Have any of you DIY COB Growers finished a crop under 1000W DE HPS? - POLL

churchhaze said:

It's HPS that directs more heat away. More efficient sources of light direct more of that heat toward the canopy in the form of radiation.

The more efficient lamps become, the more heat is directed toward the canopy and the less heat sink is needed. A hypothetical 100% efficient source would need no heat sink at all, and 100% of the power you put in would be directed toward the canopy. That means 100% of the heat is directed toward the canopy.

You're supposed to face your lights toward the plants, not away.

Click to expand...

YOU'RE debating with a WALL church======== waste of time,nitpicking swype spelling now,has nothing left but to bait & troll.

let it go friend

and 100% of the power you put in would be directed toward the canopy.

Click to expand...

at best you get 50% (maximum power transfer), and then only a fraction of that (transducer efficiency)

PSUAGRO. said:

YOU'RE debating with a WALL church

Click to expand...

It seems you need a lesson on the use of "debating vs trolling" too... Church and you both renounced the use and authority of reason, blinded by butthurt resorted to trolling, which you fail at too. Don't pretend you debated anything with your fallacious logic and ad hominems.

It's a well known fact, and problem that needs to be overcome in many situatons, the lack of radiation, led directing heat away from the canopy instead of towards it.

Quite funny though, I prove the temp from hps can be a benefit for photosynthesis rates and you desperately start to argue led creates the same amount of heat... What's the point in pretending to understand heat and thermodynamics if you refuse to acknowledge the influence on the plants is what matters. Slapstick-comical...

The difference lies in the type of heat. The claims from the pretengineers here are as false as usual.

"In terms of heat transfer efficiency, a kilowatt of radiant heat and a kilowatt of convection heat simply do not compare. They have very different heat transfer properties [...] it is important to know the difference."

The heat from leds is dissipated by convection and conjunction. Radiant heat from hps ir warms up objects when it hits their surface, without heating up the air along the way. Those objects retain heat much better than air too.

"A kilowatt of heat – whilst indeed being a kilowatt of energy from whatever source it emanates – does not mean the same temperature and radiant effectiveness regardless of its source."

"A kilowatt of thermal energy has a wavelength, an amplitude and a density, all of which can vary in different proportions to make up that “kilowatt”.

However it is a mistake only to link temperature to wattage, when temperature relates mainly to wavelength but the overall heat power (that “kilowatt”) can be affected by wavelength plus the other two factors (which collectively we can call “flux”)."

"Heat transfer [with Ir] occurs when the emitted radiant energy meets a target object and the energy is absorbed. This is a more efficient form of heat transfer than convection, because a higher percentage of energy transfers into the target at a higher rate instead of into the surrounding air. This also means overall running times are significantly shorter than for convection heaters. "

So, stop your bullshit claims please.

In hps grows the heat is used much more efficiently and targetted than in led grows.

LED directs heat away from the plants.
LED can be more efficient producing more light than heat.
LED has a better spectrum warming up plants less than less useful light such as yellow.

No wonder you led fans deny the huge difference proper temps can make...

Sativied said:

It seems you need a lesson on the use of "debating vs trolling" too... Church and you both renounced the use and authority of reason, blinded by butthurt resorted to trolling, which you fail at too. Don't pretend you debated anything with your fallacious logic and ad hominems.

It's a well known fact, and problem that needs to be overcome in many situatons, the lack of radiation, led directing heat away from the canopy instead of towards it.

Quite funny though, I prove the temp from hps can be a benefit for photosynthesis rates and you desperately start to argue led creates the same amount of heat... What's the point in pretending to understand heat and thermodynamics if you refuse to acknowledge the influence on the plants is what matterS. Slapstick-comical...

The difference lies in the type of heat. The claims from the petengineers here are as false as usual.

"In terms of heat transfer efficiency, a kilowatt of radiant heat and a kilowatt of convection heat simply do not compare. They have very different heat transfer properties [...] it is important to know the difference."

The heat from leds is dissipated by convection and conjunction. Radiant heat from hps ir warms up objects when it hits their surface, without heating up the air along the way. Those objects retain heat much better than air too.

"A kilowatt of heat – whilst indeed being a kilowatt of energy from whatever source it emanates – does not mean the same temperature and radiant effectiveness regardless of its source."

"A kilowatt of thermal energy has a wavelength, an amplitude and a density, all of which can vary in different proportions to make up that “kilowatt”.

However it is a mistake only to link temperature to wattage, when temperature relates mainly to wavelength but the overall heat power (that “kilowatt”) can be affected by wavelength plus the other two factors (which collectively we can call “flux”)."

"Heat transfer [with Ir] occurs when the emitted radiant energy meets a target object and the energy is absorbed. This is a more efficient form of heat transfer than convection, because a higher percentage of energy transfers into the target at a higher rate instead of into the surrounding air. This also means overall running times are significantly shorter than for convection heaters. "

So, stop your bullshit claims please.

In hps grows the heat is used much more efficiently and targetted than in led grows.

LED directs heat away from the plants.
LED can be more efficient producing more light than heat.
LED has a better spectrum warming up plants less than less useful light such as yellow.

No wonder you led fans deny the huge difference proper temps can make...

Click to expand...

They don't understand this , they just don't understand common sense, to them everything makes the same amount of heat all that matters is how much watts go to it, maybe if we lived in outer space in a vacuum that would be true, but here in the real world it's far from it.

you both missed it, but church will hopefully get back....

The comparison was IF they were both 1000j/s [gotta have a starting comparison] not that they are....Duh

peten-commenter....the word is Pretend maybe

plants also cool the grow space via transpiration

PSUAGRO. said:

YOU'RE debating with a WALL church======== waste of time,nitpicking swype spelling now,has nothing left but to bait & troll.

let it go friend

Click to expand...

Someone is going to start a fire because of what he's telling them. "Directing heat away" is just naive.

I'd also like to make it clear that I have never argued against higher canopy temperatures. I've been a firm believer of keeping the canopy at 85-90F for many years. Straw man!! Straw man!! Fallacious logic!

Believe it or not, the "led fans" don't agree on everything. @PSUAGRO. and @SupraSPL, for example, are die hard organics advocates and at odds with me about my hydroponic methods, but I'm 100% for hydro and don't think I could ever go back.

From what I remember, Supra and many other members swear by lower canopy temperatures and better smell profile, etc... but I've never agreed with them on this.

We don't even agree on how much red is enough. PSUAGRO, for example, has in the past argued for more 660nm while me and SDS have argued that white cobs already have enough 660nm.

@Sativied , visible light is radiation.

Green light is radiation:


Blue light is radiation:


Red Light is radiation:


Radiation burns things. Light is radiation. Visible light is light. Visible light is radiation. Visible light burns things.

Visible light is heat just like IR is.

churchhaze said:

I'd also like to make it clear that I have never argued against higher canopy temperatures. I've been a firm believer of keeping the canopy at 85-90F for many years. Straw man!! Straw man!! Fallacious logic!

Believe it or not, the "led fans" don't agree on everything. @PSUAGRO. and @SupraSPL, for example, are die hard organics advocates and at odds with me about my hydroponic methods, but I'm 100% for hydro and don't think I could ever go back.

From what I remember, Supra and many other members swear by lower canopy temperatures and better smell profile, etc... but I've never agreed with them on this.

We don't even agree on how much red is enough. PSUAGRO, for example, has in the past argued for more 660nm while me and SDS have argued that white cobs already have enough 660nm.

Click to expand...

True^^............all still get along apart of our differences, it's because=== we are NOT egomaniacs, we know their is more than one way to skin a cheetah

churchhaze said:

@Sativied , visible light is radiation.

Green light is radiation:

Blue light is radiation:

Red Light is radiation:

Radiation burns things. Light is radiation. Visible light is light. Visible light is radiation. Visible light burns things.

Visible light is heat just like IR is.

Click to expand...

@Greengenes707 melted/burned his tie from a cob for fuck sakes.......................can't fix stupid+ego=fact

Devildenis69 said:

If all light is turned into heat, from where does the photosynthesis energy come from ?
plants do heat the grow space, but not all the energy they receive is restituated as heat ... some of that energy is burning in your joint ... the real name of the law should be the "Energy-Mass conservation"

A 100w lamp produces the same amount of heat as a 100w heater in a closed system, a blackbox with nothing at the outside able to steal some energy from it, here we're speaking about a grow tent with fans, different sources of heat will create different distribution of heat, that way making it more or less easily removable ...

Click to expand...

Chloraphyl in particular heats up when it absorbs blue and red. (It absorbs those 2 colors the most) Yes, some of the energy is used in photosynthesis, but photosynthesis is only about 5-10% efficient anyway. PAR mostly just heats up your plants.

The comparison is led vs hps, not whatever theoretic red herring argument you guys delusional try to change it to and pretend reflects reality. Nobody missed that, on the contrary, you guys are too transparently more interested in arguing than relevant valid arguments. Even when they have the same input wattage the difference on the plant temp is an undeniable fact. You've been proven wrong, again, time to crap over the board and pretend you won something, again...

ttystikk said:

Five years and you won't be able to give a streetlight away in a hydro store.

Click to expand...

5 years and Cob will be outdated and a new big boy on the block just like Pc's if your pc is 2 years old its a piece of shit in todays tech of PC's lighting is no different But to get to the real point This whole fucking cob is better then this light or that light really is non sense grow know one is worried about indoor lights only the closet growers and some others
Truth is who really needs indoor growing Green house growing is the wave of the future imagine harvesting 40 - 50 - 100 pounds for free now that is being efficient no need for indoor growing and if have the funds and enough solar power you can run that green house 360 days a year again for free
In about months time i will challenge any cob grower or hid for that matter just setting up
10 panal solar power and waiting for ground to thaw and a then the show will begin standing up a green house on solar power Deep soil injection, root zone monitoring etc
only god dam thing going to be going on indoor is in early spring seed starting rest out door

PS: And the best part is the Diy Green house parts other then monitoring equip and solar is free

churchhaze said:

I'd also like to make it clear that I have never argued against higher canopy temperatures. I've been a firm believer of keeping the canopy at 85-90F for many years. Straw man!! Straw man!! Fallacious logic!

Believe it or not, the "led fans" don't agree on everything. @PSUAGRO. and @SupraSPL, for example, are die hard organics advocates and at odds with me about my hydroponic methods, but I'm 100% for hydro and don't think I could ever go back.

From what I remember, Supra and many other members swear by lower canopy temperatures and better smell profile, etc... but I've never agreed with them on this.

We don't even agree on how much red is enough. PSUAGRO, for example, has in the past argued for more 660nm while me and SDS have argued that white cobs already have enough 660nm.

Click to expand...

I do inoculate clones when roots show with trichoderma, but that is a one shot deal. You've argued synthetic hydro for several years and I have learned the wisdom of your advice after trying to culture various bennies in the reservoir and/or supplement with organics in hydro.

As for the LED/heat argument, the idea that heat MUST be wasted is false. The idea of exhausting through the top at a specific rate, or growing in an open area are parameters that can be changed. If there's excess waste heat it could be a system design problem. Less exhaust = higher temperatures, less energy devoted to heat management, less CO2 loss/use. The more efficient the light is the more efficient the whole system can be if designed correctly.

If there's any flaw with cobs it's that there could be a bit more 680nm without a corresponding drop in blue. 3500K with a bit more stretch between peaks would be ideal, but OTOH a 3500K cob generally hits around 40% relative power at 680nm so there should be plenty of light to drive the Emerson Effect, and the "peak" in the Mcree Curve is actually rather broad so there's no need to try and isolate 660. Perhaps at some point there will be horticultural cobs with competitive efficiencies, but I don't suspect a plant based spectrum will experience much increase in efficacy. They're pretty good already. Not many people are going high CRI to try and buff out their spectrum because they would rather have the umols. More efficiency is what is desirable.

I think the final word on cobs/diodes in general will be from those who use them and represent the growth in the industry from hobby scale to professional. It already makes sense for small scale growers to use LED, and with some creative design, necessary floor space as well as energy requirements will drop for large scale growers. I'm content to sit back and see what happens.

2ANONYMOUS said:

5 years and Cob will be outdated and a new big boy on the block just like Pc's if your pc is 2 years old its a piece of shit in todays tech of PC's lighting is no different But to get to the real point This whole fucking cob is better then this light or that light really is non sense grow know one is worried about indoor lights only the closet growers and some others
Truth is who really needs indoor growing Green house growing is the wave of the future imagine harvesting 40 - 50 - 100 pounds for free now that is being efficient no need for indoor growing and if have the funds and enough solar power you can run that green house 360 days a year again for free
In about months time i will challenge any cob grower or hid for that matter just setting up
10 panal solar power and waiting for ground to thaw and a then the show will begin standing up a green house on solar power Deep soil injection, root zone monitoring etc
only god dam thing going to be going on indoor is in early spring seed starting rest out door

PS: And the best part is the Diy Green house parts other then monitoring equip and solar is free

View attachment 3639747 View attachment 3639748 View attachment 3639749 View attachment 3639751

Click to expand...

Very nice, I'm thinking about starting a DIY greenhouse in my backyard too, I like your idea with the solar panel I might have to use that.

2ANONYMOUS said:

5 years and Cob will be outdated and a new big boy on the block just like Pc's if your pc is 2 years old its a piece of shit in todays tech of PC's lighting is no different But to get to the real point This whole fucking cob is better then this light or that light really is non sense grow know one is worried about indoor lights only the closet growers and some others
Truth is who really needs indoor growing Green house growing is the wave of the future imagine harvesting 40 - 50 - 100 pounds for free now that is being efficient no need for indoor growing and if have the funds and enough solar power you can run that green house 360 days a year again for free
In about months time i will challenge any cob grower or hid for that matter just setting up
10 panal solar power and waiting for ground to thaw and a then the show will begin standing up a green house on solar power Deep soil injection, root zone monitoring etc
only god dam thing going to be going on indoor is in early spring seed starting rest out door

PS: And the best part is the Diy Green house parts other then monitoring equip and solar is free

View attachment 3639747 View attachment 3639748 View attachment 3639749 View attachment 3639751

Click to expand...

While I do hope you succeed with this outdoor grow, you're in the wrong section. This is the Indoor growing section of the forum.

Try here:

http://rollitup.org/f/outdoor-growing.48/

2ANONYMOUS said:

5 years and Cob will be outdated and a new big boy on the block just like Pc's if your pc is 2 years old its a piece of shit in todays tech of PC's lighting is no different But to get to the real point This whole fucking cob is better then this light or that light really is non sense grow know one is worried about indoor lights only the closet growers and some others

Click to expand...

You're missing a big point here, and it's likely because of the way sativied has framed the debate. We're trying to evaluate all of our growing options so people can know what to buy for themselves. What's being written about cobs are facts about their output and efficiency, and this is to help people make informed decisions. In most cases, that's HPS. For closet and small ten growers especially, cob should be considered as an option, especially in veg where the lights are on for 18-24 hours a day.

Your comparison to computers leaves out the fact that people used those computers. If I wanted to buy a computer now and I went on a computer forum for advice, do you think I'd get mad at the computer nerds for boasting a particular cpu or memory or video card just because it's better and more expensive than mine? I can decide for myself whether it fits in my budget, but they put the information out there to help make an informed decision. One thing's for sure; You couldn't have just waited 40 years for the "last iteration" computer, otherwise you'd have wasted 40 years of time that could have been spent... computing... It made sense for most users to buy new computers every few years even with the knowledge that'd they'd quickly become obsolete. Nobody thinks "Damn, I shouldn't have bought my pentium 2 a few years ago... I could have used that money toward a pentium 3!!

The people who don't understand this generally are just defensive and think their own grows and growing skills are under attacked, when that's not at all the case.

Rahz said:

If there's any flaw with cobs it's that there could be a bit more 680nm without a corresponding drop in blue. 3500K with a bit more stretch between peaks would be ideal, but OTOH a 3500K cob generally hits around 40% relative power at 680nm so there should be plenty of light to drive the Emerson Effect, and the "peak" in the Mcree Curve is actually rather broad so there's no need to try and isolate 660.
.

Click to expand...

supplementing a cree 3500k with just a wee bit of 660 monos fills out the warm side of the mcree curve really well. It creates the "steep right shoulder" of the spectrum..

the other weakness is lack of any uva/actinic blues,

Perhaps, but the "peak" in the Mcree curve extends from around 600-680 so I'm okay with the highest relative brightness being to the left of 660... although I too would like to see the values stay strong til 680 and drop like a rock. The real question is, what difference does it actually make?

Sativied said:

....You've been proven wrong, again, time to crap over the board and pretend you won something, again....

Click to expand...

Hahaha
You haven't proven anything.
Either test a COB personally and post the results to back your "claims" or post a study that actually compares white light LED to HID. Not the Blurple lights you keep referring to and citing.