pulpoinspace
Well-Known Member
i believe it is normalized for output, like lumen, photon, or par output. since different wavelengths emit different amounts, the spectrum changes. obviously i didn't fully comprehend what i was reading haha.
The new QB 648 Diablo from Horticulture Lighting Group
- Thread starter lukio
- Start date
wietefras
Well-Known Member
Ah ok. Yeah that's odd. But yeah marketing is the game I guess.
wietefras
Well-Known Member
I think it was mentioned that it;'s wrong but it's identical to the one give on Instagram.
"normalized" in this type of charts means that the peak value is set to 100%. That's why you always see these charts touch the top of the Y axis.
This actually means that it's very difficult to compare SPD's properly since the whole chart gets scaled to that peak value.
For instance a 3000K 80 CRI chart will have a sum of about 130 for the SPD over all wavelengths. While the Diablo SPD sums up to 177. So the standard normalized to 100% SPD chart makes it look like there is 36% more light from the Diablo.
It would be much better to compare the charts on the same total number of photons emitted. For instance if you "normalize" the charts on emitting per 100 photons then the charts are much more comparable. It's the same number of "marbles" for both, so you really see how many red and blue ones there are.
For instance this comparison of the QB648 spectrum vs a Samsung LM301B 3000K
BTW Samsung adopts the same trick. The LM301B 3000K is more blue than the LM561C used in the F-series Gen 3 series. Which also makes the numbers for the LM301B seem higher than they actually are.
Or the other day I digitized the SPD's for the Bridgelux EB3 series and normalized them to a "100 photons".
That makes it much more clear that with higher color temperature you get less blue and more red. Than with the regular "Normalized to 100% peak value" SPD charts you get in the specs of the leds:
So those two are the same data, but "normalized" in a different way (top one is my representation nomalized to same number of photons and the bottom one is the one normalized to 100% for peak).
ps Not sure why that orange line is off to the left so much. That was already like that in the specs.
cobshopgrow
Well-Known Member
nice work.
you probably ment lower color temp, typo.
"with higher color temperature you get less blue and more red "
you probably ment lower color temp, typo.
"with higher color temperature you get less blue and more red "
I noticed that and kinda wondered why. It makes sense now.
Yea, it does. So for the most part, when 'we' (not you, for example, haha) comparing spds of different lights/fixtures, it's very likely that we're comparing things that aren't represented equally...
That's fuckin' great.
There should be a standard that keeps things apples to apples (like you've done/suggested).
Thanks for the explanation.
end_of_the_tunnel
Well-Known Member
Good point. Presentation and standards. Always seems to be room for ambiguity, and different ways to present (and/or omit) I found a few examples.
I think I once asked what others thought was a "digestable" means of presentation. DLC seems to be striving for fixed standards? Which do you prefer?
wietefras
Well-Known Member
@2com For lighting houses and offices the current SPD chart perhaps makes sense. The people who design lighting plans are mostly interested in the observed "color" of the light. Efficacy is a different parameter that they can view separately.
For growing however, we are interested in photons.
I never really understood why they draw these charts like that though.
It's just like those PPFD matrices where they measure the light with no surrounding reflective walls. Those are really quite useless. More than half of the light will normally come back through reflection. Or you have overlap from the lights next over in a big room.
Or for that matter sphere tests. For instance the Diablo is supposed to hang at 24". Ledgardner showed a PPFD matrix of the QB648 and this illustrates that up to 29% of the light is absorbed by the walls with of those two boards in a 2'x4' tent. A single QB in a 2x2 tent loses over 40% of the light on the walls.
So you buy a more expensive light so it produces light very efficiently (according to a sphere test) and then in reality you need to hang it quite high above the plants, which results in massive losses of that efficiently produced light. You might as well buy a cheaper less efficient light that can hang a bit lower down to the plants and then not put so much light on the walls instead.
For growing however, we are interested in photons.
I never really understood why they draw these charts like that though.
It's just like those PPFD matrices where they measure the light with no surrounding reflective walls. Those are really quite useless. More than half of the light will normally come back through reflection. Or you have overlap from the lights next over in a big room.
Or for that matter sphere tests. For instance the Diablo is supposed to hang at 24". Ledgardner showed a PPFD matrix of the QB648 and this illustrates that up to 29% of the light is absorbed by the walls with of those two boards in a 2'x4' tent. A single QB in a 2x2 tent loses over 40% of the light on the walls.
So you buy a more expensive light so it produces light very efficiently (according to a sphere test) and then in reality you need to hang it quite high above the plants, which results in massive losses of that efficiently produced light. You might as well buy a cheaper less efficient light that can hang a bit lower down to the plants and then not put so much light on the walls instead.
Stephenj37826
Well-Known Member
Nope.... Proven science that blue light changes stomata action..... We do our research and testing. I could easily have made it 3500k and the efficacy difference was minimal. We have several 300+ light growers and we have side by sides done on a regular basis. Having our own SMT is nice as we can build any combo and experiment in real world results not hypothetical situations........
Stephenj37826
Well-Known Member
The colored graph is from a handheld meter.... The other is from Light Lab in a properly calibrated sphere. I would use the uncolored for a real representation of the SPD and the colored as marketing at best......
Stephenj37826
Well-Known Member
With a 40% loss it's a wonder they grow at all ..... Real world results speak louder than theory. These bar lights should be shattering yield records if our lights have so much loss but it just isn't the case. Traditional DE hps fixtures with those small reflectors and high hanging heights should've easily been trumped by big air cooled reflectors running close to the canopy but it just isn't the case..... Inverse square law is real.... As well as real world results that our lights have been well documented to grow great lower growth. That light isn't disappearing and if 40% of the light was actually "lost" the tent walls would actually be quite warm wouldn't you think? Even measuring with a meter is still creating a 2D par map when the world is 3D. Again we go with real world user/tester feedback..... Just my measly .02.....
wietefras
Well-Known Member
Well we heard the interview with the explanation on why the extra blue is there ... you are not fooling anyone.
wietefras
Well-Known Member
Why not? CFL bulbs can grow cannabis too. They would have bigger losses than 40% actually. HPS works fine too with much higher wall plus reflector losses also. Any light can grow cannabis. As far as test results go, plenty People even argued that their burple lights worked great.
It's just that more uniformly spread lights would have lower wall losses because they hang lower. Strips are simply a scientifically better design to spread light than boards.
Either way, it's not my data. Ledgardner measured how much light reaches "the plants" and he measured an average PPFD of 490 for a QB288 that according to the specs should but out an average PPFD of 940umol/s/m2 over a 2'x2' tent. So I was actually being very kind on you. It's 48% light lost on the walls.
Also Migro measured a QB288 v2 at 1.9 PPFD/W in a 4x4. In a 2x2 the wall losses double since the floor to wall ration is half. So in 2x2 he would also come out at about 50% lost
These are actual measurements of what reaches the plants after the wall losses in an actual grow tent. There is always a difference between what the sphere says would be coming off the fixture and what remains after the walls have absorbed some of it. The smaller the tent, the bigger the relative loss. Plus, in general, the higher the hanging distance the bigger the loss (this is a linear relation).
It is and it is not. Just hang the light in a 4x4 tent at 48" and measure the (average) intensity. Then hang it at 24". Do you see the intensity multiply by 4 times? No you don't. So why is that?
It's like claiming that reflectors on COBs put more light on the plants. How dumb was that conclusion?
Or imagine the effect if Inverse square law actually applied like you argue that it does. Imagine how those lights hanging at 24"would get utterly trashed by strip lights that can be at 8". The strips would put 9 times the light on the plants. Wooooooaaaaa. But alas, inverse square law does not apply in that way.
The amount of misunderstandings you displayed in your replies are staggering though. I don't have the time to address them all, but suffice it to say that every sentence in your reply has something wrong. They are all either straw man, blatantly incorrect or besides the point etc etc etc
Last edited:
SSGrower
Well-Known Member
One issue I see is all these measurments are essentially flux through a plane there is no directional component no dimensional value. Flux through a point would be better quantification of a system. Why real world results dont match up with what the numbers say. I dont want to name name names but there is an individual on here who is proving just that imo, its unfortunate he will never get a ce stamp for his light because he is over volting some components and would likely have to recert the thing as a unit.
We have proven an econbox can be built with leds, time to focus on something else and come back to effeciency when there have been significant advances in the tech.
We have proven an econbox can be built with leds, time to focus on something else and come back to effeciency when there have been significant advances in the tech.
Stephenj37826
Well-Known Member
Factors Affecting Opening and Closing of Stomata: 4 Factors
ADVERTISEMENTS: The following four points will highlight the four major factors affecting opening and closing of stomata. The four factors affecting opening and closing of stomata are: (1) Light (2) Water Content of Epidermal Cells (3) Temperature and (4) Mineral Elements. The aforementioned...
www.biologydiscussion.com
Just a quick google search.....
I wholly am not concerned with you "opinion " fyi.
wietefras
Well-Known Member
@SSGrower But what do you mean it doesn't match up? It's just that sphere numbers are before any losses are applied.
Bugbee tested output of HPS fixtures. The manufacturers usually state the bare bulb sphere numbers and he decided to check what actually comes down on the plants. So for instance a 1000W DE HPS bulb would be rated for 2.1umol/s/W. But when it's measured as used in a fixture by putting it in/on a sphere or using a flat plane integration, the efficacy ends up between 1.7 and 1.75umol/s/W. That's already around 18% the reflector losses.
Then you will lose something like that again (more actually) on the walls of a 5x5 tent hanging it at 36"
Bugbee tested output of HPS fixtures. The manufacturers usually state the bare bulb sphere numbers and he decided to check what actually comes down on the plants. So for instance a 1000W DE HPS bulb would be rated for 2.1umol/s/W. But when it's measured as used in a fixture by putting it in/on a sphere or using a flat plane integration, the efficacy ends up between 1.7 and 1.75umol/s/W. That's already around 18% the reflector losses.
Then you will lose something like that again (more actually) on the walls of a 5x5 tent hanging it at 36"
Last edited:
wietefras
Well-Known Member
Yes that probably counts as "research" for you
The point is that we have HLG in an interview stating that adding blue light is just a marketing ploy and that it does not add yield.
Then you add some bogus claim about "very intense light" that somehow "needs extra stomata opening" plug in some unrelated article about stomata opening with blue light and presto new marketing bullshit is born.
Sure marketing wise this is a great move, but you know it's just marketing. We have you on video saying so (when other manufacturers do it). You can stop pretending.
Oh ok. Thanks very much.
So if I wanted to compare between two of your boards spectrums, say diablo vs qb96 or whatever, I could use both their Light Lab reports/test.
Stephenj37826
Well-Known Member
We added a very minimal amount of blue to the blue red ratio....This was wholly for the purpose of stomata simulation. A quick look at the intensities of the 650R warrant such action.Yes that probably counts as "research" for you
The point is that we have HLG in an interview stating that adding blue light is just a marketing ploy and that it does not add yield.
Then you add some bogus claim about "very intense light" that somehow "needs extra stomata opening" plug in some unrelated article about stomata opening with blue light and presto new marketing bullshit is born.
Sure marketing wise this is a great move, but you know it's just marketing. We have you on video saying so (when other manufacturers do it). You can stop pretending.
Yeah that's the extent of my research....
You are welcome to create your own lighting company and show us amateurs how it's done.
Even though you don't pay much attention I will fill you in the blue did go up in the diablo board but so did the red. Did you notice the blue is roughly at 78% on both the Rspec and Diablo 648+? That wasn't by mistake. We increased blue and red as we built qb288 rspec with this same spectrum and it slightly outperformed the 3500k 660 combo every time. The qb 648+ design is over a year old. We work on things just like any other manufacturer 1-2 yrs out.
Some sure believe in our "google armchair research" though......
Last edited:
Stephenj37826
Well-Known Member
Do look into angle of incidence and your favorite par meter sensor...... 40% loss from a directional light source is honestly laughable.......
SSGrower
Well-Known Member
Im saying a distributed led array is more effective at driving photosynthesis than a hps lamp or other focused source. Take the footprint of the de, make an array that size, the intensity needed to exceed the canopys photosynthetic capacity will be lower for the array.