IF you are new to LED and want help choosing what to buy, POST HERE!

[coughphee.connoiseur]

Not to be rude but Have you been following the thread? I just posted said lights spectrum. As far as I know there is no LED closer to the McCree curve or Photosythetic Action Spectrum.


It was my first LED grow. I assure you, it puts out more total light then a 600 watt HPS. I have all the par #'s n stuff. Not a PPFD but I have recorded results that have pictures of the plants in the 4'x4' growing very well on the edges.
I'm all about the truth my friend. Check out my thread. It has most answers to your questions.

No i feel u bro i did just jump in speculating and haven't read shit, and i know and realize that can be annoying.

 

[PetFlora]

"HI LED" is nothing but a marketing term, does the light get down there? Sure it does.. Is it as affective at 24 inches as 18 inches? Highly doubt that, regardless wether amare chooses to use the catchphrase "HI-LED". It's common knowledge the farther from the canopy the light source is the less PPFD is supplied. My comments only relate to the effectiveness of mixing Lensed high wattage cobs with smaller monos .It really doesn't make a whole lot of sense, personally I would think reflectors would be a smarter option.

Here's a bud > 30" below the SE 220 and off to the side, leaning against the tent wall

 

[Resinhound]

Here's a bud > 30" below the SE 220 and off to the side, leaning against the tent wall

That's nice, but irrelevant.

 

[Hybridway]

"HI LED" is nothing but a marketing term, does the light get down there? Sure it does.. Is it as affective at 24 inches as 18 inches? Highly doubt that, regardless wether amare chooses to use the catchphrase "HI-LED". It's common knowledge the farther from the canopy the light source is the less PPFD is supplied. My comments only relate to the effectiveness of mixing Lensed high wattage cobs with smaller monos .It really doesn't make a whole lot of sense, personally I would think reflectors would be a smarter option.

Amare has put tons of testing into the design of their lights. These aren't something they just slapped together cuz it looks good. These lights are the real deal. I personally feel they are the biggest break through in led grow light design & technology this far.
One would need to use a spectrometer (if that's the right term) to determine whether what your saying is true. I have full confidence that Amare has done this in every way imaginable.
The monos surround the cob in a circle like that Allows them to mix so well to be enhanced. If they were designed any other way, I might agree w/ you more. I have tested the height in which the colors mix w/ a big white price of paper. They mix perfect at 20" & are @ 90• with diffused lenses to allow for even better mixing.

 

[Resinhound]

Amare has put tons of testing into the design of their lights. These aren't something they just slapped together cuz it looks good. These lights are the real deal. I personally feel they are the biggest break through in led grow light design & technology this far.
One would need to use a spectrometer (if that's the right term) to determine whether what your saying is true. I have full confidence that Amare has done this in every way imaginable.
The monos surround the cob in a circle like that Allows them to mix so well to be enhanced. If they were designed any other way, I might agree w/ you more. I have tested the height in which the colors mix w/ a big white price of paper. They mix perfect at 20" & are @ 90• with diffused lenses to allow for even better mixing.

With "tons of testing" done you'd think there would be more availiable information.Besides just marketing rhetoric. Granted they were ahead of their time using cobs and monos like they have, but there is still a bit of marketing hype involved in these lights. I bought mine when no one was really using them besides PetFlora, I spent weeks combing forums for info on these things even pets journals were pretty much devoid of pictures of finished plants. In the end I decided to take a chance and try them. I ran 2 cycles and took it down. Did it grow? Sure it did, they do run quality diodes, I'm not disputing that.They just aren't good for all applications due to how they are designed. In retrospect I probably would have been much happier with one or 2 of their Cree 150's.

 

[JorgeGonzales]

see this lumens line all the time lol.so if you have a 11,000 lumen blue cob and a 4500 lumen red cob you would choose the red one because it is better color for flowering? or maybe hps is a better example would you pick the 78,000 lumen hps or the 95,000 lumen hps if you could only use one lamp (600w) in your garden ?
lumens are a big part of the equation because it tells us how much intensity the lamp has.but there is a difference between photons and plant usable photons .so spectrum is important

Yo dog, lumens don't mean shit. Well, they are fine to compare relative performance of identically spectrumed lights, but lumens output isn't anything grow light companies should even be providing.

That whole "lumens are for humans" thing is the real deal. You need to stop arguing against it, it's just silly. Reality is going to win this argument.

Here is a great example: http://www.eyehortilux.com/products/CHPS600-PerformanceSpecs.aspx

A 56lm/W Hortilux. Ask yourself why anybody would buy a 600W 34,000 lumen lamp.

 

[Greengenes707]

@JorgeGonzales
So I have to ask, what are your results. And don't go getting all defensive...this is an honest question. You're the one that wants to see things other than the same thing over and over right? What have your results been? Good, bad, the same as before? What was before? Put a number on "good or bad". I'm sure by now your DIY has yielded something. A tomato, a flower, a salad, a fat bag of herb...?
What is the scoop?

 

[a mongo frog]

Yo dog, lumens don't mean shit. Well, they are fine to compare relative performance of identically spectrumed lights, but lumens output isn't anything grow light companies should even be providing.

That whole "lumens are for humans" thing is the real deal. You need to stop arguing against it, it's just silly. Reality is going to win this argument.

Here is a great example: http://www.eyehortilux.com/products/CHPS600-PerformanceSpecs.aspx

A 56lm/W Hortilux. Ask yourself why anybody would buy a 600W 34,000 lumen lamp.

Isn't lumens what our eyes see as light?

 

[JorgeGonzales]

@JorgeGonzales
So I have to ask, what are your results. And don't go getting all defensive...this is an honest question. You're the one that wants to see things other than the same thing over and over right? What have your results been? Good, bad, the same as before? What was before? Put a number on "good or bad". I'm sure by now your DIY has yielded something. A tomato, a flower, a salad, a fat bag of herb...?
What is the scoop?

No, I'm the one who wants to not upload the same PPFD footprint over and over again, slightly tweaked, ad nauseum, when it could just be updated by the OP in the first post. Last I checked, you agreed. So please don't put words in my mouth.

Light before was the 600W hortilux sitting in the corner next to my DIY lamps, on top of a lot of boxes to be unpacked. I built right as I was moving house, got excited about the extra space. Turns out moving into an actual house is a real pain in the ass.

Only growing news I have to report is that SIPs kick ass. I planted a cucumbers and pepper seedlings 4 weeks ago in my new yard, the cuke is taller than me and I've already pulled a couple off it, and the pepper has a couple ready to come off. SIPs are awesome. I might branch out from my DWC comfort zone and try them next time.

Anyway, this place entertains me at work, and God knows I'm chomping at the bit to grow again, but life sometimes gets in the way.

 

[JorgeGonzales]

Isn't lumens what our eyes see as light?

No it's what our eyes see as brightness, I guess you would say.

Look at the photopic curve here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photometry_(optics)

Basically 1 radiant watt of 555nm light is 683 lumens...if you look at say 660nm on that chart, or deep red, you'll see that it's about 0.5 on that chart, where 555nm is the maximum of 1.0.

So for every one (actual radiated) watt of green, you need about twenty watts of deep red to output the same number of lumens, or percieved brightness. In a nutshell, that's why lumens are the worst.

@Greengenes707 this would be a good example of a question that could be answered in a stickied FAQ that actually had the ability to be edited. Again, pretty sure you agree.

 

[a mongo frog]

No it's what our eyes see as brightness, I guess you would say.

Look at the photopic curve here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photometry_(optics)

Basically 1 radiant watt of 555nm light is 683 lumens...if you look at say 660nm on that chart, or deep red, you'll see that it's about 0.5 on that chart, where 555nm is the maximum of 1.0.

So for every one (actual radiated) watt of green, you need about twenty watts of deep red to output the same number of lumens, or percieved brightness. In a nutshell, that's why lumens are the worst.

@Greengenes707 this would be a good example of a question that could be answered in a stickied FAQ that actually had the ability to be edited. Again, pretty sure you agree.

To me the lumens is important. Maybe I'm fucked up in thinking this, but are you saying there shit numbers because there not the real numbers involved with the making of usable light to the plants?

 

[Olive Drab Green]

To me the lumens is important. Maybe I'm fucked up in thinking this, but are you saying there shit numbers because there not the real numbers involved with the making of usable light to the plants?

PAR concentration, insensity/penetration, and color are most important.

 

[Greengenes707]

No, I'm the one who wants to not upload the same PPFD footprint over and over again, slightly tweaked, ad nauseum, when it could just be updated by the OP in the first post. Last I checked, you agreed. So please don't put words in my mouth.

Light before was the 600W hortilux sitting in the corner next to my DIY lamps, on top of a lot of boxes to be unpacked. I built right as I was moving house, got excited about the extra space. Turns out moving into an actual house is a real pain in the ass.

Only growing news I have to report is that SIPs kick ass. I planted a cucumbers and pepper seedlings 4 weeks ago in my new yard, the cuke is taller than me and I've already pulled a couple off it, and the pepper has a couple ready to come off. SIPs are awesome. I might branch out from my DWC comfort zone and try them next time.

Anyway, this place entertains me at work, and God knows I'm chomping at the bit to grow again, but life sometimes gets in the way.

Cool man...you went right ahead and got defensive for no reason. you can split hairs of words all you want.
If it was posted by the OP...what in the world would you have to post though?
Are you saying that you want to see the same paper theory and build layouts...actually you just want to talk about them? as long as it's in the first post and it can be edited?
I'm just trying to get it straight so I don't put words in your mouth like that you wanted to see something other than the same thing over and over. My bad.

The paper talk is not going to change, no matter who does the math or screams it from the rooftops since april 10 2016. Imagine what it would be like to do it for another 5 years.
But real world applications and documented results do change situation to situation, grower to grower. Sometimes a lot, sometimes not much at all. Those real world examples give the people that don't contribute something to parrot. And when there is more than one or two example to parrot...you start seeing different things.

If I was new to LED's I would not feel confident taking "advice" and recommendations by people who have never used what they recommend, and/or by people who don't have experience in what they preach. And that is exactly how I was when I was new, I saw through the smoke and mirrors, and ended up with Apache. I looked for who was doing the best, and had the data(real and paper) to back it.

So, to keep this on track, unless you want to attempt to deflect again with wordplay. What were your results with the 600w. What does your DIY have to live up to?

 

[a mongo frog]

PAR concentration, insensity/penetration, and color are most important.

Yes I'm aware of the par aspect. The intensity/penetration part of it i can see with my own eyes through the brightness and where it lands through out the plants i have right under the lights. I just thought that was all part of lumens. Again I'm probably wrong. Thanks for the time and explanation though bro.

 

[Resinhound]

Cool man...you went right ahead and got defensive for no reason. you can split hairs of words all you want.
If it was posted by the OP...what in the world would you have to post though?
Are you saying that you want to see the same paper theory and build layouts...actually you just want to talk about them? as long as it's in the first post and it can be edited?
I'm just trying to get it straight so I don't put words in your mouth like that you wanted to see something other than the same thing over and over. My bad.

The paper talk is not going to change, no matter who does the math or screams it from the rooftops since april 10 2016. Imagine what it would be like to do it for another 5 years.
But real world applications and documented results do change situation to situation, grower to grower. Sometimes a lot, sometimes not much at all. Those real world examples give the people that don't contribute something to parrot. And when their is more than one or two example to parrot...you start seeing different things.

If I was new to LED's I would not feel confident taking "advice" and recommendations by people who have never used what they recommend, and/or by people who don't have experience in what they preach. And that is exactly how I was when I was new, I saw through the smoke and mirrors, and ended up with Apache. I looked for who was doing the best, and had the data(real and paper) to back it.

So, to keep this on track, unless you want to attempt to deflect again with wordplay. What were your results with the 600w. What does your DIY have to live up to?

I liked this post twice.

 

[RolllingStone]

What are the price buying these Led an Hps?

 

[JorgeGonzales]

To me the lumens is important. Maybe I'm fucked up in thinking this, but are you saying there shit numbers because there not the real numbers involved with the making of usable light to the plants?

Not fucked up, it should just be limited to comparing similar-spectrum light sources. It's a quick back-of-the-napkin way to get the lay of the land, like Vero vs Cree 3500K 80 CRI, or whatever. Gets you in the neighborhood.

What we care about foremost is photons per second, since that's how plants photosynthesize. One photon at a time. The onlu way we have to figure that out is to reverse the lumens weighting using the spectrum charts from manufacturers, to get actual photons popping out. If you look at Supra's charts you'll see something like this:



See that umol/s/W? That's the important bit, more so than lm/watt. It's the number of photons per second per watt, but actually figuring that out accurately is pretty hard. Ideally you take a light, send it to a lab, and have them tell you. In this case it might have been actual Cree-provided numbers, I don't remember, it's buried somewhere here.

 

[Abiqua]

To me the lumens is important. Maybe I'm fucked up in thinking this, but are you saying there shit numbers because there not the real numbers involved with the making of usable light to the plants?

Yes....basically.

Lumens are weighted [biased to 555nm]...PAR is weighted to 400-730nm roughly, much bigger bias, where blue and red on the ends of scale are more equally weighted. A blue diode could be brightest in a lumen system but lack an actual PAR at the same time. A red diode could be dull looking and not as "bright" looking but still emitting more photons per/w than the blue diode. As one example....


You cannot use lumens to compare between K types. !!!!!!!!!! So, much of the argument is moot to begin with.

 

[The Dawg]

Not fucked up, it should just be limited to comparing similar-spectrum light sources. It's a quick back-of-the-napkin way to get the lay of the land, like Vero vs Cree 3500K 80 CRI, or whatever. Gets you in the neighborhood.

What we care about foremost is photons per second, since that's how plants photosynthesize. One photon at a time. The onlu way we have to figure that out is to reverse the lumens weighting using the spectrum charts from manufacturers, to get actual photons popping out. If you look at Supra's charts you'll see something like this:

View attachment 3731476

See that umol/s/W? That's the important bit, more so than lm/watt. It's the number of photons per second per watt, but actually figuring that out accurately is pretty hard. Ideally you take a light, send it to a lab, and have them tell you. In this case it might have been actual Cree-provided numbers, I don't remember, it's buried somewhere here.

Do You Cough !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[PurpleBuz]

Do You Cough !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

only when I have strawberry cough in my pipe.