PSUAGRO.
Well-Known Member
Still a great read from our friends over at Indagro
http://www.inda-gro.com/IG/sites/default/files/pdf/plant-lighting-resource/2-Understanding PPF and PPFD.pdf
My Amare, Hydroponics Hut, & SunCloak Grow
- Thread starter Hybridway
- Start date
http://www.inda-gro.com/IG/sites/default/files/pdf/plant-lighting-resource/2-Understanding PPF and PPFD.pdf
PSUAGRO.
Well-Known Member
To dismiss ppf/w of a fixture(sphere testing) and then say ppfd is all that matters is illogical.............
Hybridway
Well-Known Member
A that matters is ppfd hitting the canopy. Total light output is irrelevant when measuring a proper grow light designed to focus photons to the plants only, like Amare does.
Who cares about reflector & lens loss when they almost double the readings on the canopy. What matters is ppfd hitting plants. Not total light hitting walls.
If Those were industry standards more lights would do it.
It's a good way to measure a fixture that used no reflectors or lens I guess. But I wouldn't want to own one so it doesn't matter to me or anyone else who wants/needs to focus their light to their plants.
You know, the things we're growing.
Big smo
Well-Known Member
This is a viscous circle. The end result is ppfd. Ppf is important for the manufacturing of a light but ppfd is the result. The plants see X# of ~umoles. I'm sure there is some sort of calculation/formula for ppfd per watt. That's the end all comparison
PSUAGRO.
Well-Known Member
The SAME fixture can have different ppfd #s depending on grow room setup==== height, walls, reflective material, overlap, canopy management, etc.
"focusing" PAR with a secondary lens/reflector is cutting your coverage/total output, some more than others....it's about finding a balance. NO, you can't have your cake and eat it too
ppf/w of a fixture is a fixed baseline..........get it?. It's an accurate # on a system's efficiency..........relying on some handheld sensor and hoping it stays steady/properly angled to the source while taking the multiple readings is hardly reliable IMO. #s can fluctuate.
All I'm saying is that for grow fixture comparisons ppf/w is a great way to make your decision on what to buy and can tweak your ppfd after the fact to your liking.
A large Sphere is the best we have atm.
"focusing" PAR with a secondary lens/reflector is cutting your coverage/total output, some more than others....it's about finding a balance. NO, you can't have your cake and eat it too
ppf/w of a fixture is a fixed baseline..........get it?. It's an accurate # on a system's efficiency..........relying on some handheld sensor and hoping it stays steady/properly angled to the source while taking the multiple readings is hardly reliable IMO. #s can fluctuate.
All I'm saying is that for grow fixture comparisons ppf/w is a great way to make your decision on what to buy and can tweak your ppfd after the fact to your liking.
A large Sphere is the best we have atm.
Last edited:
Big smo
Well-Known Member
I sort of agree, for an end all who has higher ppf per watt makes sense. A down and dirty Dick measuring contest. The difference in reflectors should not make that much of an impact to take a light with a higher ppf to be that far behind in the handheld test. I also agree with my hybrid that the end result and the only important factor is ppfd. What's the plants get from all those watts.
Now I haven't personally said it but thank you for the sphere testing on the cxb's, it was great to see the results. What I find funny is that had zero impact on my gpw. While others seemed to have an aneurism over the lower efficiency. That's the point in all this, what the plants do with what you give them is the only thing that really matter. Specs are great, pounds of weed is much better.
What does Steven have to say about this?
Now I haven't personally said it but thank you for the sphere testing on the cxb's, it was great to see the results. What I find funny is that had zero impact on my gpw. While others seemed to have an aneurism over the lower efficiency. That's the point in all this, what the plants do with what you give them is the only thing that really matter. Specs are great, pounds of weed is much better.
What does Steven have to say about this?
OLD MOTHER SATIVA
Well-Known Member
thanks..it appears by this i am more or less correct..and yes its more than area L x w....its L x w x h and reflection
quote
"This is a viscous circle"..[so cute] we know what you mean my friend
and it probably is that too
Hybridway
Well-Known Member
Light hitting the plants is all that matters. The sphere is not the industry standard. That's just what NG's like Rahz & Stephen would want you to believe cuz the don't grow nor understand how their data effects plants in real life.
Ppfd on the canopy deciphers a GROW lights output doing its damn job.
Ppfd on the canopy deciphers a GROW lights output doing its damn job.
Big smo
Well-Known Member
Dude get s life, a hobby a new boyfriend. if living on this forum be being a dickhead is your only excitement then I fully understand why your so hostile But dude come on.
Big smo
Well-Known Member
If they both have similar optics then ppf would should be close to ppfd. This whole debate is about comparing 2 good lights with quality parts so I personally don't even see a need. Throwing the Johnson up against a kind or mars would win business. Bragging rights is foolish. There are proven grows with enhanced cobs and proven grow with plain cobs. If it has to come down to a test to sell lights then this markets way to tight.
monkeychief
Well-Known Member
The days of unproven hypothetical nonsense, goodled specs, psuedo-science with attitude and greed are over... Result is all that matters. Hp at the crank is for those who don't get it to boast, it's at the wheel to those who win races...
Last edited:
Hybridway
Well-Known Member
Damn Skippy!
OLD MOTHER SATIVA
Well-Known Member
aw come on..i meant no ill..not one shred of hostilty..
if you think me saying that i was being a dickhead then i apologize,,
ok?
its the engish language ..typos can be fun..i wasn't laughing at you..you can write fine..
but i laugh at me alot
i will not comment on any of your posts..again..
see yah
Last edited:
PSUAGRO.
Well-Known Member
Don't thank me for the tests , it was all timber and nextlight getting together and giving us the #s. Very nice of them.
If Amare has the best led tech/designs out there why not just stick it in a damn sphere and shut everyone up??....seems pretty easy to me.
I can't believe victor actually says that they build lights that don't perform well in a sphere but are efficient at flowering cannabis?.........I think hybrid is misunderstanding him
Yes photons hitting the canopy is all that matters = OUTPUT AKA ppf/w, umol/j ..............................using a sphere is an industry standard, it just costs allot and small companies don't want to pay........they prefer using a $500 handheld, ends up being a guesssssssssssssssssstimation.
Raise/ lower your fixture, add/ remove reflective materials and walls from the grow room.......the ppf/w doesn't change, understand it's importance now? You know the fixture's true performance at the time of purchase, can somewhat adjust the ppfd to your liking later.
feel like I'm going in circles
Last edited:
PSUAGRO.
Well-Known Member
I didn't see any ill intent in your post either..............
Greengenes707
Well-Known Member
This is all stupid AF.
When any light is sent to a real testing facility to get actual testing, such as lm-79...a sphere is not the only 500,000 measurement equipment they use.
Every heard of a goniophotometer??? Google it.
When any light is sent to a real testing facility to get actual testing, such as lm-79...a sphere is not the only 500,000 measurement equipment they use.
Every heard of a goniophotometer??? Google it.
Is that a STD tester?
Yodaweed
Well-Known Member
What are facts when we can measure penis size....
