HLG-550 vs PLC-6

pirg420

pirg420

Well-Known Member
Greengenes707 said:
Are you really saying that putting complete fixtures off the production lines into spheres and gonios from a certified 3rd party testing facilities and using the real world and actual output of the fixture to publish and make comparisons with is being delusional?
Provide your sphere or gonio testing. And yes, you will see that the veros put out more light...per watt and overall. If you stopped humping data sheets and actually did the real world testing(which is full fixture sphere and gonio testing) you will see that and why a cree partner such as PLC doesn’t run CXB or the new CMA. Simple as that hot shot. Get your fixture tested and provide the numbers and get into the real world of publishing 3rd party verified testing numbers.

So if you really wanted to offer the best product you would change chips and it would also lower your cost and the customer. But sounds like you don’t care about make a better product or providing real numbers. Only attempting to hype and over state while providing a lesser performing product.


You're the only one here spreading false information.VVVVVVVVV

You need to learn to read data sheets. You can't even do that it seems based on this false info your spreading.

Why don't you learn what a goniometer is and what it's used for. Stop cherry picking and deflecting with reductio ad absurdum.
Click to expand...
I hate wasting my time proving myself over and over.

Whats delusional Greengenes is that you are trying to pretend your light creates more par, and some how is a better deal than mine, even when mine is $125 cheaper. Thats comical.

Heres 12 DB's vs 12 Vero 29 D's at 50 watts: http://rollitup.org/t/par-mapping-the-world.949574/page-2#post-13838409

Summary:
12 Vero 29 D's
actual wattage 616 watts
Total PPFD: 16237
10x5 PPFD: 324.75
PPFD Per Watt: .527

12 Cree cxb3590 DB's
actual wattage 616 watts
Total PPFD: 16528
10x5 PPFD: 330.56
PPFD Per Watt: .536

The cree DB Fixture puts out about 1.8% more par then the Vero 29 D fixture.

Now lets compare the vero 29 D to the vero 29 B.

vero29dvs29blumensperwatt.png

This data is taken from the datasheet. The values with ***'s are added in to fill in the holes. The B is only slightly better then the D above about 75 watts. But in general they are almost the same.

So, CXB 3590 DB's proved to be 1.8% better at 50 watts then a D (in my par map test).

So im wondering, how does a vero 29 B at 95 watts compare to a DB at 62.5? From this example we are at around 167 Lm/watt with the db, and 155 Lm/watt with the vero B, then add in active cooling for a few more percent.

Also, please explain how the HLG 550 scores so poorly in the same exact par test? Ive taken the time to do these tests, if you want to talk about spheres, then publish the data of a db at 62.5 vs a B at 95.

Ill put my fixture in a sphere, then we'll have more data. Ive proven my point many times here. You havnt proven anything.

The only reason you are running dbs, is because of YOUR cost. My cost is clearly quite different.
 
Greengenes707

Greengenes707

Well-Known Member
pirg420 said:
and from the datasheets the B's are worse then the D's. (compared by watts).
Click to expand...
pirg420 said:
I hate wasting my time proving myself over and over.

Whats delusional Greengenes is that you are trying to pretend your light creates more par, and some how is a better deal than mine, even when mine is $125 cheaper. Thats comical.

Heres 12 DB's vs 12 Vero 29 D's at 50 watts: http://rollitup.org/t/par-mapping-the-world.949574/page-2#post-13838409

Summary:
12 Vero 29 D's
actual wattage 616 watts
Total PPFD: 16237
10x5 PPFD: 324.75
PPFD Per Watt: .527

12 Cree cxb3590 DB's
actual wattage 616 watts
Total PPFD: 16528
10x5 PPFD: 330.56
PPFD Per Watt: .536

The cree DB Fixture puts out about 1.8% more par then the Vero 29 D fixture.

Now lets compare the vero 29 D to the vero 29 B.

View attachment 4066321

This data is taken from the datasheet. The values with ***'s are added in to fill in the holes. The B is only slightly better then the D above about 75 watts. But in general they are almost the same.

So, CXB 3590 DB's proved to be 1.8% better at 50 watts then a D (in my par map test).

So im wondering, how does a vero 29 B at 95 watts compare to a DB at 62.5? From this example we are at around 167 Lm/watt with the db, and 155 Lm/watt with the vero B, then add in active cooling for a few more percent.

Also, please explain how the HLG 550 scores so poorly in the same exact par test? Ive taken the time to do these tests, if you want to talk about spheres, then publish the data of a db at 62.5 vs a B at 95.

Ill put my fixture in a sphere, then we'll have more data. Ive proven my point many times here. You havnt proven anything.

The only reason you are running dbs, is because of YOUR cost. My cost is clearly quite different.
Click to expand...
No one has ever said D veros. It has always been B’s which are better at EVERY wattage period. And then there are the best C which are still cheaper than cxb’s. But performance is all that counts and veroB&C off the best and at the best price. All 3rd party verified, not opinions or extrapolations.

So again...put your fixture into certified 3rd party or shut it. You are worng and are using our incorrect extrapolations. Yes, i said you calcs are INCORRECT. And only a gonio and sphere will show you that. But you refuse to actually test you units. the sphere and gonio test show that and is why PLC hairs the best chip, which is the veroC. We have our fixture tested and sold with the B. New testing for the upgraded C ship will be done in January. But all all we have stated is the ACTUAL 3rd party testing. That is it. Not what could be...only report the actual reality of an end use fixture.
 
Greengenes707

Greengenes707

Well-Known Member
key4 said:
Very interested in the cma3090 numbers and why you wouldnt use them?

e2a watched the q&a. Got my answer.
Click to expand...
Yep. They just won’t perform better than a veroB. And that was straight from CREEs mouth so i wouldn’t have to wait for more chips to test and waste my time and money on testing chips they know won’t do what i need them to. Cost could be slightly less, but when you can get a veroC for the same price to maybe 2$ more...the gap gets big enough you could never justify using them. Even if it dropped a few bucks, perforce isn’t to today’s standards.
ANC said:
Hey Gene, saw that nice grow of yours on the tube, was it gorilla #4? anyway, respect.
Click to expand...
Thanks. Not the recent grow it was a blackberry Cream cut. But I have a couple glue runs on there.
 
ANC

ANC

Well-Known Member
I see, have you tested any of the Samsung F-series strips?
I like how one can spread the light more evenly with these than COBS or small rectangular boards.
 
pirg420

pirg420

Well-Known Member
Greengenes707 said:
No one has ever said D veros. It has always been B’s which are better at EVERY wattage period. And then there are the best C which are still cheaper than cxb’s. But performance is all that counts and veroB&C off the best and at the best price. All 3rd party verified, not opinions or extrapolations.

So again...put your fixture into certified 3rd party or shut it. You are worng and are using our incorrect extrapolations. Yes, i said you calcs are INCORRECT. And only a gonio and sphere will show you that. But you refuse to actually test you units. the sphere and gonio test show that and is why PLC hairs the best chip, which is the veroC. We have our fixture tested and sold with the B. New testing for the upgraded C ship will be done in January. But all all we have stated is the ACTUAL 3rd party testing. That is it. Not what could be...only report the actual reality of an end use fixture.
Click to expand...

I havnt refused to test in a sphere, i have tested in a sphere, but only up to 400 watts/33 per chip, and my sphere guy cant do par for some reason. I believe that testing par on a par map, in a reflective tent and open air is a better measurement of real world dope growing power.

If the B's are so much better than the D's then prove it?

Ive shown you my data, show me yours.

As usual you are trying to dirty the waters. You're using a B, so why even bring C into the conversation? I know C is VERY good. ALOT better than the B. You bragging about the C in your UPCOMING light would be like me bragging about my new diode fixture that will blow the doors off the hlg in performance and price.

Here are 2 sphere tests i had done back in may 2017. the same exact panels that were used in my Vero D vs DB test. 12 vero ds and 12 DB's at 400 watts. approx 33 watts per chip.
The sphere shows even more of an advantage to the DB'S, because of the lower wattage(33w), 7% to be exact

Please stop trying to downplay my light, its a very viable contender in this 500-600 watt space and its priced more competitively than any one else.

Im done dealing with you man, i still have lots of respect for you, youve done alot for the community, but when you tell me im wrong, and i produce data and tests and information why im right and you chose to just call my data invalid, thats kinda lame. Have a happy new year man.
 

Attachments

Greengenes707

Greengenes707

Well-Known Member
pirg420 said:
I havnt refused to test in a sphere, i have tested in a sphere, but only up to 400 watts/33 per chip, and my sphere guy cant do par for some reason. I believe that testing par on a par map, in a reflective tent and open air is a better measurement of real world dope growing power.

If the B's are so much better than the D's then prove it?

Ive shown you my data, show me yours.

As usual you are trying to dirty the waters. You're using a B, so why even bring C into the conversation? I know C is VERY good. ALOT better than the B. You bragging about the C in your UPCOMING light would be like me bragging about my new diode fixture that will blow the doors off the hlg in performance and price.

Here are 2 sphere tests i had done back in may 2017. the same exact panels that were used in my Vero D vs DB test. 12 vero ds and 12 DB's at 400 watts. approx 33 watts per chip.
The sphere shows even more of an advantage to the DB'S, because of the lower wattage(33w), 7% to be exact

Please stop trying to downplay my light, its a very viable contender in this 500-600 watt space and its priced more competitively than any one else.

Im done dealing with you man, i still have lots of respect for you, youve done alot for the community, but when you tell me im wrong, and i produce data and tests and information why im right and you chose to just call my data invalid, thats kinda lame. Have a happy new year man.
Click to expand...
YOU ARE WRONG. If you used actual ceritofied 3rd party test you would see that. We already have and why we use the chip we use. They are the better performers period.
Get into the modern world and use certified 3rd party testing.
 
nfhiggs

nfhiggs

Well-Known Member
pirg420 said:
I havnt refused to test in a sphere, i have tested in a sphere, but only up to 400 watts/33 per chip, and my sphere guy cant do par for some reason. I believe that testing par on a par map, in a reflective tent and open air is a better measurement of real world dope growing power.

If the B's are so much better than the D's then prove it?

Ive shown you my data, show me yours.

As usual you are trying to dirty the waters. You're using a B, so why even bring C into the conversation? I know C is VERY good. ALOT better than the B. You bragging about the C in your UPCOMING light would be like me bragging about my new diode fixture that will blow the doors off the hlg in performance and price.

Here are 2 sphere tests i had done back in may 2017. the same exact panels that were used in my Vero D vs DB test. 12 vero ds and 12 DB's at 400 watts. approx 33 watts per chip.
The sphere shows even more of an advantage to the DB'S, because of the lower wattage(33w), 7% to be exact

Please stop trying to downplay my light, its a very viable contender in this 500-600 watt space and its priced more competitively than any one else.

Im done dealing with you man, i still have lots of respect for you, youve done alot for the community, but when you tell me im wrong, and i produce data and tests and information why im right and you chose to just call my data invalid, thats kinda lame. Have a happy new year man.
Click to expand...
Dude, if your going to hawk your wares in here, you should at least get an advertisers badge. Don't be another VW.
 
pirg420

pirg420

Well-Known Member
Greengenes707 said:
YOU ARE WRONG. If you used actual ceritofied 3rd party test you would see that. We already have and why we use the chip we use. They are the better performers period.
Get into the modern world and use certified 3rd party testing.
Click to expand...
If your light put out 18% more par then mine(the difference in price), our lights would be of equal value.

Have a great day GG
 
Greengenes707

Greengenes707

Well-Known Member
pirg420 said:
If your light put out 18% more par then mine(the difference in price), our lights would be of equal value.

Have a great day GG
Click to expand...
Your light doesn’t put out what you claim. You are lying to your customers. Mine does. And is confirmed by a verified and NIST certified lab. No guessing, no extrapolations. Just the reality of what actual output in.
 
pirg420

pirg420

Well-Known Member
Greengenes707 said:
Your light doesn’t put out what you claim. You are lying to your customers. Mine does. And is confirmed by a verified and NIST certified lab. No guessing, no extrapolations. Just the reality of what actual output in.
Click to expand...
Maybe I’m wrong on the comparison between the db at 62 and the V29B at 95. But prove it.

And when I say prove it, I mean make a par map in a tent, because no one grows plants in a sphere.

I’m of the opinion this is the best wAy to compare.

What’s so hard about doing a par map on a 4x4 or 5x5 in a tent? (I have 4x4 and 5x5 setup) Like I said, you’d have to show 18% more ppfd to be the same value. image.jpg

I posted my 5x5 ppfd on my light. Actual measured ppfd, not calculated or theoretical.

5x5 reflective, 24”, 230 volt, 22 degrees

I don’t wanna war with you bro but I’ve shown my cards and you havnt. (If you’ve posted sphere data or par maps where can I find it?)

IMO if everyone used this standard it would be fairly simple for customers to compare between models, and even for them to verify at home with a basic par meter. There’s so much lieing going on in this industry, this is a great way to show the customer what kind of par levels they are to expect at the tops of their colas. No customer has a sphere at home.



Have a good one
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top