You guys notice in the BML vs 1000w HID study how the hid lights were like 4 foot from canopy?
Yeah, I don't understand that... I wonder if AmareTech is also bullshitting with 1095@24" with the 220. Did you mean with the 880?
You guys notice in the BML vs 1000w HID study how the hid lights were like 4 foot from canopy?
It's word of mouth from a top secret/SCI informant.Does anyone know anything at all about the new bml fixture that ag9... mentioned is coming out or at least know for sure that there is a new fixture coming out in the near future.thanks.
Does anyone know anything at all about the new bml fixture that ag9... mentioned is coming out or at least know for sure that there is a new fixture coming out in the near future.thanks.
Saying that the AmareTech doesn't get bad marks simply because no one has put an SE220 in the same integrating sphere is like saying Get the Mars II because they haven't had the test performed either. ...
i have yet to see any reports of poor performance with amare...from anyone that actually has 1, but then again i never tried the earlier models either...only the SE-220's..which are great so far.....
Yeah, I don't understand that video.(the BML video) I wonder if AmareTech is also bullshitting with 1095@24" with the 220. Did you mean with the 880?
if that spectrometer is like the machine they had back in college the umol rating in the video is the overall light rating for the light...height wont be a factor inside that machine..... The Amare claim (as in the stated umol claim by Amare) probably is for the complete 880 ...but without (owning) a spectrometer its pretty hard to verify ANY umol claims....
So im not sure what you want man...unless your going to spring for a spectrometer your going to have to take either the manufacturer or some other trusted source at their word. Everything to a point is conjecture. Follow the evidence as far as it goes and then trust your gut.
Going off of numbers alone, and trusting the manufacturer's, they are all bullshitting because the test umol numbers don't always match the stated umol numbers. I'm going to assume some of the manufacturers were forced to change their stated numbers once the tests came out so they just opted for new model numbers instead.
Follow the evidence as far as it goes and then trust your gut.
Can you link the Utah State video about the 880? I've only seen the pdf. Nothing mentioned the SolarStorm 880, just the Solar Storm 400.
I can't even find the stated PAR output of the SolarECLIPSE SE220 anywhere. They have a really lousy setup on their site. Hardly any information given. I'm actually starting to look at the LSG VividGro V2. LSG was rated right up there with BML in the Utah State study.
First off...NO ONE said this.
The BML 600 is 330W but replaces a 1000 watt HPS (PAR for PAR). They use passive heat sinks whereas the SE-220 uses fans. I can't figure out what SE-220 is replacing, so I can't say.
they also claim that the bml 600 could replace a 1000 watt hps in some greenhouse applications. but that's really a stretch, perhaps as a daylight supplemental.
the key phrase is "in many greenhouse applications" huh? that's all marketing .....
LSG vividgrow v2 claiming 1.84umol/j ! using 450/660nm spec , I can take a bet on who's diodes are involved
https://www.lsgc.com/products/vividgro-v2-grow-fixture?variant=3852683205 call for pricing, lol
Maybe you skipped over the Utah State study of the 600W Spydr, same PAR as 1000w HPS. Do you know the PAR output of a 1000W HPS mounted at manufacturers recommended height of 36"?
It's marketing for pretty much any other company other than BML.