LEC - Light-Emitting Ceramic

ttystikk said:

...Except that we're supposedly starting this additional power for the ballast calculation from the 860W rating of the CDM lamp, not a thousand watts.

Therefore, I'm thinking that the ballast is doing nothing differently for the different bulb- and that it's not saving me anything over a thouie.

If anyone is thinking this new and disturbing information will send me scurrying back to the safe conformity of HPS, y'all don't know me very well;

My first order of 4800W of 56% efficient COB LED arrives next month.

Click to expand...

shit, I don't know man, I just read a shit ton on these, and they friggin call them "energy advantage" soooo that's lead ya to believe that a 860 would take less than a 1000...
But evidently not...
I'd say ya got a complaint...

Carolina Dream'n said:

I'm throughly unimpressed with my 315s. I replaced 6 600s with 6 315s and yields went from 8 lbs to 4.5 to 5 at best. I'll b doing one more run with them, if it doesn't get better I'll be getting rid of them.

IMO, the people who are trading them out and getting better results than before couldn't control their environment. We have guys around me trading out 2 1000s for 3 315s and pulling the same yields... Then you ask what they yield.... 2 lbs off 2 1000s. Horrible. They then put in the 315 and hit the same yield, thinking it is the lights. It's not. It's their environment being controlled better because of less heat.

Click to expand...

Interesting viewpoint, the numbers you're mentioning for your own grow tells me they're not a bad investment. If you use 5lbs with 6x 315's and 8 lbs. with 6x 600's, the difference is 1 gpw for the 600's vs. 1.2 gpw for the 315's (1.2 is the low low end imo for the 315's). That right there makes them 20% more efficient per watt. So if you used say 12x 315's (3780w total vs. 6x 600's @3600w total) and maintained just that 1.2 gpw rate for the 315's, you'd be pulling 9.99 lbs. vs. 8lbs for HPS using only 180w more power. Don't know what you're getting per lb. but that's not a bad return, payback in a single grow, everything from there would be a bonus.

greasemonkeymann said:

ahhh, I see your complaint, my bad, I didn't understand you fully.
I was saying that for that ballast, disregarding the lamp, which i'm not sure that lowers the amperage used, no? If I understand it correctly the amps used for the ballast isn't changed because of the wattage, but again, I don't KNOW that to be true, but honestly, you sorta have proved that on your own though.
You are the proof man. It sucks, I feel ya.
Side note, we talked a lil earlier, about the 10k bulbs, I was delayed on my flower run with that 600w Mh 12k "finisher" bulb.
Just RE setup my room and have had them under it for 2 days, so in about 30 days or so we can see if the hps side or the Mh side is any different.. my money is on the MH..

Click to expand...

Not as worried as I might be. I always have the option to stick HPS thouies back in, I can cross back over to SE HPS on digital cuz I still have some laying around, and of course 5kW of COB LED is in the mail...

GroErr said:

Interesting viewpoint, the numbers you're mentioning for your own grow tells me they're not a bad investment. If you use 5lbs with 6x 315's and 8 lbs. with 6x 600's, the difference is 1 gpw for the 600's vs. 1.2 gpw for the 315's (1.2 is the low low end imo for the 315's). That right there makes them 20% more efficient per watt. So if you used say 12x 315's (3780w total vs. 6x 600's @3600w total) and maintained just that 1.2 gpw rate for the 315's, you'd be pulling 9.99 lbs. vs. 8lbs for HPS using only 180w more power. Don't know what you're getting per lb. but that's not a bad return, payback in a single grow, everything from there would be a bonus.

Click to expand...

Now I admire a man who can do some math with time. Nice work. I did a similar calculation and ended up justifying a substantial investment in COB LED, so beware! LOL

ttystikk said:

Now I admire a man who can do some math with time. Nice work. I did a similar calculation and ended up justifying a substantial investment in COB LED, so beware! LOL

Click to expand...

Cheers ttystikk, I'm a numbers guy, came into indoor with no preconceived notions or preferences which is how I ended up using CMH and LED's, hps just made no sense looking at the numbers (facts). We did the same thing with my son's op, he replaced 2x 1000 and 1x 600 with 8x 315's and is blowing away his previous numbers, not even close when you match up watt for watt. He's averaging 1.4 gpw with producers like my Blue Dream and Blue Ripper cuts after only a couple of runs. imo the COBs would be even better, just a larger up-front investment but also a higher payback.

GroErr said:

Cheers ttystikk, I'm a numbers guy, came into indoor with no preconceived notions or preferences which is how I ended up using CMH and LED's, hps just made no sense looking at the numbers (facts). We did the same thing with my son's op, he replaced 2x 1000 and 1x 600 with 8x 315's and is blowing away his previous numbers, not even close when you match up watt for watt. He's averaging 1.4 gpw with producers like my Blue Dream and Blue Ripper cuts after only a couple of runs. imo the COBs would be even better, just a larger up-front investment but also a higher payback.

Click to expand...

Then you'd appreciate what I'm doing here. The COB LED array is just the icing on a 5 year deep layer cake of technologies and techniques designed to work together to get more yield from less square footage than ever before. Water cooling, vertical trellis, RDWC and more are all there to reduce power consumption, labor time, square feet of floorspace or all the above.

ttystikk said:

Then you'd appreciate what I'm doing here. The COB LED array is just the icing on a 5 year deep layer cake of technologies and techniques designed to work together to get more yield from less square footage than ever before. Water cooling, vertical trellis, RDWC and more are all there to reduce power consumption, labor time, square feet of floorspace or all the above.

Click to expand...

Yeah, really interested to see where you end up with this, haven't seen any vert grows utilizing COBs but the combo should awesome.

GroErr said:

Interesting viewpoint, the numbers you're mentioning for your own grow tells me they're not a bad investment. If you use 5lbs with 6x 315's and 8 lbs. with 6x 600's, the difference is 1 gpw for the 600's vs. 1.2 gpw for the 315's (1.2 is the low low end imo for the 315's). That right there makes them 20% more efficient per watt. So if you used say 12x 315's (3780w total vs. 6x 600's @3600w total) and maintained just that 1.2 gpw rate for the 315's, you'd be pulling 9.99 lbs. vs. 8lbs for HPS using only 180w more power. Don't know what you're getting per lb. but that's not a bad return, payback in a single grow, everything from there would be a bonus.

Click to expand...

While I get the math, was told by many these would easily replace a 600 some people even saying a 1000. That is the buy point that I went on, so when that wasn't even close I was bummed.

I've done 3 runs now with the 315s, and never even hit a full 5, it was almost 2 oz short. I'll just say 4.5 as an average.

If your building a new setup, then it's cool. But for me, to replace all my lights for 10% more effieciency would be working backwards.

My 1000w DE's pull 2.5 per light. To put in 3 315s would be almost the same efficiency. Then again the overlap from that many 315s might up the yields substantially.

@TheChemist77 says his 3x 315W is basically equivalent to 2x 600W in HID grow, so this would tend to confirm the ten to fifteen percent theory.

We're going to find out how much better COB LED is and then y'all can decide if it's enough better to be worth the investment.

Carolina Dream'n said:

While I get the math, was told by many these would easily replace a 600 some people even saying a 1000. That is the buy point that I went on, so when that wasn't even close I was bummed.

I've done 3 runs now with the 315s, and never even hit a full 5, it was almost 2 oz short. I'll just say 4.5 as an average.

If your building a new setup, then it's cool. But for me, to replace all my lights for 10% more effieciency would be working backwards.

My 1000w DE's pull 2.5 per light. To put in 3 315s would be almost the same efficiency. Then again the overlap from that many 315s might up the yields substantially.

Click to expand...

That sucks, I wouldn't consider them a replacement for 600, 400 easy 500 maybe dialed in. They're best footprint so far for yield was 3.5 x 3.5 x 3'H running at 22" to 24" above the canopy, with the right strain and filling that footprint you could pull an elbow from one light. Mixing them in with the DE's would be interesting to see

seems like they might make nice greenhouse supplemental, if you don't want blazing orange HPS glow.

Today I pulled the trigger on a Sun System 315 LEC for one of my 3x3 tents. It should be here next week and will go straight into flowering duty once it arrives.

Just played around wit a kilowatt meter and some 315s.

110v 315 pulled 382 watts from the wall.
220v 315 pulled 348 watts from the wall.
220v SolisTek Matrix on 600 pulled 628 watts from the wall.
220v SolisTek DE on 1000 pulled 1108 watts from the wall.

So my 6 600s were pulling 3768 from the wall. New gpw is .95.
My 6 315s are pulling 2088 from the wall. New gpw is .96.
My 12 SolisTek De 1000s are pulling 13,296 from the wall. New gpw is 1.01.

Strain in the same in every room. Lots of people sayin I'm not hitting the gpw I should with the 315s. So I'll continue to play with them.

Carolina Dream'n said:

Just played around wit a kilowatt meter and some 315s.

110v 315 pulled 382 watts from the wall.
220v 315 pulled 348 watts from the wall.
220v SolisTek Matrix on 600 pulled 628 watts from the wall.
220v SolisTek DE on 1000 pulled 1108 watts from the wall.

So my 6 600s were pulling 3768 from the wall. New gpw is .95.
My 6 315s are pulling 2088 from the wall. New gpw is .96.
My 12 SolisTek De 1000s are pulling 13,296 from the wall. New gpw is 1.01.

Strain in the same in every room. Lots of people sayin I'm not hitting the gpw I should with the 315s. So I'll continue to play with them.

Click to expand...

I can tell a few things already; first, with a five percent variability between test groups, I'd say lighting is not a significant factor. Therefore, I'm inclined to believe that all those people saying you're doing it wrong- are wrong.

Second, and this supports the first point, a five percent variability statistic fairly screams 'effective process control'. Kudos! Unless you make some substantial changes in your setup and/or approach, I'll wager that your numbers won't change.

In short, I'm saying that it's pretty obvious that you have a well controlled operation, and those who suggest that you're doing something to hurt your yields with the 315W are incorrect.

ttystikk said:

I can tell a few things already; first, with a five percent variability between test groups, I'd say lighting is not a significant factor. Therefore, I'm inclined to believe that all those people saying you're doing it wrong- are wrong.

Second, and this supports the first point, a five percent variability statistic fairly screams 'effective process control'. Kudos! Unless you make some substantial changes in your setup and/or approach, I'll wager that your numbers won't change.

In short, I'm saying that it's pretty obvious that you have a well controlled operation, and those who suggest that you're doing something to hurt your yields with the 315W are incorrect.

Click to expand...

Thanks. I have run the same strain for 6 years, I know her like the back of my hand.

I don't think people are saying in doing something wrong, just that I haven't hit the 315s full potential. I've heard claims up to 1.8 gpw on the same strain I grow. (Not the same cut).

I grow SOG, the 315s just didn't give me any stretch. I depend on that stretch to get my canopy full. While I understand, "just veg longer" well that defeats the purpose. I won't adapt my growing style to a light, the light needs to be adaptable to my style of growing or it just won't work for ME. I could see these lights being great for people growing bigger plants having to keep to plant numbers, but the deciding factor will be are they good for me and my style.

Carolina Dream'n said:

Thanks. I have run the same strain for 6 years, I know her like the back of my hand.

I don't think people are saying in doing something wrong, just that I haven't hit the 315s full potential. I've heard claims up to 1.8 gpw on the same strain I grow. (Not the same cut).

I grow SOG, the 315s just didn't give me any stretch. I depend on that stretch to get my canopy full. While I understand, "just veg longer" well that defeats the purpose. I won't adapt my growing style to a light, the light needs to be adaptable to my style of growing or it just won't work for ME. I could see these lights being great for people growing bigger plants having to keep to plant numbers, but the deciding factor will be are they good for me and my style.

Click to expand...

...as well it should be. You're the latest of a growing list of folks I've heard say these lamps are stretch killers. My girls stretch fine under my 860W CDM, so I don't think it's just a spectrum thing.

ttystikk said:

...as well it should be. You're the latest of a growing list of folks I've heard say these lamps are stretch killers. My girls stretch fine under my 860W CDM, so I don't think it's just a spectrum thing.

Click to expand...

Interesting, haven't seen nor heard that, if anything mine stretch more than they did when I was running LED's throughout the cycles. When I switched to flowering with the 315's I noticed an increase in stretch compared to LED's. Some of it could be that I veg under 3w/blurple LED's then flip them under CMH, when they hit the flower room they explode and stretch like mofo's, I depend on it as the node spacing under the blurple LED's in veg is very tight/dense.

GroErr said:

Interesting, haven't seen nor heard that, if anything mine stretch more than they did when I was running LED's throughout the cycles. When I switched to flowering with the 315's I noticed an increase in stretch compared to LED's. Some of it could be that I veg under 3w/blurple LED's then flip them under CMH, when they hit the flower room they explode and stretch like mofo's, I depend on it as the node spacing under the blurple LED's in veg is very tight/dense.

Click to expand...

I wonder what you/they are doing differently? Maybe you're comparing your stretch to the LED and others are comparing theirs to HPS?

ttystikk said:

I wonder what you/they are doing differently? Maybe you're comparing your stretch to the LED and others are comparing theirs to HPS?

Click to expand...

I'm thinking it has more to do with the switch in light sources more than anything, haven't been able to find anything to back that up but it's about the only thing I do differently than most folks using these LEC's for flowering. My son does the same thing and we didn't notice much of a difference when he switched out his hps for the CMH, another reason I'm thinking the switch from blurple to another light source for flowering makes a difference.

GroErr said:

I'm thinking it has more to do with the switch in light sources more than anything, haven't been able to find anything to back that up but it's about the only thing I do differently than most folks using these LEC's for flowering. My son does the same thing and we didn't notice much of a difference when he switched out his hps for the CMH, another reason I'm thinking the switch from blurple to another light source for flowering makes a difference.

Click to expand...

I run most of my veg under HPS- because what I want out of my babies IS stretch. Once they hit the trellis, my preference is for them to not bolt quite so much. CDM did this for me compared to HPS, so I'm wondering if veg light spectrum has more to do with stretch phenomena than we might assume.