if 12 lites in an 8x8 space don't kill it nothing will.....
Last edited:
Cycloptics Greenbeams 315w owners thread
- Thread starter McKush
- Start date
if 12 lites in an 8x8 space don't kill it nothing will.....Yep. See model below from Cycloptics. Nice build BTW!
Thanks. I just hope I can maintain close to controlled temperature and humidity without direct heating and cooling. My intake is being drawn in from a very small air conditioned and heated space as its lung room.
I have a humidifier for the veg room to add humidity. Humidity is typically fine during flower in my tent, although the swings can be brutal in the winter. I do not want to add a dehumidifier unless absolutely necessary.
couchlockd
Active member
So from one 315 you got over 3 lbs?
Im using a sunplix 315 cmh ballast
Im using a sunplix 315 cmh ballast
Food for thought
While no doubt the CMH light does a great job, consider that half of the light is reflected, and if it's like all other HIDs, annual hood replacement is a must (probably bulb too) to maximize whatever reflected light will still reach the canopy. Cost ~ $500
Now, quality LED panels like Amare Technologies, Apache Tech, PLC deliver even better PAR spectrums with 100% of their output aimed directly at the canopy. Beyond PAR is the Emerson Effect- basically that the light halfs as the distance from the plant increases
The real parameter we want to know is the umoles at various heights above the canopy. Cannabis responds best to > 500 umoles
An Amare Tech SE 250 is a highly engineered CoB hybrid, using Cree diodes/CoBs, with a life expectancy of ~ 50K hours at $745, with customer loyalty discounts on multiples.
Plus, virtually no heat
hth
While no doubt the CMH light does a great job, consider that half of the light is reflected, and if it's like all other HIDs, annual hood replacement is a must (probably bulb too) to maximize whatever reflected light will still reach the canopy. Cost ~ $500
Now, quality LED panels like Amare Technologies, Apache Tech, PLC deliver even better PAR spectrums with 100% of their output aimed directly at the canopy. Beyond PAR is the Emerson Effect- basically that the light halfs as the distance from the plant increases
The real parameter we want to know is the umoles at various heights above the canopy. Cannabis responds best to > 500 umoles
An Amare Tech SE 250 is a highly engineered CoB hybrid, using Cree diodes/CoBs, with a life expectancy of ~ 50K hours at $745, with customer loyalty discounts on multiples.
Plus, virtually no heat
hth
He's up to 16 now!
I'd like to see a few pictures of THAT!
timmur
Member
Yes, but the room went from 8 x 8 to 8 x 10!
The actual PPFD should be about the same as originally planned.
Yes, but the room went from 8 x 8 to 8 x 10!
The actual PPFD should be about the same as originally planned.
I've got grow room envy either way
Sorry, missed this 1...
Under hps, I usually take them at ~56days. They definitely look to be finishing faster under the 930's.
What I don't understand when I look at this is why you would NOT want to lower the the lights? The model shows your average umoles drop significantly lower the further you are away from the canopy. So why not want to lower those lights so they are closer when the plants are smaller?
The way this reflector diffuses the light should make it the perfect light for being somewhat closer to the canopy, right? The big drawback with dropping HIDs down too low is the uniformity goes to shit. It seems that by not dropping the Greenbeams, you are wasting the reflective walls to deliver adequate light to the canopy instead using the reflective walls to deliver more light to the lower portions of the plant.
Speaking if the reflector, I hope they designed in a way to replace the reflective material on the interior. If not, I'll will be figuring out how. But they should make an easy and inexpensive method to replace the reflective material.
timmur
Member
Yeah uniformity goes to shit. Also, I have so much light available that I can just leave the lights on longer to reach my DLI target and shut them off sooner (shorter photoperiod) as the plants get bigger.
To hit around 47 - 50 moles/day the "day" period starts out at 15 hours and drops down into the 13 hour range as the plants reach their peak height.
Got the numbers from Flip.
At 24" below lights:
3 Greenbeams = 925 PPFD
4 Greenbeams = 1025 PPFD
At 48" below lights:
3 Greenbeams = 865 PPFD
4 Greenbeams = 960 PPFD
So is there any chance 4 will be too much intensity? I don't want to stunt trichome production or damage the plant.
BTW I got the numbers from Gavita who would recommended 600w SE's for my space and the 3 Greenbeams outperforms that setup.
At 24" below lights:
3 Greenbeams = 925 PPFD
4 Greenbeams = 1025 PPFD
At 48" below lights:
3 Greenbeams = 865 PPFD
4 Greenbeams = 960 PPFD
So is there any chance 4 will be too much intensity? I don't want to stunt trichome production or damage the plant.
BTW I got the numbers from Gavita who would recommended 600w SE's for my space and the 3 Greenbeams outperforms that setup.
timmur
Member
Either can work without causing photo-inhibition if you manage the daily light integral (DLI). If you use 4 GBs you'll deliver about 48 moles/day with a photperiod of 14 hours during veg (48 inches from the lights). During late flower when the plants are 24 inches from the lights, you will deliver about 44 moles/day. This is considered the upper end for cannabis DLI although there is no science to support this. It may be a good guess though!
If you use 3 GBs, you could deliver 48 moles/day at 48 inches from the lights and about 40 moles/day at 24 inches from the lights. PPFD x .0036 x hours of light = DLI in moles/day. You can crank out all of the scenarios you want! I would point out that many feel that 40 moles/day is the sweet spot.
Okay, so at first I was thinking you were talking about drastic changes to the photoperiod. We are pretty much talking the difference between going 12/12 or 13/11.
Ok, so essentially DLI is a way to fine tune your photoperiod based on number of photons received per day instead of just picking a time.
timmur
Member
I was talking about photoperiods that deliver the target DLI or to induce flowering or both. In my case I'm shortening the veg photoperiod to about 15 hours to meet my target DLI requirement. As the plant grows and I deliver a higher PPFD to the canopy, I will lower the photoperiod to continue to hit the target DLI.
By the time the plants are old enough to flip I will reduce the photoperiod enough to induce flowering. As it happens I will still be able to meet my target DLI as the plants will be taller and will be receiving a higher PPFD.
I doubt that anyone is purposely manipulating the photoperiod to reach a target DLI. They probably don't have enough light available to do so. Also many people will raise and lower lights to deliver a consistent light dose throughout the grow rather than manipulate photoperiod.
Because I chose to fix my lights to the ceiling and I wanted to deliver a consistent (maximum) DLI I had no choice but to limit the photoperiod. Of course if it turns out that my plants can utilize a greater DLI, then I will just lengthen the photoperiod (during veg).
Just wanted to do a quick update. Due to scheduling problems, i had to take down the plants 4 days early. It was pretty hectic around here, and I didn't think to get pics. Yield was disappointing, at ~2.25#'s. I had been hitting ~3#'s with 2-1Khps in the same space. I didn't veg long enough, and the plants barely stretched under the cmh. This coupled with another limiting factor I'll discuss in a different post were the main causes of the low yield IMO. Quality is definitely just as good(at least) and structure and bud size is very similar to the 1K's. It's just now dry enough to smoke, but still a little "green". It'll be a month or 2 before it cures to peak flavor.
I've got another batch vegging now. Transplanted them 10 days ago, and they're just starting to get happy. I'm using a new medium, and it took me a bit to get my blumats adjusted to it. I was also having some ph issues due to a bad RO membrane.
If any of you are using greenbeams in a growtent or thinking of doing so, you're going to want to stay tuned for my next post here...
I've got another batch vegging now. Transplanted them 10 days ago, and they're just starting to get happy. I'm using a new medium, and it took me a bit to get my blumats adjusted to it. I was also having some ph issues due to a bad RO membrane.
If any of you are using greenbeams in a growtent or thinking of doing so, you're going to want to stay tuned for my next post here...
I've gotten my hands on an Apogee mq-200 par meter, and I've done a fair amount of testing with a single greenbeam in a 3x3 gorilla tent. I've got a 3x3, black plastic tray on a stand inside the tent. I divided the tray into a grid of (16) 9" squares. I did my best to center/level the sensor in each square, and took measurements at various distances from the aperture. My first round of measurements were taken at ~34" below the aperture, and were pretty disappointing. I was only averaging 282ppfd. This seemed shockingly low to me, and got me to wondering exactly how "reflective" my tent walls really are. I tried several tent makers...no reply. I did find this info on the ORCA site:
Since I couldn't get an answer out of any of the tent makers, I figured the only thing to do was buy some orca, which is a known quantity(94%), and measure the difference. I was figuring on the tent falling somewhere in the PET(mylar) film range...NOT! I lined the inside back and sides of the tent with a continuous sheet of orca wrapped between the poles and outer skin. The orca lines the tent from just below the tray top, up to the ceiling. Lining the ceiling seemed like a lot of trouble, so I skipped it. I cut 2 overlapping flaps to cover the front, and took all measurements remotely, with the doors closed. The orca made a tremendous difference! Average measured par increased to 386ppfd with the orca. 386-282=104. 104/282=0.3688. I'm no math whiz, but that's an almost 37% increase! Mind you, this is all in a BRAND NEW tent, imagine one that had time to get "filmy" inside. This little experiment has taught me 2 valuable lessons. #1) The so called "reflectivity" of the typical tent is a bad joke. Based on my measurements, the tent itself was only reflecting ~57% of usable light(94-37=57). #2) Orca or equivalent is an absolute must! I've almost finished retrofitting my 5x9 with orca, but I'm having problems with the doors. Should have it all figured out by tomorrow. So here are the actual #'s before and after the orca retrofit of the 3x3 tent:
Here's a shot of my test rig in the plain tent, and again with orca. The light is on in both pics. Anyone see a difference?
I also took measurements at 24" and 18" below the aperture(3x3 tent,orca only). Here are those results:
You really start to see the effect of the painted bulb tip as the aperture lowers. 24" below the aperture seemed to give the most "even" spread, and so far 18-24" seem to be the best working heights. I haven't been able to do thorough testing of the 6-light 5x9, because it's full of plants, but I did take a few measurements before I started adding the orca. I was reading ~700ppfd @ 20" below the apertures and ~550ppfd @ 30" below. If I see a similar increase with orca in the large tent, it should put me very close to cycloptics modeled #'s. It is worth noting that the multi-light system performed substantially better than the single light. ~550ppfd @ 30" vs ~300ppfd @ 34", for the multi-light and single light respectively. These are pre-orca measurements. Basically, what I'm seeing is that multiple greenbeams are more that the sum of their parts. Pretty much what they say themselves. I'm really hoping to get the 5x9 tent's doors covered with orca tomorrow morning, and maybe get some measurements of the multi-light system tomorrow night.
I'd like to add a disclaimer about all this testing. When cycloptics does a model, it's based on perfect, laboratory/research grade conditions. Perfectly regular/reflective walls,ceiling and floor, perfect lamp spacing, no plants in the room, no other equipment on the walls, ceiling or floor, etc. My testing is geared to the real world that most of us are forced to grow in. Ideal conditions aren't very likely for most growers. I'm just a dummy with a light meter, but I'm hoping this info will shed some light on things(so to speak), and help people make real world decisions about equipment. All measurements were taken in a brand new, 3'x3' gorilla tent. All measurements were made with an apogee mq-200, then I added +6% to the results, per apogee's instructions for cmh lamps. If anyone has any questions, suggestions, requests or criticisms...feel free.
Since I couldn't get an answer out of any of the tent makers, I figured the only thing to do was buy some orca, which is a known quantity(94%), and measure the difference. I was figuring on the tent falling somewhere in the PET(mylar) film range...NOT! I lined the inside back and sides of the tent with a continuous sheet of orca wrapped between the poles and outer skin. The orca lines the tent from just below the tray top, up to the ceiling. Lining the ceiling seemed like a lot of trouble, so I skipped it. I cut 2 overlapping flaps to cover the front, and took all measurements remotely, with the doors closed. The orca made a tremendous difference! Average measured par increased to 386ppfd with the orca. 386-282=104. 104/282=0.3688. I'm no math whiz, but that's an almost 37% increase! Mind you, this is all in a BRAND NEW tent, imagine one that had time to get "filmy" inside. This little experiment has taught me 2 valuable lessons. #1) The so called "reflectivity" of the typical tent is a bad joke. Based on my measurements, the tent itself was only reflecting ~57% of usable light(94-37=57). #2) Orca or equivalent is an absolute must! I've almost finished retrofitting my 5x9 with orca, but I'm having problems with the doors. Should have it all figured out by tomorrow. So here are the actual #'s before and after the orca retrofit of the 3x3 tent:
Here's a shot of my test rig in the plain tent, and again with orca. The light is on in both pics. Anyone see a difference?
I also took measurements at 24" and 18" below the aperture(3x3 tent,orca only). Here are those results:
You really start to see the effect of the painted bulb tip as the aperture lowers. 24" below the aperture seemed to give the most "even" spread, and so far 18-24" seem to be the best working heights. I haven't been able to do thorough testing of the 6-light 5x9, because it's full of plants, but I did take a few measurements before I started adding the orca. I was reading ~700ppfd @ 20" below the apertures and ~550ppfd @ 30" below. If I see a similar increase with orca in the large tent, it should put me very close to cycloptics modeled #'s. It is worth noting that the multi-light system performed substantially better than the single light. ~550ppfd @ 30" vs ~300ppfd @ 34", for the multi-light and single light respectively. These are pre-orca measurements. Basically, what I'm seeing is that multiple greenbeams are more that the sum of their parts. Pretty much what they say themselves. I'm really hoping to get the 5x9 tent's doors covered with orca tomorrow morning, and maybe get some measurements of the multi-light system tomorrow night.
I'd like to add a disclaimer about all this testing. When cycloptics does a model, it's based on perfect, laboratory/research grade conditions. Perfectly regular/reflective walls,ceiling and floor, perfect lamp spacing, no plants in the room, no other equipment on the walls, ceiling or floor, etc. My testing is geared to the real world that most of us are forced to grow in. Ideal conditions aren't very likely for most growers. I'm just a dummy with a light meter, but I'm hoping this info will shed some light on things(so to speak), and help people make real world decisions about equipment. All measurements were taken in a brand new, 3'x3' gorilla tent. All measurements were made with an apogee mq-200, then I added +6% to the results, per apogee's instructions for cmh lamps. If anyone has any questions, suggestions, requests or criticisms...feel free.
Last edited:
Wow .. thanks Ez ... this is valuable information indeed. You pulled out all the stops on this one and it has already influenced the way I will set up my grow room. Looks like timmur's recommendation for the sj orca tents are spot on too.
I hope you might be inclined to test a greenbeam light vs normal lamp in the phantom reflector ... to see if you get the same results, regaring the aluminium paint.
Thank you. Really look forward to this.
I hope you might be inclined to test a greenbeam light vs normal lamp in the phantom reflector ... to see if you get the same results, regaring the aluminium paint.
Thank you. Really look forward to this.
timmur
Member
I just learned yesterday that a larger op in my area is putting in 120 Greenbeams. Apparently they have a room with 16 currently and love them so much that they are putting them in in place of Gavitas. These guys claimed 10 day shorter cycle with the Greenbeams. I'm gonna try to get in and see this op.
On a related note, I was blown away when I walked into a local hydro store and saw a Greenbeam running and lighting a plant! The guys started making the pitch and I told thanks, but I already have a few of them! Very cool to know I can pick them up locally and get ballasts on a moments notice!
On a related note, I was blown away when I walked into a local hydro store and saw a Greenbeam running and lighting a plant! The guys started making the pitch and I told thanks, but I already have a few of them! Very cool to know I can pick them up locally and get ballasts on a moments notice!
