4x CXA3070 Z4 .Further Tests.

Last day of first vegging week . (That would be the seventh day ...)

Specimens: 2x Regular AutoFlowering of Unknown exact strain.
Pots: 20 liter
Medium: Black Peat-Perlite.
Ferts: Food Grade Mineral Salts .
Solid State Light Engine : 4x Cree CXA3070 3000°K 80CRI .
Drivers: 4x MeanWell HLP 80H-42 .
Driving Range : min 350mA - max 2100mA .Manually adjustable + manual OFF.
Cooling: ACTIVE (HSF ) .4x 120mm Fans 5.4 W nom. (each) .
12 speeds, manually adjustable.
Grow Space: SilverBox Evolution Grow Tent . 1.6 m x 1 m x 1 m

CXA's were driven at 350mA for six first days ,from today set at 500mA .
18/6 time scheme. ( 9.7 mols/dia )

Ta= 31°C

Tc of individual COB chips :



The two youngsters underneath ...




Estimated Data:


Cheers.

Is that Arduino inside of it?

uzerneims said:

Is that Arduino inside of it?

Click to expand...

Apart from monitoring Tc ,Arduino controls a SSR ,which shuts off power of led drivers ,
if TC goes over 60°C .
(on vid set at ~45 C for testing purposes )

Very cool! I gotta watch this one for sure.

Pretty advanced!
Wonder how to do it like easy way...

So there is:

Arduino - Driver ->Potentiomter (+fans) -> COB with thermostats...
right?

What DLI-12 are you shooting for in flowering?

ur enclosure looks so nice i wanna hug it

Observe & Report said:

What DLI-12 are you shooting for in flowering?

Click to expand...

20-21 mols/dia for the flowering DLI_12H

RE Laser headlight, very interesting. They claim that the lasers are 30% more efficient than LED. Maybe that is true in their design but not true in general. Blue LEDs in the lab are up to 90% efficient and the blues used for our COBs must be around 70%. So how can lasers top that, considering they have a smaller emitting surface and must suffer from current and temp droop?

21,000,000 umol / 43200 seconds = 486 umol/sec PPF

Isn't that low for flowering?

Observe & Report said:

21,000,000 umol / 43200 seconds = 486 umol/sec PPF

Isn't that low for flowering?

Click to expand...

Yes ...

I guess I've some explaining to do ......

Indeed at flowering I'm planning to drive those four CXAs at ~ 2A.
That would be 488.73 umols/sec / square meter ( 380-780 nm )
...
Which is 1.7 mols per hour ,which makes 20,23 moles/ 12 hours ...

Outdoors ,in temperate climates or semi tropical ,at full summer the DLI is 40-60 mols/dia/square meter ..
I could of course replicate those figures in my tent ...
But that would 've been an overkill ,regarding my needs ,restrictions and allowances ...

Yes ..
20-21 mols/dia/square meter is not that much ....
But they are enough for the number of plants ( 1 to 4 max ) ,
Power consumed ,Attending time involved ,noise produced
and dry herb personal needs per grow cycle .....
(Never enough ,come to think about it .... ) ...

Anyway ....We 'll see further how it goes ..
That's for sure ...

Cheers.

SupraSPL said:

RE Laser headlight, very interesting. They claim that the lasers are 30% more efficient than LED. Maybe that is true in their design but not true in general. Blue LEDs in the lab are up to 90% efficient and the blues used for our COBs must be around 70%. So how can lasers top that, considering they have a smaller emitting surface and must suffer from current and temp droop?

Click to expand...

http://www.laserfocusworld.com/articles/print/volume-49/issue-11/world-news/semiconductor-sources-laser-plus-phosphor-emits-white-light-without-droop.html

http://www.laserfocusworld.com/articles/2013/09/ucsb-laser-plus-phosphor-white-lighting-is-efficient-and-stable.html

http://www.semiconductor-today.com/news_items/2013/OCT/UCSB_211013.shtml

http://www.ledsmagazine.com/articles/2011/11/lasers-could-offer-alternative-to-led-light-sources.html

http://www.enlightenmentmag.com/trends/laser-vs-led

http://www.winlab.rutgers.edu/~crose/capstone12/entries/SolidStateLightingwBlueLaserDiodes-Revised.pdf

stardustsailor said:

20-21 mols/dia/square meter is not that much ....
But they are enough for the number of plants ( 1 to 4 max ) ,
Power consumed ,Attending time involved ,noise produced
and dry herb personal needs per grow cycle .....
(Never enough ,come to think about it .... ) ...

Click to expand...

It's like hard drives. Every time you get a new one you're like "damn this thing is ginormous, I'll never fill it up."

Yipes, the first article mentioned the blue laser used in their test was 30% efficient and resulted in a white light 76 lumens/W. Although it may not suffer from current droop, that is poor efficiency right off the bat especially considering the small amount of dissipation (3.3W) That said, the 600meter illumination must be nice!

A thought that might act as oil on fire .....
And when I say " a thought " ....
I mean your 'thought' on the issue ....


NATURE ....
is a really complex term ...

Can a plant survive and thrive ,"outside" mama-Nature ?

Eh,well,of course it can ...What most ,or many of us are doing here ?
Shaving eggs ?

Growing in an Artificial Environment ...

Caution: A-R-T-I-F-I-C-I-A-L ...

Well ...
Actually that term is complex also ...
It has plenty of ..'grades' ...Levels of 'artificiality ' ,sort of ....(If the expression is allowed ...)

Can we replicate mama-Nature in an Artificial Environment ?

Well..
Yes and No ...

Some basic stuff ,are relatively easy to replicate (or alter to" gain that, but lose this " ) ..

Others more detailed and complicate are not so easy to replicate or implement ...

So...

What is the ideal artificial environment to :
a ) use efficiently organically derived fertilisation ?
b) use efficiently natural pest/disease control ?

Which characteristics are mandatory in such case for the Op to be efficiently productive ?

Artificial needs Artificial ?

Artificial Light =Prolonged ,Constant Power ,Custom Spectrum illumination= Leads to enhanced metabolism =
More Minerals and Water assimilated ...

=>

Artificial Root medium ,should comply with the plant needs ,set by the light utilised.
(Temperature / Rel.Hum also to be accounted ) .
Medium should provide adequate Oxygen,Water and Nutrients to the roots ,in a manner
that will efficiently meet the demands of the plant 's (increased /enhanced) metabolism.

Natural Soil Mixtures have poor mechanical characteristics as also as chemical stability .
(Bacterial / Fungal load 's action accounted )

Organically derived Fertilisation ,depends heavily on bacterial/Fungal load,species and action ,
as also Temperature and Humidity of medium. Generally speaking ,is a rather 'time-released' nutrient source
for plants.And way complex to be made firstplace and maintained as " efficient " as possible ...

Nutrients (Macro-Micro -Traces ) in form of ions (diluted salts ) ,are the fastest absorbed (assimilated) fertilisation.
Difficulty lays in being "complete " and "balanced" ,as also delivered at right doses and at right timing ....

Your thoughts ?

What it takes really ,to replicate a 'fully organic nutrient' scheme in an artificial environment ?

For sure ain't that simple.Not simple at all ....

Mama ! (...Nature ...)

Cheers !

Redid my bottles.

These are my stock solutions.

Of course I agree with you.

stardustsailor said:

Your thoughts ?

Click to expand...