LED Panel F-Series GEN 3 or Bridgelux EB Series Gen 2

Serva

Serva

Well-Known Member
ANC said:
I use 3 4-foot strips driven at about 100W on a 320W., maybe just under, at 200mm center to center spacing. This lights a 2x4 tray
Click to expand...
What‘s the distance to the canopy? And is it a bigger room with more trays? Or a grow tent?
 
ANC

ANC

Well-Known Member
The trays are modular in a room, I only have the one up at the moment as I had to build my stock of clones up a bit.
Will put more trays up in about 60 days.
 
O

overdriver

Member
So I've calculated through some options:

first of all: is there some kind of table where I can see how efficient the bridgelux strips are depending on how hard I run them? Because that would make decision a lot easier.

now the options:

Option 1

400 Watt:
19 2ft long bridgelux strips powered at 1,05A = 144$
heatshinks = 35 $

On the plus side I could easily fire them up to 1,4A if there is a need without having to worry about heat which gives me then 532$

Option 2

without heatsinks 400 watt:
30 2ft long strips at 0,7A = 228$

downside is I'm locked on 400 watt and power them further

Option 3
without heatsink

36 2ft long strips = 274$

I would run them @ 400w but could easily increase to 0.7A and get 493W
 
Serva

Serva

Well-Known Member
overdriver said:
So I've calculated through some options:

first of all: is there some kind of table where I can see how efficient the bridgelux strips are depending on how hard I run them? Because that would make decision a lot easier.

now the options:

Option 1

400 Watt:
19 2ft long bridgelux strips powered at 1,05A = 144$
heatshinks = 35 $

On the plus side I could easily fire them up to 1,4A if there is a need without having to worry about heat which gives me then 532$

Option 2

without heatsinks 400 watt:
30 2ft long strips at 0,7A = 228$

downside is I'm locked on 400 watt and power them further

Option 3
without heatsink

36 2ft long strips = 274$

I would run them @ 400w but could easily increase to 0.7A and get 493W
Click to expand...
Gen1 datasheets were great. Gen2 are as crappy as Samsungs. Now you have to look here https://www.bridgelux.com/sites/default/files/product_selection_guide/PSG-050 SMD Products Product Selection Guide 20170317 Rev B.pdf for SMD 2835 0,2W 3V Gen2. These are most likely the diods which are used (it‘s not documented). And than calculate how many ma each diod is getting in your setup to know efficiency.

If I remember correctly F-series (single row) strip will reach +185 lm/w at 1/2 nominal current (65ma each diod). 2x EB strips (same size) with same wattage will have same efficiency.

Edit:

F-series | 171 lm/w | 25,8w (100%)
F-series | 185 lm/w | 12,9w (50%)
EB strip | 175 lm/w | 13,7w (100%)
EB strip | 185 lm/w | 6,5w (47%)
 
Last edited:
O

overdriver

Member
wow ok, well thats a number.
why is anyone even buying the EB strips? its pretty much as expenisve as the samsung......

or will the extra distribution be the nice benefit?
ok well you dont need a heatsink with the EB strip
 
Serva

Serva

Well-Known Member
overdriver said:
wow ok, well thats a number.
why is anyone even buying the EB strips? its pretty much as expenisve as the samsung......

or will the extra distribution be the nice benefit?
ok well you dont need a heatsink with the EB strip
Click to expand...
- No heatsink = no extra costs
- 3x more diods for the same price
- 2 strips instead of 1

For me the last both points are the most critical. I think it is a big benefit, just from experience. Guys like @wietefras will tell you, that the different is so small, that it‘s too much work to go for more strips... Actually no one was able to calculate the benefits from a more diffused light to another. But 20 strips will give you way less shadows than 10 strips will do. Just from my experience the canopy is lighted up more sucessfully.
 
Cold$moke

Cold$moke

Well-Known Member
I have been planning an f strip double diode build as well
But have kept the eb in the back of my head
 
wietefras

wietefras

Well-Known Member
Serva said:
Your contra is also not being based on any data. Atleast I havn‘t seen any yet. Maybe you got a link?
Click to expand...
That's also not how that works. You are the one making stuff up. How about you prove it actually does anything measurable before making claims about benefits?

What's most important is in horticulture uniformity of lighting. Also some benefit can be had with a slight increase of diffuse light. Clearly, well distributed COBs are a huge improvement over HPS in that regard. Do you see a massive difference in yield or penetration when you compare yields on photon counts? Indeed you see some, but it's not that massive.

So there is already only minimal gain from HPS to COBs. Let alone going from COBs to strips and then from a normal amount of strips to doubling or quadrupling even that. "Diminishing returns" (when the first step is already quite small).'

Apart from that, it's all fine and dandy when you hang a needlessly high number of 1ft strips in a tiny box. It's not much anyway. How about trying it in a 4x4 space with less than 5" between the plants and the lights. Then it's no longer just a case of diminishing returns, but an incredible nuisance to use and and a heap of needless work and expense.

Besides, I did see experiments where side-by-sides were done with some grows with double the number of COBs of the others and he got exactly the same yield with both. With 8 grows compared it showed no benefit of increasing number of COBs.
 
Last edited:
Sanitas Vibrationum

Sanitas Vibrationum

Active Member
Serva said:
30w including heatwasting. Should result into ~650 PPFD

35 w/sqft * 13 sqft = 455 w for 800 PPFD maybe

5x F series double row (250$ - 1400 diods - 175 lm/w)

or

10x F series single row (240$ - 1400 diods - 175 lm/w)

or

18x EB strips (250$ - 4200 diods - 175+ lm/w - NO heatsink required)
Click to expand...
EB gen 2 has 233 diodes? I was under impression that EB has way less diodes than F series g3...
 
GrowLightResearch

GrowLightResearch

Well-Known Member
alesh said:
Inverse Square Law could only be applied to single point sources that are not overlapping with one another.
Click to expand...
You can treat each point source (every LED in the fixture) and sum their individual irradiances to a single value.
Rather than using the height of the fixture, you calculate the distance and angle from the measurement point to each and every LED. Use ISL on each individual distance and multiply times the relative irradiance of the spacial distribution angle.

ISL will work on the entire fixture if there is enough distance between the sensor and the fixture to meet the five times rule. Even 3x distance is fairly accurate. 10 feet works well for fixtures under 3' wide or long.

If the amount of irradiance from reflection remains approximately the same for both measured heights, the reflection does not affect ISL it just adds an offset to both measurements. When I compare the calculations to the measured the delta between the two measurements equals the expected ISL values.

I do not use reflective walls when experimenting with ISL. Calculated values match measured within 1% of error.

But here I was using the concept of distance and ISL to explain that there is a Z axis to light. The XY PPFD plot is not of any value without knowing the distance. What I am saying is if the XY PPFD plot has values in the 400 µMole range for two fixtures at significantly different heights they are not the same. If the PPFD is 400 µMoles at the highest leaf the PPFD at a leaf 6" further from the fixture will have significantly different PPFD depending on the difference in the fixtures height.

Contrary to @wietefras I did not suggest increasing the height to improve penetration. I was only pointing out one must be aware there is a Z axis.

For example the University of Mississippi Photosynthetic response of Cannabis study indicates the PPFD should be between 500 and 1000 µMoles. This does not mean you can place the fixture a few inches from the canopy giving the top leaf 500 µMoles and expect the same results from a fixture 24" above the canopy giving the same irradiance of 500µMoles at the top leaf.

My penetration app is a tool to add some relevant information to the decision process in selecting a height. Because I used 40" in the example does not mean I recommend using that height. You can change the top PPFD, heights and depth to examine this for your own situation. It makes no recommendations.
 
GrowLightResearch

GrowLightResearch

Well-Known Member
wietefras said:
. Of course this is wrong and he has had a mountain of evidence showing he's wrong. Even his own measurements showed that light intensity decreases linearly with distance. Doesn't matter, he still keeps saying "ISL" (as he calls it) applies.
Click to expand...
It was Eisenstein and Planck that says ISL works. I only verified it works when my measured values match my calculated values.

If there is any ridiculousness to ISL it is you saying reflection cancels ISL. If there is overlap you simply sum the values from the overlap.

I suspect you already know this you just like to put your own words in my mouth, say I am wrong, and imply that there is a mountain of evidence that you never produce.

You are a troll that attacks whoever you find a threat to exposing your ignorance and protect your boyfriends that sell good based on bullshit and fabricated "facts".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top