JimmyIndica
Well-Known Member
Does swerve even know what the word "stabilize" means? I am not sure he does or chooses not too? I think he chooses not too?
Vero18 and Vero29 Test Grow
- Thread starter JimmyIndica
- Start date
JimmyIndica
Well-Known Member
Its gonna be bad and swerve is topdog on that one!
JimmyIndica
Well-Known Member
OK. Back on track .
Attachments
Abiqua
Well-Known Member
polygamodioceous
wow that's a new one for me. makes perfect sense "polygamous" and "dioecious".
my fancy degrees didn't teach me that one
JimmyIndica
Well-Known Member
JimmyIndica
Well-Known Member
V6 with 2 DNA whitewalkers in transition and CottonCaneCanes,SnakeVenoms,LemonOgs,whitealiens vegin for the next run.
Cree 200watt CXB based Test Unit will get my best one.
Cree 200watt CXB based Test Unit will get my best one.
Attachments
JimmyIndica
Well-Known Member
topped n tied
JimmyIndica
Well-Known Member
under the optics. maybe 30? under heavenbright? 12 now but in another month there will be more,depending how the walkers lateral out?
Humanrob
Well-Known Member
@JimmyIndica -- have you tried running the Optics without the magnifying lenses?
They advertise a 36" x 24" (@16") footprint for the 120's. I have a 4'w x 2'd space, so I bought two 120's thinking they'd be perfect for the space, with some potent coverage on the 4' length. I finally got them set up yesterday, and the space has a PVC scrog that runs its perimeter, giving a nice white 1" border (making how well its lit very visible). At 16" with both lights running, there is a huge loss of light at the edges of the room on the 2' depth where they are spec'd for 24" and the room is exactly that.
I had to fiddle with the lights a bunch to make sure they were exactly centered and leveled, because when it was off by a little the edge looked to be in shadow. I guess this is why you suggested before that I might want to buy a third one. At the time I thought that was just chasing perfection, but now I see that's what I'd actually need to fill the space with light using these units. I suppose a pair of 200's would have been a better approach, but getting these was stretching my budget to the limit, so I really couldn't go bigger.
It feels to me like the lenses make a hot spot on the center at the expense of sending light to the edges. I'm wondering about removing them because I should have a nice even canopy with the scrog, and I need light to reach the whole thing as evenly as possible. I'm also wondering if without them I can put the light closer to the canopy? I suppose doing that could also decrease the spread, but I don't know how much the lens might be narrowing it (?). I think I read somewhere on this site that someone tested the lights with and without the lenses (
@SupraSPL ?) and there was something like a 30% increase with the lenses. I'd be losing significant intensity in the center, but maybe I'd be reaching edges?
As they are, I would say one of these lights (with the lenses on) sufficiently illuminates an area about 24"x16" @16".
They advertise a 36" x 24" (@16") footprint for the 120's. I have a 4'w x 2'd space, so I bought two 120's thinking they'd be perfect for the space, with some potent coverage on the 4' length. I finally got them set up yesterday, and the space has a PVC scrog that runs its perimeter, giving a nice white 1" border (making how well its lit very visible). At 16" with both lights running, there is a huge loss of light at the edges of the room on the 2' depth where they are spec'd for 24" and the room is exactly that.
I had to fiddle with the lights a bunch to make sure they were exactly centered and leveled, because when it was off by a little the edge looked to be in shadow. I guess this is why you suggested before that I might want to buy a third one. At the time I thought that was just chasing perfection, but now I see that's what I'd actually need to fill the space with light using these units. I suppose a pair of 200's would have been a better approach, but getting these was stretching my budget to the limit, so I really couldn't go bigger.
It feels to me like the lenses make a hot spot on the center at the expense of sending light to the edges. I'm wondering about removing them because I should have a nice even canopy with the scrog, and I need light to reach the whole thing as evenly as possible. I'm also wondering if without them I can put the light closer to the canopy? I suppose doing that could also decrease the spread, but I don't know how much the lens might be narrowing it (?). I think I read somewhere on this site that someone tested the lights with and without the lenses (
@SupraSPL ?) and there was something like a 30% increase with the lenses. I'd be losing significant intensity in the center, but maybe I'd be reaching edges?
As they are, I would say one of these lights (with the lenses on) sufficiently illuminates an area about 24"x16" @16".
AquariusPanta
Well-Known Member
@Humanrob
You could get away with taking the optics off during veg and raise/lower fixtures to your liking, all the while adequately supplementing your girls with plenty of light. I don't know how much reflectors and lenses vary with one another at similar angular displacements but when I did testings for one of my Vero-based fixtures, the reflector made a huge difference within the total area that I was testing within (3' x 1.7'). The results are in one of the latter pages of the All Things Vero thread.
It wasn't that long ago when I thought that the standard Vero/CX COB watt per sq. ft average was for both vegging and flowering. Instead, it's really only aimed at flowering, with vegging plants only needing half that. Around this time last year, the common consensus of how many watts were needed from beforementioned COBS was around 35W per sq. ft. Now I think it's closer to 25~30W, with that number undermining the method of driving COBS at low currents, especially Cree COBS.
In conclusion, removing the optics may possibly help with getting light out to the outer parameters of your 4' x 2', while it will certainly reduce some of the immediate, centered heat being emitted. And 150~200W of Vero (at reasonable currents) should be enough for your girls throughout vegetation.
I hope this helps!
You could get away with taking the optics off during veg and raise/lower fixtures to your liking, all the while adequately supplementing your girls with plenty of light. I don't know how much reflectors and lenses vary with one another at similar angular displacements but when I did testings for one of my Vero-based fixtures, the reflector made a huge difference within the total area that I was testing within (3' x 1.7'). The results are in one of the latter pages of the All Things Vero thread.
It wasn't that long ago when I thought that the standard Vero/CX COB watt per sq. ft average was for both vegging and flowering. Instead, it's really only aimed at flowering, with vegging plants only needing half that. Around this time last year, the common consensus of how many watts were needed from beforementioned COBS was around 35W per sq. ft. Now I think it's closer to 25~30W, with that number undermining the method of driving COBS at low currents, especially Cree COBS.
In conclusion, removing the optics may possibly help with getting light out to the outer parameters of your 4' x 2', while it will certainly reduce some of the immediate, centered heat being emitted. And 150~200W of Vero (at reasonable currents) should be enough for your girls throughout vegetation.
I hope this helps!
JimmyIndica
Well-Known Member
Optics on for me. and there is is big dif when running freeair.The light goes everywhere and penetration is poop. There is big dif between 18s and 29s too.Plants repond better and the output is stronger.3 120s turned sidewaysfor the 2x4? 3 120s at 14inches w/optics would kill it, in that 2x4.
Flowering footprint depends on the user? veg footprint can be extended bigtime with the optics off. That is the only time I would rec taking them off.
I put the 120 10inches and 200 14in but I have airflow over my canopy too. I tell people coverage area/distance,but most find out when they hook it up. You will know when u find the sweetspot and umol levels. I am one who believes with the right feeding program and high umol levels= massive growth and buds that drip oil.
CXB3590 200watt and 400watt production units coming next wk. All the best componets being used and aluminum cases for the people that want low weight and heat dissipation properties. So after this Vero grow is wrapped up? Its straight CXB COB based units and Osram SSL80.
JimmyIndica
Well-Known Member
Everything is about optics and penetration and how hard your driving them? High power through quality optics = massive growth then that =s a happy consumer.
AquariusPanta
Well-Known Member
Any idea on what bins the CXB3590 fixtures will be equipped with? They will be from Optic Growlights I suspect?Optics on for me. and there is is big dif when running freeair.The light goes everywhere and penetration is poop. There is big dif between 18s and 29s too.Plants repond better and the output is stronger.3 120s turned sidewaysfor the 2x4? 3 120s at 14inches w/optics would kill it, in that 2x4.
Flowering footprint depends on the user? veg footprint can be extended bigtime with the optics off. That is the only time I would rec taking them off.
I put the 120 10inches and 200 14in but I have airflow over my canopy too. I tell people coverage area/distance,but most find out when they hook it up. You will know when u find the sweetspot and umol levels. I am one who believes with the right feeding program and high umol levels= massive growth and buds that drip oil.
CXB3590 200watt and 400watt production units coming next wk. All the best componets being used and aluminum cases for the people that want low weight and heat dissipation properties. So after this Vero grow is wrapped up? Its straight CXB COB based units and Osram SSL80.
JimmyIndica
Well-Known Member
He hasn't even told me that yet. His words were "when we go live then people will know" I am pretty sure the drivers are HLG but model? Its not an optic unit, but the Optics are Hot off the presses and very good. Pricing will be spot on for the quality/Componets used. Its very highend.
testiclees
Well-Known Member
I use the lenses off for tall [plants and on for lower wider spread. wIth the optic 360 i found that there is no way that 18' length is gonna give a legit spread to a 48" foot print. Thats why I added 100w 3590 cd to each end.
It seems to be working great so far. I had to super crop some but everything in the flower room is pumped up by the light.
I added uvb as well and it seems like it's a hit with the ladies. im close to a 2 x 4 at 26" x 50". Currently running optiic 360, 4x cxb @ 50W each and one t5, 54w uvb. I have great expectations but still a while to go.
Humanrob
Well-Known Member
I plan to flower with them also. We'll see how that goes.
It sounds like to properly light a 4x2 using Optic lights, 2x200 or 3x120 would do it. Either way, you're around $1000 in lights.