Most Efficient LED Light

Lets not forget that 50% of the radiation coming from a 1000 HPS is coming from beyond 180°. So this light has to be redirected in a reflector that is generally specifically made for diffusion. 100% of the radiation is in 180° field necessitating way less "optical correction" vs a bulb fixture. As far as optics costing light a high quality lens loses no more than a reflector such as a Ledil Angelina. As a matter of fact a proper optic can be more efficient than most off the shelf led reflectors.
 
I have no idea where plant reflectivity comes into this conversation. My only point about the sphere/datasheets/PPF output, is that it's common ground. It's the information that every manufacturer should be supplying because it's non-biased.

Not directed at you, but when someone promotes a lamp who's website offers no technical data and then suggests that I'm taking advantage of newbs... by offering all the technical data I can, it erks me a little bit.
 
Still none of what you guys makes say any difference , a 1000w hps can be hung higher than 1000w of COBs. 1000w of cob should be hung 12-18 inches from canopy, 1000w hps should be hung 24-36 inches from canopy. If you cover the same area that the 1000w hps covers with 1000w of LEDs properly hung the yields should be higher with the LEDs because of more even coverage and higher PAR. That's because the LED's are more efficient than the HPS is. Coverage is the biggest factor in yield, if you cover a 4x4 with a 600w hps you will yield less than covering a 4x4 with a 1000w hps.
 
Yodaweed said:
Still none of what you guys makes say any difference , a 1000w hps can be hung higher than 1000w of COBs. 1000w of cob should be hung 12-18 inches from canopy, 1000w hps should be hung 24-36 inches from canopy. If you cover the same area that the 1000w hps covers with 1000w of LEDs properly hung the yields should be higher with the LEDs because of more even coverage and higher PAR. That's because the LED's are more efficient than the HPS is. Coverage is the biggest factor in yield, if you cover a 4x4 with a 600w hps you will yield less than covering a 4x4 with a 1000w hps.
Click to expand...
where can i get 1000w cob?
 
KarmaPaymentPlan said:
so thats 75 watts per emitter, right? hung at 12"-18"
compared to 1000w hps at twice the distance?
seems to me based on that theory the cob is more intense....
Click to expand...
More efficient not intense...it has more par per watt but you would need a hell of a lot more watts to hang it as high as the hps, like a 500w diode.
 
Yodaweed said:
More efficient not intense...it has more par per watt but you would need a hell of a lot more watts to hang it as high as the hps, like a 500w diode.
Click to expand...
why hang it higher i dont understand your train of thought at this point
Rahz said:
Flip Chip Opto makes them. Max current will drive them at 2400 watts.
Click to expand...
thank you its more about yoda being on the rag as he complains in any thread he views
 
OK so this is how the test should be performed. A bare emitter vs a bare emitter. Hang 4 vero29 gen 7 at 150 watts each at 36" and a 1000 HPS bare at 36" and take a par measurement directly under the lamps. Cobs spaced as close as possible together on. As a matter of fact let's do 4 quantum boards without optics as well at 36" driven at 600 watts. It's unfair test to "intensity" comparing a complete luminary to a bare led. That is about as biased as it gets.
 
but when you have 12 emitters that are 1/12 the wattage but half as intense based on your theory, why hang them higher?

if at twice the distance away is the proper intensity shouldnt you only need 2x75 emitting from the same area to have your coverage based on your theory? not 12 cobs?
Yodaweed said:
The higher you hang something the more you spread the footprint out.
Click to expand...
 
Olive Drab Green said:
I have a grow journal that says otherwise.
Click to expand...
We will see this amazing 2# you're going to get from 241 watts of COB's Rahz will be rich if your bonsais can yield that with that amount of COB's so for his sake I hope you're successful because aside from making yourself look like a complete ass in this thread you keep insulting people for no reason and back tracking Everytime someone makes a valid point. And please stop referring to that sorry ass excuse of a grow journal you have because it definitely does not say otherwise. You have issues if that's all you can get out if a photoperiod with an 8 week veg regardless of light used.

So you're going to be the first guy ever to pull 4gpw from COB's and I'm all in to see this from that little succulent in the orange bucket lol
 
Yodaweed said:
a 1000w hps can be hung higher than 1000w of COBs. 1000w of cob should be hung 12-18 inches from canopy, 1000w hps should be hung 24-36 inches from canopy.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with that! Both lamps will have an optimal height:footprint ratio by design.

There is a more simple way to look at it. For the most part optic solutions provide a 90 or near 90 degree cone of light. That being the case each light source should maintain a height of 1/2 it's coverage diameter. A single bulb in a 4x4 would in theory need to be 24" above the canopy. A single emitter covering 2x2 of that space would need to be 12" above the canopy. Because it is gets hot in the centers a few more inches can be a good idea.
 
Yodaweed said:
Might beat it on PAR but won't match coverage.http://timbergrowlights.com/900-watt-cree-cxb3590-5x5-framework/ 900w COB fixture, it's advised to be hung 12-18 inches, no 1000w hps should EVER be hung that close to plants.
Click to expand...
Vented, yes, I did it all the time.
Rahz said:
I have no idea where plant reflectivity comes into this conversation. My only point about the sphere/datasheets/PPF output, is that it's common ground. It's the information that every manufacturer should be supplying because it's non-biased.

Not directed at you, but when someone promotes a lamp who's website offers no technical data and then suggests that I'm taking advantage of newbs... by offering all the technical data I can, it erks me a little bit.
Click to expand...

You're misunderstanding me. You should supply both real data @ mathematical if you want to cover all your bases. But never mathematical over real. That's absurd behavior & borderline false info.
You know I'm right. Also, Amare has provided every single customer w/ the answer to any & all questions. Not every website is designed to confuse poeple that focus on growing only & haven't a clue what it is we speak about in this light lingo.
My big big grower friends heads spin when I talk about my LEDs.
But that doesn't stop them from harvesting 20#'s at a time in multiple rooms/opps.
They just count on me to learn it all & tell them what to buy. That's why the Big-Dawgs I know in my state are now switching to my recommendations in led.
Not lil Tastys made only for tenters.

Damn, I've been building my never ending room n come back to all kinds of falsities going around.
Be careful what you believe guys. Could cost you thousands in lost yields.
 
When it's all said in done, SunCloak is still the highest yielding, most efficient light available on the mkt today.
It Might Not be right for everyone, but sure as hell is right for me.
And Amare is still the most Photosythically efficient.
Just the pure facts.
Cobs are great I'm sure. Just not as great.
 
Last edited:
Hybridway said:
You should supply both real data @ mathematical if you want to cover all your bases. But never mathematical over real. That's absurd behavior & borderline false info.
You know I'm right.
Click to expand...

I disagree. My job as a retailer is to provide the technical data. If "real world measurements" are to be useful they should come from someone other than me. Just like here being an advertiser, anything I say is suspect, everything I say is a promotion, and anything I say can and will be used against me.

Hybridway said:
Not lil Tastys made only for tenters.
Click to expand...

Now you're just being petty. I've never said Amare made bad lights, and I've pointed that out before to you. I'm just curious like everyone else what the PPF or par watts of the lights are. Pretty reasonable right? And the reason I brought it up in the first place is that I strongly suspect you can do better than 1 GPW with it if you add some lightweight reflective material and lower the lamp a bit.

To address your comment, there's a reason I don't make lights larger than 300w. Besides, it's the cost over X time period per unit of light that matters. You know I'm right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top