A-51 growers thread

[gk skunky]

Yeah I'm a little confused too, was he saying that the 440CLW performs equivalently to the other two combined (440CLW ≈ [XGS190 + RW150]) or was he saying that all three lights are roughly equivalent, (440CLW ≈ XGS190 ≈ RW150). Looking back I suppose that the former is more likely, but I definitely read it as the latter the first time I read it.

Sorry, I didn't even catch how misleading that sounds. The CLW 440 does about the same as the either the RW-150 or the XGS-190 individually. The XGS and RW numbers were not too far off from one another. CLW was about intermediate of those and center favoring closer to the RW. So just going off measurements from the two lights the CLW 440 is about equivalent to either an RW 150 @ 155W or the XGS @195W. The CLW did spread a bit better and didn't fall off at the edges quite as fast. I should have done a more thorough recording of that though. I was just at the store they had the lights and I had my meter so was just a quick run through without all the more accurate 4x4 footprint like I measured with the RW and XGS. But the numbers I did get were in that ballpark range. All lights were measured using the same voltmeter and the apogee SQ-120 electric quantum sensor. The CLWS were pretty close to what their umol claims stat.

 

[Greengenes707]

Sorry, I didn't even catch how misleading that sounds. The CLW 440 does about the same as the either the RW-150 or the XGS-190 individually. The XGS and RW numbers were not too far off from one another. CLW was about intermediate of those and center favoring closer to the RW. So just going off measurements from the two lights the CLW 440 is about equivalent to either an RW 150 @ 155W or the XGS @195W. The CLW did spread a bit better and didn't fall off at the edges quite as fast. I should have done a more thorough recording of that though. I was just at the store they had the lights and I had my meter so was just a quick run through without all the more accurate 4x4 footprint like I measured with the RW and XGS. But the numbers I did get were in that ballpark range. All lights were measured using the same voltmeter and the apogee SQ-120 electric quantum sensor. The CLWS were pretty close to what their umol claims stat.

Thanks for the clarification. I'ld be most interested at the 2.5-3ft+ coverage zones. Center numbers should be similar...specially lots of watts and no lenses(clw) vs lower wattage with lenes(a51). Who/what is putting out the most light over the whole canopy.

 

[cdd10]

They always reply back to me in a timely manner don't see you having any problems if it's defective right from the get go.

 

[cityworker415]

I'm all for a51 but lets not get too defensive before we know the facts...

CLW SS440 = 320w in bloom mode...345-350w full blast with the uvb's going
A51 RW150 = 155w...x2=310w...10 less watts than the clw440
XGS190 =192w...x2=390w...70 more watts that the clw...still 40 more watts than clw with uvb.

Ahh some data.

Sent from my XT1060 using Rollitup mobile app

 

[PSUAGRO.]

Hard to believe#s... .a51 using half the wattage and getting about equal par readings? Probably the secondary lenses, but the coverage must be half of the ss440 then......clw using 5w epileds? Lol

 

[blowincherrypie]

So basically you're getting similar numbers but with Area 51 it's half the wattage and half the price right? So we can agree CLW are not top tier lamps right? I'm telling you guys, and 99% of people who have bought a CLW and then purchased an Area 51 will tell you the same thing, Area 51 is just a far superior product.

 

[Dloomis514]

cree 3070 3000k ABs aint bad either

 

[blowincherrypie]

Ahh some data.

Sent from my XT1060 using Rollitup mobile app

Just wanted to make sure you understood what the data was saying.

 

[cityworker415]

Just wanted to make sure you understood what the data was saying.

R u fishing? Don't be negative

Sent from my XT1060 using Rollitup mobile app

 

[OutofLEDCloset]

So basically you're getting similar numbers but with Area 51 it's half the wattage and half the price right? So we can agree CLW are not top tier lamps right? I'm telling you guys, and 99% of people who have bought a CLW and then purchased an Area 51 will tell you the same thing, Area 51 is just a far superior product.

Mine's works so far. DIY is next for me. GG's light is where i'm going to start.

 

[BeastGrow]

Anyone have them ship a unit from China, if so, how much is the shipping? How much heat do the 160's and 190's put out? Would 4 units produce a lot of heat in a 4x4x7 area? Am considering either Apache At600 or 4 160's/190's(having to ship from China if they still do that). Also, would mixing units(example 3/160's with 1/190) be good or bad?

i think the 4 light option will work better you will be able to lower or angle the lights too that way which will further increase the effieciency.

 

[gk skunky]

Thanks for the clarification. I'ld be most interested at the 2.5-3ft+ coverage zones. Center numbers should be similar...specially lots of watts and no lenses(clw) vs lower wattage with lenes(a51). Who/what is putting out the most light over the whole canopy.

I did measure more than center numbers but it was more in a scanning fashion just kinda quickly measured around the space at a couple different heights. The 440 was in a 2x4 tent and from what I saw it covered the 2x4 as well as either of those two A51s would cover a 2x3 like my old setup. The CLW definitely spread the light more but maintained good intensity. Honestly compared to the old 400s and 800s my buddy had the 440 and 880 appeared to perform better and for the setup having secondary lenses I was impressed with the numbers they still had good penetration and didn't fall off as quick as towards the edges as the A51(due to lenses), and didn't fall off as much as COBs do from a height perspective. The A51 has deep penetration and high par numbers as hieght is changed, though falls out quickly as you move from center. The CXA fixture I built has pretty good PAR numbers but they drop off faster than the A51s as the height is raised, though the spread over all is better. The CLW appeared to be more intermediate of those two different beasts(Standard CREE XTE or XTE/XPE vs CXA COBs). In my opinion still over priced for what it is, but appears to be essentially what they claim. So I guess if it makes you feel more comfortable to buy from a larger more corporatized I guess you could say type of company you got CLW as another good option next to Apache and Rapid. Though next to DIY I still personally believe the A51s are quite possibly the best bang for your buck.

 

[goodro wilson]

I run two 75s plus a Chinese cob looking to add more Area 51 soon

 

[Banana444]

Finally something to show with my rw-150 after a bad seed batch that the only survivor was a barneys blue cheese which is amazing, pic later. 5 JOTI reg deep purple that have been under the rw with whites only 100w whites only from seed. Now under a 400w mh next to these autos....

 

[Banana444]

These autos were freebies, short stuff, tha shiznit and big gun, both autos that I am going to finish under the rw150. Cant wait to see for myself.

 

[Banana444]

Here is the blue cheese the only good seedling out of a pack of cr kush and freebies. Not a seedling anymore but that is 2 months old, a bit of a slow start and I gave up on the rest.

 

[s0ur]

Greatful breath

 

[cdd10]

Going into flower! Blue snowdog last pic is a when plant was younger.

 

[s0ur]

looking good cdd10

 

[cdd10]

looking good cdd10

Thanks man first led grow I'm excited!