LEC - Light-Emitting Ceramic

vitamin_green_inc

Well-Known Member
Looks like it would work. But the 240v kit that advanced sells has comes with a different form factor in a bare bulb setup and good to go out of the box for $200 (no adapters for the mogul required), add a 240/120v down converter for ~$50 and you're good to go for ~$130 less.
This is a different bulb though correct? Is it hard to wire those up/down transformers? I looked them up and you need a 500w one for the 315 and that's actually even a little cheaper than 50!

I just didn't know if the bulb was the same, because the one from advanced is a mogul?
 

Sativied

Well-Known Member
HID reflectors will lose at least 20%
If you have a batwing or simple hood barely 50% of the light hits the reflector. For the total light loss to be 20% that reflector would have to lose 40%, i.e. reflect only 60 opposed to that 95 (which I didn't claim, straw man...). Sounds "stretched". Putting it mildly :)

All HIDs have an infrared output that beams directly into your buds, likely affecting the most volatile terpenes. Not saying CMH cant grow dank bud, but thats not where I am investing.
View attachment 3390802
Can you really not see the bias... you're reaching. Which can only mean CMH is an excellent competitor. Besides that your IR spike argument really isn't as great as you think, it doesn't actually change the comparison you skewed and I set straight.

And finally, DIY flowering COBs are now as high as 59% flowering and 70% vegging.
No. They "are" not. They can be, if you more than double the costs again. You should add a disclaimer every single time you make such statements. It's not what DIY flowering and veg cobs "now" "are". This is just another typical example of how you make comparisons. Inflate LED, and downplay HID. Same silliness as in post #61.

You are convinced you have debunked COBs.
You just don't get it do you... I'm not the one with a horse in the race. Just because you want to misinform growers about HID doesn't mean I have something against COBs or LED... "HPS hater" became "LED hater" through the typical delusional projecting you guys do, that doesn't affect the reality.

And if the CRI was lower for the MH than the LEDs your compared to you would have told a different story...
 

bicit

Well-Known Member
If you have a batwing or simple hood barely 50% of the light hits the reflector. For the total light loss to be 20% that reflector would have to lose 40%, i.e. reflect only 60 opposed to that 95 (which I didn't claim, straw man...). Sounds "stretched". Putting it mildly :)


Can you really not see the bias... you're reaching. Which can only mean CMH is an excellent competitor. Besides that your IR spike argument really isn't as great as you think, it doesn't actually change the comparison you skewed and I set straight.

No. They "are" not. They can be, if you more than double the costs again. You should add a disclaimer every single time you make such statements. It's not what DIY flowering and veg cobs "now" "are". This is just another typical example of how you make comparisons. Inflate LED, and downplay HID. Same silliness as in post #61.

You just don't get it do you... I'm not the one with a horse in the race. Just because you want to misinform growers about HID doesn't mean I have something against COBs or LED... "HPS hater" became "LED hater" through the typical delusional projecting you guys do, that doesn't affect the reality.

And if the CRI was lower for the MH than the LEDs your compared to you would have told a different story...
Triple the price isn't always a problem. Not everyone wants it cheap and dirty. Some people don't mind a longer roi.

Just saying
 

GroErr

Well-Known Member
This is a different bulb though correct? Is it hard to wire those up/down transformers? I looked them up and you need a 500w one for the 315 and that's actually even a little cheaper than 50!

I just didn't know if the bulb was the same, because the one from advanced is a mogul?
Yes/No, it's the same 315w Elite Agro tech/specs in a different form factor (mogul), more like traditional bare bulb setups. The T9 form factor is designed more for fixture setups. imo it would be fine to run the T9 bare as it's protected but requires adaptors. Haven't had to use one of those converters as the 120v LEC's have them built in but they look really straight forward. At some point if I get a 240v circuit in my room I figure I'll just by-pass the transformer and set the ballast to 240v for better efficiency. The one converter I linked I googled real quick, but I've seen those as low as $35-$40 too.
 

SupraSPL

Well-Known Member
A decent reflector has 90%+ reflectivity and much of the light doesn't even hit the hood.
You literally just said that and you have spread that misinformation before and I called you out on it before. I figured you would have learned your lesson but that is OK sometimes it takes me several times also. Your statement about a batwing reflector is incorrect, about 75% of the light is headed in the wrong direction and needs to be reflected. The video genuity posted says 60-65% even though this picture shows it as 75%.

@genuity thanks for posting that vid, very good info but they did not tell the whole story. 95% reflectance does not translate to PPF * .95 = PPFD. They show every photon only bouncing one time and every photon is headed in the right direction. This is not the case, far from it. The dimpling on the reflector sends photons scattering in all directions, back into the bulb, laterally and even upward. This is done to try and improve the spread/avoid hot spots but it comes with a sacrifice of efficiency. Each bounce taxes the photons. Some of them bump into the light itself and bounce several more times. At least 20% of the light is lost in this process even with good reflectors.

On top of that some of the light that is emitted from the reflector misses the canopy laterally. Any contamination of the reflector surface strongly affects the efficiency of the entire system because it relies on the reflector so heavily.
reflectance.jpg
 
Last edited:

vitamin_green_inc

Well-Known Member
Yes/No, it's the same 315w Elite Agro tech/specs in a different form factor (mogul), more like traditional bare bulb setups. The T9 form factor is designed more for fixture setups. imo it would be fine to run the T9 bare as it's protected but requires adaptors. Haven't had to use one of those converters as the 120v LEC's have them built in but they look really straight forward. At some point if I get a 240v circuit in my room I figure I'll just by-pass the transformer and set the ballast to 240v for better efficiency. The one converter I linked I googled real quick, but I've seen those as low as $35-$40 too.
So this bulb is JUST as efficient as the other non mogul type? Just windering
 

SupraSPL

Well-Known Member
Can you really not see the bias... you're reaching. Which can only mean CMH is an excellent competitor. Besides that your IR spike argument really isn't as great as you think, it doesn't actually change the comparison you skewed and I set straight..
I am trained to recognize and avoid my own bias and sniff out BS, an annoying skeptic at parties probably. I am interested in the truth and ultimately filling my jars with dank nugs. I don't care which technology I use to get the job done. I have tried many and just want the best.

CMH is an excellent option, never said it wasnt, but it is far from the most suitable for our application.

No. They "are" not. They can be, if you more than double the costs again. You should add a disclaimer every single time you make such statements. It's not what DIY flowering and veg cobs "now" "are". This is just another typical example of how you make comparisons. Inflate LED, and downplay HID. .
My veg lamp can go as high as 80% efficient at usable light levels, probably higher when on backup power. At normal brightness it is 70% and at full it is 64%. I was downplaying the COB numbers, not the HID. Also, we have CXB3590 3K CBs being tested NOW that are running at 58.7% efficiency out of curiosity. So if you want to go down the DIY road that is where we are at. But if you want to talk about engineering toward low cost COB, we can go that route with Vero29s and cut my costs by 3-4X, but that is not my design goal. I don't encourage most growers to build their lights like mine, I encourage a more reasonable cost compromise.
 
Last edited:

GroErr

Well-Known Member
I'm thinking about running four x 315W LEC vertically along the centerline of a cylinder about 2.7' radius and six feet tall = 96 ft². Is that enough or would I need more lamps for that size?

Or, is COB LED a better option for the money?
Apologies but I have no experience/insight in a vert setup like that, but I'd expect fantastic results considering I'm running just soil in pots and got over 1 gpw with mixed strains. In a numbers run like I'm running with those 4x Blue Dreams if I can reach 1.2 - 1.4 gpw, a vert setup should pull significantly higher. The only one I know in here running these mogul bulbs in a vert bare-bulb is @a senile fungus. I think you'd be fine in covering the vertical part with 4x bulbs, just not sure how the 2.7' radius would be for coverage/penetration. I've found the best output for my setup has been to have the bulb 20" above the canopy, with some strains it's penetrated and provided decent size buds right down to 24" below the canopy, so 44" from the bulb.
 

GroErr

Well-Known Member
So this bulb is JUST as efficient as the other non mogul type? Just windering
Yes, same specs, same wattage, same efficiency as long as it's the Elite Agro bulb, part numbers are the same other than the identifiers for the bulb type. Something to ask if you're talking to advanced and I'm pretty sure I've asked them in the past is I believe the only difference between the T9 and mogul bulb is the mogul form factor may only be available in the 4200k spectrum vs. 3100k and 4200k availability in the T9 form factor. idk if that would be anything to worry about but I've only run the 3100k bulbs as I use them strictly for flowering and those are the standard bulbs (T9-3100k) that come with the Sun Systems.
 

Sativied

Well-Known Member
Triple the price isn't always a problem. Not everyone wants it cheap and dirty. Some people don't mind a longer roi.

Just saying
I don't think going over the classic led vs hps arguments is going to do this thread any good but that argument is so hard not to refute because, nothing personal, it's so typical and cliche.

The "not everyone wants it cheap and dirty" is a straw man. I didn't claim everyone or even I want it cheap and certainly not dirty. That's obviously taking it to one extreme and not an argument from me. It's also the same thing as if I would say "not everyone wants to buy the most expensive and dirty diy". Not really a great argument is it.

LED folks lists $ per par watt. Surely that is not because you want it as expensive as possible. Surely the efficiency goal is also about saving money on electricity and not just about claiming efficiency in comparisons to HID... I hope anyway.

That longer ROI is also highly debatable. Above all, "context", read the initial post, read what comparison I replied to, and you will see price is relevant. A highly skewed comparison is skewed only further by boasting how efficient LEDs can be if you just forget about the cost for a sec.

If you correct the inflated price in Supra's own comparison to the factual one (and that kit is more plug and play than DIY) the outcome of his own math looks very very different. For the cost of that optic vero example you can buy roughly 2x, currently 3x with that deal, the ppf of that vero. And you can run 2 of those for many years (well ok, fail rate is higher) without becoming a worse investment.

That's quite a big difference, and no cliches from the bibled about reflector losses and IR spikes balance that out.

It sure is an easy way to troll HID threads though... There's always a more efficient led possible... If there would be a HID tomorrow that is 4x better in every way Supra will refer to the more than 100% efficient LED in a lab I posted about...
 

PSUAGRO.

Well-Known Member
You literally just said that and you have spread that misinformation before and I called you out on it before. I figured you would have learned your lesson but that is OK sometimes it takes me several times also. Your statement about a batwing reflector is incorrect, about 75% of the light is headed in the wrong direction and needs to be reflected. The video genuity posted says 60-65% even though this picture shows it as 75%.

@genuity thanks for posting that vid, very good info but they did not tell the whole story. 95% reflectance does not translate to PPF * .95 = PPFD. They show every photon only bouncing one time and every photon is headed in the right direction. This is not the case, far from it. The dimpling on the reflector sends photons scattering in all directions, back into the bulb, laterally and even upward. This is done to try and improve the spread/avoid hot spots but it comes with a sacrifice of efficiency. Each bounce taxes the photons. Some of them bump into the light itself and bounce several more times. At least 20% of the light is lost in this process even with good reflectors.

On top of that some of the light that is emitted from the reflector misses the canopy laterally. Any contamination of the reflector surface strongly affects the efficiency of the entire system because it relies on the reflector so heavily.
View attachment 3390837
wasting your time Sup...............this one doesn't want to learn.

do you know what actual meter they used to verify the 20% ppf=pffd drop????
 

SupraSPL

Well-Known Member
According to Beta Test Team:

"The values are correct, they were measured by a 3rd party accredited lab using NIST certified integrating sphere (for lamp AND fixture irradiance measurements, separately) and the most current protocols.

...there's not much difference between the real-world efficiencies of Greenbeams and Gavita PRO DE, yet, Greenbeams is vastly better than Gavita in terms of irradiance uniformity over the canopy:"

Greenbeams with Philips Green Power CMH 315W
-- Greenbeams reflective material reflectivity, according to Cycloptics: 95%
-- Relative amount photons emitted by the lamp that exit the reflector after a single bounce, according to Cycloptics: 95%
-- Relative amount of photons emitted by the lamp that exit the reflector, according to Cycloptics: 92.3%
-- Relative amount of photosynthetic photons emitted by the lamp (400-700nm) that exit the reflector: 76.84%
-- Reduction in photosynthetic photons (400-700nm) exiting the reflector as compared to emitted by the lamp: 23.16%

Gavita PRO DE HPS 1000W
-- Gavita 'HortiStar' reflective material reflectivity, according to Gavita: 96%
-- Relative amount photons emitted by the lamp that exit the reflector after a single bounce: unknown
-- Relative amount of photons emitted by the lamp that exit the reflector: unknown
-- Relative amount of photosynthetic photons emitted by the lamp (400-700nm) that exit the reflector: 80.95%
-- Reduction in photosynthetic photons (400-700nm) exiting the reflector as compared to emitted by the lamp: 19%
 

Positivity

Well-Known Member
Just talk on lighting.

I think its kinda funny. I just want the best lighting, i could care less what form it comes in and who makes it.

Just sayin'

Pretty sure most open to leds feel the same. Just a common sense type thing.

Peace out homies
 
Top