Amare PPFD mapping

[Hybridway]

Center reading w/ just the monos 411 @ 36".
I believe the monos run 168-78 w.

 

[hillbill]

P.S. I'm not saying in the least that enhanced cob is bad. I'm just trying to point out to you that the execution isn't best. With that kinda wattage I personally would stretch that case to 30"X30" and drop the center module. The light would be so much more usable. With optics on photo inhibition becomes a concern all while the outside 6-8" aren't getting adequate lighting. The outside 7" of a 4X4 is 50% of the whole canopy.

Your last sentence is a gem. Many of us are neglecting that fact. That parameter area gains square inches in relation to linear inches at an incredible rate relative to linear inches near the center. With proper even lighting each square inch is of equal import.

Obvious really, but getting my brain to not make the center more prominent in my thinking when I look in my tent.

 

[Stephenj37826]

Your last sentence is a gem. Many of us are neglecting that fact. That parameter area gains square inches in relation to linear inches at an incredible rate relative to linear inches near the center. With proper even lighting each square inch is of equal import.

Obvious really, but getting my brain to not make the center more prominent in my thinking when I look in my tent.

I fall for it too. I'm not 100% on the phycology of it but it seems this is the way it is for everyone. I've personally seen both "methods" and that's why we changed the lens on the unreleased Maximizer 2.0 and also went with mid power on our greenhouse fixture and other projects. Light control is still superior with optics if not in a confined reflective area. Our goal is to create an even medium to intense coverage across the entire canopy all while limiting spillage into the isles. Computer lighting simulation software has taught us a lot and changed our direction 100%.

 

[wietefras]

Wow the light distribution for this fixture is really bad. The lowest PPFD that you measure should be no less than 80% of the average PPFD.

You could try some actually reflective material on the walls to see if that improves the distribution a bit.

@Stephenj37826, Or go without isles. More usable grow area, less light spillage, no need for lossy optics. Win-win-win.

 

[Hybridway]

Hey, I'm just trying to provide real-world data to folks so they can decide for themselves. I feal there is a serious lack of it in regards to pre-made fixtures. For me, these fixtures work perfect as I have overlapping units all the way down, maintaining the perfect #'s. I'll try to show you guys once they are all up. Going w/ primarily Pro-4's (36"x10") all the way down the 15' x 4.5' span. Didn't get a chance to map them but have put the meter under them & they cover my space perfect. They cover from edge to edge of my grow & overlap so i have no dead spots, just high #'s of a full spectrum.
I'm super happy w/ the results I get from each grow using my Amare's & that to me is what matters most.
I'd like to see more poeple providing real-world live data from their pre-made/manufactured fixtures.
Amare is fully transparent & encouraged me to do this testing for everyone to see. Victor hides nothing.
They are very powerful lights using reflectors & lens. In a reflective tent or overlapping layout like mine, the #'s are much more even.
The edge #'s increase by up to 30% in a reflective tent.
But I don't have a tent & wanted to provide real data.

 

[Stephenj37826]

Wow the light distribution for this fixture is really bad. The lowest PPFD that you measure should be no less than 80% of the average PPFD.

You could try some actually reflective material on the walls to see if that improves the distribution a bit.

@Stephenj37826, Or go without isles. More usable grow area, less light spillage, no need for lossy optics. Win-win-win.

In a commercial setup that equals rolling tables. I guess there is more than one way to skin a cat lol. The lens we use are 93% efficient without IR coating that production units get.

 

[Yodaweed]

Wow the light distribution for this fixture is really bad. The lowest PPFD that you measure should be no less than 80% of the average PPFD.

You could try some actually reflective material on the walls to see if that improves the distribution a bit.

@Stephenj37826, Or go without isles. More usable grow area, less light spillage, no need for lossy optics. Win-win-win.

It has a lot of hot spots for sure.

 

[Hybridway]

Gotta great spread on the 450 w/o lenses. That's 6' long getting decent light all the way around.

 

[MeGaKiLlErMaN]

Gotta great spread on the 450 w/o lenses. View attachment 3846340That's 6' long getting decent light all the way around.

Take a par measurement from somewhere other than center at canopy level. like 1/2 out from center.

 

[Hybridway]

I will show everyone the ppfd of my total area once all the lights are in.
I'm willing to bet the #'s are pretty evened out all the way down w/ very little spillage into the isle.
This was a controlled test & should not be compared to others unless they were both done in the same controlled setting.
At the end of it all its the results that matter. So this testing will be followed up by a grow using several different strains.

 

[nogod_]

Hate to beat a dead horse but hanging a retractable partition (projector screen) between plants and aisles is cheaper than quality lenses and a helluva lot more convenient (and cheaper) than rolling tables around.

In a commercial setup that equals rolling tables. I guess there is more than one way to skin a cat lol. The lens we use are 93% efficient without IR coating that production units get.

It's great that you take the time and effort to document your grows. Data is what this conversation is all about. The most accurate data comes from a sphere. What you do with that ppf is up to you. My grow room doesnt look like yours. I want to know how much light a luminaire produces, not where that light falls in your space. It always comes back to "well in my space this light works awesome for my plants". Which is fine. This lamp works great for you. What your numbers (and I'm sure the sphere numbers would) show is that others can do better spending a lot less.

Just out of curiousity, how much money did you spend to cover your 15' x 4.5' space and what is your g/kwh and g/sqft?

Personally I am more interested in that info than the apogee tests or budporn.

Hey, I'm just trying to provide real-world data to folks so they can decide for themselves. I feal there is a serious lack of it in regards to pre-made fixtures. For me, these fixtures work perfect as I have overlapping units all the way down, maintaining the perfect #'s. I'll try to show you guys once they are all up. Going w/ primarily Pro-4's (36"x10") all the way down the 15' x 4.5' span. Didn't get a chance to map them but have put the meter under them & they cover my space perfect. They cover from edge to edge of my grow & overlap so i have no dead spots, just high #'s of a full spectrum.
I'm super happy w/ the results I get from each grow using my Amare's & that to me is what matters most.
I'd like to see more poeple providing real-world live data from their pre-made/manufactured fixtures.
Amare is fully transparent & encouraged me to do this testing for everyone to see. Victor hides nothing.
They are very powerful lights using reflectors & lens. In a reflective tent or overlapping layout like mine, the #'s are much more even.
The edge #'s increase by up to 30% in a reflective tent.
But I don't have a tent & wanted to provide real data.

 

[Stephenj37826]

Hate to beat a dead horse but hanging a retractable partition (projector screen) between plants and aisles is cheaper than quality lenses and a helluva lot more convenient (and cheaper) than rolling tables around.



It's great that you take the time and effort to document your grows. Data is what this conversation is all about. The most accurate data comes from a sphere. What you do with that ppf is up to you. My grow room doesnt look like yours. I want to know how much light a luminaire produces, not where that light falls in your space. It always comes back to "well in my space this light works awesome for my plants". Which is fine. This lamp works great for you. What your numbers (and I'm sure the sphere numbers would) show is that others can do better spending a lot less.

Just out of curiousity, how much money did you spend to cover your 15' x 4.5' space and what is your g/kwh and g/sqft?

Personally I am more interested in that info than the apogee tests or budporn.

I wouldn't bet on the cheaper than quality lens part but the commodity that you are forgetting in a commercial setup is laborer hrs/time. The reason you don't see commercial warehouse grows with projector screens or rolling tables is the sheer fact that (A) Labor isn't cheap and (B) Good help is hard to find. Commercial cannabis will fall into big agriculture type behavior as the price of the product continues to drop. Only the guys that are striving to produce product as cheaply as possible will be left standing in the end.

Also the Maximizers new MSRP of 1299 isn't bad in comparison to the rest of the field. What people don't realize is sure you can DIY something cheaper as in a DIY scenario you are doing the labor yourself and you aren't paying a middle man (Retailer) a 30-40% mark up and you aren't advertising, paying for testing, or certifications.
There is two paths that any company can take. Try to base your company on direct sales or rely on retailers and distributors to get your product to market and make the sale. You would be surprised to see the numbers on what a company actually makes vs this perceived huge profit . This forum represents less than 1% of growers. How do you reach the other 99%? Well it costs money. Lots of it too. Just like the people we buy components from we are doing trade shows and advertising. If they didn't spend all the money to reach us that they do sure the product could be lower priced but most of us wouldn't know how great a CXB 3590 is without big $$$ being spent to get the product to us. That's why I encourage anyone to DIY and have helped several people with their projects.

Also as we do more testing and share the results with this community we are trying just like Nick from Next Light to at least give honest test results to this community to further help DIYers understand what products work and what doesn't.

 

[Hybridway]

Hate to beat a dead horse but hanging a retractable partition (projector screen) between plants and aisles is cheaper than quality lenses and a helluva lot more convenient (and cheaper) than rolling tables around.



It's great that you take the time and effort to document your grows. Data is what this conversation is all about. The most accurate data comes from a sphere. What you do with that ppf is up to you. My grow room doesnt look like yours. I want to know how much light a luminaire produces, not where that light falls in your space. It always comes back to "well in my space this light works awesome for my plants". Which is fine. This lamp works great for you. What your numbers (and I'm sure the sphere numbers would) show is that others can do better spending a lot less.

Just out of curiousity, how much money did you spend to cover your 15' x 4.5' space and what is your g/kwh and g/sqft?

Personally I am more interested in that info than the apogee tests or budporn.

Sure, we all cando better for less when it comes to just about anything. But I'm not interested in getting a light slightly brighter to save a few bucks. I want plug n play & believe in the enhanced white. There are no better enhanced white lights that I'm aware of. Also, I pay for more then just a grow light. As I'm sure you know, in this industry we are surrounded by companies that don't honor warranties, steal ideas from other companies & call them their own, directly lie to their customers, false claims, short life spans on buss., fly by nighters, ect... The list goes on.
I don't see any of that w/ this comp. So I'm also paying for the security of my 5 yr. warranty, awesome customer service, full transparency as well as fixtures that give me great results. I did my research & was impressed by the reviews & results I saw.
I haven't grown in this space yet, it is new, so I don't have all that info. In the 2 grows I've done though I averaged 1.1 GPW w/ several different strains. Some did better then others but that's the nature of the different strains.
I bought 6, Pro-4's & 1, SE-450 that I'll be using to run the 15' & got quantity discount pricing.
But I'll be doing a journal on this grow & I do document as much useful info as I can. Last grow i compared each strain to my HPS room results w/ the same strains. I doubled & tripled my GPW using led. Each strain was compared & the HPS & led harvests were back to back.
So, I try to provide as much useful info as possible as accurately as I can.

 

[monkeychief]

What a bunch of pathetic ignorant wanna-be LED experts hating on the company that introduced and proved cobs work. WTH is a manufacturer on another company's thread trying to smear the competition and push their crap? All credibility lost. Sad bunch of haters without a leg to stand on.

 

[nogod_]

What a bunch of pathetic ignorant wanna-be LED experts hating on the company that introduced and proved cobs work. WTH is a manufacturer on another company's thread trying to smear the competition and push their crap? All credibility lost. Sad bunch of haters without a leg to stand on.

 

[monkeychief]

Bunch of double standard foolios. lol.

 

[Hybridway]

What a bunch of pathetic ignorant wanna-be LED experts hating on the company that introduced and proved cobs work. WTH is a manufacturer on another company's thread trying to smear the competition and push their crap? All credibility lost. Sad bunch of haters without a leg to stand on.

Yeah, that's how some of these guys are.
Did you notice how allot of companies post a par map of their Light that is just one corner copy n pasted to the other 3 by an unknown source? But to compare against my real world results which were done live In a 4.5'x4.5' space w/ just panda wrap around it. Doesn't seem right.
One thing I disagree w/ in the way i did the mapping was not angling the sensor toward the light. I wonder if some do? I feel it should be angled toward the source if it's a case style fixture. Angling the sensor is exactly what the plant is seeing & receiving for light on the upper sides of the colas or tops. & still hitting leaves all the same as they angle toward the light anyways. If the mapping had been done that way which is what the canopy or plant would actually be getting, I feel the readings would be more accurate to real world data. IMO.

 

[OneHitDone]

Yeah, that's how some of these guys are.
Did you notice how allot of companies post a par map of their Light that is just one corner copy n pasted to the other 3 by an unknown source? But to compare against my real world results which were done live In a 4.5'x4.5' space w/ just panda wrap around it. Doesn't seem right.
One thing I disagree w/ in the way i did the mapping was not angling the sensor toward the light. I wonder if some do? I feel it should be angled toward the source if it's a case style fixture. Angling the sensor is exactly what the plant is seeing & receiving for light on the upper sides of the colas or tops. & still hitting leaves all the same as they angle toward the light anyways. If the mapping had been done that way which is what the canopy or plant would actually be getting, I feel the readings would be more accurate to real world data. IMO.

And your Suncloak perfectly illustrates that is isn't just about the light falling straight down

 

[Hybridway]

And your Suncloak perfectly illustrates that is isn't just about the light falling straight down

True That.

 

[monkeychief]

Yeah, that's how some of these guys are.
Did you notice how allot of companies post a par map of their Light that is just one corner copy n pasted to the other 3 by an unknown source? But to compare against my real world results which were done live In a 4.5'x4.5' space w/ just panda wrap around it. Doesn't seem right.
One thing I disagree w/ in the way i did the mapping was not angling the sensor toward the light. I wonder if some do? I feel it should be angled toward the source if it's a case style fixture. Angling the sensor is exactly what the plant is seeing & receiving for light on the upper sides of the colas or tops. & still hitting leaves all the same as they angle toward the light anyways. If the mapping had been done that way which is what the canopy or plant would actually be getting, I feel the readings would be more accurate to real world data. IMO.

Yeah, these trolls have no respect for the truth nor verified facts if they don't agree or it's not in the best interest of the companies in their little cliques or the ones they're pushing. A lot of times they don't even have their facts straight so they end up spewing misinterpreted google facts or outright lie to discredit companies not on their approved list either out of sheer ignorance or outright misrepresented facts and lie to make themselves or companies look good. Lots of companies claim to be the most efficient, yet run at the same current and chip as others are laughable. The only ones that qualify to pass judgement or make recommendations are the ones who present verified facts, meaning they would have to had actually paid for and had experience growing with the particular make they are bashing or have an opinion about. All the rest have no value since there are no test subjects to verify info and theories or results, which are then basically hypothetical or straight BS. Sounds impressive to those who are inexperienced, but pure comedy to those who understands and have invested the resources to test the brands they critique or praise.

You make a valid point on angling the sensor towards the light, since plants tend to turn their leaves towards the light source for max efficiency as long as they are healthy and the spectrum is on. This should increase the ppfd considerably. This is very common we amare growers refer to as praying, as they reach for more light.