Flip Chip Opto High Power Build Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

Scotch089

Well-Known Member
I'm assuming it's after all the losses between drivers and talking actual par watts maybe? But still... you're okay with that efficiency? Do you see what I'm saying about counterproductive? What are your thoughts? Are you still considering following through knowing there is/are cheaper option(s) with a fuller spectrum (cmh) and less upfront cost, work, and more efficient? If so can I dig into the real reason as to why? I'm just trying to better understand this whole thing. Then maybe we can start putting forth insight that flows in your direction and isn't taken as negativity or whatever. (Even if it is stated with the general idea of trying to help) maybe we can help you along whether or not we think it's your best option.
 

Doer

Well-Known Member
LER takes the luminosity function out of the equation and allows you to convert lumen output(Human biased photometric measurement) into radiant watts(neutral/unbiased radio metric measurement)
I don't know. This LER is new, and makes some assumptions that are not square with some industry leaders.

http://www.allledlighting.com/author.asp?section_id=508&doc_id=560745
Bill Reisenauer, Co-Founder, LED Specialists
, 8/6/2013
Krüger proffers a new convention called "Luminous Efficacy of Radiation" or LER, and defines it as the total photoptic luminous flux (in lumens) emitted by a light source divided by the total radiant power (in watts) emitted by the same source. It implies that the relationship between radiant flux and luminous flux is essentially constant.

As an engineer however, I would prefer to see more published data, including radiometric data, so that I can understand the assumptions and make the most appropriate tradeoff decisions for my customer and application.

 

Sativied

Well-Known Member
@Sativied what does your ray tracer make of a double sided light source? One HiAmp COB putting 400w upward off the ceiling and then walls. The other putting 400w downward.

The heat is transported by the double sided cold plate, Junction temp, 30c. l/m3 79550 50.8vF@19a

Specifically I am interested in the question of indirect photon contribution to the direct source below. I am thinking fill lighting, to increase the footprint. Sure, both could be down facing. But, this is a big light and where it overlaps it is over flux Flux. I just wonder what the fill light contribution would be vs 2 COBs on a longer more costly cold plate.


It could just be a dumbass stoner idea on a Saturday night, too. :)
Sounds like using the walls and ceiling as a hood. Much of the light would continue to bounce between corners or even directly back to the source and to the ceiling again. And every time it bounces you lose a little depending on the properties of the wall/ceiling.

Not necessarily a bad thought though. Reflector hoods aren't just to simply reflect as much light as possible, but to create a fairly uniform and more rectangular footprint as well. That last thing also helps to get a more even spread in a rectangular grow space with reflective walls.

upload_2015-3-15_19-59-55.png upload_2015-3-15_20-0-40.png
Second image shows why wide is better.

I use this one:
upload_2015-3-15_20-4-49.png Trade some additional loss of light by reflecting more to create a more uniform spread. I only use one so run it on deep, but when using multiple one side (at the wall) can be set to deep, the other (where there's overlap with another light source) to wide. Leads to more uniformity, light from more different angles, better light penetration, higher yields. Being that led is more directional one could do something similar especially when using more than a couple of light sources, simply by raising/lowering/tilting some of the cobs.

Probably not the best way to go in general but I can see situations where a hood could work. Depending on space, amount of light sources and degrees of spread, foot print per cob, it could actually lead to better results pointing a couple of them upwards into a hood that reflects it downwards more uniformly. An extreme example would be a water cooled HPS bulb shaped (but 4-6 sides instead of round) heat sink with leds on its sides that can be used in HPS hood. Since you lose a little when reflecting, it's obviously less efficient lum/w wise but when it comes to gpw...

It's a trade off again. Uniformity can be taken too far too, especially if there's a cost, which there would be from reflecting, and especially if you don't run a SoG with mini plants. I mean at some point it's uniform enough to divide the light fairly evenly over the entire surface, and then the uniformity on a particular sqft of space isn't that important as long as it falls within the desired range (and no hotspots). The higher the output per cob, and the lower the degrees of spread, the more sense it will become to use a hood. HPS needs a hood to combine the light into a beam, one high intensity LED, could possibly benefit from a hood to spread out that light. Not at that point yet, but when you put multiple cobs ( http://www.ledhorticulture.com/the-end-of-led-grow-lights/ ) close together you end up with a similar situation and hence you lose one of the benefits of a typical led setup (many light sources so easier to get a uniform spread without using hoods that reduce lum efficiency).
 
Last edited:

Doer

Well-Known Member
I'm assuming it's after all the losses between drivers and talking actual par watts maybe? But still... you're okay with that efficiency? Do you see what I'm saying about counterproductive? What are your thoughts? Are you still considering following through knowing there is/are cheaper option(s) with a fuller spectrum (cmh) and less upfront cost, work, and more efficient? If so can I dig into the real reason as to why? I'm just trying to better understand this whole thing. Then maybe we can start putting forth insight that flows in your direction and isn't taken as negativity or whatever. (Even if it is stated with the general idea of trying to help) maybe we can help you along whether or not we think it's your beat option.
I am doing research, and educating myself and you are helping. Thanks. Bring reseach at this point.

I don't even know what these chips cost.

It just occurs to me though, this can be such a tough crowd, how did you all get beyond 1 watt LEDs? :)

How many 3w guys suffered until it was seen a "good idea"?
 
Last edited:

Doer

Well-Known Member
Sounds like using the walls and ceiling as a hood. Much of the light would continue to bounce between corners or even directly back to the source and to the ceiling again. And every time it bounces you lose a little depending on the properties of the wall/ceiling.

Not necessarily a bad thought though. Reflector hoods aren't just to simply reflect as much light as possible, but to create a fairly uniform and more rectangular footprint as well. That last thing also helps to get a more even spread in a rectangular grow space with reflective walls.

View attachment 3372626 View attachment 3372629
Second image shows why wide is better.

I use this one:
View attachment 3372633 Trade some additional loss of light by reflection more to create a more uniform spread. I only use one so run it on deep, but when using multiple one side (at the wall) can be set to deep, the other (where there's overlap with another light source) to wide. Leads to more uniformity, light from more different angles, better light penetration, higher yields. Being that led is more directional one could do something similar especially when using more than a couple of light sources, simply by raising/lowering/tilting some of the cobs.

Probably not the best way to go in general but I can see situations where a hood could work. Depending on space, amount of light sources and degrees of spread, foot print per cob, it could actually lead to better results pointing a couple of them upwards into a hood that reflects it downwards more uniformly. An extreme example would be a water cooled HPS bulb shaped (but 4-6 sides instead of round) heat sink with leds on its sides that can be used in HPS hood. Since you lose a little when reflecting, it's obviously less efficient lum/w wise but when it comes to gpw...

It's a trade off again. Uniformity can be taken too far too, especially if there's a cost, which there would be from reflecting, and especially if you don't run a SoG with mini plants. I mean at some point it's uniform enough to divide the light fairly evenly over the entire surface, and then the uniformity on a particular sqft of space isn't that important as long as it falls within the desired range (and no hotspots). The higher the output per cob, and the lower the degrees of spread, the more sense it will become to use a hood. HPS needs a hood to combine the light into a beam, one high intensity LED, could possibly benefit from a hood to spread out that light. Not at that point yet, but when you put multiple cobs ( http://www.ledhorticulture.com/the-end-of-led-grow-lights/ ) close together you end up with a similar situation and hence you lose one of the benefits of a typical led setup (many light sources so easier to get a uniform spread without using hoods that reduce lum efficiency).

That is so cool. I realized after I posted this, is a reflector hood above top light would really make sense.

Thank you so much for these answers. It is so refreshing to explore all this in planning and never spend a Euro out of place.
 

Scotch089

Well-Known Member
There are no such thing as 1,3,5,10, etc watt chips. Just chips with more dies and can be driven differently. If you go to the "if you're new" thread all you see is "solar storm is good because they use 5w chips" mindset lol. Funny shit.

I don't have a shit ton of pdf's saved for backing what I say. Just general knowledge setting back and soaking in everything I can read.

So basically you're just feeling out the grounds? Seeing what's feasible and whether or not it's worth investing your money/time into? At this point I'd try cmh brother. I wish I could. If I find something that could help you I'll be sure to let you know. Take care.
 

Greengenes707

Well-Known Member
I don't know. This LER is new, and makes some assumptions that are not square with some industry leaders.
http://www.allledlighting.com/author.asp?section_id=508&doc_id=560745
Bill Reisenauer, Co-Founder, LED Specialists
, 8/6/2013
Krüger proffers a new convention called "Luminous Efficacy of Radiation" or LER, and defines it as the total photoptic luminous flux (in lumens) emitted by a light source divided by the total radiant power (in watts) emitted by the same source. It implies that the relationship between radiant flux and luminous flux is essentially constant.

As an engineer however, I would prefer to see more published data, including radiometric data, so that I can understand the assumptions and make the most appropriate tradeoff decisions for my customer and application.
Well that is incorrect. It does not assume a constant...it takes each nm into account separately.
Each nm is capable of a different max lumen output based on the luminosity function....which is a defined function. When LER is derived it is done on a nm by nm basis, based on the radiat watt output of each from the SPD.
 

Doer

Well-Known Member
There are no such thing as 1,3,5,10, etc watt chips. Just chips with more dies and can be driven differently. If you go to the "if you're new" thread all you see is "solar storm is good because they use 5w chips" mindset lol. Funny shit.

I don't have a shit ton of pdf's saved for backing what I say. Just general knowledge setting back and soaking in everything I can read.

So basically you're just feeling out the grounds? Seeing what's feasible and whether or not it's worth investing your money/time into? At this point I'd try cmh brother. I wish I could. If I find something that could help you I'll be sure to let you know. Take care.
No, not that. I have parts ordered for the CXB3950 build. It is just that., one of the worse personalities here keeps coming up with the best ideas. :)

I am looking into this FCO patent, is all. They must use these for something.
 

Doer

Well-Known Member
Well that is incorrect. It does not assume a constant...it takes each nm into account separately.
Each nm is capable of a different max lumen output based on the luminosity function....which is a defined function. When LER is derived it is done on a nm by nm basis, based on the radiat watt output of each from the SPD.
OK, it is summing the radiation at all energies. I see. Thanks.
 

Doer

Well-Known Member
Sure. I mean 1 watt packages. That was state of the art at one time.

"There are no such thing as 1,3,5,10, etc watt chips".

Here we have a 1000w packge, not seen before at this Lux.
 

nogod_

Well-Known Member
You can achieve an even spread without pointing your emitters in the wrong direction and nuking your efficiency. Why do you think more cobs driven softly is so popular?

We finally have a light source that can focus 100% of the photons where we want them and you want to point it at the ceiling? bongsmilie
 

Scotch089

Well-Known Member
You may have that backwards, you may be when the coolest dudes in real life and you are quite quick on your feet given some things you said as fast as you have- I don't have that wit. But at the same time, I must say I don't think we see eye to eye on this light. 25% efficient is backwards to what the entire purpose of creating the first led was about. If you are planning to match the performance of a 1k HID, you are going to be putting more watts into it (and more money given a newer technology, parts and crap) just to MATCH it. I'm not trying to stir shit... I just hope you understand the logic and honestly, I'm trying to help save you some cash. I couldnt stress enough that at this point if I saw 25% on what I was building- I'd be going with a cmh with a better spectrum and proven tech whereas leds have always been a gamble- but knowing what you're producing is giving you a head start to pick the right hand.

I did everything I could to make my flower panel as close to 50% efficient as possible for every watt of heat/wasted energy generated, I was dissipating a watt of usable/visible light. I feel like that is the original goal of creating new options in solid state lighting. Whether it be for lighting factories, streets, or plants. Whether it be leds, laser lighting, plasma.... it's progressive and I feel like 25% is regressive.

Edit: I never thought I would read myself pushing someone to run HIDs... ha.
 

Doer

Well-Known Member
You might find this interesting
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/245169435_Luminous_efficacy_models_and_their_application_for_calculation_of_photosynthetically_active_radiation

ABSTRACT From a spectral radiative transfer model, an algorithm is developed for the conversion of illuminance to different measures of Photosynthetically Active Radiation (PAR)

This illuminance to PAR conversion may even be used in combination with a luminous efficacy model and, thus, form a photosynthetic efficacy model.
-----------------------------------
This is my point. LER is not PER. We don't have PER model, yet. And even PAR is measured differently.
 

Doer

Well-Known Member
You can achieve an even spread without pointing your emitters in the wrong direction and nuking your efficiency. Why do you think more cobs driven softly is so popular?

We finally have a light source that can focus 100% of the photons where we want them and you want to point it at the ceiling? bongsmilie
no
 

Doer

Well-Known Member
You may have that backwards, you may be when the coolest dudes in real life and you are quite quick on your feet given some things you said as fast as you have- I don't have that wit. But at the same time, I must say I don't think we see eye to eye on this light. 25% efficient is backwards to what the entire purpose of creating the first led was about. If you are planning to match the performance of a 1k HID, you are going to be putting more watts into it (and more money given a newer technology, parts and crap) just to MATCH it. I'm not trying to stir shit... I just hope you understand the logic and honestly, I'm trying to help save you some cash. I couldnt stress enough that at this point if I saw 25% on what I was building- I'd be going with a cmh with a better spectrum and proven tech whereas leds have always been a gamble- but knowing what you're producing is giving you a head start to pick the right hand.

I did everything I could to make my flower panel as close to 50% efficient as possible for every watt of heat/wasted energy generated, I was dissipating a watt of usable/visible light. I feel like that is the original goal of creating new options in solid state lighting. Whether it be for lighting factories, streets, or plants. Whether it be leds, laser lighting, plasma.... it's progressive and I feel like 25% is regressive.

Edit: I never thought I would read myself pushing someone to run HIDs... ha.
You seriously don't understand planning and research in the way this Professional does.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top