-
ICMag with help from Landrace Warden and The Vault is running a NEW contest in November! You can check it here. Prizes are seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!
Suncloak
- Thread starter timmur
- Start date
Not impressed, especially for the price. I had to dig for what little actual "technical" info they provide. If their diagram is correct they use surface mount diodes of UNKNOWN origin. YIKES
Amare Tech sells a SE 50 with UVB COB hybrid for ~ $1000 that covers 4 x 4
Amare Tech sells a SE 50 with UVB COB hybrid for ~ $1000 that covers 4 x 4
lumengineer
New member
Hello timmur,
I am the design engineer for the Suncloak grow light system. I would be happy to answer any questions you might have.
PetFlora,
From a technical perspective I'm not sure if it is impressive or not. I can say that the grower on the other site, who seems totally legit, had some pretty good results with the system. According his final report he yielded 1.49 GPW. See attached. The grow was an indica leaning strain, but he's in the middle of a sativa grow currently and appears to be doing even better.
I guess I was intrigued with the vertical arrangement.
How many μmol/s? Grouchy covered some of my other questions.
lumengineer
New member
The LED used in the Suncloak system was designed by Suncloak. We started designing this chip two years ago. No manufacturer (Cree, Epistar, etc.) made the spectrum, CRI and lumen efficiency we needed.
I can give you some specifics about the chip/system...
For a 4' x 8' grow table with plants 16" on center (3 x 6 matrix) [18 plants]
Each Sunblade has 1260 LEDs
There are 6 active Sunblades per 4'x8' table. (7,560 LEDs)
1200 watts per 4' x 8' table
Minimum of 189,000 lumens is more efficiently delivered to the plants in the table.
Suncloak is a simple concept....
We don't bombard the plant with intense hot light from a single source (top). Instead we gently engulf and surround the plant in an efficient spectrum of light. Literally light is directed at the plant from thousands of directions. Allowing the top middle and bottom of the plant to produce quality yield.
LED specifics
CCT < 2200K
Each LED produces 25-30 lumens
LEDs are powered at an extremely low 0.15 watts each
Low watts gives excellent efficiency (160+ lumens/watt)
Low watts also produces very little heat. (surface temp of 90F)
I hope this information is helpful.
lumengineer
New member
Thank you for the question.
Our system is completely different than anything available for commercial use. I agree μmol/s would be important on a traditional top down light system that only exposes the top of the canopy to light. You would want to deliver a very intense light if your surface area was limited.
The Suncloak system completely engulfs the entire plant including the top and bottom of almost every leaf. Our surface area or canopy penetration does not have the same limits. As an example when you place your hand inside a plant illuminated by the Suncloak system you will not see shadows on your hand.
In addition because we run at such a low surface temperature the LEDs are literally inches or less from the plant, often touching the plant.
In other words the efficiency of the light delivery system is so much better than traditionally top down lighting that μmol/s becomes irrelevant.
We recognize that at first look we have a strange system, but we are only focused on two things higher quality and higher yield. We have two more grow cycles being tested and documented that will be available for review by the end of the week. And more coming each month. Please continue to watch our results I think you will be impressed.
I hope this information is helpful.
Lumengineer, not trying to be facetious, but you talk about lumens and not μmol/s? As I'm sure you are aware, lumens are not a very good metric for lighting plants; it is better suited to humans. I'm fairly certain that PPFD is just as valid as a metric for LEDs as it is for HID lighting. How would one calculate DLI (daily light integral) without this data? Just because plants are close to a light source doesn't mean photon flux is not important.
Cool white fluorescent lamps can be kept very close to plants (similar to your LEDs) and in fact need to be kept close to provide enough photons to drive photosynthesis. in this case I can convert from lux to PPF by
PPFD=Lux * 0.0135. Problem is I can't do this conversion for LED as I don't know the necessary constant.
All of this aside, I think your lighting system is cool. I just want to know its output in a more meaningful way.
Cool white fluorescent lamps can be kept very close to plants (similar to your LEDs) and in fact need to be kept close to provide enough photons to drive photosynthesis. in this case I can convert from lux to PPF by
PPFD=Lux * 0.0135. Problem is I can't do this conversion for LED as I don't know the necessary constant.
All of this aside, I think your lighting system is cool. I just want to know its output in a more meaningful way.
lumengineer
New member
Thank you for engaging on this subject.
The reason I use lumens is that lumens can be easily and accurately measured with relative inexpensive equipment. In addition, light spectrum can be easily and accurately measured. PPF is somewhat a function of lumens and spectrum.
I will add my comments on PPFD in a moment. But I would like to kindly stress that the profitable product produced by the Suncloak system is not μmol/s? We are trying to produce the maximum lbs of cannabis with THC levels greater than 22%. We can not sell μmol/s. So even when I discuss PPF/PFFD below...my mind set is still if I can produce 5 lbs of high quality product on a 4' x 8' table with lights that produce 10 μmol/s I am ecstatic.
For simplicity PPF is what the light produces and PPFD is what the plant experiences relative to the actual surface area of the plant. PPFD is μmol/s for a given surface area.
Think of a plant that is 1.33' wide x 1.33' deep x 4' tall (This the approximate size of the plants our customers are growing with the Suncloak system).
The surface area of the plant contacted by a "top" light system would be 1.33' x 1.33' = or 1.75 sq feet.
The same plant in a Suncloak system would have a surface area contacted by light of (1.33' x 4' x 4 sides) plus (1.33' x 1.33') which equals 23 sq ft.
23 sq ft / 1.75 sq ft = 13.2
In other words a traditional top down LED light would have to have a PPFD 13.2 times greater than the PPFD of the Suncloak system in order to have equal grow effect on the plant.
Please understand that I clearly recognize that all that I just stated is theoretical, like so many other statements I read about PPF and PPFD as applied to plants. PPFD is so drastically effected by distant, reflection, and canopy penetration it is in and of itself theoretical when applied to the surface of a plant.
I am not trying to be confrontational or argumentative when I say that the efficiency by which Suncloak delivers light to the plant is so much greater than traditional top light systems that PPF and PPFD almost irrelevant.
We think we have the following:
Excellent spectrum for flowering (attached).
Great efficiency at 160+ lumens per watt.
Physically, the most efficient light delivery system.
Again we are focused on high quality and high yield in whatever form that me come. I look forward to sharing more customer grow results in the coming weeks.
Thank you again for engaging this subject and I hope this information is helpful.
Oregonism
Active member
honestly, what nonsense!
lumens are photometric and PAR/PPF/PPFD is radiometric...and lets not even mention that lumens are weighted around 680ish NM....
So don't have an SPD for your diodes then? Because you can simply convert photo data to radio data or at least use a weighted mean....
and what is the LER, to prove that 160 lumens/watt is indeed, efficient...
A light engineer that won't use PPFD as a metric to calculate photons in the canopy, WTF homie?
edit....
If you have less PPFD and more surface area, up, down, around, front and back...you will still have lower PPFD and hence lower plant mass, its all about the photons..angling them differently doesn't create new photons...You still have LESS. Measuring lumens only helps to obscure that fact from hapless buyers, what bullshit...
Dion
Active member
ok sure
i agree with what others are saying about that u dont have graphs and spectrum charts etc
but more sickening is that you try to justify that your system doesnt need as much light because blah blah blah
plants like light-end of discussion
ok now about your data:
so lets pretend that we believe you for a second
how many of these leds are in each system?
oh god damn i just looked at your spectrum chart-of course you get a lot of lumens lol
dude....
so what colour is the light? you sau 2200k? but what CRI-20? lol the light is mostly green and yellow right-so the human eye sees that best-so your lumens are high
anyways that was fun
for that price.... i dunno what to say i guess doesnt matter
I smell something fishy here. Your OP did not suggest the knowledge you have here to ask these questions. Combine that with the engineer jumping right in as a newbie (has he been lurking on IC in general, or...?)
A couple years ago I was going to take common commercial office led panel lights 1 x 2 and 2 x 4 and make an enclosure out of them. Even at my cost (my company retrofits old cfl troffers in offices) the price was prohibitive
Very professionally designed report. Too professional, perhaps?
Here's my last plant under a Amare SE 220 COB hybrid with lenses. The bud/cell phone pic was > 30"+ below the panel. It was so heavy it bent the branch, leaning against the side of the 33 x 33 tent. Look at the bud density and thickness well below the light (new version is 250w @ $745)
Attached pic is from wrong plant, it was grown under hot5s
View attachment 346554 View attachment 346555
PetFlora,
The report came from another forum as did the pic. Like I said originally, I was looking for more technical info, hence the post.
BTW, go look at some of my other posts and see if I have the knowledge to ask the questions I did. Paranoid much? Jeesh.
I find it funny that the report is too professional. It sales literature. Of course it should appear professional.
Just to be clear, I have no affiliation with Suncloak. Their approach caught my eye because I tried a vertical 360 degree approach with T5s that was similar.
The report came from another forum as did the pic. Like I said originally, I was looking for more technical info, hence the post.
BTW, go look at some of my other posts and see if I have the knowledge to ask the questions I did. Paranoid much? Jeesh.
I find it funny that the report is too professional. It sales literature. Of course it should appear professional.
Just to be clear, I have no affiliation with Suncloak. Their approach caught my eye because I tried a vertical 360 degree approach with T5s that was similar.
lumengineer,
Thanks for the response. I appreciate your surface area argument. With that said providing PPFD still makes sense. I'm guessing that most of the forum members would like detailed technical data on the system in addition to anecdotal grow log type information. I know I do.
I do agree that biomass production with the highest level of cannabinoid content while minimizing energy requirements is the end game.
Nothing to argue about here, lumengineer is a salesperson lacking in knowledge of both light and how it affects plant growth. It has been awhile since I have read such well stated drivel.
As said, no argument, that would take two sides and there is no opposing viewpoint, just a word salad of ignorance.
As said, no argument, that would take two sides and there is no opposing viewpoint, just a word salad of ignorance.
It's clear you have knowledge, it just didn't match the way you wrote the O P
The odd thing is, he became a member within an hour of you posting.
oooh man petflora is gonna eat you for breakfast....yeehaw
