Apache AT600 led vs 1000w HPS Blue Dream Grow

Cococola36

Cococola36

Well-Known Member
chazbolin said:
I don't think I would declare CMH as unbeatable. The Phillips cut sheet shows 1.9 only at the first 100 hours. Even by referencing the Phillips white sheet your going to have a depreciation of 10% @ 8K hours which puts it at 1.7 uMole/sec/watt. And none of these values account for the ballast inefficiencies which is pretty significant with CMH.

http://www.usa.lighting.philips.com/pwc_li/us_en/connect/tools_literature/downloads/415216.pdf

When the technical comparisons were done in 'Measuring Plant Light' it was understood that these lamps must be run on magnetic ballasts so their efficiencies will drop considerably. Unless there is a digital ballast that can run these lamps you still have to account for magnetic ballast inefficiencies which places a CMH lamp/ballast combination to a means average of .89 uMole/sec/watt.

When you compare it with other technologies and comparative area coverage it's a good grow light but I would certainly not qualify it as unbeatable. I think a good side by side would be a start through finish CMH versus plasma since the efficiencies and spectrums are so similar as was detailed on page 6 in the PPF (uMole/sec/watt) technical comparisons between these two technologies.

http://www.inda-gro.com/pdf/MeasuringPlantLight.pdf
Click to expand...
If they made an 860 watt, or even the 700 watt plasma ive heard about but havent seen yet, then that would be a side by side I would also like to see. The gavita amongst other do have great spectrums.....soon my friends I will be doing a new thread with two 315 watt cmh agro elite in a 5x5 which will basically be vs my 860 watt set up. Just waiting on my veg to hurry the hell up lol. GG gotta love the filler in your threads lol
 
PSUAGRO.

PSUAGRO.

Well-Known Member
chazbolin said:
I don't think I would declare CMH as unbeatable. The Phillips cut sheet shows 1.9 only at the first 100 hours. Even by referencing the Phillips white sheet your going to have a depreciation of 10% @ 8K hours which puts it at 1.7 uMole/sec/watt. And none of these values account for the ballast inefficiencies which is pretty significant with CMH.

http://www.usa.lighting.philips.com/pwc_li/us_en/connect/tools_literature/downloads/415216.pdf

When the technical comparisons were done in 'Measuring Plant Light' it was understood that these lamps must be run on magnetic ballasts so their efficiencies will drop considerably. Unless there is a digital ballast that can run these lamps you still have to account for magnetic ballast inefficiencies which places a CMH lamp/ballast combination to a means average of .89 uMole/sec/watt.

When you compare it with other technologies and comparative area coverage it's a good grow light but I would certainly not qualify it as unbeatable. I think a good side by side would be a start through finish CMH versus plasma since the efficiencies and spectrums are so similar as was detailed on page 6 in the PPF (uMole/sec/watt) as a lamp/ballast technical comparison between these two technologies.

http://www.inda-gro.com/pdf/MeasuringPlantLight.pdf
Click to expand...
Every ballast / driver has inefficiencies , you know this...........significant is an overstatement, with the top-of-the-line ceramatek ballast its 16w to power a 315w cmh bulb and 95% lumen retention at half life. It's worth the extra $$ to go with this ballast , looking at all the improved #'s with their tech...........yowza.


http://www.gel-usa.com/#/products/ceramatek/CT315W ^^^^ nice edit BTW chaz :P

sorry for the highjack GG
 
natro.hydro

natro.hydro

Well-Known Member
Cococola36 said:
If they made an 860 watt, or even the 700 watt plasma ive heard about but havent seen yet, then that would be a side by side I would also like to see. The gavita amongst other do have great spectrums.....soon my friends I will be doing a new thread with two 315 watt cmh agro elite in a 5x5 which will basically be vs my 860 watt set up.
Click to expand...
\
Damn, I guess I can't just sit around and not always be looking for new tech, regardless of whether I am looking to buy. Otherwise I am gonna be left in the old age. Perfect example is they are already sending psu a new light, like wtf you have had the thing all of 2 weeks dude??? the times they are a changing....
 
Last edited:
chazbolin

chazbolin

Well-Known Member
top-of-the-line ceramatek ballast its 16w to power a 315w cmh bulb and 95% lumen retention at half life. It's worth the extra $$ to go with this ballast , looking at all the improved #'s with their tech...........yowza.
Click to expand...
I see that CMH can be run on digital ballasts now. So yes efficiencies would go up but as to depreciation check the white sheet and it's rated 90% @ 8K hours which is 40% of it's 20K rated lamp life. Don't get me wrong these are impressive numbers. But I would want to see full veg thru flower runs to see how they stack up to other energy efficient grow lights and I have not seen anything that suggests the halides spectral instability is not an issue as the lamps age.

soon my friends I will be doing a new thread with two 315 watt cmh agro elite in a 5x5 which will basically be vs my 860 watt set up. Just waiting on my veg to hurry the hell up lol.
Click to expand...
ahhh that's another thread that will be worth watching. Consider me subbed!

GG gotta love the filler in your threads lol
Click to expand...
Oh yeah it's always a good read in GG's thread! Great job on the thread GG and apologies for the detour.
 
Greengenes707

Greengenes707

Well-Known Member
The white buffalo are
genuity said:

^^good vid....764 @wall,still a good light.
Click to expand...
I knew that was happening. Can't wait to see what he does with it. Watts are needed for whatnots replacing.
PSUAGRO. said:
So now we are at 764w of leds to replace 1000w hps???...wow
Click to expand...
Welcome to reality...nothing else' was /is doing it.
It will replace 1000hps with the same yield ...I know this for fact. And mine did it with just 685w.
 
hyroot

hyroot

Well-Known Member
^^1^ kinda makes me want go back to CMH.. Or more ig's. they need to hurry up with 120v 315 elite agro's
 
SupraSPL

SupraSPL

Well-Known Member
To be fair the 1000 HPS probably draws 1100W if we include ballast losses. So you could say 685W/764W vs 1100W or you could say 560W/630W vs 1000W for actual dissipation.

The amount of power an LED will draw can change quite a bit as the drivers and LEDs warm up too.

GG was that a brand new HPS bulb?
 
spazatak

spazatak

Well-Known Member
im kinda confused... GG had 685 and the vid had 764... thats quite a big difference for the same unit no?
 
Greengenes707

Greengenes707

Well-Known Member
hyroot said:
^^1^ kinda makes me want go back to CMH.. Or more ig's. they need to hurry up with 120v 315 elite agro's
Click to expand...
I don't think more ig's is better a better option. Cmh maybe but still just theory...someone sack up and do a side by side.
SupraSPL said:
To be fair the 1000 HPS probably draws 1100W if we include ballast losses. So you could say 685W/764W vs 1100W or you could say 560W/630W vs 1000W for actual dissipation.

The amount of power an LED will draw can change quite a bit as the drivers and LEDs warm up too.

GG was that a brand new HPS bulb?
Click to expand...
Yep, brand new bulb. Actually about 6 hours testing before my plants went under it if we really want to get picky.
Mine pulls 1068w but my illumitek pulled 1096w.

My proto has the lpc's not the hlg's like the production. 87%efficient vs 94% so I am loosing efficiency compared to what it could be. It comes out to about 602w of actual light.
spazatak said:
im kinda confused... GG had 685 and the vid had 764... thats quite a big difference for the same unit no?
Click to expand...
Mine is a prototype. The production is supposed to be right about 720w I am told. Is what it is.

And dispute what people will say, LEDs run slightly more efficient at 240v. Which I run.
 
MrFlux

MrFlux

Well-Known Member
From the AT600 unboxing video:

Nominal input power: 700W
Luminous flux: 52180 lm
Luminous efficacy: 84.3 lm/W

52180 divided by 700 is 74.5 not 84.3, but anyway even for a pink spectrum this is not so super.
 
N

nuglife707

Member
GG, been following this and your Tags420 threads as well, and am leaning toward picking up several AT600's in the next few weeks, they look like great lights and I'm excited to save electricity with not only the lights but the cooler run temp and not having to vent each light! I just know they're heavy so I need to make sure my tents will hold them up and won't collapse and break 4 x $2k lights.

Not sure if I overlooked it, but do you have final yield numbers for this AT vs HPS blue dream grow posted yet? A side by side of some choice nugs would be great too, I'm curious to see the difference, I know you said the LED came out slightly darker but perhaps more trichs. And the lab test will of course be telling…Thanks for all the updates, very helpful, AT really should hook you up with a cut of every sale who uses your code, without your threads I wouldn't be considering making the jump to their product!
 
PSUAGRO.

PSUAGRO.

Well-Known Member
MrFlux said:
From the AT600 unboxing video:

Nominal input power: 700W
Luminous flux: 52180 lm
Luminous efficacy:

84.3 lm/W

52180 divided by 700 is 74.5 not 84.3, but anyway even for a pink spectrum this is not so super.
Click to expand...
missed this^^^.................So, who said it again that they where probably using mid-bin nichia's????Supra?? someone buy him a beer:mrgreen:

NASA don't like math...............oh wait

Greengenes707 said:
The white buffalo are

I knew that was happening. Can't wait to see what he does with it. Watts are needed for whatnots replacing.

Welcome to reality...nothing else' was /is doing it.
It will replace 1000hps with the same yield ...I know this for fact. And mine did it with just 685w.
Click to expand...
Yeah I guess.................just a little shocked at the wattage draw for the current fixture, progress for me means efficiency gains NOT increasing the power draw....IDK
 
chazbolin

chazbolin

Well-Known Member
Watts are needed for whatnots replacing.
Click to expand...
Okay I give up. That statement has me flummoxed. What does that mean? If you could give me ten minutes and my head will be in the right place.

:bigjoint:

.just a little shocked at the wattage draw for the current fixture, progress for me means efficiency gains NOT increasing the power draw.
Click to expand...
To some extent that would be true but with GG matching the HPS with the lower wattage version I would imagine the higher wattage production version is designed to surpass the thouie. Just a guess though.

I don't think more ig's is better a better option.
Click to expand...
Won't know unless you run an actual side by side with the AT. Since you own both run the 420/Pontoon against the AT and let's see what shakes out. I'm still of the school 'less is more'.
 
Last edited:
spazatak

spazatak

Well-Known Member
PSUAGRO. said:
missed this^^^.................So, who said it again that they where probably using mid-bin nichia's????Supra?? someone buy him a beer:mrgreen:

NASA don't like math...............oh wait



Yeah I guess.................just a little shocked at the wattage draw for the current fixture, progress for me means efficiency gains NOT increasing the power draw....IDK
Click to expand...

always a possibility but would hurt their rep IMO

maybe its naivety but have always from the conversations on here held the view that Apache and their stuff were just that next step up in LED
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top