In response to Hyroot and Tags, I had expected some brisk debate due to the large amount of information this document represents and I have not been disappointed. I did however think that there might be a day or two of digestion before the bullets would fly.
Let me start off by saying that I am not going to get in a pissing match or let it ever get personal when comments are directed at me or Inda-Gro. This thread is not about Inda-Gro or any personal animus you might have with them. The document itself is to be considered a work in progress. If you don't like what is in it, don't read it. But a lot of work has gone into this and for anyone to suggest that the document is irrelevant or that the data is skewed or biased does not have a full appreciation for what it represents.
What V-C-F does represent is the raw power the lamp produces in the three absorbance regions based on manufacturers published spectral distribution graphs. We plotted each lamp @ 301 lines which requires a mathematical summation of the spectral distribution graph on a nanometer by nanometer basis. It's completely unbiased and pure math. Nothing more. Is it perfect? No. We admit to that several times within the article. It is just data to be taken and interpreted by those reviewing it. As you can see for yourself that based on these 5 metrics nothing in this document promotes Inda-Gro as exceptional. If anything LED is given the highest marks under these metrics which is by their own designs, the intent of LED mfg's.
The issue Hyroot has with 1000 watt CMH data is a result of us plotting the 1000 watt Eye Hortilux Blue which is defined as you properly noted is a metal halide but the spectral distribution certainly lends itself to a plasma/incandescent/sunlight distribution more so than any other metal halide that we were aware of and that's why we chose it. To us the spectral distribution graph that Hortilux provides makes it look like a ceramic metal halide. If you know of any other metal halide that produce this relatively smooth continuous broad band distribution I would like you to point to it. For now we're going to leave it as it is driven on an electronic ballast. However for clarity the next update will include the 400 watt CMH running mag ballasts.
http://www.eyehortilux.com/products/metal-halide/SystemReqs/mt1000b-dhorhtl-blue/57945
Darryl has about 15 LED panels that they have tested in various gardens. They have zero bias against SSL and to my knowledge have never stated publicly or privately that LED does not have it's place as an alternative to HID. The Pontoon was added to enhance flowering by emitting a 660nm wavelength at lights on and a 730nm wavelength at lights out. You don't have to use it to flower but I believe for cash crops the value in adding it as it's ROI represents a 1/2 crop cycle I think it does make sense. I don't care what you grow with or what your personal preferences are. None of this is about that.
Tags what is to hate about all this is that it IS difficult to understand lighting and plant lighting in particular. I've never said there is no value to PPFD it's just a value to field measurement. For example: If you know the area of coverage and the required PPFD then multiply those values you'll get the needed PPF. Now you look at the lamps rated PPF and you can determine how many lamps you're going to need. Than you need to look at your layout and make judgement calls based on metered PPFD readings at the canopy. So while you can fairly easily go from a PPF to PPFD it's impractical due to the wide variables that mfg's could standardize PPFD values when it's ultimately determined in the field.
The easiest way I correlate this is to remind folks that area lighting lamps are specified in lumens not footcandles or lux. To specify a grow lamp in PPFD would be akin to specifying an area lamp in lux or foot candles with a candela plot. If you must promote PPFD as a standard then you should propose a standardized 'candela type' plot plan for the grow lamp industry. And when that has been adopted you still will not have a numerical value to spectral distribution in the the three absorbance regions the lamp should emit for that species. And to your point about publishing PPF values if you go to section 2 of the spread sheets we did do this as a total PPF, as a uMoles/s/region and a % of each region for that total.
If you need further proof that this is a complex topic I will point you to a well known company that produces PAR quantum meters that consistently mistakes PPF and PPFD values. These statements are on there site and they do not distinguish the differences between PPF and PPFD in that they provide all values in PPFD. I won't name them, but I think you own one, whereby these are comments picked up directly from their site and they imply by these statements there is no difference between PAR, PPF and PPFD. Go figure there is confusion in the industry.
Measure photosynthetically active radiation (PAR, PPF, PPFD) from the sun or electric lights in μmol m[SUP]-2[/SUP] s[SUP]-1[/SUP]
Photosynthetically Active Radiation (PAR) is also called the Photosynthetic Photon Flux (PPF) or Photosynthetic Photon Flux Density (PPFD) and the units are μmol m[SUP]-2[/SUP] s[SUP]-1[/SUP] (micromoles of photons per meters squared per second).
Bumping Spheda: If we're going to artifically recreate sunlight spectrums we're going to give up efficiencies which would make it impractical, ie halogens/incandescents. As far as near perfect Kelvin it would not be 2700 Kelvin but I believe would instead be a lamp emitting, the sun is itself a black body radiator, between 5000-6500 kelvin on the surface of the planet.
You have defined the challenge in that we're looking to find the right lamp that is efficient enough to make it economically feasible (it'll never be a black body model) by producing adequate intensities and spectrums for optimum plant response in a controlled environment. And it is to that end we continue to strive.
