-
As of today ICMag has his own Discord server. In this Discord server you can chat, talk with eachother, listen to music, share stories and pictures...and much more. Join now and let's grow together! Join ICMag Discord here! More details in this thread here: here.
Off the shelf retail store screw-in LED and CFL bulb comparisons
- Thread starter blynx
- Start date
PCBuds
Well-known member
I've got 48 LED strips each with 56 LED chips, for a total of 2,688 individual chips.
They are all running at just below half of maximum.
I am using 360 Watts to run the entire grow, including 3 fans.
My grow space is 21"X21" and 44" from the top of the planter to the lights.
I am hoping for a 1 pound plant.
goingrey
Well-known member
Wow that's a total ripoff. Could get a 150W light from Mars Hydro (and others) for the same price as the Home Depot 32W light.
Or maybe that's not fair. I suppose they are for people that want to grow some herbs and lettuce in their kitchen and 150W would be totally overkill. Horses for courses. Lets say lighting a cannabis grow with them would not make sense financially.
PCBuds
Well-known member
You need to look at the total draw from the electrical outlet to get an idea of total PAR or Lumens.
I'm wasting a lot of light with my diffusers/sheilds but I've still got a lot of light going to the plant.
My LED strips were old technology when I bought them. Super cheap and lots of total lumens.
I don't think that my closet will become outdated any time soon,.?
I still like my LED strips,..
I built an LED panel of my own,..
Real easy, just give it about 19.5 DC volts and watch the current.
I agree with all that, especially with not wasting money on fancy light bulbs.. I use SILs.
What I meant was: I find led light really agressive for my eyes and I'm quite sure I'm not alone in this.
The same way earth's magnetosphere protects us from harmful radiation of the sun, SIL's bulb filter the extra light to give enough for us to see well at affordable prices. But like a bunch of idiot kids, we're taking it off to play the gardener.
So the plants are indeed receiving a lot of extra PAR. Sometimes too much, thus the above mentioned deficiencies.
So! We have enough radiation (including par) to get even to the roots and to blind ourselfs in the process. PAR solved.
What's next?
Like explo shows, SILs are great for small spaces. I'm a microgrower so I'm a SIL-ly enthusiast.
And if somebody dreams that big led producers are taking seriously indoor growing, they're in for a surprise.
You really think those companies will spend millions to research and improve indoor pot growing? Get real.
Everybody and anybody who sell light grow equipment are just using already available commercial and/or industrial lighting fixtures and consumables. They just re-brand them as "grow lights". Speculating, not innovating.
It is what it is, and in a world of dogs I'm just a squirrel who wants a peanut...
PCBuds
Well-known member
I'm gonna have to steal your feeding recipe Bud, 'cause your girls are suffering only LITFA deficiencies.
Feed the plants light.
That is their main food source.
The rest is secondary.
If I had newer bulbs, I could have twice the lumens/PAR per bulb.
It's cost vs. outputs.
I believe that Cannibis plants use all available light.
It doesn't have to be perfectly balanced lighting.
Cannibis is a weed after all.
NIKT
Active member
The easiest but imprecise conversion method for white led light. Lamp emission value x 0.015 => for different spectral temperatures and CRI it will change slightly. The result obtained is roughly the emission of photons in the range 400-700 nm. Former PAR range. [now e par to 750 nm appeared]PCBuds said:
Rather precise enough from the point of view of the lamp user. For 2700K the value is higher than for cooler sources when it should be around 0.014. Lamps with a high CRI have a higher conversion factor and lower photometric efficiency does not necessarily mean lower performance. Etc.
In the case of e27 sources dedicated to plants from China, in my opinion, it is not worth taking them seriously at all. Usually, there is no data, it can be suspected that they are really worse than the cheapest ones for a chandelier. They usually declare a miraculous spectrum.
Plants don't give a shit about all these declarations. They grew on T8 fluorescent lamps, HPS lamps and colored LEDs, and the obtained results - the yield, depended on the value of the photon flux. [note private opinion, only]
What do you understand as a small room? In my opinion, up to 200 W on board, it is worth playing with. The best e27 sources are not inferior to cheap reasonable readymade alternatives. For example, MH series TS => Ts600 only 2.0 µmol / J in the efficiency declaration. TS1000 declaration 2,3. The V tac evolution e27 replaces the former and is more efficient than it. Ikea solhetta 9.5W _ dimmable and more efficient than the T1000. Less durable without conversion, but we are talking about cultivation where after one cycle the cost of purchasing the most expensive lamp on the market is returned. Here, a rather quick drop in efficiency caused by the operating conditions of unmodified LED sources, no one will be too concerned about it. Even if it is to be for 3 crops only.exploziv said:
I do not know how good the 9.5 W solhetts are, if we take the results from the Russian tube test side seriously, it is a source with completely unbelievable performance. SPDs which show _ high CRI obtained on "normal" phosphors. It is estimated to be over 2.5 umol/J. Additionally, they have a high power factor of the power supply, which is rather unique in low power e27 sources. For now, there is one relation under them _ the result is similar to 95 W as before on 130 W Philips 13 W.
The results from the forum # the best of them do not differ from what is achieved under commercial sources out of the box. Mentioned here, for example, Mars hydro TS the most popular cheap series. And others like it. Probably no one will try to grow a few m2 under it, but ..
At present, the led technology is approaching the real limit of the achievable efficiency. There will be no more revolutionary changes. further increase in the efficiency of the sources themselves will be slow, in fact, there is not much left to the real limit of the achievable efficiency.
Optimization of the design, improved performance for manufacturers who are slightly behind. The principle of operation of white LEDs is not changeable and there is no alternative. They basically go to the wall. Increasing the efficiency of the best commercial panels is achieved by increasing the number of LEDs and making efforts to keep them within the limits of the maximum efficiency achieved.
Plant panels have more and more 660 nm LEDs in them. Along with the generations of top panels, there are more and more of them. Soon the market of the most efficient sources will be dominated by panels built in such a way that they will be almost white to the eye, but in reality their emission will be closer to the old color panels. This is due to the fact that 660 nm diodes are the most efficient in terms of the umol / J _ the number of photons obtained from the consumed current. Blue LEDs are a bit more energy efficient, but the nature of a photon is the way it is - the longer the wavelength, the lower the energy of a single one ... more pieces from .. Physics can't be fooled.
if the efficiency is to be above 3.0 => there is no other way than this.
Growcraft ULTRA - Prototype 1 - Full System
Full System Efficacy Test Report – 3.19 µmol/J at 622.4 Watts The Light Laboratory test report below is of the complete system, including the HLG-600H-48B driver running at full power, 7ft extension cables and AC cable. This test measures the total electrical power draw at the wall vs...
chilledgrowlights.com
E27 directional lamps based on smd2835 diodes [maybe in the future and others] will probably climb higher and higher. But the limit for them is lower than for sources where you can fit a lot of high efficiency 660 nm diodes. White light for people. Here you should not expect an increase in efficiency over 3.0. In addition, filaments with chip on glass technology are becoming more and more popular, and they are basically almost useless from the point of view of cultivation.
What's cool about all this fun is using something contrary to its original purpose. It is reminiscent of the times when there was nothing on the market. Times of T8 fluorescent lamps
or even T12.There is still a lot of trash on the market right now. for example, e27 lamps dedicated to plants, power 8 w _ price 4 times higher than ikea solhetta 9.5. The seller does not provide any data about the efficiency of the source
. And many other similar garbage sold everywhere. In this case, the cheapest 13W Philips e27 are a great alternative. At least you know what you can do with them.There are still litter on the market with wonderful light spectra in the _ declaration dedicated to plants. The declaration of efficiency umol / J is most often absent at all. There are probably no laws that compel the provision of data. For light sources intended for general lighting it is an obligation and producers must not lie too brazenly. There are no rules here and apart from the declaration of conformity which is superfluous from the point of view of plant growth, there is nothing. Sometimes it doesn't even exist. Rubbish imported in containers from China.
Lol. Private opinion. Being paranoid anyway, I think that everyone is lying and gives the data as they feel comfortable with without any standardization.
Being paranoid might even make all these e27 results a conspiracy of the Bavarian Illuminati. Everyone believes what they want or not. From the point of view of the absolute, irrelevant.
Regards.
Do you have any idea why this forum section is called "Micro grows"?
It's a conspiracy, where people are growing weed in a really small room, sometimes called box.
We are the Cabinet Illuminati and we catched you!
I would say diy is only worth if a regular growlight doesnt fit, so maybe like a pc grow, or something under 50 x 50, where you could just spend a few hundred dollars on a led growlight and get better spread of light, cheaper lumens, and no work and need for diy. this is just my personal opinion, of course, some might still like to build their own!
Killkingkong
Active member
What do you consider SiL assemblies? I have the numbers that prove DIY is worth if upfront cost matter. if you KNOW you'll make your money back asap, DIY (meaning making cobs) definitely isn't worth the time. if it's a personal grow, expand your horizons and built it yourself, you'll learn so much useful knowledge. if you're trying to make money, learn the same stuff then save money and build a smart SiL grow. eventually SiL efficient/modern grow bulbs will be cheap enough and you can just unscrew your old shit.
Ca++
Well-known member
There will be some more leveling up, as lesser factories get better, and the better factories don't invest. Nobody is really pushing money at developing better whites now. Recently the big players have been working on UV. Some big steps have been made. Driven by the market for disinfecting things with UV.
There are little known factories making 220lpw chips cheaply now, and a market for domestic lamps that use them. Where you can tell someone it's as bright as 100w but uses 10% of the electricity, they get it. Taking watts is confusing, but talking cost, they listen. When marketing really wakes up to this, we will get good chips in these domestic lamps.
There are little known factories making 220lpw chips cheaply now, and a market for domestic lamps that use them. Where you can tell someone it's as bright as 100w but uses 10% of the electricity, they get it. Taking watts is confusing, but talking cost, they listen. When marketing really wakes up to this, we will get good chips in these domestic lamps.
Ca++
Well-known member
Ultra energy-efficient LED with 50-year lifespan set to hit shelves
Sponsored content: Coinciding with a change in EU lighting regulations, Signify has produced its most efficient bulb yet
www.climatechangenews.com
The EU requirement for top rated efficiency, now needs 210 lumens per watt. £10 lamps with 60% more output than the 1.7umol/w Philips
NIKT
Active member
Another piece of spam from F #Another piece of spam from F #
first part cultivation using 9.5 W ikea solhetta lamps
forum.haszysz.com
unfinished
and 6.5 W V tac evolution. micro.
forum.haszysz.com
also unfinished
probably the most interesting small-space farmer on F #.
Maybe it is not any comparison of sources which is the subject of the thread. But it shows that despite significant changes on the market of LED plant lamps, the combined, functional DIY is still alive.
Nobody remembers about fluorescent lamps anymore. A total ban is planned due to the mercury content. It's a pity such nostalgic toys from the old days.
The V tac Evolution... are more than 2.3 times more computationally efficient than typical e27 CFLs from the old days. Really, due to the directivity of the source and the lack of losses on light reflection, it is probably x3? It depends on how you count it
Regards.
ps: PCBuds, a very interesting chandelier. For one plant with an interesting light distribution.
Once upon a time, I saw someone hung a large brass hanging chandelier at the age of 30 or more and put philips in it. vegetative growth. It was rather a show of a specific sense of humor present on the forum.
Maybe not? and only a short-term use of something that has been in the basement for years? You never know.
first part cultivation using 9.5 W ikea solhetta lamps
[0.32][Solhetta Led][BioBizz][Boy Scout Cookies]
siema 28/14/18 Ostatnio podlane czystą wodą, wczoraj z 4ml/Bloom, 3ml/l Heaven i 2ml/l Top Max. Powycianałem jeszcze co niepotrzebne i tak już będzie chyba do końca :D lewa prawa Pozdrawiam i z fartem!
forum.haszysz.com
unfinished
and 6.5 W V tac evolution. micro.
[0.14][V-TAC evolution 4000k][BIOBIZZ]{Gelato#33xChemdawg F1]
siema 24/17/18 Miejsca dalej na styk :D jeszcze czekam, czy coś z tym zrobić (połamać, bo innej opcji nie będzie) czy nie, na szczęście już nie idzie zbytnio w górę. Karmiona 3ml/l heaven, 4ml/l Bloom. Fajnie się szroni, wiatraki oblewa, zapach owocowo-cukierkowy po Gelato#33. Będzie elegancka...
forum.haszysz.com
also unfinished
probably the most interesting small-space farmer on F #.
Maybe it is not any comparison of sources which is the subject of the thread. But it shows that despite significant changes on the market of LED plant lamps, the combined, functional DIY is still alive.
Nobody remembers about fluorescent lamps anymore. A total ban is planned due to the mercury content. It's a pity such nostalgic toys from the old days.
The V tac Evolution... are more than 2.3 times more computationally efficient than typical e27 CFLs from the old days. Really, due to the directivity of the source and the lack of losses on light reflection, it is probably x3? It depends on how you count it
Regards.
ps: PCBuds, a very interesting chandelier. For one plant with an interesting light distribution.
Once upon a time, I saw someone hung a large brass hanging chandelier at the age of 30 or more and put philips in it. vegetative growth. It was rather a show of a specific sense of humor present on the forum.
Maybe not? and only a short-term use of something that has been in the basement for years? You never know.
Last edited:
Ca++
Well-known member
It looks like the latest efficiency class has seen an end to the LED lamps as we know them. The surface mount chips and diffuse globe, as we know, are a poor combination of lumen output. The newest lamps are using clear domes, mostly glass. Which isn't attractive housing little corn lamps inside. Instead, it's all fake filaments. Which offer no beam as such.
We will get spot lamp versions, no doubt. They will stick with what we know. However, we know the price of spot lamp styles to. Instant price increase for the different format.
We will get spot lamp versions, no doubt. They will stick with what we know. However, we know the price of spot lamp styles to. Instant price increase for the different format.
NIKT
Active member
They are a poor combination from a chandelier's point of view. From the point of view of lovers of using items not in accordance with the specification assigned on the box. => filaments should be banned.
Chip on glass technology. Something like a real tungsten bulb, but highly efficient... I hate them, and I have them in the chandelier.
I would assume that playing with e27 for general lighting would make sense as long as lamps : with surface mounted leds are available in version that imitates non-directional sources, as you write, everything with special-purpose will be incredibly expensive. It is also likely that the directional sources will be made with a common method known from incandescent lamps. Losses on the reflector, even with a very high efficiency of the source itself _ it rather erases the sense of use.
ps: Wednesday at 7:27 AM => e27 magic
Changes, in 10 years, no one will remember the existence of CFL, as well as internet forums as such.
One more thing, linear ceiling fixtures. The directional sources will remain here. The power coefficients of power supplay, along with changing regulations, will even in low power sources oscillate around 0.9.
In the newest high-performance sources, modification is no longer easy. Plastic one-piece housings. Sadly, it all makes less and less sense ;(.
Chip on glass technology. Something like a real tungsten bulb, but highly efficient... I hate them, and I have them in the chandelier.
I would assume that playing with e27 for general lighting would make sense as long as lamps : with surface mounted leds are available in version that imitates non-directional sources, as you write, everything with special-purpose will be incredibly expensive. It is also likely that the directional sources will be made with a common method known from incandescent lamps. Losses on the reflector, even with a very high efficiency of the source itself _ it rather erases the sense of use.
ps: Wednesday at 7:27 AM => e27 magic
Changes, in 10 years, no one will remember the existence of CFL, as well as internet forums as such.
One more thing, linear ceiling fixtures. The directional sources will remain here. The power coefficients of power supplay, along with changing regulations, will even in low power sources oscillate around 0.9.
In the newest high-performance sources, modification is no longer easy. Plastic one-piece housings. Sadly, it all makes less and less sense ;(.
Last edited:
