Has anybody had experience with this light system? Not a pic of my system BTW. Suncloak
Not much technical info on the site, but a grower on another forum appears to be doing really well with it.
View Image
Not impressed, especially for the price. I had to dig for what little actual "technical" info they provide. If their diagram is correct they use surface mount diodes of UNKNOWN origin. YIKES
Amare Tech sells a SE 50 with UVB COB hybrid for ~ $1000 that covers 4 x 4
Hello timmur,
I am the design engineer for the Suncloak grow light system. I would be happy to answer any questions you might have.
Not impressed, especially for the price. I had to dig for what little actual "technical" info they provide. If their diagram is correct they use surface mount diodes of UNKNOWN origin. YIKES
Amare Tech sells a SE 50 with UVB COB hybrid for ~ $1000 that covers 4 x 4
How many μmol/s? Grouchy covered some of my other questions.
Lumengineer, not trying to be facetious, but you talk about lumens and not μmol/s? As I'm sure you are aware, lumens are not a very good metric for lighting plants; it is better suited to humans. I'm fairly certain that PPFD is just as valid as a metric for LEDs as it is for HID lighting. How would one calculate DLI (daily light integral) without this data? Just because plants are close to a light source doesn't mean photon flux is not important.
Cool white fluorescent lamps can be kept very close to plants (similar to your LEDs) and in fact need to be kept close to provide enough photons to drive photosynthesis. in this case I can convert from lux to PPF by
PPFD=Lux * 0.0135. Problem is I can't do this conversion for LED as I don't know the necessary constant.
All of this aside, I think your lighting system is cool. I just want to know its output in a more meaningful way.
Thank you for engaging on this subject.
The reason I use lumens is that lumens can be easily and accurately measured with relative inexpensive equipment. In addition, light spectrum can be easily and accurately measured. PPF is somewhat a function of lumens and spectrum.
I will add my comments on PPFD in a moment. But I would like to kindly stress that the profitable product produced by the Suncloak system is not μmol/s? We are trying to produce the maximum lbs of cannabis with THC levels greater than 22%. We can not sell μmol/s. So even when I discuss PPF/PFFD below...my mind set is still if I can produce 5 lbs of high quality product on a 4' x 8' table with lights that produce 10 μmol/s I am ecstatic.
For simplicity PPF is what the light produces and PPFD is what the plant experiences relative to the actual surface area of the plant. PPFD is μmol/s for a given surface area.
Think of a plant that is 1.33' wide x 1.33' deep x 4' tall (This the approximate size of the plants our customers are growing with the Suncloak system).
The surface area of the plant contacted by a "top" light system would be 1.33' x 1.33' = or 1.75 sq feet.
The same plant in a Suncloak system would have a surface area contacted by light of (1.33' x 4' x 4 sides) plus (1.33' x 1.33') which equals 23 sq ft.
23 sq ft / 1.75 sq ft = 13.2
In other words a traditional top down LED light would have to have a PPFD 13.2 times greater than the PPFD of the Suncloak system in order to have equal grow effect on the plant.
Please understand that I clearly recognize that all that I just stated is theoretical, like so many other statements I read about PPF and PPFD as applied to plants. PPFD is so drastically effected by distant, reflection, and canopy penetration it is in and of itself theoretical when applied to the surface of a plant.
I am not trying to be confrontational or argumentative when I say that the efficiency by which Suncloak delivers light to the plant is so much greater than traditional top light systems that PPF and PPFD almost irrelevant.
We think we have the following:
Excellent spectrum for flowering (attached).
Great efficiency at 160+ lumens per watt.
Physically, the most efficient light delivery system.
Again we are focused on high quality and high yield in whatever form that me come. I look forward to sharing more customer grow results in the coming weeks.
Thank you again for engaging this subject and I hope this information is helpful.
LED specifics
CCT < 2200K
Each LED produces 25-30 lumens
LEDs are powered at an extremely low 0.15 watts each
Low watts gives excellent efficiency (160+ lumens/watt)
Low watts also produces very little heat. (surface temp of 90F)
I hope this information is helpful.
Lumengineer, not trying to be facetious, but you talk about lumens and not μmol/s? As I'm sure you are aware, lumens are not a very good metric for lighting plants; it is better suited to humans. I'm fairly certain that PPFD is just as valid as a metric for LEDs as it is for HID lighting. How would one calculate DLI (daily light integral) without this data? Just because plants are close to a light source doesn't mean photon flux is not important.
Cool white fluorescent lamps can be kept very close to plants (similar to your LEDs) and in fact need to be kept close to provide enough photons to drive photosynthesis. in this case I can convert from lux to PPF by
PPFD=Lux * 0.0135. Problem is I can't do this conversion for LED as I don't know the necessary constant.
All of this aside, I think your lighting system is cool. I just want to know its output in a more meaningful way.
PetFlora,
From a technical perspective I'm not sure if it is impressive or not. I can say that the grower on the other site, who seems totally legit, had some pretty good results with the system. According his final report he yielded 1.49 GPW. See attached. The grow was an indica leaning strain, but he's in the middle of a sativa grow currently and appears to be doing even better.
I guess I was intrigued with the vertical arrangement.
Thank you for engaging on this subject.
The reason I use lumens is that lumens can be easily and accurately measured with relative inexpensive equipment. In addition, light spectrum can be easily and accurately measured. PPF is somewhat a function of lumens and spectrum.
I will add my comments on PPFD in a moment. But I would like to kindly stress that the profitable product produced by the Suncloak system is not μmol/s? We are trying to produce the maximum lbs of cannabis with THC levels greater than 22%. We can not sell μmol/s. So even when I discuss PPF/PFFD below...my mind set is still if I can produce 5 lbs of high quality product on a 4' x 8' table with lights that produce 10 μmol/s I am ecstatic.
For simplicity PPF is what the light produces and PPFD is what the plant experiences relative to the actual surface area of the plant. PPFD is μmol/s for a given surface area.
Think of a plant that is 1.33' wide x 1.33' deep x 4' tall (This the approximate size of the plants our customers are growing with the Suncloak system).
The surface area of the plant contacted by a "top" light system would be 1.33' x 1.33' = or 1.75 sq feet.
The same plant in a Suncloak system would have a surface area contacted by light of (1.33' x 4' x 4 sides) plus (1.33' x 1.33') which equals 23 sq ft.
23 sq ft / 1.75 sq ft = 13.2
In other words a traditional top down LED light would have to have a PPFD 13.2 times greater than the PPFD of the Suncloak system in order to have equal grow effect on the plant.
Please understand that I clearly recognize that all that I just stated is theoretical, like so many other statements I read about PPF and PPFD as applied to plants. PPFD is so drastically effected by distant, reflection, and canopy penetration it is in and of itself theoretical when applied to the surface of a plant.
I am not trying to be confrontational or argumentative when I say that the efficiency by which Suncloak delivers light to the plant is so much greater than traditional top light systems that PPF and PPFD almost irrelevant.
We think we have the following:
Excellent spectrum for flowering (attached).
Great efficiency at 160+ lumens per watt.
Physically, the most efficient light delivery system.
Again we are focused on high quality and high yield in whatever form that me come. I look forward to sharing more customer grow results in the coming weeks.
Thank you again for engaging this subject and I hope this information is helpful.
PetFlora,
The report came from another forum as did the pic. Like I said originally, I was looking for more technical info, hence the post.
BTW, go look at some of my other posts and see if I have the knowledge to ask the questions I did. Paranoid much? Jeesh.
I find it funny that the report is too professional. It sales literature. Of course it should appear professional.
Just to be clear, I have no affiliation with Suncloak. Their approach caught my eye because I tried a vertical 360 degree approach with T5s that was similar.