Yes, I proposed a change in the rules to better measure a Grow light in the actual application it is used.
You call me biased, yet I did the test live, willing to double measure any particular point if someone doubted me. The meter doesn't lie & either do I.
I'm a shill hu? All I do is document results & make recommendations to those who ask. I'm sorry if there are none for your lights here. That's not my fault.
Who said I was amazed at the high center #'s when measuring the light 1' lower then it's designed to grow?
As we can see here, running a bit harder has decreased the drop by a ton allowing one to run the light higher up to more evenly spread the #'s out (as I'm sure we'll see when measuring at the recommended hieght), increase the footprint, while still providing intense penetration in the garden.
MQ-120, that's funny cuz when I went to use the MQ-200, I was told the test would be skewed & barely valid.
Nope, not to bad for 635w. But raise it a lil & watch the drop make it weak.
That's a lux measurement from 4' away.
4' recommended hieght for this fixture is coming up tonight. Makes perfect sense to me that it would be in the 990 range like it is in the other test & more even #'s throughout.
Now, that's the first sensible thing you've said yet. Mind you, this light is designed to be used w/ lenses @ 4' in a commercial setting. So, we'll see how well it does tonight.
They must be doing something right if you sunk down to Platinum's level (biting off Advanced) & stole their logo. "Welcome to the White Light Revolution"
Now that's exactly the shady type of mktg tactics that gives led a bad name. But hey, all that matters to you is overpriced sales of copied lights, so it's no surprise.