weedbulbs

frica

frica

Well-Known Member
WeedBulbs said:
Once again, you are trying to compare a street light to a targeted spectrum grow light.
Please see my "Grow Results: BLM SPYDR 1200 vs Gavita 1000W Double-Ended HPS " comment in this thread...
https://www.rollitup.org/t/weedbulbs-powerblue-cfl-with-hps.899449/#post-12334752




Please see my "Grow Results: BLM SPYDR 1200 vs Gavita 1000W Double-Ended HPS " comment in this thread...
https://www.rollitup.org/t/weedbulbs-powerblue-cfl-with-hps.899449/#post-12334752
Click to expand...
Those DE Gavitas could have easily been pulled almost a foot closer to the weed.
Some of the Spydr plants also got illuminated by stray light of the HPS.

Gavitas should do more than 1 gpw.
Edit:The test also featured 3 different brands of DE HPS and showed massive differences between the 3
 
Last edited:
frica

frica

Well-Known Member
Besides the fact that the McRee curve is still the most widely used one.

And according to the (old) DIN "standard" HPS should be nigh-useless but real life "favours" the Mcree curve.
 
Last edited:
chuck estevez

chuck estevez

Well-Known Member
I get what weedbulbs is saying, If you are growing in an easy bake oven, his bulbs are perfect.:idea:

What i gathered is he is making claims and hasn't even done any comparisons, then the post looking for sympathy was a little over the top for me.:sleep::sleep:

image01.jpg
 
frica

frica

Well-Known Member
grouch said:
The spectrum charts in the cree data sheet.

Do you have a data sheet that shows lumen output and spectrum charts? How efficient are your bulbs?
Click to expand...
According to his amazon:
"SPECIFICATIONS - Light output is 21.28 umol/s EPPF (Expanded Photosynthetic Photon Flux). Efficiency is 0.89 umol/s/watt. PowerBLUE® is NOT intended to be used as the sole source of light for plant growth."

Compared with
Philips 1000W DE HPS = 2.07 umol/s/dissipation W (41.5% efficient)
Philips 315W CMH 4200K = 1.95 umol/s/dissipation W
Bridgelux Vero 29 3K V2.0 @ 79W = 1.97 umol/s/ dissipation W
Cree CXA3070 3K AB @ 52W = 2.11 umol/s/ dissipation W
Cree CXA3070 3K AB @ 25W = 2.46 umol/s/ dissipation W
Cree CXB2530 3K U2 @ 18W = 2.4 umol/s/ dissipation W
Cree CXB3070 3K AD @ 50W = 2.34 umol/s/ dissipation W
Cree CXB3070 3K AD @ 24W = 2.7 umol/s/ dissipation W
Cree CXB3590 3K CB @ 49W = 2.52 umol/s/ dissipation W
Cree CXB3590 3K CB @ 23W = 2.86 umol/s/ dissipation W
Cree CXA3590 5K DB @ 24W = 2.96 umol/s/ dissipation W
 
G

grouch

Well-Known Member
That means he lied when he said they were 90-95% as efficient as leds. Turns out it's more like 25-30%
 
W

WeedBulbs

Member
frica said:
And the DIN standard you posted is the old one.
Click to expand...
Thanks, have not seen this one before. The X-axis labels are corrupt in the picture, do you have this in Excel?

frica said:
Besides the fact that the McRee curve is still the most widely used one.
Click to expand...
Everybody's doing it does not make it right. Using it is silly science.

frica said:
And according to the (old) DIN "standard" HPS should be nigh-useless
Click to expand...
I rather suspect it is closer to spot-on than useless. With the LEDvsHPS (see attached), the LED gets 52% more grams per umol.
To make some calculations, I will need the data sets behind DIN5031-10-2000 and DIN5031-10-2012. Do you know where to get this?

frica said:
real life "favours" the Mcree curve.
Click to expand...
Do you have any "real life" studies?
The only real life study I have seen is the one I have been showing... but it is going to take more data and calculations to see how if fits any growth curve.

What we really need is a new type of measurement to compare grow lights... but it certainly will not be simple to make such.
 

Attachments

G

grouch

Well-Known Member
Again, mono leds are not the same as targeted spectrum cfls. Why do you keep using other products to say your cfls are better? It's apples and oranges.

Spectrum does not always trump light output per watt. Can you prove that your targeted spectrum is hitting higher peaks of the targeted light than hid/led lights with the same amount of power? Its like racing a four banger up against a v8, sure it may have a spoiler but it wont generate enough downforce to need it.
 
frica

frica

Well-Known Member
WeedBulbs said:
Thanks, have not seen this one before. The X-axis labels are corrupt in the picture, do you have this in Excel?
Everybody's doing it does not make it right. Using it is silly science.
I rather suspect it is closer to spot-on than useless. With the LEDvsHPS (see attached), the LED gets 52% more grams per umol.
To make some calculations, I will need the data sets behind DIN5031-10-2000 and DIN5031-10-2012. Do you know where to get this?
Do you have any "real life" studies?
The only real life study I have seen is the one I have been showing... but it is going to take more data and calculations to see how if fits any growth curve.
What we really need is a new type of measurement to compare grow lights... but it certainly will not be simple to make such.
Click to expand...
Again you go with your that Spydr vs DE HPS test.
I already said those Gavitas could(should) have been pulled a foot closer to the canopy.
The test is flawed, and some of the LED plants also got illuminated by the HPS which is an even bigger red flag which you can see in that video of the test you mention.

And your CFLs aren't mono leds.
 
W

WeedBulbs

Member
frica said:
It really really depends on the led of course.

If he's talking about shitty Epileds, then he's probably right.
Click to expand...
Guy's I really don't understand why you persistently have to be negative. This thread is about micro-grows.

The one LED that I have had tested for PPF is:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00GNWK2XO
Tested this one because at the time I was engineering my lamps, this was my number one competition on Amazon.
My competition is not a SPYDR 1200 or a DE HPS 1060w.

My statement of 90 to 95% was shooting from the hip. Probably more like 80 to 85% when compared to the LED in the link above. It will take 7 or 8 of those LEDs to be equal to 4 WeedBulbs at a big price difference. I will do some more accurate calculations when I have the time.
 
chuck estevez

chuck estevez

Well-Known Member
WeedBulbs said:
Guy's I really don't understand why you persistently have to be negative. This thread is about micro-grows.

The one LED that I have had tested for PPF is:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00GNWK2XO
Tested this one because at the time I was engineering my lamps, this was my number one competition on Amazon.
My competition is not a SPYDR 1200 or a DE HPS 1060w.

My statement of 90 to 95% was shooting from the hip. Probably more like 80 to 85% when compared to the LED in the link above. It will take 7 or 8 of those LEDs to be equal to 4 WeedBulbs at a big price difference. I will do some more accurate calculations when I have the time.
Click to expand...
I get it!!


 
G

grouch

Well-Known Member
WeedBulbs said:
Guy's I really don't understand why you persistently have to be negative. This thread is about micro-grows.

The one LED that I have had tested for PPF is:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00GNWK2XO
Tested this one because at the time I was engineering my lamps, this was my number one competition on Amazon.
My competition is not a SPYDR 1200 or a DE HPS 1060w.

My statement of 90 to 95% was shooting from the hip. Probably more like 80 to 85% when compared to the LED in the link above. It will take 7 or 8 of those LEDs to be equal to 4 WeedBulbs at a big price difference. I will do some more accurate calculations when I have the time.
Click to expand...
We aren't being negative just to be negative. This forum is a place people come to for education on growing and you are misleading them. It is our job as a community to inform each other with real info.

I'm sorry you didn't research the market better before buying thousands of cfls but the market has changed dramatically over the last two years and blurple leds are on the way out.

Please try to promote your product for what it is and stop giving false/outdated claims about other options. You have a great product but you are doing a crap job of promoting it. Tell people the truth and come back with some real testing.
 
Resinhound

Resinhound

Well-Known Member
grouch said:
We aren't being negative just to be negative. This forum is a place people come to for education on growing and you are misleading them. It is our job as a community to inform each other with real info.

I'm sorry you didn't research the market better before buying thousands of cfls but the market has changed dramatically over the last two years and blurple leds are on the way out.

Please try to promote your product for what it is and stop giving false/outdated claims about other options. You have a great product but you are doing a crap job of promoting it. Tell people the truth and come back with some real testing.
Click to expand...
His attitude just doesnt strike me as a professional,he acts more like hes some dude in a barn in bejing painting cfls so he can outperform his competition on amazon.

I think the idea of targeted spectrum cfls are great,but no matter how you spin it bro...they are cfls.Which are great...if thats all you can use.
 
BobCajun

BobCajun

Well-Known Member
The reason I was reading this thread is that I did a search on red CFL to see what was already on the forum. Didn't find much about red CFLs but this thread is somewhat related.

My idea was to add some red CFLs to my 4000k neutral white COBs, having read that adding red to white LED does increase yields, at least in other plants so presumably also with this one. Here's an image I found with various fluorescent spectrums. The red looks like it should be a good addition, being a very clean red spectrum centered around 680 nm. Too bad only 13w ones are readily available. Image source

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top