LED GLH Spectra 180 x 4 - 720 watt LED SCROG
- Thread starter Shwagbag
- Start date
He's a difficult dude to reach. 
anotherdaymusic
Well-Known Member
I love checking in on this update because that ass looks so nice 
Thanks shwag
Thanks shwag
puffenuff
Well-Known Member
So basically glh doesn't test their lights before they put them on the market? Sounds sketchy to me especially if the customer service dept is also failing to return calls and emails. Based on your firsthand experience, would you recommend spectras to new comers to the led game?
hippy132
Well-Known Member
I am guessing he is no longer selling or returning calls, has anyone but Irish ever gotten anything out of these lites? I am guessing that my money was throw away... Do you have a 290 if so, check the diff in lite, and I dont mean more diodes, I mean the makeup of the spectrums...IMO
Shwagbag
Well-Known Member
Before I continue to speculate I would say if you decide to try these lights try them on a small scale first. Perhaps I'm just overdoing it, perhaps I need only a fraction of what I'm using, I don't know because this is my first and only experience with these lights. I'm not going to comment on their service or support as of yet as I am giving adequate time to hear back from Mike before I make any further hasty remarks.
As far as I know he is still selling and supporting the products, I am waiting to hear word back from him. I will share whatever he tells me when I can open a dialogue. I don't have a 290, I have only the 180 V1's so I can't comment. The newer versions of the lights offer a wider variety of spectrum if I'm not mistaken.
anotherdaymusic
Well-Known Member
so far my advanced led is giving great results...
colocowboy
Well-Known Member
This is all a lot of speculation, there is no reason to believe that the guy won't make it right. The 180 is the v2 I believe and the revisions 1-3 were based on the power supply as far as I know. What Shwag is saying is that he doesn't have time to fuck around, should be plug and play with little guesswork. I can relate, that shit is annoying it shouldn't have too sharp a learning curve.
puffenuff
Well-Known Member
All sounds too complicated to me. based on some early glh grows I was intrigued, but now I think i'll be staying away from glh for sure...doesn't seem like a company that has all their shit together. Thanks for this journal shwag, it helped me a lot. Good luck with your future grows, hope everything works out for you!
Shwagbag
Well-Known Member
This is exactly what I'm saying. I'm doing my best not to speculate but it is frustrating that I've spent as much time as I have. I bought these lights knowing full well that there were issues with them for some people and I took the risk to find out myself, which was a gamble.
Glad to hear ADM, I hope your results continue to stay positive.
Irish is the only grower I've seen that meets the expectations I would have for an investment like these lights, I certainly wouldn't say Stoney's isn't getting it done, but I would venture to guess that I don't think he's getting the yields he's looking for. The dope looks dank as hell, just a lot of stretching and node spacing. In light of his recent remarks here, he's working very hard to do what he does and doing some heavy experimenting with these lights to try and figure out what's going on. My hat is off to you Stoney, thanks for sharing in your thread and contributing here, you're helping both growers and Mike alike. Stoney is one of the coolest peeps I've met on here and his journal is the most enjoyable of any on the forum for me.
Shwagbag
Well-Known Member
OK, I called Mike, he answered in two rings and spent about 30 minutes on the phone with me answering my questions and bringing me up to speed with how he's dealt with the issues some people are having with the lights.
He's offered to send me power supplies to reduce the output of the lighting, his explanation does make sense. He claims that for some people the PAR values are exceedingly high. He recently got testing results back from a US company in Washington that determined the PAR values on the 290w lights were greater than that of a 600w HID. His theory of how this effects the plants is in line with Stoney's assessment (if I recall it was stoney). The exceedingly high PAR values of the lights due to higher energy consumption than the 2010 models is increasing plant metabolism to the point where the plant is consuming either a macro or micro nutrient more rapidly than it is being fed during the the plant's cycle OR the higher PAR values is speeding up metabolism so much that the plant cannot produce enough chlorophyll to continue photosynthesis. He claims that he has never encountered an issue with the "sickness" as I call it, but he has replaced 30-40 power supplies on these units for customers and they have received positive feedback. I believe Stoney is one of the people who have received the mods, please correct me if I'm wrong Stoney.
Ultimately he is trying to move away from assessing these lights by wattage, but rather by the amount of lights they have within the fixture. Since the PAR values are what determines a light's effectiveness, he suggests that this is a more logical comparison. .
He claims that he has never experienced such sicknesses in his side by side comparisons of any model and also suggests that nutrient regiments may or may not play a role. He referred to Irish's grow being a DynaGro user, as well as Canna nutrients offering optimal results through flowering.
My initial assessment:
Overall I was comforted by the fact that he went into great depth to explain things to me and I appreciate the time he took to make me feel somewhat at ease. His take on things makes sense to me because the energy is said to be much more usable in these light spectrums and ultimately a LED grow light that is efficiently manufactured actually "should" produce more usable light than a HID light of equal wattage given the measure of wasted energy by means of heat with HID. Most of us have been taught that these lights cannot be compared watt for watt with HID, but his test results are suggesting differently. Science and practical applications, however, don't necessarily always produce the same results. Although Mike admits that he doesn't necessarily have a perfect explanation of what is happening with the lights, he claims that the power reduction has solved the 100% of the problem that approximately 20% of the V1 users have experienced.
A return is out of the question although he did say he would offer an exchange on one of the newer models. I'm going to grab either another 600 digital with air cooled hood to be a backup or a magnetic 400 for CMH with a cheapo reflector, not sure yet. Something nice so I can use it to upgrade my other box if these lights end up working out.
He's offered to send me power supplies to reduce the output of the lighting, his explanation does make sense. He claims that for some people the PAR values are exceedingly high. He recently got testing results back from a US company in Washington that determined the PAR values on the 290w lights were greater than that of a 600w HID. His theory of how this effects the plants is in line with Stoney's assessment (if I recall it was stoney). The exceedingly high PAR values of the lights due to higher energy consumption than the 2010 models is increasing plant metabolism to the point where the plant is consuming either a macro or micro nutrient more rapidly than it is being fed during the the plant's cycle OR the higher PAR values is speeding up metabolism so much that the plant cannot produce enough chlorophyll to continue photosynthesis. He claims that he has never encountered an issue with the "sickness" as I call it, but he has replaced 30-40 power supplies on these units for customers and they have received positive feedback. I believe Stoney is one of the people who have received the mods, please correct me if I'm wrong Stoney.
Ultimately he is trying to move away from assessing these lights by wattage, but rather by the amount of lights they have within the fixture. Since the PAR values are what determines a light's effectiveness, he suggests that this is a more logical comparison. .
He claims that he has never experienced such sicknesses in his side by side comparisons of any model and also suggests that nutrient regiments may or may not play a role. He referred to Irish's grow being a DynaGro user, as well as Canna nutrients offering optimal results through flowering.
My initial assessment:
Overall I was comforted by the fact that he went into great depth to explain things to me and I appreciate the time he took to make me feel somewhat at ease. His take on things makes sense to me because the energy is said to be much more usable in these light spectrums and ultimately a LED grow light that is efficiently manufactured actually "should" produce more usable light than a HID light of equal wattage given the measure of wasted energy by means of heat with HID. Most of us have been taught that these lights cannot be compared watt for watt with HID, but his test results are suggesting differently. Science and practical applications, however, don't necessarily always produce the same results. Although Mike admits that he doesn't necessarily have a perfect explanation of what is happening with the lights, he claims that the power reduction has solved the 100% of the problem that approximately 20% of the V1 users have experienced.
A return is out of the question although he did say he would offer an exchange on one of the newer models. I'm going to grab either another 600 digital with air cooled hood to be a backup or a magnetic 400 for CMH with a cheapo reflector, not sure yet. Something nice so I can use it to upgrade my other box if these lights end up working out.
The V1 and V2 models have slightly different led colors as well as the V3's, which are also reduced to run at about 130 watts (not 150 according to Mike). I asked a shitload of questions lol. My V1's are mostly red and blue, with only one orange and perhaps a green or two. The blues were replaced with a phosphorus coated white some shit and the V3's had added orange in place of a few of the reds. He basically attempted to slightly broaden the spectrum and said that he noticed no difference in results between the V1's-V3's in his personal side by sides. I'm going by memory here now so forgive me if I'm off a bit on this.
Thanks Puff, I was not offered a return so I am going to make the PS change and finish this cycle if my patience can stay on board LOL. At least I have a 2nd tent with HPS to keep my flow of meds going. If this were my only tent, I would be devastated.
hippy132
Well-Known Member
So the money back guarantee not working and the lites are not producing, maybe he can sell something else next time around... no real way to tell what version anyone has or how to fix it...
Shwagbag
Well-Known Member
Really all I can do is give him the benefit of the doubt until evidence suggests otherwise. Having said that I don't see why he would offer to send me new PS knowing full well it won't fix the problem and I would ultimately be more disappointed in the lights. Mike is aware that I have a thread here and that I am sharing my experience.
But the way I saw it is there really should be very little difference between the V1 and the V3 once I change out the power supplies other than minute differences in the kelvin output of very few bulbs on the panel. There also is no glass lens in the V3's if I recall.
But the way I saw it is there really should be very little difference between the V1 and the V3 once I change out the power supplies other than minute differences in the kelvin output of very few bulbs on the panel. There also is no glass lens in the V3's if I recall.
Shwagbag
Well-Known Member
Hippy I highly recommend that you determine the power usage of your 180. If in fact it is using about 180 watts of power I would contact Mike ASAP for a PS swap. I would also see if there is any other such recommended application for the 290's. We spoke very briefly about the 290's, only that he has a customer that uses 20 of them in a medical grow and has zero issues. I recommend that you speak with him and pick his brain, better to be proactive that reactive (like me).
Whether it works or not, I would do whatever you can to prevent it sooner than later or you'll end up in this boat with me.
DrFever
New Member
your def consist of Iron and Zinc / sulfer more on the Zinc end if this helps you out thats why many will ad calmag damage is done kinda sucks its way early in flowering stage
flush your growing medium with ph @ 6 with mild complete nutrients make sure your run off is6 ph
good luck
flush your growing medium with ph @ 6 with mild complete nutrients make sure your run off is6 ph
good luck
Shwagbag
Well-Known Member
Thanks Doc, I'm switching over to soluble nutrients to make them more readily available ASAP as well as cal mag @ 5 ml per gallon every feeding. Will do whatever I can to save them before I put another fresh one in there.
Shwagbag
Well-Known Member
If its drawing 180w power its not fixed. As for the 290's he no longer makes them they've been discontinued and he's gone exclusively to the 130w 100 bulb setups if I'm not mistaken. Not sure what the fix for the 290's is, probably lowering it to 180-200w, I can't say as I didn't cover this very much with him.