Best Top of The Line LED For 4x4 or 5x5?

[cottageman]

I think you need to reread the article and understand what is actually being c
I am sorry Cottageman but you have no idea what you are talking about. The last article you posted specifically stated at 8 percent loss of light using lenses. You are as @Aqua Man stated trying to CHERRY pick information. Secondly, you seem to have it out for Gavita which I understand because growing under their LED's is not like growing under HPS. It can be much more complicated. Lastly, I believe you are either sponsored by Sycnce or are looking to get sponsored. So go get the Sycnce LED's and see if your problems go away. I just cannot deal with someone that cannot understand the information they are looking at.

You literally replied to the quote where I added the light loss and then tried to say I left it out and cherry picked, you can’t actually be serious right? Why didn’t you add the part about the benefits of lenses that the article details? Send me some articles disputing what this article says. All I’ve seen is 2 people scream that I’m wrong and not providing a single bit of evidence. Just cursing at me and calling me a paid shill for linking scientific articles and quoting them...

 

[beluga]

I don't know of any diodes that are unprotected.
Grow room environments shouldn't be that harsh, especially if you're running LEDs efficiently.
Higher temperatures burn out diodes faster. Trapping heat in a lens creates higher temperatures.
If you push your diodes, have too high of wattage too close, or are not able to maintain environment, then, yes - a lens can help.

There are a lot of 'can''s in the article you keep quoting - implying application giving different results.
That's the main thing here and what has been reiterated a few times - application.

 

[Anthem]

You really do not get it.
4. Optical losses occur when LEDs are mounted in fixtures. The sides of the fixture can obstruct low-angle photons. Protective transparent covers (e.g., glass) transmit up to 92% of the photons and thus reduce the output by 8%, but this protection can significantly improve the lifetime of a fixture. Fixtures with unprotected LEDs can have 99% optical efficiency, but may have shorter lifetimes in harsh growing environments (e.g., high humidity).
That is the exact quote out of the article. The only thing it improves is if the light gets damaged by harsh growing environments. I hope you have better luck with the Luxx gear. If you want to unload the Gavita's let me know. I would be interested in them.

 

[Aqua Man]

I don't know of any diodes that are unprotected.
Grow room environments shouldn't be that harsh, especially if you're running LEDs efficiently.
Higher temperatures burn out diodes faster. Trapping heat in a lens creates higher temperatures.
If you push your diodes, have too high of wattage too close, or are not able to maintain environment, then, yes - a lens can help.

There are a lot of 'can''s in the article you keep quoting - implying application giving different results.
That's the main thing here and what has been reiterated a few times - application.

Yeah I thought of that point also but figured not worth bringing up... definitely will increase temps and likely lower diode life.

 

[Anthem]

Yeah I thought of that point also but figured not worth bringing up... definitely will increase temps and likely lower diode life.

Guess I am going to lose a lot when I take the covers off the 1650s fixtures.

 

[Anthem]

There information provided in the posted article had little to do with lenses on LED light fixtures. The primary purpose of the article was to list the lose of efficiency with varies colors being applied to the inside of the actual LED that is purchased by the fixture manufacturer and installed in the fixture that may or may not contain a lenses cover over said LED

 

[Aqua Man]

Guess I am going to lose a lot when I take the covers off the 1650s fixtures.

I mean the lenses would likely keep the diodes hotter than without. Personally I would also remove them

 

[beluga]

Guess I am going to lose a lot when I take the covers off the 1650s fixtures.

There may have been an intentional design for the lenses and possibly a compensation circuit added somewhere... this is where my knowledge of driver/led design is gonna fall short... but, you'll basically start drawing more current if you take off the lens because the compensation circuit... compensates.... for a constant output. Taking the lens off and cooling the diode will technically be less efficient in the short-term, but more efficient in the long-term because you're not running them hot.
Theoretical... don't take my word on it. But it is how residential screw-in globe LEDs work.

 

[tomatoesarecooltoo]

Gotta get 200 iphone 12s and hang them on flashlight mode if you really want that weight.

 

[Backyard_Boogie]

Wow this thread got a hell of lot more attention than I thought it would. I really appreciate everyones input either way I go on the light I think Im definitely go with the slightly bigger 5x5 tent. Seems like these lights have enough power to handle that extra foot no problem.

 

[cottageman]

There information provided in the posted article had little to do with lenses on LED light fixtures. The primary purpose of the article was to list the lose of efficiency with varies colors being applied to the inside of the actual LED that is purchased by the fixture manufacturer and installed in the fixture that may or may not contain a lenses cover over said LED

Again not true, look at the 3 citations they provide that also back up what they say about lenses. The primary part of the article is not about lenses or loss of efficacy from them, that’s why it’s listed as number 4 and not number 1. I’ve linked info providing benefits of lenses in scientific studies and I still haven’t seen one link to say otherwise. There’s about 4 other articles that explain how diffusion through lenses decreases efficiency a bit but increases canopy penetration. This is why scynce has a better light spread than gavita on paper using less watts and less light output. I have a whole room of gavita style led lights and they’re amazing they outperform my hps I’m just saying this new data by the same guy we all love to quote sheds new light on the benefits of lenses and importance of IR in the spectrum

 

[Anthem]

You are obv

Again not true, look at the 3 citations they provide that also back up what they say about lenses. The primary part of the article is not about lenses or loss of efficacy from them, that’s why it’s listed as number 4 and not number 1. I’ve linked info providing benefits of lenses in scientific studies and I still haven’t seen one link to say otherwise. There’s about 4 other articles that explain how diffusion through lenses decreases efficiency a bit but increases canopy penetration. This is why scynce has a better light spread than gavita on paper using less watts and less light output. I have a whole room of gavita style led lights and they’re amazing they outperform my hps I’m just saying this new data by the same guy we all love to quote sheds new light on the benefits of lenses and importance of IR in the spectrum
[/QUOT

 

[cottageman]

You are obv

Also to the heat point specgrade led has lenses on their bar fixtures and they run 10-20% cooler than fluence who doesn’t have any lenses or coverings so the cooling can be done with lenses still. Agnetix does it as well but you have to water cool the lights which is a huge turn off

 

[beluga]

Also to the heat point specgrade led has lenses on their bar fixtures and they run 10-20% cooler than fluence who doesn’t have any lenses or coverings so the cooling can be done with lenses still. Agnetix does it as well but you have to water cool the lights which is a huge turn off

Interesting. I always thought it'd be possible to keep the environment in a lens optimal, but I didn't think it'd be practical by any means.
I'm assuming that 10-20% is internal (diode in the lens) temperature? Or is it board temperature?
I do still wonder if that makes that 8% efficacy loss worth it, however. That's pretty big and probably not really worth it in our application.

 

[Anthem]

Again not true, look at the 3 citations they provide that also back up what they say about lenses. The primary part of the article is not about lenses or loss of efficacy from them, that’s why it’s listed as number 4 and not number 1. I’ve linked info providing benefits of lenses in scientific studies and I still haven’t seen one link to say otherwise. There’s about 4 other articles that explain how diffusion through lenses decreases efficiency a bit but increases canopy penetration. This is why scynce has a better light spread than gavita on paper using less watts and less light output. I have a whole room of gavita style led lights and they’re amazing they outperform my hps I’m just saying this new data by the same guy we all love to quote sheds new light on the benefits of lenses and importance of IR in the spectrum

I am sorry @cottageman. I am afraid I cannot continue to have a conversation with you. For some reason you have a new way of reading and understanding information, kind of like new math where 2+2 does not =4. It equals something else. Good Luck with your grows. Peace OUT!!!!!!

 

[beluga]

I'm actually interested in my questions...
I'm not trying to be a smartass or argue. I think lenses could be very beneficial and practical at some point in time, especially once diodes start achieving beyond what plants demand. The sun comes through the lens of the earth, its atmosphere, and its electromagnetism... seems to work pretty damn well.
As for now, it seems impractical except in the situations I've listed earlier (to name a few) in which we're not chasing unadulterated photons and electrical/cost efficiency.

 

[cottageman]

Interesting. I always thought it'd be possible to keep the environment in a lens optimal, but I didn't think it'd be practical by any means.
I'm assuming that 10-20% is internal (diode in the lens) temperature? Or is it board temperature?
I do still wonder if that makes that 8% efficacy loss worth it, however. That's pretty big and probably not really worth it in our application.

Across the board with both drivers and led boards. Like the study says efficacy is paramount but not the only thing. One of the lights draws only 600w and yet has a better light spread than fixtures that use more wattage and out out more light. The scientific study even states that these benefits may be worth it since plants can reach saturation at the top of the plant. This is described in the study and the citations on the study. This is a direct quote from the study,

“Optical covers can also diffuse the photons, which reduces efficiency, but can result in more uniform mixing of colors and improved photon penetration into plant canopies54,55,56.”
They literally state that it can result in improved photon penetration... and the citations go more in depth into that. 8% is a lot but they’ve achieved a better light spread so does the 8 percent matter if the same or more light still hits the canopy?

 

[cottageman]

I am sorry @cottageman. I am afraid I cannot continue to have a conversation with you. For some reason you have a new way of reading and understanding information, kind of like new math where 2+2 does not =4. It equals something else. Good Luck with your grows. Peace OUT!!!!!!

You’re not arguing with me you’re arguing with a study that says word for word that lenses improve photon penetration I guess it’s hard for some people to read science

 

[beluga]

Across the board with both drivers and led boards. Like the study says efficacy is paramount but not the only thing. One of the lights draws only 600w and yet has a better light spread than fixtures that use more wattage and out out more light. The scientific study even states that these benefits may be worth it since plants can reach saturation at the top of the plant. This is described in the study and the citations on the study. This is a direct quote from the study,

“Optical covers can also diffuse the photons, which reduces efficiency, but can result in more uniform mixing of colors and improved photon penetration into plant canopies54,55,56.”
They literally state that it can result in improved photon penetration... and the citations go more in depth into that. 8% is a lot but they’ve achieved a better light spread so does the 8 percent matter if the same or more light still hits the canopy?

I understand what the article is saying. I don't have a doctorate in crop physiology nor electrical engineering, but I don't think I'm dense to the theory nor the verbiage.

What I was really wondering about and explicitly inquired about was...

specgrade led has lenses on their bar fixtures and they run 10-20% cooler than fluence who doesn’t have any lenses or coverings so the cooling can be done with lenses still. Agnetix does it as well but you have to water cool the lights which is a huge turn off

Those fixtures you mention.

I'm assuming that 10-20% is internal (diode in the lens) temperature? Or is it board temperature?

I, too, am not here to argue what that study says nor our interpretation of it.

So you're saying that the PC boards and drivers test 10-20% lower temperatures?
If so, I will argue that that is minimally relevant to the heat issues that I was posing as a concern. Heat sinks and active cooling also can decrease those temperatures, but their effect on the diodes within a lens will be of very little comparative impact.

 

[BurnzYzBudZz]

I literally quotes the part about light loss lmao can you not read my quotes? I don’t like the gavita led because it’s not that good, have a whole room of luxx led that are kicking ass and cheaper, it’s my personal experience. You are literally cherry picking data, yess 8% light loss and in the same sentence they explain why they think it’s worth the loss, but you didn’t include that info did you? I included the light loss info into my quotes and literally never denied it. The article states that despite the light loss it greatly improves longevity and can increase canopy penetration, you’re cherry picking the light loss part without adding in the rest. I also added the article which is the opposite of cherry picking. I also have never bought anything scynce and don’t get paid by them, people just don’t understand information and science anymore apparently. There’s multiple other articles explaining how lenses are beneficial

You say literally way too much. Your articles are bullshit. I wish I was selling something. I’d have your money in my damn pockets. Peace.