Testing InnoLed's 120w horticultural led fixture= Let there be warm white/ high cri light!:)

PSUAGRO.

PSUAGRO.

Well-Known Member
churchhaze said:
The whole concept of "punch power" is ridiculous.

"We're trying to perfect the ideal punch vs area coverage." is basically another way of saying "the source doesn't generate enough light to cover a large enough area. Because of this, we need an incredibly high die density and powerful optics to meet specifications."

A lot of us run cobs at 40-60W evenly spread over the canopy with no lenses or reflectors at all.
Click to expand...
churchhaze said:
What I really can't understand is how a few pages back it was suggested to put the light 3 inches to the canopy.

If you put those optics on one of my vero 29s and run it at 2.1A, it would burn down your canopy like ants under a magnifying glass. Not from heat conduction, but through radiation alone.
Click to expand...
I have not used any other cobs; so I can't compare cree/bridgelux's offerings to Innoled's in house version truthfully. I dislike secondary optics; always have. Like I said before, I rather take the losses at the reflector, preferably aluminum(miro4; 95% +) and as CLOSE to the light source as possible.

These fixtures are a work in progress and have flaws like the rest............SINGLE cob designs suffer the same issues as hid; fast ppf(d) drop on the outer area.

MrFlux said:
It must be a pretty weak light compared to normal COBs. The point sourciness is also not ideal. I'm impressed how well psuagro did given this light. Looking at the evenness of the plants he must have rotated them like it's a barbeque. I think it is only out of respect for him that Innoled is not completely flamed down here. Like what normally would happen with "320W replaces 1000W" claims.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the respect mr flux.....................I did put allot of effort in this grow(constant PITA rotations), no commercial grower would have bothered with it and just ran higher wattage panels as always. I knew from the start that i needed to do it for any decent outcome=== I do wanna get something out of my time:)

Yes their claims are too high and I've told them this since the beginning. Will any current 120w led panel give 400w hps results???NO. Will any current 320w led panel give 1000w hps results?? NO.............I've used them and know what those salt/halide arcs can deliver.

be safe growers
 
G

Grnlife

Active Member
First of all, great job on your grow PSAUGRO despite all the issues. A great farmer knows from experience how to over come these obstacles. You've done that with this grow.:clap:

Churchhaze - Before you make a comment without actually testing "punch power" have you done testing on different wattage to see what each wattage produce at different heights? If you have, please share with us. We all love to hear your results.

From my testing of just 1 320W unit. It can cover a 4 x 4 easy at 2' with only 1 light source. I've also done testing with 4 80W chips to see if the coverage is better and if the "punch power" is comparable to one single light source. The result is, the one light source produces more foot-candle than the 4 80W unit, BUT the spread and evenness of the 4 chips is slightly better but you also loose a little bit of foot-candle by dropping the wattage on the chip. This been said, if you are a commercial grower and you have 100-300 lights then coverage is not an issue if you set it up correctly using our single 320W unit. If you are a closet grower and only use 1-4 lights, maybe the 4 80W chip unit is the way to go for that application. Even though we're a small US company, we think big. We think more on the commercial side.

I bet you if you were to put on a lens or reflector on your unit, you will see the improvement in foot-candle vs without. Same thing apply if you have 4 20W chip vs 1 80W chip. The 80W chip will produce more foot-candle than the 4 20W.

Everyone on this forum is very knowledgeable about growing. Let us do what we do best... LED's. We will listen and make necessary adjustment where we see fit. Here is the 4 80W unit that I've been testing without lens. Not to take anything away or get too side track from what PSAUGRO is doing, but here are some pics of our "test lab". There are 3 different 320W units that we're testing, a total of 900W over 18 sites. These pics are week 1 of 12/12. So yes we are actually testing it on actually cannabis and not talking out of our asses when it comes to testing.

3" away using our 120W will not burn the leaf, it only burn if it's touching the lens.
 

Attachments

G

Grnlife

Active Member
You're right PSAUGRO, After a few runs I do see that the 320W unit is not there yet to replace the 1000W unit as far as yield. I've seen it varies between 1/4-1/2 pound depending on the grower with Indica strains. After this run is finished, I'm going to test the 500W unit out and see if it's up to par with the 1000W. I'll let you guys know in the near future.
 
C

churchhaze

Well-Known Member
Grnlife said:
This been said, if you are a commercial grower and you have 100-300 lights then coverage is not an issue if you set it up correctly using our single 320W unit. If you are a closet grower and only use 1-4 lights, maybe the 4 80W chip unit is the way to go for that application. Even though we're a small US company, we think big. We think more on the commercial side.
Click to expand...
This is totally backwards. The larger your operation, the less reflectors/lens matter. It's micro operations that benefit more from lenses, but even then I'd still avoid lenses.

Grnlife said:
I bet you if you were to put on a lens or reflector on your unit, you will see the improvement in foot-candle vs without. Same thing apply if you have 4 20W chip vs 1 80W chip. The 80W chip will produce more foot-candle than the 4 20W.
Click to expand...
This is an attempt at a straw-man fallacy. Of course you will see an improvement in intensity with lenses, but also a decline in area coverage. Large operations absolutely need to worry about area coverage.

Bottom line is that light intensity a gimmick to begin with. I only care about the total output (in lumens or in radiometric watts). If intensity isn't high enough for a given area, more total output is needed.

Grnlife said:
3" away using our 120W will not burn the leaf, it only burn if it's touching the lens.
Click to expand...
Well maybe it should.
 
Last edited:
P

PurpleBuz

Well-Known Member
Grnlife said:
From my testing of just 1 320W unit. It can cover a 4 x 4 easy at 2' with only 1 light source. .
Click to expand...
Could you show us a par footprint of a 4x4 at 18" and 24" with and without the lens ?

That would tell us a lot, about what your real coverage is like.
I'd like to also see this for your 120 watt unit.

Lots of small lights is hard to manage (cable logistic nightmare scenaios), small footprint high powered lights require a lot of height to get the area coverage. Would be good to think about units that integrate a few of your units to get the required coverage and simplify the logistic issues. For example two 3 foot long bar holding 3 of the 120 watt units could be a great 600watt hps replacement, and two of those might replace a 1000 watt hps. Come to think of it that would look a lot like greengenes COB space station.
 
Last edited:
G

Grnlife

Active Member
PurpleBuz - Yes, I will take pics of the output with the foot-candle meter so everyone can see. You raised a valid point about the led bar. There are a lot of companies out there that I've seen that's doing this already with the led bar with 3-5w led. We don't want to follow their foot steps, we want to set our own. The fixture that you see is setup to take up to 6 chips. Maybe I'll try with 6 50W on the next test. There's a lot of things that I want to test and try, but it takes a lot of time. Time is money!
 
L

lax123

Well-Known Member
408 PAR W/m^2 @ 3"--> 408W Radiation out of 150W electricity?
this sounds impossible to me

maybe thats why u have a problem with "no lenses".
Lens means high value on your footcandlemeter or ur NIST test...but only in the middle.
You had one measurepoint in your test...you didnt actually put it everywhere in that squaremeter. Then you would see that without lens you would actually get higher values as mean value.
...I think if you set up that test again this way it would reflect what your light can do and what it cant.
It seems your light provides a tasty meal (spectrum), but it needs to deliver the right amount of calories too (PAR W/W, Efficiency).
 
Last edited:
L

lax123

Well-Known Member
Grnlife said:
Micro mole test, not PAR. This is also an important test.
Click to expand...
Look at your test: 408W output/ with 150W light, its impossible.
Your test was done wrong and its value is very low.
You cant just take the max value in the middle and say thats true for one sq metre.
MrFlux comments seem harsh but theres a lot of truth in it.
search riu for mrflux, stardustsailor, suprasl, guod, cxa 3070....take some hours to read and you will understand.
Maybe your light delivers a very very good spectrum...but even there one could argue its too stretchy...but besides that total PAR photon count reallly matters...a lot, as it seems more than you think...Efficiency -electricity into photons.
Starting at your lens that lowers that total photon amount which would hit the plants...
It doesnt seem right :-).
People here like their plants, why would you give them less photons if you could give them more by removing that lens...and improve heatmanagment at the same time. You need to get some seeds going :-)
 
Last edited:
P

PurpleBuz

Well-Known Member
Grnlife said:
Better yet, here is a test report done by NIST on our 200w unit not too long ago. It will show you everything you need to know. My engineer told me that this was tested with our 200w chip but the power supply being used at the time was only 150 so it's actually 150W that was tested.
Click to expand...

thanks for the info, whhile it gives some idea as to whats coming down the center point its NOT a 4x4 par footprint test.
Thats what I was asking for (as others have already noted). Suggest you look at the link I gave you for the par foot print test towards the bottom of the page.
 
guod

guod

Well-Known Member
Grnlife said:
Micro mole test, not PAR. This is also an important test.
Click to expand...
"PAR is normally quantified as µmol photons m-2s-1, which is a measure of the photosynthetic photon flux (area) density, or PPFD. It is sometimes expressed as einstein units, i.e., µE m-2s-1, although this usage is nonstandard and ambiguous (see einstein).
PAR can also be expressed in energy units (irradiance, W/m2); this is relevant in energy-balance considerations for photosynthetic organisms. Because photosynthesis is a quantum process, PPFD is generally used by plant biologists."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthetically_active_radiation


"Photosynthetically Active Radiation (PAR) represents the fraction of sunlight with a spectral range from 400 to 700 nm, usually expressed in µmol (photons) m-2 s-1, though it is also expressed in microEinsteins."

http://www.licor.com/env/applications/photosynthetically.html



 
PSUAGRO.

PSUAGRO.

Well-Known Member
Looks like School is IN^^^ on RIU:)......................some very smart cats in here, they know what is up.

I will say this though, Innoled is going for a "damp location rating" so losses will come at the chip level(covering) no matter what..........Is using a magnified glass secondary optic the best way to go for UL approval??? IDK. Still don't understand how active cooled panels will ever get the rating. It's a tough design choice for sure.

Ok so I waited till today for the chop due to work issues.............no excuses , little past what I wanted though.

Four full days in the dark(95 days total; 12/12 from seed) and this is what my 4 peak seeds stretchy Northerberry girls looked like under 129w Innoled fixture(aka Old sparky)when I turned it back on today:

001.JPG 002.JPG 003.JPG 004.JPG 005.JPG ..........Thirsty and tired, so I put them out of their misery.

Quick chop/trim and hang................will clean them up further and de-stem at weigh time. Just needed to get it done asap and have shit to do on hump day:)

007.JPG 008.JPG 009.JPG well not too shabby IMO, yes genetics played a big part in the outcome(nl x bb) and this strain can get very big with optimal levels. Unfortunately they didn't receive it and issues arose but I'm pleased with the end result regardless. Neem/rosemary oil saved this grow from a complete loss ; stopped using it weeks ago as it is systemic. Center canopy defoliation also helped keep fungal attacks in check.

006.JPG Hooked up the "old" fixture to a Kilo-watt meter and it draws 129 watts at the plug. Can only imagine what the 320w version can do.............. we may find out after my vaca:wink:

010.JPG ..........Meter is still in "european" mode......lol.......never changed it back, oh well. RH is high so scale time could be a couple of extra days until an update. Right into the freezer after.

be safe and happy growing RIU.
 
Last edited:
PSUAGRO.

PSUAGRO.

Well-Known Member
Sooooooooooooo a whopping eleven days later I de-stemmed and weighed them..........DRY is an understatement:P

001.JPG 002.JPG 003.JPG 004.JPG ........100g off of 129w warm white/high cri light. The buds are going straight into the ^^ paper bag and put in the freezer for KISS curing. By the time I get back from vaca they should be ready.

005.JPG 006.JPG .......very mature, and gonna be some killer smoke imo. Ate some of the bottom/fluff crap and I'm pretty out of it. Strong, typical indica high for sure. The rest of the shit buds will be added into some baked goods soon.

That's it for this one, was not an easy grow but the NL came through and rewarded me with something.

be safe and happy growing RIU
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top