A Detailed Look into the Fluence Bioengineering Spydr 2P

Growroom Design
, , , ,
#21

I don’t know. They should have the have the same footprint. I think all that they did between the two was to use a different OEM/Part for some of the LEDs.

They do not have UV. The red does reach into the far red range (about 4%) on the 2p, not certain if they have a mix of red wavelengths. Fluence has been pretty good about the shape of their spectrum so I’d expect the 2i would match up in a similar way.

You don’t really need the supplementation of UV or FR unless you are trying some advanced stuff. And, you can always add it later. As it is, the 2i or 2p both should produce very nice plants.

3 Likes
#22

:slight_smile: Thank you!

1 Like
#23

You have all the best test toys! Amazing review and details. Your contributions to OG go far far above and beyond.

Thank you for taking the time and making the effort to do all the work that had to go into that review.

@LemonadeJoe needs to come up with a special badge for you.

3 Likes
#24

AGREE

Dude sent me seeds I had hunted for long time…just to be cool, wanted nothing , above and beyond

6 Likes
#25

Just curious… @LemonadeJoe it’s been a year, any word on that badge? Like helpful megaMOD. :sunglasses: Excellent as always @Northern_Loki

2 Likes
#26

Fantastic analysis!

I sent this thread to Fluence when I asked them to provide a spectral distribution for their R4 (PhysioSpec Indoor) spectrum used in the SPYDR series.

Here is the reply from their Hort Sciences team:

image
image840×225 7.2 KB

1 Like
#27

Thanks for the feedback and follow-up notes from Fluence.

This fixture was brand new, out of the box. Aging effects were unlikely.

The device utilized to capture the spectra is the following:black-comet-sr

And is calibrated prior to each use using the following with calibration data: SL1 CAL

The cosine receptor is CR2 from the same vendor.

The instrumentation is scientific grade but the facility is not. Meaning, measurements are not from an integration sphere but rather open air. This means purposeful color mixing is not occurring where placement could have an effect on the captured spectrum and, from a PPF perspective, we certainly do not capture all of the energy. It is, however, closer to what we might experience in use.

I would expect some variation simply from instrumentation but would still expect that, for spectra in particular, error to be less than the apprx. 2-5% difference relative to the notes from Fluence. At some point, I’ll need to go and evaluate spectral sensitivity relative to sensor placement to see if there is anything significant. For fixtures with the sparse far red leds, for instance, I can move the sensor around and see obvious differences within the far red region show up. Centerspot PPF would certainly be sensitive to sensor placement and is fixture design specific. There could always be some undetected maths error in there somewhere as well. For instance, sampled spectra bins do not line up with the nicely rounded red/blue/green bins although the contributed power in each sampled bin is very small. Or, because Blue is higher energy, an error in the energy calculation could be causing a bias across the bands.

This does point out that any spectral measurements should occur at the higher hanging heights to allow for better color mixing to occur. But, at the same time, their response is in essence marketing specifications derived from their engineering sample.

Assuming everything is accurate, would the differences in the measured ratios matter in use? Well, I don’t really know :slight_smile:

Thanks. Good info.

3 Likes