cxa3070s@350mA orientation

Yep, just like the rest of the world I decided to get as efficient as I can. starting with my <2x3' cab.

originally I was going to do x8 3070s, then started thinking, and thinking, and going back, and forth. and I am one fickle dude.

Thought id get some opinions before settling, at such a low wattage (12w each) I don't know how far they will reach between one another. This panel is going to revolve around efficiency, so I am pretty well settled on the low current, just time to start laying it all out.

7, 8, or 10.

How would you do it? Maybe even less?

I have considered running the center two at 700mA to imitate the high noon sun and have them on a separate control for late flower (possibly with the 660s)

still hunting efficient drivers, so if anyone has some recommendations please feel free to chime in.

At 0.35A, you're going to need around fourteen AB 3kK 3070's to get an average 800 uE of PPFD in a 2x3. Eight at 0.7A. The difference is about 30W. Depending on what you're paying for 0.35A drivers vs. 0.7A drivers and how much your electricity costs, a more efficient 0.3A setup might not break even with a 0.7A setup for 6-10 years or more. In six years you'll want to be thinking about replacing the emitters with ones that are two generations past what we have now. Meanwhile you can use that $300 or whatever the difference is on new genetics.

10x CXA3070 'AB's @350 mA ,Tc=45C

Flowering Stage DLI *( DLI12 =12 hours/per day ) : 12.1 mol / dia




8x CXA3070 'AB's @700 mA ,Tc=45C

Flowering Stage DLI : ~18.4 mol / dia

From :
FIRST Research Report
Light Management in Greenhouses
1. Daily Light Integral: A useful tool for the U.S. Floriculture industry.
James E. Faust


...............

...............................................................................................................

..........................................................................................................................

.............................................................................................

..........................................................
,
.................................................

Observe & Report said:

At 0.35A, you're going to need around fourteen AB 3kK 3070's to get an average 800 uE of PPFD in a 2x3. Eight at 0.7A. The difference is about 30W. Depending on what you're paying for 0.35A drivers vs. 0.7A drivers and how much your electricity costs, a more efficient 0.3A setup might not break even with a 0.7A setup for 6-10 years or more. In six years you'll want to be thinking about replacing the emitters with ones that are two generations past what we have now. Meanwhile you can use that $300 or whatever the difference is on new genetics.

Click to expand...

Damn, I was expecting to be able to keep my "white power" under 150w for a 2x3', was not expecting ~200w, at that point im drawing more than my "brand name" panels. Assuming less heat, but still... heat may still be a major concern. I was really fond of the idea of staying over 50% effficient, so for every watt of heat generated id have a watt of light, and point sources of 25w was a big worry, which was my thought process for running them so low. (little background for yah. ha)

But 200w for 800umol average. Shwoo. Now, these will be used with xml2 NWs and oslon hyper red's, FWIW. Not sure of ratio yet, but I'm assuming this could affect things a bit.

I guess my next question is there a 700mA driver that is efficient (supe has some), but is also dimmable on the current side that anyone knows of? To find a happy median or in case of major temps.

Thank you for sheets SDS, biggest thing I pulled from them were the intensities/percentages between the two variations. Could you translate the rest to "English" for me?

Just saying that price of a COB + driver + thermal solution is high (48 + 12? + 10?) while a years worth of electricity is only maybe 0.50-1.50 per watt if run 12 hours a day.

Also, a DLI of 26 Moles / day unshaded works out to about 1075 uE over 12 hours.

Thank you O, Your point of a 30w difference between the amount of diodes (300usd) was taken well and I appreciate you bringing that too light. Btw I am completely envious of your WC'd setup. So sweet.

Scotch089 said:

Damn, I was expecting to be able to keep my "white power" under 150w for a 2x3', was not expecting ~200w, at that point im drawing more than my "brand name" panels. Assuming less heat, but still... heat may still be a major concern. I was really fond of the idea of staying over 50% effficient, so for every watt of heat generated id have a watt of light, and point sources of 25w was a big worry, which was my thought process for running them so low. (little background for yah. ha)

But 200w for 800umol average. Shwoo. Now, these will be used with xml2 NWs and oslon hyper red's, FWIW. Not sure of ratio yet, but I'm assuming this could affect things a bit.

I guess my next question is there a 700mA driver that is efficient (supe has some), but is also dimmable on the current side that anyone knows of? To find a happy median or in case of major temps.

Thank you for sheets SDS, biggest thing I pulled from them were the intensities/percentages between the two variations. Could you translate the rest to "English" for me?

Click to expand...

Φο = output radiant power in Watts
Q = Heat dissipated in Watts

μmol /J =quanta( range :380-780nm ) per electrical Joule
μmol/sec/Φ = quantum flux per W of radiant power ( aver.)
PARμmol/J =quanta( range :400-700nm ) per electrical Joule
mol/ hour = mols per Hour !
DLI -xx = Daily light integral for 12 ,16,18 & 20 hours illumination per day .
YPF/PPF eff.= Relative Quantum Yield efficiency of light ( according to McCree 1972 )

Observe & Report said:

Just saying that price of a COB + driver + thermal solution is high (48 + 12? + 10?) while a years worth of electricity is only maybe 0.50-1.50 per watt if run 12 hours a day.

Also, a DLI of 26 Moles / day unshaded works out to about 1075 uE over 12 hours.

Click to expand...

1075 μmol/sec => 1075 * 3600 *12 / 10^6 = > DLI 12 = 46,44 mol

DLI12 = 26mol => 26* 10^6 / ( 3600*12) = 601.851851851....~602 μmol/sec


Cheers.

Whoops, I put in the area of Scotch's space. 602 umol/s / 0.56 m2 = 1075 umol/s/m2

How much 3kK CXA3070 over 12 hours do you think is optimal SDS?

Observe & Report said:

Whoops, I put in the area of Scotch's space. 602 umol/s / 0.56 m2 = 1075 umol/s/m2

How much 3kK CXA3070 over 12 hours do you think is optimal SDS?

Click to expand...

Mj wants as much light as possibe ..
(in energy terms not in power terms ..Energy=power * time )
I guess mj can really thrive , even with DLI figures of over 60 mols/dia ..

How many CXAs it depends ..
It really comes down at what amperage they are driven ,how good they are cooled and their bin ...

But also for that amount of light they 'll output ,ambient temperatures play a crucial role ...
With the range 20-27°C ,to be considered as the optimal temperature range for growing mj ..


Cheers

Sorry to take over your thread Scotch089 but I guess this is figuring out how much light you need in your grow!

60 mols of DLI12 is 1388 umol/s. Won't that bleach the plants and/or have other negative effects like foxtailing or stunting? Also, one of the other graphs you posted showed the plants photosynthetic response to light and it looked logarithmic. Maybe there is a sweet spot of energy use / growth and/or medicine production?

Just saying that "as much light as possible" counters a lot of what I have read. I know there is a lot of voodoo, confirmation bias, and straight up BS in the Cannabis growing world but bleaching is a pretty rapid response to over exposure to light. I have a lot more confidence in anecdotes like "I put my plants 12 inches from my SGS-160 which the radiometric data on A51's site says is 1152 umol/s/m2 and they bleached" than "I put Snake Oil in my rez and grew my best buds evar!!1" A51, who no longer seems to publish PPFD graphs but I found some data on archive.org, recommends you put your lights 18" away which is about 760 umol/s/m2 but they would sell twice as many lights if they recommended 1400-1500 umol/s/m2.

I wonder if simulating the rise/set of the sun allows greater DLI without harming the plants. i.e. you can get higher DLI by having the light be really intense for a short period of time instead of flux remaining constant at the mean for 12 hours.

IMHO..........MMJ will do just fine under 400-600 umol/s..............Also in my experience anything over 1000 umol/s created problems for me.
Maybe 400 is a little low, but at 600 my grow does really well. All measured with a Licor.

If you look at the plant as a machine.........running it at 50 to 75% power would be prudent.

Just say'in..............

Observe & Report said:

Sorry to take over your thread Scotch089 but I guess this is figuring out how much light you need in your grow!

60 mols of DLI12 is 1388 umol/s. Won't that bleach the plants and/or have other negative effects like foxtailing or stunting? Also, one of the other graphs you posted showed the plants photosynthetic response to light and it looked logarithmic. Maybe there is a sweet spot of energy use / growth and/or medicine production?

Just saying that "as much light as possible" counters a lot of what I have read. I know there is a lot of voodoo, confirmation bias, and straight up BS in the Cannabis growing world but bleaching is a pretty rapid response to over exposure to light. I have a lot more confidence in anecdotes like "I put my plants 12 inches from my SGS-160 which the radiometric data on A51's site says is 1152 umol/s/m2 and they bleached" than "I put Snake Oil in my rez and grew my best buds evar!!1" A51, who no longer seems to publish PPFD graphs but I found some data on archive.org, recommends you put your lights 18" away which is about 760 umol/s/m2 but they would sell twice as many lights if they recommended 1400-1500 umol/s/m2.

Click to expand...

They wouldn't sell more light if they did that...they would get critzied on why someone would need to buy 2. 700mols is the old school standard for "high" light intensity crops. It has been shown time and time again that MJ will take much more than that "high" value without breaking a sweat. Thriving in it actually. Gavita has found a linear increase in yield with "medical cannabis" specifically, up to about 1000µmols(43% more than just 700µmols). And that it still does increase after that point, just with demising returns from there. Then finally saturation at 1500+µmols. But the sun puts out 2000µmols...and art least 1600 almost all day...I have taken my meter out at all times of the day...cloudy or sunny. Clouds make a huge difference...like as low 300µmols with clouds...but with pure sun there is a lot of light for a long time.

tags420 said:

Gavita was quick this time...
The DLI, optimal PPFD and saturation level depends greatly on the crop. I have no public papers to share about this, these are copyrighted research papers we can not distribute. But for a medical cannabis crop you will have a linear increase in yield following the ppfd to about 1000-1100 umol. After that the curve starts to top off with a saturation of the plant between 1400 and 1600 umol m-2 s-1. Beyond that yield decreases.

The standard red an blue narrowband LEDs certainly do not have a better spectrum than HPS. Though HPS lacks blue and green it does have a much wider spectrum of light than the average monochromatic LED, or even 3 at different wavelengths. We have yet to see a fixture (not a lab theoretical maximum output) that is able to beat HPS.

There are plants that thrive under orange and red light. In any case you should ideally not hang only HPS in a climate room. Professional climate rooms use a mixture of HPS and MH or just MH.

The Pro 1000 needs about 80-90 cm distance for an average of 1000 umol m-2 s-1.

Gavita and I differ greatly in ideal spectral performance for sure, obviously they are not up on their white led tech...but there umol levels are right inline with mine so think that I am on the right path for the ultimate light.

Click to expand...

My at600 was 17"-20" from the tops of my plants and was peaking at 1265µmols...with most of the canopy was well over 700mols and nothing below 600µmols. Not one light intensity based issue...no issues for that matter. Not even any signs of bleaching or negative effects. And the hps was even in intensity yet caused way more foxtailing...way more and bigger.

EDIT:
Scotch...you and I are on the brain waves lengths...I want to do better than 1400ma's performance. But 700ma is the lowest I will go.

The only thing I found from Gavita was "high light recipe of 700 umol" http://www.gavita-holland.com/index.php/item/lumens-are-for-humans.html but I did find a couple of papers from the Mississippi crew suggesting increases up to around 1500 umol http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12298-008-0027-x and https://www.thieme-connect.com/products/ejournals/abstract/10.1055/s-0030-1251773 I didn't see the whole papers so I have no idea what the response curves are but I doubt they are linear.

Gavita's stand point is in the quote from tags I quoted...he() was emailing gavita and they responded with the info I gave.

Some good news to add to that estimation which is based on a Tc of 45C, I hooked a CXA3070 AB running at 300mA installed on the 92mm Arctic Cooler. Ambient is 22C, heatsink baseplate is 23C and TC is 26C which puts it at about 59.8% efficiency or 194 lumens/W . It seems ridiculous to run that soft (10W) but it isnt as expensive as I expected, $8.31/PAR W or $6/PAR W if we could get them at bulk pricing. The driver powering it is 88% efficient and only $3 which would offset some of the cost of running so soft. I really hope more the ABs become available to us.

Observe & Report said:

Whoops, I put in the area of Scotch's space. 602 umol/s / 0.56 m2 = 1075 umol/s/m2

Click to expand...

no longer valid?
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/isq.html#c4
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law