Bridgelux EB Series Build

This is my current run Elmer's glue and cookie kush with some wax I made from gorilla cookies that was an auto sent to me on accident I run 18 EB gen.2 9 5000k and 9 3500k with a HLG-185H-20A in a 2x3 I'm adding another HLG-185H-20A incase I want to run the different kelvins separately or a higher par extreamly high par around 1500 if I ran both at full
 

Attachments

  • 20180902_204906.jpg
    20180902_204906.jpg
    1.3 MB · Views: 52
  • 20180904_161548.jpg
    20180904_161548.jpg
    1.8 MB · Views: 59
  • 20180904_161504.jpg
    20180904_161504.jpg
    2 MB · Views: 59
  • 20180904_161446.jpg
    20180904_161446.jpg
    2.1 MB · Views: 56
led1k said:
I'm trying to figure out the spacing needed to get the most even PAR readings for my 15 2' EB Gen 2... Any hints based on your readings would be fantastic!
Click to expand...
I'm really interested in this I know my spacing is off I'll reposition them after this grow so any par measurements you do will be extremely helpful
 
Dachem2010 said:
Here's an interesting read about hps vs led definitely pro led
https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/489030
Click to expand...
The Abstact says HPS resulted in more dry flower weight... twice. Not sure what NS1's and AP673L's are other than both are LED:

The experiment was repeated twice. The 3 light treatments (HPS, NS1, AP673L) resulted in differences in cannabis plant morphology and in cannabinoid content, but not in total yield of cannabinoids. Plants under HPS treatment were taller and had more flower dry weight than those under treatments AP673L and NS1. Treatment NS1 had the highest CBG content. Treatments NS1 and AP673L had higher CBD and THC concentrations than the HPS treatment. Results were similar between experiments 1 and 2.
​
Then:
Cannabinoid Yield
HPS resulted in a significant decline of THC concentration in flowers compared to both LED treatments in both experiments, while no significant differences between the two LED types were observed.
​
So....
HPS => more flower weight.
LED => more THC.

The amount of THC (% w/w) was highest in treatment NS1 and lowest in treatment HPS in both experiments 1 and 2 (Fig. 2e). In experiment 1, HPS had 38% less (9.5%) THC compared to NS1 (15.4%), in experiment 2, the equivalent number was 26%.
​
But wait!

The authors declare that Valoya has funded the research activity. Dr. Stiina Kotiranta is employed at Valoya company.
​
WTF? A LED company sponsoring research that says LED is better than HPS?
 
Last edited:
I didnt see that thanks for pointing it out. How about the two other authors? I do know however that lieing on a peer reviewed paper can really kill a career plus if I was an led company I would be funding research too
 
Dachem2010 said:
I didnt see that thanks for pointing it out. How about the two other authors? I do know however that lieing on a peer reviewed paper can really kill a career plus if I was an led company I would be funding research too
Click to expand...
Only if someone catches the lie :-(
 
led1k said:
The Abstact says HPS resulted in more dry flower weight... twice. Not sure what NS1's and AP673L's are other than both are LED:
Click to expand...
They used 450umol/s/m2 for all lights. So it's really only a morphology test as they clearly explain in the abstract.

The biggest win for leds is in efficiency and that's specifically left out of this research paper. If you look at this from g/W perspective, leds would win by a huge margin again. On all fronts.

Instead, they set out to see if there was any truth to the "Yes LED might be much more efficient, but HPS produces much better product, so there!". Which in fact turned out to be false as the results of these tests show.

The advantage in HPS yield (at 450umol/s/m2) is offset in this test by higher cannabinoids yields for the leds (also at 450umol/s/m2) in this test. Not sure if that always matters, but still.

So, it's not a lie at all. You simply misunderstood what they set out to test.
 
wietefras said:
They used 450umol/s/m2 for all lights. So it's really only a morphology test as they clearly explain in the abstract.

The biggest win for leds is in efficiency and that's specifically left out of this research paper. If you look at this from g/W perspective, leds would win by a huge margin again. On all fronts.

Instead, they set out to see if there was any truth to the "Yes LED might be much more efficient, but HPS produces much better product, so there!". Which in fact turned out to be false as the results of these tests show.

The advantage in HPS yield (at 450umol/s/m2) is offset in this test by higher cannabinoids yields for the leds (also at 450umol/s/m2) in this test. Not sure if that always matters, but still.

So, it's not a lie at all. You simply misunderstood what they set out to test.
Click to expand...
I LOVE that led won the battle but was concerned the research was paid for by a company that sells leds and one of the researchers works for said company.
 
led1k said:
I LOVE that led won the battle but was concerned the research was paid for by a company that sells leds and one of the researchers works for said company.
Click to expand...
Well that may still have slanted the outcome of course. Or perhaps they tweaked the test setup to make sure they would win.

Although yielding about 20% less in grams of flower with the same amount of led light doesn't really seem like they were going for a win. Yet then they find the cannabinoids are the still more in total on the led side.

That outcome is so different from any other HPS vs LED grows that we have seen that I worry about repeatability of these tests.
 
wietefras said:
Well that may still have slanted the outcome of course. Or perhaps they tweaked the test setup to make sure they would win.

Although yielding about 20% less in grams of flower with the same amount of led light doesn't really seem like they were going for a win. Yet then they find the cannabinoids are the still more in total on the led side.

That outcome is so different from any other HPS vs LED grows that we have seen that I worry about repeatability of these tests.
Click to expand...
Summary of what the other outcomes with HPS vs LED have been please? I'm too n00b I guess.
 
led1k said:
Summary of what the other outcomes with HPS vs LED have been please? I'm too n00b I guess.
Click to expand...
That there wasn't a whole lot of difference in cannabinoids between the two. Slightly higher for LED, but only a few percent.

Instead this research paper finds THC percentages about 50% higher in flowers grown under led compared to HPS. CBG even up to triple.
 
wietefras said:
That there wasn't a whole lot of difference in cannabinoids between the two. Slightly higher for LED, but only a few percent.

Instead this research paper finds THC percentages about 50% higher in flowers grown under led compared to HPS. CBG even up to triple.
Click to expand...
Got it. I agree those numbers seem hard to believe.
 
Need help reviewing my math:
16 eb2 strips 2ft 3500k
wiring is 2s8p (voltage measured is 36.7-36.8v)
driver is an HLG-150h-42b

watt-meter measures only 70-80w
what could be the problem?
(can't measure the amperage atm)
 
I'm guessing since the strips are rated at 22.1v. 2 in series would be 44.2v are you too low on the volts? Mean well states it should go to 46v if you have the v adjustment.
 
Turpman said:
I'm guessing since the strips are rated at 22.1v. 2 in series would be 44.2v are you too low on the volts? Mean well states it should go to 46v if you have the v adjustment.
Click to expand...
Current output is 3.6A
3.6 / 8 = 0.45A per strip
Looking at eb2 datasheet, at 450mA voltage is a bit over 19v
Since there are 2 strip in series I should have a configuration of 8 strips in parallel with a voltage of 38+

It is a B driver so I can only use the pot to adjust the current, not the voltage

WTF AM I MISSING?
 
possible v loss from thin wires or too long of wire runs ? i had to rewire mine with 14g power runs and 16g to the strips with as short runs as possible, less voltage drop...i have the B drivers also and cant adjust voltage either just current, so you'll need to get as much v as possible
 
What's the exact part number for your led. The one I looked at on the Bridgelux page says 22.1v 0.7a. For a 560mm 3500k.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top