Let's talk yields!
- Thread starter Greenup
- Start date
foreverflyhi
Well-Known Member
So do u think that the apache will loose against the 1000w?
Been there done that,
i personally think the quality is determine by the genetics/medium/environment/lighting (some could be re-arranged, but for the most part, in that order)
Dont forget about the cooling cost ( some maybe higher then others depending on where u live)
plus not everyone can pay for the breaker upgrade and or able to maintain a hid grow, led is a step towards achieving that with minimum footprint. Btw contrary to the popular belief, leds are alot cheaper then they are or where being advertise.
Btw theres still a diffrence between 100% led grown herb and hid grown with led supplemental grown herb.
i vouch for the quality difference
SupraSPL
Well-Known Member
Assuming it is a new bulb, the 1000 HPS is 36% efficient so 360 PAR Watts - 25% for reflector/glass losses = 270 PAR Watts in the canopy
The AT600 dissipates about 610W but we dont know the efficiency because the bin is not specified. Assuming mid bin and 30% efficient that is 184 PAR Watts - 15% lens losses = 156 PAR Watts in the canopy.
This case is slightly different than the XGS-190 comparison because the AT600 actually does have a better spectrum than the HPS. Despite that, there is no way spectrum can make up for the problem that there are only half as many photons in the canopy. So from a math perspective, the AT600 can not hope to replace a 1000 HPS.
Greengenes707
Well-Known Member
Am I under standing it right that the calculations are is photons released by the source? How are you accounting for the directional bias of the led...and the columiztation of the lenses.
Stardust touched on it already...I know in actual use, there is fairly even and equal spread of photons(PPFD/PAR meter) over the canopy. Meaning that the same amount of photons are REACHING the canopy. Even though the math says the source has less emitted in total, the same amount ends up at the canopy/plants. Where do all those extra photons go...they don't show up on the meter.
And I mean this for every led basically.
Stardust touched on it already...I know in actual use, there is fairly even and equal spread of photons(PPFD/PAR meter) over the canopy. Meaning that the same amount of photons are REACHING the canopy. Even though the math says the source has less emitted in total, the same amount ends up at the canopy/plants. Where do all those extra photons go...they don't show up on the meter.
And I mean this for every led basically.
PSUAGRO.
Well-Known Member
I HIGHLY doubt that apache uses mid-tier nichia bins on their panel for that price.............600w/1000w hps is hard to beat until the "white" led tech evolves;photons be photons
Yes led's directional output is in their favor big time......apache/a51/most led panels with light losses from the primary+secondary lens & even led coverings on top off that== can't afford too lose any lumens with a primary "white" source IMO........par/umol meter's sensors aren't 100% accurate at what is being emitted/spectral distribution??IDK
you can also run vert/bare bulb setup which will MOSTLY alleviate hid's omni-directional flaw/losses from the reflector
Greengenes707
Well-Known Member
The PAR meters do have a degree of error...but it's not anything to not take the reading as a valid measurement...at least as a guideline. Also spectroradiometers backs up the PAR meters findings. My apogee is tuned for apache's R2 spectrum anyways. Apache sent them the spectral sheet and they configured it to be most accurate for that spectrum.
I agree with the math and theory...but like I said, I see the numbers with my own eyes and they say slightly different. That is why I asked.
I agree with the math and theory...but like I said, I see the numbers with my own eyes and they say slightly different. That is why I asked.
SupraSPL
Well-Known Member
$2000 (I think there is a $400 coupon right GG?) for 610 dissipation watts = $3.27/W. Based on that I suspect they are mid or even low bins, and like all LED panels they are guilty until proven innocent.
I tried the bare VERT HPS and got decent results but it was not a good use of vertical space for my situation and a lot of light was escaping upward and downward. So I ended up doubling my wattage and switching to horizontal. My grams/watt decreased but my overall yield increased along with my power bill and cooling requirements. LED alleviated all those problems but cost and arm and a leg up front.
SupraSPL
Well-Known Member
GG you raise important points. The math starts off with the amount of photons emitted and attempts to take into account the amount lost in the reflectors or scattered. Some % of the photons convert into heat every time they interact with the plastic of the lens or any surface, some get scattered and bounce a bunch of times before they get to the canopy, each bounce taxing them. Some get scattered and head off in the wrong direction. So I penalized their output by 15%.
This effect is much worse with the HPS as you can imagine. When I penalized the HPS by 25% that might have been an underestimate of the reflector losses. If you can imagine a sheet of aluminum so thin you could see through it, many of the HPS photons actually pass through that thin layer of the reflector and get taxed, then they bounce many times before reaching the canopy if they happen to have been scattered in that direction. This is all made much worse if the HPS has a sheet of glass to get through. You get the picture.
LEDs have a huge advantage because of their directionality but that is offset somewhat their relatively low efficiency and the use of lenses. That is why I strive so hard to get the highest efficiency possible and to get the panels close to the canopy to avoid the need for lenses.
This effect is much worse with the HPS as you can imagine. When I penalized the HPS by 25% that might have been an underestimate of the reflector losses. If you can imagine a sheet of aluminum so thin you could see through it, many of the HPS photons actually pass through that thin layer of the reflector and get taxed, then they bounce many times before reaching the canopy if they happen to have been scattered in that direction. This is all made much worse if the HPS has a sheet of glass to get through. You get the picture.
LEDs have a huge advantage because of their directionality but that is offset somewhat their relatively low efficiency and the use of lenses. That is why I strive so hard to get the highest efficiency possible and to get the panels close to the canopy to avoid the need for lenses.
PSUAGRO.
Well-Known Member
Well then apache needs to come CLEAN on the bin #s @ the prices their asking(actually the at 600 is drawing around 700w according to growers house http://growershouse.com/blog/apache-tech-at600-led-review/) ,which doesn't sit well with me either.
The closest I got to 1gpw(HID) was with a 600w(mag) philips hps vert/bare bulb with umbrella reflector 2ft above using a stadium set-up. It is the most efficient way IMO, but isn't the best setup for everyone.
That's the best way to run hid. Pretty sure I heard the apache is pulling 680 watts.
I thought greengenes said his was pulling 680, I may be mistaken.
puffenuff
Well-Known Member
When I asked about the data sheet supplied to growershouse in regards to the at200, I was told they were using different drivers at that time. Now using more efficient drivers to get same output at less Watts. Perhaps the same is true for the at600. After all, we are just all speculating here now. Going from there, I HIGHLY doubt they use anything other than top bin leds. Nothing in my experience with the company or product suggests they cut corners or take the cheap route. Using everything else top of the line then skimping out and going with bottom or mid bins just doesn't make sense when all else is considered.
PSUAGRO.
Well-Known Member
That's why they are saying AROUND 700w
......220v/120v minor efficiency fluctuations on voltage use. Drivers aren't exactly equal from panel to panel, also each driver won't have exact ac to dc conversion %.yeah I agree puff about the quality of the diodes used, BUT apache really needs to give us the bin#s so we can stop speculating........it's stupid, we all know their using nichia now.
stardustsailor
Well-Known Member
stardustsailor
Well-Known Member
stardustsailor
Well-Known Member
http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2006-04/sj/
A 400 Watt HPS transforms ~120 Watts into visible light,spectral normalised into ~600umol/sec..
400 Watts of monochromatic hyper red T3T4 Oslons will emit 196 Watts of light ,spectral normalised into ~1078 umol/sec ...
a 400 Watts mixed white-red leds,depending on type and ratio of leds used,can be less,equal or surpassing a 400 Watt HPS 's umol/sec
value....HPS peaks at green-yellow-ambers ...thus 120 Watts => 600 umol/sec...
Red 660 leds with an average of 5,5 umol/sec per watt (emitted watt ) ...if 120 watts=>660 umol/sec
But still..
Would that be ideal to grow with only 660 nm red leds ?
Hmmm..Maybe ...
First you go for that diagonal 'ideal ' line of 'perfect PAR spectrum ,from 400 nm ,in low power ,
increasing, to peak around 670-680 nm( or maybe 700 ,who knows ? )...
The pick your ..leds ,to try to mimic as much as possible the diagonal line ....
In the wanted power levels of course..
Maybe ...
A 400 Watt HPS transforms ~120 Watts into visible light,spectral normalised into ~600umol/sec..
400 Watts of monochromatic hyper red T3T4 Oslons will emit 196 Watts of light ,spectral normalised into ~1078 umol/sec ...
a 400 Watts mixed white-red leds,depending on type and ratio of leds used,can be less,equal or surpassing a 400 Watt HPS 's umol/sec
value....HPS peaks at green-yellow-ambers ...thus 120 Watts => 600 umol/sec...
Red 660 leds with an average of 5,5 umol/sec per watt (emitted watt ) ...if 120 watts=>660 umol/sec
But still..
Would that be ideal to grow with only 660 nm red leds ?
Hmmm..Maybe ...
First you go for that diagonal 'ideal ' line of 'perfect PAR spectrum ,from 400 nm ,in low power ,
increasing, to peak around 670-680 nm( or maybe 700 ,who knows ? )...
The pick your ..leds ,to try to mimic as much as possible the diagonal line ....
In the wanted power levels of course..
Maybe ...
SupraSPL
Well-Known Member
I would take issue with both the numbers they gave. The 400 HPS should emit closer to 140 PAR Watts and the 400W of Oslon SSL 3T is would emit 156 PAR Watts. I am not hating on the Oslon 3T, I use them in all my panels.
Regarding the AT600 dissipation wattage, I assumed it is consuming 720 watts based on the lower of the 2 numbers growershouse gave us. Then I subtracted 15% for driver losses and fan consumption = 612W of actual dissipation. It would be cool if we had a measurement from the new lamps though.
Regarding the AT600 dissipation wattage, I assumed it is consuming 720 watts based on the lower of the 2 numbers growershouse gave us. Then I subtracted 15% for driver losses and fan consumption = 612W of actual dissipation. It would be cool if we had a measurement from the new lamps though.
stardustsailor
Well-Known Member
Haven't the oslons an efficiency of ~48% ..
Or they do emit some power beyond 700 nm ?
Don't remember their spectral distribution ...
Or they do emit some power beyond 700 nm ?
Don't remember their spectral distribution ...