remove any difference in driver efficiency. Four 12.5 watt light sources running 2.3 umol/joule vs a single 50 watt light source running 2.3 umol/joule is theoretically the same ppf.

Now because of breakdowns in available simulator data and differences in junction temps it’s really hard to be exact within a matter of fact. But that’s going beyond what a guy with limited tools and budget can do.

dbrn32 said:

Clearly one of us is about to learn something, so we’ll see about that wasted time.

What would a difference in efficiency be or mean if the photon efficacy is the same?

Provided voltage and current are measured on the dc side to remove any difference in driver efficiency. Four 12.5 watt light sources running 2.3 umol/joule vs a single 50 watt light source running 2.3 umol/joule is theoretically the same ppf.

Now because of breakdowns in available simulator data and differences in junction temps it’s really hard to be exact within a matter of fact. But that’s going beyond what a guy with limited tools and budget can do.

Click to expand...

Ok look, ill be honest with you here,

I dont really care.

I am saying one thing and one thing only, the entire plant needs light for it to grow, not only a portion of it.

I dont know why you thought I was talking about efficiency of watts too umol. Once again I will answer what you have stated.

You have said the following:

"Provided voltage and current are measured on the dc side to remove any difference in driver efficiency. Four 12.5 watt light sources running 2.3 umol/joule vs a single 50 watt light source running 2.3 umol/joule is theoretically the same ppf."


This statement is full of assumptions and misguided theory's, allow me to explain:

Even if the voltage and current is the same, you cannot simply assume the specifications of the light sources give them equal efficiencys. You are assuming that a 12.5watt light source would be as efficient as a 50 watt light source. It could be, or could not be. Purely depends on the design of such chip. Please dont make assumptions.


"Four 12.5 watt light sources running 2.3 umol/joule vs a single 50 watt light source running 2.3 umol/joule is theoretically the same ppf."

its not theoretically the same ppf, it would be the same ppf, thats simple maths. I never said otherwise or ever brought that up. I get the feeling you are trying to show everyone how much knowledge you have up there. You took a true theory that cannot be argued and implied that I had tried to argue it with you, interesting. You seem intent on proving me wrong, to whom I may ask..another random online reader?

You asked me: "What would a difference in efficiency be or mean if the photon efficacy is the same?"


Im responding because this question is an interesting question that seems to be designed to confuse the reader. perhaps so you will appear smarter than the reader.

Anyway I will try answer for my own entertainment here (Im pretty stoned atm).

Are you asking, if there is a difference in efficiency, but the photon "count" is the same, what does that mean? Well that means that you are spending your electrical power more economically. I dont know what exactly you would want me to respond to that? Everyone is after better efficiency, perhaps you change the spectrum to get more efficacy while increasing efficiency. Power spent on red photons is more efficient than power spent on blue photons, so I guess that is an example where the photo count can remain the same but more efficacy due to a better spectrum.

Anyways, good luck to you, I dont feel like helping you any further

cheers

lol, awesome

Funniest stuff I’ve read in a while. I’m perfectly comfortable in what I know, and don’t need to show anyone.

I didn’t put words in your mouth.

Porky101 said:

To answer your question, it would depend on the specifications of the COB, I would assume a single 50W COB would run more efficiently than 4 x 12.5W cobs would if driven to their max.

Click to expand...

If both leds are 2.3 umol/joule at their given current they are the the equally efficient lol. I refrained from using the big red crayon twice, but damn bro.

Porky101 said:

Even if the voltage and current is the same, you cannot simply assume the specifications of the light sources give them equal efficiencys.

Click to expand...

You can probably assume they are pretty damn close if all the tools you have say they are. Like data sheets, simulators, and third party test data.

Porky101 said:

its not theoretically the same ppf, it would be the same ppf, thats simple maths. I never said otherwise or ever brought that up.

Click to expand...

I feel like my statement of theoretical is correct because of my inability to control thermal path. A couple degrees here or there would change output a little. Otherwise I would’ve said EXACTLY the same instead of theoretically.

Porky101 said:

Are you asking, if there is a difference in efficiency, but the photon "count" is the same, what does that mean? Well that means that you are spending your electrical power more economically. I dont know what exactly you would want me to respond to that? Everyone is after better efficiency, perhaps you change the spectrum to get more efficacy while increasing efficiency. Power spent on red photons is more efficient than power spent on blue photons, so I guess that is an example where the photo count can remain the same but more efficacy due to a better spectrum.

Click to expand...

This goes back to everything I was trying not to have to tell you. I’m not sure why it hasn’t set in though. You’re replying like I used 12.5 watt cobs and ran them at max current, but the 50 watt cob was ran nice and low. I did neither. I ran both at currents that all the information I could gather suggested they would be equally efficient. And all were 3500k 90cri.

So there was very little to no difference in emitted light spectrum and both setups were equally efficient.

dbrn32 said:

So there was very little to no difference in emitted light spectrum and both setups were equally efficient.

Click to expand...

And what was the average PPFD in each case?

dbrn32 said:

Funniest stuff I’ve read in a while. I’m perfectly comfortable in what I know, and don’t need to show anyone.

I didn’t put words in your mouth.



If both leds are 2.3 umol/joule at their given current they are the the equally efficient lol. I refrained from using the big red crayon twice, but damn bro.




You can probably assume they are pretty damn close if all the tools you have say they are. Like data sheets, simulators, and third party test data.




I feel like my statement of theoretical is correct because of my inability to control thermal path. A couple degrees here or there would change output a little. Otherwise I would’ve said EXACTLY the same instead of theoretically.




This goes back to everything I was trying not to have to tell you. I’m not sure why it hasn’t set in though. You’re replying like I used 12.5 watt cobs and ran them at max current, but the 50 watt cob was ran nice and low. I did neither. I ran both at currents that all the information I could gather suggested they would be equally efficient. And all were 3500k 90cri.

So there was very little to no difference in emitted light spectrum and both setups were equally efficient.

Click to expand...

You win. Your smarter than me. I actually feel honered you are even communicating with me. Thank you for your patience and thank you for showing how much smarter you are then I am!

@10 minutes he starts talking about what i was talking about in this thread. i didn't know what they were called but they're called thylakoids. this is the reason why i believe in running powerful cobs vs more dim ones.

"instead of just tickling the canopy with photons traveling at different angles, you're providing a deep, intense, and angular light spread, better at penetrating deep stacks of thylakoids and the plant canopy as a whole"

i'm aware hes talking about high powered HPS fixtures and distance to the canopy but i feel like there is some relevant info here.

feel free to correct me if i'm wrong or this doesnt apply.

"Run"

InTheValley said:

"Run"

Click to expand...

That actually made me burst out laughing!

pulpoinspace said:

@10 minutes he starts talking about what i was talking about in this thread. i didn't know what they were called but they're called thylakoids. this is the reason why i believe in running powerful cobs vs more dim ones.

"instead of just tickling the canopy with photons traveling at different angles, you're providing a deep, intense, and angular light spread, better at penetrating deep stacks of thylakoids and the plant canopy as a whole"

i'm aware hes talking about high powered HPS fixtures and distance to the canopy but i feel like there is some relevant info here.

feel free to correct me if i'm wrong or this doesnt apply.

Click to expand...

This is my thinking also, and this is why i said 18 cobs over 36 or whatever.
I was always under the impression, like many said around here is, Lumens dont stack numbers wise, they just dont work like that. Im not a fan of just light, I like intense light, hammering the leafs. But you have to keep the heat from them is all. Because cobs radiate alot of heat from the light surface.

I have a project in mind using Solex greenhouse sheets, and bending them over the scrogg just under the lights, to A- Keep heat off the leafs, and B- getting a better distribution of spectrum over the entire grow. Then, i can almost guarantee you will never get light burn from LEDs ever again,??

pulpoinspace said:

@10 minutes he starts talking about what i was talking about in this thread. i didn't know what they were called but they're called thylakoids. this is the reason why i believe in running powerful cobs vs more dim ones.

"instead of just tickling the canopy with photons traveling at different angles, you're providing a deep, intense, and angular light spread, better at penetrating deep stacks of thylakoids and the plant canopy as a whole"

i'm aware hes talking about high powered HPS fixtures and distance to the canopy but i feel like there is some relevant info here.

feel free to correct me if i'm wrong or this doesnt apply.

Click to expand...

This video actually supports the argument for more sources of light, not fewer. Achieving a given PPFD via many lower-powered diodes does not mean you're giving the plant less "intensity" than that same PPFD from fewer high-powered diodes. It just means you're able to give the plant an appropriate amount of light while hanging the fixture closer to the canopy, which reduces wall-loss.

Humple said:

This video actually supports the argument for more sources of light, not fewer. Achieving a given PPFD via many lower-powered diodes does not mean you're giving the plant less "intensity" than that same PPFD from fewer high-powered diodes. It just means you're able to give the plant an appropriate amount of light while hanging the fixture closer to the canopy, which reduces wall-loss.

Click to expand...

Interesting. I guess it just seems that there would be a sweet spot between intensity and efficiency. Not that I have any idea what that is.

But i can imagine a scenario after watching that video where someone runs so many light sources so efficiently that none of them would be intense enough or you just physically would have to put them right up to the canopy to penetrate "deep stacks of thylakoids" especially on lower parts of the plant. But i guess what you're saying is that it doesnt work that way?

I do see what you're saying. All that video really says is that your light source has to be close enough to your plant.

Humple said:

This video actually supports the argument for more sources of light, not fewer. Achieving a given PPFD via many lower-powered diodes does not mean you're giving the plant less "intensity" than that same PPFD from fewer high-powered diodes. It just means you're able to give the plant an appropriate amount of light while hanging the fixture closer to the canopy, which reduces wall-loss.

Click to expand...

pulpoinspace said:

Interesting. I guess it just seems that there would be a sweet spot between intensity and efficiency. Not that I have any idea what that is.

But i can imagine a scenario after watching that video where someone runs so many light sources so efficiently that none of them would be intense enough or you just physically would have to put them right up to the canopy to penetrate "deep stacks of thylakoids" especially on lower parts of the plant. But i guess what you're saying is that it doesnt work that way?

I do see what you're saying. All that video really says is that your light source has to be close enough to your plant.

Click to expand...

man, what the video say is, when the first layer is spent, it doesnt necessarily move out of the way, it just doesnt eat anymore photons, and with a MORE INTENSE light, it penetrates THRU the top layer to the next layer, and so on and so on. Were as a weak ass light, OR LOW PAR INTENSITY, doesnt necessarily PENETRATE THRU the top thylakoid. Think of it as if water was dripping onto a plate of ice. The fast your turn the water on, the faster it will eat thru the ice. A trickle will take longer to eat thru the ice. Hence DLI accumulation WITH PAR Intensity.

now my buzz is gone, fk.

Then, it also goes on to say,


Haaaaaaauuuuuu,

Light lower angled hit the leaf different, then if the light is going straight down. So, If the thylakoids are in a stacked fashion, Side penetration hits the thylakoids differently.

again, another reason i say, Penetration is mainly emphasized early morning and late afternoon when the sun is angled. We would all love to just put out plants into a big freakin globe with lights that rotate around them, but we can, YET,lol.

But, there are other ways to maximize, because after all, all this knit pikin shit, is basicly, to get more outta the plant, then just tossing into some dirt,..

Give it light, dont over feed, dont over water, and leave it the heck alone. lol..

pulpoinspace said:

Interesting. I guess it just seems that there would be a sweet spot between intensity and efficiency. Not that I have any idea what that is.

But i can imagine a scenario after watching that video where someone runs so many light sources so efficiently that none of them would be intense enough or you just physically would have to put them right up to the canopy to penetrate "deep stacks of thylakoids" especially on lower parts of the plant. But i guess what you're saying is that it doesnt work that way?

I do see what you're saying. All that video really says is that your light source has to be close enough to your plant.

Click to expand...

Average PPFD is average PPFD, whether it's achieved by a single point-source or many. The benefit of many points of light is that running the fixture closer to the canopy will put you at your target average PPFD at lower power, and will provide greater uniformity.

dbrn32 said:

If both leds are 2.3 umol/joule at their given current they are the the equally efficient lol. I refrained from using the big red crayon twice, but damn bro.

Click to expand...

but do you think they give off the same amount of BTU?