RM's Bicolor DIY LED lamp vs a Commerical unit

I have two DIY LED lamps that I am experimenting with. An all white one posted in another thread and this bi-color update to my first DIY LED.

Originally it was a 20 watt (2 * 10w) 465nm seedling & veg lamp and I just finished adding 24 watts (8 X 3 watts) of deep red 660nm and 24 watts (8 X 3 watts) of royal blue 445nm.

It is impossible to compare the brightness by eye alone because of the differing spectrums, LED wattages and spacing, but I would wager my 68w passive cooled is easily a match for the 120w 3 fan, active-cooled commercial unit. Of course, the camera does not do either light justice.

Obvoiusly on fit and finish, the commerical light is a winner, but mine is a working prototype not finished goods for resale. The dirt and shmutz on the rails is because the LEDs are attached with double-sided sticky thermal tape. Inexpensive and convenient, but every piece of dust and dirt around sticks like flypaper. Next time I will probably use another method just for a nicer appearance. The main case is steel and from an early optical drive case. The rails are aluminum and cut from the headrail on some old vertical blinds. Sometimes you have to get creative and use what you have lying around.

The main case gets warm, but not hot; half the heat comes from the three LED drivers. The rails run quite cool.

Attachment 277199

Attachment 277196

Attachment 277197

Attachment 277198

Buy yourself a quantum meter and see what's what from a foot away, dead center. That's the only way to tell.

Too much expense for a small hobbyist. If I ever take my designs or grows to the next level, I would certainly invest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RackitMan

Too much expense for a small hobbyist. If I ever take my designs or grows to the next level, I would certainly invest.

---

A $200 meter is too expensive compared to what, exactly? Especially one that will accurately measure light output and give you a number that matters for LEDs.

Also you should obtain a kill-a-watt meter for about $40. This will tell you exactly how much power each panel is drawing (that commercial 120w is likely only pulling 60-90w) and that will give you a better idea of what's going to perform better. I would wager the reason you're wagering on your panel matching or winning is because that 120w isn't really pulling what it claims and thus your unit is likely hurting your eyes just as much as the commercial one.

The proof is in the budding.

Weeze

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Weezard

The proof is in the budding.

Weeze

---

The proof is in the budding, indeed. But on a technical level, the comparison should include what photon flux readings and power usage were involved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by khyberkitsune

The proof is in the budding, indeed. But on a technical level, the comparison should include what photon flux readings and power usage were involved.

---

Horseshit!

Comparisons?!
Where?
Your all-blue grow yielded less than a half z of WET, moldy, stemmy, skimpy branch, that you tried to call .5 grams per Watt.

That, is simply delusional!

The wet:dry weight ratio for cannabis is about 7:1!
Trimmed, an dried properly, your actual yield was less than 2 grams.

I'm still looking for trees in your photo album.

Oh, Wait! you don't have any photo albums do ya?

When, and if, you ever do post acceptable results, be sure to include plenty of "photon flux readings", OK? :D

I don't mind you creating a phony persona here, lotsa folks do that.
But using it to dispense bad advice that can affect patients medication is not acceptable.
Please stop doing that.

Yer gettin' on my nerves,
Weezard

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Weezard

Horseshit!

Comparisons?!
Where?
Your all-blue grow yielded less than a half z of WET, moldy, stemmy, skimpy branch, that you tried to call .5 grams per Watt.

That, is simply delusional!

The wet:dry weight ratio for cannabis is about 7:1!
Trimmed, an dried properly, your actual yield was less than 2 grams.

I'm still looking for trees in your photo album.

Oh, Wait! you don't have any photo albums do ya?

When, and if, you ever do post acceptable results, be sure to include plenty of "photon flux readings", OK? :D

I don't mind you creating a phony persona here, lotsa folks do that.
But using it to dispense bad advice that can affect patients medication is not acceptable.
Please stop doing that.

Yer gettin' on my nerves,
Weezard

---

I don't understand the vitriol.

You want to claim horseshit but when people want to know just how well their lights perform - you're going to want numbers.

Calling me phony makes me pretty sad. Especially when I just finished yet ANOTHER system that can cut the LED power you need by HALF.

Video - TinyPic - Free Image Hosting, Photo Sharing & Video Hosting

And there it is.

Plain and simple, Weezard - I only deal with RAW science. If you remember, that blue led was an EXPERIMENT (even listed as such) so your calling bullshit on a mere "I wonder if this will work" project is rather uncalled for.

Phony, wow. I had thought better of you Weezard, maybe I thought wrong?

And yes, I will include photon flux readings. In fact, let me go ahead and provide you a relevant link.

Sunmaster Grow Lamps - Plants And Lighting - Photons

Seriously, you know some good stuff, man, but when it comes to actual photobiology, your bare-necessities approach still has limitations. You completely forget the Pr/Pfr reaction where chlorophyll first prefers a 660nm or so photon, then after it receives that it PREFERS to receive a 720-760nm photon. There's also a blue-based version of this as well, working from 460nm photons first and preferring to receive a 390nm photon afterwards.

Relevant University link: Plant Physiology

like the look of the light, even if it didnt work it still looks cool. i followed most of khyber and weezards posts and the two of you are the reason i bought led...
dont fall out lads everybody can have different apeniences surely???? isnt that the fight that you two have been batling for leds against hps.????:jointsmile:
oh sorry for bad spelling very early and english is not first language