Bricksquad2625
Well-Known Member
Its labeled ALL ORGANIC GROW STRAWBERRY COUGH (DINAFEM) SKYWALKER KUSH (RP)
Utah State University LED Greenhouse Research
- Thread starter Bricksquad2625
- Start date
Bricksquad2625
Well-Known Member
Scotch089
Well-Known Member
It's OLD news! ....but good try?
^^i think Psu saw it? And I'm sure others..
I'm with green, I thought it was cool they did it... When you start looking at the PPF Intensity vs. Distance from Center, I think anyone that has an opportunity to do some legit research- should.
Wish I could go to a school that lemme compare lights...
^^i think Psu saw it? And I'm sure others..
I'm with green, I thought it was cool they did it... When you start looking at the PPF Intensity vs. Distance from Center, I think anyone that has an opportunity to do some legit research- should.
Wish I could go to a school that lemme compare lights...
Bricksquad2625
Well-Known Member
Thank You, I understand its not the best study, but some of these guys are completely dismissing it. I don't think they understood the article, it is clearly talking about ROI (return on investment)
Bricksquad2625
Well-Known Member
Me too, I wish I had the opportunity to compare lights. I'm glad you liked this article, I didn't know it was a repeat, after the riu went down, i stopped checking as much
bilbo182
Active Member
All information is always gratefully received and thoroughly digested, very interesting study!
In my case the HPS could be 10 times more efficient over x number of years but I still couldn't use one because of the heat.
I started a grow with a 400w hps but had to quickly order an led overnight delivery, 110f canopy temp was a wee bit high!
On the plus side I had put 300 euro to one side for the electric I would use over 3 months and that covered the cost of the LED and a couple of CFL's which ended up using about 70 euros electric over 3 months.
I would have gone for a more expensive LED and that would have pushed the budget to the point where the OP's study would have become more relevant to somebody at my level of growing for fun/personal.
Nice to have the viable cheaper option with LED's for us hobby growers, older tech that still works is only 18 months old so if they keep on improving the LED's at the same rate predicted by Moore's Law there are always going to be great bargains on ebay.
In my case the HPS could be 10 times more efficient over x number of years but I still couldn't use one because of the heat.
I started a grow with a 400w hps but had to quickly order an led overnight delivery, 110f canopy temp was a wee bit high!
On the plus side I had put 300 euro to one side for the electric I would use over 3 months and that covered the cost of the LED and a couple of CFL's which ended up using about 70 euros electric over 3 months.
I would have gone for a more expensive LED and that would have pushed the budget to the point where the OP's study would have become more relevant to somebody at my level of growing for fun/personal.
Nice to have the viable cheaper option with LED's for us hobby growers, older tech that still works is only 18 months old so if they keep on improving the LED's at the same rate predicted by Moore's Law there are always going to be great bargains on ebay.
Greengenes707
Well-Known Member
To me what that test shows more importantly is performance...µmols/w. Yet the leader in powerful led units(apache) is shafted by using their 2010 model against the newest tech other companies have to offer.
And your statement to "piss people off" was probably directed at apache to a good degree...well apache and your BML are basically identical in cost/watt if they were to test the new lights, not the 4 year old and now discontinued at120's.
The people who chimed in to put it down know what the latest apache has to offers is and how it would top the list more than likely.
I actually saw a grow on the farm with the lighting science group lights...the guy replaced 12 1K's with 24 300w units, so 2led:1hps. He said he pulled 1g/w. The pics were solid. I can see why that one is up there.
Bricksquad2625
Well-Known Member
I'm glad you liked the article, hope your grow goes well
Bricksquad2625
Well-Known Member
It wasn't really directed at any specific brand, I think the Blackdogs are pretty ridiculous as well as illumitex for the price, I'm not saying its a ridiculous led, just for what you get it is ridiculous. I am going to be posting a side by side comparison grow from a local shop in Austin Texas that is doing a tobaco grow with the neosol illumitex and the spyder600, the store carries both brands, except the illumitex is about $400 more expensive. I will post it tonight or tomorrow for anyone who is interested but under a new thread.
Cococola36
Well-Known Member
Do you have a link to that by any chance I couldnt find it?
Greengenes707
Well-Known Member
https://www.thcfarmer.com/community/threads/lighting-science.60278/
Hope you can see the pics in the link
The one thing I would like to point out is how much bigger the hps is in the background.
Hope you can see the pics in the link
The one thing I would like to point out is how much bigger the hps is in the background.
Cococola36
Well-Known Member
Thanks GG, damnnn they do look beefy.And those hps are in the fuckin hoods almost hahaha. But all things considered they packed light right next to light for some major coverage and are $2k a light....even at a discount on 24 lights at 25% which is generous! Its still $36000!!! Imagine 36000 worth of at660 he prob couldve covered that whole grow room lol if they were out at that time anyways...Still impressive but a huggggge upfront cost for lighting science leds
Greengenes707
Well-Known Member
I was impressed for sure. It's a cool light and seems to produce solidly. Price is upper echelon as is other top performers.
My next run will benefit from multiple light crossover. It's a major bonus than small scale doesn't get.
Cococola36
Well-Known Member
After reading further I guess he paid 500 per light which is a hell of a lot better.
Yea I agree with you , I like light crossover especially with different kinds of lighting
PSUAGRO.
Well-Known Member
It seems BML gives out this study to anyone who buys their spyder panel
Like I said before in pet's thread, it's a good study and they used an old at120 panel against newer techs.
My only concern here is the 315w agro elite #'s, their all over the place. Philips claims 1.9 ppf/watt on the bulb, growers house tested highest "22 par/watt" on SS LEC version, on this study they fall to the bottom???
IDK if it's the green beam cycloptics reflector(big losses) or their meter..........something is wrong
Like I said before in pet's thread, it's a good study and they used an old at120 panel against newer techs.My only concern here is the 315w agro elite #'s, their all over the place. Philips claims 1.9 ppf/watt on the bulb, growers house tested highest "22 par/watt" on SS LEC version, on this study they fall to the bottom???
IDK if it's the green beam cycloptics reflector(big losses) or their meter..........something is wrong
Greengenes707
Well-Known Member
It is exactly what it sounds like...where lights intersect in coverage. It's nothing specific to led's, all lighting gains and benifits from crossover...actually because led use lenses, they gain the least compared to a omni source like hps.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
VERY true, and this will bite you in the ass if you don't set your grow space up accordingly. Another corollary is that this 'feature' makes using LED in light movers a disaster.
Greengenes707
Well-Known Member
Small led's I can se that problem of pushing coverage easily happening. I would only move any light about 12" max each way.
I don't think of light movers as really gaining coverage. More that they improve everything within the coverage. They do expand a little but the improvement is where the real gain is imo.
Last edited: