Aqua Man
- 26,480
- 638
What waste heat? Are you sayimg the timbers are more efficient? I will have to look into thatWhos lumping them together? Have you been reading this whole thread becuase I touched on this already earlier:
Lol, now whos comparing apples to oranges. The hlgs put more waste heat into the plants compared to the timbers when the lux is the same and when they are the same distance from the canopy. Raising the hlgs and increasing their power gives more room for airflow between my plants and the fixtures to avoid heat stress without a loss in lux.
Again which quantum boards and driven how hard? I understand what your saying but its not cut and dried like that. You can run more boards at lower wattage with diy kits.+1
All true info.
I’ve got a side by side going now. Definitely have to back the quantum board off more than the timbers. Personal experience.
Posted in an earlier post. I’m not the one trying to prove anything. Kingbrite 240w quantum uv ir, timber trio of daisies dimmed to 240w.Again which quantum boards and driven how hard? I understand what your saying but its not cut and dried like that. You can run more boards at lower wattage with diy kits.
For instance several hlg 120 boards as opposed to the 288s with high wattage
QB120 V2 Board Guide
High efficiency boards designed for Horticulture Lighting projects. QB 120 Boards can be powered upto 70 watts. Ideal for use in grow tents or grow area with reflective walls and grow spaces with limited height. No metal heatsink or thermal paste is required .horticulturelightinggroup.com
No no bro I understand. I just trying to point out even qb are not just QBs there are options.Posted in an earlier post. I’m not the one trying to prove anything. Kingbrite 240w quantum uv ir, timber trio of daisies dimmed to 240w.
I understand. I like both lights honestly. No complaints with either.No no bro I understand. I just trying to point out even qb are not just QBs there are options.
Again which quantum boards and driven how hard? I understand what your saying but its not cut and dried like that. You can run more boards at lower wattage with diy kits.
For instance several hlg 120 boards as opposed to the 288s with high wattage
QB120 V2 Board Guide
High efficiency boards designed for Horticulture Lighting projects. QB 120 Boards can be powered upto 70 watts. Ideal for use in grow tents or grow area with reflective walls and grow spaces with limited height. No metal heatsink or thermal paste is required .horticulturelightinggroup.com
I think all the ppl new to led are forgetting all the diy stuff in how this all started.
Yeah ppl are so focused on watts and not looking at the shit we need. Even the manufacturers going in the wrong direction except the strips. We would benefit imo from running more low wattage boards or cobs than this ever increasing wattage over less cobs or boardsFunny. Top Cob lamps used to be 50w 3590’s (cree?) and now are 100w each. While the diy guys keep running boards lower and lower I am seeing. The manufacturers are 100-150 watts per board and the diy guys are running more boards at 60 watts.
Boards give light stress more than heat right?
Yeah ppl are so focused on watts and not looking at the shit we need. Even the manufacturers going in the wrong direction except the strips. We would benefit imo from running more low wattage boards or cobs than this ever increasing wattage over less cobs or boards
If hlg thought it was a good idea to run their fixtures that close then why do they recommend running them higher? Even if you can successfully grow with them that close doing so would effectively reduce the available footprint.Heat stress? From 18" led? You kidding me? IR is what causes the heat stress
Im not commenting on what I don't know and I don't have the ability to tell you which one is more efficient. All fixtures that I have ever used produce heat, any heat is waste heat because it means energy was taken from the wall but created heat rather than light. I dont even know which fixture puts out the most heat, what I do know is that at the same distance from the canopy with the same amount of lux at canopy level more heat is coming out the bottom of the hlg fixtures than the timbers. I suspect this is due to heat sink and fixture design but I don't disagree that the deep red on the hlg is also part of the difference I am seeing.What waste heat? Are you sayimg the timbers are more efficient? I will have to look into that
Fwiw I was never comparing quantum boards to cobs, I was comparing three fixtures I own as whole units. Taken as a whole, regardless of any inherent advantage qbs may have over cobs when it comes to heat, both the hlg and kingbrite qbs I have direct more heat downwards towards the plant than my timber cob fixtures.Funny. Top Cob lamps used to be 50w 3590’s (cree?) and now are 100w each. While the diy guys keep running boards lower and lower I am seeing. The manufacturers are 100-150 watts per board and the diy guys are running more boards at 60 watts.
Boards give light stress more than heat right?
Sounds like a solid plan bro.I have been thinking of running 3 cheap 400 hps in my shorty 4x8 tent. Can get 12” from the tops and 3 lights can yield more than 2. Plus i already have 2 dimmable ballasts. Just need a ballast and cheap reflectors and a 6” fan and im growing in the basement too. ;-)
Well I can tell you that the IR is far more influential than the radiant heat and especially at that distance. Yes the red IR diodes are whats making the difference there.If hlg thought it was a good idea to run their fixtures that close then why do they recommend running them higher? Even if you can successfully grow with them that close doing so would effectively reduce the available footprint.
Im not commenting on what I don't know and I don't have the ability to tell you which one is more efficient. All fixtures that I have ever used produce heat, any heat is waste heat because it means energy was taken from the wall but created heat rather than light. I dont even know which fixture puts out the most heat, what I do know is that at the same distance from the canopy with the same amount of lux at canopy level more heat is coming out the bottom of the hlg fixtures than the timbers. I suspect this is due to heat sink and fixture design but I don't disagree that the deep red on the hlg is also part of the difference I am seeing.
Fwiw I was never comparing quantum boards to cobs, I was comparing three fixtures I own as whole units. Taken as a whole, regardless of any inherent advantage qbs may have over cobs when it comes to heat, both the hlg and kingbrite qbs I have direct more heat downwards towards the plant than my the timber cob fixtures.
Why would it need to get offensive and personal? That kind of seems like a cop out to me, if you can explain why running my hlgs closer than my timbers is better despite the fact the my observations and manufacturer recommendations suggest otherwise I would like to know. Just because I have reasoning for doing it this way doesn't mean I won't respectfully listen to what you have to say, I just may ask you to clarify or explain yourself so myself and others can understand better where you are coming from.Well I can tell you that the IR is far more influential than the radiant heat and especially at that distance. Yes the red IR diodes are whats making the difference there.
I'm not gonna go deeper into this as for some reason it just gets to offensive and personal.
I understand the difference and when comparing say 2 fixtures with the same wattahe and nearly the same efficacy the heat produced is the same. The heat sinks will affect how well ita diapearsed but its not the radiant heat that affecting the plants at that distance with that amount of "waste heat" which is directly tied to the efficacy
Well with your board you probably can't because of the IR which is a benefit. Not 100% but I dont believe the timbers have added IR. This would explain why you see what you do but not for the reason you stated of radiant heat. Can you link your exact timber fixture? As I stated there are differences in QBs and some can be run less than 12"s away..Why would it need to get offensive and personal? That kind of seems like a cop out to me, if you can explain why running my hlgs closer than my timbers is better despite the fact the my observations and manufacturer recommendations suggest otherwise I would like to know. Just because I have reasoning for doing it this way doesn't mean I won't respectfully listen to what you have to say, I just may ask you to clarify or explain yourself so myself and others can understand better where you are coming from.
Why would it need to get offensive and personal? That kind of seems like a cop out to me, if you can explain why running my hlgs closer than my timbers is better despite the fact the my observations and manufacturer recommendations suggest otherwise I would like to know. Just because I have reasoning for doing it this way doesn't mean I won't respectfully listen to what you have to say, I just may ask you to clarify or explain yourself so myself and others can understand better where you are coming from.
Yeah those who have been here a while know how many threads end in insults and well hurt feelings.People get all kinds of defensive about the lights they use, it's just a thing. If you can dig up the old Marshydro thread and wade through that, you'll get an idea.
I did link the specific fixture in my earlier post that you already quoted, its just above the link to the hlg.Well with your board you probably can't because of the IR which is a benefit. Not 100% but I dont believe the timbers have added IR. This would explain why you see what you do but not for the reason you stated of radiant heat. Can you link your exact timber fixture? As I stated there are differences in QBs and some can be run less than 12"s away..
Also as for your lix statement it just so happens lux meters do not pick up IR or UV and poorly pick up red and blie spectrums. So the ppfd (actual light intensity) can vary a lot and is particularly why lux should never be used with blurples. Often you see bleaching and light stress when ppl try to do so. Basically you are giving the plant under the HLG far more ppfd so you can actually reduce the intensity and adjust the height for even spread. Its not as simple as recommendations.
Its not a cop out. Its that I have done this time and time again and everytime I go into an led thread I have to go through a million things to get ppl to understand what I'm talking about and I'm just as I was years ago burnt on it.
There are reasons you see what you do in your grow but its not for the reasons you are claiming. Its a topic can can be discussed for years and in the end the answer is there is no right answer or one best light.
For instance the addition of IR changes many variables from light distance to changes needed in environment. Side by sides only show how well it works in one set of conditions. This is why they are flawed bit many ppl see them as an end all be all. Both lights should be run in their optimal conditions. With IR you can't run room twmos as high which changes everything from nutrients needs to watering times.
So I'm just gonna drop it if ya don't mind. Rather not spend a year in this thread just to come to the conclusion there is no right answer and there are reasons why some lights do better under certain conditions.
In short your cobs run closer because they are lower wattage without IR added bit also producing less ppfd even though the lux is the same. The same can be done with QBs and even more effectively which is also true can be done with the cobs.
Im just trying to understand. I mean honestly I dont even think the optimal operating height really gives one light an edge over the other, I'm happy with both of them but if there is a good reason I should be using them differently I would like to know.People get all kinds of defensive about the lights they use, it's just a thing. If you can dig up the old Marshydro thread and wade through that, you'll get an idea.
Well with your board you probably can't because of the IR which is a benefit. Not 100% but I dont believe the timbers have added IR. This would explain why you see what you do but not for the reason you stated of radiant heat. Can you link your exact timber fixture? As I stated there are differences in QBs and some can be run less than 12"s away..
Also as for your lix statement it just so happens lux meters do not pick up IR or UV and poorly pick up red and blie spectrums. So the ppfd (actual light intensity) can vary a lot and is particularly why lux should never be used with blurples. Often you see bleaching and light stress when ppl try to do so. Basically you are giving the plant under the HLG far more ppfd so you can actually reduce the intensity and adjust the height for even spread. Its not as simple as recommendations.
Its not a cop out. Its that I have done this time and time again and everytime I go into an led thread I have to go through a million things to get ppl to understand what I'm talking about and I'm just as I was years ago burnt on it.
There are reasons you see what you do in your grow but its not for the reasons you are claiming. Its a topic can can be discussed for years and in the end the answer is there is no right answer or one best light.
For instance the addition of IR changes many variables from light distance to changes needed in environment. Side by sides only show how well it works in one set of conditions. This is why they are flawed bit many ppl see them as an end all be all. Both lights should be run in their optimal conditions. With IR you can't run room twmos as high which changes everything from nutrients needs to watering times.
So I'm just gonna drop it if ya don't mind. Rather not spend a year in this thread just to come to the conclusion there is no right answer and there are reasons why some lights do better under certain conditions.
In short your cobs run closer because they are lower wattage without IR added bit also producing less ppfd even though the lux is the same. The same can be done with QBs and even more effectively which is also true can be done with the cobs.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?