LED and BUD QUALITY

[Rocket Soul]

eBay, private seller selling boards and kits of what they have left in stock.

Edit: it’s listed as a “sun board”, can probably find the seller like this

Ive seen those. I think they are 80cri, the 90cri diodes have a little bit more red and the red peak/bump is moved from around 600 to 630nm. Never tried the 2700k 80 cri though. I would need to see more evidence of 200 lum/w than just the sellers word cause that seems to be well beyond the samsung spec which already seems to test lower than spec.

 

[I Care]

Somebody mentioned that the ratings are for that .5w per diode but running them at .3 makes them more efficient and manufacturers under driving them is killing the efficiency. That was someone else input I kinda just took their word for it.

The seller is claiming he’s got 210/w coming from the boards he’s got. He isn’t good with responding info requests. I asked him about running the 2700k lm561 assembled boards with the lm301b assembled boards. I assume he doesn’t want his time to educate potential customers, but likely wound meet demands if he’s got what someone wants on hand.

 

[I Care]

I didn’t think about that you could throw money away in high end diodes and still have a low end boards robbing efficiency.

 

[Rocket Soul]

Somebody mentioned that the ratings are for that .5w per diode but running them at .3 makes them more efficient and manufacturers under driving them is killing the efficiency. That was someone else input I kinda just took their word for it.

This makes little sense or maybe i dont understand the statement. Underdriving always increase efficiency.

Most midpowers use 65mA / .2w as test level. Some 281bs use 150mA / .4w as test current (with lower performance of course)

Killing efficiency by under driving?

 

[Rocket Soul]

The seller is claiming he’s got 210/w coming from the boards he’s got. He isn’t good with responding info requests. I asked him about running the 2700k lm561 assembled boards with the lm301b assembled boards. I assume he doesn’t want his time to educate potential customers, but likely wound meet demands if he’s got what someone wants on hand.

210 is possible on higher ccts like 4-5K. Most likely under driving them a fair bit. But highly unlikely to the point i call BS on the seller.

 

[I Care]

Seems like he’s just putting out the info he’s given from Samsung, thanks for correcting me on the ideal wattage. Either someone was wrong or I simply misunderstood wherever I put those molecules of info.

 

[I Care]

I aactuallh also remember the opposite for efficiency in lighting as well. That’s why 1000hps is optimum because it’s the most light per watt. I don’t recall any PPFD requirements ever being an issue anywhere on that bulb from 60 to 110, I think .2 is like the minimum for efficiency and above .3 is eating the life away at em. They’re brighter but less efficient and shorter lifespan.

 

[Rocket Soul]

I aactuallh also remember the opposite for efficiency in lighting as well. That’s why 1000hps is optimum because it’s the most light per watt. I don’t recall any PPFD requirements ever being an issue anywhere on that bulb from 60 to 110, I think .2 is like the minimum for efficiency and above .3 is eating the life away at em. They’re brighter but less efficient and shorter lifespan.

Yeah, it seems to work the opposite with HPS, the more watts the higher efficiency.

But remember that hps is a very very diffrent technology: it heats something up in order to emitt light, in leds the heat is a by product of electrical inefficiency.

 

[I Care]

LED actually works the same way

 

[T. Rence-Hill]

Yeah, it seems to work the opposite with HPS, the more watts the higher efficiency.

But remember that hps is a very very diffrent technology: it heats something up in order to emitt light, in leds the heat is a by product of electrical inefficiency.

Oh you could see it like this. In both cases you have a device that is to turn electric energy into light and heat is a more or less unwanted byproduct of both. Only that because a modern LED will turn a higher share of the energy drawn from the wall into (PAR) light, it will produce a smaller share of this by product. In both cases the amount of heat being produced is an indicator of the (in)efficiency of the device.

By the way I always thought that 600 Watt HPS have a higher lm/w output than 1000 Watt HPS?

 

[Rocket Soul]

Im not a 100% on hps i thought 1000>600 at least measured in par. Point i made: run a 1000 or a 600 on 400 and youll have a lower ppf/w while theopposite is true about leds, lower power per diode, better efficiency

 

[greyfader]

well, all man-made electrical light-emitting sources produce heat as a by-product of electrical resistance.

"

How Much Heat Do LED Lights Give Off?​

A 100W tungsten filament bulb is about 10% efficient, meaning it only generates 10W of light energy for every 90W of heat energy. That “light energy” is what designers need to match with other sources to get an equivalent amount of light, which is why high-efficiency bulbs can call themselves equivalent to a 100W bulb while only actually consuming a fraction of that energy. While LEDs themselves can be extremely efficient, other components of the system like the driver or lens tend to reduce the efficiency of an LED light bulb to about 70%. That is an incredibly energy saving over the 10% efficient filament bulb, but still means that about 30% of the power consumed by the bulb gets emitted as heat rather than light.

 

[Prawn Connery]

600W HPS was always the most efficient bulb (150 lumens per watt on average), which is why they were the industry standard.

And hey, ALL fixtures are 100% efficient if we measure photon count. Irradiated heat, after all, is still electromagnetic radiation.

Yeah, I'm joking. Kinda. All living things need a certain amount of warmth to live and thrive, Same goes for plants. A little bit of heat can go a long way. Which is why there's nothing wrong with adding an "inefficient" HID to a grow in winter when it's needed.

A HPS or CMH bulb is arguably a more efficient way of adding heat to a grow than, say, a radiator as it also produces PAR.

 

[Prawn Connery]

don't you mean 2000 ppfd at mid day? i don't know of any place on earth that gets spot readings of 3000 ppfd.

my par meter pegs at 2000 ppfd for a reason.

"For example, full sunlight is 108,000 Lux or 2000 µmol m-2 s-1 (108,000 ∗ 0.0185)."

taken from Apogee Instruments, the instrument company owned by dr bugbee.

if you are getting these readings, may i ask where on the planet you got them and what instrument did you use to measure them?

I have measured over 2000 PPFD (2300+) on my Lighting Passport in the middle of an Aussie summer. Can't go outside and do it now, as it's winter, but we get pretty high readings where I am.

Not sure about 3000 PPFD. I'm also not sure how high my meter reads, as it's been able to read everything so far

Hey Delta

Is that 10-15% increase in total yield or increase concentration? As in thc goes from 20% to 22-23%? Or total thc extracted goes from say 20g to 22-23?

Or actually pushing thc concentration from 20% to 30-35%?

If talking thc concentration i think its somewhat underestimated. @Prawn Connery made a fair few tests with better results (unless my memory fails me) of his boards compared to a few other light sources.

Yes, we did UV trials looking different LEDs with and without the addition of fluorescent reptile bulbs and CMH (which has a small amount of UVA).

We saw THC levels go up and down with the addition of UV. Small amounts of UVA increased cannabinoid levels while larger amounts of UVB decreased it.

 

[Rocket Soul]

I have measured over 2000 PPFD (2300+) on my Lighting Passport in the middle of an Aussie summer. Can't go outside and do it now, as it's winter, but we get pretty high readings where I am.

Not sure about 3000 PPFD. I'm also not sure how high my meter reads, as it's been able to read everything so far


Yes, we did UV trials looking different LEDs with and without the addition of fluorescent reptile bulbs and CMH (which has a small amount of UVA).

We saw THC levels go up and down with the addition of UV. Small amounts of UVA increased cannabinoid levels while larger amounts of UVB decreased it.

Iirc it was more than 10-15% (20 > 22-23) right?

 

[Prawn Connery]

Iirc it was more than 10-15% (20 > 22-23) right?

Yes, in one case we had three samples and two tested at 26% (two different growers - almost identical results) under our UVA boards and the other tested 19% when subjected to a mix of our boards + 4 hours a day UVB (added reptile bulbs). In another round of testing we saw the same strain produce 22-24% d9THC under UVA and only 14% with added UVB (same reptile bulbs12 hours a day).

Basically, the more UVB we added, the worse the results. That's because the UVB was breaking down (photo-oxidising) the cannabinoids faster than the plant could produce them.

 

[Rocket Soul]

Yes, in one case we had three samples and two tested at 26% (two different growers - almost identical results) under our UVA boards and the other tested 19% when subjected to a mix of our boards + 4 hours a day UVB (added reptile bulbs). In another round of testing we saw the same strain produce 22-24% d9THC under UVA and only 14% with added UVB (same reptile bulbs12 hours a day).

Basically, the more UVB we added, the worse the results. That's because the UVB was breaking down (photo-oxidising) the cannabinoids faster than the plant could produce them.

Weve done another crop with your strips, this run wasnt bodged; if you want some more thc testing id be happy to help.
Have you considered buying equipment yourselves (as you had problems getting test locally)? My buddy Mo over at riu showed me some very interesting and economic equipment.

Edit: so all in all looking like more than 10-15% is possible.