Finally an Actual LED Made Specifically for Photosynthesis

[Shafto]

So far every LED "grow light" has just been a mashup of previously commercially available LEDs that were originally designed mostly for signage and backlighting.

Finally there is now an actual LED with a tailored spectrum for photosynthesis.

http://www.illumitex.com/horticulture-lighting.php

I'm not affiliated with these people at all, I just got a newsletter through one of my suppliers for my real life job and thought people here would be interested.

 

[paladin420]

Nice, those look loke we may be gettin somewhere.tagged

 

[alkalien]

There are other LEDs made for that purpose, like http://www.lighting.philips.co.uk/application_areas/horticultural/index_en.wpd

They are expensive and aren't designed to be the only source of light. They are used to supplement light in greenhouses and give a few extra hours of light in the morning and evening to not flower plants like tomato in the early spring.

They will replace those 400V 1000W you see in greenhouses today, those can as well be used for indoor growing but they use them in a way smaller density.

 

[sm0k4]

I saw those yesterday morning also. Do you get the Cutter newsletters?

I like these small LED engines. The PPF and efficiency is on par with what we could make ourselves. They don't sell horticultural lights, just their "light engine" which is a group of LEDs in a housing with the optics already in place. They took everything we want with a horticultural LED and packaged it in a nice neat little square that will allow DIY LED arrays to be easily built by anyone. Molex even designed an adapter connector to make wiring not require any soldering. They really did take the next step and engineer a nice package for simplicity and a nice tight light pattern.

Alkalien, those are not the same as this new Illumitex. They improved the form factor and optical design. Those Philips still use the same LEDs with the secondary optics. They aren't improving much in the form factor and other areas I wish they would. That is why I like these new Illumitex modules so much, they realized what needed to be done. Plus one of those Illumitex modules was $15 AUD at the online shop I saw them at. You aren't paying for the overpriced housing, heat sink, power supply, or optics with these. They are a DIY dream IMO. I think I came in my pants a little just talking about it

I think I will try a couple of these out in the near future. They just came out earlier this year, so distribution is light and I saw them for sale at only one place. LED Store.

 

[medical marvel]

i only quickly checked the specs..is there a PAR equivalent , and or
wattage comparison ?

 

[asde²]

1.7µmol/s/w isn#t bad, if its worth a try depends on the price!
but in fact, the philips module hits 1.93µmol/s/w including(!) the driver losses, that ~2.3µmol/s/w for the philips leds (newest luxeon rebel)

i dont see a need for the illumitex products if its not cheap/w

 

[Shafto]

There are other LEDs made for that purpose, like http://www.lighting.philips.co.uk/application_areas/horticultural/index_en.wpd

They are expensive and aren't designed to be the only source of light. They are used to supplement light in greenhouses and give a few extra hours of light in the morning and evening to not flower plants like tomato in the early spring.

They will replace those 400V 1000W you see in greenhouses today, those can as well be used for indoor growing but they use them in a way smaller density.

That's not an LED designed for photosynthesis, it's a fixture with standard signage LEDs made for use in the horticultural industry.

µmol/s/w doesn't tell the whole story, I don't think. Each plant uses light differently, what was PAR calculated with, a carrot, an apple tree?

A MH light has more PAR energy than an HPS but HPS gets a better yield. Using a luxeon rebel that has a more efficient radiometric conversion, slightly out of peak absorption wavelength will calculate to a higher µmol/s/w or PAR, but will it be as effective? I guess you'd have to test to see.


Sm0k4, I do get the cutter newsletter yes. I'd love to tell you specifically about all the LED stuff I do, just not a good idea on a site like this, my work is very unique. I have my own manufacturing shop where I build specialized LED light engines. I'm thinking it might be a good idea to get some of these modules to assemble into complete working fixture and break into the LED horti market. I think these illumitex modules could actually compete with an HID in a high enough density.

 

[alkalien]

I actually don't see where they make their own LEDs, I'm pretty sure they just assemble those modules.

Don't get me wrong, I would have ordered some to test by now but since I got a few hundred Osram Golden Dragon ready for use, I don't really need them.

Didn't want to critize your finding, just wanted to add another interesting product

 

[Shafto]

No worries alkalien, I don't feel like you criticized my finding. I just wanted to point out the difference.

Here's a quote from illumitex:

"Since we manufacture the LEDs, Illumitex can create LED-based light content tailored to your specific species of plants."

To my knowledge, this is the first LED actually manufactured, made from scratch for photosynthesis.

 

[bonsai]

From my local supplier these appear to be more than 3 times more expensive than the equiv. power in 3W Cree diodes. Still great to see commercial horticultural developments so far up the component foodchain regardless of what they initially cost by the time they make it to us regular folks.

 

[Shafto]

They are indeed a little more expensive than CREE or Lumileds diodes alone, but that doesn't factor in the secondary optics that you'd need with either of those.

Optics are about as expensive as the LEDs themselves usually, along with the MCPBCs to mount them, it's probably only about 20% more expensive. I didn't actually do the math, but I've put more than a few LED arrays together.

I think that the purpose manufactured LEDs might outweigh that other 20% in performance alone, but maybe not either, so many variables. From a manufacturing standpoint, it's definitely worth the extra money for time saved in production.

Another nice thing is that these illumitex panels are IP66 rated for wet locations, so you can stick them right into the canopy.

 

[NOTB]

i love my 600's foreve....r,LED? fuckin show me.

 

[alkalien]

I can't really understand why all of you guys use lenses on your LEDs. I love beeing able to hang my panels 2 or 3 cm away from the plants. So close they just get not burned by the light.

My LED distributor, they only distribute Osrams to companies, most recently told me there were new LEDs coming to market soon with an even bigger angle. That's what Osram developes for horticulture. It even says horticulture as intended use in the datasheet.

I allways figured the spreading of lightsources was one of the major advantages of using LEDs. On the other hand those Panels Mr.X uses are equiped with lenses and the power per m² is way los than what I use but his results are amazing. Then again, he knows what he is doing while I'm just a noob with lots of diodes

 

[bonsai]

They are indeed a little more expensive than CREE or Lumileds diodes alone, but that doesn't factor in the secondary optics that you'd need with either of those.

Probably because I'm a noob growing in micro spaces, but I see no need to use optics with the 130° viewing angle of the 3W Cree XPE.

 

[sm0k4]

Most LED lighting for horticulture is designed to be used inside the canopy. The wide angle is very nice inside the canopy at 2" from the plants because the dispersion of light is so wide. These Osrams and Crees do not have any penetration after 2 feet, and that is pushing it. I got major stretch at 2 feet away with my Panel. The PPF of these Illumitex is nice at 3 feet even. Cree+Osram = side lighting or supplemental. Illumitex will bleach the plant at that close, so it would be better served in an overhead array. Maybe add some LEDEngin 5W cool whites to supplement the missing ranges the Illumitex do not offer yet.

A new focused light pattern design will be helpful for building an overhead array without the hassle and parts needed with traditional lensed units. This unit also seems to have good color mixing within its projected area due to the optics. One change I agree with and I think Kessil came up with that first, but their lights are way overpriced. With UFO and panel style lights currently, they use so many wavelengths, but how do they blend together? At 11 different wavelengths, you have to assume there is uneven color dispersion. Having multiple spectra in one unit with an optics system that blends the light into one square pattern is the missing link. This seems like it will work well as a substitute for the current DIY method of gluing or copper traces on Kapton tape. Cree and Osram are still a little better, and you still need to add cool or neutral white with these to provide a complete spectrum the plants like. I would use these Illumitex as supplementary for now. They are missing some of the PAR range in their lights. Mainly green/yellow.

It doesn't appear that these are lensed, but I can't be for sure. It almost looks like they use a mirror type system in that housing. I am going to order a couple to check them out, mainly out of curiosity. I can also compare to Cree XPE and Osram GD+ LEDs I have running currently.

 

[alkalien]

Most LED lighting for horticulture is designed to be used inside the canopy. The wide angle is very nice inside the canopy at 2" from the plants because the dispersion of light is so wide. These Osrams and Crees do not have any penetration after 2 feet, and that is pushing it. I got major stretch at 2 feet away with my Panel. The PPF of these Illumitex is nice at 3 feet even. Cree+Osram = side lighting or supplemental. Illumitex will bleach the plant at that close, so it would be better served in an overhead array. Maybe add some LEDEngin 5W cool whites to supplement the missing ranges the Illumitex do not offer yet.

A new focused light pattern design will be helpful for building an overhead array without the hassle and parts needed with traditional lensed units. This unit also seems to have good color mixing within its projected area due to the optics. One change I agree with and I think Kessil came up with that first, but their lights are way overpriced. With UFO and panel style lights currently, they use so many wavelengths, but how do they blend together? At 11 different wavelengths, you have to assume there is uneven color dispersion. Having multiple spectra in one unit with an optics system that blends the light into one square pattern is the missing link. This seems like it will work well as a substitute for the current DIY method of gluing or copper traces on Kapton tape. Cree and Osram are still a little better, and you still need to add cool or neutral white with these to provide a complete spectrum the plants like. I would use these Illumitex as supplementary for now. They are missing some of the PAR range in their lights. Mainly green/yellow.

It doesn't appear that these are lensed, but I can't be for sure. It almost looks like they use a mirror type system in that housing. I am going to order a couple to check them out, mainly out of curiosity. I can also compare to Cree XPE and Osram GD+ LEDs I have running currently.

Looks like the time has come where you really have to study the market every day, grrr.


I totally agree with you on the lense topic, just think in my small space I won't be able to use them. I need to ensure my plants can use as much heigt as possible so keeping those lights as close as possible is kind of important to me

I'm running Osram GD+ in 630 and 660nm 50% each and additionally Cree XM-L for cool white. I use three parallel strings of GD+ at 700mA in series with the XM-L at 2,1A.

As said above, I would try those modules but bought a good amount of the small ones...

 

[Shafto]

If they're IP66 rated, they most likely use a polycarbonate total internal refraction optic, not a reflector.

Using optics and placing the LEDs further away will give a far superior beam than using no optics with LEDs up close, as mentioned, this method will provide almost zero penetration, whereas LEDs with optics, and therefore a much more intense beam, placed a more traditional height from the canopy, will work much better.

That doesn't really help out the cramped cabinet grower much I suppose, but the cramped cabinet grower trying to make the best of an imperfect situation is definitely not the target market of these LEDs.


What's this about kapton tape? You glue copper traces onto it and then solder on the LEDs? MCPCBs (metal core printed circuit board) can be had for cheap enough that it's worth it to solder and mount your LEDs properly. If you aren't effectively removing the heat from the junction, there's no point in using LEDs.

 

[sm0k4]

What's this about kapton tape? You glue copper traces onto it and then solder on the LEDs? MCPCBs (metal core printed circuit board) can be had for cheap enough that it's worth it to solder and mount your LEDs properly. If you aren't effectively removing the heat from the junction, there's no point in using LEDs.

Yeah, I wired my Osrams with copper adhesive traces on Kapton, but cut away the thermal slug section of Kapton to lay down a thermal pad that is electrically insulating. Others used a dual sided copper strip, but the glue layer would result in less thermal transfer. I used Kapton to reinforce the LED legs down. After about 8 months it is still working fine at 24/7 operation in my veg chamber. Bergquist makes an Osram MCPCB but you would still have to insulate the MCPCB from the heat sink electrically with a pad. There would be better thermal transfer with an electrically insulating thermal pad on the heatsink directly, hence the Kapton for the copper adhesive traces.


Since that process took forever with my first build, for the next build I bought Cree LEDs from Cutter already mounted on MCPCBs. I used Arctic Silver Thermal Adhesive on those and the build went way quicker, by about 10x. Crees are nice because they make all their thermal slugs electrically insulated from the anode and cathode. Osram doesn't with all theirs.

These Illumitex units are nice because you need some thermal paste and a couple nuts/bolts. Less time building is always better IMO.

 

[alkalien]

Building the panels is a huge PITA!

I use anodized heatsinks I can glue the LEDs on directly, thats why I use Osram LEDs, they are the only one you can solder after glueing, all the others have their soldering points underneath.

We tried to get ceramic platines where you can just put the LEDs onto and then "bake" in a soldering oven. But that turned out to be too expensive for small numbers...

 

[sm0k4]

Building the panels is a huge PITA!

I use anodized heatsinks I can glue the LEDs on directly, thats why I use Osram LEDs, they are the only one you can solder after glueing, all the others have their soldering points underneath.

We tried to get ceramic platines where you can just put the LEDs onto and then "bake" in a soldering oven. But that turned out to be too expensive for small numbers...

Ah yes, I remember your pics now. The anodized surface doesn't conduct? Nice to know. I thought it would still conduct. You get better heat spreading with anodized also due to the higher emissivity coefficient.