CobKits
Well-Known Member
no not really. just another anecdotal grow. theres not a single person on here who doubts that LED light of almost any quality can raise plants through harvest. thats kind of where we were in 2007 or so with this technology. Any "issue" you could think of in terms of plant response, whether its metabolic rate, stretch, finish time, resin production, yield, quality, etc has been studied intensively already,under better controlled circumstances. and then tweaked and studied again and is well understood. You can say "well my plants had this response under this light." But you are still talking about a light with unknown efficiency, intensity, or spectrum. Without that data its basically just another anecdotal grow that doesnt advance the art in the slightest.
some basic specs would be a start, havent seen a single real spec on this light on their site. We have no idea what the spectrum is. We have no idea what the system efficiency is.We have no idea what your input wattage is. a side by side with same strain(s) under hid accounting for the required environmental differences would be an improvement but theres still way too many unknowns with your light to draw any useful conclusions.
Then link it. all i see on that site is the usual sales pitchy "our spectrum is proprietary and better than everyone elses" hyperbolic pitch, with NO efficiency specs whatsoever. Same as every other fly-by-night light manufacturer in the last decade. in 2018 the market is different than 2007. Consumers are educated. They dont want hyperbolic sales pitches about a magical proprietary spectrum. They want an actual spectral measurement, system efficiency numbers, and ideally to understand at a fundamental level which drivers and emitters are being used to get an idea of quality and longevity. Its a HUGE risk to buy a $1400 light from a company that has been around for 3 months. Chances of future warranty support are nil. Compare that to top shelf led manufacturers like Fluence who were providing system-level efficiency spec *years* ago. To the point that other companies light nextlight, california lightworks, pacific light concepts, HLG, chillled,etc were forced to start stating actual system efficiencies or go home. Particularly in 2018, any company that isnt presenting their actual test data probably knows exactly how efficient their lights are but know it is poor marketing to try to sell a light for over $1000 that people now understand is no more efficient than HID at a fraction of the cost
People around here are actually pretty reasonable, polite, and straightforward. But they have a very low tolerance for bullheaded people who already have their mind made up and refuse to accept the FACTS that have been accrued by hundreds of growers growing literally thousands of crops under LEDs in the last 5 years since the efficiency actually did start to exceed that of the industry-standard HIDs. If you wish to reinvent the wheel with your own data like its 2007, dont want to learn from the massive body of accrued data here, thats fine. There's absolutely nothing i just said above that wasnt covered in the first 3 pages of this thread, and then repeated again... and again.... (Edit: i actually didnt see till after i typed this, that nfhiggs already answered, basically stating in a more concise fashion the exact same things i said. But yet this thread will lurch on and we will see the same points posted several more times)
not to mention your newly minted sidekick who's main contribution are homophobic slurs and playground insults.
Dont wonder why people tire of this around here. This used to be the premier place to learn and share info, but BS like this thread drove a lot of the best people away.
Last edited:
