SPYDRx plus Vs. Vero29 V7

Interested in a experienced opinion. This is a lot of money to invest so I am in need of input! Follow links for specs..

Timbers 900 Watt Vero29 V7 5'x5' Framework.

Bridgelux Vero29 V7 Kits. Then we connect them all together and add an aluminum angle frame. Then we mount everything to the frame with the appropriate spacing matched to the size of your growing area. All you do is hang it up and plug it in. This fixture is designed to cover a 4.5' x 4.5' to a 5' x 5' flowering/full cycle coverage area.
Total Wattage Consumption (@ wall): 900
PAR watts: 450

PPFD @ 54" x 54" = 1200

PPFD @ 60" x 60" = 900




OR

Fluence SPYDRx plus. $1500

SPYDRx PLUS is designed for close-proximity, controlled environment agriculture and multi-tier vertical farming environments.

An average — not max — PPFD above 900 makes SPYDRx PLUS the perfect choice for high-DLI crops from veg to bloom when paired with a 0-10V dimmer or adjusted mounting heigh for desired PPFD.
Input voltage is 100-277V.

Amperage depends on fixture wattage (660W for SPYDRx PLUS) and input voltage. Below is a general estimate. Actual figures may vary.

• Amps @ 120V: 5.5A
• Amps @ 208V: 3.2A
• Amps @240V: 2.8A
• Amps @277V: 2.4A

No experience with the Spydrx (but it is supposed to be pretty great), but I just wanted to point out that the gen 7 Vero 29s cost ~$30 each (for the better ones) so 30x12=$360, 6 meanwell power supplies will be ~$75x6=$450, the frame and everything needed for hanging would be another ~$100-150. So 450+360+150=$960 give or take if you buy the parts and assemble it yourself. You're basically paying them $500 to assemble it for you.

I have a Fluence SpyderX. The footprint is completely even coverage across 4x4'. It's an amazing light. Room is a 5x5 tent and the light is 6" above the canopy...temp never gets above 88F without any cooling other than two small fans to move the air around. Electric bill has only been an extra $50 on and 18/6 cycle. Haven't flowered yet but after 4 weeks I have 6 nodes in a compact 4" plant in soil.

Holie214 said:

I have a Fluence SpyderX. The footprint is completely even coverage across 4x4'. It's an amazing light. Room is a 5x5 tent and the light is 6" above the canopy...temp never gets above 88F without any cooling other than two small fans to move the air around. Electric bill has only been an extra $50 on and 18/6 cycle. Haven't flowered yet but after 4 weeks I have 6 nodes in a compact 4" plant in soil.

Click to expand...

Extra $50 compared to what? Were you using HPS before? 600W? Thanks

Ingvar said:

Extra $50 compared to what? Were you using HPS before? 600W? Thanks

Click to expand...

Compared to not running a light at all.

I found this list of fixtures and their sphere and flat plane measured output for a Utah State University study
Economic Analysis of Greenhouse Lighting: Light Emitting Diodes vs. High Intensity Discharge Fixtures
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4048233/

It may help with the SPYDRx if it uses the same bars as the 600. I prefer independent unbiased measurements rather than seller hype.

I run the cd cree 3590 @ 52watts they have an amazing amount of penetration but they lack coverage, can only imagine how they would run at 75 watts!

SPYDRx is a much better framework than the CoBs. CoB put out too much power and are spaced to far apart. This puts limits on how close you can get to the canopy.

Fuck Watts. Watts don't mean shit. BTW: No such thing as PAR Watts. PAR is quantum µMoles, no Watts, watts would be Radiometric not Quantum.

RE: PPFD @ 54" x 54" = 1200 PPFD @ 60" x 60" = 900. PPFD is height sensitive, height needs to be specified or it don't count. Area is okay, but without height it means nothing.

If the PPFD is measured at 1 meter then the numbers are very good. Except due to the nature of CoBs the uniformity may be shit. It's good that the CoBs are equal distance to each other, but uniformity will be very height sensitive. Depending on the Radiation Distribution Curve The height should be a multiple of of the distance between CoBs.

If the PPFD of the SPYDRx and the CoB's are anywhere in the same ballpark (at the same height), SPYDRx is the way to go, hands down.

The height above the canopy is a huge factor. PFFD should be measured at 1 meter. Some sellers prefer to specify less. e.g Heliospectra specifies 18" and they recommend they be hung at 18" over the canopy. The SPYDRx having the LEDs spread out where Heliospectra photons are projected from a smaller area has teh 18" limitation and SPYDRx does not.

AT 18" the PPFD is 4.8 times what it would be at 1 meter. The closer you can get to the canopy is of quantum importance.
As the fixture gets closer to the canopy the PPFD rises exponentially with the Inverse Squares Law.
12" = 10.8x
11" = 12.8x
10" = 15.5x
9" = 19.1x
...
4" = 96.9x more flux to the canopy than a fixture at 1 meter.

Another important issue is the wavelengths. With CoBs you are stuck with white. BLM (Fluence) will give you what you need.
While the stoners on this site have a shitload of anecdotal evidence supporting broad spectrum, it is just that anecdotal.
Every recent scientific study has found narrow band wavelengths superior to broad spectrum. Look at the huge vertical farms that were started on big budgets. These guys have the incentive and the budget to do things right. The hire the experts that know the scientific research. You will not find one big budget vertical farm using white in the growth stage.

There is a lot of moaning on this site from the CoB snobs about how narrow bandwidth LED fixtures don't stand up to their CoBs. That because their experience with narrow band fixtures is limited to the under $500 hucksters. The hucksters advertise how many 3 Watt Cree LEDs they have. Like I said Watts don't mean shit. What is much more important than the published wattage at 25°C is the temperature. Red and the other AlGaInP LEDs are very temperature sensitive. To the tune of losing 50% Radiant Flux by running the LEDs at 100°C. But they don't care they are selling their crap based on Watts. Just because light bulbs were sold by Wattage does not mean LEDs can. Then the hucksters that sell by Wall Watts because they are too cheap to use efficient power supplies and LED drivers and the inefficiency drives up the Wall Watts. .It's the blind leading the blind out there. Many of the stoners on this site are Blind. They always got the line "It works for me, look". Well GrowLux bulbs work pretty damn good too. But we van do better.

Unfortunate cannabis being illegal at the Federal level and in most every country doing any significant horticulture LED research, there is no known light recipe or even a reliable Red:Blue ratio. Stay the fuck away for UV and Far Red unless you know something I do not. In the few instances where they have been found to have a positive effect, it has been in a metabolism signaling scenario and for a very specific species. The hucksters spread misinformation based on their misinterpretation of these studies or worse they are just lying. Too many of the stoners on this site are baffled by the bullshit and too and wouldn't see brilliance if it bit them in the ass.

NoFucks2Give said:

Every recent scientific study has found narrow band wavelengths superior to broad spectrum.

Click to expand...

Can you post some links to these studies? When I look at one of the often quoted NASA studies I'm not seeing it. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20120015737.pdf

In Table 1, leaf area, shoot length, and shoot diameter were much greater under cool white fluorescent than blurple. Dry weight was significantly higher for lettuce under blurple (1.32 vs 0.93) and significantly higher fresh weight for radish leaf under fluorescent (4.51 vs 3.52), but otherwise weights were about the same.

In figures 5 and 6, where there was much of a difference in ATP production it was higher for fluorescent.

Update... I do not regret spending the money on the SpydrX plus. Seven weeks of veg from seed and I have plants with ten to twenty nodes, super compact..some topping some LST and a few FIMming to keep the canopy level. Totally worth the money.

Holie214 said:

I do not regret

Click to expand...

Nice. I like when someone does it right. Don't see much of that on this site.

Observe & Report said:

Can you post some links to these studies?

Click to expand...

I do not save the links. I read them and remember the gist of the study.

That NASA study is very low quality. The current studies don't even use white much anymore.

The attached study, not great but what you asked for: Effects of Red and Blue (RB) LED on the in vitroGrowth of Rosa Kordesiiin Multiplication Phase

This link is to a REAL study, high quality. LEDs did better than the Florida Sun.

http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpls.2016.01328/full

This study with some of the same authors as the above, used LEDs to signal changes very similar to the work they are doing in GMO. The link is to an abstract, I can get you the PDF if you are interested, I know a few of the authors.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925521413001695

With either choice (I have a BML 600 that combines mostly whites (cw/nw/ww) plus some 450s and 630s

Blowing a fan over the bars/heat sinks reduces heat, increasing efficiency

Just got a Fluence spydrx 660w as replacement for my Hydrotek 600w lightspeed pro cosmic plus. Think driver is shot after only a year. Love the hydrotek and only complaint of Fluence is no dimmer. Might make veg that much harder to figure out. Spectographs are pretty close on both lights. Wonder if the extra 60w will make any noticable difference?