Cree 1000W DE HPS Replacement Reference Design

http://www.ledinside.com/products/2016/6/cree_expands_led_portfolio_for_horticulture_lighting

More efficient red to fix the spectrum of your cool white cobs

More importantly:

"For example, a high-bay reference design built using Cree white and photo red LEDs deliver higher average PPF Density than a 1000W double-ended high pressure sodium (HPS) fixture while drawing half the power."

1000W DE HPS Replacement Reference Design
http://www.cree.com/~/media/Files/Cree/LED-Components-and-Modules/XLamp/XLamp-Reference-Designs/HorticultureReferenceDesign.pdf?la=en

Specifically a Gavita even.

See spectral distribution. 4000k + 660nm.

And compare to HPS

And then try to understand this, and that the left side of the blue line goes down when using high blue...



And realize that we grow cannabis under high intensity light compared to many other crops, and that relatively low blue levels at high intensities provides enough absolute blue light to grow normal. Wasting more on <550 is inefficient.

If any of the light designers for cannabis uses the cree reference, please use more red and less white. Or better, use lower color temp and higher cri... see difference in FR. It's a good start but that reference spectrum is not ideal. Although, compared to a 3500k...

Discuss. Lol...

Now where do I find some cheap chinese labor to put one of these together... hey...

Sativied said:

Discuss. Lol...

Click to expand...

kinda was, in the other thread about it...

https://www.rollitup.org/t/are-cobs-worth-it.910069/page-12#post-12711182

I see, goud sneaked it into another thread. This obviously deserves a thread on its own.

As you mentioned there, yes umol specs of hps do not include IR as certain folks here erroneously claimed years ago already, and that IR light is not entirely useless as it increases plant temp and results in faster metabolism. Keep in mind the values in the reference guide are "simulated".

The answer to your question there is that cree skewed the comparison... if you put a gavita 1kw above 4x4 a lot of the light falls outside the footprint. Add reflective walls and the results are very different for the HPS, not so much for the led obviously. It's a real shame they turn out to be just as unreliable as some here when it comes to comparing to hps. Cree used the gavita manufacturer recommended height (more like a US representative's recommend height probably) of 1meter, but then used a footprint of a 660/750watter.

I do think it's great initiative from Cree, really like the pcb and optics and the flat form too, but I think someone has been a bit overzealous there when he read some people use 1000watt on 4x4'... In reality, at 1m distance, you cover more than 4.5x5.5-ish at high intensity. 3 of the light engines would total roughly 400-watt and would maybe make a great 600w hps replacement.


I don't know if you guys realize it, but the cree doc is clearly indirectly sparked by cannabis growers. The 1m height, comparing to gavita, 4x4 space, and the seemingly mandatory skewing and the stretching of the truth...

"Full spectrum lighting matching that of HPS" - Cree
No... Of course not, no UV, no IR.

As for your other comment there, certain individuals... pointed out the horiticulture portfolio leds before, saying those white cobs kinda suck and the use of those sacrifices several advantages of led light specifically for growing... This design from cree can fix that, while still saving enough energy to make it worth switching.

"LEDs provide exciting new possibilities to modulate spectrum and direction of light, to control instantaneously light intensity, and to decouple lighting from heating. This allows not only to control growth, development and yield of plants, but also to control quality, disease resistance and last but not least to save energy." - international light symposium 2015...

Sativied said:

Discuss. Lol...

Click to expand...

slightly off topic for growing but i just read an article that many towns who installed LED street lights are being forced to replace the high K value leds for ones that contain more red. turns out the high blue levels interfere with human eyesight and how it adjusts to lights at night. and there was another reason for the replacement that is escaping me now

I would like to see the majority of cases of R+W grows doing better than W grows before making any conclusions. It's unscientific to draw conclusions on theory alone.

So far from what I've seen, the results on 3000k vs 3500k vs 4000k have been somewhat inconclusive, so it's really hard for me to understand why someone would conclude that 3000k is the best. That being said, I also guess that the 3000k is the best (of the choices 3000k, 3500k and 4000k). Whether 3000k 80cri or 90cri spectrum is better at growing buds can't really be known without a lot more results.

Maybe you should look into that intellectual honesty thing you keep talking about, because from my observations, what I see is that 3000k-4000k whites are killing the competition.

I'm sure some remember my posts about top led lighting causing problems with photo inhibition. Too directional is less penetration and total photosynthesis in a 3D plant is best with diffuse light coming from different angles. When you use a pure blue red mono spectrum it's worst, as those wavelenghts are absorbed most (by the first layer) and do not penetrate as well as green/yellow/FR. That can and in many professional led grows is solved by side lighting, inter/intracrop lighting.

Another way to sort of avoid that limitation from blurple directional toplighting is to use wavelenght that are less absorbed, and thus penetrate better. The first choice for that is FR. Besides useful for flower onset, a more open structure, emmerson effect, it penetrates very well and does fall in the active range. The second best choice is yellow-orange. The worst is adding green.

Green has (though not confirmed yet in cannabis) a similar effect as FR when it comes to elongation, and the opposite effect of blue. That last thing is specificall why in several pro trials with light colors blue and green is not combined. I know some folks posted some cherry-picked research about green light and how it is not useless... well, pragmatically, for cannabis it might as well be considered as such.

Same goes for the effect of temps on photosynthesis and max ppf and metabolism. The more blurple (regardless of BR ratio) the less effective at warming the crop from top to bottom.

rkymtnman said:

slightly off topic for growing but i just read an article that many towns who installed LED street lights are being forced to replace the high K value leds for ones that contain more red. turns out the high blue levels interfere with human eyesight and how it adjusts to lights at night. and there was another reason for the replacement that is escaping me now

Click to expand...

Interesting, in NL in more green areas (i.e. no urban) they use green led streetlights because it has the least effect on nature and are thus least disturbing. A problem with yellow-red light is that it disturbs the birds and insects, some act like it's the sun.

@churchhaze: It apparantly comes easy to you to make up illogical nonsense and projecting delusions, but why should I waste time refuting them when the response to that is always just more nonsense... I thought you were posting strawmans and nonsense arguments mainly out of butthurt, but your comments show you just factually just don't get it and then logically have nothing to contribute. The fact you see no difference means absolutely nothing and I really don't care if you want to endlessly insist on using a suboptimal spectrum picked solely for the sake of electrical efficiency, and mislead newbies.

Sativied said:

@churchhaze: It apparantly comes easy to you to make up illogical nonsense and projecting delusions, but why should I waste time refuting them when the response to that is always just more nonsense... I thought you were posting strawmans and nonsense arguments mainly out of butthurt, but your comments show you just factually just don't get it and then logically have nothing to contribute. The fact you see no difference means absolutely nothing and I really don't care if you want to endlessly insist on using a suboptimal spectrum picked solely for the sake of electrical efficiency, and mislead newbies.

Click to expand...

The things you say about spectrum are all interesting, but none of it has translated into grams of weed. I don't emulate theory, I emulate results. I personally do not want the results of Mars in my own operations. I wouldn't have even tried COBs in the first place had I not seen the results I saw from other users. Frankly, I've never seen anything worth investing in under R+B lamps. I can not conclude that R+B is inferior to white, but it sure seems that way to me based on what I have already observed. My guess based on the results I've seen is that too much 660nm actually reduces the mass of buds while causing undesirable morphological traits. Believe me, I would love to see results that show otherwise, but I've seen no evidence so far to suggest that a 660nm rich spectrum will result in a greater yield. (in fact, it seems to inhibit yield and total plant height and increase flowering duration).

You're the one making a strawman argument by insisting I know for a fact what the best spectrum is, when I really don't. My argument isn't that I know what the perfect spectrum is, but that you don't know what it is.

One of the things I found interesting about this PDF is that CREE used XP-G3 and XP-E diodes and cited them as the world's most efficient LEDs. They didn't use COBs.

I've been a long proponent of red and white together. My Apaches have a 3:2 (w:r) ratio and I always wondered what switching that ratio to be more red heavy would be like. The Cree solution here is 3:1 (w:r) which is the opposite as my FC Duet.

Cool stuff. The cree design here reminds me of the LSG vivid-gro. Hope more people start experimenting with red supplemented with white rather than white supplemented by red.

^looks like a typo, i think you meant cree is 3:1 w:r

puffenuff said:

them as the world's most efficient LEDs.

Click to expand...

They all say something like that in one way or the other, and is probably true too within a certain context. Same thing happened with smartphones a lot. Google claiming android was the most popular based on how many people accessed the internet with it, Apple making similar claims based on sales in $ instead of total pieces for example. It's marketing.

puffenuff said:

They didn't use COBs.

Click to expand...

Right... COBs make high efficiency easily available and applicable for cannabis grow light diy-ers and some manufacturers, they were never ideal for horticulture. The reasons for that really should be obvious by now.

puffenuff said:

Hope more people start experimenting with red supplemented with white rather than white supplemented by red.

Click to expand...

That would certainly be interesting... if those were clean experiments which I have never seen here. However, it's 3:1 wr not 1:3 as you posted, 12 red and 36 white in the cree design. Hence my suggestion to use either more red or use a warmer white, as you appear to agree with.

@BOBBY_G
@Sativied

Yup my bad 3:1 (w:r) fixed that. Also the opposite of my FC Opto Duet which is 1:3 (w:r)

most decent blurples in the last few years have had 20-33% warm white diodes

i dont know how many of the 72 osrams in my 2015 CLW fixtures are white but it is a hell of a lot whiter in spectrum next to the older models

48 leds $80
HLG-320H-C1050A $120
4 optics CS14130_HB-IP-2X6-W $60
4 x SkinkPad PCB 1950-A at "send inquiry"... Let's say $50 total.
Frame, TIM, loctite, screws and wires $50
Heatsinks, aavid 62625 4 x 11.5", at $200 per wtf... $800
http://www.aavid.com/products/extrusion-heatsinks/62625
http://www.alliedelec.com/aavid-thermalloy-626253u04125g/70115315/ Too small but would still add up to $600-ish lengthwise.

That's roughly $1000-$1200 for a light that appears to replace only 2/3 of the footprint of a gavita...

Based on just the 7.28" at heatsinkusa, an inch less in height, they should be able to sell a similar heatsink required for 1 engine for roughly $60 or less. So for argument sake that would be $240 for the heatsinks and bring the total down to $600. Leds could be sold cheaper if some supplier would buy 1000, saving another $30. A good deal on the driver and the rest would maybe bring it down to $500-550.

That would be a steal and considering you don't have to replace bulbs and reflector, $700-ish would still be a great price. IF it would actually and factually and in practice replace a gavita 1000w DE on 5x5 and use half the power... Seems more like an expensive 600/660w replacement that would save 20-25% energy.

Would have been nice to see the ppf values of both gavita and the cree design actually tested at different heights, in a 4x4 grow chamber/tent with refelective walls, including for at least the crees at minimal distance from canopy.

Cree clearly should have put some more thought and work in it, it is bordering amateurism while it could have been awesome and convincing.

Sativied said:

That would be a steal and considering you don't have to replace bulbs and reflector, $700-ish would still be a great price. IF it would actually and factually and in practice replace a gavita 1000w DE on 5x5 and use half the power...

Click to expand...

i dont think were there yet on 50% power savings till leds are solidly in the 70s in efficiency. another few years.

doesnt make led worthless but 2-for-1 is not currently practical unless you want to do a $6/watt cob rig at 350mA or whatever

I grew with a 3200k 98 CRI light source, was easily beaten by RIU members using low cri/more efficient cobs at that time(cxa)

AGAIN.....umol/j, ppf/w is what counts

[QUOTE="Sativied, post: 12712840, member: 539919"


I know some folks posted some cherry-picked research about green light and how it is not useless... well, pragmatically, for cannabis it might as well be considered as such.

[/QUOTE]
Is there research supporting "green light is useless for cannabis"?

BOBBY_G said:

i dont think were there yet on 50% power savings till leds are solidly in the 70s in efficiency. another few years.

doesnt make led worthless but 2-for-1 is not currently practical unless you want to do a $6/watt cob rig at 350mA or whatever

Click to expand...

It doesn't make led worthless indeed and it doesn't have to be 50% saving either. It's great that led can save money but again that's last but not least and not most either... 33% saving, no longer having to buy bulbs, not double the setup cost, more optimal spectrum control... Aside from let's say the overclocking fanatics, most actual growers looking to replace one or a few gavitas are not that interested in the difference between a 35-45% saving. Either is great. Not that most of the people who think efficiency is all that matters actually run max efficiency... so it comes down to investement cost.

PSUAGRO. said:

I grew with a 3200k 98 CRI light source, was easily beaten by RIU members using low cri/more efficient cobs at that time(cxa)

AGAIN.....umol/j, ppf/w is what counts

Click to expand...

I've seen your grow and I think you are silly (putting it nicely) thinking your results mean anything whatsoever or refutes anything I posted. I've seen much better grows with more ideal spectrum which according to your own logic automatically proves it's better. It doesn't work like that, as you will probbaly never get.

You can build a warmer white grow light as efficient as a cooler white and with as high ppf as you want. The cri was never the point. Which you obviously still miss entirely, hung up on the efficiency of cobs instead of the light they produce. I refuted your erroneous claim more than enough, including in the first post of this thread, and you have never been able to have a normal intellectual honest discussion so dude, whatever you want to tell yourself. Go troll at and bark up to Cree and all the professionals in the horticulture industry that all that matters is ppf and they are using ineffecient spectrums, I'm done replying to your ignorance.

testiclees said:

[QUOTE="Sativied, post: 12712840, member: 539919"


I know some folks posted some cherry-picked research about green light and how it is not useless... well, pragmatically, for cannabis it might as well be considered as such.

Click to expand...

Is there research supporting "green light is useless for cannabis"?[/QUOTE]
Fuck guys... do you have to be that stupid all the time or did you finally figure out I don't suffer fools gladly... Trying to remain nice here but you're just asking for it with such replies. Did that strawman really seem like a clever smartass response to you? See my final comment to psua. Such transparent pointless questions are not worth dignifying, which goes for 99% of your posts. If that is really how your brain works, so black and white, I can see why you're buddies with the most morally corrupt rat on the site...

dont wonder why 90% of the people on this board think youre a jerk.....