Bubblin
Well-Known Member
If you run the boards at a sane wattage, they don't need heatsinks.
DIY with Quantum Boards
- Thread starter robincnn
- Start date
oldbeancounter
Well-Known Member
have a link where you purchased them? shipping?
pop22
Well-Known Member
60 watts without a heatsink on QB boards, over that you need a heatsink. However the heatsinks he has are to small for anything but striplights
Bubblin
Well-Known Member
Imo anything over 45 - 50 per board is a waste, but I dig efficiency, full coverage, and not having to keep the boards 2+ feet up lol.
That's super expensive to build I run 9 boards per 4x4 and they are just over 60w each having 12 boards seems like a waste. Have you grown with the boards at different wattages?
Bubblin
Well-Known Member
W/o heatsinks it's not nearly as expensive.
And yea I did a bunch of testing at diff watts/height, at 18" / 35 - 40w per board works perfectly with my grow style.
That and the 301b and 561c leds have a 120 degree viewing angle, when high up the light goes all over the place. So I try keep emm around 16" - 20" and lined the tent with orca.
Keep in mind tho, I'm running 132's which are larger in size than the 288's, less overall leds but slightly larger footprint.
I'd loooooove to see 11'ish inch square boards with the 301b chips @ 132 led count.
Oh so you are talking about the 132's that changes things you commented about the 288/304 there's a big difference haha I can agree with you now that I know your talking about a different boardW/o heatsinks it's not nearly as expensive.
And yea I did a bunch of testing at diff watts/height, at 18" / 35 - 40w per board works perfectly with my grow style.
That and the 301b and 561c leds have a 120 degree viewing angle, when high up the light goes all over the place. So I try keep emm around 16" - 20" and lined the tent with orca.
Keep in mind tho, I'm running 132's which are larger in size than the 288's, less overall leds but slightly larger footprint.
I'd loooooove to see 11'ish inch square boards with the 301b chips @ 132 led count.
HydroFood
Active Member
Your exactly right.
Sinks are much more complex than what meets the eye. So many factors that behave differently in any given environment.
With all things being equal I was discussing the strips sinks in regards to how that particular design would preform if it were in a profile to fit QBs.
I wasn’t trying to fit individual strip sinks on a QB lol
Because they are so cheap, I could just thermal tape them side by side to a QB.
And I totally agree with you that heatsinks are always a positive addition.
owsleygarcia95
Member
is the cxb 3590 still the best COB on the market? I haven't looked at them for a couple of years now...
pop22
Well-Known Member
Not all of us have deep pockets and even at 100 watts QB's are efficient compared to most other light sources. whatever anyone builds, there is always some compromise between cost and overall design
pop22
Well-Known Member
the 3590 is old news these days. Citizen and Luminous have changed the cob game. But who needs all those heavy heatsinks hanging over their plants? Not to mention the height loss in a tent with them. Get a QB and forget cobs!
Bubblin
Well-Known Member
Due to the sizing imo they're badass, but the reality is, me running 132 boards only means I'm running even less light than a 288, n they're still spanking ass.
At 100 watts per qb they'd need to be 2 - 3 feet up to keep from bleaching. At that height the only thing you're doing efficiently, is lighting the walls. In a tent it's not the end of the world, in a room or open space it's a joke.
n It's not about deep pockets, 4x 132 = like $133, and V1 Qb288s can currently be had for $50 a wack, none need heatsinks if run at low power making the build cheap af and lightweight.
Imo the issue is people keep trying to use these things like a cob build rocking angelinas while running 100 watts per cob @ 3 feet up. Quantums are fucking incredible but they're not spotlights, in fact they're prolly the least focused light source I've ever run. photons going phucking everywhere!. But if ya dial emm down and keep them close'ish, imo they're incredible.
Just my take.
Humple
Well-Known Member
Though I agree with you that lower-wattage boards (run without heatsinks) are the sweet-spot (I have two QB120 builds myself), I don't agree that running a QB288 at 100 watts would necessitate a distance of 2-3 feet from the canopy. I've had plants get within 8 inches of a 288 at 100w, without bleaching.
NanoGadget
Well-Known Member
This is simply not true. I run my 288 at 135 watts and i routinely get within 12 inches from the canopy.
They do not need to be that high at 100w per board more like 18" if you had any issues it was probably defeciency not bleaching
Bubblin
Well-Known Member
Agreed @ 120s and 132s. And I'll get wood if they release a 132 with 301b lol. The coverage...
Tho I'd love to see 288s run at 100w per board, while hung 8 inches up for any decent amount of time during flowering.
By decent I mean at least two weeks, and well after the stretch ends.
Last edited:
Bubblin
Well-Known Member
Prove it - 8" up during flowering @ 100w per board - for a solid two weeks.
Legit time elapsed pics or it didn't happen.
Last edited:
NanoGadget
Well-Known Member
I was at 14 inches or less for the entirety of flowering for my last 2 grows. 288 @ 135w.
fivestringedfrenzy
Well-Known Member
11/22/18 - 12/08/18
qb 288, 304 @ 120w per board
qb 120 @ 60w
cree cxb3590 @ 50w per point
all lights run 12" - 18", some of the colas are definitely above that
Attachments
They are posted deep in this thread you can get real close if your feeding enough you have to be over 1200ppfd to hurt the plants I've done like 9 grows with quantum boards and I have a par meter