-
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!
California Lightworks Solarstorm Trial
- Thread starter cjk
- Start date
cjk
Member
i'd say about 18" - 24". i started on the low side and moved up as tops began to bleach...
I was just thinking that it looked like you were giving up some intensity on the lower portion of the plant. With my ES330, I can largely stay out of the "bleach zone" at about 15"-16". Maybe some canopy management, as you said, to keep the more adventurous buds down where everybody can get the same benefit.
cjk
Member
thanks to analogue for the find. this interview gives insight on lens angles of the solarstorm and the comapny's views on secondary optics for those who are interested ...
Nate:
I’m interested to hear more about your 120 degree diodes. During the past few years it seems like companies have been moving away from these wider diodes more towards 90 and 60 degree diodes. The argument is that the tighter beam angles allow for deeper penetration. Why are you going with the 120 degree diodes? Does it have something to do with the powerful 5w diodes you are using?
George:
There is no free lunch Nate. When you use secondary optics (i.e. external lenses) to narrow the beam angle you do get a higher concentration of light in the center but you do that at the expense of coverage area at a given height. What’s worse, you immediately lose up to 10-15% of your light output when you use secondary optics. It’s simple light physics: Anytime light has to travel through another medium before reaching the plant leaves there’s a loss.
We have a fully equipped photometric lab with NIST traceable calibration at California LightWorks. That’s one of our key strengths. We studied all the beam angle options and chose to go with LED emitters that have 120 degree polished glass primary optics. Many low end LED emitters use gel-based primary optics and acrylic secondary optics which don’t transmit light as well and lose transparency over time.
With our 5W emitters, the light intensity is so high, even from a distance of 24” that any beam angle narrower than 120 degrees becomes overkill. Other companies need to use a narrower beam angle in order to get higher intensity at the longer distances. But of course they do that at the expense of coverage area.
Our SolarStorm is designed to cover a 4’ x 4’ area. We are very straightforward with our customers when it comes to the performance of our lights. In fact we openly share very detailed spectroradiometric measurement data with potential customers comparing our lights to HPS. Not many companies either have the ability or are willing to share this level of detailed data with their customers.
Nate:
I’m interested to hear more about your 120 degree diodes. During the past few years it seems like companies have been moving away from these wider diodes more towards 90 and 60 degree diodes. The argument is that the tighter beam angles allow for deeper penetration. Why are you going with the 120 degree diodes? Does it have something to do with the powerful 5w diodes you are using?
George:
There is no free lunch Nate. When you use secondary optics (i.e. external lenses) to narrow the beam angle you do get a higher concentration of light in the center but you do that at the expense of coverage area at a given height. What’s worse, you immediately lose up to 10-15% of your light output when you use secondary optics. It’s simple light physics: Anytime light has to travel through another medium before reaching the plant leaves there’s a loss.
We have a fully equipped photometric lab with NIST traceable calibration at California LightWorks. That’s one of our key strengths. We studied all the beam angle options and chose to go with LED emitters that have 120 degree polished glass primary optics. Many low end LED emitters use gel-based primary optics and acrylic secondary optics which don’t transmit light as well and lose transparency over time.
With our 5W emitters, the light intensity is so high, even from a distance of 24” that any beam angle narrower than 120 degrees becomes overkill. Other companies need to use a narrower beam angle in order to get higher intensity at the longer distances. But of course they do that at the expense of coverage area.
Our SolarStorm is designed to cover a 4’ x 4’ area. We are very straightforward with our customers when it comes to the performance of our lights. In fact we openly share very detailed spectroradiometric measurement data with potential customers comparing our lights to HPS. Not many companies either have the ability or are willing to share this level of detailed data with their customers.
Sigh...
This thing is just another pegged board populated with junk LEDs...
Any company talking about their "5W" diodes doesn't know shit.
1W, 3W, 5W denominations came from way back when Philips lumileds made some of the very first high power surface mount LEDs in the form of the Luxeon I, Luxeon III, and Luxeon V. Ever since then the Chinese have been 1W, 3W, and 5W LEDs, mimicking the Luxeon series.
The amount of power you can put through an LED has to do with it's efficiency and thermal resistance. It's WAY more efficient to use more LEDs and run less power through them, claiming that you put 5W of power through each LED is not something to be proud of, it means you cheaped out.
If you push 400W through 100 LEDs at 4W each you'll have more output, less heat, and longer lifetime than if you push 400W through 80 LEDs at 5W each.
Educate yourself on LEDs before you buy.. and don't become a victim of some new shyster in the market.
None of these growing fixtures that use fans are worth their weight in shit. Ask what brand the LEDs are, if they say they're proprietary like Lumigrow says.. stay away.. they're lying shysters. If they can't tell you what the junction to ambient thermal resistance is.. stay away, lying shysters.
So tired of seeing this crap passed off as a legitimate LED array.
Too bad the EVO guys don't know anything about electronics, cause they had the form factor and the heatsinking down, they just couldn't figure out how to properly drive the LEDs.
This thing is just another pegged board populated with junk LEDs...
Any company talking about their "5W" diodes doesn't know shit.
1W, 3W, 5W denominations came from way back when Philips lumileds made some of the very first high power surface mount LEDs in the form of the Luxeon I, Luxeon III, and Luxeon V. Ever since then the Chinese have been 1W, 3W, and 5W LEDs, mimicking the Luxeon series.
The amount of power you can put through an LED has to do with it's efficiency and thermal resistance. It's WAY more efficient to use more LEDs and run less power through them, claiming that you put 5W of power through each LED is not something to be proud of, it means you cheaped out.
If you push 400W through 100 LEDs at 4W each you'll have more output, less heat, and longer lifetime than if you push 400W through 80 LEDs at 5W each.
Educate yourself on LEDs before you buy.. and don't become a victim of some new shyster in the market.
None of these growing fixtures that use fans are worth their weight in shit. Ask what brand the LEDs are, if they say they're proprietary like Lumigrow says.. stay away.. they're lying shysters. If they can't tell you what the junction to ambient thermal resistance is.. stay away, lying shysters.
So tired of seeing this crap passed off as a legitimate LED array.
Too bad the EVO guys don't know anything about electronics, cause they had the form factor and the heatsinking down, they just couldn't figure out how to properly drive the LEDs.
i think you should EDUCATE yourself and look ay my LED 1LB + grows and my LED Results: Grams per Watt links in my sig.
if you read those and still think LED's suck, then you are behind help...
have a nice daySure they work... But they could work a lot better, who wouldn't want that? Like I said, the EVO LED light had the right idea for thermal management and optics, but the LEDs were electronically driven in the wrong way, spoiling the entire thing.
I love to educate myself on many topics. LEDs is one I've educated myself enough on that I have been testing and evaluating LED products for a living for a little over 4 years now. Take that for whatever it's worth to you.
Using no secondary optics is also cheapness with an excuse. The array should be spread out with smaller pieces, bars if you will like the EVO, with secondary optics to narrow the beam. You want light coming straight down all over, not from a small wide angle square in the middle of you canopy, otherwise you're really not maximizing penetration at the sides at all, and your light pattern will have a huge hotspot in the centre (which you can clearly see in the photos) and much less light on the sides.
Trolling is bashing without any reason. I can give reason for anything I've claimed, please feel free to ask.
P.S. GP73LPC, I don't think LEDs suck at all.. I love LEDs. I know that an LED array properly designed at 450~500W could easily take out a 1000HPS. Just unfortunate that nobody has been able to pull it together yet. Most of them are out for the quick buck with a crap product.
I love to educate myself on many topics. LEDs is one I've educated myself enough on that I have been testing and evaluating LED products for a living for a little over 4 years now. Take that for whatever it's worth to you.
Using no secondary optics is also cheapness with an excuse. The array should be spread out with smaller pieces, bars if you will like the EVO, with secondary optics to narrow the beam. You want light coming straight down all over, not from a small wide angle square in the middle of you canopy, otherwise you're really not maximizing penetration at the sides at all, and your light pattern will have a huge hotspot in the centre (which you can clearly see in the photos) and much less light on the sides.
Trolling is bashing without any reason. I can give reason for anything I've claimed, please feel free to ask.
P.S. GP73LPC, I don't think LEDs suck at all.. I love LEDs. I know that an LED array properly designed at 450~500W could easily take out a 1000HPS. Just unfortunate that nobody has been able to pull it together yet. Most of them are out for the quick buck with a crap product.
I think that you have some pretty arbitrary complaints going here, Shafto. I understand your point about the wattages, but the 3 watt, 5 watt, etc designations have become almost a de facto standard - that seems to be what most of the manufacturers and parts houses use as a gross classification, even if it has nothing to do with how much power the device actually pulls. As far as the lensing goes, if CJK is getting bleaching below 18"-24", then he damn sure doesn't need anything to focus the beam any tighter! It doesn't matter if it is a camera, a telescope, or any other optical device, anytime you stack lenses there is an inevitable loss of light. The way that you are presenting your argument is like saying that anything other than a high-bay fixture is improper for use with an HID. It obviously comes down to what you want to do and how you want to do it. For instance, in the case of my DIY fixture, I was trying to closely match the performance of the PL-L lamps with the LEDs. To that end, additional lensing would have been counter-productive.
cjk
Member
...which is exactly why this array only pushes 3.875 watts per 5 watt LED.
The 1W, 3W, 5W designations left over from 13 year old luxeon series have definitely stuck around in many areas, they are however, useless as far as categorizing performance goes. The die used to make a blue/green/white LED has a different forward voltage than that of an amber/red LED. LEDs are diodes and diodes are current devices, and are properly classified by the current they can take. Nobody in the professional business refers to anything to do with the 1W, 3W, 5W designations. Pure left over marketing.
Rives, I'm not saying you should use a high-bay HID fixture to grow, that's quite an extrapolation. What I'm saying is that if you want to properly maximize the benefits LEDs can afford, you shouldn't stack them all in a small square in the middle of your canopy with wide angle lenses. Yes, this is a similar lighting pattern to an HID lighting scheme, which is unideal. Have the ability to spread the light sources is an advantage squandered in this attempt to create an LED growing light. Of course there's bleaching in the centre, all of the LEDs are in the centre! Spread them out and put lenses on them to direct light downward to reap the most benefits from LEDs. If you map out what I'm talking about with some CAD software you'll quickly see how much more advantageous it is to spread your light sources and direct light downward for even penetration across the entire canopy with no hot spots.
Buds in the centre have too much light, buds on the outside not enough. It's not just about being efficient with the conversion of electricity into photons for the plant, you also have to be optically efficient to make those photons as useful as possible. If this array was designed properly it would could yield anywhere from 20-30% more. Not very arbitrary.
Rives, I'm not saying you should use a high-bay HID fixture to grow, that's quite an extrapolation. What I'm saying is that if you want to properly maximize the benefits LEDs can afford, you shouldn't stack them all in a small square in the middle of your canopy with wide angle lenses. Yes, this is a similar lighting pattern to an HID lighting scheme, which is unideal. Have the ability to spread the light sources is an advantage squandered in this attempt to create an LED growing light. Of course there's bleaching in the centre, all of the LEDs are in the centre! Spread them out and put lenses on them to direct light downward to reap the most benefits from LEDs. If you map out what I'm talking about with some CAD software you'll quickly see how much more advantageous it is to spread your light sources and direct light downward for even penetration across the entire canopy with no hot spots.
Buds in the centre have too much light, buds on the outside not enough. It's not just about being efficient with the conversion of electricity into photons for the plant, you also have to be optically efficient to make those photons as useful as possible. If this array was designed properly it would could yield anywhere from 20-30% more. Not very arbitrary.
Shafto, you misunderstood the point that I was trying to make with the high bay fixture example. I said "The way that you are presenting your argument is like saying that anything other than a high-bay fixture is improper for use with an HID" and you answered "I'm not saying you should use a high-bay HID fixture to grow, that's quite an extrapolation". My point was that there are probably a minimum of half a dozen very different styles of reflector for HID's (I'm not talking about grow lighting here) - they each have their uses, and excel as a solution to a specific lighting need. Your premise was that failing to use secondary optics was simply a way to optimize profits. Since various LED's come with everything from 170 degree lenses down to at least 90 degrees, with glass and a variety of plastics, that seems like a sweeping generalization to me. As I pointed out, my fixture uses a very wide angle lens to good effect - however, I am now working on one that would benefit from some pretty tight lensing.
Trying to cram all of the different lighting needs into one solution doesn't work. To my knowledge, your ideal fixture doesn't exist as a commercial offering yet, and you are disparaging some of the best available options. Your advice on staying away from Lumigrow is ill founded. They are available now, work well, and are a bargain for what you get. I spent roughly half as much for my ES330 as I did in building my DIY fixture, and in looking at the big picture, the 330 is much more versatile. My DIY fixture does an excellent job for what I intended, but it won't do the same things as the Lumigrow. From what I've seen of the California Lightworks fixtures, they offer a good value for the price and appear to be well built. I know that I just spent slightly more than the price of one of the Solar Flare models for parts to build a fixture that will have about 2/3 the power, no warranty, and no compensation for my time.
For the record, I completely agree that the form factor of the current commercial offerings is not the most desirable solution - you can find many posts by me on exactly that subject. The market offerings are evolving, though - it is amazing to me that there are actually two U.S. based manufacturers that offer pretty damn high quality gear at prices that are competitive with the offshore stuff.
Trying to cram all of the different lighting needs into one solution doesn't work. To my knowledge, your ideal fixture doesn't exist as a commercial offering yet, and you are disparaging some of the best available options. Your advice on staying away from Lumigrow is ill founded. They are available now, work well, and are a bargain for what you get. I spent roughly half as much for my ES330 as I did in building my DIY fixture, and in looking at the big picture, the 330 is much more versatile. My DIY fixture does an excellent job for what I intended, but it won't do the same things as the Lumigrow. From what I've seen of the California Lightworks fixtures, they offer a good value for the price and appear to be well built. I know that I just spent slightly more than the price of one of the Solar Flare models for parts to build a fixture that will have about 2/3 the power, no warranty, and no compensation for my time.
For the record, I completely agree that the form factor of the current commercial offerings is not the most desirable solution - you can find many posts by me on exactly that subject. The market offerings are evolving, though - it is amazing to me that there are actually two U.S. based manufacturers that offer pretty damn high quality gear at prices that are competitive with the offshore stuff.
