Most Efficient LED Light

Stephenj37826

Stephenj37826

Well-Known Member
Hybridway said:
PPFD is not a single spot measurement as I'm sure you're aware.
I said 30% was my rough estimate against the 1200 DE.
42% is against the 1000 & is not an estimate, it's a fact.
Man, you guys are trying so hard to call this bunk but it's simply not.
Didn't I just give you the info.?
Does it not say 48% on the graph? Haven't I said it was 100x on threads as well as posted the parts repeatedly?
You guys can't use cob equations on everything w/o ever taking design into account.
I'm done here for now. Got a room to build. Can't be going back in forth w/ non-believers in the truth all day.
You both make good lights I'm sure, got nothing bad to say about either of you.
At one point though, you're just gonna have to accept the facts. Amare is killing it
w/ results & #'s.
Click to expand...

The 48% is the spectral efficiency.... Not the fixture efficiency.
 
Hybridway

Hybridway

Well-Known Member
Rahz said:
If a 1200w DE is 42% efficient and outputs 504 PAR watts, then a 900w lamp with 30% more output (655 PAR watts) would be 73% efficient. If the output watts is less than 900 then it would be +75% efficient, which I doubted and still do. That's why I asked you to prove your claim... not calling anything bunk, just questioning your figures.
Click to expand...
What makes you think a DE Is 42%? Man, you guys just spin shit till you make sense, but even then, you only make sense to you.
 
Stephenj37826

Stephenj37826

Well-Known Member
Look there both 315 cmh and Quantum boards are higher efficiency...... Good lord ...... Call the guy that sent you that test and let him explain it to you and you come back here and tell everyone sorry for misinformation that you are WRONG!!!!
 

Attachments

Last edited:
Hybridway

Hybridway

Well-Known Member
Stephenj37826 said:
Look there both 315 cmh and Quantum boards are higher efficiency...... Good lord ...... Call the guy that sent you that test and let him explain it to you and you come back here and tell everyone sorry for misinformation that you are WRONG!!!!View attachment 3829166
Click to expand...
I don't understand. What am I wrong about?
I'm not trying to argue Stephen. Just posted the test results from a study done upon Rahz's request.
There's really nothing to argue about. Don't understand why you're so defensive. I did say you make good lights didn't I? What else do you want from me?
I could say a bunch of stuff that wouldn't fair well for you based on facts, but I don't. So why challenge me to calculate. I grow & make recommendations based on what I know from experience. Also, I share most knowledge I obtain.
So, what exactly has got your panties in a bunch now?
I'll tell you what though, when these studies are put out there for the public, I do fully expect you to post a public apology to me.
 
Last edited:
Stephenj37826

Stephenj37826

Well-Known Member
Hybridway said:
I don't understand. What am I wrong about?
I'm not trying to argue Stephen. Just posted the test results from a study done upon Rahz's request.
There's really nothing to argue about. Don't understand why you're so defensive. I did say you make good lights didn't I? What else do you want from me?
I could say a bunch of stuff that wouldn't fair well for you based on facts, but I don't. So why challenge me to calculate. I grow & make recommendations based on what I know from experience. Also, I share most knowledge I obtain.
So, what exactly has got your panties in a bunch now?
I'll tell you what though, when these studies are put out there for the public, I do fully expect you to post a public apology to me.
Click to expand...

I'm just trying to tell you that the numbers you are waiving around you don't understand......... So please don't misinform anyone. The only way to measure total output of a fixture thus efficiency is 2 ways. A integrating sphere or B a Goniophotometer...... That's it. A Lighting Passport is a handy tool... It's a part meter plus a spectrometer. That's all it is though. So even if you measure a 4x4 area you still aren't measuring all the light produced.


Hybridway said:
It's 48.6. I've stated it before & again here.
Don't doubt just accept it.
Click to expand...

This is what bothers me. As I've stated that efficiency number is meaningless honestly. It has to do with the efficiency of the tested spectrum to drive photosynthesis. Think about it.... How could the Sun not be 100%.... Actually infinity seeing as it doesn't use an external power source.... Get it now?
 
Hybridway

Hybridway

Well-Known Member
Stephenj37826 said:
I'm just trying to tell you that the numbers you are waiving around you don't understand......... So please don't misinform anyone. The only way to measure total output of a fixture thus efficiency is 2 ways. A integrating sphere or B a Goniophotometer...... That's it. A Lighting Passport is a handy tool... It's a part meter plus a spectrometer. That's all it is though. So even if you measure a 4x4 area you still aren't measuring all the light produced.





This is what bothers me. As I've stated that efficiency number is meaningless honestly. It has to do with the efficiency of the tested spectrum to drive photosynthesis. Think about it.... How could the Sun not be 100%.... Actually infinity seeing as it doesn't use an external power source.... Get it now?
Click to expand...
Again with the assumptions. Dont all you guys state the efficiency of your lights simply by doing an equation based on spec sheets, drive currents, & components? But all the sudden you're saying everyone has to use the sphere?
Sure, that's the most accurate way but deffinetly not how everyone judges their efficiency. None of that even matters to me. I'm just posting results. What you make of it is up to you.
They used the latest IBM technical software available. High tech stuff.
Even if they do use a lighting passport, the #'s are the #'s bro.
And whether or not you think I understand the #'s or not is irrelevant. They are what they are & were conducted by unbiased Professionals. People that do this stuff for a living. Scientists guy.
You act like I did the test w/ my phone app or something.
You understand the #'s right?
So what do you care my level of education?
I'm not saying anything about them other then from what I do know, they are pretty impressive.
Oh, I get it. The question is, do you?
Still waiting for you to tell me what it is I don't understand & how exactly have I misinformed anyone.
Last I checked, it was your calculations & false claims that mislead a purchaser to buy your lights thinking they were 1000w hps replacements just for the poor guy to yield 30% less & lose tons of money.
So, who's misleading who here Stephen?
 
Last edited:
Stephenj37826

Stephenj37826

Well-Known Member
Hybridway said:
Again with the assumptions. Dont all you guys state the efficiency of your lights simply by doing an equation based on spec sheets, drive currents, & components? But all the sudden you're saying everyone has to use the sphere?
Sure, that's the most accurate way but deffinetly not how everyone judges their efficiency. None of that even matters to me. I'm just posting results. What you make of it is up to you.
They used the latest IBM technical software available. High tech stuff.
Even if they do use a lighting passport, the #'s are the #'s bro.
And whether or not you think I understand the #'s or not is irrelevant. They are what they are & were conducted by unbiased Professionals. People that do this stuff for a living. Scientists guy.
You act like I did the test w/ my phone app or something.
You understand the #'s right?
So what do you care my level of education?
I'm not saying anything about them other then from what I do know, they are pretty impressive.
Oh, I get it. The question is, do you?
Still waiting for you to tell me what it is I don't understand & how exactly have I misinformed anyone.
Last I checked, it was your calculations & false claims that mislead a purchaser to buy your lights thinking they were 1000w hps replacements just for the poor guy to yield 30% less & lose tons of money.
So, who's misleading who here Stephen?
Click to expand...

The guy hasn't even finished the grow lol. Man you are reaching.


Did you even look at the photo I posted.


I'll tell you what...... Wanna make a bet????? We will send your Pro-9 to a sphere and Our quantum board fixture. I'll bet you winner takes lamps that the Pro 9 isn't 48.6% efficient and the quantum board fixture is higher. I just want you to see the numbers. I don't really care about the Pro-9 just your ignorance is abound and I'm up to the challenge. Are you?
 
C

combustible herbage

Member
Hybridway said:
How so?
He's not saying anything.
Click to expand...
I had already said it why repeat myself I've seen grows with the Johnson light only complain was when there temps where to low they rised the temp and killed it I know that I got 25 percent more yield out of my last grow with his lights there killing it with more frost and heavy nuggets!
 
BM9AGS

BM9AGS

Well-Known Member
Stephenj37826 said:
The guy hasn't even finished the grow lol. Man you are reaching.


Did you even look at the photo I posted.


I'll tell you what...... Wanna make a bet????? We will send your Pro-9 to a sphere and Our quantum board fixture. I'll bet you winner takes lamps that the Pro 9 isn't 48.6% efficient and the quantum board fixture is higher. I just want you to see the numbers. I don't really care about the Pro-9 just your ignorance is abound and I'm up to the challenge. Are you?
Click to expand...
Waitttttt. Hybirdway propagating bullshit twisted info about amare. NOOOOOOOOOO WAYYYYYYY
 
MeGaKiLlErMaN

MeGaKiLlErMaN

Well-Known Member
Hybridway said:
Here you go bro.
The Pro-9 just spanked the Genisis DE In testing.
It's a true DE killer. Pushing high intensity 90+ CRI.
+19% efficiency
+35% lux
+38% YPFD
+42% PPFD
View attachment 3828910 Also outperformed the Tropical Florida sun.
View attachment 3828912 Can't wait to fire mine up.
The Pro-9 is the Commercial LED/light to have.
Click to expand...

Saying PPFD without giving the area is kinda pointless.. But it looks like a 3x3. which would make sense.
 
Rahz

Rahz

Well-Known Member
The best way IMO is using the SPD data and luminosity to determine what it should be. This data is derived using the same type of equipment a testing facility might use by companies that have the money to do redundancy testing using well calibrated equipment. It's all a combination of measurement and then math applied to the results. The input data from the datasheets is the sphere reading (at particular drive currents) and spectrometer measurements. Math is then used to translate those readings into par watts and umol/s (PPF).

Seems better to me if we're all using data from the same source.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top