-
Happy Birthday ICMag! Been 20 years since Gypsy Nirvana created the forum! We are celebrating with a 4/20 Giveaway and by launching a new Patreon tier called "420club". You can read more here.
-
Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!
Building New Panels - Sharing the Process
- Thread starter rrog
- Start date
It's my 150W. flowering array.
You know, the "blender".
I have dimmers on the reds so it doubles as a veg. array.
With four 5W. chips per die, you only have to drive them to 3.75W. ea.
To get a full 15W. out of a near point-source emitter.
Here's a selection of lenses to ponder;
Real candy store, ya?
Browsed your albums.
Nice work!
Aloha,
Weeze
You know, the "blender".
I have dimmers on the reds so it doubles as a veg. array.
With four 5W. chips per die, you only have to drive them to 3.75W. ea.
To get a full 15W. out of a near point-source emitter.
Here's a selection of lenses to ponder;
Real candy store, ya?
Browsed your albums.
Nice work!
Aloha,
Weeze
Yes there is.
Un-lensed leds have ~180 degree spread. (lambertian)
View attachment 231101
If you narrow the spread to 60 degrees you triple the intensity in that direction.
And that equals "penetration". (Grows bigger plants indoors.)
Minus ~15% loss in a cheap plastic lens, that's still a hell of a gain.
Math is fun, but testing tells the true tale.
View attachment 231102 View attachment 231103
Throw on a lens and whip out your meter.
Aloha,
Weeze the pragmatic
I think this is a good start, but it's deeper then this. as i have tested also.
needing to take into account:
-lens angle
-amount off chips
-spacing between chips
-wattage of chips
-layout of panel
it's the problem every panel faces I've ever seen, including mine. you have high high intensity, but the edges are nil. another main problem I see with DIY, is amount of led when wanting to build a correct panel. a true good build would be double the led you have, and a panel that covers the whole grow area..
my opinions anyways.
Most people can barely cumber up the money for HALF their dream array, let alone enough to double the number of part's before even getting to thermal management. Tis why I say buy a cheap array to get the understanding on the basic's of L.E.D.(And hopefully grow enough to save for the big boy toy's). Love seeing them 15Wer's Weez! Must penetrate like Mandingo on a Cialis... And with HECO raping us monthly, I too understand why you are LED crazy (I got the bug too!)...
The 10" x 22" LED panel is putting out 300W. My goal was one such fixture per 2x2 area. small panels rather than one big panel. My newbie opinion is that most DIY panels seem underpowered.
Habeeb- those are good points relative to lenses. So lenses are not so straightforward.
Habeeb- those are good points relative to lenses. So lenses are not so straightforward.
Ideally I would break my area down into individual plant sector's then tailor appropriate panel's for said sector's. I think that's one of the main advantages of L.E.D., that the possibilities for un-conventional application's (Akward grow spaces, multiple point sources, under canopy coverage etc...) are alot less limiting than ANY other light source. What's funny is, that even the top L.E.D. company's, even the ones who do R&D and all, end up using chinese designed and built lens's (Most likely designed for diffusion, rather than magnification...), and have yet to see anybody use a lens that can't be bought online lol. I find that most company's make a product that produces, and call's it a day (Maybe re-designed if THEY had flaws, hardly ever for improvement's, they just call it a new model with such and such hours of development and 2x the price...). I hate to say it, but I see this everywhere (Not just the Grow L.E.D. industry...), from the PV Re-Seller's, to the car-salesmen... They are so focused on the profit's, the number's, and the "Next hot-thing" that they hardly ever pool any resources into actually making a better product. I foresee in the next 3-4 year's a even bigger tide change for L.E.D., as I have a feeling there will be some sort of catastrophe that will make electric rates high enough to the point that anything excess would be a luxury... Hope not, but the world is not just gonna reverse all the damage the corporate mindset has done to humanity... I like the sound of 300w on a 2x2 footprint rrog! I am with you on that, I would rather have a over rated (In relative watts that is...) panel being under-driven, then something pushed to it's limit. Lens are gonna be the biggest part of how L.E.D. will improve in the future. Like I said, most readily available lens are about as scientific as a lite brite... I would like to see a "Micro channel plate" len's or something vaguely scientifically proven to amplify wavelength's (Not just visible brightness...). We are actually doing more research then most of these companies. How many ever bring up color blending etc? Sorry for the rant, felt we all should help each othr out, with any ideas and possibilities...
On the subject of your panel, try going to ebay, and searching "cree 30w grow", they have 8 xp-e red, and 2 xp-e blue, on a single 50mm pcb die (I know, I know, close density but Kessil's have more emitter's on a smaller die...). Now fit 10 on your sink and you got an 8:2 ratio 300w cree array. Been thinking of picking a couple up and making me a few little Knock-off Kessil's...
On the subject of your panel, try going to ebay, and searching "cree 30w grow", they have 8 xp-e red, and 2 xp-e blue, on a single 50mm pcb die (I know, I know, close density but Kessil's have more emitter's on a smaller die...). Now fit 10 on your sink and you got an 8:2 ratio 300w cree array. Been thinking of picking a couple up and making me a few little Knock-off Kessil's...
I'm still wide open to what goes on the next panels. I'd likely use WW as my base. The CW and NW don't bring as much to the red party:
Kind of an interesting thing happening at 450nm for those three.
Then consider UV-a as LEDs, or a combo to fill in the blue maybe. Some 730 on the other end. Or something similar.
The heavy 300W light is benefiting my buddy's grow:
After 4 weeks of flower
Earlier, after just a few days in flower:
This is the first time he's grown anything aside from mold on leftovers.
Kind of an interesting thing happening at 450nm for those three.
Then consider UV-a as LEDs, or a combo to fill in the blue maybe. Some 730 on the other end. Or something similar.
The heavy 300W light is benefiting my buddy's grow:
After 4 weeks of flower
Earlier, after just a few days in flower:
This is the first time he's grown anything aside from mold on leftovers.
Sounds like a nice and round spectrum, basically like mrX's evo's but with the UV (From what I have seen so far, UV seems to help trichome production dramatically, and it makes sense, MJ uses trichomes to protect their potential offspring from the UV rays...) to cover that lower blue end. Nice going on your friends panel, seems to be doing him great. If $ wasn't an option, I think I would be making a rainbow band, various wattage and optic massive panel (One day it shall be affordable...).
Hey what type a footprint you think I could pull with a sink like this?
Bwahaha
...
Hey what type a footprint you think I could pull with a sink like this?
Bwahaha
...
yeah, not wanting to complicate things, led is just too new, and I think testing would need to be done by someone dedicated for some reason to understand the best approach to LED growing. I would give it a 3 year study if they were dedicated... haha
here's some testing done on lens' and no lens' on my new little bar.
lens at 44 degree angle, covering 1 foot by 2 foot ( seedling tray )
151 / 167 / 140
218 / 263 / 194
159 / 198 / 208
here's the numbers without the lens
173 / 191 / 185
299 / 335 / 301
213 / 215 / 299
now this is not a all end test. this was done with 44 degree lens ( pretty steep ) and 12 led, single layer.. that's the test for this particular setup... every setup would yield something different.
see the point with this test, is with a 'few" led, steep angle lens are no good, I had to pull the bar so high to hit the edges I actually lost light , and gained more not even using a lens..
this is where testing, thinking , studying , planning, and more planning will yield a better setup.. also a light meter of any kind to have base numbers..
do I think if I had a 70-80 degree lens on it would beat the no lens setup. YES
the thing I don't like about no lens', is it shoots light everywhere, and that's wasted light, when it could be directed back onto the plant and not the wall. I still have more testing to do with lens' as one company I bought from the lens' didn't sit on the star... very odd so emails need to be sent and more looking needs to be done on my end.
your plant looks amazing RROG, things going to be super huge.
Thanks Habeeb- my buddy's growing it. I set him up is all. Soil, light, etc. His first grow of any kind. The soil is kind to newbs and apparently the light is also. Excellent genetics, also.
You make excellent points about the trial and error and testing with these lenses. Makes great sense to me and I've never seen one in person. It would be great to work on these larger 250+W panels. If they are the main light source, I think they have to be formidable.
I'm curious what my pal Weezard has to say about lenses. That guy seems to a/b test stuff like it was his job. He's one of the guys I try and follow everything they say.
You make excellent points about the trial and error and testing with these lenses. Makes great sense to me and I've never seen one in person. It would be great to work on these larger 250+W panels. If they are the main light source, I think they have to be formidable.
I'm curious what my pal Weezard has to say about lenses. That guy seems to a/b test stuff like it was his job. He's one of the guys I try and follow everything they say.
completely agree.
new LED chips are expensive. if a company were to make them, they could get the costs down by shear numbers, but for the average DIY, your paying full price on these..
this is why I say, know what your walking into with DIY.. the tech is not new, but the products being pushed out now are, give it 10-18 years to push the price to very very good levels.. for now your paying a premium to just, " do it"
you are right too. using any led is better then no led..
this game is not for everyone, last words
It's time's like these that I wonder what all the PHD's in Lighting Science are doing right now... You think at least one of em would have dabbed in the grow lighting scene right? Soon as the fed's back off, the people with our answers will start coming out of the woodwork. I would imagine the thing's were over here guesstimating, that they probably have formula's and equation's for everything already lol. If we could get an engineer who actually know's how a lens is designed to work, I am sure we would see massive gain's. Every single len's I have seen online (Besides the pre-molded multiple len's like HGL and other "Apollo Style" fixtures, though I am sure they were not designed by an accredited engineer...) exude's cheapness and simplicity. Do you see people slapping on plastic lenses on their NIKON's? I mean some of them are working (Collimator type...) for people, but like Habeeb say's, clearly not all were designed for L.E.D./Lighting use. I think most of the lens should be reffered to as diffusers, as the concentrate very little and mainly diffuse the light in a different pattern. My 
...
...Aah if only Cree's were a pop... Hey habeeb, check this video out, I think it's where they make the china epiled's... Clearly they are being churned fast enough to be only worth cent's, but when you are the main L.E.D. monopoly (In china that is, I think most of them are monopolies...), you can mark-up whatever you want... If I recall, I think on Aliexpress, you can get most of what they sell on ebay for $2-4 for no more than $0.60 a piece. Quality, no, but quantities for cheap, yes ;P ...
a pop... Hey habeeb, check this video out, I think it's where they make the china epiled's... Clearly they are being churned fast enough to be only worth cent's, but when you are the main L.E.D. monopoly (In china that is, I think most of them are monopolies...), you can mark-up whatever you want... If I recall, I think on Aliexpress, you can get most of what they sell on ebay for $2-4 for no more than $0.60 a piece. Quality, no, but quantities for cheap, yes ;P ...
"here's some testing done on lens' and no lens' on my new little bar.
lens at 44 degree angle, covering 1 foot by 2 foot ( seedling tray )
151 / 167 / 140
218 / 263 / 194
159 / 198 / 208
here's the numbers without the lens
173 / 191 / 185
299 / 335 / 301
213 / 215 / 299"
Habeeb, my friend, you're gonna have to help me out here.
Those numbers make no sense.
I have never found a light that gets more intense with distance.
Can you elucidate?
The ISL is based on a "point source", of course.
Fluorescent tubes and mult-led arrays are not a point source.
To get precise, meaningful, readings with distance would require a sensor that collects a large area of the light.
Because of this, my readings are only meant to be proportional and are averaged at a given distance to avoid cherry-picking the hot spots.
IMO, 44 degrees is way too tight for an indoor grow.
Even 60 degrees is a bit much when dealing with limited headroom.
90 degree lenses were chosen for testing and showed enough of an advantage to be "keepers".
@neekz
You are thinking in terms of high resolution optics.
That is not necessary, or particularly useful for our purpose.
We want concentration, yes, but not to a fine point.
Just want to point all our photons in one direction.
Thanks for the props Rrog.
Wish it was my job, but it's more of an illness actually.
It has become a trust issue.
There are so many "old wives tales" about growing weed.
And so much mendacity born of greed on the web, that I am compelled to seek trust-able data.
So, test, I must!
Aloha, y'all
Weeze
lens at 44 degree angle, covering 1 foot by 2 foot ( seedling tray )
151 / 167 / 140
218 / 263 / 194
159 / 198 / 208
here's the numbers without the lens
173 / 191 / 185
299 / 335 / 301
213 / 215 / 299"
Habeeb, my friend, you're gonna have to help me out here.
Those numbers make no sense.
I have never found a light that gets more intense with distance.
Can you elucidate?
The ISL is based on a "point source", of course.
Fluorescent tubes and mult-led arrays are not a point source.
To get precise, meaningful, readings with distance would require a sensor that collects a large area of the light.
Because of this, my readings are only meant to be proportional and are averaged at a given distance to avoid cherry-picking the hot spots.
IMO, 44 degrees is way too tight for an indoor grow.
Even 60 degrees is a bit much when dealing with limited headroom.
90 degree lenses were chosen for testing and showed enough of an advantage to be "keepers".
@neekz
You are thinking in terms of high resolution optics.
That is not necessary, or particularly useful for our purpose.
We want concentration, yes, but not to a fine point.
Just want to point all our photons in one direction.
Thanks for the props Rrog.
Wish it was my job, but it's more of an illness actually.
It has become a trust issue.
There are so many "old wives tales" about growing weed.
And so much mendacity born of greed on the web, that I am compelled to seek trust-able data.
So, test, I must!
Aloha, y'all
Weeze
I am all about the data. Absent hard data, I'll take anecdotal. Measurement data is largely hard data to me.
This is great dialog on these lenses. Any improvement is welcomed. And you believe there's ~10% loss as a result? But more than made up for by directing, as I recall? A previous post of yours.
This is great dialog on these lenses. Any improvement is welcomed. And you believe there's ~10% loss as a result? But more than made up for by directing, as I recall? A previous post of yours.
Last edited:
I think we all share a common thing, our science teacher's really did their job lol! My oh my I wish everyone in this world would approach things from a scientific point of view... As the saying goes, "Action speaks louder than word's..." and obviously Weez is living by em! First guy I saw rocking 15w chip's! You are inspirational! Found a sight I thought everyone might like, haven't got a chance to dig in yet, but the got some data ta sift through (L.E.D. pertaining, I think these damn concentrated frequencies are programming my brain into an L.E.D. android lol...) it's http://ledmuseum.candlepower.us/, got led there for a UV article... Good growin' (And designing...)!
sorry for the confusion weezard.
what numbers you have here, were based on a layout of a seedling tray, so the numbers are where the reading was taken. so I took a total of 9 readings with the lens' and then did it without the lens.
this was the best numbers I could get for each.. height I did not record, just went with highest numbers I could achieve ( no lens' is closer though then with lens, I had to pull maybe a foot for the lens )
makes sense now? also for clarification with the numbers, it's off a li-cor ( par reading )
it was showing how lens might not work for the situation. you would need to do more in-depth layout / thinking / planning to achieve correctly what your wanting ( more light ) ..
this was just one example, as I had the lens' to play with. and just showing with a setup like this, you actually hurt production, which shows us to plan carefully
yes I agree with you, that's way too tight a lens, but it's all that fits on these connectors, and just wanted to test..
